Agenda of Council Meeting - 20 April 2015 · Web viewMonday 20 April 2015 Order of Business and...

NOTICE PAPERMonday 20 April 2015 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Stonnington City Centre,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

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

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 20 April 2015Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayerb) Apologies c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63

of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 30 MARCH 2015 AND 13 APRIL 2015.......................5

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

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Publicf) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0451/14- 383 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN EAST - THE PROPOSAL SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH BASEMENT CAR PARK, COMPRISING 10 APARTMENTS, AND A CAR PARKING WAIVER FOR ONE VISITOR SPACE............................................................................................................................................ 7

2. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0473/14 - 523 ORRONG ROAD, ARMADALE - CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT............................................................................31

3. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0079/14 - 11 TASHINNY ROAD, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT WITHIN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE.................................................51

4. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0735/14 – 616-618 WARRIGAL ROAD, MALVERN EAST – CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING SHOP AT GROUND LEVEL AND 13 DWELLINGS ABOVE.................................................................................................71

5. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0273/14 - 663 663A 665 667 669 & 691 MALVERN ROAD, TOORAK – CONSTRUCTION OF A PART FIVE, PART SIX STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING CONTAINING 18 APARTMENTS ABUTTING MALVERN ROAD AND 17 TWO AND THREE STOREY TOWNHOUSES TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE.....................................................................................87

6. DRAFT CULTURAL DIVERSITY POLICY 2015-2019.......................................................................1197. AMENDMENT C184 - PUBLIC ACQUISITION OVERLAY, PRAHRAN - CONSIDERATION OF

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL AND ADOPTION....................................................1238. AMENDMENT C212 - MALVERN ROAD BURKE ROAD NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTIVITY CENTRE

PLANNING CONTROLS................................................................................................................1299. AMENDMENT C215 BURKE ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL PROJECT INCORPORATED

DOCUMENT................................................................................................................................ 135

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.

10. CONSIDERATION OF DONATION TO BAIRO PITE CLINIC.................................................................14111. SOCIAL JUSTICE DISCUSSION PAPER.......................................................................................143

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. CIVIC PRECINCT PROJECT - CONSTRUCTION TENDER REPORT....................................................147

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

20 APRIL 2015

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 30 March 2015 and 13 April 2015 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS20 APRIL 2015

l) General Business

1 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0451/14- 383 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN EAST - THE PROPOSAL SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH BASEMENT CAR PARK, COMPRISING 10 APARTMENTS, AND A CAR PARKING WAIVER FOR ONE VISITOR SPACE

Statutory Planning Manager: Alexandra KastaniotisGeneral Manager Planning & Development: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a three storey (plus basement) apartment building at 383 Wattletree Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Eastrise ConstructionC/- Urbis Pty Ltd

Ward: EastZone: General Residential Zone (Schedule 3)Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 10 June 2014Statutory days (as at Council meeting):

85 days

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 objections

VCAT Hearing Date 11 May 2015 (4 days)Cultural Heritage Plan: NoNumber of objections: 26 (6 Statements of grounds)Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 6 November 2014Officer Recommendation: That Council advise VCAT that had a Failure to Determine

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

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Christopher Doyle Architects and are known as Job No. 14-03, Drawing No.s: PD01 – PD35 and Council date stamped 20 March 2015.

Amended plans supersede the advertised plans and detail the following changes;

The revised basement plan details the alteration of the plant room to an additional storage area.

The ground floor of the building now incorporates an indentation of 700mm at the centre of the front facade of the building to improve the level of articulation.

Page 7


Apartment No.1, No. 2, and No.9 are now three bedroom dwellings (originally 2 bedroom dwellings), resulting in a change to the apartment make up (from 10 x 2 bedroom dwellings to 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings).

Increased ground side setbacks (from 1.87m to 2m), and the eastern setback of the kitchen wall to Apartment No.3 increased to 3.5m, to protect the Port Jackson Fig. The rear (north) ground floor setbacks increased to 5m and 6.675m.

The eastern and western ground floor boundary walls reduced to an average height of 3.2 metres.

Reduced areas of paving and increased provision of planting to the eastern and western setbacks.

Increased first floor eastern and western side setbacks (from 1.87m to 2m, and 2.57m to 3.5m), and an increased rear (north) setback of 3.12m to 6m (to the building plain) and 4.4m the balconies.

The second floor apartments (No.9 & No.10) are now located beneath a mansard roof element, to achieve compliance with Standard B17 of Clause 55.

The second floor eastern and western side setbacks increased from 4.87 to 5m, and from 4.87m to 6.85m for the terrace to Apartment No. 10, and from 2.57m to 2.97m for the terrace to Apartment No. 9. The rear (north) setback increased from 7.05m & 7.92m to 9.1m.

The overall building height has been reduced by 980mm to 10.57 metres (from 11.55 metres).

Site coverage has been reduced from 591 square metres to 565 square metres (60% reduced to 58%).

Site permeability increased from 25% to 26%. Reduction in apartment floor space by 65 square metres across the development.

Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of the existing dwelling (no permit required). Construct a three storey apartment building with basement car park. The apartment

building comprises 10 dwellings (7 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings), with four dwellings located at the ground floor and first floor, and two dwellings located at the third floor.

All dwellings have an open plan kitchen, living room, and dining room layout. The ground floor dwellings have access to courtyards, where as the first floor and second floor dwellings are provided with balconies. Secluded Private Open Space areas range from 95 square metres to 8 square metres.

The basement car park contains a total of 21 car spaces; 20 resident car spaces and 1 visitor car space. The proposal requires a variation of one visitor car space. Vehicle access to the basement will be provided via the rear laneway, the existing crossover located on Wattletree Road is proposed to be reinstated.

A central pedestrian entry point is provided at the Wattletree Road frontage. The apartment building will have a total height of 10.57 metres (measured from the

north elevation). The apartment building has a minimum front setback of 8.9 metres and is setback off

all boundaries, excluding a portion of the east and western ground floor walls (located over 10 metres from the front facade of the building.

Proposed external materials include rendered brickwork (natural grey colour), face brickwork, colourbond roof, with aluminium window frames.

A front fence is proposed to be setback from the front boundary by a 1 metre wide garden bed. The fence will be 2.28 metres in height and constructed out of iron pickets with brick pillars.

The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.

Site and Surrounds

Page 8


The site is located on the northern side of Wattletree Road in Malvern East. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is zoned General Residential Zone (Schedule 3) and is not affected by any overlays.

The site is regular in shape with a frontage of 21.34 metres, a depth of 45.72 metres, and an area of 975 square metres.

The site contains a double storey dwelling with pitched roof, detached garage, swimming pool, single crossover to Wattletree Road, and rear access via the laneway, a medium height front fence, and a number of small trees located along part of the northern boundary.

The site has a fall of approximately 0.44 metres from front to rear.

The immediate surrounds are described as follows;

No. 385 Wattletree Road, Malvern East is located to the east of the site and comprises a double storey contemporary dwelling with pitched roof, attached garage, swimming pool to the rear, high permeable front fence, and vehicle access via Wattletree Road and the rear laneway. Vegetation is located along the western boundary, including a large Port Jackson Fig to the rear of the site.

No. 4 Kingston Street, Malvern East is located to the west of the subject site and contains a double storey dwelling with pitched roof, swimming pool to the rear, a number of larger trees, and a high solid front and boundary fence, with access provided via a crossover to Kingston Street. A current application (reference 1131/14) for the development of a three storey development (plus basement car park) at the site is on advertising.

Adjacent to the subject site and to the north of the rear laneway lie No. 4 Irymple Avenue and No. 6 Irymple Avenue, Malvern East. No. 4 Irymple Avenue, Malvern East contains a single storey dwelling with pitched roof, carport to the front and a garage to the rear of the site, and vehicle access to both the rear laneway and Irymple Avenue. No. 6 Irymple Avenue contains a double storey contemporary dwelling with pitched roof attached garage with access provided via Irymple Avenue.

Central Park Reserve, a Council owned park, is located adjacent to the subject site to the south of Wattletree Road.

The surrounding land is characterised by a mix of single and double storey dwellings with generous areas of private open space to the front and rear. Some examples of multi-dwelling developments are evident within the surrounding streets and works for a three storey multi-dwelling development (approved under Planning Permit 503/12) at No. 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East are currently underway, and a development for a three storey multi-dwelling development at No. 4 Kingston Street is currently being assessed (Planning Application 1131/14). A clear dominant architectural style is not easily identified. The majority of dwellings are setback off most or all boundaries. Many of the roads within the surrounding area, such as Nott Street and Erica Street, are notable for their established street trees. The site is located approximately 140 metres from the corner of Wattletree Road and Burke Road intersection which is identified as being a small neighbourhood activity centre. Commercial buildings and uses are located to the east of Irymple Avenue and further along Burke Road.

Previous Planning Application(s)

Page 9


A search of Council records indicates that no relevant planning applications have been submitted for the subject site.

Planning Permit 503/12, issued at the direction of VCAT, for No. 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East authorises a three storey (plus basement car park) apartment building comprising 12 dwellings. The order makes reference to higher density developments incorporating a range of dwelling types being encouraged where a site has a main road location, with good access to public transport, and close proximity to a neighbourhood activity centre. The building will have a total height of 11.18 metres.

Planning Application 1131/14, has been lodged for No. 4 Kingston Street, Malvern East and proposes a three storey (plus basement car park) apartment building comprising 13 dwellings, the building has a proposed total height of 10.8 metres. Further information has been submitted by the applicant and the application will be advertised in due course.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 03621 Folio 138 as lot 8 on Plan of Subdivision and no covenants or easements affect the land. The subject site has a right of carriageway and drainage to the rear laneway.

Planning Controls

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

ZoneClause 32.08 General Residential Zone(Schedule 3 - Residential Boulevards & Corridors)Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on the lot. Schedule 3 introduces a mandatory maximum height of 12 metres (plus 1.2 metres for a lift overrun), and additional requirements to Standard B6, B17, and B18 of Clause 55. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

A declaration to amend the application, following the submission of plans and documents responding to Council’s request for further information, was submitted on 20 August 2014. Therefore transitional provisions afforded to applications submitted prior to the change in zone (19 June 2014) do not apply.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 Car Parking

Pursuant 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 states one car space is required for each one to two bedroom dwelling, two spaces for each three bedroom dwelling, and one visitor space is required to each 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings. The proposal generates a requirement of 13 resident spaces and 2 visitor spaces. The basement comprises 20 resident car spaces (two spaces allocated per dwelling) and 1 visitor space, the provision is in excess of the standard requirements for residents and requires a reduction of one visitor space.

Page 10


Clause 52.34 Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage are provided on the land. Given the development is less than four storeys, the requirements of this clause are not applicable.

Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildingsGiven Clause 32.01-4 is triggered an assessment against Clause 55 is required.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15 Built Environment and HeritageClause 16 HousingClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 22.18 Stormwater Management; Water Sensitive Urban DesignClause 32.08 General Residential Zone (Schedule 3)Clause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

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

Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014, which recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to minor modifications. As a result, Amendment C175 has reached a stage that it can be considered as a seriously entertained planning policy. Due consideration should be given to the proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy. According to the Amendment, the subject site falls within a Garden Suburban Precinct (Schedule 4) (“GS4”). An assessment against the Neighbourhood Character Policy will be provided below.

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 the East Ward and objections from 26 different properties have been received. The objections are summarised as follows; Traffic safety, traffic generation, and parking concerns. Amenity impacts associated with overshadowing from the proposed building. Non-compliance with ResCode in relation to the upper floors and associated visual bulk

impacts. Building height and non-compliance with the mandatory maximum height requirement

of 12 metres. Lack of consistency with the existing neighbourhood character.

Page 11


Impact on the health of the Port Jackson Fig located within No. 385 Wattletree Road. The owner of No. 385 Wattletree Road has submitted an arborist report prepared by John Fordham of Horticultural Services which assesses the potential impact of the development on the vegetation within No. 385 Wattletree Road.

Amenity impacts to No. 385 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, including overlooking to the front and rear yards and west facing bathroom windows, overshadowing, visual bulk impacts.

Potential impact of the basement on the structural integrity of the dwelling at No. 385 Wattletree Road.

The proposed development has been designed to maximise profit without proper consideration of the impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Noise pollution, air pollution, and flooding risks increased due to the proposed development.

The proposal does not comply with a number of ResCode Objectives, such as site coverage, side and rear setbacks, overshadowing and overlooking.

Overlooking to the rear open space of No. 8 Irymple Avenue and No. 4 Irymple Avenue.

Inconsistency with the heritage overlay which affects the properties to the southern side of Wattletree Road.

Light spill to No. 4 Irymple Avenue. Waste management. Demolition of the existing house and impact on existing character of the area. Impact of development on local fauna.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 6 November 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillors McMorrow, and Stubbs, objectors and a Council planning officer. The applicant did not attend. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.

It is noted however that the applicant has submitted amended plans, Council date stamped 20 March 2015, which supersede the advertised plans.

Referrals

Transport and Parking

Comments were provided on 5 September 2014 in relation to the Traffic Impact Report (TIR) Council date stamped 10 June 2014, and revised plans and additional information Council date stamped 08 August 2014. The amended plans, Council date stamped 20 March 2015 detail the provision of one visitor car space and do not change the dimensions or setbacks of the basement.

Parking provision; The amended proposal now incorporates three x 3 bedroom dwellings and seven x 2

bedroom dwellings which requires the provision of 13 resident car spaces and 2 visitor car spaces. The amended plans detail a total of 21 car spaces; 20 for residents and one visitor space.

Comments recommended that due to the excess of car parking spaces that two of the spaces be reallocated for visitor use.

Traffic generation; The traffic generated by the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant

impact on the surrounding road network. The Traffic Impact Report estimates that there will be six (6) vehicle trips per hour, for residents of the proposed 10 dwellings.

Page 12


Car parking/access design; The car parking design (access ways, car parking spaces, and gradients) is considered

satisfactory. The proposed number of spaces and for bicycle parking for this development is

considered satisfactory. However, manufacturers’ specifications for the visitor bicycle parking arrangement are required for review.

The existing vehicle crossing on Wattletree Road should be removed, and kerb and channel reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.

Landscape

Initial comments are based on the advertised plans (including a proposed Landscape Plan prepared by Christopher Doyle, Council Stamped 25 August 2015), and a Landscape Plan prepared by Urbis and Council date stamped 08 August 2014. Further comments have been provided in relation to amended plans that detail an increased building setback from the Port Jackson Fig located within No. 385 Wattletree Road, Malvern East.

Initial comments;

No Significant trees are located within the site boundaries. A significant Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig) is located directly adjacent to the

eastern boundary of the subject site. This tree appears in good health, and is a significant feature of the surrounding landscape. The basement excavation has been scheduled to occur outside the listed SRZ of 3.1m, but actual construction works are shown as close as 1.87m from the boundary. This level of works opposite the tree would not be supported given the encroachment into the TPZ of this specimen.

A mature Pittosporum eugenoides (Lemon Wood) is located directly south of the Port Jackson Fig. This specimen contributes to the vegetative screen between the 2 properties, in particular to the rear private open space of 385 Wattletree Road. This tree has been incorrectly labelled in the submitted Galbraith report as the environmental weed Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum).

Additional tree specimens will most likely be affected within both 385 Wattletree Road & 4 Kingston Street with the proposed construction of new dwelling walls along the eastern and western boundaries of the proposal. Council’s Arborist has since advised that as the additional trees referred to are not significant, and it is recommended that the applicant consult the owners prior to construction.

Landscape plan; confirmation regarding which landscape plan is to be considered, furthermore both plans proposed in situ tree planting even though suitable in-ground planting space is available. It must be clear what is intended to be planted in-ground, and what is to be in situ.

Comments provided in relation to amended plans; Previous pruning of the western section of the upper crown of the Port Jackson Fig will

see it not requiring any further work if the built form is 3.5m from the boundary. The applicant’s aborist report states that it is impossible to be sure without exploratory

excavation that a setback of 4 metres, preferably more, free of any excavation will be required for a large length opposite the fig. The applicant has increased the ground floor setback of the building and basement to 4.2 metres opposite the fig, however exploratory excavation does not appear to have been undertaken.

Urban Design

Page 13


Comments are based on the advertised plans. Concerns were raised in relation to landscape setting, visual bulk and streetscape integration.

Landscape setting; The proposal crowds the site interfaces with the two adjacent neighbouring properties

and does not provide sufficient space for the planting of deep soil canopy trees. The side setbacks to the external faces of the basement are not properly dimensioned; and they do not appear to take into account the full impact of the likely width of the basement retaining structure.

New and larger apartment developments must be designed to be integrated within an appropriately sized landscape setting. The purpose behind this objective is to reinforce (or, in some cases, repair) the landscape character of the neighbourhood, and to provide an on-site landscape amenity for residents of new higher-density apartment developments.

It is recommended that the site setbacks are increased.

Visual bulk; The side and rear setbacks result in the presentation of an excessive degree of visual

bulk to the private open spaces of the neighbouring properties to the north of the laneway.

Streetscape integration; The proposed width of the building crowds the side boundaries of the site and

noticeably lessens the existing rhythm of building spacing in the streetscape. A narrower building form would address this issue.

Council’s Urban Designer has provided verbal comments advising that the reduced building footprint, shown within amended plans Council date stamped 20 March 2015, sits more comfortably within the streetscape setting and is an acceptable outcome from and Urban Design perspective.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

Comments are provided in relation to the advertised proposal, and the submitted SMP Council date stamped 08 August 2014.

The SMP indicates that shading structures such as extended eaves and retractable awnings will be provided to the development. However, no east and west facing elevations have been provided to confirm this. Applicant to provide relevant elevations and ensure plans confirm location of proposed shading elements.

SMP indicates that high levels of daylight will be achieved within the development. However, this cannot be confirmed as no east or west elevations appear to be included with the application.

The SMP indicates that a 2.5kW photovoltaic system will be provided however the location of the panels is not indicated on the plans, this needs to be addressed via a condition

The SMP indicates that gas hot water and stove tops will be provided to all units, the applicant is to confirm if individual metering for gas will also be provided to units.

The location, dimensions and annotation confirming rainwater tank connections to internal toilets have not been indicated on plans. Applicant to modify this aspect. In addition, roof plans must be modified to confirm drainage area to be connected to the rainwater tank.

The completed STORM report indicates that paving and terrace areas above the basement will drain to buffer strips. However, these have not been indicated on plans. Landscape plan to be modified to confirm location of buffer strips and drainage slope

Page 14


from terraces to the buffer strips. In addition, landscape plan to confirm that planting types proposed are able to meet buffer strip requirements.

Waste

Comments are provided in relation to the advertised proposal. Concerns were raised in relation to the ‘Preliminary Waste Management Plan’ (WMP) Council date stamped 8 August 2014. The concerns raised which must be addressed in a revised WMP are summarised below;

The WMP does not respond adequately to the Stonnington Residential Waste Management Guidelines.

Waste generation estimations have not been based on the standard Stonnington allocations and therefore the proposed bin allocation does not comply with standard requirements.

Bins must be presented for collection in front of the premises to which the bins are allocated. Waste bins cannot be presented for collection in a neighbouring street.

Initiatives and actions must be included on how the development will contribute to the outcomes of the Victorian State Government’s ‘Getting Full Value’.

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

Infrastructure

Comments are provided in relation to the advertised plans, however are still relevant to the amended plans. Council’s Infrastructure Department has not raised any concerns relating to the proposed development and requires standard conditions to be included on the permit. The standard conditions regarding drainage design, maintaining the levels of the rear right of way, and re-instating the redundant vehicle crossing.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

The purpose of the General Residential Zone (Schedule 3) is to implement State and Local Planning Policies, to encourage development that respects the existing neighbourhood character, to implement neighbourhood policy, provide diversity of housing and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport. The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher density development located in or close to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport. In addition, local policies call for well-designed medium density housing that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.

Having regard to the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the strategic directions of the State and Local Policy Framework, in particular Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 16.01 (Residential Development), Clause 21.03 (Vision for the City), Clause 21.05 (Housing) and Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage).

The proposal seeks to construct 10 dwellings in a well serviced location within the municipality. The location of the proposed development satisfies the strategies set out in

Page 15


Clause 16.01-2 (Location of residential development) which encourages ‘higher density development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport’. The site is located on Wattletree Road which is identified within Clause 21.03 as being a priority tram route, and is located approximately 140 metres (as the crow flies) from the small neighbourhood activity centre located at the Bourke Road and Wattletree Road intersection. The site is identified, pursuant to Clause 21.05-2 (Location of residential development) as being within a Substantial Change Area due to the immediate abuttal to a main road within a priority tram route. Clause 21.05 (Housing) directs medium and higher density housing to Substantial Change Areas.

Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage) sets out a number of key issues, objectives and strategies relating to the built environment and heritage of the municipality. These key issues, set out within Clause 21.06, are the overall urban structure, landscape character, amenity, built form character, public realm and pedestrian areas, solar access and wind protection, noise and air quality, energy, water and waste efficiency, designing for safety, universal access and social inclusion, and heritage.

The objective of Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape character) is ‘to repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’. Generally speaking Clause 21.06-2 encourages new development to incorporate a designated landscape setting with substantial canopy vegetation, adequate setbacks for sufficient planting of canopy trees, avoidance of excessive site coverage within medium and higher density development, and planting appropriate to the character of the area in front gardens and native (preferably indigenous) in rear gardens, to enhance habitat values while also respecting the area’s character, amenity and European heritage. The proposal incorporates adequate setbacks to allow for the planting of canopy trees, particularly within the front setback to respond to the landscape character of the area where established trees are a notable feature.

Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity) aims ‘to achieve high standards of amenity within new developments, and with adjoining developments’. It is considered that the proposal provides for a good level of internal amenity with all habitable room windows provided with direct access to natural light, appropriate room dimensions, good internal layout and connections, and adequate areas of private open space provided. Furthermore the proposal does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts which will be discussed in more detail within the Clause 55 assessment. Although the development will present as a substantial built form in comparison to the existing development located at the site, it is considered acceptable in light of the site context and the sufficient setbacks proposed.

Although the building is located partially on the east and west boundaries, it is limited to the ground floor only. Furthermore the walls on boundaries are setback over 10 metres from the front façade of the dwelling and will be largely obscured from the street frontage due to the setback and provision of landscaping. Furthermore the setbacks at the upper levels are considered acceptable and have been increased in comparison to the advertised proposal. The increased setbacks help to reduce the visual bulk impacts to the properties located to the east and west, and opposite the site to the north of the laneway.

Clause 21.06-4 (Built form character) aims to provide new development that does not undermine the valued character of the City, to promote good design in all new developments, ensuring the integration of new development with its surrounds, and to promote special protection for areas of highly consistent character. Although the architectural design is not one that is generally seen within the area, the scale and setbacks are reasonable when considering the strategic direction for medium and higher density developments at the subject site. Furthermore, although detached single and double storey dwellings, with generous areas of private open space to the front and rear, make up part of the existing

Page 16


character, it is likely that the character will change, particularly along Wattletree Road due to strategic support for higher density developments.

It is considered that the subject site has strategic support for higher density development. The location is appropriate for urban consolidation and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice. It is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily addresses policy objectives of urban consolidation, streetscape character, household diversity, building form and landscape character and is responsive to its context.

Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity. These are discussed further below.

Clause 55

Neighbourhood Character/ Design Detail

As discussed above the existing character is mixed, however a dominant feature includes the single storey and double storey detached dwellings, with large areas of private open space. It is noted that although these features make up the existing character, Wattletree Road, being a Substantial Change Area, it is anticipated that the development character will undergo notable change. The design includes a 9 metre front setback, allowing the planting of vegetation to integrate the development with the street, and to respond to the existing landscape character. Furthermore the development involves an indentation at the mid section of the front facade at all levels to improve the presentation of the development to the street. As discussed above the ground floor eastern and western boundary walls are considered acceptable due to their setback from the front facade, furthermore the walls will not significantly impact the amenity of the adjoining properties (to be discussed further against the Standard B18 assessment). The rear setback of the building has been increased, in comparison to the advertised proposal, to reduce the visual bulk impacts to the surrounding properties, particularly to No. 4 & No. 6 Irymple Avenue. The setback to the rear eastern corner of the site, to accommodate the retention of the Port Jackson Fig within No. 385 Wattletree Road also reduces the impact of the building when viewed from the rear yard of No. 385 Wattletree Road.

Amendment C175 identifies the area as the Garden Suburban 4 Precinct (GS4). The preferred future character for the GS4 comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Edwardian, Interwar or Post‐war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, one‐two storey scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street. GS4 also states that Substantial Change areas will accommodate more dwelling developments with a slightly more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design. It is considered that the proposed building responds to the preferred future character statement by incorporating adequate setbacks, suitable areas for landscaping, permeable fencing, and an appropriate graduation from double storey to three storey development.

The proposed front fence with a maximum height of 2.28 metres (not including the feature elements) requires a variation of 0.28 metres to Standard B32 of Clause 55.06-2 (Front fences objective). The variation is considered acceptable as the fence is permeable and softened further by the separation between to the street provided by a planter box. Fencing within the immediate surrounds ranges in heights and styles, including a number of high solid front fences. Furthermore the fencing does not detract from the good level of integration that

Page 17


building has with the street, achieved with an orientation towards Wattletree Road and a focal entry point.

Dwelling diversityThe proposal involves an appropriate mix of 7 x two bedroom dwellings, and 3 x three bedroom dwellings.

Street setbackStandard B6 of Clause 55.03-1 (Street setback objective) prescribes a standard front setback requirement of 9 metres for the subject site; the proposal requires a minor variation of 0.01 metres to the standard requirement with a front setback of 8.9 metres proposed. The variation is minor and will not have a detrimental impact on the integration of the development with the street. The front setback respects the existing character.

Building HeightThe schedule to the zone introduces a mandatory maximum height of 12 metres (plus 1.2 metres for the lift overrun). The proposed building height of 10.16 metres (measured from the north elevation) sits comfortably within the mandatory maximum requirements. The transition from two storeys to three storeys is considered acceptable, due to the transition of only one storey combined with the first floor and second floor side setbacks proposed. Furthermore the rear setbacks ranging from 5 metres at the ground floor level, 4.4 metres to the balconies and 6 metres to the building plane at the first floor level, and 4.4 metres to the second floor balconies and 9.1 metres to the building plane responds appropriately to the properties to the north of the laneway and the location of their secluded private open space areas.

Site CoverageThe proposal involves site coverage of 58% and a basement site coverage (including ramp) of approximately 69%. Both site coverage and basement site coverage comply with the standard requirements of 60% and 75% (respectively). The proposed site coverage is respectful of the existing neighbourhood character, as it provides for acceptable areas of the site that can be landscaped, particularly within in the front setback. Furthermore the extent of the building footprint, combined with setbacks and landscaping, reduces the visual bulk impacts to the surrounding properties.

PermeabilityThe proposal involves a permeability level of 25% which meets the standard 20% permeability requirement. In conjunction with this, the development will be required to respond to Clause 22.18 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme (Stormwater Management: Water Sensitive Urban Design) further reducing any stormwater runoff.

Energy EfficiencyThe proposed development has made appropriate use of daylight where possible. North facing windows and balconies are provided to dwellings facing north, and east and west facing habitable room windows have been incorporated to improve access to daylight. The site is constrained by the north-south orientation, however all dwellings have access to direct sunlight. The development has incorporated sustainability features such as solar panels to further decrease the dependency on fossil fuels. In any given instance, the Building Regulations will require a 6 star energy efficiency rating. In addition the development will not have a detrimental impact on the energy efficiency of the adjoining properties, as overshadowing of habitable room windows and secluded private open spaces proposed is not excessive, this will be discussed further below.

LandscapingIt is considered that the layout of the development allows opportunity for meaningful landscaping, and the protection of the significant Port Jackson Fig within No. 385 Wattletree

Page 18


Road can be addressed further via permit conditions. The proposed landscaping will contribute to the existing landscape character of the area and soften views of the development. The indicative landscaping plan incorporates the planting of canopy trees within the front setback, and smaller trees/vegetation within the side setbacks and rear yards. Two landscape plans were submitted with the application however neither have been submitted with the VCAT amended plans, a permit condition will require a landscape plan to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The landscape plans and Tree Report submitted with the application were reviewed by Council’s Landscape Department. Council’s Landscape Department have also provided comment in relation to the increased setback from the Port Jackson Fig. Initial comments stated that the location of the basement may impact the health of the Port Jackson Fig, further comments state that although the increased setback of 4.2 metres meets the recommended minimum setback of 4 metres, it appears root exploration has not been conducted. The setback of the basement (4.2 metres) and the building (minimum of 4.26 metres at the ground floor level) is slightly in excess of the recommended setback, however without root exploration we cannot be certain that the development will not detrimentally impact the Port Jackson Fig. As such a permit condition will ensure that prior to construction root exploration is undertaken and inspected by a Council arborist, who will liaise with the planning department regarding the location of the building. If significant root matter is encountered it may necessitate the reconfiguration of the built form, or alternative construction methods, within the affected area.

