pro-forma for notice paper word 7 - city of … · web viewnotice paper monday 16 december 2013 at...

NOTICE PAPER

Monday 16 December 2013 at 7:00 p.m.

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 MeetingNotice Paper

16 December 2013

Order of Business and Indexa) 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);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 Councillorsk) Reports by Delegates;l) General Business;

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS........................................................................................................................... 61.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0364/12 - 100 ARGYLL STREET, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO

DWELLINGS ON A LOT........................................................................................................................ 61.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0708/12 - 111 - 119 CHOMLEY STREET & PART 33 BANOLE AVENUE,

PRAHRAN – EXTENSION TO A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (AGED CARE FACILITY) IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE........................................................................................................................................................ 17

1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0525/13 - 99 HORNBY STREET WINDSOR – CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN A COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE AND DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LOADING BAY WAIVER...................................................................37

1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0314/13 - 1483 - 1487 MALVERN ROAD GLEN IRIS - DEMOLITION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE STOREY BUILDING TO CONTAIN SHOPS AND DWELLINGS AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING AND LOADING BAY REQUIREMENTS..............................................58

1.5. PLANNING APPLICATION 0473/13 - 9 NORTHBROOK AVENUE - DE LA SALLE COLLEGE, MALVERN – CONSTRUCT A NEW MULTIPURPOSE SOCCER AND HOCKEY FIELD AND NEW BASKETBALL AREA WITH ASSOCIATED FENCING AND TREE PLANTING.....................................................................................79

1.6. PLANNING APPLICATION 0494/12 - 16 PERCY STREET, PRAHRAN – CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A MIXED USE ZONE...................................................................................88

1.7. PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT APPLICATION 1004/11 - 2 - 4 & 6 - 10 WEIR STREET GLEN IRIS - S72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANNING PERMIT COMPRISING MODIFICATIONS OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ON SITE, STAFF MEMBERS AND OPERATING HOURS, AND INCLUSION OF A PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN....................................................................................................................... 100

1.8. PLANNING APPLICATION 0224/13 - 31 - 41 WILSON STREET SOUTH YARRA – CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE STOREY BUILDING PLUS ROOF TERRACE COMPRISING DWELLINGS, OFFICES AND CAR PARKING...................................................................................................................................................... 115

2. AMENDMENT C155 - YARRA RIVER SKYLINE CONTROLS – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL.................................................................................................................................... 142

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.

3. PLANNING ZONE REFORMS – NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES..........................................................................1514. AMENDMENT C168 – NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAYS (NCO'S) – BALDWIN AND CLARENCE

STREETS – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT.................................................................................................................................................. 1605. MINIMUM UNIT SIZE AND PLANNING CONTROLS.......................................................................................1656. BURKE ROAD, GLEN IRIS LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL – ENDORSING COUNCIL’S PREFERRED OPTION.......1717. KOOYONG ROAD, ARMADALE – PROPOSAL TO INSTALL A SCHOOL CROSSING.........................................1788. MELBOURNE METRO PROJECT – THE MELBOURNE METRO CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS.............................1819. PUBLIC BIKE SHARE SCHEME – STONNINGTON IN-PRINCIPLE SUPPORT...................................................18710. STRUAN STREET, ROBERTSON STREET, AND TRAWALLA AVENUE, TOORAK – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

PROPOSALS AS PART OF TRAWALLA ROBERTSON LATM....................................................................19011. ST GEORGES ROAD, ORRONG ROAD AND CHASTLETON AVENUE, TOORAK – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

PROPOSALS AS PART OF TRAWALLA ROBERTSON LATM........................................................................19512. COUNCIL COMMITTEES, DELEGATES/REPRESENTATIVES 2013 - 2014..................................................20013. MEETING DATES FOR 2014................................................................................................................. 20814. ANZAC CENTENARY MARCH – HIGGINS ELECTORATE AND STONNINGTON CITY COUNCIL......................21115. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING: SENIOR CITIZENS OF THE PARISH OF ST CONSTANTINES AND HELEN,

SOUTH YARRA, PRAHRAN AND DISRICTS...............................................................................................21316. WINDSOR SIDING RESERVE DOG PARK...............................................................................................21417. T. H. KING PAVILION AND STONNINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND DESIGN CENTRE – PLAQUE. . .21718. CHAPEL STREET INFORMATION KIOSKS...............................................................................................22119. PROPOSED PUBLIC ART COMMISSIONS................................................................................................22620. Art Acquisitions 2013........................................................................................................................ 229

m) Urgent Business; andn) Confidential Business.1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY PURCHASE………………………………………………………………..230

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESOF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

16 DECEMBER 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 December 2013 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 December 2013 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS16 DECEMBER 2013

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0364/12 - 100 ARGYLL STREET, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT

(Statutory Planning Manager: Alexandra Kastaniotis)(General Manager: Stuart Draffin)

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone at 100 Argyll Street, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Marc GhosnWard: EastZone: Residential 1Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 13/06/2012Statutory days: 74Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 Objections

Number of objections: 33 (objections from 30 different properties)Consultative Meeting: Held on 4 September 2013Officer 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 AMG Architects and are known as Project 11-510TP SKJ, Drawing No’s A101 – A107 (inclusive). The plans are Council date stamped 2 October 2013.

Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of the existing dwelling (no permit required); Construction of two, 2 storey dwellings on the site; The proposed dwellings are designed in a side-by-side manner; The proposed construction materials include face brickwork, timber cladding, powder

coated aluminium, render and glaze blocks; Both dwellings feature a garage, an open plan kitchen, dining and living room, laundry,

powder room, master bedroom and associated amenities at ground floor level.; At first floor level, both dwellings feature a study nook, three bedrooms and associated

amenities; Both dwellings feature areas of secluded private open space to their rear; Vehicle access is provided to each dwelling via crossovers along the property frontage.

Each dwelling has been allocated two car spaces (one in the garage, another along the driveway in a tandem arrangement).


Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Argyll Street, directly to the north of the Holmesglen Railway Station. The site has the following significant characteristics: The site is regular in shape. It features a width of 15.24m, a depth of 42.67m and a

cumulative area of 651sqm. The site is currently occupied by a detached single storey brick dwelling with a pitched tiled

roof. The dwelling has no heritage significance. The existing dwelling features a front setback of 9.2m, a 1.6m setback from the western

boundary and a 3m setback from the eastern boundary. A garage and vehicle driveway is located along the eastern edge of the site. The site features mature vegetation within its front and rear setbacks.

The site interfaces with the adjoining properties as follows:

No. 102 Argyll Street abuts the site to the east. The site is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling with a pitched tiled roof. The dwelling features a minimal setback from the western property boundary of the site. The site features a prominent driveway along its eastern edge, a parking area within the front setback and minimal landscaping. Secluded private open space is located to the rear of the site.

No. 98 Argyll Street abuts the site to the west. The site is occupied by a single storey rendered dwelling that features a pitch tiled roof. The dwelling features a driveway along its eastern edge. A garage is developed to the rear of the dwelling along the eastern property boundary. Secluded private open space is located to the rear of the site.

An at-grade parking lot associated with the Holmesglen Railway Station abuts the site to the rear.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates that there is no relevant planning history for this site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 7432 Folio 395 as Lot 359 on Plan of Subdivision 2280554. The site is not affected by any easements.

The site is encumbered by Covenant 2280554 which prohibits the following on the site:

Excavation or removal of earth, clay, stone, gravel or sand (except for the purpose of excavating for the foundations of any building); and

The site cannot be used for the manufacture or winning of brick tiles.

The proposal will not result in a breach of these restrictions.

Planning Controls

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

Zone Clause 32.01- Residential 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4, a permit is required to construct two or more residential dwellings on a lot. Development must also meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Overlay(s)


There are no overlays covering this site.

Particular ProvisionsClause 55 – Two or More Dwellings on a LotClause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to reduce the requirement to provide the number of spaces listed at Clause 52.06-5 Table 1 – Car parking requirement. As each dwelling features parking spaces for two vehicles, a dispensation is not required.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 32.01 Residential 1 ZoneClause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings 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 a sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and 33 objections from 30 different properties have been received. The objections highlight concerns regarding the following:

Impact on the neighbourhood character and streetscape Dominating garages Uninviting entrance Façade is not well articulated Flat roof is inconsistent with the prevailing roofing form Overlooking Overshadowing Overdevelopment of the land Potential boarding house Increase in flooding Removal of existing trees along the rear boundary Inadequate car parking Traffic impact Paving in the front setback will impact on the landscape character Impact on TV reception

A Consultative Meeting was held on 4 September 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors McMorrow and Davie, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.


Revised plans were lodged by the permit applicant following the meeting. The revised plans (Council date stamped 2 October 2013) feature the following changes:

The front first floor setback to both dwellings is now aligned (it was staggered previously). The setback has also increased to 13.2m from the previous setbacks of 10.8m and 11.7m.

First floor rear setback increased to 12.5m from 9.85m.

Referrals

Parks

There are 2 mature trees located within the front setback of this site. The western tree is an Eriobotrya japonica (Loquat), and the eastern tree is a significant Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda).

The Jacaranda is a good specimen, and is proposed to be retained. A Tree Management Plan (TMP) will need to be submitted to ensure that the tree is afforded appropriate protection during demolition and construction.

There are 5-6 mature Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) located along the southern boundary of the property. They must also be included on the TMP for this proposal.

Street tree protection will need to be conditioned for this permit. Landscape Plan is required.

Infrastructure

Permit condition stating 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.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to replace the existing single-storey brick dwelling at 100 Argyll Street with two double-storey dwellings. The key issues that Council has to determine are:

Is there strategic justification for the redevelopment of the subject land? How does the proposed development respond to the existing neighbourhood character? Would the proposal result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties? Would the development provide future residents with an adequate level of internal amenity? Does the proposal provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping? Would the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts?

Is there strategic justification for the redevelopment of the subject land?

The application is for an infill development which will create one additional dwelling. It is considered that there is strategic justification for the proposal because:

According to the MSS, the subject site is in an incremental change area. The scale of the proposed development (i.e. increasing the density by one dwelling) is consistent with the strategic direction.

The subject site is located close to the Holmesglen Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre, which includes commercial facilities and community services. As a result, the proposal is in accordance with Clause 11.01-2, which seeks to ‘encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres.’


Holmesglen Railway Station is also within walkable distance. Therefore, 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, it is considered that 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.’

In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the policy direction and contributes to urban consolidation. Notwithstanding the above, consideration must be given to Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies which require proposals to respect the scale and character of the area, minimise amenity impacts and display good design outcomes. How does the proposed development respond to the existing neighbourhood character?

Argyll Street is characterised predominately by detached single storey Post War dwellings, which is confirmed by Stonnington’s Neighbourhood Character review. The predominant single-storey scale does not preclude the possibility of introducing a double-storey built form. Two-storey development over time has become a more common aspect of Melbourne’s built form. As the Tribunal remarked in Waylan Consulting Group v Moreland CC (VCAT Ref. 2000/14971), ‘… double storey dwellings are not two headed monsters. They are a normal housing type throughout the metropolitan area.’ Member Keaney also commented in Rendevski v City of Greater Geelong [1999] VCAT 1886:

Leaving aside the fact that this would not be the first two storey “intrusion” (either for a single home or multi unit), the Tribunal would be reluctant to reject what is a perfectly normal and acceptable form of development right throughout our urban areas, except if the neighbourhood characteristics were so pristine and important so as to make a two storey proposal unacceptable.

In this instance, the proposal has been designed to present as a single dwelling through the use of consistent front setbacks and a shared hipped roof. The proposal has been designed with 1m side setbacks at ground, and 2.34m setbacks at first floor. These design features are considered to be a well conceived response to the rhythm and building separation observed in Argyll Street.

Each dwelling features a front setback in excess of 8 metres, which is consistent with the development along Argyll Street, and will allow for meaningful landscape within the front setback. In terms of the setback to the first floor, the streetscape is mainly devoid of two storey development. Notwithstanding this, the first floor is setback so that it is aligned with the roof ridge of the neighbouring property (102 Argyll Street). In terms of the rear setbacks, the first floor terminates a distance of 12.5 metres from the rear of the site. The ground floor extends to a setback of 9.3 metres from the rear of the property, which is in line with the setback of the garage to the rear of the adjoining property (No 98 Argyll Street). These setbacks ensure that the proposed dwelling does not interrupt the consistent rear yard character that development along Argyll Street features.

The proposed dwellings are modern in appearance, but reflect key features of the surrounding Post War development. The proposed construction materials include timber cladding and bricks, which are materials found throughout Argyll Street and metropolitan Melbourne. The shared pitched roof corresponds with the roof forms found within the immediate environs. Each proposed dwelling features a garage along its frontage. To ensure that the garage does not present as an overly dominant feature it has been finished with timber cladding. Should a planning permit be issued, a permit condition will be included requiring a materials and finishes schedule to be provided for endorsement.


For all the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposed development makes an appropriate response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.

Are the off-site amenity impacts within reasonable limits?

This application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of Clause 55 and the section below outlines the key findings:

Side and rear setbacks

The proposed dwellings are designed around a central shared party wall. Each dwelling features an abuttal with an adjoining property. The proposed development features setbacks to the shared property boundaries to the east and west, and from the rear property boundary. The tables below illustrate the proposed setbacks compared to the numeric requirements of Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks).

Eastern setbacks:

Western setbacks:

These setbacks achieve compliance with the Standards requirements.

Wall on boundaries

No part of the proposed dwellings will be constructed along the property boundary.

Daylight to existing windows

The adjoining properties have a number of habitable room windows facing the subject site. The impact of the proposed development on light access to these windows will be discussed individually in turn below:

- 98 Argyll Street

Wall height Setback required Setback proposedGround floor 3.6m (garage and

living/dining) 1m 1m

First floor 6.105m 1.75m 2.325m

Wall height Setback required Setback proposedGround floor 3.6m (garage and

living/dining) 1m 1m

First floor 6.105m 1.75m 2.325m


The dwelling that occupies No. 98 Argyll Street features a single habitable room window that is orientated towards the proposed development. The ground floor wall opposite this window has a maximum height of 3.4m and is setback 4.6m from the window in question, exceeding the 1.7m setback required by Standard B19. The first floor wall opposite this window has a height of 6.1m and is setback 5.3m, exceeding the 3.05m setback requirement.

The proposed first floor setback comfortably complies with the Standards requirements.

- 102 Argyll Street

The dwelling that occupies No. 102 Argyll Street features a single habitable room window that is orientated towards the proposed development. The ground floor wall opposite this window has a maximum height of 3.5 metres and is setback 2.2 metres from the window in question, exceeding the 1.75m required by Standard B19. The first floor wall opposite this window has a height of 6.1m and is setback 3.5m, exceeding the 3.05m setback requirement.

North-facing windows

There are no north-facing habitable room windows within 3m of the boundary of the subject site and Standard B20 is not applicable in this case.

Overshadowing

The submitted shadow diagrams demonstrate that there will be an incremental amount of additional shadow cast onto the secluded private open space areas located to the rear of No. 98 and No. 102 Argyll Street. Under the proposed conditions, both of these properties will receive 5 hours of sunlight to an area of 40 sqm of secluded private open space. The requirement of Standard B21 has been satisfied.

Overlooking

With the exception of the habitable windows facing Argyll Street, all the proposed first floor windows along the side and rear boundaries have been screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level, or feature a minimum sill height at 1.7m above the finished floor level. The proposal satisfies the requirements of B22.

Do the proposed apartments provide satisfactory amenity for future residents?

Dwelling Entry

Entries to the proposed dwellings are provided via Argyll Street, which are clearly identifiable from the street. It is considered that the entries are safe and provide a sense of address.

Internal amenity

The proposed additional dwellings are provided with the necessary components for comfortable living, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms. It is noted that all the habitable areas 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

Both dwellings feature an area of secluded private open space in the form of courtyards to their rear. The spaces are in excess of 40 square metres in size, are well connected to the ground floor living areas of the dwellings and are afforded adequate amounts of solar access. The requirements of Standard B28 and B29 have been satisfied.

Service facilities

The proposal provides areas for the necessary site services.

Each proposed dwelling has been provided with 6 cubic metres of storage which is conveniently accessible within the garages. The Applicant has submitted that it is proposed to locate mailboxes and bin storages areas within the front setbacks of the dwellings. The plans do not illustrate the location of these items. Should a planning permit be issued, a permit condition will be included required the location of these items to be added to the plans in a satisfactory location.

Does the proposal provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping?

Whilst Argyll Street does not display a strong landscape character, new development should enhance and contribute to the landscape character of the area. Clause 21.06-2 (landscape character) includes objectives and strategies to maximise opportunities for canopy tree landscaping in new developments. The strategic direction is to prevent further erosion of the existing landscape character and repairing the damage of the past and to establish high standards of landscape integration with all new developments. As a result, a condition that requires the submission of a landscape plan will be included on any permit that issues. The front setback will provide opportunities for the planting of medium to large sized trees.

Council’s Arborist has raised concerns that the significant Jacaranda tree and the mature trees located along the rear boundary of the site may be damaged during the future redevelopment of the site. A condition requiring the submission of a Tree Management Plan will be included on any permit that issues to ensure the on-going health of these trees.

Will the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts?

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the proposed development is required to provide two (2) parking spaces for each dwelling. As each dwelling has been provided two spaces in a tandem arrangement, this requirement has been satisfied.

In terms of the design standards for car parking, there has been an adequate amount of space provided to allow the parking of two vehicles in a tandem arrangement. Whilst the vehicle parked along the driveway and the garage door will be visible from the street, it is not considered that these aspects will dominate the public space along Argyll Street.

The proposed car parking design is considered to be satisfactory.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

The applicant did not provide a response to Council’s draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy. As a result, a condition that requires the submission of a detailed WSUD response will be included on any permit that issues.


Objections

The application is not for a boarding house. A boarding house is a use that would require a planning permit.

It is considered that the proposed development will not influence the movement of floodwaters or increase stormwater runoff anymore than a normal development of this scale.

The potential impact on TV reception is not a valid planning consideration.

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 respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character The proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity detriment to other properties The proposed dwellings feature a satisfactory level of internal amenity The proposal will provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping The proposal will not result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 364/12 for the land located at 100 Argyll Street, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of two dwellings on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone 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 revised plans Council dated 2 October 2013 but modified to show:

a) Location of the mailboxes and bin storages areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) Tree Management Plan in accordance with Condition 8. c) Water Sensitive Urban Design Response in accordance with Condition 4. d) Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 6.e) Schedule of materials and finishes in accordance with Condition 3. Specifically,

the schedule must demonstrate that the shared roof will be constructed of tiles.

2. The development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.


4. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the draft Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

6. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed

b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary

c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and drivewaysd) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including

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

e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the sitef) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the

landscape treatment of the siteg) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or

decked areas.h) A medium/large mature canopy tree within the front setback of the development

to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

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

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan. The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the mature Jacaranda Tree located within the front setback of the property, and the Lilly Pillies along the rear boundary of the site.

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.

9. Prior to a building permit being issued, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report.

10. Prior to the occupation of the building, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must be fixed to a height of 1.7m and have no more than 25% openings or an alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The screens must be designed and coloured to blend in with the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. 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.

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.

NOTES:

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

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

“Significant tree” means a tree:

a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimeters or greater measured at its base; or b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimeters or greater measured at 1.5 metres

above its base; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

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


1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0708/12 - 111 - 119 CHOMLEY STREET & PART 33 BANOLE AVENUE, PRAHRAN – EXTENSION TO A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (AGED CARE FACILITY) IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for an extension to a residential building (aged care facility) in a Residential 1 Zone at 111-119 Chomley Street and part 33 Banole Avenue, Prahran.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Milford Hall Pty LtdWard: SouthZone: Residential 1Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 4/10/2012Statutory days: 36 Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 objections

Number of objections: 12 objections from 9 separate propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes– held on 18 July 2013Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The application as lodged on 4 October 2012 and following the submission of further information was advertised in May 2013. Council received 8 objections to the application. A consultative meeting was held on 18 July 2013. Following this meeting revised plans (Council date stamped 18 October 2013) were lodged with Council. The plans were advertised in October/November 2013.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Blair Architects and are known as Drawing No’s: TP01 Rev E, TP02 Rev E, TP03 Rev J, TP04 Rev J, TP05 Rev K, TP06 Rev H, TP07 Rev H, TP08 Rev J, TP09 Rev H, TP10 Rev E, TP11 Rev D, TP12 Rev E, TP13 Rev E, TP14 Rev C, TP15 Rev F, TP16 Rev D, TP17 Rev C-TP22 Rev C and Landscape Plan No. LA.01.C1-1, all Council date stamped 18 October 2013. Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes a Planning Report prepared by Blair Architects Council date stamped 18 October 2013. A Stormwater Quality Management Report prepared by Sustainable Development Consultants (Council date stamped 11 April 2013) was also received and assessed prior to revised plans being lodged.

The application proposes to extend the existing residential aged care facility, which will increase the number of beds from 37 to 67. Key features of the proposal are:

Extension of the existing residential aged care facility to a three storey building which will accommodate 67 beds.


Construction of two separate basement car parks, one to the north of the site and one to the south of the site.

The basement to the north will accommodate 8 car parking spaces (including 2 disabled car parking spaces), a bin store, a plant room and a laundry room.

The basement to the south will accommodate 13 car parking spaces, including 6 car parking spaces in a car stacker system. It will also accommodate a loading bay.

Both basements will be accessed via two new crossovers from Chomley Street. A new crossover is also proposed to the middle of the site providing access to a porte cochere. Three existing crossovers will be removed from the site.

The proposal includes a reception and waiting room area, a library, a clinical office, a staff room, a hairdresser, a cafe, a dining and living room and a kitchen at the ground level. One car parking space is also proposed at the ground level.

Two separate open plan living and dining rooms, an activities room, a kitchen, a store room, a bathroom and an administration room is proposed at the first floor level.

At the second level, four offices, a toilet, a training room, a living room and an open plan living and dining room is proposed.

The building will have a maximum height of approximately 12.2 metres (measured to the top of the roof over the central frontage of the building) and will have a principal frontage to Chomley Street.

A total of 19 bicycle spaces are proposed at the ground level. The building presents a traditional architectural style with various features and materials,

including a combination of austral brick, render, a terracotta tiled roof and a substantial amount of glazing.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site comprises five parcels of land known as 111 Chomley Street, 113-115 Chomley Street, 117 Chomley Street, 119 Chomley Street and part 33 Banole Avenue, Prahran. The overall site has an area of approximately 3000sqm. Contextually, the site is located within an established residential area with surrounding properties all used and developed for residential purposes. The properties making up the subject site have the following characteristics:

No. 111 Chomley Street is located approximately 152 metres to the south of High Street. The subject site features a single storey dwelling which is attached to No. 109 Chomley Street to the south. The site is regular in shape, has a frontage to Chomley Street of approximately 6 metres and has an overall site area of 209sqmm. An existing crossover provides access to the site.

No. 113-115 Chomley Street is located 117 metres south of High Street. The land has frontage to Chomley Street of approximately 30 metres and a site depth of approximately 80 metres. The land has an overall site area of approximately 1193sq m. The site is developed with an existing aged care centre which comprises a two storey building accommodating 37 beds. A driveway extends along the southern boundary providing vehicle access to 5 car parking spaces. A second crossover to the north of the site provides access to 3 car parking spaces.

No.117 and No.119 Chomley Street are regular shaped lots and together are approximately 480sqm in area. They have a combined frontage to Chomley Street of approximately 15 metres. These sites are both vacant. An existing crossover provides access to No.119 Chomley Street.


The rear of 33 Banole Avenue forms part of the subject site. This parcel of land is regular in shape and abuts the southern boundary of 113-115 Chomley, the western boundary of No.111 and No.109 Chomley Street and the northern boundary of No. 107 Chomley to the south.

The site has interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

To the north of the site is No.121 Chomley Street which houses a single storey dwelling and further north at No.123 Chomley Street is a three storey residential building.

To the south of the site is No109 and No.107 Chomley Street both of which are single storey dwellings. Further south at No.97 Chomley Street is a large four storey residential building.

To the west of the site are the rear private open spaces of the dwellings fronting Banole Avenue, all of which are contained within a Heritage Overlay.

To the east of the site, on the far side of Chomley Street is a mixture of single and double storey dwellings.


A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications: Planning Permit 758/02 for the use and development of land for a Residential Building (aged

care facility) for 38 residents, including car parking dispensation for the additional rooms was issued on 13 March 2003 for the site at No.113-115 Chomley Street

Planning Application 488/11 for the extension of an existing residential building (residential aged care facility) in a Residential 1 Zone and a reduction in the car parking requirements at the subject site was withdrawn on 3 August 2012. The application sought to extend the existing aged car facility to accommodate 60 beds and provided 16 car parking spaces. A total number of 10 objections were received.

The Title

This site is made up of five parcels of land and no covenants affect the land. The parcels of land forming this application are described as follows:

111 Chomley Street: Lot 1 on Title Plan 189511D of Certificate of Title Volume 09484, Folio 025.

113-115 Chomley Street: Plan of Consolidation 363708Q of Certificate of Title Volume 10823, Folio 017.

117 Chomley Street: Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 027574 of Certificate of Title Volume 08044, Folio 501.

119 Chomley Street: Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 027574 of Certificate of Title Volume 08044, Folio 502.

33 Banole Avenue: Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 3831638 of Certificate of Title Volume 06003, Folio 416.

Planning Controls



Zone

Clause 32.01 - Residential 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 32.01-01 a permit is not required to use the land as a residential aged care facility.

Pursuant to Clause 32.01-04 a permit is required to extend a residential building. Given the proposal is less than four storeys, the Clause 55 Rescode provisions apply.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-1 prior to an increase to an existing use by the measure specified at Clause 52.06-5, the car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The table at Clause 52.06-5 states that 0.3 car spaces are to be provided to each lodging room within a residential aged care facility. Given that 67 rooms are proposed, there is a car parking requirement of 20 car spaces. The development proposes 22 car spaces which exceeds the statutory requirements.

Clause 52.34 Bicycle facilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1 bicycle facilities should be provided in accordance with the requirements at Clause 52.34-3 and 52.34-4. This equates to 1 residence/staff bicycle space for each 7 beds in a nursing home and 1 visitor space to every 60 beds in a nursing home. For the proposal, this equates to a total of 10 resident/staff spaces and 1 visitor space, for a total of 11 spaces. The proposal includes 19 bicycle spaces at the ground level, which exceeds the statutory requirements.

Clause 52.36 Integrated Public Transport PlanningPursuant to Clause 52.36-1, an application to subdivide land, to construct a building or to construct or carry out works for a residential building comprising 60 or more lodging rooms, must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act to Public Transport Victoria.


Clause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 16.02-3 Residential aged care facilitiesClause 21.00 Municipal Strategic StatementClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 21.08 InfrastructureClause 32.01 Residential 1 ZoneClause 52.06 Car parkingClause 52.34 Bicycle facilitiesClause 52.36 Integrated Public Transport Planning

AdvertisingThe 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 three (3) signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and 12 objections from 9 different properties were received. The objections can be broadly summarised as follows:


Car parking Traffic Character Setbacks at first and second level Noise associated with delivery vehicles Increase in number of deliveries Noise from air-conditioning units Visual bulk Loss of privacy Overshadowing Design Boundary fence removal

A Consultative Meeting was held on 18 July 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillor Ullin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

The applicant submitted revised plans on 18 October 2013. The changes to the plans include:

Construction of an additional basement car park to the south of the site. Bin store included in the northern basement. Removal of ground level car parking, with the exception of one space to the front of the site Extension of the facility to the south. Increase and relocation of bicycle spaces at ground level. Number of car parking spaces reduced from 25 to 22. Reduction in the proposed increase of beds from 72 to 67. Western boundary setback at ground level increased from a range between 1.03m and

2.4m to a range between 2.4m and 4m. First floor setbacks to southern boundary increased from a range between 4.4m and 7.8m

to a range between 6.1m and 9.6m. First floor northern boundary (deck) setback reduced from 1.8m to 1.6m. Third floor western setback reduced from 16.7m to 16.3m. Internal layout changes.

It is noted that the revised plans (the plans being assessed Council date stamped 18 October 2013) were advertised in October/November 2013. A total of 3 objections were received following the advertisement of the revised plans. One of the objections has been considered an additional objection and as such, has brought the total objector count to 9.

Referrals

Arborist

Councils Arborist provided the following comments on the advertised plans dated 18 October 2013.

The submitted plan must include at least 2 large canopy trees, which have a mature height of 10-12m, to offset the removal of the previous mature trees on the site. Currently, the trees listed for planting are dwarf form Magnolia’s, or Crimson Sentry Maples, which are a narrow tree, which does not grow particularly well in Melbourne’s climate.

Considering the proposed height of the new built structure, the proposed screening vegetation for the southern and north western boundaries will do little to soften the building when viewed from adjoining properties.


Taller growing tree species should be considered for these particular areas.

Infrastructure

Councils Drainage Engineer provided the following comments on the advertised plans dated 18 October 2013.

There is no apparent underground drainage within close proximity of the site and therefore the owner must at their cost construct a 300mm diameter drain along the Western side of Chomley Street to connect to the Council drain located to the South. A drainage design prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer must be submitted for the approval of Council and the works must be completed in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction and under the supervision of Council.

Independently of the above, could you please place a condition on the permit stating 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 proposed development will result in increased stormwater runoff. In order to address this increased runoff, the owner must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to control the post development runoff to no greater than the pre development runoff to the satisfaction of Council. Alternatively Council may in lieu of the above agree to water tanks for re-cycling of an agreed capacity being installed provided those tanks are connected to all new toilets on site as well as being used for irrigation.

Could you please place a condition that the existing footpath levels at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the basement ramps).

Public Transport Authority

The plans were referred to Public Transport Victoria and it was advised that they did not object to the grant of this planning permit.

Transport

Councils Drainage Engineer provided the following comments on the advertised plans dated 18 October 2013.

The proposed development has a statutory requirement for 20 parking bays. The proposed provision of 22 parking bays is therefore considered satisfactory.

It is noted that six spaces have now been proposed with car stackers. It is not appropriate for stacker spaces to be allocated to visitor use, or casual resident use.

The development almost doubles the number of rooms compared to the existing facility. No traffic report has been provided regarding current and proposed vehicle movements to the site. It is noted that Chomley Street is a narrow residential street with parking on one side only. The applicant should provide relevant traffic information to demonstrate that the vehicle movements proposed at the site are appropriate for the area, as previously requested.


No headroom details have been provided at the entrances of the basement and it appears that the clearance is restricted further at this location. The applicant is to revise the plans to confirm that a minimum headroom clearance of 2.2m is available throughout the car park.

A 4.865m clearance is provided throughout the southern car park. This is considered satisfactory.

Spaces 7 and 8 have been designated as accessible spaces and have been dimensioned at 3.2m x 5.4m with a shared space of 2.4m x 5.4m. This is satisfactory, as per the Australian Standards.

It is noted that the parking aisle width has been reduced for space 8 by the bollards adjacent to the lift. The plans show swept path diagrams demonstrating egress from the bay. Swept path diagrams for access are to be shown on revised material; it is noted that the lift and bollards position means that vehicles entering these spaces will not start at 90˚ to the space which may affect turning movements.

Spaces 15 to 21 have been dimensioned at 2.6m x 4.9m however the parking aisle has been dimensioned at 6.186m which does not meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The applicant is to revise the plans to fully the dimension the columns, including setback from the parking aisle, to demonstrate that the requirements of the Planning Scheme have been met.

The stairwell access in the northern car park opens directly into the parking aisle. It is noted that bollard protection is provided for access to the bin store, plant and laundry however the bollards to not protect pedestrians exiting the stairwell.

Some external pedestrian paths have been provided however no dimensions have been given.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients for any of the proposed parking areas.

The plans are to be revised to show that the usable platform areas will be in accordance with the Planning Scheme or the Australian Standards. It may be more practical to select a different stacker model.

The Loading Bay has been dimensioned at 7.6m x 5.28m, which is greater than the minimum requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The development includes 14 bicycle spaces in the south east corner of the site that have not been assigned to specific users. This is a surplus to the statutory requirement and is considered satisfactory. No dimensions have been shown on the plans to indicate spacing of racks, or access aisle width etc.

The vehicle crossings are not in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy.

It is recommended that the kerb lengths between vehicle crossings are arranged so that a minimum length of 10.8m is provided.

The applicant is to advise how waste collection will be undertaken and discuss the impacts to traffic at the site.

Environmental Sustainable Design


Councils Sustainable Design Officer provided comments on the plans dated 21 March 2013 and the Stormwater Quality Management Report dated 11 April 2013. It is noted that the comments below refer to 72 bedrooms given that the original proposal was for 72 bedrooms. The application has been revised and it is now proposed for 67 bedrooms to be provided.

The submitted Stormwater Quality Management Report must be amended to:

Accurately reflect permeable and non-permeable areas. Figure 3 of the report indicates several areas that are included as permeable areas which plans show to be car park ramps or paving. Please also note that ground above basement parking cannot be considered truly permeable. Applicant should provide detailed landscape plans indicating types of paving and garden beds to more accurately calculate site permeability. This aspect should also be amended in the STORM report.

Modify number of bedrooms in the STORM report. Currently, it is proposed to connect the rainwater tank to 100 bedrooms. However, the development will have a total of 72 bedrooms. Please confirm which other bathrooms the rainwater tank will be connected to.

Provide more information on maximising permeable areas allocated. Plans should clearly show permeable areas and garden beds. The type of paving and its slope into garden beds should also be shown on plans. Applicant should consider paving types to maximise permeability on site. Proposed stormwater drainage points from driveways should also be discussed with measures identified to minimise pollutant/litter ingress to stormwater in areas where stormwater will not be captured.

Provide additional information on stormwater management at construction stage. As part of our WSUD policy we require submission of a site management plan which details ‘how the site will be managed through construction and which sets out future operational and maintenance arrangements’. The applicant is requested to revise plans to clearly indicate location of proposed rainwater tank. The following information must also be provided:

a. The rainwater tank must be annotated to show dimensions and confirm connection to proposed number of internal toilets

b. Architectural roof plans to confirm area to be drained to the rainwater tank and annotated as such.

The Applicant should also note that the Stonnington Planning scheme has reference to energy efficiency (Clause 54.03-5) which requires that developments ensure orientation and layout contribute to reduction in fossil fuel energy use. As such, the proposed new development at the north of the site has south facing bedroom windows, with a corridor located to the optimal northern aspect. This design aspect should be revised to minimise artificial lighting requirements in the southern aspect rooms.

Planner comment: It is noted that the applicant submitted revised plans and a revised Landscape Plan (Council date stamped 18 October 2013). The Landscape Plan details the types of paving and planting details proposed. However, a revised Stormwater Quality Management Report was not submitted and much of the above concerns still need to be addressed. This can be resolved by way of permit condition if a permit is to be issued.


KEY ISSUES

Strategic justification

The objective of Clause 16.02-3 (Residential aged care facilities) is ‘to facilitate the timely development of residential aged care facilities to meet existing and future needs’. Strategies of this policy include encouraging planning for housing that enables older people to live in appropriate housing in their local community.

Clause 16.02-3 also recognises that aged care facilities are different to dwellings in their purpose and function, and will have a different built form (including height, scale and mass). In this regard it is expected that residential aged care facilities can be considered differently to typical residential development. This policy also directs that residential aged care facilities to be located in residential areas, activity centres and strategic redevelopment areas, close to services and public transport.

The subject site is located within a residential area that is within close proximity to the High Street/Williams Road and High Street/Orrong Road Neighbourhood Activity Centres, as well as being in reasonable distance to the Prahran, Windsor and South Yarra Principal Activity Centre. The site is also in walking distance to public transport options along High Street to the north of the site and Dandenong Road to the south of the site. It is considered that the subject site is strategically located to accommodate a larger scale development given its size and its close proximity to a wide array of services and amenities.

Clause 21.05 (Housing) seeks to, amongst other things, to maintain housing diversity. The proposal offers a built form that will provide exceptional on-site amenity for future residents. The design incorporates large living spaces, community facilities as well as gardens and courtyards for residents. In this regard, the development is considered to offer a high quality housing choice for the ageing population of the municipality and the wider community.

Clause 21.06-4 (Built Form Character) includes objectives that encourage good design and development that is respectful to the existing character and streetscape. The policy includes objectives that encourage built form that is not significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings. In this setting, it is considered that a higher built form would be generally consistent with the development found nearby, particularly given the examples of larger residential buildings in the street and taking into consideration the size of the subject site. It is also noted, that the proposed second level (third storey) is well recessed and is not considered to be dominant in the streetscape.

A more detailed analysis of neighbourhood character, design, residential amenity and the requirements of Clause 55 are discussed below.

Built Form

Neighbourhood Character and Design Detail

The proposed development represents a more intensive use of the site and a larger building form than that of the existing building. However, it is considered that the higher density proposal fits in with the character of the area.

With respect to the concept of a three storey development in general, it is noted that the predominant character of Chomley Street is made up of single and double storey dwellings with examples of larger residential buildings dispersed in the street. To the north of the site at No.123 Chomley Street is an example of a three storey residential building and to the south of the site at No.97 Chomley Street is an example of a four storey residential building.


It is not considered the proposed three storey development will be out of context in the streetscape. The third storey will be setback between 10.7m and 26.7 metres from the street, between 8.7m and approximately 23 metres from the southern boundary, between 6.7m and over 22 metres from the rear title boundary and between 5.7m and over 16 metres from the northern boundary. Given the large setbacks proposed and the location of the third level in the centre of the large subject site, it is considered that the built form will respect the existing neighbourhood character.

The maximum building height of the proposed development extends to a height of 12.2 metres which exceeds Standard B7 under the building height Objective. Although the Standard has not been met it is considered that the objective has been achieved. The objective states ‘to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character’. The proposed third storey is modest in size compared to the size of the site and is well setback from all boundaries. The building will not appear as a dominant three storey form in the street as discussed above. It is considered that a variation to the standard can be supported given that the proposal will respect the existing neighbourhood character.

With respect to design detail, it is considered that the proposal picks up on key design features of the streetscape and has been appropriately articulated and detailed so as to provide visual interest while maintaining the integrity of the area. The proposed brick and render finishes and window proportions are considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. It is considered that the proposed built form will respect the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character.

A porte cochere is proposed to the front of the site which will extend to a height of 3.3 metres. This built form is considered appropriate given that it is a feature that will be identifiable to pedestrians and will not dominate the frontage.

The plans do not detail a front fence but instead proposes an open landscaped frontage. This does not raise any concerns however, the applicant has detailed in an accompanying planning report that a vertical steel fence (1.8m high) may be proposed. It is noted that a front fence has not been assessed as part of this application.

Permeability and Site Coverage

The proposed development will result in a site coverage of 61% which slightly exceeds Standard B8. This level of site coverage is considered acceptable in terms of the character of the area, given that the existing neighbourhood character is made up of lots where the site coverage is high and in excess of the 60% ResCode requirement.

Permeability of the proposed development would achieve the 20% required by Standard B9 of ResCode.

It is noted that a Stormwater Quality Management Report was submitted with the original application before revised plans were lodged. This report included a Water Sensitive Urban Design response which included a STORM Report. This report detailed a minimum rating of 100% with a 30,000 litre rain water tank proposed. It is noted that a 45000 rain water tank is detailed to be located within the basement car park however, its connectivity is not detailed. The provision of rain water tanks connected to toilets is considered to be an essential requirement given the increased stormwater runoff expected as a result of the proposed development. A revised Storm Water Quality Management Report will be requested by condition. This will also ensure compliance with Councils Water Sensitive Urban Design Draft Policy.


Energy Efficiency

The orientation of the site allows for a substantial amount of northern exposure to many rooms. The lounge and dining areas have excellent exposure to light with the inclusion of clerestory windows in the centre of the building. The proposed building has been located to make appropriate use of solar energy and to ensure that the energy efficiency of existing dwellings is not unreasonably reduced in accordance with Standard B10.

Amenity Impacts

Visual bulk

No walls are proposed to be built on the boundary and as such, the key visual bulk assessment is Standard B17 of Clause 55.04-2 (Side and Rear Setbacks).

The building has allowed for setbacks at the upper levels to mitigate the impacts on adjoining properties. Additionally, the building is well articulated with the proposed setbacks, balconies and the combination of materials and finishes. The setback requirements of Standard B17 of Clause 55 have been met at all levels and all interfaces. It is considered that the Objective of the Standard has been achieved and the proposed setbacks are appropriate.

Impact on Windows and Daylight to New Windows.

The key assessment tool to determining impacts to neighbouring windows with regard to light obstruction is the Daylight to Existing Windows Objective, Standard B19.

Compliance with Standard B19 is achieved comfortably on all interfaces for all levels.

In addition, all habitable room windows within the development will receive sufficient light in accordance with the requirements of Standard B27.

Overshadowing

The Overshadowing Objective is to ensure that buildings do not unreasonably overshadow existing secluded private open space. Standard B21 states that the existing sunlight to secluded private open space of an existing dwelling should not be further reduced if less than 40sqm of the private open space receives 5 hours of sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm on the 22 September. The Standard has been achieved.

WestIn the morning, the shadows cast from the proposed development will fall to the west. In this location is the rear private opens space of the dwellings fronting Banole Avenue. The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant detail that between 9am and 10am, a marginal level of additional overshadowing will be cast over some of these spaces adjacent to the existing shadows cast by the boundary fence and existing structures. The level of additional shadow created is not considered to be unreasonable and will not impact on the main area of these private open space areas.

South

No.107 Chomley The proposed extension will not create any unreasonable additional overshadowing on the private open space of this property.


No. 109 ChomleyThe will be a small level of increase in overshadowing adjacent to the shadowing created by the existing fence throughout the day. The revised shadow diagrams submitted have not updated the shadow impacts as a result of the proposed revised proposal. A manual assessment of the impacts reveals that shadows cast will fall within the shadows created by the existing fence line if not adjacent to this shadow.

It is considered that the shadows cast throughout the day from the proposed development will not be unreasonable when assessed against Standard B21. The objective of Standard B21 has been met.

Overlooking

Overlooking and internal views

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. Assessment of overlooking impacts to each interface is provided as follows:

South

At the ground level adjacent to No. 107 Chomley Street, a 1.8m screen wall is proposed on the boundary as detailed on the floor plans. It is noted however, that the elevations do not detail a 1.8 metre high fence. There are three bedroom windows in this location, as well as a patio and residents courtyard all within 9 metres of the private open space of No. 107 and No.109 Chomley Street. The floor level in this location is 33.73 and as such, is raised above the natural ground level by 800mm approximately. The fence will not be a minimum 1.7m above the finished floor level of the habitable room windows or areas of private open space and as such, the Standard is not met. A condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring that these windows and areas of private open space be screened in accordance with Standard B22.

At the first floor level, there are three bedrooms and a living room located within 9 metres of the secluded private open space of No.35 and No.37 Banole Avenue and No.107 and No.109 Chomley Street. It is considered that the existing boundary fences will restrict unreasonable views into the area of private open space within 9 metres of No. 107 and No.109 Chomley. However, the bedroom windows that have views into No.35 and No.37 Banole Avenue should be screened in accordance with the Standard to restrict unreasonable views. That is the windows of the most south western bedroom.

There are no habitable room windows at the second level that will impact on any secluded or habitable spaces.

North

At the ground level, a boundary fence is detailed on the elevations that will restrict any views. It is unclear if this is a proposed or an existing fence. The height of the fence is considered appropriate to restrict views. It is noted however, that there are no habitable room windows along this elevation at the ground level.


At the first floor level there are two decks that are located within 1.8m of the boundary which are accessed off a living room. Planting is detailed on these decks however, it is not considered that sufficient information has been detailed that demonstrates that these deck areas will not allow direct views into the neighbouring area of private open space. The Standard has not been achieved and a condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring the decks to be screened in accordance with Standard B22.

At the second floor level, there are two decks that are within 9 metres of the private open space of No. 121 Chomley Street. The screening to this deck does not extend to a minimum 1.7m above the floor level and as such, does not meet the standard. A condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring the deck to be screened in accordance with Standard B22.

WestAt the ground level, the fence along the boundary is not considered appropriate to restrict views from ground level habitable windows. A condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring these windows to be screened in accordance with Standard B22.

At the first floor level, it is already noted that the south western bedroom windows will allow unreasonable views into No.35 and No.37 Banole Avenue and this window should be screened.

The bedroom adjacent to this bedroom to the north is considered to allow unreasonable views into No. 29 Banole Avenue and as such, this window should also be screened.

The remaining habitable room windows are not considered to result in any unreasonable overlooking considering exiting boundary fences, sheds and vegetation.

At the second floor level there are two bedrooms that are within 9 metres of the private open spaces of properties fronting Banole Avenue (No.23-27). The windows to these rooms are not proposed to be screened however, it is considered that there will not be unreasonable views within 9 metres given the presence of a boundary fence as well as the existing sheds to the rear of these properties.

Internal Amenity

The development will provide a high level of on-site amenity for future occupants. All major living areas will receive generous sunlight given the location and provision of windows. Many rooms will also have views out to landscaped gardens and courtyards. The rooms, recreational facilities and other amenities will provide for an exceptional residential building for older populations.

Car Parking and Traffic

Parking provision and layout

The proposal includes 21 car parking spaces in two separate basement car parks and one car parking space at the ground level. Clause 52.06-5 requires 0.3 spaces per bed which for the proposed 67 bed aged care centre results in a statutory requirement of 20 spaces. The provision proposed exceeds the statutory requirements.

The car parking spaces proposed have been assessed by Councils Traffic Engineer. Concerns were raised with the reduced parking aisle width adjacent to space 8 given the location of bollards adjacent to the lift. The plans detail swept path diagrams demonstrating egress from the bay. It is considered that appropriate access and egress can be made to this space.


Spaces 15 to 21 have been dimensioned at 2.6m x 4.9m however, the parking aisle has been dimensioned at 6.186m which does not meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring these spaces to accord with the planning scheme requirements.

The car parking space at the ground level is not dimensioned however, an assessment of this space confirms it is in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The column locations have not all been dimensioned in accordance with the Australian Standards and the floor gradients within the basement have not been detailed. This can be resolved by way of condition of permit if a permit is to be issued.

Car Stacker

The plans do not detail what car stacker system is proposed in the basement car park. It is also noted by Councils Traffic Engineer that the spaces are not in accordance with the Planning Scheme requirements or Australian Standards. Further, the height clearances across the bays are not considered to be in accordance with Clause 52.06 which states that at least 25% of mechanical car parking spaces can accommodate a vehicle clearance height of at least 1.8m. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring that the car stacker system be nominated and for it to be detailed in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme or the Australian Standards.

Car stackers are not considered appropriate for visitor spaces. Whilst the car parking numbers are accepted, it is considered appropriate for a Parking Management Plan be provided which details the allocation of parking. This will ensure that a satisfactory number of vehicles spaces are allocated on the site to cater for the various demands and will ensure the car stacker spaces are not utilised by visitors. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring this.

Access

Vehicle access to the basements is proposed via two separate ramps from Chomley Street. The proposed ramps comply with the Australian Standards and are considered appropriate.

No headroom details have been provided at the entrance of the basement. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring these details to ensure a minimum height clearance of 2.2m is provided.

The proposal includes the removal of three vehicle crossings and the construction of three new vehicle crossings. The crossings have not been dimensioned in accordance with Councils Crossover Policy. Councils Traffic Engineer has requested that the central crossing be moved further north to allow for a minimum clearance of 10.8m between all new crossings. A condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring these details.

Given the setback of the proposed building from the front boundary, appropriate sight distances have been provided at the top of the ramp. The porte cochere proposed at the access will have a minimum headroom clearance of 2.8m. This area is considered to have suitable clearance for access and is deemed appropriate.

Traffic

With respect to traffic generation, it is not considered that an increase of the existing facility from 37 beds to 67 beds will result in unreasonable additional traffic on Chomley Street and the surrounding area.


It is noted that a Traffic Report prepared by Traffix Group was received in October 2011 as part of the previous planning application (Permit Application 488/11) for the site at 111-119 Chomley Street. The previous proposal was for a 60 bed aged care centre with 16 car parking spaces. At the time of assessment, Councils Transport Department accepted the material and considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposal would not significantly impact upon the existing conditions in the area.

The current proposal seeks to extend the existing aged care centre to cater for 67 beds with car parking available for 22 vehicles. It is considered that this proposal is comparable to the previous application. Although there is an increase of 7 beds and 6 vehicles when compared to the previous scheme, it is not considered that this increase will now lead to a detrimental impact on the existing traffic conditions.

