notice paper - city of stonnington · notice paper tuesday 26 april ... planning application 768/15...

NOTICE PAPER

Tuesday 26 April 2016 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall,

(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

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

Council Meeting

Notice Paper

Tuesday 26 April 2016

Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayer

b) Apologies

c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63 of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 18 APRIL 2016 ............................................................ 5

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

e) Questions to Council from Members of the 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; - Assembly of Councillors

k) Reports by Delegates

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 768/15 - 2053-2055 MALVERN ROAD, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE, REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT, REMOVAL OF EASEMENT AND ALTERATION OF

ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE, CATEGORY 1 ........................................................................... 7

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 764/15 - 1134 MALVERN ROAD, MALVERN - CONSTRUCTION OF A

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE; USE OF LAND AS A FOOD AND

DRINK PREMISES AND 13 DWELLINGS (AS OF RIGHT); ALTER ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD

ZONE, CATEGORY 1; REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT AND WAIVER OF THE

LOADING/UNLOADING BAY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 31

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 298/08-1 - 1D ROSE STREET, ARMADALE - S72 AMENDMENT TO

APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT WHICH SEEKS PERMISSION TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO ‘ART

GALLERY’ FROM THE PERMIT PRE-AMBLE AND DELETE CONDITION 6 AND TO MODIFY CONDITIONS

4 AND 5. ......................................................................................................................................... 59

4. PLANNING APPLICATION 956/15 – 1A AND 1B / 101-105 TOORAK ROAD, SOUTH YARRA –

PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS IN A COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE AND

HERITAGE OVERLAY ........................................................................................................................ 71

5. PLANNING APPLICATION 599/07 – 2 - 58C OSBORNE STREET, SOUTH YARRA - SECTION 72

AMENDMENT FOR THE ADDITION OF A BASEMENT, A TWO CAR STACKER AND A FOURTH STOREY

(WITHIN THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE) AND INTERNAL RECONFIGURATION. ............................. 85

6. AMENDMENT C222 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR INTERWAR HOUSES- CONSIDERATION OF

SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 97

1 Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest

immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.

7. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS - GREVILLE AND KING STREETS, THREE MONTH TRIAL OF

CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 105

8. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - CENTRAL PARK, PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK AND MALVERN

GARDENS .................................................................................................................................... 111

9. HOWITT STREET SOUTH YARRA LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL ............................................................... 117

m) Other General Business

n) Urgent Business

o) Confidential Business

1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S ANNUAL APPRAISAL AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2015/16 .............. 119

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

26 APRIL 2016

RECOMMENDATION That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 11 April 2016 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 11 April 2016 and Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 18 April 2016 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS 26 APRIL 2016

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 768/15 - 2053-2055 MALVERN ROAD, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL

ZONE, REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT, REMOVAL OF EASEMENT AND

ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE, CATEGORY 1

Acting Manager Statutory Planning: Augarette Malki General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, reduction in the car parking requirement, removal of easement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 at 2053-2055 Malvern Road, Malvern East. This item was considered at the Council meeting of 11 April 2016. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration. Executive Summary Applicant: Tract Consultants Pty Ltd Ward: East Zone: General Residential Zone - Schedule 7 Overlay: N/A Date lodged: 02 September 2015 Statutory days: 33 days Trigger for referral to Council:

Number of objections

Number of objections: 21 objections from 14 different properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 17 December 2015 Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit BACKGROUND The Proposal The advertised plans were prepared by Chandler Architecture and are known as File No. 2015038 Drawing No.s: TP01-TP19 and Council date stamped 22 October 2015. Additional information accompanying the application includes:

Landscape plans prepared by Tract Consultants Pty Ltd Council date stamped 1 September 2015.

Traffic report prepared by Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd Council date stamped 1 September 2015.

Waste management plan prepared by Leigh Designs Council date stamped 1 September 2015.

Sustainable management plans prepared by Ark Resources Council date stamped 22 October 2015.


Key features of the proposal as per the advertised plans are:

Demolish the existing dwellings and outbuildings (no permit required).

Construct a three-storey apartment building, comprising 26 dwellings (23 x two-bedroom and 3 x three-bedroom) and a rooftop terrace.

The rooftop terrace comprises a communal space including a kitchen, garden beds (veggie plots) and a bathroom.

A total of 32 car spaces (29 for residents and 3 for visitors) are provided in a basement, with access from Malvern Road. Vehicle access to the basement car park will be by way of an existing (widened) crossover near the south east boundary. The other existing crossover will be removed and the nature strip reinstated.

The building has a maximum height of 10.63 metres above natural ground level (in the northeast corner of the site) and the lift overrun exceeds the parapet height by 600mm.

The front fence is constructed of brick with a height of 1.6 metres.

6 bicycle spaces are provided in the basement for residents and 4 spaces are provided on the ground floor for visitors.

Site coverage is 70%, basement coverage is 68.6% (including the vehicle ramp) and permeability is 20.3%.

Two 25,000 litre rainwater tanks are located under the vehicle ramp.

The proposal also seeks to remove an easement of way, party wall and drainage/sewerage.

The proposal features a contemporary design combining neutral colours, and a variety of materials. In particular, the materials used for the external façades include precast concrete, with areas finished in paint / brick, composite timber, metal cladding, glazing, and aluminium.

Amended plans Amended plans were formally substituted on 10 March 2016 (the plans are Council date stamped 4 March 2016, 8 March 2016 and 10 March 2016) under Section 57 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The amended plans form the basis of this report. The plans were submitted in an effort to address concerns raised by Council officers and objectors. The revised plans were not re-advertised, as they did not result in an increase of amenity impacts. The specific changes from the advertised plans are as follows: Basement:

Setbacks to northern (reserve) boundary increased by an additional 1.8 metres - 2.95 metres therefore the rear setback is between 4.67 metres – 7.89 metres.

Setback to southwest boundary reduced from 6.2 metres to 3.6 metres as a consequence of the existing tree being removed and an additional car space being added.

Reallocation of some storage cages and bicycle facilities.

Internal ramp R.L’s have been revised (corrected inconsistency in the earlier plans).

The site coverage is now 52.2%, the basement coverage is 65.7% (including the vehicle ramp) and the permeability is now 25.7%.

Ground Floor:

Substation relocated from centrally within the setback to the southwest corner of the site and it has been integrated into the front fence design.

Setbacks to northern boundary increased by an additional 1.8 metres - 4.95 metres therefore the rear setback is between 4.85 metres - 11.82 metres.


Apartments 4-7 reconfigured internally and reduced in size.

Individual entries from Malvern Road to apartments 1 and 2 deleted. These previously paved areas are now proposed to be landscaped.

Common pedestrian entry increased in width from 4.2 metres to 4.9 metres creating a larger break in the building when viewed from Malvern Road.

Internal corridor serving apartments 4-7 reduced in width from 1.7 metres to 1.5 metres. First Floor:

Setbacks to northern boundary increased by an additional 1.6 metres - 3.9 metres therefore the rear setback is between 4.85 metres – 7.59 metres.

Apartments 14-17 reconfigured internally and reduced in size.

Internal corridor serving apartments 14-17 reduced in width from 1.7 metres to 1.5 metres.

Common pedestrian entry increased in width from 4.2 metres to 4.9 metres creating a larger break in the building when viewed from Malvern Road.

Second Floor:

Setback of the balconies to the northern (rear) boundary increased by an additional 0.6 metres - 1.5 metres therefore the rear setback is between 4.85 metres – 7.59 metres.

Apartment 21 setback an additional 0.6 metres form the southern (front) boundary.

The central part of the building between apartment 21 and 26 has been recessed (setback up to 3.1 metres) to create a visual break at the upper level when viewed from Malvern Road.

Third floor:

Rooftop terrace removed. Site and Surrounds The site consists of two lots and is located on the northeast side of Malvern Road, approximately 324 metres northwest of Waverley Road in Malvern East. The site has the following significant characteristics:

Combined frontage to Malvern Road of 35.3 metres with an approximate depth of 48 metres.

Irregular in shape with a total area of 1727 sq. metres.

Occupied by a single storey dwelling at No. 2053 Malvern Road and a double storey building containing two dwellings at No. 2055 Malvern Road.

Local Laws Permit No. 0008345 has been granted to remove the ‘significant’ Sweet Gum tree located near the southeast boundary of No. 2053 Malvern Road. There is also a ‘significant’ Sweet Gum tree located near the southwest boundary of No. 2053 Malvern Road.

The site slopes downhill from Malvern Road with a fall of approximately 2.5 metres between the street frontage and the rear boundary of the site.

The subject site is zoned General Residential (Schedule 7) which provides for a mandatory maximum height of 10.5 metres (or 11.5 metres when the land is subject to a slope exceeding 2.5 degrees over any 8 metre section). A review of the slope on the land reveals that the land exceeds 2.5 degrees and therefore a mandatory maximum height limit of 11.5 metres applies.


The land to the north east of the site is within the Public Use Zone (Schedule 4), which is zoned for ‘transport’ and owned by the Victorian Rail Track Corporation (VicTrack). The land is occupied by railway tracks, which acts as a buffer between the subject site and the Monash Freeway. Directly northwest of the site at No. 2051 Malvern Road is a double storey detached brick dwelling. The dwelling is located centrally on the site with a double car garage projecting into the front setback and secluded private open space in the rear yard. Directly southeast of the site at No. 2059 Malvern Road is a double storey detached brick dwelling with a substantial rear yard and a brick garage constructed on the common boundary with the subject site. Properties on the opposite side of Malvern Road are within the Coolgardie Avenue Precinct (Heritage Overlay – Schedule 350). The heritage precinct is significant for ‘intact examples of an Interwar estate subdivision and for the quality and consistence of its housing stock’. This part of Malvern East is characterised by a predominance of early 20th century single and double storey dwellings. The subject site is located within close proximity to two small Neighbourhood Activity Centres. More specifically, Malvern East Village is located approximately 280 metres to the south and Darling Village is located approximately 680 metres to the north of the subject site. These activity centres include retail, office, industrial and community activities. Furthermore, there is a railway station near each activity centre, providing convenient access to the wider metropolitan area. Previous Planning Application(s) A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Permit No. 484/12 was issued on 31 October 2012 for the property at No. 2055 Malvern Road, Malvern East. The permit allowed for alterations and additions to a multi-dwelling development in a Residential 1 Zone and creation of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1. The works associated with this planning permit are complete.

The Title The site is made of up two titles described as:

Certificate of Title Volume 10649 Folio 036 / Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 504867X.

Certificate of Title Volume 08093 Folio 166 / Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 031547.

There are no covenants on either title. There are a number of easements on site including an easement of way, party wall and drainage/sewerage. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Zone Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone (Schedule 7 Residential Boulevards and Corridors) Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 a permit is not required to use the land for dwellings. Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A mandatory maximum height limit of 11.5 metres applies due to the slope of the land exceeding 2.5 degrees as detailed earlier. Schedule 7 to the General Residential Zone also details that basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.


Overlay No overlays. Particular Provisions Clause 52.02 – Easements, Restrictions and Reserves Pursuant to Clause 52.02 a permit is required before a person proceeds under Section 36 of the Subdivision Act 1988 to acquire or remove an easement or remove a right of way. The 1.83 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement which abuts the rear boundary is to be retained however; the other easements traversing the site have become redundant and are proposed to be removed. Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied, the car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Pursuant to 52.06-5 each one or two bedroom dwelling must provide at least one car parking space and each three or more bedroom dwelling must provide at least two car parking spaces. Furthermore, 1 visitor car space is required for each 5 dwellings. The development comprises 23 x two-bedroom dwellings and 3 x three-bedroom dwellings resulting in a statutory requirement to provide 29 residential parking spaces and 5 visitor spaces. The proposal provides 29 residential spaces and 4 visitor spaces therefore; a permit is required pursuant to this Clause for a reduction of 1 visitor space. Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road A permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1. An application to create or alter access to a road declared as an arterial road under the Road Management Act 2004 must be referred to the Roads Corporation (VicRoads) under Section 55 of the Act. VicRoads is a determining referral authority. Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Pursuant to Clause 55, a development of two or more dwellings on a lot, which does not exceed four storeys must meet the objectives of this clause. General Provisions Clause 65 Decision Guidelines The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including the Planning Scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity. Relevant Planning Policies Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 15.01 Urban environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable development Clause 16.01 Residential development Clause 18.01 Transport Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.05 Housing


Clause 21.06 Built environment Clause 22.05 Environmentally sustainable development Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood character policy Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone Clause 55 ResCode Clause 65 Decision guidelines Advertising The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing 2 signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in East Ward and 21 objections from 14 different properties have been received and can be summarised as follows:

Neighborhood character

Visual bulk / building height

Overdevelopment

Overshadowing / loss of daylight

Overlooking

Waste management

Traffic and parking

Lack of replacement planting

Amenity concerns during construction

Decreased property values

Setting precedent A Consultative Meeting was held on 17 December 2015. The meeting was attended by Councillors Davie and Jim Athanasopoulos, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the submission of amended plans as set out under the proposal section of this report. Referrals Urban Design Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 22 October 2015) and provided the following comments:

The proposal seeks to build within close proximity to the rear boundary and, as a consequence, there is a lack of space for meaningful landscaping at the rear of the site. It is suggested that the rear setback be increased to enable a minimum of (say) 8 metres for landscaping.

The building, as it addresses Malvern Road, should present more strongly as two buildings joined by an enlarged and deeply recessed entry space.

The overall bulk of the building does not relate well to the character of the neighbourhood. This could be moderated by increasing the rear setback (as mentioned above); eliminating the rooftop terrace and associated structure; and reducing the extent of the upper floor.

A substation is proposed within the front setback, which is not a desirable location as it restricts the scope for new landscaping. It is suggested that alternative options be investigated for the substation location.


The apartments at the front of the building (apartments 1 and 10) have their floor levels set below natural ground level; and this leads to an increased likelihood of flooding problems in the future.

Planner response: The amended plans sought to increase the rear setback, remove the rooftop terrace, increase the dimensions of the common pedestrian entry space and relocate the substation. Council’s Urban Designer provided verbal advice on the amended plans and indicated that they address most the concerns raised. The outstanding concern that was not addressed relates to flooding implications as apartments 1 and 10 are partially subterranean. However, it is noted that Council’s Infrastructure Department did not raised concerns in relation to this matter. Parks Council’s Parks Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 22 October 2015) and provided the following comments:

The mature Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum) tree within the front setback of No. 2053 is to be retained. However, this tree has poor structural health and is not worthy of retention.

The plans must be updated to show the location of the existing street trees in relation to the vehicle crossing.

Tree protection fencing must be erected around the two Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) street trees prior to construction.

Larger canopy trees must be included in the planting schedule for this proposal. Planner response: The amended plans sought to remove the mature Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum) tree within the front setback and relocate the substation to that location. There is now opportunity to provide a canopy tree in the front setback of No. 2055 Malvern Road (where the substation was previously proposed). The outstanding matters above will form conditions on any permit, which may issue. Infrastructure Council’s Infrastructure Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 22 October 2015) and provided the following comments:

A legal point of discharge must be obtained and the drainage design must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer.

A stormwater detention system must be provided to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, stormwater tanks must be provided that are in total 6,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) requirements.

Any redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost.

The existing footpath levels must not be altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).


Planner response: The above matters will form conditions on any permit which may issue. Traffic and Parking Council’s Traffic and Parking Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 22 October 2015) and provided the following comments:

The proposed development provides for 32 on-site parking bays, representing a shortfall of 2 visitor parking spaces from the requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. In this context, Council’s Transport and Parking Unit does not object to the waiver of 2 residential visitor parking spaces.

The applicant is to ensure that an allocation of 1 space per 2-bedroom dwelling and 2 spaces per 3-bedroom dwelling is maintained, and confirmed on a clear allocation plan.

The number of additional trips generated by the proposed appears to be reasonable in this case, and is anticipated to have no significant impact to the operation of Malvern Road. As such, the Transport and Parking Unit does not object to the proposal on traffic generation grounds. However, the sole access to/from the site will be via Malvern Road, which is a Primary State Arterial Road under the management of VicRoads. As such, this is an issue for VicRoads to consider and should be referred to VicRoads for their comment.

According to the Traffic Impact Assessment, the crossover leads to a basement ramp, which is typically 3.6 metres wide, including 300mm kerbs on each side, however the plans do not reflect this. Amended plans must be provided to show the 300mm kerbs on each side of the ramp accordingly.

The access width and passing area is generally in accordance with the Stonnington Planning Scheme and is considered satisfactory. Swept path diagrams submitted with the Traffic Impact Assessment, demonstrate that a B99 can wait in the passing area while another B99 exits the site.

The plans show a minimum headroom clearance along the ramp and sight distances at the property boundary in accordance with the Stonnnington Planning Scheme.

Amended plan must be provided which demonstrate that the car spaces adjacent to a wall (or any obstruction greater than 150mm in height) are a minimum width of 2.7 metres.

The columns are not designed in accordance with Clause 52.06-8.

While the ramp grades meet the Stonnington Planning Scheme requirements regarding maximum grades and grade changes, there are concerns regarding the 1:8 transition grade at the bottom of the ramp. Amended plans are required to show the minimum transition grade length of 2.5 metres for a 1:8 transition grade.

The R.L’s found on the ramp grades do not match the change in R.L as shown on the plans.

The car stackers proposed are the Car Stackers Australia “2 Park” system. This system provides independent parking spaces on two levels without the requirement for pits, via the use of a descending upper platform, which extends into the parking aisle. A turntable allows forwards ingress and egress to/from the upper level. To ensure safe and efficient access is provided to the at-grade parking spaces within the car stackers, amended plans are required showing swept path diagrams for a B85 design vehicle accessing these spaces. The car stacker structure must be accurately located within the parking space to provide evidence that sufficient clearances are maintained.

The stackers provide a headroom clearance is in accordance with the minimum requirements for headroom within a mechanical parking system.


The operation of the stacker obstructs access along the parking aisle. As a result, vehicles wanting to pass will be delayed as well as vehicles wanting to access the spaces on the opposite side of the aisle. This cannot be considered good design, however Council’s Transport and Parking Unit do not object to the proposed arrangement given all impact and delays will be contained within the development.

The proposal provides for 10 bicycle spaces within the basement level, exceeding the minimum bicycle parking provision requirement.

All resident parking spaces are shown on the plans as “Ned Kelly” spaces. The Australian Standard (AS 2890.3) specifies that 500mm spacing between bicycles is required which is not reflected on the plans. Furthermore, the location of the bicycle spaces appears to restrict pedestrian access to the stairs leading to the upper basement and also pedestrian access to the storage cages 18 to 23, which is problematic.

The proposal will result in the existing crossover on Malvern Road to No. 2053 becoming a redundant vehicle crossing. This vehicle crossing must be removed and any footpath, nature strip, kerb and channel made good to Council requirements.

It is proposed to widen the existing vehicle crossing at No. 2055 Malvern Road to accommodate the passing area at the top of the ramp. The width of the proposed vehicle crossing does not comply with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy.

Planner response: The amended plans increased the number of car parking spaces by 1. The proposed development now provides for 33 on-site parking bays, representing a shortfall of 1 visitor parking space from the requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The amended plans also sought to increase the width of car spaces located adjacent to a wall to a minimum of 2.7 metres addressing concerns raised regarding access to these spaces. The Traffic Impact Assessment includes a ground clearance check, which indicates that a B99 vehicle would not scrape at the bottom of the ramp. Furthermore, the ramp grades comply with the Stonnington Planning Scheme therefore they are considered to be acceptable. It is further noted that the R.L’s found on the ramp grades have been updated to match the change in R.L as shown on the plans. Pursuant to Clause 52.34 a development of 4 or more storeys is required to provide 1 bicycle space to each 5 dwellings. As the development is only 3 storeys therefore, there is no statutory requirement to provide bicycle parking however, there are 10 spaces proposed. The amended plans sought to relocate the bicycle facilities in the basement so they do not obstruct the pedestrian passage and there is now 500mm of spacing between bicycles in accordance with the Australian Standard (AS 2890.3). The Traffic and Parking Unit also raised concerns, as the crossover has not been designed in accordance with Councils Vehicle Crossing Policy. Importantly, the proposal complies with the Access Objective at Clause 55.03-9 aims ‘to ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighborhood character’. More specifically, the proposal seeks to increase the width of the existing crossover to 6 metres (i.e. 17 per cent of the site frontage), which complies with the 33 per cent maximum allowed under Standard B14. Furthermore, given Malvern Road is a Road Zone, Category 1 a vehicle crossing permit is not required from Council. The remaining concerns noted by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit, will be resolved through the inclusion of conditions on any permit which may issue.


Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) Council’s ESD Officer has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 22 October 2015) and provided the following comments:

The proposed study areas of apartments 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 will receive poor natural daylight for a habitable room, due to their location at the end of long, deep living rooms.

The metal louver balcony balustrades of apartments 13, 18 and 19 will restrict daylight access to the living rooms of these apartments.

12 out of 26 of the apartments will receive effective natural ventilation. Therefore the proposal does not meet the best practice standard for natural ventilation, which requires at least 60% of a development’s apartments to be naturally cross ventilated. In order to achieve effective natural ventilation for single sided apartments, room depth from windows should not exceed 5 metres.

All exposed north east and north west facing windows must be provided with external shading.

A 6kW solar photovoltaic system is proposed which is a good outcome. An annotation must be added to the roof plan to specify that the system will provide power to common areas in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP).

Double-glazing is specified in the energy rating assumptions at Appendix 2 and therefore it must be shown in the materials schedule.

The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standard (WELS) scheme nominated for taps, showers and toilets in the SMP is acceptable.

The SMP states that the rainwater harvesting system will store a total volume of 25,000 litres. The proposed basement plan shows provision of 2 x 25,000 litre tanks. The details on the plans and in the SMP must be consistent.

The rooftop terrace would form part of the proposed rainwater catchment area. The applicant should note that Council does not support connection of trafficable balconies and terraces to rainwater tanks without prior treatment due to water quality concerns.

Roof plans must be annotated to confirm drainage areas to be connected to the rainwater tank.

All permeable surfaces and stormwater treatment areas to be included on landscape plans to ensure consistency.

The only commitment to sustainable building materials in the SMP is the use of sustainable plantation timber for feature timber. In addition to this commitment, further sustainable material use should be committed to in the SMP.

The SMP must include a commitment to a specified percentage reduction in portland cement use for precast and insitu concrete.

6 resident cycle parking spaces and 4 visitor cycle spaces are proposed. This value is well below Council’s SDAPP program requirement for 1 space per dwelling.

