Agenda of Council Meeting - 19 February 2018
| |
| |
|[pic] |
| |
| |
| |
|Notice Paper |
| |
| |
|Monday 19 February 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.
NOTE
Council business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1). Some copies are available with the agenda or you can find a copy on Council’s website stonnington..au under local laws.
Council Meeting
Notice Paper
Monday 19 February 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 5 February 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 0578/15 - 671 Chapel Street, South Yarra - use and development of the land for dwellings, offices (including maternal and child health centre), shops (as of right use) and food and drink premises (as of right use), building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, with associated reduction in the car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 7
2. Planning Application 0241/17 - 117 119 & 121 Chomley Street, Prahran VIC 3181 - construction of nine (9) attached townhouses over basement car parking accessed via Chomley Street 45
3. Planning Application 006/17 - 48 Darling Road, Malvern East VIC3145 - Construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone 69
4. Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review - For Consultation 83
5. Amendment C249 - Permanent Heritage Protection for Victorian Houses - Panel Report 93
6. Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Consideration of Submissions 101
7. Amendment C274 - Advertising Signage for Cato Square - Proposed Adoption 111
8. Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation 115
9. Elm Road, Glen Iris - Request for Additional Parking 119
10. Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month Re-Consultation 131
11. New Art Acquisition 135
12. Out-Of-Round Arts and Cultural Grant 2018/19 - Chapel Street Precinct Association 137
m) Other General Business
n) Urgent Business
o) Confidential Business
1. Proposed Property Purchase 141
Recommendation
That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 5 February 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.
l) General Business
1. Planning Application 0578/15 - 671 Chapel Street, South Yarra - use and development of the land for dwellings, offices (including maternal and child health centre), shops (as of right use) and food and drink premises (as of right use), building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, with associated reduction in the car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1
Statutory Planning Coordinator: Phillip Gul
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
For Council to consider a planning application for use and development of the land for dwellings, offices (including maternal and child health centre), shops (as of right use) and food and drink premises (as of right use); building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, with associated reduction in the car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 at 671 Chapel Street, South Yarra.
This item was considered at the Council meetings of 18 December 2017 and 5 February 2018. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Planning & Property Partners |
|Ward: |North |
|Zone: |Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1) |
|Overlay: |Environmental Audit Overlay |
|Date lodged: |26 June 2015 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting |850 days |
|date) | |
|Trigger for referral to Council: |Number of objections and building height |
|Cultural Heritage Plan |Yes |
|Number of objections: |33 objections |
|Consultative Meeting: |Yes – held on 28 November 2017 |
|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 Architecton and are known as Drawings No: TP01.00C, TP01.01E, TP01.02E, TP01.03E, TP01.04C, TP01.05C, TP01.06C, TP01.07C, TP01.08C, TP01.09C, TP02.01C, TP02.02C, TP03.01C, TP03.02B, TP03.03B, TP03.04B, TP04.01A, TP04.02A, TP04.03A and TP04.04A, all Council date stamped 22 September 2015.
Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes: planning report prepared by Urbis; engineering services and ESD report prepared by ARUP; traffic impact report and waste management report prepared by Ratio; heritage assessment report prepared by Trethowan; wind impact assessment prepared by Vipac Engineers & Scientists; building separation study prepared by Message Consultants; landscape plan prepared by Urbis; and architectural statement, urban context & site analysis, design proposal & inspiration, shadow analysis and material schedule prepared by Architecton, all Council date stamped 22 September 2015.
The application proposes to construct a 32-storey mixed-use development over six (6) levels of basement, comprising shops, offices, food and drink premises and dwellings. Key features of the application are:
Use
• Provision of 3 shops (450sqm) on the ground floor fronting Chapel Street. The proposed shops will be open from 10am to 6pm, Monday to Thursday; 10am to 9pm, Friday; and 10am to 5pm, Saturday to Sunday.
• Provision of two food and drink premises (300sqm) on the ground floor. The food and drink premises will be operating from 9am to 9pm, 7 days a week, with a total of 80 patrons.
• Provision of two offices (447sqm) on the first floor level. The proposed operating hours of the offices are from 9am to 6pm, Monday to Friday.
• Provision of a total of 352 dwellings (29 x 1 bedroom, 294 x 2 bedroom and 29 x 3 bedroom) from level 1 upwards.
Development
• Demolition of the existing building (no planning permit required).
• Construction of a 32-storey building with a maximum height of 98.36m (to parapet) or 102.36m (to rooftop plant) above the Chapel Street footpath level.
• Basement levels 1 to 6 are setback 2.29m and 1.83m from the northern and western boundary respectively. A total of 299 car spaces and 336 bicycle parking spaces are provided within the basement levels, together with bin areas, service facilities, substations and a loading zone.
• Ground floor includes shops, food and drink premises, a porte cochere, lobby area and service areas. The ground floor level is setback 3m from the Chapel Street frontage, 1.83m from the rear boundary, 0m from the southern boundary, and between 7.4m and 14.62m from the northern boundary.
• Level 1 includes two offices fronting Chapel Street, 4 two-bedroom apartments and communal facilities for residents (e.g. pool, gym and sauna).
• Level 2 includes a total of 12 apartments with associated terraces. This level is setback 3m from the Chapel Street frontage, 3.01m from the southern boundary, 1.83m from the western boundary, and a minimum of 2.29m from the northern boundary.
• Levels 3 – 30 have the same building footprint. Due to the curved form, these levels are setback 3.01m from the southern boundary, 1.83m from the western boundary, between 2.29m and 16.1m from the northern boundary, and between 3m and 16.59m from the Chapel Street frontage.
• The roof level includes a roof terrace, resident lounge, a library, a private dining and plant/services areas.
• The proposed building presents a contemporary architectural style. Materials and finishes include a combination of glazing, metal cladding, concrete and metal.
Access
• Pedestrian access is from Chapel Street via a pedestrian pathway that leads to a central lift/lobby.
• Vehicular access is also from Chapel Street and the basement entry/exit point is located at the rear of the subject site. The proposal seeks to rely on part of the adjoining land to the north for vehicular access, which is subject to a carriage easement. This will be discussed further in the “Title” section of this report.
• The application seeks to widen the existing crossover onto Chapel Street.
Discussion plans
Since the lodgement of the application in June 2015, there have been numerous discussions between Council Officers and the permit applicants. The discussions have led to some significant changes to the proposal and eventually the submission of a set of discussion plans to Council on 27 November 2017. The key changes shown on the discussion plans are:
• A reduction in the building height from 32 storeys (i.e. 98.36m to parapet or 102.36m to rooftop plant) to 22 storeys (i.e. 68.36m to parapet or 72.36m to rooftop plant). Consequently, the overall number of dwellings will be reduced from 352 (29 x 1 bedroom, 294 x 2 bedroom and 29 x 3 bedroom) to 158 (86 x 2 bedroom and 72 x 3 bedroom).
• The provision of a maternal and child health centre (300sqm) on level 1 with a shared entry/lobby on the ground floor level fronting Chapel Street. 6 car spaces (including 1 disabled space) in the basement will be allocated to the maternal and child health centre.
• Provision of community-focused office spaces on levels 2 and 3, with a total floor area of approximately 706sqm.
• Provision of commercial floor spaces on levels 1 and 2.
• Deletion of basement level 6. The car parking provision will be reduced from 299 to 242.
• An extension to the building along the southern boundary on levels 1, 2, 3 and 4.
• Changes to the architectural expression and details of the proposed development.
Although the 27 November 2017 discussion plans were not lodged under s 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as formally amended plans, they were not lodged on a without prejudice basis. Therefore, assessment of this application will be made based on the 22 September 2015 plans (“advertised plans”) with reference to the 27 November 2017 plans (“discussion plans”).
Site and Surrounds
The subject site is located on the western side of Chapel Street, approximately 100m south of its intersection with Alexandra Avenue. The subject site has the following significant characteristics:
• A frontage to Chapel Street of 38.41m, a depth of 53.9m and a total area of approximately 2070sqm.
• It is currently improved by a two-storey warehouse building which was used as a retail tenancy/office.
• The existing building is setback approximately 3m from the Chapel Street frontage and 7.5m from the rear boundary.
• The land has an undulating topography, with a fall across the site from the north east to the south west.
• The subject site does not include any existing vegetation.
As shown in Figure 1 below, the site interfaces with the adjacent properties as follows:
[pic]
Figure 1: subject site and surrounds
North
• To the immediate north of the subject site is 1 Forrest Hill, which is occupied by Melbourne High School (“MHS”). The northern adjoining building is a large four-storey gymnasium and library building of the MHS. This building is setback from the Chapel Street frontage by approximately 3m.
• Further north, at 681 – 709 Chapel Street, is a 16-storey mixed-use development that is known as “The Avenue”. This development was approved by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”) on 1 October 2009 (Permit No. 336/07).
The Avenue comprises two distinct forms to align with the “L” shape of the site allotment. The tower element fronting Chapel Street and Alexandra Avenue has a maximum height of 47.95m (to parapet) and 50.95m (to roof plant). The tower element is setback from the Chapel Street and Alexandra Avenue frontages by approximately 3.2m and 4m respectively. It rises directly upwards and does not include a podium form or upper level setbacks.
The western (rear) component of The Avenue has an immediate abuttal to the MHS and is limited to six storeys in height (approximately 20m). This creates a separation of approximately 70m between the MHS ridge line and the tower component.
South
• To the immediate south of the subject site is 661 Chapel Street, which has now been subdivided into 3 separate lots, namely 661, 663 – 667 and 669 Chapel Street. Through Amendment C190 which was gazetted on 13 February 2014 and the incorporated document titled as ‘Integrated development at 661 Chapel Street, South Yarra – January 2014’, the then Minister for Planning allowed a development of an education centre (Building 1C) at 669 Chapel Street, a multi-storey apartment building (Building 1A) at 661 Chapel Street and a multi-storey mixed-used building (Building 1B) at 663 – 667 Chapel Street.
The subject site has a direct abuttal with Building 1C at 669 Chapel Street, which belongs to the MHS. Building 1C is five-storey in height (i.e. approximately 17.5m to the parapet and 18.05m to the roof plant), with a 3m setback from the Chapel Street frontage on the ground floor. It includes retail tenancies at ground floor level, with classrooms, communal areas and hostel accommodation associated with the MHS located above. A 3.3m wide light court is placed along the shared boundary with the subject site for the top three levels. Construction of this development has not commenced yet.
Building 1B at 663 – 667 Chapel Street fronts onto Chapel Street and is improved by a mixed-use development (including shops, offices and dwellings) up to 22-storey in height (i.e. approximately 66.4m to the parapet and 69.2m to the roof plant). This development includes a 6-storey podium (i.e. approximately 21m in height) that is setback 3m from the Chapel Street frontage. From level 7 to level 17 (i.e. up to approximately 54m in height), the building adopts a curved façade and is setback between 3.3m and 11.74m from Chapel Street. The upper most levels are setback approximately 18m from Chapel Street. Construction of this development is well underway.
Building 1A at 661 Chapel Street is located behind Building 1B and has a maximum height of 31 storeys (i.e. 94m). The development includes a 6-storey wall along its western boundary (i.e. approximately 18.2m) and the upper levels are setback between 0.7m and 7.13m from the western boundary. Construction of this development is close to completion.
• Further south, there are a number of large-scale developments. For example, the Vogue Plaza building at 670 Chapel Street has a height of 32 storeys (RL 124.8 metres); the Olsen Hotel at 637 – 641 Chapel Street is 14-storey or 50m in height; the Capitol Grand building at 241 – 257 Toorak Road and 625 Chapel Street has a height of 49 storeys or 173m to the parapet.
West
• To the west is the MHS campus and the 1927 historical building, which is included on the Victorian Heritage Register (H1636). It is also subject to a local heritage overlay (HO02) and has a grading of A1. The main school building is located on the top of Forrest Hill and comprises a two-storey building with pitched roofs. The central projecting wing forms the architectural centrepiece of the composition and includes a four-storey tower.
East
• To the east, on the opposite side of Chapel Street, are a group of apartment buildings with different scale and height, ranging from 8 to 16 storeys.
The subject site forms part of the Forrest Hill precinct, which is a designated area for higher density mixed-use developments. This precinct has undergone substantial changes in recent years as multi-level residential and mixed-use developments take form. This area also forms part of the Prahran/South Yarra Major Activity Centre (according to Plan Melbourne 2017 – 2050) and has excellent access to services, facilities, infrastructures and public transport.
Previous Planning Applications
A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:
• Planning Permit No. 21/06 was issued on 2 February 2006 for alterations to the existing building.
• Planning Permit No. 873/11 was issued on 20 December 2011 for use of the land as a shop with associated advertising signage in a Mixed Use Zone.
The Title
The land is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 616964M and is contained in Title Volume 09096 Folio 474. A 2.29m wide carriageway easement and a 1.83m wide drainage easement run along the northern and western boundary of the subject site respectively. The proposed development will stay clear from these easements.
As discussed above, the proposed driveway along the northern boundary extends to 1 Forrest Hill, which is described as Lot 4 on Plan of Subdivision 015821 and contained in Title Volume 06887 and Folio 261. A historical title search reveals this neighbouring land is subject to a carriageway easement of a width of approximately 2.3m in favour of the subject site. Separation permissions may be required to install pavement at 1 Forrest Hill. However, the proposal will not contravene any covenant or easement.
Planning Controls
When the application was originally submitted in June 2015, the subject site was in a Mixed Use Zone and was affected by a Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 8) (“DDO8”). However, as a result of the approval of Amendment C172 on 10 August 2017, the subject site is now in an Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1) and not subject to any Design and Development Overlay. Since the ACZ1 does not include any transitional provision and in light of the Ungar principle, the application must be assessed against the planning controls that stand at the time of making a decision, which are as follows:
Zone
Clause 37.08 - Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1) (“ACZ1”)
Pursuant to Clause 37.08-2, a permit is required for any use in section 2 of the schedule to this zone.
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.
An apartment development must meet the requirements of Clause 58 unless the transitional provisions apply (note: the application at hand benefits from the transitional provisions as it was lodged before the gazettal of Amendment VC136).
Pursuant to Clause 37.08-6, a schedule to this zone may include requirements relating to:
• Building setbacks
• Building height
• Building materials
• Access
• Landscaping
• Public realm
• Any other requirements or guidelines relating to the design or built form of new development
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.
Decision Guidelines are at Clause 37.08-9.
According to Schedule 1 to the ACZ, the site is within Precinct 1 – Forrest Hill, sub-precinct FH-2 and is designated for Main Street Uses. The following built form requirements apply to the subject site:
• a preferred maximum building height of 38m;
• a preferred street setback of 3m from the Chapel Street frontage;
• a preferred street wall height of 11m (minimum) to 12m (maximum);
• a preferred setback of 12m above the street wall height;
• a preferred podium height of 30m; and
• a preferred setback of 6m from side and rear boundaries above podium.
With regard to land uses, the proposed food and drink premises and shops are section 1 uses (i.e. permit not required). A permit is required to use the land for the purpose of dwelling, as it is located below the third floor and has a frontage at ground floor over 2m. A permit is also required to use the land for office as the frontage at ground floor exceeds 2m.
The discussion plans includes a maternal and child health centre, which falls within the definition of ‘office’.
In summary, a planning permit is required under the ACZ1 to:
• construct a building or construct or carry out works; and
• use the land for the purposes of ‘dwelling’ and ‘office’ (including maternal and child health centre).
Overlay
Clause 45.03 – Environmental Audit Overlay (planning requirement)
Pursuant to Clause 45.03-1, before a sensitive use commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either, a certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land or an environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for a sensitive use in accordance with the Act.
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, a dwelling requires:
• 1 car space to each one or two bedroom dwelling;
• 2 car spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling; and
• 1 car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of five or more dwellings.
A food and drink premises other than listed in the table at Clause 52.06-5 is required to provide 4 spaces for each 100sqm of leasable floor area.
An office is required to provide 3.5 spaces to each 100sq of net floor area.
A shop is required to provide 4 spaces to each 100sqm of leasable floor area.
Based on the advertised plans, a total of 497 spaces are required (i.e. 381 for residents, 70 for visitors, 18 spaces for the shops, 12 spaces for the food and drink premises, and 16 spaces for the offices). The proposal provides 299 parking spaces. Therefore, permission is required to reduce the parking requirement by 198 car spaces.
Based on the discussion plans, a total of 368 spaces are required (i.e. 230 for residents, 32 for visitors, 15 spaces for the shops, 12 spaces for the food and drink premises, and 79 spaces for the offices). The proposal provides 242 parking spaces. In comparison to the advertised plans, a smaller amount of car parking dispensation is needed (i.e. by 126 car spaces).
Clause 52.29 Land adjacent to Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road
Pursuant to the requirements of Clause 52.29, the proposed alteration of access to Chapel Street requires a planning permit and must be referred to VicRoads pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This application was referred to VicRoads.
Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities
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, a dwelling requires 1 space to each 5 dwellings and 1 space for visitor to each 10 dwellings.
An office requires the following rates if the net floor area exceeds 1000sqm:
• 1 space to each 300sqm of leasable floor area for employee;
• 1 space to each 1000sqm of leasable floor area for visitor.
A shop requires the following rates if the net floor area exceeds 1000sqm:
• 1 space to each 600sqm of leasable floor area for employee;
• 1 space to each 500sqm of leasable floor area for visitor/shopper.
A retail premises (including food and drinks premises) requires the following rates:
• 1 space to each 300sqm of leasable floor area for employee;
• 1 space to each 500sqm of leasable floor area for visitor.
Based on the advertised plans, a total of 106 bicycle spaces are required (70 for residents, 35 for visitors, 0 space for the shops, 1 space for the food and drink premises, and 0 space for the offices). The proposal provides 336 bicycle parking spaces for residents only. Therefore, permission is required to reduce the bicycle parking requirement.
Based on the discussion plans, a total of 59 bicycle spaces are required (32 for residents, 16 for visitors, 0 space for the shops, 1 space for the food and drink premises, and 10 spaces for the offices). The proposal provides 285 bicycle parking spaces (i.e. 279 spaces for residents and 6 spaces for visitors).
Clause 52.36 – Integrated Public Transport Planning
An application for a residential building development comprising 60 or more dwellings or lots must be referred to the Public Transport Development Authority.
Relevant Planning Policies
The following clauses of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, in addition to those listed above, are particularly relevant to this assessment:
|Clause 9 |Plan Melbourne |
|Clause 11.03 |Activity Centres |
|Clause 11.06 |Metropolitan Melbourne |
|Clause 15.01 |Urban Environment |
|Clause 15.02 |Sustainable Development |
|Clause 15.03 |Heritage |
|Clause 16.01 |Residential Development |
|Clause 18.01 |Integrated Transport |
|Clause 18.02 |Movement networks |
|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 21.09 |Reference Documents |
|Clause 22.05 |Environmental Sustainable Development |
|Clause 22.18 |Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) |
|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 one (1) sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.
The site is located in North Ward and 33 objections have been received. The key grounds of objection are:
• Overdevelopment of the land
• Excessive building height and bulk
• Inadequate setbacks
• Impact on the historical MHS building
• Overshadowing of the hockey club playing fields
• Cladding of the building will cause reflected glare
• Amenity impacts (e.g. loss of daylight/sunlight, overlooking, noise emission, visual bulk, wind-tunnel effects, loss of view and overshadowing)
• Traffic and parking impacts
• Infrastructure concerns
• Impacts during the construction phase
A Consultative Meeting was held on 28 November 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillor Griffin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.
As discussed above, the permit applicant submitted a set of discussion plans to Council on 27 November 2017. All the objectors have been notified of the submission of the discussion plans. It is considered unnecessary to formally advertise the discussion plans for the following reasons:
• The discussion plans were not lodged as formally amended plans under s 57A of the Act.
• The discussion plans show a significant reduction in the building height and the number of dwellings, which will reduce the impacts that the proposal may generate.
• The discussion plans generate a less statutory car parking demand.
• The changes to the built form are of a relatively minor nature and will not cause material detriment in light of the overall scale of the proposed development.
• The proposed maternal and child health centre is not a use that will affect the amenity of the area in a material manner.
Referrals
VicRoads (based on the advertised plans)
As the application seeks to alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1, this application was referred to VicRoads under section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. VicRoads confirmed in writing that it does not object to the application subject to the following conditions:
1. The edges of the vehicular crossover must be angled at 60 degree to the road reserve boundary, to improve entry and exit conditions, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
2. Driveways must be maintained in a fit and proper state so as not to compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in a safe manner or compromise operational efficiency of the road or public safety (eg. by spilling gravel onto the roadway);
3. The proposed development requires construction and reinstatement of crossover. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads (the Roads Corporation). Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.
Planner response: the above conditions will be included in full should a permit be issued.
Heritage Victoria (based on the advertised plans)
The application was referred to Heritage Victoria under s 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as the proposal may impact on the heritage value of the MHS building. No response was received from Heritage Victoria.
Public Transport Victoria (based on the advertised plans)
Pursuant to Clause 52.36, the application was referred to Public Transport Victoria (now known as Transport for Victoria) for comments. Public Transport Victoria provided conditional consent to the application subject to the following conditions:
1. Before the development starts, or other time agreed in writing with the Responsible Authority, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and Public Transport Victoria must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
a) self-enforcing “left in left out” access only from Chapel Street with associated signs.
2. Prior to the occupation of the development all works outlined on the endorsed plans for the left in / left out access must be completed with associated signs to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at the full cost to the permit holder.
3. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to tram operation along Chapel Street must be kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to tram operations during construction and mitigation measures must be communicated to Yarra Trams and Public Transport Victoria fourteen (14) days prior. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full cost of the permit holder.
Planner response: these conditions will be included in full should a permit be issued.
Urban Design (based on the advertised plans and the discussion plans)
The advertised plans were referred to Council’s Urban Designer, who raised the following concerns:
• The scale of the podium does not relate well to the streetscape. For greater consistency along this part of Chapel Street, the street wall height should relate more closely to the street wall heights of 661 and 657 Chapel Street.
• The tower is sited in close proximity to the Chapel Street edge and the neighbouring properties to the north and south.
• The proposed additional height of the tower above the DDO height provision may unreasonably overshadow the adjoining playing fields to the west.
• In line with the C172 provisions, the first and second floor levels should be allocated for commercial use(s).
Council’s Urban Designer has also reviewed the November 2017 discussion plans and made the following comments:
• The location and configuration of the proposed MCHC will heavily rely on artificial lighting and mechanical ventilation. It may not provide a suitable environment for use as a community MCHC.
• Should Council decide to accept the MCHC, this may justify the exceedance of the preferred maximum building height. However, the additional height above level 14 should be setback from the Chapel Street frontage to establish a more consistent form and scale relationship to that of the low and mid-rise sections of the adjoining development at 663 – 667 Chapel Street.
• The scale of the podium does not relate well to the streetscape. For greater consistency along this part of Chapel Street, the street wall height should relate more closely to the street wall heights of 657 and 663 – 667 Chapel Street.
• A canopy should be incorporated along the Chapel Street frontage to provide weather protection for pedestrians.
• The separation of the building from the northern boundary should be increased to reflect a more equitable future development opportunity for the adjoining site to the north.
• The proposed dark glass for the external cladding for the building will exacerbate the visual bulk of the tower. It is suggested that alternative glazing of a lighter colour be investigated.
• The decorative elements that are to be applied to the tower façade are unconvincing and do not enhance the design character of the proposal. It is suggested that alternative approaches be explored for the articulation of the tower.
Planner response: as will be discussed below, Council’s Children and Family Services Department has identified the need for a maternal and child health centre at this location. The concerns raised by Council’s Urban Designer were conveyed to the Manager of Children and Family Services, who has reviewed the plans and engaged architects specialising in MCHC to prepare schematic plans and investigate the usability and amenity of the proposed MCHC. The Manager of Children and Family Services confirmed that the proposed MCHC is suitable in terms of location, size and layout, and it will enhance the service that Council could provide to children and young families in the South Yarra area.
Council’s Urban Designer recommends the additional height above level 14 to be setback from Chapel Street to match the low and mid-rise sections of the adjoining development at 663 – 667 Chapel Street. This is considered to be unnecessary as this section of Chapel Street has a robust built form and could accommodate some variations in setbacks and podium heights. Furthermore, in contrast to the development at 663 – 667 Chapel Street, the proposal at hand adopts a curved façade, with a significantly smaller breadth. It does not have a boundary to boundary form as 663 – 667 Chapel Street does. Therefore, although the upper levels are not setback further from Chapel Street, they will not have a dominating impact on the streetscape. In addition, requiring the upper levels to be setback from the Chapel Street is likely to adversely impact on the design integrity of the proposal.
The discussion plans show a more prominent podium. However, Council’s Urban Designer considers a stronger podium is needed. In order to achieve this, a condition that requires the podium to be extended to the south-eastern corner of level 3 will be required. Given this is likely to result in changes to the internal layout of Apt 3.03, 3.04 and 3.05, the condition will provide flexibility for the consequential changes to the internal layout of these units.
As suggested by the Urban Designer, a condition that requires a canopy to be incorporated along the Chapel Street frontage will be included.
With regard to the separation of the tower from the north boundary, as a result of the reduction in the height and the curved form of the tower, it is considered that the discussion plans provide an acceptable built form outcome subject to modifications. This will be discussed in greater detail in the assessment section of the report.
In relation to the glazing colour and decorative elements, these issues can be addressed by permit conditions.
Transport (based on the advertised plans)
Council’s Traffic Engineers reviewed the advertised plans and provided the following comments:
• The proposed parking provision is generally considered to be acceptable given the location of the subject site and the nature of the proposed development.
• The proposal involves the use of an access lane along the northern boundary of the subject property. It is important to investigate the status of the access lane as to whether it is a public road or private land.
Planner response: as discussed above, the subject site benefits from a carriageway easement that runs along the southern boundary of the adjoining land to the north. The access lane is not a public road.
Heritage (based on the advertised plans and the discussion plans)
Council’s Heritage Advisor reviewed the advertised plans and provided the following comments:
• The proposal will have a significant impact on the MHS building and will further add to the loss of the important views of the school and its tower against the sky.
• The best view of the school comes from the railway bridge over the Yarra. It is clear that this building will be visible as a backdrop to the school building from this location.
• The visual analysis by Message Consultants is an optimistic view of this impact and the impact will be far more obvious than they have indicated.
• A further view of the school from Alexandra Avenue will be less impacted, but still this new building will be very obvious towering over the school building.
• The choice of dark glazing on the new building will not diminish the impact and any view of the existing building on the corner of Alexandra Avenue and Chapel Street will reinforce the problem that dark glazing creates.
With regard to the discussion plans, Council’s Heritage Advisor provided the following additional comments:
• The greatest impact of the proposal is on the view of Melbourne High School from the west (primarily from the railway line).
• The current proposal continues to interfere with the skyline of the school building. However, the background of the school building already includes a number of prominent buildings.
• This impact can be minimised by ensuring that the cladding of the building is not of a dark material (i.e. dark glazing) and the façade is a simple (not decorated design). The aim should be to get the building to meld into the sky as much as possible.
• There are no particular concerns on the impact to Chapel Street which in this location has little in the way of heritage significance.
