Minutes of Council Meeting - 19 February 2018
| |
| |
|[pic] |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|MINUTES |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|of the ORDINARY MEETING of the STONNINGTON CITY COUNCIL |
|held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, MALVERN TOWN HALL |
|(CORNER GLENFERRIE ROAD & HIGH STREET, MALVERN) |
| |
|on |
| |
|19 February 2018 |
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
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
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 6
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 14
3. Planning Application 006/17 - 48 Darling Road, Malvern East VIC3145 - Construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone 19
4. Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review - For Consultation 21
5. Amendment C249 - Permanent Heritage Protection for Victorian Houses - Panel Report 21
6. Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Consideration of Submissions 22
7. Amendment C274 - Advertising Signage for Cato Square - Proposed Adoption 22
8. Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation 23
9. Elm Road, Glen Iris - Request for Additional Parking 23
10. Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month Re-Consultation 23
11. New Art Acquisition 24
12. Out-Of-Round Arts and Cultural Grant 2018/19 - Chapel Street Precinct Association 24
M. Other General Business
N. Urgent Business
O. Confidential Business
Present : cr steven stefanopoulos, mayor
: cr glen atwell
: cr marcia griffin
: cr john chandler
: cr sally davis
: cr judy hindle
: cr matthew koce
: cr jami klisaris
Council Officers Present
: warren roberts, ceo
: geoff cockram
: simon thomas
: tony oulton
: stuart draffin
: fabienne thewlis
: judy hogan
A. Reading Of The Reconciliation Statement And Prayer
Fabienne Thewlis, Manager Governance & Corporate Support, read the following 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.
The meeting began with a prayer at 7.00pm.
B. Apologies
|Procedural Motion: Moved Cr Matthew Koce Seconded Cr Jami Klisaris |
|That the apology received from Cr Sehr be received and accepted and the apology for the meeting of 5 March 2018 submitted by Cr Griffin be |
|accepted and leave of absence granted for both. |
|Carried |
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. |Council Meeting - 5 February 2018 |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Sally Davis Seconded Cr Glen Atwell |
| |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 subject to the following corrections: |
| |Cr Chandler advised that on pages 18 – 20 the sub- numbering needed to be reformatted – for the defeated Amendment on item 1 Planning |
| |Application – 0578/15 – 671 Chapel Street South Yarra - and further the following correction to page 26: |
| |“Cr Klisaris proposed an Amendment to her the (corrected adoption of Minutes at Council Meeting 19 February 2018) standing motion that |
| |included point 1(a)xvi of the defeated Amendment. This was accepted by the mover and seconder and is now incorporated into the |
| |substantive motion as point 1(a)xv.” |
| |Carried |
D. Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act
Cr Hindle declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest – Close Association with Item 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, as her son is an objector to the application.
Cr Griffin declared a Direct Conflict of Interest in Item 8 - Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation as she lives in that street.
Cr Griffin declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest Close Association in Item 10 - Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month Re-Consultation, as her sister lives in this street.
Cr Chandler declared a Direct Conflict of Interest in Item 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, as he owns property in that street.
Cr Stefanopoulos declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest –Other - in Item 6 - Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Consideration of Submissions, as a house owned by his employer is on the list.
E. Questions to Council from Members of the Public
During Council’s previous Ordinary Meeting two (2) sets of questions to Council was received from members of the public. The questions related to the proposed Stonnington Indoor Stadium.
At the time, I used my discretion available to me under Council’s General Local Law to answer the question at the meeting. As required under the Local Law, written answers were subsequently provided to the submitter. A copy of the response was now tabled for inclusion in the minutes of this meeting.
Questions and responses for Ms Wallish
Question 1
The last year has seen a very public “debate” take place re Councils decision to endorse the Chadstone Bowls Club site for an indoor stadium. An objective for developing an indoor stadium was to: “Respond to the PNA request for additional indoor netball courts in Stonnington…” (Council Documents 21.11.2016). PNA currently has the use of four courts but not at the one venue.
Their objective was to have all PNA teams playing from the same venue.
Why then does the Feasibility Study Operations Report Appendix 7 propose that netball is allocated two of the four courts on Saturdays - the other two being allocated to basketball competition?
Response
Appendix 1 of the Stonnington Indoor Sports Stadium Feasibility Study is the Stadium Operations Report. Appendix 7 of that report presents a Proposed Schedule of Use for a four court indoor facility.
The Stadium Operations Report includes on pages 34 and 35, the following comments about the proposed schedule of use:
The proposed schedule attempts to provide access to both netball and basketball across the week for both competition and training. It should be noted however that given demand all requested use cannot be accommodated in four courts alone. For example, the requested schedule of use for the PNA (Prahran Netball Association) is only partially addressed in the generic schedule of use.
If the facility is approved a process/selection criteria would need to be established to allocate the court hours and negotiate usage agreements. This would then allow a final usage schedule to be confirmed.
The Proposed Schedule of Use was developed to inform the Business Case that formed part of the Stadium Operations Report. As the Report acknowledges, the final usage schedule has not been confirmed.
Question 2
Doesn’t this allocation leave PNA no better off than when this saga began - in fact worse off because of the need to travel the added distance?
Response
Page 24 of the Stadium Operations Report makes the following comment:
Whilst a new four-court facility will enable PNA to consolidate all of their Saturday activities at the one location, access to more than four courts will be required to accommodate any additional teams playing on Saturday’s in their junior competitions. The option to retain the use of the two courts at Orrong Romanis Recreation Centre for Saturday competition may need to be considered.
Such a scenario would represent an improvement on the current situation for PNA.
Question 3
Have PNA and its members been made aware of this fact?
Response
The Stonnington Indoor Sports Stadium Feasibility Study has been publically available since Thursday 26 October 2017. PNA along with all other users of the facility will continue to be consulted through the life of the project.
Question 4
Are PNA and its members aware that Stonnington Council had the opportunity to amend any proposed recommendations put forward by the Consultants but chose not to?
Response
Consultants are regular engaged by Council to provide reports that include information that is considered by Council. The final decision on any proposal considered by Council, rests with Council.
Questions and Responses to Ms Lawlor.
Question 1
Could I please have Council's definition of 'Encumbered Open Space' and 'Open Space' and the differences between the two?
Response
Council’s Public Realm Strategy defines ‘public open space’ as
“… those public spaces that are zoned or counted as ‘public open space’ in Stonnington’s Local Planning Scheme. The strict definition of POS is land that is set (corrected spelling adoption of Council minutes at meeting of 5 March 2018) aside for public recreation, public resort, parklands or similar.”
I assume your reference to ‘encumbered open space’ relates to page six of the Stonnington Indoor Sports Stadium Feasibility Study that was prepared by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd. In this instance ‘encumbered open space site’ referred to Council land that is used for other purposes as outlined in the preceding paragraph.
Both parkland and sports grounds fall under Council’s definition of ‘reserve’ from the City of Stonnington General Local Law 2008:
“Council reserve” means Council land which is a:
a) sports ground; or
b) park; or
c) nature reservation; or
d) facility provided or used in association with activities at a sporting ground, park or nature reservation; or
e) place specified in Schedule No. 2; or
f) which the Council declares by resolution to be a reserve; or
g) purchased by, leased or otherwise provided to or managed or controlled by Council for a recreation, cultural or entertainment purpose.
Question 2
Could you please provide Council's definition of 'Parkland' and 'Sportsgrounds"?
Response
Examples of “parkland” in Stonnington include:
• Brookville Gardens ,Toorak
• Malvern Gardens, Malvern
Examples of “sportsgrounds” in Stonnington include:
• Wadsworth Baseball Diamond, Kooyong
• Lucas Oval, Malvern East
• Basil Oval, Malvern East
For tonight’s Ordinary Meeting of Council two (2) sets of Questions to Council have been received for response. In accordance with clause 424 of Council’s General Local Law a summary of the questions are as follows:
Four (4) questions from Ms Wallish
The questions relate to the proposed composition of the stakeholders group for the masterplan of Percy Treyvaud Park and seeks clarification on how many representatives will be from the traders given the small number of traders. Are the three resident representatives to be from the surrounding ‘most affected’ area or is it open to any Stonnington resident to apply? What criteria will be used to select the three resident representatives?
Four (4) questions from Ms Lawlor
The questions relate to where the definition of encumbered open space as referred to in Council’s Public Realm Strategy 2010. Can you advise which Council policy contains your answer on encumbered open space? Does Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park fall within the definition of a park? Two questions asking are Councillor Briefing Sessions automatically considered under Confidential Business and who determines this criteria?
Council will answer the questions, but I use my discretion under Clause 424 (3) (b) of the Local Law to not provide the responses this evening but to provide written responses to the submitters within 14 working days and the responses will be put into the minutes of the following meeting.
F. Correspondence – (only if related to council business)
Cr Atwell tabled the following correspondence:
• A copy of a circular letter being distributed to residents surrounding Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park from a Real Estate Agent regarding the effect on their properties from the proposed Multi-Purpose Stadium. Cr Atwell noted he would ask Questions of Officers on this.
Cr Griffin tabled the following correspondence:
• An email from a resident of Fawkner Street South Yarra expressing concern at the lack of disability parking from the area where the Cato Square development is underway as the alternative locations are not suitable as they are too far to walk or are not suitable.
• An email from a resident of St Georges Road Toorak outlining a number of concerns in the area including: visibility for traffic at the roundabout at Orrong Road and Struan Street due to a dropped branch; lack of numbering on the shops in Chapel Street; graffiti; and traffic rule changes that impact on the traffic at the roundabout at the Grange Road bridge.
• An email from a resident of Stonnington regarding Council’s transport results and recommending a bus the length of Malvern and Waverley Roads.
Cr Davis tabled the following correspondence:
• A letter from a resident of Warner Street Malvern raising concerns at the blockage of the grate to a drainage pit in Malvern Public Gardens and asking that it be attended to.
• An email from the East Malvern Men’s Shed group asking Council to consider a possible relocation to the Malvern East RSL area of land that is owned by Council. Cr Davis noted she would ask Questions of Officers on this.
• A letter and copies of submissions to object to planning application 0953/17 – 1-3 Olive Street Malvern East being advertising signage and outlining the reasons why.
• An email from a resident of East Malvern outlining their objections to Planning application in that street
Cr Hindle tabled the following correspondence:
• An email from a regular user of Prahran Market regarding issues with the traffic and parking currently. Cr Hindle noted she would ask Questions of Officers on this.
• An email from a resident of Sutherland Street Armadale expressing concerns that the proposed parking restrictions in that street will not be proceeding and asking that this be looked at again. Cr Hindle noted she would ask Questions of Officers on this.
• An email from a resident of Dandenong Road Windsor asking why the pocket parks at the corner of Chapel Street and Dandenong Road and the corner of Hornby Street and Dandenong Road asking for more maintenance of these parks. Cr Hindle noted she would ask Questions of Officers on this.
• An email from a resident near Victoria Gardens Prahran expressing concern with the rehearsals and coming play that will be presented in Victoria Gardens. Cr Hindle noted she would ask Questions of Officers on this.
Cr Chandler tabled the following correspondence:
• an email regarding the proposed increase in helicopter traffic over the municipality and suggesting that Council approach the Federal Government in an effort to have helicopter over-flight rules changed in line with Council and the EPA noise requirements.
• an email from a painting group auspices through Kooyong Branch of U3A seeking space to hold an exhibition of their work from Council.
• An email from resident of Evans Court Toorak objecting to the installation of the Staggered Parking signage as they will not work.
• A letter from Best and Hooper lawyers on behalf of their client seeking Council’s review of the request to have an English Oak tree removed from their client’s property as it is causing structural damage. The letter is supported by a Structural Engineer’s report and an Arborist’s report.
• Three letters from local residents objecting to the planning application 0704/14-5 for a proposed Helipad at 625 Chapel Street (the Capitol Building) and outlining the reasons why.
Cr Stefanopoulos tabled the following correspondence:
• A letter from the Hon John Eren MP Minister for Tourism and Major; Minister for Sport and Minister for Veterans advising that Council has been successful in obtaining a grant from the 2018/19 Victorian Government’s Community Sports Infrastructure Fund of $100,000 for Righetti Oval – Sir Selman Cowen Park Floodlighting Project.
• An email from a resident of Windsor advising that every week the BBQ area at Windsor Siding reserve is hit by graffiti vandals and could some CCTV be installed.
• A letter from the Australian Made Campaign Limited inviting Council representatives to the Supporters Forum on 7 March 2018 at the City of Hume Melbourne.
• A letter from Melbourne Metro Rail Authority in response to Council’s letter on connecting South Yarra station to the project and outlining the reasons why this is not proceeding due to cost and existing well-serviced public transport facilities. The letter also noted the Government’s commitment to enable planning to improve capacity, circulation and accessibility at South Yarra station.
