notice paper - city of stonnington...page 3 council meeting notice paper monday 30 march 2015 order...

NOTICE PAPER

Monday 30 March 2015 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Stonnington City Centre,

(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

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

Council Meeting

Notice Paper

Monday 30 March 2015

Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayer

b) Apologies

c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63 of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 23 MARCH 2015.......................................................... 5

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

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public

f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)

g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillors

h) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters

i) Notices of Motion

j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors

k) Reports by Delegates

l) General Business

1. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0330/14 - 19 ROTHERWOOD DRIVE, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT ON A LOT WITHIN A NEIGHBOURHOOD

RESIDENTIAL ZONE ........................................................................................................................... 7

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0379/14 - 1483 - 1487, MALVERN ROAD, GLEN IRIS - DEMOLITION AND

CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING SHOPS AND DWELLINGS, REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING AND LOADING BAY REQUIREMENTS IN A COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE AND

HERITAGE OVERLAY ........................................................................................................................ 29

3. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0476/14 - 18 & 20 LEOPOLD STREET GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY BUILDING OVER COMMON BASEMENT CONTAINING 23

DWELLINGS .................................................................................................................................... 57

4. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0384/14- 24 CAMBRIDGE STREET, ARMADALE - PART

DEMOLITION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 500 SQUARE

METRES IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE, SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY, AND A

HERITAGE OVERLAY ........................................................................................................................ 81

5. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C206 - 420-424 PUNT ROAD, SOUTH YARRA PERMANENT

HERITAGE CONTROLS .................................................................................................................... 99

6. AMENDMENT C197 - PUBLIC ACQUISITION OVERLAY, ARMADALE - CONSIDERATION OF

SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 105

7. STONNINGTON WAR MEMORIAL PLAQUE ....................................................................................... 114

8. VANUATU CYCLONE DONATION..................................................................................................... 117

m) Other General 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.

n) Urgent Business

o) Confidential Business

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

30 MARCH 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 23 March 2015 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 23 March 2015 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS 30 MARCH 2015

l) General Business

1 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0330/14 - 19 ROTHERWOOD DRIVE, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT ON A LOT WITHIN A

NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE

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

PURPOSE For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a multi-dwelling development on a lot within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone at 19 Rotherwood Drive, Malvern East. Executive Summary Applicant: Thinh Kac & Thuy Thanh Thi Nguyen

C/- LS Planning Pty Ltd Ward: East Zone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 2) Overlay: None Date lodged: 08 May 2014 Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

236 days

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 objections

Cultural Heritage Plan Yes Number of objections: 11 objections from 11 different properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 21 October 2014 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 Sync Design Pty Ltd and are known as Drawing No.s: TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04, TP05 and TP06, all Council date stamped 11 July 2014. Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes: Planning Report prepared by LS Planning Pty Ltd, and Arboricultural Assessment Report prepared by Stem arboriculture, Council date stamped 8 May 2014; Steps report prepared by Sync Design Pty Ltd, Council date stamped 11 July 2014; and Cultural Heritage Assessment Report prepared by Andrew Long & Associates, Council date stamped 24 December 2014.


The application seeks to construct three (3) double-storey dwellings. Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of the existing building (no permit is required).

Construction of three (3) double-storey dwellings, each of which comprises three (3) bedrooms. Unit 1 will be facing Rotherwood Drive while Units 2 and 3 are located towards the rear, fronting onto the internal driveway.

Each dwelling is provided with an open-plan living/meals/kitchen, a laundry and a powder room on the ground floor. The ground floor of Units 1 and 2 also includes a master bedroom with WIR and ensuite.

The first floor level of Units 1 and 2 consists of two bedrooms, a retreat and a bathroom. Unit 3 has its master bedroom with WIR and ensuite, two bedrooms, a bathroom and a powder room located on the first floor.

Vehicle access to the subject land is provided via a single driveway from Rotherwood Drive. Each dwelling is provided with a single garage with a tandem parking space within the driveway.

The proposed site coverage and permeability is 44.02% and 35.74% respectively.

Construction of a 1.2m high solid timber picket fence.

Due to the slope in land level, the height of the proposed dwellings varies. The maximum building height is 7.92m (taken from the south elevation of Unit 1).

The buildings present a contemporary architectural style, with various features and materials, including a combination of render, face brick, colorbond, aluminium, weatherboard cladding and glazing.

The applicant lodged additional plans to Council on 5 November 2014 as an attempt to address some of the issues raised by the objectors and Council’s Planning Officers. The plans were lodged on a without prejudice basis and were for discussion purposes only. The main changes included in the discussion plans are:

The north-facing wall to the kitchen of Unit 2 is setback 1m from the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive (changed from an original setback of 0.2m).

The north-facing wall to bedroom 2 of Unit 2 is setback 2.6m from the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive (changed from an original setback of 2m).

Site and Surrounds The subject site is located on the western side of Rotherwood Drive, approximately 127m south-west of its intersection with Waverley Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The subject site is a fan shaped lot, with a curved frontage to Rotherwood Drive of approximately 13.5m, a depth of between 38.4m and 44.29m, and a total area of approximately 869.5sqm.

The land slopes from the north-eastern corner to the south-western corner by approximately 3m.

The site is currently occupied by a single-storey rendered brick dwelling with hipped roof. Private open space is located to the rear and south of the existing dwelling.

There is an existing vehicle crossing at the south-eastern corner of the subject site that provides vehicle access to the subject site. Cars are parked along the driveway and the site does not include any carport or garage.

The site includes some vegetation along its perimeters.


The subject site forms part of a residential pocket that is bound by an electrical terminal station to the west, Waverley Road to the north, Warrigal Road to the east and Monash Freeway to the south. This residential pocket generally features a mix of single and double storey detached dwellings with hipped roofs. Many properties have large front and rear gardens, although there are examples of built form in the rear setbacks (e.g. 7, 9 and 11 Rotherwood Drive). Interspersed with the detached dwellings are some recent infill developments, which usually take the form of side by side dual occupancy. The landscape character of this area largely derives from the mature street trees, and private trees in the front setbacks. The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

To the immediate north of the subject site is 21 Rotherwood Drive, comprising a single-storey weatherboard house with hipped roof. The northern adjoining property has one habitable room window facing the subject site. The existing boundary fence has a height ranging from 1.46m to 2.2m.

To the south is 17 Rotherwood Drive, which is improved by a single-storey weatherboard house with hipped roof. The building is setback 7.8m from the street.

An electrical terminal station is located to the immediate west, with a minimum separation of approximately 10m from the subject land.

To the east of the subject site is the intersection of Rotherwood Drive and Anfield Court. Previous Planning Applications A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Application 0004/11 for the construction of a multi-dwelling development (i.e. a 2-storey building over a basement car park, comprising 8 dwellings) was refused by Council on 27 July 2012. This application was determined at the 23rd July 2012 Council Meeting. Council resolved to refuse the application on the following grounds: - The proposed design response fails to respect the neighbourhood character of the

area and does not comply with the Neighbourhood Character objective (Clause 55.02-1), the Design detail objective (Clause 55.06-1) and the Urban design policy (Clause 22.02).

- The proposed apartment development is not sympathetic to the context of the site and surrounds.

- The layout of the development, with terrace areas adjoining neighbouring windows, is not appropriate and will have a negative impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

- The proposal will adversely impact on the amenity of its neighbours through visual bulk.

- Car access is problematic and raises safety concerns given the close proximity to Anfield Court.

The permit applicant did not seek to review Council’s decision through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).


The Title The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 08231 Folio 218 as Lot 9 on Plan of Subdivision 032071. There is a covenant (A700788) recorded on the title which states the follows:

… will not any time hereafter excavate carry away or remove or permit to be excavated carried away or removed any earth clay stone gravel or sand from the said Lot 9 except for the purpose of excavating for the foundations of any building to be erected …

The proposed development will not breach the abovementioned covenant. The subject site is also burdened by two easements that are registered on the title. One easement is an electrical easement that runs along a large part of the western boundary in a triangular shape and the other is a drainage easement that runs along the entire southern boundary at a width of 1.83m and the entire western boundary at a width of 2.44m. The proposal includes some minor buildings and works over the easements (i.e. paving). The application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Unit. The beneficiary of the electrical easement (i.e. Spi Powernet Pty Ltd) was also notified of this application. No objection was received from Council’s Infrastructure Unit or Spi Powernet Pty Ltd. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Zone

Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 2)

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. Clause 32.09-3 limits the maximum number of dwellings on a lot to 2 unless it is specified otherwise in a schedule to this zone. Clause 32.09-8 provides a mandatory height control of 8m (subject to certain exceptions) unless it is specified otherwise in a schedule to this zone. The subject site is affected by Schedule 2 to the NRZ, which sets out the maximum number of dwellings on a lot is 2 and the maximum building height is 9m (subject to certain exceptions). It is important to note that both Clauses 32.09-3 and 32.09-8 include transitional arrangements that clearly state that the requirements do not apply to an application to construct a dwelling or residential building made prior to the gazettal of the new residential zones. Since the application was lodged on 8 May 2014, before the gazettal of the Stonnington new residential zones, the application is not prohibited by the new planning controls. Overlay

None Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

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


Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5:

A dwelling requires the following rates:

1 parking space for each one or two bedroom dwelling; 2 parking spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling; 1 parking space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings. The proposed development is required to provide 6 parking spaces (i.e. 2 spaces for each dwelling). The proposal complies with the parking requirements and no permission is required under Clause 52.06. Clause 52.34 Bicycle Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3:

A dwelling requires the following rates: In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 5 dwellings for residents In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 10 dwellings for visitors Since the proposed development is two-storey in height, the bicycle parking requirements are not triggered. Relevant Planning Policies Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 16.01 Residential Development Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Clause 65 Decision Guidelines Amendment C175 – Neighbourhood Character Local Policy

Amendment C175 has been prepared to introduce a new Neighbourhood Character Policy into the local section of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Neighbourhood Character local planning policy includes the preferred character statements, design objectives and design responses to be taken from the precinct profiles. This policy will clarify the preferred neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal respects and reinforces the preferred character. Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014, which recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to minor modifications. As a result, Amendment C175 has reached a stage that it can be considered as a seriously entertained planning policy. Due consideration should be given to the proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy. According to the Amendment, the subject site falls within a Garden Suburban Precinct (Schedule 5) (“GS5”). A detailed assessment against Amendment C175 will be discussed in the assessment section of this report.


Advertising The application was 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 was completed satisfactorily. The site is located in East Ward and 11 objections from 11 different properties were received. In summary, the objections raised the following concerns:

Inconsistency with the new residential zones;

Inconsistency with the existing neighbourhood character;

Overdevelopment of the land;

Amenity impacts (e.g. overlooking, overshadowing, loss of daylight, noise emission and visual bulk);

Potential flooding risk;

Traffic and parking impacts; and

Impacts on pedestrian safety. A Consultative Meeting was held on 21 October 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillor Ullin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and Council Planning Officers. As stated above, the applicant lodged discussion plans as a response to the concerns raised by the objectors and Council’s Planning Officers. As outlined in the proposal section of this report, the discussion plans include the following main changes:

The north-facing wall to the kitchen of Unit 2 is setback 1m from the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive (changed from an original setback of 0.2m).

The north-facing wall to bedroom 2 of Unit 2 is setback 2.6m from the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive (changed from an original setback of 2m).

The changes generally represent a reduction in the built form. The assessment of this application will be made based on the advertised plans (i.e. Council date stamped 11 July 2014), but with reference to the discussion plans. Should Council find the discussion plans meaningful in improving the proposal, conditions can be imposed that require changes to be made in accordance with the discussion plans. Referrals Transport and Parking

Council’s Transport Engineers have reviewed the plans and raised a number of issues. The following comments were made:

Parking provision is considered to be satisfactory.

The additional traffic generated by the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the surrounding road network.

The width of the accessway should be dimensioned on the plans.

A 2.2m clearance is to be provided as per Australian Standards.

Sufficient sight distance at property boundary should be provided in accordance with the Australian Standards.

Although the parking arrangement is not ideal with the additional space provided in tandem, this arrangement can be accepted.

Vehicles should be able to exit the subject site in a forward direction.

Plans should be updated to show the gradients of the accessway and within the parking area.

Dimensions of the crossover should be shown on the plans.


Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Engineer made the following comments:

Compared to the previous scheme, the current proposal presents some significant improvements from an infrastructure perspective.

The subject site is subject to flooding risk. Water may travel along the driveway to the rear.

A condition should be included to require the design of the driveway must allow for flooding that is likely to enter the property from Rotherwood Drive. Internal drainage pits must be designed to collect all runoff from the driveway. Any excess runoff/overflow must be directed clear of the proposed buildings including garages and clear of the neighbouring property at 17 Rotherwood Drive.

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 the report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way to ensure that drainage associated with the SBO is not further directed into the property.

Water tanks for re-cycling are encouraged. KEY ISSUES The application seeks to replace the existing single dwelling on the subject site with three double-storey dwellings. The proposal has attracted a number of objections, who are concerned that the proposal will adversely affect the character of the area and bring about negative amenity, traffic and parking impacts. Having considered the relevant planning policies, grounds of objections and various referral comments, the key issues that Council have to determine are:

Is the proposal consistent with the policy context?

How does the proposed development respond to the neighbourhood character?

Are the off-site amenity impacts within reasonable limits?

Is the internal amenity provided acceptable?

Does the proposal provide adequate landscaping?

Will the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts? Is the proposal consistent with the policy context? The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher density development to be located in or around activity centres, employment corridors and public transport, so that development will improve housing choice and make efficient use of existing infrastructure. The strategic vision for the City of Stonnington at Clause 21.03-2 includes a general policy direction to increase housing capacity in appropriate locations. Under the Local Policy, higher density residential development is directed to those locations that are in and beside activity centres, and abutting the Principal Public Transport Network (i.e. tram and priority bus routes and railway stations).


It is considered that the subject site is capable of supporting some form of higher density development for the following reasons:

The subject site is located close to the small Neighbourhood Activity Centres along Warrigal Road. The proximity of the subject site to a variety of commercial facilities and community services gives it potential to accommodate increased housing. This is in accordance with the objective and direction of Clause 11.01-2, which seeks to ‘encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres’.

The subject site is accessible to public transport, with Holmesglen Railway Station within walking distance. The proposal is in accordance with the policy direction of Clause 16.01-2 which encourages ‘higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.’ In addition, the proposal is in line with the objective of Clause 15.02-1, which seeks to ‘promote consolidation of urban development and integration of land use and transport’.

The proposal will provide for a greater range of housing stock in this section of Malvern East. This is consistent with Clause 21.05-4 (Housing diversity) which calls for ‘providing appropriate accommodation and housing choice for the dominant demand groups – young people, smaller households and older aged groups’.

The proposal is consistent with the direction at Clause 21.06-4 which contemplates 2-3 storey medium density development in the residential areas provided the development respects the preferred character of the precinct.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the strategic directions of the State and Local Policy Framework, in particular Clause 11.01 (Activity Centres), Clause 15.02 (Sustainable Development), Clause 16.01 (Residential Development), Clause 21.03 (Vision) and Clause 21.05 (Housing). However, urban consolidation and increased housing choice does not come at all cost. It is important to consider other sides of the policy ledger, such as respecting the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and maintaining a high level of amenity for the adjoining properties. This will be discussed further in detail in the following sections of this report. As mentioned above, the subject site is now in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone - Schedule 2 (NRZ2). Had the application not benefited from the transitional provisions, it would have been prohibited under the provisions of the NRZ. Some of the objectors raised concerns in this regard and submitted that the proposal is inconsistent with the purposes of the NRZ, one of which is to ‘limit opportunities for increased residential development’. The application is a valid application that is specifically exempt from the density and height provisions of the NRZ. However, it is a plausible concern that the proposal may create an outcome that is inconsistent with the purposes of the NRZ. The manner in which the transitional provisions should apply has been the subject of discussion in a number of VCAT decisions, which shed light on this issue (see eg, Faversham Mews Pty Ltd v Banyule CC [2014] VCAT 1007; Bayside Property Projects Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 958; Thistle Nominees Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 664; Steward v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 441). In summary, the Tribunal found:

No mandatory density or height controls apply as a result of the transitional provisions. However, all other purposes and provisions of the zone apply.

The scheme envisages a different outcome in terms of density and height for transitional sites.

The scope of the third purpose (i.e. to limit opportunities for increased residential development) has less application in a transitional proposal to the extent that it may be implemented through the mandatory density and height controls.


What is meant by “limited” will turn on the individual circumstances of each case. This includes assessing characteristics of the site, neighbourhood character, built form considerations, the management of amenity impacts, and other usual planning matters against the zone provisions.

The purposes of the zone have a strong emphasis on neighbourhood character considerations.

The emphasis on neighbourhood character considerations weighs heavily in balancing the strategic considerations for a proposal in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Therefore, assessing whether an application, especially a transitional application, is consistent with the purposes of the NRZ goes beyond the mere check of building height and number of dwellings. As Member Carew remarked in Bayside Property Projects Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 958, the NRZ acts to limit opportunities for increased residential development not solely through density, but also through subdivision, height and variations to ResCode. On face value, a proposal for 3 dwellings may be inconsistent with the future character of this area. However, if the application is found to be acceptable from neighbourhood character, amenity and other planning perspectives, it is considered that the proposal will be an acceptable insertion into the neighbourhood and as such not inconsistent with the purposes of the zone as a whole. How does the proposed development respond to the neighbourhood character? As discussed in the site and surrounds section of this report, this neighbourhood predominantly features single and double storey detached dwellings, interspersed with more recent infill development. Properties within this area generally have a landscaped front setback and are separated from side boundaries (with the exception of outbuildings and garages). The proposal includes 3 separate dwellings. However, as a result of the layout of the proposed dwellings, the proposal will largely present to the street as a single dwelling. The rear dwellings (i.e. Units 2 and 3) are substantially setback from the street and will have a minimal impact on the streetscape of Rotherwood Drive. It is considered convenient to start the assessment with Unit 1, which will has the most direct impacts on the streetscape of Rotherwood Drive. Unit 1 is setback approximately 8m from the street boundary. Although this setback does not comply with Standard B6 (note: a front setback of 8.92m is required under the standard), the proposed front setback is nevertheless considered to be acceptable. The properties along the western side of Rotherwood Drive have varied front setbacks. In this context, a variation to the front setback standard will not unreasonably impact on the streetscape. Furthermore, Unit 1 has a staggered frontage. As the subject site is located on the bend of Rotherwood Drive, the staggered setbacks correspond with the curvilinear nature of the street. In addition, the proposed front setback is sufficient to accommodate meaningful landscaping and maintain the character of landscaped front setbacks. Unit 1 is centrally located within the front portion of the subject site, with a setback of approximately 3.5m from both the northern and southern boundaries (with the exception of its garage). The siting of Unit 1 is considered to be appropriate as it maintains the rhythm of spacing between properties in this area. The side setbacks will also provide opportunities for landscaping to the north of the unit. Although Unit 1 is double-storey in height, it is will not present to Rotherwood Drive as an overly bulky element. The first floor of Unit 1 is slightly recessed from the ground floor, which helps to reduce its prominence.


Furthermore, the inclusion of various windows and the use of different materials will create visual interest that further reduces its visual prominence. It is noted that the recent infill developments in the immediate surrounds generally feature relatively large double-storey buildings with minimal separation between the ground and first floors. In this context, the overall scale, height and form of Unit 1 are considered to be compatible with this neighbourhood and will not significantly impact on the streetscape. The notion of neighbourhood character is a broad concept that is not confined to the streetscape. Therefore, the assessment must go further to assess how the proposed development will be experienced from a wider area. Units 2 and 3 are located in the rear setback of the subject site. The location of these two units naturally gives rise to the question as to whether they will impact on the ‘backyard character’. Whilst many properties in this area have large rear setbacks, it is considered that a strong backyard character is not evident here. Built form commonly exists in the rear setbacks, either in the form of outbuildings or extensions. Furthermore, the more recent infill developments tend to extend closer towards the rear boundary. In the absence of a strong “green spine”, it is considered possible to introduce some built form to the rear setbacks. Having considered the location, scale and building footprint of Units 2 and 3, it is considered that they will not adversely impact on the character of this area for the following reasons: Firstly, the scale of Units 2 and 3 is not considered to be excessive. Although both Units 2 and 3 are double-storey in height, their upper levels are generally recessed from the ground floor. In addition, the upper levels are setback not only from the side and rear boundaries, but also from each other. This provides a sense of separation and avoids the overcrowding of built form in the rear setback. Secondly, the form of Units 2 and 3 is considered to be acceptable. Both dwellings are relatively well articulated through varied setbacks, openings and different materials and finishes. The discussion plans show part of Unit 2’s ground and first floors will be setback further from the northern boundary. This change is considered to be positive as it helps to maintain the sense of separation between properties and minimise the visual impact on the adjoining property. A condition will be included to require these changes. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development makes an acceptable response to the existing neighbourhood character subject to the modifications shown on the discussion plans. Council has undertaken neighbourhood character studies across the municipality’s residential areas and is in the process of introducing a new neighbourhood character policy into the local planning policies. According to the exhibited documents and Panel Report of Amendment C175, the subject site falls within the Garden Suburban Precinct - Schedule 5 (‘GS5’), which has the following preferred future character:

The Garden Suburban 5 (GS5) precinct is defined by spacious and leafy streetscape with Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of 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 Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone and substantial change areas will accommodate more development within a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.


The table below outlines how the application performs against the proposed neighbourhood character policy.

Character elements

Design Objectives Design Response

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

The application seeks to remove the existing building. However, this is not prohibited under the current or proposed planning controls. In addition, the existing building makes limited contribution to the character of the area. Therefore, its removal will not adversely impact on the existing neighbourhood character.

Building height and form

To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominant the streetscape.

The proposed development largely presents to the street as a single dwelling. The proposed dwellings at the rear are well setback from the street boundary and will have a minimal impact on the streetscape.

Due to the scale, siting, setback and articulation of Unit 1, it is considered that Unit 1 will not dominant the streetscape of Rotherwood Drive.

Building materials and design details

To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the details of buildings in the area.

The form of the proposed development is similar to that of the adjoining properties. The selected materials commonly exist in this neighbourhood and are considered to be appropriate in its site context.

Orientation and siting

To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings.

The proposed development is relatively well setback from the side and rear boundaries. The proposed setbacks maintain the rhythm of spacing between buildings in this area and allow opportunities for landscaping.

Gardens To maintain and strengthen the garden setting of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.

The subject site currently includes some vegetation, most of which will be retained. In addition, a landscape plan will be required should a permit be granted to ensure that the proposal compliments and contributes to the landscape character of this area.

Garages and carports

To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures.

The proposed parking spaces are not located in the front setback and will not adversely impact on the character of landscaped front setback.

Front fencing To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the street and retain views to the dwellings

The application seeks to construct a 1.2m high timber picket fence. The fencing height and style is considered to be acceptable in this site context.


and gardens.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal will fit into this neighbourhood and is respectful of the preferred future character of this precinct. Are the off-site amenity impacts within reasonable limits? Side and rear setbacks Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The table below illustrates how the proposal meets these requirements.