Loading

A designated loading bay has been proposed in the southern basement. The loading area has a minimum headroom clearance of 4.4 metres and is 7.6m x 5.2 metres. The loading area is considered to be acceptable although there is no specific trigger under Clause 52.07 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Concerns were raised regarding noise associated with delivery vehicles. The loading area is proposed underground in the proposed basement car park. This is considered an improvement to the existing situation where deliveries take place at the ground level. Nevertheless, it is considered appropriate to place a condition on the permit requiring deliveries to only take place between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday. This is a condition of permit 758/02 for the existing facility.

Bicycle Parking

The development incorporates 19 bicycle spaces at the ground level. The applicant has not specified the types of racks proposed and as such, this will be condition of any permit issued. The bicycle racks are expected to be utilised by staff and visitors. The number of bicycle spaces provided exceeds the statutory requirements at Clause 52.34 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Landscaping

A landscape plan was submitted which proposes planting to all side boundaries. However, Councils Arborist considered that the proposed vegetation to the north, west and south boundary to be insufficient to soften the built form proposed. Councils Arborist recommended that taller growing tree species be considered for these particular areas. It is considered appropriate to place a condition on any permit issued requiring the submission of a revised Landscape plan that specifies these details, including the provision of at least two large canopy trees to offset the removal of the pervious mature trees on the site. Subject to this condition, the proposed level of landscaping is considered to respond to the existing neighbourhood character of the area and will provide a safe, attractive and functional environment for residents in accordance with Standard B13.

Waste

A Waste Management Plan has not been submitted by the applicant. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring a Waste Management Plan to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Infrastructure

The proposed dwellings are located in an area where services are readily available. Council’s Development Engineer advised that there is no apparent underground drainage within close proximity of the site and therefore the owner must at their cost construct a 300mm diameter drain along the western side of Chomley Street to connect to the Council drain located to the south. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring this.

A report for the legal point of discharge to be submitted and a condition that the levels at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the basement ramp) was also requested. These conditions can be included on any permit issued.

The proposed impact on increased stormwater runoff was raised as a concern by Councils Drainage Engineer. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response to be provided. This will respond to concerns of increased stormwater runoff.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

The application proposes to install a 45,000 litre rainwater tank located underneath the northern basement. A Storm Water Quality Management Report including a STORM Report was submitted that details a minimum rating of 100% with a 35,000 litre rain water tank. The proposed tank is not shown to be connected to toilets. As per the referral comments from Council’s Environmental Sustainability Officer, additional details are necessary to satisfy Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development requirements, including several notations on the plans and further clarification. These details can be addressed through conditions.

Other Uses

While a residential aged care facility use is as of right in this zone, a small number of ancillary services are to be provided for the future residents. The plans make reference to some commercial functions on the land including a hairdresser and cafe. While there is no concern with these services being provided for the residents, any permit that is issued for this proposal must ensure that suitable conditions are in place to ensure these ancillary uses are for the exclusive use of the residential aged care facility only.

Objections

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

Noise from air-conditioning units. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring that the noise of such systems be in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy. It is noted, that the services are detailed on the roof well away from existing residential buildings.

Not clear if boundary fence being replaced. It is considered appropriate for a condition to be placed on any permit issued confirming existing/proposed boundary fences. It is noted a planning permit is not required to remove a boundary fence.




CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The subject site is well located to provide a residential aged care facility and would offer an

exceptionally high standard of aged care for the municipality and the wider community. The proposed height of the development is considered appropriate in its context and the

proposal respects the existing neighbourhood character. Subject to conditions the proposal will not create unreasonable adverse amenity outcomes

on neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 708/12 for the land located at 111-119 Chomley Street and part 33 Banole Avenue, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for extension to a Residential Building (Aged Care Facility) in a Residential 1 Zone 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 revised plans Council dated 18 October 2013 but modified to show:a) The dimensions and layout of parking bays, basement floor gradients and

location of columns such that they are generally in accordance with the Planning Scheme and/or Australian Standards to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) The proposed car stacker system nominated and the system to be revised so that the usable platform areas and head clearances within the stacker system are in accordance with the Planning Scheme and/or the Australian Standards, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) A car parking management plan detailing the allocation of car parking (including details that the car stacker spaces will be allocated to staff only) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) A minimum headroom clearance of 2.2m to be provided at the entrances of the basement ramps to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

e) The specification of the proposed bicycle racks to be provided and the proposed spaces dimensioned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

f) The proposed crossovers to be detailed in accordance with Councils Crossover Policy and a minimum clearance of 10.8m be provided between the crossovers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

g) The ground floor south and west facing habitable room windows and usable private open space areas to be screened in accordance with Standard B22 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) The first floor south and east facing windows of the most south western habitable room to be screened in accordance with Standard B22 to prevent unreasonable views into the private open spaces of No.35 and No.37 Berrima Avenue.

i) The first and second floor north facing decks to be screened in accordance with Standard B22 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

j) The corner window of the first floor bedroom window adjacent to No. 29 and 31 Berrima Avenue screened in accordance with Standard B22 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

k) The proposed/existing boundary fences detailed clearly on the ground floor plan and elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


l) A revised Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3.m) A Stormwater Quality Management Report in accordance with Condition 4n) A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 5. o) A Water Sensitive Urban Design Response in accordance with Condition 6


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a revised landscape plan must to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer which is generally in accordance with the Landscape plan submitted in October 2013 (prepared by Jhodie Goy Designs) and be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show:

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and removed.

b) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.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) Taller growing tree species along the northern, western and southern boundary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

e) The inclusion of at least two canopy trees which have a mature height of 10-12m

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Stormwater Quality Report must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:a) Dimensions of waste areasb) The number of bins to be providedc) Method of waste and recyclables collectiond) Hours of waste and recyclables collection (NB. These should correspond with

Council’s Local Laws) e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection

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.



8. The ancillary uses must be for the exclusive use of the residential aged care facility only to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


9. 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.

10. Prior to the occupation of the building, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must be fixed to a height of 1.7m and have no more than 25% openings or an alternative 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 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.

13. Noise emanating from the subject land must not exceed the permissible noise levels when determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Prior to the completion of the development, the owner must at their cost construct a 300mm diameter drain along the western side of Chomley Street to connect to the Council drain located to the south. A drainage design prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer must be submitted for the approval of Council and the works must be completed in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction and under the supervision of Council.


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

17. 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.

18. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must at all times be conducted entirely within the site and in a manner that limits interference with other vehicular traffic to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must be conducted between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Local Laws.


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

22. 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. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:



NOTE:



1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0525/13 - 99 HORNBY STREET WINDSOR – CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN A COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE AND DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LOADING BAY WAIVER


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction of a mixed use development in a Commercial 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay and associated car parking and loading bay waiver at 99 Hornby Street, Windsor.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Clarke Planning Pty LtdWard: SouthZone: Commercial 1Overlay: Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 7)

Environmental Audit OverlayDate lodged: 7/08/2013Statutory days: 114 Trigger for referral to Council:

Four storeys and call up request by Councillor Sehr

Patron Numbers: 50Number of objections: 5Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 7 November 2013Officer 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 Architects Eat and are known as Drawing No’s: A00.0-TP5.01 and are Council date stamped 7 August 2013.


Construction of a four storey building comprising an office, a restaurant and eight dwellings.

The ground level comprises 51sqm of office space, a restaurant accommodating 50 patrons, the apartment entry, a bin store, a bike store and two car parking spaces.

The restaurant proposes a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence which will permit alcohol to be sold between 7:00am and 11:00pm Monday to Saturday, between 10:00am and 11:00pm on Sunday and between 12noon and 11:00pm on Good Friday and Anzac Day.

The first floor comprises 3 apartments, with 1 x 1 bedroom apartment and 2 x 2 bedroom apartments.

The second floor level comprises 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings and the bedroom of apartment 4.


The third floor level comprises a 1 bedroom dwelling and a 2 bedroom dwelling and the living/kitchen area of apartment 4.

One car parking space is proposed to be allocated to the office use and one car parking space is proposed to be allocated to the restaurant use in a car park accessed via a right of way to the west of the site.

The proposed building provides a street wall height of 12.4 metres to Hornby Street and a street wall height of 7.4 metres to Victoria Street.

The overall building height is proposed to extend to12.4 metres. The building will have a contemporary finish with the use of cladding, concrete, tiling

and metal screens. A flat roof form is proposed.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the north western corner of Hornby Street and Victoria Street, 31 metres south of High Street. The land is zoned Commercial 1 and is located within the Prahran, South Yarra, Windsor Principal Activity Centre. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The land is regular in shape. It has a frontage of approximately 15 metres to Hornby Street and a frontage of approximately 18 metres to Victoria Street. It has a total site area of approximately 248sqm.

The site is currently vacant. It is used currently as an informal parking area. A right of way runs along the western boundary of the site, providing access to the the rear

of 250 High Street. Land to the north contains a two storey building with a roof terrace. This encompasses a

cafe at the ground level and a dwelling at the first floor level. The cafe holds a restaurant and cafe liquor licence which allows liquor to be served until 11:00pm Monday to Sunday for a maximum of 20 patrons.

Land to the west, beyond the laneway comprises a single storey dwelling. This dwelling has a blank interface to the subject site.

Land to the east, on the far side of Hornby Street is developed with a five storey mixed use development which fronts High Street. The development has a three storey facade to Hornby Street directly opposite the subject site.

To the south, on the far side of Victoria Street is a single storey office building with a parking area to the front. Adjacent to this building is a single storey dwelling.


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

Planning Permit 1551/01 was issued on 16 January 2003 for the site at 254-256 High Street, Windsor. The permit allowed for the use and development of an additional 3 storey building for dwellings, including on site car parking spaces. The permit allowed for dwellings and associated car parking to be constructed on the subject site. The permit was partially acted upon with a dwelling (including a roof deck) and associated garage parking constructed. The permit has since expired.

Planning Permit No. 573/09 was issued for part use of the site as a food and drink premises (cafe) and associated restaurant and cafe liquor licence at 99 Hornby Street on 23 August 2011. Liquor can be served until 11:00pm seven days a week to a maximum of 20 patrons. This cafe abuts the subject site to the north.

Planning Application 934/11 for the use and development of the subject site with a three storey building comprising dwellings, cafe and buildings and works was withdrawn in May 2013.

Planning Permit 822/13 for use and development of the site for a dwelling, buildings and works and a car parking waiver in a Commercial 1 Zone and Design and Development


Overlay at 99 Hornby Street and 254-256 High Street, Windsor was issued on 29 November 2013. This was a retrospective planning application for the works that were partially constructed under permit 1551/01.

The Title

The site is described as Lot S2 on Plan of Subdivision 541954T, Certificate of Title Volume 10949 Folio 656. No covenants or easements affect the land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 34.02-1, ‘dwelling’, ‘office’ and ‘retail’ use are section 1 uses and therefore do not require a planning permit. A ‘Food and Drink’ use is listed under the ‘Retail Premises Group’ at Clause 75.11 and as such, a restaurant use does not require a planning permit.

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required for buildings and works.

Overlays

Clause 43.02 Design and Development OverlayPursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 45.03 Environmental Audit OverlayPursuant to Clause 45.03-1 before a sensitive use commence or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works either:

A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environmental Protection Act 1970, or

An environmental auditor appointed under the Environmental Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental condition of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.


Clause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied, the car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3 a permit may be granted to reduce (including reduce to zero) the requirement to provide the number of car parking spaces required under this clause.

The table at Clause 52.06-5 specifies the following requirements for car parking: 1 car parking space to each one or two bedroom dwelling;


2 car parking spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling; 1 visitor car space to every five dwellings where there are more than five dwellings on a lot; 3.5 spaces to each 100sqm of net floor area of an office; and 0.4 spaces to each patron permitted for restaurant

Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 the combined use requires 30 car parking spaces. That is 8 resident spaces, 1 resident visitor spaces, 1 office space and 20 restaurant spaces. The breakdown is as follows:

Office (50sqm): 1 car parking space Restaurant : 20 car parking spaces 3 x 1 bed: 3 car parking space 5 x 2 bed: 5 car parking spaces Resident visitor – 1 space

The development proposes 2 car spaces, one for each of the commercial tenancies. Therefore, the applicant seeks a car parking waiver of 28 car parking spaces.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1 bicycle facilities should be provided in accordance with the requirements at Clause 52.34-3 and 52.34-4. A permit may be granted to vary reduce or waive these requirements

The table at Clause 52.34-5 specifies the following requirements for the provision of bicycle spaces

In developments of four or more storeys 1 bicycle space for every 5 dwellings (resident space)

In developments of four or more storeys 1 bicycle space for every 10 dwellings (visitor space)

For office, 1 space to each 300sqm of leasable floor area for staff and 1 space to each 1000sqm of visitors if the net floor area exceeds 1000sqm.

For restaurant, 1 space to each 100sqm of floor area available to the public for staff and 2 plus 1 to each 200sqm of floor area available to the public if the floor area available to the public exceeds 400sqm for visitors.

The development proposes the provision of 8 bicycle spaces. Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 the combined uses require 1 bicycle space; that is 1 resident space.

Clause 52.07 Loading and Unloading Vehicles.

Pursuant to Clause 52.07 no buildings or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles.

A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if the land area is insufficient or adequate provision is made for loading and unloading of vehicles to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

A waiver of the loading bay requirement is being sought.

Clause 52.27 Licenced PremisesPursuant to Clause 52.27, a permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor.



Clause 11.01 Activity CentresClause 11.04 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 17.01 Commercial Clause 18 TransportClause 21 Municipal Strategic StatementClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 21.08 InfrastructureClause 22.10 Licensed Premises PolicyClause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre PolicyClause 52.27 Licenced Premises 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 South Ward and objections from 5 different properties have been received. The objections can be summarized as follows:

Noise Pollution Car parking Traffic Overdevelopment Visual bulk Restaurant will increase vermin in area Liquor Licence Character Design Height Daylight Entrances on Victoria Street

A Consultative Meeting was held on 7 November 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Sehr, Hibbins and Ullin, a representative of the applicant, an objector and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any formal revised changes to the plans.

It is noted however, that the applicant has confirmed in writing that they would be accepting of a condition that would limit the liquor licence to 8pm seven days a week. The applicant is also accepting of a condition that would limit the red line area to the southern facade of the building so that alcohol is not permitted in the proposed outside area along Victoria Street. The applicant is also accepting of a condition that requires the proposed seating along the Victoria Street frontage to be removed.

Referrals

Waste


Council’s Waste Management Coordinator assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 7 August 2013). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

Council’s Waste Collection & Disposal Services Policy states that every rateable tenement is liable to pay a garbage charge irrespective of the level of waste collection services provided to the tenement by Council.

No Waste Management Plan accompanied this proposal. This development requires an all-encompassing Waste Management Plan; this requirement should be included as a Permit condition.


Council’s Environmental Sustainable Design officer assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 7 August 2013). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

No information has been provided to demonstrate how the development has addressed relevant sustainability requirements within the design. The development falls within the Medium project category and is therefore requested to prepare and submit a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) report. A SDA is a simple report which, in conjunction with freely available sustainable design tools such as STEPS and SDS, can be prepared by applicants themselves, using existing design information.

Amongst other aspects, the submitted SDA report must include indicative BCA star ratings using a NatHERS compliant tool for a representative sample of apartments (minimum 25% of apartments across a range of floors and orientations).

Plans identify provision of 8 bicycle storage spaces at a rate of one space per apartment, located in the ground floor foyer. The Town planning report (Clarke Planning Pty Ltd, August 2013), indicates that any additional bicycle parking required can be accommodated in the ground floor courtyard of the development. However, plans indicate this area is open to the public and no enclosed bicycle spaces are currently proposed. It is recommended that given a requested reduction in car parking, additional secure bicycle parking is provided for visitors and/or staff of the commercial spaces.

Plans indicate provision of a solar hot water system and associated solar panels on the roof. Applicant should ensure that the operation of these panels is not compromised by any plant associated with heating and cooling equipment (for example, air conditioning condenser units). Plans should indicate location of such units if they are to be proposed.

User operated shading should be considered to the exterior of windows on the western elevation to reduce summer heat gain. For example, this could be in the form of louvers or shutters.

The submitted STORM report should be revised to provide ‘Assessor’ details. Results from the STORM tool and associated treatment/detention measures adopted should be discussed in the SDA in accordance with Stonnington Council’s WSUD policy requirements. All relevant aspects must be illustrated on plans, including but not limited to:

a. Dimensions and location of proposed rainwater tank;b. Annotation depicting connection from the rainwater tank to proposed toilets, and;c. Annotation confirming roof drainage area to be connected to the rainwater tank.

Transport


Council’s Transport Department assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 7 August 2013). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

The development will result in a shortfall in parking of 28 spaces from the requirements of the Planning Scheme, associated with both the residential and restaurant components.

Whilst Transport and Parking Unit could accept the shortfall of 9 parking spaces for the residential component, a shortfall of 19 spaces for the restaurant within this area cannot be accepted as the parking demand from this site is likely to filter into the surrounding residential area impacting existing residents.

The provision of no visitor parking on site can be considered appropriate.

It is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is not likely to significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions.

Adequate sight distance lines are not provided.

The parking bays in the new parking area are generally designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme requirements, being 5.6m long by 2.6m wide.

All parking bays are to be widened by 300mm where they abut a wall. This requirement applies to parking bay for the cafe.

The applicant is to provide a clear swept path diagrams for the turn manoeuvres required for vehicles to access and exit parking spaces, using Australian Standards templates.

Although it appears that the site will be at grade, the applicant should provide a longitudinal section to confirm that the gradients along the parking access are satisfactory. The maximum sag grade change is 15% and the maximum crest grade change is 12.5% as per the Australian Standards to reduce scraping from occurring by the B85 design vehicle.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking area. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.

Clause 52.07 of the Planning Scheme requires a loading bay. An existing on-street Loading Zone is located within a close proximity to the proposed development, as such the proposed loading arrangements can be considered satisfactory.

The requirements of the Planning Scheme are for 1 bicycle space on site, and as such the provision of 8 spaces is acceptable. No details have been given regarding bicycle rack dimensions. The dimensions should be provided to allow for assessment.


Infrastructure

Council’s Transport Engineer assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 7 August 2013). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

Could you please place a condition on the permit stating 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.

Could you please place a condition that the existing levels of the right-of-way must not be altered (to facilitate vehicular access to the site).

Urban Design

Council’s Urban Design Officer assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 7 August 2013). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

The overall scale is compatible with the existing ‘Coco’ development (on the opposite side of Hornby Street) and the lower 4 storeys of the 6-storey VCAT-approved development at No.242-246 High Street that backs on to Victoria Street.

The form of the proposal, i.e. a 2-storey ‘base’ with 2-upper floors recessed, presents a generally similar form to Victoria Street as that of the lower 4-storeys of the larger VCAT-approved development at No.242-246 High Street.

The proposal contributes well to the pedestrian activation of the adjoining streets. The inclusion of a small open courtyard space on Hornby Street is a welcome initiative; as

are the small setbacks to the café presenting to Hornby and Victoria Streets.

There is no support for the proposed use of Fibre-Cement sheeting as the cladding material for the upper two levels of the building. A more substantive material would be appropriate for a development of this scale and nature. It is suggested that an alternative cladding system be submitted for Council’s approval.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

State Policy

A number of State Planning Policies are relevant in regard to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include Clauses 11.01 (Activity Centres), 11.04 (Metropolitan Melbourne), 15.01 (Urban Environment), 16.01 (Residential Development) and 18 (Transport). Specifically to Neighbourhood Activity Centres, Policy at Clause 11.04-2 encourages the following objectives for Neighbourhood Activity Centres:

Have a mix of activities that generate high number of trips including business, retail, services and entertainment.

Are well served by multiple transport routes. Have the potential to grow and support intensive housing developments

without conflicting with surrounding land uses.


The objectives listed above provide a strong policy context for higher density housing development within Activity Centres that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. In particular, the State policy framework includes specific direction to encourage a diversity of housing types in and around activity centers (11.01), encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial activities (17.01), increase the supply of housing in urban areas (16.01), and ensure housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice (16.01-4).

When considered against these policy directions, there is strong state policy support for the redevelopment of a site of this size and location within a Principal Activity Centre for a mixed use development.

Local Policy

Pursuant to Clause 22.19-3 (Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy), it is policy to encourage ground floor uses that contribute to a vibrant street life, provide a safe environment and which minimise the potential for conflict and the over-privatisation of the footpath. It is also policy to support the provision of further and greater range of housing opportunities, including higher density housing in appropriate locations within the Activity Centre. The Policy at Clause 22.19-3 also supports uses that activate building frontages and minimises dependence on car use.

It is proposed to locate two separate commercial uses at the ground level (restaurant and office) and dwellings at the upper levels. These uses seek to activate the street frontages and minimise the over privatisation of the footpaths by providing a recess at the ground level. The allocation of limited parking spaces also encourages the use of more sustainable modes of transport which are within walking distance of the subject site.

Clause 22.19 is to be read in conjunction with Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 (DDO7). One of the design objectives of DDO7 seeks to encourage innovative, high quality and well designed buildings which complement the existing urban fabric and the mixed use character of the Activity Centre and which achieves the preferred built outcomes for the Activity Centre. The site is situated in a designated ‘Moderate change Area’ where the preferred maximum building height is 19 metres. A preferred maximum street wall height of 12 metres is also specified with any taller forms to be setback at least 6 metres.

The proposed development seeks to extend to a height of 12.45 metres, which comes in well below the preferred maximum height outcome for a site in this location. A street wall height to Hornby Street of 12.45 metres is proposed and a street wall height of 7.4 metres to Victoria Street is proposed. The proposal is considered in keeping with the preferred built form outcome for this centre. This will be discussed further in the section below.

Urban Design and Neighbourhood Character

Building Height

It is important for any assessment of building heights and neighbourhood character to balance the range of influencing factors affecting this area, including policy provisions, the existing height characteristics of nearby built form, and preferred future character development of the area.


The preferred development outcomes for the subject site is set out in Chapel Vision, with planning controls reflecting the recommendations set out at Clause 22.19 (Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy) and Schedule 7 to Clause 43.03 (Design and Development Overlay). The subject site is located in a ‘moderate change’ area where a moderate change in new development is expected to occur consistent with the preferred future character of the area. The preferred overall building height for this location as specified in DDO7 is up to 19 metres, with a preferred minimum street wall of 8 metres and maximum street wall height of 12 metres.

The proposed development at a maximum height of approximately 12.45 metres provides a difference of 6.55 metres below the preferred maximum height for this location. The proposed height is accepted by Councils Urban Designer and is considered to be a reasonable and ‘moderate’ outcome for this location. Opposite the site along Hornby Street, is a three storey built form which forms part of a larger development which extends to five storeys. To the west, at 242-246 High Street a built form of 19 metres has recently been approved. It is considered that the proposed building height is relative to the general scale of buildings in the precinct and can be supported.

The street wall proposed to Hornby Street will extend to 12.45 metres. This slightly exceeds the preferred maximum street wall height of 12 metres as specified in DDO7. The proposed street wall will not occupy the entire 15 metre frontage to Hornby Street but instead will extend for a length of 7.5 metres across the frontage. The remaining built form along this frontage is either setback off the boundary or extends to a maximum height of 7.4 metres. The marginal extension over the 12 metre guideline is considered an appropriate design response considering that DD07 allows for a street wall height of 12 metres across the entire frontage. It is also noted that DDO7 does specify that reduced upper level setbacks may be appropriate for corner sites. It is considered in this context, the marginal variation of 450mm is not significant and will fit comfortably into the Hornby Street environment.

A street wall height of 7.4 metres is proposed to Victoria Street, with the upper levels setback 3 metres from the boundary. DDO7 specifies a minimum street wall height of 8 metres and any buildings over 12 metres to be setback 6 metres from the boundary. The street wall height proposed falls below the minimum requirement and the top 450mm of the proposed building technically does not comply with the Design Objectives given that it is not setback 6 metres from the boundary. Nevertheless, it is considered that the proposed street wall height and setbacks proposed is appropriate in its context.

It is noted that a permit was recently issued by VCAT for the site at 242-246 High Street, Windsor. This permit allowed for a six storey mixed use building with a street wall height of 7.3 metres to Victoria Street with the second level setback 4 metres and the third level setback 3.6 metres from the boundary. The building approved extends to an overall height of 19 metres.

DDO7 allows for a maximum street wall height of 12 metres. The proposal seeks to maintain a street wall height of 7.4 metres which will respond to the two storey built form in Victoria Street. The two upper levels are proposed to be setback 3 metres to provide an appropriate transition from the double storey built form in the street. It is considered that the proposed built form to Victoria Street is an appropriate design response and will fit comfortably in the streetscape. Again, it is noted that DDO7 does specify that reduced upper level setbacks may be appropriate for corner sites. In this situation, the variation sought is considered appropriate.

Other built form factors

In relation to street frontages, DDO7 seeks for development to address each frontage and incorporate various design elements that contribute to the provision of a continuous, visible and active frontage at ground level. The design objectives also include:


Avoid use of external roller shutters to street frontages Locate entrances, doorways, awnings and fenestration to provide a sense of passive

surveillance Seek to open up building facades to passing pedestrian traffic.

The proposal has specifically addressed these design objectives by providing a continuous and active frontage to Victoria Street and Hornby Street with the incorporation of a 600mm setback at the ground level. This area will serve as an outdoor seating area for the proposed restaurant without needing to utilise the existing footpath. This will open up the building facade to passing pedestrian traffic as well as serve to improve the sight distances on the corner for pedestrians.

It is also proposed to provide an open courtyard to the north side of the site adjacent to the proposed pedestrian access. The provision of the courtyard contributes to the articulation of the building, will allow for northern light into the site and will provide a sense of passive surveillance. It is noted that Councils Urban Designer is supportive of the recessed ground level and open courtyard given that it will contribute to the pedestrian activation of the streets.The proposal has avoided the use of any roller doors/shutters at the ground level and has provided entrances to each frontage. This is considered a good design response.

Currently the existing site makes zero contribution to the area. It is used as an informal parking area with access to the site provided via a crossover to/from Hornby Street. The proposal will enhance this corner site with the removal of the existing crossover and by providing a development that will contribute to the activation of the streets.

The building is proposed to be designed in a contemporary manner with the use of tiling and a substantial amount of glazing at the ground level, the use of galvanised metal screens at the first and second levels, and a fibre cement cladding finish at the upper levels. Councils Urban Designer raised concerns with the use of fibre cement cladding at the upper levels. It is considered that a more substantive alternative cladding type would be more appropriate given the scale and nature of the proposal.

A condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring that an alternative cladding be proposed to the upper levels to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Overall, the built form and design of the proposed development (subject to the above condition) is considered to adhere to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area and the guidelines of DDO7 and responds to its immediate context.

External Amenity

With regards external amenity, it is important to highlight that the subject site is located within a Commercial Zone. Clause 55 is the applicable assessment criteria given that the development does not exceed 5 storeys.

Visual bulk and daylight to existing windows

Given the context of the subject site, the only adjoining property is to the north which contains a double storey building used as a cafe at the ground level and a dwelling at the first floor level. The dwelling also has access to a roof deck which contains a screen on its southern boundary. There are no habitable room windows facing the subject site given that the building is built to the boundary.


The proposed development will result in a wall height of approximately 4.1 metres adjacent to the existing roof deck to the north. Given that the roof deck is screened from the subject site by an existing screen the amenity impacts of allowing a boundary wall in this location is minimal. It is also noted, that a planning permit (1551/01) was issued in 2003 that allowed for a boundary wall to be constructed in this location.

The existing dwelling to the west, on the far side of the laneway has a blank interface to the subject site and as such, there will be no windows or areas of private open space affected by the proposed development.

The proposed development will not impact on any habitable room windows. The objectives of Standard B18 and Standard B19 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are considered to have been met.

Overshadowing

Overshadowing diagrams have been submitted with the proposed development. The additional shadows resulting from the development will be cast over Victoria Street and Hornby Street. Given the location and context of the site, there will no overshadowing to any areas of secluded private open space.

Standard B21 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme has been met.

Overlooking

The proposal comprises windows that are orientated east, south and west. Given the context of the site with a laneway to the west and roads to the east and south, there are no habitable room windows within 9 metres of the subject site. Therefore there will be no unreasonable overlooking into any habitable room windows or areas of secluded private open space.

Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme has been met.

Internal Amenity

The proposed development provides dwelling diversity with a range of sizes and configurations. Dwellings range in size from 52.90m² to 73.97m² and all habitable rooms will have direct access to natural light.

Every dwelling has access to a balcony that is accessible from a living room. It is noted that not all the balconies are proposed to be a minimum 8sqm. However, they are all of a regular configuration and are deemed appropriate useable spaces. Each face outwards and none are required to be screened which will allow for each of the balconies to receive adequate light. This is considered an acceptable outcome. Bicycle storage and mail boxes are located at the ground floor level and their location is considered to be safe and convenient for residents. The pedestrian entry point is considered satisfactory and will provide a sense of address and a safe access point. The development also has adequate internal accessibility with lift and stair access.

No external storage spaces have been provided to the dwellings however, the dwellings are considered to be of a reasonable size that will be able to accommodate future resident’s storage requirements.

Overall, the proposed development provides a sufficient level of internal amenity for future residents.


Traffic and Car Parking

Congestion

The application was referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Unit. It is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is not likely to significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions, particularly noting the very low number of off-street parking bays provided. Car Parking

The application proposes the provision of 2 car spaces.

Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06-5, the combined use requires 30 car parking spaces. That is 8 resident spaces, 1 resident visitor spaces, 1 office space and 20 restaurant spaces. The breakdown is as follows:

Office (50sqm): 1 car parking spaces Restaurant : 20 car parking spaces 3 x 1 bed: 3 car parking space 5 x 2 bed: 5 car parking spaces Resident visitor – 1 spaces

The development proposes 2 car spaces, that is: 1 office space and 1 restaurant space

The provision of one parking space for the office meets the statutory requirements for that use, and is considered satisfactory. The applicant seeks a car parking waiver of 19 restaurant car parking spaces, 8 resident spaces and 1 resident visitor space.

Councils Transport Department consider the provision of no off-street parking for the residential component to be satisfactory, on condition that the applicant ensure that prospective residents be made aware in advance that they are not and will not be eligible for resident parking permits. A note can be placed on any permit issued detailing that any future residents will not be eligible for resident parking permits.

It is considered that the proposal for a waiver of the car parking requirements will encourage sustainable transport for future occupants in line with Councils Sustainable Transport Policy. This Policy seeks to reduce car dependency by working towards having more people in the municipality choosing to walk, cycle and use public transport. By reducing the provision of car parking available, the objective and strategies under this policy will be achieved. The site is located within a Principal Activity Centre where there are a range of services located within walking distance. The site is also well serviced by public transport with trams available along Chapel and High Street and Prahran and Windsor Railway Stations in close proximity of the site. In addition, each dwelling will be provided with a bicycle space and a condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring visitor bicycle spaces to be provided (discussed further in the report). Overall, it is considered that the proposed waiver of the resident and resident visitor car parking requirement can be supported.

Councils Transport Department raised concerns with the waiver of 19 car parking spaces associated with the restaurant use. It is considered by this department that a restaurant use open in the evening would generate unique trips which would impact the surrounding residential area.


It is not considered that the proposed use would generate unique trips. Like other cafes and restaurants in the Principal Activity Centre, it is considered that those who would frequent the restaurant would be those living or working in the precinct. It is not envisaged that people would specifically drive to the area to attend the proposed restaurant. It is also important to note that the site is located within the Prahran, South Yarra and Winsor Principal Activity Centre where Policy for the Centre at Clause 22.19-3 supports ‘uses that minimise dependence on car use’ and uses that ‘facilitate sustainable transport options’. The proposed restaurant with one allocated car parking space is in accordance with this policy by avoiding dependence on the car use. In addition, the site is ideally situated in a location that can avail of a number of public transport options including trams along Chapel and High Street.

Overall, it is considered that a car parking waiver associated with the restaurant use can be supported.

Access and Manoeuvring

The parking bays are to be 5.4m x 2.6m with 90 degree orientation. Councils Traffic Engineer advised that the car parking space adjacent to the wall should be a minimum 2.7 metres wide to accord with the Australian Standards. A condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring this.

Councils Traffic Engineer considered that Australian Standard Swept Path diagrams should be submitted to demonstrate access and egress into the proposed car parking spaces. It is considered that vehicles will be able to enter and exit the car parking area accordingly. This may require some point turns to be made however, in this situation this is not considered to be a concern. It is highly likely that the same staff member will utilise each of the car parking spaces and as such, they will be familiar with the required manoeuvres for entering and exiting the site. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring swept paths to be submitted to confirm ingress and egress into the spaces.

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have also raised concerns with the lack of adequate sight lines being provided at the access to the garage. The proposed car parking area will require a garage door to open to allow cars to exit. Any pedestrian that happens to be in the laneway will therefore be aware that a vehicle is likely to exit the car parking area. Notwithstanding this, a condition will be placed on any permit issued require a warning device to be installed which will warn pedestrians/other vehicles that a car will be exiting the site.

The height clearance within the car parking area is 3 metres with a height clearance of 2.4 metres at the garage door. This is considered appropriate.

It is noted that a condition will be placed on the permit requiring the gradient within the garage to be detailed on the floor plans. Overall, the proposed development is not expected to result in any adverse parking or traffic impacts in the surrounding area and is consistent with the purpose of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme. The layout proposed is considered satisfactory subject to the above conditions being met.

Bicycles

A total of 8 bicycle spaces are proposed in the ground level car park accessed from the laneway. The spaces are proposed to be allocated to residents of the dwellings as detailed in the planning report accompanying the application. This exceeds the requirements of Clause 52.34-3.

A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring details of the type of bicycle racks proposed to be provided and the spaces to be dimensioned on the plans.


Council’s Environmental Sustainable Design Officer suggested that additional bicycle storage should be provided given the requested reduction in car parking. It is considered that the proposed courtyard would provide an ideal location for additional bicycle parking. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring additional bicycle storage to be provided for visitors and/or staff of the commercial spaces.

Loading Bay

Councils Transport Department are satisfied that the waiver of the loading bay requirement is appropriate.

Liquor Licence

The proposal includes a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence associated with the proposed restaurant use. The red line area extends around the perimeter of the proposed restaurant tenancy including the external recessed area. The hours of operation proposed are:

Monday to Saturday 7:00am to 11:00pm Sunday 10:00am to 11:00pm Good Friday and Anzac Day 12 noon and 11:00pm

The site is located in an established Principal Activity Centre where a mix of liquor licenses exists. The alcohol consumption is proposed to be in conjunction with the serving of meals at the proposed restaurant and as such, a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence is being applied for.

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives and policy statements of the Licensed Premises Policy at Clause 22.10 and the decision guidelines of the Licensed Premises Particular Provision at Clause 52.27.

The hours of operation (i.e. finish time of 11:00pm) meets the suggested parameters provided in Clause 22.10 for a site located adjacent to a Residential 1 Zone. Furthermore, given such a licence requires that 75 % of people who are consuming alcohol be seated and consuming food as part of a meal, it is not considered that this proposal will result in instances of intoxication or anti social behaviour. As such, the proposal to incorporate a liquor licence is not considered to adversely affect the amenity of the area in accordance with Clause 22.10-3.

It is noted, that there are a number of uses in the immediate area that operate with a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence including, the existing Cafe to the north of the site.

The proposed liquor licence is not considered to lead to excessive noise levels however, it is deemed appropriate to place a permit condition on any permit issued requiring that any music in the restaurant be limited to background music only. Another condition will also be included that requires the noise levels to comply with the State Environment Protection Policy. A further condition will be included that requires a sign to be displayed at the exit of the premises advising patrons to leave in a quiet and orderly manner.

The proposal as discussed above meets the decision guidelines set out at Clause 52.27 and the policy objectives and decision guidelines at Clause 22.10 as such, it is considered that the proposal can be supported.

It is noted, that the applicant has advised that they would be accepting of a condition that would limit the liquor licence hours to 8:00pm Monday to Sunday following concerns raised by objectors.


The applicant also advised that they would be accepting of a condition that limits the red line area to the southern facade of the building and therefore would not include the outdoor setback area to Victoria Street. Given this advice, conditions will be placed to that affect on any permit issued.

Environmental Audit Overlay

In accordance with Clause 45.03-1 before a sensitive use (residential use) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either:

A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

No Certificate or statement from an appointed environmental auditor has been submitted with the application. Therefore the relevant planning permit conditions will be attached to any permit issued for the development ensuring the above statutory requirements are met.


As discussed earlier, Council’s Environmental Sensitive Design (ESD) Officer requested that a more detailed response on sustainable design measures needs to be provided in the form of a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA). This plan needs to be in accordance with Council’s Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDAPP) programme. Should a permit be issued a condition should be included requiring the submission and approval of a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA).


The application proposes to install a 5000 litre rainwater tank in ground. A STORM report was submitted which demonstrates a 100% rating with a 5000 litre rain water tank. However, it is noted that the tanks are not detailed on the plans as being connected to toilets nor has the assessor’s details been included on the report. This as such does not result in compliance with the best practice performance objective, set out in the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, Victoria Stormwater Committee 1999. A condition will be placed on the permit requiring a revised response to be submitted.

Waste Management

The applicant has advised that bins will be transported from the bin storage area to Victoria Street via the laneway. A condition will be placed on a permit requiring a Waste Management Plan to be submitted.

Infrastructure

It is noted that a previous application (934/11) was referred to Melbourne Water who advised in 2012 that the applicable floor level for this site is 18.48AHD and that the floor levels be no lower than 18.78 AHD. The proposed floor level is detailed as 19.00AHD and as such is considered appropriate. This was discussed with Councils Infrastructure Engineer who was satisfied with this.


A report for the legal point of discharge and a condition requiring that the existing levels of the right-of-way not to be altered were requested. In the event of a permit being issued, these issues can be dealt with by a condition.

Other mattersThe plans detail that a power pole will be removed from the Victoria Street frontage. This is not a planning consideration and is an issue for the applicant to resolve with the relevant power company.

A condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring the deletion of the note that references that the pole will be removed.

Objections


Noise

The development is for office, restaurant and residential dwellings. The proposed use is not expected to be unreasonable. Further, these uses will need to comply with the relative noise controls of EPA Victoria.

Pollution and increase in vermin

Pollution and the potential increase of vermin in the area is not a planning consideration. There will be various health requirements that a restaurant use will need to abide by.



CONCLUSION


The proposal respects the existing neighbourhood character and will sit well within the streetscape

The buildings height is considered to appropriately respond to the evolving built form of the nearby area and strategic context of the site.

The waiver of the car parking requirements is appropriate in this location, given its proximity to public transport.

The proposed Restaurant and Cafe liquor licence is consistent with Clause 22.10 (Licensed Premises Policy) and Clause 52.27 (Licensed Premises).


RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 525/13 for the land located at 99 Hornby Street, Windsor be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for Construction of a mixed use development in a Commercial 1 Zone and Design and Development Overlay and associated car parking and loading bay waiver 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 revised plans Council dated 7 August 2013 but modified to show:

a) The red line area to be reduced to exclude the outside seating area adjacent to Victoria Street to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) The seats proposed in the outside area adjacent to Victoria Street be removed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) The fibre-cement cladding proposed for the upper level to be deleted and an alternative cladding or type of material be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) The car parking spaces to be amended so that they are in accordance with the Australian Standards or Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

e) A vehicle warning device to be fitted to the garage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

f) Swept path diagrams in accordance with the Australian Standards to be provided confirming that vehicles can enter and exit the car parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

g) The floor gradient within the garage detailed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) Additional bicycle storage to be provided for visitors and/or staff of the commercial spaces in the proposed courtyard or in another location on site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

i) The specification of the proposed bicycle racks to be provided and the proposed spaces dimensioned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

j) The reference to removal of the electricity pole to be deleted from the plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

k) A Sustainable Design Assessment in accordance with Condition 3. l) A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 4. m) A Water Sensitive Urban Design Response in accordance with Condition 5


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:a) Dimensions of waste areasb) The number of bins to be providedc) Method of waste and recyclables collection


d) Hours of waste and recyclables collection (NB. These should correspond with Council’s Local Laws)

e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection

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.



7. Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the sale of liquor must only occur within the premises between the hours of:

Monday to Saturday 7:00am to 8:00pm Sunday 10:00am to 8:00pm Good Friday and Anzac Day 12 noon and 8:00pm

8. A total of no more than 50 patrons may be housed within the restaurant, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The predominant activity carried out at all times on the licensed premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the licensed premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Tables and chairs must be placed in position on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending the premises at any one time, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Bottles and rubbish must not be removed from within the premises between the hours of 11pm and 7am the following day.

12. The applicant must display a sign at the exit of the premises advising patrons to respect the amenity of the adjacent residential areas and leave in a quiet and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either:

a) A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

b) An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

Before the occupation of the building all the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


14. Every rateable tenement is liable to pay a garbage charge irrespective of the level of waste collection services provided to the tenement by Council.

15. Air-conditioning and other plant and equipment installed on the subject buildings shall be so positioned and baffled so that no noise disturbance is caused to occupiers of adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. The provision of music and entertainment on the premises must be limited to background music or entertainment by performers using non-amplified instruments unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

17. Noise emanating from the subject land must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



20. The existing levels of the right-of-way must not be altered to facilitate access to the site.



23. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. c) The use is not started within five years of the date of this permit.





NOTE:


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

Background music level, in relation to premises, means a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voices to a substantial level.


1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0314/13 - 1483 - 1487 MALVERN ROAD GLEN IRIS - DEMOLITION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE STOREY BUILDING TO CONTAIN SHOPS AND DWELLINGS AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING AND LOADING BAY REQUIREMENTS


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for demolition and the construction of a multi-storey building and use of the building for dwellings in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay, a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06, and a waiver of the loading requirements at Clause 52.07 at 1483-1487 Malvern Road, Glen Iris.

Executive Summary

Applicant: UrbisWard: EastZone: Commercial 1Overlay: Heritage OverlayDate lodged: 28/05/2013Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

179

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than seven objections, greater than four storeys

VCAT Hearing Date 20 January 2014Number of objections: 21 objections and 4 statement of groundsConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 27 August 2013Officer Recommendation: That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a

Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit would have been issued

BACKGROUND

The current application, which proposes the demolition and construction of a five storey building, was formally lodged with Council on 28 May 2013 and further information was requested on 3 June 2013. The additional information was satisfactorily received by Council on 20 June 2013 and plans were placed on public notice for fourteen days.

The application received 21 objections (and an additional four statements of grounds have been lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) and a consultative meeting was held on 27 August 2013. No further changes were made to the plans following this meeting. Discussions took place between the applicant and Council Planning Officers and draft amended plans for discussion purposes were provided to Council on 17 September 2013, which included the following changes:

Reduction in the number of units from 31 to 28; Additional car space (30 to 31) and provision of eight (8) conventional spaces; Variations to the internal layouts of the remaining units; and Revised floor levels at ground floor level to address Melbourne Water’s concern.


Importantly, there was no change proposed to the building height, setback from Malvern Road or the vehicle access arrangement. The plans were reviewed by Council Officers and it was determined that the variations had not gone far enough to resolve the concerns that had been raised by Council and the objectors.

The applicant then subsequently lodged an appeal under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for Council’s failure to determine the application within the prescribed timeframe. The application has been placed on the Major Cases List and a hearing has been set down to commence on Monday 20 January 2014 for three days.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by the Buchan Group and are known as Project No. 312129, Drawing No’s: ATP-00001, ATP-00002, ATP-00003, ATP-00004, ATP-00005, ATP-00006, ATP-00007, ATP-00008, ATP-00009, ATP-00010, ATP-20000, ATP-20001, ATP-20002, ATP-20003, ATP-20004, ATP-20005, ATP-20006, ATP-20007, ATP-20008, ATP-20009, ATP-20010 and shadow diagrams all Revision P01 and Council date stamped 20 June 2013.

In addition to the development plans, the applicant also submitted the following reports in support of the application:

Sustainable Management Plan prepared by ADP Consulting: Engineering, Job No. 1817, Rev 02 and dated 19 June 2013

Traffic Impact Report prepared by Ratio dated May 2013 Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design and dated 14 May 2013


Demolition of the existing building. Construction of a five storey mixed use development to be 15.5m in height and comprise:

15 one-bedroom apartments and 16 two-bedroom apartments Three retail tenancies at ground floor level 30 car stacker spaces within two basement levels with access provided via a

mechanical lift. All vehicle access is to be provided via Staunton Lane. 32 bicycle spaces located within the basement levels

The building floor levels are known as Ground Floor, Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 as referred to on the architectural plans.

Site and Surrounds

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

A principal frontage to Malvern Road of 18.65m and a depth of 48.24m, yielding an overall site area of 648sqm

Secondary frontage of 9.75m to Staunton Lane to the north. An existing double storey squash court building currently occupies close to 100% 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”.

The subject 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 a tram line and commercial and retail services aimed at meeting local needs. The adjoining properties to the east and west area generally one to two storey commercial buildings used as shops, cafes, a medical centre and hardware store.

Directly to the east is a double storey building with a facade height of 8m that is used as a shop. The site is entirely occupied except for the rear of the site where the building has been setback approximately 5m from the rear boundary.

Directly to the west is a single storey building that is used as a medical centre. The building has a height of 4.55m as it presents to the street. The building occupies the front of the site with the rear of the building setback approximately 13m from the rear lane.

Directly to the north is Staunton Lane, a 3m wide right of way that is accessed from Creswick Street to the east. The lane provides access to the rear of the commercial properties along Malvern Road and access to the residential properties to the north. Importantly, there are some residential properties that front Staunton Lane directly to the north of the subject site. Directly north of the subject site is a double storey residence known as 1 Creswick Street.

While Staunton Lane veers north for a distance of approximately 230m and runs parallel with Creswick Street and Tooronga Road, it is considered that the main point of access to the laneway relative to the subject site is from Creswick Street. The rear boundary of the subject site is located approximately 7m from the intersection of Creswick Street and Staunton Lane. It is not anticipated that future residents/occupants would travel along the section of Staunton Lane that runs parallel with Creswick Street to gain access to the subject site.


A search of Council records indicates that there are no recent planning applications registered to this subject site.

There are some, albeit limited, examples of four and five storey buildings in the surrounding area of which some have been approved by 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 300m 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. Importantly, the fifth level has been setback 10.5m from the Malvern Road title boundary and 12m from the rear right of way. At the time this permit was issued the site was not affected by a Heritage Overlay. The Heritage Overlay (HO399) was introduced to this site on 22 December 2011.


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 50m to the east of the subject site. While this development has an overall height of approximately 15m, the building is essentially broken into two halves with a large 9m 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 614627 Volume 07856 Folio 071 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 34.01 – Commercial 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 34.01-1 a permit is not required to use the land for shops or for accommodation 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 2.4m 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 for buildings and works.

OverlayClause 43.01 - Heritage Overlay (HO399)Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works and for demolition.

Particular ProvisionsClause 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

Dwelling 31 one and two bedroom apartments

1 per dwelling 31

Visitor parking 1 to every 5 dwellings 6Shop 287.2sqm 4 to every 100sqm of

leasable floor area11

48

A total of 30 car spaces are proposed, with 27 to be allocated to the residences and 3 to be allocated to the retail tenancies.

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 retail uses on the land, the standard 27.4sqm loading area would be 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 6 resident spaces and 3 visitor spaces. The proposal includes 32 spaces situated in the basement levels, which exceeds the statutory provision.


Clause 11.01 Activity centresClause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 HousingClause 17.01 CommercialClause 18.02 Movement networks

Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 21.07 Open Space and EnvironmentClause 21.08 Infrastructure

Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy

Clause 34.01 Commercial 1 ZoneClause 52.06 Car parkingClause 52.07 Loading and unloading vehiclesClause 52.34 Bicycle facilitiesClause 52.35 Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development of Four

Storeys or MoreClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Gazettal of Amendment C161

This amendment came into operation on 5 December 2013 and implements the recommendations of Stonnington’s Planning Scheme Review (2010), which updates Council’s planning vision and policies and revises the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) by replacing the existing Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) with a new MSS and making consequential changes to several local policies. This assessment has considered the new MSS.


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 objections from 25 different properties (objections and statements of grounds) have been received. The concerns that have been raised can be broadly summarised as follows:

Out of character with surrounding development Not in keeping with the heritage streetscape Overdevelopment Height is excessive Car parking Traffic congestion Safety in the lane Noise from car stackers Internal amenity Overlooking Loss of light

A Consultative Meeting was held on 27 August 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Davie and McMorrow, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.