Planner response: the reduction in the building height will reduce the visual prominence of the proposal and its impact on the MHS building. Due to the height and form of the proposal, it will read as a separate element that is clearly distinguishable from the historical MHS building. This will be discussed further in the assessment section of the report. With regard to the colour of the glazing and the decorated elements, should the application be recommended for approval, these issues can be resolved by way of conditions.
City Strategy (based on the advertised plans and the discussion plans)
The following comments were received from Council’s strategic planners in relation to the advertised plans:
• The proposed building height is not supported. There is no justification for such a substantial departure from the preferred maximum height limit.
• While the application seeks to justify the proposed height through the existing and approved context, it is notable that the recent Amendment C172 process did not identify a need to review the preferred height limits for Forrest Hill.
• The proposed mix of uses is inadequate and not supported as it is inconsistent with the ACZ, which seeks to achieve a minimum of three floors of commercial uses on Main Streets.
• The setbacks required in the ACZ1 have not been met.
• The ACZ1 has a view line provision that applies to the MHS. The importance of retaining the integrity of the school buildings sitting upon the ridgeline was discussed extensively at the C58 Panel. Any future building set behind the school building should display exceptional design qualities that respect and respond to the school building and it must not be overbearing.
• The proposal will have a significant impact on this important view line.
The discussions plans were referred to Council’s City Strategy Unit and the following comments were received:
• It is considered that the provision of the MCHC and the community/education-focused office space (if a legal agreement to ensure long-term use is entered into) will be of significant benefit to the community and justifies the additional height sought by the applicant (as long as it continues to meet the objectives in relation to visual impact, overshadowing and upper level setbacks).
• The proposal does not meet the setback requirements above the podium or along the side and rear boundaries. Council’s urban designer should comment on the appropriateness of not applying the setbacks on the architectural integrity of the building.
• The proposal provides a 3m setback from the Chapel Street frontage at ground level, which meets the requirement.
• The proposal meets the land use and building adaptability requirements.
• The overshadowing impact is considered to be acceptable.
Planner response: the issues relating to setbacks have been raised by Council’s Urban Designer. For the reasons detailed in the assessment section of this report below, it is considered that the discussion plans have largely addressed these concerns subject to further modifications. With regard to the concern that the proposal may impact on the view line to the MHS, it is considered that the proposal will read as a separate element that is clearly distinguishable from the historical MHS building. It will fit into the existing backdrop to the MHS building and will not have an overbearing presence on it.
Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) (based on the advertised plans)
Council’s ESD Officer reviewed the advertised plans and a summary of the written comments is provided below:
• The building can provide an acceptable level of amenity and environmental performance subject to modifications.
• Given the nature and scale of the proposed development, a Greenstar assessment may be more appropriate. A Greenstar assessment is encouraged in lieu of the BESS tool.
Planner response: a new Sustainability Management Plan will be required by permit conditions to address the issues raised by Council’s ESD Officer, should a permit be recommended.
Infrastructure (based on the advertised plans)
The application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Engineer, who required the following conditions to be included:
• 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.
• All redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.
Planner response: these conditions will be included should a permit be granted.
Waste (based on the advertised plans)
The following comments were made by Council’s Waste Management Coordinator:
• The standard allocation of waste bins for a development would be 369 x 240 litre bins.
• For a residential development of this magnitude it is recommended that the developer contact Council’s Waste Management Department to discuss the possible alternatives to a weekly 240-litre MGB style collection.
• A comprehensive Waste Management Plan prepared by Ratio dated September 2015 provides an appropriate response to the waste management challenges of this proposal. However, the following issues should be addressed.
• The WMP must recognise and describe that multiple visits by a waste collection vehicle may be required to effect the total collection of any single waste stream on collection day.
• Alternatively, provision must be made within Basement 1 of the development for access by a larger (10.4m long x 4m high x 22.5 tonne gross mass) waste collection truck that has the capacity (typically 18-22 m3) to collect all waste (or recycling) bins in a single visit.
• The WMP fails to describe how the ground floor retail and food and drinks tenants will access the refuse room or otherwise dispose of their wastes.
• A Waste Management similar to the one previewed here but modified to address the shortcomings is required should a permit be granted.
Planner response: an updated waste management plan will be required by permit conditions should a permit be granted.
Parks (based on the advertised plans)
The following comments were provided by Council’s Arborist and Council’s Urban and Infrastructure Coordinator:
• Bluestone pavement size and pattern to be consistent with adjoining and surrounding developments (i.e. stretcher bond pattern 500 x 250 x 40mm thick for pedestrian surfaces, and 500 x 500mm x 60mm thick stretcher bond saw cut pattern for vehicle crossings).
• Bluestone kerb to be 300mm wide x 150mm deep.
• Vehicle Crossing: fully replace crossing with sawcut bluestone pavers size and pattern as per above. Extend bluestone pavement to align with building face to create consistent material for walking path. Reduce extent of ‘raised garden bed at 450mm height’ to align with building line to not impede on pedestrian movement.
• ‘400 x 400 bluestone pavers’ to the northern property boundary to be replaced as per above and extended to the kerb line.
• Align 3 street trees with existing adjacent trees on eastern side of road to create better ‘avenue’ affect.
• Install continuous channel of stratacell substructure (or similar product) to control root growth and pavement lifting to trees.
• Any proposed furniture is to align with the Chapel Street Masterplan and palette of materials.
• Some of the species listed in the planting schedule for the roof terrace may struggle in an exposed, wind-swept, westerly facing position.
• No soil volume detail has been provided for in situ planting areas.
Planner response: an updated landscape plan will be required via permit conditions should a permit be granted. With regard to the recommendations on pavement size, material, dimensions and suchlike, a condition that requires their details to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Urban and Infrastructure Projects Unit will be included.
KEY ISSUES
This application seeks to redevelop the land at 671 Chapel Street with a 32-storey mixed-use development. Being included in an Activity Centre Zone, with close proximity to a wide range of services and facilities, there is strong strategic justification for a higher density development on the subject site.
However, the planning policies also include competing provisions that temper the development potential of the subject site in order to protect the historical MHS building. Furthermore, the question of what constitutes a ‘significant community benefit’ has arisen and adds another element to the balancing exercise. In deciding the application, Council needs to consider the following key questions:
• Is there policy justification for the proposal?
• Does the proposal provide a significant community benefit?
• How would the development impact on the character of the area and the heritage significance of the MHS building?
• Are the proposed land uses appropriate?
• Will the proposal cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
• Does the proposal offer future occupants an adequate level of internal amenity?
• Are the parking and traffic impacts within reasonable limits?
Is there policy justification for the development?
At the State policy level, the planning policy encourages higher density development to be located in or close to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport so as to improve housing choice and make efficient use of existing infrastructure. The proposed development is consistent with the overarching themes of the State policies because:
• the subject site is located within a Major Activity Centre as per Planning Melbourne 2017 - 2050, where substantial change is encouraged. The proposal is in accordance with the objective and direction of Clause 11.03-2, which seeks to ‘encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres.’
• the subject site is highly accessible to public transport, with South Yarra Railway Station located within walking distance and trams along Chapel Street and Toorak Road. The development of the subject site for a multi-storey mixed-use development is in line with the policy direction of Clause 16.01-2 that encourages ‘higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to jobs, services and public transport.’
• the proposal accords with the objective of Clause 15.02-1 that seeks to ‘promote consolidation of urban development and integration of land use and transport.’
At the Local policy level, Council’s policies promote the Prahran/South Yarra Activity Centre as an area for higher density housing with a mix of compatible uses and more intensive development on larger sites. Clause 21.05-2 (Location of residential development) identifies the subject site as being within an area suitable for substantial changes. Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with Clause 21.05-3 (Housing in Activity Centres Policy) which promotes residential use in activity centres.
In light of the above, there is no dispute that the subject site has strong strategic support for higher density development and in so doing is consistent with the broad intent of housing diversity and urban consolidation policies. However, the strong policy support does not mean anything goes. Justifying the built form by achievement of urban consolidation and increased housing choice is only one side of the policy ledger. The subject site is included in the FH2 sub-precinct, which has a lower preferred maximum building height than the rest of the Forrest Hill Precinct (except sub-precinct FH5). Furthermore, it sits behind the historical MHS building, which has been offered specific requirements by the Stonnington Planning Scheme to preserve its heritage value.
The original proposal, at a height of two and one half times the discretionary height limit, fails to respond to its built form and policy contexts. It swings the pendulum too far towards the policy support for intensive redevelopment.
In recognising the imbalanced design approach, the permit applicants have submitted discussion plans that include a significant reduction in the building height along with other changes. For the reasons discussed below, the discussion plans strike a balance between the competing objectives and are considered to be acceptable subject to conditions.
Does the proposal provide a significant community benefit?
A determinative issue of this application is the building height. According to the ACZ1 controls, the subject site has a preferred maximum height of 38m. Although the height controls for the Forrest Hill precinct are discretional, they have been in place in the same form since 2003 and been applied by Council and VCAT in a consistent and respectful manner. In some cases, Council and the Tribunal have allowed proposals that exceed the preferred heights by 5 to 6 storeys (i.e. around 15 metres) but have resisted substantially greater variations. As the Tribunal observed in 627FCP Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 414, any significant departure from the preferred building heights should be exercised with caution so as to retain the integrity and continuity of the policy framework for the Forrest Hill precinct.
The discussion plans show a reduced building height at 68.36m (to the parapet), which still exceeds the preferred building height by over 30m. Such a variation is greater than what Council and the Tribunal have allowed in most cases. However, the ACZ1 controls include height and massing guidelines that did not exist before. The height and massing guidelines state that the preferred maximum building height may be exceeded if:
• it can be demonstrated that a significant community benefit can be achieved; and
• it continues to meet the objectives, requirements and guidelines in relation to visual impact and overshadowing with increased upper level setbacks.
It is clear that the ACZ1 controls contemplate additional building height subject to two conditions: firstly, the provision of a significant community benefit; and secondly, compliance with the visual impact and overshadowing objectives, requirements and guidelines with increased upper level setbacks.
The permit applicants seek to rely on this provision to justify the additional building height. The discussion plans include a number of features that may benefit the community.
Firstly, the provision of a 300sqm maternal and child health centre (MCHC) on level 1, and 6 car parking spaces (including 1 disabled space) associated with the MCHC in the basement. The proposed MCHC will be accessible from Chapel Street, with direct lift/stair access from the basement. Title to the MCHC and the six car parking spaces will be transferred to Council at a nominal purchase price.
Secondly, the provision of a 3m setback from the Chapel Street frontage on the ground floor, which will be used to widen the footpath.
Thirdly, the provision of 706.7sqm office space for tenants that are local community and/or education oriented.
The term of ‘significant community benefit’ is not defined in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Furthermore, the Stonnington Planning Scheme does not provide a list of accepted categories of public benefits.
Therefore, any proposed community benefit has to be assessed on a case by case basis. The concept of being awarded height uplift through the provision of a significant community benefit has been considered by VCAT in a number of recent decisions. The following VCAT decisions shed some light on what may qualify for a ‘significant community benefit’ in the context of the ACZ1.
• In Third Street Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2015] VCAT 1768, the Tribunal was asked to consider an 11-storey mixed-use building at 1 Hazeldon Place, South Yarra. The Tribunal found the provision of more housing was not a benefit that would justify a higher building.
• In Chapel Plaza Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2015] VCAT 1730, the Tribunal considered a major redevelopment of the land at 402 Chapel Street, South Yarra. The members found the widening of the footpath along Bray and Chapel Streets, the creation of a pedestrian link between Chapel Street and Bray Street and the provision of publicly assessable open spaces are the type of broader community benefits envisaged by the ACZ1.
• In Victoria House Nominees Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2016] VCAT 2, a case concerning the development of a medical building and a number of apartment buildings at 310 – 324 Malvern Road & 99 Bendigo Street, VCAT found the provision of an east-west pedestrian link between Bendigo Street and Essex Street as envisaged by the Planning Scheme was a significant community benefit.
• In 627FCP Pty v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 414, VCAT found the provision of a ground floor conservatory did not constitute a significant community benefit that would justify a 37-storey mixed use building at 627 Chapel Street that exceeded the preferred height control by over 77m.
• In Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 2155, the Tribunal was asked to determine the legal question of whether demonstration of a ‘significant community benefit’ is a pre-condition before exercising discretion to exceed the maximum building height. The Tribunal pointed out that the preferred maximum height can be exceeded without the requirement to demonstrate a significant community benefit.
The above decisions illustrate that:
• Providing additional housing, urban consolidation or dwelling yield does not constitute a significant community benefit.
• Design excellence (even if it was demonstrated) would be insufficient on its own to demonstrate a significant community benefit, particularly given the ACZ1 at Clause 5.1-2 already calls for “architectural and urban design excellence”.
• Whilst a significant community benefit might be more readily able to be achieved where public facilities are proposed, provision of a significant community benefit is not confined to public realm benefits.
• The ‘significant community’ test has a higher bar than the ‘net community benefit’ test. It requires substantial benefits to be demonstrated by the proposal beyond what would reasonably be required and anticipated by a development proposal in an activity centre location.
• The requirement to demonstrate a significant community benefit exists independently of any other planning policy or requirement, and cannot be taken to be satisfied simply by merely complying with another policy.
Stonnington has been experiencing a significant increase in population, at a rate faster than the previous projections. Within the Forrest Hill precinct alone, it is projected that the number of 0 year olds will increase from 226 to 294 between 2016 and 2026. The industry benchmark of maternal and child health facilities recommends two consulting rooms for 0 age per 290 children. Based on this benchmark, the Forrest Hill community will require 2 MCH consulting rooms as a minimum. Although the western part of Stonnington (South Yarra, Prahran and Windsor) collectively has enough consulting rooms to cater for the current and projected 0 age population, these facilities are all located in Prahran and some of which (such as the MCH facilities at 22 Little Chapel Street) are older building stock. Furthermore, study shows a key factor that impacts on how effectively families engage with the MCH key ages and stages visits is the proximity of MCH facilities to where families live. The current facilities in Prahran are not easily accessible for families living in South Yarra, particularly those in the Forrest Hill precinct. As a result, the MCH staff has to spend valuable time (i.e. up to an hour) travelling to and from home visits in South Yarra.
The provision of a MCHC at the subject site will greatly enhance the services that Council could provide to children and young families in the South Yarra area, particularly in the Forrest Hill precinct. It will save the MCH staff members hundreds of hours of travel time per year that they can better use to serve the community.
The proposal offers a 300sqm MCHC at a location that is convenient for families in the South Yarra area. 6 car parking spaces (including 1 disabled space) will be provided in the basement for the MCHC. Notably, these car spaces are placed adjacent to the stairs/lift that provide direct access from the basement to the MCHC on level 1. Moreover, title to the MCHC and the car spaces will be transferred to Council at a nominal purchase price. Based on a preliminary valuation provided by Council’s Valuer, the monetary value of the MCHC and the associated car spaces is in the order of $4 million to $5 million. In light of the VCAT decisions discussed above, it is considered that the provision of a MCHC with associated car parking spaces in this location is a significant community benefit that would justify a departure from the preferred building height.
With regard to the 3m setback from the Chapel Street frontage on the ground floor, it is similar to the provision of a pedestrian link in Victoria House and the widening of footpath in Chapel Plaza. It is also regarded as a significant community benefit.
In relation to the offer of providing office spaces for tenants that are local community and/or education oriented, there is a lack of details to ascertain whether it will generate a significant community benefit. For instance, it is unclear what type of tenants may be occupying the space and the lease arrangement is unknown. Despite this, it is considered that the discussion plans provide some significant community benefits. Should the application be approved, the permit applicant will be required to enter into a legal agreement (i.e. a s 173 agreement) to ensure the delivery of the proposed community benefits.
Having satisfied the first condition to exceed the preferred maximum building height, it is necessary to consider whether the second condition, namely to meet the objective requirements and guidelines in relation to visual impact and overshadowing with increased upper level setbacks is met. The assessment below will address this issue.
How would the development impact on the character of the area and the heritage significance of the MHS building?
As the subject site is in an Activity Centre Zone and the proposed development exceeds four storeys, this application will be assessed against the urban design principles at 15.01-2, including the policy guidelines at Clause 15.01-2.
Due consideration will be given to the Chapel reVision Structure Plan, Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria, Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria and Urban Design Charter for Victoria.
Context
The subject site forms part of the Forrest Hill precinct, which has undergone substantial changes in recent years. As a designated area for growth, there is clear policy direction for more intensive developments within the Forrest Hill precinct. However, it is also important to note there are different sub-precincts within the Forrest Hill precinct, which have different design objectives and preferred built form outcomes. Due to the river abuttal and interface with the Melbourne High School, the properties from 661 Chapel to 681 – 709 Chapel Street are included in the FH-2 sub-precinct (previously known as the Chapel Street North precinct). In order to protect the historical MHS building, the FH-2 sub-precinct has a preferred maximum height of 38m. The precinct guidelines for the FH-2 seek to:
• ensure that new buildings do not confuse the Melbourne High School building roofline as viewed from Yarra Street, at a point directly perpendicular to the midpoint of the main hall.
• avoid buildings having an overbearing presence on the Melbourne High School building.
• setback new development along the western side of Chapel Street to provide built form consistency.
The adoption of a 38m preferred height indicates that the planning policies contemplate buildings higher than the roofline of the MHS in the FH-2 sub-precinct. Indeed, even before the take-off of the Forrest Hill precinct, views to the MHS building were subject to a variety of interruptions and backdrops, obscured to varying degrees by both built form and landscape. In the Panel report for Amendment C58 – Forrest Hill Structure Plan (which amongst others, introduced the DDO8 controls to the Forrest Hill precinct), the Panel found that a tall and slender building is less likely to be read in the context of the MHS building than one that only marginally exceeds the roofline height. Consequently, the Panel recommended a discretionary height limit of 50m for the Chapel Street North precinct. Since the approval of Amendment C58 in June 2009 and the more recent approval of Amendment C172 in August 2017, the backdrop to the MHS (especially when viewed from the west) has evolved significantly. For instance, The Avenue, Royal Como, 661 Chapel Street and Vogue Plaza are examples of new significant additions to this backdrop. The evolving physical site context suggests a building taller than 38m could assimilate comfortably into the backdrop, subject to appropriate design. This, of course, does not mean the 38m preferred height can be disregarded. Any building that has an overbearing presence on the MHS must be avoided, so does any protrusion above the ridgeline of the MHS building that would cause an impediment to the visual perception and understanding of the building.
As the subject site sits directly behind part of the 1927 MHS building, it has the potential to impact on the legibility and significance of the building. A superior design response is warranted to ensure an acceptable outcome. The proposed development as shown on the advertised plans include a number of positive features that respond to the sensitive interface with the MHS. For instance, the proposal adopts a “V” shape to create greater separation from the MHS building. The reflective glazed façade creates contrast to the matt façade of the MHS. However, at a height of 98.36m, the proposal will have an overbearing presence on the MHS building. It will be one of the tallest buildings not only in the FH-2, but also within the Forrest Hill precinct, an outcome that is clearly contrary to the purpose of having different sub-precincts with different preferred built form outcomes within the precinct.
The discussion plans show a reduction in the building height from 98.36m to 68.36m. The reduced building height is more compatible with the buildings in the immediate surrounding area and will provide a suitable transition from the taller built form further south to the Yarra River. The revised building still provides a tall and slender building form, with appropriate proportions. The positive features of the advertised plans, such as the “V” shape and the glazed façade are largely kept with further modifications. As a result of its height, form and details, the proposed development as shown on the discussion plans will be clearly distinguishable from the MHS building roofline when viewed from Yarra Street at a point directly perpendicular to the midpoint of the main hall. As shown in Figure 2 below, the proposal is taller and slender than the constructed building at 681 – 709 Chapel Street. Furthermore, the breadth of the building that sits directly behind the MHS building is much narrower than that of 681 – 709 Chapel Street.
[pic]
Figure 2: views to the MHS buidling from Yarra Street
In approving the development at 681 – 709 Chapel Street, VCAT required the rear section to be reduced in height to create a separation of approximately 70m between the MHS ridgeline and the west elevation of the tower component. The proposed development at hand is setback approximately 40m from the MHS ridgeline. Studies show the closer one stands to a building, the easier it is to discern separation between buildings. One’s perception of separation diminishes significantly after a distance of 70m – 100m. What determines a difference between buildings beyond this band or distance are factors such as height, form, scale, colour and pattern. The distance between Yarra Street and the MHS ridgeline is over 170m, which means one is unable to appreciate the different separations of 681 – 709 Chapel Street and the proposal from the MHS building. Having considered the height of the proposal, its vertical form and façade pattern, the proposal is unlikely to have a greater impact on the MHS building than the VCAT approved development at 681 – 709 Chapel Street does, when viewed from Yarra Street at a point directly perpendicular to the silhouette.
As Council’s Heritage Advisor commented, the best view of the MHS building is from the railway bridge over the Yarra. There are already a number of buildings that are visible in the backdrop to the MHS building from this vantage point (such as the Vogue Plaza, Royal Como and 661 Chapel Street). Furthermore, the distance between the railway bridge and the MHS ridgeline is over 200m, a distance that makes it very difficult to perceive building separation in quantitative terms. The proposed development, at a reduced height of 68.36m, will assimilate into the existing backdrop comfortably and will not have an overbearing presence on the Melbourne High School building.
The proposed development will also be visible from the Church Street Bridge and Alexandra Avenue.
However, views to the proposed development will be largely obscured by the Avenue building at 681 – 709 Chapel Street. It will fit into the existing backdrop to the MHS building and will not have an overbearing presence on it.
The above being said, the proposed glazing has a dark colour palette, which is similar to that of the MHS building. In order to make the proposal more contrasting to the MHS building, a condition that requires the colours of the proposed glazing to be lighter, and not to be warm grey or brown will be included. Details of the glazing (such as reflectivity) will also be required to avoid undesirable glare or reflection.
Turning to the Chapel Street frontage, the advertised plans include a two-storey podium that has a height of approximately 10m. The building rises directly at the north-eastern corner to a height of 98.36m. As Council’s Urban Designer commented, the podium does not relate well to the streetscape and the height of the building will overwhelm the streetscape of Chapel Street. As a response to this, the discussion plans show a three-storey podium, with a height of approximately 14m. As recommended by Council’s Urban Designer, the street wall height should be further increased to relate more closely to that of 657 and 663 – 667 Chapel Street. A condition that requires the podium to be extended to the south-east corner of level 3 will be included. The resulting outcome is considered to be appropriate as it will relate better to other developments in the immediate surrounding area. The provision of commercial uses on the ground floor and the widening of the Chapel Street footpath will contribute to an improved public realm. Although the upper levels are not setback significantly from the Chapel Street frontage, the curved and highly articulated façade coupled with the reduced building height will present a slender vertical form to the street. Council’s Urban Designer suggested the additional height above level 14 to be setback from the Chapel Street frontage to establish a more consistent form and scale relationship to the development of 663 – 667 Chapel Street. For the reasons discussed at the referral section above, this is not considered to be necessary.
With regard to the north and south elevations, they are highly articulated, with varied setbacks from the northern and southern boundaries. Notably, the angled orientation of the development creates greater separation from the MHS building. The form, scale and height of the north and south elevations are compatible with other buildings in the immediate surrounding area.
The application seeks to vary a number of design and development requirements in the ACZ1, which are discussed in turn below.
a) Height and massing requirement
The reduced building height as shown on the discussion plans is considered to be acceptable in light of the physical and policy context.
b) Interface setback requirement
The ACZ1 requires a side and rear setback of 6m above the podium. Although the proposal does not meet this requirement, the side elevations adopt a curved form and are highly articulated, achieving an outcome that is consistent with other developments in the area.
c) Building adaptability requirement
With regard to the subject site, the ACZ1 requires the provision of a minimum 4m floor to floor height at ground floor, and a minimum 3.8m floor to floor height at first and second floors. The advertised plans do not meet this requirement as the second floor has a floor to floor height of 3m.
However, the discussion plans show a 6m floor to floor height for the ground floor, and a 4m floor to floor height for the first and second floors, exceeding the building adaptability requirement. This is considered to be a positive change.
The Public Realm
The proposal will replace an existing building that makes little contribution to the public realm. The replacement building exhibits a high architectural quality, with commercial uses at the ground floor that will activate the street. Car parking areas are concealed from views from the public realm. Furthermore, the proposed development includes various balconies and windows that will promote a sense of surveillance and security.
According to the submitted wind assessment report, the proposal will not generate unreasonable wind conditions in the adjoining footpath areas, the building entrance areas or the rooftop areas. However, in order to ensure such an outcome, a detailed wind tunnel test will be required by way of permit conditions. Any required modifications to the proposal as a result of the wind tunnel test must be incorporated into the design.
The discussion plans show a canopy above the Chapel Street footpath. However, the canopy does not extend to the southern end of the subject site. Therefore, a condition that requires the canopy above the Chapel Street footpath to be extended to the southern end will be imposed in order to provide weather protection to pedestrians.
Safety
The proposed development will not adversely impact on the safety of the surrounding public environment and will provide appropriate security for future residents. The development includes habitable room windows and balconies that offer passive surveillance to Chapel Street. Security entries are provided for the lobby and parking areas.
The volume of car parking and vehicle movements to be generated from the subject site is unlikely to have a significant impact on the existing road network and pedestrian safety.
Landmarks, Views and Vistas
The proposal will form part of the backdrop of the MHS building and will also be visible from the Yarra river corridor. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal as shown on the discussion plans will not unreasonably impact on the view lines or vistas.
Pedestrian Spaces
The design of the proposed building responds well to the prevailing context. The proposal includes a three-storey podium (approximately 14m in height), which is similar to other approvals nearby and creates a sense of street enclosure. In addition, the building is well articulated with active frontage along the Chapel Street frontage, creating an inviting environment for pedestrians. The architectural detailing above the ground level would also create a visual and social experience for pedestrians.
Heritage
For the foregoing reasons, it is considered that the proposal as shown on the discussion plans will not unreasonably impact on the heritage significance of the 1927 MHS building.
Consolidation of Site and Empty Sites
The subject site currently accommodates a two-storey commercial building, which does not contribute to the surrounding area. Redevelopment of the site is encouraged and the new building will add to the complexity and diversity of built form within the precinct.
Light and Shade
The proposed development as shown on the advertised plans will cast significant shadows over the footpath on the eastern side of Chapel Street in the afternoon. The shadows will reach as far as the intersection of Chapel Street and Malcolm Street. The reduction in the building height as shown on the discussion plans will reduce the extent of overshadowing. Although the proposal will still overshadow the footpath on the opposite side of Chapel Street between 1pm and 3pm, the additional shadows will be limited to the section of the footpath in front of 800 Chapel Street. Notably, a 38m high building will overshadow the footpath between 2pm and 3pm. The extent of overshadowing is considered to be acceptable.
Overshadowing impact on the playing field to the west will be discussed in the “off-site amenity impacts” section below.
Energy and Resource Efficiency
For the reasons discussed in the “internal amenity” section below, it is considered that the proposal will include efficient use of resources and energy efficiency.
Architectural Quality
The proposed building exhibits design excellence by having regard to its context, respecting adjacent properties through form, detailing and massing.
In relation to the proposed materials, colours and finishes, the design incorporates a range of materials and elements within an interesting composition. The proposal is well conceived in the overall building articulation and will achieve an appropriate outcome. This being said, Council’s Urban Designer considered the decorative elements to the tower façade to be unconvincing and do not enhance the design character of the proposal. A condition that requires a review of the decorative elements will be included.
