pro-forma for notice paper word 7 - city of web viewnotice paper. 16 september 2013 ... the drainage...

NOTICE PAPER

Monday 16 September 2013 at 7:00 p.m.

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

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

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

Council MeetingNotice Paper

16 September 2013

Order of Business and Indexa) 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);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 Councillorsk) Reports by Delegates;l) General Business;

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS........................................................................................................................... 61.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0259/12 - 34E ROSE STREET ARMADALE - FULL DEMOLITION OF THE

EXISTING BUILDING USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND FOR A RETIREMENT VILLAGE AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING DISPENSATION IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE, HERITAGE OVERLAY AND SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY..............................................................................................................6

1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0151/13 - 167 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN –BUILDINGS AND WORKS AND SUBSEQUENT USE OF THE LAND FOR A MEDICAL CENTRE WITH ASSOCIATED ADVERTISING SIGNAGE AND CAR PARKING DISPENSATION IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE............................................................27

1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0940/12 - 715 - 719 ORRONG ROAD, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT ON A LOT WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE...................................................37

1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0473/12 - 44 - 46 BANGS STREET PRAHRAN – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT..651.5. PLANNING PERMIT 0441/09 - 12 CUNNINGHAM STREET SOUTH YARRA – AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING

PLANNING PERMIT TO REMOVE CONDITIONS RELATING TO A PROPOSED GARAGE/STUDIO ADDITION AND RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR THE RELOCATION AND REDESIGN OF THE REAR BALCONY SCREENING AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORT STRUCTURE............................................................................................84

1.6. PLANNING PERMIT 441/09 – 12 CUNNINGHAM STREET SOUTH YARRA – REVIEW OF COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................................. 94

1.7. PLANNING APPLICATION 0056/76 - 489 - 505 TOORAK ROAD TOORAK - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR A WASTE BIN STORAGE STRUCTURE.........................................................................................99

1.8. PLANNING PERMIT 313/12 – 5/529 CHAPEL STREET SOUTH YARRA – REVIEW OF COMPLETED ADVERTISING SIGN......................................................................................................................... 108

2. APPLICATION FOR VEHICLE CROSSING – 25 VALETTA STREET, MALVERN...................................................1133. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR MALVERN BANQUET HALL: MALVERN LACROSSE CLUB........................1164. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR MALVERN BANQUET HALL: AUSTRALIA SRI LANKA MEDICAL AID TEAM. 117

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.

5. APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS UNDER THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1997 & THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989......................................................................................................................... 118

6. DOG OFF LEASH PROPOSAL..................................................................................................................... 1207. stonnington gift partnership request......................................................................................................123

m) Urgent Business; andn) Confidential Business.1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE…………………………………..…………….…126

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESOF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

16 SEPTEMBER 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 September 2013 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 September 2013 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS16 SEPTEMBER 2013

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0259/12 - 34E ROSE STREET ARMADALE - FULL DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND FOR A RETIREMENT VILLAGE AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING DISPENSATION IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE, HERITAGE OVERLAY AND SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY

(Statutory Planning Manager: Alexandra Kastaniotis)(General Manager: Stuart Draffin)

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for full demolition of the existing building, use and development of the land for a retirement village and associated car parking dispensation in a Residential 1 Zone, Heritage Overlay and Special Building Overlay at 34E Rose Street, Armadale.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Glenloch Homes For the Elderly Inc Ward: SouthZone: Residential 1Overlay: Heritage Overlay, Special Building OverlayDate lodged: 7/05/2012Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

134 days

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 objections

Number of objections: 30 objections from 28 different properties Consultative Meeting: Yes - held on 18/09/2012 and 27/06/2013Officer 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 MA Architects and are known as Drawing No’s: 12033 DR01A, DR02A, DR03A, TP00A, TP01A, TP02A, TP03A, TP04A, TP05A, TP06A, TP07A, TP08A and SBA, all Council date stamped 26 March 2013. Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes: Traffic Impact Report prepared by Ratio Consultants, Council date stamped 26 March 2013.

The application proposes to demolish the existing ‘C’ graded building and construct a double-storey retirement village, comprising 20 single-bedroom dwellings. Key features of the proposal are:

Full demolition of the existing ‘C’ graded swimming pool building. Construction of a double-storey retirement village to provide accommodation for aged

persons who are capable of independent living. No medical facilities or nursing care will be provided on site.

The development contains 20 self-contained single-bedroom dwellings. Each dwelling is consisted of a bedroom, a bathroom and an open plan living/kitchen area.


The proposed development is split into two separate buildings:- Each of the northerly-located building (marked as ‘Building A’ on the plans) and the

southerly-located building (marked as ‘Building B’ on the plans) will accommodate 10 dwellings.

- Both buildings have a maximum height of 9m with varied roof forms.- Building A and B are separated by a communal garden which has a width of 5m. - Building A is setback between 6m and 7.2m from the northern boundary, 3m from the

western boundary, and between 4m and 7.2m from the eastern boundary.- Building B is setback between 4m and 5m from the western boundary, 3m from the

southern boundary, and between 3.5m and 4.5m from the eastern boundary. Each dwelling is provided with a balcony with a size ranging from 3.6sqm to 10.9sqm. 25.6%

of the subject site is designated as communal gardens. A total of 4 car parking spaces are provided, comprising 3 visitor spaces (including one

disabled space) and 1 ‘resident representative space’ for a resident who will cater for the personal vehicle travel needs of other residents.

Access to the dwellings is provided via the shared walkway/ramp and staircases that are contained within the subject site.

The building presents a contemporary architectural style, with various features and materials, including a combination of timber, glass, steel, metal cladding, brick, and render. Climbing vines will be integrated onto the building facades.

The plans Council date stamped 26 March 2013 were formally submitted to Council as revised application plans. Compared to the originally advertised plans, the revised plans represent a significant reduction in the scale of the proposed development. More specifically, the revised plans show the following main changes:

The proposed development is divided into two separate buildings and no longer presents as one long and unbroken built form.

The number of dwellings is reduced from 24 to 20. The number of on-site parking spaces is reduced from 5 to 4. Changes to the layout and orientation of the dwellings. Changes to the setbacks from all boundaries. Substantial changes to the architectural articulation of the proposed development.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located within the heart of the residential pocket bound by Eileen Street to the west, Rose Street to the north, Northcote Road to the east and Elm Grove to the south. As the site is situated approximately 37m south of Rose Street, it has limited visibility from the street. The subject site has the following characteristics:

A rectangular shaped lot with a width of 20.36m, a depth of 65.9m and a total area of approximately 1341sqm.

The subject site abuts a 3.6m wide right of way to its east. Access to the subject site entirely relies on this right of way.

The land is relatively flat, with a 1m rise in land level from the north to the south. The subject site is improved by a single-storey building which is used as a swimming pool.

According to Council’s Heritage Studies, the existing building has a grading of C. The subject site currently provides 17 angled parking spaces and a disabled space at the

northern end. The site does not provide any landscaping as it is largely paved.

The subject site forms part of a residential hinterland. Due to the unique location of the subject site, it is surrounded by residential properties to its north, west, south and east. Despite its location within an established residential area, the subject site has excellent access to services and facilities. The


small Neighbourhood Activity Centre along Beatty Avenue is located approximately 150m north-west of the subject site and the Major Activity Centre along High Street is some 450m south-east. The Activity Centres provides a variety of commercial facilities and community services. The site is also highly accessible to major forms of public transport, with Toorak and Armadale Railway Stations within easy walking distance as well as trams along High Street and Malvern Road.

The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

To the immediate west, the subject site abuts the rear of the properties along the eastern side of Eileen Street. The western adjoining properties are single to double storey in height, with relatively small private open space. The boundary fences that separate these properties from the subject site have a height between 2.6m and 3m.

To the north of the subject site, are the single storey dwellings at 34A-34D Rose Street. The subject site directly abuts the private open space of these properties.

To the east, on the opposite side of the right of way, are the properties fronting Northcote Road. Most of the Northcote Road properties are single storey with a first floor rear extension. The private open space of these properties generally includes garages/outbuildings and is separated from the right of way by paling fences/roller doors. A number of properties rely on the right of way to enter/exist their garages.

To the south, the subject site is adjacent to the private open space of 5, 7 and 9 Elm Grove.

Previous Planning Applications

A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Council refused an amendment application to Permit No. 179/82 on 19 October 2006, which sought to allow operation of the swimming pool on Sundays between 9:15am and 12pm.

Planning Permit No. 422/05 was issued on 24 May 2005 for alterations to an existing swimming pool centre within a Heritage Overlay for external steel bracing.

The Title

The land is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 365333V and is contained in Title Volume 06371 Folio 023. No covenants or easements affect the land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls

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

ZoneClause 32.01 – Residential 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 32.01-1 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required to use the land as a retirement village.

Pursuant to Clause 32.01-6, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.01-1.

OverlayClause 43.01 – Heritage OverlayPursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a permit is required to demolish or remove a building, to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay


Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land prior to the commencement of a new use. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by the table included in Clause 52.06-5.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5:A retirement village requires the following rates:1 parking space for each one or two bedroom dwelling;2 parking spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling;1 parking space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

The proposed development includes 20 single-bedroom dwellings. As a result, a total of 24 spaces are required. The proposal will provide 4 on-site parking spaces. Therefore, permission is required to reduce the parking requirement.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11.01 Activity CentresClause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.01 Vision for the CityClause 21.02 Settlement and the EnvironmentClause 21.03 HousingClause 22.02 Urban design policyClause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity, and Interface PolicyClause 22.13 Parking PolicyClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Amendment C161 seeks to provide a revised Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). Council adopted the Amendment on 4 March 2013 and has forwarded the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval.

The review, rather than providing wholesale changes to the policy, seeks to rearrange existing policy such that the majority of this is provided within the MSS. The policy wording has been enhanced and the consolidation of policies assists in avoiding repetition.

There has been further clarity in the ‘Housing’ section at Clause 21.05 whereby the ‘Location of Residential Development’ is discussed. The Amendment proposes a clear distinction between locations for higher density development and the lower residential hinterland. The new ‘Housing’ Policy has identified the need to provide appropriate accommodation for older aged groups as a key issue.


Advertising

The original application for 24 dwellings was advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing one sign on the site. The public notification of the application was completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and 28 objections from 26 different properties were received. In summary, the objections raised the following concerns:

Inconsistency with the existing neighbourhood character Overdevelopment Excessive building height, bulk and scale Amenity impacts (e.g. loss of light, overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk) Traffic and parking impacts Noise emission Impact on drainage Demolition of a heritage building Inaccurate title boundary Insufficient access to the subject site Inadequate private open space Impacts during demolition and construction phase Inadequate public notification

A Consultative Meeting was held on 18 September 2012. The meeting was attended by Councillor Ullin and ex-Councillor Smith, representatives of the applicant, objectors and Council Planning Officers. As stated above, the applicant lodged revised plans in response to the concerns raised by Council Planning Officers and the objectors. The revised plans include the following changes:

The proposed development is divided into two separate buildings and no longer presents as one long and unbroken built form.

The number of dwellings is reduced from 24 to 20. The number of on-site parking spaces is reduced from 5 to 4. Changes to the layout and orientation of the dwellings. Changes to the setbacks from all boundaries. Substantial changes to the architectural articulation of the proposed development.

The revised plans were re-advertised and Council received 2 new objections and 4 further submissions from existing objectors (i.e. overall 30 objections from 28 different properties). A second Consultative Meeting was held on 27 June 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Sehr, Hibbins and Ullin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and Council Planning Officer.