G. Questions to Council Officers from Councillors
|1 |Prahran Market Parking |
| |Cr Hindle, following on from an email tabled under correspondence, asked what is being done about the parking concerns at the |
| |Prahran Market as it is concerning that shoppers cannot find a space to park. |
| |In response the General Manager Assets and Services Simon Thomas advised that Council is working with the Market Board and is |
| |collecting data on traffic patterns and usage, including where from. He noted that the key peak is in the period is in the |
| |middle of the day when the carpark is close to full occupancy. |
| |Cr Hindle asked how long this review will take and Mr Thomas advised it is currently underway and will take 2-3 weeks to get an|
| |answer for Council and the Market Board. |
|2 |Sutherland Street Parking Survey |
| |Cr Hindle referred to an email tabled under correspondence that asked why the Council did not implement parking restrictions on|
| |the west side of Sutherland Street when the recent survey by Council had confirmed there is a problem and that residents wanted|
| |parking restrictions. Cr Hindle asked for a report back to Councillor Briefing on this. |
| |The General Manager Assets and Services Simon Thomas advised this would be done. |
|3 |Pocket Parks in Windsor |
| |Cr Hindle referred to an email tabled under correspondence regarding the lack of maintenance and condition of the small park at|
| |the corner of Chapel Street and Dandenong Road and also the one on the corner of Horny Street and Dandenong Road asking |
| |further if they were Council parks or VicRoads. |
| |The General Manager Assets and Services Simon Thomas advised that these were Council parks and took the matter on notice |
| |advising while they are on less frequency for maintenance as they are small parks, these will be attended to. |
|4 |Performance in Victoria Gardens |
| |Cr Hindle, following on from an email tabled under correspondence, asked why is there a paid event in Victoria Gardens over |
| |three weekends with a community grant from Council and why were local residents not consulted or notified about this. |
| |The CEO Warren Roberts advised that he had followed this up and it is a Shakespearean production on a small are at the south |
| |east corner of the gardens which was assessed as part of the Arts and Culture Grants so went through the usual process for |
| |consideration of such applications. He noted it may be useful for Council to review the activities in parks approval process. |
| |Cr Hindle asked for a report on this use. |
| |The CEO Warren Roberts advised that a report would come to Councillor Briefing noting that an Arts and Culture grant had been |
| |approved. |
|5 |East Malvern Men’s Shed |
| |Cr Davis referred to an email from the East Malvern Men’s Shed Group who are seeking Council approval to be based at the East |
| |Malvern RSL site – which is owned by Council. Cr Davis asked if Council could liaise with the Men’s Shed representatives to see|
| |if Council can assist. |
| |The Acting General Manager Community and Culture Tony Oulton advised that he has met with the representatives about the current|
| |location and had given an undertaking to explore opportunities to relocate the Group and that a report was coming to Briefing |
| |on this. |
|6 |Circular letter to residents around Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park |
| |Cr Atwell referred to a circular letter he had tabled under correspondence from a Real Estate agent regarding the impact on |
| |properties in the area around the proposed multi-purpose stadium at Percy Treyvaud Memorial park that makes comments that are |
| |fear mongering and unethical manner. |
| |The CEO Warren Roberts advised that he has referred the circular letter to Council’s Corporate Counsel to follow up with the |
| |Principals of the Real Estate agents and, if necessary will take it further to the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. |
|7 |17 William Street South Yarra |
| |Cr Chandler followed up on a previous question regarding a possible pop-up park at 17 William Street South Yarra near the Metro|
| |Rail Tunnel works and asked if Council is still pursuing this? |
| |The General Manager Planning and Amenity Stuart Draffin advised that this is being followed up and a report is to come to |
| |Councillor Briefing that will also include 15 William Street. |
|8 |Nicholson Street South Yarra petition for parking restrictions to be amended |
| |Cr Chandler referred to the petition that he had tabled at the last meeting of Council with 12 signatures from residents of |
| |Nicholson Street South Yarra that asked for Council to review and amend the parking restrictions in that street, asking where |
| |is this at. |
| |The General Manager Assets and Services Simon Thomas advised that Council has written to the lead petitioner advising of the |
| |process and that surveys are being undertaken which is the normal step in finding out firstly about the pattern of parking in |
| |the street. |
|9 |Hawksburn Road Petition |
| |Cr Chandler asked about the petition he had tabled at the last Council meeting with 34 signatures from residents of Hawksburn |
| |Road, Oban Street and Cassell Street South Yarra asking Council to save Hawksburn Road from developers with one part of the |
| |petition being about protection of Heritage in the streets which is a mix of styles. Cr Chandler asked if this was progressing.|
| |In response the General Manager Planning and Amenity Stuart Draffin that Council has corresponded with the lead petitioner and |
| |is undertaking a review of Heritage properties that will come back in a report to Council. |
| |Cr Chandler asked if there was any way this could be brought forward as it is an area under pressure from developers. |
| |The General Manager Planning and Amenity Stuart Draffin noted it was not advisable to bring forward separately as need to have |
| |in context with other areas and Council needed to complete the gap work first. |
|10 |16 Moonga Road Toorak |
| |Cr Stefanopoulos advised that at this property the building has been gutted and is in a derelict state so what can Council do. |
| |The General Manager Planning and Amenity Stuart Draffin advised he will have Officers investigate the matter and advise |
| |Council. |
H. Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters
Cr Stefanopoulos tabled a petition with 30 signatures from residents of York Street Prahran asking Council “to amend the parking arrangements on the west side of York Street between Murray Street and Malvern Road so that there is permit parking at all times, except for the hours of the street sweeper.”
|Procedural Motion: Moved Cr Sally Davis Seconded Cr Marcia Griffin |
|That the petition be received. |
|Carried |
I. Notices of Motion
Nil
J. Reports of Special and Other Committees
The CEO Warren Roberts tabled the following Assembly of Councillors records:
• Stonnington Ethnic Services Committee held on 8 February 2018
• Councillor Briefing held on 12 February 2018
K. Reports of Delegates
Cr Hindle reported on her attendance at the Melbourne Metropolitan Waste Forum recently noting that Council, was well represented with 3 Council Officers as the industry discussed the concerns on recyclables processing stopping with China and the fund to look at other options. Cr Hindle noted that representatives from DELWP were also in attendance and a strong message was coming from the Councils at the meeting.
Cr Hindle reported on her first meeting as Council’s representative to the Glenloch Homes meeting advising that while she is in observer capacity the Committee seems a worthwhile group and have a healthy financial position.
L. General Business
Cr Hindle declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest – Close Association with Item 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, as her son is an objector to the application and left the meeting at 7.33pm.
|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 |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Marcia Griffin Seconded Cr Jami Klisaris |
| | |
| |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: |
| |Extension of the canopy above the Chapel Street footpath to the southern end. |
| |Setbacks from the title boundary be nominated on levels 3 – 20 floor plans. |
| |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. |
| |Removal of the gold decorative elements and application of an alternative treatment to articulate the tower façade to enhance the |
| |design character of the development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
| |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. |
| |Balconies to the dwellings have a minimum area of 8sqm, with a minimum dimension of 2m. |
| |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. |
| |Gradients of the parking areas in accordance with the Australian Standards. |
| |Doors to the main distributor frame, grease interceptor, substation and switch room to not open onto 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. |
| |Provision of bicycle parking for visitors and the non-residential components of the development in accordance with Clause 52.34. |
| |Internal access for the ground floor commercial tenants to dispose of their wastes. |
| |Location and capacity of the water tanks and confirmation that they will be connected to toilets within the building for flushing. |
| |Notation of permeability of site surfaces and stormwater treatment areas |
| |The floor plans to the community spaces to be updated to clearly show the location of windows as set out in Section A. |
| |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: |
| | |
| |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; |
| |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; |
| |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. |
| |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: |
| |A minimum net floor area of 300 square metres; and |
| |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 |
| |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. |
| |Location of building services to the maternal and child health centre to be agreed upon prior to the commencement of the development. |
| |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. |
| |The details of any external signage relevant to the maternal and child health centre to be agreed and provided for. |
| |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. |
| |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. The canopy 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. |
| | |
| |A Division was called by Cr Koce: |
| |For: Crs Jami Klisaris, Marcia Griffin, Sally Davis, Glen Atwell and Steven Stefanopoulos |
| |Against: Crs John Chandler and Matthew Koce |
| |Absent: Crs Melina Sehr and Judy Hindle |
| |Carried |
| | |
| |Cr Hindle returned to the meeting at 7.51pm at the conclusion of the above Item 1. |
Cr Chandler declared a Direct Conflict of Interest in Item 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, as he owns property in that street, and left the meeting at 7.52pm.
|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 |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Sally Davis Seconded Cr Jami Klisaris |
| |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. |
| | |
| | |
| |Procedural Motion: Moved Cr Judy Hindle Seconded lapsed for want of a seconder |
| |That consideration of Planning Permit No: 241/17 for the land located at 117, 119 & 121 Chomley Street, Prahran under the Stonnington |
| |Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone be deferred until the next meeting |
| |The Procedural Motion Failed for Want of a Seconder. |
| |The Standing Motion was then Put and Carried |
|3 |Planning Application 006/17 - 48 Darling Road, Malvern East VIC3145 - Construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential |
| |Zone |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Jami Klisaris Seconded Cr Glen Atwell |
| | |
| |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. |
| |Carried |
| |Cr Chandler returned to the Chamber at 7.57pm during discussion of the above item. |
|4 |Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review - For Consultation |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Marcia Griffin Seconded Cr Jami Klisaris |
| |That Council: |
| |PART A: endorse the Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review for the purpose of community consultation; and |
| |PART B: undertake an appropriate study into (regional and local area) through traffic and public transport issues in Stonnington which |
| |outlines the magnitude of the issue and actions Council can take to ameliorate the problem. |
| |Carried |
|5 |Amendment C249 - Permanent Heritage Protection for Victorian Houses - Panel Report |
| |Motion: Moved Cr John Chandler Seconded Cr Matthew Koce |
| |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. |
| |Carried |
Cr Stefanopoulos declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest –Other - in Item 6 - Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Consideration of Submissions, as a house owned by his employer is on the list, and vacated the Chair and Chamber at 8.09pm.
|Procedural Motion: Moved Cr John Chandler Seconded Cr Sally Davis |
|That Cr Klisaris assume the Chair. |
|Carried |
|6 |Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Consideration of Submissions |
| |Motion: Moved Cr John Chandler Seconded Cr Sally Davis |
| |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. |
| |Carried |
Cr Stefanopoulos returned to the Chamber at 8.11pm and resumed the Chair at the completion of the above item.
|7 |Amendment C274 - Advertising Signage for Cato Square - Proposed Adoption |
| |Motion: Moved Cr John Chandler Seconded Cr Matthew Koce |
| |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. |
| |Carried |
With the leave of the meeting Item 10 was brought forward to follow Item 8.
Cr Griffin declared a Direct Conflict of Interest in Item 8 - Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation as she lives in that street and declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest Close Association in Item 10 - Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month Re-Consultation, as her sister lives in this street left the meeting at 8.12pm.
|8 |Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Sally Davis Seconded Cr Jami Klisaris |
| |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. |
| | |
| |Procedural Motion: Moved Cr Matthew Koce Seconded Cr Glen Atwell |
| |That consideration of resident priority parking restrictions in Rathmines Street, Toorak be deferred to the next meeting of Council. |
| |Carried |
|10 |Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month Re-Consultation |
| |Motion: Moved Cr John Chandler Seconded Cr Matthew Koce |
| |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. |
| |Carried |
Cr Griffin returned to the Chamber at 8.16pm the conclusion of consideration of Items 8 & 10.
|9 |Elm Road, Glen Iris - Request for Additional Parking |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Jami Klisaris Seconded Cr Sally Davis |
| |That: |
| |1. The multiple requests for assistance including the provision of additional parking contained in the multi-signatory 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. |
| |Carried |
|11 |New Art Acquisition |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Glen Atwell Seconded Cr Jami Klisaris |
| |That Council authorises the purchase of the artwork Delphi 2016 by Polixeni Papapetrou from the series Eden being pigment ink unique |
| |print 150 x100 cm as listed in this document and recommended by the Arts Acquisition Panel for acquisition into the Stonnington Art |
| |Collection at a cost of $13000 including GST. |
| |A Division was called by Cr Hindle: |
| |For: Crs John Chandler, Jami Klisaris, Matthew Koce, Marcia Griffin, Glen Atwell and Steven Stefanopoulos |
| |Against: Crs Sally Davis and Judy Hindle |
| |Absent: Cr Melina Sehr |
| |Carried |
|12 |Out-Of-Round Arts and Cultural Grant 2018/19 - Chapel Street Precinct Association |
| |Motion: Moved Cr Marcia Griffin Seconded Cr Steven Stefanopoulos |
| |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. |
| |Procedural Motion: Moved Cr John Chandler Seconded Cr Matthew Koce |
| |That consideration of the out-of-round funding request of $93,942.00 for Chapel Street Precinct Association through the Arts and |
| |Cultural Grants Program be deferred to the next meeting of Council. |
| |Carried |
M. Other General Business
Cr Atwell noted he had just received a text from a person who has watched the web-cast meeting.
N. Urgent Business
Nil
O. Confidential Business
|Procedural Motion: Moved Cr Marcia Griffin Seconded Cr Sally Davis |
|That the meeting be closed to the public to consider the following matters that are confidential in accordance with Section 89 (2) of the Local |
|Government Act 1989 for the reasons specified: (8.46pm) |
|Confidential Matter |
|Reason for Confidentiality |
| |
|1. Proposed Property Purchase |
|89 (2)(d) contractual matters |
| |
|Carried |
Cr Chandler left the Chamber at 8.46pm and returned at 8.48pm.
|Procedural Motion: Moved Cr Marcia Griffin Seconded Cr Glen Atwell |
|That the meeting be re-opened to the public. (8.48pm |
|Carried |
There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.48pm.
Confirmed on Monday 5 March 2018
...................................................................................