Referrals

Melbourne Water

The subject site falls within an area that is highlighted as being placed within a future Special Building Overlay (SBO). Council’s Infrastructure Department raised concern with the floor levels proposed and as such, the application was sent to Melbourne Water for comment.

Melbourne Water advised Council that they object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development is inconsistent with State Planning Policy relating to drainage and floodplain management.

2. The proposed development is subject to inappropriate and unacceptable flood risk, where the safety of land users may be affected and potential for flood damage is excessive.

Heritage Advisor

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who advised that there are numerous concerns with the proposal, principally relating to the setbacks of the upper levels. The comments received are detailed below:

The building will make some modest attempt to reinforce the rhythm of early buildings along the street. While this ‘podium’ element is taller than is ideal, this section of the proposal raises few heritage issues.


The ‘podium’ element alone is taller than those anticipated by the Guidelines. Applied without discretion, the Guidelines support the removal of the entire current proposal taller than the podium. That is, the Guidelines suggest that we should remove the levels denoted 3 and 4 on the applicants drawings in their entirety. That said it may be possible to apply some discretion in response to a suitable design. It may, for example, be possible to support a design incorporating a rear ‘tower’ component that is designed as a separate, recessive element to the rear of the heritage streetscape.

The current design does not achieve this outcome. It proposes a stepped approach which serves to blur the distinction between the street volume (or podium) and other built form to its rear. The proposal cannot be supported in its current form.

The key issues relate to the setbacks to the most southerly apartment on levels 3 and 4.

If we are to apply the Guidelines with discretion, setbacks should be sufficient to ensure that the building volume associated with the upper levels is an independent, distant and recessive element. To achieve this, it would be necessary to delete apartments A04 and A05 at level 3, and apartment A04 at level 4 from the scheme. It may be possible to utilise the setback area at level 3 for plant or deck etc provided these activities are concealed from views from the street.

Urban Design

Council’s Urban Designer has highlighted the following elements of the design that are of concern:

The visual bulk associated with the 5th floor level; The design character and lack of streetscape integration; The poor apartment layout and the associated poor standard of internal amenity; The poor response to energy efficiency; The crowding of the rear laneway interface and impact on the functioning of the lane.

Overall, this is a poor design response and it represents a substantial over-development of the site.

More specifically, it is considered that 4-storeys is a more appropriate scale in this neighbourhood centre context and, subject to appropriate setbacks, will have the effect of limiting the degree of visual bulk in views from Malvern Road and from neighbouring properties to the north

Scale and Visual bulk

At the proposed scale of 5-storeys, and with the proposed setbacks, the upper levels of the building will present an excessive degree of visual bulk in views from Malvern Road and from neighbouring properties to the north.

Streetscape integration

The proposed design character for the building, as it presents to Malvern Road, does not appear to relate well to the character of the streetscape. Whilst there are many ways to achieve a satisfactory integration with the streetscape, a more satisfactory approach can be seen in the nearby development at No.1387 Malvern Road. It is suggested that similar principles would be applicable to the infill design on the subject site.


Rear interface

The building is proposed to be constructed to the rear boundary, abutting the 3m wide Staunton Lane. This has the dual impact of crowding the interface with the residential properties to the north, and compromising the functioning of the site for more intensive vehicular access and servicing associated with the higher-density development.

It is inevitable that, over time, many of the properties in this local centre will be re-developed and all will require vehicular access from the rear laneway. For these sites to be capable of supporting higher-density residential developments, their proponents are expected to contain the extent of their development footprints, such that there is sufficient width available along the rear of their sites to enable each of these developments, and the lane, to function properly with respect to vehicular access and servicing.

The voluntary setting back from the rear lane should be seen as a necessary trade-off for the benefit, accruing to the developer, from the capacity to more intensively redevelop these small local centre sites. It is suggested that the rear interface should be limited to 3 storeys and should be setback a minimum of 2m (to the face of any balconies) from the northern title boundary.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure have reviewed the development plans and noted that the proposed building seeks to unofficially reclaim land that has clearly been used as footpath by the public over many years. The development therefore must be set back to comply with the existing occupation which aligns with the rest of the Malvern Road frontages.

The front of the property is impacted by the revised but as yet not adopted SBO (Melbourne Water responsibility). The proposed floor levels appear to be below the flood level. The plans show the proposed level to be partly below the footpath level.

Should a permit issue conditions are required as follows:

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 Malvern Road footpath levels and rear right-of-way levels at the respective property lines must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the new development and floor levels)

Waste

The Waste Department have confirmed that the Waste Management Plan submitted responds reasonably well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans prepared by The Buchanan Group and date stamped by Council 20 June.

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 bins to be presented in this manner, it is recommended that the Waste Management Plan 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 condition 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 indicated) should be submitted for approval.

Transport and Parking

Council’s Traffic Engineers have reviewed the development plans and have provided the following comments:

The proposed development includes 30 parking bays in a pair of separate stacker systems across two (2) basement levels of parking, which represents a parking shortfall of 18 parking bays from the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

A total of 27 bays are proposed for the residential component of the development. The TIR uses census data to illustrate that the provision of 1-bedroom apartments with no parking allocation is adequate. I note that using Glen Iris LGA data (Stonnington LGA data includes Housing Commission units, and areas of much higher public transport and local amenity provisions, and is not considered analogous to the subject site) the required parking supply is shown in the table below.

As such, it is unclear how the conclusion that the residential parking provision is adequate. Even using the Stonnington LGA rates, which includes higher density areas such as Prahran and South Yarra, predicts a parking requirement of 32 spaces.

Given the location of the proposed development, and the material presented in the TIR, it appears that the proposed parking provision of 27 bays for residential use will not be adequate, and the demand may spill over into the surrounding road network.

Visitor Parking

It is recommended that some visitor parking be provided on site. However, based on the current design there will be difficulty providing such parking on-site as bays are all within stackers and accessed via a car lift.

Shop Allocation

The allocation of one (1) parking bay to each retail tenancy for staff use is considered reasonable, and can be accepted in this case.


The provision of no parking on-site for retail visitors is considered reasonable in this case as the site is located in an existing retail strip and time-limit restrictions are applied along the Malvern Road frontage of the site to encourage turnover.

Parking Complexity

The Transport and Parking Unit are concerned with the overall complexity of the parking access, and the impact this may have on the desirability of parking on-site, and subsequently the potential impact to on-street parking. In this case the development intensity may be too high for the subject site. Some of these issues could be resolved by reducing the number of dwellings on site, and providing a more typical parking layout with less reliance on automated systems.

Generally a standard lift carrying people is installed with a stairway, which provides an alternative access should the lift be out of order or under maintenance. This is not the case with a car lift. Any mechanical problems would render the basement inaccessible to vehicles, or trap any vehicles already in the basement. Any instances of this occurring would likely result in residents losing confidence in the system and seeking alternative parking locations.

There are also numerous design details with the car parking layouts, such as sight lines, details of car parking and mechanical parking that do not accord with the Planning Scheme requirements and this is a concern.

Traffic in the lane

Transport initially advised that the traffic volumes in the lane were not unreasonable. However, some residents abutting Staunton Lane contacted Council to raise concerns regarding the current conditions experienced. These are not solely as a result of volume of trips, which as previously advised are unlikely to be substantially impacted by the increase in trips predicted in the Ratio report, but rather as a result of the limited pedestrian facilities available and the existing conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, and as a result of heavy vehicle use of the lane.

The conflict between pedestrians and vehicles in particular is not a typical issue for access lanes of this type, as they generally carry only very low pedestrian volumes. However, in the case of Staunton Lane there are properties with access solely to Staunton Lane, and it appears that as development continues, these residents have been increasingly impacted.

It should also be noted that residents have reported that queuing and conflicts are already occurring in the lane. This did not appear to be the case based on the information provided in the Ratio analysis. Residents are sensitive to queues and conflicts within the lane as there are limited passing opportunities.

Loading Facilities – Clause 52.07

The applicant is seeking a waiver of the requirement for on-site loading on the basis that there are loading areas in the surrounding area which could be used to service the development. While there is no in-principle concern with allowing a waiver for on-site loading near strip shopping areas, the applicant should be aware that the two identified LOADING ZONE restrictions in the area are on the opposite side of Malvern Road, which is a major arterial.

It is considered in this case that such locations may not be desirable, and as such it is recommended that on-site loading be included. The potential outcome of not providing loading areas on-site is that vehicles engaged in loading will prop in Staunton Lane based on our experience with similar arrangements, disrupting traffic flow.


Bicycle Facilities

The proposal is to provide all bicycle parking in an area on each of the basement levels in Flat Top bicycle rails. These spaces appear to be lockable, and would require use of the resident lift for access. As such, the proposed bicycle storage is not suitable for visitor parking.

More details are needed on the plans to ensure that the bicycle parking facilities comply with the requirements of Clause 52.34.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

The purpose of the Commercial 1 Zone seeks to create vibrant mixed use commercial centres that provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre and in line with State and local planning policies.

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. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

Council’s Strategic Vision at Clause 21.03 seeks, amongst other things to encourage, “new built form is well-designed and respects the valued, traditional built form character elements of its host precinct”. At the local policy level, Clause 21.05 (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 21.06-10 (Heritage) seeks, “to protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington”. Strategies to achieve the above objective are outlined as follows (Clause 21.06-10):

1.1 Identify additional places which meet the threshold of at least local significance, to ensure representation of all the historic themes relevant to the City.

1.2 Ensure that the consideration of cultural significance of places and their ongoing management is guided by the principles of the Burra Charter.

1.3 Ensure the retention of the key attributes that underpin the significance of the heritage place.

1.4 Encourage the conservation of contributory elements of heritage places.

1.5 Ensure that new development of both graded and ungraded buildings and vacant land in and beside heritage places respects the significance of the place.

1.6 Promote design excellence that clearly and positively supports the ongoing significance of heritage places.

1.7 Ensure that the design process and the consideration of applications respond to the citation (including any statement of significance), the relevant historic themes and the ascribed level of significance of the heritage place.


1.8 Ensure that heritage values are recognised and given appropriate weight when competing policies apply.

1.9 Identify ‘areas of cultural heritage sensitivity’, being land generally within 200 metres of the Yarra River and Gardiners Creek, for the purpose of the preparation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

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. However, in this instance the built form is not in keeping with the characteristics of this heritage streetscape and small neighbourhood activity centre where single and double storey development is prevalent.

The reuse of this site for urban consolidation is not in dispute and is encouraged. Rather the extent to which the building is proposed to be developed and its subsequent impact on the surrounding amenity, the local traffic network and the heritage precinct are problematic.

Context

Whilst State and local policy suggest that new mixed use development can be supported in small activity centres, consideration must be given to the surrounding context and individual characteristics of the activity centre as outlined at Section 4 of Clause 21.06-4 (Built form character) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. This area is classified as a Group 4 Centre which requires that proposals have particular regard to the individual characteristics of the centre.

The subject site sits within a heritage overlay, as well as a small neighbourhood activity centre, where the built form is characterised by two-storey Victorian and Interwar commercial buildings with some (limited) recent infill up to five storeys in height. While urban consolidation may be acceptable to some degree, higher density development should not be sanctioned where there are unacceptable amenity impacts, inappropriate impacts on heritage streetscapes or unreasonable parking and traffic impacts. It is considered that the proposed development will result in unreasonable impacts on this activity centre and cannot be supported in its current form.

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.

The proposed five-storey building is to be of a contemporary design and will include the use of a varied palette of materials and finishes. Whilst a contemporary development is not opposed, the upper levels of this development will dominant and detract from the surrounding heritage buildings due to insufficient setbacks.

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 15.5 metres above ground level and will be 10.95m higher than the adjoining building directly to the west and 7.49m higher than the abutting building to the east. Development further east and west within the Heritage Overlay comprises mainly double storey commercial buildings at approximately 8 -9 metres in height and constructed circa 1920s.

The applicant has supplied a report prepared by Lovell Chen in support of the development which notes that:

While the new building is taller than the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity within the precinct, it is similar in height to the nearby apartment buildings on the east side of Creswick Street which are located just outside the heritage precinct.

The Lovell Chen report acknowledges that the development will be taller than the surrounding heritage buildings and will be reflective of a building that does not form part of the heritage overlay (No. 1501-1503 Malvern Road). Currently when looking easterly down Malvern Road, the five storey apartment building at 1501-1503 Malvern Road is the prominent feature in the streetscape. However, the building as proposed by this application will be 0.52m higher than the existing five storey building. When looking westerly towards the subject site from the corner of Aintree Road and Malvern Road, the proposed building will exclusively dominate the streetscape as there are no visible examples of buildings at five storeys in height in this direction.

The Lovell Chen report also contends that, “while the building will appear as a taller element in the streetscape, it will not dominate or present as an overly prominent structure at the eastern end of the precinct”. This is clearly questionable as the building will be the most prominent structure within this section of the heritage overlay, being no less than 5 metres higher than the adjoining buildings. The development will also exceed the height of the tallest building directly beyond the heritage overlay by 0.52m, and therefore it is deemed that the building will in fact dominate this section of the streetscape. Importantly, while the height of the building is considered excessive; the impact of height is a direct result of the prominence of the upper two floor levels as they present to Malvern Road. The upper two floor levels are setback between 5m and 8m from the Malvern Road frontage, although balconies encroach within these setbacks. At No. 1387-1395 Malvern Road (VCAT approved five storey development, 300m to the west of the subject site), the fifth floor level is substantially setback from all site boundaries, making it considerably more recessive than what is proposed here.


It is considered that if the fifth level setbacks as approved at No. 1387-1395 Malvern Road were applied to the subject site, being 10m from Malvern Road, 12m from the rear lane, and approximately 5m from the east and west boundaries, it would result in a significant improvement on the streetscape. A greater setback to the fourth floor level facade would also assist in limiting the visual bulk in views from Malvern Road and from the properties to the north.

At street level, the development will present with a three storey wall of 9.5m in height to the footpath. The proposed street wall will not appear unreasonably higher than the adjoining two storey development to the east. Additionally, the facade treatment will provide some, albeit limited, correlation to the surrounding heritage buildings. In accordance with the advice of Council’s Heritage Advisor, there is limited concern with the height of the street wall as proposed.

With an overall building height of 15.5 metres and a street wall height of 9.5 metres, this development will be a prominent building in the streetscape (and heritage overlay). However, it is considered that an appropriate built form outcome for this site could be achieved for a building of this height, if the upper levels were sufficiently setback to ensure that the highest section of the building was truly recessive in the streetscape. It is considered that this has not been achieved.

The proposal requires modification to create a satisfactory distinction between the street wall and the ‘tower’ behind. It is the view of Council’s Heritage Advisor that a suitable transition has not been achieved and the proposal “blurs the distinction between the street volume (or podium) and other built form to its rear”. It is considered that the proposal does not comply with Council’s Heritage Guidelines, which recommend that:

Buildings may be contemporary in style provided they adopt an understated character and do not visually dominate the streetscape in terms of size, height or bulk.

The proposal will not 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 lacks a clear distinction between the street wall and the new upper floor additions.

Built form

Northern interfaceAt the rear of the subject site, the building is to be constructed with a hard edge to the laneway via a solid wall of 9.5m in height (three storeys). Small balconies of approximately 4sqm are located to the north-east and north-west boundaries to allow for some activation and outlook of the rear lane, as well to provide these apartments with access to natural light.

The ground floor level interface will be of a vehicle entry leading to the waiting area and car lift that provides access to the basements. The location of the built form to the rear title boundary has the effect of crowding the subject site and as raised by Council’s Urban Designer, impacting on the function of the lane for future vehicle access. It seems reasonable that a development of this scale would benefit from the implementation of a voluntary setback of 2m from the rear boundary as a means of improving the functionality of the lane in anticipation of increased traffic volumes, given that growth of the activity centre is expected.

It is recommended that a re-design of the development be pursued that factors in a setback to the lane to allow for improved access and movement in the lane, as well as opportunities to improve the size and location of balconies to the north. Additionally, this would create opportunities to maximise northern light, increase private open space and generally improve internal amenity. Plan TP20002 Rev P01 demonstrates that there will not be unreasonable overlooking to the residences to the north and as such, the northern interface provides an ideal opportunity to significantly improve the internal amenity of this development.


Such a redesign could take the form of applying the setbacks and floor plate for Level 3 (being the fourth floor), to Levels 1 and 2 with a 2m setback at the ground floor level. At the fifth floor level (Level 4 Plan) the building is setback 5m from the lane and a balcony encroaches within this setback. It is considered that this does not provide sufficient transition to the built form character of the lane and the residential properties to the north. The development should increase the setback in a similar manner as at No. 1387-1395 Malvern Road, where a 12m setback is provided to assist in reducing impacts of bulk and provide for a gradual transition in building heights. Balconies could extend within the 12m setback.

Amenity Impacts

Overshadowing

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 (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

Overlooking is not considered to be a concern based on the information submitted with the application. 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.

To the north there are residential properties, however Plan ATP20002 demonstrates that there are no sensitive windows to the north that would be unreasonably overlooked. Two windows are identified at No. 1 Creswick Street opposite the subject site. It is noted that there is one habitable room window containing opaque glass and another window that form part of a non-habitable room. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to require screening to balconies to limit views to the north.

Energy and resource efficiency

As briefly discussed above, this development does not provide a satisfactory response to energy efficiency with many apartments provided with minimal glazing to large habitable spaces. Most apartments on all floor levels are provided bedrooms with minimal access to natural light via small setbacks of between approximately 400mm to 900mm in depth, to the east and west boundaries. These are the only windows provided to these rooms. The windows are located adjacent to the east and west boundaries where it is likely development will take place in the future in line with State and local policy objectives. If either adjoining building sought to develop and increase on-boundary walls, most bedroom windows within this development would be largely obscured. This is considered to be an extremely poor planning outcome and may prejudice future development potential on the adjoining sites.

Council’s Urban Designer noted that:

Poor internal planning and the inadequate provision of natural daylight to more than half of the apartments results in an over-reliance on artificial lighting throughout the building. This is a poor design response and does not meet contemporary expectations for energy efficiency in new residential buildings.


An improved outcome could be achieved through multiple design modifications such as reducing the density of apartments on the site; enlarging the internal light wells; or providing a considerable break in the building as seen at the existing five storey development at 1501-1503 Malvern Road. Based on the current design, the proposal will provide inadequate internal amenity and energy efficiency for a new residential development of this scale.

Internal Amenity

The proposal compromises of 15 one-bedroom apartments and 16 two-bedroom apartments to be between 43 square metres and 67 square metres in area. Dwellings have been orientated to the north, east, south and west. All habitable rooms have been provided with some form of glazing to allow for natural ventilation but many habitable rooms will receive insufficient access to daylight.

The crowded arrangement of apartments on each floor results in poor internal amenity for all of the apartments, but particularly within in the central body of the building on all levels. These apartments are provided with limited outlook and insufficient access to natural light due to the crowding of the balconies and stacking one on top of the other. Apartments A02 and A03 on each level are orientated internally and will be separated at a distance of 6m. Balconies of 5.5sqm and 6.8sqm (with a depth of 1.5m) will sit within this setback, separated by a perforated screen. As previously mentioned, these apartments have been stacked one upon the other, limiting the access to direct natural light on levels below. Apartments A02 and A03 on the lower levels are likely to rely entirely on artificial light in all habitable spaces and this is unacceptable.

On the western side of the building, Apartments A08, A07, A06 and A05 (varying on each floor level) will rely solely on west facing glazing setback 1.2m from the boundary, across a balcony. The building to the west is currently a single storey building that is expected to be redeveloped in the future. As noted earlier, if any development occurs on the adjoining site, these west facing apartments will no longer have access to natural light to the main habitable living spaces and bedrooms. This arrangement with balconies located abutting the boundary at such a narrow depth, prejudices the future development potential of the adjoining site, as any development would drastically impact on the amenity of the proposed apartments on the subject site. This is not supported.

Further to the concerns with regard to access to natural light, many of the apartments are not provided with adequate access to private open space. Most dwellings are provided between 4sqm and 6sqm, while some are provided in excess of 8sqm. While it is accepted in some instances that a lesser provision than 8sqm may be appropriate, this is often the case when apartments are provided adequate access to natural light and on-site communal facilities are provided in place of sizable private balconies. In this instance, the development seeks to maximise the yield of apartments at the expense of internal amenity. No communal facilities are offered as an alternative and many habitable rooms will rely solely on substandard balconies for light and ventilation; many of which will be largely obscured by the development itself and any future development that may occur on the adjoining sites.

Put simply, the development proposes too many apartments on this site which results in unacceptable internal amenity for a large majority of the new residences. A re-design should seek to reduce the number of apartments, as this will allow for internal reconfigurations to improve access to daylight and provide larger and more functional areas of private open spaces that will not prejudice future development on the adjoining properties.



Council's Transport and Parking Unit have identified several issues with the vehicle access and parking arrangement of the development. Access to the car park is to be provided from Staunton Lane and parking spaces are located over two basement levels. The basement levels are accessible only via a single car lift. The fundamental concern is the difficulty in gaining access to the on-site car parking and the subsequent impacts this will have on the surrounding street network with regard to congestion, safety and car parking.

Car Parking Provision

Council’s Traffic Engineers have advised that the car parking provision is unacceptable and the rates relied on do not comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06-5. Empirical data provided by Council’s Traffic Engineers confirms that a supply of 35 car spaces for the 31 dwellings is necessary in this location. However, a total of 27 bays are proposed for the residential component of the development. While the applicant argues that the site is well located to public transport, Glen Iris LGA data indicates that a higher car ownership rate is expected than in more densely developed areas such as Prahran and South Yarra (these areas predict a parking requirement of 32 spaces).

In addition to an insufficient supply of resident car parking, there is also no visitor parking provided despite Clause 52.06-5 requiring six (6) spaces.

The car parking for the retails uses at the ground floor level is acceptable as is the non-provision of customer car parking for the retail uses. This is a typical arrangement for retails uses in a small neighbourhood activity centre.

Car Parking Layout and Access Arrangement:

While the car parking supply is an issue, the accessibility of the on-site car parking raises more substantial concerns. All on-site car parking is proposed to be accessed via Staunton Lane to the north of the subject site. This right of way serves as a rear entry to the commercial properties that front Malvern Road (in the Commercial 1 Zone); for access to some residential properties; access to loading and unloading at the rear of these properties; and for some pedestrian access. Importantly, there are principal entries to residences (to the north) that directly abut the lane.

Vehicles seeking to access this development will be required to enter and exit Staunton Lane from Creswick Street. Staunton Lane is 3m wide and only allows for one vehicle to pass at any point. There are some sections of the lane where two vehicles may attempt to pass, but this requires one vehicle to drive onto private property. If a vehicle were entering the lane as another vehicle was exiting the proposed development, there is not sufficient space for two vehicles to pass.

It is likely that this occurs at present to some extent, given that there are commercial properties providing parking and loading areas to the rear. However, it is anticipated that with the introduction of at least 114 additional vehicle movements in this lane per day (via the 30 additional on-site car spaces), this scenario is likely to occur more and more frequently. As vehicles queue or reverse into Creswick Street to allow vehicles to pass (the only point to enter and exit) this may adversely impact on the safety and efficiency of the local road network. This situation is made worse by the frequency of heavy vehicles that utilise the lane for loading and unloading on the adjoining commercial properties.

It is considered that the traffic impacts are cumulative. The impact of providing such difficult parking may push more vehicles into the surrounding streets, which is undesirable.


If future occupants do use the on-site car parking to its full potential then there are likely to be substantial increases in conflict between vehicles and pedestrians utilising the lane due to the current condition of the lane and the expected increase in volume of traffic.

In addition, due to the building being constructed with a hard edge to the northern title boundary, vehicles entering and exiting the development will be unable to pass each other and this will lead to queuing and congestion in both Staunton Lane and Creswick Street. Therefore, a re-design is considered to be necessary to address these concerns. A re-design should seek to reduce the reliance on mechanical parking systems making parking more convenient and improve the functionality of the lane by introducing a voluntary setback to assist in widening the lane.

Loading and unloading

The proposed development does not include the provision of an on-site loading bay for the retail uses and a waiver of the Clause 52.07 requirements has been sought.

The applicant has noted that there are loading bays on Malvern Road that can be utilised for loading and unloading. Council’s Traffic Engineers have noted that these loading bays are on the opposite side of the street (an arterial road). It is likely that loading vehicles may attempt to prop in Staunton Lane, rather than attempting to cross Malvern Road, and this may disrupt already difficult traffic conditions. This loading activity (propping in the lane) is known to be occurring at present and as such, it is desirable that on-site loading be factored into a re-design to ensure that realistic loading arrangements are in place to avoid additional congestion to the local street network.

Based on the current design any loading on-site would impact on the car lift operation, preventing cars from entering or exiting the subject site. This would then consequently impact on the safe and efficient operation of Staunton Lane and possibly Creswick Street. Summary

The traffic concerns that have been raised are considered to be fundamental issues and many of the issues could be resolved by reducing the number of dwellings on site and providing a more typical parking layout with less reliance on automated systems. Based on the advice received from Council’s Traffic Engineers and the non-compliance with Stonnington Planning Scheme, the proposal cannot be supported in its current form.

Waste Management Plan

A Waste Management Plan has been provided which details waste collection occurring from Creswick Street. This is contrary to Council’s local laws and is not supported. 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.”

As raised by Council’s Traffic Engineers, waste collection from the site may be problematic as any vehicle loading in the rear waiting bay would impact on the car lift operation and cause congestion and queuing. This situation is to be avoided.


Council has a seriously entertained draft policy (Clause 22.18) entitled Stormwater Management (Urban Design). The Policy requires a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response (WSUD) be submitted for any application that involves either the construction of a new building or the extension of an existing building which is 50sqm or greater in floor area.


The proposal has responded to this policy by incorporating a 12000L rainwater tank within the basement. This achieves a STORM rating of 109% which is acceptable. However, notations have not been included on the plans that the roof will drain to the rain water tank and that the tank water is to be used for the flushing of toilets. These concerns could have been addressed via conditions.

Infrastructure

As identified by Council’ Infrastructure Engineers, the proposed plans show the building line stepping out to the south-west and occupying land that is and has been used as public footpath for many years. It is not considered appropriate for the building to extend over land currently used as footpath and as such any development must be pushed back to align with the existing building frontages. The facade currently aligns with the adjoining building facades and this arrangement is to be maintained.

Infrastructure and Melbourne Water have both raised concerns with the proposed floor levels for this development as they sit below the flood level. While the subject site is not contained within a Special Building Overlay (SBO), a SBO is proposed for this land due to the potential for flooding. Melbourne Water has advised that:

Preliminary land and flood level information available at Melbourne Water indicates that the property is subject to flooding from the Creswick Street Main Drain. For a storm event with a 1% chance of occurrence in any one year, the flood level for the property is 17.7 metres to Australian Height Datum.

Melbourne Water requires the shops, lobby, lift area and services room to be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level to minimise risks associated with flood damage during a significant storm event.

Given the risk of flooding to the development for future occupants, it is considered necessary that any re-design incorporate raised floor levels above the flood level as advised by Melbourne Water.

Objections

The concerns of the objectors have been duly noted throughout this assessment. No further comment on the objector concerns is considered necessary.



CONCLUSION

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

The development is not in keeping with the character of the area and the prominence of the upper two levels will dominate the heritage streetscape.

The difficulty in gaining access to the on-site car parking will have an adverse impact on the surrounding street network with regard to congestion, safety and car parking.


The arrangement and orientation of the new dwellings provides unsatisfactory on-site amenity for future occupants and will prejudice the future development potential of the adjoining properties.

The dwellings are provided unsatisfactory access to natural daylight and private open space resulting in poor energy efficiency.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No: 314/13 would have been issued for the land located at 1483 – 1487 Malvern Road, Glen Iris under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for demolition and the construction of a multi-storey building and use of the building for dwellings in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay, a reduction in the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06, and a waiver of the loading requirements at Clause 52.07 subject to 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 proposed development does not provide sufficient car parking for the demand generated on the site and the car parking layout is not in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and may result in an overflow of cars in the surrounding streets.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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


9. 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.

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

11. The proposed ground floor levels are below the flood level and cause an inappropriate and unacceptable flood risk.


1.5. PLANNING APPLICATION 0473/13 - 9 NORTHBROOK AVENUE - DE LA SALLE COLLEGE, MALVERN – CONSTRUCT A NEW MULTIPURPOSE SOCCER AND HOCKEY FIELD AND NEW BASKETBALL AREA WITH ASSOCIATED FENCING AND TREE PLANTING


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for buildings and works to an existing Section 2 Use (School) in a Residential 1 Zone at 9 Northbrook Avenue (De La Salle College), Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: De La Salle CollegeWard: SouthZone: Residential 1Overlay: Incorporated Plan Overlay 1Date lodged: 19/07/2013Statutory days: 52Trigger for referral to Council:

Objections from more than 7 properties

Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 2 October 2013Officer 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 eplus architecture and are known as Job No. 13_011, Drawing No.s: TP-01 Council date stamped 19 July 2013 and TP-02 (Revision A) Council date stamped 21 October 2013.


New multipurpose soccer and hockey field in the western most section of the site. 5m high black cyclone/mesh fencing surrounding the multipurpose field setback 2.9m from

the northern boundary, 2.1m from the southern boundary and 1.3m from the western boundary.

New basketball area and associated 3.6m high black cyclone/mesh fencing along the east and south side of the court.

Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus sp.) tree planting along the north and west boundaries between the new 5m fence and respective property boundaries.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located at 9 Northbrook Avenue Malvern at the northern end of Northbrook Avenue. The site has the following significant characteristics:


The overall site (De La Salle College) is made up of two portions, one campus on the south side of High Street and the other at the northern end of Northbrook Avenue. The total overall site area is approximately 31,098qm.

The subject campus has an irregular shape with a total frontage of 42.02m to Northbrook Avenue and a total site area of approximately 14,474sqm.

A 2.5m wide drainage easement is located along the northern boundary of the site. Developed with an all boy’s school (De La Salle College) ranging from years 4 to 12. The area proposed to be utilised for the new recreation facilities contains an existing asphalt

basketball court that is in a poor condition and is vacant for the remainder of the space.

The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone and Incorporated Plan Overlay. Features of the adjoining land and properties are summarised as follows:

Land immediately surrounding the subject site is zoned for Residential 1, Public Park and Recreation and Public Use Zone.

To the north of the area proposed for development is 10, 12, 14 and 16 Sorrett Avenue, Malvern. All of which are developed with generously sized single dwellings and are located within Heritage Overlay 396. Properties at 10, 12 and 16 represent ‘B’ graded circa 1920 villas. Number 14 represents an ‘ungraded’ 1920’s dwelling, with a ‘B’ graded brick stable within the rear yard.

To the south at 1253A High Street Malvern is the Malvern Cricket Ground. To the west at 292-296 Glenferrie Road, Malvern is the St George Anglican Church and its

associated buildings. The property is located within Heritage Overlay 43 and listed on the Victorian National Trust Register.

Further to the south-west of the subject site is the High Street / Glenferrie Road Activity Centre.

The surrounding area is well serviced by public transport and mixed with residential, commercial and public uses.

Previous Planning Applications

A search of Council records indicates a comprehensive planning history for De La Salle. The two most relevant planning permits with respect to this application are as follows:

Planning Permit 957/04 for 2 Lot subdivision PS530012K issued on 3 November 2004 for 296 Glenferrie Road – Church, Malvern allowing the subdivision of the lot into two sections with the eastern most half (subject site) to form part of the wider De La Salle College site.

Planning Permit 1158/04 for use of the land for the purposes of an education centre and the construction of a fence issued on 22 March 2005 and amended on 21 December 2005 for 296 Glenferrie Road – Church, Malvern allowing the use of the recently subdivided land for education purposes. Relevant conditions relating to this application are:

o The use of the land for educational purposes must be limited to 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday with weekend use of the site for that purpose restricted to six (6) weekends a year, with hours of use in accordance with the above.

o No music classes, practice, recitals or the like may be held on the land or within the premises on site.

o No external amplification equipment or loudspeakers are to be used on the site in conjunction with the use of the land.

o Any noise emissions from the site must comply with the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulation 1997 to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


o The school management must ensure that activities conducted in the buildings and surrounding grounds are done so in an appropriate manner, so as to not impact detrimentally on the abutting residential dwellings, to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The Title

The site is known as Volume 10878 Folio 760 and is described as Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 530013K. There is no restrictive covenant on the title of the land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls


Zone:

Residential 1 ZoneClause 32.01Pursuant to Clause 32.01-6 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.01-1.

Overlay:

Incorporated Plan OverlayClause 43.03Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1 a permit must not be granted to construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into the Stonnington Planning Scheme. This does not apply if a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit may be granted before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.

Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay:

Pursuant to 1.0 of Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay, a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.


Clause 21.04-4 Commercial and Community Uses in Residential ZonesClause 32.01 Residential 1 ZoneClause 43.03 Incorporated Plan OverlayClause 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. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.


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

Visual bulk Noise and offensive language Concerns regarding use outside school hours Concerns regarding hiring to third parties Concerns regarding lighting of the courts Loss of natural light The choice of pittosporums to effectively screen a fence of this height Level of dust during construction 1.3m garden bed space for planting is an inadequate size Playing surface should be located further south Dangerous nature of ball sports close to the residential areas Change of use from residential to playing fields should not be allowed Noise and visual impact to heritage overlay Current basketball fence height opposite 16 Sorrett Avenue is sufficient

A Consultative Meeting was held on 2 October 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillor Ullin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and one Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in a number of agreed changes to the plans which are represented on the formally revised plan TP-02 (Revision A) Council date stamped 21 October 2013. It is noted that the revised plan was not re-advertised as no additional detriment was considered to be caused.

The agreed changes demonstrated on the revised plans are as follows;

Increase north boundary setback to the proposed 5m high fence and new field from 1.3m to 2.9m.

Retain existing 3.6m high chain wire mesh fence to the south of 16 Sorrett Avenue. Restrict court usage to Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm and 6 weekends per year 8am to

5pm. Provide no lighting of the courts. Courts not to be hired to external parties. Replace proposed Pittosporums with new Blueberry Ash plantings along the north and west

boundaries.

Referrals

Landscape Department

The application was referred to Councils Landscape Department. The comments can be summarised as follows:

Suggested the applicant consider either Callistemon (Kings Park Special) or Elaeocarpus sp (Quandong, Blueberry Ash) which are both natives and taller than the Pittosporum.

If they wish to continue with the Pittosporum please gain details of species proposed. Further details are required regarding the neighbouring trees to be retained and tree root

zones.


Following the submission of the revised plan Council date stamped 21 October 2013 and the Tree Assessment Report Council date stamped 29 October 2013 Council’s Landscape Department made the following further summarised comments:

Happy with the choice of Elaeocarpus sp (Blueberry Ash) as the screen planting. No further issues raised regarding the neighbouring trees as a result of submitting the Tree

Assessment Report. The following conditions should be imposed;

o The Blueberry Ash trees must be installed at least 1.5 to 2.0 metres tall and growing in 45 litre or greater containers.

o The location of fence post footings must be flexible to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the root system.

o All excavations are to be supervised by a suitably qualified arborist who may wish to modify excavation locations depending on the extent of root loss.

o Any roots larger than 12mm in diameter that are exposed during excavation must be clean cut.

o No excavation or trenching that changes the natural ground level is permitted within 6 metres of the neighbouring trees along the southern boundary.

o A layer of organic mulch is to be spread over the entire garden areas to a depth of 100mm.

KEY ISSUES

Built Form & Amenity Impacts

The proposed buildings and works include a new multipurpose soccer and hockey field and new basketball area with associated black cyclone mesh fencing and landscaping (Blueberry Ash plantings). The soccer and hockey field fencing is to be 5m in height, setback from the northern boundary by 2.9m, from the western boundary by 1.3m and from the southern boundary by 2.1m. The basketball area fencing is to be 3.6m in height and located to the east and south of this area.At Clause 21.04-4 (Commercial and community uses in residential areas) within the Economic Development Policy of 21.04, direction is provided for built form and landscaping. Specifically through the following objectives:

Ensure development associated with the use (including landscaping and the location and extent of on-site car parking) respects the prevailing character of the area and meets other provisions in this planning scheme.

Avoiding the erosion of the landscaped character of residential zones. Ensure non-residential uses do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the

surrounding residential area through noise, hours of operation, traffic or parking associated with the use.

Encourage commercial and community uses permissible in residential zones to locate close to activity centres, community hubs, public transport and other related uses.

Council Policy recognises that non-residential uses serve the needs of the local community and often the wider regional population. Planning Permit 1158/04 allowed the use of the subject land for the purpose of an education centre. A number of conditions were included on this permit which sought to manage the amenity impact imposed on the surrounding residential properties to a reasonable level. These conditions are as follows:


The use of the land for educational purposes must be limited to 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday with weekend use of the site for that purpose restricted to six (6) weekends a year, with hours of use in accordance with the above.

No music classes, practice, recitals or the like may be held on the land or within the premises on site.

No external amplification equipment or loudspeakers are to be used on the site in conjunction with the use of the land.

Any noise emissions from the site must comply with the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulation 1997 to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The school management must ensure that activities conducted in the buildings and surrounding grounds are done so in an appropriate manner, so as to not impact detrimentally on the abutting residential dwellings, to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

In order to continue to protect the surrounding residential amenity the above conditions will be transferred onto this permit for consistency.

Following the consultation meeting held 2 October 2013 the applicant agreed to a number of revisions with a desire to address the majority of the objector’s concerns. The applicant has confirmed that the site will not be lit, used outside 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday (except for 6 weekends a year, in line with the previously stated hours) and hired out to external parties. The applicant has also increased the northern setback to the new fence.

To determine the level of visual bulk caused by the new 5m fence Standard A10 – Side and Rear Setbacks of Clause 54 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme is relied upon (although not strictly required). Clause 54 requires wall heights of 5m to be setback from the property boundary by 1.42m. The proposed fence is setback 2.9m from the north boundary and 2.1m from the south boundary, therefore when utilising this tool the proposal exceeds this requirement along the north and south elevation. In addition, Blueberry Ash planting is proposed between the new fence and the existing 2.6m high boundary fence to the north, which is designed to screen the proposal. Furthermore, it is noted that the fence is visually permeable and not a solid structure.

The proposed setback from the fence to the western boundary is 1.3m which falls short of the A10 Standard by 12cm. Given the use and interface to the west, being the St George Anglican Church and its associated buildings this interface is not considered to be sensitive. Furthermore, Blueberry Ash planting is also proposed between the new fence and the existing 2.8m high boundary fence along this elevation, (discussed further below). For these reason it is considered that the proposed 1.3m setback to the western boundary is adequately located and will not cause unreasonable visual bulk impacts. In addition, no objection was received from the property to the west at 292 - 296 Glenferrie Road, Malvern.

With respect to shadowing and light access the only residential properties that adjoin the site are to the north. Given the location of these properties to the north of the new planting and fence, no additional shadows will be caused to these properties. It is therefore considered that no unreasonable loss of day light will be generated by this proposal.

The new 3.6m high basketball area fence is considered to be in a position that will not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts, located well within the site. In addition, for the most part this fence will run along an existing single storey toilet block.


Landscaping

The applicant has replaced the previously proposed Pittosporums with Blueberry Ash plantings to address concerns raised by objectors. Council’s Landscape Department has provided comments on the proposed planting supporting the choice of Blueberry Ash as an appropriate screen planting. Conditions requested by the Landscape Department (previously stated) will be included on any permit that issues. This will ensure the planting provided is acceptable and no existing vegetation is significantly impacted upon.

The Landscape Department conditions require semi-mature Blueberry Ash trees (1.5 – 2.0m tall) to be planted. This will provide an improved outlook to the surrounding properties. With the trees reaching a mature average height of 8m, it is considered that the new 5m high fence will be adequately screened and any visual impacts will therefore be ‘softened’.

Objections


Noise and offensive languagePrevious conditions imposed by Planning Permit 1158/04 regarding noise control will be included on this permit for consistency. These conditions are considered to adequately address noise impacts.

Level of dust during constructionIssues during the construction phase are not relevant planning considerations.

1.3m garden bed space for planting is an inadequate sizeCouncil’s Arborist and the tree assessment report submitted by the applicant has not raised any concerns regarding the adequacy of 1.3m for an area of planting along the western boundary. It is considered that this setback will allow for planting and future growth of the proposed Blueberry Ash.

With regards to amenity impacts the setback of 1.3m is seen to be adequate given the interface opposite and distance of the western fence from the residential properties being no less than 2.9m.

Dangerous nature of ball sports close to the residential areasThe proposed 5m high fence is seen to be at a reasonable height to suitably restrict any stray balls.

Change of use from residential to playing fields should not be allowedUse of the subject area for education purposes has already been approved pursuant to Planning Permit 1158/04

Noise and visual impact to heritage overlayAs previously stated conditions to manage noise are to be included on any permit that issues and the application is not considered to cause any detrimental impacts to the surrounding Heritage Overlay’s given its location approximately 45 metres from Sorrett Avenue and approximately 130 metres from Glenferrie Road.




CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposal will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts of adjoining properties. The proposal is considered to make appropriate use of the subject land. The proposed landscaping is considered to make a positive contribution to the site and

surrounds.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 473/13 for the land located at 9 Northbrook Avenue De La Salle, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for buildings and works to an existing Section 2 Use (School) in a Residential 1 Zone subject to the following conditions:


2. The Blueberry Ash trees must be installed at least 1.5 to 2.0 metres tall and growing in 45 litre or greater containers, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3. The location of fence post footings must be flexible to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the root system.

4. All excavations are to be supervised by a suitably qualified arborist who may wish to modify excavation locations depending on the extent of root loss.

5. Any roots larger than 12mm in diameter that are exposed during excavation must be clean cut, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. No excavation or trenching that changes the natural ground level is permitted within 6 metres of the neighbouring trees along the southern boundary, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. A layer of organic mulch is to be spread over the entire garden areas to a depth of 100mm, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The use of the land for educational purposes must be limited to 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday with weekend use of the site for that purpose restricted to six (6) weekends a year, with hours of use in accordance with the above.

9. No music classes, practice, recitals or the like may be held on the land or within the premises on site.

10. No external amplification equipment or loudspeakers are to be used on the site in conjunction with the use of the land.


11. Any noise emissions from the site must comply with the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulation 1997 to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. The school management must ensure that activities conducted in the buildings and surrounding grounds are done so in an appropriate manner, so as to not impact detrimentally on the abutting residential dwellings, to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. The proposed sports field/court must not be hired out to external parties.

14. No floodlights are to be installed.

15. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.




NOTE:



1.6. PLANNING APPLICATION 0494/12 - 16 PERCY STREET, PRAHRAN – CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A MIXED USE ZONE.


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot in a Mixed Use Zone and Design and Development Overlay, and a waiver of the car parking requirements at 16 Percy Street, Prahran.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Pam DrakopoulosWard: SouthZone: Mixed UseOverlay: Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 7), Incorporated Plan

Overlay (Schedule 3)Date lodged: 24/07/2012Statutory days: 69 Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 Objections

Number of objections: 13 (from 13 different properties)Consultative Meeting: Held on 7 November 2013.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 P.K. Architect Pty Ltd and are known as Project No. 345, Drawing No.s: TP-A1 – TP18.1 and are Council date stamped 13 November and 29 August 2013.


Demolition of the existing dwelling (no permit required); Construction of two, 3 storey dwellings on the site; The proposed dwellings are designed in a side-by-side manner; The dwellings are built to the northern and southern property boundaries, and feature a

maximum height of 9m; The proposed construction materials include face brickwork, render, powder coated

aluminium, and stria cladding; Both dwellings feature a bedroom, a bedroom/study, a bathroom and a laundry at ground

floor level; At first floor, both dwellings feature an open plan dining, kitchen and living area and a

powder room; At second floor, both dwellings feature a master bedroom, bathroom and walk-in-robe; Each dwelling has a rear courtyard, and west facing balconies at first and second floor; No on-site parking is provided.

Site and Surrounds


The site is located on the east side of Percy Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is regular in shape. It features a frontage to Percy Street of 10.33m, a northern boundary length of 15.26m and an overall area of 151 square metres;

The site is currently occupied by a detached single storey weatherboard dwelling. The dwelling has no heritage significance.

The site features a small area of secluded private open space in its south eastern corner. The site features non-significant mature vegetation within its front setback. The site does not feature any vehicle accommodation or a crossover.

The site interfaces with the adjoining properties as follows:

No. 18 Percy Street abuts the site to the north. The site is occupied by a double storey rendered house that features a hipped roof. The dwelling is developed to the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Secluded private open space is located to the rear of the site.

No. 14A Percy Street abuts the site to the south. The dwelling is occupied by a double storey rendered dwelling that features a butterfly roof. The roof features a north facing highlight window. The dwelling is constructed to the northern and southern boundaries. The dwelling features west facing balconies and a small courtyard to the rear of the site.

No. 5 - 19 St Edmonds Road is located to the rear (east) of the site. The site is occupied by part three, part two storey building that contains 21 dwellings. Immediately abutting the subject site are three areas of secluded private open space associated with apartments 19, 20 and 21. These areas are separated from the subject site by a 3m corrugated iron fence.


A search of Council records indicates that there is no relevant planning history for this site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 06881 Folio 057 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 398672L. The site is not affected by any covenants or easements.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 32.04 - Mixed Use ZonePursuant to Clause 32.04-6, a permit is required to construct two dwellings on a lot. Development must also meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Overlay(s)Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 7)Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Schedule 7 does not exempt this requirement. The maximum preferred maximum height for a development in this area is ‘none specified.’

Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan OverlaySchedule 3 to the Overlay relates to the Late Night Liquor Licence Trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: Measuring the Saturation Levels


This overlay is not applicable to this application as liquor is not proposed.

Particular ProvisionsClause 55 – Two or More Dwellings on a Lot

Clause 52.05 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to waive the statutory car parking requirement. The table listed at Clause 52.06-5 requires 2 spaces to be provided on-site for each three bedroom dwelling (studies or studios are counted as a bedroom). On this basis, the proposal carries a statutory requirement of four on-site spaces.


Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.05 HousingClause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre PolicyClause 32.04 Mixed Use ZoneClause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 7)Clause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings 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 a sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and objections from 13 different properties have been received. The objections highlight concerns regarding the following:

Excessive height and density Traffic impact Plan inaccuracies Overlooking Parking Precedent Landscaping Streetscape impact Front setbacks Impact on outlook Reduction of sunlight to windows Overshadowing Site coverage Neighbourhood character

A Consultative Meeting was held on 7 November 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Cr Hibbins, Sehr and Ullin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.


Revised plans were lodged by the permit applicant following the meeting. The revised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2013) feature the following changes:

Reduction in height of the building to 9m from 10m. The lower height has been achieved by lowering the floor to ceiling heights in each level of the proposed building.

Referrals

Infrastructure

Infrastructure have no concern or requirements.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to replace the existing single-storey weatherboard dwelling at 16 Percy Street with two three-storey attached dwellings. The key issues that Council has to determine are:

Is there strategic justification for the redevelopment of the subject land? How does the proposed development respond to the existing or preferred neighbourhood

character and design objectives for the area? Would the proposal result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties? Would the development provide future residents with an adequate level of internal amenity? Would the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts?

Is there strategic justification for the redevelopment of the subject land?

The application is for an infill development which will create one additional dwelling. It is considered that there is strategic justification for the proposal because:

The subject site is located in the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. Therefore, 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, it is considered that 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.’

By virtue of its location within an activity centre, the proposal complies with the direction provided by Clause 21.05-2 which encourages residential development within activity centres and mixed-use areas.

Clause 21.04 identifies the site as being a strategic redevelopment site due to its location in an Activity Centre.

The wider neighbourhood contains predominantly medium and high density dwelling configurations. The proposal seeks permission for two three storey attached houses, which is a dwelling typology that is becoming less common throughout the activity centre due to the ongoing intensive development. A proposal of this nature is considered to comply with the direction of policies that encourage a range of housing choices in and around activity centres, such as Clause 16.01-4, and Clause 22.19-3.

Chapel Vision identifies the site as being in a limited/minimal change area. The scale of the proposed development (i.e. increasing the density by one dwelling) is consistent with this strategic direction.

In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the policy direction that encourages the consolidation of urban areas in and around activity centres. Notwithstanding the above, consideration must be given to policies within the Stonnington Planning Scheme which


require development to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of an area, minimise amenity impacts and be designed in accordance with specific design objectives.

Does the proposed development respond to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and design objectives for the area?

