2 3 01' 23:3

RELLI V ✓L.)

19 October 2018

Vicky Grillakis Coordinator Statutory Planning City of Yarra 333 Bridge Road RICHMOND VIC 3121

Dear Vicky

PLN18/0658 - 2-8 Brighton Street, 5 Little Lesney Street & 1-3 Wiltshire Street, Richmond -Response to Request for Further Information

Tract Consultants Pty Ltd continues to act on behalf of Icon Developments Australia Pty Ltd in the above matter.

Thank you for your prompt feedback and suggestions regarding the above application. From the outset, this application has been designed in close consultation with Yarra City Council and we are pleased to introduce the enclosed revised set of plans and supporting documentation which respond to Council's request for further information.

Please review and consider the following information in order of points raised within your letter dated 27 September 2018. Council's information requirements have been stated in italics.

Further Information

1. Not all of the notations scale on the A3 plans provided. Please provide a scaled set.

The architectural plans have been scaled and notated accordingly.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA, October 2018)

2. The owners listed within the provided register search pages must match the owner listed on

the application form.

Please refer to the attached application form which has been updated to show the full list of owners as per the relevant title information.

Refer Application Form

3. Details of the proposed food and drinks premises use - eg hours of operation, etc. It's a permit required use within the zone.

The food and drinks premises will operate at the following hours:

Monday to Sunday: 7am to 11pm

No amplified music above background level is proposed.

4. Confirm where mailboxes will be located on plan.

The architectural plans have been updated so show the location of mailboxes.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA, October 2018)

TRACT CONSULTANTS PTY LTD

ACN 055 213 842 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE

TRACT CONSULTANTS UNIT TRUST ABN 75 423 048489

LEVEL 6, 6 RIVERSIDE QUAY,

SOUTHBANK. VIC 3006 AUSTRALIA TELEPHONE 61 3 9429 6133

melbourne@traanetzu

www.tract.corn.au

MELBOURNE BRISBANE SYDNEY ADELAIDE GEELONG

QUALITY ENDORSED COMPANY

ISO 9001 UC NO 2095

Project: 0316-0495

'5

A-

5. Confirm how car parking spaces will be allocated.

Car parking will be allocated as set out in Table 1 in Section 3 of the revised Traffic

Engineering Report (Traffix Group, October 2018). Specifically, car spaces will be

allocated as follows:

Three-bedroom dwellings at a rate of 2 car spaces per dwelling.

Two-bedroom apartments at a rate of 1 car spaces per dwelling, and

One-bedroom apartments at a rate of 0.5 car spaces per dwelling.

Two car spaces will be allocated to the food and drink premises.

Refer to revised Traffic Engineering Report (Traffix Group, October 2018).

6. The traffic report outlines on page 3 that you are proposing to include a shared vehicle.

Confirm if you are proposing to facilitate this via a Section 173 Agreement.

A shared vehicle is indicatively proposed to Wiltshire Street where additional on-street

car parking is captured by way of a reinstated kerb in place of the existing vehicle

crossovers. Whilst the works form part of this permit application the shared vehicle is

located outside of the title boundary and within Council ownership. The car share

space is therefore not for the exclusive use of the proposed development.

As such a Section 173 Agreement is not appropriate in this circumstance. The applicant

intends to engage a car share provider to establish a car share pod in this location,

servicing the residents of the building and contributing to supply of car share vehicles

for local businesses and residents in Richmond.

7. Provide a cumulative traffic impact analysis within the traffic report which assesses the

approved development at 1 Little Lesney Street and 9 Wiltshire Street (PLN14/1000).

Section 4 of the revised Traffic Engineering Report (Traffix Group, October 2018) sets

out a detailed response to this item. The results of the assessment indicate that the

cumulative impact of the two developments will not have a detrimental impact to the

safety or operation of the surrounding road network, including the Swan Street /

Brighton Street un-signalised intersection.

Refer to revised Traffic Engineering Report (Traffix Group, October 2018).

8. The acoustic report does not mention the first floor deck associated with the restaurant at

No. 270-272 Swan Street, Richmond.

An additional response has been provided by Marshall Day in response to the potential

for noise emissions associated with the restaurant at 270-272 Swan Street.

The statement reviews the liquor license conditions associated with that premises and

undertaken an assessment based on these figures. The statement advises that

recommended glazing upgrades have been calculated on the basis of achieving an

appropriate internal amenity for patron noise.

