Agenda of Council Meeting - 25 June 2018
| |
| |
|[pic] |
| |
| |
| |
|Notice Paper |
| |
| |
|Monday 25 June 2018 at 7pm |
| |
| |
| |
|Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall, |
|(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.
NOTES
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 stonnington..au under local laws.
This meeting is being live-streamed.
Members of the gallery will not be filmed however the recordings will capture any audio which will be transmitted and held on Council’s website.
Members of the gallery are not permitted to film or record the meeting on their own devices.
Council Meeting
Notice Paper
Monday 25 June 2018
Order of Business and Index
a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayer
b) Apologies
c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63 of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)
1. Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 4 June 2018 5
d) Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act[1]
e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 424 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)
f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)
g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillors
h) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters
i) Notices of Motion
j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors
k) Reports by Delegates
l) General Business
1. Planning Application - 1132/17 - 364B Toorak Road South Yarra VIC 3141 - Construction of a multi dwelling development in a Residential Growth Zone 7
2. Planning Application 459/17 - 45 Washington Avenue, Malvern East - Construction of two dwellings on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Character Overlay 41
3. Planning Application 1122/17- 1 Maddock Street, Windsor VIC 3181- Partial demolition, Building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, Special Building Overlay and Heritage Overlay, a Restaurant and Café Liquor Licence and car parking dispensation associated with Restaurant and Office (as of right uses) 61
4. Planning Application 1015/17- 41 Mathoura Road, Toorak VIC 3142- Construction of a Multi-Dwelling Development in a General Residential Zone 85
5. Planning Application 1007/16- 19-21 Toorak Road, South Yarra VIC 3141 – construction of a five storey mixed use building comprising a restaurant, office/retail and one, three bedroom dwelling with 11 car spaces provided via stackers at the rear of the site 119
6. Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct - Heritage Investigation 139
7. Sustainable Environment Strategy 147
8. Gardiner Park Development - Proposal to Consult on Parking Restrictions 153
9. Burke Road, Glen Iris - Between Malvern Road and the Right-of-Way - Parking Proposal 163
m) Other General Business
n) Urgent Business
o) Confidential Business
1. Citizen of the Year Awards 2018 173
Recommendation
That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 4 June 2018 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 4 June 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.
l) General Business
1. Planning Application - 1132/17 - 364B Toorak Road South Yarra VIC 3141 - Construction of a multi dwelling development in a Residential Growth Zone
Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for construction of a multi dwelling development in a Residential Growth Zone at 364B Toorak Road, South Yarra.
This item was deferred from consideration at the Council meeting of 7 May 2018 and Council meeting of 4 June 2018. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Emilie Johnston |
| |Urbis |
|Ward: |North |
|Zone: |Residential Growth Zone - Schedule 1-Key Boulevards |
|Overlay: |None |
|Neighbourhood Precinct: |Garden Suburban 1 |
|Date lodged: |27 October 2017 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)|41 |
|Trigger for referral to Council: |4 storeys and more than seven (7) objections |
|Cultural Heritage Plan |No |
|Number of objections: |40 |
|Consultative Meeting: |Yes – held on 27 February 2018 |
|Officer Recommendation: |Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit |
BACKGROUND
The Proposal
The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by PEK Studio dated 28 November 2017 Revision B and are known as Drawing No’s: A200, A201, A202, A203, A204, and A252 and Council date stamped 29 November 2017, as well as Drawings A100, A101, A102, A103, A104, A250 and A251 dated 15 May 2018 Revision C and Council date stamped 15 May 2018.
Landscape Concept Plans dated 30 November 2017 Revision A LA-01 and LA-02 and Council date stamped 29 November 2017 prepared by Urbis have also been submitted.
The application seeks to construct a four storey apartment building containing 6 dwellings (6 x 3 bedroom) over two levels of basement car parking. The proposed building has a maximum height of 13.8 metres. A total of 17 car spaces are provided in the basement levels (16 resident and 1 visitor), with access proposed from Hawksburn Road.
The development will involve the demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site. Key features of the proposal are:
• Demolition of the existing building (no permit is required).
• Two levels of basement car parking:
− Level 1 Basement provides for 8 car parking spaces and bin storage room.
− Level 2 provides for 9 car parking spaces and bin storage room.
− Provision of a car lift across both levels to provide access to the basement from the ground floor level.
− The existing vehicle crossing south of Hawksburn Road will provide vehicle access to the car park within the Basement. The existing crossover is not proposed to be modified.
• The ground floor level includes two Apartments (2 x 3 bedroom).
• The first floor level includes two Apartments (2 x 3 bedroom).
• The second floor level includes one Apartment (1 x 3 bedroom).
• The third floor level includes one Apartment (1 x 3 bedroom).
• The main entrance to the building is accessed from Hawksburn Road leading to an entrance lobby covered by an awning.
• Private open space for each Apartment will be provided in the form of terraces varying in size between 12 square metres and 175 square metres. A private rooftop terrace with open pergola will be provided for Apartment 6.
• A 2m high white concrete rendered fence is proposed along the Hawksburn Road frontage and extends around onto the Toorak Road frontage ranging in height from 1.5 metres to 2.2 metres.
• The building presents a contemporary architectural style. Materials and finishes include a combination of charcoal grey masonry, off-white concrete render, reflective platinum silver glazing and black steel balustrades.
• All existing onsite trees are proposed for removal (none of which are considered ‘significant’ trees).
• The proposal results in 59.7% site coverage; 67% basement coverage and 23% site permeability.
The plans Council date stamped 15 May 2018 were formally submitted to Council as revised application plans to address officer concerns regarding the extent of the basement and above-ground building footprint and its limitations on the amount of space for the integration of satisfactory in ground canopy tree planting.
These plans show the following changes:
Basement Levels
• Level 1 and Level 2 Basement western boundary setback increased from 0 metres to 2 metres (fire egress stair retained on boundary).
− This has resulted in the loss of the storage spaces associated with each Apartment, the loss off all 16 bicycle spaces and the 5 litre water tank.
− Total reduction of Basement of basement site coverage from 77% to 67%.
Ground Floor
• Western boundary setback increased from 0 metres to 2 metres (fire egress stair retained on boundary)
• Eastern boundary setback south of the lift core/waste chute setback and additional 1 metre from the Hawksburn Road boundary (with the exception of the car lift).
− This has resulted in the internal reconfiguration of two bedrooms within Apartment 2 and introduction of a new bedroom window on the western façade of Apartment 2, as well as reduced living/dining area associated with Apartment 1.
− Total reduction of Ground Floor site coverage from 70% to 59.7%.
First Floor
• Eastern boundary setback south of the lift core/waste chute setback and additional 1 metre from the Hawksburn Road boundary
• The terraces to Apartment 3 and 4 have been re-configured and increased to 12 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.8m and 3.2m respectively. Consequentially, the living/dining and study areas to these Apartments have reduced in size.
• Addition of a 1.7m high privacy screen to the planter boxes on the western façade. Where the windows do not have a planter box, a fixed 1.7m high external privacy screen to windows along the western and southern facades is proposed.
Second Floor
• Eastern boundary setback south of the lift core/waste chute setback and additional 1 metre from the Hawksburn Road boundary, resulting in the internal reconfiguration due to the revised building envelope.
• A further ‘indent’ from the wester facing terrace adjacent to the dining and living room has been introduced to enable a 2.4m x 3m terrace zone.
• Addition of a 1.7m high privacy screen to the planter boxes on the western and southern facades.
Third Floor
• Eastern boundary setback south of the lift core/waste chute setback and additional 1 metre from the Hawksburn Road boundary, resulting in the reduction of the bathroom associated with the southernmost bedroom.
• Addition of a 1.7m high privacy screen to the planter boxes on the western and southern facades.
Landscaping
• Landscape area amended to provide for 74.8sqm site coverage of in ground planting areas and 23.6sqm of above ground planting areas.
Both the application plans (Council date stamped 29 November 2017 Revision B) and the amended plans (Council date stamped 15 May 2018 Revision C) will form the basis of this assessment.
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the south-western corner of Toorak Road and Hawksburn Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:
• The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to Toorak Road of approximately 17 metres and a frontage to Hawksburn Road of 39.6 metres.
• The site has an area of 686 square metres.
• The subject site features a slight rise of approximately 1 metre from the south west to the north east of the site.
• The subject site is occupied by a double fronted single storey brick dwelling with a slate tile roof and is bound by a 1.9m high timber fence. The dwelling is setback a minimum of 3.5 metres from Toorak Road and 4.5 metres from Hawksburn Road.
• The site contains are series of trees and shrubs to the north, east and south of the site.
• There is an existing crossover to the south of the Hawksburn Road frontage which provides vehicle access to the site.
The wider area comprises both low-rise (3-4 storey) as well as mid-rise (5-9 storey) residential developments with a mix of type including private residential homes and multi-level apartment buildings. The area also comprises a mix of single and double storey dwellings.
Immediately located to the north of the subject site is Toorak Road, a VicRoads declared arterial road which falls within the Road Zone Category 1.
Immediately located to the south of the subject site is No. 79 Hawksburn Road, a single storey, detached dwelling with a front setback of 3.2 metres to Hawksburn Road and is located within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Secluded private open space is located in the rear of the site with moderate landscaping. The dwelling is setback 3.2 metres from the common site boundary and contains three north facing windows that face the subject site. Vehicle access to the site is via a single width crossover located on the northern side of Hawksburn Road leading to a driveway and car space along the northern common boundary with the subject site. Several three storey apartment buildings are also located within close proximity to the southern interface, namely No.63 and No.65 Hawksburn Road.
Immediately located to the east of the subject site is Hawksburn Road. The Hawksburn Road abuttal contains an existing traffic calming device located directly adjacent to the existing crossover as well as a number of street trees.
No. 366 Toorak Road sits opposite the subject site to the east. This site is situated on the corner of Toorak and Hawksburn Road. The building is a two storey Victorian era dwelling and is built to the Hawksburn Road boundary (side) for half the depth of the site.
Immediately located to the west of the subject is No. 362 Toorak Road, a double storey red brick detached dwelling with a cross gabled tiled roof. The dwelling features a front setback of approximately 9.2 metres to Toorak Road. Secluded private open space is located in the rear of the property, including moderate vegetation. Vehicle access to the site is via a single width crossover located in the north-east corner of the site. The dwelling is setback 2.72 metres from the common site boundary and contains six habitable room windows along its eastern façade that face the subject site.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications.
It is noted however, an application was made on 25 July 2017 under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993, for report and consent from Council for demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site. Report and consent was granted by Council for the demolition of the dwelling on 8 August 2017. Report and consent for demolition under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 is not subject to any expiry date.
The Title
The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 01992 Folio 335 / Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision LP957 and no covenants or easements affect the land.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone
Clause 32.07 – Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 1) – Key Boulevards
Pursuant to Clause 32.07-5, a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Schedule 1 also includes variations to the following ResCode standards:
| |Standard |Requirement |
|Site Coverage |A5 |Basements should not exceed 75% of the site |
| | |area |
The purpose of the Residential Growth Zone is to implement State and Local Planning Policies as follows:
• To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings
• To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activity centres and town centres
• To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential area; and
• To ensure residential development achieves design objectives specified in a schedule to this zone.
The header clause of the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) set outs a maximum building 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 should not exceed 14.5 metres. Plans show that the site has a slope of 2.9 degrees over a distance of 10.8 metres at the location of the proposed building. Accordingly, the maximum preferred height limit applicable to this site is 14.5 metres.
It should be noted the maximum building height requirement as outlined in Schedule 1 to the Residential Growth Zone is a preferred height limit rather than a mandatory height limit.
Overlay
The subject site is not affected by any overlays.
Particular Provisions
Clause 52.06 – Car Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, before a new use commences or the floor area or site area of an existing use is increased, the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. In accordance with Table 1 – Clause 52.06-5, two car parking spaces are required to each three or more bedroom dwelling. Furthermore, one visitor car space is required for each 5 dwellings.
The development comprises a total of 6 three bedroom dwellings, creating a statutory requirement of 12 resident parking spaces and one (1) visitor space.
The proposal provides a total of 17 car spaces (16 resident and 1 visitor). The development fully complies with the requirements of Clause 52.06.
Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities
Pursuant to Clause 52.34 a development of 4 or more storeys is required to provide 1 bicycle space to each 5 dwellings for residents and 1 bicycle space to each 10 dwellings for visitors. It is noted that the amended plans submitted to Council involve increased setbacks of the basement levels in the location where the bicycle spaces were previously provided. To compensate, the permit conditions will require the provision of bicycle spaces in accordance with Clause 52.34.
Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings
A development must meet all of the objectives of this clause and should meet all of the standards of this clause. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.
Relevant Planning Policies
|Clause 9 |Plan Melbourne |
|Clause 11.06 |Metropolitan Melbourne |
|Clause 15 |Built Environment and Heritage |
|Clause 16.01 |Residential Development |
|Clause 18.01 |Transport |
|Clause 21.02-2 |Urban Environment and Character |
|Clause 21.03-2 |Residential Areas |
|Clause 21.03 |Vision |
|Clause 21.05 |Housing |
|Clause 21.06 |Built Environment and Heritage |
|Clause 22.05 |Environmentally Sustainable Development |
|Clause 22.18 |Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) |
|Clause 22.23 |Neighbourhood Character Policy |
|Clause 32.07 |Residential Growth Zone |
|Clause 52.06 |Car Parking |
|Clause 52.34 |Bicycle Facilities |
|Clause 55 |Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (ResCode) |
|Clause 65 |Decision Guidelines |
Heritage Investigation
At the request of Council, the subject site is currently being investigated for a potential precinct extension to Heritage Overlay (HO137). HO137 Hawksburn Railway Precinct is a heritage overlay to the south which does not include 364B Toorak Road. The Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct was first identified as a heritage area in the 1983 City of Prahran Conservation Study. It included the railway station and properties alongside the railway line between Cromwell Road and Williams Road, and was smaller in extent than the current HO. The 1992 Prahran Character and Conservation Study recommended an addition to the heritage area extending north along Hawksburn Road in the vicinity of Cassell Street. This was generally the form that precinct took when the Heritage Overlay control was first implemented. The area was re-examined in 2008/2009 as part of a municipal wide study of Heritage Overlay precincts undertaken by Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd. Several extensions were recommended for the precinct to incorporate streetscapes that shared common patterns of historical development and which also displayed a comparable or higher level of intactness to early built form found in the existing HO. The enlarged HO137 boundary was applied in 2010 as part of Amendment C103 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
The subject site was also considered as part of the Stage 1 Federation Houses Study 2014, and was found to be of the Victorian Era. It was assessed in the Stage 2 Victorian Houses Study 2016 and assessed as not meeting the threshold for individual significance.
At the Council Meeting on the 5 February 2018, a petition was tabled asking Council to;
”Save Hawksburn Road from developers – stop 74 Hawksburn Road from demolition into multi-storey apartments there and Toorak Road boundary.”
Subsequently Officers engaged Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd to investigate whether the boundaries of the Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct were appropriate, specifically regarding the properties at the northern end of Hawksburn Road. A peer review has been undertaken by Nigel Lewis and is due to be considered by Council at a future Council meeting.
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 North Ward and objections from forty-two (42) different properties were originally received. The objections are summarised as follows:
• Neighbourhood character (inappropriate built form/height/setbacks) and overdevelopment of subject site
• Loss of heritage integrity of surrounding area
• Amenity impacts (overshadowing and overlooking)
• Traffic and parking implications (off street parking and traffic congestion, impractical on site car park lift)
• Insufficient area for landscaping
• Noise impacts from balconies and services areas
• Excessive front fencing height
• Incorrect delineation of title boundary for 79 Hawksburn Road.
• Devaluation of property
Following the public notification period, two (2) objections were formally withdrawn. The application now currently has 40 objections.
A Consultative Meeting was held on 27 February 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Chandler, Griffin and Koce, a representative of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in some changes to the plans. Discussion plans dated 1 March 2018 showing concept changes similar to amended plans dated 15 May 2018 were submitted and circulated to all objectors to the application. Amended plans submitted on 15 May 2018 show the following changes:
• Level 1 and Level 2 Basement western boundary setback increased from 0 metres to 2 metres (fire egress stair retained on boundary).
• Ground floor western boundary setback increased from 0 metres to 2 metres (fire egress stair retained on boundary).
• The section of building south of the lift core/waste chute setback and additional 1 metre from the Hawksburn Road boundary (with the exception of the car lift) at all levels.
• Addition of 1.7m high screening along the western and southern facades at first, second and third floor.
• Landscape area amended to provide for 74.8sqm/11% site coverage of in ground planting areas and 23.6sqm of above ground planting areas.
Formal public notification of the lodged amended plans Council date stamped 15 May 2018 did not occur given the extent of changes as listed above result in an overall reduction in the building footprint, as well as introduce additional screening measures to the proposal. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in any material detriment.
Referrals
Urban Design
(Comments on the advertised plans)
• The extent of the basement is excessive and abuts the site boundaries to the West and South; and provides minimal setbacks from Toorak Road and Hawksburn Road. As a consequence, the extent of the basement severely limits the amount of space for the integration of a satisfactory in-ground canopy-tree landscape setting for this apartment development.
• The 4-storey scale and overall form of the building is generally accepted; however it is suggested that the size of the building footprint, including the basement, would need to be reduced at the sides and rear in order to accommodate a satisfactory landscape setting.
• A reduction in the extent of the basement and above-ground building footprint will be required to achieve a more balanced landscape setting for this apartment development.
• The proposed stepped building form, diminishing in scale towards the South and the interface with the adjoining NRZ, is accepted – subject to the changes regarding the provision of a reduced building footprint and a greater landscaped setback to this sensitive interface.
(Comments on the amended plans)
Council’s Urban Designer raised no concerns with the revised plans.
Planner Response:
As discussed in detail below, the revised design scheme as shown on the amended plans improves the interfaces with the low scale development to the west and provides an area for planting along the western setback of the site and an improved landscaping response along the southern interface of the site. It is noted permit conditions will require the proposed above ground planter zone along the full length of the southern boundary planted with suitable species of trees that will provide screening of the development from the south. Given the elected vehicle access via the existing vehicle crossing on Hawksburn Road, the site faces constraints with increasing the setback of the basement from the southern site boundary in order to achieve a deep soil area for planting.
Waste Management Unit (Comments on the advertised plans)
• The Waste Management Plan submitted is deemed to be acceptable.
Planner Response:
No concerns have been raised by Waste Management Unit. Standard conditions can be imposed in any permit issued requiring ongoing implementation of the endorsed Waste Management Plan.
Parks Unit
Comments on the advertised plans
• The basement construction allows for no in-ground landscape content along the southern and western aspects of the site.
• The built form setbacks along the eastern and northern aspects where natural ground will be available are limited (2m & 4m), and will only accommodate small narrow trees.
• Excavation for the basement could impact on vegetation within adjacent properties.
• The two Cupressus torulosa (Bhutan Cypress) trees in the rear setback could be ‘significant’, subject to a trunk measurement confirmation.
(Comments on the amended plans)
• The submitted landscape plan is feasible. Detail is required to ensure the species content matches the substantial images of landscaping shown in the marketing pictures.
• The Arborist report confirms that none of the trees on this site are ‘’Significant’ as per the General Local Law definition.
• The report confirms that the impact of the basement on neighbouring private trees is nil or low. No additional protection will be required for these trees.
• The report confirms that the impact of the basement on street trees (Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18) is nil or low. Tree protection fencing will be required for these trees. Any service / utility connections within the public realm must be outside the TPZ’s of these trees or installed by boring if it is within the TPZ’s.
Planner Response:
The above concerns can be addressed via conditions as will be discussed in the “Assessment” section of this report.
Transport and Parking Unit
(Comments on the advertised plans)
• The proposed development will create an increase in vehicle traffic at the property boundary. As this is a public safety issue the Transport and Parking Unit request that the required sight triangles are provided.
• Clearance from columns has not been provided however this is accepted. This is due to the car parks being a private car park with residents able to access the car parks. It is suggested that this be noted on the consent for future residents to be informed before purchase or residing at the property.
• According to Council’s Resident Permit Parking Scheme, residents of the development will be excluded from eligibility, and would not be able to access resident parking permits.
• The traffic generation of the proposed development, is considered unlikely to negatively impact on the road network.
Planner Response:
Conditions can be imposed in any permit to issue to address the issues identified above.
Infrastructure Unit
(Comments on the advertised plans)
No objection was raised by Council’s Infrastructure Unit, subject to the inclusion of the following conditions:
• 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 existing Hawksburn Road footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line to facilitate access to the car lift.
• The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 2,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.
Planner Response:
Conditions can be imposed in any permit to issue.
ESD (Comments on the advertised plans)
• Daylight to the smaller bedrooms and living/dining/kitchen of Apartment 1, the two smaller bedrooms to Apartment 2 adjoining the courtyard and the two smaller bedrooms to Apartments 3 and 4 appears to not be adequate and compliance to Council’s Best Practice Standards will need to be confirmed by the applicant.
• Daylight modelling should be done to demonstrate compliance with Council’s Best Practice Standards of achieving a minimum daylight factor of 1% for 90% of the floor area in each living area including kitchens, and a minimum daylight factor of 0.5% for 90% of the floor area for each bedroom. The modelling should take into consideration any future potential developments to the neighbouring properties which may have an adverse effect on the subject site and daylight access in the future.
• Additional external shading devices should be incorporated into the design to provide protection from summer sun angles and respond to different façade orientation.
• Preliminary NatHERS modelling reports are required to confirm / validate the information entered into BESS, as we note all values for NatHERS heating / cooling loads and star ratings are all the same.
• The BESS dwelling thermally similar grouping is incorrect as not all apartments have “Another Occupancy” above and below.
• Clothes Dryers have not been included in the BESS assessment and should be as there is no guarantee that in the future they will not be installed by the new owners.
• Within the BESS assessment various items have been “Scoped out” to provide a more favourable outcome, which should be included. These items are Baths (as shown on the plans), Dishwashers and Washing Machine Water Efficiency.
• Further information is required in regards to the treatment of the stormwater, which is proposed to be captured from the Terraces as these are trafficable areas.
• No bicycle visitor parking has been indicated on the plans, however the applicant has claimed 9 visitor parks in the BESS assessment. The BESS report should be updated to reflect the correct number of visitor bicycle parking proposed. To meet Council’s Best Practice Standards at least one secure bicycle parking space is to be provided per dwelling and one visitor bicycle parking space per 4 dwellings.
Planner Response:
The concerns regarding daylight to the four ground floor bedrooms relate to the single aspect and 1.35 metre distance provided from the western boundary. Amended plans provided by the applicant show an increase to 2 metres of the bedrooms from the western boundary.
Following further discussions with Council’s ESD officer, the increased setback provided from the western site boundary as per the amended plans will assist in daylight access to these bedrooms. There is also opportunity for an increase in the size of the window openings to these bedrooms, as well as the window openings to the bedroom windows of Apartments 3 and 4 at first floor.
Permit conditions will require the window openings to the smaller bedrooms to Apartments 1,
2, 3 and 4 to be increased in size. Permit conditions will also require glazing with a minimum visual light transmittance (VL T) of 60% for the windows of the smaller bedrooms of Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4. This will assist in the daylight access to the smaller bedrooms of Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4 and it is considered that the bedrooms in question will receive an adequate level of light. Consideration is also given to the dual aspect of Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4, which will allow acceptable daylight access and penetration throughout the dwellings. It should also be noted that Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4 each contain one bedroom which meets Council’s best practice standards of 0.5% daylight factor for 90% of the floor area. All three bedrooms in Apartments 5 and 6 also meet Council’s best practice standards.
Whilst daylight received to the kitchen/dining/living area of Apartment 1 is not ideal, the kitchen/ living/dining areas in the remainder of the development receive adequate daylight and therefore the proposed building as a whole achieves Council’s best practice standards of 1% daylight factor for 90% of the floor. The positioning of dining and living rooms for Apartment 1 will provide passive surveillance to the pedestrian walkway. Furthermore, as will be discussed in detail below, permit conditions will require the living/dining area to be setback an additional 1 metre from the eastern site boundary. This will offer an improvement to the daylight access achieved to these areas.
The SDA submitted as part of the proposal has achieved a passing score of 63% for BESS tool with a pass for all four mandatory categories including Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ), Energy, Water and Stormwater. It is noted that an overall score of 50% or above is defined as ‘best practice’ within BESS and the minimum scores are intended to demonstrate best practice and complement the current ESD Policy and the SDAPP program. However, Council’s ESD officer has reviewed the reports and requested those matters identified within the referral section to be addressed. Therefore, conditions are recommended to be included on any permit that issues requiring a revised Sustainable Design Assessment and Water Sensitive Urban Design Response to ensure the proposal achieves an acceptable level of internal amenity.
On balance, it is considered that the internal amenity of these Apartments is acceptable and the proposed development as a whole has achieved an acceptable ESD outcome. Variation to Council’s best practice standards therefore can be supported.
KEY ISSUES
Strategic Consideration
The purpose of the Residential Growth Zone is to implement State and Local Planning Policies as follows:
• To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings
• To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activity centres and town centres
• To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential area; and
• To ensure residential development achieves design objectives specified in a schedule to this zone.
The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher density residential development on sites within established urban areas close to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport. Specifically, Clause 16 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme relates to housing and encourages diversity of housing; improved housing choice; affordable housing; and well located housing in relation to activity centres, employment 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. Further to this, Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (Clause 21.05-2) refers to the concept of change areas for residential growth and references ‘substantial change’, ‘incremental change’ and ‘minimal change’ areas as a key reference. ‘Substantial change’ areas are defined as land with immediate abuttal to a main road containing a tram or priority bus route, as well as land in, beside or opposite Activity Centres or in a Mixed Use Zone as a freestanding development.
The subject site has attributes which makes it suited to being redeveloped for medium density housing. It is located in the Residential Growth Zone, fronting an arterial road in a Road Zone Category 1 and in an established ‘substantial change area’, where a high proportion of medium and high density housing already exists and where medium and high density housing are directed to.
While the Neighbourhood Character Policy does not specifically require buildings within the Residential Growth Zone to respond to the scale of the streetscape. The four storey built form is similar in height to a number of existing and approved buildings along Toorak Road. This includes:
• The existing three storey apartment building to the north-west of the site of at No. 373-377 Toorak Road South Yarra approximately 75 metres from the subject site.
• The existing three storey apartment building to the north-east of the site of at No. 393 Toorak Road South Yarra approximately 85 metres from the subject site.
• The existing four storey apartment building to the north-east of the site of at No. 391 Toorak Road South Yarra approximately 65 metres from the subject site.
• The existing nine storey apartment building to the north-west of the site of at No. 381 Toorak Road South Yarra approximately 27 metres from the subject site.
• The existing five storey apartment building to the west of the site of at No. 350 Toorak Road South Yarra approximately 115 metres from the subject site.
• The existing four storey apartment building to the east of the site of at No. 376-380 Toorak Road South Yarra approximately 66 metres east from the subject site.
It is apparent that as the area is redeveloped the emerging character of Toorak Road involves built form in excess of four storeys. It is considered that the proposed height and scale of the building is appropriate within this setting.
The site is also well serviced by physical and social infrastructure, with commercial and community facilities within walking distance to the subject site. This includes Chapel Street and Toorak Road shopping and commercial precinct, including Como Centre and Jam Factory, Melbourne High School and Toorak Village. The subject site is also located in close proximity to a diversity of land uses for both residential and leisure purposes, including Rockley Gardens, Hawksburn Tennis Club, Surrey Park and Como Park.
The site also has easy access to public transport, with a tram service located opposite the subject site and approximately 535 metres from the subject site. Hawksburn Train Station is located approximately 435 metres from the subject site. Further to this, South Yarra Train Station is located approximately 835 metres from the subject site.
The location provides an appropriate opportunity for increased housing choice offering good access to services and transport. Given the subject site is located within a substantial change area, the typical expectations for site coverage, built form and landscaping of residential land should be balanced against the policy direction seeking intensification of development and density.
Neighbourhood Character and Proposed Scale
Unlike the General Residential Zone or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the objectives of the Residential Growth Zone make no specific reference of seeking to respect the existing neighbourhood character. Notwithstanding the above, neighbourhood character is still relevant consideration referenced in various objectives in Clause 55 and the local policies. Council’s Local Policy at Clause 21.06 of the planning scheme provides direction for the design of built form.
In particular strategy 1.8 is to ‘encourage good design which respects the scale, height, density, bulk, setbacks, style, form, building materials, colours and character of buildings, fences and gardens of the street or any defined character precinct.’ Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity) seeks to ‘prevent the incremental erosion of the liveability and amenity of residential areas’; ‘ensure new development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking…and ensure new development provides a suitable transition with adjoining lower density development in terms of built form, scale, setbacks and visual bulk’.
The Neighbourhood Character Local Policy under Clause 22.23 sets out the preferred character and design guidelines for development in different character precincts. The Decision Guidelines under Schedule 1 to the Residential Growth Zone also consider whether the proposal meets the preferred neighbourhood character statement and design objectives for the Precinct. The subject site is located in the Garden Suburban 1 (GS1) Precinct where 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.
It should be noted that the specific objective under the Neighbourhood Character Policy relating to areas within a Residential Growth Zone or within a substantial change area is to accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design. Under the policy, areas within the Residential Growth Zone do not need to reflect the scale of built form within the streetscape, but rather any upper levels should be designed to minimise the impact on any adjoining residential property.
The design guidelines for Garden Suburban 1 Precinct seek, amongst other things:
• To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the details of buildings in the area.
• To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings.
• To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.
• To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures.
• To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.
When balancing these local policies with the zoning of the land and the strategic justification detailed above, the key policy and direction relevant to the proposed development indicates that development should repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City and provide appropriate transition between the subject site and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone land to the rear whilst ensuring the development will still reflect the elements of the preferred character and contribute to the preferred character of the area.
The proposal satisfactorily responds to the above design objectives and the preferred neighbourhood character of the area.
The overall scale, bulk and massing of the proposed development is generally considered to be respectful within the context of the site. The more dominant elements of the proposal are sited towards the street corners, with a similar siting and built form as can be seen at No.366 Toorak Road directly opposite the subject site to the east.
The proposed overall height of the development is consistent with policy which directs taller buildings to main roads. Given the subject site is within a substantial change area and is dominated by the transport infrastructure of Toorak Road, it can accommodate the more robust built form of the proposal. The proposed four storey form which closely follows the street boundaries of the site and which incorporates architectural feature screening and balconies will provide a strong built form response to this intersection.
Notwithstanding the appropriate response to the streetscape and sensitive interfaces, the presentation of the building coupled with the landscape response along the southern and western interfaces were considered inadequate as per the advertised plans.
Land to the rear of the subject site is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and therefore a much lower scale of development is expected in the future. For these reasons, a sensitive visual transition to residential properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is important for any development on the subject site. Consideration has been given to the ground and upper level setbacks of the proposal to generally minimise visual bulk impacts to the adjoining residential property to the south within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. However, there was concern with the landscape response along this southern residential interface as per the advertised plans.
With regard to the adjoining residential property to the west, while zoned Residential Growth Zone, consideration must be given to the transitions between more intensive development and other residential areas. The proposal as per the advertised plans adopts excessive boundary construction along the western interface at the basement and ground floor, which limited the ability for supporting in-ground, deep root planting or providing meaningful landscaping around the western perimeter of the site to screen the four-storey building form. Council’s Arborist has also raised concern regarding the basement construction allowing for no in-ground landscape content along the southern and western aspects of the site.
Whilst the zoning of the land contemplates more intensive developments with compact and robust built form for the site, the original proposal did not represent an appropriate landscaping response. Conversely, the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23 specifically indicates that ‘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’.
In response to these concerns raised, the applicant submitted amended plans which eliminate boundary construction (with the exception of the staircase) and increase setbacks from the basement levels and ground level from the western site boundary, demonstrating deep soil planting opportunities along the western interface. Given the elected vehicle access via the existing vehicle crossing on Hawksburn Road, the site faces constraints with increasing the setback of the basement from the southern site boundary in order to achieve a deep soil area for planting.
Compared to the original design scheme, the revised design scheme shown in the amended plans is considered as a more appropriate landscape response to the key residential interfaces to the south and west. The landscaping area shown on the revised scheme allows for 54sqm along the western boundary reserved for in ground planting areas, with a total 74.8sqm for in ground planting areas across the site.
The revised scheme also makes specific reference to 16.7sqm of above ground planting areas along the southern interface (in the form of a 1 metre deep and 1.2 metre wide planter box) , with a total of 23.6sqm above ground planting areas across the site. Given the location of the car lift and access to the basement, it is difficult to integrate deep soil planting along the southern boundary of the site. Re-location of the existing crossover is constrained by the existing traffic calming devices as well as street trees along Hawksburn Road, therefore the proposal makes use of the existing crossover. While the vehicle access arrangement results in the absence of deep soil planting along the southern site boundary, it is considered the proposed changes as per the amended plans, on balance will provide for suitable perimeter screening to soften the four storey built form, filter views and provide more visual relief to the adjoining properties, whilst strengthening the garden setting of the area.
As per the changes as shown on the amended plans, the proposed development responds well to the neighbourhood character. The four storey form relates well to the scale of the adjoining buildings and reflects the future vision for the area and the purpose of the zone (RGZ). The setbacks provide a good transition in scale and opportunities for screen planting to the lower scale development in Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the rear. The proposed development will complement and contribute to the preferred and emerging neighbourhood character of the area and the streetscape.
Site Layout and Building Massing
Street Setback
The setbacks to the adjoining properties are 3.24 metres and 9.22 metres to the south and west respectively. Therefore, the proposed development should be set back 3 metres from Hawksburn Road, and 9 metres from Toorak Road. The proposed development as per the amended plans adopts a front setback between 2 - 3 metres to Hawksburn Road (1.4 metres from the car lift) and 4 metres to Toorak Road. This does not comply with the Standard and the following comments are made:
‘Hawksburn Road Interface’
• The Hawksburn Road interface presents as the building frontage, which is broken up by a wide entry way at ground floor. This provides some architectural relief within the bulk of the frontage.
• The 2 metre setback along the front portion of the subject site is considered appropriate given the property opposite the Hawksburn Road frontage located at 366 Toorak Road is built on the Hawksburn frontage and features no setback for the portion of the site sited closer to Toorak Road. Consideration has been given to the rear interface of the site with the Neighbourhood Residential Zone with a 3 metre setback presenting along Hawksburn Road along the rear portion of the site. This is considered to provide an appropriate transition between the subject site and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This effectively steps back the building form between the northern and southern portions of the building, providing for both greater articulation of the building as viewed from Hawksburn Road as well as a suitable transition with the Neighbourhood Residential Zone located to the rear.
• There is limited scope to further increase the 1.4 metre setback of the car lift given this would impede on the traffic manoeuvrability within the basement (as a result of the increased western setback of the basement as per the amended plans). While the increased setback of the basement from the western boundary limits scope to increase the setback of the car lift from the street, the increased western setback results in greater landscaping opportunities throughout the site. Therefore on balance, the reduced setback of the car lift is considered acceptable.
• The proposed use of materials and finishes creates visual interest within the façade and architectural features such as the use of glazing and masonry in an angled formation assists in breaking up the mass and reducing the visual impact of the building.
‘Toorak Road Interface’
• While the 4m setback proposed is less than that required by the standard it is noted that front setbacks along Toorak Road are considerably varied. As discussed, the objectives of the Neighbourhood Character Policy do not specifically require sites within the Residential Growth Zone to respond to the scale of the streetscape. None the less, the proposed setback is not dissimilar to other similar developments found along Toorak Road.
• The setback allows for small canopy tree planting within the front setback that will contribute to the landscape character of the area.
• The building has been adequately stepped back through its upper levels from the western interface of the site, with the more prominent portion of the development directed to the corner of the site.
• As above, the proposed use of materials and finishes assists in breaking up the mass and reducing the visual impact of the building.
Building Height
Plans show that the site has a slope of 2.9 degrees over a distance of 10.8 metres at the location of the proposed building. Accordingly, the maximum preferred height limit is 14.5 metres (not mandatory). The development proposes a maximum height of 13.8 metres measured from natural ground level to the top of the parapet (taken from Section A-A) and therefore complies with the preferred height limit stipulated in the header clause of the Residential Growth Zone.
It is noted that steel balustrading extends 700mm above the parapet height of the building, and an open pergola extends 1.9 metres above the parapet height of the building. These structures are not considered to be part of the overall building height, and in any event are recessed behind the parapet with limited visibility from the street.
The height of the building is acceptable, given the sites corner location, its interface with an arterial roads and its location within a substantial change area (as identified under Clause 21.05) and its Residential Growth Zoning. Overall, the height of the form is considered appropriate.