Percy Street is a unique street that is used predominately for residential purposes despite being located in a principal activity centre. Over time, due to its strategic location, the street has undergone significant change, and is expected to further evolve as more sites redevelop in line with local and state policies that encourage development in well serviced locations.

A number of properties, including the subject site, are occupied by detached single storey weatherboard dwellings. These sites are gradually being replaced by medium density two or three storey contemporary developments. The resulting built form character of the street is varied due to the juxtaposition between the old and contemporary development.

The proposed three storey form of the dwellings will result in an overall building height of 9m. A building of this height will sit comfortably alongside the more intensive development that has occurred along the street, for example the infill development that has occurred at 15 Percy Street which features an overall height of 9m. Whilst development of this height seems to be at odds with the existing single storey weatherboard dwellings, it is considered that these sites will develop gradually. Located in a street predominately characterised by detached single dwellings, dual occupancies arranged in a side-by-side (i.e. attached) manner often fail to respect the streetscape character. Whilst the proposed attached dwellings are at odds with the remaining existing single storey weatherboard dwellings, they sit comfortably alongside the boundary to boundary development that characterises the northern and southern portions of the street, and the dwellings located immediately to the north and south of the subject site.

The proposed dwellings have been designed with front setbacks of between 0.8m and 2.4m. The constrained nature of the subdivision pattern along Percy Street has resulted in development with minimal setbacks. The first floor is located between 2.56m and 3.2m from the front of the site. Whilst the first floor balconies protrude into this space, this approach is considered appropriate in light of the development to the north and south of the subject site which adopts a similar technique. It is noted that Clause 2.2 of Schedule 7 to the Design and Development Overlay exempts the subject land from the preferred minimum street wall height control that much of the wider activity centre is guided by.

The proposed dwellings are built to their northern and southern boundaries at first and second floor, and feature a 1m setback from the northern and southern property boundaries at third floor. The third floor also features a 3.2m setback (taken from the western wall of the bedrooms). These setbacks ensure that the third floor is somewhat recessed, resulting in a less visually dominant built form. These design features are considered to be a well conceived response to the rhythm and spacing of Percy Street.

In terms of the rear setbacks, the ground and first floor are located 2.56m from the rear of the site, and the second floor is located 4.1 from the property boundary. The ground floor setback is considered appropriate as it is aligned with the development to the north and south of the site. The proposed setbacks also allow for small areas of secluded private open space to the rear of the site in line with the properties to the north, south and east. The setbacks are considered appropriate from a character perspective for these reasons.

The proposed development features a site coverage of 69.3%, and 5% of the site is finished with permeable surfaces. Whilst these numbers are higher than what is typically supported, the highly developed character of the surrounding area, and the constrained nature of the subject site must


be acknowledged. On this basis, the proposed permeability and site coverage is considered to be appropriate.

The proposed dwellings are modern in appearance, but reflect key construction materials found along Percy Street. The construction materials include face brickwork at ground floor, cladding and render to the upper levels, aluminium windows, and colorbond fascias and downpipes. These materials are appropriate in light of the existing development along Percy Street.

Along the front boundary, the proposal features a 0.9m high front fence. A fence of this height is consistent with the nature of fences along Percy Street, and is thus considered to be appropriate.

For all the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposed development makes an appropriate response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and the design objectives for the area.

Are the off-site amenity impacts within reasonable limits?

This application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of Clause 55 and the section below outlines the key findings:

Side and rear setbacks

The proposed dwellings are designed around a central shared party wall. Each dwelling features an abuttal with an adjoining property. The tables below illustrate the proposed setbacks compared to the numeric requirements of Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks).

Northern setbacks:

Southern setbacks:

The northern and southern second floor setbacks do not comply with the numeric requirements of Standard B17. Notwithstanding this, they are considered appropriate due to the developed nature of the surrounds. Percy Street contains multiple examples of dwellings that feature boundary to boundary development (such as the dwellings located at 1 – 13 Percy Street), or minimal upper level setbacks. The proposed walls are predominately located adjacent to the built form of the dwellings to the north and south of the site.

It is acknowledged that the plans suggest that 14A Percy Street features a north facing habitable room window. This window is a highlight window located in a north facing wing of a butterfly roof. The window has a lower sill height of approximately 6.8m above natural ground level.

Wall height Setback required Setback proposedSecond floor 9m 4.09m 1.035m

Wall height Setback required Setback proposedSecond floor 9m 4.09m 1m


The proposed second floor wall extends to a height of 2.2m above this height, at a setback of 1m from the property boundary. At this adjusted height and setback, the proposed wall will not result in an unreasonable amenity detriment by way of visual bulk.

Eastern setbacks:

The setbacks along the eastern interface achieve compliance with Standard B17.

Wall on boundaries

The proposal features boundary walls along the northern and southern property boundaries for a length of 9.7m. The walls have heights of 6.3m and are considered appropriate as they located adjacent boundary walls associated with the dwellings to the north and south. It is also noted that boundary development is an established element of the surrounding neighbourhood character.

Daylight to existing windows

There are no existing windows that will be affected by the proposed development.

North-facing windows

The only north facing window that is affected under the proposed conditions is the highlight window located in the north facing wing of the butterfly roof of number 14A Percy Street. Relative to this window, the southern second floor wall has a height of 2.2 metres and is setback 1m from the property boundary. A wall of this height and setback complies with the numerical requirements of Standard B20.

Overshadowing

The submitted shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will cast a shadow onto three areas of secluded private open space to the east (associated with the dwellings at 19 to 21, 5-19 St Edmonds Road) and an area of secluded private open space to the south (associated with 14A Percy Street). The increased shadowing will occur during the afternoon hours.

The secluded private open space to the east of the site (associated with 19 to 21, 5-19 St Edmonds Road) is approximately 2 metres higher than the natural ground level of the subject site. As a result, these areas will only be impacted by additional shadowing during the late afternoon hours (after 2pm).

The secluded private open space located to the rear of 14A Percy Street is heavily shadowed under the existing conditions. The proposed development will increase the shadowing to this area from the early afternoon hours onwards. At 2pm, the proposed development will shadow an additional area of approximately 2sqm. It is also worth noting that the affected secluded private open space area is associated with a ground floor bedroom. The living areas of 14A Percy Street are located on first floor, and are well connected to a first floor balcony that faces Percy Street and receives plenty of solar access during the afternoon hours.

Wall height Setback required Setback proposedGround/first floor

6.3m 1.81m 2.56m

Second floor 9m 4.09m 4.1m


The level of increased shadowing under the proposed conditions is considered to be acceptable. It must be acknowledged that the subject site and surrounding properties are located within a principal activity centre, which is an urban area that multiple tiers of planning policy encourages redevelopment and growth. As underdeveloped sites redevelop in accordance with these policies, it is natural that the adjoining properties will receive some sort of amenity detriment. Whilst the proposed conditions may not have been appropriate in a residential hinterland, in this setting they are considered to be appropriate.

Overlooking

The proposal does not result in any overlooking opportunities. The proposal does not include any north or south facing windows, and the habitable room windows that face east are screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level. The proposal will not result in any ground floor overlooking opportunities due to the high side fences.

Do the proposed apartments provide satisfactory amenity for future residents?

Dwelling Entry

Entries to the proposed dwellings are provided via Percy Street, which are clearly identifiable from the street. It is considered that the entries are safe and provide a sense of address.

Internal amenity

The proposed additional dwellings are provided with the necessary components for comfortable living, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms. It is noted that all the habitable areas 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

Both dwellings feature an area of secluded private open space in the form of courtyards to their rear, and balconies at first and second floor level. The courtyards are 13.25 sqm, the first floor balconies are approximately 6sqm and the second floor balconies are 2.38 sqm in size. Whilst this configuration does not satisfy any of the specific numerical requirements of Standard B28, it is considered that the private open space areas are useable, will receive solar access at different times of the day and are well connected to the habitable areas of the dwellings. As a result the open space provision is considered to be satisfactory.

Service facilities

The dwellings do not specifically feature designated storage areas. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the proposed three storey dwellings will provide adequate storage opportunities. The plans illustrate that the bin storage area is within the front setback. This is considered to be a satisfactory location.

The plans do not illustrate the proposed location of the mailboxes. Should a planning permit by issued, a permit condition will be included requiring the location of these items to be added to the plans.


Does the proposal provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping?

Whilst the limited front setbacks along Percy Street do not provide an abundance of space for landscaping, new development should enhance and contribute to the landscape character of the area. Clause 21.06-2 (landscape character) includes objectives and strategies to maximise opportunities for canopy tree landscaping in new developments. The strategic direction seeks to prevent further erosion of the existing landscape character, repair the damage of the past and to establish high standards of landscape integration for all new developments. As a result, a condition that requires the submission of a landscape plan will be included on any permit that issues. The front setback will provide opportunities for the planting of a medium to large sized tree to the front of each dwelling.

Will the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts?

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the proposed development is required to provide two (2) parking spaces for each dwelling. As the development does not feature any on-site parking, a waiver to this requirement is proposed.

The subject site is located within a principal activity centre which provides a range of services and facilities within walking and cycling distance. In addition, there are a number of public transport options within immediate proximity of the site, for example the Prahran Train Station, and the tram routes that run along Chapel Street, Commercial Road and High Street.

There is strong policy support for developments that include little or no on-site parking when they are located in well connected areas. For example, Schedule 7 of the Design and Development Overlay supports ‘new development or redevelopment that facilitates reduced car use – including car-free development,’ and Clause 22.19-3 which supports ‘uses that minimise dependence on car use and facilitate sustainable transport options. In addition, the 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).

These factors are sufficient to justify the parking dispensation.


The Applicant has provided a response to Council’s draft Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Policy in the form of a Melbourne Water STORM Report. The report relied on the use of rainwater tanks with a cumulative size of 2000L, which achieved a Storm Rating of 86%. This is considered to be a satisfactory response to the draft policy.

Objections


The plans that have been lodged provide a sufficient amount of information to conduct an assessment.

Precedent is not something that can occur in planning as no two sites are ever exactly the same.




CONCLUSION


The proposal respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character The proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity detriment to other properties The proposed dwellings feature a satisfactory level of internal amenity The proposal will provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping The proposal will not result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 494/12 for the land located at 16 Percy Street Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of two dwellings on a lot in a Mixed Use Zone and Design and Development Overlay, and a waiver of the car parking requirements 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 revised plans Council dated 13 November and 29 August 2013 but modified to show:

a) Location of the mailboxes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.b) Water Sensitive Urban Design Response in accordance with Condition 3. c) Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 5.




5. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed


b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary

c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and drivewaysd) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including

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

e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the sitef) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the

landscape treatment of the siteg) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or

decked areas.h) A medium/large mature canopy tree within the front setback to each proposed

dwelling to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6. 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.

7. Prior to the occupation of the building, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must be fixed to a height of 1.7m and have no more than 25% openings or an alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The screens must be designed and coloured to blend in with the development 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:


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

above its base; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

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


1.7. PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT APPLICATION 1004/11 - 2 - 4 & 6 - 10 WEIR STREET GLEN IRIS - S72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANNING PERMIT COMPRISING MODIFICATIONS OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ON SITE, STAFF MEMBERS AND OPERATING HOURS, AND INCLUSION OF A PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning permit amendment application for modifications of the number of persons on site, staff members and operating hours, and inclusion of a Parking Management Plan at 2 – 4 & 6 – 10 Weir Street, Glen Iris.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Reto HofmannWard: EastZone: Industrial 3, Residential 1Overlay: Special Building OverlayDate lodged: 24 June 2013Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

107 days


More than 7 objections

Number of objections: 27 objections from 17 different Properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 24 October 2013Officer Recommendation: Refusal to Amend the Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

Planning History

Original Planning Permit:

Planning Permit No. 1004/11 was issued on 10 May 2012 for use of the land at 2 – 4 & 6 – 10 Weir Street (‘the subject site’) as a restricted recreation facility (trampoline entertainment centre) in a Residential 1 Zone and Industrial 3 Zone.

The original application was determined at an Ordinary Meeting of Council on 2 April 2012 and a Notice of Decision was subsequently issued on 5 April 2012, approving the proposal. The officer recommendation for approval of the proposal was adopted at the Council Meeting. A total of ten objections were received originally, however three objections were withdrawn by the time a decision was made. No appeal was lodged by any party and a planning permit was subsequently issued on 10 May 2012.

Subsequent Complaints from Residents and Enforcement Action:

Since the opening of the trampoline centre, Council has received complaints from the surrounding residents and business operators in relation to traffic and parking, noise emission, safety concerns, littering, and hours of operation.


As a response to the complaints, the permit holder has taken some measures to minimise the impacts of the trampoline centre on the surrounding area, such as reminding patrons to be quiet when leaving the centre, limiting the music level within the premises, and sending staff to pick up litter around the premises as well as to regulate traffic. Whilst these measures have alleviated some of the impacts generated by the trampoline centre, the surrounding residents and business operators consider the measures to be inadequate and their use and enjoyment of their land has been affected.

At the heart of the issues raised by the surrounding residents and business operators is the number of persons visiting and/or using the trampoline facilities. It has been recorded that over 300 persons could be presented on the premises during peak periods of the trampoline centre (e.g. on a weekend).

Condition 3 states no more than 120 patrons can be presented on the premises. It is Council’s view that any person enters the trampoline centre is a patron. However, the permit holder interprets this condition in a different way. They submit that a patron is a person who actually uses the trampolines. In other words, condition 3 has no effect on the number of spectators or people waiting to go on the trampolines.

Current Planning Permit Amendment:

Consequently, an amendment application was lodged with Council in order to resolve the different interpretations of condition 3. It also seeks to amend other permit conditions, which will be outlined in specific detail in the following section of this report.

The amendment application was lodged on 25 June 2013, and was advertised in August 2013, the specific details of which are provided later in this report. The applicant formally submitted a Declaration of Amendment to an Application to Amend a Permit form on 27 November 2013, which has altered the changes sought in the original amendment lodged in June 2013.

The specific details of the changes requested are outlined below.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Moray & Agnew Lawyers and are known as file No. 2783482_1, Council date stamped 24 June 2013.

Additional supporting documents that form part of this amendment application include: a Bus Management Plan and a Traffic Engineering Assessment prepared by TrafficGroup, Council date stamped 22 Nov 2013; and an Environmental Noise Management and Assessment Report prepared by Acoustic Sound Surveys Pty Ltd, Council date stamped 31 July 2013.


The amendment application seeks modifications to the permit conditions as follows:

Condition No. Existing wording of condition Proposed wording of condition3 (to be amended) Without the prior written consent of

the Responsible Authority, the use hereby permitted may only have a maximum number of 120 patrons on the premises.

Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the use hereby permitted may only have a maximum patron capacity of:

a) Monday to Friday before 5pm: 120 jumping participants and 30 party participants.

b) All other operating times: 120 jumping participants and 60 party participants.

4 (to be amended) No more than 12 staff members may be on the premises at any one time to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the use hereby permitted shall have a maximum number of staff members on the premises at any one time as follows: between 8:45am and 4:00pm

from Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays and school holidays) there shall be no more than 20 staff members on the premises; and

at all other times there shall be no more than 30 staff members on the premises.

5 (to be amended) The use hereby permitted may only operate between the following hours:

- Monday to Thursday, 10:00am to 9:00pm

- Friday, 10:00am to 11:00pm- Saturday, 9:00am to

11:00pm- Sunday, 10:00am to 6:00pm

for the general public, 6:00pm – 9:00pm for professional athletes only.

The use hereby permitted may only operate between the following hours:

- Monday to Thursday, 8:45am to 9:00pm

- Friday, 8:45am to 11:00pm- Saturday, 8:45am to

11:00pm- Sunday, 8:45am to 6:00pm

for the general public, 6:00pm – 9:00pm for professional athletes only.

6 (to be amended) The food and drink premises (café) must only be made available to the customers of the trampoline centre at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The food and drink premises (cafe) must have a maximum of 80 seats (internal and external) and only be made available to the customers of the trampoline centre at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


7 (to be amended) Noise emanating from the subject land must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 Public Premises), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Noise emanating from the subject land must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N2, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11 (proposed new condition)

(N/A) Party rooms must have a combined maximum of 80 seats and only be made available to the customers of the trampoline centre at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


(N/A) A Parking Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that must include the following:a) An existing conditions survey of

on-site and on-street parking;b) Designate on-site car parking

for persons attending the premises. This must include overarching details of the parking rate that is being applied to persons attending the premises;

c) Provide details of signing and line marking of parking spaces;

d) Public advertising of car parking; and

Management of bus parking and details of bus drop-off zone


(N/A) Each session must run for a maximum of 50 minutes to allow for a 10 minute crossover between each session.

NOTE: Specifically with regard to Condition 3, the permit applicant has not specified a proposed cap for the number of parents and onlookers for the jumping participants. In the revised Traffic Report, it is stated that parents and other onlookers who are not actively bouncing are not included in this total. This will be discussed later in the body of the assessment.


The amendment application seeks modifications to the plans as follows:

Installation of a ‘Loading Zone (10 mins)’ along the Carroll Crescent frontage of the subject site.

The proposal does not include any changes on site (e.g. no additional parking spaces are proposed), but it is proposed to convert three unrestricted car spaces along the Carroll Crescent frontage of the subject site to a ‘Loading Zone (10 mins)’ to cater for buses. A ‘Loading Zone’ is chosen because under the Road Rules, ‘Bus Zone’ is for public buses only and therefore is unsuitable for private buses.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Weir Street, approximately 175 metres east of its intersection with Tooronga Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The lot at 2 - 4 Weir Street is irregular in shape, with a frontage to Weir Street of 25.3 metres, a frontage to Carroll Crescent of 27.7 metres and an overall area of approximately 814 square metres. The lot is used as a car park with a capacity of 22 spaces.

The lot at 6 - 10 Weir Street is a rectangular lot with a frontage to Weir Street of 45.7 metres, a depth of 60.9 metres and an overall area of approximately 2,783 square metres.

The existing building at 6 - 10 Weir Street is of brick construction and is built to all the side and rear boundaries.

Part of the subject site (i.e. 2 - 4 Weir Street) is residentially zoned and the southern and eastern interfaces of the subject site abut residential properties.

The other part of the site at 6 - 10 Weir Street is zoned Industrial 3. The adjoining properties to the north and west are also zoned Industrial 3.

The subject site is located on the perimeter of a small industrial estate bound by Monash Freeway and Tooronga Road to the north and west, Glen Waverley railway line to the south, and a residential area to the east. The industrial precinct includes a variety of uses such as warehouse, trade supplies and motor repairs. Weir Street is a U shaped local street. The western leg of Weir Street provides 90 degree unrestricted parking on the west side and “no parking” restriction applies to the east side of the western leg between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday. The eastern leg of Weir Street is subject to “no parking” restriction between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday along the west side and provides unrestricted parking on the east side (with the exception of 2 spaces where “no parking” restriction applies). Features of the adjoining land and properties are summarised as follows:

To the north of the subject site, is No. 12 Weir Street, comprising an electronics factory. The building at 12 Weir Street is a double-storey brick building that occupies almost the entire lot.

To the west of the subject site, across Weir Street, is a two-storey warehouse building at 11-17 Carroll Crescent and a private car park at 1-3 Weir Street.

Three modest single-storey dwellings occupy the land to the south-east of the subject site, at No. 19, 21 & 23 Carroll Crescent. The existing building at 6-10 Weir Street is situated directly opposite the private open space of these residential properties.

Across the rear laneway, to the east of the subject site, are the two to three storey apartment buildings fronting Edgar Street North. The rear setbacks of these apartment buildings are generally paved for parking purpose.

Previous Planning Applications

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


Planning Permit No. 2116 was issued on 20 August 1964 for use of the land at 2-4 Weir Street, Glen Iris as a car park.

Application No. 2316 for use of the land at 2-4 Weir Street, Glen Iris as an office and factory was refused by Council on 14 July 1967.

The Title

The site is in three titles and described as:

Certificate of Title Volume 08093 Folio 753 as Lots 32 & 33 on Plan of Subdivision 004708. Certificate of Title Volume 04562 Folio 249 as Lot 34 on Plan of Subdivision 004708. Certificate of Title Volume 04027 Folio 272 as Lots 1 & 2 on Title Plan 253395W.

No covenants affect the land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls

Section 73(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that Sections 47 to 62 apply to an application to amend a permit as if the application were an application for a permit and any reference to a permit were a reference to the amendment to the permit.

Therefore, the amendments to the permit and plans are to be assessed against the relevant planning controls affecting the proposal.


ZoneClause 32.01 Residential 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 32.01-1, a planning permit is required to use the land as a “restricted recreation facility” as it is a Section 2 Use.Clause 33.03 Industrial 3 ZonePursuant to Clause 33.03-1, a planning permit is required to use the land as a “restricted recreation facility” as it is a Section 2 Use.

OverlayClause 44.05 Special Building OverlayPursuant to Clause 44.05-1 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works. As this amendment application does not include any external buildings and works, a permit is not required under this Overlay.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, before a new use commences, or the floor area or site area of an existing use is increased, or an existing use is increased by measure specified in Column C of Table in Clause 52.06-5 for that use, the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by table included at Clause 52.06-5.

As “restricted recreation facility” is not a use listed in the table at Clause 52.06-5, pursuant to Clause 52.06-5A, an adequate number of car spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



Clause 17 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.08 Infrastructure Clause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 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 three signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and Council received 27 objections from 17 different Properties. In summary, the objections raise the following concerns:

Traffic and parking impacts; Impacts on the operation of other businesses; Impacts on the amenity of the surrounding residents; Safety concerns (e.g. conflicts with some industrial activities, children crossing road, unsafe

driving conditions); Noise emission; and Inappropriate behaviours of the patrons (e.g. littering).

A Consultative Meeting was held on 24 October 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Davie, Stubbs and McMorrow, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council Planning Officer. Following the consultative meeting, the applicant has lodged a Declaration of Amendment to an Application to Amend a Permit outlining changes listed as follows:

Reducing the duration of each ‘bounce’ session from 1 hour to 50 minutes to allow for change over;

Extending the opening hours to commence operation 15 minutes earlier than currently permitted each day of the week;

Limiting the number of participants (jumpers and party room guests) rather than the total persons on site. The maximum number of participants is to be capped at 150 (i.e. 120 jumpers + 30 guests in the party rooms) during the off-peak periods (before 5pm, Monday to Friday), and 180 (i.e. 120 jumpers + 60 guests in the party rooms) during the peak periods (after 5pm Monday – Friday, Saturday & Sunday).

The abovementioned changes were lodged for discussion purposes prior to them being formally declared on 27 November 2013. The updated traffic assessment report was referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Unit for comments, which will be discussed in the referrals section of this report.

Referrals

Transport and Parking

1st referral (based on the formal amendment application)


Council’s Traffic Engineers made the following comments: It has no in-principle opposition to the installation of a ‘Loading Zone’ along the Carroll

Crescent frontage of the subject site for bus loading and unloading, noting that any changes to on-street parking are subject to consultation with other affected parties.

The parking rates (i.e. 0.22 cars per patron in off-peak periods, and 0.27 cars per patron in peak periods) are generally considered to be reasonable insofar as they apply to the rate of parking required during a session, but not for the changeover periods.

Observations of Bounce patrons by Council Officers indicate a preference for short-term illegal parking (e.g. double parking and parking on nature strips) in favour of parking further distance from the centre.

It is inappropriate for one business to occupy a large portion of the on-street parking. Whilst parking in front of residential properties can be secured through ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions, there are no similar options for the provision of parking for business use.

The recommended parking location for staff members (i.e. along Carroll Crescent abutting Gardiner Reserve) is considered to be acceptable.

The impact of the current operation of Bounce on the surrounding community, in particular the existing business operations along Weir Street, does not appear to be reasonable. Therefore, Council’s Transport and Parking Unit does not support any formalisation of the current operation through amendment of the permit to allow more persons on site without any increase to on-site parking.

2nd referral (these comments are based on the discussion Traffic Report, provided to Council in October 2013; the formally submitted Traffic Report, date stamped 22 November 2013 specifies the same participant numbers):

Council’s Traffic Engineers made the following comments based on the updated traffic assessment report: The updated report represents a genuine attempt to alleviate the traffic impacts by reducing

the duration of each session from 60 to 50 minutes. However, the alleviation may be offset by the extended operation hours and number of participants.

The proposed reductions in the number of persons on site are noted, but this reduction is unlikely to alleviate the concerns currently raised, and any benefit to the surrounding community is likely to be offset by the earlier start time proposed.

The analysis shows that there would a significant parking overflow, even considering the relatively low parking rates suggested by the applicant.

The Transport and Parking Unit remains concerned that the proposal will not alleviate any of the existing issues occurring on site, and may create additional issues as a result of the earlier start time.

KEY ISSUES

Since the grant of Permit No. 1004/11, the trampoline centre (known as ‘Bounce’) has operated from the subject site for over a year. Whilst the business has been a success and brought fun to many of its visitors, it has caused concerns to the surrounding residents and business operators who feel that their use and enjoyment of their land has been affected. As mentioned above, the concerns of the nearby residents and business operators are generally related to traffic and parking, noise emission, safety concerns, inappropriate behaviour of the patrons and hours of operation. The key factor that leads to these concerns is the number of persons visiting and/or using the trampoline facilities. As a result, this amendment application was submitted to Council in order to clarify the interpretation of condition 3 of the Permit. It also seeks to modify the number of persons on site, staff members, operating hours and other associated conditions.


It is important to make it clear that Planning Permit No. 1004/11 has been granted for use of the land at 2 – 4 & 6 – 10 Weir Street as a restricted recreation facility (trampoline entertainment centre). This amendment application does not provide an opportunity to revisit the original decision. Council’s consideration is limited to the proposed changes. The key issues that Council has to determine in this matter are:

Would the proposal unreasonably impact on the traffic and parking conditions of the area? Will the proposal impose significant impacts on the amenity of the surrounding residents? How would the proposal affect the surrounding business operators? Does the proposal give rise to public nuisance?

Would the proposal unreasonably impact on the traffic and parking conditions of the area?

Condition 3 of Permit No. 1004/11 allows a maximum of 120 patrons to be present on the premises at any one time. Despite the different interpretations of conditions 3 as to whether it controls the overall number of patrons or persons on site, the surveys provided by the permit applicant confirm that the maximum attendance significantly exceeds 120 (refer to table 1 below):

Table 1: Maximum number of persons on siteWednesday 21st November 2012

Saturday 24th November 2012

Friday 6th September 2013

Saturday 7th September 2013

Weekday Off-Peak (9am – 4pm)

157 N/A 292 N/A

Weekday Peak (after 4pm) 196 N/A 326 N/A

Weekend Peak N/A 301 N/A 385

The surveys also indicate a strong reliance on car-based travel to the trampoline centre, despite its close proximity to Tooronga and Gardiner Railway Stations and the provision of 34 on-site bicycle parking units. This amendment application seeks to formalise the current operation of the trampoline centre without providing additional on-site parking. The applicant submits that the amendment application will not significantly change the traffic and parking conditions because Bounce currently operates to the conditions sought by the application at hand. However, this statement is made based on the assumption that the current traffic and parking generation of Bounce is acceptable, which is contested by the nearby residents and business operators. The high level of attendance and the strong reliance on car-based travel also suggest that the traffic and parking generation of Bounce is unlikely to be insignificant.

The traffic report provided by the applicant suggests a parking rate of 0.22 spaces per person during off-peak periods and 0.27 spaces per person during peak periods. It also suggests a parking rate of 0.56 spaces per person for staff. Council’s Traffic Engineers considered the parking rates to be generally acceptable. Based on these rates, Table 2 below illustrates the overall parking demand for the current proposal and the original approval.


Table 2: Summary of car parking demand Use Number of

‘Participants’Parking Rate

Staff Demand

Existing Number of Spaces on Site

Overall Parking Demand

Current approval

Weekday Daytime (9am – 4pm)‘Off-peak’ Period

150 ‘participants’ (120 jumping participants and 30 ‘party’ participants’)

0.22 spaces per person

11 spaces (0.56 spaces per staff)

22 44 spaces (22 spaces overflow)

33 spaces (11 spaces overflow)

Weekday Evening/Weekends (4pm – 9pm/11pm Mon – Fri, Sat & Sun)‘Peak’ Period

180 ‘participants’ (120 jumping participants and 60 ‘party’ participants’)

0.27 spaces per person

16 spaces (0.56 spaces per staff)

22 65 spaces (43 spaces overflow)

39 spaces (17 spaces overflow)

Importantly, the above calculation is based on the submitted number of ‘participants’. This does not include parents and other onlookers, which means that the total use of the site would be more intensive than what is described on the table above. In addition, there is significant concern about the lack of proposed cap on overall patron numbers on the site. The applicant has specifically stated that parents and ‘other onlookers’ are not included, meaning there is the possibility of a significantly increased total amount of patrons without any real means of controlling the total numbers on the site.

Despite the omission of the parents and onlookers, the table still provides clear evidence that compared to the current approval, this amended proposal would generate a demand for an additional 11 spaces during off-peak periods and 26 spaces during peak periods. As no additional on-site car parking will be provided, the increased parking demand has to be accommodated by the surrounding road network.

It is understood that the above figures provide an order of magnitude rather than a precise estimate of the increased parking demand. However, for the reasons discussed below, it is considered that the proposal will result in unacceptable traffic and parking impacts on this area:

The parking rates do not reflect the changeover periods, which generate a higher parking demand. The key period for parking demand occurs at the session changeover. The seamless changeover potentially could lead to twice as many patrons at the trampoline centre. For instance, in a worst case scenario, 120 jumpers would be on the trampolines, with a further 120 jumpers waiting to start their session and all associated onlookers, are parents and such like. The surveys provided by the applicant and the observations of Council Officers strongly support the view that the traffic and parking impacts are greater during the changeover periods. Considering that there are at least 10 changeovers every day, each of which lasts for approximately 20 - 30 minutes, the accumulated impact is significant and unreasonable.


A reduction in the duration of each session (i.e. to 50 minutes) has been formally proposed and this will help to reduce the issue regarding the changeover peaks. However there is only a 10 minute ‘window’ provided by this 50 minute session restriction, and this is not considered adequate time to allow for patrons to exit and enter the property for the respective sessions. Furthermore, whilst this recommendation is considered to be positive (albeit not to acceptable levels), as commented by Council’s Traffic Engineers, the extended operation hours and number of participants may offset the alleviation.

The trampoline centre is likely to cause greater traffic and parking impacts during school holidays. Past observations suggest that Bounce usually attracts more patrons during school holiday periods. The higher patronage levels have a considerable impact on the surrounding residents and business operators. However, the traffic report submitted to Council does not specifically address the impact during school holidays. The updated traffic report that was lodged for discussion purpose states that the school holiday periods represent similar operating conditions to normal school operating periods, which is contrary to the observations of Council Officers.

On-street parking is constrained in the immediate surrounding area. The traffic report states that the local streets have the capacity to accommodate the parking overflow from the trampoline centre. However, as Council’s Traffic Engineers pointed out, the majority of the identified vacancies are located over 180m from the entrance to the trampoline centre. It has been observed that patrons of Bounce have a preference for short-term illegal parking in favour of parking longer distance from the centre. As a result, they are unlikely to use the parking spaces that are far away from the subject site. Furthermore, Council has recently implemented Permit Zone along the north side of Carroll Crescent, which further reduces the number of on-street parking. Therefore, there is limited surplus of spaces available to readily accommodate the additional parking demand.

It is inappropriate for one business to occupy a large portion of the available on-street parking. Although there is unrestricted on-street parking along certain sections of Weir Street and Carroll Crescent, these spaces are shared by the surrounding residents, business operators and visitors to the area. The nearby business operators have reported to Council that parking availability for their visitors has been severely limited since the opening of Bounce. Council could secure parking in front of a residential property for a residential use through the Permit Zone restrictions, but there are no similar options to protect parking for business uses.

The extended opening hours are likely to further aggravate the traffic and parking impacts.

Another concern relates to bus loading and unloading activity. Bounce regularly receives school groups during the week that arrive by bus. However, currently there is no formalised parking space for buses. As Weir Street is a one-way street with “no parking” restriction along certain sections, the nearby business operators report being adversely affected when buses park along Weir Street. When buses park further away from the trampoline centre (often in front of residential properties), the nearby residents may be affected. The current amendment application seeks to install a ‘Loading Zone (10 mins)’ along the Carroll Crescent frontage of the subject site, which could accommodate one bus to drop off and pick up patrons. Council’s Traffic Engineers have shown in-principle support to the proposed ‘Loading Zone’, subject to consultation with the affected properties. While the proposed ‘Loading Zone’ is considered to be an improvement, it is often that two or more buses come down to the trampoline centre at the same time. The proposed ‘Loading Zone’ is not long enough to accommodate more than one bus at a time. As a response to this problem, the applicant submits that bus loading and unloading can be better managed by giving instructions to bus drivers before they arrive, sending staff to direct buses and adjusting the online booking system to control the number of groups arriving by bus to name a few. However, these suggestions have not been finalised and do not form part of the amendment application. A careful analysis and detailed management plan is necessary to prove that bus loading and unloading can be satisfactorily managed with minimal impacts on the area.


Whilst the subject site is located within an industrial area and some reliance on on-street parking may be acceptable, the proposed solution (i.e. a combination of on-street parking and a Bus Management Plan) to address the traffic and parking issue associated with the extended number of persons on site, staff members and operating hours is considered to be inadequate. More importantly, the key issue that gives rise to the traffic and parking problem is the number of persons visiting and/or using the trampoline facilities. Without a review of the number of persons, the traffic and parking issue is unlikely to be fully resolved.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal will unreasonably impact on the traffic and parking conditions of the area.

Will the proposal impose significant impacts on the amenity of the surrounding residents?

First of all, it is important to point out that the subject site is located predominantly within an Industrial 3 Zone, with only the car park situated in the Residential 1 Zone. Arguably, the nearby residents used to enjoy a borrowed amenity from the absence of an intensive land use on the subject site. For example, pursuant to Clause 33.03 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a service station or an extensive animal husbandry, could operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on the subject site (subject to compliance with other regulations). As a result, the benchmark of the assessment is not what used to be (e.g. no operation after 5pm or on the weekends), but rather what is reasonable having regard to the zoning and relevant planning policies. Furthermore, as Permit No. 1004/11 has been granted, the assessment is limited to the impacts associated with the proposed modifications rather than whether or not the trampoline centre should be there.

The second point that needs to be made clear is that the Tribunal has said on numerous occasions that residents abutting commercial/industrial areas cannot expect the same level of amenity as might be found in a wholly residential area (see Ryan v Port Phillip City Council [2006] VCAT 923, Albany Creek Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC [2006] VCAT 754 and Kelghan Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC [2000] VCAT 2538). This being said, it does not mean that the nearby residents are not entitled to a reasonable level of amenity. As the Tribunal remarked in Kelghan, ‘persons operating businesses at the edge of a commercial zone must expect to have constraints imposed on their activities or development in recognition of the need to maintain the amenity of an abutting residential zone (or open space area), which constraints would not apply in other more central parts of the commercial zone’ (para 43).

With respect to transitional sites or sites located at the interface of zones, the Tribunal has said on numerous of occasions that there needs to be an expectation that in each zone, the use and development of land will be constrained or influenced by the adjacency of land in the other zoning. It has been said, for example, that dwelling owners/occupants if they occupy premises at the interface with a commercial or industrial zone, cannot expect to enjoy the same level of residential amenity as persons occupying residential properties more remote from the interface. Similarly, the Tribunal has said that persons operating businesses at the edge of a commercial zone must expect to have constraints imposed on their activities or development in recognition of the need to maintain the amenity of an abutting residential zone (or open space area), which constraints would not apply in other more central parts of the commercial zone.

Bearing this in mind, the assessment now turns to the amenity impacts of the proposal on the surrounding residents, which are generally related to traffic and parking, noise emission, safety concerns and inappropriate behaviour of the patrons.

Firstly, in relation to traffic and parking, for the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposal will significantly impact on the traffic and parking conditions of the area. As a result, the amenity of the surrounding residents will be adversely affected through traffic and parking.


Secondly, with regard to noise emission, it is noted that there are State policies in place that the permit applicant has to comply with, irrespective of the planning permit conditions. For instance, the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N -1 (SEPP N-1) controls noise emission from industry and trade premises to residential properties in metropolitan Melbourne. Music noise emissions from entertainment venues are controlled by the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 (SEPP N-2), which also covers noise from human voices and activities within the premises that are associated with music.

Given the zoning of the subject site, there is no reasonable basis to impose more onerous requirements than what the State policies do. Although Council has received complaints from the nearby residents regarding noise emission from Bounce, according to the audits undertaken by Council’s Compliance Officers, noise level from the subject site complies with the relevant State policies. Furthermore, the permit holder has taken reasonable measures to minimise noise emission from the subject site, such as reminding patrons to be quiet when leaving and limiting the music level within the premises. As such, it is unable to conclude that noise emission from the trampoline centre would unreasonably impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents.

However, one deficiency of the State policies is that they do not apply to noise associated with the arrival and departure of patrons or patron conversations. The tangible concern here is a large group of patrons leaving the trampoline centre at night may disturb the surrounding residents. The submitted Noise Management and Assessment Report does not make specific finding on this point. Although the trampoline centre closes at 11pm (which is considered to be a reasonable closing time for commercial premises abutting residential zone/use), the proposed increase in the number of persons on site may tip the balance and cause adverse impacts on the amenity of the nearby residents via noise. Had the amendment application been recommended for approval, a Patron Management Plan would have been required to detail how patron behaviours outside the premises will be managed so as to minimise the amenity impacts on the surrounding residents and comply with the NSW EPA sleep disturbance criterion (i.e. a commonly used criterion to assess noise from patrons based on sleep disturbance).

In respect of the safety concerns raised by the neighbours, it is noted that some patrons of Bounce walk to the trampoline centre in an unsafe manner. However, it is not a reasonable ground to refuse the amendment application simply because the trampoline centre has attracted more people to the area and some of the patrons are less cautious about road safety. The carelessness of the patrons is beyond the control of Bounce and has no direct connection with the proposal at hand.

Lastly, the nearby residents complained about the inappropriate behaviours of some of the patrons. This issue will be discussed in detail in the following section of the report. However, it is not considered that this is a sufficient ground to reject the amendment application.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residents through traffic and parking, and potential noise emission associated with the arrival and departure of patrons.

How would the proposal affect the surrounding business operators?

As stated earlier, the subject site is located within a small industrial precinct, the predominant land uses of which are trade supply and service industry (such as motor repairs and panel beating). Due to the nature of the land use, heavy vehicles, forklifts and other warehouse equipment are common features of Weir Street. The surrounding business operators have constantly reported to Council that the patrons of Bounce queue outside their premises and present a safety hazard. Although this issue is concerning, it is not sufficient to warrant the rejection of the amendment application because:


The patrons of Bounce have the right to stand on the nature strip as long as they do not trespass into the neighbouring properties.

The existence of patrons on the nature strip and/or roads may require the drivers of the heavy vehicles and forklifts and such like to be more cautious, but it does not materially affect the operation of the businesses.

In the event that an unfortunate incident occurs, the matter would be better dealt under the law of civil law instead of town planning.

This being said, the concern of the nearby business operators indicates that the proposed number of persons on site (which Bounce has generally been operating at) may not be appropriate. The proposal could affect the surrounding business operators through traffic and parking and may cause conflict with the operation of the businesses.

Does the proposal give rise to public nuisance?

The surrounding residents and business operators alleged that the patrons of Bounce adversely impact on the amenity of the area through inappropriate behaviours, such as littering and intoxication.

As Deputy President Dwyer said in Hunt Club Commercial Pty Ltd v Casey CC (Red Dot) [2013] VCAT 725, ‘town planning is not a panacea for all perceived social ills, nor is planning decision-making a forum for addressing all issues of social or community concern.’ Although the nearby residents and business operators may have experienced inconvenience as a result of the opening of Bounce, the issues raised here are not closely related to town planning. Furthermore, with regard to littering, it is noted that the permit holder has already arranged staff to clean up the surrounding areas as a daily routine. Had the amendment application been supported, a Venue Management Plan would have been required to clearly indicate the area that will be cleaned by the Bounce staff and to detail the time/ frequency of cleaning as well as measures to minimise littering of the patrons.

In relation to intoxication, the trampoline centre does not have a liquor licence and its general safety rules clearly state ‘no jumping when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.’ As a result, it is unreasonable to regard Bounce as a source of harm that gives rise to alcohol-related disturbance.

In light of the above, although the proposal may result in additional traffic, parking and amenity impacts, it does not give rise to public nuisance.



CONCLUSION

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

The extended number of persons on site, staff members and operating hours will result in unreasonable traffic and parking impacts on the area.

The proposal will adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents and business operators.


RECOMMENDATION

That a Refusal to Amend Planning Permit No: 1004/11 be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for modifications of the number of persons on site, staff members and operating hours, and inclusion of a parking management plan at 2 – 4 & 6 – 10 Weir Street, Glen Iris, based on the following grounds:

1. The extended number of persons on site, staff members and operating hours will result in unreasonable traffic and parking impacts on the area.

2. The proposal will adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents and business operators.

3. The proposal will adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residents through noise emission associated with the arrival and departure of patrons.

4. The proposed unlimited restriction on total overall patron numbers will exacerbate the offsite amenity impacts, including traffic and parking impacts, on the surrounding area.


1.8. PLANNING APPLICATION 0224/13 - 31 - 41 WILSON STREET SOUTH YARRA – CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE STOREY BUILDING PLUS ROOF TERRACE COMPRISING DWELLINGS, OFFICES AND CAR PARKING


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for use and development of the land for dwellings and office (as of right use) in a Commercial 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay, Special Building Overlay and Environmental Audit Overlay and a reduction in the car parking requirement at 31 – 41 Wilson Street, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Salta Properties Pty Ltd C/- SJB PlanningWard: NorthZone: Commercial 1Overlay: Design and Development Overlay 7

Special Building OverlayEnvironmental Audit OverlayIncorporated Plan Overlay 3

Date lodged: 19 April 2013Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

144


More than six objections and more than three storeys

Number of objections: 17 objections from 14 propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes, held on 11 September 2013Officer 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 Rothe Lowman Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: TP00.09, TP00.10, TP01.00, TP01.01, TP01.02, TP01.05, TP01.06, TP01.08, TP01.09, TP02.03, TP02.05, TP02.10, TP02.11, TP02.12 and TP02.13 all revision A and Council date stamped 28 June 2013.


Construction of a nine storey building plus roof terrace and plant area comprising 88 dwellings (26 x 1 bedroom, 15 x 1 bedroom plus study and 47 x 2 bedroom), 3 ground floor offices (total area 209.7m²), 63 car parking spaces and 31 bicycle spaces. The building will include a maximum overall height of 28.1m (measured from the centre of Wilson Street to the building parapet). The plant screen measures 28.6m, the lift overrun 28.85m and the roof access stair 29.99m.

Basement Level 2 comprises 31 car parking spaces, 31 stores and a water tank (size not specified).

Basement Level 1 comprises 28 car parking spaces and 28 stores.


Ground Level comprises 3 offices (total area 209.7m²), 4 car parking spaces (including a disabled space), 20 resident bicycle spaces, 11 visitor bicycle spaces and 29 stores. This level also provides car park entry via Garden Lane, services fronting Garden Lane, two waste bin store rooms, a truck loading area (partly within the site and partly extending over the road) and a pedestrian walkway a minimum 2.05m wide along the eastern part of the site which allows for access from Wilson Street to Garden Lane.

Level 1 comprises 13 dwellings (9 x 1 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom) and three (3) stores. Levels 2 and 3 comprise 14 dwellings (11 x 1 bedroom and 3 x 2 bedroom) per level. Level 4 comprises 10 dwellings (2 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2 bedroom). Levels 5 to 7 (3 levels) comprise 10 dwellings (2 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2 bedroom) per level. Level 8 comprises 7 dwellings (2 x 1 bedroom and 5 x 2 bedroom). The Roof Floor comprises a communal BBQ area (61.5m²), services and plant equipment.

A Transport Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants, a Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design and a Sustainable Management Design Plan prepared by Simpson Kotzman also form part of the assessment of this application.

Site and Surrounds

The site has dual street abuttals with a frontage on the northern side of Wilson Street and rear abuttal to the southern side of Garden Lane. The site is located approximately 200m east of Chapel Street and has the following significant characteristics:

Is regular in shape with a frontage to Wilson Street of 36.07m, a frontage to Garden Lane of 36.22m, a depth of 27.43m and an area of approximately 990m².

Is currently occupied by two, two storey brick warehouse buildings. Vehicle access to the site is via two crossovers to Wilson Street and various openings to

Garden Lane. Wilson Street is a one-way (east bound) street approximately 12m in width and allows

parking on both sides of the street. Garden Lane is a two-way street with a 4.2m wide carriageway set within a 5m wide road reserve.

There is a slight fall in the land from the west to the east of approximately 400mm.

The site is located within the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. It is zoned Commercial 1 and affected by Design and Development Overlay 7 (Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre), Special Building Overlay, Environmental Audit Overlay and the Incorporated Plan Overlay 3. It is strategically located within close proximity to Chapel Street, providing good access to shopping, services, tram routes and the South Yarra Railway Station.

To the west of the site, at 25, 27 and 29 Wilson Street, is a site under construction. Planning Permit 381/11 allows for the construction of an eight storey building for use as 39 dwellings, a food and drinks premises (café) and parking for 35 cars. The building, to the balcony of Level 7, has a height of 24.79m (AHD35.7m), the parapet of Level 7 measures 27.09m (AHD38.00) and the lift overrun has a height of 28.49m (AHD39.4m) which is setback 7m from the Wilson Street frontage. A light court is located along the common boundary which measures 2.255m deep and 3.15m wide.

To the east of the site, at 43 Wilson Street, is a two-storey warehouse building on a narrow lot of 6.5m. A current Planning Permit Application for the site, 594/13, seeks approval for an eight storey building plus store and plant area comprising nine (9) dwellings (3 x 1-bedroom, 3 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom) and one (1) ground floor office fronting Wilson Street. A total of six (6) parking spaces are proposed in the form of car stackers, with access from Garden Lane. Further east, at 47 Wilson Street, is a four-storey building for use as dwellings and office. A roof top pool is located along the northern elevation of the fifth storey.


To the south of the site, on the opposite side of Wilson Street, are single and two storey warehouse/office buildings. A three storey dwelling occupies 44-46 Wilson Street and incorporates first floor and second floor north facing terraces. At 34-40 Wilson Street, Planning Permit 654/09 was issued on 5 March 2010 for an eight storey building (measuring 24.9m (AHD35.9m) plus 2.5m high screen plant and lift overrun), comprising 56 dwelling and 30 car parking spaces. This Permit is still valid. At 42 Wilson Street, Planning Permit 926/11 was issued on 12 July 2012 for an eight storey building (measuring 26.18m (AHD36.5m) plus 1.8m high lift overrun), comprising ground level office and cafe, 18 dwellings and 10 car parking spaces.

To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Garden Lane, are a mixture of single, two storey and three storey office/warehouse buildings, a single storey dwelling at 42 Garden Street and two four storey dwellings with a frontage to Garden Lane (including car access and habitable room windows).