Refer to Acoustic RF1 Response (Marshall Day, October 2018)

Project: 0316-0495

9. Provide a BADS Schedule to include a column which confirms compliance for each of the standards. The schedule should also include an overall compliance percentage for each of

these.

A BADS Schedule confirming the compliance of each dwelling is provided in the revised Architectural Plans. The schedule includes a summary of the total percentage of compliance achieved.

We understand that further information may be requested in response to this item.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA, October 2018).

10. Each of the provided BADS Apartment Plans should also confirm its compliance with standards. For example there is a private open space list - this should also have a confirmation about whether the standard is met.

The BADS Apartment Plans have been updated and are reissued with confirmation of compliance with the relevant standards.

The BADS table included at drawing 5-100 has also been updated to clarify whether compliance has been achieved for each dwelling.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA, October 2018).

11. The shadow diagrams provided need to show an existing and proposed scenario.

Updated shadow diagrams are provided as part of the architectural package. The diagrams show existing and proposed scenarios.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA, October 2018).

12. Additional perspective from the rail bridge on Church Street looking towards the development.

The design package includes an additional perspective from the Church Street rail bridge.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA, October 2018).

13, Whilst it is not a requirement of Council, as the subject site is located above the Burnley Tunnel, is covered by the Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 5) and is proposing four basement levels, a Geotechnical Report may be required by Transurban / VicRoads. This may be something you want to investigate.

We thank Council for their identification of this matter and advise that prior to lodging this application a geotechnical report was undertaken by GeoAust Geotechnical Engineers on behalf of the applicant.

Project: 0316-0495

14. A Wind impact Assessment Report prepared by a suitably qualified person or firm providing

an analysis of the impact of wind on the streets and surrounding area (as relevant), as a

result of the construction of the proposed buildings. The report must outline industry

accepted standards /assessment criteria and show whether the impacts of the proposed

development meet them or nor. If relevant criteria are not met, recommended changes to

the building should be made and incorporated into the development.

A Wind Impact Assessment Report has been prepared and accompanies this RFI

response.

The Report finds that the proposed development is appropriately designed to ensure

walking comfort conditions for all wind suitable street level experience that is not

unreasonably impacted by the effect of wind.

Refer Wind Impact Assessment Report (MEL Consultants, October 2018)

Preliminary Assessment Considerations

Please refer to the below response to the preliminary assessment considerations outlined in

your letter. Council's comments have been italicised.

1. The overall height of the proposal is excessive. The documentation provided shows that you

are aware of Council's proposed Schedule 17 to Clause 43.02 (Design and Development

Overlay). Within that Schedule, the subject site is in Precinct 2 which outlines that the subject

site has a preferred maximum height of 21m. The proposal is well is excess of that.

Whilst it is accepted that Schedule 1 7 to the Design and Development Overlay

(DD017) does not currently form part of the Yarra Planning Scheme, Tract has prepared

a detailed assessment and evaluation of the proposed design against the current policy

and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme and the proposed future controls of

DD017. This assessment is provided as an attachment to this RFI Letter.

In summary, it is submitted that the proposed height of 12 storeys is consistent with

the current mechanism for assessing height above six storeys in the Yarra Planning

Scheme (Strategy 17.02 of Clause 21.05) and can be accepted as consistent with the

preferred mid-rise character of 5 to 12 storeys set in the draft DD017, as the building

responds to key design guidelines and standards.

Furthermore, the submitted Urban Design Report (Message Consultants, September

2018) provides support for the proposed building height, noting:

Overall, the proposed height, when allied to the building composition and the quality of the

architectural response, as well as its contribution to the revitalisation of surrounding streets,

is considered to be a suitable response to the influences on the site.

On the above basis it is maintained that the proposed height is appropriate.

Please refer to the attached response Planning Assessment - Building Height, Scale and Setbacks (Tract Consultants, October 2018).

Project: 0316-0495

2. The proposal does not provide a street wall or podium. There is a concern the sheer scale of the proposal at street level will overwhelm the streetscape along Brighton Street. The lack of a podium/street wall does not provide for a human scale to the street. Within the proposed Schedule 17 (as mentioned above), a 3 storey (11m) street wall is recommended for the northern and eastern sides of the subject site.

As above, it is accepted that Schedule 17 to the Design and Development Overlay (DD017) does not currently form part of the Yarra Planning Scheme, however Tract has prepared a detailed assessment and evaluation of the proposed design against the current policy and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme and the proposed future controls of DD01 7. This assessment is provided as an attachment to this RFI Letter.