Amenity Impacts

Side and Rear SetbacksStandard B17 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. Schedule 3 to the zone requires, in addition to the standard requirements, that for a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building, the building (including basement) is setback a minimum of 2 metres from one site and 1 metre from the other side boundary at a ground floor level. The proposal meets this requirement by proposing a eastern and western ground floor setback of 2 metres for a distance of slightly over 10 metres from the front facade of the building, and a setback of 2.15 metres to the east and west of the basement.

The ground floor boundary walls will be assessed against Standard B18.

The tables below illustrate how the proposal compares to the Standard B17 requirements;

Ground Floor

Orientation Setback Proposed

Wall Height Proposed

Setback Required

Compliance Achieved?

North 5 metres 4.1 metres 1.15 metre YesEast 2 metres to 3.5

metres6.49 metres, 6.81 metres, & 7.08 metres

1.867 metres, 1.963 metres, & 2.17 metres

Yes

West 2 metres 4.11 metres to 6.87 metres

1.153 metres to 1.981 metres

Yes

First Floor

North 6 metres 7.14 metres 2.23 metres Yes

Page 19


East 2 metres to 3.5 metres



Yes

West 2 metres to 3.5 metres


1.981 metres to2.665 metres

Yes

Second Floor

North 9.1 metres 10.16 metres 5.25 metres YesEast 3.5 metres to 5

metres6.81 metres to 9.95 metres


No, variation of .04 metres to bedroom 1 (in part) and the living room of Apartment 10 required.

West 3.5 metres to 5 metres



No, variation of 0.93 metres for kitchen and bathroom wall of Apartment 10 required

The above setbacks are taken from the building plain, however should the setbacks be measured to the balconies to Apartment 7, Apartment 8, and Apartment 10 compliance would still be easily achieved. The balcony to Apartment No.9 is setback 2.97 metres to the east and west, if the height measurement is taken from the top of the parapet associated with the balconies (7.43 metres to the east & 7.7 metres to the west), setbacks of 2.52 metres and 2.79 metres are required respectively, for which compliance is achieved.

The variation of 0.04 metres to the eastern first floor wall is considered minor and will not result in any notable amenity impact to the property to the east, being No. 385 Wattletree Road, Malvern East.

The variation of 0.93 metres to the western firs floor wall (kitchen and bathroom wall of Apartment No.10) is considered acceptable as the building, for the most part of the subject wall, is located opposite a blank ground floor wall of the dwelling at No. 4 Kingston Street, Malvern East. Part of the subject wall is located opposite part of a ground floor habitable room window of No. 4 Kingston Street. The variation is unlikely to impact the amenity of No. 4 Kingston Street as the existing window is setback 2.75 metres from the shared boundary and only part of the window (less than 50% of the window) will have a direct view of the wall.

It is worthy to mention that should the development (Planning Application 1131/14) be approved at No. 4 Kingston Street, the non-compliant wall will be located opposite habitable room windows at a ground floor, first floor, and second floor level with setbacks ranging from 2.7 metres to 5.507 metres. It is not considered that the variation would result in a significant impact to the amenity of the proposed development, particularly as many of the rooms opposite the subject wall are bedrooms where less time is generally spent (in comparison to a lounge room).

Walls on Boundaries The schedule to the zone restricts the location of boundary walls to 5 metres behind the front facade of a building, the proposal meets this additional Standard B18 requirement as the boundary walls are setback slightly over 10 metres from the front facade.

Page 20


The ground floor eastern boundary wall is located opposite a portion of the dwelling located at No. 385 Wattletree Road which contains a habitable room window, verandah and secluded private open space. The eastern boundary wall has a proposed height of 3.17 metres which complies with the average height requirements. Although the wall is located opposite a sensitive area of No. 385 Wattletree Road it is considered acceptable due to the compliant height and length, combined with the location of the eastern facade and eave of the existing dwelling which appears to be within close proximity to the eastern boundary (with the eave located on the boundary).

The ground floor western boundary wall is located opposite one east facing ground floor habitable room window at No. 4 Kingston Street. The wall has a height of 3.195 metres, and again due to the compliant height and length, is considered acceptable.

Daylight to Existing Windows

The building requires a setback from the existing west facing windows of the dwelling at No. 385 Wattletree Road of 3.405 metres, a setback of 4.341 metres is achieved.

The building requires a setback from the existing east facing ground floor windows of 4 Kingston Street of 1.598 metres, due to the wall height of 3.195 metres; a compliant setback of 1.6 metres is achieved and therefore complies. The building requires a setback from the existing east facing first floor windows of 4 Kingston Street of 1.75 metres, due to the 3.5 metre wall height (measured from the finished floor level of the rooms containing the subject windows); a compliant setback of 4.75 metres is achieved.

It is worthy to note that the proposed setbacks to the western boundary would allow for an adequate amount of sunlight to the east facing habitable room windows proposed development at No. 4 Kingston Street (permit application 1131/14) should the development be approved. The proposal detailed within application 1131/14 involves minimum setbacks of 2.7m (first floor) and 4.542 metres (second floor) to the eastern boundary. At the first floor a setback of 3.405 metres to habitable room windows would be required; a minimum setback of 4.7 metres is achieved. At the second floor a setback of 5.15 metres to habitable room windows would be required; a setback of approximately 8 metres is achieved.

OvershadowingThe proposed building will result in additional areas of overshadowing to the adjoining properties to the east and west however the extent is not considered to be unreasonable. The building will result in a small area of additional overshadowing to the rear SPOS area of No.4 Kingston Street at the 9am time period. Again, the building will result in a small area of overshadowing to the rear SPOS of No. 385 Wattletree Road at 3pm. Both additional areas of overshadowing are not considered to be substantial and both dwellings will continue to enjoy an area greater than 40sqm of unshadowed SPOS.

Overlooking The existing eastern and western boundary fencing will mitigate any potential views from the ground floor. The plans will need to be update to include details of the proposed northern boundary fencing for consistency, although it is noted that overlooking from the habitable room windows and SPOS areas of Dwellings No. 3 & 4 would not occur due to the location of boundary fencing to the properties to the north of the laneway.

The eastern and western first floor habitable room windows are treated with obscured glazing from 1.7 metres from finished floor level to mitigate any potential overlooking to the neighbouring areas of SPOS or habitable room windows. The windows will not be operable below 1.7 metres from finished floor level.

Page 21


The first floor balconies of Dwellings No. 7 & 8 will be screened along the western and eastern sections with an opaque 1.7 metre high screen. The balconies to Dwelling No. 7 & 8 are not screened along the north. The overlooking diagram detailed at Section A-A and Section B-B show that the line of sight from the first floor balconies, although extending in to the property boundaries of No. 4 & 6 Irymple Avenue, does not reach the SPOS areas. The first floor balconies to Dwelling No. 5 & 6, have 1.7 metre high opaque screening to the east and west to protect the privacy of No. 385 Wattletree Road and No. 4 Kingston Street, although it is noted that the areas adjacent to the balconies does not consist of SPOS or habitable room windows.

The second floor east facing windows are screened with opaque glazing from 1.7 metres from finished floor level. The view from the second floor east facing living room window, and west facing kitchen window of Dwelling no. 9 will be blocked by the screening to the terrace.

The second floor east and west facing habitable room roof windows will have sill heights of 1.7 metres from finished floor level to mitigate any potential overlooking. A notation will need to be included on the elevations for the east facing bedroom 2 window of Apartment No. 9 confirming this. The balcony to Dwelling No. 10 has an outlook to the rear SPOS areas of No. 4 Kingston Street and No. 385 Wattletree Road, the balcony will need to be screened or compliance with Standard B22 will need to be demonstrated, potentially via a section diagram.

Due to the level of screening discussed above, if the development proposed under planning permit application 1131/14 is approved; the proposal at the subject site will not result in any unreasonable overlooking impacts to the apartments at No. 4 Kingston Street.

Noise ImpactsNoises emanating from vehicles accessing the basement should not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts as the basement entrance is located (mostly) opposite the existing carport of No. 4 Irymple Avenue, opposite a small corner of the rear of No. 6 Irymple Avenue (both separated by the laneway). The basement ramp is not located close to the any habitable room windows of the adjoining properties. Furthermore, the plant equipment is located within the basement. It is considered that the development will not generate noise over and above that expected with a normal dwelling/residential building.

Internal Amenity

The proposal provides for 10 apartments comprising of three x 3 bedroom dwellings and seven two bedroom dwellings ranging from 116 square metres to 143 square metres with private open space areas ranging from 8 square metre balconies to 95 square metre courtyards. All dwelling are sufficient sized with all habitable room windows capable of receiving access to natural light.

Each apartment is easily accessible, the screening devices throughout the development limit internal views and individual storage areas are provided within the basement (within the storage room and above bonnet storage) that are easily accessible and provide future occupants with a reasonable level of amenity.

Having regard to the site services, the development provides letter boxes at the pedestrian entry point and sufficient space for the storage of waste receptacles as contained in the basement level. The current waste management plan advises that the bins will be collected from Kingston Street which is not compliant with the Stonnington Residential Waste Management Guidelines. The applicant will need to submit a revised WMP to ensure collection occurs at the street frontage if proposed to be reliant on council collection.

Page 22


Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Engineer has reviewed the application and requires a number of conditions pertaining to the drainage design, maintaining the levels of the rear right of way, and re-instating the redundant vehicle crossing. These will be included on any permit that issues.

Subject to conditions, there are no more outstanding infrastructure concerns.

Car Parking and Traffic

The amended plans detail the provision of one visitor space within the basement which requires a reduction in one space to the standard requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. As the proposal incorporates the re-instating of one crossover to Wattletree Road, effectively improving the on street parking availability, and involves a basement car park accessible via a laneway (which may discourage visitors from parking within the basement) the reduction to the standard requirements is considered acceptable.

The manufacturers’ specifications for the visitor bicycle parking arrangement are required for review by the Transport and Parking Department and a permit will be included to reflect this, should a permit be issued.

Environmentally Sustainable Design/Water Sensitive Urban Design

A revised SMP will be required, via permit condition, to reflect the amended plans and to respond to Council’s ESD officer’s referral comments. The proposal will need to maintain compliance with the requirements of Clause 22.18 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, at present the proposal achieves a STORM rating of 102% which meets best practice requirements. Associated connections to the water tank and buffer strip will be required via permit conditions.

Urban Design

It is considered that the amended plans address Council’s Urban Designers comments adequately by increasing the side and rear setbacks, providing adequate landscaping to soften the development, and providing a focal point at the mid section front facade of the building to break up the breadth of the built form. As discussed previously Council’s Urban Designer has provided verbal comments advising that the reduced building footprint, shown within amended plans Council date stamped 20 March 2015, sits more comfortably within the streetscape setting and is an acceptable outcome from and Urban Design perspective.

Landscape

As discussed above the proposed setbacks from the trunk of the Port Jackson Fig located within No. 385 Wattletree Road meet the minimum setback recommended within the submitted arborist report, this combined with permit conditions relating to the protection of the tree, including root exploration, are considered adequate.

Waste

Page 23


A revised waste management plan will be required in accordance with Council’s Waste Management Officer’s comments.

Objections

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

Potential impact of the basement on the structural integrity of the dwelling at No. 385 Wattletree Road Engineering requirements will be addressed at the building permit stage.

Light spill into No. 4 Irymple Avenue The light spill into No. 4 Irymple Avenue will likely be consistent with that associated

with a residential use. Furthermore the development is setback a considerable distance from the dwelling located at No. 4 Irymple Avenue, and there is not provision for control over internal lighting use for dwellings.

Demolition of the existing house and the associated impact on the existing character of the area The site is not affected by a heritage overlay and therefore a planning permit is not

required to demolish the existing dwelling.

Impact of the development on local fauna. It is unlikely that the development will have any significant impact on the existing local

fauna, particularly as the proposal does not involve removal of any significant vegetation.

VCAT Proceedings

It is worthy to note that a merits hearing date has been set for the 11th of May 2015, and is set for 4 days.

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 is well supported by State and Local Planning Policies. There is strategic justification for the construction of additional dwellings at the subject

site. The proposed scale of the development is considered acceptable given the location of

the site within a substantial change area. The proposal has been designed to minimise impacts on adjoining residential

properties and complies with the objectives outlined in Clause 55. The development provides a high level of amenity for future occupants whilst allowing

for increased housing choice. The proposal suitably responds to the landscape character of the area.

Page 24


Attachments

1. PD - 0451-14 - 383 Wattletree Road Malvern East - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That Council advise VCAT that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0451/14 would have been issued for the land located at 383 Wattletree Road, Malvern East under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, and a reduction to the standard requirements of Clause 52.06 subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant must submit to the Responsible Authority three copies of plans drawn to scale generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Christopher Doyle Architects (Council date stamped 20 March 2015) but modified to show:

a) Amended elevations detailing a notation on the second floor east facing bedroom window of Apartment No. 9 confirming the sill height is 1.7 metres above the finished floor level.

b) The east and west elevations of the balcony to Apartment No. 10 screened in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking objective) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, or compliance with the standard demonstrated.

c) A notation included on the proposed ground floor plan detailing the minimum height of the northern fencing.

d) Locations and details of all sustainability measures referred to within the endorsed SMP, including the location of the solar panels, as requested by Condition 12 of this permit.

e) Manufacturers specifications for the visitor bicycle parking arrangement.

f) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.

g) A Tree Management Plan in accordance with Condition 5 of this permit.

h) A Sustainable Management Plan in accordance with Condition 12 of this permit.

i) A revised Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 8 of this permit.

j) Any changes required as a result of Condition 6 of this permit.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason

Page 25


(unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. 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 detailing the following:

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) Planting of canopy trees within the front setbackg) Planting of small trees within the front eastern and western setbacks h) In situ planting clearly identifiedi) Soil volumes for any in situ planting (directly related to their size at

maturity)j) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the sitek) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio

or decked areasl) The location and specific details of the proposed buffer strip, including

details of the drainage slope from the terrace areas to the buffer strips, and confirmation that the planting types proposed meet buffer strip requirements.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig) located within No. 385 Wattletree Road Malvern, East.

Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows:a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier

around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed

Page 26


above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

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

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

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

6. Prior to the endorsement of plans, and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the location of the eastern ground floor building facade and basement (proposed within close proximity to the structural zone of the Port Jackson Fig) is subject to a non-destructive root exploration investigation. This is to be undertaken by the applicant and the exploration trench must be inspected by a Council arborist, who will liaise with the Planning Department regarding the exact location of the basement and eastern building facade. Should significant root matter be encountered during the root investigation it may necessitate the reconfiguration of the eastern building facade and basement.

7. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig) in accordance with the recommendations detailed within the endorsed Tree Management Plan, and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

9. 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 e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collectionf) Sufficient headroom within the basement to allow the passage of waste

collection vehiclesg) Sufficient turning circles for the waste collection vehicles to drive out in

forward gear from within the basement h) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimised

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.

Page 27


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

11. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and stormwater management report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) Report 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. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Sustainable Development Consultants, Council date stamped 08 August 2014, but modified to:

a) Reflect the revised development detailed within the amended VCAT plans, Council date stamped 20 March 2015.

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

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

14. 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.

15. Existing levels of the rear of the right-of-way, including the edge, must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).

16. The redundant vehicle crossing must be removed and the footpath, nature strip, and kerb reinstated at the owners cost and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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. 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

Page 28


unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

permit.

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

NOTES

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

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

c. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the

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

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

Page 29


2 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0473/14 - 523 ORRONG ROAD, ARMADALE - CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone at 523 Orrong Road, Armadale.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Richard KornhauserC/- SJB Planning

Ward: SouthZone: General Residential Zone (Schedule 3)Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 17 June 2014Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

33


Four storey buildingMore than seven objections

Cultural Heritage Plan Not requiredNumber of objections: 11 Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 7 October 2014Officer 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 Ron Unger Architects and are known as Drawing No’s: TP05C, TP06C, TP07C, TP08C, TP09C and TP10C and Council date stamped 18 March 2015. An updated Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd forms part of the application material and is known as L-TP01 Rev A.

The site plan / design response, shadow diagrams and perspectives are as per the advertised plans Council date stamped 28 July 2014.


Removal of the existing buildings on the subject land. Construction of a part three and part four storey apartment building including a

basement garage for 21 vehicles (including 2 visitor spaces) and three residential floors levels comprising of 9 new dwellings in total. The basement sits more than 1.2 metres above ground level and is therefore classified as a storey. Hence the building is four storeys to Larnook Street and three storeys to Orrong Road.

The apartment mix will consist of 8 x 2 bedroom apartments and 1 x 4 bedroom apartment.

Main building entrance to lift and stair core is provided from Larnook Street. Basement entry is provided via an existing crossing (to be widened) on Larnook Street.

Page 31


The Ground floor will consist of four, 2-bedroom apartments with associated terraces and landscaped gardens. Units 1 and 2 are orientated to front Orrong Road with direct access provided from this frontage via pedestrian gates.

The First floor consists of four, 2-bedroom apartments with balconies of between 10sq. m and 18 sq. m orientated to the north, east and west.

The Second floor level will contain one, 4-bedroom apartment over the entire floor. Terraces equating to a total area of 121 sq. m are provided with an outlook to the north and south.

Basement coverage to be 66% of the overall site area. Total building and driveway footprint to equate to 68% site coverage. Total permeable ground to be 31% of the overall site area. Maximum overall building height to be 12.3 metres. The building is generally setback a minimum of 6 metres from Orrong Road and

between 2.1m and 4.3 metres to Larnook Street. The contemporary building is to be finished in brick, rendered masonry, rendered light

weight walls, precast concrete, clear and obscure glazing, and slate tile roofing.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south-west corner of Larnook Street and Orrong Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

Street frontage to Orrong Road of 23.47 metres, a frontage to Larnook Street of 45.72 metres, yielding an overall site area of 1073 sq. m.

There is a fall in the land of approximately 1.7 metres from east to west. The land is currently developed with a single storey dwelling including a carport within

the north-west corner of the site that abuts Larnook Street. The dwelling features a generous setback from Orrong Road and is constructed in close proximity to the southern boundary.

Private open space is located to the east and west of the residence.

The land to the south (521 Orrong Road) is occupied by a double storey brick building containing 7 residential units. The building has a street setback to Orrong Road of 5.9 metres. A driveway extends along the full length of the northern boundary with habitable room windows setback 6.37 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. North-facing non-habitable room windows are setback 4.26m from the northern boundary. Car parking is provided to the rear of this building, abutting the western boundary.

Land to the west (56 Larnook Street) is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling with a driveway that extends along the eastern boundary (the common boundary with the subject site). The residence is setback 7.4 metres from Larnook Street and private open space is located to the rear (south) of the dwelling. A Planning Application (PL0047/14) is currently being assessed by Council Officers, which seeks to construct a two storey apartment building comprising 8 dwellings with 8 car parking spaces provided in a basement accessed from Larnook Street. The driveway is maintained along the eastern boundary.

No decision has been made on this application to date; however it has been advertised and a Consultative Meeting has been carried out. The Applicant is currently in discussions with Council Officers regarding possible design changes to address concerns.

To the east and north are Orrong Road and Larnook Street, respectively. Both streets contain large mature trees that contribute to the character and amenity of the area. Four large street trees exist adjacent to the subject site, two along each street frontage.

Page 32


Across Larnook Street to the north are three, two storey contemporary residences that are setback between 2.2m and 3.2 metres from Larnook Street.


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

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 03989 Folio 764 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 679483 and no covenants affect the land. A drainage easement (approximately 1.65 metres wide) extends along the western boundary of the subject site.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 32.08 - General Residential Zone – Schedule 3Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 a permit is not required to use the land for dwellings.Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Section 3.0 of Schedule 3 specifies a mandatory maximum building height of 12 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 13 metres. A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no more than 1.2 metres.

The maximum building height for this site, due to the slope in the land, is 13 metres.

Schedule 3 also includes variations to ResCode Standards as follows:

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

A10 and B17 For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the frontfacade of the building fronting the street, setbacknew buildings (including basements) a minimum of2 metres from at least one side boundary and atleast 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6metres in height.Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17applies.

Walls on boundaries

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

Overlays Nil

Particular Provisions

Page 33


Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, prior to a new use commencing or a new building be occupied the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.

The table at Clause 52.06-5 states that 1 car space is to be provided to each one or two bedroom dwelling; or 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling; plus 1 car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

The statutory car parking rate for this development for the residents is 10 spaces plus 2 visitor spaces. The proposed development provides 21 car spaces, which exceeds the statutory requirement by 9 spaces.

Clause 52.29- Land adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road

A permit is required to alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1. This application does not seek to alter or create an access within the Road Zone and therefore does not apply.

Clause 52.34 - Bicycle Facilities

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1 bicycle facilities should be provided in accordance with the requirements at Clause 52.34-3 and 52.34-4. The development is required to provide 1 residential space for every 5 dwellings and 1 visitor space for every 10 dwellings. 3 bicycle spaces are therefore required. The development provides 11 bicycle spaces within the basement, which exceeds the statutory rate by 8.


Clause 11 SettlementClause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 HousingClause 18.02 Movement networks

Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.08 InfrastructureClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy

Amendment C175 – Draft Neighbourhood Character Local Policy

Amendment C175 has been prepared to introduce a new Neighbourhood Character Policy into the local section of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. This policy will clarify the preferred neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal respects and reinforces the preferred character.

The Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policy includes the preferred character statements, design objectives and design responses to be taken from the precinct profiles.

A Panel Hearing was set down for 15 and 16 April 2014. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Panel determined to adjourn the matter pending the gazettal of Stonnington's new residential zones. The new zones were gazetted on 19 June 2014. The Panel Hearing

Page 34


reconvened on 2 October 2014 providing further opportunities to hear the submissions and Council’s closing submission.

Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014 and released the report on 5 December 2014. The Panel Report recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to changes.

At its meeting on 2 February 2015, Council considered the recommendations of the Panel and resolved to adopt the amendment with changes.

Based on the resolution by Council, the subject site falls with the Garden Suburban 2 category. Further consideration of this policy will be provided later in this report.

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 eleven (11) different properties have been received. The concerns can be broadly summarized as follows:

Out of character with the local heritage architecture Car parking Traffic congestion Safety Entry and exit point via Larnook Street Height Number of dwellings Insufficient landscaping Waste Management

A Consultative Meeting was held on 7 October 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillor Ullin, representatives of the Applicant, objectors and a Council Planning Officer.

Plans were formally amended under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on 18 March 2015 to show the following changes from the advertised plans:

A reduction in the north-south dimension of the building to provide for a 400mm increase in the northern side boundary setback to Larnook Street at all levels, including the basement. The setback is now 2.4 metres (previously 2.0m).

A minor (90mm) reduction in the setback from the southern boundary, maintaining a 9 metre separation from the habitable room windows in the apartments to the south and a minimum 2.6 metre setback from the southern boundary (including at basement level) to ensure space for substantial landscaping along this interface.

A slight reduction in the driveway width, allowing an increase of 300mm in the setback from the western boundary. The driveway width of 3.3 metres plus 150 mm kerbs still satisfies the Australian standard. The setback of the basement and ground floor levels is increased from 1.65m to 1.95m. This provides more space along the western boundary for larger trees as shown in the revised landscape plan, prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd.

Lowering of the basement and ground floor levels by 300mm and the first floor level by 200mm with no change to the overall height of the building as the floor to ceiling

Page 35


heights are intended to be increased from 2.7m to 2.8m (at ground and first floor levels).

Street setback of Apartments 4, 8 and 9 from Larnook Street increased by 1 metre. The external stair between the terrace and ground level open space of Apartment 4

relocated. Internal walls to the studies in the apartments at ground and first floor levels removed. An updated Landscape Plan Rev A dated 21.01.2015 prepared by John Patrick Pty

Ltd, includes additional trees along the north and west boundaries, and in particular the north-west corner of the site.

Given the changes address the concerns raised it was not deemed necessary to re-advertise the plans, as no additional material detriment would result. The objectors have been notified of the amended plans via the invitation to the Council Meeting.

Referrals

Council’s Transport and Parking Department (Comments based on advertised plans)

Car Parking Provision

The proposal is to provide 21 parking spaces, which is a surplus of 10 spaces from the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The allocation of spaces is for the 2-bedroom dwellings to have two (2) spaces each, and the 4-bedroom dwelling to have three (3) spaces, with two (2) spaces allocated to visitors can be considered satisfactory.

Traffic Generation

The traffic generation of the proposed development is unlikely to cause significant impact to the surrounding road networks.

Car Park Design

The layout of the basement and parking area is considered to be satisfactory subject to the following:

Sight Distance at Property Boundary

Based on the plans provided it appears that some sight distance will be provided to the east of the accessway, but no sight distance will be provided to the west. The sight distance triangles are to be fully dimensioned and shown on the plans.

Parking Bays

The parking bays are designed to the requirements of the Planning Scheme, however spaces next to walls need to be widened to 2.9m and these dimensions shown on the plans.

Bicycle Parking

The number of bicycle spaces proposed is satisfactory. However, the type of bicycle parking is to be clearly identified, and all dimensions are to be shown on revised plans. If a proprietary product is to be used, a manufacturer’s specification is to be provided.

Council’s Sustainability Officer (Comments based on advertised plans)

Page 36


Council’s Sustainability Officer has highlighted several items that require additional details to be shown on the plans:

Study nooks have been provided with no access to daylight, thus requiring artificial lighting when in use. An alternative proposal should be considered.

Whilst the majority of windows will be shaded by overhangs and extended eaves, fixed horizontal shading device should be provided to exposed northern aspect windows. User operable external shading is recommended to western windows to minimise summer afternoon solar heat gain.

Whilst a solar hot water system is proposed to the top floor apartment, the majority of units will be provided with instantaneous gas hot water. Therefore, the STEPS report to be amended to reflect the majority approach.

The SDA and basement plan annotations indicate that impermeable areas will drain to two rain gardens. However, the location, dimensions and drainage areas connected to these have not been indicated on site or landscape plans. In addition, where rain gardens are proposed, Applicant must provide relevant cross-sections (including indicative planting types) as well as indicative management and maintenance measures to ensure long-term success of stormwater diversion.

Rain gardens are proposed to drain to a 20000 litre rainwater tank to provide water for irrigation to be confirmed on landscape plans.

STORM score within main text of the SDA (page 6) to be amended to match STORM tool print out (101%).

Plans to confirm location and number of visitor bicycle spaces to be provided. Applicant to note that Council’s best practice for construction and demolition stage

recycling and reuse is 70% by mass. The proposed 60% target should be improved. The Applicant is to provide a commitment to development a Building User Guide, which

will provide information on aspects such as use and maintenance of rain gardens and solar hot water systems, for example.

Planner Note: The revised plans Council date stamped 18 March 2015 have removed all doors from studies so that no rooms rely on borrowed light and improving energy efficiency.

Council’s Urban Designer (Comments based on advertised plans)

Council’s Urban Designer has provided the following comments and recommendations:

The extent of the basement should be reduced to create an appropriate deep-soil planting zone for canopy-tree vegetation, between the western end of the basement and the easement.

The front setback should be increased and the landscaping along the Larnook Street frontage should be substantially improved from the current minimal provision.

The setback from the Southern boundary should be increased to create a more equitable interface around this shared boundary.

The massing of the building should be reducing as it extends towards the West, to relate more closely to the topography of the site and to the streetscape.

The minimal northern setback, together with the (nearly 4-storey) scale of the building to Larnook Street, combine to present an excessive degree of visual bulk that is out of character in this local residential street.

Planner Note: The revised plans have increased the front setback to Larnook Street and increased plantings along the north and west boundaries on the Landscape Plan. The plantings to the north-west seek to soften views of the new building from within Larnook Street.

Page 37


Council’s Arborist (Comments based on the advertised plans)

There are 3 mature trees located within this site, but none would be considered exceptional specimens. Council has no objection to the proposed tree removals.

Large mature street trees are located on both the Orrong Road and Larnook Street frontages of this property. Council should condition as part of the permit that tree root barriers be constructed within the proposal where concrete paving is proposed opposite existing mature Council street trees. Areas opposite these Council areas are currently garden / open space, and the change to impermeable surfaces will leave Council open to future insurance claims for deflection of these surfaces from existing / future mature root growth.

Permit Condition – Protection fencing must be afforded to all the street trees on both frontages of this property prior to construction works being undertaken. Fencing must compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970.