North elevation West Elevation South Elevation

Wall height Setback required

Setback proposed

Wall height

Setback required

Setback proposed

Wall height

Setback required

Setback proposed

Ground floor

Unit 1: max 2.86m

(garage) 1m

1m – 5.5m

Unit 2: max 3.1m (ensuite)

1m 3m – 3.6m

Unit 1: 3.6m (WIR)

1m Min 3.5m

Unit 2: 2.6m (meals/family)

1m 1m Unit 3:

max 3.8m (garage)

1.06m Min 2.5m (family)

Unit 3: 4m

(garage) 1.12m 1.83m

First floor

Unit 1: 4.9m (bed 3)

1.39m Min

3.59m

Unit 2: max 6m (retreat)

1.72m 5.78m Unit 1: 6.5m

(retreat) 1.87m Min 4.3m

Unit 2: max 5.72m (bed 2)

1.64m 2m Unit 3: 5.2m

(bed 2) 1.48m Min 2.5m

Unit 3: 6.5m

(ensuite) 1.87m 1.92m

The proposal complies with the side and rear setback requirements at Clause 55.04-1. As discussed above, the applicant has offered to increase the setback of the north-facing wall to bedroom 2 of Unit 2 from the northern boundary from 2m to 2.6m. This change will stagger the first floor north elevation of Unit 2, which in turn helps to reduce the visual impact on 21 Rotherwood Drive. Part of Unit 2 will be constructed within 200mm of the northern boundary and will be discussed in the assessment of Standard B18 below. Wall on boundaries The kitchen and garage of Unit 2 will be constructed within 200mm of the northern boundary. This section of the building has a length of 6.86m and a maximum height of 2.89m. Both the height and length of the wall comply with Standard B18 (walls on boundaries objective). Notwithstanding this, the applicant has offered to setback the kitchen wall of Unit 2 from the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive by 1m. This change provides a greater separation from the side boundary and will reduce the visual impact on the northern adjoining property. A condition will be included to require this change. Daylight to existing windows The northern adjoining property at 21 Rotherwood Drive has a habitable room window that faces the subject site. The part of the proposal that is opposite this window has a maximum wall height of approximately 5.1m and is setback over 6.5m from the window in question. The setback exceeds the requirement of Standard B19 and is sufficient to ensure that daylight to the neighbouring habitable room window will not be unreasonably affected.


North facing windows There are no north-facing habitable room windows located within 3m of a boundary. Therefore, Standard B20 is not applicable. Overshadowing The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the overshadowing open space objective, including Standard B21. This standard states the following:

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

requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced. The objective of Clause 55.04-5 is ‘to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.’ The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that the proposal will cast greater shadows onto the private open space of 17 Rotherwood Drive. However, the extent of the additional overshadowing is relatively minor. Due to the size of the private open space of 17 Rotherwood Drive, Standard B21 is satisfied and the proposal will not cause unreasonable overshadowing impact on the southern adjoining property. Overlooking The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the overlooking objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly. It is important to point out that Standard B22 does not apply to non-habitable room windows (e.g. windows to bathroom, laundry, toilets and stairs). Furthermore, as the Tribunal has consistently stated, the objective of Standard B22 is to limit unreasonable overlooking as oppose to prevent all overlooking. - North Elevation

Standard B22 does not apply to the ground floor of Unit 1 because the finished floor level is below the ground level at the boundary and it is opposite an existing 2.2m high paling fence. The first floor north-facing habitable room (i.e. to bedroom 3) is a highlight window that has a sill height of 1.7m above the finished floor level. The windows to the first floor bathroom and toilet are not habitable room windows and do not need to be screened. Therefore, the north elevation of Unit 1 complies with Standard B22. The exiting boundary fence in front of the ground floor habitable room windows of Unit 2 has a height of 1.46m. As a result, Standard B22 applies to these windows. The proposed north-facing windows to the family/meals (and the kitchen window as shown on the discussion plans) of Unit 2 will overlook the secluded private open space of 21 Rotherwood Drive. The proposal seeks to install a 1.8m high timber paling fence along the rear section of the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive to restrict overlooking. Whilst it is generally considered inappropriate to rely on proposed replacement fence to restrict overlooking as it requires consent from the next door owners, it is considered acceptable to rely on the proposed 1.8m high fence in this instance for the following reasons:


the existing 1.46m high fence is abnormal and permits overlooking into the private open space of 21 Rotherwood Drive.

the proposed 1.8m high fence is reasonable in height.

Requiring the north facing windows to the meals/family/kitchen area of Unit 2 to be screened will compromise its access to sunlight.

Therefore, a condition that requires the fence that runs between the north-western corner of the subject site and the garage to Unit 2 be increased to a minimum height of 1.8m will be included. The first floor north elevation of Unit 2 includes a bathroom room window, which does not need to be screened as it is not a habitable room window. - West Elevation

For the reasons discussed above, Standard B22 does not apply to the ground floor west elevation of Unit 1. The first floor west elevation of Unit 1 does not include any habitable room windows and will not give rise to overlooking. The proposed 1.8m high fence will restrict overlooking from the ground floor west elevation of Unit 2. The first-floor west-facing windows to bedroom 2 and retreat of Unit 2 are not screened. It is noted that overlooking into the private open space of 21 Rotherwood Drive may occur from the west facing window to bedroom 2. However, the extent of overlooking is minor (i.e. limited to the south-western corner of 21 Rotherwood Drive, with an area of approximately 4.2sqm). Furthermore, a significant tree is located within the area that is subject to potential overlooking. On this basis, it is considered that overlooking from the west-facing window to bedroom 2 is not unreasonable and screening is not required. The west-facing window to the retreat of Unit 2 will not overlook any adjoining habitable room windows or secluded private open space. The first floor west-facing window to the master bedroom of Unit 3 will overlook into the private open space of 17 Rotherwood Drive. The extent of overlooking is not considered to be unreasonable. Furthermore, there are ever-green trees located within the area that may be overlooked. As a result, it is considered acceptable not to require screening of this window. - East Elevation

The ground floor east elevation of Units 1, 2 and 3 will not give rise to any overlooking concern. The first floor east elevation of Unit 1 overlooks Rotherwood Drive, instead of any habitable room window or private open space. Unit 2 does not have any habitable room window along its first floor east elevation. The first floor east-facing habitable room windows of Unit 3 (i.e. windows to bedroom 3) will overlook the internal parking area and therefore do not need to be screened. - South Elevation

The ground floors of Units 1, 2 and 3 do not have south-facing habitable room windows that may cause overlooking into the habitable room windows or secluded private open space of 17 Rotherwood Drive. In addition, the existing 2.1m high boundary fence is sufficient to limit any potential overlooking from the ground floor. Unit 1 has a south-facing habitable room window on its first floor (i.e. to bedroom 2). However, as this window is not opposite any habitable room windows or private open space, it does not need to be screened.


The first floor south-facing window to bedroom 3 of Unit 2 is setback over 9m from the common boundary with 17 Rotherwood Drive. Therefore, this window does not need to be screened either. Overall, the proposal will not cause unreasonable overlooking impact on the adjoining properties subject to conditions. Is the internal amenity provided acceptable? Dwelling Entry Unit 1 will be accessed via Rotherwood Drive frontage, whilst Unit 2 and Unit 3 will have pedestrian access to their respective entries. The entries for each dwelling are easily identifiable and are not obscured from internal access ways. In addition, the proposed porches will not only complement the dwellings from a design point of view, but will also provide shelter and a sense of transition space around each entry. Internal amenity With respect to the amenity provided to each dwelling, it is considered that the proposal generally provides all the necessary components for comfortable living within each dwelling, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms. It is noted that all the habitable rooms have clear outlook and direct solar/daylight access. Furthermore, the relevant Building Regulations are in place to ensure all new residential buildings meet the relevant energy efficiency standards. Private open space Each dwelling is afforded a minimum of 40sqm of secluded private open space. The size and minimal width of the SPOS comply with the requirements of Standard B28. Furthermore, the proposed secluded private open space will enjoy adequate levels of sunlight as a result of their orientation. Service facilities The proposal provides areas for the necessary site services. Each dwelling is provided with storage facilities that are secure and conveniently accessible. Mailboxes and other site facilities are adequate in size and their locations are appropriate. Does the proposal provide adequate landscaping? Council’s revised Municipal Strategic Statement emphasises the provision of high quality landscaping. Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape character) is a new introduction into the MSS that seeks to ‘repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’. The subject site includes a number of trees and shrubs along its perimeters, none of which is considered to be significant under Council’s Local Laws. The proposal seeks to retain few existing trees. A Tree Management Plan was submitted as part of the application, which details the methods of retaining the trees, including the Grevillea robusta (Silky oak) at the south-western corner of 21 Rotherwood Drive and the trees in the rear setback of 17 Rotherwood Drive. A condition that requires a Tree Management Plan that is similar to the one submitted to Council on 8 May 2014 will be included to ensure that the proposal will not adversely impact on the neighbouring trees.


The proposed development sets aside sufficient space for landscaping. As discussed above, a landscape plan will be required via permit conditions. The landscape plan must show canopy trees in the front and rear setbacks, and small to medium sized trees and/or shrubs along the side boundaries. It is considered that a successful landscape design will effectively soften the appearance of the proposed development when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties. Will the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts? Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the development is required to provide 6 on-site parking spaces (i.e. 2 spaces for each dwelling). A total of 6 on-site car spaces are proposed in accordance with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the parking provision is considered to be satisfactory. It is important to point out that the owners, occupiers and visitors of this development will not be eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits” according to the Council resolution. As Council’s Traffic Engineer commented, the proposed development will not significantly impact on the traffic and parking conditions of the area. However, a number of issues were raised by the Traffic Engineers. The following conditions will be included to address some of the issues:

Width of the accessway be of a minimum of 3m in accordance with Design standard 1 at Clause 52.06-8.

Provision of a minimum of 2.2m headroom clearance.

Provision of sufficient sight distance at property boundary in accordance with the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Plans be updated to show the gradients of the accessway and within the parking areas. Whilst Council’s Traffic Engineer was concerned that multiple movements will be required for vehicles to exit the subject site in a forward direction, given the movements will occur entirely within the subject site instead of public roads, it will not affect the operation of the road network. In addition, the residents are likely to be familiar with accessing and exiting the parking spaces. On this basis, it is considered that the parking arrangement is acceptable. Council’s Traffic Engineers also required the dimensions of the crossover to be shown on the plans. However, given the proposal seeks to retain the existing crossover without any modification. This request is considered to be unnecessary. Environmental Sustainable Design The applicant submitted a STEPS report, which shows the performance of the proposal exceeds all the targets. In addition, the submitted Storm rating report shows the proposal will include 6,000L water tanks and a rain garden that has an area of14sqm. This will achieve a Storm rating of 113%. However, the plans do not confirm the capacity of the water tanks or whether they will be connected with toilets for flushing. No section of the rain garden has been provided either. These issues will be addressed via permit conditions. Culture Heritage Management Plan Pursuant to Sections 6 and 23 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, the site is in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity given the site is located within 200m of a waterway. As such, pursuant to Section 52(1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the decision maker must not grant a statutory authorisation for the activity unless a culture heritage management plan (CHMP) is approved under this Part in respect of the activity. Pursuant to Section 50 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, a statutory authorisation includes a planning permit.


A Cultural Heritage Assessment report prepared by Andrew Long & Associates was submitted to Council. The report states that whilst the subject land is within an area of cultural sensitivity, the field inspection confirmed that the land has been disturbed. The results of the background research and field inspection confirm that a mandatory CHMP is not required for the proposed development. Objections In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Noise emission: the development is unlikely to generate noise over and above that expected with normal dwellings. In addition, there are EPA requirements in place to control the level of noise emission.

Potential flood risk: this application has been referred to Council’s Infrastructure Unit for comments. Council’s Infrastructure Engineer has confirmed that the proposed development will not result in unreasonable flood risk subject to conditions, which will be included in full.

Impacts on pedestrian safety: the proposal will generate limited traffic movements. It is not considered that the proposed development will impose a significant risk on pedestrian safety.

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 subject to the modifications for the following reasons:

The proposal is consistent with the policy context.

The proposed development provides an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character.

The off-site amenity impacts are within reasonable limits.

The proposal provides an acceptable level of internal amenity.

The proposal provides adequate opportunities for landscaping.

The proposal will not result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0330-14 - 19 Rotherwood Drive Malvern East - 1 of 2 Plans

2. PD - 0330-14 - 19 Rotherwood Drive Malvern East - Discussion Plans - 2 of 2 Plans


RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0330/14 for the land located at 19 Rotherwood Drive, Malvern East, be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development on a lot within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the development starts, three (3) copies of amended plans drawn to scale

and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised in July 2014 (Council date stamped 11 July 2014) but modified to show:

a) the north-facing wall to the kitchen of Unit 2 on the ground floor be setback a

minimum of 1m from the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive, generally in accordance with discussion plans submitted to Council on 5 November 2014. The roof above the kitchen must also be setback accordingly.

b) the north-facing wall to bedroom 2 of Unit 2 on the first floor be setback a minimum of 2.6m from the shared boundary with 21 Rotherwood Drive, generally in accordance with discussion plans submitted to Council on 5 November 2014.

c) the section of the northern boundary fence that runs between the north-western corner of the subject land and the garage of Unit 2 be of a minimum height of 1.8m above the ground level to restrict overlooking from the habitable room windows and secluded private open space of Unit 2 into 21 Rotherwood Drive.

d) width of the accessway be of a minimum of 3m in accordance with Design standard 1 at Clause 52.06-8.

e) provision of a minimum of 2.2m headroom clearance to the garages.

f) provision of sufficient sight distance at property boundary in accordance with the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

g) gradients of the accessway and within the parking areas.

h) location and capacity of the proposed water tanks and confirmation that they will be connected with toilets for flushing.

i) location and section details of the proposed rain garden.

j) any change as required by the Landscape Plan in accordance with condition 3.

k) any change as required by the Tree Management Plan in accordance with condition 5.

l) any change to the driveway as required by condition 8.

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


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

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a

landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show: a) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring

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

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

d) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site

e) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas.

f) Planting of canopy trees in the front and rear setbacks. g) Planting of small to medium sized trees and/or shrubs along the side

boundaries.

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans a tree management plan

prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan. The tree management plan must be generally in accordance with the report prepared by Stemarboriculture (dated 19 February 2014, Council date stamped 8 May 2014) and must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the Grevillea robusta (Silky oak) at 21 Rotherwood Drive and the trees in the rear setback of 17 Rotherwood Drive, Malvern East. 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.

6. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives

detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report. 7. Prior to the commencement of works, a preliminary drainage design prepared by

a suitably qualified Engineer. The drainage design must set the floor level based on the level of the drain required to provide drainage for the rear courtyard and downpipes, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The design of the driveway must allow for flooding that may enter the property

from Rotherwood Drive. Internal drainage pits must be designed to collect all runoff from the driveway to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any excess runoff/overflow must be directed clear of the proposed buildings including garages, and must be clear of the adjoining property at 17 Rotherwood Drive.

9. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council prior to a

building permit being issued. A drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in compliance with the above report prior to the commencement of works and the drainage must be completed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

10. The existing footpath levels must not be lower or altered in any way to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 11. 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.

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

13. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film)

designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

14. 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.


15. 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 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.

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

iii. 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; 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.

iv. 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:

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

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


2 PLANNING APPLICATION 0379/14 - 1483 - 1487, MALVERN ROAD, GLEN IRIS - DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING SHOPS

AND DWELLINGS, REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING AND LOADING BAY REQUIREMENTS IN A

COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE AND HERITAGE OVERLAY


PURPOSE For Council to consider a planning application for demolition and construction of a mixed use development comprising shops and dwellings, reduction in car parking and loading bay requirements in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay at 1483 – 1487 Malvern Road, Glen Iris. Executive Summary Applicant: Abby Apartments Pty Ltd

Urbis Pty Ltd Ward: East Zone: Commercial 1 Overlay: Heritage Overlay (HO399) Date lodged: 22 May 2014 Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

117


More than seven objections, greater than three storeys

VCAT Hearing Date 7 May 2015 Number of objections: 7 objections from 6 different properties

1 statement of grounds Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 19 August 2014 Officer Recommendation: That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that

had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit would have been issued

BACKGROUND Planning History Planning Application No. 314/13 was lodged with Council for the demolition and the construction of a mixed use building (five storeys at a maximum building height of 16.55 metres) containing 28 dwellings, 3 ground floor shops and two basement levels in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay, a reduction in the car parking requirements and a waiver of the loading requirements. Council’s delegate determined on 19 December 2013 that had a failure to determine appeal not been lodged, a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit would have been issued on the following grounds:


1. The proposed two upper levels of the building will appear significantly higher and out of character with the predominant two-storey built form in the heritage streetscape through the height and insufficient setbacks to Malvern Road. As such, the upper levels of the new building will dominate and detract from the heritage streetscape.

2. The proposed scale and setbacks of the development as a result of the upper floor levels will result in unreasonable visual bulk when viewed from Malvern Road and the properties to the north.

3. The difficulty in gaining access to on-site parking via two basement car parking levels

and the reliance on automated systems (car lift and car stackers) may discourage future occupants from parking within the development and is likely to cause increased congestion and pedestrian and vehicle conflicts in Staunton Lane and Creswick Street.

4. The existing conditions of the lane do not allow for two vehicles to pass one another

and the new development will exacerbate this situation through the lack of a setback from the rear boundary line to the new vehicle entry of the new building.

5. The increased traffic within the laneway as a result of the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable given the location of the rear entry relative to the intersection of Creswick Street and will adversely impact on the safety, function and operation of the laneway and surrounding road network.

6. The building setbacks, orientation of dwellings and location of balconies to the east and

west boundaries will prejudice future development potential of the adjoining properties and will result in poor internal amenity for future occupants with regard to private open space, access to natural daylight and energy efficiency.

7. The new dwellings are provided inadequate access to natural light and areas of private open space.

8. The design of the parking and refuse areas in the development makes access to the

refuse area difficult for the collection of waste, and may result in unreasonable traffic impacts in Staunton Lane.

9. The development frontage occupying the public footpath is not accepted. The building frontage must be setback to the line of the existing building on the subject site and to align with the adjoining properties fronting Malvern Road.

Council’s decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) by way of order dated 18 February 2014. Some of the key findings of VCAT are:

The subject site could support a more intensive mixed use development of the land

The upper levels are out of keeping with the scale, massing and setback of the heritage precinct.

The internal amenity for a number of the dwellings is not acceptable, particularly with regard to the small room sizes and reliance on daylight access to an excessive number of bedrooms to three small lightcourts.

Relevant comments made in the determination will be discussed in the assessment section of this report.


The Proposal The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Terry Harper Architects and are known as Project No. 14-05, Drawing No.s: TP03 rev A, TP04 rev B, TP05 rev A, TP06 rev A, TP06 rev A, TP08 rev A, TP09 rev B, TP10 rev A, TP11 and an External Finishes Schedule and are Council date stamped 25 June 2014. In addition to the development plans, the applicant also submitted the following reports in support of the application:

Planning and Urban Context Report prepared by Urbis, dated 26 May 2014

Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design, dated 22 May 2014

Traffic Impact Report prepared by Ratio Consultants, dated 25 June 2014

Sustainable Management Plan prepared by ADP Consulting: Engineering, dated 25 June 2014

Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of the existing building

Construction of a four storey mixed use development to measure at a maximum building height of 14.86 metres and comprise of:

A basement level consisting of 23 car parking spaces via car stacker units and 18 bicycle spaces. All vehicle access is to be provided via Staunton Lane;

Three shops at ground floor level;

16 x one bedroom apartments and five x two bedroom apartments;

Materials and finishes including zinc cladding, render, roof cladding and glass. Plans for discussion Subsequent to the advertising of the application, a number of concerns with regard to the proposed development were identified. Following this, the applicant provided Council with some plans for discussion on 6 March 2015. These plans are referred to as ‘discussion plans’ and are known as TP03 rev A, TP04 rev C, TP05 rev E, TP06 rev E, TP07 rev C, TP08 rev B, TP09 rev C, TP10 rev A and TP11 rev A. In addition to the discussion plans, the applicant also submitted a Daylight Analysis Study prepared by ADP Consulting Pty Ltd, dated 6 March 2015. The discussion plans include the following key changes/ information:

Bin storage areas to show a path from the bicycle storage area to facilitate access to/from Staunton Lane

Reconfiguration of bicycle storage areas

Internal reconfiguration of a number of units including the relocation of study, kitchen and/or bathroom areas

Additional bedroom to Unit 17 from one bedroom to two bedroom

Installation of an additional light court (1.8 metres x 3 metres) on the western side of the review site between Unit 5 and Unit 6 and Unit 13 and Unit 14 and Unit 19

Deletion of west facing terrace areas to Unit 18 and Unit 19


Site and Surrounds The site is located on the northern side of Malvern Road and is located within the Tooronga Village local centre (a small neighbourhood activity centre). The site has the following significant characteristics:

A principal frontage to Malvern Road of 18.65 metres and a maximum depth of 48.24 metres, yielding an overall site area of approximately 648 square metres

Secondary frontage of 9.72 metres to Staunton Lane to the north

An existing double storey squash court building currently occupies close to 100 per cent of the site with the exception of sections to the rear lane

The existing building is located within a Heritage Overlay, yet the building is ungraded The subject site sits within a Heritage Overlay for the Malvern/Tooronga Roads Retail Precinct (HO399) which is of local significance. The citations for this precinct acknowledge that, “the group is unified by its (typically) two storey scale and its brick and render materiality”. It is also noted that, “the area is unusual for the extent to which shopfronts from the late Edwardian and interwar periods survive in good condition”. Directly to the east, at 1489 Malvern Road, is a double storey semi detached brick building that is used as a gallery. This building is graded B. The site is entirely occupied except for the rear of the site, where the building has been setback approximately 5 metres from the rear boundary. To the immediate west of the review site, at 1481 Malvern Road, is a single storey building that is used for the purposes of a medical centre. The building has a height of 4.55 metres as it presents to the Malvern Road. The building extends to the front and side boundaries, with the rear of the building setback approximately 13 metres from the rear lane. This building is ungraded. Directly to the north is Staunton Lane, a 3 metre wide right of way that is accessed from Creswick Street. The lane provides access to the rear of the commercial properties along Malvern Road and access to the residential properties to the north. Across the right of way, directly north of the subject site, exists a double storey residence known as 1 Creswick Street. It is noted that the main areas of private open space for this property are located within the front setback, in the form of a front garden area and balcony at first floor level. The review site sits on an arterial road within a small neighbourhood activity centre (as denoted by the City of Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.01). The activity centre (Malvern Road) is served by commercial and retail services aimed at meeting local needs. The adjoining properties to the east and west are generally one to two storey commercial buildings used as shops, cafes, a medical centre and hardware store. The subject site is also serviced by a number of public transport services. These include Tooronga Railway Station and Gardiner Railway Station which are located less than 800 metres north west and north east from the subject site respectively. In addition, there are tram services along Malvern Road and bus services along Tooronga Road, which provide links to the greater metropolitan Melbourne public transport network. The review site is within close proximity to a number of public open space areas including Gardiner Park (within 800 metres) and Malvern Central Gardens (within 950 metres).