The proposed landscaping at ground floor level and the proposed planter boxes and pergola on the roof terrace would contribute to the urban ecology objectives of the SDAPP framework.

The SMP includes a commitment to a target-recycling rate of 80% for construction and demolition waste, which is a positive initiative.

Planner response: The proposed study areas of apartments 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are modest is size (not large enough to be used as a bedroom) and are located near the entry of the respective apartments. Areas such as these are likely to be used for storing shoes, coats and the like. Consequently, these spaces do not demand the same natural light and ventilation needs of a habitable room.


Council’s ESD officer also raised concerns regarding restricted daylight access to apartments 13, 18 and 19 as their respective balcony balustrades are to be constructed of metal louvers. A condition will be included on any issue of permit requiring the metal louvers to be replaced with obscure glazing. The amended plans sought to increase the setback to the rear which resulted in a number of the apartments becoming shallower. Now 15 out of 26 apartments which equates to 58% of the apartments will receive effective natural ventilation. In this context 58% is acceptable. The rooftop terrace has been removed from the scheme therefore treatment of the roof is no longer a concern as this area is no longer trafficable. The remaining concerns noted by Council’s ESD Officer, will be resolved through the inclusion of conditions on any permit, which may issue and are discussed in greater detail below. Waste Council’s Waste Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 22 October 2015) and provided the following comments:

The standard allocation of bins for the development would be 13 x 240 litre bins collected weekly plus 13 x 240 litre bins collected fortnightly.

The Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans.

VicRoads (external referral) The advertised plans (Council date stamped 22 October 2015) were referred under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to VicRoads who requested for the following conditions to be included on any issue of permit:

Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, a sealed vehicle crossover must be constructed at least 6.0 metres in width as measured at the property boundary and to the satisfaction of the Responsible authority. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary.

Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, redundant vehicle crossovers onto Malvern Road must be removed and the kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible authority.

Planner response: VicRoads is a determining referral authority for the purposes of this application; therefore the conditions provided must be included on any issue of permit. KEY ISSUES Strategic Justification The development is generally consistent with State planning policies that encourage the development of more intense housing forms on sites that are well located to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport, as specifically sought by Clause 16.01 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.


Benefits of more intensive housing include the provision of more diverse and affordable housing choices to meet the needs of Melbourne’s growing population and better use of existing infrastructure in an effort to reduce Melbourne’s urban sprawl. Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) identifies this area as being within an incremental change area where the policy directs multi-unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable of accommodating increased density. The subject site has many of the characteristics outlined in the local policy as suitable locations for medium density housing including being on an arterial road, and having good access to public transport and activity centres. Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity) aims ‘to achieve high standards of amenity within new developments, and with adjoining developments’. It is considered that the proposal provides for a good level of internal amenity with all habitable room windows provided with direct access to natural light, appropriate room dimensions, good internal layout and connections, and adequate areas of private open space. The proposal does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining land owners/occupiers, which will be discussed in more detail within the Clause 55 assessment. Although the development will present as a substantial built form in comparison to the existing development located at the site, it is considered acceptable in light of the site context, positioning of the building, architectural features, and suitable extent of landscaping proposed. Based on the above, it is considered that the subject site has strategic support for higher density development. The location is appropriate for urban consolidation and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice. Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity. These are discussed further below. Neighbourhood Character While development must respect the existing character, there have been numerous decisions of the Tribunal, which confirm that good design should do more than mimic or replicate. This position is clearly articulated in the decision by Member Cimino in Iloray Pty Ltd v Darebin CC (2003) VCAT 692 at paragraph 53:

‘In considering this issue, the first point to be made is that the notion of development which is "respectful" of neighbourhood character does not imply that such development must be the same as what already exists. If policy, the purpose of the zone and the objectives of clause 55 were calling for the development that is "more of the same", then they would say so. Rather, the notion of "respectful" development must embrace the need for change and diversity in the type of dwellings that are provided and an increase in the intensity of development in circumstances where this is encouraged by planning policy and the purpose of the zone’.

There is insufficient justification to refuse this current application on the basis that it does not replicate the existing pitched roof built form in the area. State policy at Clause 16.01-4 specifically encourages housing to provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.


Neighbourhood Character Policy The subject site falls within the Garden Suburban 4 (GS4) precinct which includes the following statement of preferred neighbourhood character:

‘The Garden Suburban 4 (GS4) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street’.

Further, the policy includes the following relevant design objectives:

To encourage the retention of intact, older dwellings that contribute to the character of the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily responds to these objectives in the following ways:

The existing buildings to be demolished make limited contribution to the character of the area. Therefore, their removal will not adversely impact on the existing neighbourhood character. Furthermore, a planning permit is not required for demolition under current or proposed planning controls.

The proposed development will read as a two-storey form with a recessed third level. The height and scale of the building is not considered to be excessive and will not dominate the streetscape.

The building is setback from all boundaries ensuring that the rhythm of spacing is retained. Furthermore, side and rear setbacks are fully compliant with ResCode.

The facade is appropriately articulated through the use of architectural features such as the stepped street setback, the central visual ‘break’ in the building, the window openings and the external materials.

The proposed development is of a contemporary style and differs from much of the older housing stock within the area. However, despite it being of a different architectural style, it is considered to be a satisfactory design and one that reflects other examples of contemporary infill development along Malvern Road. On a site that is unconstrained in terms of overlay controls, opportunities exist for site responsive contemporary buildings.

Car parking is provided beneath the facility, ensuring it is minimally visible.

Basement site coverage (65.7%) provides opportunities for in-ground canopy tree landscaping in key areas of the site.

The proposed 1.6 metre high front fence is as of right (no permit required) given the site adjoins a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.


The application has been assessed against Clauses 16.01, 21.05 and 22.23 and is considered a site responsive design that responds to both the existing and emerging streetscape. The extent of built form has responded to the varying interfaces, which exist, and the likely built form, which will occur as a result of the policy settings. Clause 55 Infrastructure The development will be provided with adequate utility services and infrastructure. The development will not unreasonably overload the capacity of existing services. Overall, through conditions as recommended by Council’s Infrastructure Unit the proposal is considered to satisfy the standard and objective. Integration with the Street The common pedestrian entry will be clearly visible from Malvern Road. The development has large windows and outdoor terraces facing towards the street to provide passive surveillance opportunities from upper levels. Street Setback Standard B6 recommends that a new building be setback, ‘the average distance of the setbacks of the front walls of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser’. The adjoining property to the northwest has a setback of 8 metres from Malvern Road and the adjoining property to the southeast has a minimum front setback of 9.76 metres from Malvern Road. The proposal is therefore required to be setback 8.88 metres from Malvern Road in accordance with Standard B6. On the ground floor the building is to be setback between 8.3 metres and 9.74 metres. The first floor is setback a similar distance to the floor below and the third floor has a staggered front setback between 12.07 metres and 14.5 metres from Malvern Road. The building features a central recessed element which provides a visual break between the east and west portions of the building. The central ‘break’ mimics the subdivision pattern found in this neighbourhood and provides visual relief when viewed from Malvern Road. A variation to the standard is considered acceptable in this context as the proposed front setback and design attributes are considered to achieve a balanced response to policy aspirations that call for more intense development on main roads and development that is respectful and compatible with the existing neighbourhood character. Building Height The schedule to the zone introduces a mandatory maximum height of 11.5 metres for the subject site due to the slope of the land. The proposed building is three storeys and has a maximum building height of 10.63 metres in the northeast corner of the site, which is less than the mandatory maximum requirement. Furthermore, it is noted that buildings on the adjoining sites are both two storeys in height and the transition from two storeys to three storeys is considered acceptable, due to the transition of only one storey. Site Coverage The development proposes 52.2% site coverage, which complies with the 60 per cent maximum stipulated in Standard B8 at Clause 55.03-3.


A basement is proposed covering 65.7% of the site, which complies with the 75% maximum for basements as outlined in Standard B8 of Schedule 7 to the General Residential Zone. It is noted that the site coverage of the basement includes the vehicle ramp. Permeability The site will have 25.7% permeability which complies with Standard B9 (i.e. minimum of 20%). Furthermore, the development will be required to meet Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy further reducing stormwater runoff. Landscaping The proposal incorporates the removal of a ‘significant’ Sweet Gum tree in the front setback of No. 2053 Malvern Road. Council’s Arborist has indicated that this tree has poor structure and displays evidence of internal decay at the base of the main trunk and therefore advised that it is not worthy of retention. There is no other noteworthy vegetation on site except for the ‘significant’ Sweet Gum tree located near the southeast boundary of No. 2053 Malvern Road. Local Laws Permit No. 0008345 has been granted to remove this tree. The landscape plan has not been updated to show the revisions in accordance with the amended plan received by Council. The amended plans increase the setback to the rear boundary allowing for greater landscaping opportunities. Furthermore, the amended plans allow for greater landscaping opportunities in the front setback as the substation has been relocated and the individual entries (paved surfaces) to apartments 1 and 10 have been deleted. An updated landscape plan will be required via condition on any issue of permit. The landscape plan proposes a number of Crab Apple and Ornamental Magnolia trees which have a height of 8 metres at maturity and a canopy span between 5 – 6 metres. Council’s Arborist has indicated that larger trees should be incorporated into the planting scheme. In accordance with Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) a canopy tree is defined as a tree which is at least 5 metres in height with a canopy spread of at least 6 metres at maturity. A condition will be included on any issue of permit to ensure the proposed trees have a canopy width is at least 6 metres at maturity. It is considered that the building (including basement) will be adequately setback from the site boundaries allowing for meaningful landscaping to be established around the building. The landscaping proposed will assist in softening the new development when viewed from adjoining properties. Furthermore, planting on the second floor terraces will further soften the appearance of the front facade when viewed from Malvern Road. A condition will be placed on any issue of permit ensuring that the landscaping as shown on the landscape plan is planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Overall, it is considered that the vegetation proposed (subject to conditions) provides a balanced response when considering the preferred neighbourhood character specified in the Garden Suburban 4 Precinct (Clause 22.23 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme). Amenity Impacts Side and Rear Setbacks The development is proposed to be setback from the boundaries at varying distances. Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The tables below illustrate how the proposal responds to these requirements:


North Elevation

Wall height Setback required Setback proposed Complies

Ground floor 4.9m 1.39m 4.59m - 7.59m Yes

Level one 7.13m 2.22m 4.85m - 7.59m Yes

Level two (to facade)

10.63m 5.72m 6.33m Yes

Northwest Elevation


Ground floor 3.04m 1m 4m Yes

Level one 7.47m 2.56m 4m Yes


10.13m 5.22m 7m

Yes

Southeast Elevation


Ground floor 3.79m 1.05m 3.56m Yes

Level one Associated with unit 17

7.93m 3.02m 4.37m Yes

Associated with unit 19

7.03m 2.12m 3.69m Yes


10.53m 5.62m 6.56m Yes

As demonstrated by the calculations above the proposal adopts setbacks that comply with the requirements of Standard B17 of Clause 55.04-1. Walls on Boundaries There are no walls proposed on the boundaries. Daylight to Existing Windows Standard B19 requires a new wall to be setback a minimum 1 metre from an existing habitable room window on an adjoining lot, and that walls more than 3 metres in height should be setback a distance at least half their height. The setback requirement is measured from the floor level of the affected window. The existing windows to the northwest of the subject site at No. 2051 Malvern Road are located approximately 1.7 metres from the common boundary. The table below illustrate how the proposal responds to these requirements:


Ground floor 2.49m 1.25m 5.7m Yes

First floor 6.63m 3.31m 5.7m Yes

Second floor 9.03m 4.51m 8.7m Yes

The above calculations demonstrate full compliance with Standard B19. North Facing Windows No north facing windows are impacted by this proposal in accordance with the parameters set out in Standard B20 (North Facing Windows) of Clause 55.


Overshadowing The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard B21. This Standard states the following:

‘Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September. If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced’.

The proposed building will result in additional overshadowing to No. 2059 Malvern Road in the afternoon however, the extent of overshadowing will comply with the standard and objective of Clause 55.04-5 (Overshadowing Open Space), which aims to limit overshadowing of new buildings to existing secluded private open space of adjoining properties. There will be no additional overshadowing to No. 2051 Malvern Road. Overlooking The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the overlooking objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9 metres 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level (FFL) accordingly. The standard does not apply to any overlooking issues from the ground level if the existing boundary fences have a height over 1.8 metres and the finished floor level is less than 0.8 metres above ground level at the boundary. There is an existing boundary fence along the northwest boundary which varies from 1.8 metres to 2.6 metres in height restricting any unreasonable overlooking from the ground floor. There is an existing boundary fence along the southeast boundary which varies from 1.8 metres to 2 metres in height. Given the terrace associated with apartment 7 has a finished floor level greater than 750mm above natural ground level screening to the southeast side of the terrace will be required via condition on any issue of permit. The balconies and windows that front Malvern Road and the Public Use Zone to the rear have not been afforded privacy screening as they do not result in any overlooking to sensitive areas. Most of the windows and balconies on the first floor southeast elevation which overlook secluded private open space or habitable room windows (within 9 metres) have either obscure glass or screening to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level. This is with the exception of bedroom 1 of apartment 17. A condition will be placed on any issue of permit to ensure this window is screened accordingly. All the first floor windows and balconies on the first floor northwest elevation which overlook secluded private open space or habitable room windows (within 9 metres) have either obscure glass or screening to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level. The southeast and northwest elevations indicate that there is a 1.7 metre high balustrade along the full length of the second floor which acts as a privacy screen.


The obscure glass and screening is noted as not more than 25% transparent in accordance with Standard B22 (Overlooking). However, it is noted that the material schedule details that the obscure glazing is ‘OB’ while the elevations refer to ‘OG’. This inconstancy will be corrected by way of permit condition. A further condition will be placed on any issue of permit ensuring the screening is installed prior to the occupation of the building. Traffic and Parking The proposed development includes 33 on-site parking spaces (29 residential parking spaces and 4 visitor spaces), representing a shortfall of 1 parking space pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. It is considered that the proposed parking waiver can be supported and the proposal will not cause significant traffic and parking impacts for the following reasons:

The subject site is located close to activity centres, with excellent access to services and facilities.

The residents and visitors of this development are not eligible for ‘Resident Parking Permits’ pursuant to Council’s Local Laws. As a result, waiver of the parking requirement will not significantly impact on the street-parking network.

Partial waiver of the parking requirement is consistent with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy which encourages use of more sustainable modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport).

Council’s Transport and Parking did not object to the shortfall of parking. Concerns/queries have been raised from the Traffic and Parking Unit regarding the parking layout and design which will be addressed via conditions on any issue of permit. Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) The development is considered to offer a good level of internal amenity for the new dwellings with the apartments varying in size between 67 sq. metres and 100 sq. metres. All balconies are conveniently accessible from the living area, have a minimum width of 1.6 metres and range in size from 8 sq. metres to 68 sq. metres. The apartments on the ground floor have secluded private open space between 30 sq. metres and 118 sq. metres in accordance with the standard requirements of Standard B28 of Clause 55.05-4. The subject site has good access to a wide range of services and facilities. As a result, the residents are also likely to derive their amenity from the convenient access to many facilities and be less reliant on the immediate amenity of their dwellings. Overall, it is considered that the development provides for adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of future residents. The proposed development has made appropriate use of daylight where possible. The apartments incorporate windows and balconies to take advantage of the daylight and solar energy. All habitable rooms have direct access to daylight. Clause 22.05 (Environmentally Sustainable Design) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme provides guidance with regard to achieving best practice environmentally sustainable development. The applicant has provided a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) as required by the policy. Council’s ESD Officer has made comment on the proposed plans and SMP and considers that there are a number of deficiencies that require changes including:

All exposed northeast and northwest facing windows must be provided with external shading.


An annotation must be added to the roof plan to specify that the solar photovoltaic system will provide power to common areas in accordance with the SMP.

Double-glazing must be shown in the materials schedule.

All permeable surfaces and stormwater treatment areas to be included on the landscape plans.

Further sustainable material use must be committed to in the SMP.

The SMP must include a commitment to a specified percentage reduction in portland cement use for precast and insitu concrete.

The number of bicycle spaces must be increased to at least 26 in accordance with best practices (1 space per dwelling).

It is noted that the above deficiencies can easily be addressed via permit conditions on any issue of permit. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) The plans indicate that there will be 2 x 25,000 litre rainwater tanks underground however, the STORM report indicates that a 103% STORM rating will be achieved with 1 x 25,000 litre tank. The plans and STORM report must be updated so they are consistent with one another. The plans and STORM Report confirm that all rainwater is to be plumbed to toilets for flushing. The roof plans must be annotated to confirm drainage areas to be connected to the rainwater tank which will be addressed by way of permit condition. The rainwater retention measure proposed ensures that Council’s local policy (Clause 22.18) is met and minimum best practice is achieved. Objections In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Amenity impacts during construction - The potential amenity impacts during construction cannot be considered under the legal framework of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Setting precedent - Each application is assessed based on its merits and against applicable policy.

Impact on property values - The impact of the use and development on property values cannot be considered under the legal framework of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. CONCLUSION Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The development is appropriately located on a main road and within close proximity of public transport and existing services and infrastructure to accommodate a medium density development.


By virtue of the level of compliance with the ResCode Standards and Objectives, the development is complementary to the existing neighbourhood character along Malvern Road.

The new building will be adequately setback to avoid unreasonable loss of daylight to existing windows, excessive overshadowing, overlooking or unreasonable visual bulk in accordance with the relevant ResCode Standards.

The development provides adequate resident and visitor car parking.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 768-15 - 2053 - 2055 Malvern Road Malvern East - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 768/15 for the land located at 2053-2055 Malvern Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, reduction in the car parking requirement, removal of easement 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, three (3) copies of plans drawn

to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans Council date stamped 4 March 2016, 8 March 2016, and 10 March 2016 but modified to show:

a) Updated roof plan in accordance with the revised plans (declared on 10

March 2016). b) The roof plan must be annotated to confirm drainage areas to be connected

to the rainwater tank. c) An annotation must be added to the roof plan to specify that the solar

photovoltaic system will provide power to common areas in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP).

d) Balcony balustrades associated with apartments 13, 18 and 19 to be constructed of opaque glazing.

e) Double-glazing must be shown in the materials schedule. f) All exposed northeast and northwest facing windows must be provided with

external shading. g) Privacy screening to the southeast side of the terrace associated with

apartment 7 in accordance with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55. h) Privacy screening to bedroom 1 associated with apartment 17 in accordance

with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55. i) Material schedule and elevation updated to ensure consistent labelling of the

obscure glazing. j) 26 bicycle spaces provided on site in accordance with Council’s Sustainable

Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) requirements. k) 300mm kerbs on each side of the ramp in accordance with the Traffic Impact

Assessment. l) Columns designed in accordance with Clause 52.06-8. m) Swept path diagrams for a B85 design vehicle accessing the spaces in the

car stackers. n) A vehicle parking allocation plan ensuring that 1 space per 2-bedroom

dwelling and 2 spaces per 3-bedroom dwelling is maintained. o) Substation doors must not open onto the adjoining footpath.


p) Any alterations required by conditions 3, 6, 13 and 16.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and

works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a

Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the one submitted on 22 October 2015 but modified to show: a) A commitment to further use of sustainable material. b) A commitment to a specified percentage reduction in portland cement use

for precast and insitu concrete. c) The capacity of the rainwater tank stipulated in the SMP, STORM report,

and plans must be updated so they are consistent with one another. All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report

from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

5. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives

detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report. 6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the one prepared by Leigh Designs Council date stamped 1 September 2015.

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


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

9. 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.

10. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to

be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

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

access to the site. 12. Prior to occupation of the building or commencement of use, any existing

vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. A stormwater detention system must be provided to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, stormwater tanks must be provided that are in total 6,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) requirements.

14. 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.

15. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or

screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape

architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape plan Council date stamped 1 September 2015 prepared by Tract Consultants Pty Ltd but modified to show: a) Alteration in accordance with the revised plans (declared on 10 March

2016). b) Location of the existing street trees in relation to the vehicle crossing. c) Larger canopy trees must be included in the planting schedule. d) A canopy tree in the front courtyard of apartments 1 and 10.


e) All permeable surfaces and stormwater treatment areas noted.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 17. 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.

18. Protection fencing must be afforded to the two Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) street trees prior to construction works being undertaken. Fencing must comply with Section 4 of AS 4970.

Start of VicRoads conditions

19. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, a sealed

vehicle crossover must be constructed at least 6.0 metres in width as measured at the property boundary and to the satisfaction of the Responsible authority. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary.

20. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, redundant vehicle crossovers onto Malvern Road must be removed and the kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible authority.

End of VicRoads conditions

21. 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

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. 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.


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

a) Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the

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

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


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 764/15 - 1134 MALVERN ROAD, MALVERN - CONSTRUCTION

OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE; USE OF LAND AS A

FOOD AND DRINK PREMISES AND 13 DWELLINGS (AS OF RIGHT); ALTER ACCESS TO A

ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE, CATEGORY 1; REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT

AND WAIVER OF THE LOADING/UNLOADING BAY REQUIREMENTS


PURPOSE For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a mixed use development in a General Residential Zone; use of land as a food and drink premises and 13 dwellings (as of right); alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1; reduction in the car parking requirement and waiver of the loading/unloading bay requirements at 1134 Malvern Road, Malvern. This item was considered at the Council meeting of 11 April 2016. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration. Executive Summary Applicant: Metropol Planning Solutions Pty Ltd Ward: South Zone: General Residential Zone - Schedule 1 Overlay: N/A Date lodged: 31 August 2015 Statutory days: 46 days Trigger for referral to Council:

Four storey building and number of objections

Number of objections: 11 objections Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 10 February 2016 Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit BACKGROUND The Proposal The advertised plans were prepared by CBG Architects and are known as File No. 1425, Drawing No.s: TP01 – TP14 and Council date stamped 13 November 2015. Additional information accompanying the application includes:

Landscape plan prepared by MEMLA Pty Ltd Council date stamped 31 August 2015.

Arborist report prepared by Tree Consultants & Contractors Council date stamped 31 August 2015.

Traffic report prepared by TraffixGroup Council date stamped 31 August 2015.

Waste management plan prepared by R B Waste Consulting Service Council date stamped 13 November 2015.

Sustainability design assessment prepared by Sustainable Development Consultants Council date stamped 13 November 2015.


Key features of the proposal are:

Demolish the existing dwelling and associated outbuilding (no permit required).

Construct a four storey mixed use building comprising 13 dwellings (8 x one-bedroom and 5 x two-bedroom) and a food a drink premises.