Landscape Architecture
The site is located within an area that features a hard edge character. As such, the proposal to fully develop the site with no in-ground planting is not out of context.
In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal as shown on the discussion plans also satisfies the second condition to exceed the preferred maximum building height. The proposal in its revised form will provide an acceptable response to its built form and policy contexts.
Are the proposed land uses appropriate?
The proposed development includes a number of different land uses, namely: dwelling, office, shop and food and drink premises. Given the subject site has been rezoned from Mixed Use to Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1), a permit is required for the following land uses:
• Dwelling, as it is located below the third floor.
Based on the discussion plans, a permit is required for the following land uses:
• Dwelling, as the resident amenities are located on level 1; and
• Office (including maternal and child health centre), because the frontage at ground level exceeds 2m.
These uses are compatible with the area and are encouraged by the planning policies. They are unlikely to cause conflict with other land uses in this area or any unreasonable amenity impacts. Therefore, the proposed land uses are considered to be appropriate.
Will the proposal cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
In terms of off-site amenity impacts, it is important to highlight that the subject site and the nearby land is in a substantial change area and thereby residents cannot hold expectations of the same amenity standards as would a resident of an established residential neighbourhood. Notably, as the application was lodged before the approval date of Amendment VC136, Clause 58 is not applicable. The potential amenity impacts on the adjoining properties will be considered in turn below.
Daylight to windows
The approved development to the south at 669 Chapel Street includes a 3.3m wide light court along the shared boundary with the subject site. A number of habitable room windows (i.e. hostel accommodation) face the light court.
The proposed in its advertised form includes a 6m high wall on the southern boundary. The upper levels rise to a height of 98.36m, with a setback of 3.01m from the southern boundary. The discussion plans show a 21m high wall on the southern boundary, with the upper levels rising to a height of 68m and setback 3.01m from the southern boundary.
The proposal will inevitably impact on light access to the light court at 669 Chapel Street, regardless of whether basing on the advertised plans or the discussion plans. However, construction of the education centre at 669 Chapel Street has not commenced yet and it is unclear whether there will be any change to its form. Furthermore, this area is earmarked for substantial change. The ACZ1 requirements contemplate a 30m high podium for the FH-2 sub-precinct. Even a building that fully complies with the ACZ1 built form controls will reduce daylight access to 669 Chapel Street. It is unrealistic and unreasonable for 669 Chapel Street to expect no impact on its daylight access, especially given it fails to protect its own amenity by relying on a small light court for light. Moreover, the development at 669 Chapel Street will not be used as dwellings and therefore a lower level of amenity protection is considered to be acceptable.
The buildings further south at 661 Chapel Street and 663 – 667 Chapel Street include a number of north-facing habitable room windows and balconies. The reduction in the maximum building height as shown on the discussion plans will help to reduce the impacts of the proposal on these buildings. Furthermore, the separation provided by 669 Chapel Street (i.e. 17.28m) is considered to be sufficient to allow adequate light access to these buildings. It is noted that 669 Chapel Street is subject to easements associated with light and air that will restrict any increase in building height.
Similarly, the proposal as shown on the discussion plans will not unreasonably impact on daylight access to the apartment buildings on the eastern side of Chapel Street given the separation between these buildings.
Visual bulk
The proposal would present a visual change. However, the height, form and scale of the proposal as shown on the discussion plans are generally considered to be acceptable. For reasons similar to the ones outlined above, it is considered that the proposal as shown on the discussion plans will not cause unreasonable visual bulk impact.
Overshadowing
The proposal in its advertised form will overshadow the hockey club playing fields to the west between 9am and 11am. As a result of the reduction in building height as shown on the discussion plans, the additional shadows will be clear by 10am. Such an outcome is considered to be acceptable in the context of an Activity Centre.
The overshadowing impact on the north-facing balconies at 661 Chapel Street and 663 – 667 Chapel Street is considered to be acceptable, especially given these balconies are elevated at least 7 storeys (i.e. 29m) above the ground.
Overlooking
The only interface that may give rise to the issue of unreasonable overlooking is the interface with 669 Chapel Street. The site is currently vacant. As shown on the discussion plans, there will be a wall on the shared boundary that will restrict overlooking to the approved development at 669 Chapel Street. As a result, no screening of the proposed habitable room windows or balconies is considered to be necessary.
In summary, it is considered that the proposal will not cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.
Does the proposal offer future occupants an adequate level of internal amenity?
The advertised plans comprise a mix of one, two and three bedroom dwellings, with an internal floor area ranging from 52qm (one-bedroom) to 99sqm (3-bedroom). The discussion plans show the overall number of dwellings will be reduced from 352 (29 x 1 bedroom, 294 x 2 bedroom and 29 x 3 bedroom) to 158 (86 x 2 bedroom and 72 x 3 bedroom).
Based on the discussion plans, the dwelling size is generous (i.e. a minimum of 72sqm for a two-bedroom apartment). It is considered that the proposal provides all the necessary components for comfortable living within each dwelling, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms.
Private open space for each apartment is provided in the form of a balcony with a size ranging from 4sqm to 91sqm. All balconies are immediately accessible from the living area. However, in light of the size of the apartments, a 4sqm balcony is considered to be disproportionate. Therefore, a condition that requires the balconies to be at least 8sqm with a minimum dimension of 2m will be included. Residential amenities (such as gym, sauna and pool) are located at level 1. A communal roof terrace/lounge/library/dining area is located on the roof level, which will encourage social interaction and community inclusion in accordance with Clause 21.06-9. The provision of private and communal open space is considered to be sufficient subject to conditions.
The proposal also provides areas for the necessary site services. Each dwelling is provided with storage facilities within the basement or parking areas that are secure and conveniently accessible. Mailboxes and other site facilities are adequate in size and their locations are appropriate.
The main pedestrian entry point is considered satisfactory and will provide a sense of address and a safe access point. The development has adequate internal accessibility with lift and stair access.
Are the parking and traffic impacts within reasonable limits?
According to the advertised plans, the proposed development generates a statutory parking demand of 497 spaces (i.e. 381 for residents, 70 for visitors, 18 spaces for the shops, 12 spaces for the food and drink premises, and 16 spaces for the offices). As 299 on-site car spaces will be provided, permission is required to reduce the parking requirement. Based on the discussion plans, a total of 368 spaces are required (i.e. 230 for residents, 32 for visitors, 15 spaces for the shops, 12 spaces for the food and drink premises, and 79 spaces for the offices). A total of 242 parking spaces will be provided.
The proposed parking reduction can be supported and the proposal will not cause significant traffic and parking impacts for the following reasons:
• The subject site is located with an Activity Centre, with excellent access to services and facilities. South Yarra Railway Station and trams along Chapel Street and Toorak Road are within easy walking distance.
• The residents and visitors of this development are not eligible for “Resident Parking Permits” pursuant to Council’s Local Laws. As a result, reduction in the parking requirement will not significantly impact on the street-parking network.
• Partial waiver of the parking requirement is consistent with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy which encourages use of more sustainable modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport).
• The proposal includes a significant amount of bicycle parking spaces that would promote and encourage sustainable transport options.
As Council’s Traffic Engineer and VicRoads commented, the proposed development is unlikely to affect the operation of the surrounding road network and intersections. Therefore, it is considered that the additional traffic would not create unacceptable traffic or amenity impacts. In order to address the outstanding issues, the following conditions will be included:
• Provision of a minimum headroom clearance of 2.2m at the basement entrance point and throughout the parking area in accordance with the Australian Standards.
• Gradients of the parking areas in accordance with the Australian Standards.
• Doors to the main distributor frame, grease interceptor, substation and switch room do not open into the accessway.
• Installation of columns/bollards in front of the staircases within the basements that are located adjacent to the basement ramps to separate pedestrians from the accessway.
With regard to bicycle parking provision, a total of 106 bicycle spaces are required based on the advertised plans (70 for residents, 35 for visitors, 0 space for the shops, 1 space for the food and drink premises, and 0 space for the offices). The proposal provides 336 bicycle parking spaces for residents only. Based on the discussion plans, a total of 58 bicycle spaces are required (32 for residents, 16 for visitors, 0 space for the shops, 1 space for the food and drink premises, and 9 spaces for the offices). The proposal provides 285 bicycle parking spaces (279 spaces for residents and 6 spaces for visitors). Therefore, permission is required to reduce the bicycle parking requirement. Given the scale of the application, it is appropriate to require bicycle parking provisions that meet the requirements of Clause 52.34 for visitors and non-residential components of the development. A condition to this effect will be included.
For all the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposal will not cause unreasonable traffic and parking impacts subject to conditions.
Waste
A Waste Management Plan (WMP) was submitted with the application and referred to Council’s Waste Management Coordinator for comment. Council’s Waste Management Coordinator raised a number of concerns with the WMP. A condition that requires the submission of a WMP will be included should a permit be recommended.
Environmental Sustainable Design and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
A Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) was submitted as part of the original application. Council’s ESD Officer considered the SMP to be generally acceptable subject to modifications. In light of the discussion plans, a new SMP will be required by way of conditions. Similarly, an updated WSUD response will be required by conditions.
Environmental Audit Overlay
The site is subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay. Clause 45.03 advises of requirements that must be met prior to a sensitive use, such as residential, commencing on potentially contaminated land. A condition will be included on any permit to issue for this requirement.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP)
The subject site falls within areas of cultural heritage sensitivity. However, it is not presently within the boundaries of a registered site and has been subject to significant ground disturbance. An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Assessment prepared by Terra Culture Heritage Consultants confirms a CHMP is not required for the proposed development.
Objections
In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:
• Cladding of the building will cause reflected glare: a condition that requires details of the glazing (including reflectivity) will be imposed to avoid undesirable glare.
• Noise emission: the development is unlikely to generate excessive noise emission. In addition, there are EPA requirements in place to control the level of noise emission.
• Impacts during the construction phase: this issue is not within the planning consideration. However, there are building and local law regulations in place to regulate and minimise the impacts during the construction period.
• Infrastructure concerns (e.g. water run-off): this application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Engineer who did not raise concerns with the proposal in this regard. Furthermore, a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response will be required to reduce water run-off.
• Loss of view: there is no inherent legal right to views unless the Scheme provides for it, which is not the case here. As the Tribunal remarked in Taraborrelli v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1309, it will be contrary to the policy direction and the anticipated future form of the development within the Forrest Hill Precinct to constraint the height of a development on the basis that it will block views presently enjoyed by existing development.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal as shown on the November 2017 discussion plans be supported subject to the modification for the following reasons:
• There is policy justification for the proposal.
• The proposal provides a significant community benefit.
• The proposed development will not unreasonably impact on the character of the area or the heritage significance of the MHS building.
• The proposed land uses are appropriate.
• The proposal will not cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts.
• The proposal offers future occupants an adequate level of internal amenity.
• The parking and traffic impacts are within reasonable limits.
Attachments
|1. |PA - 578-15 - 671 Chapel Street South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 1 |Plans |
|Recommendation |
| |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 578/15 for the land located at 671 Chapel Street, South Yarra, be issued under |
|the Stonnington Planning Scheme for use and development of the land for dwellings, offices (including maternal and child health centre), |
|shops (as of right use) and food and drink premises (as of right use), building and works in an Activity Centre Zone, with associated |
|reduction in the car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 subject to the following |
|conditions: |
| |
|1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) electronic 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 prepared by Architecton (Job No. |
|1409178, Drawings No. TP01.00C – TP04.04A, Council date stamped 22 September 2015) advertised in October 2015, but modified to show: |
| |
|a) Changes shown on the discussion plans (Job No. 1409178, Drawings No. TP01.00 –TP01.27, TP02.17 – TP02.19, and TP03.01 – TP03.02, |
|Council date stamped 27 November 2017) but amended to show: |
|i. Extension of the canopy above the Chapel Street footpath to the southern end. |
|ii. Setbacks from the title boundary be nominated on levels 3 – 20 floor plans. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|iii. Details of the glazing, including type (such as tinted or double glazed), colour and reflectivity. The colour of the glazing must be|
|a light colour and not warm grey and brown, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|iv. Application of alternative decorative elements to the tower façade to enhance the design character of the development, to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|v. Extension of the podium to the south-eastern corner of level 3. The internal layout of Apt 3.03, 3.04 and 3.05 may be modified to |
|accommodate the consequential changes. |
|vi. Balconies to the dwellings have a minimum area of 8sqm, with a minimum dimension of 2m. |
|vii. Provision of a headroom clearance of at least 2.2m at the basement entrance point and throughout the parking area in accordance with|
|the Australian Standards. |
|viii. Gradients of the parking areas in accordance with the Australian Standards. |
|ix. Doors to the main distributor frame, grease interceptor, substation and switch room to not open onto the accessway. |
|x. Installation of columns/bollards in front of the staircases within the basements that are located adjacent to the basement ramps to |
|separate pedestrians from the accessway. |
|xi. Provision of bicycle parking for visitors and the non-residential components of the development in accordance with Clause 52.34. |
|xii. Internal access for the ground floor commercial tenants to dispose of their wastes. |
|xiii. Location and capacity of the water tanks and confirmation that they will be connected to toilets within the building for flushing. |
|xiv. Notation of permeability of site surfaces and stormwater treatment areas |
|b) A coloured schedule of finishes and materials. |
|c) Any changes as required by conditions 4 (WMP), 5 (SMP), 7 (WSUD), 9 (wind modelling) and 10 (landscape plan). |
|all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written |
|consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the permit holder must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant |
|to the provisions of Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘Agreement’) in which it must be covenanted as follows: |
| |
|a) That the requirements contained in this agreement must form part of any sale, transfer or lease of the premises which the owner of the|
|land under this permit or its successor may enter into with another party; |
|b) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this agreement must be registered with the |
|Registrar of Titles and must run with the land; |
| |
|c) The owner of the land under this permit must pay the Responsible Authority’s legal costs and be responsible at its cost for the |
|preparation and registration of the said agreement. |
|d) The landowner will construct a first floor maternal and child health centre in the development, generally in accordance with the plans|
|and the response to the draft terms submitted to Council on 27 November 2017, unless otherwise agreed between the Responsible Authority |
|and the landowner. The maternal and child health center must include: |
| |
|i. A minimum net floor area of 300 square metres; and |
|ii. Six (6) car parking spaces (including one disable space) that are placed as near as practical to the access points of the maternal |
|and child health centre while ensuring safe paths of travel are maintained; and |
|iii. Designated lift and stair access (including access from the basement car park) and a dedicated entrance at the ground level from |
|Chapel Street. |
| |
|to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|e) Location of building services to the maternal and child health centre to be agreed upon prior to the commencement of the development. |
|f) All relevant services must be connected to the property prior to the settlement with the exception of telephone which should be |
|available to be connected after the settlement. |
|g) The details of any external signage relevant to the maternal and child health centre to be agreed and provided for. |
|h) By arrangement with the permit holder, the Responsible Authority be allowed site visit prior to completion of the construction of the |
|maternal and child health centre to sight the location and shell of the centre and the car parks and progress of construction generally. |
|i) Prior to the occupation of the building, the landowner will sell the part of the land knowns as the ‘maternal and child health centre’|
|(including the associated 6 car parking spaces) to the Responsible Authority for a consideration of $1. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|4. Concurrent within the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible |
|Authority. The WMP must include: |
| |
|a) Dimensions of waste areas. |
|b) The number of bins to be provided in accordance with the ‘City of Stonnington Residential Waste Management Guidelines’. |
|c) Method of waste and recyclables collection. |
|d) Hours of waste and recyclables collection. |
|e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection. |
|f) Sufficient headroom within the car park to allow the passage of waste collection vehicles. |
|g) Sufficient turning circles for the waste collection vehicles to drive out in a forward direction. |
|h) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised. |
|i) Clarification on how residents and commercial tenants will access the refuse room and dispose of their wastes. |
| |
|When approved, the WMP will be endorsed and form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with |
|the WMP, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible |
|Authority. Upon approval, the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable |
|design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SMP must be incorporated into |
|plan changes required under Condition 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. |
|f) demonstrates how the policy objectives of Clause 22.18 are achieved, including details on plans of how each impervious area is |
|treated, and that all toilets and the irrigation system are connected to the water tank. |
|g) commitment to the development of a construction phase stormwater pollution reduction strategy. |
|h) commitment to minimum insulation values and glazing performance. |
|i) commitment to a minimum efficiency rating of the reverse cycle systems. |
|j) specification of the heating and cooling systems to be used for the non-residential spaces. |
|k) commitment to the provision of a Building Users Guide to future occupants of both the residential and non-residential components of |
|the development. |
| |
|All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the |
|SMP may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|6. Prior to the occupation of the building, a report from the author of the Sustainable Management Plan, approved pursuant to this |
|permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction |
|of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainable Management Plan have been implemented in |
|accordance with the approved plan. |
| |
|7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the |
|Application Requirements of the Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible |
|Authority. |
| |
|8. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed plans and/or stormwater management |
|report. |
| |
|9. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a suitably qualified person must undertake a comprehensive wind tunnel test of the entire |
|development and a Wind Climate Assessment Report must be provided for the written endorsement of the Responsible Authority. Any |
|modifications required to the development in order to ensure acceptable wind conditions must be submitted to and approved by the |
|Responsible Authority as part of the plans for endorsement. The design details of any wind mitigation works must receive the endorsement |
|of the owner/applicant's wind climate experts, referencing the use of architectural features and planting to resolve any issued |
|identified. |
| |
|10. 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 one (1) electronic copy|
|must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape concept plans (Drawings No. LC01 and LC02, dated 15 |
|September 2015) but modified to show: |
| |
|a) changes to the building footprint and layout as per condition 1. |
|b) soil volume details of the planter boxes. |
|c) species for the roof terrace that are suitable in an exposed, wind-swept and westerly facing position. |
|d) details of the pavement, street furniture and street trees (where applicable) as required by condition 12. |
|e) annotation that confirms the 3m setback at the ground level from the eastern title boundary will be clear from any obstruction, such |
|as tables and chairs. |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|11. Prior to the occupation of the building, 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. |
| |
|12. Before the commencement of the development, details of the pavement along the Chapel Street frontage and the northern boundary of the|
|subject land (such as material, size and pattern), details of the street furniture and street tree realignment/planting must be submitted|
|to and approved by Council’s Urban and Infrastructure Projects Unit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|13. Prior to the occupation of the building, a Car Parking Allocation Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible |
|Authority. The Car Parking Allocation Plan must specify how the car spaces will be allocated to individual dwellings, residential |
|visitors, staff and/or customers of the non-residential components of the development hereby approved, to the satisfaction of the |
|Responsible Authority. When approved, the Car Parking Allocation Plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. |
| |
|14. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the permit holder must submit a digital 3D massing model of the development hereby approved|
|in accordance with the specifications of Council’s GIS Unit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|15. 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. |
| |
|16. The provision of music and entertainment on the ground floor food and drinks premises must be limited to background music or |
|entertainment by performers using non-amplified instruments unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|17. Any projection over the street must have a minimum vertical clearance above the footpath level of 2.7 metres and a minimum horizontal|
|clearance of 750 millimetres from the street kerb unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|18. 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. |
| |
|19. 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. |
| |
|20. 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. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|21. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) must be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the |
|surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and must 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. Ventilation |
|systems must be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards. |
| |
|22. 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. |
| |
|23. The level of the footpath at the property line must not be lowered or altered to facilitate access to the site. |
| |
|24. Prior to occupation of the building, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must |
|be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of |
|the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|25. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, before a sensitive use (residential use, child care centre, |
|pre-school centre or primary school) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works (except for remediation)|
|in association with a sensitive use commences, either: |
| |
|a) A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, |
|or |
|b) An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that|
|Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use. |
|Before the occupation of the building all the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be complied with to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|26. All the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, |
|prior to commencement of use of the site. Written confirmation of compliance must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental |
|professional or other suitable person acceptable to the responsible authority. In addition, sign off must be in accordance with any |
|requirements in the Statement conditions regarding verification of works. |
| |
|VicRoads’ conditions |
| |
|27. The edges of the vehicular crossover must be angled at 60 degree to the road reserve boundary, to improve entry and exit conditions, |
|to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|28. Driveways must be maintained in a fit and proper state so as not to compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in |
|a safe manner or compromise operational efficiency of the road or public safety (eg. by spilling gravel onto the roadway). |
| |
|29. The proposed development requires construction and reinstatement of crossover. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for |
|this activity may be required from VicRoads (the Roads Corporation). Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works. |
| |
|End of VicRoads’ conditions |
| |
|Public Transport Victoria’s conditions |
| |
|30. Before the development starts, or other time agreed in writing with the Responsible Authority, amended plans to the satisfaction of |
|the responsible authority and Public Transport Victoria must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, |
|the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must|
|be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show: |
| |
|a) self-enforcing “left in left out” access only from Chapel Street with associated signs. |
| |
|31. Prior to the occupation of the development, all works outlined on the endorsed plans for the left in / left out access must be |
|completed with associated signs to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at the full cost to the permit holder. |
| |
|32. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to tram operation along Chapel Street must be kept to a |
|minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to tram operations during construction and mitigation measures |
|must be communicated to Yarra Trams and Public Transport Victoria fourteen (14) days prior. Any damage to public transport infrastructure|
|must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full cost of the permit holder. |
| |
|End of Public Transport Victoria’s conditions |
| |
|33. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: |
| |
|a) The development is not started within three years of the date of this permit. |
|b) The development is not completed within five years of the date of this permit. |
|c) The use is not commenced within six 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: |
| |
|i. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless |
|all relevant building permits are obtained. |
| |
|ii. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”. |
| |
|iii. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the |
|periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes: |
|1) Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and |
|2) Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit |
|expires. |
2. Planning Application 0241/17 - 117 119 & 121 Chomley Street, Prahran VIC 3181 - construction of nine (9) attached townhouses over basement car parking accessed via Chomley Street
Statutory Planning Coordinator: Phillip Gul
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 117, 119 & 121 Chomley Street, Prahran.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Urbis Pty Ltd |
|Ward: |South |
|Zone: |General Residential Zone (Schedule 12) |
|Overlay: |None |
|Neighbourhood Precinct: |Inner Urban |
|Date lodged: |24 March 2017 |
|Date amended: |22 December 2017 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)|59 |
|Trigger for referral to Council: | Number of objections |
|Number of objections: |15 objections from 14 properties |
|Consultative Meeting: |Yes – held on 30 August 2017 |
|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 KUD Urban Design and are known as Drawing No’s: 3.01 Basement Plan 07, 3.02 Ground Floor Plan 08, 3.03 Level 1 Plan 09, 3.04 Roof Plan 10, 3.05 Area Schedule 11, 4.01 North/South Elevation 13, 4.02 East/West Elevation 14, 5.01 Section 17 and 5.02 Section 18 all Revision 2 – 10/11/2017 and Council date stamped 22 December 2017.
Key features of the proposal are:
• Construction of nine (9) double storey townhouses, plus roof terrace, all comprising a minimum of three (3) bedrooms.
• Two townhouses (Units 1 and 2) are proposed to face Chomley Street with individual access directly from the footpath.
• Units 1 and 2 each contain 4 bedrooms and have landscaped gardens and terraces within the front setback of between 67.8 square metres and 48.9 square metres, respectively.
• Seven townhouses are located to the rear (Units 3 to 9) orientated with a north and south aspect.
• Access to the rear dwellings is provided via a pedestrian path that extends along the northern boundary of the site accessible from Chomley Street.
• Each of these dwellings will have a study (or second bedroom), kitchen, living and dining area at the ground floor level. An area of private open space of 38.6 square metres is located to the south of the living and dining area, with the exception of Unit 9 which is has an outdoor area of 81.5 square metres.
• At the first floor level the dwellings comprise three bedrooms and bathrooms.
• The second floor level (uppermost floor level) contains a covered stair only, which provides access to a landscaped roof terrace.
• All dwellings are provided a landscaped roof terrace screened with 1.7 metre high railings and planters accessed via an enclosed stair.
• Each dwelling will be provided a double car garage within the basement level.
• Two visitor car parking spaces are provided in the basement with direct stair access to the ground floor level above.
• Vehicle access to the basement parking is proposed via a new crossover from Chomley Street.
• The existing, redundant crossovers to Chomley Street are to be broken out and reinstated.
• Removal of 2 significant trees to be replaced by 16 new canopy trees.
• Site coverage: 57 per cent
• Basement site coverage: 65 per cent
• Permeable ground: 39 per cent
• Garden area: 39 per cent
• Maximum building height: 10.01 metres above natural ground level.
It is noted that the current plans were amended under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on 22 December 2017. The amended plans are referenced above and are the determination plans for assessment. The changes from the advertised plan will be detailed later in the “Advertising” section of this report.
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the west side of Chomley Street and consists of three parcels of land. The site has the following significant characteristics:
• A site frontage of 24.99 metres and a site depth of approximately 61 metres, yielding an overall site area of 1527 square metres;
• No’s 117 and 119 Chomley Street are currently vacant;
• No. 121 Chomley Street contains a single storey brick dwelling with a large area of private open space at the rear of the dwelling;
• There is a fall in the land from Chomley Street towards the west and south of up to 1.0 metre;
• There is are two significant trees located in the north-west corner of the subject site known as an Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) and a Ficus carica (Common Fig).
Directly to the north at 123 Chomley Street, is a three storey brick flats setback 5.8 metres from Chomley Street. This residential building contains 11 dwellings and there are habitable room windows oriented to the south facing the subject site. A 2.6 metre wide sealed driveway runs along the southern boundary providing access to the sealed car parking at the rear of the apartment building.
To the south at 113-115 Chomley Street, is an existing nursing home (residential aged care facility). The building is partially setback from the northern boundary with one section of building built to the north boundary.
There are north facing habitable room windows with an outlook to the subject site setback approximately 1.1 metres from the boundary. The nursing home is setback a distance of 7.2 metres from the street and a double crossover exists on the northern side of the frontage.
To the west, the subject site abuts a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) within a Heritage Overlay (HO385). There are five properties with a direct interface to the subject site. These properties are within Banole Avenue (No’s 15 through to 23) and contain single storey dwellings with areas of secluded private open space to the east, adjacent to the subject site.
The surrounding residential area is characterised by a mix of detached dwellings, dual-occupancy dwellings, and multi-unit residential developments developed in Federation, mid- century and contemporary development styles. The prevailing character is therefore mixed in terms of architectural style and construction materials, however features a scale of predominately one to two, sometimes three storeys in height.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:
111-121 Chomley Street and part of 33 Banole Avenue, Prahran
Planning Permit 980/15 for construction of a residential building (aged care facility) and a reduction of bicycle facilities issued on 10 November 2016. This permit allowed for a two storey plus basement aged care development comprising 73 bedsits and 42 car parking spaces. Permit conditions required a setback within the centre of the west elevation at the first floor level to create a visual break to the west, amongst other things. Plans to comply with the conditions have not been endorsed. The permit expires on 10 November 2018 for the commencement of works.
The Title
The subject site consists of three parcels of land known as follows:
• 117 Chomley Street: The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 11635 Folio 432 as Lot 3 on Title Plan 959425. A party wall with Lot 2 (119 Chomley Street) exists on title. However, both sites are currently vacant. No covenants affect the land.