Site Coverage and Permeability
The proposal as per the amended plans will result in 59.7% site coverage, 67% basement coverage and 23% permeability. These figures comply with the numeric requirements set out in Standard B8 and the varied Standard B8 requirements stipulated in the Schedule to the Zone of Clause 55 with regard to basement coverage.
Energy Efficiency
The new dwellings have generally been designed with good access to natural light and ventilation and an acceptable level of internal amenity. All habitable rooms have an operable window to promote cross ventilation. The apartments have been orientated and designed to maximise direct sunlight and daylight access.
The layout of the apartments within the development ensure that all south facing living/dining areas also have either an easterly or westerly aspect, and large windows have been included on the eastern and western orientations to these areas. Whilst the development includes some south facing bedrooms, they are all sufficiently setback from the southern boundary to ensure that they receive a good level of daylight access. In addition, all areas of private open space will receive adequate daylight and solar access.
Clause 22.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires the development to achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development. The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP), detailing how the development addresses the 10 key sustainable design categories using the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS). The submitted SDA shows that the development achieves a BESS score of 63% and a pass for each of the mandatory pass categories of Water, Energy, Stormwater and IEQ, which is satisfactory. As discussed, Council’s ESD officer has reviewed the reports and requested those matters identified within the referral section to be addressed. Therefore, conditions are recommended to be included on any permit that issues requiring a revised Sustainable Design Assessment and Water Sensitive Urban Design Response to ensure the proposal achieves an acceptable level of internal amenity.
On balance, it is considered that the internal amenity of these apartments is acceptable and the design of the development is deemed to achieve the broad energy efficiency Objectives of Standard B10.
Safety
The development is designed to provide for safety and security of residents. The pedestrian entrance to the development is separated from the driveway and is afforded passive surveillance. The development has been provided with a clearly identifiable entrance which will not be obscured or isolated from the street featuring a centralised entry at ground floor from Hawksburn Road with an awning above. The entry has been designed to front the pedestrian path, with habitable room windows of the dwelling facing the pedestrian path also providing passive surveillance. This design response achieves the objectives of the standard.
Landscaping
Council’s MSS and various local policies emphasise the provision of high quality landscaping and seek to ensure that landscaping forms a key consideration of development proposals. Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape Character) seeks to ‘repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’.
Further to this, Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) seeks ‘to maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood’. The policy further encourages a design response which ‘includes planting around the perimeter of the site to strengthen the garden setting’ and provides ‘setback basements from all property boundaries to allow for in-ground planting’. The policy also defines canopy tree as ‘a tree at least 5m in height with a canopy spread of at least 6m at maturity’.
Given the subject site is located within a substantial change area, the typical expectations for landscaping of residential land as described above should be balanced against the policy direction seeking intensification of development and density within a more compact setting.
The subject site is planted with moderate vegetation, all of which are proposed to be removed. In some instances it may be considered acceptable to remove a significant amount of vegetation from a site provided an acceptable level of replacement planting is proposed.
The applicant has submitted an Arboriculture Report prepared by Liam Costello dated 14 December 2017 that assesses the health and retention value of the trees proposed for removal. In this regard, the proposed removal of vegetation is considered acceptable given the fair to poor heath and structure and low value of retention of the vegetation. Furthermore, no trees are classified as ‘significant’ under Council’s Local Laws Policy.
As discussed, the proposed landscape response shown on the advertised plans was considered unacceptable as there was minimal space provided around the building for canopy and screen tree planting, particularly through the sides and rear of the site. The design of the vehicle access also limits landscaping to the rear of the site.
The landscape response as per the amended plans is considered sufficient with regard to softening the built form for the development of this magnitude and will provide an acceptable outcome that will complement the garden setting and landscape character of the area. While the existence of the basement directly below the southern terrace of Apartment 1 limits the ability for canopy trees to be planted in natural ground, the use of a planter box is proposed which will help lessen the impact, with the inclusion of some smaller canopy trees.
It is considered that a balance between the objectives of the zoning to accommodate a higher intensity of development and Council’s landscape character objectives would still be achieved by this development.
A detailed landscape plan will be required as part of any condition of approval to show the changes shown on the amended plan as well as confirm the location, species, size and number of proposed canopy trees around the building. It will be required that canopy trees be provided within the north, east and west setbacks of the site. Screening vegetation will be required along the southern site boundary in the form of a planter box.
Overall, the proposal is consistent with Council’s MSS, the policy direction of the Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.23) and the objectives of Standard B13.
Access and Parking Location
The vehicle access is to be provided via the existing single width 3 metre crossover on the south-east corner of the Hawksburn Road frontage. The existing vehicle crossing is not proposed to be modified. The accessway occupies approximately 7.5% of the site’s frontage, which is well below the recommended maximum of 33% and therefore complies.
The new basement car parking provides convenient parking for resident and visitor vehicles and is easily accessible from ground level via a car lift. A Traffic and Transport Assessment prepared by Impact dated 24 October 2017 was submitted as part of the application. A Car Lift Queuing Assessment was undertaken and the findings of the report are as follows:
• The proposed development is anticipated to generate 1 vehicle movement every 15 minutes on average during peak periods). Therefore, the likelihood of any conflicting site access movements or any queuing for the car lift is extremely low.
• In order to provide a robust assessment of the car lift operation, vehicle queueing calculations have been undertaken in accordance with the theory set out within "AustRoads Guide to Traffic Management: Part 2".
• The values adopted for this analysis are listed below:
− PM peak hour development traffic estimated at 2 inbound and 2 outbound movements (PM peak scenario has been assessed as the demand for inbound movements will be at its highest at this time)
− Car lift door opening closing duration estimated at 5 .5 seconds
− Drivers estimated to take 10 seconds to enter/depart the car lift cabin
− Car lift ascend/descend speed estimated at 0.05mls, equating to an average travel height of 4.35 metres
• The resultant 98th percentile queue for inbound vehicles equates to one car, inclusive of vehicles utilising the car lift.
• Therefore, no inbound vehicles will be queuing for the car lift externally on Hawksburn Road in the 98th percentile design scenario (as prescribed within Clause 3.5 of the Australian Standard for off-street car parking).
• The car lift will be configured so that the platform automatically returns to ground level by default to ensure inbound movements are serviced as efficiently as possible.
• All residents who intend to use the on-site car park will be inducted prior to operating the car lift.
• The car lift will be regularly maintained as part of the ongoing management of the building, ensuring that the car lift continues to operate efficiently.
• Car lift maintenance contracts typically include on-call emergency response, ensuring that service is resumed as quickly as possible in the event that the car lift temporarily malfunctions.
As per the findings above, given the inbound and outbound traffic movements in the PM are relatively low, it is not considered that the use of the car lift will have any detrimental impacts to the operation of Hawksburn Road given that vehicles will not be required to wait for extended periods before accessing the car lift. Maintenance issues with the car lift will be addressed by the ongoing management of the building to ensure that the car lift continues to operate efficiently.
Overall the proposal complies with the Access and Parking location objective of Clause 55.
Amenity Impacts
Side and rear setbacks
‘Western Interface’
At ground, first and second floor, the proposed side setbacks of the building inclusive of the proposed terrace at second floor are compliant with the setback requirements of Standard B17. There is a minor encroachment of the 0.7m planter ledge at first and second floor.
The third floor setback of the wall of Apartment 6 does not comply with the requirements of Standard B17 and falls 3 metres short (8.9 metres is required with a wall height of 13.8 metres as opposed to the proposed 5.5 metres).
The third floor setback of the terrace to Apartment 6 also does not comply with the requirements of Standard B17 and is 3.8 metres short (6.3 metres is required as opposed to the proposed 3.7 metres).
It is noted that the third floor of the building interfaces with four ground floor habitable windows, two first floor habitable windows and the rear private open space of the adjoining dwelling located at 362A Toorak Road.
It is considered the variation to the western side setbacks at the third floor can be supported in this local context, where substantial changes and more intensive developments are directed to. The western facade is articulated by colour, facade detailing and architectural features designed to fragment the mass of the building.
The flat roof design coupled with the 8.2 metre setback from the edge of the wall at third floor from the habitable windows ensures that the development will sit comfortably in its context and will not result in unreasonable visual bulk when viewed from adjacent windows and backyard from the west. Furthermore, the recessed upper floor levels throughout the building also reduces the perceived height of the building from the adjoining property and changes shown on the amended plans will allow for planting opportunities along the western setback of the site which will help soften the impact of the built form to the neighbouring property. It should also be noted that the daylight to the existing windows on the adjoining property complies with Standard B19 and that balcony edges will be screened to avoid direct downward views.
The common stair area is proposed on the western boundary for a length of 4.7 metres. Compliance regarding walls on boundaries will be discussed further below.
The revised scheme as shown on the amended plans shows western setbacks increased to 2 metres from Apartments 1 and 2. The basement levels have also been setback 2 metres from the western boundary, ensuring a deep soil zone is available to support a good level of planting through the western boundary of the site. The amended plans demonstrates opportunity to create a meaningful landscape buffer separation along the western interface, which is an improved outcome. This will provide more visual relief to the adjoining property to the west.
It is noted the amended plans show the planter ledge at first floor to remain, which will have an overall height of approximately 1.1 metres. This encroaches within the 2 metre setback by 700mm. The overall height from the top of the planter is compliant with the setback requirements of Standard B18.
The proposed setbacks provide an acceptable separation from the adjoining property and are generally consistent with the rhythm of spacing between properties along this section of Toorak Road.
Furthermore, the Residential Growth zoning of the land and the long-term strategic intent for the site and surrounding area will inevitably result in change to the form, scale and height of development on the subject site and in the surrounding area, therefore variation to the western side setbacks is supported.
‘Southern Interface’
The critical interface to the south zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone maintains compliance with the requirements of Standard B17 at all levels inclusive of the proposed terrace at second and third floor.
The proposal provides increasing setbacks to each level of the building, setback between 1 -3.1 metres at ground floor and a maximum of 8.4 metres (measured from the edge of the terrace) and 11.1 metres at third floor from the southern site boundary. The varied setbacks allow for articulation both horizontally and vertically, and differing materials along the southern facade will help to break up the mass of the built form.
The private open space of the dwelling is located to the rear of the site and does not have a direct interface with the southern façade of the building. Only a minor portion of the building presented from the western façade will share an interface with the adjoining private open space area.
The landscaping response provided along the southern boundary in the amended plans through the use of a planter box and the planting of canopy trees will help to soften the visual impact of the proposal from the habitable windows of the adjoining southern property. Once mature, it will provide filtered views of the proposal. Furthermore, the existing trees located on the adjoining southern property will also filter views of the proposal.
Therefore it is considered the proposed building mass will allow for an appropriate sense of transition to the lower scale residential area behind.
Walls on Boundary
Standard B18 states that new walls should not be constructed on boundary for a length of 10 metres plus 25 per cent of the remaining length of the boundary and for the height of the walls to not exceed an average height of 3.2 metres and a maximum height of 3.6 metres. The boundary construction as per the amended plans relates to the southern boundaries of the subject site associated with the basement levels as well as the western stairwell at ground floor.
Amended plans show elimination of the western boundary wall of Apartment 2, with the fire egress stair being the only wall to be retained on western boundary. While the 3.6 metre high boundary wall exceeds the height requirement of this Standard, this is not considered unreasonable given it is not located adjacent the primary secluded private open space area. The boundary wall as per the amended plans will extend for a length of 4.8 metres which is a small portion of the building, is single story in height, and will not result in amenity impacts in terms of loss of daylight.
Daylight to Existing Windows
The proposed development is located opposite habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings to the south and west. The setbacks of the proposed development from the existing habitable room windows opposite are assessed against the requirements of Standard B19 as follows.
‘Southern Interface’
The closest existing habitable room windows of the adjoining dwelling to the south are setback 3.21 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. The proposed development with a minimum setback of 3.1 metres at ground and first floor, 4.9 metres (measured from the edge of the terrace) at second floor and 9.1 metres (measured from the edge of the terrace) from third floor to the common boundary will meet the numeric requirements of the Standard. The light court requirements as stipulated in Standard B19 are also easily achieved.
‘Western Interface’
The closest existing habitable room windows of the adjoining dwelling to the west are setback 2.7 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. The proposed development as per the amended plans will be setback 0-2 metres at ground floor, 2 metres at first floor, and 3.7 metres at second and third floor (measured from the edge of the terraces) from the common boundary. The proposal complies with the setback and light court requirements set out in the Standard. It will allow adequate daylight to all existing habitable rooms to the adjoining dwelling.
North Facing Windows
There are no north facing windows located within 3 metres of the subject site.
Overshadowing
Standard B21 of ResCode seeks to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow the existing secluded private open space of adjoining properties. Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 40 square metres with minimum dimensions of 3 metres of the secluded private open space should receive at least five (5) hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm at the September Equinox.
‘Western Interface’
The proposed development will cast additional shadows over the abutting property to the west in the morning at 9am (approximately an additional 15.45 sqm). At least 40sqm with a minimum dimension of 3 metres of the adjoining SPOS area will continue to receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.
‘Southern Interface’
The proposed development will cast additional shadows over the abutting property to the south throughout the day as follows:
|Time of Day |Extent of additional shadow |
|9am |32.8sqm |
|11am |25.1sqm |
|1pm |12sqm |
|3pm |2.9sqm |
Some additional shadows will be cast over the car park area at the front of the site. As the extent of overshadowing will not be over the secluded private open space, this has not been included in the assessment.
It should also be noted that the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant do not show the existing shadows cast by the perimeter fences, and these existing shadows have therefore been excluded from the above assessment.
None the less, at least 40sqm with a minimum dimension of 3 metres of the adjoining SPOS area will continue to receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.
The proposal therefore fully complies with the requirements of Standard B21.
Overlooking
The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9 metre, 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.
The site is currently bound by 1.9 metre high fences along the southern and western boundaries. The application plans indicate 2 metre high boundary fencing to the south and a minimum 2.2 metre high boundary fencing to the west. Therefore, there are no overlooking issues from the proposed ground level.
At the first, second and third floor levels, there are habitable room windows and areas of secluded private open space that have the potential to overlook the neighbouring habitable room windows and areas of private open space within 9 metres at the properties south and west of the site.
As per the amened plans, the first floor habitable windows along the west and south of the building and the terraces to the west and south associated with Apartment 5 and 6 are intended to be screened with a 1.7 metre high privacy screen with a notation stating ‘in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6’. This has however, not been reflected on the elevation drawings nor have details of the proposed screening been provided. Permit conditions will require a section plan detailing the calculation of total transparency of the proposed screening to be in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. An overlooking diagram must be provided to demonstrate no direct views to the adjoining properties in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
The apartments have been designed to satisfactorily limit internal views through the placement of windows and screening devices.
Noise impacts
The proposed apartment building is not expected to generate noise above and beyond that normally associated with a residential development. The new car stacker to the basement has been positioned alongside the driveway on the property to the south and therefore will not result in any unreasonable noise impacts. Permit conditions will however require that noise emanating from the subject land must be in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from the car stacker are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
On Site Amenity and Facilities
Dwelling Entry
A common entry to the development, with pedestrian gate is clearly identifiable and is directly accessible from Hawksburn Road. The building has been designed to provide an appropriate sense of address via an awning over the entry. This will provide shelter and a transitional space around the entry. Furthermore, each dwelling is clearly identifiable from the central lobby of each level within the building.
Daylight to New Windows
All proposed windows will face outdoor spaces clear to the sky with a 3 square metre light court with a minimum dimension of 1 metre and thus allow for an adequate amount of daylight into habitable rooms.
Private Open Space
The two ground floor apartments include terraces of 42 square metres and 61 square metres. The first, second and third floor apartments include terraces ranging between 12 square metres to 175 square metres.
The size of the terraces to Apartments 1, 2 and 6 comply with the numerical requirements of Standard B28 and Standard B43 and are provided with convenient access from a living area.
The size of the terraces to the first floor Apartments 3 and 4 meet the numerical requirements of Standard B28 and Standard B43, providing for a minimum area of 12 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.4 metres. The terrace areas to these Apartments however do not meet the requirements of Standard B29 and the terraces will consequentially be in shadow throughout the day. A 4.8 metre separation from the northern wall to the southern boundary is required and 3.2 metres is proposed for Apartment 3 and 2.8 metres is proposed for Apartment 4. The poor level of sunlight received to these areas will impact on the useability and amenity of the secluded private open space areas. Given there is scope within the design to re-orientate the terrace areas to achieve better solar access, permit conditions will require the terraces to Apartments 3 and 4 to achieve compliance with Standard B29.
The width of the terrace to the second floor Apartments 5 does not meet the requirements of Standard B43, falling short by 200mm (measured from the southern balcony). Whilst this is a minor shortfall, this additional space can easily be absorbed within the design. Permit conditions will require the terrace to Apartment 5 to have a minimum width of 2.4 metres in accordance with Standard B43. The existing building footprint must not be exceeded.
All areas can be conveniently accessed from the main living areas with some apartments featuring multiple access points. The proposed secluded private open space areas to each dwelling are considered sufficient to meet the recreation and service needs of future residents.
Storage
Due to the increased western boundary setbacks from the basement levels as per the amended plans, the storage spaces previously indicated for each Apartment within this area has been deleted. Permit conditions will require storage to all Apartments in accordance with Standard B43.
Front Fence
It is proposed to construct a new 1.7-2 metre high white concrete rendered fence along the Hawksburn Road frontage which extends onto the Toorak Road frontage ranging in height from 1.5 metres to 2.2 metres.
The proposal exceeds the requirements of Standard B32, exceeding the maximum height of 2 metres stipulated for the Toorak Road frontage and 1.2 metres for the Hawksburn Road frontage.
Variation from the standard is however considered acceptable given high fencing is not uncommon along main roads and given the greater level of impacts felt from such roads. Directly opposite the subject site to the east is a two storey building built on the side boundary at Hawksburn Road.
Therefore, it is considered the inclusion of a high front fence is not an unacceptable response in the context.
Design Detail
The proposed variety of materials including masonry, aluminium and chrome awnings provide a high level of articulation and offers an innovative and contemporary design response while complementing design detail of older dwellings within the neighbourhood.
The proposed development is considered appropriate in the neighbourhood character context.
Site Services
Bin storage is located within a dedicated storage area adjacent to the car park within Level 1 of the Basement. Mailboxes are located directly adjacent the pedestrian pathway and building entrance which are easily accessible.
Apartment Developments
The application has been assessed against the apartment development standards at Clause 55.07 and is deemed to comply with the relevant objectives.
As already discussed, the apartments have generally been designed to achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and buildings. Each proposed apartment will be of a reasonable size with floor areas between 177-235.4 square metres and will have direct access to natural light and ventilation.
The building materials are specified to attenuate all noise from traffic and outside sources.
Standard B41 (Accessibility objective) requires that at least 50% of the dwelling have specific design elements, including adaptable bathrooms, to ensure their accessibility. Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been designed with at least one adaptable bathroom as determined by Standard B41. A clear path with a minimum width of 1.2 metres that connects the dwelling entrance to the main bedroom, an adaptable bathroom and the living area as required by Standard B41, have only been provided for Apartments 5 and 6, resulting in less than 50% of the dwellings. Permit conditions will require at least 50% of the Apartments to achieve compliance with Standard B41.
The entry to the building is readily identifiable from Hawksburn Road via the proposed awning over the entry environs and from the pedestrian path leading from the gateway.
From within the building, each apartment will be immediately visible from the central lift or stairwell.
Daylight and ventilation is achieved to the ground floor lobby through the entry door and windows. The stair areas at each level have not however, been provided with windows and natural light as recommended under Standard B42. It is not considered appropriate to have common stair areas with no source of natural light and natural ventilation. There is an opportunity to include an external window to the stair area at ground floor with modified western setbacks as per the amended plans. There is also opportunity for inclusion of a window to the western side of the stair areas at second and third floor. Permit conditions will therefore require the common stair areas at ground, second and third floor to provide for a window in accordance with Standard B42. Given the stair areas are west facing, permit conditions will also require the windows to be provided with external shading.
The proposal has been designed with a central stair area and lift and waste chute directly adjacent the lobby area and first floor. Therefore, the common lobby area and stair area to Apartments 3 and 4 are unable to include windows and natural light as recommended under Standard B42. While this is not ideal, on balance given that the majority of the Apartments will be able to achieve sufficient daylight/ventilation through their common areas as required by permit conditions, and the overall internal amenity of the Apartments with regard to daylight and ventilation is of a high standard, ultimately the absence of windows in these areas is not considered to be detrimental to the overall internal amenity of future occupants.
The width of the terrace to the second floor Apartment 5 does not meet the requirements of Standard B43, falling short by 200mm. As discussed, permit conditions will require the terrace to have a minimum width of 2.4 metres in accordance with Standard B43.
A comprehensive Waste Management Plan has been provided in support of this application which provides an adequate response to Council’s waste guidelines and complies with the objectives of Standard B45 (Waste and recycling objectives).
In terms of the functional layout, room depth, windows and cross ventilation standards of Clause 55.07, the new dwellings are large in size with the smallest bedroom having dimensions of 3 metres by 3.7 metres. All main bedrooms have a minimum depth of 3.4 metres which complies with the recommendation of Standard B46. All living areas have multiple aspects (with the exception of the living area to Apartment 1) and floor to ceiling heights of 3 metres. No rooms rely on borrowed light and all apartments have good opportunities for cross ventilation with the exception of Apartment 6. It is noted that windows along the north and east of the living/dining space of Apartment 6 are noted as ‘non-operable’ windows, therefore preventing opportunity for effective cross ventilation. Permit conditions will require demonstrated compliance of Apartment 6 with Standard B49-Natural Ventilation objectives. This will ensure a high standard of natural ventilation across all Apartments.
Water Sensitive Urban Design
The water sensitive urban design report shows that the proposal 5,000 litre rainwater tank would result in a STORM rating of 102% which complies with the 100% minimum required under Clause 22.18.
Given the plans have been amended which include changes to the building site coverage as well as changes to the rainwater tank locations, the WSUD report should be updated to reflect these changes. This will be addressed as a condition of any permit issued.
Car Parking and Traffic
As detailed in the referral section, there are generally no concerns with the proposed parking allocation, layout and internal vehicle movement.
The proposal provides a total of 17 car spaces including 16 spaces for resident and 1 for visitors in a basement car park that will be secure and easily accessible. The development therefore fully complies with the statutory car parking requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
In terms of traffic generation, the development will not result in any adverse traffic impacts to the surrounding area.
In terms of the concerns with regard to sight distance triangles, this concern can be addressed by way of permit conditions if a permit is to be issued.
Objections
In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:
• Out of keeping with heritage character of the area.
The application site is located in the Residential Growth Zone and is not affected by any
Heritage Overlay. Whilst the site has interfaces with the properties in Toorak Road opposite the site, the properties fronting this section of Toorak Road as well as the opposite side of Toorak Road present a mixed character, which contains intensive developments and compact built form, as well as low scale developments. As discussed above, subject to permit conditions, the proposed development will provide appropriate transition between the subject site and the lower scale developments within the vicinity of the site.
• Incorrect delineation of title boundary for 79 Hawksburn Road.
Amended plans have accordingly been updated to reflect the correct title boundaries between the subject site and 79 Hawksburn Road.
• Devaluation of property
Devaluation of property in not a planning ground that can be considered.
• Hawksburn Road and Stanhope Street to be converted to resident permit only parking
Allocation of resident only parking areas falls outside of the planning scheme provisions.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:
• The proposed development will contribute to the preferred character of the area.
• The proposal is in accordance with State and local planning policies for a medium density residential development in a well serviced location and its Residential Growth zoning.
• Subject to permit conditions, the design provides adequate space for canopy trees, in ground planting around the building, and meaningful landscaping, strengthening the garden setting and preferred character of the area.
• Subject to permit conditions, the development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with the Clause 55 Objectives.
Attachments
|1. |PA - 113217 - 364B Toorak Road South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 1 |Plans |
|RECOMMENDATION |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1132/17 for the land located at 364B Toorak Road South Yarra be issued under the|
|Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi dwelling development in a Residential Growth Zone subject to the following |
|conditions: |
| |
| |
|1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by|
|the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (Revision A) dated 29 November 2017 and (Revision C) |
|dated 15 May 2018 prepared by P-E-K Studio, but modified to show: |
| |
|a) Elevation plans updated to accord with changes shown on drawings dated 15 May 2018 (Revision C) prepared by P-E-K Studio. |
|b) The provision of bicycle spaces in accordance with Clause 52.34. |
|c) A section plan detailing the calculation of total transparency of the proposed screening to the first floor habitable windows along |
|the west and south of Apartments 3 and 4 and the terraces to the west and south associated with Apartment 5 and 6. An overlooking diagram|
|must be provided to demonstrate no direct views to the adjoining properties in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 |
|of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|d) At least 50% of Apartments to achieve compliance with Standard B41 of Clause 55.07-7 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|e) Provision of a window with external shading to the common stair areas at ground, second and third floor in accordance with Standard |
|B42. |
|f) Terraces to Apartments 3 and 4 to achieve compliance with Standard B29 of Clause 55.05-5 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|g) The terrace to Apartment 5 to have a minimum width of 2.4 metres in accordance with Standard B43 of Clause 55.07-9 of the Stonnington |
|Planning Scheme. The existing building footprint must not be exceeded. |
|h) Provision of storage to all Apartments in accordance with Standard B44. |
|i) Natural ventilation to Apartment 6 in accordance with Standard B49-Natural Ventilation objectives. |
|j) Provision of water tanks in accordance with the requirements of Condition 7 (Water Sensitive Urban Design Report). |
|k) Dimension of planter box of southern terrace of Apartment 1. |
|l) Sight distance triangles at the property boundary to be fully dimensioned in accordance with the requirements of the Stonnington |
|Planning Scheme, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|m) Additional operable external shading devices incorporated into the design to provide protection from summer sun angles and respond to |
|different façade orientation. This could be in the form of operable louvers, sliding shutters or external blinds. |
|n) Window openings to the smaller bedrooms to Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be increased in size. |
|o) Glazing with a minimum visual light transmittance (VL T) of 60% for the windows of the smaller bedrooms of Apartments 1, 2, 3 and 4. |
|p) All heating and cooling units to be located within the basement or rooftop and appropriately screened and baffled in accordance with |
|the requirements of Condition 6. |
| |
|q) Any changes to the plans to comply with Condition 3 (Landscape Plan), |
|Condition 8 (Sustainable Design Assessment), Condition 9 (Water Sensitive Urban Design Report), Condition 11 (Waste Management Plan) and |
|Condition 16 (Stormwater Runoff). |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|3. Concurrent with the endorsement of development 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 in accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by |
|Urbis dated 30 November 2017 and discussion plan prepared by P-E-K Studio dated 1 March 2018 but modified to show: |
| |
|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 driveways |
| |
|d) 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 site. |
| |
|f) Two (2) canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when planted and capable of reaching a minimum height of 7-8 metres at maturity) in the |
|western setback of Apartment 1. |
| |
|g) Two (2) canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when planted and capable of reaching a minimum height of 7-8 metres at maturity) in the |
|western setback of Apartment 2. |
| |
|h) Two (2) canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when planted and capable of reaching a minimum height of 7-8 metres at maturity) in the |
|eastern setback of Apartment 1. |
| |
|i) Two (2) canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when planted and capable of reaching a minimum height of 7-8 metres at maturity) in the |
|eastern setback of Apartment 2. |
| |
|j) Three (3) canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when planted and capable of reaching a minimum height of 7-8 metres at maturity) in the |
|northern setback of Apartment 1. |
| |
| |
|k) Above ground planter zone along the full length of the southern boundary planted with suitable species of trees that will provide |
|screening of the development from the adjoining dwelling at 79 Hawksburn Road. |
| |
|l) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site |
| |
|m) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas. |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|4. Before occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants|
|are to be replaced. |
| |
|5. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the street trees |
|(Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18). Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970. Any service / utility connections within the public realm|
|must be outside the TPZ’s of these trees or installed by boring if it is within the TPZ’s. |
| |
|6. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the |
|surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and must not be located on balconies. All plant and equipment 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. |
| |
|7. 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. |
| |
|8. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. |
|Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design |
|initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Sustainable Design Assessment must be generally in |
|accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment prepared by ADP Consulting Engineering dated 26 October 2017 but: |
| |
|(a) Updated to refer to the new layout shown on the plans submitted for endorsement. |
|(b) Preliminary NatHERS modelling reports to confirm the information as shown in the BESS report. |
|(c) The BESS Dwelling Energy Profile section amended to correctly indicate occupancies ‘above the ceiling’ and ‘below the celling’ of |
|each Apartment. |
|(d) Clothes Dryers, Baths, Dishwashers and Washing Machine Water Efficiency included in the BESS assessment. |
|(e) Further information regarding the treatment of the stormwater which is proposed to be captured from the Terraces as these are |
|trafficable areas. |
| |
|(f) The BESS report updated to reflect the correct number of visitor bicycle parking proposed. To meet Council’s Best Practice Standards|
|at least one secure bicycle parking space is to be provided per dwelling and one visitor bicycle parking space per 4 dwellings. |
| |
|All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the |
|Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible |
|Authority. |
| |
|9. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, a Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) report must be submitted to and |
|approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the WSUD report will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development|
|must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives outlined in the WSUD report to the satisfaction of the Responsible |
|Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the Stormwater Management (WSUD) Report prepared by ADP Consulting Engineering|
|dated 26 October 2017 but: |
| |
|(a) Updated to refer to the new layout shown on the plans submitted for endorsement. |
| |
|No alterations to the WSUD report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|10. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater |
|management report. |
| |
|11. 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 Pty Ltd |
|dated 19 December 2017 but: |
| |
|(a) Updated to refer to the new layout shown on the plans submitted for endorsement. |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in |
|accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|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. |
| |
|13. 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. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|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. All drainage must be by means of a |
|gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be |
|constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design |
| |
|15. The existing Hawksburn Road footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line to facilitate access to |
|the car lift. |
| |
|16. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the|
|existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone|
|detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 2,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD|
|requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets. |
| |
|17. Noise emanating from the subject land must be in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from the car stacker are in |
|compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, |
|all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority |
| |
|18. 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. 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. |
| |
| |
|C. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”. |
| |
|D. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved must be informed before purchase or residing at the property that clearance|
|from columns within the basement car parks have not been provided in accordance with Clause 52.06-9. |
| |
|E. 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. |
2. Planning Application 459/17 - 45 Washington Avenue, Malvern East - Construction of two dwellings on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Character Overlay
Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two dwellings on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Character Overlay at 45 Washington Avenue, Malvern East.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Alta Architecture Pty Ltd |
|Ward: |East |
|Zone: |Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 4 - Significant Character Precincts) |
|Overlay: |Neighbourhood Character Overlay (Schedule 7 - Californian bungalow Significant Character |
| |Areas) |
|Neighbourhood Precinct: |Garden Suburban 4 |
|Date lodged: |25 May 2017 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting |84 days |
|date) | |
|Trigger for referral to Council: |Over seven objections |
|Number of objections: |19 objections |
|Consultative Meeting: |Yes – held on 6 February 2018 |
|Officer Recommendation: |Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit. |
BACKGROUND
The Proposal
The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Alta Architecture and are known as Job No. 0873, Drawing No.s: TP0.03 rev-1, TP0.04 rev 3, TP0.05 rev 2, TP0.06 rev-3, TP0.07 rev-3, TP0.08 rev-3, TP0.09 rev-0 and TP0.10 rev-0, and are all Council date stamped 3 April 2018.
Key features of the proposal are:
• Demolition of the existing single storey Californian Bungalow dwelling.
• Construction of two double storey dwellings in a side by side configuration. Both dwellings consist of four bedrooms.
• Each dwelling has a two car garage located in a basement level, accessed via a ramp from Washington Avenue. The ramp is located along the northern boundary of the site.
• The building is proposed with a 9 metre street setback to ground floor and a 17 metre setback to first floor.
• The proposed maximum building height is 7.39 metres.
• Two significant trees exist on the site, a Brush Box to be retained in the rear of the site, and a Cannery Island Date Palm that is proposed to be relocated from a more central location to the rear of the site to allow its retention.
• A significant tree exists close to the common boundary at the rear of 43 Washington Avenue. The two street trees in front of the site are also significant.
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the western side of Washington Avenue, approximately 36 metres south of the intersection between Wattle Grove and Washington Avenue. The site is occupied by a single storey weatherboard Californian bungalow, set in an established garden. Two car spaces are provided in an at-grade, open air, paved car parking area in the frontage of the lot. This is accessed from a crossover on the northern boundary of the site.
[pic]
Washington Avenue is covered by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7, which identifies the street as having a specific character. The statement of neighbourhood character from the schedule states the following:
These streetscapes comprise numerous Californian bungalows set within established gardens. The significance of these areas is due to the consistency of original dwellings which have a low slung appearance within the streetscape. Key original features that add to the areas’ significance include large terracotta tiled roofs with simple chimneys, stucco and timber fretwork on gable ends, decorative brickwork, bay windows and arched verandahs with large pillars. Front fences are typically timber picket or low red-orange brick to match the era and style of the dwellings.
The above statement describes the general character of the street well.
A notable exception in the street is the relatively recent construction of a ‘side by side’ development of two dwellings at 44 Washington Street opposite the subject site. This building was approved at VCAT in 2011 prior to the introduction of the NCO7. The Tribunals decision in that matter makes it clear that the permit was issued in the absence of a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (or similar control); and that if a character overlay had applied further weight could have been given to Council’s concerns about neighbour character.
As a Neighbourhood Character Overlay is now in place, limited weight can be given to the building at 44 Washington Avenue in terms of establishing neighbourhood character.
Other relevant interfaces to the site include:
• North: the rears of 2, 4 and 6 Wattle Grove are located to the north of the subject site. These lots are all occupied by single storey weatherboard Californian bungalow dwellings with open landscaped gardens to the rear. These lots are also included in the NCO7.
• South: 43 Washington Avenue exists to the south of the subject site and is occupied by a single storey weatherboard Californian bungalow dwelling. A significant Claret Ash tree exists towards the rear of the lot near the common boundary with the subject site. This lot is also included in the NCO7
• West: The subject site has an irregular rear boundary that abuts both 42 and 44 Darling Road. These lots fall outside the NCO7. 42 Darling Road is one half of a semi-detached duplex. The dwelling has undergone a ground and first floor extension authorised by Planning Permit 1166/16, issued on 28 September 2017. The rear of this lot is an open landscaped garden. 44 Darling Road is occupied by a single storey detached Californian bungalow dwelling. The rear of this lot is occupied by a detached garage and a small rear yard.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications;
• Planning Permit 809/09 was issued by VCAT on 14 April 2011 for the construction of two double storey dwellings in accordance with the endorsed plans at 44 Washington Street.
No relevant planning permit history exists for the subject site.
The Title
The site is described as Lot 4 on Plan of Subdivision 008789 on Certificate of Title Volume 04750 Folio 807. No covenants or easements affect the land.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone - Clause 32.09 - Neighbourhood Residential Zone:
• Pursuant to Clause 32.09-6 a permit is required to construct two dwellings on a lot.
• Pursuant to Clause 32.09-9 a building must not be constructed that exceeds a maximum height of 9 metres; or 2 storeys.
• Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4 the lot must provide a minimum 35% site area as Garden Area.
• Pursuant to Clause 32.09-6, the proposal must meet the requirements of Clause 55.
Overlay – Clause 43.05 – Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7:
• Pursuant to Clause 43.04-2 a permit is required to demolish or remove a building.
• Pursuant to Clause 43.04-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Particular Provisions – Clause 52.06 – Car parking:
• Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, one space is required for a one or two bedroom dwelling and two are required for a three or more bedroom dwelling. One visitor space is required for every five dwellings.
The development provides 4 car spaces in the basement (2 per dwelling). This satisfies the statutory requirement for car parking. As under 5 dwellings are proposed, there is no requirement for visitor parking.
Relevant Planning Policies
• Clause 16.01 - Residential Development
• Clause 22.05 - Environmentally Sustainable Development
• Clause 22.18 - Stormwater Management
• Clause 22.23 - Neighbourhood Character Policy
• Clause 32.09 - Neighbourhood Residential Zone
• Clause 43.05 - Neighbourhood Character Overlay
• Clause 52.06 - Car Parking
• Clause 55 - Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode)
• Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines
Advertising
The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing a sign on the site.
It is noted that the application has been amended twice and each time the plans have been re-advertised. A brief timeline of this advertising history is provided below:
• Original application advertised August 2017.
• Amended application submitted 6 November 2017.
• Amended application re-advertised November 2017.