Previous Planning Applications Planning Permit Application No. 314/13 was refused by the VCAT. Details with regard to this application are set out in the Planning History section of this report. However, there are examples of four and five storey buildings in the surrounding area of which some have been approved by the VCAT. The two closest to the subject site are referenced below. Planning Permit 0141/096 was issued at the direction of VCAT, Boss Properties Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 2761 (30 December 2009) for the land at 1387-1395 Malvern Road, Malvern. This site is located approximately 300 metres to the west of 1483-1487 Malvern Road (subject site). The permit allowed for a five storey building with shops at ground floor level and dwellings above and car spaces provided in a basement car park. The development has a maximum height of 14.1 metres with a flat roof. At the time this permit was issued, a Heritage Overlay did not affect the site. A Heritage Overlay has since been introduced. Planning Permit 1110/08 was issued by Council on 30 June 2009 for the development of a five storey mixed use building and a reduction in the car parking requirements at 1501-1503 Malvern Road, Glen Iris. This site is not affected by the Heritage Overlay and is located approximately 50 metres to the east of the subject site. While this development has an overall height of approximately 15 metres, the building is essentially broken into two halves with a large 9 metre wide courtyard situated for the full width of the site, in the middle of the two buildings. This allows for good access to natural light and ventilation without requirements for screening, which provides good internal amenity for the north and south facing apartments. The Title The site is described as Lot 1 and 2 on Title Plan 614627S Volume 07176 Folio 190 and no covenants or easements affect the land. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Zone Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 a permit is not required to use the land for shops or for accommodation (dwelling) subject to no dwelling frontage at ground floor level exceeding 2 metres. The plans indicate that the residential entry to the building at the ground floor level will be approximately 3.6 metres wide and therefore a permit is required for the use of the site for dwellings. Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Overlay Clause 43.01 - Heritage Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required for demolition and to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 - Car Parking


Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the development requires a total of 48 car spaces as outlined in the table below:

Use Size/Number Parking Rate Number of spaces required by Clause 52.06-5

Dwelling 21 one and two bedroom apartments

1 per dwelling 21

Visitor parking 1 to every 5 dwellings

4

Shop 274 square metres 4 to each 100sqm of leasable floor area

10

35

A total of 23 car spaces are proposed, with 20 car spaces to be allocated to the residences and 3 to be allocated to the shops. As the statutory requirement is not provided, a reduction in the car parking provision is sought under Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Clause 52.07 - Loading and Unloading The purpose of Clause 52.07 is “to set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety”. Based on the size of the shop uses on the land, the standard 27.4 square metre loading area is required. The application seeks to waive the loading bay requirements of Clause 52.07. Clause 52.34 - Bicycle Facilities A new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3, the development is required to provide 4 resident spaces and 2 visitor spaces. The proposal includes 18 spaces situated in the basement level, which exceeds the statutory provision. Relevant Planning Policies Clause 11.01 Activity centres Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 15.03 Heritage Clause 16.01 Housing Clause 17.01 Commercial Clause 18.02 Movement networks Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.04 Economic Development Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Clause 34.01 Commercial 1 Zone Clause 52.06 Car Parking Clause 52.07 Loading and Unloading Of Vehicles


Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities 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 two signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in East Ward and 7 objections from 6 different properties have been received. In summary, the objections raised the following concerns:

Four storey building not consistent with neighbourhood character

The development will negatively impact on the Heritage Overlay

Concerns with regard to the location of bins for ‘Mr. Fox’ which currently use the laneway at the rear for bin storage areas

Increased volume of traffic/ congestion along laneway

Line of sight/ safety concerns from the vehicle access point

Impacts on property values

Amenity concerns

Car parking issues

Borrowing light from the neighbouring buildings

Waste collection A Consultative Meeting was held on 19 August 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillors Stubbs, Davies and McMorrow, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did result in changes to the plans. The applicant submitted discussion plans on 6 March 2015, which show a new path from the bicycle storage area through to Staunton Lane and the internal areas for a number of apartments, have been reconfigured to allow increased daylight access. Referrals Urban Design (based on advertised plans) At a scale of 4-storeys, and with the proposed setbacks, the massing of the building appears to present an acceptable outcome in views from Malvern Road and from neighbouring properties to the North. The proposed street wall scale and design character, as it presents to Malvern Road, is an acceptable response; as is the treatment of the recessed upper level. The arrangement of apartments on each floor results in poor internal amenity for those apartments in the central body of the building on all levels (i.e. Apartments 4, 5, 12 & 13). These apartments will not receive adequate natural light and ventilation; and it is suggested that the applicant re-design these apartments accordingly. The central access corridor on each upper floor should be provided with access to natural light and natural ventilation. The discussion plans (Council dated 6 March 2015) address the concerns that were raised by Council’s Urban Design Officer. More specifically, the internal amenity for those apartments in the central body of the building (i.e. Unit 4, 5, 12 and 13) have been reconfigured to allow increased daylight access. This will be discussed further in this report.


In addition, the central access corridor will benefit from natural light, given the installation of full height obscure glazing along the eastern elevation, adjacent to the stairwell. The discussion plans were reviewed by Council’s Urban Designer who supported these changes. Heritage (based on advertised plans) The issues I had with the articulation of the previous development proposal have been resolved. The problematic fifth floor has been deleted and the new top level adopts a setback that is considered to be satisfactory. Whilst the building is substantial in the streetscape, in this instance, it is considered to be acceptable. Infrastructure (based on advertised plans) The front of the property is impacted by the revised but as yet not adopted SBO (Melbourne Water responsibility) and should be referred to them for comment. It appears that this revised application may have been done in consultation with Melbourne Water. Should a permit issue, conditions are required as follows:

The existing footpath levels in Malvern Road must be maintained and not raised or altered in any way to accommodate the access to the building.

A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design. Please do not state drainage design to satisfaction of Council, that is the responsibility of the relevant building surveyor to check and approve.

The existing right-of-way levels at the rear must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate the vehicular access ramp.

Waste Management (based on advertised plans) The Waste Department have confirmed that the Waste Management Plan submitted responds reasonably well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans prepared Terry Harper Architects, Council dated 25 June 2014. However, the Waste Management Plan advises that wastes will be collected from Creswick Street, a neighbouring side street to which the subject property does not have a frontage. Presenting waste bins for collection outside another’s property is contrary to the Stonnington Local Law. While it is acknowledged that the Waste Management Plan does not specifically instruct bin to be presented in this manner, it is recommended that the Waste Management Plan Permit needs to reinforce the Local Law by including an instruction such as:

“At no time shall bins be left unaccompanied in Creswick Street or at any other location other than within the curtilage of the subject property.”

Any Planning Permit issued for this development must include a clause specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan. Once a Planning Permit has been issued for the development, a Waste Management Plan (similar to that previewed here but amended as suggested) should be submitted for approval. Melbourne Water (based on advertised plans)


Melbourne Water, pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, does not object to the proposal, subject to the following conditions and footnotes: 1. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into

Melbourne Water's drains or waterways. 2. The ground floor shops, foyer and lift area must be constructed with finished floor

levels set no lower than 18.0 metres to Australian Height Datum. 3. The entry / exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex

set no lower than 16.6 metres to Australian Height Datum. Footnotes to be placed on Permit:

The flood line for the property grades from 17.7 metres to Australian Height Datum at the southern boundary down to 16.3 metres to Australian Height Datum at the northern boundary.

If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 224841.

Transport (based on advertised plans) Car Parking Provision

Revised material is to be submitted demonstrating the allocation of all parking spaces to individual dwellings/tenancies.

The proposed parking provision shortfall for the residential visitors can be accepted.

The proposed parking shortfall associated with the retail use can be accepted in this instance.

Traffic Generation

The main area of concern is traffic travelling along Staunton Lane (single lane width Right-of-Way), and the potential conflict between arriving and departing vehicles, in particular during peak operating times. Notwithstanding, in light of the traffic surveys data presented by the applicant, the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development, and the location of the development’s access point, it is not considered appropriate to object to the development on this basis.

Car Parking Design

It is recommended that a passing area in accordance with the Planning Scheme requirements be provided. Further, it is recommended line marking be introduced at this location, to ensure vehicles accessing the car park do so in an appropriate manner, without conflict with opposing vehicles.

Minimum sight distance requirements have not been met. It appears there are no reasons as to why the requirements could not be met, and as such revised material is to be submitted demonstrating this has occurred. Staunton Lane also provides pedestrian access to some properties, and as such is regularly used by pedestrians, which further reinforces that this requirement must be met.

Pedestrian access to the storage areas, located beyond the last parking spaces appears narrow and due to the layout of the car park, and the position of the wall, access into the storage area may be difficult. As this is the only access point to a storage area, an access point with a more generous width would be appropriate.


The Planning Scheme sets requirements for column locations, and the review of the plans reveals that the requirements have not been met. Columns placed in the parking aisle impact access (as demonstrated on the swept path diagrams submitted), and do not comply with the minimum requirements.

The Australian Standards require a grade of 1 in 200 (0.5%) across parking areas to allow for drainage. No details regarding grades across parking areas have been provided. Revised material is to be submitted, demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

The applicant is to submit revised material clearly stating the platform lengths and widths. The revised material must demonstrate compliance with the minimum requirements for parking spaces set by either the Planning Scheme, or the Australian Standards. As stated above, this car stacker model offers various design options, including options that meet the minimum design requirements.

Waste Collection

The TIR states that collection will be undertaken by a private contractor, and is to occur from Creswick Street. It should be noted that Council’s Transport and Parking Unit has concerns with a large amount of bins being placed on the nature strip, in particular when placed close to an intersection as this may affect sight distance for vehicle negotiating the intersection.

Environmental Sustainable Design (based on advertised plans) 1. General

a. Further details should be provided on the sustainability strategy identified for the development’s retail component.

2. Indoor Environmental Quality a. Daylight – There are concerns as to the availability of daylight for units 4, 5, 12

and 13 on the western boundary of the site, as well as units 18 and 19 where awnings are proposed above the balconies. Plans propose that both bedrooms and living areas of the lower level units will receive daylight from a small light court which at points is only 1 metre from the neighbouring building to the units’ balconies. In addition to this, the only windows available to living areas of units 12 and 13 are those facing onto the balconies within the light court. Given that these windows will be overshadowed by the balconies above, daylight outcome for these units is considered to be poor, and will be aggravated by any potential neighbouring development. The Applicant is requested to revise designs or provide daylight modelling demonstrating that habitable rooms will comply with Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) daylighting requirements.

b. Shading – Pergolas are indicated to north facing glazing of units 19 and 20.

However, it is unclear from plans to what extent these will provide sufficient horizontal shading to minimise summer solar heat gain. Further details on design should be provided on plans/SMP.

c. Ventilation - Operable windows to be indicated on plans/elevations.


3. Energy a. The SMP indicates that development will achieve an average 6.5 star energy

rating but has not provided any details on how this value was derived. Applicant to provide indicative energy rating assessments for a representative number of units (minimum of 25% of units from varying orientations). This should be accompanied by a full list of fabric assumptions including glazing considerations.

b. SMP indicates that reverse cycle heating and cooling will be provided to units.

The STEPS tool indicates that minimum 3 star systems to be selected. Applicant to note that where high capacity systems are not required (such as for the small units within this development) higher sustainability targets should be sought for reverse cycle systems. Four star systems and above are commonly available at the lower capacities and will provide improved environmental outcomes.

c. Applicant to modify location of solar panels proposed on roof to northernmost part of the roof area, away from potentially overshadowing structures such as the plant room and lift-overrun.

4. Water and Stormwater a. Submitted plans and SMP indicate that a 12 000 litre rainwater tank will be

provided, connected to the roof and terraces and plumbed to a total of 15 bedrooms. However, Applicant to note that due to water quality issues, Council does not support the connection of drainage from trafficable areas such as balconies and terraces to rainwater tanks. If additional treatment of such areas is required to meet STORM requirements, alternative measures such as rain gardens could be considered.

5. Materials

a. Applicant to identify the source for the volatile organic compounds (VOC) limit targets identified within the SMP.

6. Transport a. 18 cycle parking spaces are identified on plans and within the SMP. However, it

is not clear if any will be specifically allocated for staff use from the retail premises. This should be clarified.

7. Waste a. Applicant to note that Council’s recommended target for reuse/recycling of

construction and demolition waste is 70% by mass. Following, the applicant submitted discussion plans and a daylight analysis study prepared by ADP Consulting Engineering Pty Ltd to demonstrate that extent of daylight access to the proposed apartments of concern. Council’s Environmental Sustainable Design Officer reviewed the information and stated that the changes to the plans are acceptable. Other outstanding issues raised by Council’s Environmental Sustainable Design Officer will be addressed by way of condition.


KEY ISSUES This is the second attempt for a mixed-use development on this site. The key issues that Council has to determine are:

How does the proposal respond to the findings of the previous VCAT Order P2308/2013?

Is there strategic support for the development of the subject land for higher density development?

Will the proposal result in a built form that is acceptable for the site and surrounding context?

Are the off-site amenity impacts within reasonable limits?

Does the proposal provide satisfactory amenity for future residents?

Will the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts?

How does the proposal respond to the findings of the previous VCAT Order (P2308/2013) Prior to considering the issues of concern as outlined in the Tribunal’s decision, it is considered useful to provide a comparison between the current and previous schemes (Planning Application No. 314/13). Whilst both applications propose a mixed use development, it is considered that there are major differences between the current and previous proposals, which include:

The current proposal is for the construction of a four storey mixed-used development to accommodate 21 dwellings. The previously proposed development was for a five storey mixed-use development comprising 38 dwellings. The overall maximum building height for the current proposal is 14.86 metres, compared to 16.55 metres.

The internal layout for the proposed dwellings has changed, which results in improved internal amenity.

The design of the vehicle access and accommodation within the basement has been amended, including the deletion of the second level basement and car lift.

It is relevant to note that there are principles determined by the VCAT relating to repeat applications. The Tribunal has determined that for the sake of equity and fairness in the case of a similar application, which has been prepared in accordance with the advice of the Tribunal, considerable weight needs to be given to the fact that the applicant has endeavoured to accommodate the recommendations as to what would be appropriate. Factors that might justify a departure from an earlier determination could include the following:

Significant changes in the application;

Changes in the circumstances of the land and its surrounds;

Changes in planning policy; and/or

Changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration.

None of the above mentioned factors have occurred (except for changes to the proposal as an attempt to address the issues/recommendations outlined in the earlier order) that would warrant significant deviation from the findings/recommendation of the previous VCAT Order No. P2308/2013.


It is considered that in this instance the previous decision is particularly helpful in providing guidance to the current application. The previous decision notes:

Issues raised by VCAT decision P2308/2013. How the current proposal seeks to address the issue

‘The street wall… is built to the property line and, due to the property boundary not aligning with the property lines to the west, consequently projects about 600 mm into the footpath. This is unsatisfactory and if we were minded to grant a permit we would have required the ground level to be setback at the western end so that it aligned and then required no further projection onto the footpath to disturb the building line’.

The submitted plans show the street wall to be setback at the western end, so as to align with the western adjoining property. The building does not project further forward onto the footpath.

‘…the upper levels are out of keeping with the scale, massing, setbacks of the heritage precinct, especially the graded buildings. If we were minded to grant a permit, we would have required these levels to be further setback from Malvern Road and have a more sympathetic building form and materials. Mr Sheppard partly relied on the emerging character of more dominant four and five storey forms east of Creswick Street. Being outside the heritage precinct, these forms have little relevance’. ‘The sorts of changes that would be needed to make the proposal acceptable would include removal of the fifth storey, increased front street setback of the fourth storey to at least 8 metres’

The current scheme shows a significant reduction in the height from the previous scheme given the deletion of the fifth storey. The proposed development is of four storeys, with a maximum building height of 14.86 metres. The fourth storey is setback from Malvern Road at 8 metres. Lightweight cladding is proposed for the fourth storey, designed to reinforce the recessive nature of this level. It is noted that at the uppermost level, balustrades and terrace areas including pergolas are proposed. It is considered these elements will present as lightweight structures and will not add unreasonable bulk or appear as overwhelming from the public realm. It is considered that the reduction in building height, overall scale and design detail collectively result in a development that is not overly prominent and will not negatively impact the heritage streetscape.

‘The first of the two main shortcomings relate to small room sizes. Without intending to be an exhaustive list, we find the following rooms are not an acceptable planning outcome -

The living room in the two-bedroom apartment A03 on level 3 is only 2.1 m to 2.5 m wide.

The bedroom in the one-bedroom apartment A05 on level 3 is only 2.5 m long.

The layout of the dwellings as depicted in the current scheme provides improved internal amenity to the future residents. The room sizes have been increased, whereby the dimensions of the living rooms and bedroom areas and bathroom areas are adequately sized, being generally 3 metres x 3.5 metres for bedrooms, 2 metres x 2 metres for bathrooms and 4 metres x 3.5 metres for living areas.


The bathroom in the two-bedroom apartment A06 on level 3 is 1.6 m by 1.5 m.

The living room in the one-bedroom apartment A03 on level 4 is only 2.4 m to 3 m wide.

The living room in the two-bedroom apartment A02 on level 4 is only 2.4 m wide.

…similar inadequacies are evident in other apartments’.

‘The second of the two main shortcomings was the reliance on daylight to an excessive number of bedrooms from the three small lightcourts, one of which is on the east boundary and two are on the west boundary. These lightcourts are very small at 1 m deep and 3 m wide’. ‘…Removal of the three small lightcourts, and review of the internal layout of many apartments’.

The current scheme shows the removal of the three small light courts. The key differences of the current scheme compared to the previous proposal relate to the size of the lightcourts. For instance, the size of the lightcourt along the eastern side of the site, which provides daylight access to the living and bedroom areas for Units 7, 8, 15, 16 and 20 and 21 extends for a length of 12.5 metres and incorporates a depth between 2.52 metres and 4.84 metres. It is considered that this light court is adequate in size and will provide adequate daylight access into the living and bedroom areas. With regard to the western interface, a light court measuring 13.5 metres wide with a minimum depth of 1.81 metres will provide natural light and ventilation for the living and bedrooms for Unit 4, 5, 12 and 13 and 18 and 19. It should be noted that these light courts are substantially larger than the previous scheme. Notwithstanding the above, Council officer’s raised concerns with regard to poor daylight access for Units 1, 4, 5, 9, 12 and 13. In addition, it was considered that daylight access would be further aggravated following any potential redevelopment of neighbouring sites. Subsequently, the applicant submitted discussion plans accompanied by a daylight analysis study. The proposed changes to the development plans as illustrated in the discussion plans and findings of the study will be discussed further in this report.


‘There is one other internal amenity feature that we doubt reach acceptable standards in this proposal concerning the entrance passage off Malvern Road at the western end of the frontage’.

‘The passage is about 17 m long before it turns 90 degrees (twice) before reaching the lift and stairs. A 6 m long section of the passage about 4 m off Malvern Road narrows to 1.2 m before widening to 1.8 m near the first corner. The narrowness provides additional floor area in adjoining shop 3. A more generous passage width should be provided’.

The pedestrian entry for future residents has been improved in light of the revised scheme. The entrance from Malvern Road is clearly defined and the passage measures approximately 2.8 metres wide (excluding areas for letterboxes and services). The passage leads to a large foyer area and is considered to be acceptable.

It is considered that the revised development has addressed the issues raised by the Tribunal and subject to an assessment against the requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, is deemed to have satisfactorily resolved the concerns raised under the previous proposal. Is there strategic support for the development of the subject land for higher density development? The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around Major Activity Centres and close to public transport. More specifically, Clause 21.05 (Housing) and Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme directs well-designed medium-density residential developments to locations that are highly accessible to both Activity Centers and public transport networks and away from the lower density residential hinterland. These strategies call for developments that respect neighbourhood character, improve housing choice, make better use of existing infrastructure and improve energy efficiency. The Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan identifies locations where specific outcomes are encouraged. With regard to residential intensification, this framework at Clause 21.05-2 directs medium density housing and higher scale development on land with immediate abuttal to a main road which is a tram or priority bus route. The subject site is located within a substantial change area given its immediate abuttal to a main road and is also located on a priority tram route and is located within a small Neighborhood Activity Centre (Tooronga Village local centre). At the local policy level, Clause 21.03 (Housing) of the Municipal Strategic Statement encourages a range of dwelling types that cater for diverse housing needs for future population growth. Whilst infill development should seek to increase housing options, development should reflect the surrounding scale, height, form, setbacks and character of nearby buildings. Concurrently, Clause 21.02-3 (Heritage) seeks, “to protect Stonnington’s heritage places - buildings, areas and streetscapes - and to ensure that any additions, alterations and replacement buildings are sympathetic to the heritage place”. Specific built form outcomes are addressed at Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage Policy). This policy directs new buildings to not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings and that development is of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location.


Moreover, the purpose of the Commercial 1 Zone, amongst others, seeks to create vibrant mixed use commercial centres that provide for retail, entertainment and community uses and residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre. Taking into account the policy objectives above, the construction of a mixed use development within an urban context which is well serviced by a range of amenities is supported at both State and local level. The reuse of this site for urban consolidation is not in dispute and is encouraged. Overall, the proposed development is considered appropriate to the site’s location on a main arterial road and an area specifically identified for future residential intensification. Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity. These are discussed further below. Will the proposal result in a built form that is acceptable for the site and surrounding context? Heritage When considering applications for new additions, it must be determined whether these additions will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place or streetscape. In assessing the proposed development, consideration has been given to the relevant heritage policies in the Stonnington Planning Scheme as listed below:

Clause 22.04 Council’s Heritage Policy

Clause 43.01 Decision Guidelines of the Heritage Overlay

Council’s Heritage Guidelines (included as a reference document at Clause 22.04) Demolition The existing building is ungraded and it makes limited contribution to the streetscape. There is no opposition to its removal as it does not contain significant original or historic fabric that requires retention. New additions Council’s Heritage Guidelines (Section 3.4 Infill) states that:

“New buildings should adopt the scale, massing, setbacks and general form of the existing dwellings in the area. Materials should reflect those found elsewhere within the precinct while individual architectural elements such as roof forms and fenestration must work to complement existing local models without striving to reproduce historic detailing”.

Council’s Heritage Guidelines also note that:

“New buildings in Heritage Overlays should not be taller than adjoining buildings”. The proposed building will have an overall height of 14.86 metres above natural ground level and incorporate a street wall to Malvern Road measuring between 10.58 metres and 10.99 metres high. It is acknowledged that the proposed development will be higher than the immediately adjoining eastern and western properties.


More specifically, it will be 5.49 metres taller than the eastern neighbouring building and 8.95 metres higher than the abutting property to the west. However, for the reasons outlined below, the proposed height and scale are considered to be appropriate. Whilst being four storeys, the proposed development will incorporate a street wall height that is commensurate to a three storey development. It is worthy to recognise that the Heritage Precinct features mainly double storey commercial buildings at approximately 8 - 9 metres in height, constructed to the street boundary. The proposed development is not at odds, given that the proposed street wall will not appear unreasonably higher than the adjoining two storey development to the east or the two storey buildings located further west. Moreover, the fourth level is setback in the order of at least 8 metres, making it a truly recessive element. The proposed setback of the uppermost level is considered adequate, whereby the proposed building will not dominate or detract from the heritage character or place. More importantly, it is considered that the proposal will retain the distinct double storey built form streetscape that is referenced in the statement of significance under the heritage citation for this area, as the building makes a clear distinction between the street wall and the new upper floor additions. Along the Malvern Road elevation, the subject site exhibits a wider frontage compared to its neighbouring sites. The proposed development illustrates the first and second floor level being divided into three modules, which will assist in breaking up the mass of the development. In addition, the fenestration and vertical form of the proposed development will serve to echo the rhythm of fine grain development, as exemplified by the existing rows of two storey Edwardian terraces that contribute to the heritage streetscape. Furthermore, the lightcourts along the eastern and western boundaries will serve to provide additional breaks in built form, and better articulate the side elevations, when viewed from the public domain. The new additions are contemporary in architectural style and will be easily distinguishable from the original heritage buildings. The proposed materials including terracotta panelling to the southern (front) and northern (rear) elevations are ‘earthy’ coloured and appropriate in this setting that comprises of red brick and neutral rendered tones. The zinc cladding for the uppermost level contributes to the recessive nature of this level. Are the off-site amenity impacts within reasonable limits? Visual Bulk

The key assessment tool to determine visual bulk concerns is the Side and Rear Setbacks Objective including Standard B17 and Walls on Boundaries Objective including Standard B18. Whilst the requirements of Clause 55 do not strictly apply to this application as the subject site is zoned Commercial 1 Zone, it is nevertheless considered appropriate to use Standard B17 and Standard B18 as a guide to assess side and rear setbacks and walls on boundaries, especially given it is included in the decision guidelines of the Commercial 1 Zone. At ground floor level, the development is setback at a minimum of 2 metres from the northern boundary to facilitate vehicle access and movement in the lane. As a result, the combined setback including the laneway from the nearest adjoining property is approximately 5 metres. This setback will improve the functionality of the lane, in anticipation of increased traffic volumes – a desirable outcome.