• 119 Chomley Street: The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 11635 Folio 431 as Lot 2 on Title Plan 959425. A party wall with Lot 3 (117 Chomley Street) exists on title. However, both sites are currently vacant. No covenants affect the land.
• 121 Chomley Street: The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 11635 Folio 430 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 959425. No covenants or easements affect this land.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone
Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone (Schedule 12)
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]
The proposed development provides 39 per cent of the site area at ground as garden area and therefore meets the required 35 per cent.
Clause 32.08-6 states that a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.
Clause 32.08-9 (Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building) states:
A building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling or a residential building that:
• exceeds the maximum building height specified in a schedule to this zone; or
• contains more than the maximum number of storeys specified in a schedule to this zone.
If no maximum building height or maximum number of storeys is specified in a schedule to this zone:
• the building height must not exceed 11 metres; and
• the building must contain no more than 3 storeys at any point.
Section 3.0 of Schedule 12 specifies that a building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed a height of 9 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres.
Given the slope in the land towards the south and west, the maximum allowable height of this residential building is 10 metres and 3 storeys.
The Schedule also varies the following Clause 54 and 55 Standards:
| |Standard |Requirement |
|Site coverage |A5 and B8 |Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area. |
|Front fence height |A20 and B32 |Maximum height of 2 metres in streets in a Road Zone, Category 1. Other streets 1.2|
| | |metres maximum height |
Overlay(s)
No overlays affect this site.
Particular Provisions
Clause 52.06 - Car Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, prior to a new use commencing or a new building be occupied the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.
The table at Clause 52.06-5 states that 2 car parking spaces are to be provided to each three or more bedroom dwelling, plus 1 car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.
As this development is for 9 x three and four bedroom townhouses, the statutory car parking rate for this development is 18 residential spaces (2 per dwelling), plus 1 visitor space.
The plans revised on 22 December 2017 now provide 18 residential spaces and 2 visitor spaces, being the full statutory requirement, plus an additional visitor space. Therefore, no parking reduction is sought.
Clause 55 – Two dwellings on a lot and residential buildings
A development:
• Must meet all of the objectives of this clause.
• Should meet all of the standards of this clause.
If a zone or a schedule to a zone specifies a requirement of a standard different from a requirement set out in this clause, the requirement in the zone or a schedule to the zone applies.
Relevant Planning Policies
Clause 11 Settlement
Clause 15.01 Urban Environment
Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development
Clause 16.01 Housing
Clause 18.02 Movement networks
Clause 21.03 Vision
Clause 21.05 Housing
Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage
Clause 21.08 Infrastructure
Clause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy
Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy
Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy
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 3 signs on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.
The site is located in South Ward and objections from 14 different properties have been received. The concerns of the objectors can be summarized as follows:
• Not in keeping with surrounding architecture / character of the area
• Too close to the rear boundary fence
• No use of solar panels
• Loss of daylight
• Car parking noise and pollution
• Noise (AC units and rooftop terraces)
• Overlooking from the roof terraces
• Materials not in keeping with the area
• No visitor parking
• Lack of greenery / landscaping and loss of mature trees
• Too dense
• Flooding
• Impact of bins on the footpath
• Visual bulk
• Overshadowing
• Devaluation of property
• Loss of outlook / views
A Consultative Meeting was held on 30 August 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillors Sehr, Stefanopoulos and Hindle, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the following changes to the plans:
• Reduction in the extent of basement area by 9 per cent of the overall site area (from 74 per cent to 65 per cent).
• Addition of two (2) visitor car parking spaces within the basement and rearrangement of the parking layout to include two tandem garages to Units 3 and 4.
• Increase in the number of replacement canopy trees around the site from 8 to 16.
• Increased setback and landscaping along the north side of the building with the addition of canopy trees (to replace the significant trees).
• Ground floor level setback to the north increased from 2.6 metres to 3.2 metres (+0.6 metres).
• Increased landscaping provision along the west boundary with the addition of canopy trees.
• Reduction in the overall scale of the first floor level of the rear townhouse (Unit 9) with increased rear setback to the first floor level to 4.4 metres (was 3.2 metres).
• Rear townhouses northern setback increased to 3.7 metres (was 2.6 metres) at the first floor level.
• Rear townhouses roof terrace setbacks increased to the west from 3.2 metres to 4.3 metres.
Plans showing the above changes were formally substituted on 22 December 2017 under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The amended plans were not re-advertised as the changes reduce the built form and increase the parking provision on the subject site, therefore it was not considered than any additional detriment would result.
Referrals
Urban Design (comments based on the advertised plans)
Council’s Urban Designer reviewed the advertised plans and raised concerns with the design character of the building, suggesting that measures be taken to soften the building. They also raised concern with the proximity of the new building to the rear boundary and the inadequate landscape response to the north and west. They suggested that the design be amended to allow for the integration of in-ground small canopy-tree landscaping along these interfaces. The other item of concern was the internal amenity of the new dwellings due to the southern orientation of the main living areas.
Planner Comment: The revised plans have sought to address some of these concerns by reducing the built form to the north and west to Unit 9 and improving the landscape response by allowing for additional canopy trees and deep soil planting zones. The concerns with internal amenity are not considered to be fundamental due to the size and width of the living areas and the multiple areas of secluded private open spaces that are provided. Internal amenity will be discussed later in this report.
Parks Department (comments based on the advertised plans)
Significant Trees
• The eastern tree is an Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle). Although in good health, this species is known for poor structure as a mature specimen, with multiple acute included bark unions and fused branches present at the base of this trunk.
• The western tree is a Ficus carica (Common Fig). Although dormant, aerial images from February show this tree in full leaf. Again, although in good health, this species is known for poor structure as a mature specimen.
Landscape Plan
• The northern aspect of the plan needs redesigning to allow for large landscape elements to be established / ensure suitable replacements for mature tree removals.
Planner Note: The amended plans submitted on 22 December 2017 included a revised landscape concept plan seeking to address the initial comments. The revised landscape plan was re-referred to Council’s Parks Department who provided the following comments:
• The landscape concept is supported.
• Services are still shown directly behind the street tree – appropriate conditions in relation to the connection of these services / location of the street tree must be included on this permit if they are to remain in the notated position.
• Notation relating to root development outside the site boundary to be removed from any submitted plans. Suitable below ground space must be provided within the site with which to establish large landscape elements. A reliance on soil volumes outside the site is not a plan notation that Council will endorse.
Planner Note: The above will be addressed via conditions of any approval issued.
Traffic and Parking Department (comments based on the advertised plans)
Traffic Generation
There were no concerns with traffic generation.
Basement Design
• Accesway width, headroom, sight distances, ramp gradients and garage dimensions, are acceptable.
• Swept paths are generally acceptable except for Unit 1 where vehicles are close to the bicycle spaces. It is therefore recommended that the bicycle spaces be relocated, so they are not close to the trafficable area.
• Further to this, vehicles leaving from the Unit 1 and 2 garages do not have clear vision of the ramp. Therefore, it is recommended that a convex mirror be installed at the base of the ramp, to improve visibility for vehicles exiting the garages.
• The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the garage. The minimum gradient of the garage shall be 1:200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.
• The proposed development does not generate a bicycle parking requirement as per the Planning Scheme. However, a total of 4 bicycle parking spaces are proposed within the basement. The concern with the proposed location is that it is quite close to the ramp, and close to the egress for vehicles from Units 1 and 2.
• The submitted material indicates that the accessway will be located at the southern property boundary, but plans have not included the proposed vehicle crossing. The vehicle crossing should have a 3m width, with 1.3m straight splays on either side. As the proposed crossing will be combined with the existing crossing for 113-115 Chomley Street, a splay is not required on the south side. However, the north side should have a 1.3m straight splay. The proposed vehicle crossing, fully dimensioned, shown provided on revised material for assessment.
• The submitted material indicates that the two existing vehicle crossings will be removed. Any redundant vehicle crossing must be removed, and the footpath, kerb and channel etc. be reinstated to Council’s satisfaction, at the time of the works, with any associated cost being borne by the applicant.
Waste Department (comments based on the advertised plans):
Council’s Waste Management Unit are satisfied with the proposed waste management plans submitted. They have noted that in accordance with the ‘City of Stonnington Residential Waste Management Guidelines’, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) is not required to accompany an application for a development of this nature.
Infrastructure Department (comments based on the advertised plans):
The Infrastructure Department raised significant concerns with the drainage of this development due to the site grades and the floor levels. They oppose the use of a pumped drainage system and sought further confirmation that the building can be protected from a 1 in 100 year storm based on the current proposed levels of the building.
Independently of the above they also requested 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 drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design. Please do not state drainage design to satisfaction of Council that is the responsibility of the relevant building surveyor to check and approve.
• The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line
• All redundant vehicular crossings must be removed and the footpath and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.
• There will be significant additional stormwater runoff generated by the development and there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property. 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 6,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.
Planner Note: In response to the above comments the applicant submitted a drainage concept plan along with a stormwater drainage strategy. These documents were referred to Council’s Infrastructure Department who provided the following comments:
• Infrastructure have previously requested that conditions be placed on previous permits that requires an outfall drain be constructed on the West side of the street to connect with the closest Council drain located South of the site.
• The construction of that drain needs to be undertaken to provide drainage for the proposed development which would address some concerns with discharging into the Council drain on the Eastern side of Chomley Street.
• In order to address the drainage concerns please place a condition that the owner must at their cost construct a 300mm diameter drain along the Western side of Chomley Street to connect to the Council drain located to the South. A drainage design prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer must be submitted for the approval of Council and the works must be completed in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction and under the supervision of Council.
KEY ISSUES
Strategic Justification
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.
This application is for nine new dwellings on a large consolidated site (over 1500 square metres in area), that is partially vacant. The re-use of urban land for housing to accommodate future population growth is sought by State and local policy, particularly near activity centres and close to public transport. In principle, this development is ideally located to accommodate infill, medium density housing.
It is considered that the two to three storey scale of the development is compatible with the surrounding inner urban, neighbourhood character and has been designed to respect and protect the amenity of the adjoining properties. However, a more detailed assessment must take into account the relevant sections of Clause 55 of the Stonington Planning Scheme and this assessment is provided below.
Neighbourhood Character
The site is within the Inner Urban Neighbourhood Character Precinct as defined by Council’s Local Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23. The statement of preferred character for this precinct is as follows:
The Inner Urban (IU) character precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar dwellings. Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominate, the rhythm of development. Well-designed gardens for small spaces contribute to the softening of the streetscape. Low or permeable front fences provide views of building facades and front gardens. Where present, car parking structures are located at the rear of buildings with access from rear lanes to provide continuous, uninterrupted footpaths for pedestrian friendly streets. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development within a more compact setting but with space for vegetation and high quality, responsive design.
Specific guidelines seek to ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape, to maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood, to maintain and reinforce the alignment of buildings along the street and to prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures, amongst other things.
The new contemporary dwellings will be of a form and scale that is respectful of the surrounding diverse character that consists of buildings between one and three storeys in height. The design uses recesses, overhangs, landscaping, window openings and variations in materials and colours to achieve an articulated and quality response to the Inner Urban area. The building will read as two storey form on most angles, with only small stairwell projections being read as the third storey. A two storey building within a residential area is appropriate and not incongruous. It is noted that the three storey flats to the north of the site are higher and more dominant than the subject proposal.
For these reasons, the proposal is deemed to achieve the Objectives of Standard B1 (Neighbourhood character objectives), Standard B2 (Residential policy objectives) and the precinct objectives of Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy). The new building will respect the surrounding character by ensuring that the new development is of a high quality offering large well designed dwellings. The setbacks and landscaping reflect the rhythm and spacing around buildings as seen on other large sites. There is also no parking proposed within the front setback and the design has sought to protect the significant street tree by setting the basement back from the front title boundary.
Street setback
The two new dwellings facing Chomley Street (Units 1 and 2) are setback a minimum distance of 5.8 metres at the ground and first floor levels, with the roof terrace setback between 10.3 and 10.4 metres from the street. This is more than the three storey apartment building to the north which is setback 5.8 metres from the street; while the nursing home is setback a distance of 7.2 metres.
Although not fully compliant with the average of the two adjoining setbacks, being 6.5 metres, the setback as proposed will provide a reasonable transition between the existing apartment building to the north and the nursing home to the south.
Furthermore, the setback as proposed will allow for two large canopy trees to be planted within the front setback and the protection of the street tree.
Building Height
The proposed building is to be largely two storeys in height, with a third storey in the form of an enclosed stairwell providing access to the roof terraces. The majority of the building height is approximately 7 – 8 metres, which is well below the maximum allowable height of 10 metres (not 11 metres as noted on the plans). However, Section A shows one portion of the stairwell within the centre of the site between Units 4 and 5 reaching a height of 10.01 metres above natural ground level. This cannot be supported and a condition of approval will require that all sections of the building be amended so as to be no higher than the mandatory 10 metre height limit. Subject to this condition, the proposed building height is acceptable and will provide no more than 3 storeys in accordance with the requirements of the Zone. As already mentioned, the building will sit lower in the streetscape than the existing three storey apartment building directly to the north.
Site Coverage and Permeability
The revised plans submitted to Council on 22 December considerably reduce the basement coverage from the advertised plans by approximately 9 per cent. The basement has been reduced in size, yet reconfigured to allow for two visitor car parking bays. This is a positive change and results in the basement site coverage equating to 65 per cent of the overall site area, in compliance with the varied Clause 55 requirements included within Schedule 12 of 75 per cent.
At the ground floor level the site coverage equates to 57 per cent of the overall site area, which is below the recommended 60 per cent. The permeable ground area has also been increased as a result of the changes shown on the revised plans to now equate to 39 per cent of overall site area (where 20 per cent is recommended). These figures comply with the numerical requirements set out in Standards B8 (Site coverage objective) and B9 (Permeability objectives) of Clause 55.
The extent of site coverage and permeability allows for an improved landscape response which is deemed necessary for a new building of the scale proposed.
Energy Efficiency
The development is deemed to achieve the energy efficiency Objectives of Standard B10 (Energy efficiency). The dwellings have been designed will multiple aspects allowing access to natural light to all habitable rooms and good opportunities for cross ventilation. The north facing first floor windows have been screened with louvres to provide shading from the northern sunlight, while protecting the privacy of adjoining properties.
In accordance with Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy (Clause 22.05), a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) dated July 2017 has been provided with this application. The SDA includes a BESS Report that confirms that the minimum best practice standards are achieved for this development with a BESS score of 50%. The SDA will required to be updated to reflect the amended plans submitted to Council on 22 December 2017.
The proposed development has been designed to achieve an acceptable Environmentally Sustainable Design outcome.
Open Space
No public or communal open space is proposed as part of this application.
Safety
The main entries to Units 1 and 2 are directly via Chomley Street, while the rear townhouses are accessed via a new pedestrian path along the north of the site accessed from Chomley Street. Importantly, each of the new dwellings to the rear (Units 3 to 9) also have habitable room windows with an outlook onto the internal path. In addition, all dwellings are provided with two secure car parking spaces in a secure basement garage. The proposal is considered to meet Standard B12 (Safety objective) by ensuring that the layout of the development provides for the safety and security of residents and property.
Landscaping
A landscape plan has been submitted which details a variety of new landscaping treatments around the subject site. There are two significant trees proposed to be removed from the north-west corner of the site. These trees are to be replaced with nine (9) new trees along the north and west boundaries. The trees comprise two (2) Ulmus parvifolia 'Burnley Select' (Chinese Elms) which are expected to grow to 9 metres in height; five (5) Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) up to 10 metres in height; and one (1) Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) to grow to between 8 and 12 metres in height.
In addition to the above trees, five (5) new pyrus calleryana 'Fronzam Frontier' (Fonzam Frontier Callery Pears) are provided along the southern boundary and will provide screening up to 10 metres in height. While two Quercus palustris (Pin Oaks) are proposed within the front setback, to the south of the street tree, with a mature height of 14 metres.
A total of 16 new trees are to be provided around the perimeter of the building. Council’s Arborist has reviewed the landscape plan and has confirmed that the landscape response is acceptable. The trees particularly to the north will be canopy trees (larger than 10m at maturity), evergreen and evenly spread across the 61 metre length of the boundary.
Additionally, the large street tree must be protected and a condition will require that services are shown in relation to the location of the street tree to ensure no damage occurs.
Subject to the abovementioned conditions, the landscape response is acceptable.
Access and parking location
A new 3.2 metre single width crossover is proposed to the south of the site frontage. The plans note that the two remaining crossovers that currently exist further north are to be reinstated. This will provide for additional on-street parking. Given the subject site has a frontage to Chomley Street of 24.99 metres, the proposed 3.2 metre wide crossover will occupy only 12 per cent of the overall street frontage. This is well below the 33 per cent recommended by Standard B14 (Access objective). The crossover will in turn provide direct access to the basement where secure parking for residents and visitors will be conveniently located.
Amenity Impacts
North and West Interface
Before assessing the north and west interfaces, it is relevant to note that a planning permit has been issued for the subject site that allows for a large double storey extension to the existing nursing home over the land at 117, 119 and 121 Chomley Street. The current approval (issued under Permit 980/15) provides a 3.8 metre wide setback from the northern boundary at the ground floor level with a row of small deciduous trees. The significant trees within the north-west corner of the site are shown to be removed. At the first floor level, the northern wall has been approved with a setback of between 2.6 metres and 3.7 metres from the boundary and balconies encroach within this setback.
On the west side of the building, the ground floor interface has been approved with a setback of 4.4 metres from the boundary with no inclusion of canopy trees. The first floor wall sits at a distance of between 4.1 metres and 7.4 metres from the west boundary, with again balconies within this setback.
The subject proposal is now for a row of individual townhouses with only one dwelling (Unit 9) adjacent to the properties to the west along Banole Avenue. Where the current permit allows for numerous west facing windows and balconies, the subject proposal incorporates only two highlight first floor, west facing windows. Although a roof terrace is now proposed, it has been screened up to 1.7 metres and setback 4.37 metres from the boundary.
This subject application is deemed to be an improved outcome in terms of the amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and particularly the landscape response. The setbacks and building heights are similar to those previously approved; however numerous canopy trees are now proposed around the building.
Objectors at the consultative meeting in August 2017 raised the lack of a landscaping around the building as a principal concern. Following this meeting the applicant revised the plans to reduce the bulk of the rear townhouse (Unit 9) by setting it back from the north and west boundaries and incorporating a considerable landscape buffer of evergreen trees.
North Interface
The revised plans now show the ground floor level setback 3.2 metres from the north boundary with canopy trees and other soft landscaping along the fence line. Similarly, to the west the revised plans have increased the available space at the ground floor level for screening vegetation and canopy trees to replace the significant trees in the north-west corner of the subject site.
At the first floor level, the building is setback between 2.63 metres and 3.7 metres from the northern boundary with a wall height of 6.9 metres. Standard B17 recommends a setback of 1.99 metres, therefore the setbacks as proposed comfortably complies.
The roof terrace increases the wall height to the north to approximately 8.2 metres above natural ground with a setback of 5.6 metres from the north. This continues to comply with Standard B17 which recommends a setback of 3.29 metres.
As seen by the level of compliance above, the proposed setbacks to the north comply with the recommendations of B17 (Side and rear setbacks objectives).
The setbacks also ensure compliance with Standard B19 (Daylight to existing windows objective), as all new northern walls are setback in excess of 50 per cent of the height of the walls from a habitable room window on the apartments to the north. These south facing windows within the apartments to the north are setback 2.6 metres from the common boundary with the subject site.
The northern interface is deemed to be acceptable in terms of setbacks and will not present an unreasonable degree of visual bulk to the adjoining properties. In addition to compliant setbacks and the introduction of canopy trees, the building has been further articulated through the use of a variety of glazing, louvred screens and a mixture of external finishes such as bluestone cladding, stone brick cladding and some render. These elements further assist in breaking up any perceived building bulk when viewed from the north.
West Interface
On the west side of the building, the first and second floor wall presents at a height of between 6.6 and 8 metres above natural ground level with a setback of 4.3 metres. Applying Standard B17 to the proposed wall heights, setbacks of 1.9 metres and 3.09 metres are recommended. In this case, the proposed setbacks exceed the recommended setback by over 1.0 metre.
In combination with the four canopy trees to be planted along the west boundary, the proposal will be well setback and adequately screened from the adjoining private open spaces to the west. There will be no loss of daylight to existing windows as determined by Standard B19, as the windows on the dwellings to the west are well setback from the common boundary with the subject site.
The proposed west interface is considered to be acceptable and will not result in unreasonable visual bulk. It is considered to be an improvement on the previous approval and seeks to protect the amenity of the adjoining residences by reducing the number of west facing windows.
It is noted that some objectors are concerned with loss of views and it must be noted that this is not a relevant consideration of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
Southern Interface
The building is setback considerably from the southern boundary at ground, first and second floor levels. The building is setback no less than 3.93 metres for Unit 1 and up to 6.7 metres at the ground floor level for Units 3 to 9. At the first floor level, the setback for Unit 1 is maintained at 3.93 metres, while the rear townhouses are setback 5.6 metres from the southern boundary. The roof terraces are setback 5.8 metres for Unit 1, and 11.2 metres for the remaining townhouses to the rear.
Standard B17 recommends a setback of 1 metre at the ground level, 1.99 metres at the first floor level and 5 metres at the second floor level. As evidenced above, the setback proposed are close to double the recommended setbacks. In addition, garden areas have been located adjacent to the nursing home allowing for the inclusion of canopy trees and other soft landscaping along the south boundary.
With regard to impacts on existing north facing windows, the relevant Standard B20 calls for setbacks of 3.0 metres at the first floor level and 6.0 metres at the roof terrace level for new walls opposite existing north facing windows.
The proposed minimum setbacks comfortably comply with the recommended setbacks and for this reason, the development is not deemed to adversely impact on northern sunlight access into the nursing home where there are north facing windows with an outlook towards the subject site.
Walls on Boundaries
There are no walls proposed on a boundary as part of this proposal.
Overshadowing
Overshadowing impacts are assessed against Standard B21, which recommends:
Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.
If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.
Additional overshadowing will occur between 9am and 11am on the equinox to the private open spaces of the properties to the west. The extent of shadows varies to each property, with only No.’s 19 and 21 Banole Avenue minimally affected at 10am. By 11am the shadows will have moved entirely beyond the properties to the west and these residences will not be affected by any additional overshadowing throughout the day on the equinox. This is considered to be a reasonable outcome for an inner urban development site, noting that several of the properties will receive adequate solar access in accordance with the Standard and will be unaffected by overshadowing between 10am and 3pm on the equinox.
The shadows to the south fall over the nursing home where there is no designated areas of private open along the northern boundary. Therefore, the overshadowing is deemed to be acceptable and will not unreasonably overshadow an area of private open space on the equinox.
Overlooking and Internal Views
With regard to overlooking, Standard B22 (Overlooking objective) specifies that any new windows or balconies with an outlook to a sensitive interface within 9 metres are to be screened to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level.
North
At the ground floor level all new windows have been shown to have a metal louvre screen up to 1.7 metres with operable glass above. This has been proposed as the internal path for the development results in pedestrians passing in front of these habitable rooms at ground level.
At the first floor level the same louvre screen treatment has been used to limit overlooking into the apartment building to the north, along with some frosted glass up to 1.7 metres. The transparency of the louvres has not been noted. As per the Standard, the transparency should not exceed 25 per cent to limit unreasonable views and this will be required via a condition. It is preferred that the louvres be angled to avoid horizontal views to the north and this will also form part of the condition.
The roof terraces have been noted as having 1.0 metre high planters and 1.7 metre high railings to the north. This is confirmed on the elevation where a solid 1.7 metre high rendered wall is shown. This will adequately limit views towards the north in accordance with the Standard.
South
On the south side of building the terraces at the ground floor level will be raised above natural ground level. The southern elevation confirms a proposed 1.8 metre high paling fence along this boundary, which will limit views into the nursing home to the north.
While the fence will limit most views. it is unclear from the plans whether there will be overlooking from the terraces of Unit 1, 3 and 4 into the nursing home windows. Unit 1 appears to be raised nearly 1.0 metre above natural ground level. The applicant is to confirm via conditions the extent of views from the southern terraces of Units 1, 3 and 4 into the windows on the adjoining property with the proposed fence height included. Floor levels of the adjoining site are to be shown relative to the proposed terrace. Where there are unobstructed views into the adjoining habitable room windows, screening up to 1.7 metres above the terrace finished floor level is to be provided to protect the privacy of the adjoining property.
At the first floor level, elevations show a louvre screen to 1.7 metres with an operable glass above. The transparency of the louvres has again not been noted. As per the Standard, the transparency should not exceed 25 per cent to limit unreasonable views and this will be required via a condition.
The southern side of the roof terrace is noted on plans as having 1.7 metre high railings, yet this does not correspond with the detail on the elevation. While the roof terraces of Units 3 to 9 are setback in excess of 9.0 metres from the southern boundary, the details must correspond with the floorplans. Moreover, the southern side of Unit 1 must be shown to be 1.7 metres in height and have no more than 25 per cent transparent in accordance with Standard B22, being within 5.8 metres of the southern boundary and within 9 metres of habitable room windows within the nursing home.
West
There will be no overlooking opportunities from the ground floor level west facing windows within Unit 9 due to boundary fencing.
As previously mentioned, the west elevation of Unit 9 has only two first floor windows both of which have 1.7 metre high sills above finished floor level, which comply with the Standard and will not allow for unreasonable overlooking.
The west side of the roof terrace has been shown to have 1.7 metre high solid wall to be finished in a dark grey render. This again complies and will not allow for unreasonable overlooking into the secluded private open spaces to the west associated with the dwellings in Banole Avenue.
Subject to the abovementioned conditions, all windows and terraces will sufficiently limit views into the adjoining properties in accordance with Standard B22.
On-site Amenity
The development will provide an adequate level of internal amenity for future occupants. The new dwellings have good sized internal living areas and sizeable areas of private open space given the inner urban context. Each dwelling is provided with a minimum of two (2) secure car spaces and individual storage facilities. No lift is proposed within the basement, although a ramp provides access from Chomely Street to the main ground floor entries of the dwellings.
The townhouses have been designed with multiple aspects and all habitable spaces are provided access to natural light and ventilation. For these reasons, the amenity of the new dwellings is deemed to be satisfactory and complies with the Objectives of Clause 55.05.
Car Parking and Traffic
The development complies with the statutory car parking requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the new dwellings by providing a minimum of two on-site car spaces to each new dwelling that will be secure and conveniently located within the basement. The provision of 2 visitor spaces exceeds the statutory requirements for visitor parking.
Council’s Transport and Parking Department have not raised any concerns with the traffic to be generated in Chomley Street based on the anticipated 5 vehicle movements per day, per dwelling.
The removal of the existing crossovers will create new on-street parking spaces that otherwise do not exist. Importantly, future residents and visitors of this building will not be eligible for Resident Parking Permits.
There are a number of minor design adjustments that can be adequately addressed via conditions. These are detailed in the traffic referral comments earlier in this report.