In summary, it is submitted that whilst the proposed building adopts a non- conventional approach to upper level street wall/podium design, this is undertaken on strong architectural grounds and seeks to deliver a built form outcome that positively contributes to its immediate environment. The following excerpt is applied in summary:

Through applied design principles and innovative and well-crafted architectural solutions, certain planning design objectives can be achieved without being strictly faithful to a nominated preferred setback standard. This is such a chase where adherence to such standards would erode and dilute what is in fact a very well-considered design response that makes a more positive and long-term contribution to the surrounding urban condition than a more homogenous or typical design.

Importantly, the City of Yarra has recognised the need to assess design on its merits by proposing a set of controls in DD017 that are based on 'preferred' rather than 'mandatory outcomes.

It is further noted that the Urban Design report by Message Consultants supports the proposed approach to street wall and podium on architectural and urban design merit. The following excerpt is of relevance:

Above the podium, the towers rise sheer above their respective street edges. Whilst a typical design response is often to set upper levels back behind the podium edge to reduce their presence from surrounding streets and establish a distinction between the building's base and upper level form, the proposal adopts an alternative approach. Instead of upper level street setbacks it provides for clear and generous breaks through he site at the upper level to divide the mass into three distinct volumes.

This approach to the massing and composition of the building is considered to be a sound approach to establishing a distinction between the building base and upper levels, with a unified design approach which responds to a 'hard edged' urban character in the former industrial area along the railway line.

The proposed building design is further justified by the exceptional improvements at street level, which have been designed with full consideration of generating a safe, bright and visually engaging ground floor.

It is maintained on the basis outlined in the attached assessment that the proposed street wall is appropriate under the current planning controls and draft DDO17.

Please refer to the attached response Planning Assessment — Building Height, Scale and Setbacks (Tract Consultants, October 2018) and submitted Urban Design Report (Message Consultants, September 2018).

Project: 0316-0495

3. Lack of side/rear setbacks and lack of variation in setbacks.

As per the response to preliminary assessment item 2, it is submitted that the absence of side and rear setbacks is appropriately justified on architectural and urban design merits.

Whilst the proposed building adopts a non-conventional approach to upper level street wall/podium design, which by extension does not introduce conventional upper level setbacks, the proposal introduces a well-considered response that has been undertaken on strong architectural grounds and seeks to deliver a built form outcome that positively contributes to the immediate environment.

True to its references and inspiration, the proposed building exhibits strong design principles with a consistent, rhythmic expressed facade that extends vertically from the podium with zero setback at each corner of the Site. This design is a modern interpretation of respected modernist design principles whereby the upper elements present as solid, singular forms, allowing the materiality and subtle articulation to sit proudly in the streetscape.

Core to the design merit are the introduction of spatial breaks and landscape interventions to the upper level volumes, which provide important visual cues and delineate the podium level when viewed from the street. The three upper level volumes are deliberately designed to introduce narrower and more contained 10 storey forms to the more prominent Brighton Street frontages, with the 12 storey form set to the western boundary, away from the key public interfaces.

The considered building breaks also allow for high levels of daylight to penetrate the building throughout the day, improving the amenity of the building for all residents, with many dwellings benefitting from dual aspect — which is not commonly delivered in significant apartment developments such as the proposal. The benefits of this design response are further outlined in the submitted Urban Design Report (Message Consultants, September 2018).

To introduce upper level setbacks would critically detract from the design merit of the proposed building. It is emphasised that a more traditional, singular massing with 'wedding caked' upper levels would typically be required to maintain a comparable apartment yield. This would come at the cost not only the architectural integrity of the building but also substantially impact the internal amenity and ESD performance of the building, which has been highly considered in the design since outset to achieve ESD 'Excellence'.

For further detailed assessment of the building design, scale and setbacks please refer to the attached Planning Assessment— Building Height, Scale and Setbacks (Tract Consultants, October 2018) and submitted Urban Design Report (Message Consultants, September 2018).

4. Lack of variation in colours / materials.

The proposed building adopts a deliberately reductive material palette in keeping with a referenced modernist aesthetic characterised by rectilinear concrete facade grid with the glazing line and balconies set behind.

The design response is supported at Chapter 4.4 of the submitted Urban Design Report by Message Consultants, which finds:

The facades utilise a simple palette of robust materials that if well executed, will stand the rest of rime and sir comfortably in juxtaposition with neighbours.