At the rear of the review site, the building is to be constructed with a hard edge to the laneway via a solid wall of three storeys in height (11.86 metres). Directly across the laneway at this interface, is a single storey wall with no habitable room windows associated with the property at 1 Creswick Street. As such, any perceived amenity impacts are considered to be negligible. At first and second floor level, balcony areas and balustrades associated with Units 6, 7, 14 and Unit 15 will be constructed to the title boundary. The northern walls associated with these dwellings are to be setback further between 2.16 metres and 3.025 metres and will be constructed at a maximum building height of 12.06 metres. It is noted that Unit 7 and Unit 15 are to be built opposite the private open space areas of 1 Creswick Street. Whilst these areas are not technically defined as secluded private open space, it is considered that this is the main useable area for recreational purposes for this dwelling. Therefore, consideration must be given to this sensitive interface. The northern wall associated with Unit 7 will have a height of 8.46 metres. Standard B17 requires a setback of 3.55 metres. The proposed setback at a minimum of 2.16 metres and the additional 3 metre buffer provided by the laneway, (combined setback of 5.16 metres) results in compliance with the Standard. With regard to Unit 15, the northern wall is to be constructed at a height of 12.06 metres. Standard B17 requires a setback of 7.15 metres. The proposed setback of 5.16 metres (including the right of way) is 1.99 metres short of the requirements of Standard B17. This is not considered to be acceptable and the proposal will result in unreasonable visual bulk impacts. As such, it is considered that if a permit were to be issued, a condition requiring the northern wall associated with Unit 17 be setback by an additional 1.99 metres (i.e. 4.15 metres from the boundary). Subsequent internal changes may be required to accommodate this change. The northern walls associated with Unit 6 and 14 will be built opposite a blank single storey wall with vegetation in front – a non sensitive interface. Moreover, the additional 3 meter wide laneway to the north, is considered to serve as an additional buffer between the adjoining properties that front Creswick Street. At the uppermost level, the proposal measures between 14.26 metres and 14.86 metres in height. Standard B17 requires a setback of 9.35 metres and 9.95 metres respectively. The northern walls are setback 5 metres is provided from the boundary. A combined setback of 8 metres is provided inclusive of the laneway. The proposal results in a shortfall of between 1.35 metres and 1.95 metres. The proposal in its current form may result in unreasonable visual bulk concerns, particularly when viewed from the private open space areas of 1 Creswick Street. Therefore, it is considered that Unit 20 be reconfigured to provide an additional setback of 1.95 metres (i.e. 6.95 metres) to minimise visual bulk concerns. In addition, the terrace area for Unit 20 is to have an increased setback from the rear boundary of 2 metres to minimise the overhang over Unit 15 below, and to allow for improved daylight access. The terrace Overall, subject to conditions, the proposal is not considered to result in adverse amenity impacts, particularly to the northern residential properties. Overshadowing Given the orientation of the site, the proposed development will not cast unreasonable additional shadows onto existing secluded private open space areas.


The location of the subject site to the south of residential properties on the opposite side of the right of way means there will be no overshadowing of these properties. The overshadowing to the east and west will fall over the commercial properties and is not considered to be problematic given that the adjoining buildings are used for commercial purposes (gallery, cafe, medical centre, hardware store, etc). The shadows over Malvern Road are not considered to be of concern given the width of the road reserve. Overlooking The subject site benefits from its limited interface with sensitive uses. Outlooks to the east, south and west will be of the commercial strip and there are no known sensitive interfaces that would be unreasonably overlooked. Two habitable room windows are identified at No. 1 Creswick Street opposite the subject site, however these windows are opaque. The proposal includes north facing balconies at first and second floor level. These balconies are to be screened with 1.7 metre high privacy screens. However, a requirement that the materials and finishes schedule be updated to clearly show that these privacy screens are compliant with Standard B22 will be noted on any permit that issues. At the uppermost level, it is considered that the proposal may result in unreasonable overlooking from Unit 20. It will have direct views into the private open space areas of 1 Creswick Street. As such, screening measures will be required to this interface. A condition will be placed on any permit that issues to reflect this requirement. With regard to the terrace area to Unit 19, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in unreasonable overlooking into the habitable room windows which are located at ground and first floor level for property no. 1 Creswick Street. However, it is considered that the applicant should provide a sightline diagram to illustrate that unreasonable overlooking will not result. If the sightline diagram suggests that there may be opportunities for direct views, then it is considered that screening measures are to be provided at this interface. Does the proposal provide satisfactory amenity for future residents? Council officer’s raised concern with regard to the internal amenity for a number of the proposed dwellings. In response, the applicant submitted discussion plans to address the matters raised. Therefore, the assessment of the development is based on the plans submitted for discussion. The proposal comprises of 16 one-bedroom apartments, which range in size from 45 square metres to 66 square metres and 5 two-bedroom apartments between 62 square metres and 85 square metres in area. Dwellings are orientated to the north, east, south and west. All habitable rooms have been provided with some form of glazing to allow for natural ventilation. There is no reliance on borrowed light for any habitable rooms. Adequate storage areas are proposed at basement level for each apartment. Private open space provisions are in the form of balconies and terrace areas. At first floor level, most dwellings are afforded balcony areas in excess of 8 square metres, accessible from living rooms. Units 2, 3 and 6 are provided with balcony areas of between 6 square metres and 7 square metres. In this instance, it is accepted that a lesser provision than 8 square metres may be appropriate given that these apartments are provided adequate unobstructed access to natural light oriented north (Staunton Lane) and south (Malvern Road). Furthermore, the depth of these areas, i.e. minimum of 2 metres, will allow these areas to be useable.


Similarly, at second floor level, Unit 10, 11, and 14 will have balcony areas between 6 square metres and 7 square metres, with minimum depths of 2 metres. They will have an outlook to Malvern Road or Staunton Lane. It is noted that Unit 13 will have a balcony area of 4 square metres and Unit 12 will have a balcony area of 6.5 square metres. These balconies are oriented west. It is accepted that the size and orientation of these balconies is not ideal. However, the sizes of these balconies compared to the advertised plans were reduced to allow improved daylight access to the lower level apartments (i.e. Units 4 and 5). These units are one bedroom and are located within a small Neighbourhood Activity Centre, whereby amenities and recreational opportunities are provided outside of the subject site. For example, the review site is within close proximity to a number of public open space areas including Gardiner Park (within 800 metres) and Malvern Central Gardens (within 950 metres). The total number of dwellings provided with less than desirable private open space areas is 2 out of a total of 21 apartments. Furthermore, it should be noted that natural daylight access to these balcony areas will be adequate. Council officer’s raised concern with regard to daylight access for a number of the apartments (i.e. Units 1 and 4, 5, 9, 12 and 13). Specific to Units 1 and 9, concerns were raised with regard to the kitchen areas receiving inadequate daylight. The discussion plans show the relocation of the study/kitchen areas for these units to address this concern. It is noted that the discussion plans show the kitchen areas to Units 3 and 11 being relocated, compared to the originally advertised plans. The revised location of these kitchen areas will not allow for adequate daylight access. As such, a condition will be placed on any permit that issues to reconfigure these apartments to relocate these kitchen areas where the bathroom areas are proposed, to allow for improved daylight access. The primary concern with regard to daylight access relate to the apartments in the central core, located on the western side of the review site. Furthermore, it was considered that daylight access would be further reduced if the western adjoining property were to redevelop. The discussion plans show a light court measuring 13.5 metres x 1.81 metres. The living and bedroom areas for apartments 4, 5, 12 and 13 are oriented to face the western boundary and it was considered that these apartments would receive insufficient daylight access. The submitted discussion plans show the deletion of the secondary balcony areas to Units 18 and 19, which projected over the terrace areas for the apartments below. In addition, an additional light court measuring 1.8 metres wide by 3 metres deep has been provided to allow additional light to Unit 5 and 13. Council’s Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDAPP) outlines Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) Principles including Council’s Best Practice Standard. The standard states the following:

For the provision of sufficient daylight, habitable rooms of single-aspect apartments should be limited in depth to 8 metres from a window.

• The average daylight factor for 90% of the habitable floor area should achieve 1.0% for living areas and 0.5% for bedrooms. A daylight modelling report for large scale developments may be required.


The applicant engaged ADP Consulting: Engineering and provided a daylight analysis study for three different scenarios. The western neighbouring property is currently a single storey building, whereby it is anticipated that it may be redeveloped in the future. The daylight study shows three different scenarios. 1. Existing conditions – the medical centre with a 3 metre high boundary wall 2. If a 11.4 metre high boundary wall were proposed for the full length of the western

boundary 3. The provision of a light court similar to what has been proposed on the subject site Under each circumstance, the daylight studies demonstrate that the daylight factor for 90 per of the habitable floor area for a living room exceeds 1 per cent and 0.5 per cent for bedrooms. As such, the proposed changes to the development as illustrated in the discussion plans are considered to provide an acceptable level of daylight access and internal amenity. Even if any development were to occur on the adjoining site, the amenity of the west facing apartments will be protected. Therefore, the proposed development will not prejudice the future development potential of the adjoining sites. Will the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts? Car Parking Provision Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the development is required to provide 35 on-site parking spaces (i.e. being 21 spaces for the residents, 4 spaces for visitors and 10 spaces for the shops). A total of 23 car spaces are proposed, with 20 car spaces to be allocated to the residences and 3 to be allocated to the shops. Thus, the application seeks to reduce the parking requirement. It is considered that the proposed parking waiver can be supported and the proposal will not cause significant traffic and parking impacts because: The subject site is located within a small Neighbourhood Activity Centre, with excellent

access to services and facilities. Tooronga Railway Station and Gardiner Railway Station are located less than 800 metres north west and north east from the subject site respectively. In addition, there are tram services along Malvern Road and bus services along Tooronga Road, which provide links to the greater metropolitan Melbourne public transport network.

The residents and visitors of this development are not eligible for “Resident Parking Permits” pursuant to Council’s Local Laws. As a result, waiver of the parking requirement will not significantly impact on the street-parking network.

Partial waiver of the parking requirement is consistent with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy which encourages use of more sustainable modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport).

The proposal includes 18 bicycle spaces, exceeding the requirement by 12. A higher bicycle parking rate is encouraged and provides a justification to reduce the parking requirement.


Traffic

The objectors are concerned with the increased volume of traffic along Staunton Lane and associated amenity impacts. However, as Members Rundell and Gray found in Pepi v Stonnington CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 1318:

It is our view that the very reason that the rear lanes and rights of way exist is to service properties from the rear as their major function. Residents who choose to develop or to buy on these lanes have to expect some activity. Under long established planning policies, they should also expect that such activity is likely to increase over time as Melbourne becomes a more compact city.

Many properties along this section of Malvern Road use Staunton Lane to gain access to their parking spaces at the rear. The proposed vehicle access is not at odds to the function of the right of way or the existing vehicle access arrangements. As Council’s Traffic Engineer commented, the proposed development is unlikely to generate a significant volume of traffic movements along the right of way and for these reasons, the proposed access arrangement is considered to be acceptable. Furthermore, the building is setback at least 2 metres to assist in the manoeuvring of vehicles in and out of the basement level. Car Parking Design Council’s Transport Engineer highlighted a number of concerns with regard to the car park design. These matters are discussed below. The proposed accessway serves more than ten car parking spaces, however, it is not more than 50 metres long and does not connect to a road in a Road Zone. Notwithstanding this, the submitted development plans and associated swept path diagrams illustrate that there is sufficient space for a passing area, to allow vehicles entering the site to wait for vehicles to exit. In addition, all cars are to exit the site in a forward direction. With respect to the pedestrian access to the storage areas for Units 1 to 8, the access is at least 1 metre wide and widens as it meets the storage room. This is considered to be acceptable. Concerns were raised with regard to the location of the columns in the parking aisles and the impacts on vehicle access. It is noted that an aisle measuring 6.4 metres is provided, which satisfies the requirements of Clause 52.06-8. More importantly, it is noted that the column locations are outside of the aisle areas and as such, will not impact on vehicle movements. The submitted swept path diagrams illustrate that corrective manoeuvres may be required to assist in ingress and egress, however, this is acceptable given that the future residents and shop staff will be accustomed to these arrangements. In order to address the outstanding issues raised by Council’s Transport Department, the following conditions will be included:

Revised material is to be submitted demonstrating the allocation of all parking spaces to individual dwellings/tenancies.

Sufficient sight distance should be provided at the property boundary.

Plans be updated to show the platform widths and lengths of the car stacker spaces.

Plans be updated to show a grade of 1 in 200 (0.5%) across parking areas to allow for drainage.


For all the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposal will not cause unreasonable traffic and parking impacts subject to conditions. Bicycle Parking The proposal includes the provision of a total of eighteen (18) bicycle spaces. This exceeds the statutory requirements. No bicycle spaces are to be allocated to the shops. Loading and Unloading The purpose of this Clause is to set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety. The combined floor area of the proposed shops at 274 square metres is not excessive, whereby loading activities are expected to be minimal. It is considered that there is sufficient opportunity for loading and unloading of goods for the site along Malvern Road, which would be similar to other commercial and retail premises along this section of Malvern Road. Waste Waste storage areas are to be located at ground floor level. The applicant has confirmed that on days of waste collection, bin operators will wheel the bins from the storage areas to Creswick Street and then will be taken back into the waste storage area. The proposed waste collection does not allow bins to be left unaccompanied in Staunton Lane or Creswick Street. A Waste Management Plan has been provided which details waste collection occurring from Creswick Street. Refuse will be required to be collected in accordance with Council’s local laws and should a permit issue a condition will require that, “At no time shall bins be left unaccompanied in Creswick Street or at any other location other than within the curtilage of the subject property.” Objections In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Concerns with regard to the location of bins for ‘Mr. Fox’ which currently use the laneway at the rear for bin storage areas The waste storage areas for the proposed development are considered to be appropriate. Council cannot consider the waste storage areas for ‘Mr. Fox’, located at 1491 Malvern Road, which is outside of the review site.

Impacts on property values Impact on property values cannot be assessed under the current planning jurisdiction.

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:

There is strong strategic justification for redevelopment of the subject site.

The proposed scale, massing and design of the proposed development is acceptable for the site and surrounding context.

Subject to conditions, the proposal will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts.

The development provides an acceptable level of amenity for future occupants whilst allowing for increased housing choice.

The parking and traffic impacts generated by the proposal are within reasonable limits.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0379-14 -1483-1487 Malvern Road Glen Iris - 1 of 2 - Advertised Plans.pdf

Plans

2. PD - 0379-14 -1483-1487 Malvern Road Glen Iris - 2 of 2 - Discussion Plans.pdf

Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That Council advise VCAT that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0379/14 would have been issued for the land located at 1483 - 1487, Malvern Road, Glen Iris under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the Demolition and construction of a mixed use development comprising shops and dwellings, reduction in car parking and loading bay requirements in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay subject to the following conditions: 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 advertised plans (TP03 rev A, TP04 rev B, TP05 rev A, TP06 rev A, TP06 rev A, TP08 rev A, TP09 rev B, TP10 rev A, TP11) Council date stamped 25 June 2014 but modified to show:

a) All floor plans and elevation drawings to be amended so as to be

consistent with the plans for discussion (Drawing No.s: TP03 rev A, TP04 rev C, TP05 rev E, TP06 rev E, TP07 rev C, TP08 rev B, TP09 rev C, TP10 rev A and TP11 rev A) Council dated 6 March 2015 but modified to show the relocation of the bathroom areas and replace with kitchen areas for Units 3 and 11, located at the first and second floor level to improve daylight access to the kitchen areas.

b) Northern wall for Unit 17 be setback 4.15 metres from the northern boundary in accordance with Standard B17 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and associated internal changes.

c) Northern wall for Unit 20 be setback 6.95 metres from the northern boundary in accordance with Standard B17 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and associated internal changes.

d) Terrace area for Unit 20 amended to show a setback from the northern boundary by 2 metres.


e) Terrace area for Unit 20 amended to show screening mechanisms up to 1.7 metres in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

f) Sightline diagrams showing no direct views are obtainable from the terrace area for Unit 19 or provision of screening mechanisms in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

g) Annotations and/ or a revised material and finishes schedule that confirm that all north facing privacy screens at first and second floor levels to Unit 6, 7, 14 and 15 have a maximum transparency of 25 per cent in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme

h) Basement Floor Plan amended to show the allocation of all parking spaces to individual dwellings and shops.

i) Plans amended to show sight distance in accordance with Clause 52.06-8. j) The usable platform width and length available within the car stackers in

accordance with the Australian Standards or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

k) Plans amended to show a grade of 1 in 200 (0.5%) across parking areas to allow for drainage.

l) Amended plans to show Environmental Sustainable Design requirements including:

i. Further details with regard to the pergolas to the north facing glazing of Units 19 and 20 to minimise summer solar heat gain.

ii. Operable windows to be indicated on plans/elevations. iii. Modify location of solar panels proposed on roof to northernmost part

of the roof area, away from potentially overshadowing structures such as the plant room and lift-overrun.

m) Any change as required by the Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 3.

n) Any change as required by the Sustainable Management Plan in accordance with Condition 4. all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and

works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans, a Waste Management

Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be similar to the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design, Council dated 22 May 2015 but amended to include:

“At no time shall bins be left unaccompanied in Creswick Street or at any other location other than within the curtilage of the subject property”, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 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 development plans, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval, the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SMP must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1h. The report must be similar to the SMP prepared by ADP Consulting: Engineering, dated 25 June 2014, but amended to include following:

a) Further details on the sustainability strategy identified for the

development’s retail component. For example, improvements against BCA Section J etc.

b) Details on how the average 6.5 star energy rating has been derived. Applicant to provide indicative energy rating assessments for a representative number of units (minimum of 25% of units from varying orientations). This should be accompanied by a full list of fabric assumptions including glazing considerations.

c) Higher sustainability targets should be sought for reverse cycle systems e.g. four star systems for reverse cycle heating and cooling, particularly for smaller units.

d) Further details with regard to appropriate collection of rainwater to address STORM requirements. If additional treatment is required to meet STORM requirements, alternative measures such as rain gardens could be considered.

e) Identify the source for the VOC limit targets. f) Applicant to note that Council’s recommended target for reuse/recycling

of construction and demolition waste is 70% by mass.

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.

MELBOURNE WATER CONDITIONS 6. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly

into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways.

7. The ground floor shops, foyer and lift area must be constructed with finished floor levels set no lower than 18.0 metres to Australian Height Datum.

8. The entry / exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof

apex set no lower than 16.6 metres to Australian Height Datum.


END MELBOURNE WATER CONDITIONS 9. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film)

designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

10. Prior to the occupation of the building/ commencement of use, the walls on the

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

11. 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.

12. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal

Stonnington City Council collection) must be in accordance with Council's General Local Laws.

13. The level of the footpaths and laneways must not be lowered or altered in any

way to facilitate access to the site. 14. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with

Council’s Local Laws. 15. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a

drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.



permit. c) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit. d) The use is discontinued for a period of two years or more. In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

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

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

B. This permit is for the use of the land and/or buildings and does not constitute

any authority to conduct a business requiring Health Act/Food Act registration without prior approval from the Councils Health Services.


C. The flood line for the property grades from 17.7 metres to Australian Height Datum at the southern boundary down to 16.3 metres to Australian Height Datum at the northern boundary.

D. If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's permit

conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 224841.

E. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to

receive “Resident Parking Permits”. F. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the

development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development

allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.


3 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0476/14 - 18 & 20 LEOPOLD STREET GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY BUILDING OVER COMMON BASEMENT CONTAINING

23 DWELLINGS


PURPOSE For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a three storey building over common basement containing 23 dwellings at 18 & 20 Leopold Street, Glen Iris. Executive Summary Applicant: Rollo Wright Ward: East Current Zone: General Residential (GRZ, Schedule 10) Zone as at date of Lodgement:

Residential 1 Zone (R1Z)

Overlay: Special Building Overlay (SBO) Date lodged: 17/06/2014 Statutory days: (as at council

meeting date) 160

Trigger for referral to Council: 7 or more objections Number of objections: 40 Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 10 February 2015 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit BACKGROUND The Proposal The plans that were advertised and form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Perrett Ewert Leaf, Drawing Nos: TP-00 – TP28, Arborist’s Report, Transport Impact Assessment, Waste Management Plan and Sustainable Management Plan, all Council date stamped 29 August 2014. A Planning Assessment was also received on 30 June 2014. Key features of the proposal are:

It is proposed to demolish both existing dwellings and any associated outbuildings;

Construction of a three storey building (over common basement) containing 23 dwellings consisting of 2 x one bedroom, 18 x two bedroom and 3 x three bedroom;

The basement will provide 26 vehicle parking spaces (all allocated to residents, 0 for visitors), 5 bicycle racks, waste management and 26 storage cages;

As the land slopes downhill from west-east by approximately 1.37m the maximum overall building height varies between 9.60m and 10.65m above natural ground level;

Building site coverage of 55.3%;

Site permeability 27%;

One 10,000L rainwater tank is proposed to collect water off roof areas, plumbed to toilets;


All dwellings will be accessed via a common entry in the centre off the frontage to Leopold Street;

An approximately 2m high rendered masonry fence with timber battened sections is proposed across the street frontage, setback 2.55m from Leopold Street. Landscaping is proposed between the front fence and the front boundary of the site;

Electricity substation located in the front setback in the north-west corner of the lot; and

A simple palette of materials is proposed, including face brick at ground level, light coloured rendered masonry at first floor and darker cladding at second floor.

It is noted that the applicant submitted plans for discussion on 18 February 2015, and a further amended landscaping plan on 13 March 2015. The key changes are detailed and discussed later in this report. Site and Surrounds The site is located on the south side of Leopold Street, Glen Iris. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is made up of two lots (Lot 1 on TP383304B and Lot 1 on TP386592B) and currently contains two single storey dwellings;

A frontage to Leopold Street of 30.48m and a depth of 43.35m;

A site area of approximately 1321m2;

The land exhibits a fall running downhill from west to east of approximately 1.37m; and

A range of trees and shrubs, although none are classified as ‘significant’ when assessed against Council’s Local Law definition.

A mix of dwelling types can be found in the immediate vicinity, ranging from attached blocks of flats adjoining to the east and west, through to detached dwellings and a number of recently constructed townhouses. Most buildings, though, regardless of their typology are limited to two storeys in height. Front setbacks along the south side of Leopold Street are generally between 7.0m and 8.0m, whilst along the north side, setbacks range between 4m and 7m. Whilst a range of fencing types exist in the street, the majority are either low or incorporate transparent elements allowing views through to landscaped front yards beyond. The site’s immediate surrounds are described as follows:

To the immediate west is No. 16 Leopold Street. The site is occupied by a double storey building containing 4 dwellings (plus a garage in the south-east corner towards the rear);

To the immediate east is No. 20 Leopold Street. The site is occupied by a double storey building containing 14 dwellings (plus three car port structures);

To the immediate south are the rear yards of dwellings fronting Young Street, including numbers 19, 21, 1/23 and 2/23; and

To the north is Leopold Street. The subject site and surrounding land in Leopold Street is zoned General Residential (Schedule 10) which provides for a mandatory maximum height of 9m (or 10m when the land is subject to a slope exceeding 2.5o as is the case at this site). Adjoining land in Young Street is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 2) which also provides for a maximum height of 9m (or 10m when the land is subject to a slope exceeding 2.5 o) but limits development to a maximum of two dwellings per lot.


The subject site is located in close proximity to strip shopping centres in High Street, Malvern Road and Glenferrie Road. Education facilities within 2kms include Caulfield Grammar, Sacre Coeur, Korowa, Malvern Central School, De La Salle and St Josephs. A number of public reserves are available within 2kms including Viva Street Reserve, Malvern Public Gardens and Central Park. Gardiner Railway Station is located approximately 1.4km to the north-east and Glen Iris Railway Station is located approximately 1.5km to the east. The route 6 Tram (along High Street) to the city is approximately 250m to the north. Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.05 identifies this area as an ‘incremental change area’ where ‘multi-unit development (2-3 storeys)’ should be directed. Previous Planning Applications No previous applications have been lodged or determined at this site. The Title The site is described on volume 6055 folio 889 specifically as Lot 1 on TP386592B and volume 6077 folio 276 specifically Lot 1 on TP383304B. No covenants affect the land, although two drainage easements traverse the lot; one across the rear and another diagonally across the south-east corner. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Zone Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone (Schedule 10) Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. Amendment C187, gazetted on 19 June 2014, implemented the General Residential Zone (GRZ, Schedule 10) to this site. The General Residential Zone does not restrict the number of dwellings allowed on a site but provides for a mandatory maximum building height of 10m (on a sloping site) plus any additional height required by the Special Building Overlay (approximately 0.70m). The zoning also adds a requirement that basements should not exceed 75% of the site area. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the new zoning in that the building height is 10.65m above natural ground level and basement coverage is 66%. Transitional arrangements from the former Residential 1 Zone to the current General Residential Zone exist. These stipulate that any application received prior to the new zones being introduced must be assessed against the relevant controls within the Stonnington Planning Scheme as at the date of receipt of the application. Former Zone Clause 32.01 - Residential 1 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 a permit was required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.


Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 - Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 a permit is required as the proposal seeks to construct 23 dwellings but will provide no visitor parking. Clause 55 - ResCode Pursuant to Clause 55, a development of two or more dwellings on a lot which does not exceed 4 storeys must meet the objectives of this clause. Relevant Planning Policies Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 15.01 Urban environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable development Clause 16.01 Residential development Clause 18.01 Transport Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built environment Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone Clause 52.06 Car parking Clause 55 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 two signs on the site facing Leopold Street. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in East Ward and objections from 40 individuals have been received. In summary, the objectors’ concerns include:

Inappropriate traffic and parking impacts, no visitor parking;

Overshadowing;

Will create precedent;

Overdevelopment / Lack of landscaping;

Not consistent with neighbourhood character;

Reduction in outlook;

Overlooking;

Excessive built form, scale and height; and

Will affect flow of aquifer / ground water. A Consultative Meeting was held on 10 February 2015. The meeting was attended by Councillors Stubbs and Davie, the applicant, planning consultant, a Council planning officer and 25 objectors.


At the consultative meeting the applicant provided detailed ‘discussion plans’ which proposed a range of changes to the proposal, including:

Reduction in the number of dwellings from 23 to 21 (effectively 2 x 3 bedroom dwellings removed from the proposal);

Provision of 1 x visitor parking space (up from zero);

Provision of 7 bicycle storage racks (up from 5);

Reduction in site coverage to 53% (from 55.3%);

Reduction in the overall height to between 9.40m and 10.45m (from between 9.60m and 10.65m);

Introduction of a deep recess in the centre of the building facade to visually ‘break down’ the presentation of the building;

Reduction in the extent of built form in the north-east and north-west (front right and front left corners) to provide effective transition of form to adjoining properties;

Removal of aluminium ‘out rigger’ (pergola) frames across the front and rear elevations at second floor;

Increased setback from the rear boundary from 3m to 5m at first floor, and from 5.4m to 7.4m at second floor;

Internal replanning of layouts to accommodate the external changes described above;

Removal of various terrace areas to the rear to ensure adequate privacy of adjoining areas of secluded private open space;

Conversion of all south facing windows to ‘highlight’ windows to ensure adequate privacy of adjoining areas of secluded private open space;

Reduction in bulk and increased setbacks now results in a form which casts no additional shadows on adjoining secluded private open space areas;

Removal of the electricity substation (as it has been confirmed by the power authority that it is not required as the site is close to an existing substation);

Reduction in the extent of ground level terraces to increase the area available for landscaping;

Modification to the landscaping plans to retain vegetation as requested by various adjoining property owners and to provide additional new trees and vegetation within the site, semi-mature when planted;

Increased apex height of the basement ramp to comply with Melbourne Water flood requirements;

Provision of an updated Waste Management Plan (and associated swept path analysis) which details collections of waste from within the basement;

Provision of two rainwater tanks now proposed; a stormwater detention tank of 6,900L (to ‘buffer’ peak flows) plus a 10,000L retention tank plumbed to toilets for water treatment;

Provision of a convex mirror to provide improved pedestrian visibility towards the east;

Provision of a stop-go warning system at the top and bottom of the basement ramp to improve ramp usability; and

ESD improvements to an average 7.1 stars. Updated documents detailing these changes were provided to Council on 18 February 2015. A further revised landscaping plan was supplied on 13 March 2015. Council did not require the applicant to formally re-advertise the plans as the changes have reduced the impact that the building will make and as such are exempt from the notification provisions. It is also noted that these ‘discussion plans’ were presented at the planning consultative meeting held on 10 February 2015.


Referrals Infrastructure Unit Council’s Infrastructure Unit has identified that the development will result in significantly increased runoff. There is serious flooding downstream of this property as identified in Council’s Special Building Overlay. In order to address this issue could you please place a condition that the owner must at their cost provide a detention system to the satisfaction of Council to control flooding to no greater than the existing discharge, based on a 1 in 10 year A.R.I. Could you please place conditions that:

A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design. Please do not state drainage design to satisfaction of Council, that is the responsibility of the relevant building surveyor to check and approve.

The existing footpath levels must not be raised or altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).

All redundant vehicular crossings must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.

The provision of the additional 6,900L detention tank will satisfy the 1 in 10 year storm water flow requirement and conditions can be included on any permit which may issue requiring a detailed design to be submitted to Council for approval. Urban Design Council’s Urban Designer reviewed the advertised plans and provided the following comments: 1. Form, Scale and Streetscape integration Whilst the Zone permits a 3-storey building, the visual bulk presented by the proposed expansive singular form does not integrate well into the streetscape of Leopold Street. The subject site is a consolidation of two typical residential lots. In order to achieve a satisfactory degree of integration with the predominant development pattern in the street, the form of the building should be modified to present as two distinct 2-storey elements, joined by a deeply recessed central section; and a well-recessed upper level. 2. Extent of Building footprint and Basement The building footprint crowds the site and the associated easements to the South and South-East. The extent of the basement is excessive and does not provide sufficient space for in-ground small- to medium-scale canopy tree planting; particularly to the South, South-East and East.


The 3m setback of the basement from the street frontage, in my opinion, potentially threatens the future integrity of Council’s street trees. It is suggested that specialist advice be obtained from Council’s Arborist. 3. Residential interfaces The building crowds the interface with the residential properties to the South, which are located within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The form and scale of the proposed building presents an unacceptable degree of visual bulk to these neighbouring private open spaces. It is suggested that this interface relationship be substantially improved. 4. Landscape The existing site possesses many mature trees; all of which are proposed for removal. In my opinion, it is unacceptable that site planning for new developments such as this cannot integrate the best elements of the existing landscape vegetation. The proposed Landscape Plan is, in my opinion, inadequate for a development of this size and nature. New higher-density residential apartment developments, within Stonnington’s General Residential Zones (GRZ) and Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ), should be designed to integrate a high quality, canopy-treed, landscape setting. This landscape setting should comprise satisfactory perimeter deep-soil zones for the planting of small- to medium-scale canopy-trees. Small- to medium-scale canopy tree planting in deep soil zones have important character and environmental benefits; and these are: 1. To improve or repair, the landscape character of the residential neighbourhood; 2. To improve the on-site amenity for residents of new apartment developments; 3. To assist in managing the interfaces with residential neighbours; 4. To allow infiltration of rainwater to the water table and reduction of stormwater run-off; 5. To reduce the urban ‘heat-island’ effect; and 6. To promote bio-diversity in urban residential areas. 5. Substation location A substation is proposed to be located within the front setback. The drawings do not properly describe this proposed installation; and it is in conflict with the Landscape Plan. I do not support this proposal and suggest that alternative options be explored for this installation. Following the provision of ‘discussion plans’ on 18 February, 2015, Council’s Urban designer is satisfied that the proposal is sufficiently broken up, provides adequate areas for landscaping and satisfactorily ‘respects’ the sensitive residential interfaces, particularly to the rear. Waste Management Unit The Waste Management Unit reviewed the proposal and made the following comments:

The ‘Bin Store’ needs to be increased in size to adequately accommodate the standard allocation of bins including allowing for circulation; and


The submitted WMP suggests the use of 660 litre bins collected by private waste service providers. I find no reason why 240 litre bins collected by Council services should not be utilised at this property. This is the preferred collection methodology.

Following receipt of these comments, the applicant amended their Waste Management Plan to show collections occurring from within the basement, and provided swept path diagrams confirming that the proposed collection vehicle can efficiently access the basement to collect waste as proposed. Transport & Parking Unit The Transport and Parking Unit reviewed the proposal and made the following comments:

The proposal satisfies the parking requirements for residents but requests a waiver of the 4 visitor parking spaces required. A minimum of one (1) visitor parking should be provided. Note that residents of these dwellings will be ineligible for parking permits should permit parking be implemented in the future;

The traffic generation is not expected to significantly affect the surrounding road network;

Head height under the garage door and within the garage not shown – 2.2m minimum required;

A warning system should be provided due to restricted sight-lines along the ramp;

The first 5m of the ramp (from the street) exceeds 1:10;

Bicycle facilities’ specifications required to confirm acceptability;

Garage floors must be noted as having a minimum gradient of 1 in 200 as per AS2890.1;

The proposed crossover is close to the street tree, requires review by Parks Unit; and

Any redundant crossovers to be marked as removed and kerb and channel reinstated. In ‘discussion plans’ submitted to Council on 18 February 2015, the one visitor parking space required has been provided, a minimum of 2.2m clearance is detailed throughout (including beneath the entry point), a stop-go traffic warning system is now proposed, convex mirror is detailed and bicycle rack specifications have been provided. Whilst the minimum garage floor grade of 1:200 is not noted, a condition can be included on any permit which may issue requiring this detail to be shown on plans for endorsement. Parks Unit Council’s Parks Unit has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

The site is heavily populated with mature tree specimens, although only one tree is considered ‘significant’ under Council Local Law (Malus sp. – Apple). A mature stand of Cupressus sempervirens (Italian Cypress) is a noted landscape feature within the site. No trees are listed as retained for this proposal;

Protection fencing must be afforded to the two mature Melia azederach (White Cedar) street trees at this location prior to construction works occurring;

The location of a power substation and gas service is noted to the south of the western mature White cedar street tree. Service trench locations cannot be excavated within the SRZ’s (Structural Root Zones) of the two mature Melia azederach (White Cedar) street trees currently growing in front of 18 & 20 Leopold Street. This applies to electricity, gas and water services;


Council should condition as part of the permit that tree root barriers be constructed within the proposal where large concrete driveways / masonry walls are proposed opposite existing mature Council street trees. Areas opposite these Council areas are currently garden / open space, and the change to impermeable surfaces will leave Council open to future insurance claims for deflection of these surfaces from existing / future mature root growth;

The locations of the power substation and gas services are not notated on the landscape plan, and trees are actually proposed to be planted directly on top of these services. This is not a desirable landscape outcome into the future; and

It must be clearly noted on the plan what landscaping will be in situ, and what will be planted in-ground (particularly for trees). Soil volumes must be provided for all in situ planting to ensure that suitable available soil will be supplied to trees and plants.

In ‘discussion plans’ submitted to Council on 18 February 2015, the electricity substation has been removed and no longer creates a conflict with landscaping within the site. All significant vegetation is now to be planted in-ground, providing sufficient soil volume. A requirement for root barriers should be included as a condition of any permit which may issue, along with tree protection zones as detailed above. Environmental Sustainability Council’s Environmental Sustainability Officer has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

Applicant to provide a full copy of the STEPS report;

A number of bedrooms within a number of dwellings are likely to have lower levels of daylight than sought by Council’s SDAPP policy;

Apartments are proposed to achieve an average 6.1 stars;

The applicant proposes a 10,000L water tank connected to all impervious surfaces, including terraces. Council policy does not support collection from terraces due to ongoing water quality issues. Plans to be amended to resolve this issue;

Plans indicate only 5 bicycle spaces are being provided, this is less than Council’s SDAPP best practice. It is recommended that the number be increased and that convenient spaces be provided for visitors;

Whilst a commitment to a construction phase environmental management plan has been identified, a commitment to demolition phase is required;

The SMP states that the site was formerly a car park – this needs to be amended; and

No commitment has been made to providing a Building User Guide. In ‘discussion plans’ submitted to Council on 18 February 2015, the applicant has provided an updated ESD report which has addressed the above concerns:

A complete STEPS report has been provided in the updated SMP provided to Council achieving adequate results in each assessment category;

Updated daylight assessment provided, along with the layout changes to the building, confirms that on average 95% of bedroom floor areas, and 98% of living room floor areas, are provided with daylight exceeding that required under Council’s SDAPP policy;

A full assessment of the dwellings within the development reveals an overall average 7.1 star energy rating will now be achieved;


A revised STORM assessment has been provided which separates terraces from roof areas, and utilises a buffer strip to treat some terrace areas. It is noted, though, that the report incorrectly includes the storage capacity of the detention tank (which does not retain water) and this should be corrected as a condition of any permit which may issue;

Revised plans provide 7 bicycle storage spaces within the basement. It is noted that no conveniently accessible spaces have been provided for visitors. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring provision of visitor spaces adjacent to the front door;

The SMP report has not been amended to detail demolition phase environmental management. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring this change;

SMP has been updated to accurately reflect the existing and proposed ecology changes; and

Commitment given to the provision of a Building User Guide, which can be required as a condition of any permit which may issue.

Conditions can be included on any permit which may issue requiring these details to be provided on plans and reports submitted for endorsement should a permit issue. Melbourne Water As the subject site is affected by a Special Building Overlay, the application was referred to Melbourne Water pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning Environment Act. Melbourne Water does not object subject to the inclusion of the following conditions: Conditions

1. The building and new dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level which is a minimum of 28.88 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

2. The entry / exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof

apex of a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level which is a minimum of 28.88m to AHD.

3. All external doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park must be a

minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

4. The natural ground surface levels within the easement at the south eastern corner of the site must be maintained at the existing natural ground surface levels to enable the free passage of overland flows.

5. No fill is permitted outside the proposed building envelope with exception of the

basement apex.

6. Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum must be submitted to Melbourne Water. The Plan must demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.

7. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into

Melbourne Water's drains or waterways.


Footnotes

The applicable flood level for this property is grading from 28.58 metres to Australian Height Datum at south-west corner down to 28.00 metres to Australian Height Datum at north-east corner for a storm event with a 1% chance of occurrence in any one year.

If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 245503.

The ‘discussion plans’ Council date stamped 18 February 2015 incorporate the changes required by Melbourne Water. These conditions and footnotes must be included on any permit which may issue. KEY ISSUES The key issues with the proposal include whether the development respects the existing neighbourhood character and whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on residential amenity, including through parking and traffic generation. These key issues as well as issues raised by objectors are discussed in detail below. State Planning Policy Framework A number of provisions from the State Section of the Planning Scheme are relevant to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include commentary about Structure Planning (11.02-3), Metropolitan Melbourne (11.04), Urban Design (15.01), Housing (16) and Transport (18). At the State Policy level these policy objectives provide a State policy impetus for the residential intensification of sites that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. Specific State policy support for appropriate residential intensification is highlighted in Clause 16 (Housing). This includes strategies to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land (16.01-1) and to increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the established urban areas particular at Activity Centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites (16.01-2). The State Policy objectives in regard to transport also provide a particular emphasis on encouraging higher land use densities and mixed use developments near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges, tramways and principal bus routes (18.01-2). When considered against this policy direction there is State policy support for the proposed redevelopment and residential intensification of an existing site that is located near a Neighborhood Activity Centre and which would increase housing yield. In addition, the State policy objectives in relation to transport provide strong support for the development of higher residential density on a site that is located within 1.5km from heavy and light rail. Local Planning Policy Framework The Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan indentifies locations where specific outcomes are encouraged. In regard to residential intensification this framework at Clause 21.05-2 acknowledges the need for increased densities across the municipality and directs specific types of development to specific areas. The proposal is consistent with this policy, being in an ‘incremental change area’ where 2-3 storey multi-dwelling development is encouraged.


Specific built form outcomes are addressed in local Built Environment Policy at Clause 21.06. This policy directs new buildings to not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings and that development be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location. In this instance the three storey built form is only one storey higher than the majority of buildings found in the neighbourhood. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme. It is noted that the following assessment and discussion is based on the ‘discussion plans’ and accompanying documentation Council date stamped 18 February and 13 March 2015. Proposed scale and Neighbourhood Character The application has been assessed against Clauses 16.01 and 21.05 and is considered a site responsive design which will sit comfortably in the existing and emerging streetscape. The extent of built form is well broken up and a simple but appropriate palette of materials will provide depth to the facades. As described earlier, dwellings in the immediate vicinity are generally 2 storeys in height, with a variety of building typologies, including attached ‘blocks of flats’ adjoining to the east and west, detached dwellings opposite and behind to the north and south, and semi-detached townhouses to the west. There is an interesting mix of dwelling types in Leopold Street and Young Street. The overall height of the proposed development, 3 storeys / 9.40m to 10.45m, is generally one storey higher than existing dwellings found in Leopold Street, and sits at the lowest point of Leopold Street. Proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 22.23 Council has prepared, exhibited and adopted Draft Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 22.23 which is known as Planning Scheme Amendment C175. This amendment has been heard by a panel and can be considered as ‘seriously entertained’. This policy identifies a number of neighbourhood character precincts, and to establish guidelines for development within each precinct. The subject site falls within proposed precinct Garden Suburban (GS3) which includes the following statement of preferred neighbourhood character: “The Garden Suburban 3 (GS3) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Victorian, Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, one-two storey scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street.” Further, the following relevant design objectives are proposed:

To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.

To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the details of buildings in the area.

To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings.


To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.

To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures.

To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.

It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily responds to these objectives in the following ways:

The building will provide appropriate transitions from adjoining lots to the east, west and south;

The building has been appropriately broken down through the use of materials and the physical recess in the centre;

Existing significant vegetation is being retained, and further deep root canopy tree plantings can be sustained, and are being proposed;

A single vehicle entry point is proposed, with the opening well beyond the front wall of the building; and

The fence is generally consistent with the style of fences found in Leopold Street. The provision of vegetation in front of the fence will aid in softening the presentation of the development to the street.

For these reasons, the proposal, as detailed within ‘discussion plans’ and accompanying documentation Council date stamped 18 February and 13 March 2015, is considered an appropriate response to the adopted neighbourhood character policy. Setbacks When assessed against the ‘discussion plans’ and accompanying documentation Council date stamped 18 February and 13 March 2015, the proposed works are setback from Leopold Street between 6.96m and 10.71m. This is considered an appropriate setback based on adjoining building setbacks of 6.55m to the west (number 16) and 7.7m to the east (number 22). East elevation (facing number 22 Leopold Street) Ground Floor – required setback 1m, proposed 3.1m – 11.0m First Floor – required setback 2.0m, proposed 4.5m – 10.1m Second Floor – required setback 5.7m, proposed 5.8m – 9.6m West elevation (facing number 16 Leopold Street) Ground Floor – required setback 1.0m, proposed 1.1m – 4.1m First Floor – required setback 1.8m, proposed 2.1m – 7.3m Second Floor – required setback 4.5m, proposed 5.2m South elevation (facing numbers 19, 21 & 2/23 Young Street) Ground Floor – required setback 1.0m, proposed 2.0m – 11.0m First Floor – required setback 1.8m, proposed 5.0m – 8.1m Second Floor – required setback 5.1m, proposed 7.4m – 8.0m All side and rear setbacks are compliant with ResCode.


Building Height The proposed maximum overall building height varies (due to the slope on the land) between 9.40m and 10.45m. As this application was lodged with Council prior to the introduction of the General Residential Zone, the mandatory height controls which would apply to any application lodged after 19 June 2015 do not apply to this application. The overall height of the building is considered acceptable when considered against Council’s Local Policies which encourage multi-dwelling development at a height of 2-3 storeys in ‘incremental change areas’. Site Coverage The proposed site coverage is approximately 53%. Standard B8 allows a maximum 60% site coverage, as such, the proposal complies with the Standard. Basement coverage is 66%, which is less than the 75% allowed within the schedule to the zone. Existing Vegetation Council’s Parks Unit has reviewed the proposal and has confirmed that only one tree, the Apple, would be protected by the Local Law. The application originally proposed the removal of all vegetation on the site, however, in response to concerns raised by objectors, a revised landscaping plan was provided to Council on 13 March 2015 which now shows the retention of 4 Silver Birch trees (adjacent to number 16 Leopold Street), a Privet (adjacent to number 19 Young Street) and an Apple tree (adjacent to number 21 Young Street) which is the significant tree referred to by Council’s Parks Unit. Council’s Parks Unit recommends the inclusion of conditions on any permit which may issue requiring the applicant to provide a Tree Management Plan to ensure appropriate protection is afforded to the existing street trees on Leopold Street, and vegetation to be retained on the subject site detailed above. Tree Protection Zones are to be established around this vegetation. In addition, the revised landscaping plan received by Council on 13 March 2015 details the provision of additional screening vegetation (Lilly Pilly) planted at a height of 3.5m along the south and east boundary, 7 Chinese Elms planted at a height of 4.5m along the east and west boundaries and two new Birch trees planted at a height of 6m in the front setback. The removal of the remaining vegetation is considered acceptable. Conditions should be included on any permit which may issue to ensure protection is shown on any plans submitted for endorsement. Overlooking The plans indicate that the majority of east, west and south facing windows, and all east, west and south facing terraces at first and second floor (with views towards numbers 16 and 22 Leopold Street and 19, 21 and 2/23 Young Street) are screened and/or configured in accordance with Standard B22. It is noted that the west facing terraces of dwellings 1.07 and 2.05 have not been treated adequately, as these terraces are within 9m of habitable room windows within number 16 Leopold Street.


No overlooking as defined within Standard B22 will occur into any adjoining areas of secluded private open space, or habitable room windows, within 9m. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the details of screens to be shown on plans for endorsement. At ground level, fences are provided between the ground level habitable room windows and neighbouring areas of secluded private open space, satisfying the Standard. Despite strict compliance with the Standard, the applicant has agreed to remove the south facing window to bedroom 2 of dwelling 2.02 in response to concerns raised by an objector at 19 Young Street (adjoining the rear boundary). A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring this change to be shown on plans submitted for endorsement. Overshadowing Standard B21 requires that a new development does not unreasonably overshadow existing secluded private open space (SPOS) areas of adjoining dwellings. The Standard requires that between the hours of 9am and 3pm, an area of SPOS on an adjoining lot must not be unreasonably affected for a minimum of 5 hours on 22 September. Revised shadow plans documenting the proposal as shown in the discussion plans dated 18 February 2015 supplied by the applicant confirm that the shadows generated by the proposal will be no greater than those generated by the existing buildings and fences. This is a direct result of the substantial rear setbacks which are shown in the ‘discussion plans’ Council date stamped 18 February 2015. Overdevelopment / Visual Bulk The proposed building is sited appropriately, complying with relevant Standards of ResCode including front setbacks, side and rear setbacks and with no walls proposed on boundaries. The overall site coverage is 53% which is well below the maximum allowable of 60%. Setbacks to the rear boundary, where the proposal adjoins the most sensitive areas of numbers 19, 21 and 2/23 Young Street, are roughly double the minimum requirement. The design of the building, as detailed within the ‘discussion plans’ Council date stamped 18 February 2015, has responded to its context, introducing a physical indentation in the centre of the building facade to soften the impact and introduce a sense of separation which breaks down the form, representing the rhythm of detached built forms along Leopold Street. Further, the design has recessed the east and west corners (at the front) to provide a transition between the proposed building and the two adjoining lots. These additional setbacks also allow more substantial vegetation to be supported within the front setback. The basement is setback off all side boundaries providing sufficient soil volume to successfully retain existing vegetation, and sustain new vegetation throughout the site. The building utilises a simple pallet of materials which further break down the form. The material pallet is reasonably traditional and in keeping with those found in nearby dwellings. Subject to conditions being included on any permit which may issue requiring the changes shown within the ‘discussion plans’ to be shown on any plans for endorsement, the development is not considered an overdevelopment and the design changes incorporated into the ‘discussion plans’ have satisfactorily moderated the overall bulk of the building.


Lack of Visitor Parking and Traffic Safety A number of objectors have raised concerns that there is a significant amount of traffic moving along Leopold Street, and that on-street parking is in high demand. Council’s Transport and Parking Unit has reviewed the proposal, including the plans and Traffic Impact Assessment provided with the application, and has confirmed that subject to the provision of a minimum of 1 visitor parking space within the basement, the proposal is acceptable. It is noted that the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires a development to provide a minimum of 1 parking space to each 1 and 2 bedroom dwelling, 2 parking spaces to each 3 or more bedroom dwelling, and 1 visitor space to each 5 dwellings. The proposal satisfies the requirements for resident parking by providing 25 spaces for residents , but is seeking a reduction by 3 spaces of the visitor parking requirement, as it is providing 1 space in lieu of the requirement to provide 4. It is considered reasonable to reduce the requirement for on-site visitor parking from 4 spaces to 1 space because the frontage of the subject site can accommodate at least 3 vehicles, recent traffic surveys indicated there were at least 5 spaces available at any time and future residents of the development will be ineligible for resident parking permits. It is acknowledged that the ramp grade between the street and the ramp apex is 1 in 8 for a length of 8.68m which exceeds the required grade specified within the Stonnington Planning Scheme of no greater than 1 in 10. In this instance, it is considered appropriate to allow the grade to exceed 1 in 10 for the following reasons:

The Australian Standard allows a maximum grade of 1 in 8 where the grade is downward for traffic leaving the site (to allow for appropriate visibility);

The car park will be most commonly be used by residents of the complex who will become familiar with its operation;

The car park is relatively small (well less than the 100 spaces which the Australian Standard refers to) and will present a small number of daily movements;

Vehicle ‘scraping’ will not occur; and

The presence of the Special Building Overlay (SBO) requires an apex to be provided, the street trees, easements and site dimensions limit the location of the crossover and this is the most appropriate location and design response.