CR STEVEN STEFANOPOULOS, MAYOR
ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD
This Form MUST be completed by the attending Council Officer and returned IMMEDIATELY to Judy Hogan – Civic Support Officer
Assembly Details:
Date: 8 February 2018 Name of Meeting: Stonnington Ethnic Services Committee
Time: 10:00am
Assembly Location: Prahran Committee Room, Prahran Town Hall, Prahran
In Attendance:
Councillors:
|Cr Steve Stefanopoulos, Mayor, City of Stonnington |
Council Officers:
|Penny Pavlou, Julie Fry, Aysin Akdeniz, Jeessica Morrison, Rebecca Nicols, Andrea Jones |
| |
|Community Representatives |
|Christine Spiridonos – MiCare (Formally New Hope Foundation) |
|Peter Kalathas - MiCare |
|Stephen Spiller - Hungarian Senior Citizen’s Club |
|Chan Khon Ma - Prahran Chinese Elderly Citizens Club |
|Elka Papakirikou - Malvern Greek Senior Citizen’s Club |
|Joanna Vlachos - Greek Friendship Club |
|Roula Dovas - Asikipios Greek Women’s Group |
|Antonio Dionosopoulos - Asikipios Greek Women’s Group |
|Berta Sinyavska - Healthy Tourism Club “VIGOR” |
|Violet Lee - Stonnington Chinese Association |
|Lai Leng Chee - Stonnington Chinese Association |
|George Karagiannis - St Demetrios Greek Senior Citizen’s Club |
|Peter Giannopoulos - Prahran Greek Seniors Club Inc. |
|George Shi - Stonnington Ballroom Dancing Association |
|Bong Nam Biak – Korean Club |
|Sarah Chung – Prahran Chinese Women’s Association |
|Alexandre Rozin – Association of Former Inmates of the NAZI Camps |
|Giuseppina Presti - Italian Senior Citizen’s Club |
|Nihad Jasarevic – Club Brcko – Bosnian Club |
|Yoko Davies – Hope Connection Inc |
|Interpreters present: |
|Cantonese interpreter |
|Mandarin interpreter |
|Greek interpreter |
|Bosnian interpreter |
|Korean interpreter |
Matter/s Discussed:
• Mayor’s Update
• Cato Square Update
• Cultural Diversity Grants
• Cultural Diversity Community Access and Inclusion Position Update
• Summer Events
• Community Grants 2018/2019
• Transport Education Session
• Stonnington Flavours Festival March 2018
• MiCare Update
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: including time left and returned to meeting
Councillors:
|Nil |
Council Officers:
|Nil |
Form completed by: Andrea Jones
ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD
This Form MUST be completed by the attending Council Officer and returned IMMEDIATELY to Judy Hogan – Civic Support Officer
ASSEMBLY DETAILS
Date: Monday 12 February 2018 Councillor Briefing
Time: 6pm
Assembly Location: Committee Room, Level 2, 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern
IN ATTENDANCE
Councillors:
|Cr S Stefanopoulos (Mayor) |Cr G Atwell |Cr J Klisaris (left 7.39pm) |
|Cr J Chandler |Cr J Hindle |Cr M Griffin |
|Cr M Koce |Cr M Sehr (apology) |Cr S Davis |
Council Officers:
|Warren Roberts (CEO) |Stuart Draffin |Simon Thomas |
|Karen Watson |Susan Price |Fabienne Thewlis |
|Susan Price (left 6.48pm) |Phillip Gul (left 7.14pm) |Ian McLauchlan (7.09pm, left 7.39pm) |
|Violette Vidal (8.12pm left 9.05pm) | | |
Matter/s Discussed:
1. Councillor Discussion
2. Draft Stonnington Planning Scheme Review - For Consultation
3. Amendment C249 - Permanent Heritage Protection for Victorian Houses - Panel Report
4. Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Consideration of Submissions
5. Amendment C274 - Advertising Signage for Cato Square - Proposed Adoption
6. 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. 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
8. Planning Application 006/17 - 48 Darling Road, Malvern East VIC3145 - Construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone
9. Hinton Lane Reconstruction and Heritage Considerations
10. Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation
11. Elm Road, Glen Iris - Request for Additional Parking
12. Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month Re-Consultation
13. Out-Of-Round Arts and Cultural Grant 2018/19 - Chapel Street Precinct Association
14. Proposed Property Purchase
15. New Art Acquisition
16. Other Matters
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: including time left and returned to meeting
Councillors:
|Cr Hindle declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 6 - 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 and left the meeting at 6.48pm. Cr Hindle |
|returned to the meeting at 7.03pm. |
|Cr Chandler declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 7 - 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 and left the |
|meeting at 7.03pm. Cr Chandler returned to the meeting at 7.09pm |
|Cr Griffin declared a Conflict of Interest in Items 12 - Albion Street, South Yarra - Review of Parking Change After Six Month|
|Re-Consultation and 10 - Rathmines Street, Toorak - Parking Investigation and left the meeting at 7.24pm. Cr Griffin returned |
|to the meeting at 7.32pm. |
Council Officers:
|Nil |
Form completed by: Fabienne Thewlis
[pic][pic] [pic]
AMENDMENT C270 – Federation houses study Permanent Heritage Controls
response to submissions
Themes:
|• General Objection |• Heritage Significance |
|• Citation |• General Support |
|• Heritage Overlay Curtilage |• Restriction on future development |
|• Does not align with development pattern |• Heritage Strategy |
|• Cost Burden to Owners |• Universal Charter of Human Rights |
|• Property Values |• Heritage Grading |
|• Compensation | |
|THEME |SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES RAISED |OBJECTION/SUPPORT |COMMENT/ DISCUSSION |RECOMMENDATION |
|Submission 1: 120 Kooyong Road Armadale (HO602) |
|General Objection |1. Objects to the application of the Heritage Overlay to 120 |Objection |1. Noted |1. Proceed with Amendment with no|
| |Kooyong Road Armadale. | | |changes |
|Submission 1A: 120 Kooyong Road Armadale (HO602) |
|Heritage |1. In my view the dwelling is typical of this period of house, |Objection |1. The place has been assessed as being of architectural |1. No change. |
|Significance |rather than an exemplar or significant example of this period and | |and aesthetic significance at the local level as a | |
| |style of house in Stonnington, and consequently is not of local | |carefully designed and well-resolved example of a | |
| |significance. | |Federation house that broadly reflects the Queen Anne | |
| | | |style. In terms of style and accomplishment, the place | |
| | | |compares favourably with the houses added to the Heritage | |
| | | |Overlay as part of Amendment C225. This is discussed in | |
| | | |greater detail in the citation. | |
| | | |2. The place has been stylistically characterised by its | |
| | | |broad characteristics and architectural details. The house| |
| |2. Although the house shares some detailing found on Queen | |strongly displays characteristics of the Queen Anne style,| |
| |Anne-style housing, in my view the house lacks the busy detailing | |including varied roof forms, diagonal emphasis and a |2. No change. |
| |and more complex roof forms and overall compositions for it to be | |variety of window bays. Within the broad category of the | |
| |considered a Queen-Anne style house. | |Queen Anne style, there are a large range of variations in| |
| | | |detailing and form. It is important that the style is not | |
| | | |restricted to one highly typical version of the style. | |
| | | |This house remains intact to demonstrate typical | |
| | | |characteristics of the Federation Queen Anne style. | |
| | | |3. See point 2 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |3. This is evident when the house is assessed against the | | | |
| |definition of the Queen Anne-style; | | | |
| |a) Predominantly a domestic style, houses were designed in a | | | |
| |picturesque manner with asymmetrical roof forms, dominant and | | |3. No change |
| |complex roofs with a multiple gables: this house only has two | | | |
| |gables and one gablet – not a complex roof form | | | |
| |b) And tall chimneys: chimneys are not disproportionately tall | | | |
| |c) Houses were often single storey: scale commonly found on all | | | |
| |housing types in Stonnington. | | | |
| |d) Sprawled over large suburban sites: the house is built on a | | | |
| |standard sized allotment of this subdivision. | | | |
| |e) They share a basic set of materials (refer to page 2 of Peter | | | |
| |Andrew Barrett’s response): materials and detailing used is | | | |
| |commonly found on all types of housing of this period in | | | |
| |Stonnington. | | | |
| |f) Other typical characteristics include a variety of bay windows… | | | |
| |(Refer to page 2 of Peter Andrew Barrett’s response): these are | | | |
| |also materials, detailing and compositional arrangements commonly | | | |
| |found on a variety of types of housing of this period in | | | |
| |Stonnington. | | | |
| |4. The house does not meet the threshold set in the ‘Federation | | | |
| |Houses Study’ which was that the following pre-conditions be met | | | |
| |for houses to be considered to warrant inclusion in heritage | |4. The exhibited citation details why the place is | |
| |controls; | |considered to satisfy the threshold for local heritage | |
| |a) They must have been constructed in the Federation period | |significance against Criterion D and E, in accordance with| |
| |(c1890-c1918): Meets this condition. | |the Practice Note (PPN1). The place clearly retains its | |
| |b) They must satisfy one or more of the HERCON criteria at the | |Queen Anne style presentation despite later additions. It | |
| |local level: this property does not meet this condition for local | |is considered that the additions do not impact on the | |
| |significance. It does not demonstrate importance as a class of | |significance of the place or diminish the ability to | |
| |cultural or natural place (Criterion D), nor does it demonstrate | |understand and appreciate the place as a fine example of a|4. No change. |
| |importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics | |Federation house. | |
| |(Criterion E) or any other HERCON criteria. | | | |
| |c) They must be: | | | |
| |i) A particularly well-resolved example of architectural expression| | | |
| |and form from the Federation period, displaying high quality | | | |
| |detailing and/or finishes that are equal to – or better than – | | | |
| |other places of a similar typology: Does not demonstrate better | | | |
| |aesthetic qualities compared with other buildings of this typology.| | | |
| |and/or | | | |
| |ii) An unusual or rare but well-resolved example of architectural | | | |
| |expression or form from the Federation Period: Not unusual or rare,| | | |
| |rather the house is typical of an Edwardian/Federation house in | | | |
| |Stonnington. | | | |
| |iii) Designed by a noted or well-known architect: Architect not | | | |
| |known. | | | |
| |and/or | | | |
| |iv) They must be intact (as evident from the Street): Not intact. A| | | |
| |substantial addition has been added to the east side of the house | | | |
| |in the post-war period, which is visible from the public realm. | | | |
|Citation (Place |5. The citation includes a detailed history of this house; however |Objection |5. The Place History did not determine historical |5. No change. |
|History) |this has not uncovered any significant associations with an | |significance. As a result, Criterion A and H were not | |
| |important person(s) or event(s). | |satisfied and not applied. | |
|Citation |6. The description contains a number of inaccuracies which I |Objection |6. Relevant corrections will be made to the citation as |6. Minor updates as set out |
|(Description) |recommend be addressed by Council’s heritage consultant. | |noted below. |below. |
| |7. As previously discussed in (points 2 and 3) the identification | | | |
| |as Queen Anne style is in my view incorrect. | |7. Noted. It is considered the place demonstrates the |7. No change. |
| | | |Queen Anne style. | |
| |8. The front fence and gate are not original, they were built as | | | |
| |part of works undertaken to the house in the 1980’s | |8. Additional information has been provided by Council to |8. Amend date of fence and gate |
| | | |confirm that the fence and gate were constructed in the |in citation. Remove fence |
| | | |1980s. Reference to the date of the fence and gate will be|controls. |
| | | |amended in the citation and fence controls removed | |
| |9. Other elements are not original including the Kangaroo roof | |accordingly. | |
| |ornaments and garage are also believed to be from the 1980s. | |9. Review of the recently received Property File | |
| | | |information from Council has confirmed that the kangaroo |9. Make edits throughout |
| | | |roof ornaments and garage are later additions. Reference |citation. |
| | | |to these elements will be updated in the citation. | |
|Heritage Grading |10. The house cannot be considered to be of this grading (regional |Objection |10. Section 3.3 of the Stage 3 Report, Volume 1, ‘Defining|10. No change. |
| |or metropolitan significance and stand as important milestone in | |a ‘Locally Significant’ Heritage Threshold’ notes that | |
| |the architectural development of the municipality) as it is | |“Council has recently adopted Amendment C132 (approved by | |
| |relatively representative/typical of Federation housing in | |the Minister on 25 Jan 2018), which amends Council’s | |
| |Stonnington and is of little aesthetic importance and no apparent | |Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04 to introduce a definition | |
| |historical significance at a local level as a stand-alone heritage | |for ‘significant’ heritage places as follows: ‘Significant| |
| |building. | |places’ means places of either state or local significance| |
| | | |including individually listed buildings and places in a | |
| | | |heritage precinct graded A1, A2 or B.” Therefore, “For | |
| | | |this Study, Council has confirmed that the threshold to be| |
| | | |applied when considering the heritage significance of | |
| | | |places subject to investigation is ‘Significant places’ as| |
| | | |per Clause 22.04 and ‘Local Significance’ as per PPN1.”. | |
| | | |The place is considered to meet the threshold for local | |
| | | |significance. | |
| | | |11. See point 6 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |11. In my view the house is more consistent with a C grading. | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |11. No change. |
|Heritage Strategy |12. This in my view is a poor strategy in the management of |Objection |12. The Study fits into a broader Heritage Strategy Action|12. No change. |
| |Stonnington’s heritage assets and a more macro view of heritage | |Plan that was adopted by Council in 2006. This provides a | |
| |controls in the form of a precinct would be a better heritage | |framework for Council to investigate places of heritage | |
| |outcome. | |significance not yet protected by the Heritage Overlay. | |
| | | |The inclusion of individual places into the Heritage | |
| | | |Overlay is a commonly accepted practice. Similar | |
| | | |Amendments (C249 and C222) have implemented the findings | |
| | | |of Heritage Studies that introduce controls to individual | |
| | | |places. Independent Planning Panels found both Amendments | |
| | | |to have a sound strategic basis is consistent with | |
| | | |Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay. | |
| | | |The subject Amendment also proposes to introduce two new | |
| | | |precincts into the Stonnington Planning Scheme. | |
| | | |13. Council has prepared and adopted a Heritage Strategy | |
| | | |Action Plan in December 2006. From this Council has | |
| | | |conducted a subsequent precinct gap study in 2009 and | |
| | | |implemented the findings through planning scheme | |
| | | |amendments. The Amendment also includes the introduction | |
| |13. I recommend that Council consider exploring precinct-based | |of two heritage precincts | |