• Amended application submitted 3 April 2018
• Amended application re-advertised April 2018
The site is located in East Ward and has received 19 objections in total. The general concerns raised in the objections can be summarised as follows:
• The development is contrary to the Californian Bungalow character of the street.
• The existing dwelling contributes to the streets character and should be retained.
• Insufficient street setback to Washington Avenue.
• Visual bulk.
• Overlooking.
• Vegetation removal and reduction in green space/garden area.
• Height and bulk of building is not sympathetic to street.
• Impacts during construction (noise, dust, etc).
• Property damage to adjoining land from basement construction.
• Impact on property values.
• Relocation of the palm tree impacting on neighbours fence and property.
The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.
A Consultative Meeting was held on 6 February 2018. The amended plans submitted on 6 November were the plans discussed at the meeting. The meeting was attended by Councillor Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. Subsequent to the meeting, in April 2018, the applicant submitted amended plans seeking to address the objectors and Council officer’s concerns.
Referrals
The original application plans submitted in August 2017 were referred to the following:
• Infrastructure.
• Transport and Parking.
The subsequent amended plans were not re-referred to these bodies as the changes shown on the plans did not impact on the referral response and did not warrant a re-referral.
The original application plans and the most recent amended plans submitted in April 2018 were referred to the following:
• Parks (landscaping).
• Urban Design
A summary of the comments from all the referral department is provided below:
Infrastructure:
The application is supported. Three standard conditions relating to drainage are recommended on any permit issued.
Parks:
A Tree Management Plan is required to ensure the protection of the two London Plane street trees, the Claret Ash at 43 Washington Avenue and the two trees at the rear of the site (bush Box and Box Elder) to be retained.
The payment of a $13,205.00 security deposit is required for the protection of the two street trees and is recommended to be imposed via permit condition.
The relocation of the Canary Island Date Palm is supported in principle. However, as this cannot be achieved without damage to the neighbour’s fence, and as the application proposes to retain and protect a number of other significant trees, there is no objection to the removal of the palm tree.
The submitted landscape concept plan is supported.
Transport and parking:
The proposal satisfies the parking requirement of the planning scheme.
The proposal will not significantly impact on traffic conditions in the area.
Appropriate sight lines must be provided at the property boundary for pedestrian safety.
Urban Design:
The most recent version of the amended plans (submitted in April 2018) has now resulted in a building that is acceptable and acceptably responds to the character of Washington Avenue.
KEY ISSUES
Demolition of existing building:
Pursuant to the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7 (NCO7) - Californian Bungalow Significant Character Areas; a permit is required to demolish a building.
It is important to establish the rational for this permit trigger. The purpose of the NCO includes the following:
• To identify areas of existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
• To ensure that development respects the neighbourhood character.
• To prevent, where necessary, the removal of buildings and vegetation before the neighbourhood character features of the site and the new development have been evaluated. (emphasis added)
It is clear from the purpose of the zone that the overlay does not seek the retention of older buildings in the sense of a Heritage Overlay; but rather seeks to ensure any new building is compatible with the preferred character established by the overlay prior to allowing an older building to be removed and replaced.
As such, there is no objection to the removal of the existing building from the site, as long as the replacement building represents an acceptable response to the preferred neighbourhood character. This is discussed below.
Neighbourhood Character:
As stated above, the lot is located within an area covered by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7 (NCO7) - Californian Bungalow Significant Character Areas. The imposition on the NCO7 on the subject site and surrounding land establishes that the area is subject to a specific character that has been deemed significant and worthy of protection.
The statement of character on the NCO7 states that:
The significance of these areas is due to the consistency of original dwellings which have a low slung appearance within the streetscape. Key original features that add to the areas’ significance include large terracotta tiled roofs with simple chimneys, stucco and timber fretwork on gable ends, decorative brickwork, bay windows and arched verandahs with large pillars
The NCO7 goes on to outline the preferred neighbourhood character for the area:
The preferred neighbourhood character for these areas is defined by the continued presence of Californian bungalows and new dwellings that reflect the key characteristics of the streetscapes which comprise:
- Single storey building scale with second storeys recessed behind the front façade.
- Simple floor plans with projecting front room and porch or verandah.
- Orientation of buildings to the street according to lot orientation.
- Consistent front and side setbacks.
- Established planting, including canopy trees, in the front, side and rear setbacks.
- Use of weatherboard, brick or brick and render.
- Dark terracotta tiled, pitched roofs.
- Car parking and car parking structures located behind the dwelling with side driveway access.
- Low brick or timber picket front fences
The proposal is assessed against these ‘key characteristics’ below:
|Key characteristic: |Comment: |Complies? |
|Single storey building scale with |The NCO7 varies the wording of Standard B31 of Clause 55 (Design detail) and |Condition Required |
|second storeys recessed behind the |asks that second storey elements of a new building be sited and designed so | |
|front façade. |that the single storey part of the building, including its roof form, is the | |
| |dominant visual element when viewed from the street. This requires the second| |
| |storey elements to be: | |
| | | |
| |- Set back 8 metres from the front building façade where the main ridge line | |
| |of the roof is perpendicular to the street, or located behind the main | |
| |ridgeline of the roof where this is parallel to the street, and | |
| |- Designed to complement the form of other dwellings in the street. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |And that: | |
| | | |
| |Pairs of attached dwellings should present to the street as a single dwelling| |
| |particularly though its scale, form, roof design and siting. | |
| | | |
| |The building line of the first floor is setback 8 metres from the ground | |
| |floor façade of the proposal, and is set behind the ridgeline of the ground | |
| |floor roof. Both these factors will ensure that the single storey element of | |
| |the building, including its roof form is the dominant visual element when | |
| |viewed from the street. | |
| | | |
| |However, two balconies exist at first floor towards the front of the building| |
| |accessed from the respective bedroom 4 of each dwelling. These balconies vary| |
| |the setback requirement of the NCO7 as they introduce a first floor element | |
| |within 8 metres of the front façade. Although not visible from the front of | |
| |the building, these balconies have 1.7 metre high screens that will be | |
| |visible from oblique angles when viewed from the street and surrounding land | |
| |and will detract from the legibility of the single storey roof form at the | |
| |front of the building. For this reason, it is proposed to require the | |
| |deletion of these balconies via permit condition. | |
| | | |
| |The single storey element of the proposal presents as a single dwelling to | |
| |the street, and incorporates many of the design characteristics found in the | |
| |form of the more traditional Californian bungalows. The recessed nature of | |
| |the first floor (being setback 8 metres from the ground floor façade) ensures| |
| |this does not detract from the single storey appearance of the ground floor. | |
|Simple floor plans with projecting |The application does not propose a projecting front room, but does try to |YES |
|front room and porch or verandah. |replicate this element of the Californian bungalow style by including a | |
| |porch/portico to Dwelling 1 that projects from the building. This element has| |
| |a gabled end, which is a common element in the traditional Californian | |
| |bungalow. This is considered to adequately respond to this key characteristic| |
| |of the streetscape | |
|Orientation of buildings to the street |The proposal is oriented towards the street. |YES |
|according to lot orientation. | | |
|Consistent front and side setbacks. |The proposal replicates the 9 metre street setback of the existing dwelling | |
| |on site (to be removed) and the existing neighbouring dwelling at 43 | |
| |Washington Avenue. | |
| | | |
| |The 9 metre setback is respectful of the overall setback character along | |
| |Washington Avenue. It is noted that nearby dwellings such as 37, 39 and 41 |YES |
| |Washington Avenue have street setbacks between 5.9 metres and 6.8 metres. | |
|Established planting, including canopy |The proposal seeks to retain the significant trees on site and protect the | |
|trees, in the front, side and rear |significant street trees and the significant Claret Ash at 43 Washington | |
|setbacks. |Avenue. | |
| | | |
| |In addition, the proposal has put forward a landscape concept plan that has |YES |
| |been reviewed by Council’s Parks Department, who are satisfied with the | |
| |proposed landscaping. | |
|Use of weatherboard, brick or brick and|The building proposes to use the following wall materials: | |
|render. | | |
| |Cream render at ground floor | |
| |A timber cladding at first floor, with natural finish | |
| | | |
| |Although not weatherboard, the timber cladding maintains the vertical lines | |
| |that characterise weatherboard and is seen as a suitable interpretation of |YES |
| |this character element in a new building. | |
| | | |
| |The use of render is consistent with this key characteristic. | |
|Dark terracotta tiled, pitched roofs. |The design proposes to use dark terracotta tiled and pitched roofs. | |
| | |YES |
|Car parking and car parking structures |The car parking associated with the proposal is located in a basement and so | |
|located behind the dwelling with side |achieves the objective of this key characteristic to ensure car parking | |
|driveway access |structures are not visually dominant. |YES |
| | | |
|Low brick or timber picket front fences|The application proposes a 1.5 metre high metal blade front fence with solid | |
| |rendered piers. Although this doesn’t meet the exact materials mentioned in | |
| |the preferred key characteristic, the type and form of the fence is similar |Variation Acceptable|
| |to other fences in the street, in that it is made up of solid piers with a | |
| |visually permeable vertical fill section which is similar to brick piers and | |
| |timber picket infill sections, and can be supported due to this. | |
Overall, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable response to the NCO7.
Built form:
The provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone require the proposal to be considered against the provisions of Clause 55- Two or more dwellings on a lot. A full assessment against the applicable 34 objectives and standards has been carried out. The development is generally compliant with these standards. The following relevant standards are highlighted and discussed:
BUILDING HEIGHT
The proposal has a maximum building height of 7.39 metres above natural ground level. This complies with the maximum 9 metre height permitted by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 4.
SITE COVERAGE
Schedule 4 of the NRZ states that a basement should not exceed 75% of a site’s area. The application proposes 39% basement site coverage (including the access ramp).
It is noted that the site coverage of the building footprint is 44.7%, which is less than the 60% permitted by the standard
PERMEABILITY
Standard B9 of Clause 55.03-4 asks for at least 20% site permeability. The application proposes 38.6% and therefore complies.
SIDE BOUNDARY SETBACKS
All side boundary setbacks to the first floor comply with the requirements of Standard B17. This is shown in the below tables:
|Northern Elevation | |
|Location |Wall height |B17 Setback required |Setback proposed |Complies? |
|Northwest corner |6.3 metres |1.8 metres |3.4 metres |Yes |
|Northeast corner |6.3 metres |1.8 metres |3.05 metres |Yes |
|Southern Elevation | |
|Location |Wall height |B17 Setback required |Setback proposed |Complies? |
|Southwest corner |6.2 metres |1.78 metres |3.3 metres |Yes |
|Southeast corner |6.3 metres |1.8 metres |2.95 metres |Yes |
However, due to the transverse ridge that seeks to reference the traditional Californian bungalow style, the single storey roof form at the front of the proposal seeks areas of variation to the setback requirement on the northern elevation. This is detailed in the table below:
|Single storey roof-form | |
|Location |Wall height |B17 Setback required |Setback proposed |Complies? |
|Northern elevation |5.3 metres |1.51 metres |1.0 metres |No |
|Southern elevation |5.2 metres |1.41 metres |1.54 metres |Yes |
The variation is considered acceptable as:
• The roof form sits above the basement ramp on the northern elevation, and as a result is open underneath. This helps minimise any visual bulk impacts the variation may create on adjoining land.
• As the variation is proposed on the northern elevation, it will not increase any overshadowing impacts on adjoining land.
It is noted that the setback requirements of Standard B17 is taken from the wall line of the building, and that eaves are permitted to encroach up to 0.5 metres into the setback. Due to the basement ramp underneath, there are no eaves on the northern elevation of the single storey roof form. Therefore, the standard applies to the whole roof form on this elevation. However, the southern elevation does have 0.4 metre eaves protruding from the wall line. As Standard B17 allows eaves to protrude 0.5 metres into the setback requirements, there is no variation on this side of the building.
NORTH FACING WINDOWS
A number of north facing windows exist at 43 Washington Avenue facing the site. The setbacks proposed at first floor comply with the requirements of the relevant Standard B20. This is detailed in the table below:
|Southern Elevation – First | |
|Floor | |
|Location |Wall height |B20 Setback required |Setback proposed |Complies? |
|Southwest corner |6.2 metres |2.56 metres |3.3 metres |Yes |
|Southeast corner |6.3 metres |2.62 metres |2.9 metres |Yes |
However, although the setbacks at first floor comply with Standard B20, the apex of the single storey roof form at the front of the proposal seeks a variation. The variation affects the easternmost north facing window at 43 Washington Avenue. The variation is detailed in the table below:
|Southern Elevation – Single | |
|storey roof-form | |
|Location |Wall height |B17 Setback required |Setback proposed |Complies? |
|Southern elevation |5.2 metres |1.96 metres |1.54 metres |No |
The variation is considered acceptable as the area of variation is offset to the east from the affected window, and is not directly opposite the window. The building directly opposite the window achieves compliance with Standard B20, as does the remainder of the building opposite the other north facing windows further to the west at 43 Washington Avenue. The area of non-compliance is deemed minor and due to its offset will not unreasonably impact on daylight access to the affected window.
OVERSHADOWING
The overshadowing diagrams show that the proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing of the rear private open space of 43 Washington Avenue between the hours of 9am and 3pm on the 22nd September (the equinox) as the shadow cast by the building will be contained within the shadow of the existing fence on the common boundary.
There will be a small area of additional shadow cast toward the front of the site, but this will not impact on any areas of usable secluded private open space.
OVERLOOKING
All ground floor windows will be appropriately screened by boundary fencing. While all first floor windows on the side and rear elevation either show obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above floor level; or have sill heights of 1.7 metres above floor level.
The first floor balconies at the front of the building are enclosed in 1.7 metre high screens, but are proposed to be removed via permit condition anyway.
All overlooking has been treated to a satisfactory level in accordance with the requirements of Standard B22.
Vegetation - Significant Trees:
There are a number of trees on and in the vicinity of the subject site. These are discussed below:
Tree 2 – Bush Box:
Tree 2 is a significant tree located at the rear of the subject site. The tree is proposed to be retained and protected.
Tree 3 – Box Elder:
Tree 3 is located at the rear of the site next to Tree 2, but is not a significant tree. Although not significant, this tree has a height of 12 metres and contributes to the landscape amenity of the area. The tree is proposed to be retained and protected
Tree 9 – Claret Ash:
Tree 9 is located at the rear of 43 Washington Avenue, in close proximity to the common boundary with the subject site. The rear of Unit 2 will encroach 15% into the Tree Protection Zone of this tree. A condition is recommended that a Tree Management Plan be prepared prior to the endorsement of plans that investigates the root system of this tree and investigates construction methods to ensure the root system is protected. This will protect the tree and the significant amenity it brings to the area, while still allowing the development to proceed. It is noted that Council’s Arborist has not raised any issues with the impact of the development on this tree.
Tree 10 and 11 – London plane street trees:
No building works are proposed within the Tree Protection Zones of the two street trees. The existing crossover is proposed to be retained and used to provide access to the basement. It is recommended that these trees are also included in the Tree Management Plan condition to ensure they are appropriately protected during construction.
Tree 1 – Canary Island Date Palm:
Tree 1 is located at the rear of the existing dwelling on the subject site near the junction of the boundaries between 2 and 4 Wattle Grove and the subject site.
This tree is located within the proposed footprint of Unit 1. As palm trees can be relocated relatively easily with a good chance of survival, the applicant proposed to relocate the tree to the northwest corner of the site. The relocation of the tree is considered to be a preferred outcome.
An issue arises as the owner of 2 Wattle Grove has objected to the relocation of the palm tree. The objection is based on independent agricultural advice provided by the objector which indicates that the tree cannot be relocated without removing a portion of the boundary fence between the subject site and 2 Wattle Grove, and access being granted to the arborist team onto the objector’s property. The objector has stated that he will not allow access onto his property to facilitate the relocation of the tree.
It is still the preferred outcome that the tree is relocated, however this may not be possible if relocation requires access onto 2 Wattle Grove, and this access is not granted. In order to address this, a condition is recommended that seeks the following:
1. An investigation is carried out on site by an arborist to establish the size and location of the root ball. This will establish categorically if the tree can be relocated without damage to the fence or neighbour’s property. It is noted that to date, all arborist advice has been based on visual assessments only, no excavation has occurred to establish the actual extent of the root ball.
2. If the tree can be relocated without damage to the fence and neighbouring property, the report must detail exactly how the relocation is to occur. This will be reviewed by Council’s arborists prior to the endorsement of plans.
3. If the report concludes that a successful relocation will require the partial removal of the fence and access onto neighbour’s property, the report must detail how this would occur and all reasonable efforts must be made by the permit holder to negotiate with the neighbour so that these recommendations can be implemented.
4. If the neighbour refuses to allow access to their property or the partial demolition of the fence and the permit holder can satisfy Council that all reasonable steps have been made to relocate the tree but that its relocation is not possible due to this, the tree may be removed from the site.
It is noted that although the relocation of the tree is a preferred outcome, Council’s Parks department have advised that they have no objection to the removal of the palm tree.
ESD/WSUD:
The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) in response to the application requirements of Clause 22.05-4. The SDA uses the BESS tool to demonstrate that the objectives of Clause 22.05 have been addressed.
The BESS score achieved for the development is 53%. This score meets best practice (which requires a score of at least 50%) and demonstrates the proposal adequately responds to the ESD objectives of Clause 22.05.
The SDA includes a STORM Rating Report showing a STORM rating of 101%. This meets the minimum requirement to satisfy Clause 22.18 in terms of on-site stormwater treatment.
Car Parking and Traffic
Clause 52.06 requires a three or more bedroom dwelling to have at least two car spaces. The development meets this requirement by providing a double car garage at basement level to each dwelling.
It is noted that Council’s Transport Engineers have reviewed the proiposal and did not raise any issues with car parking.
Garden Area:
Under the provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a lot with an area over 650 square metres requires 35% of the site to be Garden Area. This is a mandatory requirement of the zone that cannot be varied. Garden Area is defined by the Planning Scheme as:
An uncovered outdoor area of a dwelling or residential building normally associated with a garden. It includes open entertaining areas, decks, lawns, garden beds, swimming pools, tennis courts and the like. It does not include a driveway, any area set aside for car parking, any building or roofed area and any area that has a dimension of less than 1 metre
The application complies with the Garden Area requirement as 37% of the site is provided as
Garden Area.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:
• The proposal represents an acceptable response to the objectives and key characteristics of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7 – Californian Bungalow Significant Character Area.
• The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with ResCode (Clause 55) Objectives.
• The proposal satisfies Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development and Stormwater Management Policies.
Attachments
|1. |459-17 - 45 Washington Avenue - Council Report Attachments |Plans |
|RECOMMENDATION |
| |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 459/17 for the land located at 45 Washington Avenue, Malvern East be issued |
|under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two dwellings on a lot in the |
|Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Character Overlay subject to the following conditions: |
| |
|1. Before the commencement of the development (including demolition), one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be|
|submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the |
|application Council date stamped 3 April 2018 but modified to show: |
| |
|a. A section plan to demonstrate the basement and basement ramp maintains a headroom clearance of at least 2.2 metres in all vehicular |
|trafficable areas. |
| |
|b. A convex mirror on the southern side of the accessway at the property boundary (or similar) incorporated into the design to provide |
|appropriate sight lines towards the north to vehicles exiting the basement ramp. |
| |
|c. An annotation on the basement plan that the water tanks will be plumbed directly to all toilets for flushing. |
| |
|d. The two first floor balconies, accessed from the respective Bedroom 4 of each dwelling, deleted. |
| |
|e. Any recommendations of the Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report required by Condition 5. |
| |
|f. Any changes required by Condition 3 (SDA), Condition 4 (Tree Management Plan) and Condition 8 (Landscape Plan). |
| |
|g. The Tree Protection Zones and Tree Protection Fencing required by Condition 4 (Tree Management Plan) and Condition 5 (The Canary |
|Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report, if any) |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and |
|approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must |
|incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the |
|SDA must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The report must include, but not limited to, the following: |
| |
|a. Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable |
|Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed |
|b. Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards |
|c. Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved |
|d. Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring. |
|e. Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time. |
| |
|All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible |
|Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|4. 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 trees identified on the plans as Tree 2 (Brush |
|Box), Tree 3 (Box Elder), Tree 9 (Claret Ash) and Trees 10 and 11 (street trees). |
| |
|Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows: |
| |
|a. Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch|
|to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone. |
|b. During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots. |
|c. Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works |
|and regime can cease. |
| |
| |
|Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation |
|of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit. |
| |
|5. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans, a Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report must be prepared by a |
|suitably qualified arborist and submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Canary Island Date Palm |
|Relocation Investigation Report will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the report. |
| |
|The Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report must carry out the following: |
| |
|- An investigation to establish the size and location of the Palm’s root ball. This will establish if the tree can be relocated without |
|damage to the north boundary fence or neighbouring property. |
| |
|- If the tree can be relocated without damage to the fence and neighbouring property, the report must detail exactly how the relocation |
|is to occur and how the tree is to be protected during construction once relocation has occurred. |
| |
|- If the investigation concludes that a successful relocation will require the partial removal of the fence and access onto neighbour’s |
|property, the report must detail how this would occur and all reasonable efforts must be made by the permit holder to negotiate with the |
|neighbour so that these recommendations can be implemented and the tree relocated. |
| |
|- If the neighbour refuses to allow access to their property or the partial demolition of the fence and the permit holder can satisfy |
|Council that all reasonable steps have been made to relocate the tree but that its relocation is not possible due to this, the tree may |
|be removed from the site. |
| |
|6. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, all tree protection fencing as shown on the endorsed plans must |
|be erected and then maintained for the duration of the development. Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970. |
| |
|7. 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. |
| |
|8. 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 show: |
| |
|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 driveways |
|d. 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 site |
|f. Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas. |
| |
|9. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to |
|the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, |
|including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced. |
| |
|10. Prior to the commencement of all works, a security deposit of $13,205.00 must be lodged with Council to ensure the development will |
|not impact on the long term health of the two London Plane street trees in front of the site. This deposit will be refunded when Council|
|is satisfied that the health of this tree is not affected by the development. |
| |
|11. Prior to the endorsement of plans and prior to any development commencing on the site (including demolition and excavation whether or|
|not a planning permit is required), the owner/ developer must enter into a Deed with the Responsible Authority and provide it with two |
|separate bank guarantees of $10,000.00. The bank guarantees must be provided to the Responsible Authority as security against a failure |
|to protect the health of the following trees to be retained at the rear of the site: |
| |
|• Tree 2: Bush Box. |
|• Tree 3: Box Elder |
| |
|The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Deed, including those incurred by the responsible |
|authority. Once a period of 12 months has lapsed following the completion of all works at the site the Responsible Authority may |
|discharge the bank guarantee upon the written request of the obligor. At that time, the Responsible Authority will inspect the trees |
|and, provided they have not been detrimentally affected, the respective bank guarantee will be discharged. |
| |
|12. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development. |
| |
|13. 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. |
| |
|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. All drainage must be by means of a |
|gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be |
|constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design. |
| |
|15. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). |
| |
|16. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the|
|existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone|
|detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 2,500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD|
|requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets. |
| |
|17. Prior to the occupation of the development , areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must|
|be: |
| |
|a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. |
|c. Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat |
|d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|e. Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access|
|lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times |
| |
|18. Prior to the occupation of the building, any privacy screening devices as shown on the endorsed plans must be installed and |
|permanently fixed 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 |
| |
|• 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 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. |
| |
|• 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: |
| |
|o Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and |
|o Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit |
|expires. |
3. Planning Application 1122/17- 1 Maddock Street, Windsor VIC 3181- Partial demolition, Building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, Special Building Overlay and Heritage Overlay, a Restaurant and Café Liquor Licence and car parking dispensation associated with Restaurant and Office (as of right uses)
Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for Partial demolition, Building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, Special Building Overlay and Heritage Overlay, a Restaurant and Café Liquor Licence and car parking dispensation associated with Restaurant and Office (as of right uses) at 1 Maddock Street, Windsor.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Field Design Studio Pty Ltd |
|Ward: |South |
|Zone: |Clause 37.08 – Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1) |
|Overlay: |Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay (HO126) |
| |Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 3) |
| |Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay |
|Commercial Precinct |Chapel Street, Windsor |
|Date lodged: |25 October 2017 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting |60 |
|date) | |
|Trigger for referral to Council: |Number of objections |
|Number of objections: |17 objections from 16 properties. |
|Consultative Meeting: |Yes – held on 6 March 2018 |
|Officer Recommendation: |Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit |
BACKGROUND
The Proposal
The plans that form part of the basis of Council’s consideration were prepared by Field Design Studio and are filed under Project No. DP-AD-40258, Drawing No’s A-01 through A-21 (all Rev A), and are date stamped 23 March 2018.
Key features of the proposal are:
Demolition
• Internal walls are to be demolished.
• The existing roof will be largely demolished.
• The existing tinted glazing on the southern elevation (i.e. street elevation) is to be demolished.
• The existing northern external wall is to be demolished.
• An existing verandah facing Maddock Street is to be demolished.
• Some of the windows on the eastern elevation are to be removed.
Building and works
• A three storey building (plus a basement) is proposed, comprising a ground floor licensed restaurant and office space on the first and second floor levels.
• The proposed basement is to incorporate a commercial kitchen, which will be used to exclusively service the ground floor restaurant. A waste storage area and service areas are also proposed.
• The ground floor retains the existing boundary walls and will be converted to a licensed restaurant comprising a bar section, an open seating area and service areas.
• The first floor is to be constructed on the boundaries and aligned with the front façade of the existing building, containing a north facing outdoor space with an area of 14 sqm.
• The second floor is to be used as office space with service areas.
• The entry to the proposed ground floor restaurant is provided via a centrally located opening from Maddock Street.
• The entry to the office space at the first and the second floor levels is provided via an existing entrance door on the east elevation, abutting the unnamed lane.
• The maximum building height is 12m, measured from the natural ground level and shown on the proposed north elevation.
Liquor licence
• It is proposed to incorporate a Restaurant and Café Liquor Licence associated with the ground floor restaurant.
• The hours of liquor supply and consumption is proposed to be between 7am and 1am (the following day).
• The maximum number of patrons is 150.
The development plans that form the basis of this assessment are the Rev A plans (date stamped 23 March 2018). These plans were formally declared pursuant to Clause 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and supersede the originally advertised plans which do not have a revision number (date stamped 25 October 2017). The revised plans were submitted to respond to concerns raised by Council and objectors, and involve the following key changes:
• Use: the use as office is introduced on the first and the second floor levels. The original application was for the sole use of the land as a restaurant.
• Liquor licence: the maximum number of patrons is reduced from 200 to 150.
• Building and works: the original application proposed a double storey restaurant plus a roof terrace.
• Waste management: the waste storage space is provided on the basement floor.
It is noted that the revised plans were re-advertised in April 2018.
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the northern side of Maddock Street. It is approximately 28m west of the intersection with Chapel Street and directly opposite the Windsor Railway Station to the south.
The site has the following characteristics:
• The site is rectangular in shape, yielding a total site area of approximately 184sqm.
• The site provides a frontage of 6.7m to Maddock Street and a frontage of 26.8m to an unnamed lane to the immediate east.
• Pedestrian access is provided via Maddock Street; and no onsite parking arrangement is incorporated in the current condition.
The site is situated in the Chapel Street, Windsor Commercial Precinct, which forms part of the Chapel Street Activity Centre that accommodates a range of uses that are accessible to all and complement the role of the Activity Centre. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of commercial uses including shops, cafes and offices primarily situated along Chapel Street, along with residential uses to the west.
The site has four interfaces, which can be summarised as follows:
• To the immediate west is a five storey mixed use building addressed to 2 Maddock Street. This site is in the Activity Centre Zone and comprises a basement car park, a car park (part of the land at ground level), a food and drink premises (part of the land at ground level) and nineteen (19) dwellings on the upper levels. The food and drink premises is permitted to operate between 7.am and 11.00pm from Sunday to Friday; and 7.00am to 12.00 midnight on Saturday. Further to the west, the land is zoned in a General Residential Zone and occupied by Melbourne Bowling Club.
• To the immediate east, the front section of the site abuts an unnamed lane. On the opposite side of the lane are three properties addressed to 37-39 Chapel Street, 41 Chapel Street and 43 Chapel Street respectively. The land at 37-39 Chapel Street contains an ungraded single storey retail shop and is currently used as a tavern. The land at 41 and 43 Chapel Street contains an A2 graded double storey Victorian retail shop, comprising a ground floor shop and a first floor office. It is also noted that the rear section of the site adjoins the land at 45 Chapel Street, which is improved by a B-graded double storey retail shop, comprising a ground floor shop and a first floor dwelling.
• To the immediate south, the site abuts Maddock Street. On the opposite side of the street is Windsor Railway Station which also abuts Peel Street on its southern side. On the opposite side of Peel Street are the following properties:
¬ A five storey building with ground level commercial space and upper level dwellings at 174 Peel Street. The site is located within the Activity Centre Zone.
¬ A three storey mixed use building with commercial space located at the front and dwellings at the rear facing Albert Street at 170 Peel Street (also known as 153 Albert Street). The site is in a General Residential Zone and individually protected under a Heritage Overlay (HO92).
¬ Further to the west along Peel Street are dwellings and apartment buildings located within the General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
• To the immediate north is the land addressed to 3 Bowling Green Street, Windsor and currently used as a public car park under Council ownership. Further to the north are properties in the Activity Centre Zone, accommodating shopping, business, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:
• Planning Application No. 685/15 was Refused by Council on 21 December 2017 for the land at Windsor Station, 167 Peel Street, Windsor. The application proposed a restaurant and café liquor licence associated with part use of the land as a food and drink premises (café), on-premises liquor licence associated with part use of the land as a Tavern, a reduction in the car parking requirement and buildings and works in a Public Use Zone. The application was not appealed at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
• Planning Permit No. 176/15 was issued under delegation on 16 November 2015 for the land at Windsor Station, 167 Peel Street, Windsor. The permit allowed use and development of the land for a floodlit promotion sign in a Public Use Zone.
• Planning Application No. 175/15 was refused under delegation on 16 November 2015 for the land at Windsor Station, 167 Peel Street, Windsor. The application proposed the replacement of the existing promotion sign with a flood-lit promotion sign under Clause 52.05-5.
The Title
The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10704 Folio 743 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 383886Y and no covenants affect the land.
An easement with a width of 3.1m and a depth of 20.98m runs to the immediate east of the site, described as an appurtenant sewerage easement on the Certificate of Title.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone
Clause 37.08 – Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1)
Use
The proposal includes a restaurant (i.e. food and drink premises) on the ground floor and office space on the first and the second floors.
Restaurant
Pursuant to subsection 3.0 of the Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone, food and drink premises is a Section 1, which is categorised as a permit not required use, on the condition that the tenancy must be located at ground or first floor. As the proposal incorporates a restaurant on the ground floor, a planning permit is therefore not required for the proposed use as a restaurant (i.e. food and drink premises).
Office
Pursuant to subsection 3.0 of the Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone, office is a Section 1 (permit not required) use provided that the following conditions are met:
• Must not be located at ground floor on land designated for Main Street Uses
• Any frontage at ground floor must not exceed 2 metres
• Must not be located on land with a frontage to Percy Street in Sub-Precinct Greville Village-6 (GV-6)
The proposed office space is located on the first and the second floors; the ground floor does not exceed 2m and is located in Sub-Precinct Windsor Village-3. As such, the proposed use as an office falls into Section 1 Use, meaning a planning permit is not required for the proposed use as an office.
Building and works
Pursuant to subsection 4 of the Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone, a planning permit is required for the proposed building and works.
Overlay
Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay (HO126)
Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a planning permit is required to:
• Demolish or remove a building
• Construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 3)
Schedule 3 to Incorporated Plan Overlay references late night liquor licence trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: Measuring the saturation levels. It is noted that the provisions of this Schedule only apply to the following application types:
• To use land for the purpose of a licensed hotel, tavern or nightclub with a closing time after 12am
• To extend the purpose of a licensed hotel, tavern or nightclub beyond 12am
• To increase the number of patrons for a licensed hotel, tavern or nightclub that is operating after 12am.
As the proposal incorporates a restaurant at ground level, the provisions under the Schedule are not applicable.
Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay
Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Particular Provisions
Clause 52.06 – Car Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, before the floor area or site area of an existing use is increased, the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a planning permit is required to (but not limited to):
• Reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5
Pursuant to Table 1 under Clause 52.06-5, the required car parking spaces are summarised as follows:
Restaurant
• 0.4 car parking spaces to each patron
Office
• 3.5 to each 100sqm of net floor area
In the existing condition, the site is used as an office with a total area of 184sqm. In accordance with Clause 52.06, six car parking spaces should be provided. Currently, no onsite car parking spaces are provided.
In this proposal, the development incorporates a restaurant (with a maximum number of 150 patrons), and office space of 358sqm in total. Based on Clause 56.06-5, the proposal requires 60 car parking spaces for the restaurant; and 12 car parking spaces for the office space. As the proposal does not incorporate any onsite car parking spaces, a planning permit is therefore required for a waiver of car parking associated with the restaurant and the office space.
Clause 52.27 – Licensed Premises
Pursuant to Clause 52.27, a planning permit is required.
Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities
Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities are provided on the land. As stipulated in Table 1 to Clause 52.34-3, the required bicycle facilities provision is summarised as follows:
Restaurant
• For employee/residents, one to each 100 sqm of floor area available to the public
• For visitor/shopper/students, two plus one to each 200 sqm of floor area available to the public if the floor area available to the public exceeds 400 sqm
Office
• For employee/residents, one to each 300 sqm of net floor area if the net floor area exceeds 1000 sqm
• For visitor/shopper/students, one to each 1000 sqm of net floor area if the net floor area exceeds 1000 sqm
The proposed restaurant has a total floor area of 172 sqm that is available to the public. The provision of two bicycle facilities is therefore required. The proposed office space however does not exceed 1000 sqm, the Clause therefore is not triggered. Overall, as the proposal does not provide any bicycle facilities, a planning permit is required for a waiver to the bicycle facilities associated with the restaurant.
Relevant Planning Policies
|11.06 |Metropolitan Melbourne |
|15.01 |Urban Environment |
|15.03 |Heritage |
|17.01 |Commercial |
|21.03 |Vision |
|21.04 |Economic Development |
|21.06 |Built Environment and Heritage |
|21.09 |Reference Documents |
|22.04 |Heritage Policy |
|22.05 |Environmentally Sustainable Development |
|22.10 |Licensed Premises Policy |
|22.18 |Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) |
|37.08 |Activity Centre Zone |
|43.01 |Heritage Overlay |
|44.05 |Special Building Overlay |
|52.06 |Car Parking |
|52.27 |Licensed Premises |
|52.34 |Bicycle Facilities |
|65 |Decision Guidelines |
Advertising
Pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the application was first advertised in November 2017 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 were completed satisfactorily. 15 objections (from 14 affected properties) were received.
Key aspects of the objections during the initial advertising period are summarised below:
• Construction noise
• Noise impacts from the licensed premises and late night liquor supply
• Unpleasant social behaviours and associated safety concerns as a result of alcohol consumption
• Increased car parking congestion
• Visual bulk resulting in inconsistent design response with the character of the area
• Intrusion of privacy as a result of the roof terrace
• Inadequate onsite car parking arrangement
• Inadequate waste management
A Consultative Meeting was held on 6 March 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Stefanopoulos and Hindle, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in some changes to the advertised plans.
Key changes between the advertised and the revised plans are:
• Use: the ground floor remains to be a restaurant; however, the first and the second floor levels will be used for office only.
• Liquor Licence: the maximum number of patrons is reduced from 200 to 150.
• Waste management: the waste storage space is provided on the basement floor.
The revised plans were re-advertised. During the re-advertising period, 2 further objections were received and can be summarised as follows:
• Traffic congestion and inadequate car parking provision
• Noise generated from the late night liquor supply and consumption associated with the proposed restaurant
• Hours of operation
• Inadequate waste management
• Insufficient information regarding the internal fit-outs at all levels
No objections have been withdrawn.
Referrals
Melbourne Water
Comments were received on 19 December 2017, indicating that the site is not subject to flooding from a Melbourne Water drain or waterway; and thus no objection.
Heritage
Comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor were received on 6 December 2017 and summarised as below:
• This proposal is a relatively low key change to the existing building.
• It adjoins a new four storey apartment development and will have no detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the precinct.
• The proposal can be supported.
Planner notes
The above comments were based on the original proposal, in which the plans depicted a double storey restaurant plus a rooftop terrace. Council’s Heritage Advisor has stated that given the insignificance of the existing building and the immediate context where it sits in Maddock Street, the three-storey façade is not opposed. Details will be included in the assessment section below.
Waste Management
Comments from Council’s Waste Management Unit were received on 10 December 2017 and are summarised as follows:
• Provision must be made for the storage of waste bins within the curtilage of the property.