The site is within the heart of the former industrial area south of the Jam Factory, which has seen substantial change in recent years as multi level buildings of primarily residential land uses take form. The surrounding area now comprises an eclectic mix of land uses and buildings ranging between single storey warehouses to multi level residential buildings with ground floor commercial uses. Some recent approvals include:

Site Permit Description Car Spaces (Ratio for dwellings)

Maximum Height

Status

21 Wilson Street

1065/00 4 storey building for 20 dwellings

24 cars (1.2 spaces /dwelling)

13.1m Constructed

47 Wilson Street


10 resident cars (1.25 spaces/dwelling)

16.6m Constructed

22-24 Wilson Street


19 cars (1.19 spaces/dwelling)

14.9m Constructed

60 Garden Street

121/07 5 storey building for 24 student units

4 cars (0.16 spaces / dwelling)

16.8m Constructed

7-13 Simmons Street & 12 Ellis Street(Society building)

489/07 12 storey building for 242 dwellings, a restaurant, spa, cinema & tavern

149 resident cars (0.62 spaces/dwelling)

39.1m Constructed

33-37 Simmons Street



27.9m Permit Issued

30 Wilson Street

558/09 7 storey building for 22 serviced apartments

4 cars (0.18 spaces/serviced apartment)

22.33m parapet (AHD33.55)23.83m to lift overrun (AHD35.05)

Permit Issued

34-40 Wilson Street



24.9m parapet (AHD35.9)27.4m to plant

Permit Issued


(AHD38.4) 20-24 Garden Street

633/09 8 storey building for 54 dwellingsand ground level offices


26.0m to parapet (AHD37.72)27.5m to plant (AHD39.22)

Constructed

5-7 Wilson Street

743/10 7 storey building for 30 dwellings and ground floor cafe


25.76m to roof (AHD37.5)27.06m to lift overrun (AHD38.8)

Constructed

8 & 10 & 12 & 12A Garden Street & 60 Bray Street

7/11 11 storey building for 81 dwellings and 4 restaurants

61 cars (0.75 spaces/dwellings)

32.5m to parapet (AHD44.98) 34.9m to plant screen (AHD47.38)

Permit Issued

25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street

381/11 8 storey building for 39 dwellings and a ground floor cafe


27.09m to parapet (AHD38.00)28.49m to lift overrun (AHD39.4)

Permit Issued

26-28 Wilson Street

958/10 8 storey building for 25 dwellings and a ground level office space


26.0m to parapet (AHD37.42) 27.5m to lift overrun(AHD 38.92)

Permit Issued

42 Wilson Street

926/11 8 storey building for 18 dwellings and ground level office and cafe


26.18m to parapet (AHD36.5)27.98m to lift overrun (AHD38.3)

Permit Issued

Previous Planning Application

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

Planning Permit 736/02 was issued on 17 December 2002 for demolition of the existing buildings to allow construction of a four storey building to accommodate ground level car parking for 42 vehicles and 5 office tenancies, 14 dwellings at first floor, 14 dwellings at second floor and three dwellings and terracing at third floor level at the land of 25-41 Wilson Street. This Permit was not acted on and has since expired.


The Title

The site is described in three titles as follows:

Lot 1 on Title Plan 812946V on Certificate of Title Volume 2387 Folio 398 Lot 1 on Title Plan 812948R on Certificate of Title Volume 10095 Folio 248 Land in Plan of Consolidation 106117 on Certificate of Title Volume 9229 Folio 199

No covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 a permit is required to use the land for dwellings (given the frontage at ground level exceeds 2 metres). No permit is required to use the land for office.Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Overlays

Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay 7 (Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre)Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Schedule 7 to the Overlay relates to the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. The site is within a substantial change area and the preferred maximum building height is 23m.

Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan OverlaySchedule 3 to the Overlay relates to the Late Night Liquor Licence Trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: Measuring the Saturation LevelsThis overlay is not applicable to this application as liquor is not proposed.

Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.Pursuant to Clause 44.05-5 an application must be referred to the relevant floodplain management authority, Melbourne Water.

Clause 45.03 – Environmental Audit OverlayPursuant to Clause 45.03-1, before a sensitive use commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either, a certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land or an environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for a sensitive use in accordance with the Act.



Clause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, before a new use commences the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, Table 1 sets out the number of car parking spaces required for various uses.

A dwelling requires 1 car space to each one or two bedroom dwelling and 1 car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of five or more dwellings.

An office requires 3.5 spaces to each 100m² of net floor area.

Hence, 88 spaces are required for the dwellings, 17 for residential visitors and 7 for the offices.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3 a dwelling requires 1 space to each 5 dwellings and 1 space for visitor to each 10 dwellings.

The applicable rates do not apply to the offices given the floor areas do not exceed 1000m².

Hence, 18 spaces are required for residents and 9 for resident visitors.

Clause 52.35 – Urban Context Report and Design Response for residential development of four or more storeysPursuant to Clause 52.35-1 an application for a residential development of five or more storey in a Commercial 1 Zone must be accompanied by:

An urban context report. A design response.

Clause 52.36 – Integrated Public Transport PlanningPursuant to Clause 52.36, a residential development comprising 60 or more dwellings must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act to Public Transport Victoria.


State Planning Policy Framework:Clause 11.01 Activity CentresClause 15.01-1 Urban DesignClause 15.01-5 Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood CharacterClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 17.01-1 Business

Local Planning Policy Framework:

Municipal Strategic Statement:Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.05 Housing


Clause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 21.07 Open Space and EnvironmentClause 21.08 Infrastructure

Local Planning Policies:Clause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy

Amendment C161

This amendment came into operation on 5 December 2013 which implements the recommendations of Stonnington’s Planning Scheme Review (2010), which updates council’s planning vision and policies and revises the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) by replacing the existing Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) with a new MSS and making consequential changes to several local policies.

Chapel Revision

The structure plan for the Chapel Street Activity Centre is currently under revision. The revision includes proposed changes to the building heights and setbacks of the different precincts that make up the Activity Centre. The Draft Structure Plan identifies the subject site to have a preferred maximum height of 25m (8 storeys). The proposed setbacks identified for the subject site is for a three storey street wall with a three (3) metre setback for the levels up to 20m and a setback of six (6) metres for the levels up to 25m.

Advertising

The application (by virtue of the use for dwellings, buildings and works under the Design and Development Overlay and the reduction in the car parking requirement) 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 four (4) signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and 17 objections from 14 properties have been received. They are summarised as follows:

Height is inconsistent with the area and exceeds the preferred maximum building height in DDO7

Loss of privacy Overlooking Overshadowing of roof terraces and surrounding streets Loss of light to surrounding properties Location of visitor parking spaces on Wilson Street is inappropriate Number of dwellings is excessive Inadequate parking provided on site No resident parking permits should be given to the future occupants of the proposed building Traffic and congestion Pedestrian safety in Garden Lane Visitors will be forced to pay for parking in the nearby Jam Factory car park Increase in train noise/echoing given the height of the new building – materials should reflect

sound waves Reflectivity from glazing Traffic report refers to data from May and Nov 2011 – increase in developments since then Excessive density Visual bulk


Lack of dwelling diversity (47% one bedroom dwellings) Waste collection should be during normal business hours Noise as a result of waste collection Confirmation as to what type of garage door is proposed – it should be soft closing and quiet

in operation No details of external lighting – concerns about light spill from loading area and walkway Noise from communal rooftop BBQ area Door to public walkway must be soft closing to minimise noise An artist impression of the Garden Lane frontage should be provided Location and size of ground floor parking spaces appears inadequate Potential antisocial behaviours in the loading dock and walkway Noise from plant equipment

A Consultative Meeting was held on 11 September 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Koce and Klisaris, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the applicant submitting a sketch to address the overlooking concerns of the objectors at 45 Garden Lane. This sketch (SK09.02 Rev P2), received on 11 October 2013 shows screening to the balconies and windows which have a direct outlook to 45 Garden Lane. The applicant consents to a condition being included on any permit to issue to reflect the screening techniques as shown on the sketch.

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-7 and 44.05-4 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, the application for buildings and works in a Commercial 1 Zone and Special Building Overlay is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1) (a), (b) and (c), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

It is noted that the application was advertised under the provisions of the Business 2 Zone. Under the provisions of this zone a permit was required for the proposed use of the site for dwellings. Since the completion of advertising Planning Scheme Amendment VC100 has introduced a new Commercial 1 Zone (Clause 34.01) which replaces the Business 2 Zone. Under the provisions of the Commercial 1 Zone at Clause 34.01, a Planning Permit is still required for use of the site for dwellings (given the frontage at ground level exceeds 2 metres).

Referrals

Infrastructure

The rear right-of-way (Garden Lane) is likely to have high channel flows as a result of significant stormwater discharge being directed to the Lane. It is therefore imperative that the basement is protected from runoff from the Lane. To achieve this, it is critical that an apex be created at the top of the basement ramp that is at least equal to the existing height of the street kerb (150mm above the invert of the kerb and channel). This will necessitate a re-design of the basement ramp. Failure to do this is likely to result in flooding of the basement.

Conditions to be included relating to legal point of discharge and existing footpath levels at the property line must not be altered in any way to match the proposed development levels including new floor levels. Encourage the installation of water tanks.


The project has attempted to address Council’s SDAPP requirements in incorporating sustainability within the design. However, there are several aspects that the Applicant is requested to review/address in order to fully comply with Council’s sustainability requirements.


Waste Management

The Waste Management Plan submitted with the application responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the proposal. A Waste Management Plan similar to that submitted with application should be submitted for approval once a planning permit has been issued.

Melbourne Water – Statutory Referral (Determining)

No objection to the proposal, subject to a standard condition regarding runoff and a footnote regarding further advice to be included on any permit to issue.

Public Transport Victoria – Statutory Referral (Determining)

No objection to the proposal.

Urban Design

In strategic terms this location between the Jam Factory and the Horace Petty Estate provides scope for intensive urban renewal. Whilst the DDO7 supports development with a preferred maximum height of 23m, a number of recently approved developments have exceeded this preferred height by at least one storey or more.

The proposed development comprises a podium ‘base’ of 4 storeys, with upper level setbacks from both Wilson Street and Garden Lane that are generally similar to other recent developments in the area and the top (9th) floor is well recessed from street views.

This is the only development proposal that has sought to integrate a through-block pedestrian passage-way linking Wilson Street and Garden Lane. This is an important initiative and is to be commended. Overall, the design of the development makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and increases the level of street activation in the neighbourhood.

Given the strategic context of the area, there is some room for discretion in the application of the DDO7 provisions in this area. This proposal is generally consistent with the overall strategic intentions for this neighbourhood and is generally consistent with the form, scale and setbacks of a number of other recent developments in the area.

A matter of general concern, in relation to many new apartment developments, is the trend towards reduced levels of internal amenity, that is, apartment dimensions and layouts that result in poor levels of daylight penetration and restricted natural ventilation. As a matter of principle, it is suggested that all new proposals for apartment developments be accompanied by a ‘Daylight Analysis’ to demonstrate the achievement of acceptable levels of daylight to all habitable rooms.

Transport & Parking

The statutory rate is 112 car parking spaces (88 for dwellings, 17 for dwelling visitors and 7 for offices). The proposal is providing 63 spaces (59 for dwellings and 4 (including the disabled space) to the offices). The proposed parking provision of 59 bays for residential use is adequate. Allocation of spaces to individual dwellings should be provided (1 bed + study and 2 bed apartments should include parking as a priority over the 1 bed with no study).


The Traffic Impact Assessment states that parking in the surrounding area is generally available to cater for the demand, however experience with the surrounding area suggests that on-street parking is highly utilised, and the survey data presented supports this. It is also noted that the parking surveys were completed in 2011, and conditions have changed in the intervening period. The majority of identified available parking bays are within privately owned and operated paid off-street parking facilities. While these facilities may provide parking at this time, by virtue of their nature there is no guarantee that they will remain open and available into the future. As such, the plans should be revised to provide visitor parking on-site. It is further recommended that greater explanation of how the visitor parking rates used in the TIA were developed, and whether they are applicable to the development in question.

The allocation of four (4) parking bays to the office tenancies is broadly considered appropriate. The applicant is to confirm that each tenancy is allocated a parking bay. The disabled bay should not be allocated to a specific dwelling, and rather left available for use as needed.

The above concerns, primarily regarding residential and residential visitor provision, suggest that in this case the development intensity may be too high for the subject site. Several of the above issues could be resolved by reducing the number of dwellings on site. Notwithstanding, the applicant is to provide visitor parking on site, and clearly show the allocation of parking bays to individual tenancies/dwellings.

It is recommended that the applicant review the traffic generation assessment, and consider traffic generation at developments which have fewer parking bays than dwellings to provide a more accurate picture of the post development conditions. Generation at higher levels than projected could create safety concerns.

There are a number of concerns raised with the car parking layout and they are summarised as follows:

Parking Bay dimensions - Aisle width is less than the required dimensions Blind Aisles – have not been provided beyond bays 60 and 61. The swept path analysis

referred to in the report have not been submitted. Disabled Parking Bay – in accordance with Planning Scheme dimensions not Australian

Standards (AS). This should be confirmed as TIA states it has been designed to the AS. The shared bollard is located at the wrong end of the area and should be revised.

Doors in Parking Areas - A door is shown on the ground level providing access to the disabled parking shared area which opens directly into a vehicle movement area. This should be revised so that a pedestrian opening the door is protected from vehicle movements. Two additional doors are shown opening into the shared area and should be revised.

Over Bonnet Stores - The proposed over bonnet stores appear to be located toward the middle of the parking bays, and would therefore be expected to severely limit the ability to park many vehicles it the bays. The applicant is to confirm the proposed arrangements, noting that any installation which impedes parking by larger vehicles would not be supported in this case.

A loading bay is not a requirement of the proposed development. The loading area appears to not be fully contained on site. It also appears that the truck loading area will impede access to the parking bays associated with the office land use. No dimensions of the truck loading area have been provided. The TIA states that the truck loading area is for refuse collection and for residential removal operations. An 8.8m service vehicle has been used to demonstrate that the area can be accessed in a reasonable number of movements, and will not impede passing traffic flow. However, it is considered unlikely that residential removal operations would be conducted using an 8.8m service vehicle, and therefore to demonstrate adequate operation, a larger vehicle should be considered.


In order to assess the appropriateness or otherwise of the waste collection arrangements proposed, it is recommended that this be referred to Council’s Waste Management Unit for consideration.

The TIA states that the truck loading area is also to be used as a passing area. This passing area would be located within private property, but is understood to be available to all users of Garden Lane. However, prior to acceptance of such a proposal, a number of issues must be resolved. Primarily, the applicant and the Planning Department must determine how this area is to be administrated following construction. For example, it must be determined which party will be responsible for the maintenance of the widened section, where the liability will lie, who will manage the widened section, how the section will be demarcated, etc. This should also be referred to the Infrastructure Department for comment.

Notwithstanding the above, as part of the discussion with the applicant, it must also be confirmed how the applicant intends to prevent parking occurring in the widened section. Should the widened section be retained by the applicant, then Council would not have the authority to issue parking infringements to vehicles on a privately managed section of the roadway. Whilst Transport and Parking does not object to such a proposal in principle, these matters must be clarified/addressed prior to considering the proposal further.

The statutory rate for bicycle spaces is 18 for residents and 9 for resident visitors. The development provides 31, 20 to residents and 11 to resident visitors (a surplus of 4 spaces). As a significant reduction in car parking is sought, it is considered appropriate to provide bicycle parking at a higher rate, to ensure that those dwellings in particular with no access to a car parking space have adequate opportunity to access bicycle parking. It is therefore recommended that additional bicycle parking be provided. All bicycle parking to be provided using Ned Kelly racks. A product information sheet has been provided for these racks. Additional dimensions are required on the plans to demonstrate that the required dimensions for the product are provided. This cannot be assessed at this time. It is also noted that the Ned Kelly racks will be used for visitor parking. While this is not specifically inappropriate, it is unclear how non-regular users will understand the required mounting movements for these racks. It is therefore recommended that information signs be included at the visitor parking location to demonstrate the correct access movements.

Details should be provided of the proposed crossover. The two redundant crossovers must be removed and footpath, nature strip, kerb and channel, etc made good to Council’s requirements.

Council’s Waste Management Unit should comment on the proposed waste collection vehicle and how waste collection is proposed.

KEY ISSUES

State Policy

A number of State Planning Policies are relevant in regard to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include Clauses 11.01 (Activity Centres), 11.04 (Metropolitan Melbourne), 15.01 (Urban Environment), 16.01 (Residential Development), 17.01-1 (Business) and 18 (Transport). The objectives listed provide a strong policy context for intensive housing developments within Principal Activity Centres that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. In particular, the State policy framework includes specific direction for the encouragement of a diversity of housing types in and around activity centers (11.01), increasing the supply of housing in urban areas (16.01), and ensuring housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice (16.01-4).


When considered against these policy directions there is strong State policy support for redevelopment of a site of this size and location within the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Principal Activity Centre for residential intensification. While the site may be strategically located for higher scale development, the design response must respect and enhance the existing neighbourhood character.

Local Policy

Council’s local policy at Clause 22.19 implements the contents of the relevant Chapel Vision Structure Plan (December 2007) in relation to land use. The subject site and immediate surrounding pocket is identified for substantial change pursuant to the Structure Plan document and this is reinforced in the relevant Design and Development Overlay 7. Clause 22.19 specifically encourages ground floor uses that contribute to a vibrant street life, provide a safe environment and which minimise the potential for conflict and the over-privatisation of the footpath, and it is policy to support uses that activate building frontages and that encourage safety and passive surveillance of public spaces.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement seeks to maintain and enhance a network and viable activity centres. Having regard to the Economic Development section of the MSS at Clause 21.04, a strategy includes to consolidate the activity centres hierarchy by promoting development and expansion as appropriate to the role and position of each centre as shown in the table. The table to Clause 21.04-1 identifies the Prahran/South Yarra Centre as a Group 1 – Principal Centre which is a regional centre with both local and regional roles accommodating larger scale retail uses, complementary entertainment uses and goods and services to meet everyday and specialty needs. This clause also promotes a mix of uses (retail, office, services, entertainment and residential uses) in all activity centres, to ensure safe and viable use of activity centres.

The Built Environment and Heritage section of the MSS at Clause 21.06 includes an objective to direct higher density development (residential and non-residential) to locations in and beside activity centres, beside Principal Public Transport Network, and away from residential hinterland. It also requires a high standard of built form, detailing and architectural design in all new development. Furthermore, it encourages a high standard of amenity within new developments, and with adjoining developments.

The Local Planning Policy Framework clearly identifies the subject site and its immediate surrounding environs as being an area where ground floor uses should contribute to a vibrant street life and provide passive surveillance. Subsequently, the sites inclusion within the Commercial 1 Zone encourages the creation of vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses and for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre. The proposal comprises three office tenancies to Wilson Street which is consistent with both policy and strategic direction for this area. Furthermore, the mixed use style building is consistent with the more recent developments which are generally occupied by small commercial spaces such as studios, offices, cafes or service type uses which is in line with policy that seeks to encourage development to enhance the individual identity and distinctive character of Stonnington’s commercial areas such as this. The proposal is supported by the Local Planning Policy Framework.

The height and setbacks proposed generally align with the design standards of the Design and Development Overlay and reflect recent approvals for new mixed use development in this part of the Activity Centre. The proposal also measures favourably against the specific policy direction for active ground floor uses. The proposed offices to Wilson Street will help activate and enhance the street while the pedestrian walkway will provide a through link from Wilson Street to Garden Lane. The specific design and impact of the proposed building will be considered in detail in the assessment of built form below.


For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Built form

Clause 55 (ResCode) does not specifically apply to the assessment of this development by virtue of the fact that the site is located in a Commercial Zone and the proposed building is five storeys or more. The application has been assessed against Clause 15.01-1 and the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 (DDO7). The assessment of this application must take into account the Urban Design Guidelines outlined in Clause 15.01-1, and should take into account the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004).

The site is specifically identified under the relevant DDO7 as being within a substantial change area that can accommodate significant new development and where substantial changes from the form and character of existing development can be proposed. The subject site and immediately surrounding area has a preferred maximum height limit of 23m under the DDO7. Growth and redevelopment should reflect the degree of change identified for each change area and the preferred maximum building heights specified in the Schedule to the Overlay. The street setback is specified as a street wall height (0m setback) with any part of the building that exceeds 12m being setback 6m. Reduced upper level setbacks may be appropriate for corner sites and along side streets, subject to an appropriate site-specific design response. The Schedule also states that development should seek to open up building facades to passing pedestrian traffic. The character objectives for this area encourage innovative, high quality and well designed buildings which complement the existing urban fabric and mixed use character of the Activity Centre and which achieves the preferred built form outcomes for the Activity Centre as set out in this Schedule.

The following is an assessment against the guidelines in Clause 15.01-1:

Context

The proposed building would reach a height of 25.45m to the balustrade of the Level 8 terraces and an overall height of 28.1m to its parapet, above natural ground level when measured from the centre of the Wilson Street frontage (assuming the centre of the frontage has a level of AHD10.8). This exceeds the preferred maximum building height of 23m. The upper levels are setback above the street wall height generally between 2.5m and 3m to Wilson Street and between 1.5m and 2m to Garden Lane. The top level (Level 8) is setback 7m from Wilson Street and 3.49m from Garden Lane, with terraces within these setbacks. Consequently, aspects of the proposed development do not comply with the preferred building height and upper level setbacks for the substantial change area under the applicable Design and Development Overlay provisions. Notwithstanding this, each application must be considered on its own merits and the preferred height limit is discretionary.

The proposed development, at a maximum height of 28.1m and a main height of 25.45m provides a difference of up to 5.1m above the discretionary height limit for the site. The preferred height of 23m is not mandatory and allows for some flexibility depending on the design of the building. The height above 23m is setback between 2.5m and 3m from Wilson Street for the top of Level 7 (the top 1.35m of height for Level 7 is above 23m) and the balustrade of the Level 8 terraces and a 7m setback for the wall of Level 8.

The main height of the building reaches 25.45m (AHD36.25) and the top most level measures 28.1m (AHD38.9). The plant screen sits above these heights at 28.6m (AHD39.4), the lift overrun at 28.85m (AHD39.65) and the roof stair access at 29.99m (AHD40.79).


It is considered that these features above the parapet height of 28.1m, an additional 1.89m, would not be highly visible from oblique angles and wider vantage point given that they are located centrally to the site and in particular to the roof. These projections above the parapet height are not inconsistent with other recent approvals in proximity to the site where services exist above the main building envelope.

The departure from the DDO7 preferred height limit is justified having regard to more recent approvals within the immediately surrounding context. Recent approvals in this small pocket identified for substantial change have accommodated taller buildings where the top most level is setback beyond the 6m preferred setback nominated in the DDO so it reads as a recessed element to the main built form. The proposed 5.1m of additional height above the preferred height limit is supported on the following basis:

The uppermost level is setback 7m from the Wilson Street frontage, 3.49m from the Garden Lane frontage and setback from its side boundaries. These setbacks coupled with the altered material than the lower levels allows the top level to be read differently and as a recessive element in the streetscape and surrounding area.

The additional height would be graduated amongst surrounding existing buildings ranging between 4 storeys and more recently approved developments and would meet the objectives sought having regard to the substantial change area. Subsequently, the height would respond to the eclectic and hard edge environs of this inner urban area taking into account the varied building heights of both existing and approved developments.

The site area of this development allows for a basement ramp for car parking within basement levels. Other recent approvals in the area, by virtue of the widths, have not been able to incorporate basement car parks and as such have had to rely on car stackers which results in a greater floor to ceiling height for the ground floor levels. This has also resulted in levels (1, 2, 3, etc) not being consistent with the current proposal. For example, at 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street, an eight storey building is proposed with a height of 27.09m to the parapet. Here are nine storey building is proposed at 28.1m. This is a difference of one storey but on 1m. This is due to the triple stacker proposed at ground floor level at 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street.

Recent approvals in the nearby area demonstrate examples of increased building heights from the preferred policy provisions. Examples include 39.1m at 7-13 Simmons Street & 12 Ellis Street, 27.9m at 33-37 Simmons Street, 24.9m at 34-40 Wilson Street, 26m at 20-24 Garden Street, 25.76m at 5-7 Wilson Street, 32.5m at 8 & 10 & 12 & 12A Garden Street & 60 Garden Street, 27.09m at 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street and 26.18 at 42 Wilson Street.

The ground floor level incorporates a pedestrian through link connecting Wilson Street and Garden Lane which is consistent with the DDO7 objectives to create new north-south pedestrian links in this part of the Activity Centre.

The proposed building has a four storey street wall height to Wilson Street of between 13.26m and 13.64m. DDO7 suggests street wall heights of between 8m and 12m. Recent approvals in the area have provided various street wall heights but are in the order of 3-4 levels. It is considered in the instances when we are seeking to encourage ground level active commercial uses, these cannot be achieved given that a commercial floor level requires a floor to floor height greater than 3m. The greater floor to floor heights required for the ground floor commercial uses together with the higher finished floor levels as required by Melbourne Water result in a street wall height greater than 12m. The street wall is varied and articulated with deep recesses providing clear vertical rhythms echoing the existing streetscape adjacent to the site.

The street wall height to Garden Lane is between 13.437m and 13.935m and the preferred setback above the street wall height under the DDO7 is not applicable to laneways. The proposed street wall height, whilst exceeding 12m is still four levels and as discussed above, the height is derived from the commercial ground floor uses and the finished floor level requirements.


Furthermore, Garden Lane is not a street and has no footpath and thus it is not specifically relevant to respond to a pedestrian scale here. Notwithstanding this, other recent approvals in the surrounding environs have allowed for a higher street wall to Garden Lane, including 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street which has a street wall to Garden Lane of 15.17m and 5-7 Wilson Street which has a street wall to Garden Lane of 14.5m. The proposed building provides a four storey street wall to both Wilson Street and Garden Lane and this is considered acceptable.

At levels 4-7 of the proposed building, a setback of between 2.5m and 3m is proposed from the Wilson Street frontage, with the exception of the balconies at both ends of the frontage at Level 4 setback 600mm from the street edge. The encroachment is minor as it only applies for the one level and allows for the presentation to Wilson Street to marry up with the other street wall elements. While this is not consistent with the discretionary setbacks of DDO7, the minor variation to the 3m setbacks are derived from the architectural design which is considered to be acceptable having regard to Council’s consistent urban design approach for a 3m setback above the street wall and other recent developments, as recommended by Council’s Urban Designer.

The setback above the street wall height to Garden Lane is generally between 1.5m and 2m. DDO7 does not specify street setbacks for laneways. Recent approvals have allowed setbacks for the upper levels to Garden Lane in the order of 1.8m at 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street and 1.2m at 5-7 Wilson Street. Given that Garden Lane is a narrow lane with no pedestrian footpath and allows on-street parking, it is considered that the Lane functions more like a ROW than a local street. It is acknowledged that there are some dwellings and office that have direct access the Garden Lane but these are anomalies. The podium/tower design of the building allows for a tall building to relate to a pedestrian scale. Given the lack of footpaths and the likelihood of pedestrians using either Garden Street (which provides access from Surrey Road to Chapel Street) or Wilson Street (that is much wider than the Lane and provides access from Palfreyman Street to Chapel Street), increasing the setback will not provide any additional benefit to the Garden Lane presentation.

The site is appropriately located in a strategic context, in a Commercial 1 Zone and within a Principle Activity Centre for a multi level residential building. The ground floor presentation and the pedestrian link through the site are a satisfactory and encouraging outcome. The proposal responds well to its immediate and wider context. The overall height of the building is consistent with recently approved developments in the area and exceeds the (discretionary) preferred maximum building height to an acceptable degree.

The Public Realm

It is considered that the public realm will be enhanced by the proposal. The development provides an active ground floor with the introduction of offices to Wilson Street and the pedestrian link between the two streets. This will be one of the only properties along this part of the street that provides a through link for the public. Balconies at the upper levels of both street frontages will ensure surveillance of the surrounding area is improved. The proposal also removes the crossovers to Wilson Street, enhancing pedestrian and vehicular safety.

Safety

The proposed development will not detrimentally impact on the safety of the surrounding public environment. The building facades consist of open terrace balconies which would provide passive surveillance opportunities. The pedestrian walkway will be lit at all times to ensure anti-social behaviour is discouraged in this area. In addition, the pedestrian lobby will include glazing along the walkway to enhance personal safety for those that use the link.


Landmarks, Views and Vistas

The proposed nine storey building would not impact on or diminish or obstruct views to any landmarks, views and vistas within the vicinity. The immediately surrounding area is designated for substantial change and the building height proposed is anticipated.

Pedestrian Spaces

The design of the proposed building responds well to the prevailing context and pedestrian environment given it promotes streetscape interaction at ground level to Wilson Street with the provision of office tenancies. The introduction of the pedestrian link will allow a direct connection from Wilson Street to Garden Lane. The architectural detailing above the ground level would also create a visual and social experience for pedestrians.

Heritage

The subject site is not located within a Heritage Overlay, nor are any of its abutting sites.

Consolidation of Site and Empty Sites

The proposal seeks to develop two existing warehouse buildings made up of three titles consistent with the site’s development potential. The land is considered to be an underdevelopment given the two storey scale and does not contribute to the surrounding area. Development of the site is encouraged and the new building will add to the complexity and rhythm of both street frontages.

Light and Shade

Given the inner city location of the subject site and the desired built form outcomes, the public realm would not be detrimentally impacted upon to an unreasonable degree by the proposed development. Given the orientation of the site, there will be increased shadow over the property to the west and Wilson Street during the morning period and will then move to the south and east in the afternoon over the properties to the east. The extent of shadow over the public realm is considered reasonable in this location.

The overshadowing impacts to the private properties will be discussed later in the report.

Energy and Resource Efficiency

Given the orientation of the site, the apartments face north and south, with the side elevations being constructed to the title boundary. The top level dwellings also have aspects to the east and west. Two light courts are proposed at either side of the building through the central core allowing for some direct access to natural light and ventilation to the rear of some of the dwellings and also for the internal common corridor.

Given the north-south orientation of the site, the development has tried to maximise the northern aspect. In addition, some apartments will benefit from cross flow ventilation opportunities. These elements along with a reduced car parking rate, adequate bicycle spaces, the inclusion of a water tank and rooftop solar panels promote sustainable design outcomes and will assist in achieving efficient use of energy and resources.


Architectural Quality

The architectural design of the building exhibits a high standard in architecture and urban design response to the site and its surrounding context. The design is contemporary and the proposed materials and finishes will ensure the building sits comfortably within the evolving and eclectic character of the surrounding environs.

Landscape Architecture

The site is located within a mixed use setting within a Commercial zone and the area is considered to have a hard edge character. As such, the proposal to fully develop the site would not be out of context. A small component of landscaping along the southern boundary in front of the office tenancies and along the pedestrian walkway is proposed which will soften these areas. A landscape plan should be submitted to ensure that appropriate species are provided.

Amenity Impacts

In terms of external amenity, it is important to highlight that the subject site and nearby land is located within the Commercial 1 Zone and thereby cannot hold expectations of the same amenity standards as would a resident of an established residential neighbourhood. It is also relevant to note that the provisions of the Commercial 1 Zone and Special Building Overlay include exemptions from notice and review for buildings and works. This exemption also applies under the provisions of the Design and Development Overlay when an application proposes buildings and works that do not exceed the preferred maximum height limit of 23m. The only component of the building that exceeds this height is part of Level 7, Level 8, the plant screen, the lift overrun and the roof stair access.

To the west of the site, an eight storey building is currently under construction. This interface includes walls built to the common boundary with a light court in the centre which measures 3.15m wide x 2.255m deep. Bedroom windows on Levels 1 to 6 will have an outlook to this light court. At Level 7 there are two east facing dwelling which have their balconies located along the common boundary.

To the east of the site at 43 Wilson Street is a two storey warehouse building. The proposal (currently being considered by Council) seeks to incorporate balconies that are orientated to the north and south. Further east, at 47 Wilson Street is a four storey mixed use building which has balconies that are orientated to the north and south. The roof level of this building includes a terrace and pool which is part of the dwelling on the topmost level.

To the south of the site are a mixture of building types and heights. A number of built and approved developments include north facing balconies and windows which have an outlook to the subject site.

To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Garden Lane, are a mixture of single, two storey and three storey office/warehouse buildings. A single storey dwelling at 42 Garden Street provides a garage door at Garden Lane. Two four storey dwellings with a frontage to Garden Lane (two other four storey dwellings have a Garden Street frontage) provide car access and a pedestrian entry door at ground level and habitable room windows and balconies on the upper levels.

Overshadowing

At 9am additional shadows from the development will fall to the light court and the upper level terraces of the development at 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street and the properties to the south. Additional midday shadows will fall to the properties to the south.


By 3pm, additional shadows will fall to the properties to the south and the properties to the east (including proposed). It is noted that the pool and terrace area at 47 Wilson Street will not receive additional overshadowing as a result of the proposed development.The building under construction to the west will experience overshadowing of its light court and terraces. This overshadowing would occur with any building proposed on the subject site, regardless of its overall height and its setbacks. Additional shadows are also proposed to the dwelling at 44-46 Wilson Street and the approved buildings that have a northern outlook. Given the envisaged redevelopment of this area which anticipates substantial change and heights of at least 23m, overshadowing of balconies is inevitable. The shadows will move throughout the day and given some upper level setbacks from the side boundaries, some modulation of the overshadowing may be experienced. Hence, the impact of overshadowing to the surrounding developments is considered to be acceptable.

Overlooking

While Rescode does not apply to a building of four or more storeys, the overlooking standard can be used as a guide to assess the impact on adjoining properties from potential overlooking.

The proposal comprises balconies on Levels 1-7 that are orientated to the north and south. Balconies on Level 8 are orientated to all boundaries. Balconies facing Wilson Street do not require screening as they overlook the public realm and Wilson Street is greater than 9m in width. Given that Garden Lane is less than 9m in width (approximately 5 from title boundary to title boundary) and the properties at 43 and 45 Garden Lane are dwellings with habitable spaces facing the subject site, some overlooking is likely to occur. However, the subject site and the surrounding land are within a Commercial 1 Zone and the level of amenity that can be reasonably expected is much lower than that within a residentially zoned land. Furthermore, if all windows and balconies along the north elevation required screening to prevent overlooking to 43 and 45 Garden Lane, this would produce an acceptable urban design outcome.

Nevertheless, given an objection has been received from 45 Garden Lane, the applicant has provided some screening measures to address the objectors concerns. This includes screening to the following proposed dwellings (refer to sketch SK09.02 Rev P2) as follows:

Level 1:o Dwelling 1.09:

Obscure film to north facing bedroom windows (bedroom further north) at 1.7m high Vertical 100mm blade at 100mm centres to terrace off the living room at 1.7m high

o Dwelling 1.10: Obscure film to north facing living room windows at 1.7m high Vertical 100mm blade at 100mm centres to west elevation of terrace at 1.7m high

Levels 2 and 3:o Dwelling 2/3.09, 2/3.10 and 2/3.11:

Obscure film to north facing living room windows at 1.7m high Level 4:

o Dwelling 4.07 and 4.08: solid blocked (opaque spandrel) glass balustrades to the north facing terraces

It is noted that the south elevation of 43 and 45 Wilson Street incorporate batten timber sliding screens at the second floor which act as screening measures.

Given the Commercial 1 zoning of the land, the narrow width of Garden Lane and the treatment to the existing dwellings at 43-45 Garden Lane, it is considered that the proposed screening by the applicant above is sufficient to provide unreasonable direct overlooking without compromising the design of the proposed building and allowing for passive surveillance.


A proposed light court along the west side of the building would have bedroom windows along each side. This light court aligns with the light court approved at 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street, albeit extending further north. The south facing bedroom window is proposed to incorporate opaque glazing. The north facing bedroom window incorporates an opaque glazed privacy screen to the east of the window 45 degrees from the wall. The west facing bedroom windows of Levels 1-7 will include opaque glazing (as shown on TP02.13 Rev A). The only windows that don’t show screening are the west facing bedroom windows of dwelling 8.02. A condition should be included to ensure that these windows are screened to prevent direct overlooking of these windows to the east facing dwellings at the top most level of 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street.

The west facing balconies of Level 8 will include walls along the west to prevent direct overlooking to the dwellings at 25, 27 & 29 Wilson Street.

There are balconies along the east elevation which only incorporate balustrades along the common boundary. The only sensitive interface is to the terrace and pool at top most level of 47 Wilson Street. If the building at 43 Wilson Street is to be approved this would restrict views to this sensitive area given that walls are proposed to each boundary. Despite any approved building at 43 Wilson Street, it is considered that 47 Wilson Street is 6.85m away (the width of 43 Wilson Street) which allows for a reasonable separation in a Commercial Zone to not screen the side elevation of the balconies.

Internal Amenity

The proposed development consists of various one and two bedroom dwelling types. The internal floor layouts range in size from 40.3m² to 56.5m² for one bedroom apartments and 57.4m² to 77.9m² for two bedroom apartments.

The mix of dwelling types and configurations is diverse in this building, having regard to the provision of one and two bedroom dwellings, with some that include a study. All bedrooms have access to natural light either directly from the streetscape (most via deep terraces) and some via central light courts. Every dwelling has access to a balcony or terrace with a total area ranging between 5.5m² and 22.4m² for a one bedroom dwelling and between 6.5m² and 50m² for a two bedroom dwelling. All balconies are immediately accessible from a living room which is appropriate. A communal roof terrace of 61.5m² will complement the size of the smaller balconies.

Council’s Urban Designer and ESD Officer have commented on the need for a daylight analysis for habitable room windows. The applicant provided a daylight modelling report which demonstrates that subject to some modification to window sizes, the affected bedrooms will meet Council’s SDAPP program that 90% of the room area will meet 0.5% daylight factor. While this result is considered satisfactory, it is important that the plans reflect all modelling assumption and the increase in window dimensions is included on the plans. This will form part of the requirement to provide an updated SMP and plans reflected to comply with the SMP as condition on any permit to issue.

The pedestrian entry point on Wilson Street is considered satisfactory and will provide a sense of address and a safe access point. The development has adequate internal accessibility with lift and stair access.

Each dwelling will be provided with an external storage space in the basement level, ground floor level or Level 1 and this is considered satisfactory.


The proposal responds well to the State and Local Planning Policy framework which encourages the need for diverse housing stock to meet the needs of existing and future populations and the projections that indicate there is a need for smaller household types. Overall, the proposed development provides a sufficient level of internal amenity for future residents.

Land Use

The proposed dwelling and office (as of right) uses are appropriate for the site having regard to the location and existing mixed use character. Clause 22.19 seeks to provide a range of uses that are accessible to all and complement the role of the Activity Centre as a Principal Activity Centre and to accommodate housing growth and diversity by providing a range of housing types. The proposed office and residential uses would co-exist harmoniously with surrounding light industrial, commercial and residential land uses and is consistent with this policy. Furthermore, these uses would be consistent with the strategic direction for this location and policy under Clause 22.09 Retail Centres Policy.


Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the proposal requires a statutory rate of 112 car parking spaces for 88 dwellings (88 spaces for dwellings and 17 spaces for resident visitors) and 209.7m² of office (7 spaces). 63 car parking spaces are proposed and as such the proposal seeks a reduction of 49 car spaces required by the Planning Scheme. A rate of 0.67 car spaces would be provided to each dwelling. Four spaces are proposed for the office use (including the disabled space). The proposed car parking rate is supported by Council’s Transport & Parking Unit, however the allocation of spaces is preferred to include some visitor spaces.

It is noted that Council‘s Transport & Parking Unit has highlighted that the parking surveys were undertaken in 2011 and conditions have changed since then. However, officers are aware of the recent approvals in the area and consider that there are additional off street car parking spaces in the immediate and wider area that could accommodate for visitor parking.

It is considered that the proposal would be acceptable without the provision of visitor car parking given enough car parking has been provided to both the residential and commercial uses, and any visitors would have to rely on short term car parking or other modes of transport. The site is located within a Principal Activity Centre and public transport immediately available to this site is exceptional, notwithstanding the range or services which are located within immediate walking distance, thus resulting in no need for residents or visitors to rely on car use. The reduced supply of car parking is also supported by the fact that the resultant development will have a reduced impact on the local traffic environment. The Chapel Street environs are known to be congested and thus development with reduced car parking is encouraged. Furthermore, the lack of onsite car parking spaces is in line with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy which seeks to reduce car dependency by working towards having more people in the municipality choosing to walk, cycle and use public transport. By reducing the provision of car parking available to residents, visitors and the office use, the objectives and strategies under this policy will be achieved. Hence, the allocation of spaces as proposed by the applicant is considered satisfactory.

With additional justification provided by the applicant, the additional traffic generated by the development is considered satisfactory.

The proposal generates a requirement for 18 resident bicycle spaces and 9 resident visitor bicycle spaces. The proposal provides 31 bicycle spaces, a surplus of 4. Given the reduction in the car parking provision, Council’s Traffic Engineers are of the view that a higher bicycle parking rate should be provided to ensure that the dwellings without a car space have access to a bicycle space.


It is considered that this should be encouraged and the applicant’s traffic engineers are agreeable to increase this provision. The applicant is agreeable to increase the provision on site to 40 bicycle spaces. This will be included as a condition on any permit to issue. Further, all bicycle spaces should be appropriately located and dimensioned.

There is no Planning Scheme requirement to provide a loading bay on site for this development. However, the proposal seeks to provide the area to accommodate waste collection and furniture delivery. This area, while not solely within the title boundary, will allow for a truck to park while not impeding on the traffic flow. This area would be used infrequently by removal and waste trucks and also allows for a passing area should two cars be passing each other in opposite directions in Garden Lane. Council’s Transport & Parking Unit raised questions regarding responsibility and maintenance of the area and suggested comments from Council’s Infrastructure Unit. A discussion with Council’s Infrastructure Unit determined that the land within the title boundary would be the responsibility of the land owner and the land outside the title boundary would be the responsibility of Council. The only matter Council’s Infrastructure Unit would be concerned about is the treatment of the area and given that this would be a large crossover to service the office and disabled car parking spaces behind, then the crossover would need to be to Council’s satisfaction ( to be included as a note on any permit to issue). To ensure no vehicles park in this area permanently and to allow access to the office car spaces, signage and line marking should be identified on the plans. This will be included as a condition on any permit to issue.

Council’s Transport & Parking Unit has identified a number of concerns with the layout of the car parking area. These are summarised in the referral section above. Most of the concerns relating to the parking bay dimensions, blind aisles, disabled parking bay dimensions, doors in parking areas and over bonnet stores could be addressed by a condition on any permit to issue.

Any permit to issue will also include a condition seeking the submission and approval of a parking management plan and a note to ensure that residents of this development would not be issued with resident and visitor parking permits.

Waste

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) was submitted with the application and referred to Council’s Waste Management Coordinator for comment. The WMP is considered satisfactory and a condition should be included on any permit to issue requiring the submission and approval of a WMP (similar to the WMP prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 21 March 2013).

Special Building Overlay

The application has been referred to Melbourne Water and comments have been received that they do not object to the application. Melbourne Water required a standard condition regarding runoff and a footnote regarding further advice to be included should a planning permit be approved and it is recommended these are included.

Drainage/Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Unit required the inclusion of an apex to be created at the top of the basement ramp that is at least equal to the existing height of the street kerb to ensure that the basement is protected from runoff from the Lane. The applicant submitted a plan (Drawings TP01.00 Rev C and TP02.3 Rev C received on 31 July 2013) to show how an apex might work. Council’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the drawings and indicated that there is a slight discrepancy between the grades and length of grades and the levels. This should be corrected by the inclusion of a condition on any permit to issue.


Additional conditions relating to legal point of discharge and footpath levels to be retained should be included as a condition on any permit to issue.


A Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) was submitted with the application and referred to Council’s ESD Officer for comment. Several items within the Plan need to be amended and/or reviewed. Conditions should be included on any permit to issue requiring the submission and approval of an amended Sustainable Management Plan (similar to the Plan submitted with the application but amended as necessary) and that all works to be undertaken in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan.


A STORM report included in the Sustainable Management Plan indicates that there are two rainwater tanks proposed of a total 15,000 litres (located at Level 4 roof and Level 8 roof). The plans show a water tank on Basement L2. As such, the plans and SMP do not correlate. A final STORM assessment must be submitted with corresponding plans to confirm the size, location and connections from the rainwater tank to internal toilets/irrigation, and, drainage area and connection from roof areas to the rainwater tank. This will form part of a condition on any permit to issue.

Environmental Audit Overlay

As noted above, the site is subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay. Clause 45.03 advises of requirements that must be met prior to a sensitive use, such as residential, commencing on potentially contaminated land. A condition will be included on any permit to issue for this requirement.

Objections


The subject site and the surrounding area is within a Principal Activity Centre were one would expect and where Council policy encourages increased residential density.

There may be increased noise from the terraces/balconies to adjoining dwellings. Noise levels generated by the proposal will be similar to any residential development (and lower impact commercial uses) and will have to comply with relevant EPA laws and regulations. It is not considered that noise from the dwellings, balconies and commercial uses will have an unreasonable effect on nearby dwellings. Nevertheless, it is suggested that the roof terrace limit its hours of use from 7am to 10pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 10pm Saturday and Sunday.

The visitor car parking spaces shown on Wilson Street are not relied upon and as such will be required to be removed from the plans.

Construction materials and glazing will be limited to 20% reflectivity. Hours of waste collection services are required to be within the hours stipulated by Council’s

Local Laws. Appropriate lighting (without unnecessary light spill) will be incorporated into the walkway to

discourage anti-social behaviour. A condition will be included on any permit to ensure that light in this area is appropriate baffled.

Noise impact associated with waste collection service is typical with residential living and is not a planning consideration.

A condition will be included on any permit to issue to require the garage doors to be of quiet and soft closing operation.




CONCLUSION


The building height and setbacks is considered to appropriately respond to the evolving built form environment of the nearby area and strategic context of the site.

The proposed uses are appropriate given the site’s location within a Commercial Zone and Principal Activity Centre and will provide for greater housing choice and diversity within the area.

Adequate provision is made for on and off site amenity, subject to permit conditions. Appropriate car parking and bicycle parking area provided.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No.224/13 for the land located at 31-41 Wilson Street, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for use and development of the land for dwellings and office (as of right use) in a Commercial 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay, Special Building Overlay and Environmental Audit Overlay and a reduction in the car parking requirement 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 advertised in July 2013 but modified to show:

a) An apex created at the top of the basement entry ramp at a minimum 150mm above the invert of the kerb and channel and ensuring that the ramp grades are satisfactory.

b) Screening to north facing balconies and windows in accordance with sketch SK09.02 Rev P2 received on 11 October 2013 showing:i. Level 1:

Dwelling 1.09: Obscure film to north facing bedroom windows (bedroom further north) at

1.7m high Vertical 100mm blade at 100mm centres to terrace off the living room at

1.7m highDwelling 1.10: Obscure film to north facing living room windows at 1.7m high Vertical 100mm blade at 100mm centres to west elevation of terrace at 1.7m

highii. Levels 2 and 3:

Dwelling 2/3.09, 2/3.10 and 2/3.11: Obscure film to north facing living room windows at 1.7m high

iii. Level 4: Dwelling 4.07 and 4.08:


solid blocked (opaque spandrel) glass balustrades to the north facing terraces

c) Screening or alternative measures to the west facing bedroom windows of dwelling 8.02 to prevent direct overlooking to the east facing dwellings at the top most level of 25, 27 &29 Wilson Street.

d) Any consequential changes required as a result of submitting documents to satisfy Conditions 3 and 4.

e) Increase in bicycle parking provision to 40 spaces and to be of Ned Kelly bicycle rack design.

f) The dimensions and layout of the bicycle parking area, including information signs for visitor parking, in accordance with the Planning Scheme or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

g) The dimensions and layout of the car parking area, including parking bay dimensions, blind aisles, disable parking bay, doors in parking areas and over bonnet stores in accordance with the Planning Scheme or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) An annotation that signage and line marking for the office car parking spaces to be provided to allow access and prevent permanent parking in the loading area.

i) An annotation that the garage doors will be quiet and soft closing.j) Removal of the visitor car parking spaces from Wilson Street.k) A schedule of building materials, finishes and colours for all external parts of the

building including provision of a coloured sample board with reflectivity of glass and finishes used in the building to be no greater than 20%.

l) A response to Council’s Draft policy on Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD).

2. The use and development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent within the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan (similar to the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 21 March 2013) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, including any changes as required by Condition 1.

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

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) (similar to the Plan submitted with the application but modified to address concerns raised by Council’s ESD Officer) 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 1. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a) Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed

b) Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards

c) Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved


d) Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.

e) Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time.

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

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

6. Before a sensitive use (residential use, child care centre, pre-school centre or primary school) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences (with the exception of demolition of existing buildings and structures, site clearance and any excavation works required to undertake the audit), either:

a) A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

b) An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

Before the occupation of the building all the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show a planting schedule of all proposed planting at ground floor level including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

8. Prior to the commencement of the use, a Parking Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Parking Management Plan must include, but not limited to:

a) A maximum of one car space must be allocated to a dwelling at all times when the use is operating.

b) Allocation of car parking spaces to the uses.c) Detail the signing and line marking of parking spaces.d) Detail any access controls to the parking area.

When approved, the Parking Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.


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



12. 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.

13. The existing footpath levels in Wilson Street and Garden Lane must not be lowered or altered in any way other than the provision of crossover to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Local Laws.

15. 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.

16. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. The communal roof terrace hereby permitted must only be used between the hours of 7am to 10pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 10pm Saturday and Sunday.

18. 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

19. 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.


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


MELBOURNE WATER CONDITION START

22. No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.

MELBOURNE WATER CONDITION END


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. 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.


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


NOTES:


The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

MELBOURNE WATER FOOTNOTE

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 217823.


2. AMENDMENT C155 - YARRA RIVER SKYLINE CONTROLS – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL

Manager: Susan PriceGeneral Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to:

Note the Planning Panel on Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline.