Project: 0316-0495

The simple repeating proportion contributes to a restrained aesthetic that has a visual strength but does not compete with the intensity of design alternatives on nearby sites. The depth of the framing will create a play of light and shadow across the facades, creating a simple elegance in longer range views over nearby buildings and the railway line, as well as

from close quarters.

The assessment provided by Message Consultants aligns with the architectural intent of Rob Kennon Architects and it is submitted that the colour and material selection is an exceptional architectural response.

Refer to the submitted Urban Design Report (Message Consultants, September 2018).

5. The adverse impact on the pedestrian experience due to the wire mesh to the townhouses on Little Lesney and Wiltshire Streets.

In response to Council's comments the architectural plans have been amended to remove the wire mesh treatment to the townhouses on Little Lesney and Wiltshire Streets.

An alternative treatment of vertical climbing cable is proposed to provide a desire diffusion of views between the internal and external, whilst ensuring passive surveillance is not compromised.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA, October 2018).

6. Bike racks seem to be in numerous locations which could be difficult for users.

The proposal seeks to provide bicycle parking facilities well in excess of the statutory requirement of the Yarra Planning Scheme, with a total of 131 spaces. In commitment to the targeted ESD excellence, the project actively integrates bicycle parking throughout the building to provide greater choice and flexibility for future residents. The building also ensures large communal bicycle spaces are available at ground floor, with visitor bicycle parking integrated into the design.

It is therefore maintained that the proposal provides for more than satisfactory outcome with regard to the provision of bicycle spaces.

7. Side balcony walls are open along the shared boundary to the west.

Dwellings located to the north-west and south-west corner of the proposed western building form have been designed to include a secondary outlook to the west via an open balcony to the shared boundary. It is acknowledged that this is a shared boundary and the equitable development of the adjoining land must be considered. Notwithstanding, the balconies secondary western outlook is considered to be an appropriate design response for the following reasons:

■ The western outlook is the secondary interface to the building's western corner dwellings. The primary outlook is achieved to the north/south.

■ To maintain equitable development opportunity the western outlook is designed to be constructed against, should future consolidation and development occur at the adjoining land.

■ Should the western boundary be constructed against, residents will maintain the primary north/south outlook.

Project: 0316-0495

■ By introducing an additional outlook the design provides for a greater level of

amenity by way of light and views to future residents.

■ Additional building openings provided by the balconies contribute to the

expression and articulation of the western elevation in lieu of future development

to this elevation.

8. Some of the accessibility pathways appear to crossover into the living room area calculation. This is not acceptable. If the path extends into the living room, there may be issues with furniture impeding the clear area.

Architectural drawings have been updated to address this comment. Internal

accessibility pathways are designed to no longer intersect living areas on all accessible

apartments.

Refer Architectural Plans (RKA October 2018)

9. A number of the apartments have long, 'dog leg' corridors and irregular layouts which may indicate that the proposal is an overdevelopment where more dwellings are being placed on each floor than what can be practically accommodated to the detriment of future occupants. For example apartments 206 and 271.

The notion that the mentioned apartments and access arrangements are symptomatic

of an overdevelopment is strongly opposed.

Driving this design response is the building's core arrangement, which due to the

atypical configuration of three upper level forms extending from a single core provides

opportunity for several apartments (206 and 211, and corresponding apartments at

upper levels) to feature an extended hall corridor from the building's internal

circulation spaces.

This design response not only provides for additional floor area and a degree of visual

interest not typically associated with apartment development, but it also allows the

floorplate to be fully optimised, utilising otherwise underutilised space adjacent to the

core for amenities such as a bathroom/washroom.

An alternative design response that has been reviewed though the design process

would be to retract the door to the end of the corridor. This is not considered to be an

appropriate design outcome, for several reasons, most notably as this provides a deep

extended corridor to a single apartment that is a 'dead space' and may not feel safe for

residents. This would also reduce the available floor area for each apartment for no

benefit.

Finally, it is reminded that the apartments in this development are designed to be

generously proportioned and fit comfortably onto the proposed floorplate. The two

two-bedroom apartments identified by Council extend to 87 and 94 square metres

respectively, with the adjoining one bedroom apartments roughly 60 square metres in

area. This cannot reasonably be considered as a design symptomatic of an

overdevelopment and we disagree with Council's assessment.

Should Council have ongoing concern with the hallway and dwelling entry

arrangement we would be pleased to discuss this matter further in order to seek a

resolution.