The ‘discussion plans’ provided 18 February now provide a sight triangle to the west of the vehicle entry in accordance with the relevant standard, and propose the use of a convex mirror to provide visibility to the east (where it is not possible to reduce the height of the fence given it is a common fence between two property owners). Conditions should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the sight triangle and convex mirror to be provided on plans for endorsement. It is also acknowledged on the ‘discussion plans’ that a ‘stop-go’ traffic control system should be implemented to ensure safe and efficient operation of the curved ramp into the basement. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue to ensure this detail is provided on plans for endorsement. The ‘discussion plans’ have not included a notation that the basement floor grade must be a minimum 1 in 200 to ensure adequate drainage. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue to ensure this information is provided on plans submitted for endorsement.


Subject to conditions being included on any permit which may issue requiring the changes shown within the ‘discussion plans’ to be shown on any plans for endorsement, parking provision and layout is acceptable. Landscaping The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Arborist who has confirmed that the concept landscape plan is acceptable for the site. Subject to the inclusion of conditions on any permit which may issue requiring the preparation and submission of a Tree Management Plan to ensure protection of the street trees and nominated site trees to be retained, the landscaping is acceptable. Council’s Arborist visited the site to supervise exploratory works adjacent to the eastern street tree where the crossover is proposed. It was confirmed that no significant roots were present and that the crossover and associated works will not adversely affect the street tree. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue noting that no excavation for the provision of services can be made within the structural root zone of any of the street trees. Bicycle Parking Clause 52.34 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme does not require the provision of any bicycle storage spaces within developments of less than 4 storeys. As such, there is no statutory requirement to provide bicycle storage spaces. Whilst it is acknowledged that the application proposes the provision of 7 bicycle spaces where there is no requirement in the Stonnington Planning Scheme, Council’s SDAPP policy requires development to provide 1 secure bicycle storage space per dwelling, to encourage sustainable transport choices. Given that the storage cages proposed for the dwellings are ‘over bonnet’ types, where bicycles are unlikely to be stored, a greater number of dedicated bicycle spaces should be provided. Whilst Council’s SDAPP policy has been adopted by Council and reviewed by a Planning Panel’s Victoria Panel, and is therefore considered to be ‘seriously entertained’, it is not yet incorporated into the Stonnington Planning Scheme. As such, it is recommended that a minimum of 10 secure bicycle spaces be provided within the basement, and at least 2 secure bicycle hoops adjacent to the main entry for visitors. Conditions should be included on any permit which may issue. Subsurface Water Flows / Aquifer Whilst the presence of underground flows of water is not strictly a planning consideration, the potential presence of an aquifer beneath the site has been raised by objectors, and considered. The applicant commissioned an exploratory bore to a depth of 6m (in the rear yard of number 18 Leopold Street) into which a sock-sleeved standpipe was inserted, and groundwater measurements taken by geotechnical engineering company Civil Test Pty Ltd. Civil Test measured groundwater at a depth of between 4.6m and 5.0m below natural ground level and provided the following analysis of the site conditions: “It is understood that there will be a building with a basement constructed at this site and the proposed basement will be at a depth of up to 3.0 metres. There is unlikely to be a significant impact of the clayey SAND aquifer on the construction of the basement if the perched water in the upper SAND FILL has been drained during construction.”


A copy of this report was referred under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to Southern Rural Water (SRW), who is responsible for licensing and monitoring extractions of ground water south of the Great Dividing Range, and has knowledge of aquifers and subsurface flows across southern Victoria. SRW provided the following response: “The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Primary Industries (DELWP) groundwater resources report states that in the vicinity of the proposed development site the Upper Tertiary Aquifer (fluvial) exists between 0-7.0 metres from natural ground level. The aquifer is underlain by bedrock. The depth to water table is estimated to be less than 5.0 metres below ground level. The information in the geotechnical assessment prepared by Civil Test Pty Ltd aligns with the DELWP report. Based on the information available, Southern Rural Water (SRW) accepts the advice provided by consultants Civil Test Pty Ltd. As previously advised, the construction works do not in our opinion fit the definition of a “bore”. The interception of groundwater (if intercepted) is by coincidence rather than by intent. I advise that SRW has no licensing requirements in accordance with Section 51 or 67 of the Water Act 1989.” This is consistent with Council’s Drainage Engineer who did not raise any concerns about the extent, depth or design of the basement, and the impact it may have on potential ground water flows. 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 represents high quality architecture which sensitively responds to its location;

The proposed height and bulk is appropriate in an area where buildings are typically two storey;

Appropriate setbacks and building detailing has been provided where the building adjoins sensitive interfaces; and

The proposal provides sufficient parking.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0476-14 - 18 & 20 Leopold Street Glen Iris - Advertised Plans - 1 of 2 Plans

2. PD - 0476-14 - 18 & 20 Leopold Street Glen Iris - Discussion Plans - 2 of 2 Plans


RECOMMENDATION That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0476/14 for the land located at 18 & 20 Leopold Street, Glen Iris, be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a multi-dwelling development and reduction of visitor parking requirements in a General Residential Zone and Special Building Overlay subject to the following conditions:

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 application plans Council date stamped 29 August 2014 but modified to show:

a) Changes as detailed in ‘discussion plans’ Council date stamped 18

February 2015 and 13 March 2015 which include the following changes: - Reduction in the number of apartments to 21; - Overall height of building reduced by 200mm; - Design changes to the northern facade of the building, including the

introduction of the recess in the centre, additional setbacks at the front corners and removal of the aluminium ‘out riggers’;

- Design changes to the southern facade of the building, including the removal of the aluminium ‘out riggers’, the modification of window configuration to ‘highlight’ style and removal of the terraces at levels 1 and 2;

- Increases to the building setbacks along the east, west and south elevations at all levels;

- Removal of the electricity substation within the front setback; - Increase in the height of the basement ramp apex as required by

Melbourne Water; - Provision of a stormwater detention system to ensure runoff does

not exceed current levels (for a 1 in 10 year event); - Provision of 1 parking space within the basement allocated to

visitors; - Provision of a sight triangle measuring 2m(w) x 2.5m (d) containing

no works (except fencing which provides at least 50% transparency) or vegetation exceeding 1m in height to be provided adjacent to the west side of the vehicle entry;

- A convex mirror placed adjacent to the entry ramp to provide visibility towards the east for vehicles departing the site;

- Provision of a ‘stop-go’ traffic control system for vehicles entering and exiting the basement;

- Provision of a minimum of 7 secure bicycle parking spaces within the basement;

- Retention of the existing Silver Birch trees in the frontage and north-west corner, a Privet in the south-west corner and an Apple along the south boundary;

- Provision of additional mature trees within the landscaping plan and provision of landscaping adjacent the east boundary along the ramp and creeper over the entry ramp;

- A waste management plan (WMP) which shows collection from within the basement;


- A Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) now showing average of 7.1 stars; and

- The discussion plans dated 18 February and 13 March 2015 further revised to include changes detailed within conditions 1b) through 1q) inclusive.

b) Screening to comply with Standard B22 Clause 55.04-6 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme on the terraces of dwellings 1.07 at first floor and 2.05 at second floor to control overlooking towards the west;

c) Details, including dimensions, of all materials used to control overlooking and details including sections (where relevant) of all overlooking screens in accordance with Standard B22 Clause 55.04-6 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

d) Removal of the south-facing window to bedroom 02 of dwelling 2.02; e) Confirmation that a minimum clearance height of 2.2m is provided within

the vehicular areas of the basements and access ramps, including under the entrances;

f) Dimensions provided confirming that the basement ramp is a minimum 3.6m wide at all points;

g) Details of the proposed convex mirror, including height and location, adjacent to the entry ramp to provide visibility towards the east for vehicles departing the site;

h) Details of the proposed ‘stop-go’ traffic control system, including the location of the sensors, timing and location of the lights;

i) Garage floors to be noted as having a minimum gradient of 1 in 200 as per AS2890:1;

j) Provision of at least an additional 3 secure bicycle storage spaces within the basement and at least 2 secure bicycle hoops adjacent the main pedestrian entry to the building;

k) Changes to the elevations to ensure consistency between them and the floor plans;

l) Provision of tree root barriers, including detailed design drawings and specifications, within the proposal to ensure protection of the concrete driveways and masonry walls of the proposed buildings and works;

m) A water sensitive urban design response in accordance with condition 3; n) Any changes required by the landscape plan in accordance with condition

5; o) Details of Tree Protection Zones drawn on the plans in accordance with

conditions 6 and 7; p) A Tree Management Plan in accordance with condition 7; and q) Revised Sustainable Management Plan in accordance with condition 8.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and

works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy at Clause 22.18 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WSUD response must not utilise the storm water detention tank as part of the treatment as the tank will not retain water.

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


5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, a landscape

plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape plan Council date stamped 13 March 2015, but modified to show:

a) Changes detailed in ‘discussion plans’ Council dated stamped 18

February 2015; b) Any consequential changes resulting from revisions in accordance with

condition 1; and c) Tree protection notes in accordance with condition 6, to the satisfaction

of the Responsible Authority.

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.

6. Tree Protection details must be shown on all relevant plans to the satisfaction

of the Responsible Authority including: a) Tree protection fencing must be erected around each street tree on Leopold

Street adjacent the front boundary of the site, each of the four silver birch trees, the privet and the apple tree at a radius of 2.0 metres from the base of the trunk to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. The fencing must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh or equivalent to at least 1.8m in height to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fences must remain in place until all construction is completed.

The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zones must be covered by a 100mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans a Tree Management Plan prepared

by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan. The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the two existing street trees, the four silver birch trees in the north-west and northern portion of the site and the privet and apple tree located adjacent to the rear boundary. Without limiting the generality of the Tree Management Plan it must have at least three sections as follows:


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

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

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

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

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a revised Sustainable Management Plan (SMP), or plans, which include the following information: a) Addition of a requirement for the contractor to implement a Demolition

Environmental Management Plan; b) Detailed ‘demolition environmental management plan’, ‘construction

environmental management plan’, ‘stormwater pollution reduction plan’ and ‘building user guide’ as stipulated at 4.10 of the SMP.

9. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a

drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design. The design must incorporate a detention system to the satisfaction of Council to control flooding to no greater than the existing discharge rate, based on a 1 in 10 year A.R.I. The detention system is to be provided at the owner’s cost.

10. The level of the footpaths, roads or rights of way must not be lowered or altered

in any way to facilitate access to the site.

11. 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.

12. 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 holder’s cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

14. Prior to the occupation of the building, privacy screens designed to limit

overlooking as required 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.


Melbourne Water Conditions

15. The building and new dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level which is a minimum of 28.88 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

16. The entry / exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex of a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level which is a minimum of 28.88m to AHD.

17. All external doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park must

be a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

18. The natural ground surface levels within the easement at the south eastern corner of the site must be maintained at the existing natural ground surface levels to enable the free passage of overland flows.

19. No fill is permitted outside the proposed building envelope with exception of

the basement apex.

20. Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum must be submitted to Melbourne Water. The Plan must demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.

21. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or

indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways. End Melbourne Water Conditions



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. The crossovers must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. 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; 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. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”. The applicable flood level for this property is grading from 28.58 metres to Australian Height Datum at south-west corner down to 28.00 metres to Australian Height Datum at north-east corner for a storm event with a 1% chance of occurrence in any one year. If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 245503. 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.

Attachments - Locality Plans, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations etc.


4 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0384/14- 24 CAMBRIDGE STREET, ARMADALE - PART

DEMOLITION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 500

SQUARE METRES IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE, SPECIAL BUILDING

OVERLAY, AND A HERITAGE OVERLAY


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for part demolition, alterations and additions to a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Special Building Overlay, and a Heritage Overlay at 24 Cambridge Street, Armadale.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of Monday 23rd March 2015. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Carol Westmore

C/- Joanna Jackson Ten23 Architects Pty Ltd

Ward: South Zone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 Overlay: Special Building Overlay, Heritage Overlay Date lodged: 23 May 2014 Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

101


More than 7 objections

Cultural Heritage Management Plan:

No

Number of objections: 8 Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 30 October 2014 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Ten23 Architects and are known as Job No. 1343, Drawing No.s: TP-01 – TP14, and Council date stamped 17 November 2014, and external materials schedule Council date stamped 23 May 2014, and additional perspectives Council date stamped 13 February 2015.

Key features of the proposal are:

Internal works (no permit required).


Part demolition;

- Demolition of a portion of the existing dwelling to the rear (setback approximately 8.7 metres from the front facade of the dwelling), involving the demolition of a chimney.

- Removal of two windows to the eastern facade of the dwelling (approximately 5.2 metres from the front facade of the dwelling).

- Demolition of the existing shed to the rear of the site.

- Demolition of the existing gate and fence to the rear.

Ground floor addition; the ground floor will comprise an entry, bedroom with walk in robe and en-suite, laundry and powder room, open plan kitchen, dining and lounge room with decking and stairs located adjacent to the living area. Buildings and works are proposed to the existing eastern facade (approximately 5.2 metres from the front facade of the dwelling) comprise stairs, a new window, and a new section of wall, the building footprint in this area will remain the same. The ground floor addition is setback approximately 8.7 metres and is located along the western boundary for a length of approximately 10.9 metres, has a setback of 1 metre from the eastern boundary and is setback 7 metres from the rear boundary.

First floor addition; the first floor addition is setback approximately 11.9 metres from the primary front facade of the dwelling, with a skylight and box guttering located approximately 9.4 metres from the primary front facade. The first floor comprises a bathroom, study/linen area and two bedrooms. The addition is built up along the western boundary for a length of 8.015 metres, is setback 1 metres from the eastern boundary, and setback 6.575 metres from the rear boundary.

Facade restoration involving repair of the existing timber woodwork and repainting in Dulux ‘white on white’ (no permit required to re-paint the existing painted surface).

Development of a new timber fence with sliding gates along the rear boundary.

The dwelling addition will have a total height of 7.065 metres, and will be finished with timber board with light grey stain and timber board with medium grey stain.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the northern side of Cambridge Street in Armadale. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is zoned Neighbourhood Residential 2 and is affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO125) and a Special Building Overlay.

The subject site is regular in shape with a frontage of 7 metres, a depth of 29.61 metres, and an area of 217 square metres.

The site currently occupied by a single storey A2 graded weatherboard cottage with small outbuilding to the rear, and low timber picket front fence.

The site has a rear interface with a laneway and the Armadale reserve, with access provided to the laneway/reserve via the existing rear gate.

Cambridge Street contains a group of, generally speaking, identical decorated timber cottages. Each dwelling is graded A2 as part of the City of Prahran Conservation Study. The group of 32 buildings is protected under Heritage Overlay (HO120). The streetscape is notably intact with a limited number of first floor additions (such as No.2, 6, 8, and No.14 Cambridge Street), which are generally located on the northern side of the road within the eastern portion where the land rises slightly. The first floor additions, excluding that of No.2


Cambridge Street, are not visually prominent. Crossovers are not characteristic, with No. 22 Cambridge Street featuring the only crossover within the street. The predominant fencing style is low picket, with the exception of two properties along the southern side of the street which contain a low brick fence and no fence. Original chimneys are a clear contributor to the existing streetscape.

The surrounding residential land is zoned General Residential 10 and is not affected by the Heritage Overlay. A mix of dwelling types ranging from single storey cottages to 1960’s/70’s walk up flats contribute to the development characteristics of the area. Wattletree Road is located approximately 190 metres to the south of the site, High Street Road is located approximately 400 metres to the north of the site, both main roads are provided with tramlines, and the Armadale Train Station is located approximately 290 metres to the north east.

Characteristics of the adjoining land is summarised below;

To the north of the site lies the Armadale Reserve, which includes a right of way providing rear access to the site from Armadale Street.

The land located opposite the subject site on the southern side of the road includes No. 23 Cambridge Street and No. 21 Cambridge Street, both containing single storey A2 graded cottages with pitched roofs and low picket fences, and secluded private open space to the rear. No. 23 Cambridge Street contains a rear ground floor addition which is not visible from the street frontage. No. 21 Cambridge Street also appears to have a ground floor addition to the rear of the dwelling which is partially visible from the street frontage.

The land located to the east of the subject site, known as No. 26 Cambridge Street, contains a single storey A2 Graded cottage with pitched roof, low front fence and secluded private open space to the rear.

The land located to the west of the subject site, known as No. 22 Cambridge Street, contains an A2 graded cottage with pitched roof, low front fence, crossover to the west, and secluded private open space. A double storey extension to the rear has been developed, presumably before the introduction of the Heritage Overlay, as Council’s records do not detail any planning permits for the addition. The first floor element is setback approximately 17.8 metres from the primary front facade of the dwelling and is not easily visible from the street frontage.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicate that the site has not had any previous planning applications submitted for the subject site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 03103 Folio 451 as lot 12 on Plan of Subdivision and no covenants or easements affect the land. A right of way easement runs along the rear of the site, within Armadale Reserve, however Plan of Subdivision curiously does not identify No. 24 Cambridge Street as a lot that has a right of carriageway over the easement.

Planning Controls

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

Zone


Clause Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 2

(Garden River & Garden Suburban Precincts)

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4 a permit is required to extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 500 square metres.

The schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone introduces a mandatory height maximum of 9 metres plus the minimum additional building height (if any is) required by the Special Building Overlay. Schedule 2 also includes additional requirements to Standards A5, A10, and A11 of Clause 54 which will be addressed within the below Clause 54 assessment. The schedule 2 also includes a mandatory maximum of two dwellings per lot which is not relevant to this application.

Overlays

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay

(HO125 – Cambridge Street Precinct)

Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required for demolition and to construct a building or construct or carry out works, including a fence.

Clause 44.05 Special Building Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 44.05 a permit is required to or construct or carry out works, including a fence.

Particular Provisions

Clause 54 One Dwelling on a Lot

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 16 Housing

Clause 21.05 Housing

Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 21.09 Reference documents (including City of Stonnington Heritage Guidelines)

Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy

Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)

Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 2)

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay

Cause 44.05 Special Building Overlay

Clause 54 One dwelling on a lot

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines


Amendment C175 – Neighbourhood Character Local Policy

Amendment C175 has been prepared to introduce a new Neighbourhood Character Policy into the local section of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Neighbourhood Character local planning policy includes the preferred character statements, design objectives and design responses to be taken from the precinct profiles. This policy will clarify the preferred neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal respects and reinforces the preferred character.

Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014, which recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to minor modifications. As a result, Amendment C175 has reached a stage that it can be considered as a seriously entertained planning policy. Due consideration should be given to the proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy.

According to the Amendment, the subject site falls within a Garden Suburban Precinct (Schedule 1) (“GS1”). Amendment C175 describes the GS1 as a precinct that is defined by historic, urban residential areas that include many Victorian and Edwardian era dwellings. The preferred future character of the GS1 encourages additions that offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing key aspects of form, one to two storey scale and design detail of the older buildings.

Advertising

The original application was advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in August 2014. The application was formally amended on 17 November 2014 to reduce the first floor element and amend the proposed setbacks which necessitated re-advertising.

The application has been re-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; one facing the front and one facing Armadale Reserve). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

Parts of the proposal are exempt from public notification under Clause 43.01-3 and Clause 44.05-4. Pursuant to Clause 43.01-3 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme the proposed demolition of the outbuilding, demolition of the existing rear boundary fence, and external alteration of the building are exempt from public notification. Pursuant to Clause 44.05-4 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme the application is exempt from public notification.

The site is located in South Ward and objections from 8 different properties have been received. Grounds of objection include:

Streetscape impacts due to the proposed first floor addition and increased visibility due to low lying eastern section of Cambridge Street.

The extent of the visibility of the first floor above the existing roofline.

Impact on the heritage values of the Cambridge Street Precinct.

Visual bulk impacts.

Strays from the existing level of uniformity and repetition that is characteristic of the street.

Lack of graduation between the first floor addition and the single storey dwellings located to the east and west of the subject site.

Misrepresentation of the number of storeys for No.20 & No.22 Cambridge Street.

Precedent setting for intrusive first floor additions.


Loss of property value.

Concerns with the demolition of the front fence and replacement with a fence that is uncharacteristic of the area.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 30 October 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillor Sehr representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.

Referrals

Infrastructure Department

Revised plans, Council date stamped 17 November 2014, were referred to Council’s Infrastructure Department who advised that concerns were not raised with the revised proposal, subject to a 1.0m clear overland flowpath being maintained at current existing surface levels along the full length of the Eastern side of the property.

Heritage Officer

Initial comments were received from Council’s Heritage Advisor, based on plans Council date stamped 11 July 2014, the plans have now been superseded by the amended plans Council date stamped 17 November 2014. The initial comments have been summarised and are provided below;

The proposal raises significant concerns relating to the extent of the first floor addition and impact on the streetscape, views (particularly from the south-west), modest setback of the first floor addition, and demolition of original visible roof and the rear chimney. The matters are compounded by the unorthodox form of the proposed addition which would highlight the presence of this new and atypical addition. Works of this type would diminish the subject A2 graded dwelling and its streetscape and would set an undesirable precedent for similar works on adjacent sites. In this intact and highly valued streetscape the works cannot be supported in their current form.

Broadly speaking there isn’t potential for the demolition of sections of the original roof (around 12 metres from the facade) or for construction above these areas’. The original roof form should be retained unaltered. An understated addition of modest height, appropriate side setbacks and architectural expression is likely to be supported to the rear of this retained volume. A hipped roof to the street may be less intrusive than a gabled arrangement.

The Stonnington Heritage Guidelines provide guidance on partial demolition, however none of the opportunities for discretion are relevant to the application.

Works to the ground floor are less intrusive and can be supported in their current form.

Revised comments have been provided following the submission of amended plans (Council date stamped 17 November 2014). The comments provided identify that many of the issues raised in relation to the review of the previous plans remains relevant. Council’s Heritage Advisor states that the revisions are reasonably modest and do not mitigate the impacts identified in the previous comments in a substantial way, and amongst other issues the first floor volume continues to be wider than the existing cottage and very visible in oblique views.


It is recommended that the existing roof should be retained up to and including the visible rear chimney. The retention of the roof and chimney would result in the loss of a proposed skylight element and around 1.5 metres of habitable first floor space.

Further perspectives were provided on 13 February 2015 comparing the difference between the proposal as is, and the addition should the roof and chimney be retained as per the above comments, and subsequent additional setback. The perspectives were reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who stated;

While none of these interventions is, in isolation, transformative, the three, in conjunction, reduce the visual bulk of the addition by around 30%. In my view, the visual bulk arising from the most recent proposal remains excessive. The level of visual bulk with the chimney/roof retained and the setback increased is satisfactory and would bring about greater retention of original fabric and greater compliance with Council’s Guidelines for Cambridge Street. In my view, we should continue to seek the three interventions described earlier.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

The site is located within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Clause 32.09 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme), where the objectives include the recognition of areas of predominantly single storey and double storey residential development, the limiting of residential development, and to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character and heritage characteristics. The relevant objectives of the Zone are again reinforced within the Local and State Planning Policy Framework, such as Clause 15, Clause 21.03, and Clause 21.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Clause 15 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme encourages high quality built environments where development responds well to the site context including heritage significance and neighbourhood character. Clause 21.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme identifies the site as being within a minimal change area where limited residential development may be appropriate, provided development is in accordance with the requirements of the Heritage Overlay and Policy and other local policy within the scheme. Furthermore Clause 21.06-10 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme provides key strategic direction to protect enhance and manage significant heritage assets within the municipality. State and Local Planning Policy encourages modest development that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character and heritage values of the site and surrounds.