The food and drink premises will operate Monday to Saturday between the hours of 8am and 5pm. The maximum number of patrons will be 15. The food and drink premises is located on the ground floor near the Malvern Road frontage and features an outdoor seating area (within the title boundaries). In accordance with Clause 74 (Land Use Terms) of the Stonnnington Planning Scheme food and drink premises is defined as ‘land used to prepare and sell food and drink for immediate consumption on, or off, the premises’.

Due to the slope on the site, the maximum overall building height varies between 13.25 metres above natural ground level at the rear of the site and 14 metres at the front of the site.

A total of 14 car spaces (13 for residents and 1 for the food and drink premises) are provided in a basement with access from Malvern Road (Road Zone, Category 1). Seven resident bicycle spaces, individual storage units and waste storage is also provided in the basement. Four visitor bicycle spaces are provided at ground level.

Vehicle access is provided via a widened crossover near the west boundary and common pedestrian access is provided along the east boundary.

No visitor parking or loading/unloading bay is provided.

Basement site coverage (including ramp) is 73.8% percent of the site, building site coverage is 58.57% and site permeability is 26.2%.

A 12,000 litre rainwater storage tank is to be located underground.

There is no front fence proposed.

The proposal adopts a contemporary form and features a flat roof. The primary building materials are render, concrete, metal cladding, and glazing.

Amended plans Amended plans were formally substituted on 24 February 2016 under Section 57 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The amended plans form the basis of this report. The plans were submitted in an effort to address concerns raised by Council officers and objectors. The revised plans were not re-advertised, as they did not result in an increase of amenity impacts. The specific changes from the advertised plans are as follows:

An automatic door added to the basement entry.

A landscaped area and a disabled lift have replaced pedestrian ramps along the eastern boundary.

A 1.5 metre high vehicle gate and front fence along the Malvern Road frontage.

The food and drink premises floor level lowered by 10mm due to alterations to the pedestrian ramp.

Additional natural ground level points have been nominated along the eastern and western boundaries.

The extent of apartments 102, 103, 202 and 203 revised (internal alterations) to provide better internal amenity.

The design of the balconies of apartments 101, 102, 201, 202, 301 and 302 have been revised to provide a stepped built form along the northern boundary.

The extent of the light court along the western boundary has been increased on level three to match the lower levels.

Materials on the western façade have been amended to improve visual interest.


Site and Surrounds The site is located on the south side of Malvern Road, Malvern and has the following significant characteristics:

Is occupied by a single storey detached brick dwelling and outbuilding.

Is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Malvern Road of 16 metres and a depth of 39.5 metres generating a site area of 632 sq. metres.

The land exhibits a fall of approximately 2 metres from the south west to the north east.

Four ‘significant’ trees are located on site (when assessed against Council’s Local Law definition).

The subject site and land adjacent to the east and west is zoned General Residential (Schedule 1) which provides for a mandatory maximum height of 13.5 metres (or 14.5 metres when the land is subject to a slope exceeding 2.5 degrees over any 8 metre section). A review of the slope on the land reveals that the land exceeds 2.5 degrees and therefore a mandatory maximum height limit of 14.5 metres applies. The subject site abuts Malvern Hill Activity Centre to the west, which is focused around the intersection of Malvern and Glenferrie Road. The activity centre includes the Glenferrie Hotel, a café, a chemist, a service station and a number of two storey shops and offices. The Strategic Framework Plan, at clause 21.03-3, identifies the commercial precinct as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (small). It also identifies this section of Malvern Road as a tram/bus priority route. There is a tram stop approximately 50 metres west of the subject site. The site’s immediate surrounds are described as follows:

The land to the west is split zoned with the northwest portion within the Commercial 1 Zone and the remainder of the site within the General Residential Zone. A two-storey brick building used as an electricity substation is located within the commercially zoned portion of the site, which is setback approximately 10.5 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. The balance of this property is paved and used for car parking. The Synagogue at No. 316 Glenferrie Road uses the southern portion of the site for vehicle parking.

Directly east of the site at No. 1136 Malvern Road is a double storey detached brick dwelling on a lot which is approximately the same size as the subject site. The dwelling is located in the northern portion of the site with a large rear yard comprising secluded private open space and a domestic swimming pool. It is further noted that there are two ‘significant’ trees on site which are situated near the sites western boundary.

Directly south of the subject site is No. 1 Embling Road. This site is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and is occupied by a single storey detached dwelling with secluded private open space in the rear yard (abutting the common boundary with the subject site).

To the north (on the opposite side of Malvern Road) at No. 1155 Malvern Road is a substantial two storey office building within the Commercial 1 Zone.


Previous Planning Application(s) A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Application No. 1261/98 sought approval for the construction of a three-storey building (over a basement car park) for serviced apartments. This application was refused by Council (Notice of Decision dated 12 January 1999) as it was considered to be an overdevelopment of the land. Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal would have an unreasonable amenity impact on adjoining dwellings and there was inadequate landscaping proposed. Council’s decision was not appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Planning Application No. 1209/99 sought approval for the construction of a three-storey building (over a basement car park) for serviced apartments. This application was refused by Council (Notice of Decision dated 24 May 2000) as insufficient information was provided with the application.

Planning Application No. 577/00 sought approval for the construction of a three-storey building (over a basement car park) for serviced apartments. This application was refused by Council (Notice of Decision dated 7 September 2000). Council’s decision was upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The VCAT order (No. 2000/076064) detailed that there would be unreasonable amenity impacts on the property to the east (No. 1136 Malvern Road) and to a lesser extent on the property to the south (No. 1 Embling Road) including visual bulk and lack of screening landscaping. Furthermore, it was noted that the proposed basement and accessway would likely have a detrimental impact on the two significant trees along the western boundary of No. 1136 Malvern Road. Other grounds of refusal related to the inadequate car-parking layout.

o The subject proposal has been designed so the two significant trees along the

western boundary of No. 1136 Malvern Road are retained and there are no fundamental concerns with the car-parking provision or layout. Furthermore, there are no unreasonable amenity impacts as discussed below.

The Title The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04009 Folio 770 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 706504X. No covenants or easements affect the land. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Zone Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone (Schedule 1 Key Boulevards) Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 a permit is required to use the land as a food and drink premises. Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 a permit is not required to use the land for dwellings. Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A mandatory maximum height limit of 14.5 metres applies due to the slope of the land exceeding 2.5 degrees as detailed earlier. Schedule 1 to the General Residential Zone also details that basements should not exceed 75% of the site area. Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 (food and drink premises) of Clause 32.08-1.


Overlay No overlays. Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied, the car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Pursuant to 52.06-5 each one or two bedroom dwelling must provide at least one car parking space. Furthermore, 1 visitor car space is required for each 5 dwellings. Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a food and drink premises requires 4 car spaces to each 100 sq. metres of leasable floor area. The development comprises 8 x one-bedroom and 5 x two-bedroom dwellings resulting in a statutory requirement to provide 13 residential parking spaces and 2 visitor spaces. The leasable floor area associated with the food and drink premises is 102 sq. metres (including the outdoor seating area) therefore requiring 4 car parking spaces. The proposal provides 13 residential spaces and 1 space associated with the food and drink premises therefore, a permit is required pursuant to this Clause for a reduction of the visitor and food and drink premises parking requirements. Clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of Vehicles Pursuant to Clause 52.07, no building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless a loading and unloading bay has been provided. As no loading/ unloading bay is provided on site a permit is required to waive the loading bay requirements. Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road A permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1. An application to create or alter access to a road declared as an arterial road under the Road Management Act 2004 must be referred to the Roads Corporation (VicRoads) under Section 55 of the Act. VicRoads is a determining referral authority. Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities Pursuant to Clause 52.34 a development of 4 or more storeys is required to provide 1 bicycle space to each 5 dwellings. As advertised, the proposal provides 11 bicycle racks which exceeds the minimum 3 required by the Planning Scheme. Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Pursuant to Clause 55, a development of two or more dwellings on a lot, which does not exceed four storeys must meet the objectives of this clause. General Provisions Clause 65 Decision Guidelines The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including the Planning Scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.


Relevant Planning Policies Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 15.01 Urban environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable development Clause 16.01 Residential development Clause 18.01 Transport Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.04 Economic Development Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built environment Clause 22.05 Environmentally sustainable development Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood character policy Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone Clause 52.06 Car parking Clause 52.34 Bicycle facilities Clause 55 ResCode Clause 65 Decision guidelines Advertising The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing a sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in South Ward and objections from eleven different properties have been received and can be summarised as follows:

Neighborhood character

Visual bulk / building height

Overdevelopment

Overshadowing / loss of daylight

Overlooking

Waste management

Traffic and parking

Part use of land as a food and drink premises

Removal of trees and lack of replacement planting

Amenity concerns during construction

Decreased property values

Setting precedent A Consultative Meeting was held on 10 February 2016. The meeting was attended by Councillors Ullin and Tini Athanasopoulos, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the submission of amended plans as set out under the proposal section of this report.


Referrals Urban Design Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2015) and provided the following comments:

The first and second floors of the building addressing Malvern Road are set within a visually dominant ‘box’ frame; and this form is set at an angle to the Malvern Road frontage. A preferred design approach would be to split the form into two rectilinear elements (apartments 1.01 & 2.01 and apartments 1.02 & 2.02) and stagger these two forms, with their northern facades parallel to Malvern Road.

In order to avoid the ‘canyon’ effect of the driveway entry to the basement; it is suggested to include a garage door at an appropriate location on the driveway ramp.

Planner response: The amended plans have sought to split the form (on the front facade) into two rectilinear elements and stagger them to provide for better integration with the streetscape. Furthermore, an automatic door has been added to the basement entry. Council’s Urban Designer provided verbal advice on the amended plans and indicated that they address the concerns raised. Parks Council’s Parks Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2015) and provided the following comments:

Four ‘significant’ trees, are scheduled to be removed from this site. The accompanying tree report does not indicate that any of the trees are of high retention value, although dismissing the landscape value of a mature Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Palm) on the basis of ‘dangerously spiny frond bases’ would appear to be an invalid reason.

Two significant trees are located directly east of the title boundary, within No. 1136 Malvern Road. A tree management plan must be conditioned to ensure construction design and implementations do not compromise the health of either specimen. Particular mention must be included for the following:

o Eastern fence construction.

o Concrete ramp and retaining wall construction.

o Tree protection measures for the Lophostemon confertus street tree.

The proposed landscape response (which includes nine trees) is a poor landscaping outcome for this site as two of the trees do not achieve their full potential in Melbourne’s climate, six of the trees only reach a height of 4 metres, and the ninth tree will be planted in situ (into a constructed planter box, generally elevated above the surrounding ground level).

Planner response: A condition will be included on any issue of permit to ensure a tree management plan is prepared to protect the two significant trees at No. 1136 Malvern Road and the street tree in front of the subject site. The amended plans have sought to replace a portion of the pedestrian ramp along the eastern boundary with vegetation to improve the landscape response.


Furthermore, a condition will be included on any issue of permit to ensure the proposed landscaping (along the south boundary in particular) is improved with larger more appropriate canopy trees. An assessment of the proposed tree removal will be discussed further in this report. Infrastructure Council’s Infrastructure Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2015) and provided the following comments:

A legal point of discharge must be obtained and the drainage design must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer.

A stormwater detention system must be provided to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, stormwater tanks must be provided that are in total 2,500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) requirements.

Any redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost.

The existing footpath levels must not be altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).

Planner response: The above matters will form conditions on any permit which may issue. Traffic and Parking Council’s Traffic and Parking Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2015) and provided the following comments:

The proposed development includes 14 on-site parking spaces, representing a shortfall of 5 parking spaces in accordance with the requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. More specifically, there is a short fall of 2 visitor spaces and 3 spaces associated with the food and drink premises. In this context, Council’s Transport and Parking did not object to the shortfall of visitor parking.

Future residents and visitors of the development will be exempt from Council’s Residential Priority Parking Scheme, and as such will not be eligible for parking permits.

The number of additional trips generated by the proposal appears to be reasonable in this case, and is not anticipated to have a significant impact to the operation of Malvern Road.

The access width and passing area is generally in accordance with the Planning Scheme and is considered satisfactory. However, the sole access to/from the site will be via Malvern Road, which is a Primary State Arterial Road under the management of VicRoads. As such, access is an issue for VicRoads to consider.

The proposal will result in the widening of the existing crossover on Malvern Road. Approval from VicRoads is required to construct or alter a vehicle crossing.

The headroom clearance, sight distance at property boundary, and gradients are deemed to be acceptable.

Pedestrian access to stairwell and lift is proposed directly from the parking aisle, with no separation or available sight distance for pedestrians to see oncoming vehicles.

The plans do not show the gates in front of the stackers and how the columns will integrate with these gates.


The swept path diagrams must be revised to include the actual car stacker structure in its correct location, with a usable platform width of 2.6 metres.

Confirm the pit depth and height clearances for each level of the stacker to ensure the Planning Scheme requirement is met.

The make and model of the car stacker must be annotated on the plans.

The Transport and Parking Unit do not support a waiver of the Loading requirement.

The Stonnington Planning Scheme requires 3 bicycle spaces for residents and 1 for residential visitors. There is no bicycle parking requirement for the food and drink premises component of the development. With 11 onsite spaces proposed (7 for residents and 4 for visitors) the minimum statutory requirements have been exceeded. The plans must be amended to ensure the bicycle parking is as per the specifications of the product sheet of the chosen model.

Planner response: In accordance with Clause 52.07 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme a permit is required waiving the loading and unloading bay requirements. Given the size of the food and drink premises (80 sq. metres internally and 22 sq. metres externally) and the capacity (maximum 15 patrons) it is considered that the deliveries can be undertaken by way of a small delivery van from the street or within the basement. A condition will be placed on any issue of permit to ensure that all loading and unloading of goods are undertaken in accordance with Council’s Local Laws. The remaining concerns noted by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit, will be resolved through the inclusion of conditions on any permit, which may issue. Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) Council’s ESD Officer has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2015) and provided the following comments:

Considering the size of the site and location, an adequate level of daylight and internal amenity is provided to the dwellings however, the living areas of apartments 103 and 203 and bedroom 2 of apartment 101 will have poor access to daylight.

The proposed development includes a majority of apartments that would be naturally ventilated with cross ventilation being achieved due to the dual aspect design of the apartments.

Apartments 103 and 203 will have poor natural ventilation due to being single aspect and living room depths greater than 5 metres.

Window openings (required for cross-ventilation opportunities) are not indicated on plans.

Appendix 1 of the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) notes that the overall building energy rating performance will not be less than 6 stars (average) which is the minimum National Construction Code (NCC) requirement. To demonstrate that the proposal would meet best practice for energy efficiency, the project should be committing to an average energy rating of at least 10% better than the minimum NCC requirement.

The SMP refers to central solar with gas boosted hot water system however; this is not reflected in the STEPS report.

The roof plan notes hot water systems and photovoltaics in the roof plant area however, the photovoltaics are not reflected in the SMP or STEPS report.

The window and glazing assumptions for the energy rating assessment results at Appendix 1 are based on a typical double glazed window however; double-glazing is not reflected in the materials schedule.

The SMP states that native and drought tolerant planting will be used for landscaping however; this is not reflected in the landscape plans.


The SMP states that a roof catchment area of 282 sq. metres will be connected to a 12,000 litre rainwater tank connected to toilets. The entrance ramps and steps appear to be shown as permeable in the SMP. However this area is not noted as permeable paving in the SMP or on the site or landscape plans.

Further details on permeable paving and decking to be provided on the site and landscape plans with information regarding indicative management and maintenance.

The number of bicycle spaces should be increased to at least 13 in accordance with best practices (1 space per dwelling).

Basement plan TP04 notes a basement coverage of 54.4% which is incorrect as it excludes the vehicle ramp.

Planner response: The amended plans have sought to improve the internal amenity (of the living areas) associated with apartments 103 and 203 by incorporating some of the floor area of the adjoining apartments. Although apartments 103 and 203 are still single aspect the extent of glazing and access to daylight has improved as a result of the amended plans and is now considered acceptable. Bedroom 2 of apartment 101 will still receive poor access to daylight if there is a development constructed near the western boundary as this bedroom relies on a light court (for daylight) and is situated on the ground floor of the proposed building. This is considered acceptable in this context as apartment 101 contains a second bedroom, which has north facing windows that will receive adequate access to daylight. The remaining concerns noted by Council’s ESD Officer, will be resolved through the inclusion of conditions on any permit, which may issue and are discussed in greater detail below. Waste Council’s Waste Unit has reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2015) and provided the following comments:

The standard allocation of bins for the development would be 1 x 120 litre plus 14 x 240 litre for both the resident and commercial component.

The Waste Management Plan prepared by R B Waste Consulting Service responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans.

VicRoads (external referral) The advertised plans (Council date stamped 13 November 2015) were referred under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to VicRoads who requested for the following conditions to be included on any issue of permit:

Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, a sealed vehicle crossover with a minimum width of 5.5 metres as measured at the property boundary must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary.

Pedestrian sight triangles must be provided at the vehicle access point onto Malvern Road, generally in accordance with Australian / New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Planner response: VicRoads is a determining referral authority for the purposes of this application; therefore the conditions provided must be included on any issue of permit. It is further noted that the amended plans sought to include a 1.5 metre high vehicle gate along the Malvern Road frontage which was not reviewed or approved by VicRoads therefore, a condition will be included on any issue of permit to delete the gate. KEY ISSUES State Planning Policy Framework A number of provisions from the State Section of the Planning Scheme are relevant to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include commentary about Structure Planning (Clause 11.02-3), Metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 11.04), Urban Design (Clause 15.01), Housing (Clause 16) and Transport (Clause 18). At the State Policy level these policy objectives provide an impetus for the residential intensification of sites that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. Specific State policy support for appropriate residential intensification is highlighted in Clause 16 (Housing). This includes strategies to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land (Clause 16.01-1) and to increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the established urban areas particularly near Activity Centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites (Clause 16.01-2). The State Policy objectives in regard to transport also provide a particular emphasis on encouraging higher land use densities and mixed use developments near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges, tramways and principal public transport routes (Clause 18.01-2). When considered against this policy direction there is State policy support for the proposed redevelopment and intensification of an existing site that is located on the principal public transport network, adjacent to a small Neighbourhood Activity Centre (Malvern Hill) and within 500-700 metres of a Major Activity Centre (Glenferrie Roads/High Street). Local Planning Policy Framework The Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan identifies locations where specific outcomes are encouraged. In regard to residential intensification this framework at Clause 21.05-2 acknowledges the need for increased densities across the municipality and directs specific types of development to specific areas. The proposal is consistent with this policy, being in a ‘substantial change area’ where ‘medium density and higher density housing’ should be directed. Specific built form outcomes are addressed in local Built Environment Policy at Clause 21.06. This policy directs that new buildings not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings and that development be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location. In this instance the four storey built form is considered acceptable, when viewed against the relevant policy settings and when compared with the two and three storey buildings found within this precinct and the four storey buildings found within the broader Malvern Road corridor.


In terms of the food and drink premises component of the proposal Clause 21.04-4 (Commercial and community uses in residential zones) aims ‘to ensure non-residential uses in residential zones are located to achieve maximum accessibility to the communities they serve and respect the preferred character of the area and residential amenity’. Some of the relevant strategies to achieve this objective are as follows:

Encourage commercial and community uses permissible in residential zones to locate close to activity centres, community hubs, public transport and other related uses.

Encourage the retention of the existing residential stock to facilitate its future re-use for residential purposes.

Ensure large and / or purpose built, non-residential uses locate in or beside activity centres or beside those parts of main roads which have a mixed use character.

Accept small non-residential uses on land with a frontage to a main road.

Ensure non-residential uses do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area through noise, hours of operation, traffic or parking associated with the use.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the above mentioned in the following ways:

The subject site is located on a main arterial road (Road Zone, Category 1) and is located on the edge of a Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

The scale of the food and drink premises is considered to be small (15 patrons) with restricted trading hours (8am to 5pm Monday to Saturday).

The site will continue to have a residential component (13 apartments).

There are a number of non-residential uses nearby which are within residential zoned land that contribute to the mixed character of the area including a retail premise to the north east of the site at No. 1161 Malvern Road and a gallery to the east of the site at No.1140 Malvern Road both of which are approximately 30 metres away.

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

Proposed scale and Neighbourhood Character The application has been assessed against Clauses 16.01, 21.05 and 22.23 and is considered a site responsive design that responds to both the existing and emerging streetscape. The extent of built form has responded to the varying interfaces, which exist, and the likely built form, which will occur as a result of the policy settings. The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone (Schedule 1). The General Residential Zone provides the following purposes:

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of the nonresidential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.


Additional Decision Guidelines within Schedule 1 include:

Whether the development provides for an appropriate visual transition to residential properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Whether the proposal meets the preferred neighbourhood character statement and design objectives for the Precinct.

As will be detailed later in this report, the proposal is considered to satisfy the above mentioned in the following ways:

What constitutes ‘moderate housing growth’ will be dependent on the particular context. Clause 32.08-7 provides for a maximum building height of 14.5 metres (due to the slope on the land). The development has a maximum building height of 14 metres.

One and two and three bedroom dwellings are proposed in a location which has convenient access to public transport, shopping centres and public services such as schools and medical facilities.

Setbacks off the south boundary, where the site adjoins land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, are fully compliant with ResCode.

The acceptability of a four storey building on this site is tempered by the need to consider whether the design meets the preferred neighbourhood character statement and design objectives as discussed below. Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 22.23 The subject site falls within precinct Garden Suburban (GS3) which includes the following statement of preferred neighbourhood character:

‘The Garden Suburban 3 (GS3) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Victorian, Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, one-two storey scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

The underlined text above is highlighted as it is considered pertinent to this site and this proposal. The policy also includes the following relevant design objectives:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Clause 22.23-3 states that when assessing a proposal on a site within a ‘substantial change area’, it is policy to allow for greater change while reflecting the elements of preferred character. It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily responds to these objectives in the following ways:

The building is a maximum of 14 metres high above footpath level. The zoning allows a maximum height of 14.5 metres.

The height and site coverage of the building is within the parameters contemplated by the zone’s substantial change designation of the site.

The buildings setbacks ensure that the rhythm of spacing is retained where it interfaces with residential properties.

The building is well articulated and broken up by different elements such as projecting frames and recesses as well as different materials.

The building provides a clearly visible pedestrian entry, and separate vehicle access.

Car parking is provided beneath the facility, ensuring it is minimally visible.

Basement site coverage (73.8%) provides opportunities for in-ground canopy tree landscaping in key areas of the site.