It is noted that the application was amended after advertising to include two visitor parking bays; whereas the advertised plans sought a full waiver of the statutory parking requirements for visitors. The plans were amended on 22 December 2017 and this has resulted in there no longer being a permit trigger under Clause 52.06 for a reduction in the visitor parking requirements. The lack of visitor parking within this development was a concern for several objectors. The development now provides 1 surplus visitor space and will create additional on-street parking as a result of breaking out the redundant crossovers.
Water Sensitive Urban Design
As part of the Sustainable Design Assessment, the applicant has submitted a STORM Report that details the treatment measures proposed. The development achieves a STORM rating of 111%, by incorporating a 14,000L rainwater tank connected to the roof for collection. The tank is proposed in the basement and does not confirm connections to toilets for flushing and reuse for irrigation. These notations will be required on plans to ensure that the water treatment measures proposed meet the requirements of Clause 22.18. This will be addressed via conditions.
Objections
In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:
• Devaluation of property
This is not a matter that can be considered by planning.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:
• The new building is deemed to be compatible with the character of the area and has been well articulated so as not to present excessive visual bulk to the adjoining interfaces.
• Adequate car parking is provided in accordance with the Stonnington Planning Scheme and traffic generation will not adversely impact on the surrounding street network.
• The design provides adequate space for canopy trees to be planted around the building, strengthening the garden character of the area.
• The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with ResCode (Clause 55) Objectives.
Attachments
|1. |PA1 - 117 119 & 121 Chomley Street Prahran - Attachment 1 of 1.pdf |Plans |
|RECOMMENDATION |
| |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 241/17 for the land located at 117, 119 & 121 Chomley Street, Prahran 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 amended plans Council date stamped 22 December 2017 but |
|modified to show: |
| |
|a) Building reduced in height so that there is no part of the building more than 10.0m in height above natural ground level; |
|b) Plans to confirm a minimum gradient of the garage at 1:200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1; |
|c) The proposed vehicle crossing shown fully dimensioned with a 1.3 metre splay on the north side of the crossing or otherwise as agreed |
|to by the Responsible Authority; |
|d) A convex mirror be installed at the base of the ramp, to improve visibility for vehicles exiting the garages; |
|e) Bicycle spaces relocated away from the ramp or the egress for vehicles from Units 1 and 2, or otherwise as agreed to by the |
|Responsible Authority; |
|f) The proposed location of the gas and water services must be moved so that no trenching for new services will occur within the |
|Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of the existing Claret Ash street tree; |
|g) Notations confirming rainwater tank will be connected to toilets for flushing and on-site irrigation; |
|h) Remove reference to 11 metre height limit from natural ground from elevations; |
|i) Notation relating to root development outside the sight boundary to be removed from any submitted plans, including landscape plans; |
|j) The 1.7 metre high louvre screens to be noted as having a maximum 25 per cent transparency and louvres to be angled to avoid |
|horizontal views; |
|k) Sections to show the extent of views from the southern terraces of Units 1, 3 and 4 into the windows on the adjoining property to the |
|south, with the proposed fence height shown. Floor levels of the adjoining site are to be shown relative to the proposed terrace. Where |
|there are unobstructed views into the adjoining habitable room windows, screening up to 1.7 metres above the terrace finished floor level|
|is to be provided to protect the privacy of the adjoining property; |
|l) All 1.7 metres high railings to the roof terraces are to be dimensioned on the elevations above finished floor level and must |
|correspond with the floorplans. The 1.7 metre high railings must be detailed to comply with Standard B22 (Overlooking objective); |
|m) Any requirements to comply with conditions 5 (Landscape Plan), 7 (SDA), 12 (Stormwater Management); |
|all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written |
|consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|3. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, the owner must at their cost construct a 300mm diameter drain along the Western side of |
|Chomley Street to connect to the Council drain located to the South. |
| |
|4. Prior to the commencement of works, a drainage design prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer must be submitted for the approval of |
|Council. The works must be completed in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction and under the supervision of Council. |
| |
|5. 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. The landscape plan must be|
|in accordance with the landscape concept plan prepared by John Patrick L-TP01- REV B and L-TP02- REV B, Council date stamped 22 December |
|2017, but modified to show: |
| |
|(a) The notation relating to root development outside the site boundary to be removed from the plans |
| |
|all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
|6. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to |
|the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, |
|including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|7. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, an updated Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the |
|Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA report will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate |
|the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SDA must be generally in |
|accordance with the SDA dated July 2017, but modified to show, but not limited to, the following: |
| |
|(b) Consistency with the architectural plans and any conditon 1 requirements. |
| |
|All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SDA report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations |
|to the SDA report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|8. 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 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. |
| |
|9. Any redundant vehicle crossing must be removed, and the footpath, kerb and channel must be reinstated to Council’s satisfaction, at |
|the time of the works permitted by this permit, with any associated cost being borne by the applicant. |
| |
|10. 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. |
| |
|11. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This |
|is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at |
|the property line |
| |
|12. 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 6,000 litres greater|
|than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets. |
| |
|13. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the |
|Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All proposed |
|treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans. |
| |
| |
|14. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater |
|management report. |
| |
|15. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be |
|done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent. |
| |
|16. 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. |
| |
|17. 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 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. |
| |
|18. 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. |
| |
|19. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: |
| |
|n) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. |
|o) 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: |
|p) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or |
|q) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or |
|r) 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. 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. |
| |
|D. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”. |
| |
|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. |
3. Planning Application 006/17 - 48 Darling Road, Malvern East VIC3145 - Construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone
Statutory Planning Coordinator: Phillip Gul
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone at 48 Darling Road, Malvern East.
Executive Summary
|Applicant: |Song Bowden Planning Pty Ltd |
|Ward: |East |
|Zone: |General Residential Zone - Schedule 10 (Garden River & Garden Suburban) |
|Overlay: |N/A |
|Neighbourhood Precinct: |Garden Suburban 4 |
|Date lodged: |04 January 2017 |
|Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)|110 |
|Trigger for referral to Council: |Number of Objections |
|Number of objections: |9 |
|Consultative Meeting: |Yes - held on 24 May 2017 |
|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 the applicant and are known as File No. 5827 and are Council date stamped 3 October 2017.
The proposal seeks to construct two double storey dwellings on the lot, each comprising four (4) bedrooms plus retreat and two car spaces in a garage. Access to the garages is to be provided from Wattle Grove. The proposed development is to be constructed of render with concrete tile roof and with a maximum overall height of 8.01m. Secluded private open space is provided in an l-shape to the west and south of each dwelling.
The proposed crossover also includes the removal of a Council street tree.
The original application was lodged on 4 January 2017.
Following concerns raised by Council officers and as part of the consultative meeting, plans were amended in October 2017. The original application included a larger western dwelling built closer to the Darling Road title boundary. The amended plans generally increased the setback of the western dwelling to Darling Road address massing and bulk concerns.
Specifically, the revised plans made the following changes:
• Western Dwelling: Alfresco area reduced in size
• Increased southern ground floor setback of both dwellings
• Western Dwelling: Increased ground and first floor setback to Wattle Grove
• Minor changes to the modulation of the first floors of both dwellings
• Eastern Dwelling: Reduced ground and first floor setback to Wattle Grove
Site and Surrounds
The subject site is regular in shape, with a frontage to Darling Road of approximately 15.2m, a frontage to Wattle Grove of approximately 42m and a total site area of approximately 650.32sqm.
The site forms part of an established residential area exhibiting mostly detached single dwellings of various styles and periods. Predominantly, the houses are red brick bungalows with some modern double storey rendered houses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are roughly homogenous down Darling Road and Wattle Grove. Notably, to the north of the site (across Wattle Grove) and continuing down Darling Road, the properties are covered by Heritage Overlay No. 390 and to the East continuing down Wattle Grove, the properties are covered by Neighbourhood Character Overlay (Schedule 7) which identifies areas with a consistent Californian Bungalow character. There is a clear predominant character of 1-2 storeys.
To the north of the subject site, across Wattle Grove, is 50 Darling Road and 1A Wattle Grove, both covered by Heritage Overlay No. 390. 1A Wattle Grove is a c.1970s villa and is ungraded in the overlay. 50 Darling Road is described as a single storey interwar bungalow and is graded B.
To the east of the subject site is 2 Wattle Grove, a single storey brick bungalow with pitched roof and a carport forward of the dwelling on the common boundary with the subject site. The site is covered by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (Schedule 7).
To the south of the subject site is 46 Darling Road, a single storey brick bungalow with pitched roof facing Darling Road. A flat roof garage is located towards to rear (east) of the site abutting the common boundary with the subject site.
To the west of the subject site, across Darling Road, are a number of single storey brick bungalows with pitched roofs.
The Title
The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04977 Folio 394 and no covenants or easements affect the land.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
General Residential Zone – Schedule 10
Clause 32.08
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6, a permit is required to construct two dwellings on a lot, and an application must meet the requirements of Clause 55, including the varied requirements specified in Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone.
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4, whether or not a permit is required under the General Residential Zone, a development must meet the mandatory minimum garden area requirements. For a lot exceeding 650 square metres, 35% of the lot area at ground level must be set aside for garden area. Based on the information provided, 32.58% of the site area is set aside for garden area. A condition will be included on the permit requiring the rectification of this non-compliance, which is calculated at 15.8sqm. The applicant advised the planning officer on 29 January 2018 that this should be possible without resulting in any additional impacts to neighbours or the street through adjustments to the pergolas and driveways.
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-9 and Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone, a building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling that exceeds 9 metres or more than two storeys at any point. These requirements are considered to be met.
Car Parking
Clause 52.06
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a dwelling of 3 or more bedrooms requires two car spaces, one of which must be covered. Two car spaces must therefore be provided to each dwelling. The proposal complies with this requirement.
Relevant Planning Policies
11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne
15.01 Urban Environment
15.02 Sustainable Development
16.01 Residential Development
21.03 Vision
21.05 Housing
21.06 Built Environment and Heritage
22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Design
22.18 Stormwater Management
22.23 Neighbourhood Character Guidelines
32.08 General Residential Zone – Schedule 10
52.06 Car Parking
55 Two Dwellings on a Lot
65 Decision Guidelines
Advertising
The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in April 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 has been completed satisfactorily.
During this time, the application attracted objections from 8 properties.
A Consultative Meeting was held on 24 May 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillor Klisaris, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in a formal revision to the application plans in October.
The application was re-advertised following submission of the amended plans. The advertisement was undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in November 2017 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and previous objectors (and by placing two signs on the site). The second public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.
During this time, the proposal attracted 1 additional objecting property and 2 supplementary objections from existing objectors.
The site is located in East Ward and has attracted objections from a total of 9 different properties. The concerns, in summary, relate to:
• Neighbourhood Character Response including design detail and landscaping
• Overlooking
• Street Setback
• Car Parking
• Boundary Fence Material
• Sewerage
• Loss of Habitat
Referrals
Infrastructure
Infrastructure considered the proposal acceptable subject to a number of standard conditions relating to legal point of discharge and stormwater runoff.
Landscape (Parks)
The removal of the Desert Ash street tree would be considered acceptable by Council’s arborist subject to a suitable replacement. The proposed landscape plan is suitable for approval. A condition on the recommendation will require an updated landscape plan showing the revised building footprint.
Building & Local Laws (Crossover)
The proposed crossovers do not comply with Part 1.1.1 of the Vehicle Crossing Policy as it constitutes two crossovers to a single rateable property and is therefore not supported by Building & Local Laws in its current form. Subject to being subdivided into two lots, the proposed crossover will be fully compliant with the policy (subject to meeting street tree requirements). On the basis that the local laws permit can be issued following subdivision, the proposed crossovers are considered acceptable with regards to the local laws requirements.
ASSESSMENT
Strategic Context
The purpose of the General Residential Zone, amongst others, is to implement State and local policies, to encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of an area and encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
Having regard to the objectives and provisions of the relevant State and Local Planning Policies, alongside the controls of the General Residential Zone, the proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Clause 11.06 (Metropolitan Melbourne), 21.05 (Housing), and 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage).
Clause 11.06-2 (Housing Choice) has the objective of providing housing choice close to jobs and services. One of the strategies is to facilitate increased housing in established area of Metropolitan Melbourne to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods close to existing services, jobs and public transport.
Clause 21.05 (Housing) directs new residential development to locations that are accessible to activity centres and public transport networks. The subject site is identified as being part of an incremental change area where the local planning policy framework seeks a moderate increase in housing density. The proposed development of two dwellings on a lot in an incremental change area is considered appropriate.
The subject site is well serviced and in close proximity to the Malvern East Terminus Activity Centre (~250m) which consists of commercial facilities for regular as well as some specialist retail and service activities. Waverley Road is serviced by the Route 3/3a Tram which runs from Malvern East to Melbourne University. Darling Road is also served by the 624d Bus Route which runs primarily during peak periods and between Oakleigh and Kew.
It is considered that the subject site has strategic support for the construction of two dwellings on the site. The location is considered an “incremental change area”, which is appropriate for infill development and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice within proximity to an activity centre.
The proposed development adequately addresses policy objectives on urban consolidation, household diversity and building form and is generally responsive to its context.
Detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity as required by Clause 21.06 is detailed below.
Neighbourhood Character
Neighbourhood Character and Overall Massing
The relevant neighbourhood character assessments are at Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure), 55.03 (Site Layout and Building Massing), and 55.06 (Detailed Design). Specifically, Standard B1 requires that a design response is appropriate to the neighbourhood and site and respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and Standard B31 requires that the design detail of buildings respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. Assessments against the relevant standards and objectives follows:
The subject site is located within the Garden Suburban 4 Neighbourhood Character Precinct (GS4) as identified in the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines at Clause 22.23 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The statement for the GS4 precinct states in part:
The Garden Suburban 4 (GS4) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street.
With regards to the neighbourhood character of Darling Road, it is considered mixed in terms of dwelling period and style but generally maintains a detached pattern with some landscape characteristics, particularly at the rear of sites. Notably the extent of garden area relative to dwelling area appears to have decreased over time with more modern dwellings and with multi-unit developments. Driveways and vehicle accommodation are often located towards the rear of a dwelling down a long driveway. No consistent fence style could be identified, but wooden picket fencing and low brick fencing is common.
With regards to Wattle Grove, the majority of houses in this street to the east of the subject site are covered by Neighbourhood Character Overlay (Schedule 7) which denotes areas of significant “Californian Bungalow” precincts. Notably, Schedule 7 includes the following statement of neighbourhood character:
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.
Whilst the subject site abuts but sits outside this overlay area, achieving a transition between the subject site and overlay area is an important part of the design response.
In terms of scale and form, the proposal maintains the 1-2 storey character with hipped roof form common to the surrounding context. The current set of plans (unlike earlier versions of the proposal) includes a setback from Darling Road that reasonably respects the predominant setbacks on the street. This is further discussed in the assessment of Standard B6.
It is however considered that the proposal does not reasonably step down to the east to allow a proper transition to the Neighbourhood Character Overlay area starting at 2 Wattle Grove. The proposed first floor is setback 1.83m from the eastern title boundary. Having considered what would be necessary to visually separate the proposed first floor from 2 Wattle Grove, a setback of at least one room’s width (additional to the existing setback) is considered a useful metric. Requiring such a setback will significantly reduce the bulk towards the eastern side of the site and allow a sensitive transition to the Neighbourhood Character Overlay. The result of this change would be the deletion of the bedroom and retreat. Whilst this is a significant change to the size and capacity of the house, it is considered that the role of the rear portion of the site is to transition to the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, and as such is considered an appropriate reduction in the context of the overall development. A condition will be placed on the permit requiring this change.
The corner location of the subject site lends itself to the development of two detached dwellings facing the existing side interface. This outcome has already been realised at No.’s 32, 50 and 55 Darling Road, 15, 16, 54, 55 and 56 Fisher Street (running parallel to the street west of Darling Road). On sites with only one frontage, “one behind the other” multi-unit developments are reasonably common in the surrounding area.
While the design detail including articulation, window proportions and ground floor roof form is modern stylistically, the proposed hipped form of the roof, eaves and masonry materiality references the evident characteristics of the dwellings in the neighbourhood.
This is consistent with the objectives of Clause 22.23 which seek that new dwellings reference rather than mimic the existing dwellings. Further, the site is not covered by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay unlike the dwellings to the east, and the proposal is therefore considered a reasonable architectural response in the context of the mix of housing styles (including contemporary) along Darling Road. It is noted that the proposed dark colouring of the built form is not consistent with the surrounding area, where cream render is more commonly found, and a condition will be placed on the permit requiring a change in colour scheme to this effect.
Subject to a condition requiring an increased setback at first floor from the eastern boundary (interface with the Neighbourhood Character Overlay) the proposal is also considered to respond appropriately to the Wattle Grove streetscape.
The proposal is considered to meet the Neighbourhood Character Standard B1 and Design Detail Standard B31.
Street Setback
Street setback requirements are located at Clause 55.03-1.
The standard specifies that for a corner site, a building must be setback the same distance as the front wall of the neighbouring dwelling facing the same street, or 9m, whichever is lesser. Side interfaces must be setback the same distance as the front wall of the neighbouring dwelling along that frontage, or 2m, whichever is lesser. A secondary dwelling facing Wattle Grove would have a setback consistent with the neighbouring property or 3m, whichever is lesser.
Therefore the standard contemplates 2m and 3m setbacks along either Wattle Grove or Darling Road as side interfaces.
The current dwelling faces Darling Road, and therefore any new development facing the same street would be required to be setback consistent with the adjoining dwelling at 46 Darling Road (9m). The required setback to Wattle Grove in such an instance would be 2m.
In this instance, both dwellings face Wattle Grove and therefore the standard prescribes a street setback consistent with the dwelling at 2 Wattle Grove and a side setback from Darling Road of 2m.
Although the neighbouring carport at 2 Wattle Grove has a setback of only 4.0m, the front wall of the dwelling is setback 6.4m and therefore the prescribed setback would be 6.4m. 46 Darling Road is setback more than 3m from the street and therefore has a prescribed setback of 2m. The western dwelling has a minimum setback to Wattle Grove of 2m and the eastern dwelling has a minimum setback to Wattle Grove of 3m. The proposal includes a side setback to Darling Road of 7.0m.
The proposal therefore does not meet the standard with regards to the front setback to Wattle Grove.
Despite this, the proposal is considered to meet the objective. The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the setback of the properties opposite at 1a and 1 Wattle Grove with approximately 1.5m and 3.5m respectively.
Having consideration to the design response and the choice to give the two proposed dwellings full frontages to Wattle Grove instead of a length-wise side-by-side design or “one behind the other” design fronting Darling Road where such setbacks would not only be contemplated, but would be effectively compliant with the standard, the proposed design represents a much more consistent response to the surrounding character and given the subject site sits on a corner and has a depth from Wattle Grove of only 15m, the proposed setbacks to Wattle Grove are considered adequate.
Further, having regard to the setback from Darling Road, the proposal far exceeds the requirements of this side setback in an attempt to maintain a consistent setback pattern along the road and therefore this should be encouraged as a response. This impacts the applicant’s ability to increase the Wattle Grove setback.
Building Height
The standard (B7) and the mandatory maximum height controls at 32.09-9 specify a maximum height of 9.0m. The proposal has a maximum height of 8.01m.
The proposed building height generally transitions from neighbouring dwellings with the exception of the eastern first floor setback which will be addressed by way of condition.
Site Coverage
Standard B8 prescribes a maximum site coverage of 60% and the proposed development has a site coverage of 54.74%, therefore meeting the standard.
Permeability
Standard B9 prescribes a minimum permeability of 20% and the proposed development has a permeability across the site of 36.29%. The proposal is considered to meet the standard.
Landscape
The proposed landscape plan advertised in April 2017 generally respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood landscape character and has been accepted by Council’s arborist. The modified standard also requires that at least one canopy tree is planted, this has been achieved. A condition will be placed on the permit requiring this landscape plan be updated to reflect the revised building footprint proposed in the Section 57A amendment plans.
Front Fence
Standard B32 prescribes a maximum fence height of 1.5m.
The proposed front fence to Wattle Grove and part of the frontage to Darling Road has a maximum height of 1.5 and therefore meets the standard. The fence facing Darling Road is considered a side fence and therefore is not considered under the standard. Given consideration of fences in the General Residential Zone is exempt except with regards to front fences exceeding 1.5m, the design and material of the fence cannot be considered.
Amenity Impacts
Side & Rear Setbacks
Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone specifies a side setback requirement of 1m & 2m off the respective side boundaries for 5m behind the façade for both dwellings.
The proposal incorporates a 7m setback to the west of Townhouse 1, and a 2m separation between the two dwellings (compliant with the Standard), however proposes a ground floor wall to Townhouse 2 on the eastern title boundary which is setback only 1.45 metres behind the front wall of the proposed dwelling.
Whilst this garage wall does not meet the standard, it is consistent with the garage siting of most sites in the vicinity of the subject site including immediately adjacent at No. 2 Wattle Grove, and directly opposite at No.’s 1a and 1 Wattle Grove. The proposal is therefore considered to respond directly to immediate context and complies with the side and rear setbacks objective.
All other built form at ground floor is setback 1.0m or more, complying with the requirement of Standard B17.
The assessment of the first floor follows:
On the south elevation:
• The western dwelling has a proposed maximum wall height of 5.91m, prescribing a setback of 1.69m. The proposed minimum setback of 2.0m meets the Standard.
• The eastern dwelling has a proposed maximum wall height of 6.13m, prescribing a setback of 1.76m. The proposed minimum setback of 2.24m meets the standard.
On the east elevation:
• The proposed development has a proposed maximum wall height of 6.18m, prescribing a setback of 1.77m. The proposed setback of 1.85m meets the Standard. A condition on the permit will increase this further, allowing the proposal to further exceed the requirements of the Standard.
On the west elevation:
• The proposed development has a proposed maximum wall height of 6.3m, prescribing a setback of 1.81m. The proposed setback of 8.2m meets the Standard. A condition on the permit will increase this further, allowing the proposal to further exceed the requirements of the Standard.
Walls on Boundary
Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone specifies that walls cannot be located on side boundaries for 5m behind the façade. As discussed in the assessment of Standard B17, while this varied standard is not met due to the proposed garage on the eastern boundary, there are multiple examples of similar responses in the surrounding area and further, a full setback behind the façade of 5m (an additional 3.55m) would result in a larger driveway and reduction in garden area. The proposed variation to the varied standard is considered acceptable.
The eastern title boundary has a length of 15.2m, allowing a maximum wall length of 11.3m. The proposed length of 6.47m meets this requirement.
The proposed wall has a maximum height of 3.29m (meeting the 3.6m maximum) and is annotated to have an average height of 3.2m however it is not clear how this will be accomplished given the minimum height of the wall has been measured as 3.17m. A condition will be included on the permit requiring a reduction in the wall height and revised plans demonstrating how the average wall height will not exceed 3.2m. While the amenity impact of the wall will be relatively minor as it faces a carport, the plans should be internally consistent to allow proper enforcement.
Daylight to existing Windows
Each neighbouring habitable window is provided a sufficient light court and setback in accordance with standard B19. The closest window is located on the northern interface of 46 Darling Road and is setback 7.41m. The south facing wall has a height of 5.6m and therefore prescribes a minimum setback of 2.8m
North-Facing Windows
The north-facing windows standard (B20) states that it applies to any north-facing window within 3.0m of the boundary. The closest neighbouring north-facing window is setback 3.57m from the common boundary, and therefore no assessment is required against this Standard.
Overshadowing
The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard B21. This Standard states the following:
Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.
If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.
The shadow impacts of the proposal will largely impact the driveway at 46 Darling Road and a secondary courtyard to 2 Wattle Grove that is located between the carport and western wing of the dwelling. The shadowed areas are not the primary secluded private open space of either dwelling and they are provided significant areas of secluded private open space at the rear of the sites which will not be unreasonably affected. The proposal is considered to meet Standard B21.
Overlooking
All habitable first floor south and east facing windows with a view into neighbouring secluded private open space of habitable windows are screened to 1.7m and therefore comply with the standard. An east facing window sits forward of the side gate to 2 Wattle Grove and overlooks the front yard of the property. This is not considered to breach the standard as this area is visible from the street.
The proposed ground floor south facing windows are located opposite paling fences of at least 1.8m and therefore meet the standard.
On-site Amenity
Dwelling Entry
The proposed dwelling entries are benefitted by small porches that provide shelter and a sense of personal address. The proposal is considered to comply with the Standard.
Daylight to New Windows
Each new window is provided an adequate light source of at least 3sqm (with a minimum dimension of 1m) as specified by standard B27
Private Open Space
Each of the two dwellings is benefitted by more than 40sqm of private open space, including 25sqm meeting the requirements for secluded private open space. The proposal is considered to meet standard B28. The spaces are also east-west oriented, allowing compliance with the solar access to open space standard (B29).
Storage
Each of the two dwellings includes sufficient storage throughout the site and further, include sufficient space for an external shed in secluded private open space should the need arise. This is considered to meet the requirements of Standard B31.
Having regard to all of the above, the proposal is considered to generally meet the provisions of Clause 55, subject to conditions.
Car Parking and Traffic
Car Parking
Fundamentally, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the provision of parking spaces on site, and the overall access layout. The two dwellings generate a statutory requirement of 2 spaces to each dwelling, which has been met.
Pursuant to design standard 1, the proposed garage door must have a minimum clearance of 2.1m. A condition will be placed on the permit ensuring this is indicated on the plans.
Both garages are 5.5m wide and 6.0m deep, meeting the requirements of Car Parking Design Standard 2.
All other design standards are generally met.
Vehicle Crossovers
Standard B14 under the access objective prescribes that the width of all accessways combined should not exceed 33% of the total frontage. The two crossovers amount to 14.28% of the street frontage which accords with the standard.
With regard to the Desert Ash street tree, Council’s arborist has noted the poor state of the tree and would consider its replacement as part of the development at this site subject to a suitable replacement. Such matters are generally managed by building & local laws as part of a vehicle crossover application.
Environmentally Sustainable Design
Clause 22.05 requires that a development of 2-9 dwellings include a Sustainable Design Assessment demonstrating best practice. The proposal includes a BESS report achieving a 54% score. The SDA report was not updated as part of the revision made in October 2017 and a condition will be placed on the permit ensuring a revised report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Objections
In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:
• Street Parking
Pursuant to the requirements of Clause 52.06, a dwelling of 3 or more bedrooms must provide two car spaces. This has been achieved. It is not appropriate to require additional spaces
• Boundary Fence Material
In this instance, the boundary fence abutting 2 Wattle Grove is outside of the control of the planning scheme. Disputes regarding boundary fences are generally civil matters.
• Sewerage
The proposed increase of one dwelling is not considered to place unreasonable load on the existing sewerage infrastructure.