Landscape Plan - The installation of Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) as a screening tree along the southern boundary will not be successful in screening the new built form from the block of flats to the south of the proposal.

Council’s Infrastructure Department

Infrastructure require conditions relating to the legal point of discharge and drainage design; existing footpath levels must not be altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp); and water tanks are encouraged.

Council’s Waste Department

A comprehensive Waste Management Plan prepared by Waste Space Solutions Pty Ltd and dated 11 June 2014 accompanied this proposal. This document responded well to all waste management challenges presented in the plans. Any Planning Permit issued for this development must include a clause specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan.

KEY ISSUES


In assessing this application, consideration must be given to the relevant State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

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

The subject site is located on a main road that is defined as being a “tram / bus priority route” within Council’s Strategic Framework Plan (Clause 21.03-3). At Clause 21.05-2, medium and higher density housing is directed to sites with an immediate abuttal to a main road which is a tram / bus priority route. These sites are defined as being suitable for substantial change.

Given the site’s attributes being located on a main road where a number of medium density developments already exist, it is anticipated that a higher level of development can be expected in this location rather than the residential hinterland to the east and west of Orrong

Page 38


Road. This is further justified through the mandatory height requirements set out in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 3).

Specifically, Schedule 3 relates to Residential Boulevards and Corridors and allows for a maximum building height of up to 12 metres, unless the slope in the land allows for 13 metres, which is the case for this site. This development proposes a maximum height of 12.3 metres with a height of 10.98 metres to Orrong Road, falling below the allowable 13 metres.

Amendment C175 (Neighbourhood Character Local Policy) provides further strategic guidance on the preferred neighbourhood character of this Garden Suburban (GS2) area. The statement of preferred neighbourhood character defines GS2 as follows:

The Garden Suburban 2 (GS2) precinct comprises leafy streetscapes with a range of Victorian, Edwardian or Interwar era and contemporary buildings set in established garden surrounds. Regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for substantial planting or canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses that sit comfortably within the streetscape respecting reflecting the key aspects of building form and the one-three storey scale of the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street.

It goes on to state:

Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

The design response for this area calls for:

Upper levels to be designed to minimise impacts on any adjoining residential property. New buildings to respond to the streetscape in an innovative and contemporary

manner. Articulate the facades of buildings with the use of recesses, verandahs, balconies,

window openings and variations in materials and colours. Roof forms should incorporate eaves Provide adequate space between and around buildings to accommodate vegetation. Include canopy trees and shrubs in landscape plans. Retain established or mature trees where possible and provide for the planting of new

canopy trees in front and rear setbacks. Include planting around the perimeter of the site to strengthen the garden setting. Setback basements from all property boundaries to allow for in-ground planting. Car parking structures should be located behind the front facade of the dwelling

fronting the street. Hard paving for car parking should be minimised and permeable surfaces used as an

alternative to impermeable hard surfacing. On main roads higher front fences, up to 1.8m, may be constructed where they provide

approximately 20% permeability and recesses for landscaping.

Based on the above, the proposed development responds well to the preferred neighbourhood character for this area. The development is considered to be an acceptable design response, fitting to its context as is discussed in greater detail below.

Built Form

Page 39


An assessment has been carried out against the requirements of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The issues of particular relevance are discussed below:

Neighbourhood Character

The subject site is predominantly surrounded by residential development, including medium density apartment buildings and units. The King David School is also located to the south. A small neighbourhood activity centre is situated approximately 360 metres to the north of the site, where Orrong Road crosses High Street. The character of Orrong Road is varied and no heritage overlays exist on the subject site.

The proposed design of the building seeks to reflect the art deco architectural style seen in the wider area through the use of face brick, curved walls and glass block glazing features on the facade. The architectural quality and building expression raises no concerns.

The development has been centrally positioned within the site so that there are no walls proposed on the boundaries. This arrangement allows for landscaping to be incorporated around the entire permitter of the new building in accordance with the design guidelines sought by Council’s draft Neighbourhood Character Policy (C175).

Site coverage is proposed to be 68% (including driveways) of the overall site area, which is higher than the 60% recommended by Standard B8 (Site Coverage). It is not uncommon for site coverage to exceed the preferred 60% maximum within the inner city, where development is generally denser. However, in this case while site coverage is higher than recommended, permeability is comfortably achieved in accordance with Standard B9 at 31% of the site area. Given the extent of available permeable surfaces there will no difficulty accommodating meaningful landscaping to strengthen the garden setting of the wider residential area.

Furthermore, Schedule 3 to the Zone stipulates a variation to Standard B8 (Site Coverage), requiring that “basements should not exceed 75% of the site area”. The basement proposed by this development occupies 66% of the site area and therefore complies with the Schedule to the Zone.

The proposed site coverage is deemed to be acceptable and reflects the character of this substantial change area.

The maximum building height proposed is 12.3 metres. This is below the maximum allowable height of 13 metres specified by Schedule 3 to the Zone. The building will present at a height of 10.98 metres to Orrong Road, being only minimally higher than the double storey buildings to the north and south. The building will present at a height of between 11.6 and 12.3 metres to Larnook Street with developments in this street generally of a double storey scale. Positively, the upper levels have been well setback from the western boundary to ensure that there is an adequate transition in scale between the new development and the existing built form along Larnook Street.

It is also noted that while there is currently a single storey dwelling situated directly to the west, there is a development application currently with the Planning Department that seeks to construct a double storey apartment building.

With regard to the street setbacks to Orrong Road and Larnook Street, the ResCode standard recommends setbacks of 5.9m to Orrong Road and a side setback to Larnook Street of 2m. The development satisfactorily responds to the streetscape by providing a setback of 6 metres to Orrong Road and a staggered setback of between 2.1m and 4.3

Page 40


metres to Larnook Street. While not matching the setbacks of the adjoining properties, the setbacks will continue to reflect the character of both streets.

Landscaping

A detailed landscape plan has been submitted that includes the removal of 3 mature trees and 22 replacement trees, as well an array of shrubs, grasses and climbers. Importantly, the basement has been setback from all side boundaries between 1.95 metres and 6.43 metres to allow for ample opportunities for deep soil planting and canopy trees.

The landscape plan has been reviewed by Council’s Arborist who has no objection to the landscaping response, but has noted that the use of Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) as a screening tree along the southern boundary will not be successful in screening the new built form from the block of flats to the south. Screening vegetation along the southern boundary is considered to be necessary to reflect the garden character of the area and to soften the building when viewed from the adjoining residential properties. As such, a condition will require that the Native Frangipanis be replaced with a more suitable screening tree to the satisfaction of the Responsibility Authority.

Both Orrong Road and Larnook Street exhibit large mature street trees which contribute positively to the neighbourhood and provide good screening of existing built form. It is imperative that any new development protects existing street trees from root or structural damage. Conditions will be required to ensure that the trees abutting this site are protected.

Concern has been raised with the extent of planting along the north and west boundaries of the subject site by Council’s Urban Designer. In response to these concerns the Landscape Plan has been updated to include two new Gorgeous Crab Apple Trees within the northern setback and a new Pinnacle Lily-pily along the western boundary. The additional trees proposed are deemed to adequately assist in screening the building bulk from the north and west.

Environmentally Sustainable Design and Energy Efficiency

The development is deemed to achieve the energy efficiency Objectives of Standard B10 subject to the changes recommended by Council’s Sustainability Officer with regard to shading to north and west facing windows.

In accordance with this Standard, all dwellings will have access to direct sunlight and many are orientated to the north to maximise northern light to habitable rooms. Secluded private open spaces have also been positioned to receive northern sunlight. As per the amended plans, all doors to the studies have been removed so that no rooms within this development will rely on borrowed light.

The Environmental Sustainable Design Report submitted with this application further confirms an average energy rating of 7.2 stars for the dwellings, well above the required 6 stars.

Amenity Impacts

Side and rear setbacks

All side and rear setbacks comply with the recommendations of Standard B17 as confirmed in the tables below:

Western interface

Page 41


Proposed setback Required minimum setback

Complies

Basement 1.95 metres 1 metre YESGround Between 7.4 metres

and 8.52 metres1.18 metres YES

First Between 5.8 metres and 7.54 metres

3.99 metres YES

Second Between 10.7 and 10.95 metres

5.6 metres YES

Southern interface

Proposed setback Required setback CompliesBasement Between 2.54 and

2.63 metres1 metre YES

Ground Between 2.54 and 2.63 metres

1.12 metres YES

First Between 2.3 and 2.93 metres

2.69 metres YES

Second Between 5 and 6.6 metres

5.09 metres YES

The setbacks as proposed are reflective of the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and will allow for in-ground landscaping to reflect the garden attributes of the area. The setbacks will also ensure that no unreasonable amenity impacts result with regard loss of daylight to windows, visual bulk, overshadowing or overlooking. The setbacks further ensure that the building steps away from the boundaries as it rises, providing satisfactory visual relief when viewed from a directly adjoining property. While Council’s Urban Designer would like to see greater setback from the south and west than proposed, the setbacks do comply with the Standard. Therefore, there is limited justification for a more substantial setback from these boundaries given that an adequate transition is provided.

Daylight to windows

The setbacks ensure that all windows on an adjoining property maintain adequate access to daylight. The north facing windows forming part of the residential building to the south are located 6.37 metres from the subject site and will not be unreasonably affected by this development.

Overshadowing

As per the shadow diagrams provided by the Applicant (advertised plans Council date stamped 28 July 2014) the extent of overshadowing to the south and west will fully comply with ResCode Standard B21, which specifies that:

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

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

Page 42


Between 9am and 3pm on the Equinox the shadows cast will fall over the driveways of both properties to the south and west. No shadows will fall over an area used for private open space. The entire area of secluded private open space at the rear of the building at No. 56 Larnook Street will be unaffected by shadows from the new development.

Overlooking

With regard to overlooking, Standard B22 specifies that any new windows or balconies with an outlook of a sensitive interface within 9 metres are to be screened to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

The floor plans and elevations do not include any screening to windows or balconies above ground floor level. Due to the considerable setbacks proposed there is no need to screen any windows or balconies at the second floor level. A driveway sits directly to the south which is a non-sensitive interface. At the first floor level, the south-facing windows are located 9 metres from the adjoining habitable room windows to the south. Again no screening is required. Views to the west at the first floor level fall over the driveway, a non-sensitive area. Screening is therefore not deemed to be necessary.

It is unclear whether overlooking will occur to the west from the first floor balcony within Unit 7. This will be addressed via a condition.

At the ground floor level, the west facing balconies have been shown to be screened with obscure glass to 1.7 metres in height in accordance with the Standard. Subject to conditions, there will be no unreasonable overlooking.

Internal Amenity

The development is considered to offer a good level of internal amenity for the new dwellings with the apartments varying in size between 111 sq. m and 245 sq. m. All apartments are provided with a minimum of two (2) car spaces and storage facilities within the basement.

As there are no walls on boundaries, all apartments will receive ample access to daylight and all are provided with a minimum of 10 square metres of private open space in the form of balconies and terraces.

The size and amenity of the apartments proposed are deemed to be of a high standard and may appeal to owner occupiers. The current trend in higher density residential developments is to compromise on both size and quality to maximise apartment yield. This application proposes a reasonable number of new residences for a site area of 1075sq. m, thereby promoting new housing in a well serviced location (in accordance with urban consolidation objectives); while offering good on-site amenities for future occupants.

Design Detail

Front Fence

The plans note that the front fence will consist of part existing fence, new 1.9m timber fence and a new 1.9m high steel rod and rail fence. The fence to Orrong Road does not require a permit as it complies with the height specified in Clause 55.06-2. The fence to Larnook Street exceeds the 1.5m height recommended by ResCode but is considered to be acceptable as it is similar to other fences in this street and will be partially transparent. An updated Sections and Fences Elevation (TP 11) will be required by way of conditions to confirm these details.

Page 43



The development fully complies with the statutory car parking requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme by providing in excess of the required car parking to each new dwelling plus two visitor parking spaces on site.

With regard to the layout and design of the car parking Council’s Transport and Parking Department have advised of additional details to be shown on the plans as detailed at under the Referrals section of this report. The outstanding items being, sight lines distances, the parking bay widths and details of bicycle parking can all be adequately addressed via conditions.

Vehicle access

Some objectors have raised the access from Larnook Street as a concern, preferring to see access provided from Orrong Road. Orrong Road is within a Road Zone, being the responsibility of VicRoads. Any change would require VicRoads approval. There is no justification to require a change in the point of access for this development. Such a variation would require a complete re-design and would have considerable impacts on the development and the Orrong Road streetscape. Council’s Traffic Engineers have reviewed the plans in detail and have confirmed that:

The traffic generation of the proposed development is unlikely to cause significant impact to the surrounding road networks.

Based on this advice and the given the number of cars utilising the basement (21); the anticipated traffic to be generated; and the site’s corner location; it is not unreasonable that access be provided from Larnook Street.

It is further noted that a new crossing to Orrong Road would likely result in damage to, and possible loss of a street tree. This is not a positive outcome as established trees contribute positively to the amenity of the area.

Subject to conditions, the car parking provision and layout is accepted.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

In accordance with Council’s local Stormwater Management Policy (Clause 22.18), impermeable areas will drain to two rain gardens. However the location, dimensions and drainage areas connected to these have not been indicated on site or landscape plans. Additionally, a 20,000L tank has been shown beneath the basement. The STORM Report supplied by the Applicant states a rating of 101%. This varies from the ESD Report that states 107%. Regardless, the treatments will comply with Council requirements for on-site water retention by achieving a minimum 100% rating. However, conditions will require that the details of rain gardens be provided and any discrepancies between reports be corrected.

Waste

The applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan which has been reviewed by Council’s Waste Department and no concerns have been raised.

Council waste collection service is proposed for this development with garbage and recycling to be transferred to shared bins within the designated bin store in the basement. Bins are

Page 44


proposed to be collected from the Larnook Street frontage, with the number of bins required taking up 24% of the street frontage. This is not considered to be problematic.

A condition will require that a Waste Management Plan be submitted for endorsement.

Objections


Four storeys excessive

The building contains three floors of residential apartments, with the basement level comprising the fourth floor as it is not wholly below ground level due to the slope in the land. When viewed from Orrong Road the new development will appear as three storeys in scale.

Density

The proposed density is considered to be appropriate for a site of this size within the inner city and with direct access to public transport and a range of services.



CONCLUSION


The proposed residential building is in accordance with State and local policies, including the new mandatory controls forming part of the General Residential Zone.

The new building is not incompatible with the character of the area and will not present excessive visual bulk to the adjoining interfaces.

The design provides adequate space for canopy trees and other vegetation to be planted around the building, strengthening the garden character of the area.

The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with ResCode (Clause 55) Objectives.

Attachments

1. PD - 0473-14 - 523 Orrong Road Armadale - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0473/14 for the land located at 523 Orrong Road, Armadale be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

Page 45


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 submitted with the amended application Council date stamped 18 March 2015 but modified to show:

a) The sight distance triangles to both the east and west are to be fully dimensioned and shown on the plans in accordance with the requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

b) All parking spaces next to walls are to be widened to 2.9m and are to be dimensioned on plans;

c) The type of bicycle parking is to be clearly identified, and all dimensions are to be shown on plans. If a proprietary product is to be used, manufacturer’s specifications are to be provided.

d) Fixed horizontal shading device to be provided to exposed northern aspect windows;

e) User operable external shading to be shown to the western windows to minimise summer afternoon solar heat gain;

f) Sections and Fences Elevations (Plan TP11) updated to reflect the changes shown on plans 18 March 2015;

g) Confirmation as to whether there are views to a sensitive interface within 9 metres from the balcony associated with Unit 7. If there are views to a sensitive interface within 9 metres, this balcony must be screened in accordance with Standard B22 (Overlooking);

h) Tree root barriers shown where concrete paving is proposed opposite existing mature Council street trees;

i) Relevant cross-sections (including indicative planting types) of all rain gardens as well as indicative management and maintenance measures to ensure long-term success of stormwater diversion;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape concept plan Rev A dated 21.01.2015 prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd, but modified to show:

a) The Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) along the southern boundary to be replaced with a more suitable screening tree to the satisfaction of the Responsibility Authority;

b) Details of rain gardens, including indicative planting types as well as indicative management and maintenance measures;

c) Confirmation that rain gardens are proposed to drain to a 20000 litre

Page 46


rainwater tank to provide water for irrigation;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsibility Authority


5. Protection fencing must be afforded to all the street trees on both frontages of this property prior to construction works being undertaken. Fencing must comply with Section 4 of AS 4970

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans.

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

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SMP must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The report must be generally in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment prepared by ACX argyle dated 24 July 2014 but modified as follows: a) Whilst a solar hot water system is proposed to the top floor apartment,

the majority of units will be provided with instantaneous gas hot water. STEPS report to be amended to reflect the majority approach;

b) Clarification of storm water collection and retention, including STORM rating to correspond with submitted STORM Report;

c) Proposed target for construction and demolition stage recycling and reuse to be 70% by mass in accordance with Council’s best practice.

d) Commitment to development of a Building User Guide, which will provide information on aspects such as use and maintenance of rain gardens and solar hot water systems, at a minimum;

e) Consistency with the application plans.

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.

9. 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

Page 47


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.

10. 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 be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Waste Space Solutions Pty Ltd and dated 11 June 2014 and 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 our Local Laws e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collectionf) Sufficient headroom within the basement to allow the passage of waste


forward gear from within the basement NB. This subsection only to be used for collection from basement

h) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised

i) 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.

11. Any 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.

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


14. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered to facilitate access to the subject site.

15. 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


17. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in

Page 48


compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.

18. 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.

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

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

permit.


NOTES:

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

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

“Significant tree” means a tree:

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

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

c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

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

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

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

At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Page 49


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

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

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

Page 50


3 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0079/14 - 11 TASHINNY ROAD, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT WITHIN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning permit application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot within a General Residential Zone at 11 Tashinny Road, Toorak.

Executive Summary

Applicant: C/- Christopher DoyleChristopher Doyle P/L Architects

Ward: NorthZone: General Residential Zone – Schedule 10Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 12 February 2014Statutory days: 231Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor call up

VCAT Hearing Date: 6 May 2015 (compulsory conference date)13 July 2015 (hearing date)

Cultural Heritage Plan: Not required Number of objections: Eight objections from five properties Number of parties to the appeal:

One objector has applied to be a party to the appeal

Consultative Meeting: Yes – 15 July 2014Officer Recommendation: That Council advise VCAT that had a Failure to Determine

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

BACKGROUND

The application was lodged with Council on 12 February 2014 and further information was requested on 7 March 2014. Satisfactory information was submitted on 14 April 2014 and the application was advertised via letters to adjoining properties and signs on site. Council received eight objections from five different properties. Following a consultative meeting held on 15 July 2014 the application was formally amended under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to address objector concerns.

The applicant 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 statutory timeframe (60 days). A compulsory conference hearing has been set down for 6 May 2015, followed by a two day hearing to commence on 13 July 2015.

Page 51


The applicant substituted amended plans with VCAT which were served with Council on 3 March 2015. These amended plans supersede the previous set of plans and form the basis of this report.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Christopher Doyle Architecture and are known as File No. 13-17 Drawing No.s; PD01- PD30 and are Council date stamped 3 March 2015.

Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes a Planning Report, Sustainable Design Statement/STEPS Report and a STORM Rating Report. All the above documentation is Council date stamped 3 March 2015.

The substituted VCAT plans result in the following amendments to the plans:

Deletion of double garages on ground floor and associated crossover Provision of a driveway ramp down to a basement car park arrangement Amended front fence design to accommodate the single driveway ramp, and revised

pedestrian gate locations Revised ground floor layouts to accommodate the driveway ramp Provide a side entry arrangement to Townhouse B Amend both the first floor plan and attic plan to accommodate the revised lift location (to

account for the new basement)


Demolition of the existing dual occupancy dwelling and associated outbuilding (no permit required).

Construction of a three storey plus basement side-by-side dual occupancy residential building.

Three car spaces and storage to each dwelling is to be provided within a shared basement.

Vehicle access to the basement is to be via the existing crossover (to be widened) adjoining Tashinny Road.

An entry, foyer, study, dining, living, and kitchen will occupy the ground floor of each dwelling.

Three bedrooms, laundry and associated bathrooms occupy the first floor in each dwelling.

A bedroom/den, bathroom, home theatre and outdoor deck occupy the attic level in each dwelling. As the third storey is within the roof space it presents to the street much like a double storey building.

The secluded private open space areas to each dwelling are to be oriented north (towards the rear of the site).

The building incorporates a mansard tiled roof with a maximum building height of 9.725 metres above natural ground level (NGL). The roof also contains two architectural finials, one of which protrudes to a height of approximately 10 metres above NGL and the other exceeds 10 metres above NGL.

External materials include cement rendered walls (light stone colour), slate and tile roof (dark grey in colour), and timber window frames with Juliette wrought iron balconies fronting Tashinny Road.

The height of the front fence ranges between 1.6 metres and 2.1 metres in height and is constructed out of iron pickets with brick pillars and features a pedestrian gate for each respective dwelling.

The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.

Page 52


Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the north side of Tashinny Road, approximately 135 metres east from its intersection to Williams Road in Toorak. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The existing dual occupancy dwelling on site is a double storey inter-war maisonette building from the 1930s with a freestanding double car garage in the north east corner of the site.

A concrete driveway runs along the west side of the property boundary. The land falls from the east towards the west by approximately 700mm. The site is generally rectangular in shape. The site frontage has a length of 15.41metres, a depth of 32 metres on the eastern

boundary, a depth of 33.53 on the western boundary and a rear boundary length of 15.19 metres.

The site has an area of approximately 499 sq. metres.

The immediate surrounds are described as follows;

To the south of the site is Tashinny Road which is a narrow local street that runs east off Williams Road. The street features a pedestrian footpath, tree lined nature strip and parallel car parking on either side.

To the north of the site at No. 12 Gordon Street is a detached single storey brick dwelling with a pitched roof.

To the west of the site is a pair of semi-detached double storey brick dwellings at No. 9 and No. 9A Tashinny Road which are designed in a contemporary manner.

To the east of the site is a pair of semi-detached double storey brick dwellings at No. 15 and No. 17 Tashinny Road.

The subject site forms part of an established residential area that exhibits a mixture of dwelling types and styles including Federation, Interwar and Contemporary. It is evident that the older housing stock within the precinct is being replaced with new dwellings. Dwellings are generally detached or semi-detached and are generally one to two storeys in scale. Roof styles consist of a mixture of flat and pitched tiled roofs. Dwellings are commonly constructed of brick, render and weatherboard. In many instances garages and carports are in the side or front of sections of properties. There are also many basement car park arrangements. Front fences vary from and are generally either of a solid masonry fence, traditional timber picket fencing or nonexistent.

The subject site is accessible to public transport, with tram services operating within walking distance on Malvern Road which is approximately 400 metres (as the crow flies) south of the subject site and Toorak Road, which is approximately 420 metres (as the crow flies) north of the subject site. Furthermore, the nearest railway station is Hawksburn, which is located approximately 200 metres (as the crow flies) from the subject site. These facilities provide connection to the wider metropolitan public transport network.


A search of Council records indicates there are no relevant planning applications for this land.

The Title

Page 53


The site contains 6 different units on one strata plan (Lot 1-6 on Strata Plan 13156) and is described on Certificate of Title Volume 09314 Folio 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 and 631.

Covenant (Instrument No 1560101) affects the land which restricts the following:

Building or erecting no more than two dwellings on the lot with all usual outbuildings. Adapting the dwellings or outbuildings for more than two dwellings. Building or erecting dwellings which shall be part of or attached to any other dwelling

erected on any other lot. Excavating, carry away, or removing any earth, clay, gravel or sand except for the

purpose of excavation for the foundations of any building. No such dwelling shall be constructed out of materials other than of brick, stone or

concrete nor have a roof other than of slate tiles or shingles.

Only the external building materials are shown on the plans therefore, it is recommended that a condition be placed on any issue of permit insuring that the dwellings will be constructed out of brick, stone or concrete in accordance with the Covenant. As a result, the proposal will not result in a breach of this particular covenant.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 32.08 General Residential Zone(Schedule 10 – Garden River and Garden Suburban Precincts)Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on the lot.

It is noted that the application was submitted on 12 February 2014, prior to the gazettal of the new residential zones on 19 June 2014. Subsequently, the application was formally revised under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on 25 July 2014 and, as such, the General Residential Zone -Schedule 10 provisions apply.

Clause 32.08-7 states that the maximum height of a building used for the purpose of a dwelling or residential building must not exceed the building height specified in a schedule to this zone. Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone specifies a maximum height of 9 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres. As the subject site has a fall of greater than 2.5 degrees the maximum mandatory height is 10 metres.

Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone also sets out variations to the requirements of Clause 55 as detailed below:

Standard RequirementSite Coverage B8 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.Landscaping B13 In addition to the requirements of B13, at least one canopy

tree should be planted on the site.Side and Rear Setbacks

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

Page 54


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

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

OverlayNone

Particular ProvisionsClause 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 52.06-5 each three or more bedroom dwelling must provide at least two car parking spaces. The proposed dwellings are each provided with three car spaces within a shared basement.

Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildingsPursuant to Clause 55, a development of two or more dwellings on a lot, which does not exceed 4 storeys must meet the objectives of this clause.


Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential ZoneClause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Amendment C175 – Neighbourhood Character Local Policy

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

Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014, which recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to minor modifications. As a result, Amendment C175 has reached a stage that it can be considered as a seriously entertained planning policy. Due consideration should be given to the proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy. According to the Amendment, the subject site falls within a Garden Suburban 1 (‘GS1’) Precinct. A detailed assessment against Amendment C175 will be discussed in the assessment section of this report.

Advertising

Page 55


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

The site is located in North Ward and eight objections from five different properties have been received. The objections can be summarized as follows:

Overshadowing Loss of daylight to existing windows Siting, spacing, scale Inconsistent with neighbourhood character Lack of meaningful landscaping Visual bulk Insufficient setbacks to boundaries Inappropriate height of walls on boundaries Lack of articulation Loss of outlook Loss of on street parking and increase of traffic Increase of flooding Loss of privacy Construction management issues Structural integrity to adjoining properties resulting from construction

A Consultative Meeting was held on 15 July 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillors Chandler and Koce, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the following changes to the plans:

The gutter RL dropped and the roof pitch revised Walls on the Attic level are further setback from the boundaries by 240mm Climbers on all walls and fences to 9A Tashinny Road have been removed Species of screening trees along boundaries revised. More, specifically, the trees marked

'A' were originally Waferhousea Floribunda (Weeping Lillypilly) which have now been replaced with Prunus Lusifanica (Portuguese Laurel).

Freestanding clotheslines relocated to rear yard Amended first floor plan to create splays to the north-west and north east corners of the

building, in the Bedroom 1 area. In addition, amended roof over to account for the new splays on the first floor.

Living room wall on boundary (to Townhouse B) is no higher than the shared fence between the subject site and 15 Tashinny Road.

The plans were not re-advertised as the changes result in no increase in material detriment compared with the application that was originally advertised in April 2014.

Subsequent amendment were made to the plans and formally substituted with VCAT (as discussed above).

Referrals

Parks Unit

Page 56


A significant Ulmus procera (English Elm) is located in the rear setback of this property. As this tree appears to be a poor specimen Council has no objection to its removal.

The existing crossing is proposed to be widened. The distance between the new crossover and the street tree stem is not shown on the submitted plans. The Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) street tree at this location has an SRZ of 1.5m radius around the stem.

Permit Condition - The edge of the eastern splay of the new crossover must be constructed no closer than 1.5m from the edge of the street tree stem.

Permit Condition – Street tree protection must be afforded to the mature Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) street tree. Fencing must be compliant with AS 4687.

The landscape concept is acceptable, but it must be clearly shown if trees are to be planted in-ground or in situ.

An assessment against the above concerns has been discussed under the landscaping heading below.

Infrastructure Unit

It was determined by the Infrastructure Unit that adequate drainage will be provided for both dwellings provided they are both 17.20 metres above A.H.D. A request has been made to include conditions on any issue of permit, which may issue requiring the applicant to obtain a report for legal point of discharge prior to a building permit being issued. Additionally, a condition restricting the alteration to the levels of the footpath is required and it was also stated that water-tanks should be installed to reduce stormwater runoff.

An assessment against the above concerns has been discussed under the Infrastructure heading below.