Referrals

Melbourne Water

Melbourne Water confirmed in writing that they did not object to the proposal subject to the following conditions:

No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.

The dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

The walkway on the eastern side of the building must be unenclosed underneath, or constructed at natural surface levels.

The finished floor level of the shed must be 150 mm above the applicable floor level.


No filling is to occur outside of the building footprints. Open space areas must remain at natural surface levels.

Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.

The building/structure including footings, eaves etc must be set outside any easement or a minimum 1.5 metres laterally clear of the outside edge of the main drain, whichever is greater.

Prior to the commencement of works a separate application, direct to Melbourne Water’s Asset Services team, must be made for any new or modified stormwater connection to a Melbourne Water asset.

Heritage

Council’s Heritage Advisor confirmed that the existing building should be an ungraded building and does not have any significant heritage value. Therefore, demolition of the existing building does not raise substantial heritage issues. The replacement building will not present significant visual bulk to the local streets and provides a satisfactory outcome on this relatively concealed site.

Transport and Parking

Council’s Transport Engineers expect the proposal will generate significantly fewer vehicle trips than the existing swimming pool does and therefore will not have a negative impact on the surrounding road network. However, the Transport Department raised concerns with the car park dimensions, ramp grades and sight distances at the property boundary. The following comments were made:

Further clarification in relation to allocation of the parking spaces and how the resident representative space works.

Parking bay to be widened by 0.1m in accordance with the Australian Standards. Length of the disabled bay to be shown on the plan. The length should be of a minimum of

5.4m. A cross section from the far side of the right of way to the front of the parking bays that shows

all proposed grades, all lengths of grades and all levels. The placement of bins along the kerb of Rose Street may restrict parking availability and

impact on sight distance.

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Engineer commented that there are no apparent Infrastructure related concerns. Should a permit be issued, the following conditions have been requested to be included:

The development must be fully contained with the title boundary of the subject site and must not encroach onto the neighbouring titles including the Council drains located to the west and south of the subject site.

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 the report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

All buildings and works must be clear of the main Council drain located near the north-east corner of the subject site.

The finished development levels must match the existing road levels and the road levels must not be altered in any way to facilitate the new development levels.

Waste

The application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Coordinator who provided the following comments:


The standard allocation of bins for the development will be 20 x 240 litre bins. The proposed bin area does not have the capacity to accommodate the standard allocation of

bins. As the land has no street frontage, it will be difficult to present bins from the development at

the kerbside in accordance with the Stonnington Local Law. A Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to Council. The WMP needs to

demonstrate how bins will be collected in a manner compliant with the Stonnington Local Law.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to redevelop the site at 34E Rose Street, Armadale for a retirement village. As a reflection of the unique attributes of the subject site (e.g. being surrounded by private open spaces, generous lot size and single access point to name a few), the application has attracted some community opposition. Having considered the relevant planning policies, the grounds of objection and the various referral comments, the key issues that Council have to determine are:

Is the proposed use appropriate at this locale? Are the heritage impacts associated with the full demolition and the replacement building

acceptable? Does the proposed development fit into this neighbourhood? Are the off-site amenity impacts within reasonable limits? Would the proposal offer future occupants an adequate level of internal amenity? Will the proposal result in unreasonable parking and traffic impacts? Does the proposal provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping? Would the proposal significantly increase the flooding risk and water runoff? Is the waste management arrangement acceptable?

Is the proposed use appropriate at this locale?

There is little dispute over the growth of aged population in our society and the dearth of appropriate accommodation for older members of the community (refer to Crowncross Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 2128). In this context, it is no surprise that the State and Local Planning Policies support the provision of a wider diversity of housing and the provision of accommodation specifically to meet the needs of an ageing population. Council’s revised Municipal Strategic Statement acknowledges that the population of Stonnington is ageing and Council’s Housing Policy at Clause 21.03 encourages alternative housing choices for older persons within the municipality.

The proposed use of the land for a retirement village is consistent with the policy direction and enjoys strong policy support for the following reasons:

The close proximity of the subject site to services, facilities and infrastructures makes it highly suitable for the proposed use.

The proposed use would generate social benefits as it allows older persons to remain within a familiar living environment, geographic area and community.

The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone as it helps to meet the housing needs of the ageing population.

The proposed use is residential in nature and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed use is appropriate at this locale. In order to ensure the proposed development will be used as a retirement village, conditions will be included on any permit that issues that require any person residing on site must be a ‘retired person’ as defined


in the Retirement Villages Act 1986 and the development must be operated by Glenloch Homes for the Elderly Inc.

Notwithstanding the strategic support for the proposed use, consideration must also be given to whether the proposal has responded appropriately to its particular context and environment as required by Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement, Urban Design Policy and Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy. This will be discussed in the following sections of the report.

Can demolition of existing building be supported and is the replacement building acceptable from a heritage perspective?

The subject site is located within HO130 – Armadale Precinct, which is highly valued for its subdivision pattern and high level of intactness. The Armadale Precinct is identified of aesthetic, historical and social significance because of its intact collection of late nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings, the illustration of the early development of the Municipality and the introduction of new subdivision typologies.

The existing building on the site is a ‘C’ graded post-war building. According to Council’s Heritage Guidelines, C graded buildings are either reasonably intact representative examples of particular periods of styles, or have been substantially altered but stand in a row or street which retains much of its original character. However, Council’s Heritage Advisor confirmed that the existing building should be ungraded, which means it makes no important contribution to the heritage value of the area.

Whilst Council’s Heritage Guidelines generally discourage demolition of graded buildings, the proposed full demolition of the existing building can be supported because:

The existing building has no significant heritage value and does not contribute to the understanding of the heritage value of the area. As a result, its removal will not detract from the heritage significance of the Armadale Precinct.

The existing building is largely concealed from views from the surrounding streets. Therefore, its removal will have a negligible impact on the heritage significance of the area.

Council’s Heritage Advisor supported the proposed full demolition.

In regard to infill developments, the Heritage Guidelines require new buildings to adopt the scale, massing, setbacks and general form of the existing heritage buildings in the area. Materials should reflect those found elsewhere in the precinct. New buildings may be of a contemporary style but should not be visually dominant in terms of size, height or bulk.

Although the proposed double-storey replacement building is higher than the existing building, its form and scale are not considered to be excessive. Due to the location of the subject site, the new building will be largely concealed from views from the streets. Furthermore, it adopts an understated modern expression and interprets some of the heritage elements (e.g. roof form) in a contemporary way. In addition, the selected materials reflect those found in the heritage precinct. Therefore, the proposed replacement building makes an architectural statement that is of high calibre and adequate sufficiency.

For all the reasons discussed above, the proposed demolition of the existing building can be supported and the replacement building is considered to be acceptable from a heritage perspective.

Does the proposed development fit into the neighbourhood?

This neighbourhood predominately features a mix of single and double storey modest dwellings. Whilst the lot size varies, it generally displays a fine grain pattern of development. Many objectors


were concerned that the proposed development does not respect the existing character of development because of its scale and form.

Before starting to assess the suitability of the proposal in neighbourhood character terms, it is necessary to point out that the subject site is a large site (i.e. over 1,300sqm). It is obvious that any redevelopment of this site will bring about changes to this urban environment and consequently impact on the existing neighbourhood character. However, the Tribunal has in numerous decisions (refer to Austcorp Group v Monash CC (Red Dot) [2006] VCAT 692 and Crowncross Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 2128) commented that change is not necessarily to be regarded as negative and respecting existing neighbourhood character does not mean replication of the exact scale and design of existing dwellings. Bearing this in mind, the assessment now turns to reviewing how the proposed development responds to the character of this neighbourhood.

Unlike the previous scheme which included an unbroken and unrelenting built form that almost extended the full length of the land, the current proposal contains two buildings that are separated by a 5m wide communal garden. Each building has a length of approximately 26m and a width between 10m and 12.8m. The separation effectively breaks up the building mass and the resulting building scale is more compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

The building mass is further reduced by the various setbacks. The layout of Building A and B is slightly different, creating varied setbacks. For instance, Building A is setback 3m from the western boundary consistently. Building B, however, has a staggered setback between 4m and 5m from the western boundary. The variance avoids two repetitious buildings and creates visual interest. The generous setbacks also allow in-ground canopy trees to be planted around the perimeter of the subject site, which will provide good screening between the subject site and the neighbouring properties.

In relation to the concern of excessive building height raised by some objectors, the proposed building height is not considered to be unreasonable in this residential hinterland. The subject site is within a flood prone area and consequently the finished floor levels have to be raised above the flood level to minimise flooding risk. Despite the raised floor levels, both Buildings A and B have a maximum building height of 9m (i.e. to the top of the roof), which complies with Standard B7 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. In addition, the proposed development adopts a raked roof form, which allows the height of the west and east elevations to be kept as low as possible (i.e. under 7m). The height of the side elevations is similar to many of the first floor extensions found in this area and provides a gradual height transition to the adjoining residential dwellings.

The design details of the proposal are considered to be appropriate and help to make the proposed development a good ‘neighbour’. This is evidenced by:

The varied roof forms. Both Buildings A and B have a gable roof form with a lower pitched roof behind. This architectural feature responds to the surrounding properties which have high roofs at the front and lower extensions to the rear. The varied roof forms also reduce the visual mass of the development further.

Stepped line of the building facades. The elevations of the proposed development are articulated by stepped lines, which help to break up the elevations into smaller visual elements. The integration of climbing plants onto the building facades also adds visual interest.

Different materials and fenestration. The proposed development includes a range of materials. The different positions and dimensions of the openings avoid a regular presentation that is visually dull.

Various forms of privacy screening. The screening varies from pergola frames to perforated panels with integrated vines, and from timber battens to ribbed privacy glass. The variety of the screens provides articulation to the development.


For all the reasons outlined above, the proposed design response is found to be appropriate in this site context because:

The separation of the development into two buildings with appropriate scale and height; The high degree of articulation with varied setbacks; The varied use of materials and fenestration; The opportunity for landscaping; and The design details that assist in breaking the building mass and creating visual interest.

Would the proposal generate unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties?

Side and rear setbacks

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

West Elevation North elevation South Elevation East Elevation

Wall height

Setback required

Setback proposed

Wall height

Setback required

Setback proposed

Wall height

Setback required

Setback proposed

Wall height

Setback required

Setback proposed

Building A

6.77m 1.95m 3m 6.8m 1.96m 6m – 7.2m

N/A 6.81m 1.96m

4m – 7.2m

Building B

6.52m 1.88m 4m – 5m

N/A 6.87m 1.98m 3m 6.87m 1.98m

3.5m – 4.5m

* all setbacks are taken from the title boundary of the subject site and the depth of the balconies and walkways are included

The shed to the south of Building B has a height of 2.5m and is setback approximately 0.7m from the southern boundary. However, the shed is setback over 2m from the northern boundary of 5 and 7 Elm Grove and does not exceed the height of the boundary fences of 5 and 7 Elm Grove. As a result, the non-compliance will not impact on the amenity of the properties to the south. Apart from the shed, the proposal well exceeds the side and rear setback requirements. In addition, the separation of the proposed development from all boundaries provides a respectful response to the character of this area and allows meaningful landscaping to be provided. Therefore, the proposal meets the objective of Clause 55.04-1.