For these reasons, the proposal is considered an appropriate response to the neighbourhood character policy considering the locality of the site, being within a General Residential Zone, substantial change area and on a declared main road. Clause 55 It is considered that the subject site has strategic support for higher density development. The location is appropriate for urban consolidation and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice. Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to Clause 55 (two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings). This is discussed below. Street Setback Standard B6 recommends that a new building be setback, ‘the average distance of the setbacks of the front walls of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser’. In this case, the existing dwelling to the east is setback 7.95 metres from Malvern Road and the existing industrial building (electricity substation) to the west is setback 9.3 metres from Malvern Road. Therefore, the Standard requires a new building to be setback 8.6 metres. The proposed building is to be setback a minimum of 6 metres from Malvern Road on the ground floor. The building has a staggered setback on the floors above. More specifically, the first and second floors have a setback of 3.8 metres (on the western side of the building) and 5.82 metres (on the eastern side of the building). The front setbacks at these levels include balconies, which are between 1.6 metres and 1.75 metres in depth. The third floor is setback 5.25 (on the western side of the building) and 6.25 metres (on the eastern side of the building). The front setbacks at this level include balconies, which are 2.3 metres in depth. The balustrades associated with the balconies are 1 metre in height and constructed out of a lightweight material (clear glazing). The projecting frames and different materials distinguish the middle two levels from the ground and third floor. It is considered that these design elements assist with creating contrast, depth and articulation to the facade.


The subject site is located within a ‘substantial change area’ where policy encourages medium and higher density development to make efficient use of sites to facilitate increased population densities in areas with access to high quality public transport and other community facilities. Furthermore, the site is located on the edge of an Activity Centre where it is common to have nil front setbacks. Overall, a variation to the standard is considered acceptable in this context as the proposed front setback and design attributes are considered to achieve a balanced response to policy aspirations. Building Height Due to the slope of the land, the maximum building height varies between 13.25 metres above natural ground level at the rear of the site (associated with the stairwell and lift shaft) and 14 metres to the top of the parapet at the front of the site (when measured from the footpath). Schedule 1 to the General Residential Zone allows a maximum building height of 14.5 metre (where the slope exceeds 2.5 degrees across any 8 metres section which is the case for this site). The building height accords with the Standard. Some objectors were concerned that the development exceeds the maximum building height as a result of the services on the roof. Clause 72 (General Terms) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme defines building height as ‘the vertical distance from natural ground level to the roof or parapet at any point’. It is noted that the services and the associated screening does not exceed 14.5 metres above natural ground level. Site Coverage The proposed building site coverage is 58.57%, which complies with the 60 per cent maximum stipulated in Standard B8 at Clause 55.03-3. A basement is proposed covering 73.8% of the site, which complies with the 75% maximum for basements as outlined in Standard B8 of Schedule 1 to the General Residential Zone. It is noted that the site coverage of the basement includes the vehicle ramp. Permeability The site will have 26.2% permeability, which complies with Standard B9 (i.e. minimum of 20%). Furthermore, the development will be required to meet Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy further reducing stormwater runoff. Landscaping It is considered reasonable to mass the building towards the western side of the site given the property to the west is non-sensitive (carpark and electricity substation). However, three of the four ‘significant’ trees scheduled for removal are located along the western boundary. These trees are somewhat of a constraint as any development, which sought to retain these trees, would be virtually impractical. It must be remembered that the planning scheme says this site is a preferred location for more intense residential development. The location of the existing trees limits the achievement of what the planning scheme seeks and, overall, the trees future life expectancy is well short of the anticipated longevity of this apartment building.


The landscape plans proposed 6 Southern Magnolia Cultivar trees along the rear boundary and a canopy tree (Native Frangipani) in the rear courtyard of both apartment G01 and G02. Council’s Arborist has indicated that Native Frangipani trees do not reach their full potential in Melbourne’s climate. Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding the maturity height (4 metres) of the Southern Magnolia Cultivar trees. A condition will be included on any issue of permit, which requires the Southern Magnolia Cultivar trees to be replaced with a suitable screening tree, which reaches a minimum height of 5 metres at maturity. An additional condition will be included on the permit requiring the Native Frangipani trees to be replaced with a better suited tree to Melbourne’s climate. In terms of the eastern interface the design response allows for retention of the two ‘significant’ trees at No. 1136 Malvern Road (which are located near the common boundary). A condition will be included on any issue of permit requiring a tree management plan to be submitted and approved by Council to ensure the health of these trees is not compromised throughout the construction period. These trees provide an important screening mechanism. Additionally, the landscape plan proposes Himalayan weeping bamboo foliage (with a maturity height of 3.5 metres) along the rear half to the eastern boundary (opposite the secluded private open space of No. 1136 Malvern Road). There is also a Crepe Myrtle tree with a maturity height of 6 metres proposed to be planted in situ (into a constructed planter box, generally elevated above the surrounding ground level) across from the habitable room windows at No. 1136 Malvern Road. Lastly, it is noted that the pedestrian ramps have been removed from the eastern boundary and replaced with landscaping (shrubs and climbers). The development along this portion of Malvern Road cannot be described as having a prevailing garden character. There are examples of developments, which extend well into their respective sites. Within this context, the proposed landscaping responds well to the character of the area by providing vegetation within open areas, which will soften the appearance of the built form when viewed from the adjoining sensitive interfaces. A condition will be placed on any issue of permit ensuring that the landscaping as shown on the landscape plan is planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Overall, it is considered that the proposed landscape response provides an appropriate balance between planting and built form subject to the conditions suggested above. Amenity Impacts Side and Rear Setbacks The development is proposed to be setback from the north, east and west boundaries at varying distances. Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The tables below illustrate how the proposal responds to these requirements:

South Elevation


Ground floor

3.35 – 3.7m 1 - 1.03m 4 – 4.8m Yes

Level one 6.35 – 6.7 m 1.82 – 1.93m 4 – 4.2m Yes

Level two

8.55 – 8.9m 3.64 – 3.99m 6 – 6.8m Yes

Level three 13.25m 8.34m 8.4m Yes

East Elevation



Ground floor 2.82 – 4.66m 1 – 1.3m 3 – 5m Yes

Level one 6.7 – 7.6m 1.93 - 2.69m 3.05 – 3.55m Yes

Level two

Associated with unit 204 (balustrade)

8.1m 3.19m 3m No

Associated with unit 204 (bedroom)

9.6m 4.69m 4.5m No

Associated with unit 203 (balustrade)

8.9m 3.99m 2.25m (min) No

Associated with unit 204 (bedroom)

9.6m 4.69m 4.5m No

Associated with unit 202

10.6m 5.69m 3.55m No

Level three 12.71 – 13.2m 7.8 – 8.29 4.4 – 5m No

*The balustrade associated with unit 204 encroaches into the setback requirement by 0.5 metres. In this instance, the numerical requirements of the side and rear setback standard are not fully satisfied however, the setbacks comply with the objective of Clause 55.04-1 which aims ‘to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings’. The setbacks are considered to satisfy the objective in the following ways:

Setbacks off the south boundary, where the site adjoins land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, are fully compliant with ResCode.

The site is designated a ‘substantial change area’ within Council’s Local Policy.

State and Local Policy both provide strong support for residential intensification in substantial change areas.

The building is well articulated to enhance the visual interest and breakdown the visual mass.

The landscape plan demonstrates an acceptable level of screening landscaping along the boundaries to soften the built form, with the recommended conditions.

The primary outlook of the dwelling on the adjoining lot to the east is towards the south.

The reduction in the side setbacks will not result in unreasonable loss of daylight (refer to assessment of Standard B19 and Standard B20) or overshadowing (refer to assessment of Standard B21).

The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the rhythm of spacing between properties along Malvern Road. As a result, it is considered that the non-compliance will not significantly impact on the character of this area.

Walls on Boundaries Standard B18 details that a new wall constructed on or within 200mm of a side or rear boundary should not abut the boundary for a length of more than 10 metre plus 25% of the remaining length of the boundary of an adjoining lot, or the length of the existing or simultaneously constructed walls, whichever is the greater. The height of the wall should not exceed an average of 3.2 metres with no part higher than 3.6m unless abutting a higher existing or simultaneously constructed wall.


The development includes two portions of wall to be constructed on the western boundary (opposite 1128-1132 Malvern Road). The walls on the boundary have a combined length of 15.3 metres on the ground floor, 17.8 metres on the first and second floor and 13.45 metres on the third floor. The total length of wall on boundary at first and second floor exceeds the length requirements by 0.48 metres. The northern section of wall on the boundary is 13.19 metres in height and the southern section of wall is 6.18 metres which exceeds the maximum height requirements. The non-compliance exists opposite a car park and electricity substation associated with No. 1128-1132 Malvern Road therefore; it is considered that the walls on the boundary will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts. It is further noted that No. 1128-1132 Malvern Road marks the commencement of the Activity Centre where it is common to see walls constructed on or close to title boundaries therefore; it is considered that the non-compliance will not significantly impact on the character of this area. The walls on the boundary are to be finished in metal cladding and brighton lite concrete with scoring lines to provide for visual interest and articulation. A condition will be included on any issue of permit which states that the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Daylight to Existing Windows Standard B19 requires a new wall to be setback a minimum 1 metre from an existing habitable room window on an adjoining lot, and that walls more than 3 metres in height should be setback a distance at least half their height. The setback requirement is measured from the floor level of the affected window. The existing windows to the east of the subject site at No. 1136 Malvern Road are located 1.9 metres from the common boundary. The table below illustrates how the proposal responds to these requirements:

Across from subject windows

Wall height Setback required Setback proposed

Ground floor 3.8m 1.9m 3m and 5m

First floor 6.8m 3.4m 3.05 and 3.55m

Second floor 9.8m 4.9m 3.55m

Second floor (balustrade)

8.5m 4.25m 2.25m

Third floor 13.2m 6.6m 5m

The above calculations demonstrate compliance with the standard is not fully satisfied. However, the habitable room windows will continue to have a minimum of at least 1 metre available clear to the sky and a light court of at least 3 square metres in accordance with the standard. Furthermore, the design response is considered acceptable in this substantial change context. The north facing windows associated with No. 1 Embling Road are in excess of 3 metres from the common boundary therefore they are considered to receive an acceptable level of daylight in accordance with Standard B20 (North Facing Windows) of Clause 55.


Overshadowing The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard B21. This Standard states the following:

‘Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September. If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced’.

The proposed development will result in additional areas of overshadowing to all the adjoining properties. More specifically, the building will cast an increased shadow onto No. 1 Embling Road and No. 1136 Malvern Road in the afternoon. The affected area is relatively minor in this context given it is located close to the boundary fence lines and the main area of existing secluded private open space is not compromised. Furthermore, more than 40 square metres, with minimum dimension of 3 metres, of the secluded private open space will receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September, meeting the requirements of Standard B21. The building will also cast an increased shadow on No. 1128-1132 Malvern Road in the morning however, given the site is occupied by an electricity substation and car park there are no unreasonable amenity impacts. Overlooking The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the overlooking objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly. The standard does not apply to any overlooking issues from the proposed ground level as all the existing boundary fences have a height over 1.8 metres and the finished floor level is less than 0.8 metres above ground level at the boundary. The proposed ground floor plans indicate that the existing 1.8 metre high timber paling fences along the south and east boundary will be retained. The existing fence on the south boundary will ensure no unreasonable overlooking will occur in accordance with the standard requirements of Standard B22. Given the finished floor level near the eastern boundary appears to be 1 metre above natural ground level compliance with the standard is not achieved. This will be addressed via condition on any issue of permit. All the first, second and third floor habitable windows and balconies on the south and east elevations are treated to comply with the standard requirements of Clause 55.04-6 through, either the provision of obscured glazing, external screening, or window sill heights up to 1.7 metres above finished floor level. The permeability of the obscured glazing has not been provided. This will be addressed via condition on any issue of permit. A further condition will be placed on any issue of permit ensuring the screening is installed prior to the occupation of the building. The balconies that front Malvern Road and No. 1128-1132 Malvern Road have not been afforded privacy screening as they do not result in any overlooking to sensitive areas.


Traffic and Parking The proposed development includes 14 on-site parking spaces (in the form of stackers), representing a shortfall of 5 parking spaces pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. More specifically, there is a short fall of 2 visitor spaces for the dwellings and 3 spaces associated with the food and drink premises. It is considered that the proposed parking waiver can be supported and the proposal will not cause significant traffic and parking impacts for the following reasons:

The subject site is located close to activity centres, with excellent access to services and facilities.

The residents and visitors of this development are not eligible for ‘Resident Parking Permits’ pursuant to Council’s Local Laws. As a result, waiver of the parking requirement will not significantly impact on the street-parking network.

Partial waiver of the parking requirement is consistent with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy which encourages use of more sustainable modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport).

Council’s Transport and Parking did not object to the shortfall of parking. Concerns/queries have been raised from the Traffic and Parking Unit and VicRoads relating to the pedestrian sight triangles, design of the vehicle crossing, safety associated with pedestrian access to stairwell and lift within the basement, stacker columns and gates, pit depth and height clearances for the stacker, and the make and model of the stacker. These issues will be addressed via conditions on any issue of permit. Bicycle Parking The table to Clause 52.34-3 specifies that in developments of 4 or more storeys, 1 resident bicycle space must be provided to each 5 dwellings plus 1 visitor space to each 10 dwellings. There is no bicycle parking requirement for the food and drink premises component of the development. A statutory demand of 2 resident spaces and 1 visitor is triggered by this clause. The proposal provides 7 resident spaces within the basement and 4 visitor spaces near the Malvern Road frontage. Whilst the proposal exceeds the requirements of Clause 52.34, by providing 11 bicycle spaces in total, Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) policy requires developments to provide 1 secure bicycle space per dwelling. A condition will be placed on any issue of permit requiring 13 bicycle spaces accordingly. Waste It is expected that 1 x 120 litre plus 14 x 240 litre waste bins will be presented for collection weekly. Council’s Waste Unit has reviewed the Waste Management Plan (WMP) submitted with the application and confirms that the waste management mechanisms proposed are acceptable. As the proposal is for a building of four or more storeys, any permit which may issue should include a condition requiring the submission of a WMP for endorsement. Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) The development is considered to offer a good level of internal amenity for the new dwellings with the apartments varying in size between 45 sq. metres and 82.5 sq. metres. All balconies are conveniently accessible from the living area, have a minimum width of 1.6 metres and range in size from 7 sq. metres to 12.5 sq. metres. The Standard requires balconies to have a minimum width of 1.6 metres and a minimum area of 8 sq. metres. Apartment No. 105 falls short of the minimum area requirement by 1 metre.


The apartments on the ground floor have secluded private open space between 26 sq. metres and 56.5 sq. metres in accordance with the standard requirements of Standard B28 of Clause 55.05-4. The subject site has good access to a wide range of services and facilities. As a result, the residents are also likely to derive their amenity from the convenient access to many facilities and be less reliant on the immediate amenity of their dwellings. Overall, it is considered that the development provides for adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of future residents. The proposed development has made appropriate use of daylight where possible. The apartments incorporate windows and balconies to take advantage of the daylight and solar energy. All habitable rooms have direct access to daylight. Furthermore, most of the apartments are dual aspect allowing for natural cross-ventilation opportunities. Clause 22.05 (Environmentally Sustainable Design) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme provides guidance with regard to achieving best practice environmentally sustainable development. The applicant has provided a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) as required by the policy. Council’s ESD Officer has made comment on the proposed plans and SMP and considers that there are a number of deficiencies that require changes including:

Window openings must be indicated on plans.

The project must commit to an average energy rating of at least 10% better than the minimum National Construction Code (NCC) requirement.

The central solar with gas boosted hot water system must be reflected in the STEPS report.

The photovoltaics must be reflected in the SMP and STEPS report.

Double-glazing must be reflected in the materials schedule.

Native and drought tolerant planting must be reflected in the landscape plans.

The entrance ramps and steps must be noted as permeable paving on the site and landscape plans.

Further details on permeable paving and decking must be provided with information regarding indicative management and maintenance.

The number of bicycle spaces must be increased to at least 13 in accordance with best practices (1 space per dwelling).

Basement plan TP04 updated to reflect accurate site coverage. It is noted that the above deficiencies can easily be addressed via permit conditions on any issue of permit. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) The proposal incorporates a 12,000 litre rainwater tank underground. The plans and STORM Report confirm that the tank is to be connected to the roof catchment areas and all rainwater is to be plumbed to toilets for flushing. The area of the entrance ramps and steps appears to be shown as permeable in the SMP (though this is not noted). However this area is not noted as permeable paving in the SMP or on the architectural or landscape plans. A condition will be placed on any issue of permit to ensure the SMP and plans are updated accordingly. The rainwater retention measure proposed ensures that Council’s local policy (Clause 22.18) is met and minimum best practice is achieved. The proposal scores a 100% STORM Rating.


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

Amenity impacts during construction - The potential amenity impacts during construction cannot be considered under the legal framework of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Setting precedent - Each application is assessed based on its merits and against applicable policy.

Impact on property values - The impact of the use and development on property values cannot be considered under the legal framework of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


The proposal represents high quality architecture which appropriately responds to its location, including being within a General Residential Zone and within a ‘Substantial Change Area’;

The proposed height and bulk is appropriate in an area where policy allows buildings up to a height of 14.5 metres;

Appropriate setbacks and building detailing has been provided where the building adjoins the sensitive Neighbourhood Residential Zone interface to the south; and

The proposed parking reduction of 2 visitor spaces for the dwellings and 3 spaces associated with the food and drink premises is considered acceptable considering the development typology and locality.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 764-15 - 1134 Malvern Road Malvern - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans


RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 764/15 for the land located at 1134 Malvern Road, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a mixed use development in a General Residential Zone; use of land as a food and drink premises and 13 dwellings (as of right); alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1; reduction in the car parking requirement and waiver of the loading/unloading bay requirements subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn

to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans Council date stamped 24 February 2016 but modified to show:

a) Removal of the vehicle gate along the Malvern Road frontage. b) Operable windows specified. c) Double-glazing specified in the materials schedule. d) Entrance ramps and steps noted as permeable paving. e) Basement plan TP04 updated to reflect accurate site coverage and

permeability. f) Signage at the bottom of the stairwell and within the lift advising residents to

watch out for on coming vehicles and convex mirrors for pedestrians to have appropriate sight distances.

g) Swept path diagrams revised to include the actual car stacker structure in its correct location, with a usable platform width of 2.6 metres.

h) The plans to show the gates in front of the car stackers and details regarding how the columns will integrate with these gates.

i) Confirm the pit depth and height clearances for each level of the stacker to ensure the Planning Scheme requirement is met.

j) Make and model of the car stacker annotated on the plans. k) Bicycle parking shown as per the specifications of the product sheet of the

chosen model. l) 13 bicycle spaces provided on site in accordance with Council’s Sustainable

Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) requirements. m) Transparency of the obscure glazing annotated on the plans in accordance

with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55. n) Overlooking from the ground floor (eastern boundary) limited to comply with

the Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55. o) Any alterations required by condition 3, 6, 9, 18 and 20.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a

Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the SDA submitted on 13 November 2015 but modified to show:


a) A commitment to an average energy rating of at least 10% better than the

minimum National Construction Code (NCC) requirement. b) Central solar with gas boosted hot water system reflected in the STEPS

report. c) Photovoltaics reflected in the SMP and STEPS report. d) Entrance ramps and steps noted as permeable paving in the SMP.


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

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report

from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

5. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives

detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report. 6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the one prepared by R B Waste Consulting Service Council date stamped 13 November 2015.

7. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. Prior to the development commencing, a report for the legal point of discharge

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

9. A stormwater detention system must be provided to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, stormwater tanks must be provided that are in total 2,500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) requirements.

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

12. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this

permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

13. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to

be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

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

access to the site.

15. Prior to occupation of the building or commencement of use, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. 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.

17. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or

screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape

architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape plan Council date stamped 24 February 2016 prepared by MEMLA Pty Ltd but modified to show: a) Southern Magnolia Cultivar trees replaced with a suitable screening tree,

which reaches a minimum height of 5 metres at maturity. b) Native Frangipani trees to be replaced with a better suited tree to

Melbourne’s Climate. c) Native or drought tolerant plant species identified. d) Entrance ramps and steps noted as permeable paving. e) Details of how the landscaping will be managed and maintained.



19. 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.

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

The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the Lophostemon conferta (brush box) and Morus alba (white mulberry) located along the western boundary of No. 1136 Malvern Road and the Lophostemon conferta street tree in front of the subject site. Particular mention must be included for the fence construction, concrete ramp and retaining wall construction near the eastern boundary of the subject site. Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier

around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

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

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

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

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

Start of VicRoads conditions

22. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, a sealed vehicle crossover with a minimum width of 5.5 metres as measured at the property boundary must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary.

23. Pedestrian sight triangles must be provided at the vehicle access point onto Malvern Road, generally in accordance with Australian / New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

End of VicRoads conditions


24. A maximum number of 15 patrons may be permitted on the food and drink premises (including outdoors) at any one time to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

25. The food and drink premises hereby permitted must operate only between the hours of 8am to 5pm Monday to Saturday to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

26. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the:

a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land. b) Appearance of any building, works or materials. c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour,

steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil. d) Presence of vermin.

27. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with

Council’s Local Laws.

28. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



permit. c) The use is not started within two years from 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




III. 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.

IV. Unless a permit is not required under the Stonnington Planning Scheme, signs

must not be constructed or displayed without a further planning permit.

V. This permit is for the use of the land and/or buildings and does not constitute any authority to conduct a business requiring Health Act/Food Act registration without prior approval from the Councils Health Services.


VI. 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:





3. PLANNING APPLICATION 298/08-1 - 1D ROSE STREET, ARMADALE - S72 AMENDMENT

TO APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT WHICH SEEKS PERMISSION TO DELETE THE

REFERENCE TO ‘ART GALLERY’ FROM THE PERMIT PRE-AMBLE AND DELETE CONDITION

6 AND TO MODIFY CONDITIONS 4 AND 5.


PURPOSE For Council to consider a planning application for a S72 Amendment to the approved planning permit to allow deletion of the reference to ‘Art Gallery’ from the permit pre-amble and deletion of condition 6 along with modification of conditions 4 and 5 to allow increased hours of operation for the sale and consumption of liquor at 1D Rose Street, Armadale. Executive Summary Applicant: Catherine White

Cafe Amalia Ward: South Zone: Commercial 1 Overlay: Heritage (Schedule 130 – Armadale Precinct) Date lodged: 11 November 2015 Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

151

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 Objections

Patron Numbers: 50 Cultural Heritage Plan No Number of objections: 17 Objections from 12 properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – Held on 7 April 2016 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a S72 Amendment to the

original planning permit.