| |Heritage Overlays and/or neighbourhood character overlays to manage| |14. Amendment C270 sits within this broader approach to | |
| |a broader number of heritage assets. | |applying the Heritage Overlay as outlined in the Heritage |13. No change. |
| | | |Strategy Action Plan 2006. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |14. Amendment C270 will provide piecemeal heritage controls to | | | |
| |random buildings. | | | |
| | | | |14. No change. |
|General Objection |15. A site-specific Heritage Overlay should not be applied to this |Objection |15. Noted. |15. No change. |
| |site. | | | |
|Submission 2: 11 A’Beckett Street Prahran (HO624) |
|Citation |1. The Citation is inaccurate |Objection |1. The owner of 11 A’Beckett Street after receiving the |1. Proceed with Amendment with |
| |a) The timber and metal fence is not original. It was constructed | |Citation for their property provided evidence to support |update to Citation. |
| |in March 1998. | |of their claim that the fence was not original and that | |
| | | |the existing period-style fence was installed in 1998. The| |
| | | |citation has been updated in response to the evidence | |
| | | |provided, removing reference to the fence from the | |
| | | |Statement of Significance and removing proposed fence | |
| | | |controls. The above minor change does not impact on the | |
| | | |assessment of the Federation dwelling as being of heritage| |
| | | |significance at the local level. | |
|Heritage |2. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s |Objection |2. The place has been assessed as having architectural and|2. No change. |
|Significance |Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (2015) | |aesthetic significance at the local level (Criterion D and| |
| |(Practice Note) establishes eight criterion from A to H to | |E). It is well established heritage practice – at both the| |
| |determine the heritage value of a place. The property’s Heritage | |local level through Planning Panels Victoria and the | |
| |Citation only mentions two of the eight. | |State-level through the Heritage Council of Victoria – | |
| | | |that a place is not required to meet the threshold for all| |
| | | |eight criterion to warrant heritage protection. Only one | |
| | | |criterion is required to be satisfied. | |
| | | |3. The place has not been assessed as being of historical | |
| |3. There are many Federation Queen Anne style houses in | |significance and is not considered rare. The citation for | |
| |Stonnington, only Criterion D should apply, rather than Criterion A| |the place identifies that it is considered to satisfy | |
| |(heritage significance) or Criterion B (rarity). | |Criterion D and E. |3. No change. |
| | | |4. The ‘Assessment against Criteria’ within the citation| |
| | | |identifies that the place has been assessed as meeting the| |
| |4. The justification for inclusion of the property in the proposed | |threshold for local significance as a fine, representative| |
| |Amendment is not made out because of the application of the | |example of a Federation house (Criterion D) and as a | |
| |Criterion (refer to point 4) | |carefully designed and well-resolved example of a | |
| | | |Federation house (Criterion E). |4. No change. |
|Submission 3: 32 Sutherland Road Armadale (HO597) |
|General Support |1. Support the Amendment. |Support |1. Noted. |1. No change. |
| |2. Support the application of the Heritage Overlay without tree | |2. Noted. Tree controls were not recommended for the place|2. No change. |
| |controls. | |as historically significant vegetation was not identified | |
| | | |on the site. | |
|Submission 4: 1121-1123 Dandenong Road Malvern East (HO619) |
|General Objection |1. Objects to the planning scheme amendment C270. |Objection |1. Noted |1. No change. |
|Submission 5: 32 Huntingtower Road (previously called 34 Huntingtower Road) Armadale (HO598) |
|General Objection |1. This property fails to meet the criteria for a property proposed|Objection |1. The place has been assessed as meeting the threshold |1. No change. |
| |for an individual HO. | |for local heritage significance as detailed in the | |
| | | |exhibited citation and in accordance with the Practice | |
| | | |Note (PPN1). As an unusual and intact example of a | |
| | | |Federation Arts and Crafts house, the dwelling plays an | |
| | | |important role in demonstrating the architectural | |
| | | |development of the City of Stonnington. The Lovell Chen | |
| | | |memo included with the submission was initially provided | |
| | | |to the consultant team (GJM Heritage) in October 2017 and | |
| | | |a response was provided to Council at that time. In | |
| | | |summary, while it is acknowledged that some additions have| |
| | | |been constructed and much of the roughcast render has been| |
| | | |removed, the place remains as an unusual and carefully | |
| | | |detailed example of a Federation Arts and Crafts house | |
| | | |that warrants inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. The | |
| | | |response was relayed to the owner via a phone | |
| | | |conversation. | |
| | | |2. Noted | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |2. No change. |
| |2. We request the property be removed from the proposed amendment. | | | |
|Universal Charter of|3. To impose the overlay would involve a breach of the Charters of |Objection |3. The application of the Heritage Overlay does not |3. No change. |
|Human Rights |Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 as it would be | |conflict the Universal Charter of Human Rights and the | |
| |inconsistent with our property rights, curtailing our rights to | |Responsibilities Act 2006. A property owner is still able | |
| |deal with our property. | |to adapt/develop their home for their future needs. | |
|Heritage |4. There are no valid grounds for imposing a site-specific Heritage|Objection |4. See response to point 1 above. |4. No change. |
|Significance |Overlay on this property: it is not of a level of heritage | | | |
| |significance to warrant a Heritage Overlay. | | | |
| |5. The council basis for proposing the Heritage Overlay is the | | | |
| |architectural significance as a Federation house in terms of its | |5. The ‘Integrity’ section within the citation notes that |5. No change. |
| |exterior. The council citation is fatally flawed, both factually | |the house has undergone alterations and additions. | |
| |and in its failure to give weight to the substantial renovations to| |However, it is considered that these changes do not | |
| |the exterior which have significantly altered its original | |diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the | |
| |architectural intent. Any relevant architectural significance has | |place as a fine example of a Federation house. | |
| |been lost. | | | |
| |6. Independent advice from Lovell Chen strongly supports this | | | |
| |submission to remove the property from the Amendment. | |6. See response to point 1 above. | |
| |7. The loss of roughcast has an impact on the dwelling and has | | | |
| |diminished its architectural value, which is the value on which the| | |6. No change. |
| |recommended Heritage Overlay controls is based. | |7. See response to points 1 and 5 above. | |
| |8. The citation places emphasis on the symmetry of the front | | | |
| |façade, this symmetry is significantly compromised by this addition| | |7. No change. |
| |to the front south room. | | | |
| |a) The front room extension has compromised the symmetry of the | | | |
| |house. | |8. See response to points 1 and 5 above. | |
| |9. The additions and alteration to the house are more than double | | | |
| |the size of the internal living spaces and extend the width of the | | |8. No change. |
| |house by approximately a third. | | | |
| |10. The front page assessment in the Citation of the property as | | | |
| |having “High” Integrity in the Statement of Significant is not | | | |
| |justifiable when a more balanced approach is taken. | |9. See response to points 1 and 5 above. | |
| |11. The conclusion under ‘integrity’ that the house retains a “high| | | |
| |degree of integrity” with reference to the fabric is not | | |9. No change. |
| |justifiable. | | | |
| |12. In the comparative analysis there were no other houses listed | |10. See response to points 1 and 5 above. | |
| |that have been compromised to the same level as 32 Huntingtower | | | |
| |Road. | | |10. No change. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |11. See response to points 1 and 5 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |11. No change. |
| | | |12. All places listed in the comparative analysis have | |
| | | |been changed and adapted to various extents, including the| |
| | | |construction of substantial rear additions, side |12. No change. |
| | | |additions, overpainting of previously unpainted facades | |
| | | |and the rebuilding of fences. For example, highly visible | |
| | | |additions have been constructed at 13a Monaro Road and 11 | |
| | | |Tintern Avenue. | |
|Heritage |13. The house cannot be viewed from the public realm. Therefore any|Objection |13. A number of places included in the Heritage Overlay of|13. No change. |
|Significance |Heritage Overlay will have no public or municipal benefit. | |the Stonnington Planning Scheme cannot be clearly viewed | |
|(alternative street | | |from the public realm. This does not impact on the | |
|view) | | |heritage significance of these places. When considering | |
| | | |whether a place should be protected in the Heritage | |
| | | |Overlay, the question to be answered is ‘is the place of | |
| | | |local heritage significance?’. If the answer is yes, then | |
| | | |the number of people who see it is not pertinent. There | |
| | | |are many places that are hidden from public view that are | |
| | | |of heritage significance and are therefore included in the| |
| | | |Heritage Overlay (or even the State Register). Further, it| |
| | | |is noted that modern fences and vegetation are not | |
| | | |necessarily permanent and could be removed by owners. | |
| | | |14. The rear additions and small verandah infill are both | |
| | | |visible from the south-west, however it is considered that| |
| | | |these do not impact on the significance of the place or | |
| | | |diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the | |
| | | |place as an unusual and intact example of a Federation | |
| |14. Additions and alterations dominate the view of the house from | |house. It is considered that these additions neither | |
| |the “equivalent” of a street view (view to the property if the | |dominate, nor detract from, the form of the original house|14. No change. |
| |fence was removed – see Figures 1 and 2 of the submission) | |when viewed from the south-west. Views from the north-east| |
| | | |are also important and provide clear views of the original| |
| | | |house | |
| | | |15. See response to 14 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |16. See response to 14 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |15. An examination of another angle is warranted as the view of the| | | |
| |house is dominated by subsequent alterations and additions. | | | |
| |16. The conclusion in the citation that the later alterations and | | | |
| |additions are not significant is not true when viewed from another | | |15. No change. |
| |angle. | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |16. No change. |
|Citation |17. The original citation made numerous references to the |Objection |17. A draft citation was prepared in June 2017 and was |17. No change |
| |roughcast/pebble dash render and its significance from a heritage | |provided to the owner as part of preliminary consultation.| |
| |perspective. There has been no explanation for this in the current | |This citation was prepared in the absence of a site | |
| |citation, further comment is needed. | |inspection, which had earlier been requested. The draft | |
| | | |citation made a number of assumptions based on available | |
| | | |documentary and photographic evidence. The owner granted | |
| | | |access to the property in July 2017 and the citation was | |
| | | |subsequently updated to reflect the physical inspection | |
| | | |carried out. The exhibited citation accurately reflects | |
| | | |the presentation of the existing building. | |
| | | |18. The infill on the southern return of the verandah | |
| | | |appears to be an early addition and does not impact on the| |
| | | |significance of the place. | |
| | | |a) Historic plans show that the verandah has always | |
| |18. Within the Place History section of the citation is the infill | |extended past the north and south elevations. | |
| |of the return verandah on the south side of the frontage. The | |b) Refer to point 14 above. |18. Image of the verandah infill |
| |frontage of the house is therefore neither original nor intact. | |c) Refer to point 14 above. |added to the citation and |
| |a) The front verandah now extends past the front room on the north | | |clarified in the Description. |
| |side of the frontage but not the south side. | | |a-c). No change |
| |b) All photos in the citation are taken from angles to avoid | | | |
| |showing this impact of the front room extension. | | | |
| |c) There needs to be further discussion regarding this matter other| |19. a) The removal of the roughcast render has been noted | |
| |than the one reference in the place history. | |but does not alter the assessment of overall significance | |
| |19. The citation states “later alterations and additions are not | |of the place. | |
| |significant”. This statement is dismissing: | |b) & c) Refer to point 14 above. | |
| |a) The removal of the rough cast render and its replacement with | | | |
| |modern flat render. | |20. The latticework across the front façade of the house |19. No change |
| |b) The extension of the footprint of the original house by the | |appears to be highly intact. | |
| |verandah infill | |21. Images are included in the citation to illustrate the | |
| |c) The two more recent renovations. | |significant heritage features of the place. | |
| |20. Front latticework is original but it is not intact, latticework| |22. Despite the alterations and additions, the house | |
| |at the rear is not original. | |clearly demonstrates characteristics of an unusual | |
| |21. More photos are needed to present the shortcomings of the | |Federation Arts and Crafts house. Refer to point 14 above.| |
| |property from a heritage perspective. | | | |
| |22. We have created a beautiful modern interpretation of the old | | |20. No change |
| |house and set it in a beautiful modern garden setting, but this is | | | |
| |not relevant to the appropriate heritage criteria. | | |21. No change |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |22. No change |
|Lovell Chen Heritage|23. Heritage Consultants Lovell Chen provided Council with a | |23. Regarding the integrity of the building please refer |23. Proceed with Amendment with |
|Review |response to Citation exhibited. They have argued that the | |to point 1 of this submission. With regards to points a – |changes |
| |historical character of the dwelling and its architectural | |f please see below: | |
| |expression has been significantly altered. This is a result of the | | | |
| |following changes made to the fabric of the place: | | | |
| |a) Removal of original south-east wing and replacement with three | |a. This is highlighted in the place history of the | |
| |gable roofed wings to the east. | |citation. The original south-east rear wing was demolished|a. No change. |
| | | |in c2002 and replaced with three gable roofed wings. The | |
| | | |memorandum describes this as a prominent extension, | |
| | | |however these wings are of a low-scale and are located at | |
| | | |the rear of the property. One wing extends minimally | |
| | | |beyond the south façade of the front part of the house. | |
| | | |The visibility of this addition from the street frontage | |