Project: 0316-0495

10. Excessive use of wintergardens, particularly for the apartments with south-facing wintergardens and overhangs above, and the subsequent poor daylight access.

Firstly, it is clarified that the proposal does not introduce any wintergardens - being an enclosable private open space specifically designed for year round use. The proposed development does however provide dwellings with inset balconies that are recessed within the building line with no external glazing (operable or otherwise).

It is advised that the majority of apartments comply with the deemed-to-satisfy method for IEQ prescribed by BESS, with north, west and east orientated living areas less than 8m deep and south facing apartments not exceeding 7 metres in depth. The level of light access is therefore considered to be appropriate.

The balconies are considered to provide a high level of amenity for residents, with the broad dimension and inset design allowing residents to open internal living areas onto the outdoor spaces, whilst retaining a sense enclosure and privacy. Furthermore, the building's inset balconies are well proportioned to accommodate outdoor furniture and typically exceed the minimum dimension for outdoor space in apartment dwellings.

Finally, the use of inset balconies is a deliberate design response that is true to the building's architectural style and reference, establishing a consistent street wall and singularly expressed facade.

In consideration of the above, the proposed balcony design is considered to be appropriate and provide a suitable level of daylight and amenity.

11. Excessive overshadowing to the three-storey townhouses to the west.

Shadowing to the top floor private open space of neighbouring townhouses is contained to the period between 9am and midday, with the majority of north-facing outdoor space having access to sunlight by 10am.

It is understood that balconies facing south are shadowed by their own respective upper level roof forms and that the proposal will not otherwise obstruct access to light from midday onwards.

It is further noted that the existing dwellings to the west of the Site are located within a Mixed Use Zone which is identified medium to high density development. The urban condition is anticipated to continue to densify, including land to the north of Wiltshire Street, to the rear of Swan Street.The urban condition and zoning therefore suggest that this is a location where a degree of overshadowing can be expected from adjoining development and it is submitted that the private open space of existing dwellings in this location should not prejudice the development of land in accordance with State and local planning policy.

The degree of overshadowing is therefore considered to be appropriate.

12. The feasibility of the landscaping located in the centre of the site and surrounded by built form.

The landscaping and plant selection in the centre of the Site has been carefully considered to ensure a viable and visually vibrant outcome. At ground level, the planning palette adopts an array of grasses, ground covers and climbers well suited to the shaded conditions, making use of diffused and passive light to establish both horizontally and vertically.

ci

Project: 0316-0495

Trees located at podium level are sited to ensure access to daylight, and the species

selected are well suited to the sheltered and partially shaded conditions.

Planters are to be constructed to suitable depths to allow plants to fully establish.

Please refer to the originally submitted Landscape Masterplan (Etched, August 2018) and should any outstanding issues be raised by Council's landscape referral we are

pleased to discuss further.

13. Schedule 17 of the proposed Design and Development Overlay shows a 'future shared zone' within Plan 4 of Precinct 2. Please outline if your proposal has considered this.

The proposed design has considered the City of Yarra's vision for a future shared zone

along Little Lesney Street, abutting the southern boundary of the development.

The design provides for an active pedestrianised southern interface with primary vehicle access provided via Wiltshire Street. The design also provides for a textures and

landscaped interface with the public realm with recessed retail tenancy at ground floor

to allow oblique pedestrian view lines in place of the existing hard corner.

We see this project as an important contribution to, and indeed catalyst for the

extended revitalisation of the rail corridor along Little Lesney Street.

Attachments

Please find enclosed the following documents and plans in support of this RFI response:

■ 3 x A3 Architectural Plans and Design Report (Rob Kennon Architects, October

2018).

■ 1 x Traffic Report (Traffix Group, October 2018)

■ 1 x Acoustic Statement (Marshall Day, October 2018)

■ 1 x Wind Impact Assessment (MLA Consultants, October 2018)

■ 1 x Planning Assessment - Building Height, Scale and Setbacks (Tract Consultants,

October 2018)

■ 1 x Application Form

Please also find enclosed a USB containing an electronic copy of all submitted documents.

We trust that the submitted documents satisfy Council's request for further information and will

assist with the timely assessment of this application.

We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Yarra in the assessment of this

application. If you wold like to discuss any matters relating to this project please do not hesitate

to call me or Andrew Thornton on 9429 6133.

Yours sincerely

Luke Chamberlain Senior Principal Town Planner

Tract Consultants Pty Ltd

Project: 0316-0495