• Loss of Habitat
The proposal is considered to comply with Standard B13 and provides adequate landscaping given the design response and site context.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:
• The proposed design adequately responds to the neighbourhood character context of the proposal
• The proposed design response is compliant with Clause 54 conditional to a number of minor changes
• The proposal is generally consistent with the Stonnington Planning Scheme
Attachments
|1. |Attachment 1 of 1: Architectural Plans |Plans |
|RECOMMENDATION |
| |
|That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0006/17 for the land located at 48 Darling Road, Malvern East be issued under |
|the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of two dwellings on a lot 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 advertised in October 2017 but modified to show: |
|a. Reduction in the built form to meet compliance with the garden area requirements at Clause 32.08-4 and achieve a garden area of at |
|least 35% of the site area |
|b. Deletion of the built form above the garage to the eastern dwelling or a minimum setback of the first floor of the eastern dwelling |
|from the eastern title boundary of 5.6m and associated re-arrangement of the internal spaces |
|c. An updated colour scheme more consistent with other rendered dwellings in the immediate context |
| |
| |
|d. The eastern boundary wall dimensioned show an average height of no more than 3.2m |
|e. Any changes required to comply with condition 3 of this permit |
|f. Any changes required to comply with condition 4 of this permit |
| |
|All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority |
| |
|2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be |
|modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written |
|consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|3. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape|
|designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will |
|then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The landscape plan must be in accordance with |
|the landscape concept plan advertised in March 2017 but modified to show the revised building footprint to the satisfaction of the |
|Responsible Authority |
| |
|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. The SDA must be in |
|accordance with the SDA report prepared by Frater Consulting Services and received by Council on 17 March 2017 but updated to incorporate|
|any changes to the assessment. |
| |
|5. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SDA Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No |
|alterations to the SDA Report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
|6. 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. |
| |
|7. Prior to the occupation of the development, 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/SDA requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets and |
|shown on endorsed plans. |
| |
|8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the permit holder must obtain approval from Council’s Building and Local|
|Laws Department to construct or modify any vehicle crossovers providing access to the subject site. The issue of a planning permit does |
|not provide approval for vehicular crossovers which are outside of the title boundary. |
| |
| |
|9. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and |
|maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building. |
| |
|10. Prior to the occupation of the building, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |
| |
|11. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the |
|satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development. |
| |
|12. 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. |
| |
|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. |
4. Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review - For Consultation
Manager City Strategy: Susan Price
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to
• Update Council on the outcomes of the community engagement process associated with the Planning Scheme Review held in November 2017.
• Consider endorsing the Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review for community consultation.
Background
All Councils are required to undertake a Planning Scheme Review under Section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act (1987) within twelve months of adoption of the Council Plan (adopted 5 June 2017). The Review is required to evaluate whether the Scheme remains relevant, cohesive and aligned to State and Local policy directions. The Municipal Strategic Statement is required to be consistent with the Council Plan and Plan Melbourne 2017 – 2050. The Review needs to be undertaken in accordance with Planning Practice Note 32 – Review of Planning Schemes (June 2015).
The attached draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review report has evaluated the Planning Scheme to ensure it remains relevant, cohesive and aligned to State and Local policy directions including the Municipal Strategic Statement, Council Plan and Plan Melbourne 2017 – 2050. The draft Review report also incorporates insights and findings from engaging with the community in late 2017.
By June 2018, Council must submit to the Minister for Planning a list of Recommended Actions that provide this consistency and includes a list of Recommended Actions for Council to address going forward.
Consultation
A Community Engagement Strategy was prepared and Council was briefed on 23 October 2017. The strategy provided a framework for:
• Internal engagement: A series of internal workshops held in September/ October 2017 ‘data mined’ consultation outcomes for a large number of recent Council led projects including the Council Plan.
• External community engagement through circulation of an Issues Paper for comment, an evening ‘drop in’ session in mid-November 2017. The community were informed about Council’s statutory obligations in a Planning Scheme Review, the process and its timing.
• Web updates including Connect Stonnington
• Local newspaper advertisements advising of the review and inviting the community to the information sessions.
• External consultation with Government agencies such as DELWP, VicRoads, Melbourne Water and Transport for Victoria.
Consultation outcomes
Key issues arising from the consultation are listed below. They have been included into the attached Draft Planning Scheme Review report.
1. The need to maintain neighbourhood character and heritage in our established neighbourhoods;
2. There are growing concerns about social infrastructure gaps such as open space (Stonnington has the second lowest in metropolitan Melbourne) and other community and recreational facilities;
3. The importance of maintaining canopy trees to maintain the beauty of our neighbourhoods, providing valuable canopy cover to mitigate the urban heat island affect and facilitate clean air;
4. The impact on our communities of major state government led infrastructure such as Metro Tunnel and the Office of Housing estates upgrades and other institutional sites such as Monash University Caulfield (outside the municipality in the City of Glen Eira) and Cabrini;
5. Ensuring the amenity of residential areas interfacing activity centres (and limiting the impacts of licensed premises) is maintained;
6. The need to grow job numbers and build our local economies;
7. The importance of biodiversity that extends beyond our traditional River and Creek corridors; and
8. The importance of public transport and the need to manage traffic congestion.
Outputs
The Draft Planning Scheme Review report (refer Attachment 1) includes:
• a comprehensive draft report that reviews the alignment between current State and Local policies, the Municipal Strategic Statement and Council Plan 2017-2021 and draws on community feedback;
• a list of Recommended Actions ranked as short, medium and long term actions.
Discussion of key issues
A list of updated issues is provided below:
|Issue |Comment |
|Residential |Stonnington is characterized by established residential suburbs with high performing shopping strips |
|Protect established residential |and employment centers and good access to public transport. As a result the municipality can expect to |
|communities |experience further medium and high rise residential pressures. Stonnington must respond to residential |
|Address the interface between |growth through meeting its open space ratios, ensuring good through movements of traffic and protecting|
|Residential and higher density |its heritage and neighbourhood character. The outcome of overdevelopment may mean the livability of the|
|residential zones |municipality is heavily compromised if effective local policies are not provided |
|Provide housing diversity |Since the 2016 Planning Scheme Review Council has: |
|including social housing |• monitored the intensity of development in the Substantial, Incremental and Minimal Change areas |
| |(Cl.21.05-2) |
| |• responded to the State Government on the new residential zones |
| |• continued to advocate to State Government on the best practice planning outcomes for the Office of |
| |Housing estates |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| |• Complete the Municipal Housing Strategy as a matter of priority |
| |• A refinement of the ‘substantial change areas’ is needed to ensure it accords with the relevant |
| |underlying zones. Further understanding of the urban design outcomes is also needed for our main roads |
| |• Given the significant number of apartment proposals, a review of development controls for apartments |
| |and their success outcomes is recommended |
| |• a refinement of the Neighbourhood Character Policy and consideration of whether further development |
| |controls are needed in established neighbourhoods |
| |• A review of the interface between the higher density residential growth zones (typically on main |
| |roads) and the Neighbourhood Residential zone. |
| |• Continue to advocate to State Government on the best practice planning outcomes for the Office of |
| |Housing estates |
|2. Open space |The City of Stonnington has the second lowest amount of open space per capita in Victoria and this |
|Provide connected and user |divide will continue to grow as more developments are approved. The municipality has no regional open |
|specific open space |space. |
|Provide high quality and co |As the number of developments in the municipality continues, the monitoring of the ‘urban heat island’ |
|located community facilities |temperatures will become increasingly important as private gardens/ open space are lost to new medium |
| |density developments. |
| |Since the 2016 Planning Scheme Review Council has: |
| |• purchased land for open space in selected locations; |
| |• commenced construction of Cato Square; |
| |• advocated to the State Government for an increased and improved provision of open space in the South |
| |Yarra area in response to the extensive impact of the Metro Tunnel Project on the precinct. |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| |• Review the Public Realm Strategy; |
| |• Continue to acquire land for open space as our population increases; |
| |• Review and monitor the Strategies for Creating Open Space |
|3. Maintain and respect heritage |The City of Stonnington is committed to protecting its heritage places. This is consistent with Plan |
| |Melbourne 2017-2050. |
| |Since the 2016 Planning Scheme Review Council has: |
| |• added 66 places to the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis and an additional 112 are in various |
| |stages of the planning scheme amendment process |
| |• Finalised Amendment C132 to Clause 22.04 which will strengthen Council’s ability to protect and |
| |manage its heritage places. |
| |• Sought expert advice on unprotected heritage places and applied Section 29a of the Building Act 1993 |
| |to suspend demolition whilst interim protection is sought from the Minister for Planning. |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| |• Continue to protect heritage places and identify gaps in heritage protection |
|4. Activity centre structure |The City of Stonnington’s activity centres continue to provide affordable, small to medium sized |
|planning and growing jobs |employment spaces within close proximity to the communities they serve. |
|Protect and encourage local |Stonnington has experienced an increase in the number of proposals with a smaller commercial component |
|employment |on the ground floor and a larger residential component to the rear at the ground floor and on levels |
| |above. Such developments undermine the employment potential of centres. In response, an innovative |
| |approach to vertical zoning has been applied in the Activity Centre Zone. |
| |Since the 2016 Planning Scheme Review Council has: |
| |• Developed the Chapel reVision structure plan and associated amendment C172 which applies ‘vertical |
| |zoning’; |
| |• Facilitated Amendment C223 for Glenferrie Road / High Street which applies a Design and Development |
| |Overlay and Development Plan Overlay |
| |• Commenced an Activity Centres Strategy |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| |• Review how activity centres are categorised in Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 against Cl 21.04 |
| |• Investigate the preparation of a Developer Contributions Plan for the municipality |
| |• Finalise the activity centres strategy for the smaller neighbourhood centres; |
| |• Monitor changing rates of commercial floor space in the Activity Centre zone |
|5. Liquor licensing |There is a need to ensure adequate control of liquor licensing in activity centres adjacent to |
| |residential areas. |
| |Since the 2016 review, Council has: |
| | |
| |• carefully managed and monitored the issuing of liquor licences to not only manage community safety |
| |but also to ensure the economic viability of our activity centres is upheld and not dominated by one |
| |type of land use. |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| |• continue to closely monitor the issuing of liquor licenses; |
| |• complete the review of the Research paper that underpins Cl 22.10 and review the provisions in the |
| |scheme |
|6. Trees |The City of Stonnington is noted for its mature exotics in established gardens and its remnant |
|Maintain canopy trees and increase|indigenous vegetation along River and Creek Corridors. Large canopy trees play an important role in |
|their number |managing the urban heat island effect, improving air quality and ‘softening’ an increasingly built up |
| |urban fabric. Direction 6.4 of Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 seeks to ‘Make Melbourne cooler and greener’ to|
| |create an urban forest, enabled through a resolved metropolitan wide urban forest strategy. |
| |Since the 2016 review, Council has adopted the Urban Forest Strategy which notes: |
| |• in excess of 500 trees are removed from private land each year under a planning permit and that over |
| |1000 trees per year are removed from private land with the possibility that it may be well in excess of|
| |this number. |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| |• Implement the findings of the Urban Forest Strategy though improved planning controls and local laws |
| |• Consider applying the provisions for deep soil areas and canopy trees (Apartment Design Guidelines |
| |for Victoria) to sites across Stonnington and not just for residential developments above five storeys.|
| | |
| |• Investigate monitoring of tree removal through GIS mapping. |
| |• Develop a preferred planting list for developers that supports the natural ecosystem and also |
| |responds to high intensity built up areas. |
| |• Consider adequate offsets for removing mature trees. |
| |• Consider adding trees on private land to existing Heritage Overlay precincts subject to supporting |
| |citations. |
|7. The environment, the Yarra |The health of the municipality’s rivers and creek systems is a direct indicator of how well we manage |
|River and Creek corridors |our urban run-off and manage our biodiversity areas. |
|Ensure development on the Yarra |The northern boundaries of the municipality are marked by significant River and Creek corridors. |
|River Corridor is respectful of |Direction 6.5.2 of Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 seeks to ‘protect and enhance the health of the urban |
|the natural environment |waterways’ and to build on the linear open space network and environmental corridors.. Similarly Plan |
| |Melbourne proposes to deliver on this Direction via more effective metropolitan regional planning |
| |through “additional regional open space networks and enhancements and greening initiatives”. |
| |Since the 2016 review, Council has: |
| | |
| |• commenced the review of the Special Building and Land Subject to Inundation overlays |
| |• Commenced the review of its Sustainable Environment Strategy. |
| |• Worked with the State Government on the strategy for the Yarra River that complements recent |
| |legislation. |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| | |
| |• Greater clarity is needed on how to build on biodiversity areas in established urban areas. This is |
| |critical given the importance of the Yarra River and its tributaries which are of state importance. |
| |• Continue to advocate for improved outcomes for the Yarra River corridor by participating in State |
| |Government led processes to implement the Yarra River Action Plan. |
| |• Council Plan seeks to maximise the efficiency of water use and to improve the quality of water ways. |
| |This can be facilitated through the review or deletion of the 75% site coverage measure in some of the |
| |zone schedules, including advocating on issues such as the Garden area requirement where this erodes or|
| |conflicts with this intention. |
| |• The Gardiners and Scotchman’s Creek corridors would benefit from a detailed review of environmental |
| |management and development control provisions, with the potential to apply a Design and Development |
| |Overlay and Significant Landscape Overlay to these corridors. |
|8. Transport |In inner Melbourne 56% of residents use private transport, 30% use active transport and 13% use public |
|Manage traffic congestion |transport. It is expected that through public transport improvements such as the Metro Tunnel and tram |
| |upgrades that the percentage of commuters using public transport will grow as reliance on the private |
| |car shifts. |
| |Since the 2016 Review, Council has: |
| | |
| |• continued to advocate for upgrades to South Yarra Station and its interlinking transport connections |
| |to respond to the growing local population; |
| |• continued to advocate for outcomes in South Yarra as a result of the Metro Tunnel Project; |
| |• worked with VicRoads on achieving best outcomes for the Burke Road level crossing removal; |
| |• commenced a review of its Sustainable Transport Strategy |
| |Key Planning Scheme Review findings: |
| |• monitor the future impact of electric vehicles and their impacts such as the increased need for solar|
| |panels and charging points; |
| |• update the Sustainable Transport Policy |
| |• update the Cycling Strategy |
| |• identify sites where end of journey facilities (showers, toilets, lockers) for active transport users|
| |can be established |
Next steps
In order to meet the statutory requirements outlined above, the timeframe is outlined below:
|Date |Action |
|March 2018 |Release the draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review report to the community for comment. |
| |Provide a suite of information sheets in ‘plain English’ that encourage the community to further engage|
| |in the Planning Scheme review. Similar to the Issues paper, the information sheets will made available|
| |through Connect Stonnington and as hard copies at libraries and the Stonnington City Centre and key |
| |stakeholders including community groups. |
| |Notification of the opportunity to provide feedback will appear in the Stonnington Leader as well as |
| |InStonnington, Council’s quarterly newsletter |
|April 2018 |Assess feedback and prepare the final Stonnington Planning Scheme review |
|May/ June 2018: |Report to Council with the intention of submitting the findings of the Review to the Minister for |
| |Planning |
|June 2018 |Following Council’s endorsement of the final version of the Stonnington Planning Scheme Review it is |
| |intended to then forward it to the Minister for Planning. |
Financial and Resources Implications
Budget for undertaking the Stonnington Planning Scheme Review has been included in Council’s City Strategy Unit operating budget for 2017-2018.
Conclusion
Consistent with the necessary requirements, the draft Planning Scheme Review has provided:
• a review of the changing nature of the municipality in terms of demography,
• a comprehensive list of recommended actions, or projects, that Council will consider on an individual basis in the future.
It is proposed to consult on the draft Planning Scheme Review in March before preparing a final Planning Scheme Review for Council to consider in May / June 2018.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Chapter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
.
Attachments
|1. |draft planning scheme review. Appendix to Council Report 12-02-18 |Excluded |
|Recommendation |
|That Council endorse the Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review for the purpose of community consultation. |
5. Amendment C249 - Permanent Heritage Protection for Victorian Houses - Panel Report
Manager City Strategy: Susan Price
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
Purpose
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:
• The recommendations of the Planning Panel for Amendment C249
• Adopting Amendment C249 with changes and requesting the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment
Background
Council has a strong program of heritage investigation and protection. In December 2006, Council adopted its Heritage Strategy Action Plan. One stage of the Action Plan is to identify buildings that are of heritage significance not currently included within the Heritage Overlay (HO).
The Victorian Houses Heritage Study
The Victorian Houses Heritage Study (the Study) identified the heritage significance of houses that were built in the Victorian era. The Study was undertaken in three stages. Heritage consultant, John Statham Urban Conservation Pty Ltd undertook Stage 1, with additions from the City of Malvern Victorian Houses Survey (June 2015) undertaken by heritage consultant Context Pty Ltd (Context). Context also undertook Stages 2 and 3 and finalised the Study in May 2017.
Whilst the Study was not an exhaustive list of all Victorian era houses not currently in the HO it did recommend sixty-two (62) Victorian places for permanent heritage protection in the Planning Scheme. At the time four of the sixty-two places were already subject to planning scheme amendments due to imminent threat of demolition to the buildings. It was therefore proposed to pursue Amendment C249 to include the remaining fifty-eight (58) places in the HO to implement the findings of the Study.
The findings and recommendations of the Study were reported to Council at their meeting on 20 March 2017. At the meeting Council resolved to obtain authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C249. Authorisation was received on 7 April 2017.
Public Exhibition – Amendment C249
Formal exhibition of the Amendment took place from 25 May to 26 June 2017. During this period Council received twenty-nine (29) submissions. Six (6) of these supported the Amendment and twenty-three (23) objected to the Amendment. The submissions presented a variety of issues including; concerns about the accuracy of the heritage citation and/or the heritage grading given, restrictions on future development, impact on property value, maintenance costs and the application of the HO itself.
Interim Heritage Protection – Amendment C260
At its meeting on 10 July 2017 Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning apply interim heritage protection (through Amendment C260) to the 58 Victorian places included in Amendment C249 and 2 other Victorian places that were subject to a separate amendment (C261).
On 29 August 2017 the Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning (DELWP) responded and stated they were considering an approach that enables requests for blanket interim controls to be approved when authorisation for a permanent amendment is granted. This approach was confirmed in a letter from the Minister for Planning on 3 November 2017. The Minister for Planning subsequently approved Amendment C260 and it was gazetted on 25 January 2018.
Council Meeting 18 September 2017
Council considered the submissions received on Amendment C249 at its meeting on 18 September 2017. Council acknowledged that it was unable to address the majority of issues raised in objecting submissions and resolved to refer the Amendment to an independent Planning Panel.
A small number of changes to the Amendment were agreed to by Council and would be put forward in its position to the Planning Panel. These changes all considered information provided by submitters and were supported by Council’s heritage consultant. They included:
• Updating certain heritage citations, to better reflect changes that have occurred to a place
• Update the heritage grading from, A1 to A2, for 17 Chastleton Avenue, Toorak
• Modify the heritage controls specified in the HO schedule for 7 Ethel Street, Malvern (specifically, removing Fence Controls and Tree Controls)
• Realigning the boundary of the HO on 17 Chastleton Avenue, Toorak and 5 Wattletree Road, Armadale
• Not pursue the inclusion of 48 Elizabeth Street, Malvern in the HO
Planning Panel
An independent Planning Panel was appointed to consider and hear submissions in regards to Amendment C249.
A Directions Hearing for the Panel was held at Council on 17 October 2017 which set out how the Panel Hearing would run.
The Panel Hearing was held at Council on 15, 16 and 17 November 2017. The Panel was made up of two Members, Con Tsotsoros (chair) and Lucinda Peterson. Mr John Rantino, Partner at Maddocks appeared on behalf of Council and called Natica Schmeder of Context as an expert witness. Appearances were also made by some submitters or their representatives. A full list of parties is provided in the Panel Report in Attachment 1.
The Panel undertook an unaccompanied site inspection on 17 October 2017.
The Panel Report was received by Council on 28 December 2017 and released publicly on 4 January 2018.
Discussion
The Panel Report considered the key issues raised in the submissions to Amendment C249. This included general issues that were common to several submitters. The Panel grouped these issues as follows:
• Heritage study methodology
• Unified grading system
• Restrictions on future development
• Financial cost and compensation
• Property value
The Panel also reviewed specific heritage places where submissions raised issue with a place not having sufficient heritage significance to warrant inclusion in the HO or that the boundary of the HO was not appropriate.
Panel Conclusions and Recommendations
The Panel concluded that Amendment C249 is well founded and strategically justified. The Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and is consistent with relevant Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes.
In regards to the group of general issues detailed earlier the Panel responded with the following:
Heritage Study Methodology
The Panel concluded that the Victorian Houses Heritage Study applied a sound methodology.
Unified Grading System
The Panel considered Council’s approach for applying the HO, particularly using the higher threshold of an A2 grading (meaning high local significance). The Panel found that this approach demonstrates Council’s intention for a higher threshold to be achieved when considering properties in Stonnington for inclusion into the HO and concluded that it did not have any issue with this methodology.
Restrictions on Future Development
The Panel concluded that the HO will not unreasonably restrict future development and will enable Council to consider future development within a heritage context.
Financial Cost and Compensation
The Panel concluded that the HO would not result in unreasonable financial costs for planning permit applications or for maintaining heritage properties.
Financial assistance schemes could not be recommended by the Panel as they are beyond the scope of the Amendment.
In addition, the Panel concluded that owners cannot be compensated for the HO being applied, pursuant to section 98 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Property Value
The Panel discussed that no information was provided by submitters to show a direct correlation between applying the HO and a decrease in property value. The Panel considered that even with a comparative analysis of properties with and without the HO it is unlikely to conclusively demonstrate an impact on property value. The Panel was in agreement with Council that there are many different variables which could determine property value.
The Panel concluded that property value is not relevant to the Amendment.
Review of Specific Heritage Places
The following summarises the Panel’s consideration of specific heritage places.
The Panel concluded that despite the arguments put forward in submissions the following places met the heritage significance threshold for inclusion to the HO and the boundary of the HO was appropriate on each place:
• HO533 - 2B Erskine Street, Armadale
• HO534 - 17-19 Huntingtower Road, Armadale
• HO556 - 170 Punt Road, Prahran
• HO557 - 174 Punt Road, Prahran
• HO567 - 17 Brookville Road, Toorak
• HO574 - 49 Mathoura Road, Toorak
• HO579 - 36 High Street, Windsor
• HO582 - 30 and 32 Lewisham Road, Windsor
• HO583 - 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 and 59 Upton Road, Windsor
The Panel did however conclude that certain changes were required to address some specific issues raised by submitters. Details of the Panel’s recommended changes and Officers’ response to these are detailed in Attachment 2. Attachment 2 and the summary below presents what is proposed as Council’s adopted positon for the Amendment.
The Panel confirmed that the following places met the heritage significance threshold for inclusion in the HO but recommended that the applicable heritage citation should be updated to reflect modifications to a building and/or a different architectural style be specified:
• HO535 - 2 Kelmscott Road, Armadale
• HO538 - 7 Myamyn Street, Armadale
• HO591 - 56 Elizabeth Street, Malvern
• HO544 - 23 Ethel Street, Malvern
• HO550 - 29 Winter Road, Malvern
• HO565 - 10 William Street, South Yarra
The Panel concluded that the following places do meet the heritage significance threshold for inclusion in the HO (except for 48 Elizabeth Street, Malvern, see comment below) but require changes to the boundary of the HO and HO Schedule. This should be supported by complimentary changes to the relevant heritage citation:
• HO588 - 5 Wattletree Road, Armadale
• HO555 - 22 Murray Street, Prahran
• HO569 - 17 Chastleton Avenue, Toorak
Panel recommended removing the tennis court from the HO but wanted an appropriate curtilage around the eastern façade of the house to remain in the HO (achieved by excising 12.25m of land from the Orrong Rd boundary). In response, Officers consider an appropriate curtilage can be achieved with a 15.25m excision.
• HO542 - 48 & 50 Elizabeth Street, Malvern
48 Elizabeth Street to be removed from the boundary of HO542 – consistent with Council’s position put to Panel. The HO to only apply to 50 Elizabeth Street.
The Panel concluded that 7 Ethel Street, Malvern should be removed from the HO as it does not meet the heritage significance threshold. Having heard evidence from both experts, the Panel found that:
….there is no evidence that the building was intentionally designed to be ‘symmetrical’ and, looking closely at the original elements of the building, it is not truly symmetrical as demonstrated by the composition of the front windows, the positioning of the bay compared with the hipped roof alignment, and proportion of the verandah and its posts. The projecting bay is certainly impressive and contributes to an imposing and attractive house when viewed from Ethel Street, however, the overall façade presenting to the street is somewhat disconcerting and not the “bold symmetrical composition” as espoused in the Statement of Significance.
The Panel finds the original building assessment in the Heritage Study has misunderstood the building and does not reveal the true story of the site. The building is impressive and has an attractive presence to the street but not all attractive and impressive buildings are significant. Notably, changes to the fence, gates and landscaping, referred to as significant, have been removed from the site.
Council’s heritage expert would have benefited from being granted access to undertake a site inspection of 7 Ethel Street and also from reviewing the additional material presented by the heritage expert representing the owners of this property prior to the Panel Hearing. This new evidence and the site inspection revealed a greater extent of alterations than initially thought and has downgraded the level of significance initially attributed to this property. The Panel’s recommendation that 7 Ethel Street does not have sufficient local heritage significance to justify the application of the Heritage Overlay is supported.
Adoption of Amendment C249
It is recommended that Amendment C249 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the changes outlined above and in Attachment 2 to this report.
Amendment C249 will replace interim heritage controls placed on 57 of the 60 heritage places, introduced through Amendment C260 (to note, interim heritage controls on the remaining 2 places have already been replaced through Amendment C261). The replacement will not apply to 7 Ethel Street, Malvern and 48 Elizabeth Street, Malvern as these properties will not be included in the application of permeant heritage controls.
Council is required to formally decide how to proceed with Amendment C249 within 40 business days of receiving the Panel Report (by 23 February 2018), unless an exemption is sought. In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can choose to adopt the amendment without changes, adopt the amendment with changes, or abandon the amendment.
Ultimately, it is the Minister for Planning who will make the final decision on the Amendment.
Policy Implications
The proposed Amendment is consistent with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:
‘Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development.’
It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, which seeks to:
‘Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington.'
The proposed Amendment is also consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04. This seeks to:
‘Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance.’
The Amendment is consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy Review (2006) and Heritage Strategy Action Plan which is currently focusing on the identification and assessment of significant individual houses not included within the HO.
Financial and Resources Implications
The financial cost of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit for 2016/17 and 2017/2018.
The indicative timeframe for Amendment C249 is as follows:
|April 2017 |May 2017 – June 2017 |November |February 2018 |April 2018 |
| | |2017 | | |
|Authorisation |Exhibition |Panel |Council Adoption |Ministerial Approval |
Legal advice & implications
All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C249 and have been able to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.
Conclusion
The exhibited Amendment C249 proposed to apply permanent heritage controls to 58 Victorian heritage places. The Panel concluded that Amendment C249 is well founded and strategically justified. Following further information provided during the amendment process, the Panel recommended several changes to the Amendment including amending the boundary of the HO on some heritage places (this includes the removal of 48 Elizabeth Street, Malvern from HO542) and the complete removal of the heritage place at 7 Ethel Street, Malvern (HO543). The Amendment will now only introduce 57 places into the HO on a permanent basis.
Amendment C249 will replace the interim heritage controls placed on 57 of the heritage places introduced through Amendment C260. 7 Ethel Street, Malvern and 48 Elizabeth Street, Malvern will have the interim controls removed but will not have permanent controls applied.