Wall on boundaries

The development is setback from all boundaries except a pergola that is located along the western boundary. The elevations do not show the details of the pergola. Therefore, a condition will be included, requiring the elevations be updated to include the pergola. In order to minimise the potential impact of the pergola, the height of the pergola will be required not to exceed the height of the adjacent boundary fence.


Daylight to existing windows

The surrounding properties have habitable room windows facing the subject site. However, the windows in question are well setback from the subject site. The distance between the proposed development and the neighbouring habitable room windows well exceed the requirements of Standard B19. As a result, the proposal will not restrict daylight to the existing habitable room windows.

North facing windows

There are no north-facing habitable room windows located within 3m of the southern boundary of the subject site. Thus, Standard B20 does not apply.

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the private open space to the east of the subject site will not be overshadowed by the proposal throughout the day. Some of the western adjoining private open spaces will experience additional shadows in the morning between 9am and 10am. However, the additional shadows will be clear by 10am. Due to the size of the western adjoining private open spaces, Standard B21 is not met. But the overshadowing impact is not considered to be unreasonable in this inner city context given the limited duration of the additional shadows (i.e. one hour) and the relatively minor extent of the overshadowing.

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. Assessment of overlooking impacts from the ground and first floor to each interface is provided as follows:

- North ElevationAccording to the north elevation, the ground floor north facing balconies may cause overlooking to the northern adjoining private open spaces. As the finished floor level of the balconies is higher than 800mm above natural ground level, Standard B22 applies. Therefore, it is necessary to require the balconies be screened up to 1.7m in accordance with Standard B22.

The plans show screens to the first floor north-facing balconies, but do not indicate the height of the screens. As a result, a condition that requires a note be included confirming the height and transparency of the screens are in compliance with Standard B22 will be included.

It is also noted that the floor plans show north facing windows to Units G.01, G.02, 1.01 and 1.02, which are not shown on the elevations. Thus, the floor plans should be amended to delete these windows or the elevation be updated to show the windows.

- West ElevationThe existing boundary fences of the Eileen Street properties will limit views from the ground floor west-facing habitable room windows to their private open spaces. The top of the existing fence are around 1.7m above the finished floor level of the development. Therefore, it is considered acceptable to leave the ground floor west-facing window unscreened.


The first floor west-facing windows are screened up to 1.7m, complying with Standard B22.

- East ElevationThe ground floor east facing windows and balconies are not screened. However, the rear fences of the properties along Northcote Road have a height over 2.5m. As shown on Section 1 (Drawing No. DR03A), the existing fences are sufficient to restrict overlooking from the east elevation of the ground floor to the private open space of the Northcote Road properties.

The plans indicate the first floor east elevation is screened with the exception of the east-facing windows to Units G.02 and 1.02. As the east elevation of Units G.02 and 1.02 is setback over 9m from the east adjacent private open spaces, it is acceptable to leave it unscreened. Because the elevation does not specify the height and transparency of the screening, a condition will be included to require a note confirming the east elevation of the first floor is screened in accordance with Standard B22.

- South ElevationThe ground and first floor south-facing habitable room windows of Building B have a sill height of 1.7m above finished floor. As a result, compliance with Standard B22 is achieved and no unreasonable overlooking will occur from these windows.

Will the proposal offer future occupants an adequate level of internal amenity?

Dwelling Entry and others

Entry to the dwellings is via shared a walkway, ramp and staircases. The entry point is easy to identify and accessible to people with limited mobility. In order to further improve safety and visibility of the entry points, especially at night, it is considered necessary to provide lighting along the walkway. This can be addressed via permit conditions.

Internal amenity

The proposed dwellings have a size ranging from 52sqm to 64sqm. The size is generous and all the dwellings are provided with the necessary components for comfortable living, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms. It is noted that all the habitable areas have clear outlook and direct solar/daylight access. The detailing of the proposed development, such as the cut out on the first floor balconies and the varied form of screening, would improve the level of internal amenity afforded to the future residents.

Private open space

Each dwelling is provided with a balcony with a size between 4.6sqm and 10.9sqm. The proposed balconies are conveniently accessible from the living areas and have outlooks to various perspectives. However, most balconies fall short of the 8sqm requirement as set in Standard B28 and some objectors raised concerns in this regard. As Member O’Leary commended in Lancbil Builders Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC [2004] VCAT 139, it is unnecessary to have large amounts of individual private open space areas in a retirement village given the needs and lifestyle of the elderly occupants. In addition, the proposal includes substantial communal gardens, which will facilitate the recreational needs of the residents and promote social interaction among the occupants. As a result, it is considered that the objective of Clause 55.05-4 is satisfied.


Service facilities

The proposal provides areas for the necessary site services. The plans clearly indicate the locations of mailboxes and bin area, which are considered to be acceptable. Whilst the size of the external storage facility does not meet the requirement of Standard B30, it is commensurate with this style of accommodation.

For all the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposal will provide future occupants with a high standard of internal amenity.

Will the proposal generate unreasonable parking and traffic impacts?

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the development is required to provide 24 on-site parking spaces (i.e. being 20 for residents and 4 for visitors). A total of 4 car spaces are proposed within the subject site, including one disabled parking space. Thus, the development has a shortfall of 20 car spaces.

The applicant submitted that based on a traffic study commissioned by the City of Port Phillip, a retirement village in an inner city location has an empirical parking rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling. Council’s Traffic Engineers generally agree with this rate. Application of this rate results in a requirement of 5 spaces. Consequently, the parking provision falls short of this requirement by 1 space. 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 benefits from its close proximity to services, facilities and major forms of public transport. The occupiers of the development have easy access to shops, restaurants and medical centres to name a few within the Activity Centres. In addition, Toorak and Armadale Railway Stations as well as trams along High Street and Malvern Road are within short walking distance.

Given the nature of the proposed use, it is reasonable to expect that the residents would have a low car ownership rate. The applicant stated that the occupiers will not be allowed to have vehicles and a resident representative will cater for their needs for personal vehicle travel.

All the dwellings are self-contained and there will be no staff working on site. The residents and visitors of this development are not eligible for “Resident Parking Permits”

pursuant to Council’s Local Laws. Since the surrounding streets are strictly regulated by parking restrictions (e.g. Eileen Street and part of Rose Street are subject to ‘permit zone’ control), 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).

The proposed development will generate much less vehicle movements along the laneway than the existing swimming pool does. As a result, it will have less traffic impact on the road network.

In order to address the issues raised by Council’s Transport Engineers, the following conditions will be included:

Parking bay No. 4 be widened by at least 0.1m in accordance with the Australian Standards. Length of the disabled bay be of a minimum of 5.4m. A cross section from the far side of the right of way to the front of the parking bays detailing

all proposed grades, all lengths of grades and all levels. A car parking allocation plan that clarifies the allocation of parking spaces and how the

resident representative system works.


The proposed conditions will adequately address the concerns of Council’s Traffic Engineers.

Does the proposal provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping?

Amendment C161 includes stronger policy emphasis on the provision of high quality landscaping. Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape Character) of the revised MSS stresses the importance of:

Acknowledging the City’s landscape quality and character as one of its most distinctive characteristics.

Preventing further erosion of the existing landscape character and repairing the damage of the past.

Establishing high standards of landscape integration with all new developments.

The policy seeks to (among others):

Ensure new developments incorporate a designated landscape setting with substantial canopy tree vegetation, with the exception of land in a Business Zone where a street wall character is preferred.

In residential streetscapes, ensure consistent front setbacks, sufficient for the planting of canopy trees.

Avoid extensive site coverage in medium and higher density developments so as to provide canopy landscaping, having regard to the existing or preferred character of the area.

The proposed development is well setback from the site boundaries and provides sufficient opportunities for meaningful landscaping. The floor plans and elevations show some indicative landscaping, but a landscape plan was not submitted to Council as part of the application. Given landscaping is an important part of the application, it is necessary to require a detailed landscape plan which details the schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines. It is considered that a well-designed landscape scheme will contribute to the landscape character of this area.

Would the proposal significantly increase the flooding risk and water runoff?

The subject site is covered by a Special Building Overlay and is adjacent to Council drains. Some of the objectors were concerned that the proposed development will increase the flooding risk and water runoff.

This application was referred to Melbourne Water and Council’s Infrastructure Unit, both of which did not object to the proposal subject to conditions. The conditions proposed by Melbourne Water and Council’s Infrastructure Engineer will be included on any permit that issues. This would ensure that the proposal will have minimal impacts on the Special Building Overlay.

The subject site is almost paved to its entirety at present and does not allow stormwater infiltration. The proposed development will significantly increase the permeability of the subject site, which would in turn reduce stormwater runoff from the site. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response, which will further reduce stormwater runoff from the subject site.

As a result, the proposal will not increase the flooding risk and water runoff from the subject site.


Is the waste management arrangement acceptable?

Both Council’s Waste and Transport Units raised concerns in relation to the waste management arrangement. As the subject site does not have a frontage to Rose Street, placing bins along the Rose Street nature strip will not only breach Council’s Local Laws but also impact on on-street parking and sight distance. Furthermore, Council waste services will not be provided to the subject property because it can only be accessed via a laneway and collecting waste from the laneway may impact on some of the neighbours to enter/ exit their garages as they rely on the laneway. Therefore, a condition that requires waste generated from the proposed development must be collected in accordance with Council’s Local Law and by a private waste collector will be included. A Waste Management Plan will also be required via permit conditions to ensure appropriate management of waste storage and collection.

Council’s Waste Management Coordinator was concerned that the bin storage capacity of the development will not be able to accommodate the standard allocation of bins. However, due to the nature of the proposed use, it is unlikely that the development will require 20 bins. In addition, the Waste Management Plan will include strategies to minimise the generation of waste and recyclables.

In light of the above, the waste management arrangement is considered to be acceptable subject to a satisfactory Waste Management Plan and private waste collection.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

The plans indicate a 3,000L water tank will be installed next to the shed. However, the applicant did not formally submit a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response. This will be required via a permit condition.

Objections

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

Noise emission - the development will not generate noise over and above that expected with normal dwellings. In regard to the noise emission from air conditioners, there are EPA requirements in place. In addition, a condition will be placed requiring all plant and equipment be screened and baffled so as to minimise noise emission.

Inaccurate title boundary – the floor plans show land that is outside the title boundary of the subject site. Thus, a condition will be included to require deletion of reference to the land that is outside the title boundary. It is worth pointing out that first, the proposed development is entirely contained within the title boundary of the subject site; and secondly the setbacks used in this assessment were taken from the title boundary of the subject site.

Impacts during demolition and construction phase - this issue is not within the planning consideration. There are building and local law controls in place to regulate demolition and construction.

Public advertisement was inadequate – as the subject site does not have a Rose Street frontage, it was not practical to place a public notice sign along Rose Street. However, all the adjoining properties were notified by letters. Given this application has been advertised twice and the extensive period for lodging objection (i.e. over a year since the application was first advertised in July 2012); it is considered that public notification of the application was appropriate.


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 use and development is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Demolition of the existing building and the replacement building will not significantly impact on the heritage value of the Armadale Precinct.