Traffic and Parking Unit

The proposal satisfies the parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions; The traffic generation is anticipated to be negligible; The proposal includes a 3.6m wide accessway, which meets the minimum requirements

of the Planning Scheme; The plans show a headroom clearance of 2.4m along the ramp however, the clearance

under the garage door has not been dimensioned – details required; The sight distance at the property boundary has not been dimensioned on the plans–

details required; The parking bays shown on the plan are generally in accordance with the requirements of

the Australian Standards; The blind isles do not achieve full compliance with the minimum requirements, this can

be supported in this instance given that parking spaces exceed the minimum width; The grades along the ramp and covered parking area are not in accordance with the

requirements of the Planning Scheme; The location of the columns do not comply with the Planning Scheme; and The vehicle crossing does not comply with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy.

An assessment against the above concerns has been discussed under the Traffic and Parking heading below.

KEY ISSUES


Page 57


The purpose of the General Residential Zone is to implement State and Local Planning Policies, to encourage development that respects the existing neighbourhood character, to implement neighbourhood policy, provide diversity of housing and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport. The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher density development to be located in or close to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport. In addition, local policies call for well-designed medium density housing that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.

Having regard to the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the strategic directions of the State and Local Policy Framework, in particular Clause 11.04 (Metropolitan Melbourne), Clause 21.05 (Housing) and Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage).

The proposed development seeks to construct a pair of semi-detached dwellings in a well serviced location within the municipality. Specifically, the subject site is located within close proximity to two Large Neighbourhood Activity Centres (i.e. Hawksburn Village and Toorak Village) which consists of commercial facilities for local and everyday retail and service activities.

The subject site is accessible to public transport, with tram services operating within walking distance on Malvern Road which is approximately 400 metres (as the crow flies) south of the subject site and Toorak Road, which is approximately 420 metres (as the crow flies) north of the subject site. Furthermore, the nearest railway station is Hawksburn, which is located approximately 200 metres (as the crow flies) from the subject site. These facilities provide connection to the wider metropolitan public transport network.

Clause 21.05 (Housing) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme directs new residential development to locations that are accessible to activity centers and public transport networks. In order to achieve this objective Stonnington is broken up into three categories; Substantial, Incremental and Minimal change areas. Being located within an Incremental change area, it is the aim of local policy that multi-unit developments (2-3 storeys) be directed to lots capable of accommodating increased density. It is considered that the development site is of a size that is capable of being developed with two dwellings that respect the character of the area and would not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining property occupiers.

Similarly, pursuant to Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage), medium density developments (2-3 storey) are encouraged, provided they respect the preferred character of the precinct. It is evident that the surrounding character of the area is emerging with dual occupancy developments of a large double storey nature. The proposed dwellings are three storeys however, the building presents to the street as a double storey dwelling as the third floor is incorporated within the attic. It is considered that the proposed dwellings will not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings and conforms to the preferred character of the precinct.

Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity) aims ‘to achieve high standards of amenity within new developments, and with adjoining developments’. It is considered that the proposal provides for a good level of internal amenity with no reliance on borrowed light and appropriate room dimensions, layout and connections, and private open space provided. Furthermore the proposal does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts which will be discussed in more detail within the Clause 55 assessment.

Page 58


It is considered that the subject site has strategic support for the proposed development. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily addresses policy objectives of streetscape character, household diversity, building form and landscape character and is responsive to its context. Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity. These are discussed further below.

Clause 55

Neighbourhood Character/ Design Detail

As noted in the site and surrounds section of this report, Tashinny Road is characterised by a variety of dwelling types. These comprise of predominantly single and double storey buildings including Federation and Interwar with contemporary dwellings emerging. The more contemporary buildings are generally semi-detached multi-dwelling developments with sheer double storey facades commonly finished in brick or render.

The proposed development is three storeys, however it presents to the street much like a double storey development as the third storey is incorporated within the roof space. It is considered that the size and scale of the proposed building is similar in size and scale to the two adjoining dwellings and other development found within this locality. As such the proposal is considered to sit comfortably within the streetscape.

The prevailing roof style consists of pitched tiled roofs with a number of flat roofed buildings dispersed throughout the area. The facade articulation and window proportions reference the key design elements of the surrounding dwellings.

Ultimately, the proposal achieves an appropriate balance between landscaping and built form. Opportunities for landscaping have been provided in key locations throughout the site to further enhance the design aesthetic of the proposed development. The proposal also involves the widening of the existing single crossover to provide improved access for the on-site vehicle parking within a basement.

Council has undertaken neighbourhood character studies across the municipality’s residential areas and is in the process of introducing a new neighbourhood character policy into the local planning policies. According to the exhibited documents and Panel Report of Amendment C175, the subject site falls within the Garden Suburban 1 (‘GS1’) Precinct.

The Garden Suburban 1 (‘GS1’) Precinct comprises leafy streetscapes with a range of Victorian, Edwardian or Interwar era and contemporary buildings set in established garden surrounds. Regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for small, well designed garden areas that contribute to the landscape quality of the street. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of form, one‐two storey scale and design detail of the older buildings. Low, visually permeable front fences retain views to gardens and dwellings from the street.

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

Character elements

Design Objectives Design Response

Existing building To encourage the retention of intact, older

The application seeks to demolish the existing dwelling. However, this is not prohibited under

Page 59


dwellings that contribute to the character of the area.

the current or proposed planning controls. In addition, the existing building makes limited contribution to the character of the area. Therefore, its removal will not adversely impact on the existing neighbourhood character.

Building height and form

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

The height of the proposed development is considered to be compatible with the existing buildings on either side of the subject site and within the precinct at large.

Building materials and design details

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

The building materials and design of the proposed development are similar to that of other properties found within the precinct and are considered appropriate in this context.

Orientation and siting

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

The proposed development will be orientated towards Tashinny Road. Whilst there are walls built along the side boundaries, they are appropriately setback from the facade. This is considered to be an acceptable design response given the examples of boundary construction within Tashinny Road.

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

The development allows opportunity for meaningful landscaping. The permit holder will be required to erect tree protection fencing around the mature Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) located on the footpath prior to construction works occurring. This matter will be addressed via conditions of any permit issued.

The proposed development adopts a setback that is consistent with the pattern of front setbacks along Tashinny Road. The proposed front setback will be landscaped and would contribute to the streetscape. Overall, it is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the landscape character of this area.

Garages and carports

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

Parking will be provided in a basement with a single point of access from Tashinny Road. The location of the parking spaces is considered to be appropriate and will not cause loss of front garden space.

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

The application proposes a 1.6 metres to 2.1 metre high front fence which is constructed out of iron pickets with brick pillars. The fence is transparent in nature to allow for views into the dwellings and garden.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development represents a design response that will complement the garden suburban setting of Tashinny Road.

Site Layout and Building Massing

Page 60


Street setback

Standard B6 requires a minimum setback of 4.28 metres (average front setback of No 9A and 15 Tashinny Road). Townhouse A achieves compliance with the Standard as it incorporates a minimum street setback measuring 4.5 metres. However, given the irregular angle of the site frontage, Townhouse B achieves a front setback of 4.09 metres.

In this inner urban context the non-compliance is considered to be relatively minor (i.e. 0.19 metres). A requirement to increase the setback by 0.19 metres is unlikely to result in any discernible difference in either the neighbourhood character impacts of the development, or its visual bulk implications. The proposed front setback is similar in nature to other setbacks found within the neighbourhood and is considered acceptable in this context.

Building Height

The subject site has a slope of greater than 2.5 degrees along the east – west axis therefore; the maximum building height must not exceed 10 metres. The proposed development has a maximum height of 9.725 metres above NGL with the exception of an architectural finial on the roof.

Should a permit be granted it is recommended that a condition be placed on the permit to insure that the architectural finials do not exceed a height of 10 metres above NGL. Therefore, achieving compliance with the maximum allowable height of 10 metres as specified under Standard B7 (varied by Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone).

Site Coverage

The development proposes 53 per cent site coverage, which complies with the 60 per cent maximum stipulated in Standard B8 at Clause 55.03-3.

A basement is proposed directly underneath the ground floor building footprint, covering 57.7 per cent of the site, which complies, with the 75 per cent maximum for basements outlined in Standard B8 of Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone. This is considered to be acceptable and will allow for deep soil planting opportunities throughout the site.

Permeability

The site will have 28 per cent permeability. This complies with the 20 per cent minimum allowed under Standard B9. In conjunction with this, the development will be required to meet Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy further reducing stormwater runoff.

Energy Efficiency

Given the orientation of the subject site, the primary living area and SPOS for both dwellings is north facing and will gain a high level of daylight access. In any given instance, the Building Regulations will require a 6 star energy efficiency rating.

Landscaping

It is considered that the layout of the development allows opportunity for meaningful landscaping. For instance, the proposal includes lawn areas for the proposed dwellings to the north and south with landscaping around the perimeter of the site. Furthermore, the

Page 61


proposal features six canopy trees including two in the front setback which exceeds the requirement of Standard B13. It is recommended that a condition be placed on any issue of permit ensuring that the landscaping as shown on the landscape plan is planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Amenity Impacts

Side and Rear Setbacks

Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The tables below illustrate how the proposal meets these requirements.

North Elevation (Rear Setback)Wall height Setback

requiredSetback proposed Complies

Ground Floor Dwelling A (living)

3.46 metres

1.0 metres 5.39 metres Yes

Ground Floor Dwelling B (living)

2.94 metres


First Floor Dwelling A (bed 1)

6.51 metres


First Floor Dwelling B (bed 1)

5.89 metres


East Elevation (Side Setback)Wall height Setback


Ground Floor Dwelling B

2.9 metres 1.0 metres 1.8 – 2.0 metres Yes

First FloorDwelling B

6.15 metres 1.76 metres 1.8 – 2.0 metres Yes

Attic FloorDwelling B (height taken from the middle of the attic level)

7.6 metres 2.69 metres 3.57 metres Yes

West Elevation (Side Setback)Wall height Setback


Ground FloorDwelling A


First Floor Dwelling A

6.7 – 6.87 metres

1.93 – 1.98 metres

2.04 – 2.0 metres Yes

Attic Floor Dwelling A (height taken from the middle of the attic level)


The gutters on the east and west elevation encroach the side setback requirements but not more than 0.5 metres as required by Standard B17.

Standard B17 as specified at Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone requires a setback of 1 metre from one side boundary and 2 metres from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height for a distance of 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street.

Page 62


The proposal includes a setback of 2 metres from the eastern boundary for a distance of 6.48 metres from the front facade and a setback of 4.6 metre from the western boundary on the ground floor and a setback of 2.1 metres on the first floor for a distance of 6.5 metres from the front facade. These setbacks are considered appropriate and sufficient to maintain adequate spacing and rhythm between dwellings and are generally in accordance with the character of the surrounding area.

It is apparent that the proposal is appropriately setback in accordance with the standard and objective of B17 (Clause 55.04-1), so as to limit potential amenity impacts on neighbouring properties including unreasonable visual bulk.

Walls on Boundaries

There are two portions of wall constructed on the eastern boundary (one section associated with the foyer and one section associated with the living area). The eastern walls are to have a height between 2.02 – 2.89 metres and a total length of 10 metres which meets the requirements of Standard B18.

There is an existing brick wall associated with the existing garage constructed on the western boundary in the rear yard for a length of approximately 5.2 metres and 3.12 metres in height, which is being retained as part of this application. The new western wall on boundary will be an extension to the existing boundary wall. The new wall will have a height of 2.95 – 3.02 metres and a total wall on boundary length of approximately 9.7 metres which meets the requirements of Standard B18.

Standard B18 as specified at Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone details that walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street. The proposed walls on boundaries are in excess of 6.5 metres behind the building façade.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed meets the standard and objective of B18 (Clause 55.04-2).

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:

- 9A Tashinny Road

Dwelling A will be opposite a ground floor courtyard containing habitable room windows, which are located centrally within the site. There is also first floor habitable room windows directly above the courtyard. The proposed ground floor wall (associated with the foyer) that is opposite these windows is approximately 3.6 metres in height; therefore Standard B19 requires a setback of 1.8 metres. As the proposal provides a 6.4 metres setback from the windows in question compliance with the Standard is achieved.

The proposed first floor wall opposite the existing habitable windows has a height of 6.87 metres therefore Standard B19 requires a setback of 3.435 metres. As the proposal provides a setback of 3.94 metres from the windows in question compliance with the Standard is achieved.

Page 63


The proposed attic floor opposite the existing habitable windows has a height of 7.6 metres (taken from the middle of the angled roofline) therefore Standard B19 requires a setback of 3.8 metres. As the proposal provides a setback of 5.4 metres from the windows in question compliance with the Standard is achieved. As a result, light access to the habitable room window of 9A Tashinny Road will not be unreasonably affected by the proposal.

- 10 Gordon Street

The proposal seeks to retain the existing boundary wall located across from the two habitable room windows at 10 Gordon Street therefore, not altering access to light.

- 15 Tashinny Road

Dwelling B will be opposite two ground floor habitable room windows. The proposed ground floor wall that is opposite the northern most window is approximately 2 metres in height therefore, Standard B19 requires a setback of 1 metres from the window. The proposal provides a 1.26 metre setback from the window in question therefore achieving compliance with the standard.

The proposed first floor wall height is 6.1 metres therefore; Standard B19 requires a setback of 3.05 metres from the windows. The proposal provides a 3.2 metre setback from the northern most window therefore, achieving compliance with the standard. The proposal provides a 3 metre setback from the south most window resulting in a short fall of 0.05 metres. This non-compliance is considered to be minor in nature and acceptable in this context as the amount of light to the habitable room will not be unreasonably affected.

The proposed attic floor opposite the existing habitable windows has a height of 8.37 metres (taken from the middle of the angled roofline) therefore Standard B19 requires a setback of 4.18 metres. As the proposal provides a setback of 4.77 metres from the windows in question compliance with the Standard is achieved here. As a result, light access to the habitable room window of 9A Tashinny Road will not be unreasonably affected by the proposal.

North-facing windows

There are no north-facing habitable room windows within 3m of the boundary of the subject site therefore; Standard B20 is not applicable to this application.

Overshadowing

Given the orientation of the allotment and the layout of the proposed development, the properties to the west will be partially overshadowed in the morning and the properties to the east will be partially overshadowed in the evening. However, in accordance with the requirements of Standard B21, at least 40 square metres of the SPOS areas pertaining to the adjoining properties will continue to enjoy a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September.

Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the overlooking objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must

Page 64


be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly. The standard does not apply to any overlooking issues from the ground level as all the existing boundary fences are at least 1.8 metres in height and the finished floor level is less than 0.8 metres above ground level at the boundary. Key details are as follows:

The first and second floor windows facing south are not screened. This is considered to be acceptable because these windows have an outlook over Tashinny Road and do not give rise to any overlooking issue.

All the first floor east and west facing windows have opaque glazing to a height on 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

All east and west facing the attic windows have a sill height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level (highlight windows).

The north facing decks associated with the first floor and attic have overview screening to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

The north facing habitable room windows have opaque glazing to a height on 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

In order to ensure no unreasonable overlooking will occur, the plans should specify the transparency of the opaque glazing and overview screening. Furthermore, the plans should detail how wide the restricted casement will open. The above matters will be addressed via conditions on any issue of permit.

On-Site Amenity and Facilities

Dwelling Entry

Entries to the proposed dwellings are provided via Tashinny Road, which are clearly identifiable from the street. The pedestrian gates and paths to the front doors will create a sense of personal address to each dwelling.

Internal amenity

The proposed 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

The proposed dwellings will each comprise in excess of 40 square metres of private open space, including adequate areas of secluded private open space to the north of each respective dwelling. In addition, the secluded private open space areas will be accessed via the ground floor living areas. This meets the requirements of the standard.

Front Fence

There are many fences throughout the streetscape with a varying style, the most common of which are brick or rendered brick with metal work infill or timber pickets. The standard stipulates that a front fence should not exceed 1.5 metres above NGL. The majority of the fences within the vicinity are between 1.5 to 2 metres in height. The application proposes a 1.6 metres to 2.1 metre high front fence which is constructed out of semi-permeable iron pickets with six brick pillars. The brick pillars are generally 0.4 metres higher than the iron pickets therefore creating a level of visual interest and by breaking up the mass. The height and design of the proposed front fence is not remarkably different from what can be found in

Page 65


this neighbourhood. As a result, its impact on the neighbourhood character is considered to be acceptable.

Service facilities

The proposal provides areas for the necessary site services. Each dwelling is provided with a large storage facility, which is secure and conveniently accessible within the basement. The mailboxes and other site facilities are adequate in size and their locations are appropriate.

Infrastructure

The proposal will incorporate water sensitive urban design features including the installation of a water tanks. This will help reduce stormwater runoff and WSUD and sustainability issues. Importantly, both dwellings have a floor level of 17.20 metres above A.H.D. therefore, adequate drainage can occur.

Permit conditions requiring the legal point of discharge and a drainage design for the development prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer will be included on any permit that issues. In addition, a permit condition will require that level of the footpath must not be altered.

Parks

It is recommended that permit conditions ensuring that the vehicle crossing is adequately setback from the stem of the street tree and ensuring tree protection fencing is erected around the street tree prior to works occurring will be included on any issue of permit. Furthermore, clarification as to whether trees are to be planted in-ground (directly into the soil / ground, not into a container) or in situ (into a constructed planter box, generally elevated above the surrounding level) will be a requirement on any permit that issues.

Traffic and Parking

Concerns/queries have been raised from the Traffic and Parking Unit relating to the headroom clearance provided for the garage, sight distances, ramp grades, floor gradients and column locations. Permit conditions should be included on any permit that issues requiring these to be addressed.

The Access Objective at Clause 55.03-9 aims ‘to ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighborhood character’. The proposal seeks to alter the existing crossing. The width of the proposed crossover is 3 metres (i.e. 19.5 per cent of the site frontage), which complies with the 40 per cent maximum allowed under Standard B14. Traffic and Parking Unit raised concerns, as the crossover has not been designed in accordance with Councils Vehicle Crossing Policy. This will be addressed via conditions of any permit issued.

Sustainable Design Assessment

Council has a proposed draft policy (Clause 22.22) titled Environmentally Efficient Design (EED). The EED Policy provides guidance with regard to achieving best practice environmentally sustainable development. Under the policy, development applications will need to submit a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) or a Sustainability Management Plan, which is determined by the size of a development. Tools currently used by applicants include STEPS, STORM and Green Star.

Page 66


The applicant has submitted a STEPS response however, it is based on the advertised plans (Council date stamped 14 April 2014). As a result, the STEPS response is not reflective of the current proposal. This will be addressed via condition on any issue of permit.


It is noted that the proposal will incorporate water sensitive urban design (WSUD) features including the installation of a 8000 litre rainwater tank and a buffer strip along the pathway. The STORM Rating Report indicates a rating of 100 per cent, which satisfies the application requirements and objectives of Clause 22.18 (Stormwater Management WSUD). However, the plans do not indicate that the rain water tank will be connected to the toilets which is required to achieve the 100 per cent STORM Rating. Furthermore, the WSUD Report is based on the advertised plans (Council date stamped 14 April 2014) therefore; it is not reflective of the current proposal. The above matters will be addressed via condition on any issue of permit. Objections


The structural integrity of adjoining properties is not a relevant planning consideration. Matters relating to structural design are dealt with through the building permit process.

Construction management issues are not a relevant planning consideration. Matters relating to construction management are regulated by building and local laws.



CONCLUSION


There is strategic justification for the construction of two dwellings on the subject site. The design, scale, siting and built form of the proposal is consistent with the existing

neighbourhood character. The proposed development will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

Attachments

1. PD - 0079-14 - 11 Tashinny Road Toorak - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council advise VCAT that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0079/14 would have been issued for the land located at 11 Tashinny Road, Toorak under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of two dwellings on a lot within a General Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

Page 67


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 substituted VCAT plans Council date stamped 3 March 2015 but modified to show:

a) The edge of the eastern splay of the crossover must be constructed no closer than 1.5m from the edge of the street tree stem.

b) Screening devices (windows and balconies) to be no more than 25% transparent in accordance with Standard B22 (overlooking) of Clause 55.

c) Details of the operability of the restrictive openings to the habitable room windows in accordance with Standard B22 (overlooking) of Clause 55.

d) Compliance with Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy. The treatment measure (rainwater tank) must show the connectivity of the tank to proposed toilet facilities in accordance with condition 14.

e) Water sensitive urban design response updated to reflect the current proposal.

f) STEPS response update to reflect the current proposal. g) Landscape plans updated to confirm whether the trees are to be planted in-

ground or in situ.h) The architectural finial features on the roof reduced in height pursuant to

Standard B7 (building height). i) Show minimum floor gradient of the car parking areas. The minimum

gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 200 (0.5 per cent) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.

j) The headroom clearance to the garage dimensioned. The Australian Standards require a minimum clearance height of 2.2 metres.

k) Demonstrate on the plans satisfactory sight distances to Tashinny Road. l) A longitudinal section from the footpath to the basement demonstrating all

proposed grades, all lengths of grades and all levels to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The maximum sag grade change is 15% and the maximum crest grade change is 12.5% as per the Australian Standards.

m) Column locations and setbacks updated to show compliance with the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

n) Details of the building materials (i.e brick, stone or concrete) in accordance with Covenant instrument No. 1560101 as listed on the title.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


3. Protection fencing must be afforded to the retained Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) street tree prior to construction works occurring. Fencing must be compliant with AS 4687. Fencing must remain in place until the completion of construction works, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Page 68



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


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


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

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

12. The level of the footpaths must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.


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



permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed

Page 69


timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES





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

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

c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.


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

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

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

Page 70


4 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0735/14 – 616-618 WARRIGAL ROAD, MALVERN EAST – CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING SHOP AT GROUND LEVEL AND 13 DWELLINGS ABOVE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a five storey mixed use development comprising shop at ground level and 13 dwellings at 616-618 Warrigal Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: ARG PlanningWard: EastZone: Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z, Schedule 10)Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 22/08/2014Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

48

Trigger for referral to Council: 4 or more storeysNumber of objections: 6Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 26 February 2015Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form the basis of this decision were prepared by Point Architects, job 669, Drawing Nos: SA01, DR01, TP01-TP06, Council date stamped 2 March 2015 and Transport Impact Assessment, Waste Management Plan and Sustainable Management Plan, all Council date stamped 22 August 2014.


It is proposed to construct a five storey mixed use development; A shop (148m2), 13 car parking spaces (2 allocated to the shop and 11 allocated to the

dwellings), storage and waste management will be provided at ground level; Of the 13 car parking spaces, 11 are within a stacking unit accessed via the right of

way at the rear, and 2 are at grade spaces accessed off Mountfield Avenue; 1 x one-bedroom dwelling and 3 x two-bedroom dwellings will be provided at first floor; 2 x one-bedroom dwellings and 2 x two-bedroom dwellings will be provided at second

floor; 3 x two-bedroom dwellings will be provided at third floor; 1 x one-bedroom dwelling and 1 x two-bedroom dwelling will be provided at fourth floor; As the land slopes downhill from west-east, the maximum overall building height varies

between 16.0m and 16.4m above natural ground level; Building site coverage of 100%; Site permeability 0%;

Page 71


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

The shop provides an entry off Warrigal Road, whilst the dwellings will be accessed via a common entry off the frontage to Mountfield Avenue; and

A detailed palette of materials is proposed, including areas of render, sections of pre-cast, punched metal screening, glazed balustrades, alucobond detail and stained timber.

It is noted that the applicant formally amended the application on 2 March 2015 in response to concerns raised by Council and objectors. The changes made are detailed below and include:

Reconfiguration of the ground floor design, including the parking, storage, waste and entry areas. The entry lobby has been aligned with the lift and stair, and waste is separated from vehicle movements and the entry lobby;

An internal bin room was added for the retail space; Reduction in the extent of the building at level 3, increasing the setback from the rear

(west) from 4.0m to 6.0m; Removal of one dwelling from level 3 to result in a total of 13 dwellings in lieu of 14 as

originally proposed; Reconfiguration of dwelling types from providing 6 x 1 bedroom and 8 x 2 bedroom to

providing 4 x 1 bedroom and 9 x 2 bedroom; Level 4 reconfigured by an increase in the setback from Mountfield Avenue (south)

from 1.5m to 3.0m, now 2m closer to Warrigal Road; and West facing balcony associated with dwelling 13 has been relocated to face Mountfield

Avenue, further reducing the bulk facing the adjacent dwelling at 23 Mountfield Avenue.

Site and Surrounds

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

The site is made up of two lots (Lots 14 and 15 on PS019830) and is currently vacant; A frontage to Warrigal Road of 9.14m (plus a 4.31m splay) and a depth along

Mountfield Avenue of 27.43m; An area of approximately 400m2; and The land exhibits a fall running downhill from west to east of approximately 0.7m.

The subject site is located at the nexus of three land zones; the subject site and all the land along Warrigal Road to the north is within a Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z), along Warrigal Road to the south is land zoned Residential Growth Zone (RGZ1), and land to the west, along Mountfield Avenue, is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ1).

As a result, a range of built form types exist, including 2 storey commercial buildings along Warrigal Road and single and double storey detached homes along Mountfield Avenue. More robust built forms are contemplated along Warrigal Road with the recently implemented Residential Growth Zone.

Buildings fronting Warrigal Road within the Commercial 1 Zone are generally constructed to the footpath, providing active frontages in the retail strip. On the south side of Mountfield Avenue, setbacks are generally between 7m and 9m. The site’s immediate surrounds are described as follows:

To the immediate west is a 3m wide right of way, and the front yard of number 23 Mountfield Avenue beyond, containing a single storey detached dwelling;

Page 72


To the immediate north is a double storey commercial property (occupied by a financial services company);

To the east is Warrigal Road, with the Matthew Flinders Hotel and associated bottle shop and at grade car park on the east side of the road (within the City of Monash); and

To the south is Mountfield Avenue, with 620 Warrigal Road across the road, containing a single storey detached dwelling.

The subject site is zoned Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) and does not include any mandatory or suggested height controls. The land to the south, zoned Residential Growth Zone (RGZ1) along Warrigal Road has a height limit of 13.5m (or 14.5m on a sloping site).

The subject site is located in close proximity to the strip shopping centre in Warrigal Road to the north, is close to Chadstone Shopping Centre and is within 300m of Holmesglen Railway Station. In addition, a priority bus services run along Warrigal Road. Education facilities within 2kms include Holmesglen TAFE, Gippsland TAFE, Malvern Valley Primary School, Salesian College and St Mary Magdalens Primary. A number of public reserves are available within 2kms including Ivanhoe Grove Reserve, Phoenix Park, Peverill Park and Treyvaud Memorial Park.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.05 identifies this area as a ‘substantial change area’ where ‘medium density and higher density housing’ should be directed.

Previous Planning Applications

A number of relevant planning applications have been determined at this site, including:

326/02 allowing refurbishment of a previously existing building; 1255/05 allowing an extension to the previously existing building; and 529/08 allowing use of the site for a shop, internet cafe, student accommodation for 28

students) with 7 parking spaces being provided (4 accessed via the right of way at the rear and 3 accessed off Mountfield Avenue). The maximum building height was 4 storeys / 14.3m. As works have not commenced, this permit expired on 10 June 2013.

The Title

The site is described on volume 7980 folio 024 specifically as Lots 14 and 15 on PS19830. No covenants affect the land.

Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Both the use ‘shop’ and ‘dwelling’ are condition 1 uses within the zone and therefore a permit is not required for the use.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking

Page 73


Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 a permit is required as the proposal seeks to reduce the parking provision for the shop (provides 2 spaces to the shop in lieu of a requirement to provide 6), does not provide 1 parking space per dwelling (provides 11 spaces for residents in lieu of a requirement to provide 13) and does not provide any visitor parking spaces (in lieu of a requirement to provide 2).

Clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of VehiclesPursuant to Clause 52.07 a permit is required as the proposal seeks to construct a shop without providing on-site loading facilities.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34 a development of 4 or more storeys is required to provide 1 bicycle space to each 5 dwellings. The proposal provides 4 spaces, which exceeds the minimum 3 required by this clause. There is no bicycle parking requirement associated with the shop as the floor area is less than 500 square metres.


Clause 11.04 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01 Urban environmentClause 15.02 Sustainable developmentClause 16.01 Residential developmentClause 18.01 TransportClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built environmentClause 34.01 Commercial 1 ZoneClause 52.06 Car parkingClause 52.07 Loading and unloading of vehiclesClause 52.34 Bicycle facilitiesDTPLI Guidelines for Higher Density DevelopmentClause 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 and adjacent land and by placing two signs on the site; one facing Warrigal Road and one facing Mountfield Avenue. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and objections from 6 individuals have been received. In summary, the objectors’ concerns include:

Proposed scale and form of the development is out of character; Lack of car parking and loading facilities; Traffic safety; Overshadowing of the public roadway; and Waste collection.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 26 February 2015. The meeting was attended by Councillors Stubbs, Davie and McMorrow, the applicant, a Council planning officer and 1 objector. At the consultative meeting the applicant provided ‘discussion plans’ detailing a range of changes in response to the concerns of Council and objectors, which were formally substituted on 2 March 2015 and now form the application plans.