| | | |is minimal and unobtrusive and does not impact on the | |
| | | |ability to read and appreciate the original form and | |
| | | |volume of the dwelling, nor does it detrimentally impact | |
| | | |the integrity of the place. | |
| | | |b. The section of verandah along the south façade has been| |
| | | |infilled to enlarge the internal dimensions of the front | |
| | | |living room at an unknown date. Plans provided by Lovell | |
| | | |Chen indicate that this work was undertaken before 1948. | |
| |b) Infilling of verandah to the south side | |This is not a recent alteration, is unobtrusive and has | |
| | | |minimal impact on the overall integrity and legibility of | |
| | | |the place. |b. Please refer to point 18 of |
| | | |c. The original and distinctive rough cast render finish |this submission |
| | | |has unfortunately been removed from the walls of the house| |
| | | |and the columns which line the front verandah and this has| |
| | | |been replaced with smooth render. The original rough cast | |
| | | |render remains in the four front gable ends – two facing | |
| | | |the front of the property, one to the north and one to the| |
| | | |south. The original render finish was distinctive and its | |
| |c) Removal of rough cast (pebble dash) render from walls and | |removal and replacement with smooth render has impacted on| |
| |columns and replacement with smooth render | |the integrity of the place, resulting in the place being |c. No change. |
| | | |considered as having ‘high’ integrity instead of ‘very | |
| | | |high’ integrity. Aside from the render removal and | |
| | | |replacement, the form of the Federation house and its | |
| | | |distinctive elements such as the gable-end treatments, | |
| | | |chimney and latticework frieze remain highly intact. | |
| | | |Overall the property retains a high degree of intactness | |
| | | |to its original design and detailing. It is our view the | |
| | | |property warrants inclusion in the Heritage Overlay as a | |
| | | |locally significant heritage place. | |
| | | |d. This has been identified in the current citation. The | |
| | | |fernery has been removed from the north façade of the | |
| | | |house. Although the memorandum refers to this fernery as | |
| | | |appearing to be extant in a 1945 photograph, it is very | |
| | | |difficult to ascertain whether this is the case. 1948 | |
| | | |drawings indicate that it had been removed by this date. | |
| | | |Removal of a structure such as this is not unusual and | |
| | | |this does not have a significant impact on the integrity | |
| | | |of the place. | |
| | | |e. Internal changes made to accommodate two flats in 1948 | |
| | | |and 1949 are discussed in the memorandum as impacting on | |
| | | |the integrity of the place. Internal changes were not | |
| | | |considered when assessing the significance of the place | |
| | | |and internal controls are not proposed as part of the | |
| | | |recommendation to include the place in the Heritage | |
| |d) Removal of Fernery. | |Overlay. | |
| | | |f. External changes made to the north facade are noted in | |
| | | |the memorandum. These are detailed as two small additions |d. No change. |
| | | |shown on the 1999 auction plan provided. The memorandum | |
| | | |notes that these were removed in the early 2000s and | |
| | | |therefore they have no impact on the present integrity or | |
| | | |presentation of the place | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |e) Internal changes made during the late 1940s. | | | |
| | | | |e. No change. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |f) External changes made to north façade during the late 1940s. | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |f. No change. |
|Submission 6: 24 Millicent Avenue Toorak (HO632) |
|General Support |1. I fully support the decision to apply the Heritage Overlay to |Support |1. Noted. |1. No change. |
| |our property. | | | |
|Citation |2. 26 Millicent Avenue was bought by Mandeville Hall in July 1999 |Support |2. Agreed. This was noted in the place history from |2. No change. |
| |and since has been rented out. | |primary sources. | |
| |3. It is thought a Mr. Alf Butcher’s father had built these houses,| |3. Noted, however research has not confirmed this |3. No change. |
| |but this information cannot be verified. | |information. | |
| |4. Shortly after the purchase (1999) a fence was erected in front | | | |
| |of the bungalow but removed after Council became aware. | |4. Noted. |4. No change. |
| |5. When I (the owner of 24 Millicent Avenue) bought the property | | | |
| |the previous owner who had been living at the house in the | | | |
| |beginning said the picket fence had been there since the house was | |5. While this has not been confirmed, the citation can |5. Make minor edits to the |
| |constructed. | |note the possibility that the fence at 24 Millicent is |description and add information |
| |6. The fence at 26 Millicent had been built in the 1980s. | |original. |to the place history. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6. Make minor edits to the |
| | | |6. The citation can be updated accordingly. |description and add information |
| | | | |to the place history of no. 26 |
| | | | |Millicent. |
|Submission 7: 707 Malvern Road Toorak (HO631) |
|Heritage |1. The property does not meet the required standard for a site |Objection |1. The place has been assessed as meeting the threshold |1. No change. |
|Significance |specific heritage control and is not individually significant. | |for local significance on an individual basis, as detailed| |
| | | |in the citation and in accordance with the Practice Note. | |
| | | |As a well-resolved and highly intact example of a | |
| | | |Federation house, the subject place plays an important | |
| | | |role in demonstrating architectural development within the| |
| | | |City of Stonnington. | |
| | | |2. The ‘Integrity’ section within the citation notes that | |
| | | |the house has undergone some alterations and additions. | |
| |2. The property is not highly intact. | |However, it is considered that these changes do not | |
| | | |diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the |2. As above. |
| | | |place as a fine example of a Federation house. | |
| | | |3. See point 2 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |4. It is accepted that there are many examples of | |
| |3. The exterior of the building has been altered with the | |Federation style houses in the City of Stonnington and | |
| |alterations visible from the public realm. | |that this place is not a “stand-alone example”. As part of|3. As above. |
| |4. The property is not a stand-alone example of the era identified | |the study, a number of Federation houses were identified | |
| |by the proposed Amendment. | |and assessed as satisfying the threshold for local | |
| | | |heritage significance, including the subject place. The |4. As above. |
| | | |subject place has been assessed as being a fine and | |
| | | |representative example of a Federation house reflecting | |
| | | |the Queen Anne style. | |
| | | |5. The citation includes a comparative analysis which | |
| | | |concludes that the place is of significance as a | |
| | | |representative and intact example of the Federation Queen | |
| | | |Anne style when compared with similar examples in the City| |
| | | |of Stonnington. | |
| | | | | |
| |5. There is no comparative assessment which supports the inclusion | | | |
| |of the property. | | | |
| | | | |5. As above. |
|Submission 8: 15 Burke Road Malvern East (HO634) |
|General Objection |1. I am writing to oppose to the amendment and would like the |Objection |1. The Amendment does not propose to change the zoning of |1. No change. |
| |zoning unchanged. | |the land and it is understood that Overlay was the | |
| | | |intended word. The precinct along Burke Road has been | |
| | | |assessed as part of a comprehensive analysis of Federation| |
| | | |Places within the Municipality and has met the threshold | |
| | | |for heritage significance. | |
|Restriction on |2. The property is only within a small pocket in the heart of |Objection |2. Please refer to Submission 16, point 2. |2. No change. |
|future development |Caulfield station and is on a main road. | | | |
| |3. The properties (Burke Road Precinct) do not appear to be in a | |3. The citation does not infer that the defined precinct |3. No change. |
| |position of a preserved neighbourhood street. | |forms part of a neighbourhood of significance or a broader| |
| | | |heritage streetscape. The heritage assessment concludes | |
| | | |that the precinct, containing 10 properties, is of local | |
| | | |heritage significance, irrespective of its broader | |
| | | |context. | |
| | | |4. See Submission 16 point 2. Many heritage places within | |
| |4. The main street (Burke Road) has very heavy traffic and will be | |Stonnington are located within activity centres and the | |
| |a neighbourhood centre for business activity like shops and | |Heritage Overlay allows for the adaptive reuse of these |4. No change. |
| |restaurants in the future. | |heritage buildings for both residential and commercial | |
| | | |uses subject to the requirements of the zone and other | |
| | | |applicable planning controls. | |
| | | |5. The retention of heritage assets within the | |
| | | |Municipality will have a net community benefit. | |
| |5. The Heritage Overlay will restrain the well-being of this | | | |
| |neighbourhood in the long run. | | | |
| | | | |5. No change. |
|Submission 9: 45 Lansell Road Toorak (HO630) |
|Heritage |1. Our client opposes the inclusion of the Property in the Heritage|Objection |1. The place has been assessed as meeting the threshold |1. No change. |
|Significance |Overlay on the basis that the Kinkell house does not meet the | |for local significance on an individual basis, as detailed| |
| |threshold for local significance to the City of Stonnington. | |in the citation and in accordance with the Practice Note. | |
| | | |As a fine and representative example of a Federation | |
| | | |Bungalow, with significant associations with architect | |
| | | |Christopher Cowper, the place plays an important role in | |
| | | |demonstrating architectural development within the City of| |
| | | |Stonnington. | |
| | | |2. See point 1 above. | |
| | | | | |
| |2. While a good example of a “broadly defined” Federation Bungalow | | | |
| |house in the area, it does not have sufficient local architectural | | |2. No change. |
| |aesthetic or historic significance to justify its inclusion in the | | | |
| |Heritage Overlay. | |3. The ‘Integrity’ section within the citation notes that | |
| |3. The alterations and renovations to the property contrast to the | |the house has undergone some alterations and additions. | |
| |high integrity of the neighbouring Cowper designed house at 49 | |However, it is considered that these changes do not | |
| |Lansell Road. | |diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the |3. No change. |
| | | |place as a fine example of a Federation house. The | |
| | | |consultant team was aware of the heritage dwelling at 49 | |
| | | |Lansell Road (also designed by Cowper), however, as a | |
| | | |two-story Federation dwelling drawing on a range of | |
| | | |stylistic sources including Bungalow and Arts and Crafts, | |
| | | |it was not considered to be directly comparable. | |
| | | |4. The house was designed by architect Christopher Cowper | |
| | | |and it falls within the body of work produced by this | |
| | | |well-known architect who practiced in the early | |
| | | |twentieth-century. Christopher Cowper was particularly | |
| |4. The argument for associational significance is particularly | |well-known for his Queen Anne style houses, and it is | |
| |weak, as there is no reason to ascribe special associational | |asserted that ‘Kinkell’ – as an example of the Federation | |
| |significance to 45 Lansell Road above and beyond any of Cowper’s | |Bungalow style – clearly demonstrates his stylistic | |
| |other houses. There is no evidence that Cowper lived in the house, | |development in the later Federation period. |4. No change. |
| |or that the house played any significant role in his architectural | | | |
| |practice. | | | |
|Heritage |5. The Study, upon which the Amendment C270 is based, is weak and |Objection |5. The comparative examples provided in the citation are |5. No change. |
|Significance |the comparative analysis between the Property and others in the | |included in site-specific Heritage Overlays in the City of| |
|(Comparative |area is insufficient. | |Stonnington Planning Scheme as individually significant | |
|Analysis) |a) There are only two Federation Bungalows mentioned in the | |examples of the Federation Bungalow style. We consider the| |
| |comparative analysis, but there are many more examples in the City | |house at 45 Lansell Road compares directly with these | |
| |of Stonnington. | |examples and clearly demonstrates characteristics of the | |
| |b) The advice (by Trenthowan) identifies 12 comparative examples in| |Federation Bungalow style. These characteristics are | |
| |the area which could have been analysed in the Study. | |clearly identified in the citation. The other 10 examples | |
| |c) If a further more comprehensive assessment were undertaken, it | |provided in the Trenthowan advice include: | |
| |would be clear that the inclusion of the Property in the Heritage | |• Ballara, 49 Lansell Road (HO160) which is considered an | |
| |Overlay is not warranted. | |atypical example of the Federation Bungalow style due to | |
| | | |its two-storey form; | |
| | | |• Six houses within identified heritage precincts and | |
| | | |therefore not subject to site-specific controls; and | |
| | | |• Three houses which currently have no heritage protection| |
| | | |(and are proposed to be included in the Heritage Overlay | |
| | | |through C270). | |
| | | |The properties shown at Figures 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13) | |
| | | |are also comparable in style, form and detail with the | |
| | | |house at 45 Lansell Road and provide additional comparison| |
| | | |to confirm inclusion of the subject place in the Heritage | |
| | | |Overlay rather than provide evidence for it not to be | |
| | | |included. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |6. See point 5 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |6. The comparative analysis provided as part of the citation is | |7. a) In terms of style and accomplishment the place is | |
| |poor. There are only two Federation Bungalows mentioned in the | |considered to compare directly with similar places already| |
| |comparative analysis. There are many more examples of this style | |included in the Heritage Overlay within the City of | |
| |and scale of house in the City of Stonnington Heritage Overlay | |Stonnington. The place has been stylistically | |
| |Areas. | |characterised by its broad range of characteristics and |6. No change. |
| |7. In terms of aesthetic architectural significance as a | |architectural details. The presence of an expansive | |
| |representation of the Federation Bungalow style, the subject | |verandah is not a requirement for places of this style to | |
| |property does not stand out from other examples within the City of | |meet the threshold of local significance – as exemplified | |
| |Stonnington. | |by the places identified in the Trethowan comparative | |
| |a) Besides being less intact than these examples, the subject | |analysis. | |
| |property also lacks the expansive verandah associated with the | |b) The house at 49 Lansell Road is a substantial, |7. No change. |
| |Bungalow style such as the house at 1 Spring Street Malvern | |two-storey house which is highly intact. It displays | |
| |(HO336). | |characteristics of the Federation Bungalow style, however | |