The proposed development is respectful of the existing neighbourhood character. The proposed development will not result in unreasonable off site amenity impacts. The proposal offers the future residents a good level of internal amenity. The proposed use and development will not result in unreasonable parking and traffic

impacts.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 259/12 for the land located at 34E Rose Street, Armadale be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for full demolition of the existing building, use and development of the land for a retirement village and associated car parking dispensation in a Residential 1 Zone, Heritage Overlay and Special Building Overlay 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 advertised in April 2013 but modified to show:

a) Elevations be updated to include the arbor (pergola) along the western boundary. The height of the arbor must not exceed that of the boundary fence to its west.

b) North elevation of the balconies to Units G.01 and G.02 be screened in accordance with Standard B22.

c) North elevation of Building A be updated to show the north facing windows to Units G.01, G.02, 1.01 and 1.02 in accordance with the floor plans and the windows to Units G.01 and G.02 are screened in accordance with Standard B22. Alternatively, the floor plans can be amended to show deletion of the windows so as to match the north elevation of Building A.

d) Elevations be updated to include notes that confirm the first floor screening has a height of 1.7m above the finished floor level and a maximum transparency of 25% in accordance with Standard B22.

e) Provision of lighting along the walkway to improve safety and visibility of the entry points to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

f) Deletion of reference to any land that is outside the title boundary of the subject site.


g) Parking bay No. 4 be widened by at least 0.1m in accordance with the Australian Standards.

h) Length of the disabled bay be of a minimum of 5.4m.i) A cross section from the far side of the right of way to the front of the parking bays

detailing all proposed grades, all lengths of grades and all levels in accordance with the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

j) Any change required by the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response in accordance with condition 5.

k) Any change required by the landscape plan in accordance with condition 7.l) Any change required by the Waste Management Plan in accordance with condition

12.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 and the description of the use on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. The site must be operated by Glenloch Homes for the Elderly Inc unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority no dwelling on the land is to be occupied by any person other than a "retired person" as defined in the Retirement Villages Act 1986 and may include a child who has special needs of a retired person.

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

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

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show:

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed.

b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary.

c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.d) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs, ground covers and vines, which will

include the location, number, size at the time of planting, height and spread at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified.

e) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site.

f) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas.


8. 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.

9. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Car Parking Allocation Plan must be submitted to and approved in writing. The Car Parking Allocation Plan must clarify how the ‘resident representative’ system works and confirm that no other residents are permitted to park a vehicle on-site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Before the building is occupied, the areas set aside for car parking and access shown on the endorsed plans must be: a) Constructed; b) Formed to such levels and properly drained so that they can be used in

accordance with the endorsed plans; c) Surfaced with an all weather seal coat; d) Clearly line marked to indicate each car space; ande) Clearly marked to show the location of visitor parking spaces.to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. The areas set aside for visitor car parking shown on the endorsed plans must be made available for use free of charge to visitors at all times and must not be used for any other purpose except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

12. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management and Delivery Plan must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must include the following details of a regular private waste collection service (including recyclables) for the subject land including: a) Dimensions of the waste areas.b) The number and type of bins to be provided.c) Method of waste and recyclables collection.d) Hours and frequency of waste collection.e) Type and size of trucks.f) The location of waste collection point/s. g) Delivery of bins to waste collection points and retrieval of bins once collected.h) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development

will be minimised.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

14. Collection of waste must be conducted so as not to cause any unreasonable disturbance to nearby residential properties and must only take place during the hours in accordance with Council’s General Local Law.


15. 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.

16. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

17. The level of the right of way must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site or the new development levels.

18. Prior to the occupation of the building, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must be fixed to a height of 1.7m and have no more than 25% openings or an alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The screens must be designed and coloured to blend in with the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. Prior to the occupation of the building, privacy screens designed to limit overlooking as required 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.

20. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from 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.

21. All outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent light from the site causing any detriment to the locality, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22. 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.

23. The development must be fully contained with the title boundary of the subject site and must not encroach onto the neighbouring titles including the Council drains located to the west and south of the subject site.

24. All buildings and works must be clear of the main Council drain located near the north-east corner of the subject site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Melbourne Water Conditions

25. No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.

26. The dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

27. The walkway on the eastern side of the building must be unenclosed underneath, or constructed at natural surface levels.


28. The finished floor level of the shed must be 150 mm above the applicable floor level.

29. No filling is to occur outside of the building footprints. Open space areas must remain at natural surface levels.

30. Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.

31. The building/structure including footings, eaves etc must be set outside any easement or a minimum 1.5 metres laterally clear of the outside edge of the main drain, whichever is greater.

32. Prior to the commencement of works a separate application, direct to Melbourne Water’s Asset Services team, must be made for any new or modified stormwater connection to a Melbourne Water asset.

End of Melbourne Water Conditions

33. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. c) The use is not started within five years from the date of this permit. d) The use is discontinued for a period of two years or more.

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

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

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

iii. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the use allowed by the permit has not yet started.


NOTES:

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

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

This property is located in a Heritage Overlay and planning permission may be required to demolish or otherwise externally alter any existing structures. External alterations include paint removal and any other form of decoration and works, but do not include re-painting an already painted surface.

The applicable flood level for the property is 37.7m to Australia Height Datum (AHD).

If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9679 7515, quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 221175.


1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0151/13 - 167 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN –BUILDINGS AND WORKS AND SUBSEQUENT USE OF THE LAND FOR A MEDICAL CENTRE WITH ASSOCIATED ADVERTISING SIGNAGE AND CAR PARKING DISPENSATION IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for buildings and works and subsequent use of the land for a medical centre, with associated advertising signage and car parking dispensation in a Residential 1 Zone at 167 Wattletree Road, Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Nicola DemaioWard: SouthZone: Residential 1Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 20/03/2013Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

26


7 objections

Number of objections: 9 objections from 7 different propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes, held on 7 August 2013Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Keith Flavel Planning and Drafting and are known as Drawing No.s: Site Plan (Sheet 1), Proposed Floor Plan (Sheet 3) and Elevations and Section (Sheet 4) and are Council date stamped 21 August 2013 and Proposed Signage (Council date stamped 9 August 2013).

The original plans that were advertised to adjoining owners and occupiers have been revised and the revised plans are now the current plans under consideration. The revised drawings show a reduction in the maximum number of practitioners on site at any one time from four (4) practitioners to two (2) practitioners. Other additional changes include the provision of four (4) on site car spaces in lieu of three (3) car spaces and the deletion of the proposed 2 metre high paling fence at the rear. Two (2) chain mesh vehicle gates are proposed to be located 1 metre from the northern (rear) boundary.

Key features of the proposal are:

Use of the existing dwelling as a medical centre. It is noted that the gross floor area of the building measures approximately 170 square metres.

The medical centre will operate Monday to Friday between 8:00am and 6:00pm and Saturday between 8:00am and 1:00pm.


Two (2) practitioners will be present on site at any one time. Generally, each consultation is anticipated to run for 20 minutes – this includes consultation

and waiting times for patients. As such, it is estimated that each practitioner will consult three (3) patients per hour.

Four (4) on site car spaces are to be provided at the rear and are to be accessed via an existing right of way. These car spaces are anticipated to be used by staff.

The erection of two chain mesh vehicle gates, setback 1 metre from the northern (rear) boundary. Each gate measures 5.5 metres wide by 2.5 metres high.

Other buildings and works include new windows to the proposed kitchen and staff areas. Display of business identification sign to the Wattletree Road frontage. The sign will measure

0.9 metres by 0.6 metres (total advertising area measuring 0.54 square metres). The sign is to be supported on posts measuring 0.9 metres above ground level. The proposed sign illustrates that there are to be four (4) practitioners as part of the medical centre use.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the northern side of Wattletree Road, approximately 285 metres east of Glenferrie Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is zoned Residential 1 and is occupied by a detached single storey dwelling constructed of brick.

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Wattletree Road measuring 12.19 metres, depth of 35.89 metres and a site area of approximately 438 square metres.

The dwelling is setback approximately 11 metres from the northern (rear) boundary. A 3.1 metre wide right of way abuts the northern property boundary and provides vehicular

access to the site. The right of way is accessible via Nicholls Street or Isabella Street.

The immediate surrounds are described as follows:

Across the right of way, to the north of the subject site is 14 Pine Grove, a single storey rendered brick dwelling. The dwelling is setback approximately 8 metres from the rear boundary. Secluded private open space for this dwelling is located to the south.

Land to the abutting east at 169 Wattletree Road is developed with a single storey brick dwelling. It comprises of a high brick front fence with dense planting and vegetation within the front setback.

Land to the abutting west at 165 Wattletree Road contains a single storey brick dwelling with a visible first floor addition. This site comprises of outbuildings at the rear, including a carport constructed on the north eastern corner of the site.

Wattletree Road is a primary arterial road, consisting of four traffic lanes running in an east to west direction, with the provision of kerbside parallel parking. It is noted that Wattletree Road comprises of clearway conditions in the eastbound direction Monday to Friday, between 4:30pm and 6:30pm. In the westbound direction, clearway conditions apply Monday to Friday, between 7:00am and 9:00am.

The subject site is located approximately 80 metres west of the Cabrini Hospital. The subject site has access to a number of public transport services including tram service no. 5 which travels in an east to west direction along Wattletree Road and tram service no. 16 which travels in a north to south direction along Glenferrie Road. Malvern Railway Station is located approximately 500 metres south of the subject site. Nearby land uses include residential, medical suites, retail and commercial premises with associated business identification signs.


Previous Planning Application(s)

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

The TitleThe site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 11160 Folio 814 on land described as Lot 67 on Plan of Subdivision 001432. There are no covenants or easements affecting the land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 32.01 - Residential 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 32.01-1 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required to use the land for a medical centre.

Pursuant to Clause 32.01-6 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required to construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.01-1.

Pursuant to Clause 32.01-7 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 3.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.05 - Advertising SignsPursuant to Clause 52.05-9 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required for a business identification sign.

Clause 52.06 - Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-3 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5. The table at Clause 52.06-5 requires five (5) car parking spaces to the first person providing health services plus three (3) to every other person providing health services.

The proposal includes a maximum of two (2) practitioners at any one time. As such, pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a total of eight (8) on site car parking spaces are required. Given that a total of four (4) on site car parking spaces are proposed, the applicant seeks a reduction of the car parking requirements of four (4) car parking spaces.

Clause 52.34 - Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. Pursuant to Clause 52.34-2, a permit may be granted to vary, reduce or waive any requirement of Clause 52.34-3 and Clause 52.34-4. The table at Clause 52.34-3 states that one (1) bicycle facility is required to each eight (8) practitioners for employees and one (1) bicycle facility is required to each four (4) practitioners for visitors. Given that the proposal comprises of a maximum of two (2) practitioners at any one time, the provisions of this Clause do not apply.



Clause 22.03 Advertising PolicyClause 22.07 Discretionary Uses in a Residential 1 ZoneClause 22.13 Traffic PolicyClause 22.13 Parking PolicyClause 32.01 Residential 1 ZoneClause 52.05 Advertising SignsClause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Amendment C161

Amendment C161 seeks to provide a revised Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework including the deletion of a number of local policies. Of relevance to this application, the Urban Design Policy and the Traffic Policy and Parking Policy will be deleted. The policy positions of these deleted items will be included within the new MSS.

The amendment has been exhibited, and the panel report has been released. The panel were generally supportive of the amendment subject to a number of changes. Those changes have been recently considered by Council who have adopted a modified version of the panel recommendations.

Although the amendment is a major change to the Stonnington Planning Scheme, it is considered that the principal assessment criteria relating to this application are still largely unchanged.

New Residential Zones

The existing Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone and Residential 3 Zone are to be replaced by three new residential zones:

The Residential Growth Zone The General Residential Zone The Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Council have until 1 July 2014 to introduce the new residential zones. It has not been determined what zone the subject site will be replaced with.