Page 74


Council did not require the applicant to formally re-advertise the plans as the changes have reduced the impact that the development will make and as such are exempt from the notification provisions. It is also noted that these plans were presented at the planning consultative meeting held on 26 February 2015 and that objectors were notified in the invitation letters that amended documentation had been received by Council.

Referrals

Infrastructure Unit

Council’s Infrastructure Unit did not raise any specific concerns. It was requested that the following conditions be included on any permit that may issue:

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

The existing footpath levels must not be raised or altered in any way.

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

Urban Design

Council’s Urban Designer reviewed the advertised plans and provided the following comments:

1. Scale and FormThe overall height of the building is 1-storey greater than that preferred in the adjacent RGZ-1 to the South. This is a reasonable scale differential between a RGZ-1 and the Commercial Zone. The scale relationship to Mountfield Avenue, however, requires modification; as does the scale and form transition to the NRZ to the West.

To Warrigal Road, the building presents as a 4-storey ‘base’ building with a recessed top floor. To Mountfield Avenue, the building presents as a 5-storey form and would be visually dominant in the street. To the West, the building mainly presents as a 4-storey building with a recessed upper floor.

I would recommend the following improvements to address the scale and form transition issues to Mountfield Avenue to the South; and improve the form and scale relationship to the NRZ-1 to the West:

- Recess the top floor a minimum of 3m from the Southern site boundary; and eliminate the framing elements associated with the existing Level 5 (South). The existing top floor setbacks, from East and West site boundaries, should not be reduced. This will improve the scale and form of the building and address the issue of unreasonable visual bulk to Mountfield Avenue.

- The rear of Levels 1 and 2 (to the West) should align with the Western face of the Ground Level; and the West face of Level 3 should be setback a further 2.4m. These modifications will improve the form and scale transition to the existing nearby properties, and future 9m developments, in the NRZ-1 to the West.

2. Residential entry design

Page 75


The bin store is proposed to be located directly adjacent to the Residential entry to the building. As proposed, this is not good design practice and will create fundamental conflicts between bin collection activities and residents entering and exiting the building.

3. Car-parking arrangementsThe proposal to provide parking access off Mountfield Avenue, as well as access off the rear lane, is not a desirable practice. Larger new developments, such as this, should be seeking to consolidate car-parking arrangements to one location. I would suggest that the parking arrangements be reviewed.

4. Materials and ColoursA sample materials and colour board for the proposed cladding elements should be submitted for approval.

Following the provision of formally amended plans on 2 March 2015, Council’s Urban designer is satisfied that the increased setbacks at third and fourth levels and the reconfiguration of the ground level entry/waste/car parking area has satisfactorily addressed these issues.

Waste Management Unit

The Waste Management Unit reviewed the advertised plans and made the following comments:

The ‘Bin Store’ is inaccessible by staff of the retail outlet without having to walk outside the building, along Mountfield Avenue. This is not desirable and the layout must be modified to provide direct, internal access; and

A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring a waste management plan to be submitted for endorsement.

The layout changes shown in the amended documents formally submitted to Council on 2 March 2015 now provide an internal bin store for the retail space.

Transport & Parking Unit

The Transport and Parking Unit reviewed the proposal and made the following comments:

The Traffic and Transport Assessment has been reviewed and the overall number of residential and tenant parking spaces provided can be accepted;

A minimum of 1 visitor space should be provided. Given the potential difficulty of utilising a stacker (as a visitor) one of the non-stacker spaces should be allocated to visitors;

It is inappropriate to rely on the right of way for manoeuvrability or queuing into the parking area;

A minimum 2.2m clearance should be provided beneath the roller door into the parking areas;

There is insufficient sight line visibility when exiting the parking area off Mountfield Avenue;

There is insufficient short term parking in the area to allow for a waiver of the Loading Bay requirements;

Subject to conditions which require detailed model information, bicycle storage and signage is appropriate;

The proposed crossover does not appear to accord with Council’s policy; and Any redundant crossover to be removed and the kerb, channel and nature strip be

reinstated.

Page 76


Conditions should be included on any permit which may issue requiring details to be shown on plans for endorsement, including clearance heights into the parking area, bicycle rack model and notes regarding the reinstatement of kerb, channel and nature strip.

Environmental Sustainability

Council’s Environmental Sustainability Officer has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments:

Consideration should be given to setting the pv solar panel array further south to minimise the potential for overshadowing from future development;

STORM treatments need to be annotated on the plan to accord with the report; An internal connection between the shop and the waste area must be provided; Council’s policy requests 1 bicycle space per dwelling, as only 4 are provided and a

parking reduction is sough, additional bicycle spaces should be provided; and A Building User Guide should be produced as a permit condition to ensure efficient

ongoing operation of the building.

It is noted that the amended documents formally submitted to Council on 2 March 2015 provide for an internal bin store for the retail space. Conditions should be included on any permit which may issue requiring STORM details to be provided, PV panels to be offset further to the south and the preparation of a building user guide.

It is noted that as there is no formal landscaping within the proposal, the application was not formally referred to Council’s Parks Unit. However, the presence of street trees on Mountfield Avenue adjacent to the proposed building works resulting in an informal discussion taking place between Council’s Arborist and Planner where it was agreed that conditions should be included on any permit which may issue requiring these trees to be protected and for no trenching (for example, for services) to occur within the tree protection zones.

KEY ISSUES

The following assessment is based on the formally amended plans provided to Council on 2 March 2015.

The key issues with the proposal include whether the development respects the existing neighbourhood character and whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on residential amenity, including through parking and traffic generation. These key issues as well as issues raised by objectors are discussed in detail below.

State Planning Policy Framework

A number of provisions from the State Section of the Planning Scheme are relevant to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include commentary about Structure Planning (11.02-3), Metropolitan Melbourne (11.04), Urban Design (15.01), Housing (16) and Transport (18).

At the State Policy level these policy objectives provide a State policy impetus for the residential intensification of sites that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. Specific State policy support for appropriate residential intensification is highlighted in Clause 16 (Housing). This includes strategies to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land (16.01-1) and to increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the established urban areas particular at Activity Centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites (16.01-2).

Page 77


The State Policy objectives in regard to transport also provide a particular emphasis on encouraging higher land use densities and mixed use developments near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges, tramways and principal bus routes (18.01-2).

When considered against this policy direction there is State policy support for the proposed redevelopment and residential intensification of an existing site that is located near a Neighborhood Activity Centre and which would increase housing yield. In addition, the State policy objectives in relation to transport provide strong support for the development of higher residential density on a site that is located within 0.3km from heavy rail and on a principal bus route.

Local Planning Policy Framework

The Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan indentifies locations where specific outcomes are encouraged. In regard to residential intensification this framework at Clause 21.05-2 acknowledges the need for increased densities across the municipality and directs specific types of development to specific areas. The proposal is consistent with this policy, being in a ‘substantial change area’ where medium density and higher density housing should be directed.

Specific built form outcomes are addressed in local Built Environment Policy at Clause 21.06. This policy directs that new buildings not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings and that development be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location. In this instance the five storey built form is considered acceptable in the context and when viewed against the relevant policy settings.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

It is noted that the following assessment and discussion is based on the application plans which were formally amended on 2 March 2015.

Proposed scale and Neighbourhood Character

The application has been assessed against Clauses 16.01 and 21.05 and is considered a site responsive design which will sit comfortably in the existing and emerging streetscape. The extent of built form has responded to the varying interfaces which exist, and the likely built form which will occur as a result of the policy settings on surrounding land.

As described earlier, the subject site sits at the nexus of three zones, being the Commercial 1 Zone, Residential Growth Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone. It is located on a declared main road (Warrigal Road) and benefits from the presence of a right of way at the rear.

In response to this context, the proposal has introduced significant setbacks to the rear (west) where the works are adjacent to the more sensitive Neighbourhood Residential zone, and along Mountfield Avenue where its presence should be softened in the transition between Commerical and Residential land.

The zoning and controls which exist along Warrigal Road do not provide any mandatory height controls. The provision of 4 and 5 storey built form is considered likely and acceptable, and is a transition down from the 7 storey form found at Holmesglen TAFE. Council’s Urban Designer noted that the “...overall height of the building is 1-storey greater than that preferred

Page 78


in the adjacent RGZ-1 to the south. This is a reasonable scale differential between RGZ-1 and the Commerical Zone.”

Dept. of Transport, Planning & Infrastructure - Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

Element 2 – Building Envelope

The overall building volume, height and massing is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

The building facade is commensurate in height to that contemplated by the current policy settings which do not impose any mandatory (or preferred) maximum building heights;

At the rear, where the building adjoins residentially zoned land, the building is setback sufficiently to ensure that the residential amenity of the adjoining lot is respected;

The fifth storey of the building is setback an appropriate amount to minimise its visibility from Warrigal Road and to soften its impact on Mountfield Avenue;

The extent of built form is adequately broken up through the use of architectural features, building materials and colours, balcony recesses and openings;

Building massing has been focused towards the front of the site, and away from the heightened sensitivity of the adjoining residential lots; and

Given the siting and setbacks, the building will not overshadow any areas of secluded private open space on any adjoining lots.

The proposal has appropriately considered its context and has ensured that the interface to the west has been respected. In addition, the public interface to Warrigal Road will be enhanced by creating an interactive interface with at-grade retail space. Safety will be enhanced with additional ‘eyes on the street’ from the balconies above, and from shop customers.

The proposal’s impact to the adjoining lot to the north (612-614 Warrigal Road) has been considered in two ways. Firstly, the existing building is used for commercial purposes and therefore does not contain any habitable room windows or other sensitive areas which will be affected by the proposal under consideration. It is also considered good planning practice to consider whether works on one site will adversely impact the future development potential of adjoining lots. Given that the subject site is located to the south, it is unlikely that any future development will be unreasonably impacted on.

Whilst ResCode does not apply to a development of 5 or more storeys, it is useful to refer to as a tool to consider whether setbacks are appropriate when adjacent to residentially zoned land. It is also common practice to include the width of the right of way when one is present. The following is an assessment of the rear (western) setbacks:

Ground floor, vehicle parking spaces, required 1.2m, proposed 6.2m First floor, dwelling 4, required 2.2m, proposed 4.6m Second floor, dwelling 8, required 5.1m, proposed 7.2m Third floor, dwelling 11, required 8.3m, proposed 9.4m Fourth floor, dwelling 13, required 11.1m, proposed 12.0m

It is not considered likely that the building will create any adverse wind affects.

Element 3 – Street Pattern and Street Edge Quality

In a commercial zone, the provision of ground level shops and activated frontages are necessary and encouraged to foster an attractive, interesting and vibrant shopping strip that

Page 79


invites and attracts shoppers. The proposal delivers this at the front of the site where it faces Warrigal Road.

Pedestrian movements within the site are defined, organised and disability accessible. The common area has been well considered, with general storage, bicycle storage, vehicle parking and back of house services all provided and conveniently arranged.

Element 4 – Circulation and Spaces

The development incorporates a parking area towards the rear of the lots providing 13 parking space; 11 assigned to the 13 dwellings and 2 assigned to the shop.

The proposed parking layout is functional and safe, ensuring that the various uses supported within can operate safely and efficiently within the shared space. Bicycle and waste storage is provided at the ground level (separate to vehicles) which provides a safe environment free of conflict. All spaces are of appropriate dimensions and the accessways and turning movements are generally as stipulated at Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Waste has been adequately catered for, with space allocated to store bins in a single purpose room (for the dwellings) and within the shop. A private collection is proposed to service the site. As discussed earlier, Council’s Waste Unit is generally satisfied with the Waste Management Plan (WMP), subject to inclusion of a condition on any permit which may issue requiring the provision of an amended WMP which accords with the amended documents formally submitted to Council on 2 March 2015.

At ground level, residential pedestrian access is provided via a lobby on Mountfield Avenue where meters and mailboxes are also located. The shop has direct access off Warrigal Road.

Provision is made for a 10,000L water tank collecting rain water from the roof areas to be reused for toilet flushing. The applicant has supplied a STORM report which indicates that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 22.18 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme with regard to Water Sensitive Urban Design treatment. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue which requires each impermeable area to be documented as to how it is treated, including confirmation that all toilets are to be connected to the 10,000L water tank.

Element 5 – Building Layout and Design

A total of 13 dwellings are proposed, with a number of floor plans from 1 bedroom/57m2 up to 2 bedroom/88m2. The design results in efficient floor plans, with a low percentage of the built form being required for the lift and stair core relative to the net floor area. As the lot has three boundaries to public space, each dwelling is provided with a balcony/terrace and all bedrooms and living areas are provided with natural light – no habitable rooms rely on ‘borrowed’ light.

Secure and conveniently accessible storage cages (providing a minimum of 4m3 to each dwelling) are provided at ground level adjacent to the parking area. Waste is stored efficiently and can be accessed internally by all building occupants.

To Warrigal Road, the building presents as a 4-storey building with recessed fifth level. Building detailing, including the introduction of framing elements across the third and fourth floor aid in visually breaking down the building form, whilst de-emphasising the top floor. At the rear, where the building adjoins an existing detached dwelling, the 1st through 4th storeys will be setback 4.6m, 6.2m, 9.0m and 12m respectively from the adjoining dwelling’s boundary.

Page 80


Element 6 – Open Space and Landscape Design

The development does not provide any communal areas for recreation or quiet enjoyment. This is considered appropriate given the small footprint of the development. Each dwelling is provided with a usable balcony space with various outlooks towards the east, west and south.

It is considered that the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of these guidelines.

Waste

It is proposed to utilise a private collection service comprising three 660L bins and two 240L bins in lieu of fourteen 240L bins. This is considered acceptable subject to conditions requiring the provision of an updated Waste Management Plan which accords with the amended floor plans.

Car Parking

Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires that various uses provide parking, including visitor parking, or that a reduction be sought via a permit. The following table describes the statutory parking demand and proposed provision:

Statutory Requirement Proposed Shortfall

4 x 1 bedroom dwellings

1 per dwelling 4 spaces 2 spaces 2

9 x 2 bedroom dwellings

1 per dwelling 9 spaces 9 spaces -

Dwelling visitors 1 per 5 dwellings 2 spaces 0 spaces 2Shop 4 per 100m2 6 spaces 2 spaces 4

19 spaces 13 spaces 8

The applicant’s Traffic Transport Assessment report provides vehicle ownership rates for ‘Malvern’ from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2011) which shows that average car ownership within ‘flats, units or apartments’ is:

For 1 bedroom dwellings = 0.47 cars per dwelling For 2 bedroom dwellings = 0.94 cars per dwelling

Based on the proposal to provide 4 x 1 bedroom dwelling (a demand of 2 spaces based on the data above) and 9 x 2 bedroom dwellings (a demand of 8 spaces based on the data above), it is argued that the parking provision is acceptable based on the type and size of dwellings under consideration.

The proximity to high quality public transport, including heavy rail at Holmesglen Railway Station and priority bus routes along Warrigal Road, will enable occupants to reduce their dependence on private transport, ensuring that parking demand is adequate and reducing traffic congestion more broadly.

Visitor Parking

The majority of Mountfield Avenue includes residential parking permit only restrictions, and clearway parking restrictions apply along Warrigal Road in the vicinity of the subject site (in the AM and PM peaks). There are 3 unrestricted parking spaces opposite the subject site on

Page 81


Mountfield Avenue, and after reconfiguration of the existing crossings currently serving the subject site along Mountfield Avenue, 2 unrestricted parking spaces will be available adjacent to the subject site. It is considered reasonable to approve the waiver sought for the 2 visitor spaces given the supply of unrestricted spaces in close proximity.

Loading Bay Waiver

Clause 52.07 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires that prior to a new building being constructed for the purposes of manufacture, service or sales, land must be set aside for loading and unloading of vehicles. It is noted that whilst Warrigal Road is a declared main road, and clearway parking restrictions apply in the morning (6.30-9.30am) and the afternoon (4-6.30pm) Monday through Friday, 2P parking restrictions apply adjacent to the subject site outside of these times. It is considered that given the shop is small the frequency and size of delivery vehicles will be small, and that these can attend outside of the clearway times.

Given the size of the shop and the site, it is considered reasonable to provide a waiver of the loading bay requirements.

Bicycle Parking

The table to Clause 52.34-3 specifies that in developments of 4 or more storeys, 1 resident bicycle space must be provided to each 5 dwellings plus 1 visitor space to each 10 dwellings. Bicycle parking for shop staff or customers is only required where the shop exceeds 500m2 in leasable floor area.

Therefore a requirement for 2 resident spaces plus 1 visitor space is triggered by the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The proposal provides for 3 resident spaces plus 1 visitor space, satisfying the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Environmental Sustainable Design

The design of the proposed building provides excellent access to natural light and ventilation. As a result, all habitable room windows will have direct access to natural light and will provide good quality amenity throughout. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the preparation of a Building User Guide to ensure that the environmental benefits set out in the supporting documentation are managed by future occupiers and owner’s corporations.

The architectural plans do not adequately document the treatment requirements to accord with the STORM report, and a condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring these details to be provided.

A condition should also be included on any permit which may issue requiring the PV panels to be located as far south as possible without being visible from the footpath on the south side of Mountfield Avenue. This will maximize solar energy collection without creating additional visual bulk.



CONCLUSION

Page 82


Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposal represents a site responsive design which will sit comfortably in its

context; The proposed height is appropriate in an area where policy encourages higher density

development; Appropriate setbacks are provided where the site adjoins more sensitive residential

sites; and The proposal provides sufficient parking given proximity to transport and the dwelling

types.

Attachments

1. PD - 0735-14 - 616-618 Warrigal Road Malvern East - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0735/14 for the land located at 616-618 Warrigal Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a five storey mixed use development comprising shop at ground level and dwellings over and reduction of parking requirements and waiver of the loading bay requirements in a Commercial 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 application plans Council date stamped 2 March 2015 but modified to show:

a) A note provided on the plans which indicates that each 2 bedroom dwelling is to be allocated a parking space and that 2 of the 1 bedroom dwellings are each to be provided a space (all within the stacker system). No dwelling is to be provided with more than 1 parking space;

b) A note provided on the plans which indicates that both of the parking spaces accessed directly off Mountfield Avenue are to be allocated to the shop;

c) A note provided on the plans allocating at least 1 x 4m3 storage cage to each dwelling;

d) Notations provided on the plans that any redundant vehicle crossover is to be removed and kerb, channel and nature strip to be reinstated;

e) Stacker model and specifications, including clearly confirming platform width, length and clearance for each space;

f) Confirmation that the ‘access doors’ to the stacker parking bays are interlocked with the stacker control system so that the stacker system is only operating when the doors are closed;

g) The proposed ‘perforated metal’ skin of the ‘access doors’ to the stacker parking bays be replaced with a solid material to minimise noise emissions from the stacker units when operating;

h) Bicycle rack model and dimensions;i) PV panels moved south as far as possible but to remain invisible for a

pedestrian standing on the footpath on the south side of Mountfield Avenue, and the capacity of the panels corrected;

Page 83


j) A Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) response in accordance with condition 3;

k) A Waste Management Plan (WMP) in accordance with condition 5;l) A Building User Guide (BUG) in accordance with condition 6; andm) Details of Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) in accordance with condition 7.


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response (WSUD) addressing the Application Requirements of the WSUD Policy at Clause 22.18 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plans must detail all treatment methods to be relied upon, including detailing each impervious surface and which toilets will be plumbed to the water tank.


5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The WMP must be generally in accordance with the WMP submitted with the application, but modified to reflect the changes shown in the amended plans Council dated stamped 2 March 2015.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Building User Guide (BUG) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The BUG must detail the ongoing management of the common areas of the building and

a) Detail the ongoing management of the common areas of the building;b) Confirm what the PV panels on the roof will be connected to and their

ongoing maintenance regime;c) Include information to new owners and/or occupiers about sustainable

transport choices, including public transport services; andd) The building user guide must be given to all new owners and

occupiers.

7. Tree Protection details must be shown on all relevant plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority including:

a) Tree protection fencing must be erected around each street tree on the north side of Mountfield Avenue at a radius of 2.0 metres from the base of the trunk to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. The fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh or equivalent to at least 1.8m in height to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fences must remain in place until all construction is completed.

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

Page 84


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

8. 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.

9. The level of the footpaths, roads or rights of way must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.


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



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:


The crossovers must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.


“Significant tree” means a tree:a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its

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

Page 85


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







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

Page 86


5 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0273/14 - 663 663A 665 667 669 & 691 MALVERN ROAD, TOORAK – CONSTRUCTION OF A PART FIVE, PART SIX STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING CONTAINING 18 APARTMENTS ABUTTING MALVERN ROAD AND 17 TWO AND THREE STOREY TOWNHOUSES TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE


Executive Summary

Applicant: Message ConsultantsWard: NorthZone: Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 2

General Residential Zone – Schedule 10Overlay: None Date lodged: 17/04/2014Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

303


Building greater than four storeys

Number of objections: 13 objections received – 7 objections withdrawn – 6 objections remaining

Consultative Meeting: Yes – 31 July 2014Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

This application has been with Council for some time. Following the Consultative Meeting the Applicant spent several months negotiating with the objectors in an effort to address concerns. Subsequently, a set of Discussion Plans (Revision 06) were submitted to Council in early in 2015. Following the submission of the Revision 06 plans, seven (7) objections were withdrawn.

The Discussion Plans have not been formally substituted (due to the Applicant benefiting from the transitional provisions of the zone), and as such the advertised plans have not been formally superseded. The proposal as listed below relates to the advertised plans. The changes as shown on the Revision 06 plans will be discussed later in this report.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by CHT Architects Pty Ltd and are known as Drawing No’s: TP101, TP102, TP103, TP104, TP105, TP106, TP107, TP108, TP110, TP111, TP201, TP202, TP202, TP203, TP400, TP401, TP402, TP403, TP404, TP405, TP406, TP407, TP408, TP409 and are Council date stamped 3 June 2014 (as advertised).


Removal of all existing buildings from the land. Construction of a part five and part six storey apartment building comprising 11 x 3-

bedroom apartments and 7 x 2-bedroom apartments on the front (south) portion of the site.

Page 87


Construction of two rows of two and three storey townhouses to the north of the site, comprising of 16 x 3-bedroom dwellings and 1 x 4-bedroom dwelling.

70 residential car spaces within two basement levels, 0 visitor car spaces, 52 residential bicycle parking and 4 visitor bicycle parking.

As the development contains two different building typologies, more specific details of each are provided below:

Apartment Building

The apartment building is located to the south of the site and will be setback 4.2 metres from Malvern Road with balconies at Levels 1, 2 and 3 encroaching within this setback. The protruding balconies will sit 2.25 metres from the street.

The building is proposed to have an overall height of 16.98 metres to Malvern Road and approximately 19.9 metres at the rear (north) of the building, due to the slope in the land.

The building will appear as five storeys when viewed from Malvern Road with the upper levels recessed. The building will be setback at a minimum distance from the east and west boundaries by 4.1 metres and 6.5 metres, respectively.

Townhouses

The townhouses are made up of 8 x two storey buildings positioned towards the western side of the site and 9 x three storey townhouses along the eastern side of the site.

The two storey buildings will have heights of between 7.75 metres and 10.11 metres due to the slope in the land and are setback 4.7 metres from the western title boundary (across the right-of-way). Private open space is located on the western side these residences in the form of landscaped terraces.

The three storey townhouses will vary in height between 9.85 metres and 10.7 metres and are setback approximately 3 metres from the eastern boundary. Private open space is located on the eastern side of the residences, again in the form of landscaped terraces. West facing balconies are provided at Level 2.

Townhouses 121 and 119 abut the railway line to the north. A central landscaped walkway (approximately 4 metres wide) separates the two rows of

townhouses. Pedestrian entries to the townhouses are provided from within this internal street.

Car Parking

The car parking is to be accessed via an existing crossover to Malvern Road, which is proposed to be widened.

Two basement levels of car parking are proposed beneath the apartment building consisting of the following:- Basement 1: 12 car spaces, including 2 x 3-car garages and 1 x 2-car garage. - Basement 2: 25 car spaces, including 2 x tandem garages.

18 apartments are provided a total of 37 car spaces. The townhouses are provided with 12 x secure 2-car garages and 9 individual spaces

accessed via Basement B2. 17 townhouses are provided a total of 33 car spaces.

General

Site coverage: 77% of the total site area Basement coverage: 69% of the total site area

Page 88


Site and Surrounds

The subject site is made up of six addresses located on the northern side of Malvern Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The subject site is on the north side of Malvern Road, between Canterbury and Orrong Roads.

There is a significant fall in the land from the south towards the northern boundary by approximately 8 metres.

The land extends to a railway cutting along the site’s northern boundary. The site has an overall combined area of approximately 3,420 square metres and is

currently occupied by single and double storey residential buildings. Vehicle access to the site under existing conditions is available via a crossover to Malvern

Road at the site's eastern boundary.

The land contains four single storey dwellings and several structures to the rear including double storey forms. Numerous easements affect the land, including a lane contained on the title to the site that abuts the western boundary. The lane interfaces with seven single storey dwellings that abut the eastern side of Canterbury Road. These adjacent lots have rights of carriageway over the lane and areas of private open space with an outlook towards the subject site.

The land directly to the west on Malvern Road (No. 661 Malvern Road) contains a part three - part four storey brick apartment building.

Three storey flats are to the east of the site and extend into the lot toward the railway cutting. A rear carport behind the building is situated on the common boundary with the subject site.

Malvern Road carries two-way traffic in an east-west direction. On-street parking exists along the north side of Malvern Road and is generally unrestricted outside of Clearway times. Clearways apply along the north side of Malvern Road between 4:30pm-6:30pm Monday-Friday, and along the south side between 7am-9am Monday-Friday. A signalised pedestrian crossing and tram stop is located along the site's frontage to Malvern Road.

Previous Planning Applications

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

Planning Application 0675/12 was refused under delegation on 15 January 2013 on the following grounds:

1. The proposal fails to adequately respond to State and Local Planning Policy Framework.2. The proposed building, having regard to its height, scale, massing and setbacks,

constitutes an overdevelopment of the site and does not respond to or respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

3. The height, scale, massing and direct overlooking would result in significant and unreasonable amenity impacts to surrounding residential properties.

4. The on-site amenity of the development and internal amenity of dwellings is unsatisfactory.

5. The proposal does not achieve a high level of sustainable or water sensitive urban design commensurate with the size of the site.

6. The car parking arrangements, layout, design and access would impact on traffic movements within the basement car parks and ROW, the safety of the existing road network and pedestrians, and surrounding residential properties.

Page 89


7. The location and design of the basement entry/exit point would result in adverse amenity impacts on adjacent residential properties.

8. The excessive extent of the basement and building cover precludes the possibility of an appropriate landscape response for the site.

9. The building pushes too close to the rear boundary and would impact on the operations of the railway line.

10. Waste arrangements are unresolved.

The application proposed a multi-storey apartment building (to contain 108 dwellings) over eight levels including basement parking for 115 cars. The height varied due to the slope of the land and the building was shown generally 5 to 6 storeys above the basement levels. The western laneway was proposed to be widened to allow for two-way traffic. Two visitor car spaces were shown on the eastern edge of a widened laneway. Bicycle parking for 69 residents was proposed along with 7 spaces for visitors.

The applicant appealed Council’s decision to refuse the application (VCAT Reference No. P137/2013) and in the VCAT Order dated 30 April 2013 Council’s decision was affirmed. Importantly, the Order makes the following statement in its conclusion for refusing the application:

The principle of developing the review site is not in issue given the land’s size, main road abuttal and location characteristics. Many elements of this design response are acceptable and are not in contest. We give them significant weight. However, they do not outweigh our finding that the scale and massing of the proposed apartment building is not acceptable. While we have recognised the setbacks, landscaping and other design elements that seek to provide an acceptable interface with adjacent residential properties, particularly to the west, we are not persuaded that the transition from the mostly single storey dwellings with open and landscaped rear yards to the five and six storey building is acceptable.

Notably, the VCAT decision also found that:

• There is no dispute as to the nature of existing development along Malvern Road. It includes some older dwellings as well as three and four storey apartment buildings from a range of eras, including recent construction. These sites sit higher in the landform than the review site and the Canterbury Road lots that fall toward the railway. Taller buildings are clearly part of the existing character when looking from Canterbury Road to south toward Malvern Road.

• The main points of disagreement between the parties relate to the scale and massing of the proposed development and the consequent degree of visual impact on adjacent residential properties to the west of the review site.

• It is agreed between parties at the Hearing, including witnesses, that the existing policy within the Scheme would recognise the review site as being a strategic redevelopment site.