It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C249 as exhibited, with the changes recommended in Attachment 2 to this report.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Attachments
|1. |Attachment 1 - Amendment C249 - Panel Report |Excluded |
|2. |Attachment 2 - Attachment 2 - Proposed changes to exhibited Amendment C249 |Excluded |
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Notes the public release of the Panel Report for Amendment C249. |
|2. On considering the Panel Report, adopts Amendment C249 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme as exhibited, with the changes detailed in |
|this report and in Attachment 2 pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. |
|3. Submits the adopted Amendment C249 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and |
|Environment Act 1987. |
|4. Advises the submitters to Amendment C249 of Council’s decision. |
6. Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Consideration of Submissions
Manager City Strategy: Susan Price
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
Purpose
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:
• The submissions received on Amendment C270;
• A response to the submissions received; and
• Whether to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider submissions to Amendment C270 that cannot be resolved.
Background
In December 2006, Council undertook a Heritage Strategy Review and adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan. The Action Plan provides a framework for reviewing the heritage significance of existing houses in the Heritage Overlay (HO), reviewing existing older citations and assessing significant houses not already in the Heritage Overlay. The current stage of the Action Plan is the assessment of buildings not currently included in the Heritage Overlay with potential individual heritage significance.
In implementing this part of the Action Plan, Council has grouped potentially significant buildings thematically. ‘Federation Houses’ forms one of these thematic groups.
Federation Houses Heritage Study 2017
The Federation Houses Heritage Study 2017 (GJM Heritage) investigated the significance of the houses grouped under the Federation era theme. The scope was limited to ‘Federation Houses’ which is defined as a building constructed as a dwelling, in the period between 1890 and 1918. It should be noted that the time period examined in the Federation Houses Study created an overlap of 10 years with the Victorian Houses Study which examines buildings between the eras of 1837-1901.
The Federation Houses Study specifically considers buildings that demonstrate architectural characteristics of the Federation period, including the influences from the Arts and Crafts, Queen Anne and Bungalow styles.
Similar to other heritage studies undertaken by Council, this study was undertaken in the following three stages.
• Stage 1: Refinement of the initial list of potential significant places. The initial list was compiled from a range of sources including aTakapuna01
• T spreadsheet containing a list of places, a desktop survey, research and drive-by inspection of identified places and heritage gap study in the former City of Malvern.
• Stage 2: Further investigation of places, identified in Stage 1, to confirm the final list of heritage places for detailed investigation.
• Stage 3: Preparation of a detailed citation for places identified to proceed from Stage 2.
To implement the Federation House Study, consultants GJM Heritage recommended forty (40) Federation places and two (2) Precincts for permanent heritage protection in the Planning Scheme. Four (4) of the forty (40) were already subject to planning scheme amendments at the time due to imminent threat of demolition to the buildings. It was therefore proposed to pursue a planning scheme amendment (C270) to include the remaining thirty-six (36) places and two (2) precincts in the Heritage Overlay to implement the findings of the Federation Houses Study. On 18 September 2017 Council resolved to pursue Amendment C270.
The four places that proceeded to individual Amendments were:
1. Amendment C243 – Lauriston Girls School
2. Amendment C255 – 221 Burke Road Glen Iris
3. Amendment C257 – 390 Glenferrie Road Malvern
4. Amendment C264 – 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong
Council also resolved to request the Minister for Planning to prepare and approve Amendment C269 proposing to apply blanket interim heritage controls to the thirty-six (36) places and two precincts being progressed in Amendment C270.
Amendment C269 – Interim Heritage Controls
The Minister for Planning approved Amendment C269, and it took effect when it was published in the Government Gazette on 25 January 2018. The Amendment applies interim heritage controls to thirty-six (36) individual places and two (2) heritage precincts.
Amendment C270 – Permanent Heritage Controls
Advanced Notice
On 19 September 2017 a letter together with a site specific heritage citation was sent out to all affected property owners regarding Council’s resolution and the next steps for Amendment C270.
Section 29A Requests for Demolition
After giving advance notice to owners about the proposed amendment, Council received Section 29A requests for report and consent for the demolition of two places affected by Amendment C270:
• 3 Burke Road Malvern East.
• 1564-1566 Malvern Road Glen Iris.
In both instances given Council had applied for interim heritage controls via Amendment C269, Council suspended consideration of the building permit application. Following the gazettal of Amendment C269 applying interim heritage controls to all places subject to Amendment C270, a refusal of the application for demolition was issued.
Exhibition
Formal exhibition of the Amendment took place from 9 November to 11 December 2017.
Notification and exhibition of Amendment C270 was carried out via the following measures:
• Letters including a Frequently Asked Questions sheet, site specific citation for individual places and a precinct citation for properties within the two precincts to all owners and occupiers of affected properties.
• Letters including a Frequently Asked Questions sheet were sent to all adjoining property owners.
• Letters were sent to prescribed authorities and stakeholders.
• Notice was placed in the Stonnington Leader on 9 November 2017
• Notice was placed in the Government Gazette on 11 November 2017.
• Full amendment documentation on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and City of Stonnington’s websites.
Council offered one-on-one meetings with Council Officers and its heritage consultants if affected parties wished to obtain more information on the Amendment. Three parties took Council up on this offer. Two of the three parties represented collective groups. One of the attendees represented the properties of the proposed Burke Road Precinct (total of nine properties). The other group represented the properties at 20, 22 and 24 Woodmason Street, a triplex recommended for protection as one significant place.
Rather than opt for a one on one meeting at Council Offices the owner from 1 Golden Quadrant Glen Iris invited Council officers and heritage consultants to inspect the house on site. This was conducted with the owner present and provided an opportunity to discuss the Amendment with the owner.
Discussion
As a result of exhibition, Council received twenty-four (24) submissions. Six (6) of these support the Amendment and eighteen (18) object to the Amendment.
Submissions 3, 6, 10, 13, 19 and 22 support the application of the Heritage Overlay to protect the houses that are deemed to be of heritage significance to the City of Stonnington. Submission 10 from the National Trust commended Council’s Study for protecting thirty-six (36) Federation places and two (2) Federation precincts.
Objecting submissions 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-18, 20, 21, 23 and 24 present a variety of issues including; concerns about heritage significance/grading, restriction of future development, cost burden to owners, impacts on property values, Heritage Overlay boundary itself, how the Heritage Overlay fits in with the surrounding development pattern, Heritage Strategy itself and contravention of Human Rights.
The key issues raised in the submissions and the proposed Council responses to these issues are outlined below. A more detailed response is included in Attachment 1.
Key Issues Raised in the Submissions
Heritage Significance/ Heritage Grading/Citation/Heritage Curtilage
Issue Summary:
Many submissions suggest that the level of heritage significance and/or the grading attributed to the place are not appropriate because of additions and alterations. Other submissions questioned the heritage grading given to the property. Some argued that while their property had some heritage value it would be better suited as a contributory building in a precinct rather than it’s attributed grading of A2.
Other submissions raise issue with the criteria used to assess heritage significance.
Many of the submissions provided further information to help clarify information or correct inaccuracies in the citation.
Submission 11 argued that the boundary of the Heritage Overlay be altered. The submitter explained “I purchased the title at the rear that was a vacant block in 1994” and has no relation to the original subdivision.
Officer Response:
All submissions that have detailed changes to a house and/or referred to the condition of the property have been referred to Council’s heritage consultant for further consideration.
Council’s heritage consultant noted that in all these cases the list of external modifications do not detract from the heritage significance of the place and the application of the Heritage Overlay is still considered to be warranted.
However for Submissions 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18 and 24 the heritage consultant has considered that alterations need to be better reflected in the citation. This includes the removal of fence/outbuilding controls (submissions 2, 3, 9 and 24) after further information was provided during the exhibition process.
For Submission 11, Council’s heritage consultant agrees with the submitter that the Heritage Overlay boundary should be altered to reflect the original subdivision of the heritage place.
Council’s heritage consultant has followed the approach specified in the Victorian Planning Practice Note 1 (PPN1) ‘Applying the Heritage Overlay’ to identify the heritage significance of the places included in this Amendment. This includes using recognised criteria. To meet the requirements of PPN 1 GJM Heritage have:
• Used the recognised HERCON criteria to assess the heritage value of places.
• Prepared detailed comparative analysis to substantiate the significance of places.
• Prepared Statements of Significance using the three-part format of ‘What is significant?’; ‘How is it significant?’ and ‘Why is it significant?’
• Applied thresholds of significance to the places in line with tested and accepted definitions.
Cost Burden to Owners/Compensation
Issue Summary:
Some submissions raise concerns about the added cost associated with the Heritage Overlay being applied to their homes. The burden to owners has been expressed in two different forms: costs associated with restoring/maintaining heritage buildings and the planning permit process.
Submission 8 argues that if Council is to apply the Heritage Overlay to their home they should be awarded compensation.
Officer Response:
It is generally held that the imposition of new planning controls should be based on the intent of the controls – in this instance, the protection of places of heritage significance. The economic effects relevant at the amendment stage are those of a broad community nature rather than of a personal kind. Personal economic impacts are generally not matters that can be taken into account during the amendment process. This position is supported by independent Planning Panels, Practice Notes and numerous VCAT decisions.
It should be noted that the HO does not propose interior controls to any of the places that are the subject of this amendment so owners can make interior modifications without the need for a planning permit.
Council does not offer grants nor is a scheme in place that lowers property rates due to a home being affected by the HO. To assist owners of heritage properties Council has Heritage Design Guidelines to provide guidance when considering external changes to the property.
Applying the Heritage Overlay does not prevent the owner of a heritage place from adapting their home to meet their current and future needs.
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 clearly sets out the matters which give rise to claims for compensation. The compensation provisions of Section 98 of the Act do not include compensation for the application of zones or overlays (unless they are reserving land for public purpose – such as a Public Acquisition Overlay).
Property Values
Issue Summary:
Two submissions (21, 23 and 24) raise concern that the application of the Heritage Overlay would impact the value of their property.
Officer Response:
The issue of property value is not relevant to the strategic basis for Amendment C270; namely protection of places with heritage significance. As mentioned above personal economic issues do not impact the consideration of applying the Heritage Overlay.
There is no evidence to suggest that the application of a HO to a property reduces property value. Property value is determined by many factors. These include but are not limited to the property’s size, location and streetscape, surrounding amenities and services as well as local economic conditions. These factors and others, hold different weight and meaning to different purchasers.
Restriction on Future Development
Issue Summary:
Two submissions (8 and 11) raise concerns about not being able to change or redevelop their property because of the restrictive nature of the Heritage Overlay.
Officer Response:
The application of the Heritage Overlay does not prohibit an owner from carrying out works or redeveloping their home for future uses. It is highly likely that demolition of a heritage place would not be supported by the Heritage Overlay however.
The application of the Heritage Overlay is one component of regulating land use and development via the Planning Scheme, which is a long established and accepted practice in Victoria. The Heritage Overlay in most circumstances, does not prevent redevelopment, restoration and sympathetic additions.
The purpose of the Heritage Overlay is to ensure places that are of heritage significance are retained. As per the Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay, when determining whether or not a place is of heritage significance, other planning considerations are not given weight when determining the significance of a place.
The Heritage Overlay does not align with surrounding development patterns
Issue Summary:
Some submissions (8, 14 and 16) argue that the application of the Heritage Overlay in areas that are experiencing a high level of change or near activity centres is not appropriate.
This view is put forward in submissions from within proposed HO634 the Burke Road Precinct (8 and 16) which is in close proximity to Caulfield Railway Station and surrounding development.
Submission 14 questioned the application of the Heritage Overlay on their property as surrounding properties had been redeveloped. Therefore it is argued that any modern alterations and/or demolition to their property would not have an impact on the neighbourhood character.
Officer Response:
In response to submissions 8 and 16, the location of heritage places is not given weight when determining the heritage significance of a place as per the Planning Practice Note (PPN1). The row at 3-21 Burke Road does not have any modern infill and the surrounding development does not impact the heritage significance of the precinct.
In response to submission 14, when a place meets the threshold for individual significance, surrounding developments outside of the precinct or the place do not impact significance of that place.
Heritage Strategy
Issue Summary:
Submission 1A questions the rationale and effectiveness for focusing on individual places rather than precincts.
Officer Response:
The application of the Heritage Overlay on an individual basis is an accepted practice in protecting places of individual significance. The Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay, supports the introduction of an individual Heritage Overlay if the place meets the threshold for state or local significance. Previous successful heritage studies (Interwar and Victorian houses) have applied the same methodology which has been supported by both their respective Planning Panels.
Summary
A response and recommendation to each issue raised in the submissions is provided in detail in Attachment 1. In light of new information received via submissions and in consultation with Council’s heritage consultant, some changes are proposed for Council’s position to Panel. These are:
• Updating the individual heritage citations, to better reflect changes that have occurred to places. This is proposed for:
o (HO 598) 32 Huntingtower Road Armadale (Submission 5)
o (HO 602) 120 Kooyong Road Armadale (Submission 3)
o (HO606) 1 Golden Quadrant Glen Iris (Submission 14)
o (HO609) 29 Scott Grove Glen Iris (Submission 19)
o (HO614) 5 Haverbrack Avenue Malvern (Submission 12)
o (HO612) 1 & 3 Dixon Street Malvern (Submission 24)
o (HO624) 11 A’Beckett Street Prahran (Submission 2)
o (HO629) 36 Lansell Road Toorak (Submission 11)
o (HO630) 45 Lansell Road Toorak (Submission 9)
o (HO632) 24 & 26 Millicent Avenue Toorak (Submission 6)
• Removal of fence/outbuilding controls for the following places;
o (HO624) 11 A’Beckett Street Prahran (Submission 2)
o (HO 602) 120 Kooyong Road Armadale (Submission 3)
o (HO630) 45 Lansell Road Toorak (Submission 9)
o (HO612) 1 & 3 Dixon Street Malvern (Submission 24)
• Realign the boundary of the HO on the place. This is proposed for:
o (HO629) 36 Lansell Road Toorak (Submission 11)
Exemption from Ministerial Direction No. 15
On 20 November 2017 Council wrote to the Minister for Planning and requested to be exempted from the following requirement of Ministerial Direction No. 15, which states:
The planning authority must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days of the closing date for submissions unless a Panel is not required.
Council’s request was approved under delegation on 29 November 2017.
It is anticipated that a request to Panel will be made within 10 business days of this Council meeting.
Next Steps
Although some changes have been proposed to the Amendment and citations, there are several outstanding issues relating to the Amendment that are not supported. The majority of these changes include a lowering of the grading or removal of the heritage place from the Amendment entirely. If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address these issues and it intends to continue with the amendment process it must refer submissions to an independent Planning Panel for review.
In line with the exemption from Ministerial Direction No. 15 detailed above, Council should request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 10 business days of this Council meeting. This will allow enough time for Officers and other interested parties to prepare for the pre-set Panel dates detailed below and exhibited with the Amendment.
In accordance with Planning Panels Victoria convention pre-set panel dates for a Directions Hearing and Panel Hearing were arranged prior to exhibition. The following dates have been set, pending Council’s resolution:
• Directions Hearing: week commencing 9 April 2018
• Panel Hearing: week commencing 14 May 2018
On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C270, a report will be prepared for Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.
Policy Implications
The City of Stonnington is committed to the retention and conservation of its heritage houses. The Amendment will deliver an outcome for protection of houses of heritage value and significance in the municipality, consistent with the objectives of the planning scheme.
The Amendment is consistent with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:
“Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development”
It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, which seeks to:
“Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington”
The Amendment is also consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04. This seeks to:
“Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural and cultural or historic significance”
The Amendment is consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy (2006) and Heritage Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not included within the Heritage Overlay.
Financial and Resources Implications
Heritage investigations represent a significant commitment of resources by the City Strategy Unit. The financial cost and resourcing of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit for 2017/18 and 2018/19.
The indicative timeframe for Amendment C270 is shown in the table below.
|October 2017 |November 2017 |February 2018 |May 2018 |September 2018 |Late 2018 |
|Authori|Exhibition |Consideration of|
|sation | |Submissions |
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear submissions|
|and consider proposed Amendment C270 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme. |
|2. In its submissions to the Panel Hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C270, generally in accordance with the Officer’s |
|response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 1. |
|3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing affecting Amendment C270 to the Panel |
|appointed to consider Amendment C270 |
|4. Advises the submitters to the proposed Amendment C270 of Council’s decision. |
7. Amendment C274 - Advertising Signage for Cato Square - Proposed Adoption
Manager City Strategy: Susan Price
General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin
Purpose
The purpose of this report is:
• To update Council on Amendment C274 which proposes to change the advertising provisions at ‘Cato Square’
• For Council to consider adopting Amendment C274 as exhibited and request that the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment.
Background
Cato Square Project
The former Cato Street Car Park land at 30-40 Izett Street, Prahran is the subject of a $62.5 million redevelopment and open space project by Council, currently referred to as ‘Cato Square’. The project commenced construction in January 2018 and is scheduled to be completed in 2019.
Cato Square, when completed, will provide much needed open space for passive recreation, events and ancillary opportunity spaces in Prahran and will provide 20 per cent more car spaces for shoppers and retailers in the surrounding Chapel and Greville Street precincts. The project will further implement Council’s Public Realm Strategy, Chapel reVision, Chapel Street Masterplan and Strategies for Creating Open Space. All of these projects involved extensive community consultation that fed into the design for Cato Square.
Council endorsed the Developed Concept for Cato Square at its 18 July 2016 Council Meeting and had also engaged AECOM Australia Pty Ltd to provide project management services to assist Council in the delivery of the project. This included the future preparation of a planning application seeking permission for the use of the opportunity spaces and supporting advertising signage, which would pave the way for the future tenancy of the opportunity spaces.
Amendment C274
In preparation of a future planning application to implement aspects of opportunity in Council’s Cato Square project, Council’s project manager for Cato Square (AECOM) identified the need to update the Stonnington Planning Scheme to change the advertising provisions for the site. Amendment C274 proposes to change the advertising provisions for the site so that commercial signage is a permitted use. This will bring Cato Square into line with other Council-owned land in the Public Use Zone, (e.g. Prahran Market), as well as adjoining land in the Activity Centre Zone.
The existing provisions would prevent signs that may otherwise be necessary to support potential opportunity spaces. Amendment C274 has been prepared to support Council’s endorsement of the design concept for Cato Square and to enable a planning application for the project’s ancillary opportunity spaces to respond to advertising controls that are more appropriate to the site. This involves changing the advertising sign controls for Cato Square from Category 4 (prohibited use) to Category 1 (permitted use). Category 1 does not prohibit any signs and would allow certain signs without a permit, provided conditions were met, e.g. an internally-illuminated sign with an area that did not exceed 1.5m².
A full planning scheme amendment process could take up to 18 months to complete, and was considered unnecessary in light of the extensive consultation already undertaken to inform the Cato Square development. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning advised Council that it could request the Minister for Planning pursuant to Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the Act’) to exempt Council from the notification requirements of Section 19 of the Act in order to reduce the amendment timeframe.
Given the Council commitment to the full scope of the project, Amendment C274 was prepared under delegation and on the basis of the extensive consultation on the project (between February and May 2017), an exemption from full notice was sought.
Council received authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C274 on 8 January 2018, which also granted exemptions to most of the notification requirements under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The only notice required is to Prescribed Ministers with a reduced exhibition period of two weeks which ran from 24 January until 7 February 2018. No submissions have been received.
Discussion
The Amendment proposes to specify advertising sign requirements for the subject land as Category 1 – Commercial areas, to enable the ‘Cato Square’ development by amending the Schedule to Clause 36.01 Public Use Zone” in the Planning Scheme (refer Attachment 1).
The application of Category 1 will help to facilitate Council’s consideration of a planning application for the opportunity spaces and associated signage in a manner that is consistent with Council’s and the Stonnington community’s open space vision for the site. Category 1 is consistent with surrounding land.
No submissions have been received and, therefore, the appointment of a Panel to consider submissions under Division 2 of the Act does not apply to this Amendment.
Adoption of the Amendment without changes
The notification period provided the minimum two weeks that was required between the giving of notice to Prescribed Ministers and adoption of the Amendment. Additionally, no submissions have been received. Therefore, Council has complied with Divisions 1 and 2 of the Act and can proceed to both, adopt the Amendment without changes in accordance with Section 29(1) of the Act, and resolve to forward the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval pursuant to Section 31(1) of the Act.
Policy Implications
The proposed Amendment is consistent with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:
‘Enhance the design outcomes of public spaces, places and buildings.’
It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06-4 and Strategy 4.11 for Activity Centres of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, which seeks to:
‘Encourage advertising signs that are compatible with the locality'.
The Amendment will apply more appropriate advertising controls to support the opportunity spaces that will complement the future public recreation use of Cato Square. Consequently, the Amendment supports the overall project, which will introduce additional and much needed public open space (and underground car park) in accordance with the Precinct Map and objectives for ‘Precinct 3 – Prahran’ under Clause 5.3 of the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
The Cato Square project will help to implement the Chapel reVision Structure Plan 2013-2031, which is a reference document in the Stonnington Planning Scheme.
Financial and Resources Implications
The financial cost of planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit for 2017/2018.
The indicative timeframe for Amendment C274 is as follows:
|January 2018 |January 2018 – February |February 2018 |March 2018 |
| |2018 | | |
|Authorisation |Exhibition |Council Adoption |Ministerial Approval |
Legal advice & implications
No submissions have been received and legal advice was not required nor sought.
Conclusion
Amendment C274 proposes to change the advertising controls for Cato Square from Category 4 (prohibited use) to Category 1 (permitted use). This is consistent with the advertising controls applied to other Council-owned land in the Public Use Zone and with adjacent land in the Activity Centre Zone. The Amendment supports Council’s previous endorsement of the design concept for Cato Square and would enable a planning application to be considered for the use of the complementary opportunity spaces and associated signage to respond to advertising controls that are more appropriate to the site.
Notice of the Amendment was given in accordance with the Authorisation granted by the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the Amendment and no submissions have been received. Therefore, it is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C274 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme without changes and submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Attachments
|1. |C274 - Proposed Amended Schedule to Public Use Zone - Attachment 1 |Excluded |
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Notes that Amendment C274 was prepared under delegation to support Council’s decision to endorse the Development Concept for the Cato |
|Street Redevelopment Project (‘Cato Square’) on 18 July 2016. |
|2. Notes that the Minister for Planning granted Authorisation to prepare Amendment C274 pursuant to Section 8A of the Planning and |
|Environment Act 1987 (’the Act’) and that Council gave limited notice of the Amendment in accordance with the Authorisation granted. |
|3. Adopts Amendment C274 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme as exhibited. |
|4. Submits the adopted Amendment C274 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Act. |
8. Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation
Student Engineer: Umesh Jegarajan
Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan
General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas
Purpose
To advise Council of the results of the parking investigation in Rathmines Street, Toorak.
Background
Rathmines Street is a local dead-end street generally aligned east-west, running east from Williams Road. Currently, Rathmines Street is unrestricted apart from statutory NO STOPPING restrictions at the Williams Road intersection extending east 10m from Williams Road.
The location and layout of Rathmines Street is shown below.
[pic]
At the Council Meeting on 2 October 2017, a petition was tabled signed by 10 residents representing 10 properties, seeking the introduction of 4-HOUR parking restrictions on both the north and south sides of Rathmines Street, Toorak. The petition suggested that non-residents were parking all day along Rathmines Street.
To ascertain the parking occupancy levels in the street, an independent contractor was commissioned to complete full-day parking surveys on Wednesday 25 October 2017 and Saturday 28 October 2017. The surveys were conducted between the hours of 7am and 9pm.
The average occupancy recorded during the duration of the survey was 63% on the weekday, and 62% on the weekend.
Rathmines Street has an approximate combined capacity of 26 parking spaces (10 parking spaces on the north side, and 16 parking spaces on the south side). These are approximated as the capacity will vary depending on how the motorist chooses to park.
With an approximate 26 parking spaces in the street, there was an average of 10 available parking spaces, with 16 vehicles parked.
The following graphs summarise the results of the independent surveys and indicate the distribution of resident and non-resident parking on the weekday and weekend day. As there is no requirement to use permits at present in Rathmines Street, the resident parking is estimated based on vehicles present in the street at the commencement of the survey (approximately 46%).
[pic]
The peak estimated non-resident occupancy on a weekday appeared to occur between noon-2pm on a weekday over the lunch-time period. At other times more than 30% of the on-street parking supply was available.
[pic]
On the week-end day surveyed the peak non-resident parking occupancy was lower but more evenly spread throughout the day,
In addition to the independent contractor surveys, Council officers undertook inspections late into the evening and early morning. These indicated an average occupancy of 50% in the evening, and 58% in the early morning, which is similar to the 46% recorded during the full-day parking surveys.
Discussion
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, not to transfer out undesirable parking behaviour.
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 both sides of the street may simply transfer the parking to another street, which would not be appropriate. 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 limited.
Following the parking surveys undertaken by the independent contractor, and Council officers’ inspections, the current parking arrangements would appear to be reasonable as parking opportunities exist for residents. It also appears that the majority of vehicles parked in the street belong to residents.
Therefore, no parking restrictions would be recommended at this stage on the basis of the surveys and inspections undertaken.
Conclusion
Given the parking occupancy levels surveyed, it appears that the current parking conditions are providing opportunities for residents, and no changes to parking restrictions would be recommended at this stage.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Take no further action at this stage to implement resident priority parking restrictions in Rathmines Street, Toorak. |
|2. Advise the head petitioner of the survey results and Council’s decision. |
9. Elm Road, Glen Iris - Request for Additional Parking
Traffic Engineer: Jordan Allan
Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan
General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas
Councillor Briefing at its meeting on 29 January 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 12 February 2018.
Purpose
To advise Council of the investigation into the request for additional parking on Elm Road, Glen Iris.
Background
On 23 June 2017, the Mayor Cr Klisaris met with a small group of residents on Elm Road, Glen Iris to discuss various matters, including car parking, possum prevention, and the creation of a footpath connection to Great Valley Road. Council officers from Transport and Parking and the Arboriculture departments were also in attendance.
During the site meeting, the residents provided a multi-signature letter, clarifying their request. At the Council meeting on 26 June 2017, the following was minuted:
The Mayor Cr Klisaris tabled a multi-signatured letter with (25 signatures from residents regarding various matters at No’s 7,9 and 11 Elm Road, Glen Iris. The letter covered carparking, possum prevention footpath to Great Valley Road and desire to work with the Council on the subjects.
This report is provided to clarify the land ownership, the history of the development of the MECWA housing on Elm Road, and to address the issues raised.
A brief summary of the issues raised is outlined below.
Car Parking
The signatories are of the view that the current parking provision is inadequate, as a result of development of the area by MECWA over time. The letter requests the following (also illustrated in Figure 1):
a) The Council area immediately adjoining 7 Elm Road, be stripped, cleaned and resurfaced to accommodate at least 6 cars for that residence. The overflow from no: 7 finds its way to the main car park, resulting in a lack of space for the residents of nos: 9 & 11 Elm Road.
b) Additional space be made available by the council by moving the green bollards (east of the main carpark) 12 to 15 metres.
c) Conversion of Elm Road garden bed (recently replanted) second garden from the corner of the car park, to enable residents (particularly disabled) who live on that side of no. 9, to park their cars closer to their residences.
d) Build-up of ground surface on the southern side, adjacent to the street light accommodating 2 cars.
e) Bituminizing and bay marking of the parking section outside no: 11 Elm Road.
f) Disabled parking signage on at least 2 additional marked parking bays. There is currently only one marked.
g) We ask that the entire marked parking bays, together with the section outside no: 11, be re-classified/ re-zoned "Mecwacare Residents Only". By having this it will deter outsiders (non-visitors) from parking in the area and then, perhaps, all residents will be able to park their cars.