Pursuant to Clause 32.07-1 (Residential Growth Zone) a permit is not required for the use of a medical centre if the gross floor area of the building does not exceed 250 square metres.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 (General Residential Zone) a permit is not required for a medical centre if the gross floor area of all buildings does not exceed 250 square metres, a permit is not required under Clause 52.06-3 and the site is adjoined or has access to a road in a Road Zone.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-1 (Neighbourhood Residential Zone) a permit is not required for a medical centre if the gross floor area of all buildings does not exceed 250 square metres, the centre is located in an existing building, the site adjoins or has access to a road in a Road Zone and the use does not require a permit under Clause 52.06-3.

Advertising


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

The site is located in South Ward and nine (9) objections from seven (7) different properties have been received. The objections can be summarised as follows:

Car Parking Traffic Safety concerns Proposed hours are inappropriate Waste Loss of residential amenity

A Consultative Meeting was held on 7 August 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillor Hibbins and Councillor Ullin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. Following the meeting, the applicant formally revised the plans to show the following changes:

The reduction of the maximum number of practitioners from four (4) practitioners to two (2) practitioners.

Provide four (4) on site car spaces in lieu of three (3) car spaces. The deletion of the proposed 2 metre high paling fence at the rear and replace with two chain

mesh gates measuring 5.5 metres wide by 2.5 metres high located 1 metre from the northern (rear) boundary.

Referrals

Traffic

The application was referred to Councils Traffic and Transport Department. The comments received are based on the advertised plans which proposed a maximum of four (4) practitioners. The comments can be summarised as follows:

The shortfall of 10 spaces to the statutory minimum cannot be supported and is considered to negatively impact the local parking network.

It is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposal is not likely to significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions.

The submitted Traffic and Parking Impact Report provides swept path diagrams into the end spaces from both approaches along the laneway. Multiple movements within the laneway are not supported.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the entire parking area. The plans submitted do not detail all the proposed floor gradients of the parking area.

KEY ISSUES

Use

The existing dwelling at 167 Wattletree Road (which will be converted to accommodate a medical centre) is located in a Residential 1 Zone, the purpose of which (among others) is to identify areas suitable for residential use and development and encourage the establishment of limited services relative to education, recreation, community and religious uses, ultimately compatible with the area and responsive to community needs.


As stated in Clause 22.07 (Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a new non-residential use located in a residential area will only be encouraged if the responsible authority can be satisfied that:

The use is not appropriate to locate in a nearby commercial area, particularly premises in a Group 4 commercial centre.

The use is on land with a frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1) and concentrates its traffic and car parking to that frontage.

The use and development will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding and nearby residential areas through noise, hours of operation, traffic and car parking.

The use will cater for a need in the local community. The use will be conducted in a building constructed as a dwelling or a heritage building The use and development will maintain the residential and streetscape character of the area.

Consistent with the requirements of Clause 22.07, the subject site has a frontage to Wattletree Road, designated as Road Zone (Category 1). The proposed medical centre is considered to be appropriately located, given its close proximity to the Major Activity Centre located along Glenferrie Road, Malvern and the Neighbourhood Activity Centre at Tooronga Road. It is also worthy to highlight that the subject site is within walking distance (80 metres) to the Cabrini Hospital and other medical facilities and therefore, is considered to complement these existing uses. It is preferred that car parking for the proposed use is located at the rear, having considered the existing site conditions. Car parking cannot be adequately provided within the frontage of the subject site given the narrow street setback of approximately 4.5 – 5 metres. Furthermore, locating parking in the front setback would necessitate the construction of a crossover to Wattletree Road, resulting in the loss of on-street parking. Given that the existing dwelling will remain, the proposed medical centre is considered to cater for the health needs of the local community whilst maintaining the residential and streetscape character.

The proposed hours are Monday to Friday between 8:00am and 6:00pm and Saturday between 8:00am to 1:00pm. It is anticipated that many residents would already have returned home from work. As such, it is considered that the proposed hours will allow the evening and weekend amenity of neighbouring residential properties to be protected.

For the reasons aforementioned, the proposed use in accordance with decision guidelines set out in Clause 22.07 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Car Parking and Traffic

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a medical centre use requires the provision of five (5) car parking spaces for the first person providing health services and three (3) spaces to every other person providing health services. The proposal is for a medical centre with two (2) practitioners on site at any one time. The proposal generates a parking requirement of eight (8) car parking spaces. Given that only four (4) car spaces are to be accommodated on site, the applicant is seeking a reduction of the statutory car parking requirements of four (4) car spaces. It is noted that the proposed on site car parking spaces are anticipated to be used by staff members, whereby patients will rely on street parking opportunities.

The Traffic and Parking Impact Report (TPIR) that was submitted with the application states that each consultation is anticipated to run for 20 minutes including consultation and waiting times for patients. As such, it is estimated that each practitioner will consult three (3) patients per hour, constant over the operating hours of the proposed medical centre use.


Council’s Transport Department have raised concerns with relation to the shortfall of ten (10) spaces. Since then, the applicant has submitted revised plans to show a reduction in the maximum number of practitioners and as such, the proposal now seeks a reduction in the car parking requirements of four (4) car spaces rather than ten (10).

The TPIR states that the existing car parking network can adequately accommodate the car parking demand generated by patients. A survey was undertaken during the weekdays of Thursday 13 June 2013 and Friday 14 June 2013. The survey area included on street parking located within practical and convenient walking distance (approximately 150 metres) from the subject site. The results of the survey determined that there was a minimum of 54 spaces, comprising 42 short term (1 hour parking and 2 hour parking) and 12 long term (unrestricted) spaces available during the weekday daytime hours. As such, it is considered that the reduction of four (4) on site car spaces can be readily accommodated within the existing car parking network.

In addition, Council’s Transport Department has indicated that parking associated with the commercial premises should not spill onto residential streets. However, it should be noted that the proposed use primarily starts and ends between usual business hours, that is, Monday to Friday between 8:00am and 6:00pm. As such, it is considered that the parking provision on residential streets will not be impacted before and after business hours where it is expected that residents return home and require parking provision. It is noted that the proposal will also operate on Saturday between 8:00am and 1:00pm. Given these hours are of limited duration, they are considered to be acceptable. Moreover, it should be highlighted that along Pine Grove, Isabella Street and McKinley Avenue, there are restrictions limiting parking to 1 hour only, which once again, ensures that parking in the local vicinity is of a short term nature.

The submitted TPIR provides swept path diagrams which illustrates that multiple car movements are required into order to access the end spaces from both approaches along the right of way. Whilst multiple movements are required, the diagrams show that all cars are able to exit the site in a forward direction. In addition, Council’s Transport Department have raised concern with regard to sight distance requirements. Having considered the site constraints, whereby the adjacent properties are constructed to the property line, it is difficult to satisfy the sight distance requirements. It is important to stress that these car spaces are to be used by staff. As such, it is considered that they will become accustomed to car parking conditions and constraints. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to impact on traffic movement within the right of way nor impact on pedestrian or vehicle safety.

Council’s Traffic Engineers have further advised that proposed floor gradients of the parking area must be provided. However, it should be highlighted that the existing floor levels are to remain, whereby vehicle access is provided via the existing right of way. Given these existing conditions, it is considered that no vehicle scraping will occur as a result of the proposal.

In addition to the availability of on street parking, the subject site is well serviced by other modes of transport. The subject site is highly accessible by various forms of public transport services including trains and trams. Specifically, the available services are outlined below:

Malvern Railway Station is located approximately 500 metres south west of the site. Tram no.5 runs directly past the site along Wattletree Road. Tram no.16 runs along Glenferrie Road approximately 500 metres west of the site. Tram No.6 operates along High Street approximately 700 metres north of the site.

Given the availability of public transport options within close proximity to the subject site and the availability of car parking within walking distance of the subject site, it is considered that the shortfall of car parking spaces can be supported and can be managed accordingly within the area. It is considered that the requirements stipulated at Clause 22.13-3 have been met.


Advertising Sign

The application involves the erection of a business identification sign proposed to the Wattletree Road frontage. The sign will measure 0.9 metres by 0.6 metres (total advertising area measuring 0.54 square metres). The freestanding sign is to be supported on posts measuring 0.9 metres above ground level.

Clause 22.03 states that signs other than those displaying the name and address of a building and its use, or managing agents, be discouraged unless the applicant can demonstrate that the sign maintains the character of the residential area and the streetscape, is fixed to the fence or facade and is not freestanding, and is not more than 0.1 of a square metres in area if in a residential street or 0.5 of a square metres in area if on land with a frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1).

The proposed business identification sign exceeds the recommended total advertisement area by 0.04 square metres. Having considered the context of the subject site, the proposed sign is not considered to be excessive. The proposed location of the sign is considered to be appropriate given that it will have a minimal impact on any views or vistas and is not considered to have an impact on the road safety. Finally, the proposed business identification sign is considered to complement the character of the area, whereby numerous business identification signs associated with medical suites currently exist. For these reasons, the proposed business identification sign is considered to satisfy the decision guidelines set out at Clause 52.05-3.

The revised plans illustrate that there are to be four (4) practitioners as part of the medical centre use. This appears to be a technical error, given that the proposal involves a maximum of two (2) practitioners at any one time. A condition will be placed on any permit that issues to correct this discrepancy.

Objections


Safety

The objectors have raised concerns with relation to safety. Council’s Transport Department have confirmed that the proposal is not likely to significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions. In addition, following the Consultative Meeting, the applicant has submitted revised plans to align the vehicular gates close to the rear boundary. This is designed to discourage vacant space after business hours, or opportunities for loiterers.

Waste

The proposed use of the site as a medical will generate waste. In order to protect the amenity of adjoining properties, a condition will be placed on the permit to restrict the removal of waste and recyclables from the premises. Council’s relevant local law will be adequate to manage waste removal from the site.




CONCLUSION


The proposed use is consistent with Clause 22.07 (Discretionary Uses in a Residential 1 Zone).

The reduction in the car parking requirements of four (4) car parking spaces is considered appropriate and can be accommodated by the existing provision of public transport services and existing car parking network.

The design and scale of the proposed business advertising sign is consistent with the character of the area and satisfies the decision guidelines at Clause 52.05-3 (Advertising Signs).

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 151/13 for the land located at 167 Wattletree Road, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for buildings and works and subsequent use of the land for a medical centre, with associated advertising signage and car parking dispensation in a Residential 1 Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development/use, 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 prepared by the applicant and Keith Flavel Planning and Drafting, Council date stamped 9 August 2013 and 21 August 2013 but modified to show:

a) The proposed business identification sign amended to show a maximum of two (2) medical practitioners to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The plans endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. The use hereby permitted may only operate with a maximum of two (2) medical practitioners at any one time.

4. The use hereby permitted may only operate only between Monday - Friday: 8.00am and 6.00pm and Saturday between 8:00am and 1:00pm.

5. Four (4) car spaces must be made available for the purpose of vehicle parking at all times the use is in operation.

6. The location and details of the sign, including those of the supporting structure, must be in accordance with the endorsed plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

7. The sign must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The sign must not contain any flashing or moving light.


9. The emission of noise or any other emission to the environment derived from activities on the site must conform to standards contained in the appropriate State Environment Protection Policy or Policies.

10. 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.

11. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council collection) must be in accordance with Council's General Local Laws.

12. This permit, as it relates to signage, expires 15 years from the permit issue date.

13. The permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permitb) The development is not completed within four years of the commencement of

worksc) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit. d) The sign is not erected within two years of the date of this permit

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

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

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

NOTE

This permit is for the use of the land and/or buildings and 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.