• It is the combination of the proposed height and continuous length of the building down the site which we have concluded is unacceptable.

• We are not persuaded that removing the entire level 5 is a solution. One of the difficulties is that it removes a level at the Malvern Road frontage which is unnecessary.

• The Malvern Road streetscape response was agreed by parties at the Hearing as being acceptable.

Page 90


• The retention of the large Red Box at the north-east corner provides an opportunity to link the landscaped open space with a re-worked right of way as an area of communal open space.

• We are satisfied that overshadowing and overlooking have been addressed in accordance with the guidelines although we appreciate that multiple balconies and windows may be perceived by some existing residents as intrusive. This is not, however, a reason to refuse a planning permit.

The findings as detailed above will be discussed in further detail later in this report.

Other permits

Planning Application 187/99 for use and associated development of 105 unit accommodation complex for the aged with 72 associated car parking spaces was refused by Council on 28 April 1999.

Planning Application 1348/01 for use and development of the land for a retirement village (105 apartments) was refused by Council on 16 August 2002.

Planning Permit 676/03 for development of a retirement village was issued on 17 May 2004 at the direction of VCAT. This permit expired on 17 May 2014.

The Title

The site is described as follows:

691 Malvern Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 07731 Folio 044 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 127596 and on Certificate of Title Volume 10389 Folio 255 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 011333. The latter title appears to form a drainage easement.

663A Malvern Road is described as follows: Certificate of Title Volume 07731 Folio 043 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 127595. This relates to

the right-of-way. Certificate of Title Volume 10238 Folio 446 as Land in Plan of Consolidation 353650. Certificate of Title Volume 08972 Folio 016 as Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 027628. There are no other restrictions on this land.

663 Malvern Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10389 Folio 253 as Lot 1 of Plan of Subdivision 038983. This land is affected by a party wall easement.

665 Malvern Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10389 Folio 254 as Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 038983. This land is affected by a party wall easement.

667 Malvern Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 08269 Folio 931 as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 040000. This land is affected by both a party wall and sewerage easement.

669 Malvern Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 08373 Folio 236 as Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 040000. This land is affected by a party wall easement.

No covenants affect the site. Planning Controls

Page 91



Zones

The land is affected by two zones; one covering the northern portion of the site and the other covering the southern portion of the site.

Southern section of the site:

Clause 32.07 - Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 2)

Pursuant to Clause 32.07-1 a permit is not required to use the land for dwellings.

Pursuant to Clause 32.07-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. Clause 55 does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement.

Schedule 2 stipulates that a residential building must not exceed a height of 13.5 metres, unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 14.5 metres.

The maximum building height for this site, due to the slope in the land, is 14.5 metres.

However the above restrictions does not apply to an application to construct a residential building made before the approval date of the planning scheme amendment that introduced Schedule 2 into the planning scheme (19 June 2014). As this application was lodged on 17 April 2014, the transitional provisions apply.

Northern section of the site:

Clause 32.08 - General Residential Zone (Schedule 10)

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 a permit is not required to use the land for dwellings.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement.

Schedule 10 stipulates that a residential building must not exceed 9 metres, unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres.

The maximum building height for this site, due to the slope in the land, is 10 metres.

Again, Schedule 10 does not apply to an application to construct a residential building made before the approval date of the planning scheme amendment that introduced this schedule into the planning scheme. This application was lodged prior to the introduction of Schedule 10 and therefore the transitional provisions apply.

OverlaysThere are overlays that affect this site.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06- Car Parking

Page 92


Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, prior to a new use commencing or a new building be occupied the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.

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.

A dwelling requires a rate of 1 car spaces to each one or two bedroom dwelling; or 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling; plus 1 car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

The statutory car parking rate for this development is shown in the table below:

No. of dwellings proposed Statutory rate required2 bed dwelling 7 apartments 7

3 bed+ dwelling 17 townhouses; and11 apartments

56

Visitors 35 7

Total 70

This development proposes a total of 70 car spaces. Therefore, no reduction in the statutory parking rate is technically required. However, the Applicant has confirmed that no on-site visitor parking is to be provided and therefore, a reduction in the visitor parking rate is sought.

Clause 52.29- Land adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road

A permit is required to alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1. Applications must be referred to VicRoads pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act.

Clause 52.34 - Bicycle Facilities

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1 bicycle facilities should be provided in accordance with the requirements at Clause 52.34-3 and 52.34-4. The development is required to provide 1 residential space for every 5 dwellings and 1 visitor space for every10 dwellings. 11 bicycle spaces are required. More than the statutory rate is provided within this development.

Clause 52.35- Urban Context Report and Design Response for residential development of four or more storeys

Pursuant to Clause 52.35-1 an application for a residential development of four or more storeys must be accompanied by an urban context report and design response.


Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 HousingClause 18.02 Movement networks

Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 Housing

Page 93


Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.08 InfrastructureClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Amendment C175 – Draft Neighbourhood Character Local Policy

Amendment C175 has been prepared to introduce a new Neighbourhood Character Policy into the local section of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. This policy will clarify the preferred neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal respects and reinforces the preferred character.

The Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policy includes the preferred character statements, design objectives and design responses to be taken from the precinct profiles.

A Panel Hearing was set down for 15 and 16 April 2014. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Panel determined to adjourn the matter pending the gazettal of Stonnington's new residential zones. The new zones were gazetted on 19 June 2014. The Panel Hearing reconvened on 2 October 2014 providing further opportunities to hear the submissions and Council’s closing submission.

Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014 and released the report on 5 December 2014. The Panel Report recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to changes.

At its meeting on 2 February 2015, Council considered the recommendations of the Panel and resolved to adopt the amendment with changes.

Based on the resolution of Council, the subject site falls with the Garden Suburban 1 category. The Statement of preferred neighbourhood character is as follows:

The Garden Suburban 1 (GS1) precinct comprises leafy streetscapes with a range of Victorian, Edwardian or Interwar era and contemporary buildings set in established garden surrounds. In typical streets regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for small, well designed garden areas that contribute to the landscape quality of the street. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of form, general one-two storey scale and design detail of the older buildings. Low, visually permeable front fences retain views to gardens and dwellings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

Based on the design guidelines of the GS1 the proposal is deemed to be generally in accordance with the preferred neighbourhood character. Importantly, the site is within a substantial change area which can accommodate more development.

Advertising

Page 94


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 4 signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and objections from six (6)* different properties have been received. The concerns can be broadly summarized as: Height Loss of light Car parking issues during construction Noise and air pollution Car parking Out of character with the area Density Overlooking / loss of privacy Traffic impacts on Malvern Road Overdevelopment

* It is noted that 13 objections were initially received; however 7 objections have since been unconditionally withdrawn, as will be discussed below.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 31 July 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillors Chandler and Koce, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

Following this meeting the Applicant spent several months negotiating with objectors to address some of the concerns raised. Discussion plans were submitted to Council on 15 January 2015. These plans are known as Revision 06 plans dated 5 November 2014. The plans have also sought to address Council Officers concerns and the referral comments.

The changes that have been incorporated on the Revision 06 plans can be summarised as follows: Apartment floor to floor heights reduced from 3.3m to 3m to address building bulk; Apartment building reduced in height from RL52.28 to RL 50.78, resulting in a reduction of

1.3 metres (previously 16.98 metres and now 15.45 metres in height); Reduction in the upper level apartment from 245sq m. to 205 sq m. Reductions achieved

through:Western wall of the upper floor level setback from the western boundary 12.465 metres;Increased northern setback to Apartment 501 by 4 metres;

Introduction of 2 visitor car spaces; Deep planting areas introduced along the western townhouses; Bicycle spaces shown throughout the development; Bin enclosure for Townhouses introduced; Acoustically treated fence as per acoustic report introduced to the east and west

townhouses; New remote controlled automatic gate to R.O.W (access to Canterbury Road houses to

be maintained) at the request of the objectors; Note regarding compliance with approved acoustic engineering report and visual/acoustic

screening to A/C condensers added; Revised kitchen layouts to apartments 101 and 104 to address ESD concerns; Addition of privacy screening to apartment 104 balcony; Reduction in the depth of canopies on the East Townhouses to improve daylight

amenities; Introduction of a cautionary traffic control sign to Malvern Road;

Page 95


Creation of alcove and planter box to the west façade ; Introduction of planter boxes along the north facing apartment balconies; Roof/Balcony drainage area clarified; Revised western facade to West townhouses; North facing ground level windows to townhouse 121 revised to glass blocks and north

facing 1st floor windows to townhouse 121 removed; Height of townhouse boundary fences clarified; Size of windows over the East townhouses kitchens increased; and Shadow diagrams updated.

Following the submissions of these discussion plans (Revision 06), all 7 objections from the Canterbury Road residents were withdrawn unconditionally. These plans were not formally substituted under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (due to the Applicant benefiting from the transitional provisions of the zone) and as such, hold no statutory weight. However, it is considered that all of the above changes are favourable and should be required via conditions of any permit that issues.

Referrals

VicRoads

No objection subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a detailed functional layout drawing for the proposed access must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads and the Responsible Authority showing: a. Details of the widened access laneway at Malvern Road. The functional

layout drawing must include details of appropriate signage and line marking enforcing a left in / left out access arrangement from Malvern Road to / from the development.

b. Swept path analysis of appropriate design vehicles entering and exiting the site concurrently.

2. Provision for vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction must be available at all times to the satisfaction of the VicRoads.

3. Before the use of the permitted development: a. The laneway and cross-over in accordance with the approved functional

layout plan must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b. Any redundant vehicle crossovers on Malvern Road must be removed and the kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

VicTrack

VicTrack has no objection to the granting of a planning permit, subject to conditions.

Infrastructure Department

Council’s Infrastructure Department require conditions relating to the legal point of discharge and drainage design; the existing footpath levels at the property line of Malvern Road must not

Page 96


be lowered or altered (to vehicular access); and all vehicular crossings made redundant by the development must be removed at the owner’s cost and to the satisfaction of Council.

As always water tanks are encouraged.

Right-of-way

The widened section of the right-of-way should remain within the development and must not become a road. Council has no wish to accept responsibility and liability for the future maintenance of the widened section. Therefore, this widened section should remain in the ownership of the owner’s corporation and should be delineated on the submitted plans. The body corporate must accept responsibility for the maintenance of this widened section.

Asset Management Department

The Right of Way is a Laneway on Council’s Register of Public Roads and is under the care and control of Council. The section of the Right of Way that is Council’s responsibility is the bluestone section, which is a nominal width of 3.5 metres according to the old database.

Right of Ways are often privately owned and the titles usually are in the name of the original subdivider, but they often vest in Council if they are considered by Council to be a Public Highway. If the road is constructed to Council standards, maintained by Council and used by the public over a long period of time, then the road satisfies this criteria. The road appears to satisfy this criteria, with the exception of the last 30 metres which has been gated off.

Transport and Parking (based on Discussion Plans)


Car parking allocation to be submitted specifying the allocation of individual parking spaces to individual dwellings, in particular within the basement car park for the apartment building.

Visitor parking

The Transport and Parking Unit recommends that the full visitor parking provision of seven (7) visitor parking spaces be provided in this instance.

Other Design Matters

The headroom clearance at the entrance to the car park has not been clearly shown on the plans, and should be confirmed at a minimum clearance of 2.2m

Revised material is to be submitted showing adequate lines of sight will be provided between vehicles exiting the development’s car park and other vehicles accessing the RoW.

Door opening movements should be altered to ensure no doors open into parking areas or parking aisles.

It is recommended that some protection from circulating vehicles be provided for pedestrians exiting the lifts, using bollards or similar.

The double garages for townhouses are to be fully dimensioned and are to be 6.0m long by 5.5m wide.

The desire to provide secure garages within the development appears to have lead to some compromised design which may impact usability. The stairwells within some garages appear to impact parking bays.

There are also bicycle parking racks overhanging parking bays throughout the development, and it is unclear if this will impact the bays.

Page 97


The plans provided do not include a longitudinal section along the ramps to allow for assessment. A longitudinal section including all grades, lengths of grades, and levels is to be provided to allow for assessment.

A longitudinal section of the RoW should also be submitted for assessment. This longitudinal section is to include details of the grades and grade changes along the RoW, including changes in grade where the RoW changes direction, and at the entrance to the car park

With the provision of 56 onsite bicycle parking spaces as shown on plans the minimum statutory requirements have been exceeded.

Revised plans are to be fully dimensioned to demonstrate that the allocated area is sufficient to accommodate the amount of bicycle parking facilities proposed and plans to be fully dimensions (including all design details such as widths, lengths, etc) to demonstrate compliance with the minimum design requirements.

Council’s Arborist (Comments based on advertised plans)

There are many mature trees located at this site, many of which are worthy of retention in the landscape.

The proposed design only allows for the retention of the 2 mature Lemon Scented Gums on the east boundary of the site, and a Red Box Gum on the northern boundary. Any trees retained on site will require a TMP

The extensive size of the basement construction removes the ability to retain the bulk of the mature vegetation along the northern boundary, and the stand of Silky Oaks in the centre of the site.

The extensive size of the basement construction also reduces the inclusion of large trees planted in-ground for a large percentage of the northern and western perimeter of the site. This also restricts the ability to soften the proposed built form, which appears to be quite imposing to the surrounding properties.

Although several trees are shown as retained, and the basement excavation has been set back near these specimens, actual construction occurs well within the TPZ’s of all 3 trees. How is this being designed to be sympathetic to the root systems of these trees?

Landscape Plan

The bulk of the landscape inclusion is in situ. Soil volumes have not been provided to determine how the landscaping can be sustained toward maturity.

Council’s Sustainability Officer (based on Discussion Plans)

Revise site plans/elevations and/or landscape plans to:

Provide window to second floor bathrooms of eastern row townhouses Show the locations of operable windows on elevations ensuring appropriate cross-

ventilation opportunities are available to each unit and at each floor for townhouses. Confirm extent of site permeable/impermeable areas Annotate roof plans to confirm drainage areas connected to the rainwater tanks as per

MUSIC tool. Confirm location of proposed Ecosol sand filter Confirm type and coverage of pergola proposed to third floor north facing apartment

windows Depict location of waste room on landscape plans

Update Sustainability Management Plan to:

Page 98


- Confirm if glazing and insulation types recommended in Acoustic and Vibration reports accord with fabric assumptions used to derive unit and townhouse energy ratings.

- Include a site plan confirming extent of permeable/impermeable areas considered for the MUSIC tool

- Provide information on the purpose and location of the Ecosol Sand Filter

Urban Designer (Comments based on advertised plans)

Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the plans and is of the opinion that the development should be reduced in height and the apartment building should be stepped down to the North, to reflect the fall of the land. This would reduce the visual bulk presented to the private open spaces of the properties to the West (particularly No’s 4 & 6 Canterbury Road).

The approach to the provision of car-parking for the town-houses has the effect of precluding the possibility of integrating deep-soil canopy-tree planting to the West and North of the development.

It is the Urban Designer’s opinion that the proposed approach of providing minimal vegetation in raised planter boxes above the ‘ground-floor’ structural slab, is not an acceptable form of landscaping for large residential developments on large sites.

The front of the building, including the projecting balconies, should align with the principal faces of the two adjoining buildings (No’s 661 and 693 Malvern Road).

The Discussion Plans have been reviewed by Council’s Urban Designer who noted that the revised plans have gone some way to address the concerns with regard to the height of the building and moderating the bulk to the north. However, concerns remain with the extent of basement and the front setback.

Waste

A comprehensive Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 30 April 2014 accompanied this proposal. This document responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans I viewed, i.e., those prepared by CHT Architects Pty Ltd and date stamped by Council 3 June 2014.

Any Planning Permit issued for this development must include a clause specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan. Once a Planning Permit has been issued for the development, a Waste Management Plan (similar to that previewed here) should be submitted for approval.

KEY ISSUES

For the purposes of this assessment the plans referred to are the Discussion Plans (Revision 06) as these plans have addressed numerous objector and Council Officer concerns. The changes shown by these plans will be required by way of conditions.


In assessing this application, consideration must be given to the relevant State and Local Planning Policy Framework. In addition, an assessment must have regard to the guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development for developments of more than five storeys.

Page 99


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

Council’s Vision states:

Higher density development is directed to locations with the highest accessibility to public transport and services; being sites in and beside activity centres, beside main roads with trams and Smart buses and beside railway stations.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) identifies the site as being within a substantial change area. These areas are defined as land with immediate abuttal to a main road which is a tram / bus priority route, such as Malvern Road (refer to Council’s Strategic Framework Plan).

As the site is located on an arterial road where a high proportion of medium and high density housing already exists, it is anticipated that the site can accommodate a higher level of development than the residential hinterland to the north-east and north-west, away from Malvern Road. This position is also confirmed within Council’s draft Neighbourhood Character Policy (C175).

Importantly in the VCAT Order dated April 2013, the Tribunal noted that:

The parties agree that the review site is extremely well located with respect to services and public transport. It is in a location where higher density housing may be supported through existing policy in the Stonnington Planning Scheme and where higher density housing is proposed to be directed through proposed local policy (Amendment C161).

In this regard it is considered that the site is strategically well located to cater for increased housing density. Further discussion on the previous VCAT decision is provided below.

Previous VCAT Decision

It is important to note that the previous plans to which the VCAT comments relate proposed a single building across the entire site over seven habitable levels and three basement levels. The extent of development proposed by this current application has been substantially reduced. For clarity an approximate comparison is provided:

VCAT Plans 2013 Current 2015 Discussion Plans (Rev 6)

No. dwellings 108 35No. of car spaces 117 70Max. building height RL 50.7 RL 50.78 Street wall to Malvern Road 9.77m setback approx. 2.9m

from street to face of balcony10.1m setback 2.55m from the street to face of balcony

Building height as it presents to Malvern Road

15.7 metressetback approx. 10.9 metres from Malvern Road

15.45 metres setback approx. 4.6 metres from Malvern Road

Length of the apartment building on the land

Approximately 100 metres Approximately 35 metres, including projecting balconies

Where the VCAT plans proposed one single apartment building over the full depth of the site; this proposal includes two different building types that are physically separated within the centre

Page 100


of the site. The two building types include the part five and six level apartment building that fronts Malvern Road and the two and three storey attached townhouses to the rear. This is a considerable reduction in the scale and mass of buildings on the site.

The VCAT Order from April 2013 notes the following positive attributes of the earlier proposal:

We find the proposal has adopted a number of appropriate and meritorious design elements. They include:

The widened laneway to create a point of access to the development, retain access rights for existing residents, and achieve very good separation from abutting sites.

The adoption of design modules through changes recommended by Mr Sheppard to assist to break up the building mass and breadth and to respond to the fall of the land. We find that the change of materials emphasising this is an effective device.

The principle of recessing the upper floors and creating recessed and reveals in the building.

The notion of landscaping along the western edge of the building with canopy trees to soften the building form and supplement the green corridor associated with the rear of the Canterbury Road properties.

The ability to develop toward the rear of the site given the railway is not sensitive. The notion of enhancing the building by the use of external landscaping including

planter boxes to balconies and vertical planting, although we consider more could be done to achieve a useable area of communal open spaces for residents.

The principle of graduating and stepping the building down the site.

Many of these positive design responses have been maintained as part of this new application and the main concerns, relating to the scale and massing of the proposed development and the consequent degree of visual impact on adjacent residential properties to the west, have been overcome. This will be further discussed throughout the report.

Built Form

Although there are two building types proposed, ResCode standards do not apply as the overall development is more than five storeys. As such, Clause 15.01-1 and the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development apply.

With regard to Clause 15.01-1 it is noted that the site is not currently vacant or neglected and does not contain heritage fabric. It is also not located within any immediate proximity to a Heritage Overlay or historical buildings of any significance. Furthermore, the proposed height of the development will not impact on or diminish or obstruct views to any surrounding landmarks.

Context

As highlighted earlier in this report, the subject site is located within a residential area and on a main arterial road. Public transport is directly accessible on Malvern Road and the Hawksburn activity centre is located approximately 300 metres to the west of the site. These attributes, as confirmed by VCAT in 2013, make this site an ideal location for providing increased housing to cater for future population growth.

Building Height

As previously mentioned, the site is affected by two zones which apply mandatory heights controls of 14.5 metres (to the south) and 10 metres (to the north). Due to the transitional provisions within the Schedules to the zones, these mandatory maximum building heights do

Page 101


not apply to this application. However, the heights as proposed by the Discussion Plans (Revision 06) do not substantially exceed the maximum building heights.

The Apartment Building is to have a height to Malvern Road of 15.45 metres, and 18.36 metres at the northern end of the building, due to the slope in the land. While the townhouses will have the following heights:

West – between 7.19 metres and 10.09 metres due to the slope in the land East – between 9.85 metres and 10.7 metres due to the slope in the land

Based on the above, the majority of the built form to the north of the site complies with the current mandatory height controls, while the apartment building as it presents to Malvern Road, will exceed the current maximum height of the zone by less than a metre (0.95m). While the rear section of the apartment building is higher; the development has been well articulated on the north and west elevations to reduce visual bulk impacts on Canterbury Road residents. Subsequently, all objections from properties within Canterbury Road have been withdrawn. Although the building will be higher than the directly adjoining properties, the upper levels have been well setback from the title boundaries to ensure that the upper levels are recessive.

As acknowledged in the previous VCAT decision for this site there are taller buildings in Malvern Road and the height of this apartment building will not be incongruous in the wider streetscape. While the previous decision for an apartment building on this site was refused by VCAT, the number of dwellings now proposed has been drastically reduced by 73 residences, to 35.

Given that the site comprises of six addresses to Malvern Road, this is a rare opportunity to undertake a consolidated development within an inner city context, on a tram / bus priority route and within close proximity of several large activity centres. While the buildings are slightly higher than the zone permits, they are considered to be acceptable for a strategic redevelopment site such as this. Particularly, as the development will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Malvern Road

Malvern Road consists of many different built forms and there are evident taller buildings in the street. The previous VCAT decision noted that, “the Malvern Road streetscape response was agreed by parties at the Hearing as being acceptable”.

This development proposes a building of a very similar height to that already considered by the Tribunal, although the upper levels are located closer to Malvern Road than the previous scheme. Under the previous proposal, the top floor was setback 10.9m from the street at a height of 15.7 metres. The current proposal is of a commensurate height but provides a setback of 4.6 metres to the street at the upper level.

While the height to Malvern Road is not considered to be problematic, the projecting balconies at Levels 1, 2 and 3 are deemed to push too close to Malvern Road. To address this, it is recommended that the front wall and projecting balconies be pushed back to align with the principal faces of the two adjoining buildings (No’s 661 and 693 Malvern Road) as recommended by Council’s Urban Designer. This is to be addressed through a condition.

The presentation of the building with balconies orientated to the street will encourage good activation with the public realm, as well as passive surveillance. The upper floor includes large eaves (a canopy) over the terrace that wraps around the top floor level. While the canopy provides shading to the upper floor windows, it is a dominant feature on top of the building that emphasises the height of the building when viewed from the street. This is to be addressed via a condition that reduces the canopy to the south where windows do not require shading.

Page 102


Subject to conditions, the building’s presentation to Malvern Road is deemed to be acceptable.

Eastern Interface

The three storey apartment building to the east at 693 Malvern Road contains 18 apartments, some of which have an outlook to the west towards the subject site. West facing habitable room windows within 693 Malvern Road are largely setback between 6.4 metres and 8.1 metres from the new development.

The full length (35 metres) of the new apartment building will sit opposite residences within 693 Malvern Road. The eastern wall of the apartment is setback from the eastern boundary as follows:

Basement B1: 4.6 metresGround: 4.1 metresLevel 1: 4.1 metres (balconies setback 3 metres)Level 2: 4.1 metres (balconies setback 3 metres)Level 3: 9.2 metres (balconies setback 4.1 metres)Level 4: 12.5 metres (balconies setback approximately 9 metres)

These setbacks ensure that there is a clear separation distance between the west facing habitable room windows within 693 Malvern Road and the new apartment building. Furthermore, windows and balconies within the new development with an outlook to the east have been screened to limit unreasonable overlooking (discussed later in this assessment). The design of the eastern elevation is deemed to be well articulated with balconies, indentations and will not present with excessive visual bulk to the east.

Additionally, there are four x 3-storey townhouses located opposite the apartment building at 693 Malvern Road. The townhouses are of a similar height to the apartment building and have been setback approximately 3 metres from the boundary and 6.4 metres from habitable room windows within 693 Malvern Road. Based on ResCode guidelines, these setbacks would comply with the objectives of Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks) and would fully comply with Standard B19 for daylight to existing windows which requires a setback of half the height of a new wall. The setbacks are deemed to be sufficient to ensure that no unreasonable amenity impacts on the properties to the east occur.

Western Interface

Given the site interfaces with seven single storey dwellings that sit on the eastern side of Canterbury Road, this is the most sensitive interface. The previous scheme considered by VCAT noted the importance of finding a balance with regard to the level of visibility of any new built form from this aspect. Where the previous building refused by VCAT extended for the entire length of the site (approximately 100m), this proposal has reduced the high density apartment building to a length of approximately 35 metres; about 1/3 of the length previously proposed. The result is that the highest building now sits predominantly opposite 661 Malvern Road and No. 4 Canterbury Road. The remaining properties in Canterbury Road are located opposite double storey townhouses.

With regard to the apartment building, the Discussion Plans (Revision 06) have sought to address the concerns of the most sensitive interface, No. 4 Canterbury Road. The plans have created an alcove and planter box to the western façade, introduced planter boxes along the north facing apartment balconies, increased the northern setback to Apartment 501, rearranged the balconies on Level 3; and reduced the apartment floor to floor heights to further reduce massing and bulk. The overall building height has been reduced by approximately 1.3 metres.

Page 103


Following the submission of the Discussion Plans, objections from all Canterbury Road residents were withdrawn. This is taken to mean that the amendments have adequately addressed the concerns, particularly those of No. 4 Canterbury Road who was most concerned with impacts of visual bulk from the 5 to 6 storey form.

From a planning perspective the variations are deemed to be positive and will improve the building’s presentation to the west. The western wall of the building will be setback largely 6.1 metres from the western site boundary and will be well articulated through the use of a varied palette of materials, solid and transparent surfaces and the addition of vegetation and planters. The western wall will be visually interesting and will be sufficiently setback to avoid having an unreasonable impact with regard to overshadowing or loss of daylight to windows.

As shown on the Discussion Plans (Revision 06) the upper floor level has been reduced in area and the western wall is to be setback 12.465 metres from the western boundary. This is deemed to be an adequate distance from the adjoining private open spaces to ensure that the building bulk will not overwhelm or dominate these spaces. The reduction in the bulk to the north-west is evident on the west elevation via a red line and it is clearly an improvement on the advertised plans.

Subject to conditions, the building’s presentation to the private open spaces of the Canterbury Road residences is deemed to be acceptable and has overcome the concerns of the previous application by significantly reducing the built form to the north and stepping the building down towards the more sensitive interfaces.

Northern Interface (Railway Line)

The buildings to the north abut the railway line, with two new residences to be constructed up to the rear boundary of the site. The scale of development, being a two and a three e townhouse against the northern boundary is deemed to be acceptable, subject to the residences being appropriately treated to protect future residents against noise and vibration.

Noise and Vibration

An Acoustic Report has been prepared by Burton Acoustic Group dated 20 August 2014 that includes numerous recommendations to protect against noise emissions from the abutting railway line. A condition of approval will require that the acoustic report be submitted for endorsement and all recommendations contained at Section 4 be shown on the plans for endorsement.

It is noted that the discussion plans (Revision 06) have been amended to include the recommendations of the acoustic report including, an acoustically treated fence to the east and west townhouses; notes added regarding compliance with approved acoustic engineering report; north facing ground level windows to townhouse 121 revised to glass blocks; north facing 1st floor windows to townhouse 121 removed; and visual/acoustic screening to A/C condensers added.

A Vibration Assessment has also been carried out by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd Revision 0 and dated 4 July 2014. This document provides details of monitoring undertaken on the subject site which confirms that vibration levels will exceed the nominated criteria and the Australian Standard (AS 2670.1) by small to moderate amounts in the townhouses closest to the railway corridor. Section 7.1.3 of this report details several methods to address the concerns of vibration. The Applicant is to employ the recommendations of this report and provide details of the measures undertaken on the plans for endorsement.

Page 104


Landscaping

Concept landscape plans have been provided by the Applicant, along with updated Discussion Landscape Plans Revision D that make minimal changes from the advertised plans, but incorporate a new planter along the western elevation of the apartment building.