BACKGROUND The Proposal The plan that forms part of the basis of Council's consideration was prepared by Catherine White and is known as ‘Layout of Proposed Restaurant, 1D Rose Street’ and is Council date stamped 11th November 2015. The application is for an amendment under S72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The amendment proposes modifications to Permit No. 298/08 issued on 5 January 2010 to delete all reference to the ‘Art Gallery’ use from the originally endorsed plan and the permit pre-amble and relevant conditions. This would leave reference to a restaurant use only on the permit which is an ‘as of right’ use in the Commercial 1 Zone. The amendment also seeks to amend condition 4 to allow increased hours for the service and consumption of alcohol on the site until 11pm on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The key amendments sought are as follows:


Permit preamble to be amended to remove the reference to the use of the land as an Art Gallery. The preamble is to be modified from: Use of land as a restaurant and art gallery, sale and consumption of liquor and waiver of car parking requirements. To: Use of land as a restaurant, sale and consumption of liquor and waiver of car parking requirements. Condition 4 to be modified to allow the sale and consumption of liquor until 11pm on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Condition 4 is to be modified from: The use (including the sale and consumption of liquor) may only be conducted between the following hours: Monday to Saturday 7.00am to 9pm Sunday 10.00am – 5.30pm Anzac and Good Friday 12noon – 9pm Gallery opening night (Monday to Saturday only) until 11pm To: The use (including the sale and consumption of liquor) may only be conducted between the following hours: Monday to Wednesday 7.00am - 9pm Thursday to Saturday 7am - 11pm Sunday 10am – 5.30pm Anzac and Good Friday 12noon – 9pm Condition 5 to be modified to remove the reference to the ‘Art Gallery’. This would maintain that the use of the external courtyard for the service and consumption of liquor would only be permitted until 9pm. Condition 5 is proposed to be modified from: The external courtyard must not be used outside the approved hours of operation or beyond 9pm on a gallery opening night. To: The external courtyard must not be used outside the approved hours of operation or beyond 9pm.


Condition 6 is to be deleted from the permit. Condition 6 again refers to the use of the land as an Art Gallery and limits this to 12 openings nights per year with no more than 1 per calendar month. The condition also refers to maximum patron numbers and compliance with other conditions on permit which relate to entertainment and music noise. As the use of the Art Gallery is no longer proposed, this condition is to be deleted. Condition 6 currently reads as follows: The site can only be used for art gallery opening nights once per calendar month, with no more than 12 opening nights per year. A maximum number of 50 persons may attend opening nights and it must only operate between the hours as specified by this permit and subject to the conditions of this permit relating to entertainment and music noise. The applicant also seeks to amend the endorsed plan to delete the reference to the art gallery. The site would be exclusively referred to on the plan as a restaurant. Site and Surrounds The site is located on the north side of Rose Street approximately 22m to the east of the junction with Beatty Avenue. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The building is an A2 graded Edwardian retail unit which forms part of a row of three other adjoining retail buildings which lead up to the corner of Beatty Avenue.

The site is currently occupied by a cafe and features a well preserved shop frontage with a stall riser and inverted central doorway entrance.

The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to Rose Street of 4.61m, a western boundary of 28.5m and an eastern boundary of 31m. The rear boundary is situated at an angle, parallel to the laneway to the rear which leads off Watson Street. The site covers a total area of 152sqm approximately.

The main entrance to the site is from the frontage on Rose Street. There is a small courtyard to the rear of the site which covers approximately 35sqm.

As mentioned above, the site forms part of a row of three other commercial properties on this section of Rose Street including Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C Rose Street all from the Edwardian era. The buildings are a combination of double and single storey with the subject site being only single storey. The building does feature an ornate parapet fascia and awning which project over the adjacent footway. The site forms part of the Beatty Avenue commercial precinct, the majority of which is zoned ‘Commercial 1’. The subject site is the most easterly unit in the precinct which extends towards and along Beatty Avenue and up to Malvern Road. Although the subject site is within the Commercial 1 Zone, the majority of Rose Street to the south and east consists of residential properties and is zoned ‘Neighourhood Residential’. The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

Adjoining the site to the east is a single storey Victoran dwelling which forms one of a semi-detached pair of similar style dwellings both of which are B-graded. Both adjoining dwellings are setback from their respective site frontages by 5m approximately. The dwelling is fronted by a black painted front fence which has been subject to vegetation growth providing screening to the front of the site.

Immediately to the west of the site is a retail shop. The shop has similar architectural features to the subject site and is single storey.


The subject site adjoins on to a laneway to the rear which leads off Watson Street. Beyond this is the rear yard space for the commercial premises at 16-17 Beatty Avenue.

On the opposite side of Rose Street from the subject site are residential properties. The dwellings directly opposite to this commercial row (Nos. 2/2A and 4/4A rose Street) are all B-graded single storey Edwardian semi-detached pairs.

Previous Planning Application(s) A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Permit 298/08 for the use of land as a restaurant and art gallery, sale and consumption of liquor and waiver of car parking requirements issued on 5th January 2010. The permit was issued by VCAT. This permit is the subject of this amendment.

Planning Permit 289/01 for use of the premises as an art gallery and restaurant, waiving of car parking and use of premises for consumption of liquor was issued 27th September 2001. This permit was also issued by VCAT.

The Title The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 09748 Folio 149 Plan of Subdivision 344419R. No covenants or easements affect the land. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Zone Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 34.01-01 a permit is not required to use the land for the purpose of retail premises. Under Clause 74 (Land Use Terms) ‘Retail Premises’ contains ‘Food and Drink’ premises which in turn contains ‘Restaurant’ use. A permit is not therefore required for use of the land as a restaurant. Particular Provisions Clause 52.27 – Licensed Premises A permit is required to extend the hours of trading allowed under a licence pursuant to Clause 52.27. Relevant Planning Policies Clause 11.01 Activity Centres Clause 17.01 Business Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.04 Economic Development Clause 22.10 Licensed Premises Policy Clause 34.01 Commercial 1 Zone Clause 52.27 Licensed Premises Clause 65 Decision Guidelines


Advertising The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing 1 sign on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in South Ward and 17 objections from 12 different properties were received. In summary, the objections raised the following concerns:

• Noise impact from extended hours of existing restaurant use to adjacent residential uses and those within close proximity.

• Noise from the footpath trading area. • Noise from the rear courtyard area. • Fear that extended hours would allow the site to operate as a bar/tavern in

conjunction with the existing on-premises licence. • Saturation of the local area with licensed premises.

A consultative meeting was held on 7 April 2016. Referrals Compliance and Response Building and Local Laws raised no objection to the proposed amendment. KEY ISSUES Strategic Setting The subject site is located within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre as identified within Clause 22.03 (Vision) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Beatty Avenue Commercial Precinct is identified as a Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre on the Strategic Framework Plan contained within this Clause. Clause 11.01-2 provides strategic direction for activity centre planning. It is stated that the mix of uses within activity centres should be broadened to include; ‘a range of services over longer hours appropriate to the type of centre and needs of the population served’. Also that activity centres should; ‘Provide a focus for business, shopping, working, leisure and community facilities’. It is noted that the subject site is within the Beatty Avenue Small Neighbourhood Activity Area to be included within Council’s emerging Activity Centre Strategy. The principal of the use of the site as a licensed premises has already been agreed through two separate permits and has operated as such for a number of years. The current use of the site as a cafe/restaurant therefore accords with the strategies outlined under Clause 11.01-2.


In response to Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework, Council ‘Vision’ which underpins the Council Plan is contained under Clause 21.03. With regard to economic development Clause 21.03-2 describes a key theme as; ‘A well-distributed network of vibrant activity centres providing a diversity of living, working, shopping and socialising opportunities at the heart of their respective neighbourhood’. Again the site is an established food and drink premises and has operated as such for a number of years. Given the activity centre location of the site, it is considered that the principle of extended hours for the service and consumption of alcohol from Thursday to Saturday could be supported in association with the ‘as of right’ restaurant use. This reflects the key theme and therefore conforms to Council vision. Directly linked to the key focus of economic development is Council’s Licensed Premises Policy contained under Clause 22.10. The Policy recognises that an increased number of licensed premises within an inner city suburban area results in additional alcohol related assaults with patron capacity a contributing factor in calculating the level of risk. However, it is also recognised that small, well managed licensed premises generally present a low risk of adverse impacts. Given the number of patrons, location, proposed hours and use as a restaurant, the proposal can be described as small scale and therefore considered to represent a low risk. The objectives of the policy include the following;

Identification of appropriate locations, trading hours and patron numbers for licensed premises.

Effective management of the amenity conflicts between licensed premise and other uses.

The establishment of an appropriate mix of licensed premises relative to other commercial, retail and residential uses within activity centres.

The encouragement of daytime uses and active frontages within activity centres.

Licensed premises should operate in a manner that provides for the safety of patrons, the general public and nearby owners and occupiers of land.

The principal of the use of the site as a licensed premises has already been agreed through two separate permits. The use of the site is also ‘as of right’ within the Commercial 1 Zone. The proposed trading hours being up to 11pm Thursday to Saturday do not exceed the hours recommended for a Neighbourhood Activity Centre under the policy. It is considered that given the nature and scale of the proposed operation, the premises would be operated in a manner that provides for the safety of patrons, the general public and nearby owners and occupiers of land. Liquor Licence As described above, the use of the site as a licensed premises is already established at the site in association with the ‘as of right’ use as a restaurant. The proposed amendment to the existing permit seeks to increase the hours of operation which includes the service and consumption of alcohol as well as to remove any reference to the Art Gallery use which is currently referred to on the planning permit. With the removal of the reference to an art gallery on the premises, the site would operate solely as a restaurant. The current permit allows the operation as an art gallery until 11pm. This is however currently restricted to once per calendar month. It is considered that the removal to any reference to an art gallery would simplify the scope of the permit. The proposed extension of hours for alcohol consumption would allow the restaurant to serve alcohol until 11pm on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The permit currently allows alcohol consumption until 9m on these nights as well as on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.


It is noted that Council initially issued a Notice of Decision to grant a planning permit (NOD) at the site which included hours of operation similar to those proposed under the current amendment i.e. until 11pm on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. As a result of the submission of an application for review to VCAT the NOD was subject to an appeal. The subsequent VCAT order allowed the use (including the sale and consumption of liquor) until 9pm Monday to Saturday. A once monthly exception for the art gallery was permitted until 11pm. The VCAT order stated that the site had sufficiently sensitive interfaces to prevent trading after 11pm. It was also stated that the permit holder at the time was considered to be relatively inexperienced and had not adhered to the conditions of the original planning permit (289/01). It is noted that complaints were received by Council in 2007 when the original planning permit at the site was in place (289/01). The complaints stated that the operator at the time allegedly was not adhering to the conditions on this permit which limited patron numbers and hours of operation. It is also noted that the conditions of permit 289/01 were much more restrictive and only permitted a total of 22 patrons on site including a limit of 10 to the rear courtyard. The hours of operation at the site were limited until 7pm each night except on gallery function nights. At the time the complaints received by Council were considered by VCAT to present an unacceptable level of risk to adjoining residents. The hours of operation until 9pm were considered to be reasonable to allow a degree of flexibility for the business. It is considered however that the circumstances at the site have changed since the issue of the VCAT permit in January 2010. Primarily the use of the art gallery at the site is no longer relevant. Since the issue of the current permit the premises is under new management. The art gallery has not been conducted for a number of years according to the applicant. This changes the scope of the operation of the site and prevents any association with the art gallery use. It is acknowledged that the previous site operator had been subject to complaints regarding the operation and impacts upon general amenity. However, under the new management of the premises, which has been in place since approximately September of 2015, the current use of the site has not been subject to complaints from residents. The current zoning of the site and surround area has also changed since the issue of the original permit by VCAT. At the time of issue in January 2010, the site was subject to a ‘Business 1’ zoning which required a permit for the use of the land as a restaurant. Since this time the land has been rezoned to ‘Commercial 1’ where a permit is no longer required for either the use as a restaurant or as an art gallery. It is noted therefore that a restaurant could operate anywhere within the commercial zone with unrestricted hours. It is noted that this does not extend to the service and consumption of liquor. The zone does however facilitate a wider range of uses without requirement for a use permit and therefore has a wider scope for ‘socialising opportunities’. It is also acknowledged that since the re-zoning other licensed premises have opened up within the Beatty Avenue commercial precinct. This is the only licensed premises on Rose Street, with the remainder operating as retail uses. Having regard to the Beatty Avenue Commercial Precinct as a whole, it is not considered that the remainder of licensed premises, in conjunction with the proposed increased operating hours at the subject site would constitute a cumulative impact to this area. The use of the subject site as licensed premises is subject to Council’s Local ‘Licensed Premises Policy’ contained under Clause 22.10 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Clause 22.10 includes a preference for locations for trading after 11pm to be within principal and major activity centres and that trading after 11pm is discouraged for licensed premises adjacent to a residential zone/use. The proposed operating hours until 11pm would be limited to Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. It is not considered therefore that the proposed extension until 11pm on these nights would be contrary to this aspect of the policy. The first objective of the policy is to identity appropriate trading hours for premises. It is considered that, trading up to 11pm would be appropriate within the building. The courtyard will not be used beyond 9pm.


It is acknowledged that the site adjoins an existing residential property (3 Rose Street) and there are residential properties opposite the site and on Watson Street to the rear. The proposed use as a restaurant is well established and is not considered to be an inappropriate use adjacent to land used as or zoned for residential purposes and is in fact ‘as of right’ in the applicable commercial zone. The restaurant is currently permitted to operate until 9pm on Monday to Saturday. The permit also includes a condition preventing use of the courtyard to the rear beyond 9pm. The proposed amendment would remove the reference to the art gallery but would still limit the use of the courtyard to 9pm. This would limit the impact of the extended hours from the consumption of liquor within the building on the residential properties adjacent to the rear. The permit also includes conditions relating to noise emission from the site as well as general amenity conditions which can be applied to the later hours of operation. These would remain on the permit subject to the amendment and would require compliance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noises from Public Premises) No. N-2 and would also limit noise from the site to background music only inside the building. In addition to this, in conjunction with the proposed extended operating hours a condition can be added to the permit requiring that any alcohol served must be in association with the serving of meals which must be maintained as the principal activity at the premises. It is also noted that patron numbers would not be increased as a result of the amendment. The maximum of 50 patrons at the site is not considered excessive for the purpose of the restaurant until 11pm. In general terms, it is considered that the current and proposed permit conditions provide sufficient protection against adverse amenity impacts and the extended hours until 11pm on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays is an appropriate extension within the activity centre and would accord with the policy requirements contained in Clause 22.10. Objections In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Noise impact from extended hours of existing restaurant use to adjacent residential uses and those within close proximity.

As outlined above, it is considered that the extended hours for the consumption of liquor are appropriate for this location. Also, existing conditions on the permit limit noise impacts to background music internally to the building only and to require compliance with State Environmental Protection Policy. It should be noted, the restaurant use is ‘as of right’ as it is only the consumption of liquor that can be controlled via permit conditions.

Noise from the footpath trading area. The adjacent footpath trading area was not included on the original planning permit and is not indicated on the endorsed plan. The footpath area does however have a Footpath Trading permit which was issued by Council and is currently valid until October 2016 (Local Law Permit No. LFD15/00477). It is noted that the Footpath Trading Permit does not contain limitation on the hours of operation. Despite this, the current Liquor Licence does limit the supply of liquor to this area to no later than 6pm on any day. The subject planning amendment does not include an extension to the red line area. The proposed extension of hours for the sale and consumption of liquor to the adjacent footpath cannot therefore be considered given it has not been specifically requested. The applicant will be made aware of this discrepancy between what has been approved in the liquor licence and what has been applied for in this amendment.

Noise from the rear courtyard area.


The amended permit would not permit alcohol service beyond 9pm to the rear courtyard area. The potential noise impacts from this external area would not therefore increase as a result of the proposed amendment.

Potential for the extended hours to allow the site to operate as a bar/tavern in conjunction with the existing on-premises licence.

Should the hours for the service and consumption of alcohol be extended to 11pm Thursday to Saturday a condition shall be added to the permit to require that the service of meals be the predominant activity at the site in conjunction with the service of alcohol. This would prevent the premises being operated as a tavern. It is acknowledged that the site is subject to an ‘On-premises’ liquor licence. However conditions on the planning permit would prevent the use of the premises as a bar and the extended hours would not facilitate this with the recommended condition requiring service of meals. It is noted that within the Commercial 1 Zone, the use of the land as a Tavern is ‘as of right’ subject to a permit for a liquor licence. However, this is not how the site is proposed to be operated, having regard to the existing and recommended conditions.

Saturation of the local area with licensed premises. As the premises is already subject to a liquor license the site would not constitute an additional licensed premises within the locality. It is noted that there are other licensed premises within the Neighbourhood Activity Centre including to Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 24 Beatty Avenue. These premises are however interspersed with retail uses and it is not considered that this number of licensed premises would constitute a cumulative impact within the activity centre. It is also noted the site is the only licensed premises on the section of Rose Street between Beatty Avenue and Watson Street. Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. CONCLUSION Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The proposed extension of hours for the service and consumption of alcohol in association with the ‘as of right’ restaurant use is considered appropriate given the zoning of the site and would not cause adverse amenity impact, subject to amended and newly recommended conditions.

The removal of the existing reference to the ‘Art Gallery’ use is appropriate as this aspect is no longer carried out at the site and the sole use of the premises as a restaurant is appropriate.


ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 298-08-1 - 1D Rose Street Armadale - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION That a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit No: 298/08-1 for the land located at 1D Rose Street Armadale be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a S72 Amendment to approved Planning Permit and plans for the use of the land as a restaurant and art gallery, sale and consumption of liquor and waiver of car parking requirements subject to the following amendments to the plans and permit: Amendments to Permit:

Permit preamble to be amended to read: Sale and consumption of liquor in association with the use of the land as a restaurant (as of right use), and waiver of car parking requirements.

Condition 1 amended to read: The plans endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Condition 4 to be amended to read: The sale and consumption of liquor in association with the (as of right) restaurant use may only be conducted between the following hours:

- Monday to Wednesday 7.00am - 9pm - Thursday to Saturday 7am - 11pm - Sunday 10am – 5.30pm - Anzac and Good Friday 12noon – 9pm

Condition 5 to be amended to read: The external courtyard must not be used outside the approved hours of operation or beyond 9pm on any night.

Condition 6 deleted

New Condition added after existing condition 12 to read: The predominant activity carried out at all times on the licensed premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the licensed premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Renumbering of conditions accordingly Amendments to Plans:

Deletion of the term ‘Art Gallery’ from the floor plan.


How the Amended Planning Permit will read: The Permit Allows: Sale and consumption of liquor in association with the use of the land as a restaurant (as of right use), and waiver of car parking requirements in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended without the

written consent of the Responsible Authority. 2. A maximum number of 50 seats must be provided to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority. 3. No more than 16 seats must be in the rear courtyard area at any one time to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 4. The sale and consumption of liquor in association with the (as of right)

restaurant use may only be conducted between the following hours:

Monday to Wednesday 7.00am - 9pm

Thursday to Saturday 7am - 11pm

Sunday 10am – 5.30pm

Anzac and Good Friday 12noon – 9pm 5. The external courtyard must not be used outside the approved hours of

operation beyond 9pm on any night. 6. Noise emanating from the subject land must comply with State Environment

Protection Policy (Control of Music Noises from Public Premise) No. N-2, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. No entertainment or music (live or amplified) other than background music, may

be provided inside the building. 8. No music (including background music) may be provided within the courtyard. 9. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the

premises (including the collection of waste and recyclables) must only occur between the hours of 7am and 4pm Mondays to Fridays and between 9am and 1pm on Saturdays to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The disposal of empty bottles, cans and general waste into receptacles shall not

occur between 9.00pm to 9.00am to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of garbage and

other solid wastes on land proximate to the premises at all times. This area must be properly graded and drained and screened from public view, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


12. The predominant activity carried out at all times on the licensed premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the licensed premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. The use of the site must not cause a nuisance or be detrimental to the amenity of

the neighbourhood by the emission of noise. 14. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development

through the:

a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land

b) Appearance of any building, works or materials

c) Emission of artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

d) Presence of vermin; or

e) In any other way.

15. The applicant must display a sign at the exit of the premises advising patrons to

respect the amenity of the adjacent residential areas and leave in a quiet and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land. 17. This permit will expire if the use is not acted upon within 2 years from the date of

this permit. Note Background music level, in relation to the premises, means a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voices to a substantial degree.


4. PLANNING APPLICATION 956/15 – 1A AND 1B / 101-105 TOORAK ROAD, SOUTH

YARRA – PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS IN A

COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE AND HERITAGE OVERLAY


PURPOSE For Council to consider a planning application for the partial demolition and construction of two dwellings in a Commercial 1 Zone and heritage overlay at 1A and 1B / 101-105 Toorak Road, South Yarra. Executive Summary Applicant: Headland Properties P/L Ward: North Zone: Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) Overlay: Heritage Overlay (HO150)

Design and Development Overlay (DDO1) Proposed Activity Centre Zone / Chapel Revision

Date lodged: 23 October 2015 Statutory days: 147 Trigger for referral to Council:

7 or more objections

Cultural Heritage Plan No Number of objections: 14 Consultative Meeting: Yes - held on 16 February 2016 Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit BACKGROUND The Proposal The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Pandolfini Architects, job no. 190, drawing no’s. TP000, TP001, TP002, TP010, TP011, TP012, TP013, TP100, TP101, TP102, TP200, TP201, TP300, TP301, TP302, TP303, TP304, TP305, TP306, TP350 and TP351, Council date stamped 26 November 2015. The application proposes the following:

The conversion of the existing office space at first floor level (comprising two existing office tenancies with a floor area of approximately 180m2) into two dwellings;

At first floor level, each dwelling will contain an entry lobby, two bedrooms, a walk through ‘study’ area and amenities. A deck with an area between 3 and 4m2 is proposed to each bedroom;

At second floor level, each dwelling will include an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area, opening onto a north facing balcony of 14m2;

A roof deck is proposed above each dwelling;

Each dwelling is to be provided with one parking space; and

The building will have a maximum overall height of 11.93m, being 5m higher than the existing roof to the top of the stair well.


Site and Surrounds The site is located on the northern side of Toorak Road. The site is located approximately 175m west of South Yarra railway station and is included within the Toorak Road, South Yarra (west) Neighbourhood Centre. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is part of a subdivided building which occupies a regular rectangular shaped lot with a frontage to Toorak Road of 14.52m and a depth of approximately 45.96m, yielding a total site area of approximately 667m2.