1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0940/12 - 715 - 719 ORRONG ROAD, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT ON A LOT WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the Construction of a Multi dwelling development on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone and associated reduction in the car parking requirements at 715-719 Orrong Road.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Orrong Road Investment Trust C/- G2 Urban PlanningWard: NorthZone: Residential 1Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 21/12/2012Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

214


More than 7 objections

VCAT Hearing Date 30 September 2013Number of objections: 13Consultative Meeting: Yes, held on 1 May 2013Officer Recommendation: That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a

failure to determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit would have been issued based on the Mediation Plans.

BACKGROUND

Planning permit application 0940/12 was lodged on 21 December 2012. The application was advertised on 28 February 2013 and received a total of 13 objections. Following the advertising period, a consultative meeting was held on 1 May 2013 and did not result in any changes to the plans. O 20 June 2013, the applicant lodged a failure to determine appeal with VCAT. Mediation took place on 12 August 2013 in which a number of issues were raised by all parties. Following the mediation process, revised plans (mediation plans) were circulated to all parties on 16 August 2013 which now address the concerns raised by the parties to the appeal.


The key changes between the advertised plans and the mediation plans are outlined in the table below:

Advertised Plans 28/02/2013 Mediation Plans 16/08/2013Total Height 15.6m 14.5m

Basement Height 1.4m 1.3m

Setbacks to the west opposite 22 Lascelles Avenue

5m-7m at ground floor level

7m-9m at first floor level

7m-10m at second floor level

10m-13m at third floor level





Setbacks to the west opposite 20 Lascelles Avenue

5m-7m at ground floor level7m at first floor level


11.75m-16.37m at third floor level

7m at ground floor level7m at first floor level

9m-11.5m at second floor level

11.75m-17.615m at third floor level

Setbacks to the south opposite 711 Orrong Road







4.5m-8m at second floor level


Setbacks to the north opposite 721 Orrong Road

3m at ground floor level

3m at first floor level


3m-7.1m at third floor level

3m at ground floor level

3m at first floor level


3m-7.1m at third floor level

As a result of the mediation process, parties to the appeal requested that the following matters be included as permit conditions on any permit issued for the development:

Additional screening measures to Unit 2.3 to both the lower and upper level west facing balconies for this dwelling;

Boundary fence requirements abutting 20 Lascelles to the west and 711 Orrong Road to the south;

A revised landscape plan showing alternative planting to the west and south boundaries; A construction management plan.

All parties agreed that the above requirements are reasonable requests to enable a mediated outcome on this proposal.


The Proposal

The VCAT mediation plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Smith and Tracey Architects and are known as File No. 9118, Drawing No.s: DA1101 Rev A, DA1102 Rev A, DA1103 Rev A, DA1104 Rev A, DA1105 Rev A, DA1106 Rev A, DA2001 Rev A, DA2002 Rev A, DA3001 Rev A, DA3002 Rev A, DA3003 Rev A, DA3004 Rev A, DA3005 Rev A, DA7006 Rev A, DA7007 Rev A, DA7008 Rev A, DA7009 Rev A, DA7010 Rev A, DA7011 Rev A, DA7012 Rev A, DA7013 Rev A, DA7014 Rev A, DA7024 Rev 1, and Council date stamped 16 August 2013.


Demolition of the existing dwellings at 715, 717 and 719 Orrong Road (planning permit not required).

Construction of a 4-storey multi-dwelling development containing 10 dwellings (1x3 and 9x2 bedroom plus study dwellings). Technically the development is 5-storeys as a small section of the basement located at the north west corner of the site projects higher than 1.2m above NGL, however the majority of the development is 4-storeys, therefore for the benefit of this assessment, the development is described as a 4-storey development.

Basement parking for 21 cars. Bicycle parking for 8 bicycles proposed at basement level. Vehicle access is via a new crossover and access ramp located at the north east corner of

the site with access off Orrong Road. The development will be a contemporary design utilising a mix of white and brown stone, light

grey and dark grey metal cladding for the facades, a light coloured rendered masonry wall, anodised aluminium window frames, coloured glass southern facade detailing and frosted glass privacy screens.

The width of the building as it presents to Orrong Road is 39m wide. The building presents to Orrong Road as a 3-storey building with recessed fourth storey. The front fence is 1.9m high and uses a combination of transparent and solid materials. Secluded Private Open Space (SPOS) for each dwelling will to be provided in the form of

balconies accessed off living areas. Solar panels and a/c units and associated plant equipment will be located at roof level in the

centre of the roof area. The proposed maximum height of the building is 14.5m to the parapet or 15.2m to the top of

the roof top plant equipment. Bins are located in a communal waste room located at basement level. A comprehensive landscape scheme is proposed to provide planting throughout the site.

Site and Surrounds

The site consists of three adjoining lots and is located on the west side of Orrong Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

Total site area of 1,705m² Existing dwellings at 715, 717 and 719 Orrong Road are 2-storey dwellings with vehicle

access off Orrong Road, and landscaped front garden areas. The combined frontage of the subject site is 46.54m with a depth of 33.46m to 42.67m. The land slopes from east to west and from south to north 711 Orrong Road abuts the subject site to the south. The site is improved by a 2-storey

dwelling with driveway leading to a garage running along its northern boundary. To the rear is an outdoor entertaining area and swimming pool.

721 Orrong Road abuts the subject site to the north. The site is improved by a 2-storey building with hipped roof. The building contains two dwellings, one at ground floor level and


the other at first floor level. A single storey shed is located at the rear of the site with hard surfaced rear outdoor area.

20 and 22 Lascelles Avenue abut the subject site to the west. 22 Lascelles Avenue is a large 2-storey mansion known as Trawalla that has an individual

Heritage Overlay. The building has an A1 heritage grading and is on the Victorian Heritage Register. A large rendered masonary wall seperates the subject site with 22 Lascelles Ave. An indoor swimming pool and entertaining area is located at ground floor level and faces the subject site. This space was considered Secluded Private Open Space (SPOS) in the previous VCAT decision.

20 Lascelles Avenue is a contemporary 2-storey dwelling. To the rear is an outdoor entertaining area and swimming pool.

The surrounding area is residential in nature comprising a mixture of built forms with taller apartment buildings, large single dwellings and multi dwelling development from a variety of eras.

Building heights vary from large single storey dwellings to 8-storey multi dwelling apartment buildings.

Notable taller built forms in the immediate vicinity exist at 732 Orrong Road (8-storeys), 703 Orrong Road (6 to 8-storeys) and 740 Orrong Road (7-storeys).

Front setbacks along the western side of Orrong Road are generally consistent and heavily vegetated.

Dense mature street trees line both sides of Orrong Road. The Toorak Village Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre is approximately 397m walk from

the subject site containing a variety of local shops and services Number 8 Tram can be caught off Toorak Road 135m immediately to the south of the site.

Previous Planning Application(s)


Planning Permit 289/11 for a multi dwelling development at 715, 717 and 719 Orrong Road was appealed for failure to determine within the prescribed timeframe. Council advised VCAT that had they had the opportunity to determine the application they would have refused the application on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone as it does not respect the neighbourhood character.

2. The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 15.01, Clause 22.02 and Clause 22.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development as it is an overdevelopment of the site that fails to respect the existing neighbourhood character of the area.

3. The building height is excessive in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood and introduces an unreasonable amount of bulk and massing to the streetscape and neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal fails to satisfy relevant State and local policies of the Stonnington Planning Scheme including Clause 15.01, Clause 22.02 and the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Developments.

4. The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 15.01-2 as it will result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties and therefore does not achieve compliance with the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Developments.

5. The development fails to satisfy the landscape architecture principles of Clause 15.01 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme as the excessive site coverage (including basement) provides insufficient space for planting and therefore does not contribute to the character of the area.


6. The basement layout does not satisfy the relevant Australian Standards in parking floor gradients, parking module gradients, column locations, headroom clearance, sight distance at the property boundary and design of bicycle facilities.

7. The proposal plans do not detail compliance with the requirements of the Covenant for 715 Orrong Road with regards to the tiled roofing.

8. The front fence is out of character with the area and does not comply with Clause 15.01 and Clause 22.02.

Whilst VCAT determined that the application be refused, VCAT did not agree with most of the reasons given by Council to refuse the application. Instead VCAT determined that the application be refused for the following reasons outlined in the conclusion of the VCAT Order:

“The interfaces of the proposed building with the immediately surrounding properties is the key issue for the design of a new building on the subject land, and it is the reason why we have decided to refuse this proposal. We think its massing and bulk to the side and rear are inconsistent with the scale and bulk seen in the neighbourhood. We are not persuaded the combination of the building height, setbacks, articulation and landscaping as proposed are sufficient to minimise the visual bulk impact on the adjoining properties. The design needs to go back to the basics of understanding the interfaces that it has with the adjoining properties and designing to respond to those interfaces. For all of the above reasons, we have decided to affirm the Council’s decision and order that no permit be issued.”

The current application, subject of this assessment, is essentially a repeat of the previous planning application 289/11 yet is attempting to adopt design changes in response to the issues raised in the VCAT Order.

The Title

715 Orrong Road is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 815154Q on parent title Volume 05790 Folio 833. Covenant 1499210 is registered on title and has a number of prohibitions as follows:

prohibits use of the land for any trade or business purposes; no building save one dwelling house or one building comprising residential flats with the usual

outbuildings shall be erected on the land; the cost of erecting such dwelling house and or residential flats to be not less than two

thousand exclusive of outbuildings; no such building or outbuildings shall be constructed of materials other than brick stone or

concrete with roof of tiles slates or shingles; no building shall be without written consent of the said Solia Mitchell Edward Love Cantor and

John Dixon their and each of their heirs executors administrators, and transferees first had and obtained be erected in a position other than facing the street frontage of the lot as set out on the plan of subdivision; and

no excavation, quarrying, digging or excavation or take up or carry away or remove from the said lot any stone clay, earth or gravel.

It is considered that this covenant would not be breached by the proposal and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect. The reasons the covenant will not be breeched are as follows:

The land will not be used for any trade or business purpose; The proposed development is a building comprising residential flats; The cost of the development will exceed two thousand dollars; The proposed materials consist of stone facades and other materials consistent with the

materials outlined in the covenant; The building will be constructed so that it is facing the street;


The construction of the basement is not considered to be an activity such as quarrying or earth extraction which the covenant seeks to restrict.

717 Orrong Road is described as Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 021918 on parent title Volume 07519, Folio 133. No covenants apply to the land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

719 Orrong Road is described as Units 1 and 2 on Strata Plan 0200XS and an undivided share in the common property for the time being described on plan Volume 09710 Folio 871 and Volume 09710 Folio 872. No covenants apply to the land. An appurtenant easement for drainage is located to the rear (western boundary) of the land.

Planning Controls


Clause 32.01 - Residential 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 32.01-4 a permit is required to construct 2 or more dwellings on a lot

Clause 52.06 - Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing and new building being occupied the car parking 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. The required number of parking spaces for a dwelling is one space to each one or two bedroom dwelling or two spaces for each three or more bedroom dwellings (a room used as a study is counted as an additional bedroom). Further, a development for 5 or more dwellings requires 1 visitor space for every 5 dwellings. The development proposes 10 dwellings (9 x 2 bedroom plus study and 1 x 3 bedroom). Therefore the parking requirement for the development is 20 residents’ spaces and 2 visitor spaces.