Adopt the general position of Amendment C155 with changes as proposed in attachment 4 of this report.

Consider the recommendations of the Panel Report to inform the application of the new residential zones for this area.

This report was deferred at the following Council meetings: 2 September 2013 for Officers to meet with the Department on mandatory height

controls on the Yarra River. 30 September 2013 for one meeting cycle to enable officers to provide additional

information to Council. Additional information has been added to this report. 14 October 2013 for one meeting cycle. 28 October 2013 for two meeting cycles.

On 2 December 2013, Council resolved that it:

1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel to the public on Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline.

2. Place Amendment C155 on hold pending progress of work on the reformed residential zones and other State planning reforms.

3. Advise submitters to Amendment C155 of Council’s decision.

The recommendations and content of this report have been updated to consider the new residential zones, Plan Melbourne and other State Planning reforms.

On 5 December 2013, Councillors met with the Minister for Planning to discuss planning issues within the Municipality.

The meeting provided the opportunity to reinforce Council’s position regarding Plan Melbourne, the reformed residential zones, the Yarra River and other Planning Scheme Amendments. It is understood that as part of the reformed residential zones, Stonnington is able to consider mandatory heights and other variations to reflect local conditions. In line with this discussion Council has requested that Amendment C155 be brought before Council for further consideration to propose an alternative resolution.


BACKGROUND

The Yarra River skyline area (west of Grange Road) is already included in a Design and Development Overlay (DDO3) Yarra River Skyline. This present control was originally introduced into the Planning Scheme after the preparation of the Lower River Concept Plan 1986. It includes a permit requirement for buildings over 6 metres in height which must meet several built form and character objectives. In 2007, Council changed the reference document to the Planisphere (2005) study as it is the most up to date document and provides more specific objectives and guidelines.

The Stonnington Planning Scheme Review 2010 identified the need to review DDO3 in its future work programme.

Council at its meeting on 21 March 2011 resolved to "review the current controls for the residential area from Punt Road to Grange Road" (June 2005). A study to review the current planning controls was subsequently commissioned.

Yarra River Skyline – DDO3 ReviewThe aim of the review was to analyse and determine the appropriateness, location and content of the existing DDO (Design and Development Overlay). The overall objective of the project was:

To improve the role of Alexandra Avenue as a cohesive boulevard, where development enhances the built form and landscape/ topographical character of this area.

The sloping topographic nature of the study area and the importance of the Yarra River as a natural landscaped corridor is acknowledged. The built form character consists primarily of large private houses and multi-unit developments on moderate to large blocks. A number of heritage areas occur throughout the study area, most notably the Alexandra Avenue Precinct between Punt Road and Chapel Street (HO122). The study area has been broken up into five different typologies which have common landscape and built form characteristics.

Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline controls# Amendment C155 applies to the Alexandra Avenue Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline

area. It includes land zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ), Residential 1 Zone (R1Z), Public Use Zone (PUZ2 and PUZ4) and Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) along the Yarra River corridor, from Punt Road to Grange Road (refer Attachment 1 for the DDO3 precincts and proposed building heights).

The Amendment proposes to replace the existing Design and Development Overlay 3 (DDO3) with a new, more comprehensive Schedule, over the same and extended area. The Amendment also proposes to include the City of Stonnington DDO3 Review Report, February 2012 as a reference document in the Planning Scheme as well as the Review of Policies and Controls for the Yarra River Corridor: Punt Road to Burke Road (Consultant Report) June 2005.

The key elements of the new DDO3 include:

Design objectives – relating to landscaping, views, space for vegetation and the design of buildings.

Buildings and works – requirements for maximum building heights.


Design guidelines – relating to Building Siting and Massing, Permeability, Building Height & Form, Materials & Design Detail, landscaping (Private Realm), Fencing, Car parking and Landscaping (Public Realm).

Decision guidelines – Table 1 and Table 2 with guidelines for maximum building heights and built form outcomes. The building heights are 6 metres (discretionary 2 storeys), 9 metres (mandatory 3 storeys) and 12 metres (mandatory 4 storeys).

ExhibitionAmendment C155 was placed on public exhibition between 9 August and 10 September 2012. Council held a drop in information session on 28 August 2012 to answer questions and the meeting was attended by approximately eleven people.

As result of exhibition, five supporting submissions and eight objecting submissions were received. In summary the submissions are from affected individual owners, Melbourne High School, the Yarra River Alliance Inc. and the Yarra River Keeper Association Inc.

The majority of submitters are located along Alexandra Avenue or Rockley Road and the issues raised largely relate to the potential impact of properties on Alexandra Avenue from 89 to 141 Alexandra Avenue (including 61 Kensington Road which fronts Alexandra Ave). This area has been subject to a number of large redevelopment applications.

In response to the submissions, officers recommended a number of changes including:

Revise the DDO precinct boundary to move the riverside portion of 61 Kensington Road from DDO3-4 (9m) to DDO3-1 (12m).

Add an objective to the DDO for new development to consider the amenity impact with respect to views of the Yarra River corridor from private land.

At its meeting on 17 December 2012, Council adopted these changes as its position for Panel and in addition resolved to measure the building height from the centre of the front of the site for DDO3-1 area (mandatory maximum building height 12 metres).

Panel

The Panel hearing was held on 9, 10 and 11 July 2013 at Planning Panels Victoria and five submitters appeared before the Panel. The submitters included Melbourne High School, owner of 1A Copelen Street, owner of 61 Kensington Road, owner of 125-127 Alexandra Avenue and owners of 51 Rockley Road. An advocate on behalf of the owner of 61 Kensington Road called expert witnesses in urban design, Mark Sheppard (David Lock Associates) and Maugan Bastone (Urbis). An advocate on behalf of the owner of 125-127 Alexandra Avenue called an expert witness in planning, Amanda Ring (SJB Planning).

Along with Council's submission to the Panel, by our advocate Barrister Andrew Walker, Council called an expert witness in urban design and planning Mike Scott (Planisphere Pty Ltd).

# The Panel Report was received by Council on 20 August 2013 (refer Attachment 2). Under the provisions of section 26 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council has 28 days from its receipt to release the report to the public. Council met this requirement.


DISCUSSION

The Panel report recommends that Amendment C155 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following changes:

Apply a discretionary Maximum Building Height of 12 metres to the DDO3‐1 area that is generally between River Street and Kensington Road.

Apply a discretionary Maximum Building Height of 9 metres to the DDO3‐4 area that is generally between River Street and the western boundary of Como Park.

Include a requirement that all applications for buildings above a discretionary maximum building height must:

- Meet all Design Objectives in this schedule.- Identify the key public vantage points within the Yarra River corridor from which the

site can be seen.- Demonstrate through cross‐sections and/or perspective images that the proposed

building(s) will remain below the predominant tree canopy height in views from the vantage points identified above.

- Demonstrate through perspective images that the proposed building(s) will be compatible with the character of the Alexandra Avenue Boulevard, public open space areas and the Yarra River Corridor, as appropriate.

- Respond appropriately to the Design Guidelines contained within this schedule.

Additional sharing of views objective not supported.

Include the riverside portion of 61 Kensington Road in DDO3‐1 instead of DDO3‐4.

Include Darling Gardens and the VicTrack rail line in DDO3‐2 instead of DDO3‐1.

Replace the third Design Objective with:- To minimise the visual impacts of development, particularly when viewed from

Alexandra Avenue, the Yarra River and its banks and from other key publicly accessible locations.

Replace the fifth Design Guideline under Landscaping (Private Realm) with:- Soften buildings, structures and large areas of hard surfaces with appropriately

scaled informal landscaping, suitable to the landscape character of the area.

Add the word 'preferred' for scale and character in the Built Form Outcomes in Table 1 and Table 2.

That Council advise the owners and occupiers of 117 Caroline Street, South Yarra of the proposed inclusion of the site in the DDO3 and invite and consider comments on the proposal before adopting the amendment.

The key issues for Council consideration include mandatory maximum height controls, the way to measure building height and how these elements can be transferred to the proposed reformed residential zones for the area, the sharing of views objective and extension of DDO3 to include 117 Caroline Street, South Yarra.

# Refer to the attached table which outlines the Panels recommended changes and the recommendation for Council to endorse as a position.(refer Attachment 3).

# Attached is the proposed DDO3 to be adopted. (refer Attachment 4).It is also noted that Map 1 in Attachment 4 (the Design and Development Overlay) should be updated to align the Panel and recommendation and precinct areas.

Mandatory Maximum Height Controls


A mandatory maximum building height of 12 metres along Alexandra Avenue will ensure that future development is compatible with the scale and character of the area and sits below the predominant tree canopy height. Any development that protrudes above the predominant tree canopy height will have a significant detrimental impact on the established landscape and built form character of the corridor. In the absence of mandatory controls, development will continue to seek to maximise access to northern views, and the vegetative canopy will become subservient to the built form.

The values of the Yarra River corridor, and the need to preserve those values, is enshrined in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), and therefore has very strong strategic support. This very strong strategic support was further reinforced with the implementation of Amendment VC96 which introduced a new Design and Development Overlay (DDO31) to apply mandatory building heights to properties in Boroondara directly abutting the Yarra River.

Council’s approved Municipal Strategic Statement was gazetted into the scheme on 5 December 2013. The approved Municipal Strategic Statement identifies strategies for accommodating growth and demonstrates how substantial capacity will be met.

The Stonnington Planning Scheme and the SPPF provide a sound basis for the proposed mandatory maximum height controls. The Amendment is underpinned by thorough strategic research and the controls are designed to achieve a clear neighbourhood character outcome.

Measuring Building Height

Following recent conversations with the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI), it is considered appropriate for this Amendment to be considered again in advance of finalising the residential zone reforms. Clarification has been received that the way height can be measured in schedules to the zones can be varied to reflect local conditions.

It is proposed to translate part of the height controls from the Design and Development Overlay (DDO3) into the proposed planning zones area covered by Amendment C155.

If Council seeks to pursue its position presented to Panel, an alternative resolution is provided in this report based on Council’s adopted position to Panel as follows:

Maximum building height to be measured from the centre of the front of the site for DDO3 – 1 (12 metre mandatory building height).

The justification for measuring height this way was that this Precinct is the closest building form to the Yarra River corridor, and therefore particularly sensitive to the impacts of bulky built form. It reflects the mechanism for measuring height in the Melbourne Planning Scheme, and where an area is particularity sensitive to the impacts of inappropriate built form.

As part of the reformed residential zones, Council is considering schedules to the zones which can vary height limits by specifying a mandatory (maximum) height which is locally responsive.

The alternative recommendation is provided at the end of this report.


On consideration, Council Officers recommend that building height be calculated from natural ground, as exhibited, to allow built form to step down the site and reflect the topographical character of the landscape; reducing the need for cut and fill. Development that follows the slope will avoid excessive disturbance to existing topography by impacting less on the stability of the land and reducing erosion. Development that cuts less into the slope will enable better stormwater flow through the site above and below ground.

Although the Panel agreed with the exhibited method of measuring height, no definitive opinion was given to alternative methods.

The proposed DDO3 includes a design guideline under Building Siting and Massing to design buildings to step down the site and reflect the topographical character of the landscape and potentially reduce the need for cut and fill. The alternative Councillor position on measuring building heights is consistent with the DDO within the City of Melbourne for the Botanic Gardens (DDO15).

Ministerial Amendment VC96 introduced a new Design and Development Overlay (DDO31) to apply mandatory building heights to properties in Boroondara directly abutting the Yarra River. The maximum building height is measured above the natural ground level at any point similarly to Stonnington's proposed DDO3 controls.

The existing approach to measure height in the Planning Scheme for Residential 1 zoned land is from natural ground at any point of a site.

Meeting with the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI)

Council officers met with the Department on 5 September 2013 and discussed the issue of mandatory height controls for buildings along the Yarra River. The Department confirmed its support for mandatory height controls in this context.

# The Minister has subsequently reaffirmed his position for stronger planning controls for Melbourne’s iconic rivers in a Media Release dated 14 September 2013 (refer Attachment 5). Following the Minister’s commitment to protect the Yarra River, DTPLI recommenced discussions with Council Officers regarding applying stronger environmental and height limit controls to the Yarra River east of Grange Road as part of proposed Ministerial Amendment C70.

Amendment C70 was considered by Council on 14 September 2013. In support of the amendment, Council resolved to write to the Minister for Planning to request that he utilise his power under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to prepare, adopt and approved amendment C70. Council also resolved to commit to undertaking targeted consultation to assist the Department in the transition from interim controls and permanent controls and request that the fee be waived for the amendment. A request was sent to the Minister for Planning on 22 October 2013 seeking progression of the amendment in line with Council’s resolution.

Relationship between Amendment C155, Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Plan Melbourne) and the new residential zones

Since progressing Amendment C155, the State Government has released ‘Plan Melbourne’ for comment. Plan Melbourne provides supporting justification for the application of the new residential zones and must be considered.


In addition, the State Government has begun reviewing the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) which relates to the implementation of Plan Melbourne.

In the context of the State planning reforms, it is recommended that Council adopt a position regarding Amendment C155 in advance of the finalisation of the new residential zones.

The parts of the DDO3 that can be directly translated include mandatory heights.

Legislative Requirements

In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can choose to adopt the amendment without changes, adopt the amendment with changes or abandon the amendment.

If Council adopts the amendment, with changes in accordance with the Panel's recommendations, it is likely to be approved by the Minister for Planning.

If Council adopts the amendment in a form contrary to the Panel recommendation, Council must give its reasons. Ultimately, it is the Minister for Planning who will approve the amendment. Council needs to provide strong strategic justification for any variations from the Panel’s recommendations.

Ministerial Direction 15 requires Council to make a decision on the Amendment within 40 business days of the date it receives a Panel report. However this does not apply if the Amendment was exhibited before 25 October 2012. Amendment C155 was exhibited before 25 October 2012 and therefore, this part of Ministerial Direction 15 does not apply. This has been confirmed with DTPLI.

Adoption of amendment

It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C155 with changes, in part as recommended by the Panel and as outlined in this report and attachments.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The policies in the Planning Scheme support the proposed Amendment. The new planning controls are required to implement the direction expressed in the adopted Yarra River Skyline Report – DDO3 Review. The proposed planning controls are consistent with the following Council Plan strategies (2013-2017):

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

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


LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C155 is consistent with policy direction in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on the amendment and be able to be heard by an Independent Panel.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The cost of processing Amendment C155 included within the 2012/13 - 2013/14 Strategic Planning budget.

June 2012 Aug / Sept 2012 July 2013 Dec 2013 Early 2014

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adopt Approval

CONCLUSION

The Panel report on Amendment C155 recommends adoption of the Amendment as exhibited with the exception of a number of changes including the 'mandatory' maximum height controls (for part of the 12m and 9m height areas).

Some of the changes are supported; however it is considered that some of the exhibited provisions should be retained, contrary to the recommendations of the Panel. The Yarra River corridor between Punt Rd and Grange Rd is a unique environment and an asset of local, metropolitan and State significance. It is important that the built form and landscape character of this area is appropriately managed to ensure the preservation of one of Melbourne's valued attributes.

It is recommended that Council adopt the amendment as contained in this report and the attachments.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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


RECOMMENDATION

ALTERNATIVE 1

That Council:


2. On considering the Independent Panel report, adopts Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline to the Stonnington Planning Scheme with changes (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as outlined in Attachment 4.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Uses the adopted version of the amendment to inform schedules to the reformed residential zones and other State Planning reforms.

5. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to proposed Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline.

ALTERNATIVE 2

Following further consideration of the Panel Report and the strategic justification for Council’s position that Council confirms its previous position in relation to measuring height for land as follows:

That Council:


2. On considering the Independent Panel report, adopts Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline to the Stonnington Planning Scheme with changes (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as outlined in Attachment 4 with the following variation to Attachment 4:

- Building height to be measured from the centre of the front of the site for DDO3-1 (12 metre mandatory building height).

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Uses the adopted version of the amendment to inform schedules to the reformed residential zones and other State Planning reforms.

5. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to proposed Amendment C155 – Alexandra Ave Boulevard and Yarra River Skyline.


3. PLANNING ZONE REFORMS – NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to: Consider feedback received on the recent Residential Zones consultation. Seek Council adoption of the planning provisions proposed to respond to community

feedback received during the recent Residential Zones consultation and implement the findings of the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Study 2013.

BACKGROUND

State Government Planning Reforms

In July 2012, the Minister for Planning released proposed zone reforms representing significant changes to the Victorian Planning System. Public comment was sought by the Minister on the reformed zones by 28 September 2012. During this time Council adopted a submission in response to the release of those reformed zones. The Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee (the Committee) to consider all submissions to the proposed zones.

The Committee provided a progress report to the Minister for Planning on the review of the proposed residential zones on 14 December 2012 and this was followed by a progress report on the commercial and industrial zones on 28 February 2013. The final residential zones became available to Councils in July 2013.

Residential zones consultation September 2013

Council has undertaken extensive consultation on the new residential zones and how they may be best applied to the City of Stonnington. Draft residential zone maps were released in September 2013. A total of 62,000 community newsletters and brochures were sent to households within Stonnington featuring information of the zones and seeking feedback on the draft zoning proposals and associated schedules. A total of 8,519 unique visits and 16,587 overall visits were made to the planning zone website pages and consultation portal and 1,441 formal responses were received through surveys, written submissions, emails and petitions. Consultation also included an online forum, poll, interactive map, advertisements in the Stonnington Leader and surveys. A total of 154 people attended three Drop-In Sessions held at Council venues, and a community tent was held at the Spring into Gardening Festival. In addition to advertising and publicity, 300 phone calls and service centre visits were received.

# The feedback received identified a number of issues as being important to the Stonnington municipality as a whole, regardless of whether residents were satisfied with their zoning. These issues are outlined in the Communication and Engagement Strategy in Attachment 1.


Residential zones criteria

In July 2013, the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure (DTPLI) released Practice Note 78 ‘Applying the Residential Zones’. The criteria outlined in this note broadly aligned with Council’s recently approved MSS (Clause 21.05) and both were used to apply the new residential zones initially for the purposes of consultation in September. This criteria has been refined further by community feedback received during the recent consultation.

Plan Melbourne

Towards the conclusion of Council's consultation period on the residential zones the draft Metropolitan Planning Strategy 'Plan Melbourne' was released for comment. Plan Melbourne sets a vision for the type of city Melbourne will become by 2050. It considers likely trends and decisions required to shape Melbourne over the next 40 years including planning for growth, housing, transport and employment. It will also influence where and how new development and investment will occur.

Plan Melbourne sets the context for Stonnington and role that Stonnington will play in planning the broader metropolitan region. The initiatives and vision in Plan Melbourne directly affects considerations regarding the application of the new residential zones.

The following are two key initiatives: Expansion of the central city - The City of Stonnington has been located in the 'central

sub-region' for increased housing and commercial development. Rezone 50 per cent of metropolitan Melbourne's residential land to the Neighbourhood

Residential Zone in order to protect unique neighbourhoods from residential densification.

These two initiatives are key influencing components for consideration in the application of the residential zones in Stonnington. Within short timeframes, the State Government will consider comments on Plan Melbourne and finalise the plan by January 2014.

Council’s submission to Plan Melbourne was endorsed by Council at its meeting on 2 December 2013 and subsequently forwarded to the State Government for consideration. Stonnington’s location in the central sub-region for increased housing and commercial development (Plan Melbourne) reinforces the need to provide certainty to the community regarding the new planning zones.

Initial Findings and options for Planning Scheme Amendment

Councillors were briefed at their meeting on 11 November 2013 regarding the initial findings from the consultation period and the options to implement the new zones for Council to take forward a Planning Scheme Amendment. The options to implement the new zones were subsequently considered at the closed Council meeting on 2 December 2013. In the context of the initiatives contained in Plan Melbourne and the potential implications for Stonnington it was considered preferable for a decision to be made on the new residential zones by the end of the year.


Notification

Council notified affected residents of potential changes to the zones via letter on 3 and 4 December 2013. This ensured that residents whose zone may change from that proposed during the September/October consultation were given additional notice. Approximately 2870 property addresses were specifically affected by the changes to the proposed residential zones. Notification advising of Council’s consideration of the zones consultation on 16 December 2013 was undertaken via a number of forums. Everyone who has registered their details for feedback or who provided feedback to Council have also been kept informed of the process. The following is a summary of key notification and dates: Media release (3 December) Letter to owners whose proposed zone is changing (by 6 December) Release map of new zone proposals on Council’s website (6 December) Full page Leader advertisement (10 December) Email or letter to all parties who provided feedback (10 December) Email to register of interest (9 December).

DISCUSSION

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment

Outline of key issues/options

Neighbourhood CharacterThe Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Study 2013 divides the municipality into 8 separate character precincts containing streets and areas with common characteristics. Precincts with similar character were then grouped into 4 character types and these types are generally differentiated by the features of the precinct such as setbacks, building scale, space between dwellings and allotment size. Precinct profiles were prepared for all precincts and each includes design objectives and guidelines.

The new Residential Zones together with a potential Neighbourhood Character Local Policy offer significant potential to implement a range of neighbourhood character objectives and controls across the municipality and as identified within the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Study. The use of multiple schedules within the new zones allows for different controls to be applied to different areas and as such will enable the desired scale of development and future preferred character within Stonnington to be more clearly specified. A potential Neighbourhood Character Local Policy could provide a set of general considerations and objectives (per precinct) that apply to all proposals within residential areas where a planning permit is required.


Response to feedbackA number of issues important to the Stonnington municipality as a whole were identified by the community. In general these have been addressed through the following means:

Issue MeasureIncreased developmentIncluding increase in population, density and perceived overdevelopment

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment provides a balanced approach to application of the zones to meet Council’s current housing objectives and to plan for current and future generations.

CharacterIncluding visual impact, heritage and architectural style

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment proposes to implement the findings of the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Study through schedules to the neighbourhood residential and general residential zones.

Strategic Planning to undertake further work in the future related to the proposed Neighbourhood Character Local Policy and high density guidelines.

HeightIncluding overshadowing and overlooking

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment to implement mandatory (maximum) height controls through schedules to the zones across the majority of the municipality.

InfrastructureIncluding drainage, local services, train lines and public transport

Council’s submission to Plan Melbourne recognised the role of a Metropolitan Planning Authority in the delivery of infrastructure.

Council’s submission to Plan Melbourne also outlined concern regarding how the Strategy addresses the relationship between increasing density of proposals in inner and middle ring Councils and the demand for public open space particularly in Stonnington.

Concern was also outlined regarding the funding of the implementation of Plan Melbourne. Council suggested an Infrastructure and Investment Plan outlining and prioritising major and sub-regional infrastructure proposals, including timelines and funding options as a key input to medium and longer term budget planning.

CriteriaThat is, the criteria used to apply the zones

Criteria has been refined based on community feedback received and in the context of Plan Melbourne.

SetbacksIncluding frontages, side and rear setbacks

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment to implement findings of Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Study through schedules to the zones and undertake further work in the future related to high density guidelines.


Parking/traffic Council’s submission to Plan Melbourne outlined concern regarding traffic and car parking issues associated with increased development in the Central Sub-region and wider metropolitan area and reinforced the need for broader consideration.

ValueIncluding impact of increase and decrease on property values, capital gains and rates

Property values are determined by a range of factors including such things as location; the current use and potential uses, land size; extent, condition and appropriateness of buildings; types of surrounding properties, general amenity, the current socio-economic conditions. Zoning is also one of these factors and as such any change / alteration in the zoning may influence a property’s value, however it is one of many factors.

Proposed Residential Zones

# A map showing the proposed Residential Zones for consideration is included in Attachment 2. Consideration has been given to all feedback received on the zones and how the new zones and associated schedules are best applied in Stonnington. The changed context and potential implications of Plan Melbourne have also been considered and the following broadly identifies the revised approach and criteria influencing the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment: Residential Growth Zone to be applied where mixed use development up to four

storeys may be supported. In areas close to railway stations, along Dandenong Road and Punt Road and on main roads at the western end of the city where higher density development close to Chapel Street currently exists.

General Residential Zone along main roads to be at a greater height than the adjoining residential hinterland with variances to the specified height to respond to the existing context and preferred built form outcome.

General Residential Zones away from main roads allows for scope for more dwellings within lower height limits.

Neighbourhood Residential Zone in areas of special neighbourhood character, heritage significance, limited apartment development and where minimal change in dwelling density is anticipated.

Mandatory height control variance to all properties within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (to 9m) to reflect the dwelling typology in Stonnington and allow for design and architectural expression.

Mandatory height control variances in the General Residential Zone on both main roads and in the residential hinterland to recognise local neighbourhood character (different built form typologies) and address community concerns.

The recently gazetted Amendment C161 (revised MSS), including the policy relating to minimal, incremental and substantial change areas.


Proposed Residential Zone Schedules# Draft schedules to the zones and a summary of the schedule provisions have been

included in Attachment 3. In general, schedules can cover variations to ResCode including setbacks from boundaries, site coverage, landscaping, height and permeability. They may also include mandatory heights for many of the zones. Recommendations from the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Study’s precinct profiles and guidelines have in most cases been directly incorporated into the draft schedules. Existing Council policies and community feedback received during the September/October consultation have also been considered in their drafting.

Fence height trigger and notice and review

The Neighbourhood Character Study identified many areas where a front fence height of 1.5 metres is the preferred character. The current provisions in ResCode seek to have fence heights up to 1.5m in all residential areas. Given that the default fence height is 1.5m in ResCode, and the preferred front fence height character is 1.5m, this is not a variation to ResCode and therefore does not need to be specified in the Schedule to the Zone.

The Neighbourhood Character Study identified some areas where a front fence height of 1.2 metres is the preferred character. As a result the Schedule to the Zone includes provision for 1.2 metre high fences. It is proposed that planning permit applications triggered by this requirement be exempt from the notice requirements. This exemption is consistent with similar exemptions included in Neighbourhood Character Overlay controls (NCO).

Mandatory maximum building heights

Mandatory maximum heights are proposed across much of the municipality to provide certainty in the planning scheme. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone maximum heights are proposed to vary from 8m to 9m to allow for architectural features and higher floor to ceiling heights for two storey dwellings to reflect the existing character and type of developments across Stonnington. In the Neighbourhood Residential Zone the mandatory maximum building height may be exceeded in some circumstances. Proposed buildings or extensions may be able to exceed the mandatory height and build to the same height of buildings immediately adjacent and facing the same street. It is proposed that this same provision be transferred to all of Council's proposed General Residential and Residential Growth Zones. This will ensure consistency in the controls across all residential zones. This provision will not be included in the controls for the Yarra River Skyline area (C155).

Areas subject to flooding provisions (Special Building Overlay - SBO and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay - LSIO)

A number of areas are subject to flooding provisions and are therefore required to raise the height of the finished floor level for new buildings. To allow for this potential required additional height, while still enabling a good built form outcome, it is proposed that the Schedules to the Zones allow for mandatory maximum building heights to be extrapolated above the flood level. This proposed provision is consistent with recently prepared DDO's in areas subject to flooding.


Translation of Overlays

Consideration needs to be given to existing and proposed Design and Development Overlays (DDO), Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCO) and Development Plan Overlays (DPO) and how the heights and variations to ResCode can be best translated into the proposed Schedules to the Zones. In addition further work needs to be undertaken to rationalise and consolidate the Schedules to the Zones to potentially reduce the number of Schedules and ensure a more streamlined Planning Scheme.

Yarra River Skyline controls (C155)

At this same Council meeting (16 December 2013) Councillors have before it a report on the Yarra River Skyline controls (Amendment C155). It is proposed that the Schedules to the Zone reflect the adopted height controls consistent with Council's resolution on C155.

# Refer Attachment 3 for a table of all the additional provisions that need to be incorporated into the Schedules to the Zones as outlined above.

Minimum lot sizes for subdivisionA minimum lot size for subdivision is able to be specified within Schedules to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This could ensure that: Subdivision is compatible with the predominant or historic subdivision pattern and

character of an area Any likely impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring

properties is minimised, and Lot sizes are able to accommodate development consistent with the appropriate

development controls.Existing lot sizes across Stonnington vary greatly and exceptions to minimum lot sizes for dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing will need to be considered in future work. As such, it is considered that the application of a minimum lot size for subdivision is not appropriate at this time.

Split-zoned propertiesFor historic reasons, there are a number of split-zoned properties within the municipality. This can cause confusion and requests have been received from property owners for these properties to be amended. The scope of the State Government Planning Zone Reforms and timing of Stonnington’s application of the residential planning zones does not allow for split zoned properties to be addressed at this stage. The most appropriate zoning for these sites will be reviewed as a future piece of work at a later stage and followed up with subsequent amendments as needed.

Planning Scheme Amendment ProcessPlan Melbourne outlines two initiatives which are key influencing components for consideration on the application of the residential zones within Stonnington. State Government have indicated that Plan Melbourne will be finalised by January 2014. Councils have until July 2014 to implement the new residential zones or the General Residential Zone will apply across all residential areas.


As such, Stonnington Council undertook comprehensive community consultation on draft residential zone proposals and received an excellent response from residents. These factors reinforce the need to provide certainty to the community regarding the new planning zones. It is considered that the best option to achieve this certainty is for Council to request the Minister for Planning to introduce the new zones into the Stonnington Planning Scheme via ‘fast track’ amendment. This process does not include further public consultation.

NEXT STEPS

Following the Council’s decision about the new provisions a planning scheme amendment will be submitted to the Minister for final approval.

Following the introduction of the new planning provisions by the Minister for Planning, future work relating to minimum lot size for subdivisions and split zoned properties will be progressed. The new planning provisions will continue to be monitored and feedback recorded should a future planning scheme amendment be necessary to refine the provisions further.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Preliminary consultation and implementation of the planning zone reforms has incurred costs associated with resourcing, consultants, advertising, preparation of community materials and information and administering enquiries. Additional resources have been engaged to continue to assist in this process and these are currently being covered within the Strategic Planning Budget. Overspend on consultation notification and advertising has resulted.

Costs associated with the Planning Scheme Amendment will also be covered within the Strategic Planning Budget.

Other resource implications include a potential increase in planning scheme amendment requests associated with the new provisions, such as requests from land owners or developers to remove mandatory (maximum) heights applicable to their sites or requests from landowners or residents in the General Residential Zone seeking inclusion of their property or street in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The availability of adequate resourcing will also need to be considered following the change to the criteria for planning matters that can be heard under VCAT’s Major Cases List. All developments in a Residential Growth Zone including residential developments of any value are now eligible to be included in the Major Cases List and hence their resolution expedited. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS / RISKS

Council intends to request that the Minister amend the Planning Scheme with exemption from notice requirements. This may result in some community concern that there will be no further say in how the Amendment is applied to land they have an interest in.

In the short term, legal advice has been sought regarding specific issues as required.


SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Following the implementation of the zones, it is hoped there will be a greater level of certainty within the community regarding the preferred degree of change and growth within Stonnington. Continuing to pursue high density design guidelines for Stonnington will contribute to positive environmental outcomes for the municipality by helping to further protect residential character. CONCLUSION

Community feedback regarding the new residential zones has been carefully considered in the context of the wider metropolitan Melbourne context of Plan Melbourne and Stonnington’s existing Local Planning Policy Framework. The resulting proposals continue to recognise Stonnington’s diverse population and provide an appropriate planning framework to balance the competing demands of maintaining residential amenity and population growth.



RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the key findings of the recent Residential Zones consultation.

2. Adopt the proposed residential zone map and planning provisions for preparation of Amendment C187 in Attachments 2 and 3.

3. Request the Minister for Planning to prepare, adopt and approve an amendment to the Stonnington Planning Scheme (Amendment C187) to introduce the new planning provisions as attached and outlined in this report and pursuant to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Provide the CEO as Council’s delegate the authority to make changes to the planning provisions attached to this report and proposed as part of Amendment C187 where necessary in order to facilitate the introduction of the new residential zones into the Stonnington Planning Scheme.


4. AMENDMENT C168 – NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAYS (NCO'S) – BALDWIN AND CLARENCE STREETS – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT

Manager: Susan Price General Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Planning Panel on Amendment C168 – introduction of Neighbourhood Character Overlays for Baldwin and Clarence Streets, and decide whether to adopt the amendment with or without changes.

BACKGROUND

Neighbourhood Character Strategy 2012 and ImplementationIn January 2012, Planning consultants were appointed to undertake the following staged work as part of the Neighbourhood Character Strategy:

The Neighbourhood Character Review and Character Areas Neighbourhood Character Overlay Gap Study Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedules (including Baldwin and Clarence)

This strategy work (Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review, 2013 Planisphere) has now been completed with the following amendments commenced:

Amendment C168 – to introduce Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCOs) and Design and Development Overlays (DDOs) to Baldwin Street and Clarence Streets. This amendment is the subject of this report.

Amendment C175 – to introduce a local policy into the planning scheme to preserve neighbourhood character across all residential areas. The policy has been exhibited and 10 submissions have been received. A report on the policy will be put to council in November.

Amendment C185 – to introduce NCOs and a DDO to the Victorian and Edwardian character precinct (9 precincts in total). Amendment documentation is currently being prepared with a view to seeking Ministerial authorisation shortly. (As per Council resolution 19 August 2013).

Amendment C168

On 27 August 2012, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C168. Authorisation was granted on 9 November 2012.

The NCO and DDO will provide greater certainty for the community and the development industry in terms of what development, and development attributes, may be compatible with the character of different areas and neighbourhoods within the municipality.

The proposed NCO and DDO controls for Baldwin Street includes provision for: Consistent front setbacks Recessive second storey additions Garages compatible with the preferred character Set backs from the dwelling facade


Front fences no greater than 1.2 metres in height south of the court bowl Front fences no greater than 0.8 metres in height within the court bowl

The proposed NCO and DDO controls for Clarence Street includes provision for: Consistent front setbacks Recessive second storey additions Garages compatible with the preferred character Set backs from the dwelling facade Front timber picket fences no greater than 1.2 metres in height Front brick or rendered masonry fences no greater than 0.8 metres in height Minimal hard paving surfaces within front setbacks

Exhibition

Exhibition of Amendment C168 occurred between 13 December 2012 and 4 February 2013. The amendment was re-exhibited from 6 May to June 2013. Consultation included (on both occasions): Full copy of the proposed Amendment documents, heritage citations, and supporting

documents available for viewing at Prahran Town Hall and on Council’s and Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) websites.

Notice of preparation of Amendment C168 in the Stonnington Leader. Notice of preparation of Amendment C168 in the Government Gazette. Notice sent to owners and occupiers, and prescribed authorities.

Re-exhibition was undertaken because: DDOs were proposed to introduce a permit requirement for the construction of a front

fence and requirements for fence heights and use of materials. While the NCO can vary the standard for front fence height, the overlay cannot require a permit for fences.

The boundary of NCO3 was revised to exclude 37 and 39 Clarence Street, which had recently been incorporated into the Heritage Overlay (HO).

Consideration of submissions

Council received four submissions during the initial exhibition period. Two submissions, including one late submission were received during the re-exhibition period.

The submissions requested changes to the Amendment.

Council considered the submissions on Amendment C168 at its meeting on 22 July 2013 and resolved that the following changes should be made to the provisions of the proposed NCO schedules:

Reduce the following setback provisions in NCO2:- Within the court bowl of Baldwin Street the street setback to ‘equal to the

setback of the existing building or 8 metres, whatever is the lesser’.- South of the court bowl in Baldwin Street the street setback to be ‘equal to the

setback of the existing building or 2 metres, whatever is the lesser’.- For the garage/carport/outbuilding on the boundary within the court bowl in

Baldwin Street from 3m to 1m. Removal of 2 and 4 Clarence Street from the proposed NCO3 and DDO13.

Council resolved to request the Minister appoint a Panel to hear all submissions and consider the proposed Amendment.


Council also resolved that in its submission to the Panel Hearing, Council forms a position in support of Amendment C168, generally in accordance with the officer’s response to submissions

Directions Hearing

The Directions Hearing was held on 5 September 2013.

Panel Hearing

The Panel Hearing was held on 1 October 2013 at Malvern Town Hall. Council and submitters from three properties appeared before the Panel. Council was represented by Lisa Riddle from Planisphere Pty. Ltd. No expert witnesses were engaged by either council or submitters.

# The Panel Report was received by Council on 29 October 2013. Under the provisions of section 26 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council has 28 days from its receipt to release the report to the public. Letters were sent to all submitters to the Amendment on 27 November 2013, advising them of the availability of the Panel report on Council’s website. The Panel Report is attached (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION

The Panel Report for Amendment C168 states that ‘its role is to consider the exhibited Amendment and all submissions provided to the Panel. This includes the submission from Stonnington City Council to the Panel, which incorporated the 22 July decision to exclude 2 and 4 Clarence Street from the proposed amendment.

Panel recommendations

Council must now formally consider the Panel’s recommendations before deciding how to proceed with the Amendment. The Panel report recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited, subject to the modifications recommended in the Panel report.

A list of the key recommendations in the Panel report and a recommended response is below:

The Panel is satisfied that regulation of development proposed by the Amendment has been justified. The methodology adopted in the Neighbourhood Character Review was thorough and adopted the guidance in the relevant practice notes.

The Panel therefore recommends that Amendment C168 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following changes: Remove 2 and 4 Clarence Street, East Malvern from NCO3 and DDO13. In DDO 12 and DDO 13 (fences) , delete permit triggers that are subjective. Revise NCO2 (Baldwin Street) Clause 4 to modify setback requirements.

The Panel considered that Council’s response to submissions to support removal of 2 - 4 Clarence Street from NCO3 and DDO13, together with reductions in the exhibited setbacks in Baldwin Street, significantly narrowed the issues that remain of concern in submissions. The Panel endorsed these changes and agreed with council that these changes will not undermine the achievement of neighbourhood character objectives.


The Panel, considered, however, that the post-exhibition reduction in the setback behind the building façade for garages and carports on the boundary should apply to the whole of Baldwin Street, not just the court bowl.

The Panel is satisfied that front and side fences forward of the houses are significant elements of the streetscape character in these precincts and although there are examples of other fence heights and styles, the proposed DDO permit triggers appropriately reflect the predominant fence heights in both precincts.

In addition, the Panel recommended deletion of text in the DDO provisions (relating to front fences) to avoid permit triggers being dependant on subjective assessment by planning officers. Council supported the deletion of this text at the Panel Hearing.

# The Panel endorsed all of the post-exhibition changes proposed by Council. The Panel recommendations are supported in their entirety and the NCO and DDO schedules recommended for adoption are attached (Attachment 2). Legislative requirements

In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can choose to adopt the amendment without changes, adopt the amendment with changes or abandon the amendment.

If Council adopts the Amendment in a form contrary to the Panel recommendation, Council must give its reasons. Council needs to provide strong strategic justification for any variations from the Panel’s recommendations.

Adoption of amendment with changes

It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C168 with changes since exhibition, as recommended by the Panel report.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed neighbourhood character controls as part of Amendment C168 are consistent with the following Council Plan strategy:

Celebrate the municipality's heritage and diverse buildings by balancing its existing character with complementary and sustainable developments.

It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.02-2 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme which seeks:

To ensure that the qualities and attributes that define the City's urban environment and character are recognised and enhanced.

In the context of the new residential zones the proposed NCO and DDO Schedules are will give greater clarity to the preferred neighbourhood character outcome for these two precincts. The proposed Schedules include additional objectives not able to be incorporated into the new residential zones. An NCO Schedule will still be a relevant tool in the Stonnington Planning Scheme to implement preferred neighbourhood character objectives.


LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment is consistent with policy direction in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on the Amendment and be able to be heard by an Independent Panel.


The costs of processing the Amendment have been included in the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 Strategic Planning budget.

Nov 2012 Dec 2012 May 2013 Oct 2013 Dec 2013 Feb 2014

Authorisation Exhibition Re-exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

CONCLUSION

Amendment C168 proposes to introduce Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCOs) and Design and Development Overlays (DDOs) to Baldwin Street and Clarence Streets. The Panel report on Amendment C168 recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to modifications.

It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C168 with changes since exhibition, as recommended by the Panel report.



RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel to the public on Amendment C168 – NCOs Baldwin and Clarence Streets.

2. On considering the Independent Panel report, adopts Amendment C168 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme with changes (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as shown in Attachment 2.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C168 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to proposed Amendment C168.


5. MINIMUM UNIT SIZE AND PLANNING CONTROLS


PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to brief Council on the findings of a Discussion Paper – Minimum Unit Size which explores the issue of unit size in Melbourne drawing upon local, interstate and international examples of planning provisions for minimum unit sizes, and providing recommendations for Stonnington.

# This Discussion Paper responds to a question raised by Councillor Chandler at the Council Meeting on 2 September 2013 in reference to an article in the Age (dated August 19 2013). Refer to Attachment 1 for the article.

BACKGROUND

Interest in apartment design, specifically minimum unit sizes, and the impact on quality of life has recently increased within Victoria with the release of the new residential zones and the draft Metropolitan Planning Strategy - Plan Melbourne.

The increasing prevalence of higher density housing has contributed to concerns relating to smaller apartment size and the corresponding impact on residential amenity and design standards.

Plan Melbourne acknowledges that there is currently no regulation in Victoria to stipulate how apartments must be designed, beyond what is required under the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Plan Melbourne (Initiative 2.1.4) identifies some of the concerns around the design quality of apartments including: The small size of apartments. The tendency for a large number of apartments to be designed with habitable rooms

(notably bedrooms) that have no direct access to daylight and ventilation. Poor consideration of the amenity impacts of adjacent apartment developments. The lack of variety and choice of apartment designs.

Other concerns include: The inability to furnish small and poorly designed internal spaces. The lack of sufficient storage space. The over reliance on artificial lighting and ventilation. The lack of adequate and usable private open space.

Council is aware of work being undertaken by the City of Melbourne which includes the analysis of unit sizes, and identifying issues and options, which is expected to feed into a Housing Strategy in 2014.

No planning scheme amendments are currently being undertaken on minimum unit sizes within Victoria. At present there are no explicit policies within Victorian Planning Schemes mandating minimum unit sizes.


Discussion Paper – minimum unit sizeCouncil officers commissioned Niche Planning to develop a Discussion Paper outlining local, interstate and international examples of planning provisions for minimum unit sizes and recommendations for Stonnington.

The Discussion Paper is intended to inform a response to the perceived lack of specific statutory guidance relating to minimum unit sizes, within existing planning policy at both a State and Local Government level.

# Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the Discussion Paper – Minimum Unit Size.

DISCUSSION

The Discussion Paper uses examples of unit size policy and guidelines from an international, national and Victorian context to provide a representation of implementation responses available. Responses are summarised below.

International contextInternational examples of policy to guide minimum unit sizes include Auckland Council (NZ), Southwark Council (UK) and Dublin City Council (Ireland). These examples demonstrate the international context for guiding minimum unit sizes:

Auckland Council uses the Auckland Design Manual which provides practical advice, best practice processes and detailed design guidance for new residential construction. The Manual provides a range of qualitative and quantitative measures for new unit buildings, which seek to achieve high quality design and siting outcomes, including achieving minimum dwelling sizes. The manual is non statutory and sits outside the Planning Scheme, meaning it does not constitute formal legislation and does not provide mandatory requirements.

Southwark Council (UK) uses the Residential Design Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which is a statutory document, to assist development to achieve a high standard of residential amenity and design. The document sits outside the planning scheme but links back to the Planning Scheme. The Document includes minimum standards relating to minimum floor space within higher density development. These requirements are not mandatory and the Responsible Authority can approve variations, subject to the applicant providing justification for why the measures have not been met.

The Dublin City Council Development Plan (2011 – 2017) provides specific directives relating to minimum unit sizes contained within a Municipality wide framework. It provides a range of qualitative and quantitative development standards, including a standard relating to floor areas for units within new residential development. These design standards are not mandatory, but form an important part of the overall assessment of the project.

National contextInterstate examples used in the Discussion Paper have been obtained from the New South Wales and Western Australia State Governments, and Adelaide City Council.


These examples demonstrate the national context for guiding minimum unit sizes: New South Wales uses the Residential Flat Design Code (the Code) and State

Environment Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development to provide overarching provisions for minimum unit sizes. Local Governments can add additional standards to supplement the Code. For example, the City of Sydney provides an additional local policy that supplements the State Wide Standards. This process allows Local Governments to address local issues. The minimum unit sizes in the Code are a guideline only and are not mandatory.

South Australia has guided the regulation of minimum unit sizes at a local level. The City of Adelaide has sought to provide prescriptive standards relating to minimum unit sizes for higher density unit development. The minimum sizes are not mandatory, but are central to Council’s assessment.

Western Australia is considered to have the least prescriptive guidelines (of the national examples) for minimum unit sizes and relies on a broad set of qualitative statements without dictating an explicit figure. This approach has been adopted in response to a number of motivations, including increased reliance on allowing market forces to establish a minimum standard, and a desire to avoid blanket adherence to minimum unit sizes, regardless of site and locality specific design considerations.

Victorian ContextState Government In 2004, the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) released the ‘Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development’. These Guidelines provide high level urban design principles relating to building and unit design but do not extend to provide prescriptive measurable minimum standards.

The Building Code of Australia also provides minimal guidance on prescriptive measurable standards for unit sizes, instead, relying on general amenity requirements which need to be met.

Existing policy guiding the development of higher density housing in Victoria does not mandate minimum unit area.

Melbourne City CouncilThe City of Melbourne is currently developing a draft housing strategy. The draft Strategy was prepared following a review of the NSW approach to apartment design through SEPP 65 and the Code. As part of this work, a discussion paper has been prepared and one of the key questions it addresses is whether the City should introduce a policy for minimum unit sizes. The discussion paper does not recommend the adoption of a minimum unit size policy, but it could be considered as part of a future housing strategy.

Moreland City Council The City of Moreland has developed the Moreland Higher Density Design Code, which will be used to asses development proposals for residential buildings of four or more storeys. The Code does not provide specific measures relating to minimum unit sizes and instead relies on the implicit, qualitative measures utilised by the DTPLI Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. The Design Code is the subject of a Planning Scheme amendment and upcoming Panel.

Plan MelbourneAs previously discussed, Plan Melbourne introduces actions to improve the quality and amenity of residential apartments.


Specifically, Initiative 2.1.4 states: Update design guidelines and introduce measurable standards for high-density

residential and mixed use development (Short term). Review the design, layout, internal living amenity and balcony needs of apartment

development (Medium term).

The DTPLI has been identified as the lead agency to progress these actions.

Summary & Recommendations outlined in the Discussion Paper – Minimum Unit Size

With the introduction of the reformed residential zones and Plan Melbourne, Councils in Victoria are starting to pursue best practice examples to guide higher density residential development.

The Discussion Paper identifies that with the release of Plan Melbourne, it appears that DTPLI and the Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) are working together to prepare new state wide statutory requirements to achieve minimum floor areas (amongst other design outcomes) for implementation in the Victoria planning system.

The recommendations of the Discussion Paper for Stonnington are as follows:

That Council initiate a dialogue with the OVGA and DTPLI to provide input into a proposed state-wide control.

Following this dialogue, Council considers preparing its own local planning policy, or provide additional context within its housing strategy regarding apartment living within Stonnington.

This position is supported by Council’s submission to Plan Melbourne, being Recommendation 12 and 13 to advocate the following positions:

Recommendation 12:Support for short-term initiative to updating the design guidelines and introducing measurable standards for high-density residential and mixed use development (Initiative 2.1.4).

Recommendation 13: Greater emphasis needs to be placed in the Strategy on state-wide minimum design standards for residential apartments. In particular Council would encourage the current medium-term initiative to review the design, layout, internal living amenity and balcony needs of apartment development, include minimum dwelling size and be brought forward to the short-term (Initiative 2.1.4).

The Discussion Paper also notes that, at this current time, given work being undertaken at the state level, the introduction of specific controls on unit size is unlikely to be supported by DTPLI in a Local Policy.

The Discussion Paper recommends that Stonnington include more qualitative assessments at this time, that when, coupled with state government regulation on apartment size, would result in enforceable minimum unit size requirements, higher quality design apartments and improved amenity outcomes for residential buildings.

Council Officers recommend that the development of a local policy should only commence after the final form of the Revised State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Local Planning Policy Framework is known.


It is considered that the State Government should lead on this important issue of addressing minimum unit size and internal amenity, and that prescriptive standards and measures are required. Council can play a key role in advocating the State Government to commence this project in the short term. This is consistent with Council’s submission to Plan Melbourne.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Discussion Paper – Minimum Unit Size forms the basis for Council to commence negotiations with the State Government regarding setting appropriate state-wide standards for better urban design outcomes and internal amenity requirements, including setting guidance for minimum unit size.