Stormwater Management/Flooding

Clause 22.18 (Stormwater Management: Water Sensitive Urban Design) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme applies to the proposal due to the extent of the proposed extension (more than 50 square metres). Clause 22.18 promotes the use of water sensitive urban design including stormwater re-use to mitigate the detrimental effect of development on downstream waterways. The applicant has submitted a STORM report detailing a STORM rating of 113% through the connection of the new roof to a 500L water tank. This meets best practice requirements to achieve improved stormwater quality. The location of the water tank will need to be detailed on the plans which will be addressed via a permit condition. Furthermore the changes required to the first floor, discussed below, may reduce the number of bedrooms within the first floor and therefore the response to Clause 22.18 may need to be revised; this will be addressed via a permit condition.

The site is affected by a Special Building Overlay, Clause 44.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, for which Stonnington is the Authority. Clause 44.05 identifies land in urban areas liable to inundation by overland flows from the urban drainage system, and seeks to address related flooding issues including the protection of water quality.


The proposal involves a 1 metre passageway along the eastern property boundary that is clear of development to allow for the overland flowpath. Council’s Infrastructure Department have reviewed the revised plans and advised that the proposal can be considered acceptable provided a 1.0m clear overland flowpath is maintained at current existing surface levels along the full length of the Eastern side of the property.

Heritage

Clause 22.04 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme applies to heritage places included in the Heritage Overlay and properties immediately abutting the place, as such Clause 22.04 is relevant to the assessment of this application. The site is identified within the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay, Clause 43.01, as being within the Cambridge Street Precinct. Clause 22.04 encourages the recognition, conservation and enhancement of places within the municipality as having architectural, cultural or historic significance, aims to ensure that any additions, alterations and replacement buildings are sympathetic to the heritage area and / or surrounds, and to ensure that the cultural significance of a site is assessed and used to guide planning decisions.

The subject building is A2 graded: A2 graded buildings are identified within Clause 22.04 as buildings that are of regional or metropolitan significance, and stand as important milestones in the architectural development of the metropolis. Cambridge Street comprises 32, generally, identical decorated timber cottages constructed in 1887-1888. Each cottage was graded A2 as part of the City of Prahran Conservation Study. The site was included on the Register of the National Estate administered by the Australian Heritage Commission. The list is now closed, however the inclusion is relevant as it indicates the national significance and sensitivity of the site. Due to the importance of the buildings within Cambridge Street, Council has developed specific Heritage Guidelines for the street to ensure that the character of the street is preserved. The streetscape is particularly intact within the eastern section of the street where the subject site lies. The low lying nature of the land proves to be a further constraint for development of the site as it results in a higher level of visibility of first floor additions.

Council’s Heritage Guidelines aim, amongst other things, not to prohibit change, rather to ensure that change is appropriate and sympathetic to the heritage values of the site and surrounds. It is important to note that the guidelines are just that, and in some cases simply meeting the suggested setback is not sufficient and will not result in the best outcome.

The guidelines state that partial demolition can be acceptable in the following circumstances;

Where the section of the building to be demolished does not contribute to the heritage value of the building.

Where the section of the building to be demolished is not visible from the street.

Where the works are limited to the removal of a later addition, of limited or no significance.

Where the works are minor in scale and are seen as being essential to the construction of an extension or alteration which will enhance the long-term viability and utility of fabric of greater significance.

The extent of demolition proposed requires the removal of an original chimney visible to the street frontage and visible sections of the roof. Although it is appreciated that the rear chimney is not as visually dominant as the ornamental front chimneys that are seen throughout the street, it does form part of the streetscape and is of original fabric. The demolition of the original visible roofing and the rear chimney does not respond appropriately to Council’s Heritage Guidelines.


The retention of original fabric is encouraged by the guidelines, and in this instance the retention of the chimney and further sections of the roof will result in a reduced visual impact of the first floor addition. A permit condition will be included requiring amended plans detailing the retention of the chimney and further sections of the roof, which will result in an increased setback for the first floor addition, and the reduction in the ground floor building footprint where the original roof is to be retained.

The additions at the ground floor level, positioned to the rear of the existing dwelling, do not detract from the heritage values of the dwelling or streetscape, however the first floor addition is more problematic. Issues regarding the first floor are compounded by the low lying nature of the land, lack of prominent first floor additions and subsequent intactness of the Streetscape. Council’s Cambridge Street Heritage Area Development Guidelines state;

Generally speaking, additions at first floor level in Cambridge Street will, to varying extents be visible from the street particularly through oblique view corridors. As such, they should adopt a very large setback from the street and a respectful design approach, relating in massing and roof form to early sections of the building, but presenting minimal bulk to views from the street. Very few large additions have been undertaken in Cambridge Street. Rear additions at No 6 and No 17 Cambridge Street represent an appropriate level of visibility for this street. It is unlikely that more prominent rear additions could be supported. A very small number of larger additions do exist within the street. These predate the Heritage Overlay and do not form an appropriate model for new development within this area.

Council's Heritage Guidelines further note that:

Additions at first floor should be concealed or of low visual impact ... In general, two storey additions to residential buildings will require that new works are setback 8-10 metres or more behind the principal façade. This figure is appropriate for typical 19th century subdivision patterns and two storey terrace houses where it generally ensures the preservation of the existing historic ridge line and chimney ... For buildings on large or corner blocks where generous side setbacks allow more oblique views, even greater setbacks may be required.

The skylight is setback approximately 9.5 metres from the primary front façade, with the first floor addition setback approximately 11.9 metres. Although the first floor addition is setback in excess of the 8-10 metres recommended, it is worthy to note that the general guidelines state that greater setbacks may be required for allotments with more oblique views, and the specific Cambridge Street Guidelines again emphasise the need for additions to adopt a very large setback. The first floor addition would be particularly prominent in views from the southeast. Council’s Heritage Advisor has commented that ‘works of this type would diminish the subject A2 graded dwelling and its streetscape and would set an undesirable precedent for similar works on adjacent sites’.

The heritage citation identifies that the street is significant for repetition, circular vents, chimneys and building forms. It is therefore important to protect these elements by retaining the rear chimney and increasing the setback to reduce the impact of the first floor addition to respect the repetition of built form. The additional perspectives, Council date stamped 13 February 2015, compare the difference between the proposal as is, and the proposal should further sections of the original roof and chimney be retained, and subsequent additional setback of the first floor. The perspectives detail that the three interventions result in a less visually prominent first floor which is more sympathetic to the existing streetscape.


Council’s Heritage Advisor has recommended that these three interventions are pursued to address heritage concerns and provide an acceptable outcome. Furthermore the retention of the chimney responds to the significant repetitious element within the street. Given the streetscape is notably intact, and repetition is a significant feature, a holistic approach is considered necessary to reduce the impact of the addition on the heritage significance of the site and precinct.

The proposed materials for the finish of the ground floor and first floor addition (timber board with light and medium grey stain) are sympathetic to the existing timber dwelling (to be painted white) and other dwellings within the Cambridge Street Precinct. The first floor will be finished with light grey timber boards which will helps to soften the presence of the addition. The materials proposed in conjunction with the spacing, building height, recession from the front façade and retention of original fabric (subject to conditions) ensures that the existing cottage remains as the dominant focal point within the streetscape.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to the requirements of Clause 22.04 and 43.01 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme as the design of the addition, subject to conditions, is responsive to the existing heritage assets, and will not significantly detract from the heritage values of the place; being the repetition of built form and the intact streetscape.

Clause 54

Neighbourhood Character/ Design Detail

Clause 54.02-1 (Neighbourhood character objective) and Clause 54.06-1 (Design detail objective) encourages design and design detailing that respects the existing neighbourhood character and to ensure that the design responds to the features of the site and surrounding area. The proposed ground floor additions do not raise any concerns as they are relatively concealed from the street frontage as discussed previously. The first floor addition adopts a contemporary style which is at odds with the existing architectural style evident within the street however can be considered acceptable, due to the proposed positioning and heritage planning controls which discourage replication of historical architecture. Although the first floor addition is located on the western boundary it is well setback from the front facade, and set off the eastern setback which responds to the existing development character where boundary to boundary first floor development is not characteristic. The additional setback to the first floor, discussed above, will assist in reducing the extent of visual bulk when viewed from the street.

Clause 54.02-2 (Integration with the street) aims to integrate the layout of the development with the street. The proposed addition will not alter the orientation of the dwelling and provides a first floor window facing the street frontage and the reserve to the rear of the site.

Site Layout and Building Massing

Street setback

The front setback of the building remains unaltered.


Building Height

Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone prescribes a mandatory height maximum of 9 metres for the subject site. The addition proposes a total height of 7.065 which complies with the mandatory maximum of 9 metres.

Site Coverage

Standard A5 of Clause 54.03-3 (Site coverage objective) sets out a 65% maximum site coverage requirement, and 75% for basement site coverage. The proposal results in a site coverage of 58.1% which meets the standard requirements.

Permeability

The application involves a proposed permeability of 41.9% which is in excess of the standard 20% requirement.

Energy Efficiency Protection

The proposed addition involves north facing ground floor and first floor habitable rooms and will not significantly alter the energy efficiency of adjoining dwellings as demonstrated within the submitted overshadowing diagrams.

Significant trees

The application does not involve the removal of any trees.

Amenity Impacts

Side and Rear Setbacks

Standard A10 of Clause 54.04-1 (Side and rear setbacks objective) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone introduces the following additional requirement;

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.

The additional requirement is not relevant to this application as the addition is proposed to be located further than 5 metres of the front façade of the dwelling.


The table below illustrates the proposals level of compliance with the standard requirements:

Ground Floor (addition only)

Proposed Setback Proposed wall height Required Setback

East: 1 metre 3.84 metres 1.072 metres

West: wall located on boundary; assessed under Standard A11 of Clause 54.04-2

North: 6.09 metres 7.065 metres 2.155 metres

First Floor (addition only)

Proposed Setback Wall height Required Setback

East: 1 metre 6.56 metres – 7.06 metres 1.88 metres – 2.15 metres

West: West: wall located on boundary; assessed under Standard A11 of Clause 54.04-2

North: 6.09 metres 7.065 metres 2.155 metres

As detailed above the eastern ground floor and first floor setbacks require a variation of 0.072 metres to 1.15 metres. Full compliance with the standard setback requirements is not expected on this narrow allotment and scope for a variation exists due to the lack of sensitivity adjacent to the east of the proposed eastern wall. The dwelling at No. 26 Cambridge Street does not include any west facing windows opposite the proposed eastern wall. Furthermore part of the first floor (associated with the study/linen area) is setback in excess of the standard requirements, which helps to reduce the impact of the wall on the secluded private open space of the adjoining property. The eastern first floor wall located opposite the secluded private open space of No. 26 Cambridge Street that does not achieve full compliance has a total length of approximately 1.2 metres. The variation proposed to the standard will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

Walls on Boundaries

Standard A11 of Clause 54.04-2 (Walls on boundaries objective) sets out numeric requirements for walls proposed to be located on or within 200mm of a side or rear boundary. Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone introduces the following additional requirement;

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

Again, the additional requirement is not relevant to this application as the addition is proposed to be located further than 5 metres of the front façade of the dwelling.


The wall located on the western boundary requires a variation to the standard requirement due to the proposed height of 6.53 metres to 7.065 metres. The standard stipulates an average height of 3.2 metres with a maximum of 3.6 metres for walls located on or within 200mm of a side or rear boundary. The narrow width of the allotment combined with the lack of habitable room windows at the ground floor to the adjoining property to the west, and first floor (excluding the first floor east facing attic window) provides sufficient justification for the variation. The first floor east facing attic window is located partially opposite the western first floor wall however half of this window will be unobstructed by the wall. Furthermore to address heritage concerns the first floor will be setback further, and the attic window will be located entirely opposite an additional section of roof to be retained.

Part of the western wall located on the boundary will be reduced given the retention of the roof and chimney require the original building footprint to be retained in the affected section. If the building footprint is retained in this section it will result in a reduction of the western boundary wall by approximately 2 metres, and the existing wall height.

First floor boundary walls are generally not characteristic of the area, presumably due to the heritage overlay, however due to the extent of the setback proposed (and to be further increased via permit conditions to address heritage concerns) the impact on the streetscape is considered to be acceptable.

Daylight to Existing Windows/North Facing Windows

Standard A12 of Clause 54.04-3 (Daylight to existing windows objective) aims to provide existing habitable room windows with appropriate access to daylight. Although the western first floor wall is located partially opposite the first floor habitable attic window of No. 22 Cambridge Street the window will be unobstructed by the wall for 50% of the width of the window which complies with the Standard requirements.

No north facing windows are located within 3 metres of a boundary on an abutting lot, therefore Standard A13 of Clause 54.04-4 (North facing windows) objective is not applicable.

Overshadowing

Clause 54.04-5 (Overshadowing objective) aims to ensure that buildings do not unreasonably overshadow the existing secluded private open space. The application achieves compliance with Standard A14 of the Overshadowing objective as over 40 square metres of the secluded private open space of No. 26 Cambridge Street will receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm at the equinox.

Overlooking

The proposal will not result in any overlooking to the adjoining properties to the east and west of the subject site. The ground floor east facing dining room/study window is located opposite a boundary wall of No. 26 Cambridge Street and therefore opportunities to overlook a habitable room window or secluded private open space area from this window do not exist. The first floor north facing bedroom 3 window includes a wing wall which obstructs views to the west, a small area to the north-west corner of No. 26 Cambridge Street may be overlooked from the east of the bedroom window.


The window is proposed to be treated with an operable lourved screen however the screen will not technically comply with the requirements of Standard A15 of Clause 54.04-6 (Overlooking objective), and it is assumed that the intention of the screen is to provide shelter from the northern sun and a level of privacy. It is considered reasonable to vary the requirement in this instance as the area where overlooking will occur to No. 26 Cambridge Street is not the main area of secluded private open space as it contains some vegetation and is located close to the north-west corner of the site.

On-site Amenity

Daylight to New Windows

All proposed habitable rooms are afforded with direct access to sunlight excluding the proposed kitchen. At present the kitchen accesses sunlight through a skylight that runs along the entire width of the room. Due to the heritage issues discussed previously this skylight will need to be deleted, which leaves the room without direct access to sunlight. The north facing lounge room window is located approximately 8.2 metres to the north of the kitchen, and although this is considered to be a distance which will result in a limited level of daylight to the window, is acceptable in this instance to protect the heritage values of the dwelling. There is an opportunity to introduce a window to the east of the kitchen. The likelihood of an eastern window receiving a significant amount of light is low, however the window will receive direct access to sunlight at midday to improve the energy efficiency of the proposal slightly.

Private Open Space/Solar Access to Private Open Space

The site is afforded with over 40 square metres of secluded private open space, with a minimum width of over 3 metres, to the north of the site with good connection via the living area. The secluded private open space receives adequate access to sunlight. The plans currently include a notation and image identifying the dual use of the area as car parking and secluded private open space. The notation and image will need to be deleted from the plans to ensure compliance is achieved.

Objections

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

The re-advertised plans detail a hedge in the current location of the paling fence; this is not reflective of what is proposed as the front fence is not proposed to be demolished.

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, subject to conditions, will not significantly detract from the heritage significance of the dwelling or Cambridge Street Precinct.

The proposal has an acceptable level of compliance with the relevant standards and objectives of Clause 54, and will not unreasonably detract from the existing level of amenity of the surrounding properties.

The proposal responds, subject to conditions, adequately to the objectives of Clause 44.05.

The proposal responds adequately to relevant State and Local Planning Policy, particularly Clause 22.04.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD4 - 0384-14 - 24 Cambridge Street Armadale - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0384/14 for the land located at 24 Cambridge Street, Armadale be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for Part demolition, alterations and additions to a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Special Building Overlay, and a Heritage Overlay subject to the following conditions:

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 Ten23 Architects and Council date stamped 17 November 2014 but modified to show:

a) The retention of an additional section of the original roof to the rear of the dwelling and subsequent retention of the rear chimney to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) The first floor addition further setback a minimum of 1.5 metres to retain the rear chimney to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) The ground floor building footprint reduced to enable the retention of the additional section of roof and chimney as required by Condition 1(a) and Condition 1(b).


d) A revised STORM report in light of the changes required under Conditions 1(a) and 1(b) of this permit.

e) Proposed stormwater treatment types detailed on the plans with connection details noted.

f) Proposed car parking to the rear of the site deleted from the ground floor plan.

g) The provision of an east facing window to the kitchen to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

4. A 1.0m clear overland flow path must be maintained at current existing surface levels along the full length of the Eastern side of the property.

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


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

i. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works unless all relevant building permits and consents are obtained.


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

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

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

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


5. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C206 - 420-424 PUNT ROAD, SOUTH YARRA

PERMANENT HERITAGE CONTROLS

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to decide whether to adopt Amendment C206 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to apply a Heritage Overlay to land at 420 – 424 Punt Road, South Yarra, with or without changes, following further notice of the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

Adoption of Amendment C206

A report on Amendment C206 was previously considered by Council at its meeting on 17 November 2015. Council adopted the Amendment at this meeting and submitted it to the Minister for Planning for approval on 18 November 2014.

Council received a late submission on 18 November 2014, subsequent to Council's adoption of Amendment C206 and Council’s submission of the Amendment for approval. Council was notified that this submission was provided to the Minister for Planning on 11 November 2014. The submitter subsequently wrote to the Minister for Planning seeking a review of Council’s decision.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), under delegation from the Minister for Planning, directed the City of Stonnington to give additional notice of Amendment C206.

Heritage Strategy

Council adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan in December 2006. The Action Plan followed the preparation of Council’s Thematic Environmental History 2006 (adopted 2006 with Update 1 prepared in 2009). It was designed to provide Council with a sound framework for a comprehensive and coordinated review of existing heritage places and the assessment of new places.

The current stage of Council’s Heritage Strategy addresses the issue of individual buildings not currently under the Heritage Overlay which warrant heritage protection. Council intends to ultimately seek heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings in the Municipality and those A2 graded buildings meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance.

At its meeting in April 2012, Council resolved to prioritise the theme ‘Interwar houses’. Initial stages of the Interwar Houses Study have now been completed and detailed citations are currently being prepared based on recommendations from the earlier stages. A report to Council to consider preparing an Amendment to apply the Heritage Overlay to these buildings is scheduled for early 2015.

The dwelling at 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra is identified in earlier stages of the Interwar Houses Study as warranting further investigation.

Context

The subject site at 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra (see Attachment 1) is not currently subject to a Heritage Overlay, however the building was identified for investigation as part of previous Council heritage studies.


The Prahran Character and Conservation Study 1992 graded the house A2. On the basis of recommendations made by this study, interim heritage controls were introduced into the Planning Scheme as part of Amendment L25. Amendment L25 sought to protect all A1, A2 and B graded buildings identified from the Prahran Character and Conservation Study 1992, including the subject site.

Amendments L24 and L26 were prepared to apply permanent heritage controls to buildings identified in Amendment L25. On the basis of recommendations of a Panel and the subsequent Prahran Conservation Review (Context Pty Ltd), Amendments L24 and L26 were revised to apply controls to only A1 graded and the very best A2 graded buildings.

The subject site was removed from the Amendment and recommended for inclusion on a list of A2 graded sites warranting future research. Subsequently, interim controls were removed from the buildings identified in L25 that were not progressed through Amendments L24 and L26 which included the subject site.

Planning Application

On 20 December 2013, Council received a planning permit application relating to the site at 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra (Application No. 975/13). The permit application proposes the construction of a five storey building comprising 30 dwellings with 30 car parking spaces provided in a basement on the site. The works proposed in the planning application require the full demolition of the subject dwelling. At its meeting on the 1 December 2014, Council considered a report on planning permit application No. 975/13. Council resolved to issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit.

The Victorian, Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has received an application for review concerning the permit application. Council has not yet been advised of a hearing date.

Amendments C205 and C206

In light of the future threat of demolition resulting from the planning application and previous grading of A2 (Prahran Character and Conservation Study 1992), Council considered the potential heritage significance of 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra under Urgent Business at its meeting on 21 July 2014, and resolved to:

lodge a request with the Minister for Planning to intervene with a Ministerial amendment (Amendment C205) by including the property in the Heritage Overlay with interim protection;

request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C206 to apply permanent heritage protection to the subject site; and,

apply to the Minister for Planning, under Section 20(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, for an exemption from the requirement to give notice under Section 19(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Heritage Citation

Subsequently, a heritage assessment and citation was prepared by Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd (see Attachment 2). In summary, it stated:

“420-424 Punt Road is of local significance primarily as a handsome and unusual 1940s villa integrating English Domestic Revival and Moderne elements. The building is noteworthy for its high level of integrity to its early form.

On this basis and that of the comparative analysis above, the building warrants protection under a heritage control.”

On 28 August 2014, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), under delegation from the Minister for Planning, notified Council of its decision to authorise Council to prepare Amendment C206. Council’s request for interim controls (Amendment C205) is still under consideration by the Minister.


Exhibition of Amendment C206

Public Notice

Amendment C206 was placed on public exhibition between 25 September and 27 October 2014. Full copies of the proposed Amendment C206 documentation and the heritage citation were available for viewing at the Prahran Town Hall and on Council’s and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s websites.

Notice was sent to the owner, occupier and prescribed authorities on 24 September 2014. Notice was not placed in the Stonnington Leader due to an exemption granted by the Minister for Planning under Section 20(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

No submissions were received during the exhibition period. Consequently, Council adopted the Amendment on 17 November 2014 and submitted it to the Minister for Planning for approval on 18 November 2014.

Following this, Council was notified that the owner of 420−424 Punt Road, South Yarra provided a submission to the Minister of Planning on 11 November 2014. Council received this submission on 18 November 2014, subsequent to Council's adoption of Amendment C206. It was therefore awaiting consideration by the Minister for Planning at the time the submission was received by Council.

Further Notice

On 13 February 2015, DELWP, under delegation from the Minister for Planning, directed that Council give additional, directed, notice of Amendment C206 to the owner of the property.

DELWP acknowledged Council has complied with all the notice requirements under section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Amendment C206 was placed on further notice from 20 February to 20 March 2015. The closing date for submissions was 20 March 2015.

A letter was sent to owner on 19 February 2015 advising of further notice given by Council. No submissions have been received by Council during the further notice period.

DISCUSSION

In accordance with section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can choose to adopt the Amendment with or without changes.

The strategic intent of the Amendment is to protect a heritage place of significance. The heritage citation identifies the place at 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra as being of local architectural and historical significance to the City of Stonnington.

To protect the integrity of the heritage place, Amendment C206 seeks to introduce a permanent heritage control, Heritage Overlay (HO463), to land at 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra. As a result, once the heritage overlay applies, a permit will be required to demolish or alter the place. This permit requirement will enable the consideration of any proposed buildings and works to a heritage place.

Given the place is of identified architectural and historical significance and that Council has received no submissions to Amendment C206, it is recommended that Council adopt the Amendment without changes, as exhibited.


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment is consistent with policy direction in Clause 21.06 of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement:

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

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

The Amendment is also consistent with the following liveability strategy in the Council Plan (2013-2017):

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

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The financial cost of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2014/2015.

Amendment C206 indicative timeline:

August 2014 Sep/ Oct2014 November 2014

Feb/March 2015

March 2015 Min Direction 15*

Authorisation Exhibition Adopt Further Notice Adopt Again Approval

*In accordance with Section (8) of Ministerial Direction 15, if a planning authority submits an adopted amendment to the Minister in accordance with the requirements of section 31 of the Act, the Minister should made a decision on the Amendment within 40 business days of receiving the adopted amendment. The Minister may exempt him/herself from this requirement.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

The affected party has been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C206 during both the exhibition and further notice periods.

In accordance with section 32(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council must give the notice of the amendment required by the Minister and comply again with sections 21 to 31 in relation to all matters after the giving of notice. The effect of this requirement is that the provisions of the amendment restart and Council must again consider and adopt the amendment.

CONCLUSION

The Heritage Citation Report for 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra identifies that this place is of local architectural and historical significance. Amendment C206 proposes to apply permanent heritage protection to this building to protect its significance.

No submission has been received by Council as a result of further notice of the Amendment.