• The storage of waste bins from the subject property at 53 Chapel Street will not be considered.
• 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 should be submitted for approval.
In response to the revised plans, Council’s Waste Management Unit provided the following comments:
• A ‘Waste Bin Storage Area’ of approximately 19m2 is depicted on the basement plan. This area is sufficient to contain the waste bins required for this occupation.
• Any planning permit issued must include a condition specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan.
Planner notes
Relevant conditions will be included in the recommended conditions.
Infrastructure
Comments from Council’s Infrastructure Unit were received on 26 January 2018 and are summarised as follows:
• The applicable flood level is 17.11m meaning that the existing floor level of 17.39m is 280mm above the flood level which is in excess of our standard requirement of 200mm. Regardless, we would not be requiring that an existing floor level be raised for what is basically a refurbishment of a building.
• The following conditions should be included:
¬ The applicable flood level is 17.11m A.H.D. The floor level must not be lowered below the existing floor level of 17.39m.
¬ The proposed basement must be fully protected from the ingress of groundwater and flooding to the existing ground floor level (17.39m A.H.D). No windows, doors, vents or openings shall be located below 17.39m A.H.D.
Planner notes
Relevant conditions will be included in the recommended conditions.
Transport and Parking
Comments from Council’s Transport Unit were received on 4 December 2017 and are summarised as follows:
• As the site is located within an Activity Centre Zone and is part of the Windsor Village Precinct, the non-provision of car parking is considered satisfactory.
• The traffic generation is considered unlikely to negatively impact on the road network in the absence of onsite car parking provision.
• Further information is required regarding how loading will be managed for this site.
• Non-provision of bicycle facilities is considered unsatisfactory.
• Further information should be provided regarding the proposed waste management.
Planner notes
The non-provision of bicycle facilities and the revised waste management will be discussed in the assessment section below. With respect to the loading facilities, as a result of the VC142 gazetted on 16 January 2018, Clause 52.07 (loading and unloading facilities) was removed from the Scheme. Subsequently, new decision guidelines have been added to Clause 65. A detailed discussion will be included in the assessment below.
ESD
Planner notes
As discussed with Council’s ESD officer, key issues arising from the original proposal (i.e. a two storey restaurant plus a rooftop terrace) are related to the roof catchment area and the provision of Storm treatment.
The revised plans however employ a roofing structure above the second floor and consequently diminish the ‘rooftop terrace feature’ from the proposal. Furthermore, as the first floor and the second floor are converted to office space, key issues related to Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) would be in relation to the daylight access to office space and the Storm treatment. As the applicant has not provided an updated SDA report, standard conditions will be placed, requesting the submission of a SDA report concurrently with the endorsement of the plans.
Local Laws
Comments based on the original proposal were received on 25 January 2018 and are summarised as follows:
• Existing licensed premises include Two Lost Boys (closing at 11pm), Wonderland (closing at 1am), School of seven bells (closing at 11pm) and Railway Hotel (closing at 1am). The proposal would create a cluster of licensed premises in a geographical manner and will impact on the existing licensed premises.
• This proposal may have an impact on the area regarding noise. It may also cause congregation at closing time simply because “Wonderland” will be closing at the same time.
• This proposal will significantly impact on the locality in terms of patron numbers / noise especially when Wonderland closes at the same time.
• This proposal will not add any issues in nearby public spaces.
• Any potential litter issues should be resolved by way of the implementation of a waste management plan.
• Most licensed premises in this area have security out the front now. It would be the business operator’s responsibility to ascertain whether patrons will cause issues.
Planner notes
The above comments were based on the original proposal, which proposed a two-storey restaurant plus a licensed rooftop terrace. In the revised plans, the maximum number of patrons is reduced to 150 and the overall scale is lessened to encompass the ground floor only. Given the diminished extent, the revised proposal has addressed some of the above concerns. The revised plans however have been re-referred to Council’s Local Laws Unit.
Below is a summary of the second referral comments based on the re-advertised plans:
• The proposal would create a cluster of licensed premises in a geographical manner and will impact on the existing licensed premises.
• There is currently a lot of pedestrian activity in the Chapel Street precinct surrounding this premises. The proposal will significantly impact on the locality in terms of patron numbers or noise especially when Wonderland closes at the same time.
Asset Management
As the applicant proposed to use the eastern lane for property access, the application was referred to Council’s Asset Management Team for comments. Below is a summary of the referral comments:
• This laneway is listed on Council’s Register of public roads and is managed under the Road Management Act 2004.
• The lane is required for general public use because Chapel Street properties have legal access to this lane.
Planner comments
The proposed access from the lane will be discussed in the assessment below.
Urban Design
Planner notes
As discussed with Council’s Urban Design Advisor, the main concern is related to the pedestrian access from the eastern lane, as it may result in potential safety issues. A discussion will be included in the assessment below.
KEY ISSUES
With consideration of all submissions (including objections), referral comments and the relevant provisions and policies of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, key issues are discussed as follows:
Strategic Direction
At State Policy level, pursuant to Clause 11.01-3, Activity Centres has an objective to build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres.
At Local Policy level, pursuant to Clause 21.04 (Economic Development), key issues comprise (but not limited to):
- Acknowledging the need for activity centres to adapt to change by providing for a broader range of uses.
- Acknowledging Stonnington as a premier retail and tourism destination with its unique attractions and shopping strips and Chadstone and Chapel Street as the premier centres.
- Achieving the right balance of local and visitor uses, day and night-time uses, residential and commercial uses and retail and office / service uses.
- Making more efficient use of commercial land including existing shop tops.
Furthermore, Clause 22.10 (Licensed Premises Policy) applies to the proposal. The policy has objectives to effectively manage the amenity conflicts between licensed premises and other uses; and to establish an appropriate mix of licensed premises relative to other commercial, retail and residential uses within activity centres.
With respect to zoning controls, the site is located in an Activity Centre Zone, which has a purpose to ‘encourage a mixture of uses and the intensive development of the activity centre:
- As a focus for business, shopping, working, housing, leisure, transport and community facilities.
- To support sustainable urban outcomes that maximise the use of infrastructure and public transport.’
The site is situated in Precinct 4 – Windsor Village, which is divided into nine sub-precincts. The site is further identified in sub-precinct WV3, which encourages a diverse range of creative, educational, residential and community uses within the precinct.
The existing building is used as an office within a local environment of predominantly single to double storey commercial buildings along Chapel Street. It is also noted that recent development to this local environment consists of larger multi-level commercial and residential buildings along Maddock Street, Peel Street and to the further east of Chapel Street.
As outlined above, the planning provisions for the ACZ anticipate development accommodating a broader range of uses and making more use of commercial land including existing shop tops. The proposal incorporates a restaurant on the ground floor and office space on the first and the second floor levels. The proposed use is of a similar scale to the surrounding commercial buildings along Chapel Street. As the building is currently used as an office, the reinstated office space on the upper levels is consistent with what currently exists. With respect to the proposed restaurant, it is worth noting that licensed premises are not uncommon within the proximity, including a licensed café that is currently operating in the western adjoining building at 2 Maddock Street; and a tavern to the eastern abutting premises. The proposed restaurant is therefore considered to be consistent with a mixed use commercial environment.
Additionally, the site sits in a sub-precinct encompassing the immediate western and eastern sides of Chapel Street, the southern side of High Street and the northern side of the Windsor Railway Station. As outlined above, this sub-precinct (WV3) has a preferred building height of 12 metres (that contains no more than three storeys). Considering the character and function of an activity centre, the proposed three storey building is considered a reflection of the contemplated development within the sub-precinct WV3. Coupled with the proposed use, it measures favourably against the outlined policy requirements and is therefore supported by the policy direction.
Built Form
Heritage
As the site is affected by a Heritage Overlay, Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) and Stonnington Heritage Design Guidelines 2017 both apply.
The proposal incorporates partial demolition, comprising the removal of the structural framing of the existing openings (including the entry glazing on the Maddock Street façade), the removal of the existing roof and internal walls.
As a result of the proposed demolition works, the proposal incorporates an additional two levels above the existing building. As indicated at Clause 22.04-4, it is a policy to ensure that all upper level additions and alterations complement the height, scale and setbacks of any adjoining significant or contributory buildings; and present minimum bulk from oblique views. The Guidelines further elaborate the preferred scale, massing, height and setbacks; and identifies that greater upper level setbacks may be appropriate dependent on site context.
In this proposal, the proposed additions will be generally constructed to align with the ground floor layout and built on the boundaries. Windows are also proposed on the north, south and east elevations thereby ensuring daylight access to the upper level office space will not be unreasonably compromised. In conjunction with Council’s Heritage Advisor’s comments, the proposed works are considered to be acceptable.
Activity Centre Zone: Sub-precinct – WV3
For development along Maddock Street, the sub-precinct WV3 has a preferred maximum building height of 12m and directs that a building contains no more than three storeys. Relevant objectives (inter alia) are stated as follows:
• To ensure that new development responds sympathetically to the Activity Centre’s historical urban fabric, identity and character.
• To encourage innovative, high quality and well-designed buildings which complement the existing urban fabric and mixed use character of the Activity Centre.
• To create a vibrant, active place with passive surveillance of streets and other pedestrian and public spaces.
• To realise the principles of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
The proposal is considered to be an appropriate response for the following reasons:
• The proposal has an overall building height of 12m and presents a three storey commercial building to the street. It complies with the height controls stipulated in this sub-precinct.
• The proposal provides a sympathetic design and complements the key features of the existing building. In the absence of intact heritage streetscape, the proposal is considered respectful and responds appropriately to its context.
• The proposal incorporates a restaurant on the ground floor and office space on the first and the second levels. In terms of the use, the proposal is considered consistent with other mixed use buildings in the surrounds. Importantly, as demonstrated in the streetscape, the proposal generally reads as a cohesive design response to the prevailing character of the wider neighbourhood contained in the Windsor Village.
• The site is benefited from its physical setting, as it is located directly opposite the Windsor Railway Station and has an easy access to commercial services and public transportation along Chapel Street. The existing premises is used as office only. The proposal however will introduce a restaurant and expand the office space through upper level additions. As a result, the proposal will further activate Maddock Street and subsequently provide passive surveillance to the street.
• In terms of daylight access to the office space, it is noted that windows are provided to the north, south and east elevations thereby ensuring sufficient daylight access. Importantly, conditions would be placed, requiring an updated Sustainable Design Assessment report and the Water Sensitive Urban Design assessment so as to demonstrate the key principles stipulated in relevant planning provisions.
Floor plans
Objectors have raised concerns regarding the floor layouts and stated that more information should be provided. Upon review of the revised plans, the following elements are noted:
• Basement: the basement is proposed to service the ground floor restaurant and contains the kitchen area, storage and service areas. The information is considered sufficient in the planning permit application stage. Additionally, it is recommended to include a condition that requires clarifications regarding the exclusive use of the commercial kitchen associated with the proposed restaurant. This can be achieved by way of annotations.
• Ground floor: the ground floor is proposed to be used as a restaurant that contains a maximum number of 150 patrons. Key issues identified from the proposed ground floor plan are discussed as follows:
o Redline Plan: it is noted that a bar section is to be incorporated as part of the ground floor layout. The proposed redline plan does not include all licensed areas in the proposed restaurant. Conditions therefore should be included, requesting the seating arrangement (i.e. tables and chairs) to be shown on the plans, the maximum number of patrons to be clearly nominated and amendments to the redline plan in accordance with the requirements set out by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulations (VCGLR).
o Rear access: the proposal incorporates an entry/exit door from the rear (i.e. northern) boundary. It is also noted that the location of the proposed door has no access to any public road, rather, it provides a direct access from a public car park to the premises. This cannot be supported as this door would create a direct link between Council land and the private tenancy. A condition will therefore be included, requiring the removal of this rear access door.
o Access from the eastern lane: the application includes two pedestrian doors along the western elevations. The southernmost door is an existing door and is proposed to provide access to the ground floor restaurant and upper level offices. This arrangement is not opposed, considering that it is an existing condition; and the setback of approximately 7m from Maddock Street would allow a level of passive surveillance. The northernmost new door is proposed to provide additional access to the bar section contained in the restaurant. This is not supported with the following considerations:
ϖ First and foremost, this door is located approximately 15m from Maddock Street. Given the distance, it is unlikely that any activities in this area can be seen from the street, which consequentially reduce the opportunities of passive surveillance.
ϖ Furthermore, the main entry (to the restaurant) is provided via Maddock Street, accompanied with an existing door on the eastern interface. The provision of access entries is considered adequate and sufficient, and the northerly located door therefore is not considered to have a positive contribution to the proposal.
ϖ Additionally, the eastern lane is recognised as a public road, registered on titles of the abutting land along Chapel Street. There are safety concerns associated with individuals using the northernmost door.
Built Form Amenity Impacts
As discussed in the site and surrounds section, adjoining the site to the west is a five storey mixed building, with all storeys except for the ground floor consisting of dwellings.
Importantly, the building at 2 Maddock Street has smaller floor to ceiling heights than what is proposed in this application. This means that the top of the proposed building at 1 Maddock Street (i.e. the top of the third storey) will sit approximately halfway up the existing fourth storey (third floor) of the development at 2 Maddock Street. There are two dwellings on the eastern side of this level at 2 Maddock Street that have balconies that abut the title boundary. The proposal will result in built form that extends higher than the existing eastern balcony balustrade that serves these dwellings, meaning there will be additional overshadowing impacts during the morning times along with additional visual bulk impacts. Currently the east facing balcony balustrade is 1.1m high above finished balcony floor level. The proposed western wall will result in a wall height of 3m above finished balcony floor level (an increase of 1.9m). It is considered that the amenity impacts associated with this change are not unreasonable in this context. The affected balconies are among the largest balconies in the 2 Maddock Street development, and the increased wall presence on the eastern boundary will result in a similar situation to the balconies to the easternmost dwellings on the first and second floor levels, all of which are flanked by a solid blind wall on the eastern side. A condition will be included to ensure that all new walls on the boundary will be finished to a satisfactory level.
It is also noted that due to the blind eastern wall on the boundary for the first three levels of the 2 Maddock Street building, this proposal will not have any unreasonable amenity impacts to the dwellings on the lower levels.
Licensed Premises
Use
Both Clause 22.10 and Clause 52.27 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are applicable to the assessment of this application. As identified within Clause 22.10, Council’s Saturation Policy 2010 indicates that most harm generated from late night venues with either General or On Premises licences operating after 12.00am defined as Source of Potential Harm Venues.
The proposal incorporates a restaurant with a maximum of 150 patrons and will operate under a Restaurant and Café liquor licence between 7.00am and 1.00am (the following day) daily.
As stated in Clause 22.10, it is policy that licensed premises should not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the surrounding uses in relation to noise, hours of operation, light spill, and car parking demand and the potential spill of car parking into residential areas; and the surrounding uses and zoning should be considered when determining the hours of trading for a licensed premises, to address any potential amenity impacts. Importantly, Clause 22.10 specifically directs that liquor trading after 11.00pm should be designated to Principal Activity Centres subject to compliance with other aspects of relevant planning provisions; and trading after 11:00pm is discouraged for licensed premises adjacent to a residential zone/use unless the responsible authority is satisfied that the use will not adversely affect the amenity of the area.
Whilst acknowledging the site forms part of the Windsor Village Precinct (i.e. an Activiti Centre Zone), as identified in Clause 21.03, the site sits in a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (rather than a Principal Activity Centre). As such, in accordance with Clause 22.10 and Clause 52.27, the key issue is whether the proposed licensed premises will cause an unacceptable loss of amenity for the surrounds.
In conjunction with the referral comments from Councils Local Laws Unit, it is evident that the proposal would contribute to the existing cluster of licensed premises located in close proximity to each other in Windsor. In saying this, it is acknowledged that the licensed venues within the cluster area are diverse in nature, with the majority being restaurants and cafes which are considered to have lower amenity impacts. Additionally, the proposal may impact on congregation in the street at closing time due to a number of venues closing at 11.00pm and 1.00am respectively.
Licensed hours
The site interacts with the following premises:
• To the immediate west, the land at 20/2 Maddock Street is operated under an on-premises liquor licence (permitted under Planning Permit 225/08), with a maximum number of 56 patrons and operation hours of 7.00am to 11.00pm from Sunday to Friday; and 7.00am to 12.00 midnight on Saturday.
• To the immediate east (as outlined above), the land at 37-39 Chapel Street is permitted to be used as a tavern under Planning Permit 784/05. The permit allows the operation under an on-premises licence with a maximum number of 175 patrons between 10.00am to 1.00am from Sunday to Thursday; and 10.00am to 1.00am (the following morning) on Friday and Saturday.
• To the south, the land at 33-35 Chapel Street is operated to supply and consume liquor under Planning Permit 941/11. The permit allows for a Restaurant and Café liquor licence with a maximum number of 20 patrons between 6.00am and 11.00pm.
• Further to the south, the land at 25-29 Chapel Street is permitted to be used as a hotel (commonly known as Railway Hotel) under Planning Permit 1308/01. The permit allows the sale and consumption of liquor occur between the hours of:
o Sunday: 10.00am to 1.00am (the following morning)
o Good Friday & Anzac Day: 12.00pm to 1.00am (the following morning)
o Monday to Wednesday: 7.00am to 1.00am (the following morning)
o Thursday to Saturday: 7.00am to 3.00am (the following morning)
The subject site is adjacent to a mixed use building to its immediate west, which contains nineteen (19) apartments. As the policy (at Clause 22.10) states that trading after 11.00pm is discouraged for licensed premises adjacent to residential zone/use, it is recommended that the proposed liquor licence should be reduced and kept in line with the adjacent licensed premises. Specifically, the recommended hours of liquor supply are proposed to be:
• Sunday to Thursday: 7.00am to 11.00pm
• Friday and Saturday: 7.00am to 12.00am (the following morning)
Patron numbers
With respect to maximum patron capacity, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulations (VCGLR) provides a liquor licensing fact sheet, which states that the number of patrons that may be accommodated on the internal premises and (if applicable) on any external areas of the premises based on a ratio of one person per 0.75 square metres. The Sheet also identifies that the area of the premises is referred to the space available to the public including the internal premises and outdoor courtyards or decks but excluding toilets, passageway and the like.
As shown on the floor plans, it is noted that the proposal presents an area of 172sqm available to the public resulting in a maximum capacity of 229 patrons. The proposal incorporates a maximum number of 150 patrons and thus complies with relevant regulations.
Noise
In response to the original proposal, objectors raised concerns regarding the noise emanating from the rooftop terrace as a result of liquor supply and consumption. As the revised plans indicate that the licensed area is confined to the ground floor layout and the second storey is converted to be a roofed office, any potential noise impact from the upper levels would be diminished.
With consideration of the revised plans, it is indicated that the licensed premises will incorporate background music only; and no live or amplified music is proposed. This will be reinforced by way of conditions on any permit issued. Objectors have concerns regarding the safety and potential social impact as a result of alcohol consumption. It is therefore recommended to include conditions requiring the submission of a Noise and Amenity Action Plan (NAAP). Furthermore, as recommended above, the liquor supply will be reduced to 11.00pm from Sunday and Thursday; and 12.00am on Fridays and Saturdays by way of conditions. Based on this, the potential impact arising from late night liquor trading will be reduced. Additionally, it is noted that an access door is provided between the internal seating and the outdoor seating at the rear. A condition will also be placed, requiring the installation of a self-closing door so as to minimise the internal noise emanating from the premises.
Car parking, bicycle facilities and loading
Car parking reduction
The proposal generates a requirement for a total of 60 car spaces for the restaurant and 12 car spaces for the offices. As confirmed by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit, there are no concerns with the proposed car parking reduction given the location of the site within an activity centre and directly opposite a train station (i.e. Windsor Railway Station).
Furthermore, as identified in Clause 52.06-7 (Car parking), before granting a permit to reduce the number of spaces, the responsible authority must consider the following (inter alia):
• The availability of alternative car parking in the locality of the land
• The practicality of providing car parking on the site, particularly for lots of less than 300 square metres.
• Any adverse economic impact a shortfall of parking may have on the economic viability of any nearby activity centre.
• The character of the surrounding area and whether reducing the car parking provision would result in a quality/positive urban design outcome
In response to the above design guidelines, the car parking reduction is considered acceptable with the following consideration:
1. The site is located within an activity centre where a wide range of public transport service the premises. In accordance with the local policy direction, the use of more sustainable modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport) are encouraged. It is noted that the subject site is highly accessible by major forms of public transport being located opposite Windsor Railway Station, within approximately 50 metres from trams on Chapel Street and approximately 140 metres from trams on Dandenong Road.
2. The narrow nature of the site (less than 300sqm) has rendered any onsite parking arrangement impractical.
3. The site abuts a public car park to the immediate north, which provides an alternative parking option for future patrons and office workers.
4. Additionally, it is worth considering Planning Practice Note 22 Using the Car Parking Provisions, which suggests that car parking issues should not dominate when assessing an application for a use or development. Specifically, the Practice Note states:
Where a change of use or a relatively small extension is consistent with the strategic plan for the centre and car parking cannot easily be provided, it will often be more sensible to reduce the car parking requirement rather than prevent the use or development. Some activity centres will have excellent public transport access, ample car parking or mainly serve local customers who arrive on foot. In such circumstances, an increase in business and activity would increase the overall viability of the centre, and the reduced number of car trips would provide positive impacts.
Based on the above, it is considered that the proposed car parking reduction is acceptable for this application.
Bicycle facilities
The proposal results in a requirement of two bicycle facilities. The proposal however does not incorporate any bicycle facilities. Given that the car parking reduction is to be sought in this proposal, it is important to ensure the provision of bicycle facilities.
Moreover, as shown on the basement floor plan, the layout would allow for the adequate inclusion of bicycle facilities. It is therefore recommended to include a condition requiring the provision of two bicycle facilities.
Loading
As the permit trigger (regarding the loading and unloading facilities) has been removed from the Scheme, relevant decision guidelines at Clause 65 must be taken into consideration.
In this proposal, in relation to loading associated with the proposed use (i.e. the restaurant), it is assumed that delivery of goods to the premises could occur via the nearby Loading Zone parking space on Chapel Street. Goods will then be trolleyed into the kitchen at basement level.
Amenity Impact
As the site interfaces with apartment building to the immediate west, residents from this apartment building are concerned that the granting of a permit for the sale and consumption of liquor will contribute to the cumulative impact of licensed premises within the area; and inevitably lead to conflicts between residents and a business that is related to late night liquor consumption.
Sub-clause 2 of Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone sets out objectives of amenity, which are outlined as follows:
• To enhance the liveability of the area and ensure that the Activity Centre provides a high quality environment.
• To manage potential and existing conflicts between residential amenity and hospitality and entertainment uses.
• To ensure the appropriate location and scale of residential, hospitality and entertainment uses so as to contribute to the liveability and role of the Activity Centre.
• To protect and enhance amenity within the Activity Centre and surrounding established residential neighbourhoods.
The proposal is considered a satisfactory response to the above objectives for the following reasons:
• The proposal introduces a mixed use building to the area and satisfies the purpose of the Activity Centre Zone, which encourages a mixture of uses within the activity centre.
• As reiterated above, the site is benefited from its location, given the close proximity to the Windsor Railway Station and a diverse range of services provided along Chapel Street. The location and its associated physical setting would support a development that revitalises the commercialised nature of the area and contributes to the liveability of Windsor Village.
• To the immediate west, the site abuts a mixed use building which contains 19 dwellings. The issue of this particular interface is whether the proposal would create an unacceptable outcome to the residential use. Considerations are stated as follows:
o New development proposed between commercial and residential zone is not uncommon. It is a widely accepted principle that residents adjacent to a Commercial zone (i.e. an Activity Centre Zone in this case) cannot expect the same level of amenity as residents in the residential hinterland. However, this principle also works in reverse: a commercial business adjacent to a residential zone cannot expect the same level of flexibility as a business in a commercial hinterland. A balance is therefore required. The nearby residents should reasonably accept that the existing neighbourhood contains diverse commercial uses which have given rise to some impacts on their residential amenity. Similarly, business operators should recognise and respect the nearby neighbour’s desire to live without unacceptable amenity impacts. In this proposal, the applicant has revised plans to demonstrate that impact associated with the proposed use including noise and patron movement has been reduced to the contemplated minimum level; and condition will be included to reduce hours of liquor to 11pm from Sunday to Thursday; and 12am (the following day) on Fridays and Saturdays. This is considered an overall improvement to the original proposal.
o With respect to the noise, as discussed above, the licensed area will be confined to the ground floor and the originally proposed rooftop terrace will be converted to a roofed office. Any potential noise therefore will be largely contained inside the licensed premises and is not expected to cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts. Additionally, to ensure that no unreasonable noise emanating from the premises, conditions will be placed to ensure the compliance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 and State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2.
o Furthermore, as a result of the reduced hours of liquor supply (recommended), the potential amenity impacts will be lessened.
o The residents stated that the proposal would result in anti-social behaviour by patrons as a result of alcohol consumption. What must be emphasised here is that the proposal seeks for a Restaurant and Café Liquor Licence.
According to Planning Practice Note 61 – Licensed Premises: Assessing Cumulative Impact, it states:
Premises that provide little or no seating are associated with excessive alcohol consumption and potential for increased violence. Patrons from these venues are therefore more likely to have an adverse impact on the surrounding area.
Venues that serve food or meals are shown to be less at risk of excessive alcohol consumption. This does not include venues that only serve basic snacks.
In this proposal, the use will operate as a restaurant. A condition will be placed, ensuring that the predominant activity will be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the premises and that tables and chairs be placed in a position so as to be available for at least 75% of patrons attending the premises at any time. Furthermore, as this is not an application for a General Licence or Tavern Licence, it is very unlikely to attract a different type of patrons and/or different forms of alcohol consumption in the premises that may give rise to anti-social behaviour and adverse amenity impacts on nearby residents. The application does not have the characteristics of one that may lead to excessive alcohol consumption and the related undesirable impacts on local amenity.
o The residents also have concerns regarding the waste management and associated collection. A condition requiring a Waste Management Plan will be placed to ensure collection of waste will be conducted in an acceptable manner. Additionally, it is also recommended to include a condition that requires the disposal of empty bottles in bins during daytime hours only, to further minimise any impacts.
In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not produce an unacceptable amenity impact subject to conditions.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Attachments
|1. |PA - 1 Maddock Street Windsor - Attachment 1 of 1 |Plans |
|RECOMMENDATION |
| |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for Planning Application No: 1122/17 for the |
|land located at 1 Maddock Street, Windsor for partial demolition, building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, Special Building Overlay|
|and Heritage Overlay, a Restaurant and Café Liquor Licence and car parking dispensation associated with Restaurant and Office (as of |
|right uses) subject to the following conditions: |
| |
|1. Before the commencement of the use and development, one electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be |
|submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.|
|The plans must be generally in accordance with the application plans known as Drawing No’s A-01 to A-20 (Council date stamped 23 March |
|2018) but amended to show: |
|a) At basement level, annotations to be included, stating that the commercial kitchen provides exclusive use associated with the ground |
|floor restaurant |
|b) The ground floor redline plan to be updated, encompassing all licensed areas, stating that the use of this level as a restaurant, |
|depicting the seating arrangement (i.e. tables and chairs) and the number of patrons |
|c) The ground floor entry/exit door (between the outdoor dining and the internal seating) along the northern elevation must be an |
|acoustically treated self-closing door |
|d) On the north elevation, the access door between the public car park and the subject site to be deleted; and no access to be provided |
|e) On the east elevation, the northernmost door to be deleted |
|f) A minimum of two bicycle facilities to be shown on the proposed basement floor plan |
|g) Any amendments required by Condition 5 (a Waste Management Plan) |
|h) Any amendments required by Condition 6 (a Noise and Amenity Action Plan) |
|i) Any amendments required by Condition 7 (a Sustainable Design Assessment Plan) |
|j) Any amendments required by Condition 18 and 19 with no subsequent increase in the overall building height |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|3. A maximum overall number of 150 patrons may be housed in the ground floor restaurant at any one time to the satisfaction of the |
|Responsible Authority. |
| |
| |
| |
|4. Liquor supply associated with the ground floor restaurant hereby permitted must operate only during the following hours: |
|• Sunday to Thursday: 7.00am and 11.00pm |
|• Friday and Saturday: 7.00am and 12.00am (the following day) |
| |
|5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The |
|Waste Management Plan must include: |
|a) Dimensions of waste areas. |
|b) The location of bin storage on site. |
|c) The number of bins to be provided. |
|d) Method of waste and recyclables collection. |
|e) Hours of waste and recyclables collection. |
|f) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection. |
| |
|When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in |
|accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|6. Prior to the commencement of the use, a Noise and Amenity Action Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority |
|containing the following information: |
|a) The identification of all noise sources associated with the licensed premises (including, but not limited to, music noise, external |
|areas allocated for smokers, queuing lines, entries and exits to the premises and courtyards). |
|b) Hours of operation for all parts of the premises. |
|c) The identification of noise sensitive areas including residential uses and accommodation in close proximity to the licensed premises. |
|d) Measures to be undertaken to address all noise sources identified, including on and off-site noise attenuation measures. |
|e) Details of staffing arrangements including numbers and working hours of all security staff. |
|f) Standard procedures to be undertaken by staff in the event of a complaint by a member of the public, the Victoria Police, an |
|authorised officer of the responsible authority or an officer of the liquor licensing authority. |
|g) Location of lighting within the boundaries of the site, security lighting outside the licensed premises and any overspill of lighting.|
|h) Details of waste management plan including storage and hours of collection for general rubbish and bottles, and delivery times |
|associated with the licensed premises. |
|i) Details of any measures to work with neighbours or other residents in the immediate area to address complaints and general operational|
|issues. |
| |
|7. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) 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 SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must |
|include, but not limited to, the following: |
|a) Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable |
|Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed |
| |
| |
|b) Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards |
|c) Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved |
|d) Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring. |
|e) Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time. |
| |
|All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible |
|Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Design Assessment may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|8. The predominant activity carried out at all times on the licensed premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for |
|consumption on the licensed premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|9. Tables and chairs must be placed in position on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending |
|the premises at any one time, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|10. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Design |
|Assessment, 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 |
|Design Assessment have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan. |
| |
|11. No live or amplified music may be provided within the food and drink premises (i.e. the ground floor restaurant) hereby approved to |
|the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|12. The provision of music on the premises must be limited to background music unless with the written consent of the Responsible |
|Authority. |
| |
|13. Prior to the commencement of use / occupation of the building, the applicant must display a sign at the exit of the premises advising|
|patrons to respect the amenity of adjacent residential areas and to leave in a quiet and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the |
|Responsible Authority. |
| |
|14. Bottles and rubbish must not be removed from within the premises between the hours of 10pm and 7am the following day. |
| |
|15. Noise emanating from the subject land must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public |
|Premises) No. N-2, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from the |
|food and drink premises (i.e. ground floor restaurant) are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of |
|the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
| |
| |
|16. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of |
|the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|17. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council collection) must be in |
|accordance with Council's General Local Laws. |
| |
|18. The applicable flood level is 17.11m A.H.D. The floor level must not be lowered below the existing floor level of 17.39m. |
| |
|19. The proposed basement must be fully protected from the ingress of groundwater and flooding to the existing ground floor level (17.39m|
|A.H.D). No windows, doors, vents or openings shall be located below 17.39m A.H.D. |
| |
|20. 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. |
| |
|21. 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. |
| |
|22. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site. |
| |
|23. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of|
|use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of |
|the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|24. 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. |
| |
|25. Prior to the occupation of the building/ commencement of use, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned |
|and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|26. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: |
|a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. |
|b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. |
|c) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit. |
|d) The use is discontinued for a period of two years or more. |
| |
|In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within |
|the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition. |
| |
| |
|Notes |
|A. This permit is for the use of the land and buildings and works and does not constitute any authority to conduct a business requiring |
|Health Act/Food Act registration without prior approval from the Councils Health Services. |
| |
|B. 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. |
| |
|C. Unless a permit is not required under the Stonnington Planning Scheme, signs must not be constructed or displayed without a further |
|planning permit. |
| |
|D. Background music level, in relation to premises, means a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 |
|millimetres without having to raise their voices to a substantial level. |
| |
|E. This property is located in a Heritage Overlay and planning permission may be required to demolish or otherwise externally alter any |
|existing structures. External alterations include paint removal and any other form of decoration and works, but does not include |
|re-painting an already painted surface. |
| |
|F. This permit does not give any authority to occupy the footpath for trading without prior approval from Council's Local Laws |
|department. A permit must be obtained for footpath trading and it must accord with the relevant Footpath Trading Code. |
4. Planning Application 1015/17- 41 Mathoura Road, Toorak VIC 3142- Construction of a Multi-Dwelling Development in a General Residential Zone
Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone at 41 Mathoura Road Toorak.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Contour Consultants Aust. P/L |
|Ward: |North |
|Zone: |General Residential Zone-Schedule 10 |
|Overlay: |Nil |
|Neighbourhood Precinct: |Garden Suburban 1 |
|Date lodged: |03 October 2017 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)|34 |
|Trigger for referral to Council: |More than seven (7) objections |
|Number of objections: |Fourteen (14) |
|Consultative Meeting: |Yes – held on 15 February 2018 |
|Officer Recommendation: |Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit |
BACKGROUND
The Proposal
The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Demaine Partnership PTY LTD dated March 2018 Revision 01 and are known as Drawing No’s: TP101, TP102, TP103, TP104, TP105, TP201, TP202, TP203, TP204, TP205, TP206, TP207 and Council date stamped 22 May 2018, as well Drawing No’s TP110, TP111, TP106, TP107, TP108, TP109, TP112 and TP113, Council Date Stamped 30 November 2017.
Landscape Concept Plans dated September 2017 TP01, TP02 and Council date stamped 3 October 2017 prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects, and an Acoustic Report dated 7 September 2017 and Council date stamped 3 October 2017 have also been submitted.
The application seeks to construct a three storey apartment building containing 7 dwellings (2 x two bedroom and 5 x three-bedroom) over basement car parking. The proposed building has a maximum height of 10 metres. A total of 15 car spaces are provided in the basement (14 resident and 1 visitor), with access proposed from Mathoura Road.
The development will involve the demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site. Key features of the proposal are:
• Demolition of the existing building (no permit is required).
• Basement car parking:
− 14 Resident spaces and 1 visitor space with bin storage room and multiple storage areas associated with each apartment.
− Provision of seven (7) bicycle spaces within the storage spaces.
− The existing shared vehicle crossing with the adjoining dwelling to the north is proposed to be widened and will provide vehicle access to the car park within the Basement.
• The ground floor level includes three Apartments (1 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom).
• The first floor level includes three Apartments (1 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom).
• The second floor level includes one Apartment (1 x 3 bedroom).
• The main entrance to the building is accessed from Mathoura Road leading to a roofed entrance lobby.
• Private open space for each Apartment will be provided in the form of courtyards and terraces varying in size between 10.4 square metres and 132 square metres.
• A shared 136 square metre rooftop garden is proposed in the eastern aspect of the building.
• A 2m high rendered ‘sandy day’ coloured fence with wrought iron gates is proposed along the Mathoura Road frontage.
• The building presents a contemporary architectural style. Materials and finishes include a combination of render, powder coated window frames, metal balustrading, decorative louvered screening, and slate roofing.
• Four existing onsite trees are proposed for removal; a Malus ioensis CV, Camellia japonica, Jacaranda mimosifolia and a Betula pendula which are all classified as having poor-fair health and of low retention value. It is noted none of these trees would be defined as ‘significant’ under Council’s Local Laws Policy.
• The proposal results in 60.9% site coverage; 67% basement coverage and 19.4% site permeability.
The plans Council date stamped 22 May 2018 were formally submitted to Council as revised application plans to address officer concerns regarding the proposed removal of the ‘significant’ Coral tree located in the rear setback as well as the extent of linear built form across the site.
These plans show the following changes:
• The retention of the existing Erithryna grista - galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) located to the rear of the site.
• Raised FFL of 100mm to all levels without an increase in overall building height, resulting in the Ground Floor internal FFL increased from RL21.63 to RL21.93 (i.e. 300mm). This was achieved by reducing the floor to ceiling heights of each level by 100mm and addresses concerns raised by Council’s Infrastructure Department with regard to potential flooding of the building.
• At ground floor, the rear setback for Apartment G3 has been reduced from 5.245 metres to 4.384 metres, however towards the centre of the Apartment G-3, the building has been setback a further 1.8 metres (4.45 metres increased to 6.25 metres).This has resulted in minor amendments to the internal apartment layout and rear private open space area of Apartment G3.