Council’s submission in response to Plan Melbourne (Recommendations 12 and 13) highlight the importance of design guidelines and measurable standards for higher density development.


Preparation of the Discussion Paper has been included in the 2013/ 2014 Strategic Planning Budget.

CONCLUSION

Interest in apartment design, specifically minimum unit size and the impact on quality of life has increased given State Government reforms including the new Residential Zones and Plan Melbourne.

The Discussion Paper – Minimum Unit Size identifies examples of how the issue of minimum unit size is being addressed within an international, national and local context.

The Discussion Paper recommends that Council initiate a dialogue with the State Government to provide input into a proposed state-wide control, and following this, consider preparing its own local planning policy, or provide additional context within its housing strategy regarding apartment living within Stonnington


This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Relevant human rights considerations will be taken into account as part of any further policy development or advocacy on this matter.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the summary and recommendations of the Discussion Paper – Minimum Unit Size.

2. Continues to advocate the State Government for further guidance on improving amenity for units through Plan Melbourne and the revised State Planning Policy Framework.

3. Notes that a subsequent report will be brought to Council to consider developing a local policy for medium and higher density development within the Municipality once Plan Melbourne is finalised.


6. BURKE ROAD, GLEN IRIS LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL – ENDORSING COUNCIL’S PREFERRED OPTION

Manager: Susan Price, Ian McLauchlan, Rick KwasekGeneral Manager: Karen WatsonGeneral Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

brief Council on the two design options that VicRoads is pursuing as part of the business case to remove the level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris; and

seek Council’s endorsement of a preferred design option which will be highlighted in a submission to VicRoads.

Confidential reports on this project have been presented to Councillor Briefing on 25 June 2013 and 7 October 2013, and considered by Council at its on 14 October 2013.

BACKGROUND

VicRoads project proposalThe Burke Road, Glen Iris level crossing was one of seven level crossings in Melbourne included in a State Government announcement on 23 April 2013, to receive additional funding for planning and pre-construction works. The media release was a joint announcement by the Minister for Roads and Public Transport and Treasurer.

In an article in the Stonnington Leader (June 19, 2013) the Minister for Roads and Public Transport (the Hon Terry Mulder MLA) highlighted some of the issues associated with the existing level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris, stating that:

“During peak times, trains cross the tram tracks every two to three minutes, causing the boom gates to come down for up to 38 minutes an hour...this is frustrating to all commuters and can affect queuing and traffic flow on the Monash freeway”.

# The project focuses on the removal of the level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris, adjacent to Gardiner Train Station (on the Glen Waverley line). The study area extends from Malvern Road to the south, and the Monash Freeway to the north. It includes the Malvern Road – Burke Road Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre (the shopping strip fronting Burke Road). Nearby features include St Andrew’s Church, St Andrews Gardiner Tennis Club, Gardiners Park, Gardiners Creek Trail and Peace Park. The study area also includes the Number 72 Tram network on Burke Road and provides an interchange for station users. Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map.

VicRoads is currently preparing a business case for the removal of the level crossing. The business case will be submitted for consideration in the State Government’s 2014/2015 budget process and is due to the Minister for Roads and Public Transport in December 2013.

# A number of design options for removing the level crossing have been considered during the planning stage. VicRoads has narrowed the design options to two to be progressed as part of the business case. Concept designs are available on the VicRoads website. Refer to Attachment 2 for concept designs.

The two options are:


Road over rail option which, based on VicRoads plans, proposes: - Lifting the Burke Road carriageway to allow for sufficient road height clearance over

the rail reservation. - A one-way service lane to access the shops fronting Burke Road. - A concrete wall opposite the shops (approximately 7 metres above the ground

level).- Retention of the existing train station (no works to existing station). - A new consolidated island tram stop.- An underpass (tunnel) for Wills Street/Carroll Crescent that connects to Burke Road. - Shared pedestrian/bicycle path through the tunnel to the train station. - Closure of King Street.- Traffic signals at intersection of Carroll Crescent and Burke Road.

Rail under road option which, based on VicRoads plans, proposes: - Excavation in the rail reserve for a substantial length either side of Burke Road in

order to provide sufficient clearance to allow the trains to go underneath Burke Road with appropriate support structures overhead.

- A new train station.- A new plaza at the entrance to the train station.- A new consolidated island tram stop.- Traffic signals at intersection of Carroll Crescent and Burke Road.- The opportunity for development (indicative only and subject to future consultation). - No change to the local road network.- Signalised pedestrian crossing outside the train station.

VicRoads business caseIn developing the business case, VicRoads has identified the overarching problems and benefits associated with the project. These are:

Identified Problems: The Burke Road level crossing is causing delays and congestion which is impacting on

the operation of arterial, freeway and tram networks. Manually operated systems controlling the level crossing are inefficient and increase the

risk of a major incident. Public behaviour around the level crossing is a potential safety hazard.

Identified Benefits: More efficient road transport network. More efficient public transport network. Safer level crossing.

VicRoads will also assess the impacts associated with the project in terms of: Land use Business Social and community Traffic integration Environmental Urban design


Community consultationVicRoads has undertaken community consultation on the two design options to seek community feedback. Consultation included: Approximately 10,500 Project Information Brochures sent to owners and occupiers in

and around the project study area in Stonnington. Three Community Information Sessions (held on 6 November and 9 November 2013). Information about the project on the VicRoads website. An online survey for the community to fill out (available on the VicRoads website). Project Posters displayed at Malvern Town Hall and Council libraries.

Council also included information about the project on its website (as has Boroondara City Council).

VicRoads has advised that it has received 820 completed surveys and that approximately 450 participants attended the Community Information Sessions.

Council officers have received a copy of the submission made to VicRoads from the owners and traders from the shopping strip fronting Burke Road. The submission (including a petition) strongly supports the rail under option and its opportunity to improve the viability and attractiveness of the precinct. The submission highlighted the concerns about the negative impacts on business and jobs with the road over option.

DISCUSSION

Council officers have assessed both design options.

Both design options remove the level crossing on Burke Road and will likely improve the operational safety of the rail crossing. However, it is considered that the rail under road option offers far greater community benefits and outcomes than the road over rail option.

It is recommended that the rail under road option is Council’s preferred option. A snap shot of the assessment of both options is as follows:

Rail under road option Lowers the rail line under Burke Road and does not require a raised construction or

concrete wall to bridge over the existing rail line. Could result in a new train station. This is an opportunity to improve station amenity

and accessibility. Maintains all current local street connectivity. There is no diversion of Wills Street, no

closure of King Street at Burke Road and no accommodation of the service road traffic in Glenarm Road.

The VicRoads traffic modelling (network fit analysis) rates the rail under road option as a better fit.

Provides an opportunity to improve pedestrian access throughout the small neighbourhood activity centre by providing at-grade, intermodal transfer between trams, trains and local access. This is a significant improvement from the current situation.

Provides the opportunity for a public plaza at the entrance to the train station. This could encourage increased levels of activity within an improved public realm (proposed public plaza) and has the potential to activate uses to these areas.

As presented in VicRoads concept drawings, shows the potential for future development.

Provides an opportunity for a place based design approach that could improve the amenity, accessibility and connectivity of the small neighbourhood activity centre.


Road over rail option Results in an approximately 7 metre high road bridge and concrete wall adjacent to

existing residential and commercial uses. This would make accessing the shops fronting Burke Road difficult and impact on the shop uses and the economic viability of this small neighbourhood activity centre.

Based on the VicRoads traffic modelling (network fit analysis), the road over rail option is assessed as having a negative impact on the western approach of Malvern Road to Burke Road in the PM peak period. This may be due to the proposed impact of the service road in front of the shopping strip fronting Burke Road.

Access to the tram stop is only accessible from the rail station side of Burke Road (western side) by accessing the ramps adjacent to the station.

The pedestrian walkway and bike connection from Wills Street to the train station is through a lengthy tunnel under Burke Road. This raises a number of safety and amenity concerns and no opportunity for active surveillance.

Significant construction impacts are anticipated for the road over rail option compared to the rail under road option.

As presented in VicRoads concept drawings, does not show potential for future development or improvement to the area.

Strategic contextThe project study area includes the Malvern Road – Burke Road Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre. Council’s approved Municipal Strategic Statement (Amendment C161) promotes the role of small neighbourhood activity centres as a hub of retail uses for everyday needs with a complimentary mix of uses in peripheral areas such as speciality retailing, offices, services, residential and small scale entertainment uses.

It is considered that the rail under road option has the potential to enhance the role and function of this small neighbourhood activity centre by providing enhanced pedestrian connectivity, a new train station and a new plaza. This could increase the attractiveness of the centre for local convenience shops and businesses.

In contrast, the road over rail option as shown on the VicRoads concept plans, will result in the existing shops fronting Burke Road being accessed via a service road, with a concrete wall directly opposite. This design option presents a number of substantial concerns in terms of accessibility, urban design, economic viability and public realm. An example of a road over option with a similar type of configuration is at Warrigal Road Oakleigh.

The proposed level crossing removal also abuts the residential streets of Kenilworth Grove and Glentilt Road which have been identified as having significant neighbourhood character in the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review, 2013 (Planisphere). These streets are recommended for further protection (Neighbourhood Character Overlay) due to the high level of character significance created by the intactness of built form and consistency of building siting. Any proposals for infrastructure works in this area including the removal of the level crossing should consider the significance of the area and take into account the proposed Neighbourhood Character controls.

As part of the new State Government Planning Zone Reforms, Council has recently consulted on the application of the new zones in Stonnington uses State Government criteria. The residential areas abutting the proposed level crossing removal are proposed to be rezoned to: Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) along Malvern Road and on the north side of Carroll

Crescent from Burke Road to the east of St Edmonds Grove. Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) for Kenilworth Grove and Glentilt Road (which

are proposed Neighbourhood Character Overlays)


General Residential Zone (GRZ) east of Burke Road.

# Refer to Attachment 3 for a map of the proposed residential zones for the surrounding area.

It is important that the proposal to remove the level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris addresses the character and identity of this small neighbourhood activity centre and its potential uses, as well as the surrounding residential area. Both the rail signal box and switch house have potential heritage value.

OpportunitiesIt is important that the proposal to remove the level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris maximises the opportunities to improve and enhance the station and its surrounds. Opportunities include: A new plaza at the entrance to the train station which could improve pedestrian safety

and provide an attractive space and focal point. Installation of way finding information and lighting along pedestrian paths to the train

station and tram stops to improve pedestrian legibility and safety. Providing bicycle storage near the train station. Access along Burke Road to Gardiners

Creek Trail is part of the Principal Bicycle Network. Providing secure and accessible bicycle storage near existing and proposed cycle routes could enhance the attractiveness of cycling to the station.

Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Gardiners Creek Trail. This is supported by Council’s Public Realm Strategy (2010).

Improving the quality of the public realm along Burke Road and adjacent to the small Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

Consideration and provision for future car parking associated with the new rail station. Increase in public open space and general improvements to the public realm.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The following policies, strategies and plans provide strategic background and will need to be considered by VicRoads in the development of the business plan:

Approved Municipal Strategic Statement (approved by the Minister for Planning in November 2013).

Council Plan, 2013-2017. Stonnington Sustainable Transport Policy and Background Paper, 2008. Stonnington Walking Policy and Background Paper, 2011. Building Prosperity Economic Development Strategy 2012-2016. Public Realm Strategy, 2010. Road Safety Policy 2008-2017.

Draft Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Plan Melbourne)The State Government has released Plan Melbourne for consultation. Council’s submission on Plan Melbourne includes a number of priority issues about the removal of level crossings in Stonnington. Council’s submission includes:

Recommendation 8: Plan Melbourne be revised to refer to working with local government to identify privately and publicly held land in precincts around railway stations and train corridors that have capacity for additional residential and mixed use


development and provision for public open space, bike paths and other community benefit.

Recommendation 21: Plan Melbourne to identify all seven level crossings within Stonnington for grade separation including Burke Road, Glen Iris.

Recommendation 27: A new action is included to work with local government to explore ways of increasing open space through State Government-led projects - including transport initiatives (Initiative 4.5.2).


The resources associated with providing advice and responding to VicRoads queries in the development of their business case is included in the 2013/ 2014 Strategic Planning Budget.

In terms of the project costs associated with the removal of the level crossing, VicRoads has advised that the costs are still being investigated. However, typically, it is understood that a rail under road design response is more costly (for construction) than a road over rail design response. The long-term costs and benefits included value capture are still being investigated by VicRoads

CONCLUSION

VicRoads is developing a business case for the removal of the level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris. Two options are being considered as part of their business case. The options are road over rail, and rail under road.

This project has the potential to enhance or negatively affect the role and function of the Malvern Road-Burke Road Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

It is considered that the rail under road option offers far greater community benefits and outcomes than the road over rail option.

The rail under road option offers a more site responsive design solution that improves local access and connectivity in and around the small neighbourhood activity centre. It includes a new train station and a new plaza.

The road over rail option raises a number of significant concerns in relation to amenity, accessibility and urban design. This option does not propose the added benefit of a new train station or plaza. It introduces an underpass (tunnel) for pedestrians to cross Burke Road. It introduces a service lane to access the shops currently fronting Burke Road and a concrete wall directly opposite the shops. This is likely to result in a poor design outcome at this location.

Based on the assessment of both options, it is strongly recommended that Council endorses the rail under road option as its preferred option in response to VicRoads proposal to remove the level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris.




RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorses the rail under road option as Council’s preferred option in the VicRoads business case for the grade separation of Burke Road and the Glen Waverley rail line adjacent to Gardiner’s Station, Glen Iris.

2. Writes to VicRoads to advocate that its preferred option is the rail under road option.

3. Writes to the Minister for Roads and Public Transport to advocate that its preferred option is the rail under road option.


7. KOOYONG ROAD, ARMADALE – PROPOSAL TO INSTALL A SCHOOL CROSSING

Author: Jordan Allan Manager: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To report to Council the result of the trial Children’s Crossing with flags, associated spiked kerb outstands, linemarking and statutory parking restrictions on Kooyong Road, outside the King David School.

To seek approval to retain this crossing as a permanent installation, and to revise the design to include permanent kerb treatments.

BACKGROUND

At a meeting of Council on 19 December 2011, it was resolved that:

1. The installation of a Children’s Crossing with flags, associated spiked kerb outstands, linemarking and statutory parking restrictions is approved on Kooyong Road, outside the King David School for a 12 month trial period.

2. An application be made to VicRoads seeking approval for the Children’s Crossing approved in Recommendation 1.

3. If approved by VicRoads, the works be funded by Council, an assessment of the Children’s Crossing is undertaken during the 12 month trial period and a further report be submitted to Council at the expiration of the trial.

4. Those previously consulted be notified of the decision.

The trial period has now expired, and as such a decision regarding the children’s crossing is required. At this time the crossing continues to operate.

DISCUSSION

Traffic surveys were completed at the crossing in both morning and afternoon periods, with the crossing in operation, on two days in a week not affected by school or public holidays. The results are shown in Table 1 below.

Children(#/h)

Adults(#/h)

Vehicles (#/h)

Tuesday 23 July 2013

AM Peak 26 60 1150

PM Peak 41 72 1043

Thursday 25 July 2013

AM Peak 37 60 1122

PM Peak 47 73 1098


The above results suggest that the pedestrian crossing is well utilised, and that the volume of traffic along Kooyong Road would make crossing difficult without the children’s crossing in place. The greater number of adults is to be expected at this location as due to the age of students. Typically adults drop off children, and require a return crossing in each peak.

Observations of traffic during crossing operation times were also made, and while queues of vehicles were observed, these did not impact the signalised intersections at Malvern Road or High Street.

In addition to the above quantitative evidence collected, the attitudes of the surrounding community were also sought via a circular letter. In this case those circularised were not asked to support or not support the crossing, but rather were asked to provide feedback on their perception of the school crossing trial.

The circular was distributed on 5 August 2013 to a total of 40 properties, with 5 replies received, equating to a 13% response rate.

Four of the responses received were generally in favour of the school crossing, citing increased safety for children, easier access to local driveways as a result of regular breaks in traffic, and that the manned crossing was preferable to pedestrian operated signals which would introduce greater delays.

The response opposed to the school crossing did not object to the crossing itself, but rather to the funding of the crossing. The respondent felt that as the sole beneficiary of the crossing was the King David School, any cost associated with the crossing should be borne by the school. However, officers observed parents with students of other nearby schools using the crossing. It is acknowledged that the volume of users from other schools is likely to be low, but use is not solely for the King David School.

The low rate of response suggests the surrounding community does not have a strong objection to the school crossing. Generally questionnaires are effective in capturing opposition to proposals, as those affected are motivated to respond. Those not affected by a proposal are more likely to elect not to reply, rather than replying with a positive or neutral response.

The responses to the initial circular included objection to the proposal primarily based on the loss of parking along Kooyong Road. The level of response at the initial consultation stage was higher than the current consultation. It should be noted however that the previous consultation was in regard to a pedestrian operated signal treatment, rather than the manned school crossing which was ultimately trialled. Notwithstanding, the concerns raised during initial consultation were not raised in response to the post-trial consultation.

Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis above, it is recommended that the school crossing be retained.

In addition, it is recommended that the existing spiked kerb treatment be revised to a permanent design. This could include some landscaping, however the design would need to consider that sight distance is required, and as such planting options would be limited. It is recommended that detailed design of the treatment be prepared following a decision being made to retain the crossing.


FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The crossing supervisor is funded by Council, and funding is available in the current budget to continue this school crossing. Council funds approximately 50 school crossing supervisors at present. A subsidy is sought each year from VicRoads to assist with funding these crossing supervisors, and at present this accounts for approximately 25% of the total cost.

The subject crossing at Kooyong Road currently attracts this subsidy.

An expenditure report will be prepared for any capital works once a detailed design has been finalised.

CONCLUSION

Based on the surveys completed and the response received, the school crossing is well utilised, and the community is not opposed to the crossing. As such, it is recommended that the school crossing be retained. It is further recommended that the spiked kerb treatment be revised to a permanent design.


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

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The Children’s Crossing with flags, associated outstands, linemarking and statutory parking restrictions approved on Kooyong Road, outside the King David School on a 12 month trial period be retained on a permanent basis.

2. The spiked kerb treatment be revised to a permanent design, with detailed design to be reported to Council for funding consideration, when completed.



8. MELBOURNE METRO PROJECT – THE MELBOURNE METRO CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS

Manager: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager: Simon ThomasAuthor: Tom Haysom

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on: Questions concerning the Melbourne Metro Project; and The associated implications of the Melbourne Metro Concept of Operations

Document that be implemented following the construction of the Melbourne Metro Project.

BACKGROUND

The Melbourne Metro (MM) project will see the construction of a nine-kilometre twin rail tunnel from South Kensington to South Yarra with five new stations to be located at Arden (North Melbourne), Parkville, CBD South (connecting to Flinders Street Station), CBD North (Connecting to Melbourne Central) and Domain.

# At the Councillor Briefing of 12 August 2013, Council was advised (attachment 1) of the MM Project, which included a presentation given by Adele McArthy and Kellie Routledge from Public Transport Victoria (PTV) to Councillors. Following this presentation Councillors had a number of questions regarding the project including:

Current patronage figures for South Yarra Station; The anticipated impact of the MM project on South Yarra Station; and Whether the MM project could connect into South Yarra Station or could provide a

new Chapel Street precinct station.

Council was advised by Adele McArthy that PTV could provide the current patronage figures and anticipated patronage impacts for South Yarra Station associated with the MM project, and that these would be made available to be circulated to Councilors.

Following this Council briefing, on 14 August 2013 Rob Mair from PTV made contact with Council Officers and stated that he was compiling the figures. This was followed up a week later with an email informing Council Officers that he was still chasing up the most recent data. In the interim the 2011 Concept of Operations document for Melbourne Metro was forwarded onto Council, however this document failed to address Council’s questions. On 29 August 2013, Mr Mair informed Council Officers that an updated Melbourne Metro Concept of Operations (MMCO) was now available via PTV website. While this document does not provide direct answers to Council’s questions, the document, when implemented following delivery of the MM project will have an implication on the City of Stonnington. For this reason the following section contains a review of the MMCO. It should also be noted that as of 19 November 2013 Mr Mair informed Council Officers that he was still seeking the data as requested from Council per their 12 August 2013 Briefing.


DISCUSSION

Melbourne Metro Concept of Operations Document - Version 8The Melbourne Metro Concept of Operations – Document Version 8 (MMCO) can be summarised in two parts. The first section outlines what the MM project is, and why PTV believes it’s important. This includes all population and capacity modelling. The second section provides the technical detail on how they intend to use the infrastructure, including what services will operate on the network.

With 3 rail corridors containing 5 train lines that service 15 stations extending throughout Stonnington, the implementation of the MMCO following the delivery of the Melbourne Metro project will have obvious implications on the municipality. These implications vary based on location and for this reason they are explored separately below.

Patronage Forecasts and Population Projections The MMCO projects that the current demand of the metropolitan train network will soon exceed the current service capacity. Shortfalls on the Dandenong corridor are immediate and rising to a severe shortfall by 2020. Capacity shortfalls begin on the Frankston line around 2015 and shortfalls on the Sandringham line are from 2017. Trains running from 7:30 am– 9:00am on the Dandenong and Sandringham line in 2022, will have approximately 900-1200 passengers. It is anticipated that by 2022 all corridors except Frankston will have significant overcrowding.

The data sources PTV have used to model this future network demand correlate against Stonnington’s official population projections. PTV have used a number of sources including; “relevant patronage forecasts, population projections and workforce statistics” to model the future demand of the metropolitan rail network. PTV’s population projections and workforce statics use the Victorian Government's official population and household projections Victoria in Future 2012 (VIF). As VIF uses the same data sources (Census and the ABS statics) as Stonnington’s official population projection software ‘profile.id’, the two population projections correspond. However, one advantage Stonnington’s official population projection software ‘profile.id’ provides is greater localised data. This data will more accurately reflect population growth in areas subject to new structure plans, such as the Forest Hill precinct. Such focused localised development can have patronage flow on effects to local stations. Therefore it is important to note that PTV intends to annually update the MMCO to reflect “[changing] anticipated growth in demand for metropolitan passenger train services”. This annual update provides Council with an opportunity to supply PTV with up-to-date localised population data.

Implications of the MMCOThe new Cross City Line (as discussed in another report on this agenda) will increase patronage capacity service levels at South Yarra Station. Whilst South Yarra Station is not specifically singled out in the MMCO, the concept of operations makes it possible to determine future service levels. Figure 1 illustrates that the Dandenong corridor will no longer run through South Yarra Station, instead this group will run through the new MM tunnel on a new Sunshine-Dandenong line. The capacity created from the loss service from the Dandenong group will be shifted to a new Cross City line which will be established by creating a new terminus at South Yarra Station, providing empty trains to the City from South Yarra. Combining with high capacity signalling that will enable additional peak hour trains provided on the Werribee and Sandringham line a five minute service will be established on the Sandringham line. The increase train patronage capacity levels at South Yarra Station is best summarised in Table 1, by subtracting the Dandenong / Rowville corridor from all other Corridors.


While the total change is 0 trains, this does not take into account the added patronage capacity now available at South Yarra station due to providing empty trains from this station on the new Cross-City Corridor.

Corridor Nov 2012 Timetable

MM “Project”MMCO Timetable

Dandenong / Rowville

15 16

Frankston 13 17Sandringham 8 12Cross-City 0 12TOTAL 36 56

Change - 0Table 1: Summary of peak hour service levels pre and post MM project

While South Yarra Station will benefit from additional train patronage capacity levels as a result of the MMCO, the station will lose connectivity from the Dandenong corridor. As the Dandenong corridor will no longer run via South Yarra station, patrons travelling to South Yarra on the Dandenong group, or vice versa, will be forced to change at Caulfield station. This will place extra demand on the Frankston line services as the line will be forced to pick up the slack of this travel movement. However, it must be noted that the extent of this travel movement is currently unknown, as Council officer queries to PTV seeking these figures have yet to be answered.

Under the MMCO Malvern, Armadale, Toorak and Hawksburn stations are likely to experience a reduction in the current level of service. As figure 1 illustrates the Dandenong corridor will run through the new MM tunnel, express from Caulfield to a new underground station at Domain, thus by-passing Malvern, Armadale, Toorak, Hawksburn and South Yarra stations.


Figure 1: Network Development Plan Following MM Project

Currently the Frankston corridor runs a majority of express services through Malvern, Armadale Toorak and Hawksburn stations, with this group of stations being predominantly serviced from the Dandenong corridor. With the Dandenong corridor set to run through the new MM tunnel the Frankston corridor is intended to offer a similar number of services by no longer operating express services through these stations. However, the level of service for this group of stations is reduced as patrons will no longer have access to the Dandenong group, instead they will be forced to change trains at Caulfield station if wishing to travel to on the Dandenong Pakenham or Cranbourne lines. Further figures regarding the extent of reduction in the current level of service to Malvern, Armadale Toorak and Hawksburn stations have been sought, however currently PTV have not made these figures available.

Stonnington residents will also have no direct connection onto the new MM Sunshine-Dandenong line. Under the current MMCO configuration the Dandenong corridor, the only corridor that will operate through the new MM tunnel, will run express from Caulfield to a new underground station at Domain, thus by-passing Malvern, Armadale, Toorak, Hawksburn and South Yarra stations. Therefore, Stonnington residents will be forced to change trains at either Caulfield or Flinders Street Stations to access this new corridor.

These new train service operational plans as presented in the MMCO do not appear to be coupled with Stonington’s current and future land use plans. As part of Chapel Vision and the Forest Hill master plan, a vast majority of Stonnington’s future population growth is to be focused within these areas. As presented in table 2, it is anticipated that the total population of Forest Hill is to grow by a factor of 13 over 20 years. However, the level of


service at South Yarra station following the construction of the MM tunnel as presented in the MMCO, fails to match this anticipated population increase.

Area Data type Year NumberForrest Hill Total Population 2011 451Forrest Hill Total Population 2016 2742Forrest Hill Total Population 2021 3816Forrest Hill Total Population 2026 4887Forrest Hill Total Population 2031 5933

Table 2: Profile.id population projections, Forest Hill.

Although not at the rate of Forest Hill, the area surrounding Toorak Station can also expect a large population increase, as presented in table 3. A substantial proportion of this increase will be due to the level of development expected at 590 Orrong Road, adjacent to Toorak Station. However, the MMCO not only fails to cater for this expected population growth, the service plan will exacerbate existing capacity issues by reducing the services levels to Toorak station.

Area Data type Year NumberArmadale (West) Total Population 2011 5265Armadale (West) Total Population 2016 5287Armadale (West) Total Population 2021 5821Armadale (West) Total Population 2026 6103Armadale (West) Total Population 2031 6127

Table 3: Profile.id population projections, Armadale (west)

MMCO Missed OpportunitiesThe MMCO contains no modeling information on a new Chapel Street precinct station as part of the new MM tunnel. During Council Officer discussions with PTV, questions concerning a Chapel St station could not be answered as PTV had not conducted any detailed planning for such a station. Considering that the new MM tunnel will have no connection into South Yarra Station and that the line will run express from Caulfield to a new underground station at Domain, thus by-passing Malvern, Armadale Toorak Hawksburn and South Yarra stations, it appears PTV have missed an opportunity to provide an enhanced level of service to this area of Stonnington. This is particularly concerning given the development policies Council is encourage to pursue in Principal Activity Centres such as Chapel Street and Forest Hill and it could be argued the provision of a Chapel Street station on the new route will impact the development possibilities for areas of the precinct.

Compounding this issue is the lack of a direct Stonnington connection to the new MM Sunshine-Dandenong line. By by-passing Malvern, Armadale Toorak and Hawksburn stations the MMCO misses another opportunity to enhance the level of service to this area of Stonnington. As the Dandenong corridor, the only corridor that will operate through the new Melbourne Metro tunnel, already operates through this group of stations it is conceivable that following the MM project and the implementation of the MMCO that this line could stop at one of these stations. This would not only enable a direct connection for Stonnington residents onto the new MM Sunshine-Dandenong line but would also help to alleviate congestion at these stations. Considering the level of development expected at 590 Orrong Road, Toorak station would greatly benefit from this scenario.


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Lobbying for the provision of better Pubic Transport is supported by the Council Plan, by Council Strategies and Policies, and by the Inner Melbourne Action Plan.


There are no anticipated financial implications associated with lobbying for the provision of better Pubic Transport.

CONCLUSION

While the MM project and associated MMCO will offer some substantial benefits to some areas of the Stonnington municipality there are significant concerns with, the anticipated reduction in the current level of service for Malvern, Armadale Toorak and Hawksburn stations, the reduced connectivity linking South Yarra Station with the Dandenong corridor and the lack of sufficient data informing service levels to these stations. However, this issue can be partially rectified if PTV were to firstly, consider including a Chapel Street precinct station as part of the MM project. While secondly, amending the MMCO to include Toorak Station as a stop on the new Sunshine-Dandenong line. This would enable a direct connection for Stonnington residents onto the new MM cross city line while also helping to alleviate existing and anticipated congestion in these locations as made evident by the expected population projections.


HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION Human rights, as defined by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, are not limited as a result of the information provided or recommendations made in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council;

1. Write to the Minister for Roads and Transport, and local State Government MP’s detailing:

Stonnington’s concerns in the reduction in services to Malvern, Armadale Toorak and Hawksburn stations contained within Public Transport Victoria’s ‘Melbourne Metro Concept of Operations’ document;

Stonnington’s concerns that South Yarra Station will not be adequately serviced based on anticipated population growth as contained within Public Transport Victoria’s ‘Melbourne Metro Concept of Operations’ document;

Requesting planning be undertaken to include a station in the Chapel Street precinct as part of the Melbourne Metro project; and

Requesting that Public Transport Victoria’s Melbourne Metro Concept of Operations document be amended to include Toorak Station as a stop on the new Sunshine-Dandenong line.

2. Advocate for the development of a station in the Chapel Street precinct as part of the Melbourne Metro project.


9. PUBLIC BIKE SHARE SCHEME – STONNINGTON IN-PRINCIPLE SUPPORT

Manager: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager: Simon ThomasAuthor: Tom Haysom

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s in-principle support to expand the Melbourne Public Bicycle Share Scheme into locations within the municipality.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 4th March 2013, Council noted that a VicRoads review of the Melbourne Public Bicycle Share Scheme (MPBSS) was underway. Following this meeting Cr Matthew Koce sent a letter to the Minister for Public Transport and Roads seeking information on the outcome of this review, while expressing interest in the expansion of the MBSS into Stonnington.

On June 20 2013, Council Officers were invited to a stakeholder workshop with VicRoads to discuss the future of the MPBSS. During this workshop Council Officers were told that each bike was rented 0.5 to 0.7 times a day on average, and that patronage needed to rise to about two rents a day to break even. Other methods of funding the MPBSS were discussed including advertising revenue, with VicRoads and their consultants SKM using this information to build a business case for the future of the MPBSS.

Following this workshop and the review of the MPBSS undertaken by SKM and VicRoads, VicRoads met with Council Officers on 13th November 2013 to discuss the future of the MPBSS.

At this meeting VicRoads informed Council Officers that the contract for the current MPBSS is due to end on 30 June 2014 and that VicRoads will be seeking public Expressions of Interests (EOI) to provide a scheme beyond this date. It is intended that this scheme will be expanded to inner city municipalities, with VicRoads negotiating will all IMAP councils.

In reviewing other successful schemes around the world VicRoads officers advise that it is evident that key components for financial sustainability of such schemes include funding from major corporate sponsors and revenue generated from roadside advertising. The current scheme has not been successful in attracting either of these funding sources, and to successfully continue the scheme it is likely that these funding sources will need to be provided in order to attract a potential sponsor of the scheme.

Therefore, to provide any potential sponsor with relevant information, VicRoads is seeking in-principle support from interested Councils on a number of critical items in the delivery of such a scheme. These items are presented in the following section.

DISCUSSION

Based on Council approval, VicRoads intends to use and provide the following information as part of VicRoads EOI for potential sponsors of the MPBSS.


Future of a Bike Share Scheme VicRoads is seeking support from Council that it would be interested expanding the public bike share scheme to locations within the municipality and would be willing to be part of the process to help identify potential locations for bike stations.

Sponsorship and Advertising VicRoads is seeking support from Council that there would be no objection, in-principle, to sponsorship or advertising displayed on the bikes, bike helmets and on bike stations.

Subject to formal approval of the scheme’s adoption, VicRoads is also seeking in-principle support to sponsorship or advertising displayed on bike station locations subject to standard planning permit applications, based on a locations specific basis. This includes normal requirements relating to issues such as heritage areas, advertising standards and consultation with affected traders and residents.

Council Planning Approval and Potential Locations for Bike Stations VicRoads is seeking support from Council that it will consider ways to expedite planning approvals for applications placing a public bike share station on Council managed land.

If Council supports this principle, a review of this will be conducted by Council’s Planning and Development department. The results of this review and subsequent information including potential station locations that Council have identified as preferred locations are required by VicRoads by the end of January 2014 to be included in the Request for Tender for short-listed tenderers.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Providing in-principle support to expand the Melbourne Public Bicycle Share Scheme into locations within the municipality is supported by the Council Plan, by Council Strategies and Policies, and by the Inner Melbourne Action Plan. It is also is consistent with Council's Draft Bicycle Strategy (reported elsewhere on this Agenda) and associated implementation program.


There are no anticipated financial implications associated with expressing an interest in expanding the MPBSS into Stonnington.

There are resource implications in terms of Council Officers’ time in assessing if Council can expedite planning approvals for applications placing a public bike share station on Council managed land.

CONCLUSION

Based on the Council Plan, Council Strategies and Policies and the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Council should provide in-principle support, subject to regulatory requirements, to expand the Melbourne Public Bicycle Share Scheme into locations within the municipality.


HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION Human rights, as defined by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, are not limited as a result of the information provided or recommendations made in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Supports, subject to regulatory requirements, expanding the public bike share scheme to locations within the municipality and is willing to be part of the process to help identify potential locations for bike stations.

2. Provides in-principle support to sponsorship or advertising displayed on the bikes and or bike helmets.

3. Provides in-principle support to sponsorship or advertising displayed on bike station locations subject to standard planning permit applications.


10. STRUAN STREET, ROBERTSON STREET, AND TRAWALLA AVENUE, TOORAK – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS AS PART OF TRAWALLA ROBERTSON LATM

Author: Jordan Allan Manager: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

# To consider;

the proposal to install two (2) slow points on Trawalla Avenue, approximately mid-block between Grange Road and Lascelles Avenue, and Lascelles Avenue and Orrong Road (as per Attachment 1).

the proposal to install a roundabout at the intersection of Robertson Street and Blackfriars Close, Toorak (as per Attachment 2).

the proposal to install two (2) slow points on Struan Street, approximately mid-block between Grange Road and Hill Street, and Hill Street and Orrong Road (as per Attachment 3).

To defer further action on each of these streets until the completion of the Bruce Street speed cushion trial (as requested by the respondents of Trawalla Avenue), and subsequently investigate the installation of speed cushions on Struan Street, Robertson Street, and Trawalla Avenue

Council directed consultation on this proposal to occur, and has requested the matter be reported to a Council meeting for resolution.

BACKGROUND

In mid 2010 Council Officers were requested to consult residents on a proposal to install a roundabout at the Trawalla Avenue/Lascelles Avenue intersection, Toorak to encourage motorists to travel more slowly along Trawalla Avenue. Consultation was undertaken in June 2010.

Subsequently, Council at its meeting of 6 September 2010 resolved to abandon the proposal, due to the lack of support from the community, and further resolved to consult all residents within the area bounded by Orrong Road, Toorak Road, Grange Road and Georges Road on whether they would participate in a local area traffic study.

At its meeting of 7 February 2011, Council resolved to approve the proposed boundaries for the LATM study area, and to progress to the appointment of community representatives to the resident working group.

The working group study was commenced on Sunday 16 October, 2011 at which a public meeting was held to nominate residents to represent each of the 5 sub-areas defined for the study and to work with Council staff on preparing and exhibiting a scheme. The group has been meeting since October 2011 to investigate traffic issues in the study area.


# The working group’s recommended traffic management scheme is attached (see Attachment 4) and includes the follow actions:

Install AM peak hour turn ban restrictions at Toorak Road / Orrong Road (AM); Install PM peak hour turn restriction at Trawalla Avenue/ Grange Road and Robertson

Street/Grange Road; Internal AM Peak hour turn restrictions at Struan Street/ Hill Street and Chastleton

Avenue/Hill Street; Install Mid-Block slow points in Trawalla Avenue and Struan Street; Install a roundabout at the intersection of Robertson Street and Blackfriars Close; and Install Speed Cushions in Chastleton Avenue, Orrong Road (north of Towers Road) and

on St. Georges Road.

The final proposal, prepared by the Resident Working Group, was presented to Council on 19 August 2013 and it was decided to consult with property occupiers of streets directly affected for the installation of all physical works.

DISCUSSION

The results of three of the six physical treatment proposals as part of the Trawalla Robertson LATM project are presented in this report, as these three streets are linked through the responses received, and the feedback provided.

The Trawalla Avenue results will be presented first, followed by the Robertson Street results, and finally the Struan Street results.

Trawalla Avenue

# A circular was distributed on 4 November 2013 to residents of Trawalla Avenue, and some surrounding and abutting properties regarding the installation of two (2) slow points on Trawalla Avenue (as per Attachment 1).

A total of 73 properties were distributed the circular with 38 replies received, equating to a 52% response rate. A summary of the responses received is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Community OpinionProposal Support Opposed Not Stated Total

Install Traffic Management (Slow

Points)10 (26%) 28 (74%) 0 (0%) 38 of 73 (52%)

Council officers also conducted an on-site consultative meeting with residents on Trawalla Avenue to explain the proposal, its aim and objectives, and also provide residents with a chance to discuss and raise any additional concerns. The residents who attended had strong feelings regarding the proposal, with the majority of the attendees opposed to the treatments.

The response received, as shown above, was clearly negative, with many respondents citing the loss of parking as a result of the slow points as their main point of objection.

In addition, 18 of the negative responses included a standard and consistent printed comment, which objected to the slow points based on the impact to parking and


appearance of the devices, and requested that a speed cushion proposal instead be considered, following the completion of the speed cushion trial on Bruce Street, Toorak. Five other respondents who opposed the slow points also requested a speed cushion treatment.

Robertson Street

# A circular was distributed on 4 November 2013 to residents of Robertson Street and Blackfriars Avenue, and some surrounding and abutting properties regarding the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Robertson Street and Blackfriars Avenue (as per Attachment 2).



Install Traffic Management (Roundabout)

11 (46%) 13 (54%) 0 (0%) 24 of 45 (53%)

Council officers also conducted an on-site consultative meeting with residents to explain the proposal, its aim and objectives, and also provide residents with a chance to discuss and raise any additional concerns. The meeting resulted in general opposition to the treatment, with some residents concerned that the roundabout proposed would not be able to be landscaped as they has assumed when responding. There was also concern about the loss of an existing tree to accommodate the treatment. Many comments at the meeting suggested that the treatment of Robertson Street should be consistent with the treatment selected for Trawalla Avenue.

The written response to the circular was mixed, and it should also be noted that some respondents who supported the proposal did so on condition that the roundabout be landscaped and include a tree. It is understood from preliminary design advice that the inclusion of a tree within the roundabout will not be possible, to ensure access for service vehicles is not impacted.

The comments of those opposed to the treatment varied, but many objected on a purely aesthetic basis, while others felt that a roundabout was overkill and that other treatment types would be more appropriate. Speed cushions, despite not being part of the consultation, were requested by four respondents.

Struan Street

# A circular was distributed on 4 November 2013 to residents of Struan Street and some surrounding and abutting properties regarding the installation of two (2) slow points on Struan Street (as per Attachment 3).




Install Traffic Management (Slow

Points)13 (48%) 12 (44%) 2 (8%) 25 of 73 (35%)

Council officers also conducted an on-site consultative meeting with residents on Struan Street to explain the proposal, its aim and objectives, and also provide residents with a chance to discuss and raise any additional concerns. At this meeting many residents opposed the treatments, and suggested an alternative treatment for consideration.

The response received, as shown above, was mixed. The response rate was relatively low compared to the other proposals presented in this report.

The respondents objecting to the proposal did so on the basis of loss of parking, general amenity and appearance, or because they preferred another treatment alternative.

Six respondents, including one respondent who agreed with the proposal, requested a speed cushion treatment instead of the slow points, to more directly address the speed concerns, and to maintain the existing on-street parking. A further four objectors did so on the basis of the loss of parking.

Summary

A common theme in both the written responses, and in particular at the site meetings, was that the on-street parking in the area is very valuable to the residents. It appears that the low level of support generated for each of the proposals was primarily due to the loss of on-street parking spaces associated with each treatment.

In Trawalla Avenue this manifested in the form of a resident or residents circulating a standard response form, which many chose to return to express their position on the proposal. This form specifically requested a speed cushion treatment, to be considered following the Bruce Street speed cushion trial.

A speed cushion treatment has been approved for Bruce Street, Toorak, with acoustic and speed testing to be completed before and after the installation of the cushions. The acoustic pre-testing is currently being organised, and the cushions are expected to be installed in the first quarter of 2014.

In Robertson Street many residents were concerned about the appearance of the roundabout, the parking loss, and also requested that treatments be consistent with Trawalla Avenue.

In Struan Street, the response to the circular favoured a treatment which would not impact parking.

In the context of the overall scheme, although there is a lack of support for the proposed treatment types at each location; further investigation is proposed in the form of a uniform trial speed cushion treatment in each of the subject streets. In addition, Council is currently consulting on a 6-month trial of the Turn Restriction proposals. If there is support for these restrictions, this strategy will be put in place with the traffic and volume in the area monitored once the traffic has stabilised in preparation of the further investigation indicated above, which will in turn be reported to Council.


CONCLUSION

The response to each of the circulars indicated that community opinion ranged from mixed to overwhelmingly negative. A strong theme of the response was that on-street parking is valuable, and that treatments which do not impact parking would be preferred. The respondents to the Trawalla Avenue specifically requested a speed cushion treatment following the Bruce Street trial, the respondents to the Robertson Street proposal requested a consistent treatment with Trawalla Avenue, and the respondents of the Struan Street trial requested speed cushions or a treatment which would not impact parking.

It is therefore recommended that each of the proposals be abandoned, and following the completion of the Bruce Street trial, a speed cushion proposal be investigated for each of Struan Street, Robertson Street, and Trawalla Avenue.



RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The proposal to install two (2) slow points on Trawalla Avenue, approximately mid-block between Grange Road and Lascelles Avenue, and Lascelles Avenue and Orrong Road not proceed at this stage.

2. The proposal to install a roundabout at the intersection of Robertson Street and Blackfriars Close, Toorak not proceed at this stage.

3. The proposal to install two (2) slow points on Struan Street, approximately mid-block between Grange Road and Hill Street, and Hill Street and Orrong Road not proceed at this stage.

4. Following the completion of the Bruce Street speed cushion trial (scheduled to commence early next year), the proposal for speed cushions to be installed in each of Struan Street, Robertson Street, and Trawalla Avenue be investigated.

1. An application be made to VicRoads for approval to install a 40kph local area speed restriction within the study area as per the working group’s recommendation.



11. ST GEORGES ROAD, ORRONG ROAD AND CHASTLETON AVENUE, TOORAK – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS AS PART OF TRAWALLA ROBERTSON LATM

Author: Jeruisha Williams Manager: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

# To consider; the proposal to install two (2) speed cushions on St Georges Road, Toorak,

between Orrong Road and Grange Road (as per Attachment 1).

the proposal to install one (1) speed cushion on Orrong Road, Toorak, between St Georges Road and Towers Road (as per Attachment 2).

the proposal to install two (2) speed cushions on Chastleton Avenue, Toorak, approximately mid-block between Grange Road and Hill Street, and Hill Street and Orrong Road (as per Attachment 3).

# To seek endorsement to review traffic speed & volumes in St. Georges Road, Orrong Road (Towers Road to St. Georges Road) and Chastleton Avenue following the assessment of the impact the trial peak hour turn restrictions separately proposed by the Trawalla/Robertson Resident Working Group.

Council directed consultation on this proposal to occur, and has requested the matter be reported to a Council meeting for resolution.

BACKGROUND

In mid 2010 Council Officers were requested to consult residents on a proposal to install a roundabout at the Trawalla Avenue/Lascelles Avenue intersection, Toorak to encourage motorists to travel more slowly along Trawalla Avenue. Consultation was undertaken in June 2010.

Subsequently, Council at its meeting of 6 September 2010 resolved to abandon the proposal, due to the lack of support from the community, and further resolved to consult all residents within the area bounded by Orrong Road, Toorak Road, Grange Road and Georges Road on whether they would participate in a local area traffic study.

At its meeting of 7 February 2011, Council resolved to approve the proposed boundaries for the LATM study area, and to progress to the appointment of community representatives to a resident working group.

The working group study commenced on Sunday 16 October, 2011 at which a public meeting was held to nominate residents to represent each of the 5 sub-areas defined for the study and to work with Council staff on preparing and exhibiting a scheme. The group met since October 2011 to investigate traffic issues in the study area.

The working group’s recommended traffic management scheme is attached and includes the following actions:

Install AM peak hour turn ban restrictions at Toorak Road / Orrong Road (AM)


Install PM peak hour turn restriction at Trawalla Avenue/ Grange Road and Robertson Street/Grange Road

Internal AM Peak hour turn restrictions at Struan Street/ Hill Street and Chastleton Avenue/Hill Street

Install Mid-Block slow points in Trawalla Avenue, Robertson Street and Struan Street; and

Install Speed Cushions in Chastleton Avenue, Orrong Road (north of Towers Road) and on St. Georges Road.

The final proposal, prepared by the Resident Working Group, was presented to Council on 19 August 2013 and it was decided to consult with property occupiers of streets directly affected for the installation of all physical works.

DISCUSSION

The results of three of the six physical treatment proposals as part of the Trawalla Robertson LATM project are presented in this report, as these three streets have the same treatment proposed with similar feedback received.

The St Georges Road results will be presented first, followed by the Orrong Road results, and finally the Chastleton Avenue results.

St Georges Road

# A circular was distributed on 4 November 2013 to residents of St Georges Road, and some surrounding and abutting properties regarding the installation of two (2) speed cushions on St Georges Road, Toorak, between Orrong Road and Grange Road (as per Attachment 1).



Install two (2) speed cushions 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 7 of 32 (22%)

Council officers also conducted an on-site consultative meeting with residents on St Georges Road to explain the proposal, its aim and objectives, and also provide residents with a chance to discuss and raise any additional concerns. The residents who attended the meeting felt that speed cushions may not address the traffic concerns or were concerned with the proposed speed cushion locations.

The written response to the circular was mixed, with some residents in favour of the proposed speed cushion and others concerned about the locations or the negative impact to residents. The response rate was relatively low for this proposal.

Orrong Road

# A circular was distributed on 4 November 2013 to residents of Orrong Road, and some surrounding and abutting properties regarding the installation of one (1) speed cushion on Orrong Road, Toorak, between St Georges Road and Towers Road (as per Attachment 2).




Install one (1) speed cushions 2 (29%) 5 (71%) 0 (0%) 7 of 18 (20%)

Council officers also conducted an on-site consultative meeting with residents to explain the proposal, its aim and objectives, and also provide residents with a chance to discuss and raise any additional concerns. The meeting resulted in general opposition to the treatment, with some residents concerned about the negative impact speed cushions would have for the residents.

The majority of respondents opposed the treatment; residents mainly objected to having speed cushions outside their property and were concerned about the noise and other negative impacts as opposed to the advantages.

Chastleton Avenue

# A circular was distributed on 4 November 2013 to residents of Chastleton Avenue and some surrounding and abutting properties regarding the installation of two (2) speed cushions In Chastleton Avenue, Toorak, approximately mid block between Grange Road and Hill Street, and Hill Street and Orrong Road (as per Attachment 3).

A total of 34 properties were distributed the circular with 6 replies received, equating to an 18% response rate. A summary of the responses received is shown in Table 3 below.


Install two (2) speed cushions 2 (33%) 4 (67%) 1 (8%) 6 of 34 (18%)

Council officers also conducted an on-site consultative meeting with residents on Struan Street to explain the proposal, its aim and objectives, and also provide residents with a chance to discuss and raise any additional concerns. At this meeting many residents strongly opposed the treatments and did not want any other proposed treatments in the street.

The response received, as shown above, was mixed. The respondents objecting to the proposal did soon the basis of noise or because they left that the treatment proposed was not warranted. The response rate was relatively low for this proposal.