The subject site is known as lot S4 within this building with a width of approximately 14.52m and depth of 12.91m, yielding a total area of approximately 187m2.

The site is currently occupied by a double storey commercial building, comprising a range of shops, offices and services all accessed via a common ‘arcade’ which runs through the centre of the building at ground level.

At-grade parking is provided for 4 vehicles at the rear of the building, accessed via Station Street. No change is proposed to the vehicular access.

The surrounding area comprises an eclectic mix of land uses and buildings ranging from single storey dwellings through to multistorey apartment blocks up to a height of 9 storeys. This area forms part of the wider Prahran/South Yarra Activity Centre, which is a focal place and preferred location for retail, professional services, entertainment and cultural activities. The subject site is on Toorak Road, and Chapel Street is within close proximity, providing good access to services, infrastructures and public transport. The site’s immediate abuttals include:

The sites to the east include 107 Toorak Road (occupied by a two storey shop) and the rear of several two storey shops fronting Murphy Street (numbers 1 and 1/3 through 5/3).

The site to the west at 99 Toorak Road is currently occupied by a double storey commercial building that is developed over the front 2/3rds of the site. Towards the rear is a courtyard plus shed / garage.

To the north is a right of way. On the opposite side of the right of way is a Council owned and operated at-grade car park.

To the south is Toorak Road. On the opposite side of Toorak Road are generally two and three-storey commercial buildings with some four and five storey apartment buildings.

Previous Planning Applications A search of Council records indicates that a number of permit applications have been determined at the subject site. The permits which have been issued in the last 20 years all relate to parking reductions, signage and use of the numerous shops which exist within the building. There are no approvals on adjoining lots which may impact the proposed works. The Title The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10841 Folio 171 identified as lot S4 on Plan of Subdivision 521785D. No covenants or easements affect the land. It is noted that the title extends 5m above the existing roof line.


The applicant also owns two accessory lots, lots 3C and 4C, which each provide a single ground level parking space. An Agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is registered against each of these accessory units which restricts the sale of the parking lots to owners of primary lots only. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Zone Clause 34.01 - Commercial 1 Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works. Overlays Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay (HO150) Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a permit is required to demolish (or partially demolish) and to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay (DDO1) Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works, unless a schedule to the overlay specifically states that a permit is not required. Schedule 1 states that a permit is not required under this overlay for works up to 12 metres in height. The proposed works will reach a maximum height of 11.93m and accordingly this provision is not a relevant trigger. Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land prior to the commencement of a new use. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by the table included in Clause 52.06-5. The table at Clause 52.06-5 specifies that each two bedroom dwelling must provide a minimum of one parking space. The proposal provides one space per dwelling and therefore satisfies this Clause and accordingly a permit is not required under this Clause. Clause 55 – ResCode The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 55 are relevant decision guidelines under the Commercial 1 Zone for construction of multiple dwellings to a height of 4 storeys. Relevant Planning Policies State Planning Policy Framework Clause 15.01-1 Urban Design Clause 15.01-5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood character Clause 15.02 Sustainable development Clause 16 Housing Clause 19 Infrastructure Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21.03 Vision


Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.08 Infrastructure Clause 22.04 Heritage policy Clause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy Clause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy. Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Amendment C172 Amendment C172 proposes to introduce a new Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1 Chapel Street Activity Centre (Prahran / South Yarra Activity Centre and Windsor / Toorak Road Neighbourhood Centre (ACZ1). The amendment was adopted by Council on 14 September 2015 and has been forwarded to the Minister for Planning with a request for approval. Pursuant to the adopted version of the ACZ1 the subject site would be contained within Precinct 2 – South Yarra, Sub Precinct Toorak Road West (TRW). Within TRW there is a preferred maximum building height of 21m or 6 storeys. Advertising The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing 2 signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in North Ward and objections from 14 different properties have been received. In summary objector concerns include:

Concerns about structural capacity of the existing building

Concerns about the services capacity of the existing building – power / sewerage

Works will be disruptive to existing businesses

Loss of rent

Addition of apartments will reduce land values

Safety / access to the arcade 24/7

Reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the courtyard and arcade

Lack of parking

Notice of the application was not given to tenancies within the arcade

The proposal is an ad-hoc response to the existing site conditions

The proposal does not respond to the requirements of DDO1

The proposal is out of character with the heritage nature of the site A Consultative Meeting was held on 16 February 2016. The meeting was attended by Councillors Chandler and Klisaris, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. No changes have been made to the plans since advertising. Referrals Heritage Council’s Heritage Advisor provided comments that the proposal will have no negative heritage impacts and that they support the proposal.


KEY ISSUES Strategic Setting State Policy A number of provisions from the State Section of the Planning Scheme are relevant to the policy setting for assessment of this application. The relevant clauses for Activity Centre Planning (11.01-2), Metropolitan Melbourne (11.04), Urban Environment (15.01) and Residential Development (16.01) have a policy impetus for residential intensification in appropriate locations. Clause 11.01-2 has an objective to encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community. Clause 11.04-2 includes an objective to provide a diversity of housing in defined locations that cater for different households and are located close to jobs and services. Clause 16.01 -1 includes strategies to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land. Clause 16.01-2 includes a strategy to encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport. State Policy in regard to Transport (18) also supports residential intensification in areas well served by public transport. Clause 18.01-2 has a particular emphasis on encouraging higher land use densities and mixed use developments near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges, tramways and principal bus routes. When considered against this policy direction there is State Policy support for the proposed redevelopment and residential intensification of the site given its location within the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Principal Activity Centre. The site also has excellent access to public transport with the South Yarra and Hawksburn Railway Stations within walking distance and tram services found nearby on Chapel Street, Toorak Road and Commercial Road. Local Policy The strategic vision for the City of Stonnington at Clause 21.03-2 and the Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.03-3 directs higher density development to locations with the highest accessibility to public transport and services; being sites in and beside activity centres, beside main roads with trams and smart buses and beside railway stations. This preferred location of new residential development is reiterated within the Housing section of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) which includes objectives to direct the majority of residential development to locations with the highest level of accessibility to both an Activity Centre and the Principal Public Transport Network (21.05-2) and to encourage residential use in activity centres (21.05-3). The general thrust of local policy supports the redevelopment of the site for higher density residential development. The subject site is located in an area that is identified in the Strategic Framework Plan of the MSS as a Principal Activity Centre which is identified as a preferred location for higher density housing and an area that is highly accessible to public transport and services.


While the site is strategically located for higher density development, Local Policy also includes provisions to ensure that new residential development within all activity centres respects the character and amenity of any adjoining dwellings, that new built form is well-designed and respects the valued, traditional built form character elements of its host precinct and that housing is designed to achieve high standards of amenity and sustainability and in a form that promotes cohesive communities. How the proposed development responds to the character and amenity of the surrounding area and whether it achieves high standards of amenity and sustainability will be considered in detail further in this report. Heritage The land which makes up 101-105 Toorak Road is situated within Heritage Overlay 150, and is ‘B’ graded. The application was assessed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who confirmed that the rear section of the building, which is the subject of this application, is a later addition and is not considered significant. The proposed works will not adversely affect any areas of heritage significance. Proposed Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1) Built Form The subject site sits within an area identified as sub precinct Toorak Road West (TRW) within the proposed ACZ1. This area is located to the west of South Yarra railway station and effectively encompasses all lots which front Toorak Road between the railway station and Punt Road. It is evolving from a shopping and service strip to now accommodate mixed use development comprising lower level commercial activity and upper level residential development in multi-level buildings. With the expiration of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 on 31 October 2015, there is no current policy within the Stonnington Planning Scheme which specifically guides the height and form of new development within the Chapel Street Activity Centre. Council has adopted a new Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1) and while this has not been approved by the Minister for Planning it has reached a point in the amendment process where it can be considered a ‘seriously entertained’ document. The proposed ACZ1 includes specific controls for the TRW sub precinct with a preferred maximum building height of 21m (6 storeys). For this site, the setback provisions (Side Street & Laneway Interface) require a stagged upper level setback behind a 12m high street wall, as shown in the diagram below:


The application proposes to construct a building with a maximum height of 11.93m setback 6.62m from the rear boundary. As depicted in the diagram above, a 12m high street wall can be allowed on the boundary. The proposal is considered to satisfy the proposed policy. The Public Realm and Safety The proposal is to convert existing first floor office space into two new dwellings, plus buildings and works to construct a second floor (plus roof terrace). The subject site gains access via existing common entry points at the front and rear of the site – these entries provide access to the central courtyard and arcade within the building. The proposal does not change the way pedestrians access the building. No changes are proposed to the vehicle parking or access arrangements. The proposed dwellings also provide opportunities for passive surveillance of the public realm, including from the balconies at first and second floors, and from the roof deck. It is noted that the first floor of the development is proposed to be two dwellings and not as an office as is suggested under the proposed ACZ1 controls. It considered that the site’s location, towards the rear of the mainly retail / service based arcade, and adjacent to residentially zoned land, makes it suited to the provision of residential use in this portion of the site. Landmarks, Views and Vistas The proposed development does not detract from any landmarks, views or vistas. Pedestrian Spaces The design of the proposed building will not adversely affect the visual and social experience of pedestrians walking along any of the adjoining streets, including Toorak Road, Murphy Street or Station Street. The proposed design, building materials, finishes and the articulation of the building will provide visual interest to the area.


Light and Shade The proposed ACZ1 provisions include overshadowing guidelines for sites developed on east – west streets within the activity centre. The guidelines seek (where appropriate) that the southern side of east - west streets should receive at least three hours of direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm at the equinox and that the ground floor of existing buildings should receive some direct sunlight at the winter solstice. The proposed building is on the south side of Station Street and will not cast any shadows on public spaces (including streets or footpaths). It is noted, however, that some additional shadows will be cast onto the courtyard within the arcade (on private land) which sits directly south of the proposed dwellings between 10am and 12.30pm (measured at the equinox, 22 September). In this instance it is considered reasonable for this to occur for the following reasons:

The extent of additional overshadowing is very small, being limited to approximately 3.7m2 (9% of courtyard) at 10am, 9.25m2 at 11am (22% of courtyard) and 3.3m2 at 12pm (8% of courtyard);

The courtyard is a publicly accessible space, and not secluded private open space;

The impact occurs for approximately 3.5 hours only; and

The plan of subdivision clearly shows private ownership of the area where the second floor is now proposed, indicating that works of this nature were contemplated during subdivision, and clearly notifying other purchasers that works could occur where they are now proposed.

Energy and Resource Efficiency ESD is considered later in this report. Architectural Quality The proposed range of materials and quality of architecture would present as a suitably articulated and visually interesting building. The contemporary design would sit comfortably above the existing building as it presents to Station Street (at the rear of the site) and incorporates sufficient recesses and fenestration to break up the proposed three-storey form. Landscaping The site is located within a mixed use setting within a commercial zone and the area is considered to have a hard edge character. As such, the proposal to fully develop the site would not be out of context. The site currently exhibits 100% site coverage, with no landscaping. The proposal includes the provision of planter boxes on the terraces of the second floor level and on the roof deck to assist in providing some greening and softening the building. It is considered that additional plantings could be incorporated along the east and west boundaries of the roof terrace (to provide additional greenery and also to reduce overlooking). The planters on the second floor terrace (where the building fronts Station Street) should also be increased in size and reconfigured to satisfy Water Sensitive Urban Design requirements (further discussion is provided later in this report).


Amenity Impacts The site has no highly sensitive interfaces (ie: areas of secluded private open space, living room windows, etc...) on any of its boundaries. The site to the west at 99 Toorak Road is developed with a double storey commercial building. The sites to the east consist of shops and car parking structures. To the north is the at-grade parking area associated with the subject site, Station Street and an at-grade Council car park beyond. As discussed earlier, some additional overshadowing will result from the new second floor wall sited to the north of the courtyard to the South Yarra Arcade, however this is deemed acceptable for the reasons discussed earlier. The proposed setbacks satisfy those required within the proposed ACZ1 controls (proposed to be implemented on the site as part of Amendment C172, currently before the Minister for Planning). The building takes advantage of the opportunities offered by the context whilst ensuring that off-site amenity impacts are minimised. It is considered that the design represents a fair use of the site. The extent of walls on boundaries and the use light coming to the property across adjoining lots will not unreasonably impact the potential development of those adjoining lots. The proposal does not alter the pedestrian or vehicle access to the site. Internal Amenity Each dwelling is provided with appropriately sized rooms, adequate levels of natural light and cross ventilation. As noted above, the building is designed so that it generally protects the future amenity of residents by providing a design which gathers natural light, and provides for ventilation, regardless of future development on adjoining lots. Each bedroom is provided with a small terrace area, in addition to the generous (14m2) north-facing terraces provided at second floor, associated with the living spaces. In addition, roof terrace areas are provided. Overlooking As detailed previously within this report, the site does not adjoin any dwellings and as such, does not overlook any sensitive areas such as habitable room windows or secluded private open space areas. Environmental Sustainable Design and Water Sensitive Urban Design (ESD and WSUD) A basic Sustainable Design Assessment was submitted with the application which provides general details regarding the design’s environmental performance. Whilst the applicant has not submitted a detailed assessment against the BESS Sustainability Calculator as required by Council’s Sustainability Policy at Clause 22.05, a review of the building design confirms that the building satisfactorily responds to relevant policy. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the submission of a Sustainable Design Assessment, satisfying Council’s 10 key performance criteria, for endorsement concurrently with the endorsement of plans. A STORM report was submitted which indicates that roof run-off will be treated via the provision of rain gardens on the roof terrace. It is noted, though, that for a rain garden to operate successfully, run-off must run through the rain garden, generally through a depth of between 700 and 900mm.


Whilst rain gardens of sufficient depth are shown on the plans, it is noted that run-off from the roof will not be able to flow through the rain gardens, as the roof is lower than the top of the rain garden. It is observed that planter boxes (which could easily be converted into rain gardens) are shown on the terrace to level two, below the roof level. These could be used to treat all roof run-off, achieving a treatment result of 120%. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring these changes to be detailed on any plans submitted for endorsement. Transport and Parking Traffic Generation Traffic generated by the two proposed dwellings will not adversely impact the surrounding road network, given two car spaces are provided, as per the existing two office tenancies. Parking The proposal is for the construction of two by two-bedroom dwellings. Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires one parking space to be provided to each dwelling. The proposal satisfies this provision. It is noted, though, that the parking spaces do not appear on all relevant plans, and that there are no allocation details provided. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the parking spaces to be shown on all relevant plans, and for notations to be included which confirm the provision of one parking space per dwelling. Whilst it is not directly relevant to the assessment of the application (given that the proposal satisfies the Planning Scheme) it is worth noting that the parking demand for the existing ‘office’ which is present on the site (180m2) creates a parking demand of 6 spaces. The proposed dwellings generate a demand of 2 spaces. Access and Manoeuvring There are no proposed changes to the way in which the 2 parking spaces are accessed. Bicycle Parking One bicycle rack is proposed adjacent to the front door of each dwelling on level 1. This satisfies both Clause 52.34 and Council’s sustainability policy requirements. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring details of the bicycle racks (confirming compliance with the relevant Australian Standard) to be provided on any plans submitted for endorsement. Other Objector Concerns In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Concerns about structural capacity of the existing building

Concerns about the services capacity of the existing building – power / sewerage The abovementioned objector concerns relate to issues which will be dealt with as part of any future Building Permit application. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 does not allow consideration of these matters.

Works will be disruptive to existing businesses


Loss of rent

Addition of apartments will reduce land values The abovementioned objector concerns relate to financial matters. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 does not allow consideration of these matters.

Notice of the application was not given to tenancies within the arcade It is acknowledged that when notice of the application was originally given, on or around 2 December 2015, that letters were not posted to owners and/or occupiers of the other tenancies within the building. The applicant erected the yellow planning notices on the site on 2 December 2015, which prompted calls to the planning officer who noticed that letters had not been sent to the previously mentioned properties. Additional letters were generated by Council and sent within 24 hours of becoming aware of this issue. Accordingly, all relevant parties have been notified, and all parties have had at least 14 days to review documentation, and object to Council.

The proposal is an ad-hoc response to the existing site conditions The proposal has been assessed against all relevant provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and found to be satisfactory. The fact that a building is proposed to be re-used does not necessarily mean that a poor outcome will ensue. The supporting documentation confirms that the proposed re-use of the office space, plus the addition of a second floor and roof terrace will result in two dwellings which offer appropriate access, parking, storage and internal amenity. Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. CONCLUSION Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The proposal is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The subject site is located in an area identified as a preferred location for higher density housing which is also highly accessible to public transport and services.

The building provides an appropriate response to the evolving character of the area and complies with the proposed ACZ1 controls.

The proposal will not cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts. The proposal offers future occupants with a good level of internal amenity.


ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 956-15 - 1A & 1B, 101-105 Toorak Road South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No 956/15 for the land located at 1A & 1B / 101-105 Toorak Road, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for partial demolition and construction of two dwellings in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the commencement of the development, two (2) copies of plans drawn to

scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans Council date stamped 26 November 2015 but modified to show: a) Plans updated to clearly detail the location of the two parking spaces on all

proposed conditions plans; b) Notations provided on all relevant proposed conditions plans confirming

that one parking space is provided to each dwelling; c) Details of the proposed bicycle storage racks, including model and

dimensions, and confirmation that the racks comply with the relevant Australian Standard;

d) Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Response in accordance with condition 3;

e) Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) in accordance with condition 5; f) Landscape plan in accordance with condition 6; and g) Any changes required by conditions 3 (WSUD), 5 (SDA) and 6

(Landscaping). 2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, the

applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy at Clause 22.18 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WSUD response must clearly detail the following:

a) All permeable and impermeable surfaces and how each is to be treated; b) Details of all connections from roof areas draining to rain gardens; c) The rain gardens relocated from the roof terrace to the second floor terrace

to ensure that all roof run off can flow through the rain gardens via gravity; d) Cross sections provided of proposed rain gardens; and e) Documentation confirming that the requirements of Clause 22.18 are

achieved. 4. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives

detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.


5. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans 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 incorporate changes required under Condition 1. The report must address the following: a) Satisfactory response to the 10 Key Sustainable Building Categories; b) Confirmation of the operability of all habitable room windows; and c) The average energy rating to satisfy Council’s SDAPP best practice

requirement of 6.6 stars.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, 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 include at least the following information: a) A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation, including botanical names,

common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant; b) Provision of planter boxes with a minimum internal dimension of 500mm

along the east and west boundaries of the roof terrace. The planter boxes must be no higher than the currently proposed balustrading;

c) Planter boxes on the second floor terrace provided with a minimum internal dimension of 500mm;

d) Details of the proposed plantings within the planter boxes. Vegetation must be capable of growing to a height of at least 1m;

e) Provision of an irrigation system connected to the rain water collection tank; and

f) Any consequential changes resulting from revisions in accordance with condition 1.

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. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council prior to a

building permit being issued. A drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in compliance with the above report prior to the commencement of works and the drainage must be completed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

8. 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.

9. The existing footpath or road levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

10. Prior to 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.




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:




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.


5. PLANNING APPLICATION 599/07 – 2 - 58C OSBORNE STREET, SOUTH YARRA - SECTION 72 AMENDMENT FOR THE ADDITION OF A BASEMENT, A TWO CAR STACKER

AND A FOURTH STOREY (WITHIN THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE) AND INTERNAL

RECONFIGURATION.


PURPOSE For Council to consider a Section 72 amendment request for alterations to the original design including addition of a basement, a two car stacker and a fourth storey (within the approved building envelope) and internal reconfiguration at 58C Osborne Street, South Yarra. Executive Summary Applicant: Urbis Pty Ltd Ward: North Zone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone Overlay: None Date lodged: 18 September 2015 Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

64

Trigger for referral to Council: Four storeys Cultural Heritage Plan No Number of objections: 3 Consultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Approve Section 72 Amendment

Request BACKGROUND History Planning Permit No. 599/07 was issued on 5 August 2009 by VCAT. The permit allowed an additional level to the existing two storey single dwelling. Plans were endorsed on 5 August 2009. A S72 amendment was lodged on 6 December 2013. This amendment application sought alterations to the existing dwelling including the addition of a fourth storey to the approved three storey building, including an increase in wall height on the north and south boundaries, and various internal changes. This application was refused by Council on 16 October 2014. Planning Permit No. 599/07 has been extended three (3) times, most recently on 21 March 2016 to allow for the works to commence by 5 August 2017 and be completed by 5 August 2019. Consequently, Planning Permit No. 559/07 is still valid. The Proposal The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Jay Warden Architects and are known as Project No. 201436-58c, Drawing Nos.: TP1.02_J -TP2.04_J (inclusive) and Council date stamped 16 March 2017.


The application is an amendment under Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and proposes the addition of a basement, a two car stacker and a fourth storey (within the existing building envelope approved under Planning Permit No. 599/07) and internal reconfiguration. The applicant seeks amendments to the plans approved under Planning Permit No. 599/07 as follows:

Addition of a fourth floor level within the previously approved building envelope. The additional floor has been accommodated through a reduction in the previously approved floor to ceiling heights.

Internal reconfiguration of the previously approved layout will also occur. The floors will comprise the following:

o Ground floor - 2 bedrooms, a bathroom and storage area;

o First floor – master suite, bedroom, bathroom, storage area and balcony along the

western (front) facade;

o Second Floor – kitchen/dinning/living area, storage area and balcony along the

western (front) facade; and

o Third floor – TV room, study, toilet and terrace.

Addition of a basement beneath the existing building. This will provide storage and a two car stacker (provided within the garage).

Corrections to RLs included on the plans (the RLs included on the previously endorsed were taken 300mm above natural ground level. The RLs have been changed to reflect the location of natural ground level. No changes to the maximum heights previously approved are proposed).

Site and Surrounds The subject site is located on the east side of Osborne Street, approximately 85 metres north of the intersection with Argo Street. The subject site has a frontage of 5.61 metres to Osborne Street, a depth of 15.87 metres and an area of approximately 89 sq. metres. The land is relatively flat. The subject land is developed with a two storey dwelling and is part of a multi-unit development built at Nos. 58A, 58B and 58C circa 1995. A similar style of dual occupancy units, at Nos. 56A and 56B Osborne Street, was constructed circa 1997. These five dwellings form a unified elevation to Osborne Street. The subject site currently contains a two bedroom dwelling with one off-street car parking space in the front setback. The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

To the north of the subject site, at No. 60 Osborne Street, is a single storey dwelling with a pitched roof. This dwelling is setback approximately 1 metre from the common boundary. This sites area of private open space is located in the north-western corner of the site.