It is recommended that Council adopt the amendment, without changes as exhibited.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/paea1987254/s3.html#amendment

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/paea1987254/s21.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/paea1987254/s31.html


ATTACHMENTS

1. SF - Planning Scheme Amendment C206 - 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra Permanent Heritage Controls - 1 of 2

Excluded

2. SF - Planning Scheme Amendment C206 - 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra Permanent Heritage Controls - 2 of 2

Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts Amendment C206 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme as exhibited, without changes, pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

2. Submits the adopted Amendment C206 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3. Adopts the citation as shown in Attachment 2.

4. Advises the owner of 420-424 Punt Road, South Yarra of Council’s decision in relation to proposed Amendment C206.


6. AMENDMENT C197 - PUBLIC ACQUISITION OVERLAY, ARMADALE - CONSIDERATION

OF SUBMISSIONS

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:

The submissions received on Amendment C197 – Public Acquisition Overlay for specific sites in Armadale, following exhibition.

A response to the submissions.

Whether to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to consider the submissions and the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 5 May 2014, under Confidential Business, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C197.

The Amendment proposes to apply a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) (Schedule 3 – Public Open Space) on the following individual parcels of land (‘identified sites’):

10 Aubrey Street, Armadale (Lot 1 on PS408772);

14 Aubrey Street, Armadale (Lot 1 on TP559630); and

1A Fulton Street, Armadale (Lot 2 on PS408772).

Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map showing the identified sites.

The identified sites cover a total area of 522 square metres with each lot containing a residential building. 1 Fulton Street, Armadale (Lot 1 on TP740120) is owned by the City of Stonnington and is not the subject of this amendment.

Public Realm Strategy (2010)

Council’s Public Realm Strategy (2010) identifies the quantity of public open space per person within the suburb of Armadale. Armadale has the second lowest amount of open space per person at 5.8 square metres (2006), projected to drop to 4.98 square metres (2021) in consideration of population forecasts. The Strategy forecasts that Armadale will experience a 16% increase in population by 2021.

Armadale is predominantly residential and is bordered by Malvern Road (north), Dandenong Road (south), Glenferrie Road (east) and Orrong Road (west), but also includes the major activity centres of Glenferrie Road and High Street. The Frankston and Cranbourne/Pakenham Railway Line runs diagonally south/east through the suburb and limits direct access to areas of open space.


For open space opportunities in Armadale, the Public Realm Strategy recommends that Council:

‘Implement the adopted Masterplan for Toorak Park and Victory Square’

Other opportunities identified by the Public Realm Strategy and relevant to this amendment include:

‘Prepare a Recreation Strategy that coordinates with the Public Realm Strategy and individual place masterplans’

‘Prepare an acquisition plan for the acquiring of additional open space in areas of under provision and high demand for open space...’

Strategies for Creating Open Space (2013)

In 2013, Council adopted Strategies for Creating Open Space. This has been informed by the Public Realm Strategy (2010) and is a plan to proactively address the provision of public open space within Stonnington.

Reserving land for future open space via the application of a PAO is one potential option for addressing the shortage of open space.

In February 2015, municipality-wide consultation was undertaken to test the direction of Council’s Strategies. The findings of this consultation were considered at the 2 March 2015 Council Meeting. The process confirmed that there is overwhelming support for Council to continue purchasing residential and commercial buildings to create open space.

Recreation Strategy (2014)

The Recreation Strategy was adopted by Council on 15 December 2014. It identifies that Council is faced with the challenge of providing affordable, sustainable and accessible sport and recreation opportunities for all ages and for a growing population. It outlines six priorities:

Quality facilities

Accessible facilities

Equitable provision

Sustainable sportsground use

Policy and procedure development

Education and information

The Strategy states that Council will look to maximise opportunities within existing precincts including Toorak Park, Orrong Romanis Reserve, Windsor Siding and the Como Park precinct. An action is to:

‘Prepare a precinct and facilities plan for Toorak Park, Victory Square and Orrong Romanis Reserve to provide greater informal recreation opportunities and additional opportunities for female and junior participation.’

Purpose and Benefits of Amendment C197

The application of the PAO to the three sites identifies Council’s intent for this land as future public open space. The aim of this is to resolve existing conflicts within Toorak Park and Victory Square by improving the quality and circulation of the spaces.


The addition of these properties would allow their conversion into valuable public open space and for the expansion of Toorak Park to provide better formal and informal recreation opportunities by:

Creating an accessible entry to open up access to the south east corner of Toorak Park;

Improving views into the reserve and increasing the passive surveillance of the area to encourage greater community use;

Identifying opportunities to allow the relocation of cricket nets to improve pedestrian access around Toorak Park and the connection to Victory Square;

Providing additional facilities and space to cater for growth in sport and passive recreation; and,

Removing turf practice wickets from the playing surface of the oval and eliminating risk of injury to players.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, Council must reserve the land for public acquisition before commencing to acquire any interest in the land. The proposed Amendment is required to facilitate this process.

The PAO process does not involve compulsorily acquiring properties in Fulton and Aubrey Streets. Rather, Council is flagging its interest in potentially purchasing the properties, should the owners want to sell.

Authorisation and Exhibition

The Minister for Planning granted Council authorisation to prepare Amendment C197 on 22 August 2014.

Informal Notification (Prior to Formal Exhibition)

Due to the complex and sensitive nature of the Amendment, before commencing formal exhibition, letters were sent to the landowners of the identified sites advising of the upcoming planning scheme amendment. The letters included Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and offered meetings with Council’s Strategic Planner and Property Coordinator.

No meetings were requested prior to exhibition of Amendment C197. Four meetings were held during the exhibition period. These were:

Date Meeting

18 November 2014 Owners of 10 Aubrey and 1A Fulton Streets

28 November 2014 Owners and family of 14 Aubrey Street, owners of 10 Aubrey and 1A Fulton Streets

12 December 2014 Armadale Early Learning Centre Committee

28 January 2014 Owner of 10 Aubrey Street

Formal Exhibition

Amendment C197 was exhibited from 13 November to 15 December 2014. Due to a request from submitters, the time to receive submissions was extended until 2 February 2015.


Notification

In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, notification of the exhibition period included:

Amendment documents available for viewing at the Prahran Town Hall, Council’s website and the Department for Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s (DELWP) website (DTPLI at the time).

Notice of the Amendment in the Stonnington Leader (11 November 2014).

Notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette (13 November 2014).

Letters sent to:

o Prescribed Authorities

o Owners and occupiers of land who may be materially affected by the

amendment.

DISCUSSION

Council received 130 submissions and two petitions. These can be summarised as follows:

Eighteen (18) submissions in support of the proposed Amendment

Two (2) petitions in support of the proposed Amendment with a total of 79 signatures

One (1) submission with no objection to the proposed Amendment

107 submissions objecting to the proposed Amendment, 101 of which use the same template

Four (4) submissions are in objection to the Toorak Park and Victory Square Precinct Plan and make no comment regarding the proposed Amendment

Individual submissions were received from the owners of the identified sites proposed to be included in the PAO.

A number of submitters raised similar concerns and reasons for support regarding the proposed Amendment. The recurring themes of submissions are summarised below. A more detailed response to the specific issues raised in submissions is provided in Attachment 2.

Summary of Common Issues Raised in Submissions

Issue Summary

The stated justifications for the Amendment are unclear. Limited open space does not justify reservation of properties.

Officer Response

The current masterplan for the Toorak Park area is outdated and is to be revised in consultation with the community. However the reasons for preparing a masterplan remain the same – that is to ensure the role and function of the Toorak Park and Victory Square precinct continues sustainably and efficiently into the future.

Issue Summary

Concern there is an oversupply of open space in the local area and funds are better spent on improvements rather than acquiring more land.


Officer Response

Improvements to open space are managed through general revenue. Capital improvements and purchase of new open space areas are funded via open space contributions. The Public Realm Strategy 2010 identifies that Council must improve the quality of open space as well as improving access to these spaces. Application of a PAO to the identified properties is the first step in allowing Council to advance plans to improve the quality of and access to the open space. Council has in its capital works programme, a range of general maintenance and improvements to its facilities.

Issue Summary

The view was expressed that the Amendment is unnecessary as the expansion of Toorak Park and Victory Square can be undertaken easily and at less cost by better landscaping in the park and surrounds.

Officer Response

Council has undertaken a thorough analysis of the existing open space and gaps in the municipality as expressed in the Public Realm Strategy, Strategies for Creating Open Space and the Recreation Strategy. The Amendment’s explanatory report outlines that the reservation of the three identified properties is required to improve the quality of and access to Toorak Park and Victory Square.

The Issues and Opportunities Plan provided as a supporting document to the Amendment outlines a number of initial issues (subject to consultation) with the Toorak Park precinct that could be addressed. These include:

Access around the precinct and connection to Victory Square is limited and circulation is restricted meaning there is a conflict between active and passive park users

Toorak Park oval is inconsistent shape and not up to standard

Alterations to eastern boundary of oval are restricted by cricket nets

Cricket nets are aged and in need of replacement to be brought up to standard

Conflict between use of cricket nets and oval

Issue Summary

Anticipated open space needs generated by proposed ‘Orrong Road Towers’ should be provided at that land.

Officer Response

The planning application regarding 590 Orrong Road has been approved by VCAT. The Public Realm Strategy anticipates the projected population growth for Stonnington by suburb and includes recommendations accordingly.

Council proposed a planning scheme amendment (C153) to include increased areas of open space on 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street site but Council was delayed in receiving authorisation to pursue this Amendment. It was therefore not approved by the Minister for Planning in time to take effect when considering the planning permit. The site will still benefit from an increase in publicly accessible open space. The open space levy recovered from this site will contribute to capital improvements and new open space in Armadale.


Issue Summary

Further strategic planning work needed to demonstrate how the functionality of Toorak Park and Victory Square would improve with the additional land.

Officer Response

The Amendment process to apply a PAO to the land is the first step in identifying and reserving land for future open space. A preliminary plan outlining possible benefits of reserving the land for future open space was included as supporting information to the Amendment. Detailed design is a separate process which will occur in consultation with the community at a later stage.

Issue Summary

Questions whether Council will convert the entirety of Potter and Webster Streets into parkland and whether the kindergarten will be affected.

Officer Response

Amendment C197 proposes to apply a PAO to the three identified sites. Conversion of Potter or Webster Streets and the kindergarten is not part of this Amendment.

Summary of Reasons for Support of Amendment

Reason for support summary

Eighteen (18) submissions were made in support of the proposed Amendment and two petitions. The petitions originate from the Prahran Cricket Club and the Malvern Cricket Club. Both outline their support to allow for enhancement of the current facilities and include signatures from members of the clubs who reside outside of the City of Stonnington.

Other reasons for supporting the Amendment as outlined in submissions can be summarised as:

Will bring benefits to the health and wellbeing of all residents;

Will promote community involvement in group/sporting activities;

Could provide solutions to many issues raised with current layout and standard of the park and facilities;

Will help to address the increasing demand being experienced by growth in participation including the addition of two Premier Women’s Cricket teams;

Will create additional public open space areas for the community to enjoy;

Could become the central training academy for Victoria’s elite blind cricketers

Officer Response

The reasons for support of Amendment C197 are noted.

Submissions Considered Outside the Scope of the Amendment

Four submissions raised issues solely relating to Victory Square and removal of the children’s playground. The Amendment proposes to apply a Public Acquisition Overlay to 3 properties for future public open space. It does not propose any changes to Victory Square. As such the submissions are considered outside the scope of the Amendment.


Related to the above, the view was also expressed that the addition of car parking and cricket nets will in no way advance the action of ‘providing greater informal recreation opportunities for female and junior participation’.

The indicative ‘Toorak Park Precinct Plan’ and ‘Issues and Opportunities Plan’ provided with the Amendment are not formal documents adopted by Council but have been provided to identify possible benefits of the additional land. The future masterplanning of the Toorak Park Precinct will be undertaken in consultation with the community.

Notification Post-Exhibition Period

Following the exhibition period, Council acknowledged all submissions received with a letter from Council’s Chief Executive Officer and a flyer to assist the community in its understanding of the proposed Amendment and Council’s broader strategies to improve access and the quality of open space across the Municipality.

Consultative Meeting

In the week commencing 16 March 2015, Ward Councillors invited all C197 submitters to a consultative meeting held on Wednesday 25 March at Functions on Chapel. The purpose of the meeting was to provide advice on the proposed Public Acquisition Overlay and the next steps in the process. It was also to provide information on the future of Toorak Park and Victory Square.

Next Steps

Given there are unresolvable submissions, Council needs to make a formal request to the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel, after which Planning Panels Victoria will confirm the hearing dates. Given the extension to the time to receive submissions, an exemption from the requirement to comply with the timeframes, outlined in Ministerial Direction 15, was sought and received. New preliminary Panel dates have been set for the week commencing 27 April 2015 (Directions Hearing) and the week commencing 25 May 2015 (Panel Hearing). In order to meet these timeframes, Council will need to make a decision at 23 March Council Meeting or 30 March Council meeting.

On receipt of the Panel Report, a further report will be brought to Council to consider the Panel’s recommendation.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

A number of Council policies support the Amendment including:

City of Stonnington Council Plan 2013-2017

The proposed Amendment is consistent with the following Council Plan Strategy:

Increase the amount of open space and improve the balance and use of existing space through the greening of streets and implementation of other initiatives including green roofs and walls.


Municipal Strategic Statement – Amendment C161

The Public Realm Strategy (2010) is an existing reference document in the Planning Scheme. Strategies and policy for both open space and the public realm seek to optimise the use of non green space within the municipality as compensation for the low provision of green space.

A number of key issues and strategies from the Public Realm Strategy have been incorporated in the new MSS under Built Environment and Heritage and the Open Space and Environment themes.

Relevant policies that support Amendment C197 include:

Clause 21.06-5 ‘Public Realm and Pedestrian Access’

Acknowledging the importance of the public realm in supplementing for the low provision of green open space in the municipality.

Seek opportunities to improve, expand and extend existing, or create new, public space, hubs, links, paths and streets, particularly having regard to the recommendations in the City of Stonnington Public Realm Strategy 2010 and adopted Structure Plans.

Clause 21.07 ‘Open Space and Environment’

Addressing the gaps and variations in distribution and quality of open space across the City.

Addressing the additional demand on the public realm arising from increases in population, higher housing densities and consequent reduction in public and private open space.

Acknowledging the increased cost of property acquisition and the reduced affordability of providing additional green open space.

Seek opportunities to provide local links between public and private open space and through large private developments.

Recreation Strategy 2014-2024

It should be noted that the Recreation Strategy was adopted by Council in December 2014. The Strategy’s vision is to ‘create the healthiest and most active community in Victoria. We will achieve this by providing inclusive and sustainable sport and recreation opportunities and facilities where our community can achieve physical and mental wellbeing.’ The Draft Strategy helped to inform proposed Amendment C197.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The cost of processing Amendment C197 is included within the 2014/15 Strategic Planning budget.

Proposed Amendment C197 timeline:

Authorisation Exhibition Panel* Adoption Approval

August 2014 November 2014 - February 2015

May 2015 August 2015 October 2015

*Pre-set panel dates have been requested for the week commencing 27 April (Directions

Hearing) and week commencing 25 May 2015 (Panel Hearing).


LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Council will seek legal advice as required. CONCLUSION

Council is committed to addressing the shortage of open space in Stonnington and particularly Armadale through a number of measures identified in Strategies for Creating Open Space.

Amendment C197 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme proposes to place a Public Acquisition Overlay over the three (3) identified sites on Fulton and Aubrey Streets in Armadale for future public open space.

There are a number of key Council policies or plans that support this amendment including the Council Plan, the Municipal Strategic Statement, the Public Realm Strategy, Strategies for Creating Open Space and the Recreation Strategy. Council considers that the future acquisition of these parcels of land and their conversion into public open space will facilitate the future planning of the Toorak Park Precinct and assist in achieving municipal wide objectives as outlined in the Strategies for Creating Open Space.


This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs, enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel.

ATTACHMENTS

1. SF - Amendment C197 - Public Acquisition Overlay, Armadale - 1 of 2- Locality Map

Excluded

2. SF - Amendment C197 - Public Acquisition Overlay, Armadale - 2 of 2- Table of Comments to Submissions

Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Requests the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear all submissions and consider the proposed Amendment C197 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel, adopts a position in support of Amendment C197, generally in accordance with the officer’s response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 2.

3. Advises the submitters to Amendment C197 of Council’s decision.

4. Refers all submissions and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider proposed Amendment C197.


7. STONNINGTON WAR MEMORIAL PLAQUE

Executive Assistant GM Social Development: Loren Lawford General Manager Social Development: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

This report seeks approval from Council to install a plaque to commemorate the completion of the redeveloped Stonnington War Memorial at Victoria Gardens.

BACKGROUND

During 2014, along with Council’s contribution of $80,000, Officers sought and gained funding from the Department of Premier and Cabinet – Veterans Fund ($20,000), the ANZAC Centenary Local Grants Program ($20,000) and the Prahran RSL ($10,000) to upgrade the war memorial at Victoria Gardens.

DISCUSSION

The Prahran RSL, along with the City of Stonnington, will host an ANZAC Day Observance and official opening of the Stonnington War Memorial at Victoria Gardens on Saturday 18 April 2015, at 12.30pm.

Veterans will meet at the Prahran RSL at 12.30pm, and march along High Street to Victoria Gardens. A ceremony, hosted by the Prahran RSL will then commence at the Stonnington War Memorial, see attached, draft program of events.

Immediately before the commemoration ceremony, the Mayor and the Prahran RSL President will officially launch the new memorial. A plaque will be installed to commemorate the new memorial. It is proposed that the wording on the plaque reads as follows:

This memorial was redeveloped by the City of Stonnington in 2015,

with support from the Prahran RSL, the Victorian Government and

the Australian Government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program,

to commemorate the centenary of the Anzac landing at Gallipoli.

Officially opened on 18 April 2015, by the Mayor, Cr Melina Sehr,

and Rod Coote, President of the Prahran RSL

Cr Tini Athanasopoulos Cr John Chandler, AM Cr Erin Davie Cr Jami Klisaris

Cr Matthew Koce Cr John McMorrow Cr Adrian Stubbs Cr Claude Ullin

Chief Executive Officer, Warren Roberts


CONCLUSION

In recognition of the works undertaken and to commemorate the completion of the Stonnington War Memorial, it is recommended that a plaque be displayed at the site at Victoria Gardens.



RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves the following wording of the plaque for the Stonnington War Memorial at Victoria Gardens:

This memorial was redeveloped by the City of Stonnington in 2015,

with support from the Prahran RSL, the Victorian Government and

the Australian Government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program,

to commemorate the centenary of the Anzac landing at Gallipoli.

Officially opened on 18 April 2015, by the Mayor, Cr Melina Sehr,

and Rod Coote, President of the Prahran RSL

Cr Tini Athanasopoulos Cr John Chandler, AM Cr Erin Davie Cr Jami Klisaris

Cr Matthew Koce Cr John McMorrow Cr Adrian Stubbs Cr Claude Ullin

Chief Executive Officer, Warren Roberts


8. VANUATU CYCLONE DONATION

Manager Communications & Community Planning: Matt Clear General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to discuss Council’s commitment to donate to the victims of Cyclone Pam in the Pacific.

BACKGROUND

Over the past ten years, Council has contributed financial support to assist the victims of natural disasters both locally and internationally.

In 2010, Council adopted a Disaster Relief and Donations Policy to provide guidance about the amount and destination of donations in times of disaster.

Below is an overview of Council’s donations since 2004:

In 2004, Council donated $10,000 in response to the Asian Tsunami, which killed 230,000 people in over 12 countries. The donations were paid to Oxfam Community Aid Abroad and World Vision, with each organisation receiving $5,000.

In September 2007, Council donated $5,000 to the victims of the Greek Bushfire.

In May 2008, Council contributed $5,000 to victims of the Burma Cyclone.

In 2009, Council donated $50,000 towards Victorian Bushfire relief.

In 2010, Council donated a total of $15,000 to victims of the Indonesian Earthquake, the Pacific Tsunami and Typhoon Katsana.

In 2011, Council donated $5,000 to the victims of the Queensland floods, $15,000 to the victims of the Victorian floods, $15,000 to the victims of the Japanese tsunami and earthquake and $15,000 to the victims of the New Zealand earthquake.

In 2013, Council donated $15,000 to the victims of Typhoon Haiyan in the Phillipines.

DISCUSSION

Cyclone Pam, a Category Five cyclone, hit the Pacific region on Friday 13 March 2015 and continued over the islands throughout Saturday 14 March.

The cyclone has caused widespread devastation across the Pacific. Coastal flooding, inundation, strong winds and storm surges have resulted in loss of lives, homes, infrastructure, crops and water supplies.

The Vanuatu Government estimates that 166,000 people have been affected by Cyclone Pam, up to 90 percent of homes were damaged and 65,000 people in need of shelter. Food, water and health are also urgent needs.

World Vision staff in Vanuatu report that:

More than 3,026 people are sheltering in 36 evacuation centres on Efate Island, 34 of which are schools, so children are unable to attend.


The islands of Shefa, Tafea and the eastern parts of Malampa and Penama are emerging as the worst impacted areas.

Water systems throughout the country have been affected by the cyclone. An estimated 60 percent of the population in Shefa and Tafea provinces have no access to drinking water.

The Government-led joint initial rapid needs assessments continue, indicating an urgent need for food, water, medical supplies, hygiene kits, kitchen kits, tents and bedding.

Communication is the greatest challenge to on-going humanitarian operations.

The hospital in Port Vila is operating but has suffered damage, is overcrowded and under-staffed and hospital vehicles are short on fuel.

Damage to crops is significant in affected areas and communities are already starting to replant to ensure ongoing food sources.

In Port Vila, electricity supply is slowly being restored to parts of the capital and shops are functioning again.

Disaster Relief Donations Policy

Council has a Disaster Relief Donations Policy that aims to ensure that donations will meet the needs of those affected by disaster in the most timely, effective and efficient way, as well as being transparent and accountable.

The policy provides a set of criteria to determine eligibility for disaster relief donations and applies to all Council donations for disaster relief in respect of disasters affecting countries, regions or community groups and excludes events covered by Stonnington’s Municipal Emergency Management Plan.

Eligibility for donations according to the Policy is summarised below.

Donation Recipients

The Donations Policy states that donations can be made to aid agencies accredited by AusAID, or an equivalent accrediting agency. Donations can also be made to community groups. Donations will not be made to individuals.

Amount

It is suggested in the Policy that $5,000 is an appropriate amount for donation to any single event in any one year; however the actual amount is to be decided by Council, on each occasion. In-kind donations will be additional to this amount.

Timeliness of Aid

During or immediately after a disaster, when lives and livelihoods are in danger, the speed of aid delivery is vital. The Donations Policy is that donations should be made within the first two weeks of a disaster. Furthermore, if applicable, in-kind support should be offered as soon as possible following the event.

Criteria for Donation

To qualify for a donation, an event must be one that is so catastrophic that it overwhelms the normal social and material support systems of those affected.

Disasters affecting Metropolitan Melbourne or Victoria should always take priority. For national disasters, priority may be given to areas where there is a pre-existing relationship (for example sister cities in other states).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

A donation to an aid agency to support the victims of Cyclone Pam is supported by Council’s Disaster Relief Policy.


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council made a commitment to donate $5,0000 at Council Meeting 23 March 2015 to a relief fund towards recovery from the Vanuatu Cyclone.

This was paid to World Vision the week ending 27 March 2015.

CONCLUSION

Stonnington has donated generously to the victims of previous natural disasters and Cyclone Pam meets the criteria of Council’s Disaster Relief Donations Policy.

Vanuatu and surrounding Pacific residents have been significantly affected by the cyclone and require assistance to support basic needs such as food, water and shelter. Ongoing support will be required to restore services, rebuild and plant crops. Council made a commitment to donate $5,000 at Council Meeting 23 March 2015, this is in-line with Council Policy .



ATTACHMENTS

1. SF - Disaster Relief Donations Policy - 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the report and Council’s previous commitment to support the community of Vanuatu to recover from Cyclone Pam and donate $5,000 to a relief fund.

notice paper - city of stonnington...page 3 council meeting notice paper monday 30 march 2015 order...

Documents