The majority of the existing vegetation on site is proposed to be removed. Three trees on site are proposed to be retained. There was some discussion regarding the retention of the large Red Box within the north-east corner of the site within the VCAT Order from April 2013. It was noted that

The retention of the large Red Box at the north-east corner provides an opportunity to link the landscaped open space with a re-worked right of way as an area of communal open space, as discussed at the Hearing.

This application retains the large Red Box and incorporates it into an area of private open space associated with Townhouse 121. The basement has been designed to ensure a considerable setback is provided to the structural root zone of this tree. As per the advice of Council’s Arborist, Tree Management Plans (TMP) will be required as a condition of approval for all trees to be retained.

The concept landscape plans propose evergreen screening hedges along the eastern side of the right-of-way with 6 metre high compact evergreen magnolias proposed within the private open spaces of the western townhouses. Along the eastern boundary of the site, compact ornamental pears are proposed to grow up to 10 metres in height.

Due to the high level of impervious surfaces proposed by this development, much of the landscaping is proposed to be in situ. Council’s Arborist has noted that soil volumes have not been provided to determine whether the trees can be sustained to maturity. This will be addressed through a condition of approval.

Overall the landscape response is constrained by the extent of site coverage. However, along the east and west boundaries many different types of landscaping is proposed, including trees of between 6 to 10 metres in height, as well shrubs, grasses and climbers. The response is considered to be acceptable to this strategic redevelopment site and street trees will assist in softening views of the development from Malvern Road.

Amenity Impacts

Overshadowing (of private open space and the public realm)

Due to site being on the northern side of the street, shadows from the new development will predominantly fall over Malvern Road and into the site itself. Shadows to the west will be increased at 9am to the backyard of No 4. Canterbury Road; however by 10am the shadows will have moved so that at least 60sq m. of private open space is unaffected by shadows. No shadows will extend to the other properties private open space (to the west) after 10am. The extent of shadow cast to the west between 10am and 3pm will not be unreasonable. If ResCode were applicable, this development as it relates to the west would comply as all adjoining private open spaces will receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September (Equinox).

In the middle of the day shadows will fall over Malvern Road and the site itself. Some objections have been received from No. 684 Malvern Road, on the southern side of the street. The shadow diagrams confirm that shadows will barely extend past the footpath on the northern side

Page 105


of Malvern Road. As such, there will be no loss of daylight to the properties on the southern side of Malvern Road on the Equinox.

As for the afternoon shadows to the east, some of the adjoining apartments have small terraces that face west. The shadow diagrams provided show that shadows will not affect these properties until 3pm, where shadows will then affect the ground and first floor level apartments. If ResCode were applicable, this development would comply as the adjoining apartments to the east will not be affected by this proposal between 9 am and 2 pm on 22 September (Equinox).

Although there will be some overshadowing impact, this will not occur until 3pm which is considered to be reasonable for a higher density development within a dense urban environment. Overlooking

The Higher Density Design Guidelines stipulate that “existing dwellings should be protected from potential overlooking in accordance with the requirements of Clause 55 of planning schemes”. Using ResCode as a guide, the relevant Standard (B22) states that direct views into windows or balconies within 9 metres from a new balcony or window are unreasonable and should be screened to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

East

The Discussion Plans show all balconies and windows on the eastern elevation at Ground, Level 1 and Level 2 as being screened to 1.7 metres above finished floor level with a perforated metal screen with no more than 25 % transparency. At Level 3 the terrace is located 4.1 metres from the boundary and 9.6 metres from a habitable room window to the east. Applying Standard B22, this terrace does not require screening. Again at Level 4 the terrace is setback in excess of 9 metres from the eastern boundary and approximately 13 metres from an adjoining habitable room window and no screening is required.

As for the townhouses with an outlook to the east, all windows with any potential for overlooking have been screened with obscure glass or high sills (1.7m above finished floor level) to accord with Standard B22.

North

The apartments orientated to the north also include north-facing balconies. These balconies are screened along the east and west sides where overlooking opportunities exist to the adjoining properties. However, the balconies within the centre of the apartment building will not allow for direct views within 9 metres. The Discussion Plans have also been updated to show planters along the northern face of the north-facing balconies with plants up to 1.5 metres to further assist in filtering some views of adjoining properties, beyond 9 metres.

West

Along the western elevation, windows at Ground, Level 1 and Level 2 have been screened with perforated metal screens with no more than 25% transparency as per the eastern elevation. This will limit unreasonable views.

At Level 3 only a small section of the balcony associated with Apartment 403 is screened to 1.7 metres. The balconies of Apartments 402 and 403 may allow for views within 9 metres of a sensitive interface to the west. More details are needed to ensure no unreasonable overlooking occurs. This will be addressed via conditions.

Page 106


The balcony to Level 4 is setback in excess of 9 metres from a sensitive interface and no screening is required.

As for the townhouses that face west, the first floor windows have been shown to have fixed angled louvre privacy screens that will successfully limit unreasonable views into the areas of private open space to the west.

Internal Amenity

This development compromises of large two, three and four bedroom dwellings in the form of apartments and townhouses. Apartments will vary in area between 103 sq. m and 205 sq. m. Dwellings have been orientated to the north, east, south and west. All habitable rooms have been provided access to natural light and ventilation. All apartments are provided with at least 14.9 sq. m of balcony space or a private outdoor garden. The apartment on Level 4 is provided with a balcony area of 210 sq. m.

The townhouses are provided with individual entries from within the central walkway and all rooms are provided access to natural light. The media room within the basement is also provided a highlight obscure glass window facing the right-of-way. Courtyards and balconies are provided and are in excess of 25 sq. m. These spaces are easily accessible from living areas.

The main entry to the apartment building is provided from Malvern Road and will provide secure access to the lobby and lifts for the apartments. The lobby will continue through to the rear internal street to the townhouse entries. The entrance is secure and will provide an adequate sense of address.

All dwellings are provided car parking, bicycle parking and storage areas ranging in size between 4 cubic metres and 25 cubic metres.

The development is deemed to provide a high level of on-site amenity to future residents.



Council’s Transport and Parking Department has recommended that the full visitor parking provision of seven (7) visitor parking spaces be provided for this development. While there are a sufficient number of car spaces available on site to meet the statutory rate, the Applicant seeks to provide 68 on-site spaces to the residences and two visitor spaces. While it would be preferable to see the statutory rate provided for visitors, the likelihood of owners/occupiers of these large inner city residences possessing only one vehicle is unrealistic. It is expected that future occupants of this building will own two vehicles and as such, it is considered to be reasonable to expect that short term visits to the building utilise on-street parking or public transport. Being located on a main road it is anticipated that on-street parking will be available to cater for short term visitor parking needs.

As has been the case for many other higher density developments within the municipality, a reduction of 5 visitor spaces is considered reasonable and will not adversely impact on the surrounding road network.

Furthermore, the previous VCAT decision found a reduction in visitor parking was acceptable for this site.

Right-of-Way

Page 107


Council’s Traffic Engineers have raised some concerns with the widening of the right-of-way and the installation of a gate. As per the advice of Council’s Infrastructure Department, the widened section of the right-of-way should remain within the development and must not become a road. As confirmed by Council’s Asset Management Department, the laneway is listed on Council’s Register of Public Roads and is under the care and control of Council. Therefore, the laneway must not be gated. This will be addressed through a condition of the permit to remove all notes relating to a new security gate across the lane.

The extended right-of-way is to have a width of 6.1m between the basement entry and Malvern Road which will comfortably accommodate two-way traffic in accordance with the Australian Standards.

VicRoads have reviewed the variations to the crossing into the site and have advised that a left-in left-out access arrangement must be implemented. This has been noted on the Discussion Plans along with a sign warning exiting vehicles of the tram and pedestrian crossing 10m to the left of the altered crossing.

Council’s Traffic Engineers have recommended that adequate lines of sight be provided between vehicles exiting the development’s car park and other vehicles accessing the right-of-way. The Applicant’s Traffic Consultant has responded to this and has advised that:

Vehicle and pedestrian movements to the ROW north of the proposed access will be minimal with no more than two dwellings with car parking accessed in this location. If required by Council a convex mirror could be installed as a condition of permit to improve sight distance at entry to the basement.

A convex mirror will be required by way of conditions to address any safety concern.

Traffic Generation Traffic surveys undertaken by the Traffix Group on behalf of the Applicant found that during the peak AM and PM periods (being the hours of 7.45am - 8.45am and 5.30 - 6.30pm), the existing right-of-way carries very low traffic volumes (a maximum of 2 entry movements during PM peak hour).

The proposed development is conservatively expected to generate in the order of 6 vehicle trips per dwelling per day, which is consistent with other apartment and townhouse developments in the inner suburban areas. This equates to a total daily rate of 210 vehicle trip ends per day (based on 35 dwellings).

This is expected to generate in the order of 21 vehicle trip ends in the AM and PM peak hour. This level of traffic can be easily accommodated by the surrounding road network. It is estimated that Malvern Road carries in the order of 16,000 vehicles per day. As confirmed by the Traffic Impact Assessment undertaken by Traffix Group:

The peak hour traffic impacts equate to approximately 1 vehicle movement each 2-3 minutes which will have negligible impacts on the operation of the nearby road network.

Based on the above it is considered that the level of traffic to be generated by this development will be reasonable and will not adversely impact on traffic along Malvern Road. Furthermore, VicRoads have reviewed the application plans and has advised that the development must restrict the access to the right-of-way to left in / left-out. This will further ensure that the development will not adversely impact on the traffic flows within Malvern Road.

Car Parking Layout

Page 108


Subject to the recommendations listed in the Referrals section of this report, the car parking layout is acceptable. The recommendations which relate head room, car parking and garage dimensions, doors opening into parking aisles and protection for pedestrian exiting the lifts, will form conditions of any permit that issues.

Bicycle Parking

Bicycle parking has been shown on plans but has not been dimensioned. A condition will require that all bicycle spaces be shown dimensioned and designed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Planning Scheme and/or the Australian Standards.


In accordance with Council’s local Stormwater Management Policy (Clause 22.18), this development will be provided with rainwater tanks. A Water Sensitive Urban Design Response has been provided within the SMP. There are several details needed to confirm that this arrangement is satisfactory, yet this can be addressed through conditions. There is no fundamental concern with the level of on-site water retention proposed.

Waste Collection

A Waste Management Plan submitted by the Applicant has been reviewed by Council’s Waste Department who have not raised any waste related concerns. The plan confirms that ‘waste shall be collected within the development. The collection contractor shall transfer bins between the stores and the Waste Truck.’ The Applicant has advised that the basement has been sufficiently designed to cater for a waste vehicle.

A Waste Management Plan will be required via conditions for endorsement.

Objections

The objector concerns have been duly noted throughout this report. The following is provided in response to the matters not mentioned throughout this assessment:

Light spill

A condition will require that all external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.



CONCLUSION


The site is located in a substantial change area on a tram / bus priority route making it ideally located to accommodate higher density residential development.

Page 109


Subject to conditions, the development will not unreasonably impact on the surrounding residential properties.

The new buildings are deemed to be compatible with the character of the area and well articulated so as not to present excessive visual bulk to the adjoining interfaces.

Adequate car parking is provided in accordance with the Stonnington Planning Scheme and traffic generation will not adversely impact on the surrounding street network.

The proposal has satisfactorily overcome the previous concerns and has responded to the finding of the previous Tribunal hearing (VCAT Reference No. P137/2013) for this site.

Attachments

1. PD - 0273-14 -663 663A 665 667 669 691 Malvern Road Toorak - 1 of 2 Plans

2. PD - 0273-14 -663 663A 665 667 669 691 Malvern Road Toorak - 2 of 2 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0273/14 for the land located at 663, 663A, 665, 667, 669 & 691 Malvern Road, Toorak be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi dwelling development in a General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone; a reduction in the statutory car parking requirement; and alter access to a Road Zone Category 1 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 submitted with the advertised plans Council date stamped 3 June 2014 but modified to show:

a) Plans to be amended to reflect the changes as shown on the discussion plans dated 5 November 2014 and known as Revision 06 but further modified in accordance with the following Condition 1 requirements;

b) Allocation of individual parking spaces to individual dwellings shown on plans;

c) The front of the building, including the projecting balconies, pushed back to align with the principal faces of the two adjoining buildings (No’s 661 and 693 Malvern Road) with no change to other setbacks;

d) The eave along the southern side of the building at the uppermost level to be removed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

e) A convex mirror to be installed to improve sight distance at the entry to the basement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

f) All car parking spaces and garages to be shown dimensioned to comply with Clause 52.06-8 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

g) Door opening movements altered to ensure no doors open into parking areas or parking aisles;

h) Protection from circulating vehicles for pedestrians exiting the lifts, using bollards or similar;

i) Headroom clearance at the entrance to be shown on the plans, and confirmed at a minimum clearance of 2.2m;

j) The type of bicycle parking is to be clearly identified, and all dimensions are to be shown on plans. If a proprietary product is to be used, manufacturer’s specifications are to be provided.

Page 110


k) Columns to be shown dimensioned in accordance with Diagram 1 of Clause 52.06-8 of the Planning Scheme;

l) A longitudinal section including all grades, lengths of grades, and levels is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

m) A longitudinal section of the right-of-way. This longitudinal section is to include details of the grades and grade changes along the right-of-way, including changes in grade where the right-of-way changes direction, and at the entrance to the car park;

n) Plans to confirm the internal radius of the ramp between basement levels to be provided at 4 metres;

o) Plans to remove all reference to the security gate within the right-of-way;p) Note to be added to plans confirming that the widened section of right-of-

way must remain in private ownership and the widened section is to be clearly delineated on the plans;

q) Provide window to second floor bathrooms of eastern row townhouses. Any new windows must be screened in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55;

r) Location of operable windows to be shown on all elevations ensuring appropriate cross-ventilation opportunities are available to each unit and at each floor for townhouses;

s) Confirm extent of site permeable and impermeable areas;t) Roof plans to confirm drainage areas connected to the rainwater tanks as

per MUSIC tool;u) Confirm type and coverage of pergola proposed to third floor north facing

apartment windows;v) Sections confirming the extent of overlooking that will occur to the west

from the balconies of Apartments 402 and 403. Where there are views of a sensitive interface within 9 metres screening must be incorporated in accordance with the requirements of Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55.

w) Changes as required by the approved Acoustic Report (Condition 3), Train Vibration Assessment (Condition 4), Landscape Plan (Condition 6), Tree Management Plan (Condition 8), Waste Management Plan (Condition 10), Water Sensitive Urban Design Response (Condition 12), and Sustainable Management Plan (Condition 14);

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


3. Prior to the endorsement of the plans, an acoustic report must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority to demonstrate how the dwellings will be acoustically treated to minimise noise transmission from the adjacent train lines to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to the endorsement of the plans, a vibration assessment must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority to demonstrate how the dwellings will be treated to minimise vibrations from the adjacent train lines to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Acoustic Report and Train Vibration Assessment,

Page 111


approved pursuant to this permit, or a similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Acoustic Report and Train Vibration Assessment have been sufficiently implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be 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 be in accordance with the landscape concept plans TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04 and TP05 prepared by Jack Merlo Design and Council date stamped 3 June 2014, but modified to show:

a) The changes as shown on the updated landscape plans Revision D Council date stamped 15 January 2015;

b) Details of all planters above ground level within the apartments;c) Soil volumes for all in-situ plantings confirming that all vegetation

proposed can be sustained;d) Location of proposed Ecosol sand filter;e) Location of waste room to be shown on Landscape Plans;f) Consistency with the architectural plans.

all to the satisfaction of the Responsibility Authority


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 two (2) mature Lemon Scented Gums on the east boundary of the site, and the Red Box Gum on the northern boundary.

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

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height 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.

Page 112


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.


10. 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 be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design and dated 30 April 2014 and 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 our Local Laws e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collectionf) Sufficient headroom within the basement to allow the passage of waste


forward gear from within the basement NB. This subsection only to be used for collection from basement

h) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised

i) 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.

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

12. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans.


14. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SMP must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The report must be generally in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment prepared by Ark Resources dated 3 December 2014 but modified as follows:

a) Confirm if glazing and insulation types recommended in Acoustic and

Page 113


Vibration reports accord with fabric assumptions used to derive unit and townhouse energy ratings;

b) Include a site plan confirming extent of permeable / impermeable areas considered for the MUSIC tool;

c) Provide information on the purpose and location of the Ecosol Sand Filter.

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.

15. 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.

16. Any 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.


18. The existing footpath levels at the property line of Malvern Road must not be lowered or altered (to vehicular access).

19. Prior to the commencement of any works over any easement, the permit holder must obtain approval from the relevant authorities to remove and/or build over the easements pertaining to the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


21. All vehicular crossings made redundant by the development must be removed at the owner’s cost and to the satisfaction of Council.



24. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.

Page 114


25. 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.

VicRoads Conditions

26. Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a detailed functional layout drawing for the proposed access must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads and the Responsible Authority showing:

a) Details of the widened access laneway at Malvern Road. The functional layout drawing must include details of appropriate signage and line marking enforcing a left in / left out access arrangement from Malvern Road to / from the development.

b) Swept path analysis of appropriate design vehicles entering and exiting the site concurrently.

27. Provision for vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction must be available at all times to the satisfaction of the VicRoads.

28. Before the use of the permitted development:

a) The laneway and cross-over in accordance with the approved functional layout plan must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) Any redundant vehicle crossovers on Malvern Road must be removed and the kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

End VicRoads Conditions

VicTrack Conditions

29. All railway infrastructure (including overhead power and supporting infrastructure for trains) must not be interfered with or damaged during the construction period. Any damage to railway infrastructure as a consequence of the construction period must be rectified to the satisfaction of VicTrack and the Rail Operator at the full cost of the permit holder.

30. All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that there is no disruption to train services. Any foreseen disruption to the rail operation during the construction period requires the approval of Metro Trains Melbourne.

31. No entry onto railway land is permitted without the written consent of the rail operator and the common boundary with VicTrack land must be fenced at the owner’s expense to prohibit access to the rail corridor.

32. No drainage or effluent must enter VicTrack land and must be connected to the legal point of discharge.

33. Any wall to be built on the railway reserve boundary must be cleaned and finished using a graffiti proof finish or alternative measures to prevent or

Page 115


reduce the potential for graffiti Any graffiti that appears on the wall must be cleaned or removed as soon as practicable to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The cost of any clean−up or removal of the graffiti from the wall must be paid for by the developer and/or future owners of the land.

34. No excavation, filling or construction must take place on the common boundary between the subject land and VicTrack land without the prior approval of VicTrack and the Rail Operator.

35. No waste, soil or other materials from the works are to be stored or deposited on VicTrack land.

36. All works, including hoardings, must be undertaken within the subject land and must not encroach onto VicTrack land.

37. No lighting is to be erected (permanent or temporary) that spills light onto the railway tracks or which interferes with the visibility of signals and rail lines by train drivers

38. Building materials (including glass/window treatments) along the rail corridor must be non−reflective and avoid red and green colour schemes that may interfere with driver operations.

39. Plant and tree species must be of the type that will not cause any future overhang onto VicTrack land or disturbance of railway operations.

40. No permanent or temporary ground anchors are permitted within VicTrack land.

41. All reasonable steps (including appropriate screening to balconies) must be taken to ensure that objects cannot be projected into the rail corridor to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

42. The development is located adjacent to an operating railway corridor, where train services may operate 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. It is recommended that windows and built form that incorporate noise attenuation materials (i.e. double glazing and appropriate wall attenuation materials) to reduce amenity impacts should be considered.

End VicTrack Conditions



permit.


NOTES:

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

Page 116


are obtained.



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

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

iii. listed on the Significant Tree Register.



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





Page 117


6. DRAFT CULTURAL DIVERSITY POLICY 2015-2019

Manager Aged, Diversity, Health & Animal Management: Penny Pavlou General Manager Social Development: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the Cultural Diversity Policy 2015-2019 and the draft Stonnington Statement of Commitment to Cultural Diversity to Council for adoption.

BACKGROUND

The City of Stonnington is one of the most diverse in metropolitan Melbourne. The community includes residents from 143 countries who speak 108 different languages, with increases in seven of the Indian languages. The culturally diverse community is equally distributed across the municipality. This rich diversity is one of the things that makes the City of Stonnington a great place to live.

The demographic profile of Stonnington continues to change. According to the 2011 Census data, 20.3% of the overall population was born in a non-English speaking country. The largest non-English speaking country of birth is India followed by China, Greece, Malaysia, Indonesia and Italy. The dominant language spoken at home other than English in the city is Greek followed by Mandarin, Cantonese, Italian and Hindi. Overall, 21.3% speak a non-English language at home.

One of the significant changes observed from between the 2006 Census and the 2011 Census has been the change in the communities of growth. While the Greek community remains the largest language group spoken at home in Stonnington after English, this group is continuing to grow older, with little population renewal. Increases in younger people between the ages of 15-30 who were born in India, Malaysia and China are leading the communities of growth in Stonnington.

The draft Cultural Diversity Policy and Stonnington Statement of Commitment to Cultural Diversity was presented to Council on 1 December 2014 and was endorsed for further community comment and feedback.

DISCUSSION

Community consultation was undertaken between 27 January and 27 February 2015. The draft Policy and Statement of Commitment was made available at Council’s Service Centres, Libraries and Child Care Centres, as well as on Council’s website. Copies of the draft Policy and Statement of Commitment were sent to the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) clubs and all agencies that were consulted in the development of the draft Policy and Statement of Commitment. A special meeting was also conducted with the Stonnington Ethnic Services Committee

Feedback from the Community Consultation Process

At a special meeting conducted with the Ethnic Services Committee on 26 February, the clubs expressed strong support and reaffirmation for the Policy . In particular, they supported Council’s Statement of Commitment and for the Key Actions that have been identified for implementation over the next four years.

Following the consultation period, Council received feedback from two agencies and one individual. The feedback is as follows:

Page 119


Department of Human Services (Centrelink) Will the Policy consider employment opportunities for local residents and will Council

encourage local employers to employ local residents? Will Council deliver cross cultural training to community members, and not just Council

staff? Will there be other celebration opportunities other than the Flavours Festival to celebrate

community harmony? Will New Resident kits be available in formats other than written?

Inner South Community Health Service:

Has Council has considered Indigenous Communities? which the Council already has a separate Plan.

There could be more emphasis on empowering culturally diverse communities to actively participate in the plan.

There could be more emphasis on GLBTI communities.

Resident: Questions about the Cultural Diversity Grant Program and if all people are protected by

the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and the Racial Discrimination Act

The Manager of Aged, Diversity, Health and Animal Management has written to these agencies in response to their comment and feedback, and relevant considerations have made in the draft Policy where applicable. No changes to the draft Policy were required.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The following Council plans, policies and strategies have helped to inform the development of the draft Cultural Diversity Policy:

Council Plan 2013-17

Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing 2013-17

Youth Strategy 2010-14

Access and Inclusion Plan 2014-17

Older Persons Strategy 2008

Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15

Recreation Strategy 2014-2024

Reconciliation Action Plan 2012-2016

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The cost to implement the Cultural Diversity Policy 2015-2019 and the Stonnington Commitment to Cultural Diversity will primarily be met within existing budget parameters. However, as for the training component, a detailed plan will be developed And $20,000 has been allocated in the draft 2015/16 Council budget for this program.

CONCLUSION

The City of Stonnington is committed to service excellence for all residents. Council has a long commitment to its culturally and linguistically diverse communities, recognising that diversity is an important factor in enhancing our society, culture and economy. The community includes a diverse population with residents from 143 countries who speak 108 different languages. This rich diversity is one of the things that makes our city a great place to live.

Page 120


The draft Cultural Diversity Policy 2015-2019 and the draft Stonnington Commitment to Cultural Diversity provides a framework for a whole of organisation approach to culturally responsive service planning and development and continues Council’s tradition of responsiveness to the culturally diverse communities of Stonnington. Officers have developed a proposed range of actions in response to consultations and research. These actions reflect the key areas of communication and information, culturally responsive service provision, community strengthening and workforce development.

The draft Cultural Diversity Policy 2015-2019 was made available for further feedback and comment in the period 27 January to 27 February. The overall feedback from the community is strong support for the Policy, and Council’s position and direction regarding its commitment to cultural diversity.

It is recommended that Council adopts the Draft Cultural Diversity Policy 2015-2019 and the draft Stonnington Commitment to Cultural Diversity.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

Attachments

1. Draft Cultural Diversity Policy Excluded

2. Stonnington Statement of Commitment to Cultural Diversity Excluded

3. Draft Cultural Diversity Policy Community Consultation Feedback Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council adopts the draft Cultural Diversity Policy 2015-2019 and the Stonnington Commitment of Cultural Diversity.

Page 121


7. AMENDMENT C184 - PUBLIC ACQUISITION OVERLAY, PRAHRAN - CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL AND ADOPTION

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Planning Panel on Amendment C184 – Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran and decide whether to adopt the amendment with or without changes.

Council resolved at its meeting on 18 August 2014, to defer this report for two cycles. The purpose of the deferral was to allow additional investigation and consideration of the amendment.

Council resolved at its meeting on 15 September 2014 to defer this report to first enable consideration of the Panel’s recommendations for Amendment C186 ‘Increase to Open Space Contributions’ in March 2015. Council’s decision in response to the Panel’s recommendations regarding Amendment C186 is discussed later in this report.

The report has been updated as follows: Additional section on ‘Amendment C186 Open Space Contributions’ to highlight the

Panel’s recommendations for this Amendment. Revised anticipated timeframes outlined in the ‘Financial and Resource Implications’

section. Update to ‘Legal Advice and Implications’ section to highlight that Amendment C184

is considered seriously entertained.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 5 August 2013, under Confidential Business, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C184.

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

22 Regent Street, Prahran (Lot 1 on TP693894V) 25 Regent Street, Prahran (Lot 1 on TP689257C) 22 Mount Street, Prahran (Lot 1 on TP749184W) 27 Mount Street, Prahran (Lot 1 on TP605791E) 34 Clifton Street, Prahran (Lot 1 on TP321047U)

Refer to Attachment 1 for a Locality Map showing the specific sites.

Purpose of Amendment C184The area bounded by Clifton, King, Bangs and High Streets, Prahran, is an area which will undergo significant urban renewal as envisaged through Chapel reVision Structure Plan (adopted by Council 7 July 2014). Currently, the building stock is generally constructed to title boundaries and, as a result, there is very little open space available to residents.

Page 123


The strategic intent of the Amendment is that by applying a Public Acquisition Overlay to the sites, the land is identified for future open space which will provide valuable passive areas as well as creating an east west pedestrian connection between Bendigo Street through the Director of Housing site (Bangs Estate) to Chapel Street. This is envisaged in the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and supporting documents.

Applying the public acquisition overlay reserves the land for a public purpose and ensures that changes to the development of the land do not prejudice the purpose for which the land is to be acquired. Pursuant to the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, Council must appropriately reserve the land in a Public Acquisition Overlay before commencing to acquire any interest in the land. The Planning Scheme Amendment is required to facilitate this process.

If the Amendment is approved by the Minister for Planning, a further formal resolution of Council would be required to negotiate with any landowners to proceed with the purchase or acquisition of a property in line with any agreed process by Council.

The process for this to occur is contained within the Planning and Environment act 1987 and Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986.

ExhibitionThe Amendment was placed on formal exhibition from 21 November 2013 to 23 December 2013 in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Due to the complex and sensitive nature of the Amendment, before commencing formal exhibition, letters were sent to the landowners of the specific sites affected. This informal notification was followed with one on one meetings with Council officers, upon request.

As part of the formal exhibition process, letters were sent to Prescribed Authorities and affected owners and occupiers. Notice appeared in the Stonnington Leader (19 November 2013) and Government Gazette (21 November 2013). Amendment documents were also available for viewing at Prahran Town Hall and on Council’s and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s websites. During the exhibition period, Council received eight (8) submissions generally opposed to the Amendment. Individual submissions were received on behalf of owners of four of the five affected properties, two from occupiers of affected properties and a further two received from adjoining neighbours. All submissions were referred to Planning Panels Victoria.

Panel Hearing and ReportThe key issues from submissions that were considered by the Panel included:

Insufficient consultation

Alignment and pedestrian link

Usability of site for future open space

Loss of business and compensation

Safety and security implications

The Panel Report responds to these issues in Chapters 3 to 5 of the Panel Report (Attachment 2).

The Panel Report also includes extracts of concept plans for the PAO sites to demonstrate to the Panel that the selected sites may be developed as attractive additions to the open space network and pedestrian links. A full copy of the concept plans is included as Attachment 2b.

Page 124


The Panel concluded that the Amendment is sound. The Panel ‘empathises with affected property owners, it also feels that the proposed PAO and its design intent will provide ultimately a more suitable outcome for future residents based on lengthy strategic planning for the site’.