• At first floor, the minimum rear setback of Apartment 1.3 has been increased by 1.94 metres (4.45 metres to 6.39 metres). In addition, the balcony of Apartment 1.3 has been amended to eliminate the side sections, resulting in a smaller balcony area (35.1 square metres to 12.6 square metres).
• At second floor, the minimum rear setback of the Penthouse has been increased by 750mm (7.21 metres to 7.96 metres).
• Introduction of a visitor car parking space within the basement car park. This has been achieved through allocating a previous resident space of Apartment 1.2 to a visitor space.
Both the application plans (Council date stamped 30 November 2017 Revision 01) and the amended plans (Council date stamped 22 May 2018 Revision 01) will form the basis of assessment.
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the western side of Mathoura Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:
• The site is rectangular in shape with a total frontage to Mathoura Road of 19.2 metres, a length of 61 metres and a total area of 1,164 square metres.
• The land is currently occupied with a single storey rendered brick dwelling with a brick bungalow and swimming pool located to the rear of the site. The dwelling is setback 8.3 metres from Mathoura Road.
• The subject site features a fall of approximately 1.6 metres from east to west (front to rear).
• There are some substantial trees along the southern and western boundaries.
• Access to the site is via a u-shaped accessway, accessible via two crossovers at the northern and southern boundaries.
• It should be noted that the fence line for a section along the northern boundary is located inside the title boundary. For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that the title will be re-established to reflect the current physical fencing arrangements.
The wider area is residential in nature and displays a mixed character in terms of building scale and architectural style, including single storey period dwellings dating to the Victorian and Federation era, semi detached double storey Victorian terraces as well as post war multi storey developments of up to three and four storeys. It is apparent that Mathoura Road is experiencing a transition in built form, with a number of contemporary multi-dwelling developments interspersed amongst the period homes including No.40 Mathoura Road, No.51 Mathoura Road, No. 82 Mathoura Road, No. 88 Mathoura Road, No.103 Mathoura Road, and No. 105 Mathoura Road. Along the western side of the Mathoura Road, to which the subject site exists, setbacks on of Mathoura Road are generally 7 to 8 metres.
Many of the buildings in Mathoura Road are rather robust within the public realm. Little can be seen of the ground floor of many buildings due to the high solid front fences. The first floor and second floors and roofs are clearly visible and it is the upper levels that provide the principle contribution to the streetscape. The ground floor of buildings are generally concealed by typically high front fences. Most buildings have tall, sheer walls, with little articulation between the ground and first floors. Pitched roofs and chimneys also add to the verticality of the built form.
Immediately located to the north, the subject site shares an interface with three properties. For the majority of the site, the site abuts a single storey rendered brick dwelling with pitched roof at No.43 Mathoura Road. The dwelling features a front setback of approximately 7.7 metres to Mathoura Road. Secluded private open space is located both to the rear and north of the property, including moderate vegetation. Vehicle access to the site is via a shared crossover shared with the subject site located in the south-east corner of the site. The dwelling is setback a minimum of 1.3 metres from the common site boundary and contains one habitable room window along its southern façade that faces the subject site. To the east of 43 Mathoura Road, abutting the rear northern boundary of the subject site are the rear secluded private open space areas of semi-detached single storey dwellings at 50 and 52 Ellerslie Place. The dwellings are setback a minimum of 13 metres from the common site boundary.
Immediately located to the south is a single storey brick dwelling with pitched roof at No.39 Mathoura Road. The dwelling features a front setback of approximately 11 metres to Mathoura Road. Secluded private open space is located to the rear of the property, including relatively dense vegetation. Vehicle access to the site is via a single crossover located in the north-east corner of the site. The dwelling is setback a minimum of 2.4 metres from the common site boundary and contains four habitable room windows along its northern façade that face the subject site. The dwelling also borders the railway reserve to its south.
Immediately located to the west is the rear private open space of a double storey dwelling at No.48 Ellerslie Place, including relatively dense vegetation.
Opposite the subject site to the east are two Victorian double storey terraces at No.36-38 Mathoura Road and a three storey multi dwelling development at 40 Mathoura Road which is currently under construction and nearing completion.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications.
The Title
The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 05269 Folio 717 and no covenants or easements affect the land.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone
Clause 32.08 - General Residential Zone (Schedule 10)
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone contains a mandatory height limit 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.
It is noted that the site is subject to a 3.1 degree slope which is wider than 8 metres. The mandatory height for the site is therefore 10 metres.
Schedule 10 also includes modified ResCode standards as follows:
| |Standard |Requirement |
|Site Coverage |A3 and 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 |A10 and B17 |For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting|
| | |the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from |
| | |at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to |
| | |3.6 metres in height. |
| | | |
| | |Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies. |
|Walls on Boundaries |A11 and B18 |Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5m behind the front|
| | |facade of the building fronting the street. |
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 (Construction or extension of a dwelling or residential building
Minimum garden area requirement) the following applies:
Whether or not a planning permit is required for the construction or extension of a dwelling or residential building on a lot, a lot must provide the minimum garden area at ground level as set out in the following table:
[pic]
As the subject site has an area in excess of 650 square metres, a minimum 35% of the lot must be set aside for garden area at the ground level. The application plans confirm that 35% garden area is provided as part of this development. It is noted that the amended plans include increased setbacks to the rear of the building at ground floor and reduce the roofed area of the rear balcony at first floor, therefore the garden area as per the amended plans will increase. Permit conditions will however require a revised garden area plan in accordance with the amended plans demonstrating the site achieves a minimum garden area of 35%.
Overlay
The site is not affected by any planning overlays.
Clause 52.06-5:
A dwelling requires the following rates:
• 1 parking space for each one or two bedroom dwelling;
• 2 parking spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling;
• 1 parking space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for the developments of 5 or more dwellings.
The proposed development includes 2 two-bedroom dwellings and 5 three-bedroom dwellings which generates a requirement for 12 car parking spaces and 1 visitor space (total 13 spaces required). The development proposes a total of 15 car parking spaces inclusive of 1 visitor car space which exceeds the requirement. A permit is not therefore required for a reduction pursuant to clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot
A proposal to construct two or more dwellings on a lot must meet the relevant objectives of Clause 55. As noted above, Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone includes variations to Standards B8 (Site coverage), B13 (Landscaping), B17 (Side and rear setbacks) and B18 (Walls on boundaries). The applicable variations are discussed in the assessment section below.
Relevant Planning Policies
Clause 11 (Settlement)
Clause 12 (Environmental and Landscape Values)
Clause 16 (Housing)
Clause 21.03 (Vision for the City of Stonnington)
Clause 21.05 (Housing)
Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage)
Clause 22.05 (Environmental Sustainable Development)
Clause 22.18 (Stormwater management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)
Clause 32.08 (General Residential Zone)
Clause 52.06 (Car Parking)
Clause 55 (Two or more dwellings on a Lot)
Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)
Advertising
The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing a sign on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.
The site is located in North Ward and objections from fourteen (14) different properties have been received. The objections are summarised as follows:
• No provision of a visitor parking space
• Impact on adjoining vegetation
• Insufficient area for landscaping
• Removal of significant Coral tree located in the rear of the site
• Neighbourhood character (inappropriate built form/height/setbacks)
• Excessive site coverage
• Heritage consideration of property
• Amenity impacts (overshadowing, overlooking, loss of daylight)
• Traffic and parking implications (aisle width in basement and car park dimensions are inadequate)
• Noise impacts from services areas
• Discrepancies regarding title boundaries
• Loss of amenity during construction
A Consultative Meeting was held on 15 February 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Chandler and Griffin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in some changes to the plans. Amended plans were submitted on 22 May 2018 and show the following changes:
• The retention of the existing Erithryna grista - galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) located to the rear of the site.
• Raised FFL of 100mm to all levels without an increase in overall building height, resulting in the Ground Floor internal FFL increased from RL21.63 to RL21.93 (i.e. 300mm).
• At ground floor, the minimum setback for Apartment G3 has been reduced from 5.245 metres to 4.384 metres, however towards the centre of the Apartment G-3, the building has been setback a further 1.8 metres (4.45 metres increased to 6.25 metres).This has resulted in minor amendments to the internal apartment layout and rear private open space area of Apartment G3.
• At first floor, the minimum rear setback of Apartment 1.3 has been increased by 1.94 metres (4.45 metres to 6.39 metres). In addition, the balcony of Apartment 1.3 has been amended to eliminate the side sections, resulting in a smaller balcony area (35.1 square metres to 12.6 square metres).
• At second floor, the minimum rear setback of the Penthouse has been increased by 750mm (7.21 metres to 7.96 metres).
• Introduction of a visitor car parking space within the basement car park.
Public notification of the formally lodged plans Council date stamped 22 May 2018 did not occur given the extent of changes as listed above result in an overall reduction in the building footprint, retention of existing vegetation and introduction of a visitor car space. Therefore, the proposed changes would not result in any material detriment.
Referrals
Urban Design (Advertised plans)
• Due to the excessive size of the basement and the extent of the building footprint above, there is insufficient space available within the front and side setbacks for a satisfactory landscape setting.
• The proposed removal of the large canopy tree within the rear setback is another concern; as is the degree of intrusion by the basement and building into the TRZ of the other existing canopy tree, located mid-block near the Southern site boundary.
Planner Response:
Council’s Urban Designer is supportive of the retention of the large canopy tree within the rear setback as per the revised plans, provided it is demonstrated the building at the upper levels will not intrude within the canopy of this tree.
Council’s Urban Designer did however raise outstanding concerns regarding the extent of built form localised to the rear of the site at the second floor and the bulk and mass impacts of the three story built form to the private open space areas of the adjoining dwellings.
Parks (Advertised Plans)
• The significant Erithryna grista - galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) within the rear setback is listed as not suitable for retention in the submitted tree report due to poor health. Based on an aerial image from February 2017, and a recent inspection of this tree, I would suggest that it is in good health considering the percentage of canopy which has leafed-out in recent weeks. This significant tree is also worthy of retention, and the proposal must be designed (above and below ground) to allow for this to occur.
• A significant Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay Magnolia) located centrally along the southern boundary is listed for retention. A TMP will need to be conditioned for this permit to enable the two significant trees to be retained.
• s38 Tree Protection During Construction – for the semi-mature Fraxinus excelsior ‘Aurea’ (Golden Ash) street tree at this location. Fencing to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970.
• Council may want to consider placing a bond on the street tree when considering the proposed location of the gas services for this proposal in relation to the street tree (service connection trenching etc.).
Parks (Revised Plans)
• The applicant has demonstrated that the Coral tree within the rear setback can be retained. A TMP will need to be conditioned.
• A bond will need to be placed on the street tree. The valuation for the Fraxinus excelsior ‘Aurea’ (Golden Ash) street tree is $1,367.
Planner Response:
Conditions can be imposed in any permit to issue requiring a Tree Management Plan and bond guarantee for the two significant trees and tree protection fencing and bond guarantee for the street tree.
Infrastructure (Amended Plans)
No objection was raised by Council’s Infrastructure Unit, subject to the inclusion of the following conditions:
• The proposed drainage design and associated works including the proposed retaining walls will provide protection of the development from a 1 in 100 year ARI rainfall event as required by the Building Regulations.
• Prior to a building permit being issued, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with all requirements and ‘recommendations’ contained in that report.
• The proposed courtyards must be protected from the ingress of possible overland flow by means of waterproof retaining walls that extend at least 200mm above the existing and finished surface levels of the rear yard, with a minimum height of 22.31m (400mm above the lowest level of the site) to prevent possible flooding of the units. Drainage for these courtyards must be discharged to the basement and discharged via a pumped system to avoid possible surcharge from the internal drainage system.
• All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of drainage and runoff from the basement ramp, the small court yards referred to above, and agricultural drains which must be pumped. As required by the Building Regulations, the relevant building surveyor must check and approve the drainage design and ensure that protection of the building is provided from a 1 in 100 A.R.I. event.
• Prior to an ‘Occupancy Permit’ being issued, a suitably qualified Engineer must carry out a detailed inspection of a) the completed stormwater drainage system, b) the retaining walls required for the protection from overland flow, and c) all associated works including all water storage tanks and detention (if applicable) to ensure that all works has been constructed in strict accordance with the Engineer’s design and the relevant planning permit conditions. Certification of the completed drainage and these associated works must be provided by the Engineer to Council prior to a ‘Statement of Compliance’ being issued for the subdivision.
• The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp).
• The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.
• The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 4,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.
Planner Response:
Conditions can be imposed in any permit to issue. It is noted that alongside submission of amended plans, a certification from the responsible Engineer has been received stating ‘that the proposed drainage design and associated works including the proposed retaining walls will provide protection of the development from a 1 in 100 year ARI rainfall event as required by the Building Regulations’. Council’s Infrastructure Unit is satisfied with this certification.
Waste (comments on advertised plans)
• The Waste Management Plan submitted is deemed to be acceptable.
Planner Response:
No concerns have been raised by Waste Management Unit. Standard conditions can be imposed in any permit issued requiring ongoing implementation of the endorsed Waste Management Plan.
Transport and Parking Unit (Comments on the advertised plans)
• There is a parking requirement for 1 visitor parking space for the proposed development, which has not has been provided. Given that there is an oversupply of residential parking, the visitor parking must be provided onsite.
• The traffic generation with access onto Mathoura Road is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the surrounding road network and can be accepted. It is noted that access to and from the parking area is managed via a signal system with priority given to entering vehicles, which is considered satisfactory.
• The TEA advises that a sight triangle in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme cannot be achieved on the northern side of the access ramp at the entrance as a result of a boundary fence. The offset of the driveway from the fence allows for a sight distance triangle of 2.5m by 1.0m. Where the triangle cannot be provided in full, an alternative measure such as a convex mirror could be used to supplement the available sight distance.
• The columns set back is noted however the dimensions are not clearly shown. Whilst the design generally appears to be satisfactory, the dimensions should be confirmed and should confirm to the requirements of the Planning Scheme.
• The ramp grade at the property boundary is shown as 1:10 which is considered acceptable. The grades throughout the ramp are also considered satisfactory. The applicant has not indicated the minimum floor grades, it should be noted that a minimum floor grade of 1:200 is be provided for covered areas.
Planner Response:
Conditions can be imposed in any permit to issue to address the issues identified above. It is noted the revised plans introduce a visitor car space.
ESD (Amended Plans)
Council’s ESD officer reviewed the amended plans and raised concern regarding the following:
• The amount of daylight received to living areas of Apartment G2 and Apartment 1.2. Daylight modelling should be done to demonstrate the living areas will receive sufficient daylight. The modelling should take into consideration any future potential developments to the neighbouring properties which may have an adverse effect on the subject site and daylight access in the future.
• External shading devices should be incorporated into the design to provide protection from summer sun angles. Fixed external shading devices should be installed along north facing habitable windows (where necessary) and operable external shading devices along the east and west habitable windows.
• The amount of daylight received to the Bed 2 and Bed 3 windows of Apartment G1 due to the due to the solid privacy screening located opposite.
• Further information is required in regards to the treatment of the stormwater, which is proposed to be captured from the balconies as these are trafficable areas.
Planner Response:
Council’s ESD officer advised that daylight to the living area of Apartment G.2 would be improved through incorporation of skylights above as well as increasing the size of the opening to the living area. Permit conditions will therefore require the addition of skylights above the living/dining/kitchen area of Apartment G2 as well as the door/window to the living area to be increased in size. This will ensure adequate daylight is received to the living area. With regard to daylight received to Apartment 1.2, consideration is given to the dual aspect of this living area provided with large north and east facing windows. It is noted the east facing window to the living area is not provided with any screening which will allow for a secondary source of daylight to the area. Furthermore, given the relatively shallow depth of this living room (5 metres) is it considered the two windows provided to the areas will allow for acceptable daylight penetration.
Council’s ESD officer advised the amount of daylight received to the Bed 2 and Bed 3 windows of Apartment G1 would be improved if the solid privacy screening to these windows was converted to obscured glazing. Permit conditions will require obscure glazing to these windows in lieu of the solid screening to assist with daylight access to these bedrooms.
KEY ISSUES
Strategic Consideration
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.
Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) identifies the site as being within an incremental change area. It is encouraged that these areas (outside the Heritage Overlay and Neighbourhood Character Overlay), direct multi-unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable of accommodating increased density.
Although not within an activity centre, the subject site is located within close proximity to Toorak Road and Toorak Village (large Neighbourhood Activity Centres) located 540 metres north, as well as the Hawksburn Village Activity Centre located 250 metres south of the subject site, which consists of commercial facilities and community services for local and everyday retail, office and service activities.
The three storey built form is similar in height to a number of existing and approved buildings along Mathoura Road. This includes:
• The existing three storey apartment building to the east of the site of at No. 34 Mathoura Road approximately 25 metres from the subject site.
• The existing three storey apartment building to the east of the site of at No. 40 Mathoura Road approximately 17 metres from the subject site.
• The existing three storey apartment building to the north of the site of at No. 51 Mathoura Road approximately 70 metres from the subject site.
• The existing three storey apartment building to the north of the site of at No. 62 Mathoura Road approximately 195 metres from the subject site.
• The existing three storey apartment building to the north of the site of at No. 82 Mathoura Road approximately 400 metres from the subject site.
• The existing three storey apartment building to the north of the site of at No. 89 Mathoura Road approximately 450 metres from the subject site.
It is apparent that as the area is redeveloped the emerging character of Mathoura Road involves built form up to three storeys. It is considered that the proposed height and scale of the building is appropriate within this setting.
The subject site is highly accessible to public transport, with tram and bus services operating within walking distance along Malvern Road and providing convenient links to Hawksburn Railway Station located 400 metres west of the site and Toorak Railway Station located 100 metres south-east of the site. The site is therefore well served by public transport options.
The subject site covers a total area of approximately 1161sqm which is considered adequate to accommodate an increased density of housing. The location provides an appropriate opportunity for increased housing choice offering good access to services and transport.
Notwithstanding the above, it must be noted that the relevant State and Local Policy documentation regarding the provision of housing also refers to the importance of maintaining and enhancing neighbourhood character. Detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity. These are discussed further below.
Neighbourhood Character and Proposed Scale
The site is also within the Garden Suburban 1 Neighbourhood Character Precinct as defined by Council’s Local Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.23). The statement of preferred character for this precinct 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.
The design guidelines that seek to achieve this character are:
• To encourage the retention of intact, older dwellings that contribute to the character of the area.
• To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.
• To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the details of buildings in the area.
• To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings.
• To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.
• To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures.
• To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.
It is acknowledged that Mathoura Road exhibits an eclectic mix of built form, including modest
Victorian and Federation cottages, semi-detached Victorian terraces, Victorian mansions as well as inter-war and post-war apartment buildings. It is also noted that Mathoura Road is experiencing a transition in built form, including contemporary multi dwelling developments interspersed amongst the period buildings. The proposed development is contemporary in architectural design and will comprise a pitched roof to the streetscape interface and flat roof to the rear of the building, similar to existing multi dwelling developments. Collectively, the fenestration pattern and horizontal built form of the building serves to reference the key design features that are attributable to the dwellings that contribute to the streetscape. Materials and finishes including rendered external walls, powder coated window frames, metal balustrading, decorative louvered screening, and slate roofing are also considered appropriate and sympathetic to the streetscape.
The proposed three storey development will adopt a maximum building height of 10 metres above natural ground level and will be three storeys in height, therefore the proposal complies with policy requirements for incremental change areas and meets the mandatory height limit of the Schedule to the zone. Large scale developments are featured along Mathoura Road, including three storey developments and large Victorian mansions. Moreover, the streetscape elevations illustrate that given the slope of the land, the proposal provides an adequate relationship between the heights of adjacent buildings as the proposed building will have a two storey profile within the streetscape and then increase to three storeys at the rear. The proposed building uses materials and colours found in the streetscape and does not seek to introduce conflicting scale, materials or colours.
However, the notion of neighbourhood character is a broad concept that is not confined to building height. The assessment has to go further to gauge how the proposed development will be experienced from a wider area.
It is acknowledge the proposed building extends deep into the land, however, the depth of the subject site is typically longer than its immediate neighbours along the western side of Mathoura Road. There are a number of apartment buildings that extend close to the rear boundaries along Mathoura Road.
Furthermore, the new built form would be moderated in views by the two established canopy trees proposed to be retained as part of the proposal located south and west of the subject site, measuring 10.6 metres and 8.8 metres in height respectively. The existing and proposed landscaping will assist to break up the solidity of the built form.
Having regard to the form of the building, the proposed building reflects the undulating topography of the land by incorporating a two storey built form at the higher portion of the site and a three storey built form where the land slopes to the rear.
The inclusion of the site in the incremental change areas places emphasis on medium density development being consistent with the low rise character of the neighbourhood and maintaining high levels of amenity. It is considered that the second floor of the proposed building would comprise visual bulk that would adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining secluded private open space areas.
Second floor setbacks from the rear should be increased in order to provide an appropriate transition between the extent of the proposed building and the amenity of the secluded private open space areas, particularly to No.39 Mathoura Road and No.52 Ellerslie Place. This will be discussed further.
The provision of an access way ramp and basement car park accessible via the existing northern crossover will ensure that cars and car parking will be concealed from the streetscape. The removal of the southern crossover and use of a single access way will allow for greater landscaping opportunities in the front setback. The proposed layout is considered to be an improvement from the existing extent of hard paved area within the front setback due to the current two crossover u-shaped access arrangement.
The proposed 2 metre high front fence responds to the streetscape and character of the area and will be predominantly solid to provide privacy for the private open space for Apartment G1. The fence is provided with indents for landscaping to help soften the built form presenting to the streetscape. The fence is consistent with the existing fence styles along Mathoura Road and is consistent with the high brick fencing currently on site.
Site Layout and Building Massing
Street Setback
The setbacks to the adjoining properties are 7.8 metres and 10.6 metres to the north and south respectively. Therefore, the proposed development should be set back 9 metres from Mathoura Road. The proposed development adopts a front setback of 8.5 metres from ground and first floor, with the second floor setback approximately 25.5 metres from Mathoura Road. The ground and first floor setbacks do not comply with the Standard however this is considered acceptable within the context of the subject site.
The 8.5 metre setback provided is generally in line with the existing dwelling north of the site. The southern portion of the building has then been stepped back to 9.2 metres which acknowledges and responds to the dwelling located to the south.
On balance, the resultant street setback of the building will ensure that the proposed front façade will generally be located in line with the front facades of the adjoining properties. The proposed upper levels will also recede further away from the front boundary. Importantly, the street setback proposed will continue to allow a landscaped frontage to respond to the existing and preferred landscape character of the area.
The building will sit comfortably within the streetscape and is appropriate in the broader context of the streetscape which includes varied setbacks. Notably, directly opposite the subject site dwellings have a minimum front setback of 6.6 metres and 7.5 metres.
Building Height
Under Schedule 10 to General Residential Zone, the site is subject to a mandatory height limit 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. The site does feature a 3.1 degree slope across the site; the applicable height limit is therefore 10 metres. The maximum height of the proposed building is 10 metres above natural ground level and therefore complies with the height limit stipulated under Schedule 10 of the General Residential Zone. It is noted that the building also has a 1.2 metre high lift overrun.
As per Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone, a lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no more than 1.2 metres.
Site Coverage and Permeability
The proposal will result in 60.9% of site coverage, 67% of basement coverage and 19.4% of permeability. The basement site coverage complies with the numeric requirements set out in the varied Standard B8 requirements stipulated in Schedule 10 to the zone.
The building site coverage exceeds the standard requirements by 0.9%. This is a minor variation under the standard in an area characterised by robust buildings and outbuildings, with surrounding sites exceeding 60% site coverage such as the adjoining dwelling to the north at No.43 Mathoura Road with 61% site coverage, and 62.3% site coverage north of the site at No.51 Mathoura Road.
The site permeability of 19.4% does not satisfy the minimum 20% as recommended by Standard B9 (Permeability Objective). This will be addressed via a condition and can be achieved by reducing hard surfaces such as paving and utilising permeable pavers or the like, to improve on-site water retention.
Energy Efficiency
The Apartments have been designed with good access to natural light and ventilation and an acceptable level of internal amenity. All habitable rooms have an operable window to promote cross ventilation. The apartments have been orientated and designed to maximise direct sunlight and daylight access. The layout of the apartments within the development orientates the living/dining areas with either an easterly or westerly aspect, and large windows have been included on the eastern and western orientations to these areas. Whilst the development includes some south facing bedrooms, they are all sufficiently setback from the southern boundary to ensure that they receive a good level of daylight access. In addition, all areas of private open space will receive adequate daylight and solar access.
Clause 22.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires the development to achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development. The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP), detailing how the development addresses the 10 key sustainable design categories using the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS). The submitted SMP shows that the development achieves a BESS score of 64% and a pass for each of the mandatory pass categories of Water, Energy, Stormwater and IEQ, which is satisfactory. It is noted that an updated SMP will need to be submitted to reflect the changes shown on the amended plans and plans submitted for endorsement. This will be required as a condition of any permit issued.
Overall, the design of the development is deemed to achieve the broad energy efficiency Objectives of Standard B10.
Safety
The development is designed to provide for safety and security of residents. The pedestrian entrance to the development is separated from the driveway and is afforded passive surveillance. The development has been provided with a clearly identifiable entrance which will not be obscured or isolated from the street featuring a paved pathway on the southern side of the site leading to an entry lobby with a roof above. The entry has been designed with habitable room windows facing the pedestrian path also providing passive surveillance. This design response achieves the objectives of the standard.
Landscaping
Council’s MSS and various local policies emphasise the provision of high quality landscaping and seek to ensure that landscaping forms a key consideration of development proposals. Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape Character) seeks to ‘repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’.
Further to this, Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) seeks ‘to maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood’. The policy further encourages a design response which ‘includes planting around the perimeter of the site to strengthen the garden setting’ and provides ‘setback basements from all property boundaries to allow for in-ground planting’. The policy also defines canopy tree as ‘a tree at least 5m in height with a canopy spread of at least 6m at maturity’.
The subject site is planted with moderate vegetation, some of which is proposed to be removed. In some instances it may be considered acceptable to remove vegetation from a site provided an acceptable level of replacement planting is proposed. The applicant has submitted an Arboriculture Report prepared by Joe Kellett Arboriculture dated 4 August 2017 that assesses the health and retention value of the trees proposed for removal. In this regard, the proposed removal of vegetation is considered acceptable given the fair to poor heath and structure and low value of the identified vegetation. It is also noted that none of the trees proposed to be removed would be defined as ‘significant’ under Council’s Local Laws Policy. It is further noted that the Arborist report concluded there are no trees in neighbouring properties that would be directly affected by this building proposal.
The proposal includes retention of the significant Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay) measuring 10.6 metres in height located centrally along the southern site boundary, as well as retention of the significant Erythrina crista-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) measuring 8.8 metres in height located within the rear setback of the site. The retention of these two large trees will assist in softening the built form of the building when viewed from the south and west and retain the amenity and character value the trees currently offer the immediate area. A permit condition will require a Tree Management Plan to ensure the successful retention and protection of the trees. Permit conditions will also require a security bond for the two trees to further motivate their retention.
As per the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects, seven canopy trees have been provided to the rear (west), three canopy trees are proposed north of Apartment G02, and three canopy trees are proposed within the front setback of the site.
Landscaping along the northern and southern boundaries in addition to the retained Magnolia grandiflora and Cocks Comb Coral trees will include Mexican Orange Blossom and Orange Jessamine amongst other species of shrubs varying between 1-3 metres in height, which is considered to create an attractive entry along the southern pedestrian path as well as assist in softening the side elevations. Landscaping is also provided in the form of planter boxes around the perimeter of the upper level balconies and an additional three canopy trees are proposed on the roof top garden. This will further assist in softening the built form when viewed from both the street and adjoining properties.
Permit conditions will require the landscape plan to be updated as per the amended plans showing the retention of the significant Erythrina crista-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) within the rear setback of the site as well as confirm the location, species, size and number of proposed canopy trees around the building.
Overall, the proposal is consistent with the policy direction of the Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.23) and the objectives of Standard B13.
Access and Parking Location
The existing double width vehicle crossing shared with No.43 Mathoura Road is proposed to be widened by 2.2 metres to provide vehicle access to the basement. The access way occupies less than 33% of the site’s frontage as required by Standard B14 and therefore complies. The existing crossover located towards the southern boundary is to be removed and reinstated with kerb and channel, thus providing for an additional car space to the street.
The new basement car parking provides convenient parking for resident and visitor vehicles and is easily accessible from ground level. This complies with the Parking location objective of Clause 55.
Amenity Impacts
Side and rear setbacks
If not on or within 200mm of the boundary, the proposal is required to be setback from side and rear boundaries as required by the schedule to the zone, which requires:
For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height. Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies.
‘Northern Interface’
At ground floor, the proposed side setbacks of the building are compliant with the setback requirements of Standard B17. Compliance regarding walls on boundaries will be discussed further below.
At first floor, the side setbacks comply with the requirements of Standard B17 (inclusive of the Juliette balconies) with the exception of Apartment 1.1. The side setbacks of Apartment 1.1 falls short between 0.7- 1 metres (3.1 metres is required with a wall height of 8 metres and side setbacks between 2.1-2.4 metres are proposed). Apartment 1.1 interfaces with one ground floor habitable window and the roof of the adjoining dwelling located at No.43 Mathoura Road. The non-compliance with the section of wall located opposite the habitable window is 0.7 metres which is considered a minor variation and is in keeping with the rhythm of spacing between properties along Mathoura Road. Furthermore, daylight to this window will not be impacted upon by the proposal given the northerly orientation of the subject site. It is noted that the building maintains compliance with the setback requirements to the critical interfaces with the secluded private open space areas of No.43 Mathoura Road, No.50 and No.52 Ellerslie Place.
At second floor, the side setbacks of Bed 1 and the ensuite to the Penthouse do not comply with the requirements of Standard B17. The side setbacks of Bed 1 and the ensuite falls short between 0.8- 1.2 metres (5.1 metres is required with a wall height of 10 metres and side setbacks between 3.9-4.3 metres are proposed). The balcony located opposite Bed 1 and the ensuite also falls short of the setback requirements by 1 metre (3.1 metres required with a height of 8 metres to the top of the balcony). Furthermore, given the obscured angle of the rear northern site boundary, a section of balcony opposite the living/study area also falls short of the setback requirements by 1 metre.
Bed 1 and the ensuite (and the area of balcony located opposite) interfaces with the roof of No.43 Mathoura Road. The area of non-compliance (0.8m-1.2m) is considered to be minor and will not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring property given there will be no direct outlook to this portion of the building.
While the rear portion of the penthouse maintains compliance with the numerical requirements of Standard B17 (with the exception of the rear section of the balcony opposite the living area), it is considered the three storey built form extending deep within the site opposite the secluded private open space area of No.52 Ellerslie Place will result in unreasonable detriment to the amenity of the adjoining property through visual bulk.
Standing midpoint within the backyard of No.52 Ellerslie Place, the second storey would be highly visible and the three story built form opposite this secluded private open space area extending deep into the site is considered unreasonable and provides little visual relief. As will be discussed further, a condition will be included requiring the rear setback of the second floor to be increased.
‘Southern Interface’
At ground and first floor, the proposed side setbacks of the building and balconies are compliant with the setback requirements of Standard B17.
At second floor, the side setbacks of the Kitchen and Bath to the Penthouse do not comply with the requirements of Standard B17. The side setbacks fall short 0.3 metres (4.8 metres is required with a wall height of 9.7 metres and a side setback of 4.5 metres is proposed). The 2.3 metre side setback of the balcony complies with the setback requirements of Standard B17 (2.3 metres required with a height of 7.4 metres to the top of the balcony).
While the rear portion of the penthouse requires a minor variation (0.3 metres) from the numerical requirements of Standard B17, it is considered the three storey built form extending deep within the site opposite the secluded private open space area of No.39 Mathoura Road will result in unreasonable detriment to the amenity of the adjoining property through visual bulk.
Whilst visible, the additional built form that extends past the existing dwelling at No.39 Mathoura Road would be largely screened at ground and first floor by the high boundary fence and the dense vegetation along the fence. Similar to the northern interface with No.52 Ellerslie Place, standing midpoint within the backyard of No.39 Mathoura Road, the second storey would be also be highly visible and the continuous three storey side elevation sited close to the side boundary and extending deep into the rear of the property opposite this secluded private open space area is considered excessive,
‘Western Interface’
At ground, first and second floor, the proposed rear setbacks of the building and balconies are compliant with the setback requirements of Standard B17.
However, given the low scale nature of built form and the secluded private open space areas immediately to the north, south and west of the subject site, the proposed built form should be designed sympathetically in terms of scale and setbacks. In this instance, the current proposal is considered to fail in this regard due to its overall three storey height coupled with minimal side and rear setbacks. Although stepped in from the first floor level below, the three storey built form extends for nearly the entire length of the adjoining backyard interface with No.39 Mathoura Road and the entire length of the adjoining backyard interface with No.52 Ellerslie Place and will dominate views and create a prominent backdrop to the backyards which will impact negatively.
A better outcome could be achieved if the building was to be setback further from the rear boundary at the second floor.
Permit conditions will require the Penthouse to be setback an additional 7.5 metres from the western boundary (resulting in a total setback of 15 metres from the rear southern boundary) and the associated balcony to be setback a minimum of 12.6 metres from the western site boundary. This will result in a significant reduction in the three storey built form presenting to the secluded private open space areas of No.52 Ellerslie Place and No.39 Mathoura Road north and south of the site, and also ensure that the width of the balcony maintains compliance with Standard B43- Private Open Space above Ground Floor Objective.
Subject to a condition requiring an increased rear setback of the second floor, the proposed setbacks will provide an acceptable separation from the adjoining properties and are consistent with the rhythm of spacing between properties along Mathoura Road.
Basement
The basement does not comply with the varied side setbacks as required under the schedule to the zone as stipulated above. The basement has been setback 0.63 metres from the northern boundary and 1.3-1.5 metres within 5 metres behind the front façade.
It is considered that the variation of the basement setbacks do not impact on the ground level amenity, rhythm of spacing or landscaping opportunities throughout the site. It is noted the basement has specifically been designed to allow for the retention of two established significant trees to the south and west (rear) of the site and allows for meaningful planting opportunities within the front setback of the site.
Walls on Boundary
Standard B18 states that new walls should be constructed on a boundary for a length of 10 metres plus 25 per cent of the remaining length of the boundary and for the height of the walls to not exceed an average height of 3.2 metres and a maximum height of 3.6 metres. Where there are existing or simultaneously constructed walls or carports abutting the boundary on an abutting lot, a boundary wall may be constructed for the length of the existing or simultaneously constructed walls or carports.
The boundary construction proposed relates to the northern site boundary of the subject site associated with the ensuite of Apartment G1 and the living/dining/kitchen of Apartment G2. The neighbouring dwelling at No.43 Mathoura Road has an existing wall on the boundary. As such, the wall on boundary has been proposed to match the length of the adjoining wall on boundary for a length of 13.8 metres.
Daylight to Existing Windows
The proposed development is located opposite habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings to the north and south. The setbacks of the proposed development from the existing habitable room windows opposite are assessed against the requirements of Standard B19 as follows.
‘Northern Interface’
| |Ground Floor level |First Floor level |
|Maximum Wall Height |3.9 metres |7.4 metres |
|Setback Required |1.9 metres |3.7 metres |
|Setback Proposed |2.2 metres |3.7 metres |
The adjoining dwelling to the north contains one existing habitable room window setback 1.2 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. It is noted that the second story of the proposal is not located opposite this window. The proposed development with a minimum setback of 1.1 metres at ground floor and 2.4 metres at first floor to the common boundary will meet the numeric requirements of the Standard as stipulated above. The light court requirements as stipulated in Standard B19 are also easily achieved.
‘Southern Interface’
| |Ground Floor level |First Floor level |
|Maximum Wall Height |3.8 metres |7.3 metres |
|Setback Required |1.9 metres |3.65 metres |
|Setback Proposed |5.5-6.5 metres |5.5-8.7 metres |
The adjoining dwelling to the south contains four existing habitable room windows with the closest setback 2.5 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. The proposed development with a minimum setback of 3 metres at ground and first floor and 6.2 metres at second floor to the common boundary will meet the numeric requirements of the Standard as stipulated above. The light court requirements as stipulated in Standard B19 are also easily achieved.