Clause 52.34- Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities are provided on the land. A total of 8 resident and visitor bicycle spaces are proposed (detailed in the traffic report), thus exceeding the requirements of Clause 52.34 (1 resident space per 5 apartments and 1 visitor space per 10 apartments).

Clause 52.35- Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development ofFour or More StoreysPursuant to Clause 52.35-1 an application for a residential development of four or more storeysmust be accompanied by:

An urban context report A design response

The associated report Council date stamped 21 December 2012 is considered satisfactory.


State Planning Policy Framework:Clause 11 - SettlementClause 15.01 - Urban DesignClause 15.02 - Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 - Residential DevelopmentClause 18.01 - Integrated TransportClause 18.02 - Movement Networks


Local Planning Policy Framework:Clause 21.02 - Settlement and EnvironmentClause 21.03 - HousingClause 22.02 - Urban Design Clause 22.06 - Residential Character, Amenity and Interface PolicyClause 22.12 - Traffic PolicyClause 22.13 - Parking PolicyClause 22.15 - Infrastructure Policy

Amendment C161

This is an update to the existing Local Planning Policy Framework, and includes a new Municipal Strategic Statement, and the deletion of a number of local policies. Of relevance to this application the Urban Design Policy, Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy, Traffic Policy and Parking Policy will be deleted.

The amendment has been exhibited, and the Panel report has recently been released. The Panel was generally supportive of the amendment subject to a number of changes. Those changes have recently been considered by Council who have adopted a modified version of the Panel recommendations.

Although the amendment is a major change to the Planning Scheme, it is considered that the principal assessment criteria relating to this application are still largely unchanged given that the site is not identified in either the existing or proposed Strategic Framework Plan as a site for medium density housing.

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 three signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and objections from 13 different properties have been received. The objections can be summarised as follows:

The proposal does not address the previous reasons for refusal outlined in the VCAT decision.

Proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. The building is too high. The building is too large and obscures views to the city. The development is at odds with the historic character of the area. The proposal will result in a loss of light to neighbouring properties. The development will set a poor precedent for future development in the surrounding area. Proposal has insufficient setbacks to neighbouring properties. Proposal presents as excessive visual bulk onto neighbouring properties. Proposal will result in overlooking of neighboring properties. The development will result in an increase in traffic onto Orrong Road which is already

congested particularly during peak hour. The proposal will exacerbate existing parking problems in the area. A tree management condition needs to be placed on any permit issued to ensure the

protection of the existing Queensland Box Brush tree located next to the south west corner of the application site.

The building is a 5-storey development as the basement projects more than 1.2m above NGL.


The proposal does not comply with ResCode requirements for side and rear setbacks.

It should be noted that the objections outlined above are in response to the advertised plans, Council date stamped 21 December 2012.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 1 May 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillor(s) Klisaris, Chandler and Koce, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The consultation meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.

Referrals

Infrastructure

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

There will be additional stormwater runoff generated by the development however the 12,000 litre tanks connected to the toilets will help reduce stormwater runoff as well as addressing WSUD and sustainability issues

Please place a condition that the existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).

Arborist

The proposed landscape concept is suitable for approval.

Transport and Parking Unit

The parking bay dimensions generally accord with or exceed the Planning Scheme requirements and can be considered generally satisfactory.

The applicant is to revise the plans to clearly show a 0.5m space between the parking bays in the tandem arrangement.

It is recommended that the applicant demonstrate via turning template that access can be provided to bays 09 and 10. Multiple movements could be supported in this case, as the bays are to be allocated to residents. A preliminary template analysis indicates access should be able to be provided in a reasonable number of movements.

The plans indicate that columns are to be set back 0.25m from the front of the parking bay, which accords with the requirements of the Planning Scheme, and can be considered satisfactory.

It is strongly recommended that wheel stops be used where pedestrian access routes are provided behind parking bays, to ensure vehicles do not encroach into the pedestrian access route. This applies to bays 05, 06, 07, 08, and 09.

The plans do not include dimensions for the pedestrian routes. The access to Store 01, 02, 03, and 04 in particular appears narrow. The applicant is to clearly dimension this pedestrian width to allow for assessment.

The access to Store 10 is directly adjacent to the bicycle storage area, and the distance between the rack and the door has not been dimensioned. This is to be clearly shown on revised plan to allow for assessment.


The Lobby areas extend into the parking area to provide a clear access route. It is recommended that bollards or similar be used, particularly in the lobby area between bays 10 and 11, to prevent any parking occurring on the lobby extension. The applicant may also need to install a physical barrier in the lobby area extension next to bays 04 and 20 to stop vehicles encroaching into the lobby extension area and disrupting pedestrian access.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking area. The plans indicate that eight (8) bicycle racks are to be provided, located in the lobby areas in

the basement car park, however no further information is provided. Bicycle facilities are to be designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme and Australian Standard 2890.3. The plans should be revised to show the bicycle parking provision, in terms of amount of facilities, the type of bicycle storage facility proposed, and all relevant dimensions to allow for assessment. Relevant dimensions include spacing, size, aisle width, and access width.

The width and grade of the ramp have been checked against the requirements of the Australian Standards and the Planning Scheme, and can be considered satisfactory.

The headroom at the lowest point on the ramp is shown as 2.4m, which is in excess of the 2.2m required to accord with the Australian Standards, and can be supported. The applicant is to confirm that the headroom throughout the parking floor is a minimum of 2.2m at the lowest point. This includes at the car park entry door, measured to the lowest point with the door in the open position.

The Traffic Report notes that sight distance to the north cannot be provided in accordance with the standard sight distance triangles due to an existing fence with a neighbouring property. In order to mitigate against potential conflict, a convex mirror is proposed at the access. This is to be shown on the plan.

The proposed vehicle crossover is to be designed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy. The proposed crossover is to be clearly dimensioned on the revised plans and resubmitted to Council for assessment, noting any existing features which may be affected.

In summary, there remain some outstanding issues with the revised parking layout design, however for the most part these are minor. The applicant is to submit revised material which clearly addresses the concerns outlined above.

Waste Management Coordinator

A comprehensive Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 22 March 2013 accompanied this proposal. This document responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans.

I believe any Planning Permit issued for this development must include a clause specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan.

ESD Officer

Whilst the 10 SDAPP criteria have been presented within the SDA, sustainability targets identified in each are either recommended (i.e. show no firm commitment) or are below the minimum standards required by Stonnington Council in our SDAPP. The Applicant should review these aspects to ensure project meets minimum requirements in all categories.

Urban Designer

The proposal was not referred to Councils Urban Designer for comment as the principal issue with the proposal relates to visual bulk and the impact of visual bulk on the amenity of the abutting dwellings. The previous VCAT Order made it clear that design was not an issue with the previous proposed development on this site.


KEY ISSUES

The principal issue with this proposal is whether or not the development is appropriate for the site and its surrounds and whether it now responds to and addresses the reasons the previous proposal was refused by VCAT. An assessment of the specific issues outline in the VCAT Order are discussed below as well as an assessment of the proposal against the relevant State and Local planning policy framework and Clause 15 of the Planning Scheme.

Previous VCAT Order P2987/2011

VCAT sanctioned mediation took place on 12 August 2013. Whilst officers had no delegated powers to mediate, officer views were provided to parties to the appeal with a view to helping facilite the mediation process. As a result of the mediation process, revised plans (mediation plans) have been circulated to all parties. These are Council date stamped 16 August 2013 and are now before Council for consideration. It is noteworthy that the mediation plans appear to address the key concerns of neighbours.

The following is a brief summary of the main changes adopted in the Mediation plans for the current application in comparison to the previous proposal considered by VCAT:

Reduction in maximum building height from 17.6m to 14.5m (parapet) and 15.2m (plant) above NGL.

Reduction in height of the basement from 2.1m to 1.3m above NGL. Reduced size of basement and deletion of habitable rooms from the basement level. Greater setbacks to the north, south and west boundaries at all levels. Deletion of balconies to the north west corner of the site at first and second floor levels. Greater area for landscaping throughout the site.

Detailed changes to the proposed building are outlined later in this report.

It is relevant to note that there are principles determined by VCAT relating to repeat applications. The Tribunal has determined that for the sake of equity and fairness in the case of a similar application, which has been prepared in accordance with the advice of the Tribunal, considerable weight needs to be given to the fact that the applicant has endeavoured to accommodate the recommendations as to what would be appropriate. Factors that might justify a departure from an earlier determination could include the following:

Significant changes in the application itself; Changes in the circumstances of the land and its surrounds; Changes in planning policy; and/or, Changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration.

None of the abovementioned factors have occurred (except for changes to the proposal in an attempt to address the issues/recommendations outlined in the order) that would warrant significant deviation from the findings/recommendations of the previous VCAT Order.

The previous VCAT decision is relevant in determining the merits of the current proposal, as the Order provided guidance as to potential design changes to satisfy the concerns identified.

It is noted that the Tribunal members made the following findings in the previous VCAT Order:


With regards to neighbourhood character, Pages 7 and 8 (Para. 21) of the Order, the Tribunal members conclude:

“There is a diverse and highly varied built form in the broader neighbourhood, and we accept the neighbourhood in general terms is not one that is sensitive to change. Within this context, we think a taller, wider building can fit within the Orrong Road streetscape.”

With regards to a four storey form on the site Page 8 (Para. 23) of the Order states:

“Mr Sheppard explained the third floor (or fourth level) has been setback in accordance with his recommendation so that it is barely visible from the street. It is his view that the building will read as a three storey form in the street and will fit within its immediate context. We are satisfied the design achieves Mr Sheppard’s desired outcome, and we accept that a three storey form with a fourth recessed level will fit in and be respectful of the neighbourhood character.”

With regards to building width Page 8 (Para. 24) of the Order States:

“We agree with Mr Sheppard that the proposed width of 39 metres is acceptable because it is within the range that exists in Orrong Road. We find the front façade is broken up into a series of forms through the setbacks, articulation and materials. Overall, we are satisfied this would be a contemporary and acceptable addition into this streetscape.”

With regards to heritage impact Page 7 (Para. 16) of the Order states

“We are satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely impact upon the heritage significance of Trawalla.”

With regards to landscaping to the front of the site and the proposed front fence height, pages 7 and 8 (Paras. 25 and 26) of the Order state:

“The Council was critical of the landscaping opportunities as the basement site coverage is 70% and there is also ground level paved and terraced areas. Ms Rigo shared this concern pointing out the neighbourhood includes a landscape character of gardens, street trees and topography that retains a sense of space around the buildings in this area. However, she accepted front gardens are often lost because of solid fencing, which meant she was quite comfortable with the streetscape landscaping proposed. We agree with Ms Rigo and find Mr McWha’s landscape concept for the front of the site is appropriate.”

“The Council expressed a preference for a 1.2-1.5 metre high front fence despite acknowledging the existence of solid fencing elsewhere in the street, including along much of the existing frontage of the subject land. We are not persuaded this is either necessary or appropriate given the existing neighbourhood character. In our view, the more appropriate design outcome is to balance the style and height of fencing with the landscaping opportunities and, again, we find Mr McWha’s landscape concept for the front of the site has achieved an appropriate balance.”

On the matters of overlooking and overshadowing, Pages 9 and 10 (Para. 29) of the Order states:

“We are generally satisfied that the proposal does not create any unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties by way of overlooking and overshadowing.”


With regards to parking and traffic Page 4 (Para. 6) of the Order states:

“The parties concurred at the commencement of the hearing that traffic and car parking were not contested and we have no concerns with those aspects of this proposal.”