| |b) The nearby house designed by Cowper is a more substantial and | |it is an atypical example of the style. More typical | |
| |intact representative of his work already protected by the Heritage| |examples of the style are single-storey with a windowed | |
| |Overlay. It is unclear how the subject property can be said to | |roof space, as displayed at the subject place. Both houses| |
| |‘more clearly display’ the transition from Queen Anne to Federation| |demonstrate different characteristics of the style and | |
| |Bungalow style. | |both should be included in the Heritage Overlay. | |
| |c) Cowper’s work is already well represented in the Stonnington | |c) It is acknowledged that a number of houses by this | |
| |Heritage Overlay. | |well-known architect are included in the Heritage Overlay,| |
| | | |particularly Federation Queen Anne style houses within | |
| | | |heritage precincts. Places included in a Heritage Overlay,| |
| | | |designed by a particular architect, are not limited in | |
| | | |number. | |
|Citation |8. The application of the Heritage Overlay to “outbuilding to the |Objection |8. Noted. This section of the house is set back behind a |8. Amend terminology in citation |
| |north of dwelling” is a clear error in the Study and highlights | |high fence and its intersection with the main dwelling was|to remove reference to |
| |that it is clearly deficient. | |not clear during inspection from the public realm. In |‘outbuilding’. Remove outbuilding|
| |a) There is no outbuilding on the property. (please refer to photos| |light of material provided, we acknowledge this structure |controls. |
| |in submission) | |should be updated to refer to a small room projecting off | |
| |b) Outbuilding controls should be removed. | |the north elevation. This will be amended throughout the | |
| | | |citation and outbuilding controls will be removed. | |
| | | |9. a) The citation states that the garage does not | |
| | | |contribute to the significance of the place. It is our | |
| |9. Modifications to the property include | |assessment that the garage does not diminish the ability |9. No change. |
| |a) Large and distracting modern garage in front of the property. | |to understand and appreciate the place as a fine example | |
| |b) Removal of original garage and outhouse at rear and installation| |of a Federation bungalow. | |
| |of a swimming pool | |b-d) the alterations and additions to the rear and | |
| |c) Addition of a rear extension early in the house’s history | |interior of the house do not impact on the significance of| |
| |d) Renovation of the kitchen and some other internal rooms in more | |the place. No internal controls are proposed for the | |
| |recent history | |property. | |
| |e) Contemporary landscaping | |e) Contemporary landscaping is common at heritage places | |
| |f) Addition of new second entry to the fence through one of the | |and does not reduce the significance of the place. No tree| |
| |original bays. | |controls are proposed. | |
| | | |f) The citation records that a permit for a brick fence | |
| | | |was granted in 1988. The fence along the front boundary is| |
| | | |understood not to be original. | |
|Cost burden to |10. While Heritage Overlays are important to ensure that local |Objection |10. Council is obligated to identify and protect heritage |10. No change. |
|owners. |heritage assets are protected, it is also important that Councils | |assets within Stonnington under the Planning and | |
| |seek to avoid the perception that heritage controls are a | |Environment Act 1987. The property has been included in a | |
| |negatively bureaucratic burden that inhibit people trying to look | |comprehensive heritage study and was found to meet the | |
| |after or improve their properties. | |threshold for individual significance. | |
| |a) It is always necessary to achieve a balance between the outcome | |a. The Amendment will achieve a net community benefit by | |
| |of heritage controls and the cost associated with achieving it. | |ensuring heritage places are protected. | |
| |b) Given the low local significance of the Property, we consider | |b. The Planning Scheme provides opportunity for owners of | |
| |that the burden that would be placed on us would outweigh any | |heritage places to adapt and redevelop their homes for | |
| |limited benefits of protecting it. | |future needs. All properties regardless of heritage status| |
| | | |require maintenance and upkeep. Previous Planning Panels | |
| | | |of a similar nature have found that the economic impact | |
| | | |tests does not apply on a site-by-site basis. | |
|Heritage Grading |11. The qualities of the house might have contributed towards a |Objection |11. As set out in the citation, the place has been |11. No change. |
| |broader heritage precinct in this case Lansell Road, Towers Road | |assessed as satisfying Criterion D (architectural | |
| |and St Georges Road. These Streets however have been compromised by| |significance), Criterion E (aesthetic significance) and | |
| |varied and dominating modern developments and defacements and as | |Criterion H (associative significance) at a local level on| |
| |such are no longer intact. | |an individual basis. It is agreed that there is no case | |
| | | |for a broader heritage precinct in the immediate area. | |
|Submission 10: National Trust |
|General Support |1. The National Trust of Victoria supports Planning Scheme |Support |1. Noted. |1. Proceed with Amendment. |
| |Amendment C270. | | |2. No change. |
| |2. The National Trust acknowledges that the Amendment C270 is | |2. Noted | |
| |consistent with the objectives of planning for Victoria. | | | |
| |3. The unique heritage character of many homes and neighbourhoods | | |3. No Change. |
| |in Stonnington are highly valued by local residents and the wider | |3. Noted | |
| |community, so amendments such as these are essential to ensure | | | |
| |residential properties that are of cultural heritage significance | | | |
| |are not vulnerable to unsympathetic redevelopment or demolition. | | | |
|Submission 11: 36 Lansell Road Toorak (HO629) |
|Heritage |1. The fact that a house was constructed in 1904 does not itself |Objection |1. The citation does not infer that the place is |1. No change. |
|Significance |give the building any significance other than the date of original | |significant solely due to its construction date. The date | |
| |construction. No doubt there was a large range of homes built in | |does determine that the house was constructed during the | |
| |Melbourne in 1904 so the date of construction is irrelevant to any | |Federation period. | |
| |particular style or character. | | | |
| |2. The house was very substantially renovated in the 1980’s with | |2. The property has limited visibility from the public | |
| |the construction of a roof terrace, a glass cabana, double garage | |realm and access to the property was requested by Council |2. No change. |
| |and substantial air conditioning plant and equipment that have none| |but was not provided. Details relating to the alterations | |
| |of the characteristics of houses constructed in 1904. | |and additions were compiled using available imagery and a | |
| | | |review of planning and property files. The known additions| |
| | | |and alterations are documented throughout the citation. | |
| | | |The ‘Integrity’ section notes that the house has undergone| |
| | | |alterations and additions, particularly to the rear of the| |
| | | |house. However, on the basis of available information, it | |
| | | |is considered that these do not impact on the significance| |
| | | |of the place or diminish the ability to understand and | |
| | | |appreciate the place as a fine example of a Federation | |
| | | |house. | |
| | | |3. Internal controls are not recommended for the place, | |
| | | |therefore, alterations and additions to the interior of | |
| | | |the house do not impact on its significance. Chimneys, as | |
| |3. All the fire places in the building have been disconnected and | |visible from the exterior of the house, contribute to its | |
| |the 2 remaining chimneys serve nothing and are failing and should | |significance. Changes that are required to address | |
| |be removed before they collapse and cause damage or injury. | |structural and other matters are appropriately dealt with | |
| | | |through a permit process or under the Building Act 1993, |3. No change. |
| | | |if relevant. | |
| | | |4. A number of places included in the Heritage Overlay of | |
| | | |the Stonnington Planning Scheme cannot be clearly viewed | |
| | | |from the public realm. This does not impact on the | |
| |4. The house is not visible from the road. There is a high front | |heritage significance of these places. When considering | |
| |fence for privacy and security reasons. | |whether a place should be protected on the Heritage | |
| | | |Overlay, the question to be answered is ‘is the place of | |
| | | |local heritage significance?’. If the answer is yes, then | |
| | | |the number of people who see it is not pertinent. There | |
| | | |are many places that are hidden from public view that are |4. No change. |
| | | |of heritage significance and are therefore included in the| |
| | | |Heritage Overlay (or even on the State Register). Further,| |
| | | |it is noted that modern fences and vegetation are not | |
| | | |necessarily permanent and could be removed by owners. | |
| | | |5. See point 4 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |5. The garden in front of the house contains numerous and very | |6. Based on the available information, the subject place | |
| |large trees that overshadow and shield the house and further | |has been determined to be a fine and representative | |
| |restrict any view from the roadway. The setback of the house from | |example of a house displaying the Federation Arts and | |
| |the road is 35 metre and it has little or no visual impact from the| |Crafts architectural style with Art Nouveau detailing. | |
| |roadway and therefore contributes no heritage ambience to the area | |These architectural elements are described in the | |
| |whatsoever. | |citation. It is understood that the 1980s works addressed | |
| |6. If there is anything about the front of the house that has | |the interior and were predominantly focussed on the rear |5. No change. |
| |Federation Era characteristics they are minor and do not justify | |of the house. Based on the available information, it is | |
| |classifying a whole building much of which was rebuilt in 1980’s. | |considered that these alterations and additions do not | |
| |If there is anything special about the facia it could be easily | |diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the | |
| |reproduced today with correct building techniques | |place as a fine example of a Federation house. Great value| |
| | | |is placed on original fabric of historic houses in | |
| | | |Australia, as opposed to modern imitations. As stated in | |
| | | |the Statement of Significance, ‘Elements that contribute | |
| | | |to the significance of the place include (but are not | |
| | | |limited to): |6. No change. |
| | | |- The house’s original external form, materials and | |
| | | |detailing [and] | |
| | | |- The house’s high level of integrity to its original | |
| | | |design.’ | |
| | | |7. See point 6 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |8. See point 6 above. | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |7. The roof gables are said to be of some relevance but there is, | | | |
| |currently under construction near the corner of Lansell and Toorak | | | |
| |road a new building with identical roof gables. This confirms the | | | |
| |lack of historical significance of the roof gables or the ease with| |9. The Statement of Significance for 36 Lansell Road, | |
| |which they can be constructed with today’s technology. | |Toorak, could not apply to the modern houses noted. The | |
| |8. The roof tiles are also said to have some historical | |Statement of Significance is a summary of the heritage | |
| |significance. This claim that they are of significance has no | |value of the place, as informed by expert assessment based| |
| |substance as most of the population would not be able to | |on the HERCON Criteria. | |
| |distinguish between terracotta tiles and concrete tiles used | | | |
| |throughout the neighbourhood. | |10. As noted in the Statement of Significance, | |
| |9. Under “Why” in the Statement of Significance the same statements| |collectively, ‘The house’s original external form, | |
| |could be made about the new house at 9 Tower Road and the new house| |materials and detailing’ contribute to the significance of|7. No change. |
| |at 39-41 St Georges Road. The statements add nothing to the | |the place. A site visit was requested to view the house | |
| |significance of 36 Lansell Road other than it’s a grand house in | |and its details, however no response was received from the| |
| |keeping with many others in the area. | |owner. Site access will enable details in the citation to | |
| |10. The Federation characteristics of 36 Lansell Road listed on | |be corrected if they are inaccurate. | |
| |page 383 (Volume 2) of the citation are not correct and have little| |11. It is agreed that there is no heritage significance or| |
| |significance. There is nothing special about “rendered brick walls”| |heritage character that can be attributed to the area as a| |
| |when they are in fact painted walls. A small “fish scale shingle | |whole, however this does not mean that individual houses |8. No change. |
| |clad window hood” does not turn a large Toorak home into a | |can be – and are – of heritage significance. | |
| |historical treasure that must be preserved. | | | |
| | | |12. The property is considered to be of architectural and | |
| |11. In a recent appeal to VCAT concerning a planning application | |aesthetic significance to the City of Stonnington, as | |
| |for a unit development in nearby Hill Street, a Council Officer | |governed by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the | |
| |argued that there was no particular character or ambience in the | |Stonnington Planning Scheme. The place has not been |9. No change. |
| |area other than large homes. The suggestion that the area should | |assessed as warranting protection at the State-level under| |
| |now be dotted with Heritage Overlays is a total contradiction of | |the Heritage Act 2017. | |
| |the Council’s recent arguments. | | | |
| |12. The house at 36 Lansell Road does not meet the level of | | | |
| |significance necessary to be subjected to the provisions of the | | | |
| |heritage Act. | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |10. No change unless site access |
| | | | |can confirm details. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |11. No change. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |12. No change. |
|Citation |13. The Locality History in the Citation have nothing to do with |Objection |13. A Locality History provides a historical context for |13. No change. |
| |any significance of 36 Lansell Road or other properties within the | |the place and is a standard element of a heritage | |
| |area. The history of the total area has no specific relevance to | |assessment, allowing the place to be understood within the| |
| |one particular house. | |broader history of the area. | |
| |14. The Place History in the citation is interesting as are many | |14. The Place History is an important element of a | |
| |other properties in Stonnington. It does not however add to the | |heritage assessment as it documents the history of the |14. No change. |
| |heritage significance of the property at 36 Lansell Road Toorak. | |property and identifies any historical values or important| |
| | | |historical associations which informs the assessment of | |
| | | |heritage significance. | |