North Facing Windows
There are four north facing windows located within 3 metres of the subject site on the adjoining dwelling to the south at No.39 Mathoura Road. The windows are setback between 2.5-2.6 metres from the common boundary. The setbacks of the proposed development from the existing north facing habitable room windows opposite are assessed against the requirements of Standard B20 as follows:
| |Ground Floor level |First Floor level |Second Floor level |
|Maximum Wall Height |3.8 metres |7.3 metres |9.4 metres |
|Setback Required |1.12 metres |3.38 metres |5.5 metres |
|Setback Proposed |2.3-3.8 metres |3.08-8.7 metres |6 metres |
The two western most windows achieve clearances in accordance with the Standard. The side setbacks at first floor of the building opposite the two eastern most windows do not comply with the requirements of Standard B20. The side setbacks fall short 0.3 metres as stipulated above. Permit conditions will require the southern façade of Apartment 1-1 to achieve compliance with Standard B20.
Shadow analysis diagrams were submitted as part of the application (TP112) which demonstrate that the eastern most habitable window of No.39 Mathoura Road will be partly in shadow at 10 am. At 9am, 11am, 12pm, 1pm, 2pm and 3pm daylight access to all adjoining north facing windows will not be impacted upon by the proposal.
Overshadowing
Standard B21 of ResCode seeks to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow the existing secluded private open space. Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 40 square metres with minimum dimensions of 3 metres of the secluded private open space should receive at least five (5) hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm at the September Equinox.
The areas of private open space to the properties on the north, south and west sides of the subject site are significant in area. The proposed development will not cast any additional overshadowing to the adjoining property to the north given the northerly orientation of the subject site. It is noted that the proposed development would lead to some additional overshadowing of the private open space at No.48 Ellerslie Place at 9am (approximately 33.6sqm), and some additional overshadowing between 9am and 3pm to No.39 Mathoura Road (between 33sqm and 45sqm). Given the generous sizes of the adjoining private open space areas, the extent of additional overshadowing is minor and at least 40sqm with a minimum dimension of 3 metres of the adjoining SPOS areas will continue to receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September in accordance with Standard B21. No adjoining properties would be significantly overshadowed as a result of the proposed development.
Overlooking
The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9 metre, 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.
A 2.1 metre high paling fence along the northern, southern and western boundaries is proposed to replace the existing 2.1 metre high fences bounding the site. Therefore, there are no overlooking issues from the proposed ground level.
At the first, second and third floor levels, there are habitable room windows and areas of secluded private open space that have the potential to overlook the neighbouring habitable room windows and areas of private open space within 9 metres at the properties north, south and west of the site.
Louvered screens have been proposed along the north, south and west elevations of the building. However, there is concern some of the screens proposed will not sufficiently obstruct the view lines into the adjoining properties. Therefore, permit conditions will require appropriate screening to the north, south and west elevations of all Apartments in accordance with Standard B22. This will ensure the proposal will not result in any unreasonable overlooking into the adjoining properties.
Noise impacts
The proposed apartment building is not expected to generate noise above and beyond that normally associated with a residential development.
Whilst the site is located in close proximity to the train line, an Acoustic Report prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates dated 7 September 2017 was submitted as part of the application, specifying that performance glazing will be incorporated along the southern façade to mitigate traffic and rail noise.
On Site Amenity and Facilities
Dwelling Entry
A common entry to the development, with pedestrian gate and delineated pedestrian path, is clearly identifiable and is directly accessible from Mathoura Road. The building has been designed to provide an appropriate sense of address via a roof over the entry. This will provide shelter and a transitional space around the entry. Furthermore, each dwelling is clearly identifiable from the central lobby of each level within the building.
Daylight to New Windows
All proposed windows will face outdoor spaces clear to the sky with a 3 square metre light court with a minimum dimension of 1 metre and thus allow for an adequate amount of daylight into habitable rooms.
Private Open Space
Apartments G1, G3, 1.1, 1.3 and the Penthouse will be afforded either a ground floor courtyard or balcony accessed via a living area which exceeds the minimum requirements of Standard B28.
A shared 136 square metre rooftop garden has also been provided on the eastern side of the building.
Although the main secluded private open space area for Apartment G1 is located within the front setback of the site, this is considered acceptable as the proposed front fence measuring 2 metres in height will allow for some privacy to this area. In addition, this arrangement will allow the front garden character to be continued in the streetscape. Furthermore, it is noted a secondary north facing terrace area measuring 22 square metres is located to the side of the Apartment.
Apartment G2 does not meet the numerical requirements of Standard B28 requiring a private open space area of 40 square metres. A north facing courtyard area measuring 28.8 square metres (minimum dimension of 3.1 metres) with access from the living room is provided. Permit conditions will require the private open space area of Apartment G2 to have a minimum area of 40 square metres to achieve compliance with Standard B28, as to maximise the useability/functionality of the north facing courtyard.
The size of the balcony to Apartment 1.2 does not meet the numerical requirements of Standard B43, requiring a minimum area of 12 square metres. A 10.4 square metre balcony is proposed.
Permit conditions will require Apartment 1.2 to have a minimum area of 12 square metres to achieve compliance with Standard B43.
Subject to the above conditions, the proposed private open space areas to each Apartment are considered sufficient to meet the recreation and service needs of future residents and all areas can be conveniently accessed from the main living areas with some apartments featuring multiple access points.
Solar Access to Open Space
All dwellings will be provided with either courtyards or balconies which will provide adequate solar access given the orientation of the site.
Storage
The apartments will be provided ample internal apartment storage as well an external basement storage between 28.5 and 54.4 cubic metres in size. The internal storage areas vary between 9 and 30 cubic metres per apartment. Standard B44 (Storage objectives) seeks a minimum storage area of 18 cubic metres, with 12 cubic metres within the dwelling itself. Apartment 1.2 provides for 9 cubic metres of storage within the dwelling, and a total storage volume of 37.2 cubic metres.
Whilst Apartment 1.2 falls short of the internal storage requirement by 3 cubic metres, this is considered acceptable as this Apartment is the smallest in size and provides for a generous amount of external storage space within the basement which is conveniently located and easily accessible.
Fences
The proposed 2 metre high front fence exceeds the 1.2 metres required by Standard B32, however this is considered acceptable as it responds to the streetscape and character of the area. The fence is provided with indents for landscaping to help soften the built form presenting to the streetscape. The fence is consistent with the existing fence styles along Mathoura Road which comprise either dense landscape screening or solid painted render fences, and is consistent with the high brick fencing currently on site.
Design Detail
The proposed variety of materials including render, powdercoated window frames, metal balustrading, decorative louvered screening, and slate roofing which responds to the design detail of other dwellings and developments within the neighbourhood. The proposed development is considered appropriate in the neighbourhood character context.
Site Services
Bin storage is located within a dedicated area centrally located within the basement. Mailboxes are located directly adjacent the pedestrian pathway and building entrance which are easily accessible.
Apartment Developments
The application has been assessed against the apartment development standards at Clause 55.07 and is deemed to comply with the relevant objectives.
As already discussed the apartments have been designed to achieve energy efficient dwellings. Each proposed apartment will be of a reasonable size with floor areas between 112-239 square metres and will have direct access to natural light and ventilation.
The subject site is located within 80 metres (i.e. 30 metres) from the railway line. Accordingly, Standard B40 requires that the building be constructed to achieve the following noise levels:
• Not greater than 35dB(A) for bedrooms, assessed as an LAeq,8h from 10pm to 6am.
• Not greater than 40dB(A) for living areas, assessed LAeq,16h from 6am to 10pm.
A summary of traffic and rail noise monitoring results show a maximum of dB(A) of 58 in the day period and a maximum dB(A) of 51 in the night period along Mathoura Road, and maximum dB(A) of 60 in the day and night period along the rail corridor.
Whilst the maximum noise levels exceed that as required by Standard B40, the Acoustic Report has referenced sleep disturbance studies summarised in NSW EPA document Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise, 1999 (ECRTN) and the subsequent New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage Road Noise Policy, March 2011 (RNP), which conclude that:
• Maximum internal noise levels below 50-55dB(A) are unlikely to awaken people from sleep.
• One or two noise events per night, with maximum internal noise levels of 65-70dB(A), are not likely to affect health and wellbeing significantly.
The above criteria is a relevant precedent regarding train noise that has been considered in a number of VCAT cases as presented in the Acoustic Report. The acoustic report submitted with the application includes recommendations for glazing and façade treatments in which potential noise sources within the development have been mitigated, which is reflected on Drawings TP102, TP103 and TP104 submitted as part of the Acoustic Report which shows the glazing and external wall specifications across all levels of the building.
Standard B41 (Accessibility objective) requires that at least 50% of dwellings have specific design elements, including adaptable bathrooms, to ensure their accessibility. Apartments G1, G2, G3, 1.2 and 1.3 have been designed with at least one adaptable bathroom as determined by Standard B41. A clear path with a minimum width of 1.2 metres that connects the dwelling entrance to the main bedroom, an adaptable bathroom and the living area as required by Standard B41, have been provided to at least 50% of the dwellings.
The main entry to the building is readily identifiable from Mathoura Road via the proposed pedestrian path connecting to a porch with roof providing a suitable transition space. A pedestrian path located centrally off Mathoura Road provides for a secondary entry for Apartment 1.
From within the building, each apartment will be immediately visible from the central lift or stairwell.
The common lobby areas to all apartments with the exception of Apartment G2 and Apartment G3, include windows and natural light as recommended under Standard B42. It is not considered appropriate to have common lobby areas with no source of natural light and natural ventilation. There is an opportunity to include an external window to the southern side of the lift lobby area at ground floor associated with Apartments G2 and G3. Permit conditions will therefore require the common lobby areas at ground floor associated with Apartment G2 and G3 to provide for a window in accordance with Standard B42.
Given the central design of the stair areas at each level, the stair areas are not able to be provided with windows and natural light with the exception of the Penthouse. While this is not ideal, on balance given that the common lift lobby area of all Apartments will be able to achieve sufficient daylight/ventilation as required by permit conditions, and the overall internal amenity of the Apartments with regard to daylight and ventilation is of a high standard, ultimately the absence of windows in these areas is not considered to be detrimental to the overall internal amenity of future occupants.
As discussed above, permit conditions will ensure all balconies at first and second floor are provided with a minimum size of 12 square metres and a minimum width of 2.4 metres and therefore will meet the requirements of Standard B43.
A comprehensive Waste Management Plan has been provided in support of this application which provides an adequate response to Council’s waste guidelines and complies with the objectives of Standard B45 (Waste and recycling objectives).
In terms of the functional layout, room depth, windows and cross ventilation standards of Clause 55.07, the new dwellings are large in size with the smallest bedroom having dimensions of 3.4 metres by 3.6 metres. All main bedrooms have a minimum depth of 3.4 metres which complies with the recommendation of Standard B46. Habitable rooms with single aspects have floor to ceiling heights of 3.3 metres and room depths in accordance with Standard B47. No rooms rely on borrowed light and at least 50% of Apartments provide for cross ventilation in accordance with Standard B49.
Car Parking and Traffic
As detailed in the referral section, there are generally no concerns with the proposed parking allocation, layout and internal vehicle movement.
The proposal provides a total of 15 car spaces including 14 spaces for resident and 1 for visitors in a basement car park that will be secure and easily accessible. The development therefore fully complies with the statutory car parking requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
In terms of traffic generation, the development will not result in any adverse traffic impacts to the surrounding area. In terms of the concerns with regard to sight distance triangles, this concern can be addressed by way of permit conditions if a permit is to be issued.
Water Sensitive Urban Design
The water sensitive urban design report shows that the proposed 26,000 litre rainwater tank would result in a STORM rating of 108% which complies with the 100% minimum required under Clause 22.18.
Given the plans have been amended which include changes to the building roof areas, the WSUD report should be updated to reflect these changes. This will be addressed as a condition of any permit issued.
Objections
In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:
• Heritage consideration of property
The application site is located in the General Residential Zone and is not affected by any Heritage Overlay, nor has it ever previously been considered as part of a Heritage Study.
• Discrepancies regarding title boundaries
The existing fence line for a section along the northern boundary is located inside the title boundary. For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that the title will be re-established to reflect the current physical fencing arrangements. It should be noted that if the assessment were to be based on the title boundary, this would result in a more favourable outcome with respect to site coverage, permeability and side setbacks of the development.
• Noise impacts from services areas
Permit conditions will require that all plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and must not be located on balconies. All plant and equipment 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.
• Loss of amenity during construction
Building construction impacts falls outside of the planning scheme provisions and will be considered at the building permit stage.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:
• The three storey apartment building respects and responds to the neighbourhood character of the surrounding area and is in accordance with the objectives of State and local planning policies.
• Subject to conditions, the built form and landscaping is acceptable to the site and surrounding context.
• The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with the Clause 55 Objectives.
• The development provides adequate parking provision at the site and can be safely accessed by vehicles.
Attachments
|1. |Planning Application 1015/17 - 41 Mathoura Road Toorak - Construction of a multi dwelling development in a General |Plans |
| |Residential Zone | |
|RECOMMENDATION |
| |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1015/17 for the land located at 41 Mathoura Road, Toorak be issued under the |
|Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone subject to the following |
|conditions: |
| |
|1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by|
|the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (Revision 01) dated 22 May 2018 prepared by Demaine |
|but modified to show: |
| |
|a) The Penthouse setback a minimum of 15 metres and the associated balcony setback a minimum of 12.6 metres from the western site |
|boundary. |
|b) The southern façade of Apartment 1-1 setback in accordance with Clause 55.04-4 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|c) Private open space of Apartment G2 to have a minimum area of 40 square metres in accordance with Clause 55.05-4. |
|d) Balcony of Apartment 1.2 to have a minimum area of 12 square metres and minimum width of 2.4 metres in accordance with Clause 55.07-9 |
|of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|a) Appropriate screening to the north, south and west elevations of all Apartments in accordance with Clause 55.04-6 of the Stonnington |
|Planning Scheme. |
|b) A certificate of verification from the manufacturer certifying that the proposed louvered screening is no more than 25% transparent. |
|c) TP108 Garden Area Plan revised in accordance with amended plans Council date stamped 22 May 2018 demonstrating the site achieves a |
|minimum garden area of 35%. |
|d) Addition of a convex mirror or similar on the northern side of the access ramp to assist with sight lines of vehicles entering and |
|exiting the basement. |
|e) Width of columns in the basement dimensioned in accordance with Design Standard 2 of Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|f) Minimum floor grades within the basement. A minimum floor grade of 1:200 provided for covered areas. |
|g) Addition of skylights above the living/dining/kitchen area of Apartment G2. |
|h) The door/window to the living/dining/kitchen area of Apartment G2 to be increased in size. |
|i) Obscure glazing to Bed 2 and Bed 3 windows of Apartment G1 in lieu of solid screening. |
|j) Minimum 20% site permeability in accordance with Clause 55.03-4. |
| |
| |
|k) Provision of a window to the common lift lobby area associated with Apartment G2 and Apartment G3 in accordance with Clause 55.07-8 of|
|the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|l) External shading devices incorporated into the design to provide protection from summer sun angles. Fixed external shading devices are|
|to be installed along north facing habitable windows and operable external shading devices along the east and west habitable room windows|
|to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|m) Basement plan to annotate the number of toilets proposed to be connected to the water tank. |
|n) Basement plan to annotate ‘electrical vehicle infrastructure’ as per BESS report. |
|o) A roof plan to include annotation demonstrating the proposed areas for rainwater collection and their proposed treatments. |
|p) Materials schedule to annotate glazing to living room windows to achieve at least 60% Visible Light Transmittance (VLT). |
|q) A notation on the Ground Floor Plan to show the retaining walls to extend at least 200mm above the existing and finished surface |
|levels of the rear yard, with a minimum height of 22.31m (400mm above the lowest level of the site). |
|r) All heating and cooling units to be located within the basement or rooftop and appropriately screened and baffled in accordance with |
|the requirements of Condition 7. |
|s) Any changes to the plans to comply with Condition 3 (Landscape Plan), |
|Condition 8 (Tree Management Plan), Condition 11 (Sustainable Management Plan), Condition 12 (Water Sensitive Urban Design Report), |
|Condition 14 (Waste Management Plan) and Condition 23 (Stormwater Runoff). |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|3. Concurrent with the endorsement of development 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 in accordance with the Landscape Concept Plans prepared by |
|John Patrick Landscape Architects dated September 2017 but modified to show: |
| |
|a) Updated to refer to the new layout shown on the plans submitted for endorsement. |
| |
|b) The retention of the significant Erythrina crista-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) located within the rear setback of the site. |
| |
|c) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed |
| |
|d) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary |
| |
| |
| |
|e) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways |
| |
|f) 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 |
| |
|g) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site. |
| |
|h) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site |
| |
|i) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas. |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|4. Before occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, |
|including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced. |
| |
|5. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Fraxinus |
|excelsior ‘Aurea’ (Golden Ash) street tree. Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970. |
| |
|6. Prior to the commencement of all works, a security deposit of $1,367 for the street tree must be lodged with Council to ensure the |
|location of services will not impact on the long term health of the Fraxinus excelsior ‘Aurea’ (Golden Ash) street tree on Mathoura Road |
|directly outside of the subject site. This deposit will be refunded when Council is satisfied that the health of these trees is not |
|affected by the development or within two years of completion of the development. |
| |
|7. Prior to the commencement of all works, a security deposit must be lodged with Council to ensure the proposed works will not impact on|
|the long term health of the Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay) located centrally along the southern site boundary and the Erythrina |
|crista-galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) located within the rear setback of the site. The value of the security deposit will be determined by|
|Council’s Parks department based on the value of the trees. This deposit will be refunded when Council is satisfied that the health of |
|these trees is not affected by the development or within two years of completion of the development. |
| |
|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 Erithryna grista galli (Cocks Comb Coral Tree) |
|and Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay Magnolia) located along the western and southern boundaries. |
| |
|Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows: |
| |
|a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch|
|to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone. |
|b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots. |
|c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works |
|and regime can cease. |
| |
|Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation |
|of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit. |
|9. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the |
|surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and must not be located on balconies. All plant and equipment 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. |
| |
|10. 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. |
| |
|11. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon|
|approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives |
|outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Sustainable Management Plan must be generally in accordance |
|with the Sustainable Management Plan prepared by Lucid Consulting dated 29 November 2017 but: |
| |
|(a) Updated to refer to the new layout shown on the plans submitted for endorsement. |
|(b) Further information regarding the treatment of the stormwater which is proposed to be captured from the balconies as these are |
|trafficable areas. |
|(c) The IEQ section in the BESS report is to be updated accordingly regarding daylight to living areas. |
| |
|All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable 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. |
| |
|12. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, a Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) report must be submitted to and |
|approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the WSUD report will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development|
|must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives outlined in the WSUD report to the satisfaction of the Responsible |
|Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the Stormwater Management (WSUD) Report prepared by Lucid Consulting dated 29 |
|November 2017 but: |
| |
|(a) Updated to refer to the new layout shown on the plans submitted for endorsement. |
| |
|No alterations to the WSUD report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|13. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater |
|management report. |
| |
|14. 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 Pty Ltd dated 25 July 2017 |
|but: |
| |
|(a) Updated to refer to the new layout shown on the plans submitted for endorsement. |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in |
|accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|15. 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. |
| |
|16. 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. |
| |
|17. Prior to a building permit being issued, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage |
|design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with all requirements and ‘recommendations’ |
|contained in that report. |
| |
|18. The proposed courtyards must be protected from the ingress of possible overland flow by means of waterproof retaining walls that |
|extend at least 200mm above the existing and finished surface levels of the rear yard, with a minimum height of 22.31m (400mm above the |
|lowest level of the site) to prevent possible flooding of the units. Drainage for these courtyards must be discharged to the basement and|
|discharged via a pumped system to avoid possible surcharge from the internal drainage system. |
| |
|19. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of drainage and runoff from the basement ramp, the small |
|court yards referred to above, and agricultural drains which must be pumped. As required by the Building Regulations, the relevant |
|building surveyor must check and approve the drainage design and ensure that protection of the building is provided from a 1 in 100 |
|A.R.I. event. |
| |
|20. Prior to an ‘Occupancy Permit’ being issued, a suitably qualified Engineer must carry out a detailed inspection of a) the completed |
|stormwater drainage system, b) the retaining walls required for the protection from overland flow, and c) all associated works including |
|all water storage tanks and detention (if applicable) to ensure that all works has been constructed in strict accordance with the |
|Engineer’s design and the relevant planning permit conditions. Certification of the completed drainage and these associated works must be|
|provided by the Engineer to Council prior to a ‘Statement of Compliance’ being issued for the subdivision. |
| |
|21. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). |
| |
|22. The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the |
|satisfaction of Council. |
| |
|23. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the|
|existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone|
|detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 4,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD|
|requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets. |
| |
|24. 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. 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. |
| |
|C. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”. |
| |
|D. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the |
|periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes: |
| |
|i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and |
|ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit |
|expires. |
5. Planning Application 1007/16- 19-21 Toorak Road, South Yarra VIC 3141 – construction of a five storey mixed use building comprising a restaurant, office/retail and one, three bedroom dwelling with 11 car spaces provided via stackers at the rear of the site
Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a mixed use development in an Activity Centre Zone and Design and Development Overlay, variations to the design and development requirements of Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone, reduction in the car parking and bicycle parking requirements, and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 at 19-21 Toorak Road, South Yarra.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Urbis Pty Ltd |
|Ward: |North |
|Zone: |Clause 37.08 - Activity Centre Zone, Schedule 1 (ACZ1) |
|Overlay: |Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 1 & 20, (DDO1, DDO20) |
|Date lodged: |11 October 2016 |
|Date amended: |27 April 2018 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)|38 |
|Trigger for referral to Council: |Development of four or more storeys |
|Number of objections: |Four (4) |
|Consultative Meeting: |No |
|Officer Recommendation: |Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit |
BACKGROUND
This application was advertised in September 2017 for a six storey mixed use development comprising a restaurant at ground and first floor, office/retail at the second and third floors, and two dwellings at the fourth and fifth floor levels. Following advertising, the applicant subsequently amended the proposal to a five storey building and reduced the number of dwellings from 2 to 1. The dwelling is proposed on the uppermost level. The amended scheme (amended 27 April 2018) is the proposal that is assessed throughout this report.
The Proposal
The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Urban Design Architects and are known as Project No. 15046, Drawing No’s: TP08 Rev C, TP09 Rev C, TP10 Rev F, TP11 Rev H, TP12 Rev F, TP13 Rev H, TP14 Rev F, TP16 Rev E, TP17 Rev F, TP18 Rev F, TP19 Rev G, TP21 Rev E, TP22 Rev G, TP23 Rev H, TP25 Rev A and Council date stamped 27 April 2018.
Key features of the proposal are:
• Remove the existing building (no permit required).
• Construct a new five storey building comprising a restaurant at the ground and first floor, an office/retail at the second and third floor and 3-bedroom dwelling on the fourth floor.
• The portion of existing laneway that sits within the title boundaries of the site is to be declared a road and vested in Council.
• The lane will provide vehicle access to the rear of the building where 11 on-site car parking spaces are provided in stackers.
• The building will have an overall height of 19.8 metres to the top of the plant screen.
The application was amended under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 after advertising on 27 April 2018. The application originally proposed a six storey mixed use development comprising a restaurant and office and two dwellings with a total of 11 car spaces provided. The changes from the advertised plans are listed as follows:
• The building reduced to 5 storeys (19.8m overall height, was previously 22.8 metres in height).
• Increased the width of the laneway to 3.3m by providing additional 300mm clearance from the edge of the new building.
• All pedestrian access via the laneway removed.
• North facing terrace on the Second Level for the Office/Retail space has been removed.
• The terrace on the Third floor has been amended to remove the section on the northern side of the building, so that the terrace to only be located on the western side of the building.
• The third floor balustrade of the south facing balcony has been setback 2m from Toorak Road.
• Detailing has been added to the eastern and western upper walls to create articulation.
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the north side of Toorak Road, approximately 40 metres to the east of the Punt Road intersection. The site has the following significant characteristics:
• A rectangular shaped lot with a frontage to Toorak Road of 10.8 metres with a site depth of 30.7 metres, yielding an overall site area of 331 square metres.
• The site is developed with a double storey commercial building that consists of four tenancies. The building is currently used as a shops at ground level and offices at the first floor level.
• There is no appreciable fall in the land.
• The site adjoins an unnamed lane on the western boundary that provides vehicular access to the rear of the subject property and serves two other properties to the West.
• There is currently open air car parking provided at the rear accessed via the lane.
Approximately half of the current lane falls within the title boundaries of the subject site; however the lane (including that part on the subject site) is declared as a public road on Council’s Register of Public Roads managed under the Road Management Act 2004 and is under the care and control of the City of Stonnington. The Register of Public Roads has the dimensions of this road as 18 metres long and 3 metres wide. This is not the entire length of what is available on site and does not match what is on title, however this is what has been declared by Council to be public road.
This laneway is reasonably required for general public use, as evidenced by the abutting properties having access and using the road for the drainage of the subject sites.
The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:
Land to the north features the rear of No. 424 Punt Road, which is within a Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) and a Heritage Overlay (HO463). This land has a frontage to Punt Road and is developed with an A2 graded heritage building which is currently used as a medical centre. A recent planning application (PL1141/16) was refused under delegation on 4 April 2018. To date this decision has not been appealed. The application had sought to construct three dwellings of between 3 and 4 storeys in height to the far east of the property, adjacent to the subject site. Under the existing conditions the area of this land that abuts the subject site is used as a sealed, open air car park for the medical centre.
Directly to the east is a double storey commercial premises that is used as restaurant and is constructed with a solid double storey wall to the common boundary (west) with the subject site. The building is slightly higher than the existing building on the subject site and it occupies the majority of the site.
To the west of the subject site is the lane that is declared a public road. Beyond the lane is a single storey commercial building that is used as a café. The existing building is currently constructed hard up to the lane with windows along the east wall. To the rear is a small external area that is used for the storage of bins and contains a palm tree.
To the south across Toorak Road are a number of properties that are within the Toorak Road (west of William and Claremont Streets) Heritage Precinct (HO150). On the west corner of Ralston Street and Toorak Road is a double storey heritage building that is used for retail. On the east corner of Ralston Street and Toorak Road is a six storey mixed use development that was approved by Planning Permit 200/11. This development presents with a double storey street wall to Toorak Road (to align with the height of the original heritage facades that have been retained) and the levels above setback varying distances from the front, side and rear (Caroline Gardens) boundaries.
More broadly, Toorak Road is linked to the wider Chapel Street Activity Centre and offers a wide range of services and amenities. Tram services operate along Toorak Road and the South Yarra Railway Station is located approximately 400 metres to the east of the subject site. Parking along Toorak Road is a mixture of short-term (1P or 2P with varying time restrictions) and time restricted long-term (P Ticket) parking. Clearway restrictions apply between 4.30-6.30pm Monday to Friday on the north side and 7-9am Monday to Friday on the south side.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates there are no recent planning applications registered to these properties.
The Title
The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10120 Folio 238 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 085291 and no covenants or easements affect the land.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone
Clause 37.08 – Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1)
Pursuant to Clause 37.08-2 a permit is not required to use the land for a food and drinks premises that is located at the ground and first floor, or an office above ground floor with a frontage at ground floor of less than 2 metres. A permit is also not required for a dwelling that is located on the third floor or above with a frontage at ground floor of less than 2 metres.
Pursuant to Clause 37.08-5, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works unless the schedule to this zone specifies otherwise.
Pursuant to Clause 37.08-6, a permit may be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works which is not in accordance with any design and development requirement in the schedule to this zone unless the schedule to this zone specifies otherwise.
The subject site falls within the South Yarra Precinct, sub-precinct Toorak Road West (TRW) and has a preferred maximum height of 21 metres (6 storeys), with a preferred maximum street wall height of 12 metres and a preferred minimum setback above the street wall on main streets of 4 metres.
It is noted that although the amended plans lodged on 27 April 2018 propose a building that does not exceed the preferred maximum building height or minimum street setback requirement as outlined in Schedule 1, the application is not exempt from the notice and review provisions of the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1) as the subject site is within 30 metres of a residential zone.
Overlay(s)
Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 1 and 20)
Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works, unless a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit is not required.
A schedule to this overlay may specify that an application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.
Schedule 1 – Royal Botanic Gardens, City of Melbourne
Section 2.0 specifies that a permit is not required for a building or works to be constructed up to 12 metres in height. This Schedule does not exempt an application from the notice and review rights.
Schedule 20 - Melbourne Metro Rail Project – Infrastructure Protections Areas
There are no exemptions for the buildings and works proposed within Schedule 20. Section 2.0 of the schedule specifies that an application is exempt from the notice and review rights.
Particular Provisions
Clause 52.06 – Car Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land prior to the commencement of a new use. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by the table included in Clause 52.06-5.
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 the following car parking is required:
• 2 car spaces to the three bedroom dwelling;
• Office requires 3.5 spaces to each 100 square metres of net floor area;
• Restaurant requires 0.4 spaces to each patron permitted.
The overall parking requirement for this site is 2 spaces for the dwelling, 14 spaces for the office and 40 spaces for the restaurant which is to cater for 100 patrons. This equates to a total of 56 spaces. As 11 spaces are provided within the car stackers, this application has a shortfall of 45 spaces.
Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3, the following requirements apply to each of the uses:
• A restaurant requires 1 employee space to each 100 square metres of floor area available to the public and 2 plus 1 to each 200 square metres of floor area available to the public if the floor area available to the public exceeds 400 square metres.
• The office space does not trigger a requirement for bicycle parking as the net floor area does not exceed 1000 square metres.
• A single dwelling does not trigger a requirement for bicycle parking.
The proposal triggers a need to provide 5 bicycle spaces associated with the restaurant. The plans show the provision of 2 spaces within the kitchen at the ground floor level. This is a shortfall of 3 spaces from the statutory requirement.
Relevant Planning Policies
Clause 9 Plan Melbourne
Clause 11 Settlement
Clause 11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne
Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage
Clause 16 Housing
Clause 17 Economic Development
Clause 19 Infrastructure
Clause 21.03 Vision
Clause 21.04 Economic Development
Clause 21.05 Housing
Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage
Clause 21.08 Infrastructure
Clause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development
Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy
Advertising
The original application was advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing 2 signs on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.
The site is located in North Ward and objections from four (4) different properties have been received.
The concerns can be summarized as:
• Access to and traffic in the right of way (ROW)
• Car parking for the new development
• Safety within the ROW
• Impacts on the heritage streetscape
• Excessive height
• Insufficient loading area
• Overlooking to the north
• Insufficient setback to the north
• Details of planters and maintenance
A Consultative Meeting was not held given less than seven (7) objections were received. The applicant lodged amended plans on 27 April 2018 after advertising to show the following changes in response to Officer and objector concerns:
• The building reduced to 5 storeys (19.8m overall height, was previously 22.8 metres in height).
• Increased the width of the laneway to 3.3m by providing additional 300mm clearance from the edge of the new building.
• All pedestrian access via the laneway removed.
• North facing terrace on the Second Level for the Office/Retail space has been removed.
• The terrace on the Third floor has been amended to remove the section on the northern side of the building, so that the terrace to only be located on the western side of the building.
• The third floor balustrade of the south facing balcony has been setback 2m from Toorak Road.
• Detailing has been added to the eastern and western upper walls to create articulation.
Referrals
VicRoads
VicRoads does not object to the proposal and if Council regards the proposed development favourably, VicRoads would require that the following conditions be included in any Notice of Decision to issue a Planning Permit or Planning Permit:
1. Prior to the commencement of the use or the occupation of the buildings or works hereby approved, the access crossover and associated works must be provided and available for use.
2. Vehicles must enter and exit the laneway/Toorak Road interface in a forward direction at all times.
Melbourne Metro
Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA) does not object to the grant of a planning permit.
Royal Botanic Gardens
No response received.
Urban Designer (comments based on advertised plans)
Council’s Urban Designer raised concerns with:
• Intensifying the use of the lane for vehicular traffic.
• The proximity of the Northern face of the building, at the Second and Third Floor levels, to the shared site boundary with No.424 Punt Road.
• The rear setbacks do not enable the equitable development of the adjoining property.
• The scale and bulk on the streetscape.
In addition, the Urban Designer suggested that the proposal be reduced in scale by deleting one of the two upper levels to reduce the excess height and associated visual bulk in the streetscape.
Planner Note: The applicant amended the plans on 27 April 2018 to address the above concerns. Council’s Urban Designer has advised that the amended building is acceptable but continues to maintain concerns with the intensification of the laneway. It is noted that the laneway is a public road and currently serves as the primary vehicle access point for car parking at the rear of the existing building. The laneway has been widened by an additional 300mm to improve vehicle access and measures have been undertaken through splayed walls to improve the visibility between vehicles using the lane and pedestrians along Toorak Road.
City Strategy (comments based on advertised plans)
• It is considered that the height should be reduced to 5 storeys given the small and narrow nature of the site, the heritage character of Toorak Road and the visibility of the site to Toorak Road. Setback requirements have not been met and should be appropriately incorporated.
• Equitable rights have not been appropriately considered along the western interface, and floor to floor heights should be adjusted accordingly.
Planner Note: The applicant amended the plans on 27 April 2018 to address the above concerns. The height of the building has been reduced to 5 storeys and the floor to floor heights adjusted to comply with the requirements of the Activity Centre Zone. In terms of equitable rights, the amended plans have removed all windows that were previously shown on the west boundary, addressing this concern.
Traffic and Parking (comments based on advertised plans)
• The applicant is to ensure that all spaces are allocated on the plans.
• Given the site’s location within an activity centre, the proposed parking shortfall can be considered acceptable.
• Additional traffic generated by the proposed development is not likely to significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions on Toorak Road.
• A minimum width of 3m is generally desirable in laneways.
• The headroom clearance is not clearly shown on the plans. The applicant is to revise the material to demonstrate that a minimum headroom clearance of 2.2m will be provided throughout the parking area within the property.
• The plans show a sight distance triangle on the east side of the laneway in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme and the Australian Standards. It is noted that no sight distance is provided on the west side of the laneway however this is an existing condition and can be considered acceptable. It is however recommended that sight distance to the west be improved, for example through installation of a mirror, given the increase in traffic volumes.
• The applicant is to provide further details of the ramp grades so that an adequate assessment can be made within the rear section of the lane and across the access aisle demonstrating that it will accord with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.
• It is noted that the car stacker unit is a shuffle type, with spaces at ground level required to move horizontally. The applicant is to confirm that the car stacker unit can operate with a grade across the entry level.
• The applicant is also to ensure that a minimum floor grade of 1:100 is provided for outdoor areas and 1:200 for covered areas to allow for drainage, as required by the Australian Standards.
• All spaces are proposed within a Wohr Combilift 543-2.6 car stacker unit. The unit is a shuffle type stacker with all spaces independently accessible.
• The applicant is to demonstrate that access manoeuvres are achievable in one movement by a B99 vehicle. Additional swept path diagrams are to be provided for access to the other two entry spaces, as the provided swept path diagrams do not adequately demonstrate access for these spaces.
• The plans show a pit depth of 2m however the upper level clearance is not clearly shown. The applicant is to confirm the height clearances within the car stacker unit.
• The plans do not show any bicycle parking spaces on-site. Plans to be revised to show the proposed bicycle parking arrangement and spaces are to be provided in accordance with the Australian Standards.
• It is recommended that visibility be improved in along the lane, or the pedestrian access point be removed.
• The plans show two canopies at the pedestrian entry points that project over the Toorak Road footpath, with a minimum clearance of 3.115m above the footpath level. This is in accordance with the Austroads Guidelines for footpath headroom clearance.
Planner Note: The applicant amended the plans on 27 April 2018 to address some of the above concerns including widening the lane by 300mm and incorporating two bicycle spaces to the ground floor level. Where concerns have not been addressed these matters have been dealt with via conditions.
Waste (comments based on advertised plans)
No concerns raised.
Infrastructure (comments based on advertised plans)
It would seem reasonable for the physical road that exists on title to be vested with Council as a Road. The proposed height limit of 4.0m may however be problematic because the maximum articulated vehicle height is 4.2m and realistically such a vehicle i.e. a removalist van, may well need to use the road. Usually we would require a minimum clearance of 4.3m.
Subject to the resolution of the above, Infrastructure has no objection to the development.
Please place a condition that a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.
Planner Note: The applicant amended the plans on 27 April 2018 and has removed all sections of building overhanging the lane with the exception of the canopy to the Toorak Road entry on the corner of the lane. To ensure that the minimum clearance of 4.3m is achieved, a condition will require that all structures that project over the road be removed.
Asset Management (comments based on advertised plans)
• The preferred outcome for the Asset Management Unit is for the existing dimensions of the public road to be unencumbered and retained by Council. This would mean no overhanging from the proposed development and the construction of a drain to drain the existing properties.
• Asset Management has no objection to the proposal by the applicant to not overhang the first 18 metres which is declared on Council’s Road Register and to only have the overhang over the remaining 12 metres which is not on Council’s Road Register and not part of the easement that does not make up their title.