The Panel recommends that Amendment C184 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme should be adopted with minor changes to reflect the approval of Amendment C161 during the process. This is in line with Council’s submission to the Panel. The Panel Report was circulated to submitters on 23 July 2014 and released publically on 28 July 2014. The Panel Report is available on Council’s website.

Strategies for Creating Open SpaceIn February 2015, municipality-wide consultation was undertaken to test the direction of Council’s Strategies. The findings of this consultation were considered at the 2 March 2015 Council Meeting. The process confirmed that 91% of respondents believe it is important for Council to create open space now and over 60% of respondents supported the use of a PAO as a tool for creating open space.

Amendment C172 Panel HearingThe Panel Hearing to consider Amendment C172 ‘Chapel Street Activity Centre Permanent Planning Controls’ and submissions to the Amendment, was recently undertaken. No submissions were made about the east-west link shown.

DISCUSSION

Council must now formally consider the Panel’s recommendations before deciding how to proceed with the Amendment. The Panel Report recommends that Amendment C184 be adopted as exhibited and notes that Council has demonstrated strong strategic and policy support for the Amendment and its aspirations to provide enhanced open space areas for the community.

At the start of the Report, the Panel notes that:

‘During exhibition of the Amendment, on 5 December 2013, Amendment C161 to the Scheme (MSS Review) was approved by the Minister for Planning and gazetted into the Scheme. Amendment C161 updated the Municipal Strategic Statement and included deleting Clause 22.01 (Open Space Policy) meaning it is no longer necessary to amend the Clause through Amendment C184’.

As a result, an updated Explanatory Report and Instruction Sheet were prepared and included in Council’s submission to the Panel Hearing. The updated Explanatory Report and Instruction Sheet are included as Attachment 3. The changes to these documents reflect the changes to Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) introduced as part of Amendment C161.

This constitutes a minor change to the exhibited documents to the exhibited documents as presented at Panel, however the substantive element of the Amendment being the application of the Public Acquisition Overlay remains the same.

The change put forward by Council at the Hearing and recommended by the Panel is required to ensure that the current Amendment documents (which include the Explanatory Report and Instruction Sheet) are up to date.

Page 125


Amendment C186 Open Space ContributionsOn 23 March 2015, Council considered the recommendations of the planning panel appointed to consider the submissions to Amendment C186 ‘Increase to open space contributions’. Council resolved to adopt the Amendment, with changes, proposing an open space contribution rate of 8% for South Yarra, Prahran, Windsor and Armadale, and an open space contribution rate of 5% for the balance of the Municipality. In accordance with Section 35 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Minister for Planning may approve an amendment or part of an amendment with or without changes.

The Panel acknowledged the need and shortfall of open space in the west of the municipality.

Ministerial Direction 15In accordance with Ministerial Direction 15, Council must make a decision on Amendment C184 within 40 business days of the date it receives the Panel’s report unless an exemption is sought. Council received the Panel’s report on 7 July 2014 and a decision was required to be made by 1 September 2014.

On 16 October 2014, Council received an exemption from the Minister for Planning to comply with the above timeframes.

Adoption of AmendmentIt is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C184, with changes, being the updated Explanatory Report and Instruction Sheet, presented at Panel (Attachment 3) and the proposed PAO Map (Attachment 1).

Refer to Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 for the amended documents which are consistent with the Panel’s recommendation

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

A number of Council policies support the Amendment and these include, Chapel reVision, the City of Stonnington Council Plan 2013-2017, the Municipal Strategic Statement in particular Clauses 21.06-5 Public Realm and Pedestrian Access and 21.07 Open Space and Environment.

The Amendment is further supported by the adopted Public Realm Strategy (2010) and Strategies for Creating Open Space (2013). This Amendment seeks to advance the implementation of these key Council plans with the Panel noting that the proposal seeks to implement key parts of the Strategies for Creating Open Space (2013) to proactively improve the provision of open space within Stonnington.


The costs associated with the processing of Amendment C184 were included within the 2013/2014 Strategic Planning budget.

Amendment C184 timeline:

October 2013 December 2013 June 2014 April 2015 Mid-2015

Min Direction 15*

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

Page 126


*In accordance with Section (8) of Ministerial Direction 15, if a planning authority submits an adopted amendment to the Minister in accordance with the requirements of section 31 of the Act, the Minister must made a decision on the amendment within 40 business days of receiving the adopted amendment.

The Minister may exempt him/herself from this requirement.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Legal advice has been sought at various stages of the process, as required. The Amendment is considered to be seriously entertained planning proposal.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C184 proposes to apply a Public Acquisition Overlay (Schedule 3 – Public Open Space) over five (5) individual parcels of land between Bangs and Clifton Streets, Prahran to identify Council’s intent to acquire these parcels of land for future public open space.

Implementing the Strategies for Creating Open Space demonstrates Council’s commitment to preserving and enhancing the amenity for existing and future residents and providing better open space areas, recreational infrastructure and public realm improvements.

The Panel report on Amendment C184 recommends adoption of the Amendment as exhibited. It is considered that Council accept the Panel’s recommendation and adopt the Amendment, with changes, being the updated Amendment documents presented at Panel.

A report was prepared for the Council meeting on 18 August 2014. Council, at this meeting deferred the report for two cycles requesting that the matter be listed for further discussion and a report be brought back to Council on 15 September 2014. At this meeting, Council deferred the report until March 2015 following consideration of the Panel’s recommendations for Amendment C186.



Attachments

1. SF - Amendment C184 - Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran - Attachment 1

Excluded

2. SF - Amendment C184 - Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran - Attachment 2 Excluded

3. SF - Amendment C184 - Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran - Attachment 2B

Excluded

4. SF - Amendment C184 - Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran - Attachment 3 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel to the public on

Amendment C184 Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran.

2. On considering the independent panel report, adopts Amendment C184 Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran to the Stonnington Planning Scheme, with

Page 127


changes, (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as identified in Attachments 1 and 3.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C184 Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran 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 Amendment C184 Public Acquisition Overlay, Prahran.

Page 128


8. AMENDMENT C212 - MALVERN ROAD BURKE ROAD NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTIVITY CENTRE PLANNING CONTROLS


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider: The submissions received on Amendment C212 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Whether to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel for

Amendment C212 and refer submissions to the Panel for consideration. A response to submissions received.

BACKGROUND

Amendment

On 15 December 2014 Council resolved to adopt the Draft Malvern Road - Burke Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre Urban Design Framework and seek Ministerial authorisation to prepare a planning scheme amendment for planning controls to implement the UDF.

Amendment C212 seeks to ensure that future development of the Malvern Road - Burke Road Activity Centre (Activity Centre) resulting from the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project (LCRP) enhances the activity centre and avoids causing unreasonable impacts on surrounding residential areas. It proposes to introduce the following controls over land located within the Activity Centre and the adjoining rail corridor:

A new Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 15). A new local policy for the Activity Centre (Clause 22.22). Minor changes to the MSS. Inclusion of the Malvern Road – Burke Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre Urban

Design Framework (UDF) as a reference document.

ExhibitionThe Minister for Planning granted Council authorisation to prepare Amendment C212 on 9 January 2015.

Amendment C212 was exhibited from 12 February to 17 March 2015. Notification and exhibition of the amendment was carried out via the following measures including:

Letters sent to the owners, occupiers, and prescribed authorities on 9 February 2015. Public viewing file of amendment documentation at Prahran Town Hall and Malvern Town

Hall. Full amendment documentation on Department of Transport, Planning and Local

Infrastructure (DTPLI - now Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning) and Stonnington websites.

The Draft UDF was also available for viewing with Amendment C212 (see Attachment 1).

Page 129


DISCUSSION

Fourteen submissions were received during the exhibition period. A map showing the location of the submitters is included in Attachment 2.

The key issues raised in the submissions, and proposed responses to these issues, are addressed below. A more detailed response to specific issues raised in submissions is provided in Attachment 3.

Key Issues Raised in SubmissionsScale of Development (Height and Setbacks)

Issue Summary

Residential submitters are seeking reduced heights particularly in Precincts B and C with a mandatory height of six storeys stepped down the hill and increased setbacks over four storeys

VicRoads are seeking removal of the 4 metre building setback from Carroll Crescent and to remove the one storey height limit within Precinct D. VicTrack is seeking flexible precinct boundaries between precincts B and D as the final footprint of the development site has not been determined.

Officer Response

The heights and setbacks proposed in Amendment C212 are consistent with the UDF and existing four storey development and proposed seven storey development within the activity centre. They are also considered appropriate given the setting and context of the activity centre which adjoins main roads, a railway line and the Residential Growth Zone on Glenarm Road which permits four storey development. The preferred height of development with frontage to Glenarm Road is six storeys with the lower three storeys setback 4 metres from the front property boundary and the upper three storeys setback a further 5 metres (9 metres from the front property boundary) to enable a transition towards the residential area on the western side of Glenarm Road.

Precinct B

The proposed eight storey building height limit will appear lower than the VCAT approved 7 storey development on the corner of Malvern and Burke Road due to the fall of the land (approximately 5 metres). Upper level setbacks are considered appropriate to reduce visual bulk near to residential properties.

Precinct C

Changes are proposed to the 4 metre building setback from Glenarm Road to exclude the footpath and landscaping. This will address the irregular road alignment and provide a further ground level setback. It is also proposed to amend the wording within DDO15 to ensure that development steps down with the slope of land.

Precinct D

A 4 metre building setback from Carroll Crescent is proposed to be removed due to insufficient space following the proposed railway realignment. The one storey height limit was proposed to limit large scale development and is recommended to be replaced with a permit trigger for a larger scale station, mixed used development and strengthened design guidelines. This will enable an assessment of the impacts of any future development on residential amenity and the station forecourt.

Page 130


Precinct Boundaries

The boundaries between precincts B and D are proposed to remain as exhibited and any changes could be discussed by VicTrack at the Panel hearing.

Mandatory Height

Planning Practice Note 60 Height and setback controls for activity centres advises that mandatory height controls will only be considered in exceptional circumstances which do not apply in this case.

Permit Exclusions for Rail, Road and Tramway Works

Issue Summary

VicRoads and VicTrack are seeking removal of the permit requirement for rail, road and tramway works from the schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 15).

Officer Response

It is considered appropriate to exempt rail, road and tramway works from requiring a planning permit under proposed DDO15 to ensure that maintenance and improvements to critical transport infrastructure can be made.

However, it is not considered appropriate for this exemption to apply to development which may have a more significant impact on residential amenity and open space within the station forecourt. Therefore, multi-deck car parking buildings, buildings associated with train stabling and large scale station development (above 2 storeys and 350m2 in area), are proposed to still require a planning permit in the DDO.

Traffic Congestion and Car Parking

Issue Summary

Submitters have questioned whether the Level Crossing Removal Project will reduce traffic congestion and whether new development resulting from DDO15 will add to traffic congestion and increased parking demand.

Officer Response

Traffic congestion is anticipated to reduce as a result of the LCRP. New development is required to provide car parking on site and will not be eligible for resident parking permits. Further investigations will be undertaken prior to the Panel hearing regarding vehicle access to the activity centre to support additional development.

Use of 9 Glentilt Road / Open Space

Issue Summary

Submitters are concerned that VicTrack land leased for a nursery (9 Glentilt Road) will be developed for commuter car parking and have requested that the nursery and substation are used as a park. Height controls are also sought for the nursery site.

Submitters are also seeking increased open space within the activity centre.

Officer Response

VicTrack has advised that the substation will be retained and that land at 9 Glentilt Road will not be developed as part of the LCRP as it is leased for a nursery until 2022. It is recommended that VicTrack land at 9 Glentilt Road is removed from the amendment including the map in DDO15. The existing RGZ controls which apply to 9 Glentilt Road are not proposed to change as part of this amendment.

Page 131


The landscaped station forecourt proposed as part of the LCRP will provide sufficient open space within the activity centre. Council Officers will continue to work with VicRoads to ensure that the station forecourt acts as a community meeting place and that high quality landscaping and materials are used.

Changes to the UDF

Issue Summary

Submitters have expressed concern that changes to the August 2014 UDF were influenced by the State Government and do not reflect community views.

Officer Response

The UDF was prepared in consultation with the community. In December 2014, Council adopted changes to the UDF including new provisions for the eastern side of Glenarm Road to provide certainty for future development and protect residential amenity.

Changes were also made to the UDF to reflect changes to the LCRP. The submission and Panel hearing process for C212 provide further opportunities for community views to be considered by both Council and the Panel.

Summary of Changes Recommended to AmendmentKey changes recommended to the amendment include:

Refinement of objectives and strategies in DDO15, Clause 22.22 and Clause 21.06. Inclusion of planning permit exemptions for rail and tramway works (excluding stations

over 2 storeys and 350m2 in area and buildings associated with train stabling and multi-deck car parking) with associated strengthening of policy in DDO15 regarding future development in the station precinct.

Refinements to Precinct Design Guidelines regarding slope, street level setbacks, landscaping requirements, weather protection and underground car parking.

Attachments 4, 5 and 6 contain the proposed changes (in tracked changes) to the exhibited versions of Schedule 15 to the Design and Development Overlay, Clause 21.06 and Clause 22.22 in response to submissions received.

Other IssuesMany issues raised in submissions (including the commuter car park, retention and planting mature trees, freeway noise and pedestrian and bicycle safety) relate to the LCRP and other road and rail management issues. These issues will be passed onto VicRoads for consideration in the detailed project design and delivery stage.

A series of other issues raised relate to changes to local parking restrictions, preventing new development from accessing resident parking permits and the quality of any new apartments and are not directly related to Amendment C212.

Next Steps Council must forward submissions received on Amendment C212 to an independent Panel, if it is not prepared to vary the amendment to address the issues raised in submissions, and it intends to continue with the amendment process.

Council needs to make a formal request to the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel, after which Planning Panels Victoria will confirm the hearing dates.

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 15, Council must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days after the closing date of submissions (by 19 May) unless an extension of time is sought by Council.

Page 132


Pre-set dates for a directions hearing and Panel hearing were arranged prior to exhibition. The following hearing dates have been set:

Directions Hearing, week of: 1 June 2015 Panel Hearing, week of: 22 June 2015

On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C212, a report will be prepared for Council consideration of the Panel's recommendations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

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

Balance the competing demands of maintaining residential amenity and population growth through appropriate planning.

The Amendment is consistent with the objectives for planning in Victoria in section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987:

To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land.


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

Timeline - Amendment C212:

January 2015 12 February to 17 March 2015

June 2015 September 2015

November 2015

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval


Council will seek legal advice at various stages of the planning scheme amendment process as required.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C212 was prepared to manage the impacts of development within the Malvern Road - Burke Road Activity Centre anticipated following the LCRP. Amendment C212 has been exhibited and 14 submissions have been received from residents and authorities. The majority of submissions received relate to the scale of development proposed and the preferred height and setbacks and details about the LCRP.

It is recommended that an independent Panel is requested to consider the amendment and that all submissions are referred to this Panel. Council’s position to the Panel is recommended to be based on the response to the submissions outlined in this report.



Page 133


Attachments

1. SF - Amendment C212 - Malvern Road Burke Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre Planning Controls –1 of 6

Excluded

2. SF - Amendment C212 - Malvern Road Burke Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre Planning Controls – 2 of 6

Excluded


Excluded


Excluded


Excluded


Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions to proposed Amendment C212 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C212 generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submissions as contained in Attachments 3 - 6 of this report.

3. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C212 of Council’s decision.

4. Refers the submissions and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C212.

Page 134


9. AMENDMENT C215 BURKE ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL PROJECT INCORPORATED DOCUMENT


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

Brief Council on the planning approval sought by VicRoads for the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project.

Seek Council’s support for the Ministerial planning scheme amendment process.

BACKGROUND

On-going Council Role in Project

VicRoads has consulted Council regarding its role as stakeholder in the project design, land manager of Gardiner Reserve and Council roads, and planning authority for use and development for the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project (LCRP).VicRoads has advised that it intends to continue to engage with Council regarding final project design and continue to hold regular liaison meetings to address issues as the project progresses. VicRoads has also advised that it intends to continue to engage with residents regarding sensitive interface issues including commuter car parking and occupation of Gardiner Reserve.

Planning Approval Request

VicRoads has advised Council that it intends to seek a Ministerial planning scheme amendment to introduce an incorporated document to provide project approval for the LCRP. VicRoads is seeking Council’s support for the Ministerial planning scheme amendment process..

Planning Approval Requirements

The primary use and development of the LCRP does not require planning approval because most of the proposed works are located within the Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) and the Public Use Zone 4 (PUZ4). These zones generally provide for road, tramway and rail use and development without the need for a planning permit.

Some elements of the LCRP may require planning approval (dependent on the final design) including:

Use and development of land for offices, car parking in a Public Park and Recreation Zone (Gardiner Reserve).

Change in access to Road Zone 1 due to possible changes in Carroll Crescent/Burke Road intersection or access to commuter car parking).

Advertising on tram stops.

Page 135


Other elements of the LCRP may require planning approval but this cannot be determined as the final project design has not been completed.

Planning Scheme Amendment Process and Approval Mechanism

The Minister for Planning may prepare a planning scheme amendment at any time. Ministerial planning scheme amendments are typically prepared under section 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 whereby the Minister for Planning is the planning authority and no public exhibition of the amendment is required.

VicRoads is seeking a Ministerial planning scheme amendment (C215) under section 20 (5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which enables consultation with local government.

Amendment C215 is proposed to change the Schedule to Clause 52.03 Specific Sites and Exclusions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and introduce an incorporated document. The proposed incorporated document will replace all relevant provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the project and provide project approval for the LCRP instead of a planning permit.

Incorporated documents are currently included in the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a range of projects including the Cranbourne Pakenham Rail Corridor Project, the M1 Redevelopment Project and other larger scale private developments including 661 Chapel Street. Incorporated documents are commonly used for transport related projects across metropolitan Melbourne and have been used for several recent grade separation projects (Springvale, Mitcham and North Road). The Ministerial amendment process under section 20 (5) differs from the process used for other private and transport developments under section 20 (4) as it enables consultation with Council.

VicRoads has prepared a draft incorporated document for the LCRP seeking feedback from Council Officers. It describes the scope of the LCRP as including a new railway station, station forecourt, new railway and tram lines, new tram stop and shelters, relocation of timber signal box, new station car parking, roadworks, an upgraded substation, use of Gardiner Reserve for a construction depot, bicycle storage and access and associated signage and includes a map showing the extent of the project area. The project scope excludes any private development of the nominated value capture site which is adjacent to existing shops and buildings at Burke Road through to Glenarm Road.

The draft incorporated document exempts the use and development of land for the LCRP from requiring a planning permit within the nominated project area. It is also proposed to include conditions regarding use and development proposed by the LCRP project scope. Proposed conditions relate to minimising the amount of native vegetation to be removed, payment of offsets for native vegetation removal. It also includes conditions requiring preparation of management plans and strategies prior to construction (on matters including traffic management, heritage management of the timber signal box, environmental management, construction management and drainage) in consultation with Council. The requirement to consult Council when preparing these plans will enable Council to raise any issues of concern and influence the final content of these plans and strategies. The Minister for Planning may also consult with Council or any other relevant authority further when deciding whether these plans are satisfactory.

Page 136


Community Engagement

VicRoads consulted the community in 2013/14 to inform preparation of the LCRP reference design and has undertaken further community engagement through staffed information booths for the LCRP from February - March 2015. VicRoads has reported that the majority of attendees were positive about the LCRP and perceived benefits (faster travel times, reduced congestion, and a more attractive precinct) and generally viewed the potential construction impacts as short term inconvenience for long term gain). Key areas of interest to the community were identified as being:

Bike paths and potential pedestrian underpass under Burke Road.

Final design details - the look and feel of the plaza and station precinct, tree planting and landscaping, treatment of the cutting.

Traffic management planning/detours during main works.

Location of the access point to Gardiner Park during occupation.

Location of the access point to the new commuter car park.

Duration and details of construction.

The key findings of community engagement for the LCRP are proposed to be submitted to the Minister for Planning so that the community’s views can be taken into account when considering the proposed incorporated document and reviewing any plans and details regarding the LCRP.

DISCUSSION

There are three options available to Council to respond to VicRoads request for support for the Ministerial planning scheme amendment process (Amendment C215):

Option 1 - Do nothing (do not write in support of the proposed Ministerial amendment process).

Option 2 - Write in support of the Ministerial amendment process and provide feedback on the incorporated document.

Option 3 - Write in opposition to the Ministerial amendment process and incorporated document.

In all cases the Planning and Environment Act 1987 gives the Minister for Planning the discretion to proceed with Amendment C215.

Option 1 would remove Council from the LCRP planning approval process and would not enable Council to inform the content of the incorporated document. It would also adversely affect the existing collaborative working relationship with VicRoads which will be invaluable to ensure that community concerns are being represented as the LCRP progresses.

Page 137


Option 2 would record Council support for the Ministerial amendment process. This option would enable Council to have input into the preparation of plans and strategies required in the incorporated document and the final project design. It would also maintain the ongoing positive working relationship with VicRoads for the LCRP

Option 3 would record Council opposition to removing responsibility for planning approval from Council and oppose use of an incorporated document for project approval.

It is recommended that Council adopt Option 2 and write to VicRoads in support of the Ministerial amendment process.

This option is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

The LCRP is of State significance in improving rail performance and freeway access.

The existing zones (PUZ and RDZ1) support the principal use and development.

Under a section 20 (5) Ministerial amendment process Council is consulted and can represent the views of the community. Community views regarding the LCRP are well known through consultation on the LCRP and on proposed Amendment C212 for the Malvern Road – Burke Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre Planning Controls.

The Ministerial amendment process has been successfully applied to other grade separation projects such as the Springvale Level Crossing Removal Project.

VicRoads has formally committed to ongoing consultation and liaison with Council.

Feedback can be provided on any unresolved matters with the incorporated document to the Minister for Planning.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed incorporated document has no policy implications for the Stonnington Planning Scheme as it relates to a project approval rather than introducing any new policy requirements.


The Ministerial planning scheme amendment process has less financial and resource implications for Council than a standard planning scheme amendment process.

However, some Officer resources have been required in providing input to the incorporated document to ensure that it addresses all relevant concerns.


No specific advice has been sought on use of this planning approval mechanism. It is a legitimate planning approval mechanism and has previously been used within the City of Stonnington.

Page 138


CONCLUSION

Planning permit requirements for the LCRP are limited due to the PUZ4 and RDZ1 zoning which enables road, rail and tramway use and development without planning approval.

Use of an incorporated document for project specific approval for matters requiring a planning permit is a legitimate planning approval mechanism which is often used for infrastructure projects. The Ministerial amendment process involves consultation with Council and is intended to consider the views of the community identified during recent community engagement on the LCRP.

VicRoads has consulted Council Officers during preparation of the draft incorporated document. The incorporated document is proposed to include conditions to address relevant planning matters and require that plans and details are prepared in consultation with Council. VicRoads has also provided further reassurance that both Council and community views will continue to be sought and considered throughout the LCRP.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Prepares a letter to VicRoads providing support for the proposed Ministerial

planning scheme amendment to introduce project specific controls for the Level Crossing Removal Project under section 20 (5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

2. Authorises the CEO or his delegate to provide final feedback to VicRoads on appropriate wording for the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project Incorporated Document.

Page 139


10. CONSIDERATION OF DONATION TO BAIRO PITE CLINIC

Manager Governance and Corporate Support: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider a donation to the Bairo Pite Clinic in Timor-Leste.

BACKGROUND

Councillors recently attended a fund raising and information function for the Bairo Pite Clinic which outlined the need for support for their 55 in-patient beds and nurses.

DISCUSSION

Bairo Pite Clinic sees the support of in-patient beds and nurses as the first of priorities amongst many. The in-patient bed support includes the medication, medical supplies, medical staff, pathology, utilities, food and laundry. The nurses work 12 hour shifts and are often the sole source of income for their family.

Apart from the in-patient clinic there is an extensive out-patient consulting service which sees between 200 and 300 people each day, a busy ante-natal care unit, a labour ward where over 100 babies are delivered each month, an out-patient supervised TB clinic, HIV diagnosis, counselling and treatment, daily mobile clinics to outlying communities, a dental clinic and the training of community birth attendants and village health workers.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council has been a long-term supporter of Timor-Leste.


Any donation would be an unbudgeted item.

CONCLUSION

While the Council has not made allowance in this year’s budget for such a donation, it may still consider this a worthwhile cause to support with a one-off payment.


This recommendation has been considered and meets the obligations of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council give consideration to making a donation of $5,000 to the Bairo Pite Clinic.

Page 141


11. SOCIAL JUSTICE DISCUSSION PAPER

Manager Communications & Community Planning: Matt Clear General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present a discussion paper on social justice and seek endorsement of a social justice principles statement.

BACKGROUND

The attached draft Social Justice Discussion Paper was prepared as a result of a Councillor-prompted Budget Activity for 2013/14, as follows:

Key Strategic Objective – Prosperity

A prosperous community, recognised as a creative city, and a premier visitor and retail destination.

Strategy Develop relationships with key business stakeholders to foster opportunities that will provide positive outcomes for the community, including social justice and equity.

Budget Activity Provide a framework that enable Council services and programs to be assessed to ensure that they support human rights and equity, reduce disadvantage and connect out community.

Measure Implement a Social Justice Framework.Source: Council Plan 2013-2017 Year One p.50

The development of the discussion paper comprised a literature review and consultation with staff and key external organisations.

Consultation

Nine local organisations, and Council staff from the Social Development, Sustainable Future and Economic and Cultural Development Divisions, were consulted about their perceptions of social justice and its relationship to the community and Council. Cr Davie provided valuable input into the development of the draft concepts.

There was strong agreement among those consulted that social justice is about:

Fostering and promoting a more inclusive society, particularly for people/groups that are most likely to be marginalised or vulnerable.

Ensuring all Stonnington residents have a sense of belonging, of being connected to a community, and treated with respect and dignity.

Page 143


Literature and Policy Review

A review identified that Council already provides many social justice-promoting strategies, plans, activities and programs.

At the highest level, social justice principles are included through the legislative framework within which local government sits.

These include: Local Government Act 1989 Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 Council Plan 2013-2017 Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-17 and the Access and Inclusion Plan 2014-2017.

The social justice-affirming requirements of these high-level documents cascade into many other Council policies, activities and programs (please refer to Appendix 1 page 8 for a comprehensive list).

DISCUSSION

Investigations for the discussion paper indicate that there may be a lack of knowledge in the community about the breadth of Council’s social justice-promoting activities. To address this, Council can:

Acknowledge what Council is already achieving in the area of social justice and promote this to the community.

Develop a simple, pragmatic means to ensure that social justice is supported and promoted.

To this end, the following principles have been developed:

The City of Stonnington is Committed to the Following Principles of Social Justice:Access• Residents have fair / equal access to the resources and services

provided by Council.• Barriers to the resources and services provided by Council are

reduced for those in need.• Independent access is supported.

Equity• Barriers to equity are reduced as far as practicable.

Human Rights• Human rights are recognised, respected and promoted.

Participation in Decision Making• Residents have the opportunity for genuine, meaningful

participation in decisions affecting their lives.

Social Inclusion• Council activities and programs recognise community diversity

and encourage participation.

Page 144


It is recommended that the above statement be published in the Council Plan 2013-2017 Year Four and on Council’s website. However, there are a number of ways it can be expressed. It can be referred to as a ‘charter’, a ‘framework’, or a ‘policy statement of principles’.

These terms can infer different interpretations. The intent of a ‘policy statement’ is most likely to be widely understood.

Council’s achievements in the area of social justice will be reported in the Annual Report, beginning with the 2017/18 publication.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONSThere are no financial implications.

POLICY IMPLICATIONSThe recommendations include an addition to the Council Plan. They are consistent with the Council Plan’s Key Strategic Objectives.

CONCLUSIONA review has identified that Council provides many social justice-promoting strategies, plans, activities and programs.

A social justice policy statement has been developed for publication in the Council Plan 2013-2017 Year Four and on Council’s website.

Council’s achievements in the area of social justice will be reported in the Annual Report, beginning with the 2017/18 publication.


This report, and its recommendations, complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006.

Attachments

1. SF - Social Justice Discussion Paper - 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council note the discussion paper on social justice and endorse the social justice policy statement.

Page 145

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS20 APRIL 2015

o) Confidential

1. CIVIC PRECINCT PROJECT - CONSTRUCTION TENDER REPORT

Manager Public Spaces & Capital Works: Rick KwasekConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 147

Agenda of Council Meeting - 20 April 2015 · Web viewMonday 20 April 2015 Order of Business and...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda of Council Meeting - 20 April 2015 · Web viewMonday 20 April 2015 Order of Business and...