The following image (Figure 1) has been prepared to give context to the above requests. The letters provided by the signatories have been marked on the plan to indicate the location of the requests.
Possum Prevention
The letter outlines concerns with possum activity, including messes created on footpaths, roads, and on private vehicles caused by possum droppings/urination, and requests metal or plastic skirts around the trunks of key trees.
Footpath to Great Valley Road
The letter raises an issue, stated to have been in discussion between MECWA and Council, to implement a footpath between 7 Elm Road and Great Valley Road. The letter raises the concern that elderly residents have to walk on the roadway to access Great Valley Road.
|[pic] |
|Figure 1: Actions Requested by Residents |
Discussion
Title Search/Land Ownership
To identify the intent of the subject site and establish the responsible authority of the road and abutting areas, an investigation of the road status and land titles has been undertaken. The Register of Public roads lists Elm Road as a public road. Land title searches reveal the parcel of privately owned land in the name of MECWA, a parcel of land under the responsibility of Council set aside as park and open space, and various segments of road reserve that are the responsibility of Council and VicRoads.
According to the details on the titles, (see Attachment 2) the City of Stonnington is the responsible authority for the local road segments and VicRoads is the responsible authority for the freeway and some strips of land adjacent to Elm Road. These strips of land are remnant land parcels from the construction of the Monash Freeway and VicRoads are gazetting these remnant strips of land to Council to manage (see Attachment 3).
The title search reveals the land along Elm Road requested by the residents to be used for additional vehicle parking is a road reserve. Council have powers over the road reserve as it is listed in the name of the original subdividers and accordingly vests in Council. The title plan indicates that this road reserve is 20.12 metres wide and 163.63 metres long. It appears that planting in this area not undertaken by Council may have occurred in the past.
Planning History
The development of the building referred to in the multi-signatory letter as 7 Elm Road (refer Figure 1) appears to have contributed to the parking concerns now raised by residents of Elm Road.
The planning history for the development is outlined in the Delegate’s Report for the development application.
The report indicates that there was a requirement at that time, to provide 27 spaces on site (23 for residents and 4 for visitors), and that the applicant through their traffic engineer argued for a reduction in the parking provision. This was on the basis of empirical studies which suggested car ownership rates of 0.33 spaces per dwelling for housing units for low-income elderly tenants.
The Transport and Parking Unit had considered the submission from the applicant and raised concerns that the parking provision would not be sufficient to cater for future demand.
The Delegate’s Report concludes that the parking dispensation could be supported on the basis that the residents would be expected to have low rates of car ownership, the development includes self-contained units with no staff on-site, the close proximity to public transport, the residents are not eligible for parking permits (thereby limiting impact on existing residential parking areas), the parking area available next to the existing building, and that a parking waiver is consistent with sustainable travel objectives.
It should be noted that under the current Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, land use classified as “residential aged care facility” has a parking requirement of 0.3 spaces to each lodging room. Applying this rate to the development at 7 Elm Road with 23 1-bedroom units would result in a parking requirement of 6-7 parking spaces. The development was constructed with 8 parking spaces in a basement parking area. In hindsight, the current overspill of parking nearby would suggest the parking requirement adopted in this case does not address the current needs.
Car Parking
In order to ensure that each of the concerns from the multi-signatory letter are addressed, a response is provided to each of the items, using the lettering format provided by the residents.
a) The Council area immediately adjoining 7 Elm Road, be stripped, cleaned and resurfaced to accommodate at least 6 cars for that residence. The overflow from no: 7 finds its way to the main car park, resulting in a lack of space for the residents of nos: 9 & 11 Elm Road.
As outlined above in the Planning History section, the provision of parking for the development of 7 Elm Road was deemed reasonable, and accords with the current requirements for parking for residential aged care.
The area identified for the additional car parking is zoned as Public Park and Recreation Zone. Council’s “Strategies for Creating Open Space” document outlines an ongoing commitment to provide additional open space within the municipality, and to improve accessibility to existing open space and recreational reserves. The commitment to open space has seen allocation of considerable expenditure to acquire available property for conversion to open space, and also in the case of the Cato Square project to provide underground car parking to allow for a large new open space at-grade. In consideration of this strategy, it would not be appropriate to take an existing open space area and convert it to at-grade car parking.
The area identified had been used during construction of 7 Elm Road for materials storage and site amenities, which damaged the landscaping, and following the completion of the building was observed to be used for car parking which continued to cause damage.
Following the recent construction of the footpath connecting Great Valley Road and 7 Elm Road, bollards have been installed at the back of the footpath (refer Figure 1) to prevent vehicle access, and it is anticipated that the landscaping will recover. Additional planting has occurred.
b) Additional space be made available by the Council by moving the green bollards (east of the main carpark) 12 to 15 metres.
The green bollards referred to above (and indicated below in Figure 2) are in place to prevent vehicles travelling further north-east from the informal parking area into the Gardiners Creek reserve area. The image shows that the bollards are already set back from the end of the formal parking area, allowing for an area of informal parking to occur. The area is not vegetated on the development side and the area can continue to function as informal parking without detrimental impacts.
|[pic] |
|Figure 2: Informal parking area and bollards |
Relocating the bollards further to the north-east would allow for additional informal parking to occur in the nature reserve area currently vegetated. Allowing parking in this area would impact the existing vegetation. As previously outlined, this would be inconsistent with Council’s commitment to open space.
c) Conversion of Elm Road garden bed (recently replanted) second garden from the corner of the car park, to enable residents (particularly disabled) who live on that side of no. 9, to park their cars closer to their residences.
The title search has revealed that this area referred to belongs to Council, and therefore could theoretically be used for car parking. The area specifically referred to above is shown in Figure 3 below. It is noted that this area has recently been landscaped (around mid-2017 based on aerial images). This landscaping was not completed by Council.
|[pic] |
|Figure 3: Area on Elm Road south of the 9 & 11 Elm Road building |
The area shown in Figure 3 includes a footpath, and there is not sufficient length between the footpath and the fence (which houses a bin store) to accommodate parking. The removal of fence and enclosure would be required for parking to be accommodated.
This presents a further issue, as the fenced area in Figure 3 highlights the approximate boundary between the road reserve (controlled by Council) and the private MECWA property. Any parking created would likely extend into private property, which may create a liability concern. An approximation of this parking area is shown in Figure 4 below.
|[pic] |
|Figure 4: Proposed Parking Area (Approximate) |
At this stage comment has not been sought from MECWA regarding this proposal. It may be appropriate for the creation of parking in this location, for the benefit of MECWA residents, to be the financial responsibility of MECWA.
Notwithstanding the above, this location presents the best possible location for the inclusion of further parking if desired.
d) Build up of ground surface on the southern side, adjacent to the street light accommodating 2 cars.
This refers to the area shown in Figure 2 above in the informal parking area. The building up of the ground surface to create additional parking, based on a preliminary review, would be significant, and would impact low level planting and some larger trees. As with several of the requested areas, this area is zoned as Public Park and Recreation Zone, and as such is not appropriate for car parking. As previously outlined, this would be inconsistent with Council’s commitment to open space.
e) Bituminizing and bay marking of the parking section outside no: 11 Elm Road.
This refers to the informal parking area, and specifically seeks the area to be surfaced in asphalt and the car parking area to be formalised. This could be considered, however it is noted that the overall intent of the multi-signatory letter (see Attachment 1) is to provide additional parking, and installing formal parking bays will at best result in no loss of parking opportunities. When formal parking is created, the design would need to accord with the Australian Standards, and typically this results in fewer parking opportunities. It is for this reason, by way of example, that parking bays are not marked in residential streets throughout the municipality.
At this stage comment has not been sought from MECWA, however it is understood that residents are seeking Council to fund their request.
In consideration of the above, it is recommended that the parking be left as-is, to ensure the maximum parking is available for the community.
f) Disabled parking signage on at least 2 additional marked parking bays. There is currently only one marked.
As above, this request could be accommodated, but would result in fewer overall parking spaces being available. Disabled parking spaces installed to accord with the Australian Standards require a shared zone to be kept clear of parked vehicles. This is shown in Figure 5 below, which is an example from the James Street off-street car park.
|[pic] |
|Figure 5: Disabled parking space design, with shared zone |
As the majority of vehicles parking in the area are associated with the MECWA developments, it is unlikely that the provision of additional disabled parking bays would provide a significant benefit. A timed restriction could be included, but it appears that most of the MECWA residents are seeking longer term parking, so while this would improve availability it may not suit the needs of the users.
Notwithstanding, as part of the concept for the additional parking along Elm Road, additional disabled parking spaces could be included for consultation with MECWA, seeking their views.
g) We ask that the entire marked parking bays, together with the section outside no: 11, be re-classified/ re-zoned "Mecwacare Residents Only". By having this it will deter outsiders (non-visitors) from parking in the area and then, perhaps, all residents will be able to park their cars.
This request cannot be accommodated. The only parking permits currently available are as part of the Residential Parking Permit Scheme, to which the residents of the MECWA units are not eligible.
Further, while the residents of the MECWA site clearly feel some ownership of the parking spaces, and are likely the primary users of these spaces, they are within the public road network, and therefore are available for use by the general public.
In developing the site MECWA has elected not to provide parking for the majority of the residents, and while this may be inconvenient for the current residents, it is not necessarily the responsibility of Council to pick up any shortfall. This is consistent with the position Council has taken toward other residential developments which do not include sufficient car parking, with multi-unit developments after March 2007 not being eligible to participate in the Resident Parking Scheme.
Footpath to Great Valley Road
The footpath connection between Great Valley Road and 7 Elm Road has now been completed. The works were already underway when the interim letter on 10 July 2017 was sent to the lead signatory, and was referenced in the letter.
Policy Implications
The Planning Scheme includes as Stonnington’s strategic vision the following statement:
“The City’s valued open space is protected and enhanced through no net loss in public open space and increases in areas of identified shortage; it is safe and accessible for public use and meets the diverse and changing needs of the community.”
The local policy for open space (Clause 21.07) identifies that Stonnington has a low ratio of public open space compared to the metropolitan average and adjacent municipalities and a key issue is “managing the impact of private development in and beside public open space on the perceived and actual accessibility, usability and safety of public space”.
The overall objective of the Open Space Policy is as follows:
“To provide an equality of public open space quality and quantity across the municipality, sufficient to meet future needs and which improves the accessibility, safety and environmental sustainability of the open space system.”
These policy positions do not support the conversion of green open space to car parking.
Financial and Resources Implications
The options for creating car parking and installing further disabled parking bays have not been costed at this stage. However, there would be a capital cost incurred for any works, and this would need to be programmed into a future budget, potentially the 2018/19 capital budget, depending on the extent of the works.
Conclusion
In response to the issues raised in the multi-signatory letter (see Attachment 1) from Elm Road residents, the specific requests have been considered, and an opportunity exists to create some additional car parking in a landscaped area on the north side of Elm Road, and to install some additional disabled car parking (or convert some existing car parking to disabled parking). This would require consultation with MECWA in the first instance. The other requests regarding the creation of car parking cannot be accommodated for either reasons of policy or practicality.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Attachments
|1. |Attachment 1 - Multi-Signatory Letter from Residents |Excluded |
|2. |Attachment 2 - Elm Road Titles Ownership |Excluded |
|3. |Attachment 3 - Elm Road Land Parcel Detailed Map |Excluded |
|Recommendation |
|That: |
|1. The multiple requests for assistance including the provision of additional parking contained in the mutisignatory letter tabled at the|
|Council meeting of 26 June 2017, and the consideration associated with each of the proposed locations as outlined in the body of the |
|report be noted; |
|2. Council note that the parking provision associated with the MECWA facility is consistent with the requirements of the Stonnington |
|Planning Scheme; |
|3. Consistent with the principles of Council’s ‘Strategies for Creating Open Space’ Council not support the creation of additional |
|carparking in areas zoned as Public Park and Recreation, or in areas that would impact on or require the loss of mature existing |
|vegetation. |
|4. Council write to MECWA advising them of the requests received from the residents of the facility, advising them of the above |
|considerations and seeking their views on; |
|a) Whether they would support and fund the construction of additional car parking spaces in the area south of 9 & 11 Elm Road (land part |
|controlled by Council, and part owned by MECWA). |
|b) Reconfiguration of existing parking to provide additional disabled parking spaces. |
|5. A further report be prepared for consideration by Council once a response has been received from MECWA. |
|6. The lead signatory be advised accordingly. |
10. Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month Re-Consultation
Traffic Engineer: David Ventura
Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan
General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas
Purpose
To consider the installation of extended parking restrictions in Albion Street, South Yarra following the extension of Clearway restrictions in Punt Road and the re-consultation of the residents of Albion Street after 6 months have elapsed as per the Council resolution on 8 May 2017.
Background
On 29 August 2016, VicRoads implemented an extension to the CLEARWAY restrictions on Punt Road between Alexandra Avenue and Gladstone Street, to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In response to the anticipated concern regarding parking transfer to the nearby local streets, the Council instigated proactive consultation with residents of streets which were deemed most likely to be impacted. A distance of approximately 150m from Punt Road was considered to be the impact range. Most streets near Punt Road have daytime restrictions, which would discourage parking transfer during weekdays, however very few had evening or weekend restrictions, and it was anticipated that parking transfer was most likely to occur during these times.
To address this anticipated parking transfer, the residents of affected streets were consulted on a proposal to extend the existing daytime restrictions to operate seven days a week, with a PERMIT ZONE restriction operating at all other times. This was considered a reasonable approach to introduce parking restrictions to benefit residents during the key times, whilst still providing some flexibility for residents. A PERMIT ZONE restriction was considered more appropriate in the evenings than a time limit, as afterhours issues are often addressed on request, and any issues arising with non-local parking can be enforced on inspection.
No alterations to parking restrictions were proposed adjacent to non-residential properties, as the conditions of Council’s residential parking permit scheme do not exempt vehicles parked adjacent to non-residential uses.
Albion Street, between Punt Road and Tyrone Street, was included in the area considered likely to be affected by the Punt Road CLEARWAY restriction. In this section of the street the parking on the north side is subject to a 2-HOUR restriction operating 9am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday, and on the south side is subject to a 2-HOUR restriction operating 9am to 9pm, Monday to Friday. The subject section of Albion Street is shown below.
[pic]
The proposal circulated was to modify the existing 2-HOUR restrictions to operate 9am to 6pm seven days a week on the north side of Albion Street; modify the existing 2-HOUR restrictions to operate 9am to 9pm seven days a week on the south side of Albion Street; and install PERMIT ZONE restrictions operating at all other times on both sides of the street.
The consultation material was circulated to residents in August 2016. The Albion Street proposal was circulated to 72 dwellings, and 15 responses were received; a 21% response rate. The table below shows the breakdown of the responses.
Table 1: Community Response
|Proposal |Support |Opposed |Not Stated |Total |
|Install New Restrictions |10 |4 |1 |15 of 72 |
| |(66.7%) |(26.7%) |(6.7%) |(21%) |
With a 2/3 majority of respondents in favour of proceeding with the extended restrictions, it was deemed appropriate to proceed to change the restrictions.
A report considering the proposal and recommending the changes was considered and approved by the CEO on 13 September 2016. A notification letter was subsequently sent on 20 December 2016 to those previously consulted advising them of the decision to proceed. The notification is included as Attachment 1.
On the same day, in response to the notification letter, an email was sent from a resident to
Cr Chandler requesting that the changes be deferred pending further consultation with the residents of Albion Street, and that Council meet with residents to fully explain the reasons for the proposed change.
Cr Chandler subsequently requested that the signage changes be postponed, and that the matter be reported to a Council meeting. A report was submitted and Council resolved at its meeting of 6 February 2017 that:
1. the residents of Albion Street, South Yarra be re-surveyed, regarding the proposal to extend the existing parking restrictions in that street, following the installation of Clearways along Punt Rd.
2. a further report be prepared for Council consideration following the additional survey.
As per the above Council resolution, the residents were re-consulted on the above proposal in February 2017. The proposal was circulated to 72 dwellings, and 20 responses were received, equating to a 28% response rate. The table below shows the breakdown of the responses.
Table 1: Community Response
|Proposal |Support |Opposed |Not Stated |Total |
|Install New Restrictions |11 |9 |0 |20 of 72 |
| |(55%) |(45%) |(0%) |(28%) |
The total response in this instance was mixed when compared to the previous consultation. It was considered that after re-consulting the residents, more respondents still replied in favour to the proposal even though the number opposed increased. As this consultation still resulted in more respondents supporting the proposal, it was considered that the proposal still proceed.
The matter was reported to a Council meeting, as per the previous Council resolution, and Council resolved at its meeting of 8 May 2017 that:
1. the proposal to extend two hour restrictions in Albion Street, South Yarra be deferred and that residents be resurveyed in six months’ time to ascertain their support for changes to parking restrictions.
Discussion
As per the above Council resolution, the residents were re-consulted on the above proposal in November 2017. The proposal was circulated to 72 dwellings, and 12 responses were received, equating to a 17% response rate. The table below shows the breakdown of the responses.
Table 1: Community Response
|Proposal |Support |Opposed |Not Stated |Total |
|Install New Restrictions |5 |6 |1 |12 of 72 |
| |(42%) |(50%) |(8%) |(17%) |
The response was once again mixed, however in this instance there was no clear majority between those that support or oppose the decision.
The respondents in favour of the proposal provided positive comments. The respondents opposed to the proposal stated similar concerns to the previous consultations. The residents opposed feel that there is no issue in the street. They also raised concerns with the negative impact to visitor parking due to the increased PERMIT ZONE parking proposed in the street and the restricted number of permits each house is eligible for.
In addition, the response rate was lower than 20% during this consultation. The response rate has been low in the previous consultations, however in this instance the response rate dropped below 20%. The lack of resident interest may be attributed to the street being consulted three times on the same proposal. This was also reflected in some of the comments opposed to the proposal as residents felt that this had been tiresome with no definite conclusion.
As the response was mixed with one more response opposed to the proposal than in support, and in conjunction with the low response rate, it is considered that the proposal be abandoned.
Conclusion
The proposal to install extended parking restrictions on Albion Street, South Yarra, was supported by 55% of respondents, and opposed by 45% of respondents, on a survey conducted in February 2017.
This matter had been reported to Council on 8 May 2017. Based on the Council resolution, the proposal was deferred and residents of Albion Street were to be re-consulted on the previous proposal in 6 months.
After the 6 months, the re-consultation period occurred and the proposal was supported by 42% of respondents, and opposed by 50% of respondents. In addition, the response rate was below 20%. The number of respondents opposed to the proposal increased stating that the CLEARWAYS had not affected the street and increasing restrictions would impact on visitor parking whilst being restrictive for residents. As the response was mixed but more respondents were opposed the proposal, and the response rate was low, the proposal can be abandoned.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
|Recommendation |
|That: |
|1. The proposal to extend the existing 2-HOUR restrictions on the north side of the street to operate 9am to 6pm seven days a week from |
|Punt Road to the power pole outside 57 Albion Street be abandoned; |
|2. The proposal to extend the existing 2-HOUR restrictions on the south side of the street to operate 9am to 9pm seven days a week from |
|Punt Road to Tyrone Street be abandoned; |
|3. The proposal to install PERMIT ZONE restrictions operating at all other times on both sides of the street, in the same locations as |
|the 2-HOUR parking restrictions above be abandoned; and |
|4. All property occupiers previously consulted be notified of the decision. |
| |
11. New Art Acquisition
Manager Children & Family Services: Cath Harrod
General Manager Community & Culture: Karen Watson
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide further information to Councillors’ regarding the acquisition of one item for the Stonnington Art Collection.
Background
A report was brought to Council Meeting on Monday 5 February recommending the acquisition of the below artwork:
[pic]
Polixeni Papapetrou
Delphi, 2016
from the series Eden
pigment ink print
unique print at 150 X 100 cm
$13,000 incl. GST
Councillors requested further information regarding the artwork, specifically:
• Were the panel aware that the artwork was part of a series?
• Were the panel aware that the smaller editioned version of the artwork was in the Monash Gallery collection?
Discussion
As a result of Councillors’ request for more information, the Art Acquisition Panel has been consulted and provided further information to clarify Councillors’ queries. Panel members confirmed that they were aware that the artwork was a part of a series and that the series also contained smaller scale editions of the artworks.
Louise Weaver noted that the fact the (smaller editioned version of the work is held in the Monash Collection is a benefit as it creates greater provenance for the artist’s work and recognition of its value and significance by other esteemed art professionals).
The work Stonnington is considering for acquisition is recognised artistically as a "unique work" - it is identified by the artist as an individual work - the smaller scale works are an edition (and valued as such commercially). They do not mitigate the inherent value of the larger individual work. The work may also be seen as highlighting atypical concepts of beauty. This work is enigmatic, visually powerful and to some may be considered as perhaps - challenging - it is my view - that these are qualities in an artwork; that often signify lasting artistic value and enduring significance.
Samantha Comte agreed with Louise’s comments.
The work proposed for acquisition is a unique large pigment inkjet print 150 x 100cm. The existence of an edition of 6 smaller prints does not negate the uniqueness of the large print.
Policy Implications
The expansion of the Collection through this art acquisition meets the objectives of the Council Plan 2017-2021, specifically aligned with the pillar of Liveability where it contributes to building ‘the most desirable place to live, work and visit’ and the pillar of Community where it develops ‘an inclusive City that enhances the health and wellbeing of all residents, where people can feel safe, socially connected and engaged’.
The proposed artwork for purchase meets the guidelines of Council’s Art Acquisitions Policy.
This artwork, from an established Australian artist, is of appropriate merit and quality for a civic collection. It will be purchased from a reputable gallery and will accrue value over time, building on Council’s assets.
Financial and Resources Implications
The total value of Council’s collection is $5.3 million.
The Art Acquisition budget X8200 ($150,000) can accommodate this purchase and any requisite framing, transport, installation and labelling costs.
Funds have been carried over from the 16/17 budget to ensure the acquisition is derived from a superior selection of highly regarded artwork that will build on Council’s assets.
Conclusion
This artwork by an outstanding established Australian artist represents an impressive and worthy acquisition.
Human Rights Consideration
All works will be purchased from reputable galleries with strong and demonstrated history of moral trading.
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
|Recommendation |
|That Council authorises the purchase of the artwork listed in this document as recommended by the Arts Acquisition Panel for acquisition |
|into the Stonnington Art Collection. |
12. Out-Of-Round Arts and Cultural Grant 2018/19 - Chapel Street Precinct Association
Manager Children & Family Services: Cath Harrod
General Manager Community & Culture: Karen Watson
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a recommendation to Council for the out-of-round Arts and Culture Grant request from Chapel Street Precinct Association.
Background
Chapel Street Precinct Association (CSPA) submitted an out-of-round grant request for Provocare 2018. The out-of-round application has been assessed by an Assessment Panel of internal Council officers and an external arts industry expert against the criteria, eligibility, aims and objectives of Arts and Cultural Grants program. The application scored an overall score of 6 (out of 15) and was not recommended for funding.
The CSPA are a member funded body that through a Special Rate and Charge Scheme are funded annually and have expenditure of approximately $1 million for the sole purpose of marketing and promoting for the precinct.
Discussion
The application had a strong focus on marketing and promotion with a clear objective of driving audiences to Chapel Street in winter, however the priority and objectives for Arts and Cultural Grants are audience participation, arts and culture with a commitment for maximising audience numbers and supporting innovative projects with a viable and accountable budget.
The Assessment Panel do not recommend this application for funding on the basis that the application failed to meet the majority of the Arts and Cultural Grant criteria.
Funding was requested for four (4) events as part of Provocare 2018 and the total amount requested was $93,942. The four elements that CSPA are seeking funding for are:
• National Institute of Circus Arts – Empty Bodies show - $36,500
Previously presented by the National Institute of Circus Arts by the second year graduate students. Ticketed performance at $39 per person
• Dinner in the Dark - $16,050
High end dining experience in a secret location at $119 per person
• Art Walk - $5,230
Guided tour of murals around Chapel Street with a food and beverage offering. Ticketed event at $29.95 per person
• Eco Caddy - $36,162
Free rides for passengers to and from events during Provacare 2018. Cost includes the signage and survey tablets to capture economic data from passengers.
Although the grant application did not meet the majority of the grant criteria, there are sound alignments with the recently endorsed Economic Development Strategy 2017-2021 (EDS), with a particular focus on supporting sustainable economic development for the municipality.
Officers believe that supporting the proposal by the CSPA through seed funding for the 2018 Provocare Winter Arts Festival would be of benefit to the Chapel Street Precinct. This seed funding would enable the festival to provide increased economic prosperity to the local business community in the short term while the Association seeks out sponsorship and other funding opportunities for the long term sustainability of the festival.
Policy Implications
Whilst the application for an out-of-rounds Arts and Cultural Grant does not entirely align with Council’s Arts and Cultural Strategy, it is viewed that elements of the funding request and supporting materials provided align with particular objectives and themes of the EDS, as listed below:
• Promotion of Stonnington’s unique activity centres and cultural assets as welcoming to locals and visitors alike and hubs for shopping, hospitality, entertainment and culture.
• Revitalising Chapel Street as a retail and entertainment destination, and also supporting a thriving and innovative business community.
• Increase visitation and spending in Stonnington’s precincts.
• Supporting a lively night-economy.
• Fostering and promoting Stonnington’s arts and cultural assets.
Financial and Resources Implications
The Arts and Cultural Grants Assessment Panel do not recommend this application for an Arts and Cultural Grant, however due to the festival’s alignment to the EDS a seeding grant is recommended for 2018 for the following 3 events: Dinner In the Dark; Art Walk and Eco Caddy, totalling $57,442.00, to support the development of this festival.
Legal advice & implications
If funding is approved CSPA must enter into a formal Sponsorship Agreement in order to receive the grant.
Conclusion
The Assessment Panel do not recommend this application for an Arts and Cultural Grant.
An assessment of the CSPA proposal for further determination on seed funding can be considered by Council as a result of aforementioned alignments with Council’s Economic Development Strategy 2017-2021.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
|Recommendation |
|That Council: |
|1. Does not approve the out-of-round funding request of $93,942.00 for Chapel Street Precinct Association through the Arts and Cultural |
|Grants Program. |
|2. Approves seed funding for 2018 for 3 events listed in this report: Dinner In the Dark; Art Walk and Eco Caddy, totalling $57,442.00, |
|in recognition of the Festival’s alignment with the City of Stonnington’s Economic Development Strategy. |
o) Confidential
1. Proposed Property Purchase
Property Coordinator: Peter Angwin
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 searches
- february 2018 stock market chart
- ministry of council cambodia
- list of morning meeting activities
- introduction meeting agenda sample
- free meeting agenda templates printable
- free blank meeting agenda template
- word meeting agenda template
- peoria city council meeting tonight
- mississippi codes of law 21 19 11
- quality meeting agenda template
- qa meeting agenda template
- church council meeting minutes