Heritage Advisor (comments based on advertised plans)
• The proposed demolition of the existing building at 19-21 Toorak Road is an unfortunate proposal.
• The new building is too large and overpowering for this section of Toorak Road.
• The proposed new building is far too tall for this precinct and the upper floors have a minimal setback from the street.
KEY ISSUES
Strategic Justification
The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas in and around activity centres and close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.
The ACZ1 seeks (amongst other things):
To encourage a mixture of uses and the intensive development of the activity centre:
• As a focus for business, shopping, working, housing, leisure, transport and community facilities.
• To support sustainable urban outcomes that maximise the use of infrastructure and public transport.
To facilitate use and development of land in accordance with the Development Framework for the activity centre.
The application is for a mixed-use building within the activity centre. This development typology is consistent with State and local policies, including policies preferring retail uses at ground level with offices and/or residential uses above. This is reinforced through the vertical zoning provisions within the ACZ1. The food and drinks premises at the ground and first floor level will activate the street and serve the needs of the local community, while the office and retail space over the second and third floor levels will add to employment opportunities.
To further guide the development outcomes, Schedule 1 to the ACZ provides a number of Design and Development Requirements and Guidelines which give clear direction on the preferred use and development outcomes sought for the subject site. The proposal has carefully considered these requirements and guidelines and proposes a development that closely aligns with these objectives, as will be discussed in greater detail below.
Compliance with Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1)
The subject site falls within the South Yarra Precinct, sub-precinct Toorak Road West (TRW) where the precinct objectives are to:
• To support the local neighbourhood role and built form response of Toorak Road, west of the railway line.
• To preserve and enhance view lines to the historic former Post Office at 162 Toorak Road.
• To ensure development respects the heritage significance of streetscapes.
• To support Toorak Road as a distinctive shopping, boutique commercial, employment, tourism and living precinct.
• To provide better pedestrian access to South Yarra station.
• To strengthen the role of Chapel Street and its historic streetscape as a vibrant retail and commercial hub providing boutique fashion retail and entertainment.
• To enhance the street level of the precinct through improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenity.
• In Sub-Precincts TRC-1 and TRC-2, achieve a mix of residential and business uses at a relatively low built form with stronger emphasis on addressing the residential amenity.
• To improve the quality of the public realm and pedestrian access to the South Yarra Siding Reserve, including more direct access from the Forrest Hill Precinct.
• To support the activation of retail and commercial activity in side streets.
The specific Built Form Requirements for the subject site are:
• Preferred maximum height of 21 metres (6 storeys),
• Preferred maximum street wall height of 12 metres to Toorak Road.
• Preferred minimum setback above the street wall on main streets of 4 metres (outside of HO).
• Side interface to the lane (west side) of 12 metre high wall with a 3 metre setback above.
• Rear interface to the residential zone (north) of a 9.5 metre high wall with a 45 degree building envelope angled above the street wall.
This application seeks to demolish all buildings on the subject site to make way for the construction of a new 5 storey mixed use building. In terms of the height and interface requirements of the ACZ1, the proposal is less than the 21 metres (6 storey) preferred maximum height. The design adopts a strong three storey street wall, which is 11.9 metres in height and consistent with the future aspirations of this streetscape as guided by the ACZ1.
Above the street wall, the upper levels are setback 4 metres from Toorak Road in an effort to avoid the building overwhelming the adjoining commercial properties. A terrace at the third floor level encroaches within the building envelope and is setback 2 metres from Toorak Road. Although not strictly in accordance with the design requirements, the 1.1 metre high balustrade will not create excessive bulk and will be partially concealed on views along Toorak Road and concealed entirely from directly opposite the subject site. The upper level walls are adequately setback so as to reduce the visual dominance of the building on the streetscape and to ensure that the lower levels create a strong base that relates to the surrounding buildings. When viewed on oblique angles along Toorak Road, the building will be successfully recessed so as not to dominate the streetscape.
On the west side of the building, abutting the existing lane, the ACZ1 recommends a 12 metre high wall with a 3 metre setback above 12 metres.
The amended design proposes a 12.2 metre high wall on the west boundary, for the section of land that is not formally part of Council’s Road Register. Above this wall the upper levels are setback 3 metres from the west title boundary. This is generally compliant with the design requirements sought by the ACZ1. While the wall will sit slightly above the 12 metres recommended, the additional height forms part of the balcony balustrade. The additional 0.2 metres is not deemed to create an excessively high wall to the west.
In terms of equitable development, the site to the west is separated from the proposed building via a 3.3 metre wide lane. To the rear the new building will be located on the title boundary, approximately 1.36 metres from the adjoining building. Currently the building to the west is a single storey commercial tenancy and it is a reasonable expectation that this site will redevelop to a commensurate height as the proposed building in the future. In accordance with the ACZ1, commercial uses are expected over the ground, first and second floor levels, at a minimum. At the third floor level and above the new building is setback from the west boundary by 3 metres, with the exception of a west facing balcony associated with the office/retail space. The balcony is not associated with a sensitive residential use that would require on-site amenity protection (such as protection from overshadowing or overlooking) in the future, therefore, its construction within the 3m setback from the boundary at this level will not prejudice the future development opportunities of the adjoining property. Based on the wall heights and setbacks the proposal is in accordance with the development framework under the ACZ1 and will provide sufficient separation between the buildings to allow for natural light, ventilation and aspect in the event that the adjoining site redevelops. For these reasons, the development as proposed is considered to be an equitable outcome.
The character to the north of the subject site is notably different to that of the south due to the change in the zone (from Activity Centre Zone to Residential Growth Zone). The proposed building recesses away from the residential properties to the north with the upper levels setback at a 45 degree angle above the rear 8.8m high wall. This provides an adequate transition in scale between the Residential Growth Zone and the Activity Centre Zone. Notably, the ACZ1 allows a wall up to 9.5 metres in height to abut the north boundary and as proposed the wall is 0.7 metres lower than what is allowed, further reducing any impacts of bulk to the north.
Views and loss of privacy to the north have been reduced by removing all north facing balconies associated with the office/retail levels. The only north facing balcony is associated with the upper level apartment which is setback 6 metres from the north boundary. Views from this balcony into the adjoining property are of the rear car park associated with the medical centre. The non-residential use to the north does not require amenity protection with regard to overlooking as there are no habitable room windows or areas of private open space within 9 metres of the proposed north facing balcony.
In order to achieve a sensitive built form transition to, nearby heritage buildings and residential properties, the upper level the building has been articulated via the use of textured render and glazing. Overall the development provides adequate separation between adjoining buildings for the provision of equitable development opportunities and privacy of habitable room windows and balconies. It is noted that the plans need to be updated to dimension all building setbacks at all level to the site boundaries for clarity. This will be addressed via a condition.
In addition to above height and interface requirements the development must also respond to the following:
Overshadowing requirements and guidelines
As a consequence of complying with the preferred height, street wall and setback requirements the shadows are deemed to be acceptable and as anticipated by the design outcomes sought by the ACZ1 controls. The proposed shadows will not extend to the southern footpath along Toorak Road between 10am and 3pm on 22 September.
Building adaptability requirements and guidelines
The development has been designed to exceed the minimum 4.0 metres floor to floor height at ground floor with a 4.2 metre floor to floor height proposed. At the first and second floor level the 3.8 metres floor to floor height have been provided in accordance with this requirement.
Heritage sites guidelines
The guidelines state:
• Respect the built heritage and sympathetically respond to the urban fabric, identity and character of the Activity Centre.
• The design character (including building form, facades and roofs) of developments should acknowledge and reflect the predominant vertical ordering which is a characteristic of heritage buildings.
• Avoid facadism (retain primary building volume) when developing existing buildings in the Heritage Overlay.
• Retain the integrity and prominence of existing heritage buildings from views from the street/s.
• For sites within or adjoining a Heritage Overlay, appropriately respond to the heritage significance of the heritage place.
The proposal does not involve any development within a Heritage Overlay; however the Toorak Road (west of William and Claremont Streets) Precinct is located along the southern side of Toorak Road, opposite the subject site.
The proposed five storey building will be taller than most of the surrounding buildings on the north side of this section of the street, but has been designed to comply with the development framework within the ACZ1, which envisions higher built form and more intensive development. As there is no Heritage Overlay on the subject site the removal of the existing building cannot be controlled by a planning permit.
The impact on the Heritage Overlay has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor (based on the advertised plans), who has noted that the loss of the building is unfortunate and at 6 storeys the building will overwhelm the street. The amended plans have reduced the height of the building to 5 storeys and increased the upper level setbacks. Despite there being some heritage concerns, the development cannot be refused on heritage grounds. It is considered that the contemporary nature of the new development will provide a suitable contrast with the nearby heritage area, while achieving both State and local policy objectives for urban consolidation in accordance with the expectations of the Activity Centre Zone. It is noted that the scale of the development is less than the 6 storey building that has been constructed opposite the subject site, in the Heritage Overlay.
Views and landmarks guidelines
The new building will not obscure any significant views or landmarks.
Public realm interface guidelines
The building will present well to Toorak Road with an active commercial frontage at the ground and first floor level with a proposed restaurant and balcony associated with the office/retail and apartment above. In terms of the passive surveillance, the building provides ample opportunities to engage with and observe the public realm, improving security and ‘eyes on the street’. Additionally, the facade is well articulated and presents acceptably to the public realm through the use of a varied palette of solid materials and glazing.
Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) guidelines
The building has been designed with good access to natural daylight, including north facing windows at the upper levels. The building will exceed the minimum BCA 6 star energy requirements and this will include the use of double glazing for all windows. Moreover, an outdoor clothes line will be installed on the northern balcony of the apartment. The development is deemed to be a satisfactory response to Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy (Clause 22.05). However, the Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) will need to be updated to reflect the revised plans and this will be dealt with via a condition of any permit issued.
Materials guidelines
The development will be finished in durable, low maintenance materials, such as textured render, stone render, zinc cladding, metal roof and railing and clear glazing.
Noise attenuation guidelines
Double glazing is to be used throughout the development which will serve to help provide a comfortable acoustic environment for future occupants of the dwelling on the top floor and the office/retail on the second and third floors. Plans are to be updated to note double glazing on the materials and finishes schedule. The mechanical plant is proposed on the roof (as no basement is proposed) and will be screened. The material of the screen has not been shown on plans and this will be required via a condition, in conjunction with a condition requiring that the plant must be visually and acoustically screened and no air conditioning units are to be placed on balconies.
Parking guidelines
Car parking is to be provided on site at the rear of the building in car stackers that will accommodate 11 vehicles to meet standard B85. The car parking will be accessed via a widened lane (3.3 metres) from Toorak Road. In addition to on-site car parking, 2 staff bicycle facilities are provided at the ground floor level for convenient access. Council’s Urban Designer has raised some concerns with the intensification of the existing laneway for access to the new stackers at the rear of the building. While a car-free development would be supported in this location within an Activity Centre Zone, the site currently benefits from the lane to provide access to the rear for car parking. In this regard, it is difficult to now refuse to allow for car parking at the rear of the building accessed via a public road. Importantly, the car stackers allow for 11 vehicles to park on site which is likely to generate 5.3 traffic movements per peak hour. The dwelling is likely to generate 3 traffic movements per day, while the commercial uses are likely to generate 38 movements per day. This is not deemed to be excessive.
Open Space and landscaping requirement and guidelines
The proposal is not required to provide any communal open space as only one dwelling is proposed on the land. Being within an activity centre and situated on a main road, there is no distinct garden character to be conserved.
Internal Amenity
The new dwelling is deemed to provide a reasonable standard of amenity for future residents by providing three bedrooms over an area of 125 square metres. The main living and dining area is oriented towards the north and all habitable rooms have access to an external window for natural light and ventilation. The dwelling is provided a 14 square metre north facing balcony and lift and stair access provides an appropriate level of safety and accessibility from the street.
Car Parking and Traffic
The proposed development generates a statutory car parking requirement of 56 car parking spaces, with 11 on-site spaces proposed within the car stacker to the rear of the building. The car parking spaces will be allocated to each of the uses via a conditional requirement of any permit issued. Although a considerable reduction in the number of car parking spaces is sought, the site is within the activity centre zone, is situated on a main road (Road Zone Category 1) that is served by public transport and is within 400 metres of the South Yarra Railway Station.
Given the site has excellent access to other forms of transport and the availability of short-term parking for visitors to the offices and restaurant within the activity centre, the reduction sought is considered reasonable.
In terms of traffic generation, neither VicRoads nor Council’s Traffic Engineers have raised any concerns.
The design of the parking bays, stackers, access ways and sightlines are generally acceptable subject to a number of conditions including:
• Minimum headroom clearance of 2.2 metres must be shown throughout the parking area within the property.
• Sight distance to the west be improved through installation of a mirror, or otherwise as agreed to by Responsible Authority.
• Details of all ramp grades demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.
• Plans to confirm that the car stacker unit can operate with a grade across the entry level.
• A minimum floor grade of 1:100 is provided for outdoor areas and 1:200 for covered areas to allow for drainage, as required by the Australian Standards.
• Swept path diagrams are to be provided for access to the two entry spaces demonstrating that these spaces can be easily accessed.
• Plans to confirm the height clearances within the car stacker unit.
Subject to the above, the proposed on-site car parking is deemed to be satisfactory.
Loading Bay
Although loading bay provisions no longer form part of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, loading and unloading is still a relevant consideration of the any new commercial use. Due to the size of the commercial tenancy and the site’s proximity to the commercial area, it is acceptable that this development rely on the nearby “Loading Zone” on Toorak Road for loading and unloading. The nearest loading bay is located 40 metres away to the east along Toorak Road.
Bicycle Parking
The bicycle parking requirements of Clause 52.34 cannot be achieved for this site. Two staff parking spaces have been provided in the ground floor back of house area for the restaurant use. There are limitations on where any additional spaces could be provided as there is no basement car park proposed, where bicycle facilitates are ordinarily placed. Given the site has excellent access to public transport the lack of bicycle parking on this site can be deemed acceptable, noting that the office and dwelling can both accommodate internal bicycle storage in the future. It is noted that plans must be amended to show that bicycle parking is to be provided in accordance with the Australian Standards, by way of a condition.
Access and Ownership of the Lane
As mentioned earlier in this report, the development includes formalisation of the existing laneway. This portion of the subject site is declared as a public road on Council’s Register of Public Roads managed under the Road Management Act 2004 and is under the care and control of the City of Stonnington. The Register of Public Roads has the dimensions of this road as 18 metres long and 3 metres wide.
This proposal does not seek to alter the road from the existing conditions, except for widening the lane by an additional 300mm to improve access. The additional 300mm has been provided voluntarily by the permit applicant at the request of Council’s Transport and Parking Department. The Traffic Engineers have advised that the lane should be widened by 300mm on either side where the accessway abuts high walls, as per the Australian Standards. However, it is noted that this requirement may not strictly apply to the public laneway. The fact that the application has incorporated this additional setback willingly, is positive.
The architectural plans clearly state that the area on the subject site that is currently declared as a public road on Council’s Register of Public Roads is to be vested in Council. This is to be confirmed via a condition of the permit and must be formalised on title, prior to the occupation of the new building.
Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
The proposal complies with Clause 22.18 as it is proposed to connect a 5100L rainwater tank to the toilets for flushing. This achieves the minimum best practice (STORM Rating of 103%) and is acceptable.
Objections
In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:
• Details of planters and maintenance
All planters previously shown on the fifth level (now deleted) have been removed from the amended plans.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:
• The proposal achieves an appropriate built form outcome, respects adjoining and adjacent building fabric, does not unreasonably impact on the amenity or development potential of adjacent or nearby sites.
Attachments
|1. |PA - 19-21 Toorak Road South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 1 |Plans |
|RECOMMENDATION |
| |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1007/16 for the land located at 19-21 Toorak Road, South Yarra be issued under |
|the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a mixed use development in an Activity Centre Zone and Design and Development |
|Overlay, variations to the design and development requirements of Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone, reduction in the car parking |
|and bicycle parking requirements, and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 subject to the following conditions: |
| |
|1. Before the commencement of the use and development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and |
|approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans TP00 Rev F, TP01 Rev C, TP02 Rev |
|C, TP03 Rev C, TP04 Rev C, TP05 Rev C, TP06 Rev A, TP07 Rev C, TP08 Rev C, TP09 Rev C, TP10 Rev F, TP11 Rev H, TP12 Rev F, TP13 Rev H, |
|TP14 Rev F, TP16 Rev E, TP17 Rev F, TP18 Rev F, TP19 Rev G, TP20 Rev F, TP21 Rev E, TP22 Rev G, TP23 Rev H, TP24 Rev A, TP25 Rev A as |
|amended on 27 April 2018 but modified to show: |
| |
|a) No building or canopy overhanging the road; |
|b) Car parking allocation to each of the uses to be noted on the plans; |
| |
|c) Minimum headroom clearance of 2.2 metres shown throughout the parking area within the property; |
|d) Sight distance to the west be improved through installation of a mirror, or otherwise as agreed by the Responsible Authority; |
|e) Details of all ramp grades demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme; |
|f) Plans to confirm that the car stacker unit can operate with a grade across the entry level; |
|g) A minimum floor grade of 1:100 is provided for outdoor areas and 1:200 for covered areas to allow for drainage, as required by the |
|Australian Standards; |
|h) Swept path diagrams to be provided for access to the two entry spaces demonstrating that these spaces can be easily accessed; |
|i) Plans to confirm the height clearances within the car stacker unit; |
|j) Plans to note that bicycle parking is to be provided in accordance with the Australian Standards; |
|k) The material of the plant screen on the roof to be notated on plans; |
|l) All windows to confirm the use of double glazing via notations on elevations and confirmed on the materials and finishes schedule; |
|m) Dimensioned building setbacks to all boundaries; |
|n) Remove all reference to a bar at the ground floor level and replace with restaurant; |
| |
|all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|3. Prior to the occupation of the building, the owner must vest the land shown on the plans as “area to be declared a road” with Council,|
|at no cost to Council. There is to be no overhanging from the proposed development into the road at any time. |
| |
|4. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and |
|approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must |
|incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the |
|SDA must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The report must be generally in accordance with the Sustainable |
|Design Assessment prepared by F2 Design dated July 2017, but modified as follows: |
| |
|a) Updated to reflect the amended plans Council date stamped 27 April 2018 and to show any further changes as required by Condition 1. |
|All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible |
|Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The |
|Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 24 August |
|2016 but modified: |
| |
|a) To reflect the changes as shown on the amended plans Council date stamped 27 April 2018. |
|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. |
| |
|6. 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. |
| |
|7. 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. |
| |
|8. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site. |
| |
|9. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Local Laws. |
| |
|10. 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. |
| |
|11. 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. |
| |
|12. 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. |
| |
|13. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of|
|use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of |
|the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|14. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the |
|surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and must not be located on balconies to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|15. A maximum number of 100 seats must be provided at all times the restaurant use is in operation to the satisfaction of the Responsible|
|Authority. |
| |
|16. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater |
|management report. |
| |
|17. 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 |
| |
|VicRoads Conditions |
| |
|18. Prior to the commencement of the use or the occupation of the buildings or works hereby approved, the access crossover and associated|
|works must be provided and available for use. |
| |
|19. Vehicles must enter and exit the laneway/Toorak Road interface in a forward direction at all times. |
| |
|VicRoads Conditions end |
| |
|20. 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 is for the use of the land and/or buildings and does not constitute any authority to conduct a business requiring Health |
|Act/Food Act registration without prior approval from the Councils Health Services. |
| |
|B. 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. |
| |
|C. Unless a permit is not required under the Stonnington Planning Scheme, signs must not be constructed or displayed without a further |
|planning permit. |
| |
|D. This permit does not give any authority to occupy the footpath for trading without prior approval from Council's Local Laws |
|department. A permit must be obtained for footpath trading and it must accord with the relevant Footpath Trading Code. |
| |
|E. 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. |
| |
|Melbourne Metro Rail Authority: |
| |
|For the purposes of the detailed design of the Metro Tunnel the as-constructed details of the footings and the main structure of the |
|building, should be provided to the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority at planningapprovals@melbournemetro..au or on 1800551927 when |
|they become available. |
| |
6. Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct - Heritage Investigation
Manager City Strategy: Susan Price
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
Purpose
The purpose of this report is for Council to:
• Consider the findings of the two heritage investigations considering extending the Hawksburn Railway precinct; and as a result of the findings
• Request authorisation from the Minister for Planning for an Amendment to the Planning Scheme to apply the Heritage Overlay.
Background
Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct (HO137)
The Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct was first identified in the 1983 Prahran Conservation Study (Nigel Lewis and Associates) and included the railway station and properties alongside the railway line between Cromwell Road and Williams Road. The 1992 Prahran Character and Conservation Study (Nigel Lewis, 1992) recommended an addition to the heritage area extending north along Hawksburn Road in the vicinity of Cassell Street, which was formerly the driveway between ‘Hawksburn House’ and Williams Road.
Heritage Strategy
In December 2006, Council undertook a Heritage Strategy Review and adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan provides a framework for reviewing existing places and heritage citations and assessing new places not currently protected under the Heritage Overlay. This included recommendations to investigate precinct gaps within the municipality. Council’s Heritage Strategy is currently being reviewed so as to inform the next iteration of the Heritage Strategy Action Plan.
City of Stonnington Precinct Gap Study 2009
In 2007, Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd was commissioned to investigate precinct gaps within the Heritage Overlay. The City of Stonnington Gap Study (Heritage Precincts) Interim Report (May 2008) identified potential extensions to a number of precincts, including HO137 the Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct.
The HO137 ‘Hawksburn, Luxton and Barnsbury Roads Precinct’ was extended and re-named ‘Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct’. The extensions to the north along Hawksburn Road added six properties on the east side of Hawksburn Road (No’s 58 to 68) and a pocket of three contiguous properties on the west side of Hawksburn Road (No’s 55-59).
A detailed citation for HO137 was prepared and the precinct was formally extended with the approval of Amendment C103 in 2010. Refer to Attachment 1 for the extent of HO137 following the approval of Amendment C103 which is as it exists in the Planning Scheme today.
Planning Permits
VCAT issued a planning permit for a multi-unit development at 74 Hawksburn Road South Yarra on 31 May 2016. A request for plans to comply were lodged with Council on 1 December 2017 and these are currently being assessed by Statutory Planning.
On 30 May 2018 the applicant requested an extension of time for the permit which is also being assessed by Statutory Planning.
On 25 July 2017 Council received a request under Section 29a of the Building Act 1993 to provide consent to the proposed full demolition of the place at 364A & B Toorak Road South Yarra. As neither buildings were identified as being of heritage significance, Council issued consent for demolition on 8 August 2017.
Council Meeting 5 February 2018 – Petition tabled
At Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 5 February 2018, a petition was tabled asking Council to review the area for heritage significance.
At the request of Council a review of the heritage extent in the locality Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd were engaged to investigate whether the boundaries of the Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct were appropriate, specifically regarding the properties at the northern end of Hawksburn Road.
Councillor Briefing 26 March 2018 – Preliminary advice
At Council’s Briefing on 26 March 2018, a report was presented which outlined the preliminary advice from Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd who recommended the Heritage Overlay be extended to the south only. The report considered consider requesting authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare a planning scheme amendment for properties to the south in Howitt and Hobson Streets.
Councillors requested officers to seek a further opinion from another heritage consultant into a potential precinct extension prior to the report being formally considered by Council.
Discussion
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Heritage advice
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd was asked to investigate the northern end of Hawksburn Road for a potential precinct extension to HO137 (refer to Attachment 1). As part of their investigation they inspected the other edges of the precinct for comparison.
The findings from the investigation concluded:
“The existing boundary to HO137 generally remains appropriate, including the northern end of Hawksburn Road, but there is potential for a minor extension at the southern edge of the precinct to take in 9-19 Hobson Street and 1-11 Howitt Street.” (Refer to Attachments 1 and 2)
With regards to the properties at the northern end of Hawksburn Road it was observed that:
“A number of these buildings would nominally be contributory (i.e. 67, 69, 79, 74 Hawksburn Road & 364A & B, 366-370 Toorak Road) but they are isolated from the more intact sections of Hawksburn Road by non-contributory sections (i.e. 61, 63, 65 and 70). Furthermore, modern non-contributory buildings within the potential precinct extension exist in broadly equivalent numbers to houses that would be contributory. This can be taken as a measure of the limited diminished integrity of the streetscape at this point….
The visually prominent four storey apartment at 70 Hawksburn Road and modern developments on the west side of the street at the intersection of Norman Avenue create a logical endpoint to the precinct. The inclusion of this (northern) section of Hawksburn Road in HO137 would not bring about an appreciable improvement in the heritage value of the streetscape.
The heritage advice also noted there is an approved planning permit by VCAT for development of the property at 74 Hawksburn Road South Yarra and concluded that;
“… We do not think that a strong enough or compelling enough case can be made to include the northern end of Hawksburn Road in HO137, regardless of whether the Victorian house at 74 Hawksburn Road was retained or demolished.”
The heritage investigation found that additional properties at the southern end warrant protection in the Heritage Overlay. The properties along Hobson and Howitt Streets are “entirely comprised of Victorian dwellings with no modern infill”.
It was noted that the Statement of Significance does not need updating as;
“The dwellings recommended for the precinct extension also share many of the contributory attributes listed in the existing Statement of Significance for HO137” and;
“The Statement of Significance already explains why housing stock in Hobson and Howitt Streets are important, and moreover, a precinct Statement of Significance is general in nature and does not normally need to describe all buildings or streetscapes in detail.”
The heritage advice notes that the earlier Panel for Amendment C103 which proposed an earlier extension to the Hawksburn Railway Precinct determined the precinct boundary to be “well defined” but that “this is an aspect of heritage assessment that cannot be reduced to a scientifically objective or purely quantitative process. It inevitably depends on professional judgement…”
Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd Heritage advice
Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd was asked to investigate the northern end of Hawksburn Road for a potential precinct extension to HO137 (refer to Attachment 1).
The findings from the investigation concluded:
“On the basis of analysis outlined above, it is recommended that these potential precinct extensions (properties to the north of HO137 and at 43-53 Hawksburn Road as shown in Figure 1) to HO137 are applied through a Planning Scheme Amendment”
It notes that while there is modern development in the northern end of Hawksburn Road it is not dissimilar to other areas of the precinct and that the current character has:
“A piecemeal character, with discontinuous sections of streetscape” (page 10)
Along with the sequence of contributory buildings, there are a “continuity of nineteenth and early twentieth century houses from one end to the other” and the precinct “is experienced as a whole due to the views along it created by the valley in the middle.” (Page 10)
Nigel Lewis has recommended that the existing citation would need to be revised to accommodate the properties.
Impact of Intrusive Development
The advice comments that the modern infill does not impact a proposed precinct extension as there are areas within the existing precinct that have similar modern infill to that of the northern end of Hawksburn Road (refer to Page 17, Attachment 3).
43 to 53 (odd numbers) Hawksburn Road
The advice recommends the inclusion of the properties of 43-53 Hawksburn Road in the Heritage Overlay. The advice notes that their inclusion would:
“Help ensure that any redevelopment takes account of the lower overall scale of this group, and help avoid any development of the scale of 51 and 53” (page 10)
61 to 79 and 70 to 76 Hawksburn Road and 362-370 Toorak Road
The advice notes that there are several groupings of contributory buildings along the northern end of Hawksburn Road along with some non-contributory buildings (refer Attachment 4).
The advice notes that while the property at 364A & B Toorak is a contributory building it is disconnected from Hawksburn Road due to its large rear yard and Toorak Road facing position (Page 13, Attachment 3). This large rear yard is said to “terminate” the sequence of contributory buildings on the west side of Hawksburn Road.
The property at 362 Toorak Road is an interwar building and:
“Has more shared values with the adjoining group of contributory interwar flats that flank Stanhope Court” (Page 14)
The advice does not recommend an investigation into Stanhope Court, but there may be justification to investigate the grouping of interwar buildings along Toorak Road and Stanhope Court in the context of new Heritage Strategy.
The advice discusses the impacts of the non-contributory buildings within the area examined and notes:
“The 1960’s flats at 70 Hawksburn Road is the only non-contributory building in this group (eastern side of Hawksburn Road). While it does provide some discontinuity between 68 Hawksburn Road and the houses further north, tree planting has made it more recessive than the 1950’s-60s flats at the south end of Hawksburn Road.” (Page 14)
Implications of the development of 74 Hawksburn Road and 364A & B Toorak Road
As part of the preliminary investigation, Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd was asked to consider the impact of the two redevelopment proposals on a proposed extension of the precinct. The advice noted that even with the redevelopment of both properties, extension of the precinct boundaries would still be justified.
The advice notes that 74 Hawksburn Road is set back from the street and 364 A & B Toorak Road is disconnected from Hawksburn Road by its rear yard and Toorak facing frontage (Page 18, Attachment 3). As Hawksburn Road is appreciated as a whole by looking along the road these properties make little contribution in the way it is appreciated (page 10, Attachment 10).
Extension to include Hobson and Howitt Streets
Preliminary advice from Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd agreed that an extension to the southern end of HO137 was warranted to include the properties at Hobson and Howitt Streets (refer to attachments 1 and 5).
Consideration of Options
As there is a difference in opinion between heritage consultants, Council has two options on how to proceed.
Option 1 – Extending HO137 North and South
Council could choose to proceed with seeking to extend the Heritage Overlay both north along Hawksburn Road and south to include the properties at Hobson and Howitt Streets. As shown in Figure 1 and Attachment 1.
Council officers would engage Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd to conduct an updated citation for HO137 to support a planning scheme amendment. Nigel would be commissioned to revise the existing HO137 citation.
Option 2 – Extending HO137 South only
Council may alternatively decide to extend HO137 solely to Hobson and Howitt Streets as shown in Attachment 1.
Council officers would commission Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd to prepare an addendum to the citation and the precinct extension could be parcelled with other heritage investigations currently being undertaken by Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd.
Option Review
Heritage evaluations are not an exact science and heritage consultant’s advice may differ. In each case the advice must be considered on its merits.
In this case, both consultants agree that Hobson and Howitt Streets are an intact Victorian Streetscape that warrant inclusion in the Heritage Overlay.
A key area of difference between consultants is the impact of the non-contributory buildings on a proposed precinct extension to the north. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd takes the view that the modern infill developments are too imposing and “provide a logical endpoint” to the precinct, and “isolate” the contributory properties from the more intact southern section. Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd agrees that these buildings are “disruptive” however considers the intactness of the northern end to mirror other parts of the precinct.
While Hobson and Howitt Streets are formed by entirely contributory buildings, there is a greater proportion of non-contributory buildings in the northern end of Hawksburn Road. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd comment that there are “broadly equivalent numbers (of non-contributory buildings) to houses that would be contributory”, which provide a measure of the diminished integrity of the streetscape. The development of modern buildings at 74 Hawksburn and 364A & B Toorak Road would further diminish the integrity of the streetscape. (Refer to Attachment 4 and 5).
It is considered that the number of non-contributory buildings within the proposed precinct extension should be given considerable weight when deciding what option to pursue. The proposed extension contains a similar proportion of non-contributory buildings to Amendment C189 (Toorak House Precinct). The number of non-contributory buildings impacted the precinct’s integrity and Council resolved to abandon the Amendment.
The advice on whether to include the non-contributory buildings at 43 to 53 Hawksburn Road differs between the consultants.
An extension to the north of Hawksburn Road is considered to have a weaker argument considering the number and placement of non-contributory buildings compared to the existing precinct. In comparison the Hobson and Howitt Streets which consist of wholly contributory houses.
The advice from Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd recommends that the citation for HO137 would need to be revised, while Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd recommends an Addendum to the Citation. A revision to the citation may have broader implication to the precinct as a whole as it affects all properties rather than the proposed extension. While an Addendum only impacts the properties in the proposed Amendment, as the Statement of Significance remains unchanged. A revision to the citation may require Council to notify the residents of the entire precinct, while notification for an addendum to the citation would be more targeted to the properties in the extension.
If Council were to pursue permanent heritage controls for either option, interim controls should be pursued while the permanent amendment progresses. The Department for Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) have advised Council that properties with existing permits or consents should be excluded from an interim HO, unless the significance warrants its application. However interim controls may be considered if a permit was issued a long time ago and has not been acted upon.
It is recommended that Council pursue option 2 and to commission Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd to prepare an addendum to the HO137 citation for the southern extension only.
Permanent Heritage Protection – Amendment C278
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd has recommended that the Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct be extended to include the twelve (12) properties at 9-19 Hobson Street and 1-11 Howitt Street. No internal alteration controls, paint controls, tree controls or fence/outbuilding controls are recommended.
It is therefore proposed to pursue a planning scheme amendment to include these properties in the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis.
Exemption from full notice
It is recommended that Council also seek endorsement to request the Minister for Planning for an exemption from the requirement to give full notice (in the local newspaper) given the Amendment is localised and has no offsite amenity impacts. It is proposed that notice is given to directly affected landowners, occupiers and prescribed authorities.
Any further notice is at the discretion of the Planning Authority. Section 19 (7) of the Planning and Environment 1987 states:
“A planning Authority may take any other steps it thinks necessary to tell anyone who may be affected by the amendment about its preparation.”
It is not recommended that Council notify beyond this, as the proposed changes to the Planning Scheme do not materially affect neighbouring properties.
Interim Heritage Protection – Amendment C277
In considering the need for Interim Controls, Council officers have carefully considered the recent advice from the Minister for Planning regarding blanket interim requests. DELWP have advised Council that interim heritage controls are an extraordinary use of the Ministers powers. Council must be able to provide a high degree of justification to warrant requesting their application in this instance.
It is recommended that Council request the Minister for Planning to intervene with a Ministerial Amendment by protecting the properties at 1-11 Howitt and 9-19 Hobson Streets with interim heritage protection.
It is considered that the application of interim controls will allow Council to manage and assess any proposals for demolition and redevelopment during the intervening period until the permanent controls are determined. This will reduce the risk of proposals during the amendment consideration, potentially undermining the heritage significance of the proposed precinct extension. Applications will be assessed pursuant to the provisions of the Heritage Overlay and the owners will have the right of appeal to VCAT during the amendment process.
As part of the requirement for requesting interim heritage controls, Council must provide evidence that an area is experiencing development pressure or is under immediate threat of demolition.
The Victorian Government’s SMART Planning program seeks to make the Planning System more efficient. The inclusion of the additional 12 places in the Heritage Overlay on an interim basis as part of Amendment C277 will make more efficient use of Council’s and DELWP’s resources eliminating duplication in process.
Next Steps
Should Council progress with option 2, Council officers will commission Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd to prepare an addendum to the Hawksburn Railway Precinct Citation (HO137). Council officers will notify affected owners of Council’s heritage investigation and future proposed planning scheme amendment.
Following authorisation, Council will formally exhibit an amendment to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to include the properties at 1-11 Howitt and 9-19 Hobson Streets under the Heritage Overlay. Owners and occupiers will be notified of the proposed Amendment with a letter and accompanying FAQ sheet and will be advised of how to make a submission. At the time of exhibition, it is proposed to offer one on one consultations with affected owners and occupiers with Council’s heritage consultant and Council officers. Interim amendment provisions will be sought while a permanent amendment progresses.
Policy Implications
The proposed amendments are consistent with the following liveability strategy in the Council Plan (2017-2021);
Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development.
The proposed Amendments are consistent with policy direction in Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement:
Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington
The proposed Amendments are consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy Clause 22.04, this seeks to:
Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance.
Financial and Resources Implications
The financial cost of the investigation and the proposed amendment has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit for 2017/2018 and 2018/2019.
Council’s adopted Heritage Action Plan provides a framework for investigating places for potential heritage significance. The Action Plan groups potentially significant places into themes, which are investigated as a group in a future study. Heritage studies provide for a greater comparison of heritage stock across the municipality and offer greater strategic rigour in applying the Heritage Overlay.
Legal advice & implications
Legal advice will be sought as required.
Conclusion
Council officers have sought advice from two heritage consultants as to whether an extension to the boundary for HO137 to the north is potentially warranted. Both pieces of advice recommend an extension to the south however their advice differs on the merits of an extension to the north.
Upon considering the merits of both pieces of advice, it is recommended that Council should proceed with pursuing an amendment to extend the boundary of HO137 to the south only to include 9-19 Hobson Street and 1-11 Howitt Street.