|Heritage Strategy |15. The idea that heritage needs to be preserved is currently under|Objection |15. The question of process of applying the Heritage |15. No change. |
| |critical review. There are no demonstrable substantial humanitarian| |Overlay and the benefit of protecting heritage is beyond | |
| |benefits from making 36 Lansell Road Toorak subject to a Heritage | |the scope of this Amendment. | |
| |Overlay. The process needs to be critically reviewed. | | | |
|Restrictions on |16. The proposed Heritage Overlay will prohibit me from utilising |Objection |16. Many ancillary services or equipment are exempt from |16. No change. |
|Future Development |the rapid technological advancements such as solar energy, thermal | |requiring a permit under Section 62.02. While the Heritage| |
| |insulation, hydraulic lifts and etc. The Heritage Overlay will | |Overlay does not prohibit an owner to construct or carry | |
| |prohibit me from installing these technologies. | |out works for ancillary services or equipment on a | |
| | | |heritage property, a permit is required for external | |
| | | |works. | |
| |17. The imposition of the Heritage Overlay denies Toorak the | |17. The purpose of the Heritage Overlay is to ensure that | |
| |opportunity to have constructed some of the stunning pieces of | |places of heritage significance are retained. One of the | |
| |residential architecture. | |criteria used to assess heritage buildings is |17. No change. |
| | | |architectural significance. By applying the Heritage | |
| | | |Overlay to buildings the City of Stonnington is retaining | |
| | | |buildings of heritage significance. | |
|Universal Charter of|18. The proposed Heritage Overlay is a breach of the Universal |Objection |18. Please refer to Submission 5, point 3 |18. No change. |
|Human Rights |Charter for human rights. Particularly Articles 7, 12 and 17 | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Compensation |19. The proposed Heritage Overlay will in effect seize my home | |19. Refer to Submission 21, point 5. |19. No change. |
| |without compensation for the supposed benefit of the community. | | | |
| |This is contrary to the law and the general notion that a citizen’s| | | |
| |property should not be seized without just compensation. | | | |
|Heritage Overlay |20. There are 2 separate titles for the property at 36 Lansell |Objection |20. Historical plans and titles indicate that the property|20. Make minor edits to the |
|Curtilage |Road. I (the owner) purchased the title at the rear that was a | |originally extended to the laneway to the east. It appears|history to detail title |
| |vacant block in 1994. There is nothing on this separate title that | |that consolidation with neighbouring land to the north |information. Amend the Heritage |
| |in any way justifies its inclusion in any Heritage Overlay. | |occurred in 1975 followed by subdivision in 1979. Given |Overlay boundary to exclude Lot |
| | | |the disjointed historical ownership of the rear lot and |2/PS 335747. |
| | | |the lack of heritage fabric on it, it is agreed that this | |
| | | |lot can be removed from the Heritage Overlay curtilage. | |
|Submission 12: 5 Haverbrack Avenue, Malvern (HO614) |
|Citation |1. The assessment of the dwelling makes no reference to |Objection |1. Following a meeting with the owner on 28 November 2017,|1. Update citation to note the |
| |overpainting of the brickwork or the modern leadlight windows | |the citation was amended to note the overpainted |modern leadlight windows in |
| |installed throughout the house. These have diminished the | |brickwork. The citation will be further updated to note |addition to changes made |
| |intactness and integrity of the dwelling and undermine the | |the modern leadlight windows, however the lead lighting |following a meeting with the |
| |suggestion that 5 Haverbrack Avenue is a highly intact example of a| |was not specifically noted as a contributing element in |owner. |
| |Federation home. | |the Statement of Significance due to the lack of clarity | |
| | | |around the authenticity of this feature. The ‘Integrity’ | |
| | | |section confirms that ‘while the house has undergone some | |
| | | |alterations and additions, these do not diminish the | |
| | | |ability to understand and appreciate the place as a fine | |
| | | |example of a Federation house.’ | |
| | | |2. The Statement of Significance notes that ‘Later | |
| | | |alterations and additions, such as additions to the rear | |
| | | |and the side garage and carport, are not significant.’ The| |
| |2. The citation makes reference to a number of modern elements | |citation does not infer that these modern elements |2. No change. |
| |including the garden and outbuildings. These do not contribute to | |contribute to the significance of the place. | |
| |the significance of the building as identified by Council’s | | | |
| |consultants. | | | |
|Heritage Grading |3. A2 graded buildings are defined as being of regional or |Objection |3. Please refer to Submission 1A point 10. |3. No change. |
| |metropolitan significance and standing as important milestones in | | | |
| |the architectural development of the metropolis. The dwelling at | | | |
| |no. 5 Haverbrack Avenue is substantial but reasonably commonplace | | | |
| |type of dwelling which does not form an important milestone in the | | | |
| |development of the metropolis. On this basis the A2 grading | | | |
| |overstates the significance of the house. | | | |
| |4. It is a building which makes an architectural and historical | | | |
| |contribution that is important within the local area. In this light| | | |
| |it is more consistent with Council’s definition for B graded | | | |
| |buildings. | |4. See point 3. |4. No change. |
|Submission 12A: 5 Haverbrack Avenue Malvern (HO614) |
|Heritage |1. The Property is not ‘highly intact’. The following changes are | |1. Points a-i and k-l refer to changes that have been made|1. No change. |
|Significance |demonstrated by the 1987 Alexander Metherell drawings – | |to the rear of the house which would be acceptable under |j) Make minor edits to place |
|(Intactness) |a) Windows on the west side of the laundry bricked up; | |Council’s Heritage Guidelines and do not impact on the |history regarding summer house. |
| |b) Window on the north side of the laundry replaced with external | |significance of the place. | |
| |door; | |j) The citation to be edited to note the date of summer | |
| |c) Change to the shape of a window in the room to the south of the | |house and associated pool, and that they remain. | |
| |laundry | | | |
| |d) Replacement of a door with a window in the northern wall of the | | | |
| |north-eastern room; | | | |
| |e) Bricking in a window in the east side of the north-eastern room;| | | |
| |f) Removal of a chimney in the area of the old sunroom at the rear;| | | |
| |g) Changes to rear, including skillion roofed addition; | | | |
| |h) Addition of a verandah to the rear; | | | |
| |i) A completely new double carport; | | | |
| |j) A completely new pool summer-house (c.f. the citation say sat | | | |
| |page 4 ‘alterations to the summer house’). The summer house remains| | | |
| |(Council’s citation says ‘not confirmed if remains’); | | | |
| |k) Construction of a pool and spa | | | |
| |l) Consequent and significant changes to the level of the back | | | |
| |garden. | | | |
| |2. The following has also diminished the intactness of the house – | | | |
| |a) All red bricks have been painted (over painting in white had | | | |
| |occurred before the 1987 renovations when the colour was changed). | | | |
| |b) Replacement of leadlight in windows to the front of dwelling | | | |
| |(1987 renovations) | | | |
| |c) Large area of new slates (2014) | | | |
| | | |2. a-b) See submission 12 point 1. | |
| | | |c) Necessary repair and replacement of like for like |2. No change |
| | | |fabric is accepted heritage practice and does not diminish| |
| | | |the significance of the place. | |
|Heritage |3. The property does not satisfy Criterion D | |3. a) It is agreed that “Federation architecture” |3. No change. |
|Significance (HERCON|a) Federation architecture is a particularly broad church (includes| |encompasses a number of more discrete styles (including | |
|Criterion) |row houses, churches, post offices and etc.). Therefore the extent | |Queen Anne, Bungalow, and Arts and Crafts for residential | |
| |to which any single building can represent the great variety of | |buildings) and that it was also not uncommon for dwelling | |
| |buildings executed in the Federation Mode is limited. | |designs to incorporate elements from a variety of these | |
| | | |discrete styles. The principal characteristics of this | |
| | | |class of place (Federation dwelling) will therefore be | |
| | | |demonstrated in a variety of buildings, including the | |
| |b) References to a ‘sense of grandeur demonstrating the status of | |subject dwelling. | |
| |the owner’ is not relevant to this criterion. The high status of | |b) The quality of both the design and the materials used | |
| |the owner as evidenced through fine materials and detailing is not | |has resulted in the creation of a fine example of the | |
| |a typical or representative feature of Federation architecture. | |Federation Queen Anne style. | |
| | | |4. a) Please refer to Submission 18 point 7 | |
| |4. The property does not satisfy Criterion E. | |b) The subject building is a well-resolved, richly | |
| |a) Council’s Citation notes, at page 4, ‘no architect has been | |decorated and highly intact example of a Federation Queen | |
| |determined’. It is understood the house (together with another in | |Anne dwelling. The other examples cited are not as | |
| |Haverbrack Avenue) was built by a speculative builder, without an | |well-resolved architecturally, do not demonstrate the same|4. No change. |
| |architect. | |range and complexity of features and/or are not as intact | |
| |b) Complex roof forms, projecting gable-end bays, tall chimneys, | |as the subject building. | |
| |rich timber detailing and decorative tiling are commonplace | | | |
| |features of Federation era brick villas. The features of the house | | | |
| |are not, in combination, more refined or picturesque than a number | | | |
| |of other houses not recommended for Heritage Overlay, including 2 | | | |
| |Erskine St Armadale, 33-35 Huntingtower Rd Armadale, 18 Sutherland | | | |
| |Rd Armadale, 1532-1534 Malvern Rd Glen Iris, 21 Wilson St Glen Iris| | | |
| |and 16 Burke Rd Malvern East. | | | |
|Citation |5. Inaccuracies in the citation include; | |5. a) The description can be edited to remove reference to|5. a) Make minor edits to the |
| |a) Apart from one small tree immediately on entry, the garden has | |a mature garden. |Description regarding the date of|
| |been planted since 1992 (Council Heritage Citation says, at page 5 | |b) This point was amended following the meeting with the |the garden plantings. |
| |‘set within mature gardens’) | |owner in November 2017. |b) No change beyond minor updates|
| |b) The front fence, which was erected during the 1987 renovations, | | |made in November 2017. |
| |is metal and brick (not timber and brick as Council’s Heritage | | | |
| |Citation notes at page 5). | | | |
|Submission 13: 41 Thanet Street Malvern (11d Dixon Street Malvern) (HO617) |
|General Support |1. We strongly support the proposed amendment to include 41 Thanet |Support |1. Noted. |1. No change. |
| |Street in the Heritage Overlay. | | | |
| |2. The application of the Heritage Overlay will ensure that | | | |
| |inappropriate development does not occur on the property and that | | | |
| |the house is retained. | |2. Noted |2. No change. |
| |3. This proposal (C270) is a great initiative not just for 41 | | | |
| |Thanet but for all of the properties included and for the area in | | | |
| |general. | | | |
| | | |3. Noted. |3. No change. |
|Submission 14: 1 Golden Quadrant Glen Iris (HO606) |
|Cost burden to |1. The house itself is not in good condition. Lots of work would be|Objection |1. Private financial costs are outside the scope of this |1. No change. |
|Resident |required to restore and maintain the house. | |Amendment. | |
| |2. The financial costs associated with restoring the property would| | | |
| |be detrimental to the owners. | |2. Private financial costs are outside the scope of this |2. No change. |
| | | |Amendment. However a permit is not required for works, | |
| | | |repairs or maintenance that does not change the appearance| |
| | | |of the heritage place and uses the same materials and | |
| | | |specifications. It is noted that the Heritage Overlay does| |
| | | |not prevent redevelopment, including restorations and | |
| | | |additions. | |
|Does not align with |3. Houses on either side of the house and across the road are | |3. The recommendation is to apply an individual Heritage |3. No changes. |
|development pattern |modern. Any modern alterations or additions would not adversely | |Overlay rather than a precinct. The place meets the | |
| |affect the character of the neighbourhood. | |threshold for individual significance and surrounding | |
| | | |development does not impact its significance. Any proposed| |
| | | |changes / alterations to the property will be considered | |
| | | |and assessed against the heritage policy and Guidelines. | |
|Citation |4. There have been quite a few alterations made to the house since |Objection |4. The development stages of the house were investigated |4. Make further minor edits to |
| |the plan that was included in the citation. | |during the assessment process and during an on-site |the citation to note locations of|
| | | |meeting with the owner in December 2017. The alterations |additions. |
| | | |and additions are primarily to the rear of the house and | |
| | | |the citation has been updated accordingly. The ‘Integrity’| |
| | | |section of the citation confirms that ‘While the house has| |
| | | |undergone some alterations and additions, these do not | |
| | | |diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the | |
| | | |place as a fine example of a Federation house.’ | |
|Submission 15: 1334 High Street Malvern (HO615) |
|Heritage |1. An individual site-specific Heritage Overlay is said to be |Objection |1. Agreed. |1. No change. |
|Significance |warranted because the house on the Land is of ‘architectural and | | | |
| |aesthetic significance to the City of Stonnington’ as ‘a fine and | | | |
| |highly intact example of a Federation house’. The house is said to | | | |
| |strongly reflect the Federation ‘Queen Anne’ style. | | | |
| |2. There are many examples of fine Federation houses in the City of| | | |
| |Stonnington and to identify this house without a comprehensive | | | |
| |comparative survey does not justify such a recommendation | |2. It is agreed that there are many examples of Federation|2. No change. |
| | | |style houses in the City of Stonnington. As part of this | |
| | | |study, a number of these were identified and assessed as | |
| | | |being of particular heritage significance, including the | |
| | | |subject place. The subject place has been assessed as a | |
| | | |fine and highly intact example of a Federation house. The | |
| | | |place was compared with Federation Queen Anne style houses| |
| | | |already included in the City of Stonnington Heritage | |
| | | |Overlay on an individual basis and the comparative | |
| | | |analysis is contained within the citation. | |
| | | |3. In terms of style and accomplishment, the place | |
| |3. While the house on the Land demonstrates characteristics of | |compares directly with the houses added to the Heritage | |
| |federation Queen Anne design in style and accomplishment it does | |Overlay as part of Amendment C225. Many places included in| |
| |not present as a benchmark example of the style compared to other | |the Heritage Overlay have not been attributed to a | |