Summary

A common theme in both the written responses, and in particular at the site meetings, was that when considering alternative to the speed cushions, residents did not want those types of devices which resulted in significant on-street parking being removed in the area. The on-street parking is considered valuable to the residents. It appears that the low level of support generated for each of the proposals was primarily due to residents of all three areas viewing the speed cushions as a treatment that would impact them negatively.


In the context of the overall scheme, although there is a lack of support for the speed cushion treatments at these locations, Council is currently consulting on a 6-month trial of the Turn Restriction proposals. If there is support for these restrictions, this strategy will be put in place with the traffic and volume in the area monitored once the traffic has stabilised in preparation for a further report to Council on their effectiveness. In addition, further investigation is scheduled to occur next year for the installation of speed cushions in Struan Street, Robertson Street and Trawalla Avenue, as a result of resident feedback received. A detailed analysis on Struan Street, Robertson Street and Trawalla Avenue is in a separate report.

CONCLUSION

The response to each of the circulars indicated that community opinion ranged from mixed to negative. A strong theme of the response was that residents either did not agree on the proposed location for the speed cushions or felt the treatment would impact them negatively. A trial of peak turn restrictions is also proposed in the local traffic area, subject to consultation with Community, which is currently underway.

Given the consultation result on the current speed cushion proposals, it would be prudent to review the traffic issues the resident working group was trying to address in St. Georges Road, Orrong Road and Chastleton Avenue with the speed cushion proposals, after the impact of any peak hour turn restrictions have been implemented and assessed.



RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The proposal to install two (2) speed cushions on St Georges Road, Toorak, between Orrong Road and Grange Road, not proceed at this stage.

2. The proposal to install one (1) speed cushion on Orrong Road, Toorak, between St Georges Road and Towers Road, not proceed at this stage.

3. The proposal to install two (2) speed cushion on Chastleton Avenue, Toorak, approximately mid block between Grange Road and Hill Street, and Hill Street and Orrong Road, not proceed at this stage.

4. Traffic speeds and volumes in St. Georges Road, Orrong Road (north of Towers Road) and St. Georges Road be reassessed once the impacts of any peak hour turn restrictions proposed for the area are known.

2. An application be made to VicRoads for approval to install a 40kph local area speed restriction within the study area as per the working group’s recommendation.


6. Those property occupiers previously consulted be notified of the decision.


12. COUNCIL COMMITTEES, DELEGATES/REPRESENTATIVES 2013 - 2014

(Author: Sandra Bigland)(Chief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts)

PURPOSE

To confirm or determine the following:

Committee Structure Chair and Deputy Chairs for each Committee Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee representatives Membership of the Audit Committee Membership of Chapel Off Chapel Advisory Board Metropolitan Transport Forum Delegate Metropolitan Waste Forum Delegate Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Delegate and substitute delegate Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) Delegate Representatives on other boards/committees as listed:

Stonnington Cycling Reference Group Access Stonnington Committee Ethnic Services Committee Prahran Mechanics Institute Prahran Mission Board Glenloch Homes

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Advisory Committees

Council, at its meeting of 4 February 2013, established four Advisory Committees – Finance, Economic Development Tourism and the Arts, Sustainability and Social Development. Membership of each Committee to be open to all Councillors who wish to attend its meetings and to have a Chair and Deputy Chair appointed annually by Council.

# A new Advisory Committee is now proposed: a Strategic Planning Advisory Committee with Terms of Reference as attached.

Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee

In 2006, Melbourne’s inner metropolitan Councils launched the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) to guide future development and respond to the demands of Melbourne 2030 – a metropolitan strategy for Melbourne’s growth and development over the next 30 years.

The IMAP is a joint government agreed Action Plan between the Cities of Stonnington, Melbourne, Port Phillip, and Yarra, in association with the State Government. The partnership was extended to include the Maribyrnong City Council in July 2013. The State Government’s recently released metropolitan planning strategy to 2050, ‘Plan Melbourne’ has established a Central Subregion which now coincides with the IMAP region.


IMAP acknowledges the role Inner Melbourne plays as the primary business, retail, sport and entertainment hub for the metropolitan area, as well as its role in supporting a series of thriving residential neighbourhoods. The IMAP provides a physical framework to facilitate the growth of the capital city role and functions. It builds on current policies to implement an agreed Action Plan, which is reflected in each of the partner Council’s strategic planning programs and Municipal Strategic Statements.

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee is a Section 86 Committee under the Local Government Act. The Mayor and Chief Executive Officer are Council’s representatives on this Committee.

Audit Committee

External independent members were re-appointed to the Audit Committee as follows:

Mr Stuart Newey as Independent Member/Chair for a three year appointment as from 1 May 2013 (Council resolution 4 February 2013).

Mr Bruce Potgieter as an Independent Member/Deputy Chair for a two year appointment as from 1 May 2013 (Council resolution 8 April 2013).

The Committee structure also requires two Councillor representatives.

The Audit Committee is an Advisory Committee under the Local Government Act.

Chapel Off Chapel Advisory Board

Council has, for some years, annually appointed a Chapel Off Chapel Advisory Board comprising Councillors. The Board is provided with a strategic overview of the operations and reporting on the business plan, key performance indicators, financial and marketing, and now meets quarterly.

Metropolitan Transport Forum

The Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF) aims to promote and work for sustainable, equitable and efficient transport options across metropolitan Melbourne.

In pursuit of this aim the MTF will:

bring the perspective of local government into metropolitan transport planning debates; take a broad and systemic view of Melbourne’s transport needs within an urban and social

planning context; advocate for ecologically sustainable transport that reflects climate change imperatives; advocate for socially equitable transport options and modes; create a forum for debate, research and policy development, and for sharing ideas on local

practices; support communication and exchange between member councils, organisations and

other tiers of government, in pursuit of its purposes; work collaboratively with other organisations that support its purposes; develop collective positions on debates relating to its purposes; encourage and support sustainable transport and mobility planning across metropolitan

Melbourne; do any such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects

and the exercise of the powers of the Association.


Metropolitan Waste Forum

The Metropolitan Local Governments' Waste Forum (the Forum) supports the effective operation of the Metropolitan Waste Management Group (MWMG) in a consultative and advisory capacity. The Forum consists of a Councillor (voting member) and a Council officer (as a technical advisory non-voting member) from each of the 30 metropolitan councils.

The MWMG is a Victorian State Government Statutory Body responsible for coordinating and facilitating the delivery of municipal solid waste management across metropolitan Melbourne. It was established in 2006 under the Environment Protection [Amendment] Act 2006.

The MWMG works with Melbourne's 30 metropolitan Councils to:

plan for waste management and resource recovery facilities and services across metropolitan Melbourne;

facilitate procurement of efficient and sustainable resource recovery and residual waste disposal services for Councils;

help build the capacity and knowledge of Councils and their communities of world best practice waste minimisation and the opportunities and options available for improved services and infrastructure.

The MWMG’s objectives are to:

minimise waste maximise recovery resources improve waste infrastructure integrate statutory planning for waste and resource recovery manage residual waste improve delivery capacity.

Through an electoral process the Forum nominates four members (Councillors) to be appointed to the Board of the MWMG.

Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee

The Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) is a formal collaboration of seven Councils in Melbourne’s east, working together on regional programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and facilitate regional adaptation. An Executive Committee was formed earlier this year consisting of Councillor/officer representatives from member Councils. The Executive Committee manages the strategic directions for the EAGA’s priorities, actions and operations. The City of Stonnington is currently represented on this Committee by a Councillor.

Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV)

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is incorporated by an Act of State Parliament. The Municipal Association Act 1907 defines its purpose (to promote the efficient carrying out of municipal government throughout the State of Victoria and of watching over and

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/maa1907224/


protecting the interests rights and privileges of municipal corporations), sets out how the Association will operate and empowers members to make rules to further clarify its role and processes. The State Council is the governing body. It is made up of all the representatives of the member Councils.

The objectives of the Association are to:

promote local government and improve community awareness of the capacity of local government throughout Victoria to act effectively and responsibly

promote through its advocacy role appropriate powers, functions and responsibilities for local government having regard to the individual needs and characteristics of its individual members

act as the representative body of local government for the purpose of promoting effective inter-government cooperation

strengthen the Association’s leadership role in local government in Victoria by focusing on:- targeted advocacy to Governments and relevant organisations continually improving systems for effective member liaison, communication and

participation identify the administrative requirements relating to various matters under the Municipal

Association Act 1907.

Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA)

The Victorian Local Governance Association is a peak body that has local government, community organisations and individuals making up its membership.

The VLGA advocates for social change and empowers local governments by strengthening their capacity to engage with their communities. It is governed by an elected Board of Councillor and individual members and is broad-based both geographically and politically.

The Victorian Local Governance Association’s Constitution requires the Mayor or their nominated Councillor as Council’s representative.

Stonnington Cycling Reference Group

The aim of the Reference Group is to oversee, plan and provide for a logical, safe, connected cycling system to encourage participation in cycling, connect to major destinations, and highlight points of interest and amenity features of the City by:

Providing the opportunity for input into the planning and provision of cycling infrastructure in Stonnington; and

Informing Council on issues to assist decision making in relation to policy, program and service delivery for cycling.

The Group comprises a maximum of three community members, two Councillors (one as Chair), and two Council Officers. The Group is not a decision-making body and has no formal authority or delegated powers.

The Stonnington Cycling Reference Group will:

http://www.vlga.org.au/../About_Us/How_we_are_Governed.aspx

http://www.mav.asn.au/about-us/state-council-representatives


Contribute to the development and implementation of the Stonnington Cycling Strategy (currently under development), as appropriate;

Provide input into specific cycling initiatives, including programs and infrastructure planning and development;

Provide information on general issues pertaining to the achievement of cycling objectives within the City of Stonnington; and,

Ensure that cycling initiatives and programs are developed that achieve a balanced outcome having regard to Council Plan priorities, other stakeholder and community interests, having regard to the current urban environment.

Access Stonnington Committee

The Access Stonnington Committee is made up of local people with disability, disability sector organisations and others with an involvement or interest in disability access matters.

Functions and scope of operation:

Provide advice and feedback on relevant Council policy, protocol and programs, including Council’s disability action plan;

Provide strategic leadership in advocating for improved access and inclusion on behalf of Stonnington ratepayers, residents, and visitors;

Promote awareness of access and inclusion issues, both within Council and the wider Stonnington community;

Identify systemic discrimination and providing advice to Council officers to assist them in dealing with such matters; and

Provide responses to questions from Council on access and inclusion matters.

Membership of the Access Stonnington Committee is open to all Councillors who wish to attend its meetings.

Ethnic Services Committee

This Committee was established by Council to improve dialogue with local culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. The Committee is comprised of local ethnic service organisations, members from mainstream community organisations and clubs, Council staff, a Councillor representative and is chaired by the Director of the New Hope Foundation (NHF).

The Committee allows Council to have strong networks with culturally and linguistically diverse communities and provides opportunities for Stonnington residents from CALD backgrounds to inform Council on matters relating to CALD issues. The Committee provides opportunities for CALD communities to participate and provide input into the planning, coordination and delivery of culturally responsive Council services.

Prahran Mechanics Institute (PMI)

The PMI has had a long association with Council, firstly with the municipality of Prahran (from 1900-1996 the Mayor of Prahran was PMI President and four ward Councillors also sat on the PMI committee). It is a requirement of the PMI Act No 1617 to have one representative from Council.


The main function of the PMI is the Victorian History Library and all other activities of the library relate to Victorian history (publishing, lectures, historic films, family history seminar, displays, etc). The day to day operation of the library and related activities are carried out by professionally qualified staff.

The committee is required to meet at least six times per year. The main functions of the committee are the management of properties and investments, the overseeing of library operations, and consultation with and instructions to the Secretary Librarian for the overall administration of the PMI.

The PMI catalogue is provided by Stonnington as part of its arrangements with Civica. Stonnington representatives on the PMI committee have contributed by acting as consultants on a whole range of matters and by occasionally taking PMI requests and queries to the Council.

Prahran Mission Board

Prahran Mission is an agency of the Uniting Church. Its vision is that every person with a mental illness or living with extreme economic and social disadvantage has the right to a decent life.

Glenloch Homes

Glenloch is a not-for-profit charitable organisation whose aim is to provide pleasant living conditions at reasonable rates for elderly pensioners.

Currently Glenloch consists of 150 apartments located in Armadale, Malvern and Prahran.

The aims of the organisation are:

to ensure the continual welfare of residents in congenial, secure and convenient surroundings

to maintain and improve the standard of current accommodation to enable residents to access any available help so they are able to stay in their own

unit for as long as possible, thereby retaining their independence and dignity.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS

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


RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council approves the formation of a Strategic Planning Advisory Committee with Terms of Reference as attached.

2. That Council endorses the following Advisory Committee structure (with each Committee being open to all Councillors who wish to attend its meetings) and appoints Chairs/Deputy Chairs:

Finance Advisory CommitteeEconomic Development Tourism and Arts Advisory CommitteeSustainability Advisory CommitteeSocial Development Advisory CommitteeStrategic Planning Advisory Committee

3. That Council notes that the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer are Council representatives on the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee.

4. That the following composition of the Audit Committee be noted:

Chair: Stuart NeweyMember: Bruce PotgieterCouncil Representatives: Two Councillors

5. That Council nominate two Councillors to be members of the Audit Committee.

6. That Council nominates two Councillors representatives for the Chapel Off Chapel Advisory Board.

7. That Council nominates a Metropolitan Transport Forum Delegate.

8. That Council nominates a Metropolitan Waste Forum Delegate.

9. That Council nominates a Councillor to be a member of the Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action Executive Committee.

10. That Council nominates a Representative (and Substitute) to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

11. That Council notes that the Mayor (or his nominated Councillor) will be the Representative to the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA).


12. That Council nominates two Councillors (one as Chair) to the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group

13. That Council nominates a Delegate to the Access Stonnington Committee.

14. That Council nominates a Delegate to the Ethnic Services Committee.

15. That Council nominates a Delegate to the Prahran Mechanics Institute.

16. That Council nominates a Delegate to the Prahran Mission Board.

17. That Council nominates a Delegate to Glenloch Homes.


13. MEETING DATES FOR 2014

(Author: Fabienne Thewlis(General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

To decide on meeting dates for 2014.

REPORT

Section 89 (1) of the Local Government Act 1989 outlines that any meeting of a Council must be open to members of the public with section 89 (4) requiring Council to give reasonable notice of meetings of the Council.

Further, Council departments need direction to enable forward planning for the forthcoming year as the time-tabling for such matters as the progress of the Budget or planning items, to meet statutory deadlines is essential. Dates for any Special Meetings will be set and advertised as required.

The following meeting dates of Council and closed Councillor Briefings are proposed for 2014: (public holidays are included for information only). The April dates have been amended due to the Easter break with the result being both a Councillor Briefing and a Council Meeting on 14 April. Any further alteration to the meetings either before or after this time would affect the timetable for the Corporate Plan and Annual Budgets.

Date Day1 January Wednesday New Years Day Public Holiday20 Monday No Meeting26 Sunday Australia Day (Citizenship ceremony on this day)27 Monday Australia Day Public Holiday28 Tuesday Councillor Briefing School Term 1 begins

February3 Monday Council Meeting10 Monday Councillor Briefing17 Monday Council Meeting 24 Monday Councillor Briefing

March3 Monday Council Meeting10 Monday Labour Day Public Holiday11 Tuesday No Meeting17 Monday Councillor Briefing24 Monday Council Meeting 31 Monday Councillor Briefing

April4 Friday School Term 1 ends7 Monday Council Meeting


1414

Monday & Monday

Councillor Briefing & Council Meeting

18 Friday Good Friday Holiday21 Monday Easter Monday Holiday22 Tuesday No Meeting School Term 2 begins25 Friday Anzac Day Public Holiday28 Monday Councillor Briefing

May5 Monday Council Meeting12 Monday Councillor Briefing19 Monday Council Meeting 26 Monday Councillor Briefing

June2 Monday Council Meeting9 Monday Queen’s Birthday Public Holiday10 Tuesday Councillor Briefing15 - 18 Sunday -

WednesdayALGA Annual Conference in Canberra

23 Monday Council Meeting 27 Friday School Terms 2 ends30 Monday Councillor Briefing

July7 Monday Council Meeting14 Monday Councillor Briefing School Term 3 begins21 Monday Council Meeting 28 Monday Councillor Briefing

August4 Monday Council Meeting11 Monday Councillor Briefing18 Monday Council Meeting 25 Monday Councillor Briefing

September1 Monday Council Meeting8 Monday Councillor Briefing15 Monday Council Meeting 19 Friday School Term 3 ends22 Monday Councillor Briefing29 Monday Council Meeting

October6 Monday Councillor Briefing School Term 4 begins13 Monday Council Meeting 20 Monday Councillor Briefing27 Monday Council Meeting


November3 Monday No Meeting4 Tuesday Melbourne Cup Day Public Holiday10 Monday Councillor Briefing12 Wednesday Mayoral Election17 Monday Council Meeting 24 Monday Councillor Briefing

December1 Monday Council Meeting 8 Monday Councillor Briefing15 Monday Council Meeting 19 Friday School Term 4 ends22 Monday No Meeting25 Thursday Christmas Day26 Friday Boxing Day29 Monday No Meeting

RECOMMENDATION

That the:

1. the listed meeting dates for 2014 be adopted;

2. the schedule of Ordinary Council meeting dates be advertised in the Local Leader newspaper; and

3. the schedule of Ordinary Council meeting dates be listed on Council’s web-site.


14. ANZAC CENTENARY MARCH – HIGGINS ELECTORATE AND STONNINGTON CITY COUNCIL

Author: Fabienne ThewlisGeneral Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSEThe purpose of this report is to seek support for the Higgins Electorate and Stonnington City Council Centenary Commemoration March proposed to be held on Sunday 20 April 2015.

BACKGROUNDThe centenary of Anzac 2014 -2018 will be one of the most significant national periods of commemoration in Australia’s history. While this is still some 16 months away the organisers need an indication of Council’s support to enable application for grants from the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program.

DISCUSSIONAs Council is aware over the past 10 – 20 years there has been a resurgence of interest in Anzac Day, with attendances, particularly by the younger generations, increasing across Australia and with many people making the pilgrimage to the Gallipoli Peninsula to attend the Dawn Service.

The Higgins Electorate Anzac Centenary March will bring together the community of this electorate and Stonnington City Council to commemorate the Anzac spirit.

The March is proposed to be held on Sunday 20 April 2015 and the proposed location is to centre on High Street Malvern from the assembly area located in the Malvern Public Gardens (assembling at 11.00am to start the march at 11.30am) and concluding with an ecumenical service (12.30pm- 1.00pm) in the Malvern Town Hall (Stonnington City Centre) which is considered to be the geographical centre of the Higgins electorate.

Mr David Blackwell (Lieutenant Colonel RFD (retired)) is responsible for the organisation of this march and is the Chief Marshal of the Victorian Anzac Day Commemoration Council, a position he has held since 2008. He is responsible for the planning, coordination and management of the Melbourne Anzac Day ceremonies so brings much experience to the Higgins Committee.

Through this march it is anticipated that other community groups and activities will be held with discussions underway with the Tramways Museum; the Anzac plinth memorial that Council has approved; a commemoration trail and work with schools and council. .

In order to make application for Department of Veteran Affairs for grants to assist with this proposal and other projects the Committee is seeking support from Council for their application/s.

The organising committee is seeking to form a Committee of stakeholders (such as Council, RSLs, Yarra Trams, VicPol and others) to work through the issues of the march. Approval for use of the roads and oval and hall will be sought as the organisation of the event progresses.


FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONSFurther in-kind assistance will also be required in respect to road closures , use of the hall and public gardens communications and crowd control for the march and these will need to be factored into the 2014-15 Annual Budget. Council may also choose to conduct other projects at this time such as the Historical Poster competition through the schools.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONThis project has been assessed as meeting the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSIONThe annual Anzac Day marches have always been supported by this Council and this commemorative march would bring together the community to mark the Centenary of Anzac in 2015.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Support the planned Community Commemoration March on 20 April 2015;

2. Provide written support to any application for grant funding for the Anzac Centenary; and

3. Nominate the Mayor and a Council Officer to the Working Party to coordinate the march.


15. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING: SENIOR CITIZENS OF THE PARISH OF ST CONSTANTINES AND HELEN, SOUTH YARRA, PRAHRAN AND DISRICTS

(Author: Judy Hogan)(General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council regarding a request for additional funding from the Senior Citizens of the Parish of St Constantines and Helen, South Yarra, Prahran Club for an out of cycle community grant of $600.

BACKGROUND

A letter has been received from Sophie Mitropoulos, New Hope Foundation on behalf of the Senior Citizens of the Parish of St Constantines and Helen requesting an out of cycle community grant for their outing and excursion program. The group have requested $600.

Council approved funding through the community grants program to The Senior Citizens of the Parish of St Constantines and Helen Club of $1,000 cash for a social and cultural support program.

The additional request for funding has been recommended for refusal as the request is outside the timelines for requests for funding through the community grants process. Given the timeline for this event and the lead up arrangements which need to be made this request has been brought to Council for decision at this time.It is not recommended that additional cash funding be granted to community groups by way of out of cycle requests as it creates a precedent and expectation that funds are available. Council’s community grants program is open for applications for the 2014-2015 financial year in March 2014.

RECOMMENDATION

That the request from the Senior Citizens of the Parish of St Constantines and Helen, South Yarra, Prahran and districts for an additional $600 for their excursion and outing program be refused and the group be advised to submit this application in the 2014-2015 community grants program.


16. WINDSOR SIDING RESERVE DOG PARK

Manager: Penny PavlouGeneral Manager: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council about the options developed for the proposed fenced dog park at the Windsor Siding Reserve and to propose community consultation on the concept plans.

BACKGROUND

In March 2012, the Member for Prahran, Clem Newton-Brown MP, wrote to the then Mayor with a proposal to create a fenced dog park in the municipality. Mr Newton-Brown stated that he had received many requests for a dog park from local community members. The proposal included funding support of $20,000 from the State Government Department, Sport and Recreation Victoria.

A report to Council on 24 September 2012 discussed the benefits of a fenced dog park to the community as well as possible locations within the municipality. At this meeting, Council approved consultation with the local community regarding their views about the inclusion of a dog park in the Windsor Siding Reserve, located at 110 Union Street, Windsor.

In November 2012, Council sent a survey to approximately 1000 residents and businesses in the streets surrounding the Windsor Siding Reserve. Council received 105 responses to the survey, with approximately 70% of respondents in favour of a fenced dog park at the Windsor Siding Reserve.

In March 2013, Officers presented a report to Council with the results of the community consultation. At this meeting, Council resolved to:

1. Approve the construction of a fenced dog park at the Windsor Siding Reserve;

2. Advise the Member for Prahran, Clem Newton-Brown MP and the Department of Sport and Recreation Victoria of the estimated cost of $40,000 and seek commitment of a further $20,000; and

3. Refer funding of $20,000 to the 2013/14 Capital Works Budget for consideration should the request for additional funding be unsuccessful.

Council has received funding of $20,000 from the State Government for this project.

DISCUSSION

Animal Management Officers have worked with Council’s landscape team to develop options for the fencing of the dog park. Options for consideration are:


# Option 1, see Attachment 1, large fenced area within the park

This option fences a large part of the Reserve. The fenced area includes the existing cricket practice nets. The cricket nets are not well used and this reinforces the principle that the fenced area is not only for dogs and dog owners.

# Option 2, see Attachment 2, majority of Windsor Siding Reserve, excluding BMX track

This option fences most of Windsor Siding Reserve. The fencing would start at the bollards just beyond the Will Sampson Hall and Stonnington Street Childcare Centre. The BMX track and the area near the rail line would not be included. This option would have the least impact on the park. Signs would be placed at each area to notify users of the dog park fencing and the conditions of entry with dogs.

Option 3 – No dog park

# While Council has consulted the community on the idea of a dog park, Officers now recommend that the community be consulted on the concept plans. The same 1000 residents would receive a plan for each of Council’s three options with a form to submit their preference (presented options or no dog park) and any other comments. Attachment 3 contains the survey questionnaire.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The cost estimates for the project is as follows: Option 1: 36,041 Option 2: 38,657 Option 3: Nil

These cost estimates include fencing, drinking fountain, one new picnic table and two new bench seats.

The 2013/2014 budget includes $20,000 for a dog park at Windsor Siding. The State Government has provided a funding contribution of $20,000.

Any savings in fencing could be put toward some additional seating and dog play equipment in the park.


A statement is required to advise whether the recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.


CONCLUSION

In March 2012, the Member for Prahran, Clem Newton-Brown MP wrote to the then Mayor with a proposal to create a fenced dog park in the municipality. In March, Council approved the construction of a fenced dog park at the Windsor Siding Reserve. It is now timely to consult with the neighbouring community regarding the options for the fenced dog park.

RECOMMENDATION

That

1. Officers consult with the community regarding the concept plans developed for a dog park in Windsor Siding Reserve in February 2014.

2. Officers present a further report to Council on the outcome of the consultation in April 2014.


17. T. H. KING PAVILION AND STONNINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND DESIGN CENTRE – PLAQUE

(Author: Jackie Grieve)(General Manager: Connie Gibbons)

PURPOSE This report seeks approval from Council to install a plaque to commemorate the completion of the T. H. King Pavilion and Stonnington Environmental Education and Design Centre Redevelopment.

BACKGROUNDIn accordance with the Pavilion Redevelopment Strategy adopted by Council in 2009, T. H. King is the third pavilion to be redeveloped following the successful completion of Como Park Pavilion and Sheridan Pavilion.

T. H. King Pavilion is located at Glen Iris Park and Wetlands, High Street Glen Iris and is used by St Kevin’s Old Boys Football Club and Glen Iris Junior Football Club in winter and the Glen Iris Cricket Club in the summer.

The new pavilion includes the development of an Environmental Education and Design Centre and multi-purpose community space, and is considered an exemplar facility that achieves Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) sustainability standards, and provides the flexibility to meet the changing needs of the community both now and into the future.

Construction commenced in April 2013 and is due to be completed in early 2014. The official opening for the T. H. King Pavilion and Stonnington Environmental Education and Design Centre has been scheduled for Saturday 5 April 2014.

DISCUSSIONThe new pavilion is located on the same site as the old pavilion and wherever possible materials have been recycled to minimise its environmental impact and maximise the building’s sustainable design rating.

The redevelopment aims to:

Improve amenities to meet the needs of tenant clubs and new user groups; Increase the safety, flexibility and functionality of the change rooms to accommodate

for females, juniors and families; Construct a separate and flexible community multi-purpose area (Environmental

Education Centre) with toilets and kitchen; Construct accessible toilets for people with diverse abilities; Address accessibility requirements i.e. the design includes: an accessible viewing

terrace and an access ramp linking the pavilion to the sport field; Meet Universal Design standards and integrate ESD initiatives; Serve as a demonstration of ESD to the Stonnington community including pavilion user

groups; Increase storage areas for clubs and regular users; and Provide a multi-purpose community space.


The total project cost is $2,825,000 and has been funded as follows:

Source AmountCouncil $2,050,000SRV Community Facilities Funding Program $650,000AFL VictoriaSt Kevin’s Old Boys Football Club

$75,000$50,000

Total Project Budget $2,825,000

The project was funded by the City of Stonnington, State Government of Victoria, AFL Victoria and St Kevin’s Old Boys Football Club.

An official opening for the new T. H. King Pavilion and Stonnington Environmental Education and Design Centre will be held on Saturday 5 April 2014.

The decision to install a plaque was made in recognition of the extensive works and cooperation and contribution from funding partners. It is also a requirement of the State Government that all projects funded through the Facilities Funding program carry a permanent acknowledgement of the Victorian Government.

The plaque will read:

T. H. KING PAVILION AND STONNINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND DESIGN CENTRE

Opened by His Worship the Mayor, Cr Adrian Stubbs,on 5 April 2014

Cr John Chandler Cr Erin Davie Cr Sam Hibbins Cr Jami KlisarisCr Matthew Koce Cr John McMorrow Cr Melina Sehr Cr Claude Ullin

Chief Executive Officer, Warren Roberts

The T. H. King Oval and Pavilion is named after a former City of Malvern Mayor, Thomas H. King. He served on Council from 1933-1978, holding the Mayoral office for the following years 1937-38, 1950-51, 1966-68 and 1972-73.

Glen Iris Park recreational ground was established by Malvern Council during the early 1920s. The first pavilion in the park was a small weatherboard building, which had been moved from the Malvern Cricket ground and installed in 1926.

This was later replaced by a weatherboard and fibro-cement sheet pavilion, which was demolished in 1988.

The cricket reserve was renamed T. H. King Oval during the late 1960s. Following the creation of the Malvern Valley Plan and the development of the Glen Iris Park Wetlands in the late 1980s, the T. H. King Oval was upgraded and a new

pavilion built. The new reserve was opened in April 1991 by Councillor George Pepperell.

In 2013, Council redeveloped the pavilion to support sporting clubs and a diverse range of users. The building is a showcase for Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) principles and incorporates an exemplar environmental

education centre, demonstrating Council’s commitment to work towards a sustainable future.

The current building, designed by Greenway Hirst Page replaces the original T. H. King Pavilion.

This project was funded by the City of Stonnington with support from the St Kevin’s Old Boys Football Club, AFL Victoria and Victorian Government.


The City of Stonnington, St Kevin’s Old Boys Football Club, AFL Victoria and Victorian Government and logos will appear on the plaque.

POLICY IMPLICATIONSThe redevelopment of the T. H. King Pavilion is consistent with Council’s Pavilion Redevelopment Strategy 2009 and exemplar facility standards specified by Council’s Environment and Public Spaces Department.

The redevelopment is also consistent with the Glen Iris Wetlands Master Plan and the incorporation of an Environmental Education Centre highlights Council’s commitment to preserving the uniqueness of and natural systems in this precinct.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONSThe plaque will cost approximately $4,800 and will be funded out of the capital works budget for this project X8734.

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

CONCLUSIONThe redevelopment of T. H. King Pavilion and Stonnington Environmental Education and Design Centre is consistent with Council’s Pavilion Redevelopment Strategy 2009 and exemplar facility standards specified by Council’s Parks, Environment and Buildings Department.

The new facility will result in a significant improvement to facilities for players and spectators of Glen Iris Park and Wetlands, and create a new Environmental Education and Design Centre for school groups, community groups and residents to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the environment and sustainable design initiatives.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves the inclusion of the following wording on the plaque at T. H. King Pavilion to mark the completion of the redevelopment:

T. H. KING PAVILION AND STONNINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND DESIGN CENTRE

Opened by His Worship the Mayor, Cr Adrian Stubbs,on 5 April 2014

Cr John Chandler Cr Erin Davie Cr Sam Hibbins Cr Jami KlisarisCr Matthew Koce Cr John McMorrow Cr Melina Sehr Cr Claude Ullin

Chief Executive Officer, Warren Roberts

The T. H. King Oval and Pavilion is named after a former City of Malvern Mayor, Thomas H. King. He served on Council from 1933-1978, holding the Mayoral office for the following years 1937-38, 1950-51, 1966-68 and 1972-73.

Glen Iris Park recreational ground was established by Malvern Council during the early 1920s. The first pavilion in the park was a small weatherboard building, which had been moved from the Malvern Cricket ground and installed in 1926.

This was later replaced by a weatherboard and fibro-cement sheet pavilion, which was demolished in 1988.

The cricket reserve was renamed T. H. King Oval during the late 1960s. Following the creation of the Malvern Valley Plan and the development of the Glen Iris Park Wetlands in the late 1980s, the T. H. King Oval was upgraded and a new

pavilion built. The new reserve was opened in April 1991 by Councillor George Pepperell.

In 2013, Council redeveloped the pavilion to support sporting clubs and a diverse range of users. The building is a showcase for Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) principles and incorporates an exemplar environmental

education centre, demonstrating Council’s commitment to work towards a sustainable future.

The current building, designed by Greenway Hirst Page replaces the original T. H. King Pavilion.

This project was funded by the City of Stonnington with support from the St Kevin’s Old Boys Football Club, AFL Victoria and Victorian Government.


18. CHAPEL STREET INFORMATION KIOSKS

Manager: Rick Kwasek General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the Tourism and Information Kiosks proposed for Chapel Street and to consider a request from the Chapel Street Precinct Business Association for $50,000 towards their installation.

BACKGROUND

In the lead up to the 2010 Victorian election, the Chapel Street Precinct Business Association initiated discussions with the Member for Prahran, Clem Newton Brown, in the development of a number of key initiatives on the issue of community safety and amenity. One of the initiatives of support was the installation of outdoor tourism information kiosks in the Chapel Street Precinct.

The Chapel Street Master Plan seeks to implement high quality street and public spaces to meet the needs of an increasing number of people that live, work and visit the area. The focus is on providing an accessible, attractive, safe and green network of streets and public spaces. Access to information was also identified as vitally important in the 2011/15 Chapel Street Precinct Strategic Business Plan. The implementation of 24-hour touch screen tourist and visitor information kiosks was seen as a suitable response. The Chapel Street Precinct Business Association was successful in obtaining funding from the State Government towards the design, supply and installation of the information Kiosks. At the time Councils Economic Development Department were in favour of the proposal and indicated that Council would provide “in-kind” support towards their installation.

The installation of the kiosks will provide a powerful tool for visitors to connect with Chapel Street and improve the quality of the Chapel Street Precinct experience for visitors, locals and the business community and assist in providing an environment where small business can flourish.

DISCUSSION

Information Kiosks – Key Objectives

A number of key objectives have been identified by the Chapel Street Precinct Business Association and it is intended that the Kiosk installation will:

Improve the visitor destination experience Provide meaningful recognition of all Chapel St Precinct stakeholders Increase awareness, enthusiastic participation from the local

Stonnington Community, visitors and tourists Provide an advertising revenue touch point Provide interactive solutions for visitor research and retention campaigns Provide an additional interactive shop and product search touch point Provide a sitemap and location finder for local businesses and community destinations Introduce a new medium to communicate with visitors to Chapel Street


Kiosk Functionality

The Kiosk Browser will be a public browser interface solution with the functionality, look and feel of a typical browser but is designed for public use on kiosks and makes it impossible to interfere with kiosk's system, move or delete files, close applications or shut down kiosk operating system.

In addition, the Kiosk Browser will include advanced user functions such as restricted internet surfing, video and photo functionality and advertising management. Chapel Street Precinct Business Association has reviewed similar trials of the new technology which had achieved positive results. An overview of the kiosks can be seen in

# # Attachment A. Some screen shot imagery of the screen can be seen in Attachment B.

Sustainability

Given the expected growth of the Chapel Street Precinct Activity Centre in the next 5 years the information kiosks will provide important information and data and will be managed by the Chapel Street Precinct Traders Association achieving a cost neutral situation with ongoing management and maintenance costs covered by the association.

A maintenance agreement and budget to ensure long-term functionality of the kiosks is being prepared. The Chapel Street Precinct Association Inc. have confirmed that they will be responsible for project management, compliance with the objectives of the project, outsourcing of the maintenance, ongoing management and security of the program and the protection of the interests of the public in relation to the Kiosks and any associated ongoing costs. The association is currently looking at a number of options in relation to generating advertising income from the units. This income is to be used to cover the costs of ongoing maintenance, cleaning, software integration with our CMS and any costs associated with damage to screens and units. At this stage the association could not provide any further details in relation to costs that will be derived from advertising revenue.

Wrap around imagery will be used to dress up the look of the kiosk with the design yet to be confirmed but is likely to include the Chapel Street Precinct Association logo. It is not intended that advertising be affixed to the outside of the kiosk. The final wrap around design is to reviewed by Council.

The kiosks will provide a powerful tool for all stakeholders to connect with the local community and improve the quality of the Chapel Street Precinct experience for visitors, locals and the business community and assist in providing an environment where small business can flourish

Locations

In order to determine suitable locations for kiosk placement, 100 tourists were interviewed throughout the Chapel Street Precinct. A number of site visits were conducted in each neighbourhood to gauge their suitability for kiosk placement. The proposed locations were then assessed from a traffic management perspective to ensure their placement would not impact on sight lines and pedestrian movement. From this research the following location criteria was established for kiosk placement:

High tourist traffic Well lit and accessible 24 hours per day Visible central locations Near major accommodation


Minimal impact to traffic sight lines Appropriate space on Pavement Access to power and Data Increase visitor dispersal from South Yarra to Prahran and Windsor.

The above criteria were used to evaluate locations throughout the Chapel Street Precinct. Consultation was undertaken with traders in the vicinity of the Kiosks prior to the locations being finalised. Disruption to the local area and retail outlets will be minimal during the installation.

Based on site visits and research the following kiosk sites were selected:

Through the stakeholder consultation process it was determined that placing a kiosk in a visible well lit and central location with high tourist traffic that is available 24 hours a day would maximize usage and safety.

Timelines

The development of the data packaged and hardware testing has been completed and delivery is expected toward the middle to end of November 2013. It is expected that the Kiosks will be installed prior to the end of December 2013.

Location

Location 2 – Chapel Street South of Toorak Road

Location 1 – Chapel Street North of Commercial Road



Initial costing for fabrication, installation, software applications and management of two Automated Information Booths is $95,000 with the breakdown outlined below.

Item Estimated Cost ($)

HardwareDW42FP Freestanding Digital Directory x 2 Kiosks 55,00

0Freight & ProgrammingFreight 500Installation 500Online Training 1,600Software DevelopmentSite Kiosk Software Interface System 29,000HTML Programming for utilisation with current website 6,000After Sales Support & Management 400Sprocket Care Online (12 month term) 2000Base Project Investment (ex GST) 95,000

Additional installation costs (engineers estimate) 50,000

Available funding X9388 (subject to approval) 1,605,700

Under the original agreement Council was required to provide assistance in obtaining permits associated with the installation and additional “in-Kind “support as required.

The Chapel Street Business Association have know formally written to Council requesting funding for the installation costs not covered by their original estimates.

Additional installation costs being sought from Council for site preparation and connections can be summarized as follows:

install and wire all electrical, telecommunication, cabling & conduit allowed for unmetered supply of 2 amps or less;

excavation works, traffic & pedestrian control management; Kiosk slab and footing

The cost of this work is in the order of $25,000 for each site.

Total funding being sought $50,000.

Additional funding being sought is able to be funded from Chapel Street Master Plan Implementation allocation, X9388 (Subject to approval). The proposal is consistent with the Master Plan and its principles and would provide significant benefit to the Chapel Street precinct.


CONCLUSION

The installation of the tourism information kiosks will provide an increase awareness, enthusiastic participation and information for the local Stonnington Community, and deliver a high quality infrastructure improvement for those that work, visit and live in Chapel Street.

The Kiosks will provide an additional improvement to the Chapel Street Precinct and will further signify council’s commitment to ongoing implementation of the Chapel Street Master Plan.



RECOMMENDATION

That;

1. The proposal by the Chapel Street Precinct Business Association for installation of two Tourism Information Kiosks in Chapel Street be endorsed.

2. An amount of up to $50,000 be provided from Chapel Street Master Plan Implementation budget, X9388 to fund installation of the Kiosks, and associated works subject to the following conditions;

a. the Chapel Street Precinct Business Association Pty. Ltd. are to be responsible for all costs associated with the ongoing maintenance, security and upkeep of the kiosks and their operation,

b. opportunity is be provided to Council to advertise relevant community events at no cost,

c. the external surfaces of the information Kiosks be kept free from advertising of any kind.


19. PROPOSED PUBLIC ART COMMISSIONS

Manager: Francesca ValmorbidaGeneral Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to approve the following public art proposals:

1. The bank of the Yarra River in the vicinity of the cafe ‘Kanteen’ which is currently being landscaped;

2. The Windsor Square redevelopment in response to the Development Brief.

BACKGROUND

These proposals are part of the implementation of the Art in the Public Domain and Stonnington Art Acquisition Policy which is to commission and purchase high calibre works of art by artists with a Stonnington connection in Council buildings and/or public land for the benefit of the community and precinct visitors.

This proposal addresses each of the Strategic Themes of the Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15. In particular Leadership and Advocacy, where Council’s support of an integrated refurbishment demonstrates a real commitment to Place Making for the benefit of the wider community, and Creative Spaces, as Council’s site specific commissions ‘enliven public spaces with arts and cultural activities’.

DISCUSSION

These two public art proposals have been endorsed by Council’s Arts Acquisition Panel. The panel consists of three experts in the visual arts field, being:Rebecca Coates independent curator and writer, and a former Associate Curator at the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (ACCA). She is currently a lecturer with the Fine Arts faculty at Melbourne University;

Charlotte Day Director Monash University Museum of Art MUMA; and

Dr. Bill Sampson is an artist and lecturer who completed a BFA (Hons) degree at the Victorian College of the Arts and studied at the University of Melbourne to gain his PhD. Bill is a passionate teacher of drawing, and theory, most often as a casual studio tutor, and lecturer in Critical & Theoretical Studies at the VCA.

They recommend the following projects be commissioned, providing excellent opportunity considering the location of the works and the economies that are enabled in developing these works at the time of construction works in the two precincts.

The public art projects

1. Public art for the bank of the Yarra River in the vicinity of the cafe ‘Kanteen’;

# (Attachment 1: Site plan)

To mark this riverside site as important in Victoria’s indigenous history. This particular area of Stonnington was a major food source and meeting place for indigenous Australians.


The precinct attracts high traffic, predominantly by foot and bicycle, accessing the popular Kanteen cafe. Visitation will further increase with the re-landscaping currently underway as part of the Lower Yarra River Biodiversity Linkages Project stage two This proposal aims to ensure an integrated precinct design, a holistic approach to the refurbishment of the area and an economical installation process.

This high profile site has been identified as an ideal site for public art by the Art Acquisition Panel in 2012.

It is proposed to commission a significant and iconic public artwork or series of smaller works to mark an important historical gathering place and to reinforce the City of Stonnington’s commitment to the celebration of our indigenous history.

The procurement process would involve two stages and seek the advice of a Selection Panel that would include an Art Panel representative; a member of the landscape architect team; representative from the Traditional Land Owners and a representative from senior management.

2. Public Art Windsor Square# (Attachment 2: Site plan)

The area around Windsor Station is currently scheduled for redevelopment as a public space. Stage 1, to be completed during 2013-2014 will focus on the Southern Plaza and will include new paving, furniture, landscaping and lighting.

To commission a 2 or 3 Dimension artwork that complements the design of Windsor Square in the space designated for the integration of public art and to enhance Council’s intention to create a meeting place and a space for small to medium sized outdoor events.

The Arts Acquisition Panel and Officers researched significant artists for this site specific commission. In consideration of the constraints which include the linear nature of the site (a fence), the site design, tight timelines, limited budget and the important historical significance of the area, it was unanimously agreed that established notable artist Peter D. Cole is the only artist available to work successfully and deliver a substantial and integrated artwork.

The Public art procurement process would commence by inviting the senior artist to respond to an artist brief in December 2013. The Artist would be required to submit a concept/ concepts to address the new fence through the application of two or three dimensional art. This concept would be submitted for approval in February 2014 with anticipated completion by May/June 2014.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Briefs developed for this Public Art Commission are in line with the Art in the Public Domain Policy 2013-2015 which supports the commissioning of innovative, high quality, contemporary artworks by professional artists.


Both proposed art commissions fall within allocated budgets.

The Yarra River proposal would be part funded out of the current financial year budget with the balance for the completion and installation/launch stages to be allocated from the 2014/15 budget.


Given the importance and potential scale of commission, a budget of approximately $130,000 is recommended.

The project would take approximately 6 to 9 months to complete once the Expression of Interest selection process is completed. The budget would cover an artist fee, design development, materials, engineering and fabrication, footings, installation and lighting. This project would be funded from the public art acquisitions line ($80,000) and the Art acquisitions line ($50,000) and would need to be staged (funded ) over two financial years with completion in September/October 2014.

The Windsor square project is budgeted $60,000 and would be funded from Budget line X9434.

CONCLUSION

Both of these projects provide excellent opportunities to provide significant expansion Council’s Art Collection. The projects will be delivered in conjunction with existing capital improvements and provide great opportunity to further enhance those overall projects and place-making objectives. A summary of proposed expenditure recommended by The Art Acquisition Panel for proposed public art commissions on the bank of the Yarra River and Windsor Square is as follows:

Public ArtWindsor Square project (Jan – June 2014) $60,000 Yarra River bank project (over two financial years) $127,500Total required for Public Art Commissions $187,500 Economic Development – Gateway X9310 $47,773Arts & Cultural Strategy implementation X9313 $60,000Public Open Space Art program X9434 $79,727Total required for Public Art Commissions $187,500



RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the Art Acquisition Panel’s recommended public art projects for the bank of the Yarra River and Windsor Square.


20. ART ACQUISITIONS 2013

Manager: Francesca ValmorbidaGeneral Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose is for Council to approve the acquisition of artworks as outlined: Two David Noonan works from his series ‘Figures 2008’ Three Melinda Harper wall works 2013

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Stonnington Art Acquisition policy is to be essentially representational – that is to place works of art (with a Stonnington connection) in Council buildings and/or public land. The works of art should reflect Stonnington its history, culture and art across a diverse range of environs.

The proposed acquisitions are as recommended by Council’s Arts Acquisition Panel. The panel consists of three experts in the visual arts field, being:

Rebecca Coates is an independent curator and writer, and a former Associate Curator at the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (ACCA). She is currently a lecturer with the Fine Arts faculty at Melbourne University;

Charlotte Day is Director Monash University Museum of Art MUMA; and

Dr. Bill Sampson is an artist and lecturer who completed a BFA (Hons) degree at the Victorian College of the Arts and studied at the University of Melbourne to gain his PhD. Bill is a passionate teacher of drawing, and theory, most often as a casual studio tutor, and lecturer in Critical & Theoretical Studies at the VCA. The Art Acquisitions Panel has met twice recently to discuss and finalise recommended acquisitions for 2013 -2014.

DISCUSSION

The Art Panel recommends the acquisition of the following works: Two David Noonan works from his series ‘Figures 2008’. Three Melinda Harper wall works

Noonan has exhibited nationally and internationally for almost two decades, and is considered one of Australia's foremost artists working internationally. Prior to moving overseas, he was a Stonnington resident; and

A series of three small Melinda Harper works consisting of silk, thread and paint on embroidery mesh. Melinda Harper is an established artist who has exhibited at different times with Stonnington Galleries such as Nellie Castan in South Yarra. She has been recommended by the Art Panel as an artist whose works complement the City of Stonnington’s collection.


David Noonan sculptures and the artworks by Melinda Harper are recommended by the Art Panel to be acquired by the City of Stonnington. “The Stonnington Art Acquisitions panel met on November 21 to discuss potential acquisitions. The Panel unanimously recommended the acquisition of two David Noonan works from his series Figures 2008 proposed by Charlotte Day, the Director of the Monash University Museum of Art (MUMA). These sculptures and embodied silk artworks were nominated as they are highly original works by internationally recognised artists.” Noonan was formally a Stonnington resident and Harper has exhibited locally.Bronwen Colman, Cultural Development/Visual Arts City of StonningtonThe proposed location for these two sculptures and the Melinda Harper is a highly visible indoor public venue where the general public would be welcomed to freely engage with the works.

# Attachment 1: Artists CVs and Images of artworks recommended for acquisition# Attachment 2: DAVID NOONAN - testimonials

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

These acquisitions address each of the Strategic Themes of the Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15, in particular Leadership and Advocacy, where Council aims ‘to celebrate, advocate and champion arts and culture in the community’ and Creative Spaces, as Council determines to ‘enliven public spaces with arts and cultural activities’.

The Acquisitions are also in line with Council’s Arts Acquisition Policy.


All the proposed acquisitions fall within the current allocated budget.

AcquisitionsThe current acquisitions budget for this year would be allocated towards the acquisition of two David Noonan works at a cost of $25,000 each and three Melinda Harper works at a cost of $1900 each.

CONCLUSION

A summary of proposed expenditure recommended by The Art Acquisition Panel is as follows:

AcquisitionsBudget line X8200 $158,400 (incl. 12/13 rollover $78,400)

Less works - acquired (M. Clarke) $ 5000Two David Noonan works - proposed $50,000Three Melinda Harper works - proposed $ 5,700

Balance $97,700




RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves the Art Acquisition Panel’s recommended acquisition of David Noonan and Melinda Harper artworks.


n) Confidential Business

1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE

(Author / General Manager: Geoff Cockram )

Confidential report circulated separately.

pro-forma for notice paper word 7 - city of … · web viewnotice paper monday 16 december 2013 at...

Documents