It is also recommended that Council request the Minister for Planning to prepare an Amendment to provide interim heritage protection to the properties at 9-19 Hobson and 1-11 Howitt Streets while the Amendment for permanent heritage controls is being progressed.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Attachments
|1. |Attachment 1 - Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct Map |Excluded |
|2. |Attachment 2 - Bryce Raworth Memo |Excluded |
|3. |Attachment 3 - Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd Memo |Excluded |
|4. |Attachment 4 - Proposed grading Map North Hawksburn Road |Excluded |
|5. |Attachment 5 - Proposed Grading Map Hobson/Howitt Street |Excluded |
|6. |Attachment 6 - Heritage Amendments |Excluded |
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Note the findings of the heritage advice in relation to the boundary of Hawksburn Railway Station Precinct (HO137) in Attachments 2 |
|and 3. |
|2. Applies to the Minister for Planning requesting authorisation to prepare an Amendment C278 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme in |
|accordance with Section 9(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the properties at 1-11 Howitt and 9-19 Hobson Streets. |
|3. Applies to the Minister for Planning requesting to prepare and approve Amendment C277 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme in accordance|
|with Section 8(1) (b) and 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to provide apply interim heritage controls to 1-11 Howitt and |
|9-19 Hobson Streets. |
|4. Applies to the Minister under section 20 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for an exemption from the requirement to give |
|full notice under Section 19 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for Amendment C278 |
|5. Authorise Council offers to prepare amendment documents for authorisation and exhibition for Amendment C278. |
|6. Once authorisation is received, notify all prescribed authorities, owners and occupiers of the properties affected of Amendment C277 |
|and Amendment C278. |
|7. Provide advanced notice to the owners of the properties affected by proposed Amendments C277 and C278 of Council’s resolution. |
|8. Advise the head petitioner of the petition tabled at Council’s 5 February 2018 Meeting of Council’s decision. |
7. Sustainable Environment Strategy
Coordinator Sustainable Environment: Jane Spence
Manager Parks & Environment : Simon Holloway
General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas
Purpose
This report presents the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 and seeks endorsement from Council to release the draft strategy for public exhibition, prior to final adoption.
Background
The City of Stonnington’s Sustainable Environment Strategy plays an integral role in fulfilling Council’s broad environmental objectives as outlined in the Council Plan 2017-21.
Through the Council Plan, Council has committed to creating a sustainable and resilient City, with enhanced natural and urban environments for the community. Environment is one of the four pillars of the Council Plan, which includes strategies to manage and use resources efficiently, enhance biodiversity and lead community sustainability.
The Sustainable Environment Strategy communicates Council’s sustainability vision, commitments, goals and strategic actions and guides Council’s direction and decision-making.
The City of Stonnington first developed a Sustainable Environment Strategy in 2013, with a four-year timeframe. In 2017, Council commenced the process of reviewing and revising the original strategy, culminating in the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023.
Council sustainability achievements
Council has made significant progress in recent years towards achieving the strategic goals and objectives outlined in the initial Sustainable Environment Strategy. A number of Council’s key achievements are outlined below:
Energy & climate
• Successfully met its 2015 target to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent below 2005 levels. Since 2005, Council has reduced its total emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy by 22 per cent.
• Installed 325kW of solar across 13 Council buildings and facilities.
• Supported the installation of solar PV systems on 120 Stonnington homes through the Making Solar Simple program.
Waste & recycling
• Recycled 213 tonnes of electronic waste through Council’s Waste Transfer Station and hard waste collection service over the last three years.
• Recycled 10 tonnes of batteries, mobile phones and chargers, CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes, cassettes and floppy disks through recycled stations located at service centres, pools and libraries.
• Supported 750 Stonnington residents to recycle food and garden waste at home through the Compost Revolution program.
• Supported 8 apartment buildings to recycle food waste onsite through the Apartment Composting Program.
Water & biodiversity
• Installed over 100 water sensitive urban design (WSUD) assets throughout the municipality including raingardens, tree pits and wetlands.
• Undertook significant regeneration of the banks of the Yarra River through the Yarra River Biodiversity Project.
• Adoption of the Urban Forest Strategy.
Community engagement & education
• Continued engagement with Stonnington schools through the Green Schools Program to integrate sustainability into their curriculum through tailored sustainability sessions and advice.
• Delivered 55 environmental events to support Stonnington residents adopt more sustainable practices at home.
Discussion
The draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 outlines a pathway towards a sustainable future for the municipality that has been developed by Council in collaboration with the Stonnington community. While the strategy outlines how Council will deliver against objectives set for its own operations, it also outlines how it will lead, engage and collaborate with others, particularly the Stonnington community, along the way.
The key objectives of the strategy are to:
• Demonstrate Council’s commitment to sustainability
• Improve Council’s own environmental performance and practices
• Guide Council decision-making and activities
• Integrate sustainability into the planning and delivery of Council infrastructure, services, facilities and planning functions
• Mitigate and adapt to climate change
• Protect and enhance the local natural environment and biodiversity, and
• Support and inspire the community to adopt sustainable practices and work together towards a more sustainable future.
Stakeholder consultation
Consultation with Council staff helped develop the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023, identifying opportunities to further integrate sustainability across the delivery of services, facilities, planning functions and infrastructure.
Consultation with the community and key stakeholders included community surveys, drop in sessions, workshops with community groups, focus groups, written submissions, social media, advertisements in local newspapers and a student conference.
In total, 447 residents, 15 businesses and 14 schools contributed to the development of a new Sustainable Environment Strategy. This included
• Community survey – 286 respondents
• CALD forum – 30 attendees
• Focus groups – 14 attendees
• Drop in sessions at pools, libraries and community events - 30 people engaged
• School conference – 87 participants
• Business survey – 15 local businesses
• Schools survey – 14 local schools
These activities helped Council collect views and information from a cross section of the community and align its focus with community expectations.
The community survey undertaken by Council in mid-April 2017 provided a clear insight to the environmental behaviours and attitudes of Stonnington residents. Almost two-thirds of respondents are concerned about the current state of the environment and 9-in-10 respondents believe that it is important for Council to both operate in a sustainable manner and to support the community to live sustainably. Only half of those surveyed feel they are well informed about environmental issues.
The Stonnington community’s top environmental priorities, as identified through the survey, are:
1. Waste
2. Water
3. Energy
4. Urban forest
5. Biodiversity
Almost all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there is something they can do about the environment as an individual while only half of those surveyed rate their level of commitment to environmental sustainability at home as very high or high.
These results provide a strong mandate for Council to lead action on sustainability. They also demonstrate the need to continue to engage and educate the community so they can gain the required knowledge and skills to respond to environmental issues as they emerge.
Strategic priority areas and objectives
The outcomes of this strategy will be achieved through five strategic priority areas, each of which has a number of related key focus areas (see table below).
|Strategic priority area |Key focus areas |
|1. Climate change and energy |• Energy efficiency |
| |• Renewable energy |
| |• Environmentally sustainable design |
|2. Resources and waste management |• Food waste |
| |• Resource recovery |
| |• Waste avoidance education |
|3. Integrated water management |• Efficient water use |
| |• Water quality |
| |• Managing water capture and reuse |
|4. Urban environment |• Growing the urban forest |
| |• Protecting and maintaining natural areas |
| |• Increasing habitat and biodiversity |
|5. Education, engagement and collaboration |• Monitoring and reporting |
| |• Partnerships |
| |• Collaborative projects |
Under each strategic priority area, the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 outlines a series of strategic objectives that Council will pursue.
Action plan
An action plan supporting the strategy will help Council deliver on each strategic priority area.
Council will undertake a formal review of the action plan in 2020 to incorporate any changes to Council priorities, new technologies, systems and processes and stakeholder feedback.
Council will also continue to produce an annual report, the Sustainability Snapshot, on its progress towards achieving the strategic objectives outlined in the strategy.
The strong actions Council has committed to in this strategy will bring significant social, cultural and economic benefits to the city and community.
Exhibition process
It is proposed to exhibit the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 for a period of four weeks prior to final adoption by Council. This process includes:
• Exhibiting the draft strategy document on the Connect Stonnington website, with the ability to add comments, provide feedback and ask questions. The webpage will be advertised on Council’s social media platform.
• Promoting the release of the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy through various Council publications and communication channels.
Strategy adoption
Following the public exhibition period, a report will be presented to Council in July / August 2018 to seek Council adoption of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023.
Strategy implementation
It is envisaged that the new Sustainable Environment Strategy, once adopted, will be implemented largely through the continued application of current programs, initiatives and decision-making processes. This includes a range of new initiatives that will be delivered through existing programs and budgets.
Policy Implications
Council has developed a range of plans and strategies that contribute to the delivery of sustainable environment objectives as outlined in the Sustainable Environment Strategy including:
• Council Plan 2017–2021
• Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan 2013-2017
• Public Realm Strategy (currently in review)
• Strategies for Creating Open Space
• Cycling Strategy 2013-2018
• Sustainable Transport Strategy (in development)
Financial and Resources Implications
Implementation of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 will be undertaken using existing resources.
Conclusion
Council and the community have continued to make significant progress towards improving the local environment and its impact on the health and sustainability of the City throughout the period of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017. As this strategy period has now ended, it is timely to review and update the strategy.
As outlined in the Council Plan, Council has made a significant commitment to “create a sustainable and resilient City, with enhanced natural and urban environments for the community.” Environment is one of the four pillars of the Council Plan, which includes strategies to manage and use resources efficiently, enhance biodiversity and lead community sustainability.
The draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 has been developed to communicate Council’s sustainability vision, commitments, goals and strategic actions and address the key sustainability and environmental challenges facing the City.
The development of the draft strategy has involved extensive consultation with Council staff and key stakeholders including Stonnington residents, community groups, businesses and schools.
To date, Council has had considerable success integrating sustainability into its operations. New buildings and developments include Environmentally Sustainable Development features at the scoping stage and efficient water capture and treatment is considered in urban renewal projects. Recycled paper is used throughout Council, food waste from Council offices is turned into compost and public place recycling bins help improve resource recovery. Significant investment has gone into enhancing biodiversity throughout the city, particularly increasing native vegetation along the Yarra River.
Through the new Sustainable Environment Strategy, Council will build on this success and continue to integrate sustainability into its operations and decision-making.
At the community level, Council has provided support to residents, schools, businesses, sporting clubs and community groups to adopt more sustainable practices through a range of programs and events.
Council will continue to leverage these partnerships, through collaboration, communication and education, to support the adoption of sustainable practices. Council will continue to show leadership and innovation on addressing sustainability challenges and preparing for a more sustainable future.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Attachments
|1. |Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 |Excluded |
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Note the development of the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023. |
|2. Note the key priority areas and objectives of the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023. |
|3. Exhibit the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 for public comment for a period of four (4) weeks, commencing in late |
|June 2018. |
|4. Receive a report following the public exhibition period to facilitate the final adoption of the new strategy. |
8. Gardiner Park Development - Proposal to Consult on Parking Restrictions
Student Traffic Engineer: Arian Menxhiqi
Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan
General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas
Purpose
To seek approval to consult on installing 2-HOUR restrictions operating from 9am-9pm 7 days on the:
• East and west side of Edgar Street North;
• North side of Carroll Crescent between property 37 to 73 abutting residential properties;
• South and west side of Allaville Avenue; and
To seek approval to consult on modifying the existing 2-HOUR restriction operation time in Clarke Street, St Edmonds Grove and the north section of Carroll Crescent (from property 73 to 85) to 9am-9pm, 7 days per week.
Background
Street Characteristics
Gardiner Park is a sports ground located on Carroll Crescent, Glen Iris. The park is currently under construction to install a new synthetic oval and pavilion for residents and sporting clubs to use.
Gardiner Station is located directly opposite Gardiner Park with the main entrance located at the intersection of Burke Road and Carroll Crescent and a car park entrance opposite the intersection of Carroll Crescent and Clarke Street.
The subject area is the local streets surrounding the park such as Carroll Crescent, Edgar Street North, Clarke Street, Allaville Avenue and St Edmonds Grove. The location and layout of Gardiner Park is shown below.
[pic]
Parking Characteristics
Parking in the area is likely to be a combination of residents, visitors, railway commuters and Bounce staff/customers.
The majority of properties (from observations at street level and aerial photography) appear to have off-street parking.
The subject area has an approximate capacity of 230 parking spaces with approximately 148 spaces abutting residential properties and 82 spaces abutting non-residential properties. The bays are not marked, hence this is approximate depending on parking behaviour.
The Gardiner Station car park has a capacity of 223 parking spaces.
Existing Parking Restrictions
Within the subject area, there are currently 3 sections that have 2-HOUR parking restrictions and 1 section that currently has a PERMIT ZONE restriction. The section covered by the PERMIT ZONE restriction need not be considered in this report as it is heavily restricted and not affected by non-resident intrusion.
The location and layout is shown below.
[pic]
Community Submission
Concerns were raised in August 2017, regarding the lack of on-street parking availability in Clarke Street and Allaville Avenue due to Gardiner Station commuters. Concerns were also raised in regards to the demand the Gardiner Park redevelopment will have on the existing on-street parking.
Investigation
In response to the concerns raised, an external contractor was engaged to survey the area surrounding Gardiner Park in September 2017, to gain a better understanding of on-street parking utilisation. This included Carroll Crescent, Edgar Street North, Clarke Street, Allaville Avenue and St Edmonds Grove. The surveys were undertaken on a Tuesday, Saturday and Sunday unaffected by school/public holidays or industrial RDO’s. Refer to the Attachments for results.
Following a meeting with the Gardiner Park Stakeholder Group in November 2017, Council made a commitment to undertake another set of parking surveys with the Gardiner Station car park occupancies to be recorded this time. As such, Council organised external contractors to conduct surveys in March 2018 prior to the completion of the Gardiner Park redevelopment. The surveys were undertaken on a Tuesday, Saturday and Sunday unaffected by school/public holidays or industrial RDO’s to replicate the same conditions as the previous survey.
It should be noted that the surveys were affected by rail works on the Pakenham and Cranbourne line which may have produced additional on-street parking. Rail works are currently happening on a regular basis.
Furthermore, it should be noted that Round 1 of the AFL commenced on the Saturday surveyed at the MCG, which may have impacted the parking occupancy near the station. Refer to Attachments for the survey results.
The following information compares survey data recorded in September 2017 and March 2018.
Edgar Street North:
In September 2017, Edgar Street North results indicated that parking opportunities may be difficult to find, achieving an average occupancy of 67% on Saturday. The results suggest that there is a high resident demand in Edgar Street North, with 75% of the total parking spaces were occupied by residents at 7am. As the day progressed, resident demand decreased while non-resident intrusion increased. The most common duration of stay across all survey days were short term between 0 and 3 hours which suggests it may be attributed to non-resident parking.
In March 2018, occupancies recorded in Edgar Street North suggested that there is a greater demand for on-street parking than in September 2017. The 2018 survey results suggest that there is a high resident demand in Edgar Street North, with 72% of the total parking spaces were occupied by residents at 7am on Tuesday. As the morning progressed, resident demand decreased as non-resident intrusion increased with non-resident vehicles occupying more spaces than residents by 10am (refer to graph below). This may attributed to Bounce staff parking as the activity centre opens at 10am and the north side of Carroll Crescent between Weir Street and 35 Carroll Crescent is currently restricted by PERMIT ZONE operating from 9am-9pm. Edgar Street North would be the next section for staff to utilise parking opportunities. The street also displayed high occupancies on the weekend, having an average occupancy of 73% on Saturday and 81% on Sunday (Sunday graph also shown below). The most common duration that vehicles stay in the street in all 2018 surveys were from 0 to 3 hours which suggests it may be attributed to non-resident parking.
[pic]
Carroll Crescent (Edgar St Nt – Clarke St):
In September 2017, the north frontage of Carroll Crescent between Edgar Street North and Clarke Street displayed high average occupancies of 69% during Tuesday, 82% on Saturday and 78% on Sunday. Non-resident intrusion in this section commenced at 10am on Tuesday and Saturday which may be related to Bounce staff.
In March 2018, there was an average occupancy of 67% on Tuesday. The non-resident intrusion commenced at 10am, occupying 44% of the unavailable spaces. At 1pm this section reached a peak occupancy of 100%, with 75% of the spaces occupied by non-residents (refer to graph below). Furthermore, there was a high weekend occupancy in this section, achieving an average occupancy of 69% on Saturday and 77% on Sunday.
There are more non-resident vehicles occupying this section than residents on Saturday which may be attributed to the AFL (refer to graph below).
[pic][pic]
Carroll Crescent (St Edmonds Gr – 85 Carroll Crescent):
In September 2017, the north frontage of Carroll Crescent between St Edmonds Grove and 85 Carroll Crescent also displayed high occupancies. The unrestricted section displayed an average occupancy of 73% on Tuesday, 65% on Saturday and 67% on Sunday. The 2-HOUR restricted section displayed a high average occupancy of 70% on Tuesday and 67% on Sunday. It should be noted that the 2-HOUR restriction operates from 9am-6pm Monday to Friday, so the high occupancies are not directly associated with resident parking.
In March 2018, it is evident that the average occupancies are greater than those recorded in 2017. The unrestricted section displayed an average occupancy of 82% on Tuesday, 71% on Saturday and 83% on Sunday. It is evident that on Saturday, there is a major influx of non-resident intrusion that begins at 2pm and stays consistent throughout the night. The 2-HOUR restricted section displayed an average occupancy of 64% on Tuesday, 96% on Saturday and 81% on Sunday. Saturday graphs are shown below.
[pic][pic]
Allaville Avenue:
In September 2017, parking occupancies recorded in Allaville Avenue were low, obtaining an average occupancy of 18% on Tuesday, 39% on Saturday and 32% on Sunday. It is noted that there is an increase in non-resident intrusion at 12pm on Saturday, with non-residents occupying 69% of the unavailable parking spaces. The resident intrusion decreases by 3pm so this may be attributed to visitors (refer to graph below).
In March 2018, the survey results also demonstrated that parking occupancies were low, obtaining an average occupancy of 32% on Tuesday, 23% on Saturday and 25% on Sunday. The Tuesday graph is shown below as it displayed the highest average occupancy. It should be noted that Council Officers have observed high occupancies on various occasions during spot surveys when monitoring the area.
[pic][pic]
Clarke Street:
In September 2017, the east side of Clarke Street obtained an average occupancy of 10% on Tuesday, 15% on Saturday and 18% on Sunday.
In March 2018, parking occupancies were higher than those recorded in 2017. The east side of Clarke Street displayed an average occupancy of 38% on Tuesday, 27% on Saturday and 22% on Sunday. The Tuesday and Saturday graphs are shown below as these days displayed the highest occupancies.
[pic][pic]
St Edmonds Grove:
In September 2017, the east side of St Edmonds Grove displayed low parking occupancies, obtaining an average occupancy of 6% on Tuesday, 25% on Saturday and 10% on Sunday.
In March 2018, parking occupancies were higher than those recorded in 2017, obtaining an average occupancy of 15% on Tuesday, 27% on Saturday and 34% on Sunday. The Saturday and Sunday graphs are shown below as these days displayed the highest occupancies.
[pic] [pic]
Gardiner Station Car Park:
The railway station car park displayed high occupancies on Tuesday, reaching full capacity by 9am. The average occupancy for Saturday was 52%, however the car park displayed a high night time occupancy of 89% from 6pm to 10pm. This may be attributed to AFL commuters.
Discussion
Officer Assessment
It is expected that sports users will utilise parking opportunities in sections abutting non-residential properties once the Gardiner Park oval is allocated for use. In the surveys conducted in March 2018, the average occupancy of on-street parking abutting non-residential properties was 66%. Although the occupancy decreases throughout the night, sports users arriving to a 5pm session may find parking difficult to find and alternatively park abutting residential properties.
Council’s current practice looks to alter parking restrictions where the average daily occupancy level exceeds 67% (i.e. 2/3 of parking spaces in the street are occupied on average throughout the day), and residents find it difficult to park near their properties (however not necessarily directly in front of their property). Restrictions are designed to provide parking opportunities for residents. It should be noted that Council would not look to provide parking for residents abutting commercial properties.
Further to this, where restrictions are considered warranted, Council generally consults on the installation of restrictions on one side of the street. Installing restrictions on one side of the street is used to find a balance for short-term and long-term parking, when residents find parking opportunities are limited. Edgar Street North however, has a high resident demand, and it is deemed appropriate to install restrictions on both sides of the street
Following the parking surveys undertaken by independent contractors, it is evident that from both surveys, parking opportunities are limited in Edgar Street North and the north frontage of Carroll Crescent (abutting residential properties). It should be noted that restricting these sections only, may transfer non-resident parking to Clarke Street, Allaville Avenue and St Edmonds Grove. Furthermore, occupancies at 5pm abutting non-residential properties may force sports users to utilise parking abutting residential properties.
Based on the current parking arrangements, to discourage staff and commuter parking intrusion, and prevent future potential sport user intrusion abutting residential properties, it is considered reasonable to consult on installing 2-HOUR parking restrictions operating from 9am-9pm 7 days, on the east and west side of Edgar Street North, north side of Carroll Crescent between property 37 to 73 (abutting residential properties) and, south and west side of Allaville Avenue. Furthermore to consult on modifying the existing 2-HOUR restriction operation time in Clarke Street, St Edmonds Grove and the north side section of Carroll Crescent between property 73 to 85, to 9am-9pm 7 days a week. The proposed parking restrictions are shown below.
It should be noted that in 2015, Carroll Crescent, Clarke Street, Allaville Avenue and St Edmonds Grove were consulted on installing 2-HOUR restrictions to discourage commuter intrusion abutting residential properties due to the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project. Of the streets consulted, the proposal to install 2-HOUR restrictions on Carroll Crescent between property 37 to 47 and in Allaville Avenue was abandoned due to the mixed response.
[pic]
Options for Council
In considering the surveys undertaken, the following options seem possible:
• Consult on installing 2-HOUR parking restrictions. As there has been multiple concerns raised due to the lack of on-street parking from Edgar Street North, Carroll Crescent, Clarke Street, Allaville Avenue and St Edmonds Grove, it seems appropriate to consult on the 2-HOUR proposal.
• Wait until Gardiner Park is in full operation and monitor parking behaviour. As only some sections in the subject area show high parking occupancies, an option for Council is to commence monitoring parking behaviour when Gardiner Park is in full operation and decide whether it is appropriate to consult on installing parking restrictions. If Council proceeds with this option, there is a risk there will be a strong negative reaction from the community as they were previously affected by the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal and now other rail replacement works that happen on a regular basis. Further to this, there was a strong community objection to the redevelopment of Gardiner Park.
Conclusion
In order to improve parking opportunities for residents and their visitors, it is appropriate to consult on installing 2-HOUR parking restrictions operating between 9am and 9pm 7 days on the:
• East and west side of Edgar Street North;
• North side of Carroll Crescent between property 37 to 73 abutting residential properties;
• South and west side of Allaville Avenue; and,
Seek approval to consult on modifying the existing 2-HOUR restriction operation time in Clarke Street, St Edmonds Grove and the north section of Carroll Crescent (from property 73 to 85) to 9am-9pm, 7 days per week.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Attachments
|1. |Attachment A - Edgar St North - 2017 & 2018 Occupancy |Excluded |
|2. |Attachment B - Allaville Ave - 2017 & 2018 Occupancy |Excluded |
|3. |Attachment C - Clarke St - 2017 & 2018 Occupancy |Excluded |
|4. |Attachment D - Carroll Crs - 2017 & 2018 Occupancy |Excluded |
|5. |Attachment E - St Edmonds Grove - 2017 & 2018 Occupancy |Excluded |
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Consult on installing 2-HOUR parking restrictions operating between 9am and 9pm, 7 days per week on the: |
|• East and west side of Edgar Street North; |
|• North side of Carroll Crescent between the western boundary of property 37 to the western boundary of property 73-75 abutting |
|residential properties; |
|• South and west side of Allaville Avenue. |
|2. Consult on modifying the existing 2-HOUR restriction operation time in the west side of Clarke Street, the east side of St Edmonds |
|Grove and the north section of Carroll Crescent (between the western boundary of property 73-75 to the eastern boundary of property 83) |
|to 9am-9pm, 7 days per week. |
9. Burke Road, Glen Iris - Between Malvern Road and the Right-of-Way - Parking Proposal
Senior Transport Engineer: Jordan Allan
Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan
General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas
Purpose
To seek approval to alter the parking restriction on Burke Road, Glen Iris between Malvern Road and the Right-of-Way to shorter term parking.
This matter has been referred to Council for resolution in response to a request from Cr Glen Atwell.
Background
Street Characteristics
Burke Road is a state arterial road which runs in a generally north-south alignment from Lower Heidelberg Road in Ivanhoe East to Dandenong Road in Malvern. The subject section is in Glen Iris between Malvern Road and Carroll Crescent.
This section of Burke Road is wide, with multiple traffic lanes and a tram reserve. As a consequence there is significant separation between the east and west sides of the road. The kerbside parking on the west side is the subject of this report. The abutting land use is commercial at the street level. Some properties have residential dwellings above.
Gardiner Station is located to the north end of the subject area.
The subject section of this parking is between Burke Road and the unnamed Right-of-Way (RoW).
Parking Characteristics
There are approximately 9-10 parking spaces available in the subject section of Burke Road. Parking bays are marked, however there is an extended bay at the southern end subject to a short duration time limit that may accommodate 2 smaller vehicles, or 1 larger vehicle, hence the 9-10 spaces approximation.
A further 2 parking bays are located to the north of the RoW, but were not included in the proposal, as they primarily abut railway land, and are prioritised for rail commuter pick-up and drop-off.
Resident parking permits do not grant an exemption for any parking along Burke Road, as it abuts commercial land use, and is on an arterial road.
There is some off-street parking available at the rear of the shops, accessed via the RoW.
Existing Parking Restrictions
The 9-10 parking spaces available on-street are covered by a range of parking restrictions.
The extended parking bay at the southern end is covered by ½-HOUR restriction from 9am to 4:30pm all days.
The next marked parking bay to the north is covered by a MAIL ZONE restriction operating 6:30pm to 7:00pm Sunday to Friday.
The next marked parking bay to the north is covered by a 2-HOUR parking restriction operating 9am to 4pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm Saturday.
The remaining 6 marked parking bays are covered by the same 2-HOUR parking restriction operating 9am to 4pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm Saturday, and a 2-MINUTE restriction operating 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm Monday to Friday.
The parking bays north of the RoW (which are not part of this assessment) are subject to 2-MINUTE parking restrictions at all times.
The existing parking restrictions in this section are outlined below.
|[pic] |
Community Submission
A multi-signatory letter was tabled at the Council meeting on 5 March 2018 signed by 11 property occupiers/owners representing 8 properties/tenancies. The multi-signatory letter raised a number of issues, but the relevant matter for this report was the request to replace the existing on-street parking with 15-MINUTE parking operating 8am to 10pm, except the MAIL ZONE parking, and keeping the extended parking bay at the corner of Malvern Road/Burke Road as 30-MINUTE parking operating 9am to 9pm.
The submission indicated that the signatories felt that the existing on-street parking is being occupied by patrons of the nearby gym and visitors to the new apartment buildings, and this prevents customers parking.
The signatories believe the current restrictions are inadequate, and do not cater to the needs of the abutting businesses.
Investigation
The request in this case came from a group of traders, and included a specific request for changes to parking abutting their properties. The majority of abutting commercial properties signed the submission, and therefore it was considered reasonable to consult the community.
Proposal Development
As outlined above, the specific request from the traders was for the following changes:
• Retain the MAIL ZONE parking;
• Retain the 30-MINUTE parking closest to Malvern Road, but extend the hours of operation to 9am to 9pm; and
• Change the remaining parking to 15-MINUTE operating 8am to 10pm.
The hours proposed, particularly the 8am to 10pm restriction, is not practical from an enforcement perspective. As such, officers liaised with the lead submitter to develop a proposal that aligned with the intention of the submission, but would be enforceable. The proposal developed is shown below.
|[pic] |
The proposal developed is simpler, and is considered to be fully enforceable. This concept was endorsed by the lead submitter to be taken to consultation.
Consultation Undertaken
A circular was distributed to residents and traders abutting properties between Malvern Road and the rail line on 20 April 2018 with the following proposal:
• Install ¼-HOUR parking restrictions operating 9am to 9pm all days from the existing MAIL ZONE to the RoW;
• Extend the existing ½-HOUR parking to operate 9am to 9pm all days; and
• Install ½-HOUR parking restrictions operating 9am to 6:30pm in the existing MAIL ZONE area.
Discussion
Consultation Result
A total of 60 properties were distributed the circular, with 18 responses received, equating to a 30% response rate. The responses received are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Response Total
|Proposal |Support |Opposed |Not Stated |Total |
|Change Parking Restrictions |6 |12 |0 |18 of 60 |
| |(33%) |(67%) |(0%) |(30%) |
However, it is worth noting that of the 60 properties distributed the circular, 49 are not commercially rated. The residents of non-commercial properties have a right to comment on the proposal, but the parking abuts commercial properties, and it is reasonable to prioritise this parking for commercial uses.
The below table shows a breakdown of the responses for the non-commercial and commercial properties.
Table 2: Separated Responses
|Proposal |Support |Opposed |Not Stated |Total |
|Non-Commercial |0 |8 |0 |8 of 49 |
| |(0%) |(100%) |(0%) |(16%) |
|Commercial Properties |6 |4 |0 |10 of 11 |
| |(60%) |(40%) |(0%) |(91%) |
A response was received (counted as a single response in the above analysis) from the Owners Corporation on behalf of a specific apartment development as a whole, opposed to the proposal. Based on this response, and the individual responses, it is reasonable to assume that non-commercial property residents are opposed to the proposal.
However, parking for non-commercial uses in areas which abut commercial properties are assumed to be provided within the site.
The parking proposed for change abuts commercial properties, so the responses from commercial operators should be given more weight in this case (in situations where residents seek restrictions abutting residential properties, the opinions of nearby traders are treated similarly).
If feedback from residential property occupiers was to be considered for commercial areas, this could have a significant impact on trade where there are new multi-unit developments constructed in commercial areas.
The number of apartments provided within these large multi-unit developments would swamp the ground level traders, and could lead to parking restrictions which do not suit trade.
The response from the commercial properties was 60% in favour of the change, and 40% opposed.
Respondents Comments and Officers Response
|Respondents Comments |Officer Response |
|It seems to me that the proposal has been chosen to suit a certain|The restriction was requested by the signatories of the |
|business in the area. There are only a few businesses around and |submission, and was chosen by them to suit their needs. |
|some of them are still empty and we do not know which business | |
|will be moving there. A mixture of restrictions would be fairer | |
|for everyone. | |
|Changes would be welcome as gym patrons take up all spots. This |This comment is a synthesis of multiple similar comments from |
|would support businesses. Parking turnover is needed to support |those in support of the proposal. The proposed restriction would |
|businesses. |encourage turnover. |
|15 minutes is too short. If people are parking for the gym they |The original submission received sought to specifically prevent |
|need a minimum of 30 to 60 minutes and if they are going to the |parking from gym patrons. If implemented, the proposal would |
|Thai restaurant, they will need more. I suggest 30 and 60 minute |impact gym and restaurant patrons. |
|bays ending at 8:30PM. | |
|This would impact my business. There is no need to extend |The submission was specific in requesting the parking restrictions|
|restrictions to 9pm as none of the businesses operate into the |extend into the evening, and as such this was included. |
|evening except those that need longer duration parking. | |
|Need some 1-HOUR parking available and should only have |The submission requested shorter duration parking to encourage |
|restrictions up to 6pm. |turnover. |
|Already an issue with parking, no places for residential visitors |This is noted, however as a new development visitor parking for |
|to park without getting a ticket. |residential use should be provided within the development. |
|A more practical approach would be 1-HOUR parking to support |This response came from residential property, not from traders. |
|business. 1/2-HOUR is too short for gym or hockey. |However, this summarises the general concern expressed by those |
| |not signatories of the original submission. |
|There are only 2-3 functioning businesses there, and the Thai | |
|restaurant would not benefit. Nobody eating at a restaurant would | |
|be done in that time. Needs to be at least 1-HOUR between 9am and | |
|6pm. | |
Consultation Analysis
The submission tabled at the meeting on 5 March 2018 made specific mention of the patrons of the gym occupying the parking spaces which were targeted for change. This sets the signatories of the submission, largely being on behalf of commercial properties, in direct opposition to another commercial property. The duration of the restriction which was requested was deliberately selected to ensure that gym patrons would be unlikely to use the parking.
However, it is noted that the gym is a relatively new use. In seeking a Planning Permit for the gym, the traffic consultant engaged by the developer estimated that in peak periods the demand for parking for patrons was 20 spaces. The peaks were identified as being weekdays between 5:00pm and 8:00pm, and weekends between 8:00am and 11:00am. The developed used parking surveys from the surrounding streets to indicate that there were sufficient spaces available to cater for this demand. The surveys provided by the applicant indicated that the peak period for parking occupancy was 3:00pm, when there were 92 available parking spaces within what they considered to be reasonable walking distance of the gym (up to 149 spaces were deemed to be within reasonable walking distance).
As such, reallocating 8 parking spaces to shorter duration parking would appear unlikely to be detrimental to the operation of the gymnasium, based on their submission for a Planning Permit.
The overall response received was consistent with what would be expected in this case. Those who signed the original submission generally supported the proposal, and those not part of the original submission generally opposed the proposal.
There was also a strong response in opposition to the proposal from non-commercial residents in the area. There are 49 non-commercial properties, which represents 82% of the properties consulted. However, as outlined above, the non-commercial properties are deemed to have sufficient parking on-site, so while their feedback in this case is noted, it is not considered to be relevant for changes proposed to commercial frontages. This is consistent with the approach taken in residential streets for residential frontages, where the opinion of residents is given higher regard than nearby trader views.
Options for Council
In consideration the community feedback, the following options seem possible:
• Abandon the proposal. The overall response was 67% opposed, which indicates that the proposal could be abandoned. However, as some of these responses were from nearby residents, this result is not reflective of the business community. The parking abuts commercial properties. The response from those not part of the apartment development was 60% in favour, 40% opposed. It is noted that the proposal was specifically requested by the submitters to promote certain businesses in preference to other businesses, and responses were generally along these lines. Abandoning the proposal given the response and the split in the community may be a reasonable course of action.
• Proceed as presented. The proposal could be adopted as consulted, based on the response from the community which is not part of the apartment development (60% in favour, 40% opposed). However, the overall response was 67% opposed. Some businesses would be impacted if the proposal proceeded (by design). The 60% support from the businesses is not decisive given the potential impact to certain traders.
• Adopt a modified proposal. The proposal as consulted provides 2-3 ½-HOUR spaces and 7 ¼-HOUR spaces. Based on a further conversation with the lead petitioner, a modified proposal has been developed that would provide increase the number of ½ HOUR parking spaces. Advice is that this would likely alter the level of support from traders to 70% in favour (30% opposed). The remaining 3 traders opposed to the proposal would be unlikely to alter their position, as they request parking duration of at least 1-HOUR, which is specifically opposed by the submitters. The modified proposal is shown below.
|[pic] |
Conclusion
In this case, any of the above outcomes could be considered appropriate.
Based on the response received from the commercial properties, there is 60% support for the proposal as circulated, and 40% opposition. Based on advice from the lead petitioner, it is possible that support would increase by providing a greater number of ½-HOUR bays.
The planning submission for the gymnasium identified up to 149 parking spaces within reasonable walking distance, and a peak availability of 92 spaces, so altering the restriction for the 10 spaces along Burke Road (of which 2 are already short term) is unlikely to have a material impact.
Based on these considerations it is recommended that the proposal proceed with a modified layout to increase the number of ½-HOUR spaces to an approximately 50:50 split with ¼-HOUR spaces. This approach (prioritising parking abutting commercial land for commercial use) is consistent with the approach used when determining residential parking restrictions which prevent use by businesses and their customers.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Install ¼-HOUR parking restrictions operating 9am to 9pm all days from the RoW for 5 marked parking bays to the south; |
|2. Install ½-HOUR parking restrictions operating 9am to 9pm all days from the existing MAIL ZONE area for 2 marked parking spaces to the |
|north; |
|3. Extend the existing ½-HOUR parking closest to Malvern Road to operate 9am to 9pm all days; |
|4. Install ½-HOUR parking restrictions operating 9am to 6:30pm in the existing MAIL ZONE area; and |
|5. Those previously consulted be notified of the decision. |
o) Confidential
1. Citizen of the Year Awards 2018
Civic Support Officer: Judy Hogan
Confidential report circulated separately.
-----------------------
[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.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- june 2018 health observances
- ministry of council cambodia
- list of morning meeting activities
- introduction meeting agenda sample
- free meeting agenda templates printable
- free blank meeting agenda template
- peoria city council meeting tonight
- church council meeting minutes
- board of directors meeting template
- list of corporate meeting planners
- american academy of neurology meeting 2021
- minutes of shareholders meeting form