| |examples in the municipality. It was not designed by an architect | |specific architect but are of sufficient architectural |3. No change. |
| |and it is typical | |quality to be recognised as warranting inclusion in the | |
| | | |Heritage Overlay. No architect has been identified for the| |
| | | |place, however this does not mean that an architect was | |
| | | |not involved in the design. | |
|Submission 16: Burke Road Precinct (3 to 15 and 19 to 21 Burke Road Malvern East) (HO634) |
|Does not align with |1. Some properties have been modified over the years. |Objection |1. It is expected that heritage places will have had some |1. No change. |
|development pattern | | |modifications since construction over 100 years ago. The | |
| | | |‘Integrity’ section confirms that while all houses have | |
| | | |undergone some alterations and additions, these do not | |
| | | |diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the | |
| | | |place as a fine example of a row of Federation houses. | |
| | | |2. As per the Planning Practice Note (PPN1), the location | |
| | | |of a heritage place is not considered to impact the | |
| |2. The area has been identified as a high density accommodation | |significance of a building. | |
| |based on proximity to the university train station and busy round | |3. Refer to point 2 above. The boundary of the place (the |2. No change. |
| |(Bourke road). | |row of buildings at 3-21 Burke Road) does not include | |
| |3. Previous development plans approved by the Council support point| |modern developments. The modern infill surrounding the | |
| |2 i.e. McDonalds and flats. | |precinct do not impact the heritage significance of the | |
| | | |precinct. |3. No change. |
|Submission 17: 20-24 Woodmason Street Malvern (24 Woodmason Street Malvern) (HO618) |
|Heritage |1. 20-24 Woodmason Street are idiosyncratic, one off, Federation |Objection |1. The Statement of Significance confirms that the place |1. No change. |
|Significance |dwellings which provide no insight into life and built form in | |satisfies Criterion B (Possession of uncommon rare or | |
| |Stonnington in the pre-war years. | |endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history | |
| | | |(rarity)) as a ‘highly unusual house row built in the | |
| | | |Federation Period.’ | |
| | | |2. The place has been identified and assessed as being a | |
| |2. 20-24 Woodmason Street are not a good piece of Federation | |highly unusual, well-considered and carefully detailed | |
| |architecture. Its federation indicia are chlicheic and poorly | |example of a Federation Queen Anne style house row within |2. No change. |
| |arranged. | |the City of Stonnington that warrants inclusion in the | |
| | | |Heritage Overlay. | |
| | | |3. The place is considered to satisfy Criterion E | |
| | | |(Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic | |
| | | |characteristics (aesthetic significance). The Statement of| |
| |3. 20-24 Woodmason Street does not provide a harmonious or | |Significance describes why it meets this criterion. | |
| |attractive Federation presence in Woodmason Street, | |4. The subject place has been assessed as meeting the |3. No change. |
| | | |threshold for local significance as detailed in the | |
| | | |citation and in accordance with the Practice Note. As an | |
| | | |unusual and carefully detailed example of a Federation | |
| |4. 20-24 Woodmason Street has little or no heritage significance | |Queen Anne style house, the subject place plays an | |
| |and does not warrant the Heritage Overlay | |important role in demonstrating architectural expression | |
| | | |within the City of Stonnington. |4. No change. |
|Submission 18: 3 Avalon Road Armadale (HO599) |
|Heritage |1. There has been a lack of research into the cultural or |Objection |1. The assessment has involved thorough historical |1. No change. |
|Significance |historical significance of the land and its buildings | |research, a comparative analysis, and documentation of the| |
| | | |physical fabric, in accordance with the Practice Note. | |
| | | |2. The assessment was based on evidence from the cited | |
| |2. The proposed designation is based on what would appear to be a | |research and physical evidence. GJM Heritage and Purcell | |
| |number of assumptions by the author of the heritage study. | |adhere to the conservation practice and principles of The |2. No change. |
| | | |Burra Charter, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of | |
| | | |Cultural Significance (2013) and were guided by the | |
| | | |Practice Note in preparing the documentation. | |
| | | |3. It is clearly noted in the citation that the architect | |
| |3. The citation and therefore the basis of the amendment as it | |of this place is unknown. The possible involvement of | |
| |affects our clients land assumes that as the building has elements | |Walter Butler has been noted, however the place is | |
| |of fabric similar to other buildings in the vicinity and concludes | |considered to meet the threshold for local significance | |
| |that it may be a building designed by Walter Butler. It uses this | |(Criteria D and E) without confirmation of Butler as the | |
| |to advance the heritage proposition under Criterion E. No evidence | |architect. |3. No change. |
| |or basis for this proposition has been advanced. | | | |
| |4. Further as the citation acknowledges whilst the building is in | |4. The citation outlines the reasons why the place meets | |
| |very good condition however it does not justify that this an | |the threshold for local significance on an individual | |
| |outstanding exemplar of the period that should be afforded | |basis – meeting Criterion D and E – and warrants inclusion| |
| |protection. | |on the Heritage Overlay. | |
| |5. It also acknowledges that the building has been altered. | |5. Agreed. The ‘Integrity’ section confirms that some | |
| | | |alterations and additions have occurred, however these do | |
| | | |not diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the | |
| | | |place as a fine example of a Federation house. |4. No change. |
| | | |6. Noted. | |
| |6. In our submission the above factors singularly or combined are | | | |
| |simply not enough to warrant heritage protection under the terms of| | | |
| |the Planning Scheme. | | | |
| | | | |5. No change. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |6. No change. |
|Citation |7. Indeed the citation acknowledges that neither the builder nor |Objection |7. Many places included in the Heritage Overlay have not |8. No change. |
| |architect is known. | |been attributed to a specific builder or architect but are| |
| | | |of sufficient architectural quality to be recognised as | |
| | | |warranting inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. No builder | |
| | | |or architect has been identified for the place; however | |
| | | |this does not mean that an architect or significant | |
| | | |builder was not involved in the design. | |
|Submission 19: 29 Scott Grove Glen Iris (27 Scott Grove Glen Iris) (HO609) |
|General Support |1. I wish to support the inclusion of the property at 29 Scott |Support |1. Noted. |1. No change. |
| |Grove as part of Amendment C270, on the grounds: | | | |
| |a) The importance of preserving Federation houses in the area; | | | |
| |b) The house’s retained original external features and materials; | | | |
| |c) The house’s high level of retained original design; | | | |
| |d) The small number of Federation Arts and Crafts style houses | | | |
| |included in the Heritage Overlay on an individual basis, and; | | | |
| |e) The historical significance of the house, dating back to the | | | |
| |original subdivision. | | | |
|Submission 20: 20-24 Woodmason Street Malvern (22 Woodmason Street Malvern) (HO618) |
|Heritage |1. The property fails to meet the necessary threshold for a site |Objection |1. The subject place has been assessed as meeting the |1. No change. |
|Significance |specific Heritage Overlay pursuant to the Stonnington Planning | |threshold for local significance as detailed in the | |
| |Scheme. | |citation and in accordance with the Practice Note. As an | |
| | | |unusual and carefully detailed example of a Federation | |
| | | |Queen Anne style house, the place plays an important role | |
| | | |in demonstrating architectural expression within the City | |
| | | |of Stonnington. | |
| | | |2. It is understood that in 2016 Council granted a permit | |
| | | |for works to No. 22, comprising the demolition of the rear| |
| | | |section of the house and construction of a modern | |
| |2. The presently ungraded property has been modified by extensive | |addition. The works are confined to the rear of the |2. No change. |
| |recent works including demolition and new built form | |property and do not impact on the significance of the | |
| | | |place. | |
|Heritage Grading |3. The presently ungraded property does not meet the threshold to |Objection |3. Please refer to Submission 1A point 10. |3. No change. |
| |be an A2 graded building. | | | |
| |4. It has not been demonstrated that the property meets the | |4. See points 1 and 3 above. |4. No change. |
| |requisite definition of an A2 graded building | | | |
|Submission 21: 29 Scott Grove Street Malvern (HO609) |
|Heritage |1. The property has had significant changes applied over the years |Objection |1. Some of the points raised were addressed in updates to |1. Make minor edits to citation |
|Significance |including: | |the citation following feedback from the owner during |to note modern leadlight, |
| |a) Façade being painted, covering the original brick that was | |preliminary consultation. This included the painted facade|verandah floor and removal of |
| |normally exposed in period homes. | |and timber fence. Following receipt of this submission, |bluestone steps |
| |b) The original stained glass windows have been replaced with paned| |the citation will be amended to add comment on the changes| |
| |glass windows. | |that have occurred to the leadlight, tiles to the verandah| |
| |c) The original tiles on the front porch have been replaced as | |floor, bluestone steps. The modern addition to the rear of| |
| |mentioned in the citation. | |the building was noted in the citation. The Statement of | |
| |d) The original bluestone steps leading to the front door have been| |Significance identifies that later alterations and | |
| |removed and replaced with a modern pathway running along a raised | |additions, such as the large facetted bay to the rear and | |
| |path to the front porch. | |the roof dormer to the south, are not significant. In | |
| |e) The original fence has been replaced by a picket and modern | |response, the ‘Integrity’ section confirms that while the | |
| |fence. | |house has undergone some alterations and additions, these | |
| |f) A modern extension has been applied by the previous owners, to | |do not diminish the ability to understand and appreciate | |
| |the rear of the property. | |the place as a fine example of a Federation house. | |
|Heritage Strategy |2. Why was 29 Scott Grove Glen Iris singled out on as opposed to |Objection |2. 29 Scott Grove was not the only property to be |2. No change. |
| |others within the same street or nearby Street? | |considered in the Study. 25 Scott Grove was considered and| |
| | | |ruled out in Stage 2 of the Federation Houses Study. The | |
| | | |place was first identified in the Stage 1 Federation Study| |
| | | |(Context 2014) which surveyed the area. | |
| | | |3. Council endeavours to be as transparent as possible | |
| |3. I received a letter informing me that my home has been | |during the process to apply the Heritage Overlay. Only | |
| |considered since 2014, Stonnington City Council has not acted with | |once detailed investigative research is undertaken and the|3. No change. |
| |due regard for me as a resident of Glen Iris. | |citation is drafted is it confirmed that a place warrants | |
| | | |protection under the Heritage Overlay. Then Council can | |
| | | |notify residents of its findings. | |
|Property Values |4. By singling out one home on the street this will most certainly |Objection |4. The economic effects relevant at the Amendment stage |4. No change. |
| |restrict the use and value going forward on my property | |are those of a broad community nature rather than of an | |
| | | |individual kind. The key issues at the Amendment stage is | |
| | | |whether the place reaches the threshold for local | |
| | | |significance. | |
|Compensation |5. If Council wish to preserve homes in the area and to do so |Objection |5. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 clearly sets out |6. No change. |
| |without a consistent policy that adds value to individual homes, | |the matters which give rise to claims for compensation. | |
| |then they should do so by compensating me for the losses that I | |The compensation provisions of Section 98 of the Act do | |
| |will face on the future value of the property. | |not include compensation for the application of overlays. | |
|Submission 22: 13 Oxford Street Malvern (15 Oxford Street Malvern) (HO616) |
|General Support |1. Supports the application of the Heritage Overlay to 13 Oxford |Support |1. Noted. |1. Noted. |
| |Street Malvern. | | | |
|Submission 23: 26 Millicent Avenue Toorak (HO632) |
|General Objection |1. Objects to the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C270 |Objection |1. Noted. |1. Proceed with Amendment. Make |
| | | | |changes to citation as per |
| | | | |Submission 6 points 5 and 6. |
|Property Values |2. The proposed Planning Scheme Amendment will incur a loss of |Objection |2. Refer to Submission 21, point 4. |2. Proceed with Amendment. Make |
| |property value to the detriment of the owner. | | |changes to citation as per |
| | | | |Submission 6 points 5 and 6. |
|Submission 24: 3 Dixon Street Malvern (HO612) |
|Property Values |1. The listing will have a significant negative effect on the value|Objection |1. Please refer to Submission 21, Point 4. |1. No change. |
| |of the property. | | | |
|Citation |2. The fence is not original as suggests and is beyond repair. It |Objection |2. Additional information has been provided to Council. |2. Amend the citation accordingly|
| |has collapsed and is tethered upright by baling twine and star | |Reference to the fence will be amended in the citation and|and remove fence controls. |
| |pickets. | |fence controls removed accordingly. | |
| | | | |3. Amend the citation |
| |3. The verandah has been rebuilt with modern timbers and is not | |3. Noted. Reference to these elements will be updated in |accordingly. |
| |original as suggested. (applies to 1 Dixon Street also) | |the citation. | |
| |4. The front door is a recent timber door and not original as | | |4. Amend the citation |
| |suggested. (applies to 1 Dixon Street also) | |4. Noted. Reference to these elements will be updated in |accordingly. |
| | | |the citation. | |
|General Objection |5. I request that the property (3 Dixon Street Malvern) be removed |Objection |5. Noted. |5. Proceed with Amendment and |
| |from the Amendment. | | |make changes to the citation as |
| | | | |mentioned in points 2, 3 and 4. |
-----------------------
[1] Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires [2]
!28?±¶ÇÈÊËÌïðñóô - îàîÎî÷¬·£šŠ|xmexea]exeOh´F h´F :?mHnHu[pic]hÙ[3]KhÕjh´F U[pic]hk h´F CJ[4]aJ[5]h´F h>ˆh´F 5?CJOJQJh>ˆh´F 5?CJOJQJaJ0h>ˆh´F @ˆùÿh>ˆh´F @ˆýÿh>ˆh´F @ˆýÿCJh>ˆh´F 5?@ˆýÿCJh>ˆh´F @ˆùÿCJ"h>ˆh´F 5?;?@ˆCouncillors 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
- peoria city council meeting tonight
- mississippi codes of law 21 19 11
- 30 minutes of walking daily
- church council meeting minutes
- dow jones february 2018 chart
- board of directors meeting template
- list of corporate meeting planners
- minutes of meeting attendance sheet
- missing 24 minutes of eyes wide shut