To the south, at 58B Osborne Street, is a double storey townhouse with a mezzanine third storey. This dwelling shares a party wall with the subject dwelling. This site’s area of secluded private open space abuts the common boundary with the subject site.


To the west, on the opposite side of Osborne Street, are Nos. 51 and 55 Osborne Street. These sites are occupied by a pair of attached double storey townhouses and a double storey multi-dwelling development, respectively.

To the east of the subject site is the railway reservation. The subject site is located in close proximity to the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Principal Activity Centre. It is located approximately 170 metres from the Activity Centre’s western boundary. South Yarra train station is located approximately 530 metres to the north and tram routes 8, 72 and 78 run along Toorak Road, Malvern Road and Chapel Street respectively.

Planning Permit No. 599/07 was issued by VCAT and permitted the extension of the existing dwelling, entailing an additional level to the two storey building consisting of two bedrooms, a study and balcony within the front setback. The approved works also included an extension to the first floor balcony and a skillion roof.

Previous Planning Application(s) Planning Permit No. 599/07 was issued on 5 August 2009 and allows for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling. On 6 December 2013, a S72 amendment was lodged. This amendment application sought alterations to the existing dwelling including the addition of a fourth storey to the approved three storey building, including an increase in wall height on the north and south boundaries. The amendment also included various internal reconfiguration changes. This application was refused under delegation on 16 October 2014. The Title The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10587 Folio 998 / Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 348474L. No covenants or easements affect the land. Planning Controls The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application: Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 The applicant has applied for an amendment to the permit and plans on behalf of the owner under Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Pursuant to Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a person who is entitled to use or develop land in accordance with a permit may apply to the responsible authority for an amendment to the permit. Section 73(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that Sections 47 to 62 apply to an application to amend a permit as if the application were an application for a permit and any reference to a permit were a reference to the amendment to the permit. Therefore, the amendments to the permit and plans are to be assessed against the relevant planning controls affecting the proposal. Zone Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3) Pursuant to Clause 32.09-04 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required to construct or extend a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres.


Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone sets out a mandatory height control of 9 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres. As the subject site does not have a fall of greater than 2.5 degrees the maximum mandatory height is 9 metres. Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone includes a modified ResCode Standard A5 specifying that basements should not exceed 75% of the site area and a modified ResCode Standard A20 specifying a maximum front fence height of 2 metres in streets in a Road Zone, Category 1 and 1.2 metres in other streets. Overlay None. Particular Provisions Clause 54 – One dwelling on a lot Pursuant to Clause 54, the development of one dwelling on a lot which does not exceed 4 storeys must meet the objectives of this clause. It is noted that Section 73(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 specifies that if an amended permit is granted, any new conditions must relate to the amendments only. Given the proposal for an extension to the dwelling has previously been assessed and approved, assessment of the current amendment application will relate solely to the proposed changes. Relevant Planning Policies Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 16.01 Residential development Clause 21.02 Overview Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone Clause 54 One dwelling on a lot Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing a sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in North Ward and objections from three (3) different properties have been received. The objections can be summarised as follows:

Overdevelopment of the site;

Scale of development out of character with neighbourhood;

Extent of excavation;

Resultant disruption to adjoining properties;


Damage to adjoining properties;

Overlooking;

Amenity impacts;

Reduced sunlight to habitable rooms and private open space areas;

Noise from the construction; and

Car parking and traffic impacts. Revised plans were received on 16 March 2016. They were prepared in response to ESD concerns. They included the following changes:

90 degree rotation of the ground floor bathroom; and

Addition of a section of glass to the part of the balcony immediately above. Given the nature of the changes, they were not re-advertised as it is considered that no additional detriment is caused given. Referrals Building Council’s Building Department confirmed that it is possible to dig out the proposed basement and add new floors while retaining the shell of the existing dwelling. ESD Council’s ESD Officer raised concerns about the natural daylight provision to the ground floor bedroom adjacent to the garage given the window to this bedroom is located beneath a space that is enclosed by the balcony above. Council’s ESD Officer made some recommendations as to how this issue could be remedied. They are as follows:

Reconfiguration to reposition the bedroom adjacent to the rear light court; and

If the bedroom remains in the location proposed, I would recommend the following changes: - The layout of the first floor front balcony amended to provide some space open to

the sky in close proximity to the bedroom window; or - The bathroom rotated 90 degrees to reduce the length of the passage between the

bedroom and the light court. Revised plans (dated 16 March 2016) were subsequently lodged to address the concerns raised. They included the following changes:

90 degree rotation of the ground floor bathroom; and

Addition of a section of glass to the part of the balcony immediately above. These were not re-advertised as it is considered that no additional detriment is caused given the nature of the changes.


KEY ISSUES Built Form Building Height The previously approved extension, at a maximum height of 11.21 metres, exceeds the maximum mandatory height outlined in Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. An accrued right to develop to this height is established as it was previously approved under the permit and this permit is still current. The proposed fourth floor extension in the subject amendment does not propose to increase the previously approved building height and is accommodated within the already approved building envelope. It is noted that the RLs included on the plans prepared as part of this amendment differ from those included in the previously endorsed plans. The RLs included have been amended to reflect the location of natural ground level (the previously endorsed plans included RLs were taken 300mm above natural ground level). The changes to the RLs do not result in any increases to the previously approved heights. Conditions have been included on the permit to reflect this. Site Coverage It is not proposed to increase the previously approved site coverage. It is proposed to introduce a basement to the site. The proposed basement complies with the non-mandatory basement site coverage requirement (modified Standard A5), that exists within Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, as it occupies less than 75% of the site. Amenity Impacts Side and Rear Setbacks/Walls on Boundaries It is not proposed to alter the previously approved building envelope. Therefore, the side and rear setbacks and extent of walls on boundaries will remain as per the previous approval. Daylight to Existing Windows It is not proposed to alter the previously approved building envelope. Therefore, the levels of daylight received by existing habitable room windows on adjoining lots will remain as per the previous approval.

Overshadowing It is not proposed to alter the previously approved building envelope. Therefore, the extent of shadows cast on adjoining lots will remain as per the previous approval. Overlooking The introduction of a fourth storey within the existing building envelope has resulted in alterations to the location and proportions of windows/balconies on the eastern and western facades. As shown on the plans, the south facing habitable room windows within 9 metres (measured within a 45 degree angle) of No. 58B Osborne Street’s rear secluded private open space area will have a sill height of 1.7m above the finished floor level.


As shown on the plans, the east facing habitable room windows within 9 metres (measured within a 45 degree angle) of No. 58B Osborne Street’s rear secluded private open space area feature a 0.7 metre wide blade screen adjacent to the windows southern edge. This limits views to this area of secluded private open space. Therefore, the proposal complies with Standard A15 (Overlooking) and will not cause any overlooking issue to No. 58B Osborne Street’s rear secluded private open space area. This will be re-enforced via a condition on any approval requiring overlooking be resolved in line with A15. No. 58B Osborne Street features a first floor balcony fronting Osborne Street. The southern and western sides of this balcony are devoid of screening; therefore, this balcony constitutes private open space rather than secluded private open space. Therefore, it is not applicable for assessment under Standard A15. The previously approved plans included transparent glazing to a height of 1.7 metres along the balconies southern edge. Although not required by the Standard, the subject amendment continues to include screening along the first, second and third storey balconies entire southern edge to limit overlooking into No. 58B Osborne Street’s first floor balcony. Internal Amenity Daylight to new windows objective Despite the internal reconfiguration resulting in lower floor to ceiling heights (minimum of 2.4 metres at ground floor, 2.5 metres at first floor level, 2.6 metres at third floor level and 1.75 metres at fourth floor level) and the repositioning of rooms, habitable rooms continue to be provided with a minimum of one window each which provides suitable levels of daylight access and ventilation. The revised plans submitted (dated 16 March 2016) have adequately addressed the concerns raised by Council’s ESD Officer regarding daylight access to the ground floor bedroom. Private open space Given the proposed extension utilizes the existing building envelope, there is no change to the existing secluded private open space area (south-eastern corner) proposed. The proposal benefits the dwellings residents with an additional secluded private open space area as it provides a 9 sq. metre terrace at fourth floor level. Car Parking and Traffic Clause 52.06 does not apply to the extension of one dwelling on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. However, it is worth noting that the proposal includes the introduction of a two car stacker within the frontage. The site currently provides parking for a single vehicle. The proposed car stacker is a positive addition as it provides additional parking on the site. The proposal includes a combined pedestrian/vehicular entry door. The presentation of the proposed vehicular/pedestrian access from Osborne Street differs slightly from that previously approved which featured a section of wall dividing pedestrian and vehicular access. However, this alteration is deemed appropriate as it doesn’t alter how the dwelling reads at the ground floor level from the existing situation when viewed from the street, further entry presentations such as this are commonplace along Osborne Street.


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

Overdevelopment of the site/scale of development out of character with neighbourhood – multi-storey dwellings and development are common within the streetscape, including at existing dwellings at Nos. 49, 63, 89, 95, 97, 99, 103 and 109 Osborne Street and recently approved No. 68 Osborne Street. Furthermore, the site is located in an established residential area, is in close proximity to a Principal Activity Centre and is well serviced by public transport;

Extent of excavation – this is not a relevant planning consideration. This matter will be dealt with under the Building Act;

Resultant disruption to adjoining properties – this is not a relevant planning consideration. This matter will be dealt with under the Building Act;

Damage to adjoining properties – this is not a relevant planning consideration. This matter will be dealt with under the Building Act; and

Noise from construction– this is not a relevant planning consideration. This matter will be dealt with under the Building Act.


The proposed fourth storey is contained within the previously approved building envelope and does not increase the previously approved maximum building height;

The proposed extension does not negatively impact on the amenity of abutting dwellings;

The proposed extension provides additional living space and private open space to the dwellings residents; and

The proposed extension provides parking for a second car on-site.


ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 599-07-02 - 58C Osborne Street South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit No: 599/07 for the land located at 58C Osborne Street, South Yarra, be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a S72 Amendment to approved Planning Permit and Plans comprising alterations and additions to the approved dwelling subject to the following conditions: Amendments to Permit Preamble:

Permit Preamble to read as follows: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling on land at 58C Osborne Street, South Yarra, generally in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

Amendments to Permit:

Condition 1 to read as follows:

Before the commencement of the development, one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans dated 16 March 2016 but modified to show:

New Condition 1(a) to read as follows:

Any changes required by Condition 3.

New Condition 2 to read as follows:

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.

New Condition 3 to read as follows: 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. All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans.

New Condition 4 to read as follows: The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.


New Condition 5 to read as follows: The southern wall of the dwelling must not exceed a maximum height of 11.21 metres.

New Condition 6 to read as follows: The northern wall of the dwelling must not exceed a maximum height of 9.8 metres.

Subsequent renumbering of the existing conditions.

Amendments to Plans:

Addition of a fourth storey within the previously approved building envelope and maximum building height.

Addition of a basement and a two car stacker.

Internal reconfiguration. How the Amended Planning Permit will read:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans dated 16 March 2016 but modified to show:

a) Any changes required by Condition 3. 2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and


3. 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. All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans.

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

5. The southern wall of the dwelling must not exceed a maximum height of 11.21 metres.

6. The northern wall of the dwelling must not exceed a maximum height of 9.8 metres.


7. All screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must not have more than 25% openings or they must be of solid translucent panels, permanent, fixed and durable, and designed and coloured to blend in with the development, be installed prior to occupation and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and

finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. Air-conditioning and other plant and equipment installed on the subject

buildings shall be so positioned and baffled so that no noise disturbance is caused to occupiers of adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Windows constructed or lengthened on or within 1 m of the boundary have no

legal access to daylight but can be used to obtain daylight until such time as the adjoining land is developed.


(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. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

NOTE:

i. 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:





6. AMENDMENT C222 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR INTERWAR HOUSES- CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:

The submissions received on Amendment C222.

A response to submissions for the purpose of Council's position at Panel.

Requesting the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider submissions which are unable to be resolved.

BACKGROUND

In December 2006, Council undertook a Heritage Strategy Review and adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan provides a framework for reviewing existing houses and heritage citations and assessing new houses.

The current stage of the Action Plan is the assessment of new individual houses not currently included within the Heritage Overlay (HO). It is intended to progressively seek heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings and select A2 graded buildings (meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance) by theme. Since 2012, the thematic groups Hotels (6 places), Churches and Halls (16 places), Stables and Dairies (7 places), Chimneys (2 Places), Shops (17 places), Residential Flats (24 places) and Individual Places (10 places) have been protected under the Heritage Overlay.

The Interwar Houses Study, undertaken in three stages, investigated the heritage significance of houses grouped under the Interwar theme. The Study recommended forty-one places for permanent heritage protection in the Planning Scheme based on their local heritage significance.

On 30 November 2015, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C222, which implements the findings of the Interwar Houses Study.

Following the Council meeting, on 3 December 2015, Council Officers gave advanced notice to all affected owners, advising of Council’s intent to prepare Amendment C222. While not considered a ‘formal step’ in the Amendment process, this notice was intended to ensure that the process was as transparent as possible.

On 4 January 2016, Council received authorisation from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to prepare Amendment C222.

Exhibition

Formal exhibition of the Amendment took place from 4 February to 7 March 2016.

Notification and exhibition of the Amendment was carried out via the following measures:

Letters, including FAQ sheet sent to the owners and occupiers of all affected properties and prescribed authorities on 1 February 2016.

Notices placed in the Stonnington Leader on 2 February 2016 and the Government Gazette on 4 February 2016.


Full amendment documentation on the DELWP and Stonnington websites.

Council also offered one-on-one meetings with the Council Officers and the Heritage Consultant if affected parties wished to obtain more information on the Amendment.

As part of the one-on-one consultation process Council Officers met with four residents affected by the Amendment during and after office hours.

DISCUSSION

As a result of exhibition, twenty-five submissions were received by Council. This included:

Four submissions proposing changes to the Amendment;

Two submissions offering general support;

One submission (VicRoads) that did not object to the Amendment; and

Eighteen submissions objecting to the Amendment.

The supporting submissions identified the need to protect the places of identified heritage significance. The National Trust, in its supporting submission, commended the City of Stonnington’s leadership in the recognition and protection of significant interwar heritage houses.

The other key issues raised in the submissions, and proposed responses to these issues, are addressed below. A more detailed response to specific issues raised in submissions is provided in Attachment 1.

Council’s heritage consultant has also considered the written submissions and has provided responses to the heritage issues. It is noted, that, upon reviewing the submissions, the heritage consultant has reaffirmed the architectural significance of all but one of the forty-one places proposed for inclusion in the HO.

Key Issues Raised in Submissions

Heritage Citations

Issue Summary:

Fourteen submissions related to the content of the heritage citations prepared in support of the Amendment. Eleven of these submissions noted that the citations did not document changes to the places. Another three submissions noted that the citations applied a letter grading to the places, which is not in accordance with Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay July 2015 (Practice Note).

Officer Response:

The methodology of the Interwar Houses Study, including the citations is consistent with the Practice Note in terms of criteria and thresholds of significance.

In regards to the absence of information pertaining to minor alterations/additions to the places, it is not always feasible in heritage studies to list all aspects of a place history. However, it is recommended the citations be amended where any identified minor changes have been appropriately documented and substantiated in the submissions.

One submission, which included considerable supporting document prepared by heritage consultants Lovell Chen, provided new information about extensive changes made to 10 Whernside Avenue, Toorak. It is considered that these changes have had an impact upon the integrity and character of the place such that it would no longer meet the threshold for local significance. Based on the response prepared by Council’s heritage consultant, it is recommended that 10 Whernside Avenue, Toorak (HO521) not be included in the Heritage Overlay due to extensive alterations to the fabric of the place.


Regarding the application of letter gradings, in April 2012 Council adopted a revised set of grading definitions to implement a more consistent and up to date grading system. Council's heritage consultant has used the revised gradings in assessing the heritage significance of the places.

However, emphasis has been placed in the citations upon the notion of ‘local significance’, as this is the test that is to be satisfied in order to warrant the introduction of a HO.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Council’s Heritage Strategy seeks to better align the letter gradings with the broader heritage definitions as proposed via Amendment C132 (Heritage Policy Review) which is currently being progressed by Council.

Development Potential

Issue Summary:

Six submissions expressed concern that an additional layer of control would result in a loss of the owners’ rights to modify their buildings and would create an unwanted administrative burden.

Officer Response:

It is acknowledged that the application of the HO may trigger the need for a Planning Permit to demolish or alter the places, in circumstances where a permit may not otherwise have been required by the Scheme.

The application of the HO is one component of regulating land use and development via the Planning Scheme, which is a long established and accepted practice in Victoria.

The HO in most circumstances, does not prevent redevelopment, restoration and additions. The appropriate mechanisms to consider any future alterations and additions is through the planning permit approval process.

Land values

Issue Summary:

Five objecting submissions claimed that inclusion under the HO would devalue their properties and that this was an unfair outcome.

Officer Response:

It is generally held that the imposition of additional planning controls should be based on the intent of the controls - in this instance, the protection of places of heritage significance. The economic effects relevant at the Amendment stage are those of a broad community nature rather than of a personal kind. Personal economic impacts are generally not matters taken into account during the Amendment process.

Heritage Overlay Curtilage

Issue Summary:

Three submissions recommend that the extent of the HO be applied to significant fabric only. The submissions cited that titles were consolidated to form current title boundaries and consequently the proposed HO applies to expansive garden areas that do not contribute to the significance of the place. They suggest that the inclusion of these sites within a Heritage Overlay has the potential to trigger planning permit requirements for their day to day maintenance work.

Officer Response:

In consultation with Council’s Heritage Advisor, a reduction of the proposed curtilage around the significant places at 11 Grosvenor Court (HO492), 2 Irving Road (HO500) and 39 Irving Road, Toorak (HO501) is supported.


The land proposed to be removed from the HO comprises of elements that do not contribute to the significance of the places, as outlined in the citations. Furthermore, the remaining extent of the HO (Attachment 2) allows a sufficient buffer to protect significant fabric of each place.

Summary of Changes Recommended to Amendment C222

It is recommended that Council make the following changes to the Amendment as its position to a Panel:

Reduce the extent of the HO curtilage around 11 Grosvenor Court (HO492), 2 Irving Road (HO500) and 39 Irving Road, Toorak (HO501) as shown in Attachment 2.

Remove 10 Whernside Avenue, Toorak (HO521) from the proposed Amendment C222.

Amend the heritage citations to acknowledge alterations to the places (refer Attachment 1 for details).

Demolition of Interwar Places

During the Planning Scheme Amendment Process there is a risk that some identified places may come under threat of demolition.

Under Section 29B of the Building Act 1993, Council can suspend an application for a building permit for demolition if, during the prescribed time (15 business days) a request is made to the Minister for Planning to prepare an amendment to a planning scheme under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

During exhibition of the Amendment, Council received three separate building permit applications to demolish the places indentified in the Amendment. These properties included 17 Tintern Avenue (HO518), 20 Heyington Place (HO482), Toorak and 304 Glenferrie Road, Malvern (HO524). Council (under delegation) requested the Minister for Planning apply interim controls to these places via Amendments C226, C228 and C230 respectively (Attachment 3).

Council sought interim controls to ensure the places are protected (via an interim Heritage Overlay), until Amendment C222 determines whether permanent heritage controls are appropriate. It is noted that during the Amendment C222 exhibition period, Council received objecting submissions from all three places.

On 24 March 2015, notice of approval of Amendments C226 and C228 was published in the Government Gazette.

If Council receives further requests for demolition for identified interwar places whilst Amendment C222 is progressing, Officers will seek interim heritage controls within 15 business days, in line with the above approach. This will enable the interim protection of the places identified in the study whilst permanent protection is considered by Amendment C222.

Known Previous Council Decisions on Heritage Protection for Interwar Houses included in Amendment C222

Council has previously considered the application of an individual HO for eight of the interwar places which form part of the current Amendment C222. These places were considered via Amendment L47 (Attachment 4).

Amendment L47 proposed heritage protection for 149 individual places. Following exhibition the Amendment was split into four parts (Parts A, B, C and D):

Part A of the Amendment applied the HO to forty places that did not receive an objecting submission. Part C of the Amendment removed twenty-three places from the Amendment and was not referred to the independent panel. The balance of the places (included in Parts D and B) were considered by an independent panel.


The heritage significance of seven of the eight interwar places (the other place was included in Part C) was tested at the L47 Part D Panel Hearings (held between 18 August and 7 December 1999). The Panel, in their Report, supported the protection of these places and recommended their inclusion in a HO.

However, following further consultation with the affected owners, in June 2000 Council resolved to abandon heritage controls for the seven interwar houses via Amendment L47D.

Excluding the seven interwar houses from the Amendment was contradictory to the Panel’s recommendations. The Interwar Houses Study had found that these houses still meet the threshold of local significance (A2 graded) and warrant individual protection as part of Amendment C222.

Next Steps

If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address the issues raised in the submissions and intends to continue with the amendment process it must refer the submissions to a Planning Panel for review.

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 15, Council must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days of the closing date of submissions (by 6 May 2016) unless an extension of time is sought by Council.

Pre-set panel dates for a directions hearing and panel hearing were arranged prior to exhibition. The following dates have been set, pending Council’s resolution:

o Directions Hearing: week commencing 16 May 2016

o Panel Hearing: week commencing 20 June 2016

On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C222, a report will be brought to Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C222 is consistent with the following Council Plan (2013-2017) strategy:

‘Preserve Stonington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development.’

It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, which seeks to:

‘Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington.'

The Amendment is also consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04. This seeks to:

‘Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance.’

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The financial cost of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2015/16.


The indicative timeframe for Amendment C222 is as follows:

December 2015 February 2016 May/June 2016 August 2016 October 2016

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Legal advice will be sought, as required.

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C222 and will be able to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C222 proposes to apply individual heritage controls to forty-one interwar places of heritage significance not currently in the Heritage Overlay.

Exhibition of Amendment C222 is complete and Council received twenty-five submissions, including eighteen objecting submissions.

In response to the submission received, it is recommended that Council make the following changes to the Amendment:

Reduce the extent of the HO curtilage around 11 Grosvenor Court (HO492), 2 Irving Road (HO500) and 39 Irving Road, Toorak (HO501) as shown in Attachment 2.

Remove 10 Whernside Avenue, Toorak (HO521) from the proposed Amendment C222.

Amend the heritage citations to acknowledge alterations to the places (refer Attachment 1 for details).

If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address the issues raised in the other submissions and intends to continue with the amendment process it must refer the submissions to a Planning Panel for review.

It is proposed that Council’s position to the Panel will be based on the response to the submissions outlined in this report and attachments 1 and 2.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Amendment C222 - Attachment 1 of 4 Excluded





RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear the submissions and consider proposed Amendment C222 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C222, generally in accordance with the Officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report, Attachment 1 and with changes as shown in Attachment 2.

3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing affecting Amendment C222 to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C222 and the submissions.

4. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C222 of Council’s decision.


7. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS - GREVILLE AND KING STREETS, THREE MONTH

TRIAL OF CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Landscape Architect: Simon McKenzie - McHarg General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for council to consider formal submissions as part of a Statutory 223 Process in response to Council’s proposal to undertake a three month temporary trial of changed traffic conditions along Greville Street, King Street and Porter Streets, Prahran.

BACKGROUND

In a previous report on the 23 November 2015, Council was advised of the statutory 223 process for advertising changes to traffic conditions along Greville Street, King Street and Porter Street in Prahran. The public notice invited submissions to separately address the Greville/Porter Streets and/or King Street components of the public notice. The following information was included:

Description of the proposed temporary changed traffic conditions

Diagrammatic map of the surrounding area with north arrow, an indication of changed

traffic directions and street names

Contact details of council representative for further information

How to formally submit objections/ expressions of support

Opportunity to request to be heard at a public meeting for this proposal, with a

minimum 14 days notice

Closing date for council to receive formal objections/ expressions of interest

The public notice was released through the following mediums:

Advertisement of the Public Notice within the Stonnington Leader on the 16 February

2016 and in the Age Newspaper on the 13 February 2016.

Postage of information brochure, along with a copy of the public notice to 6,042

residents, traders and land owners within the vicinity of the proposed trial traffic

changes, posted on the 15 February 2016.

Advertisement of the public notice on council’s website for the duration of the 28 day

advertisement period.

S223 Hearing

Four formal submissions were received in relation to the temporary trial of changed traffic conditions. In summary 3 of the 4 submissions were generally in favour of the proposal.

Council convened a hearing at 6.00pm on Monday 18 April 2016, held at the Council Chambers, Malvern Town Hall.

None of the submitters requested to be heard, no submitters were present at the hearing to make a submission.

The written submissions are dealt with in the following report.


DISCUSSION

A summary of responses in support or opposition of the proposed trial is listed below with the full submissions attached:

Submission 1 Was in strong support of the proposal, stating ‘I think the changes proposed are very positive and would enhance the area. Particularly support the widening of footpath in Greville St between Chapel and Izett’. The submission specifically requested the removal of one power pole at 173 Greville Street, ‘the removal of the unusually large power pole in the front of 173 Greville St would also greatly enhance the area. It currently reduces access and, frankly, is an eyesore’. The removal of all power poles across Greville Street has previously been investigated, however The cost implications to undertake this were significantly higher than the allocated budget for this project. At this stage it is not intended to remove this pole. Submission 2 Was generally in support of the proposed changes, stating that ‘As a business owner in Greville St (148 - Wishbone & Ivy) and a resident of Regent Street we are quite familiar with the current environment and, in general, support the proposed changes contained in the plan’. They did however raise concerns in relation to the climatic conditions of King Street, stating that ‘Whilst I support the closure (we walk through King St 2 - 4 times a day and rarely drive) any aspiration to have street dining will struggle to survive in the conditions (without some form of street level wind breaks)’. The detail design address issues of ‘wind tunnelling’ with steel frame structures and climber plants to help control the wind within the street. They also commented on the Izett and Greville Street intersection stating that ‘As I sit here looking at the St Edmonds/Izett/Greville St intersection it would also be very useful to have better traffic signage at the intersection. Making Greville St (Izett to Porter) one-way will relieve some of the pressure, but we see all the time vehicles not knowing their rights and obligations and causing confusion’. In response to this, an assessment of the proposed changes has been undertaken by traffic consultants, who found that the closure of King Street will significantly reduce the amount of traffic down Greville Street and removing the east bound traffic flow between Izett Street and Porter Street will also contribute to reducing confusion at the Greville and Izett Street intersection and in turn significantly improve this intersection. Submission 3 This submission had one specific concern relating to traffic access on Porter Street with the changes to traffic, ‘My concern is that trucks delivering to our address will not be able to turn into Porter Street from Greville if the roads are narrowed and pavements extended’. In response to this, kerbs have been designed to allow medium sized trucks to continue to travel down Greville Street and turn into adjoining streets as per the traffic consultant’s recommendations. This will satisfy the requirement to allow delivery trucks to enter Porter Street.


Submission 4 Was strongly opposed to the changed traffic conditions, stating that: Component A – Greville Street/Porter Street ‘1. Residents to the west of Porter Street will be blocked from their local shopping centre by not being able to drive or cycle to Chapel Street’. ‘2. Residents will be forced to travel on major roads such as Commercial road or High streets ( ie: major busy arterial roads) to get simply to the supermarket’. ‘3. This proposal will have a significant negative impact on our day to day Living’. In response to these objections, the main objective of the project is to improve the pedestrian amenity of Greville and King Street and to encourage walkability within the area, as such residents to the west are not blocked from their local shops and the opportunity to either walk or cycle is maintained in its current form. Travelling by car to Chapel Street is maintained via Commercial Road or High Street, which are preferred traffic routes over the local streets. Previous social and commercial impact assessment studies have found that the majority of local residents walk or cycle to this preferred destination and so support the argument to improve the pedestrian amenity of the street. “Losing 15 Car Spaces on Greville Street.” ‘1. Removing 15 car spaces along Greville Street will have enormous impact on small businesses’. ‘2. Ducking into a shop will be arduous and not spontaneous. Again placing more pressure on small businesses’. ‘3. Older people will have to walk a block to Greville Street ( because they can’t park ) simply to go out for dinner’. ‘4. Greville Street is always full with cars parked. Where are people expected to park? A block away? The area already has significant parking pressure on it without making it worse for people’. In response to these comments, previous social and commercial impact assessment studies has found that encouraging foot traffic along the streets will most likely have a positive impact on small businesses. The Cato Street carpark also has capacity to offset the loss of the 15 car spaces along Greville and King Streets and is within very close proximity to both Greville and King Streets. Component B – King Street ‘Encouraging people to sit in a street cast in shadow is simply not appealing hence the likely reason tenancies are left unoccupied presently’. In response to this, tenancies are currently unoccupied due to the poor provision of pedestrian amenity. Closing King Street to create a mall type environment should respond to creating a better occupancy of tenants. The closure of King Street from traffic also significantly reduces traffic flow along Greville Street and in turn improves its pedestrian amenity. The design of King Street will provide an opportunity for generating night time activity as well as day time facility with pedestrian scale lighting and artistic light projections, public seating and street dining encouraged. None of these four submissions requested to be heard at a section 223 hearing.

Strong support was also received from the President of the Chapel Street Precinct Association who is proactively working with retail premises in King Street to assist in activation of the street during the trial.


Council are required to consider all submissions in determining whether to proceed with all, part or none of the trial traffic changes. Should Council choose to proceed with the trial temporary treatments will be installed in June this year? Implementation of Temporary Treatments during trial

If council choose to proceed with the trial the following changes will be implemented in Greville/Porter Street and King Street:

1. Changed traffic flow along Greville Street between Izett Street and Porter from to

one-way west bound

2. Changed traffic flow along Porter Street between Greville Street and Commercial

Road to one-way North bound

3. King Street closed to traffic between Chapel Street and Little Chapel Street (with

residential parking access maintained)

A number of temporary treatments are proposed along Greville Street and King Street with increased cafe dining opportunities, more public seating and a number of events. These will be implemented in temporary form to help provide the community with a small taste of the ultimate street design and will encourage activation of the various spaces. These will include temporary decking to widen footpaths, trees in pots to create an avenue affect and painted road/ pavement surfaces to emulate shared or closed spaces for events. Council’s Economic Development Department are proposing a number of events within Greville and King Street to coincide with the trial period. The events will contribute to creating a vibrant and activated environment.

If council chooses to proceed with the trial changes, all temporary treatment will be implemented in June 2016 for a period of three months, ending in August 2016. Council are then required to undertaken an additional statutory 223 process to make a decision to permanently implement, modify or abandon the changes.

Implementation Program The following table provides an update on timing for implementation of the trial traffic conditions, as well as the process to follow if council determine to proceed with implementing these changes permanently.

Stage Date

Council to hear submissions on the S223 process for the proposed trial

Monday, 18 April 2016

Council to determine whether to adopt, modify or abandon the proposed traffic trail following the hearing of submissions.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Implement the 3 month trial of the proposed traffic arrangements

June- August 2016

Report to council following trial traffic arrangements to determine if to proceed with permanent closure

September 2016

Undertake further S223 process for implementation of the permanent traffic arrangements

September/October 2016

Council to hear submissions on the S223 process for the implementation of the permanent traffic arrangements

October/November 2016

Council to determine whether to adopt, modify or abandon the permanent traffic arrangements following the hearing of submissions

November 2016

Call tenders for implementation of the permanent traffic arrangements as part of the construction of stage 2A and 2B- Greville Shared Street between Izett and Grattan Streets

November/December 2016

Commence construction of stage 2A and 2B- Greville Shared February- June 2017


Street between Izett and Grattan Streets (based on community response to the trial closure)

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of the trial and subsequent permanent changes aligns with the following council documents:

Chapel revision Structure Plan (2014)

‘Improving car bicycle and pedestrian congestion’ (page 5)

‘Enhancing the public realm’ (page 5)

‘To provide quality streets and public spaces to meet the needs of an increasing number of people that will live, work and visit the area in the future, with a focus on providing an adequate, attractive, accessible, greener, safer network of streets and public spaces, and providing opportunities public art and cultural expression’ (page 10)

‘To create shared vehicle and pedestrian areas’ (page 24)

Chapel Street Masterplan (2013)

‘The Masterplan seeks to define and establish shared streets as pedestrian priority zones with light traffic movement, lots of greenery, commercial activity and opportunity for social interaction.’ (page 12)


Should Council decide to proceed with the temporary trial, works to undertake kerb realignments at the Porter / Greville Intersection, signalise intersection changes at the Porter / Commercial intersection will be funded from the Chapel Street Master Plan Implementation Budget X9388. Some of this budget will also be used to implement temporary treatments along Greville Street to activate the spaces during the trial.


Legal advice was sought for the statutory process associated with advertising the temporary trial changes. All public notices were prepared ensure compliance with the legislative requirements of this process.

One grammatical error describing the proposed changes was included in the public notice, however further legal advice was sought which stated that the significance of this error was not substantial enough to warrant any further action or discredit the viability of the statutory process.


CONCLUSION

All submissions received have been considered in accordance with the relevant legislation. Only a small number of objections were received which constituted minute proportion of over 6000 notices distributed. A significant benefit of the 3 month trial period is to provide Council the opportunity to test or modify the proposed traffic changes prior to considering a permanent solution. The submissions opposed to the trial were less than 50% of submissions received it is therefore recommended that Council proceed with the trial traffic changes.


This report is considered to meet the obligations of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights Responsibilities Act. 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Public Notice Submissions Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. It be noted that 4 formal submissions were received under section 223 (Local Government Act 1989)in respect of the proposal to undertake a three month temporary trial of changes to traffic conditions along Greville Street, Porter Street, and King Street, Prahran and that none of the submitters requested to be heard;

2. The proposal to undertake a three month trial of changes to traffic conditions along Greville Street, Porter Street, and King Street, Prahran be adopted;

3. A further report be prepared for Council consideration following the conclusion of the trial;

4. It be noted that an additional section 223 process (Local Government Act 1989) would be required if Council were to formalise the traffic changes as permanent;

5. It be noted that temporary treatments will be installed during the trial period to reinforce the changed traffic conditions.


8. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - CENTRAL PARK, PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK AND

MALVERN GARDENS

Sustainable Transport Planner: Tom Haysom Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To advise Council of a number of pedestrian access proposals at Central Park, Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park and Malvern Gardens.

BACKGROUND A resident request for a new entrance at Central Park was considered at a site meeting of 14 August 2015, attended by the resident, Council Officers and Cr McMorrow. The request proposed that a new entrance, to be located on Burke Road adjacent to the pedestrian crossing (Figure 1), would offer a new convenient entrance for Central Park users. The entrance was proposed by a resident as a series of walking / cycling connections, connecting Central Park to the Gardiner’s Creek Shared path, via Hedgley Dene Gardens. This proposal was reviewed by Councils Transport and Parking unit which concluded, due to a proportion of the land required to construct a connection from the Gardiner’s Creek Shared path to the Hedgley Dene Gardens being owned by VicTrack, VicTrack approval would be required. Subsequently council officers were advised by VicTrack that this land has been reserved for a possible track duplication project and therefore any request for a bike path on this land was not feasible. However, as the entrance to Central Park fell outside VicTrack land, council officers considered this request independently. Following the onsite meeting, Cr McMorrow requested, during the Council meeting of 17 August 2015, that a report be prepared for Council’s consideration on the feasibly of providing better access to Central Park from the pedestrian operated signal crossing north of Kardella Street . Further to this request, Cr Davie in an email to council officers dated 19 August 2015, requested that the report be expanded to consider similar entrance requests at Percy Treyvaud Memorial and Malvern Gardens. The following section of this report will detail proposed entrance treatments at Central Park, Percy Treyvaud Park and Malvern Gardens.

DISCUSSION

Central Park A new entrance has been requested to be located on Burke Road adjacent to the pedestrian operated signal crossing north of Kardella Street (Figure 1). The new entrance would provide park users who traverse the pedestrian crossing a direct entrance to Central Park. The pedestrian operated signal crossing of Burke Road, north of Kardella Street was installed in 2003 after considerable community consultation and negotiations with VicRoads. This crossing and another north of Manning Road were installed, at the behest of Council, to replace an existing crossing near Grant Street owing to a pedestrian casualty accident in Burke Road south of Manning Road.


At that time an independent consultant analysis indicated there was no single crossing point alone that required action, but rather there was a spread of pedestrian crossing locations along the road. Given this, the number of pedestrian generators along the road, the high traffic volumes in Burke Road and the presence of 3 primary schools in the vicinity, the two pedestrian operated signal crossings of Burke Road were installed to address pedestrian safety along the length of the road.

A new entrance to Central Park, adjacent to the pedestrian operated signal crossing north of Kardella Street, was not considered as part of the 2003 proposal. The area where the new entrance has been requested (Figure 1) is currently characterised by a 300mm barrier kerb. To gain entrance to the park, patrons are required to walk either 75 metres south or 150 metres north to a graded entrance. To provide an entry in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossing would require removal of a section of the barrier kerb, and excavation to create a DDA compliant path which would also be suitable for baby prams. The alignment of the path would likely disturb the root systems of existing mature trees, and require the relocation of the existing exercise equipment. Further it should be noted that Central Park is a place of local heritage significance and its management is subject to the recommendations of a Conservation Management Plan. The Plan in part directs Council to retain and maintain the formal path layout dating to the nineteenth century and doesn’t condone the construction of new sections of path that would compromise the historical significance of the Gardens. Figure 1 – Arial photo of Central park indicating location when additional entrance has been investigated (in red).

Given the amount of work involved the likely cost to construct a path to the standard of the other paths in the park (in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossing) would be in the order of $20k.


It should also be noted that as far as we are aware there has only been one request for the path, and there is no evidence of an informal ‘goat track’ through the park which would suggest frequent use. Based on the above considerations Council Officers at the meeting of 14 August 2015 referred to above were not supportive of the proposed path.

Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park A new pram crossing has been requested to be located on Chadstone Road adjacent to the shared path that runs through Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park (Figure 2). The new pram crossing has been suggested to link Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park with the adjacent Bowen Gardens. Advice from the Transport and Parking Unit is as follows:

- There is no pedestrian operated signal crossing in this location. Provision of opposing

pram crossings midblock would encourage an unsafe crossing point of Chadstone Road. Traffic counts from 2007 show that Chadstone Road carries a significant volume of traffic, with an average of 17000 vehicles per day. A pedestrian operated signal crossing is recommended to facilitate a safe crossing point of Chadstone Road to link the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park with the adjacent Bowen Gardens.

- Given that the closest pedestrian operated signal crossing is 125 meters to the north

of this location, it is unlikely that VicRoads would approve another in such close proximity.

- Further to this, there are no adjacent shared paths within Bowen Gardens that would

provide a viable through connection to the existing shared path within Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

Based on the above considerations, Council Officers are not supportive of this proposal. Figure 2 – Arial overlay of Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park & adjacent Bowen Gardens indicating location when additional pram crossing have been investigated (in red).


Malvern Gardens

A new pedestrian path into Malvern Gardens from the High Street pedestrian crossing has been proposed (Figure 3). The new entrance would provide a more direct access to Malvern Central School from the existing pedestrian operated signals on Malvern Road.

The area where the new entrance is proposed is currently characterised by a 150mm bluestone kerb. This existing kerb makes entrance to the park at this location particularly impractical for prams, wheelchairs and bikes. To gain entrance to the park, patrons are required to walk either 25 meters east or 55 meters west to a graded entrance. Council Officers from Council’s Parks, Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Units have reviewed the site and provided the following comments:

- Removal of existing blue stone kerb to construct an entrance is unobtrusive to the

park amenity. Due to the layout of the Malvern Gardens being at grade to the High Street footpath, a DDA compliant entrance can be provided at this location with minimal impact on the existing park amenity.

- An entrance at this location can be offset so as to make it unlikely that a new path

would affect the root system of any established trees. Like Central Park, Malvern Public Gardens is a place of local heritage significance and its management is subject to the recommendations of a Conservation Management Plan. The Plan in part directs Council to retain and maintain the formal path layout dating to the nineteenth century and doesn’t condone the construction of new sections of path that would compromise the historical significance of the Gardens. However, as opposed to Central Park, Council’s Parks Unit noted that there are informal ‘goat tracks’ within this direct area, suggesting this is a desired pathway or entrance into the park from this location. Based on the above considerations, Council Officers are supportive of providing a new entrance into Malvern Gardens, adjacent to the High Street pedestrian crossing (Figure 3). Figure 3 – Arial photo of Malvern Gardens indicating location when additional entrance has been investigated (in red).


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Improving pedestrian access and permeability is supported by Council Policies and Strategies, including the Sustainable Transport Policy.


Funding for the design and construction of a new entrance and path into Malvern Gardens from the High Street pedestrian crossing has been allocated in the 15/16 Capital Works budget, with $10,000 available from X9222 - Replacement and upgrade of Paths in Parks.

CONCLUSION

Council officers have assessed a number of pedestrian access proposals for Central Park, Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park and Malvern Gardens. The officers’ recommendation is to not proceed with the requests for additional path links at Central Park and Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park due to impact on park amenity and lack of evidence to suggest that these proposals are desired pathways. However, due to park conditions enabling a new entrance that is unobtrusive to the park amenity and clear evidence that this is a desired pathway, it is the officers’ recommendation that at a new entrance be provided into Malvern Gardens, adjacent to the High Street pedestrian crossing.



RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Does not proceed with a new pram crossing entrance and path into Central Park, located on Burke Road adjacent to the pedestrian crossing.

2. Does not proceed with a new pram crossing to be located on Chadstone Road adjacent to the shared path that runs through Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

3. Proceeds with constructing a new entrance and path into Malvern Gardens, adjacent to the High Street pedestrian crossing at an estimated cost of $8,000 funded from X9222 - Replacement and upgrade of Paths in Parks on the 2015/16 capital works program.


9. HOWITT STREET SOUTH YARRA LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL

Manager Urban & Infrastructure Projects: Rick Kwasek General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To present the findings from a survey sent to residents living in the vicinity of Howitt Street and Hobson Street South Yarra, in relation to a resident’s request to install a picnic table and an additional park seat in the small ‘pocket’ park at the south-western corner of Howitt St at the intersection with Hobson St South Yarra.

BACKGROUND

A letter from a local resident was tabled at the Council meeting of 9th November 2015, requesting the installation of a table and an additional seat in the small, grassed pocket park in Howitt Street, to encourage a neighbourhood atmosphere where residents can meet, and to accommodate the increasing numbers of residents living in the area who don’t have private green space.

DISCUSSION

In response to this request a survey was distributed in November 2015 to 91 residents living in the immediate area, inviting them to comment on the proposal (See attachment A and B). Council received eight responses, with five residents objecting to the proposal for a number of reasons including:-

- That more furniture will attract greater numbers of people and therefore more rubbish, including cigarette butts in the park. Litter is already a problem due to the park’s proximity to take away food outlets on Commercial Road;

- That noise levels will increase if the park is used by greater numbers of people;

- That homeless people with use the additional seating to sleep on at night; and

- That the park will attract undesirable people who will drink, leave bottles, create noise and disrupt residents.

Council also received some positive feedback on the proposal. One resident supported the proposal but suggested that a rubbish bin should also be included as an additional facility; and another resident suggested that a BBQ would be a good addition to the small space.

Following the unfavourable survey result it was suggested to the person making the request that we modify the proposal to install a park seat only. They were supportive of this but did suggest that they were also happy to withdraw their request if it was generally not supported.

Survey respondents were contacted in relation to modifying the proposal to install a park seat only. Those that opposed the original proposal were still not in favour of adding any further furniture to the small park.

In light of the outcome for the addition of furniture to the park being generally not supported by the majority of respondents it would seem prudent not to proceed with the request.

In following up with the person who made the original request they offered to withdraw their request due to survey response.


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal to manage existing public space is in line with Councils Public Realm Strategy 2010.


There is no legal advice and implications associated with this project other than the OH&S provisions and insurance requirements required by the contractor to perform the works.

CONCLUSION

The resident’s proposal for the addition of park furniture to the small pocket Park in Howitt Street was distributed to local residents for comment. The survey responses indicate that the proposal was generally not supported by the local community. An alternate option to install a park seat only was also not supported. As the pocket park is very small and located in an area where residential housing predominates, these concerns seem reasonable and therefore it is recommended that a picnic table and seat is not installed. When discussed with the person who made the original request they were happy to withdraw their application in light of the community feedback.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Howitt Street letter to residents Excluded

2. Howitt Street Concept Plan Excluded

3. Summary of Survey Responses Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes that the majority of respondents did not support the additional of a picnic table and/or seat to the small pocket park in Howitt Street.

2. Notes that following the outcome of a survey the original request for a picnic table and seat was withdrawn.

3. Write to all respondents notifying them of the outcome.


o) Confidential

1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S ANNUAL APPRAISAL AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW

2015/16

General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

Confidential report circulated separately.

notice paper - city of stonnington · notice paper tuesday 26 april ... planning application 768/15...

Documents