Therefore, having regard to the matters relating to neighbourhood character, design, height, scale and presentation of the development to the street VCAT has ruled that the development is acceptable. Further, matters relating to parking, overlooking and overshadowing are not unreasonable. As the current proposal proposes reductions in built form and no material change to the parking provided on site, it can be reasonably concluded that these matters are not issues with the current proposal.

VCAT found that the key issue with the previous proposal related to how the development addressed the neighbouring interface. Page 9 (Para. 27) States:

“This case is about the interfaces. In our opinion, the interfaces of the proposed building with the immediately surrounding properties is the key issue for the design of a new building on the subject land, and it is the reason why we have decided to refuse this proposal.”

The notable findings that the Tribunal members made that resulted in the previous application being refused are set out below:

Impact on the dwelling at 22 Lascelles Avenue, Page 11 (Para. 37) of the Order States:

“During the hearing there was some dispute about the weight to be given to the pool as open space ... Having had the benefit of inspecting this property, we are satisfied the indoor pool area is an area of secluded private space that provides for recreational and social gatherings and should be afforded consideration in regard to the visual bulk impact of the proposed building.”

Further, Page 11 (Para. 39) of the Order states:

We agree ... that the design does not sufficiently address the slope of the land as the basement is 2.1 metres above ground and the ground floor is 3.2 metres above the ground level of No. 22 Lascelles Avenue. In our opinion, a greater effort should have been made to step the building down to the rear.

Furthermore, Page 12 (Para. 42) of the Order states:

We are not persuaded the combination of the building height, setbacks, articulation and landscaping as proposed are sufficient to minimise the visual bulk impact to No. 22 Lascelles Avenue.

The impact on the dwelling at 20 Lascelles Avenue, Page 12 (Para. 43) of the Order states:

“20 Lascelles Avenue will have a limited visibility of the proposed building because of the existing landscaping, the proposed landscaping and the setbacks of the proposed building from the common property boundary. As we agree it is not necessary for the proposed building to be invisible, we think this particular interface has been appropriately designed to minimise the visual bulk impact to No. 20 Lascelles Avenue.”


The impact on the dwelling at 711 Orrong Road, Pages 13 and 14, (Para. 50) of the Order states:

“Landscaping on the subject land’s side of this boundary is both necessary and desirable. However, we are not persuaded the landscaping is sufficient to address the visual bulk impact. We find the overall length, height and architectural treatment of the south elevation creates a visually oppressive building form. It is not our expectation that the building be invisible but we think a more generous approach should be taken in regard to the interface with the rear terrace area and pool area of No. 711 Orrong Road.”

The impact of the dwellings at 721 Orrong Road, Page 14 (Para. 51) of the Order states:

“It is our view that the proposal creates a significant building form adjacent to this boundary that could have a visual bulk impact upon this property, including the enjoyment to be derived from the rear open space area that appears to be at a lower ground level than the proposed ground level of this building. If there is to be any new proposal for an apartment building on the subject land, we wish to make it clear that we would not want to see any further building bulk added to this side of the development.”

The conclusion reached by VCAT is outlined on Page 14 (Para. 52) of the Order which states:

“The interfaces of the proposed building with the immediately surrounding properties is the key issue for the design of a new building on the subject land, and it is the reason why we have decided to refuse this proposal. We think its massing and bulk to the side and rear are inconsistent with the scale and bulk seen in the neighbourhood. We are not persuaded the combination of the building height, setbacks, articulation and landscaping as proposed are sufficient to minimise the visual bulk impact on the adjoining properties.”

The following table lists the issues raised in the previous VCAT order and how the current proposal (as shown in the mediation plans, Council date stamped 16 August 2013) seeks to address the issues:

Issue How the current proposal addresses this issueImpact on 22 Lascelles Avenue

The basement boundary setback was previously 4.5m and is now 4.5m – 9m. It is noted that the 4.5m setback is opposite the car port at 22 Lascelles Avenue and the setback increases to 9m opposite the pool at 22 Lascelles Avenue.

The ground floor boundary setback was previously 4.3m from the terraces and 5m from the facade and is now setback 5.5m from the terraces opposite the pool and 7m - 9m from the facade.

The first floor boundary setback was previously 5.3m from the terraces and 7m from the facade and is now setback 6m from the terrace and 7.5m the facade opposite the car port and 9m from the facade opposite the pool.

The second floor boundary setback was previously 5m from the terraces and 7m from the facade and is now setback 7.3m from the terrace and 10m from the facade opposite the car port and 10.98m from the facade opposite the pool.

The third floor boundary setback was previously 6.6m from the terrace and 8.5m to 10m from the facade and is now setback 10m from the terrace and 12m from the facade opposite the car port and 13m from the facade opposite the pool.

The north west facing terrace servicing Unit 1.1 (first floor level) has been deleted.


The north west facing terrace servicing Unit 2.1 (second floor level) has been deleted.

The height of the basement at the north west corner has been reduced from 2.1m to 1.3m above NGL.

The maximum height of the building opposite 22 Lascelles has been reduced from 17.6m to 14.5m.

Impact on 20 Lascelles Avenue

The basement and ground floor boundary setbacks were previously 5m and are now 7m.

The first floor boundary setback was previously 5m from the terrace and 7m from the facade and is now setback 7m from the terrace and from the facade.

No changes to setback are proposed at second floor level. The third floor boundary setback was previously 11.5m from

the terraces and 15.8m from the facade and is now setback 11.75m from the terrace and 17.615m from the facade.

The maximum height of the building opposite 20 Lascelles Avenue has been reduced from 16.5m to 14.2m.

The width of the building opposite 20 Lascelles Ave has been reduced by 1m at ground floor level, 1.9m at first floor level, 3.8m at second floor level and 2.5m at third floor level.

Impact on 711 Orrong Road (opposite the pool area)

The basement and ground floor boundary setbacks were previously 3m and are now 4m.

The first floor boundary setbacks were 3.1m and are now 4m to 5m.

The second floor boundary setbacks were 4.5m and are now 6.42 to 6.6m.

The third floor boundary setbacks were 4.5m and are now 6.42m to 8m.

The maximum height of the building opposite 711 Orrong Road has been reduced from approximately 15m to 13.2m

Impact on 721 Orrong Road The basement boundary setbacks were previously 3m and are now 3.05m.

The ground, first and second floor boundary setbacks are the same as the previous proposal.

The third floor was previously setback 7m and are now 7.1m. The north west facing terrace servicing Unit 1.1 (first floor level)

has been deleted. The north west facing terrace servicing Unit 2.1 (second floor

level) has been deleted. The maximum height of the building opposite 721 Orrong Road

has been reduced from approximately 15.4m to 13.6m.

Overall there are greater setbacks and noticeable reductions in building height across the whole development. It is considered that the changes collectively represent a clear reduction in visual bulk opposite the neighbouring interfaces that address the reasons for refusal outlined in the previous VCAT Order.


Strategic Justification

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 Activity Centres (11.01), Structure Planning (11.02-3), Metropolitan Melbourne (11.04), Urban Design (15.01), Housing (16) and Transport (18).

At the State Policy level these policy objectivities provide a State policy impetus for the residential intensification of sites that are located around activity centres and which are well served by physical and social infrastructure. In particular, the State Policy Framework includes specific direction for the encouragement of a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres (11.01) and encourage higher density housing in and around Neighbourhood Activity Centres that is designed to fit the context and enhance the character of the area while providing a variety of housing options for different types of households (11.04-2).

Specific State policy support for appropriate residential intensification is also highlighted in Clause 16 (Housing). This includes strategies to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land (16.01-1) and to increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the established urban areas particularly at activity centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites (16.01-2).

When considered against this policy direction there is strong State Policy support for the proposed redevelopment and residential intensification of an existing site that is located near a large neighborhood activity centre. The subject site is located 397m north east of Toorak Village which is identified as a large neighborhood activity centre. In addition, the State Policy objectives in relation to transport provide strong support for the development of higher residential density on a site that is located near a main arterial road which is well served by public transport including a principal tram route on Toorak Road.

Clause 21.03-1 (Housing) of the Local Policy Framework encourages residential development that caters for the diverse housing needs of the existing and future population. Locations for housing diversity are directed to arterial roads and the Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.01-2 identifies arterial roads where medium density housing is encouraged. The subject site is not located on a major arterial road identified on this plan. However, more generally the local Housing Policy also encourages medium density development that respect established residential character. The proposed development is considered to meet this local policy direction in that it proposes a medium density development in an area where multi dwelling development is already prevalent. The subject site does not sit within a neighbourhood of single dwellings but rather an area where there are a myriad of other multi dwelling developments. In this context the proposal is considered appropriate.

The local Urban Design Policy (22.02) includes objectives that design and scale of new developments make a positive contribution to the built form of an area and is respectful to the existing character and streetscape. The Urban Design Policy generally encourages built form in residential areas that respects the one to two storey built form character. However, this policy is balanced by the requirement for new buildings to be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location. In this setting, it is considered that the four storey building proposed is an appropriate form that is consistent with the number of other large multi storey residential developments located immediately near the subject site. The four storey building proposed provides an appropriate built form in the context of the surrounding area which consists primarily of large 2-storey development and higher medium density development in the immediate vicinity. In this regard the proposal measures favourably with the Urban Design Policy direction that new buildings should not be significantly higher or lower than surrounding buildings but match other building heights found nearby.


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

Clause 15 Preliminary Matters

On 22/08/2013 Amendment VC100 was introduced into the Planning Scheme. Amendment VC100 now stipulates that developments of up to 4-storeys in height must be assessed under the ResCode Provisions (Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme). Previously this only applied to developments up to 3-storeys in height. As previously highlighted, whilst part of the proposed development is technically a 5-storey building, the majority is 4-storeys and has been assessed as such.

Notwithstanding the above, transitional provisions stipulate that Clause 55 does not apply to an application to construct or extend a development of four or more storeys made before the approval date of the Planning Scheme amendment that introduces those amendments into the Planning Scheme. Given the current application was lodged on 21 December 2012, this application is to be considered against the provisions of Clause 15 of the Planning Scheme.

Built form

It is proposed to develop a 4 –storey (technically 5-storey given the basement projection) contemporary designed residential building. Clause 15.01-1 includes strategies for the assessment of development higher than 3-storeys against the design principals listed under this policy. The following is an assessment against the guidelines in Clause 15.01-1:

Context / Height

The section of Orrong Road, north of Toorak Road contains a mix of single dwellings and larger apartment buildings. While many single one or two storey dwellings can be found within the neighbourhood, medium density development is a strong, recognizable feature of this area. This is particularly evident in the area immediately surrounding the subject site (between Toorak Road and Robertson Street) where multi dwellings are prevalent and are of a scale where they are a dominant feature of the streetscape. In this context, the proposed four storey building would fit comfortably with the existing scale of built form found in Orrong Road. The proposal at four storeys is smaller than other multi dwelling buildings found nearby and is an appropriate response to the built form that characterises the street.

The proposed building would also create a positive impact in providing a 3-storey presentation to the street that is consistent in height to the tall 2-storey dwellings with hipped roof forms either side of the development. The Urban Design Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme includes policy that new buildings should not be significantly higher or lower than surrounding buildings. The proposed development has been designed to respect the height and scale of the dwellings immediately to the north, south and west of the site. As outlined in the previous VCAT decision , the proposal as it presents to the street is respectful of the existing neighbourhood character and is considered consistent with the strategic direction of the Stonnington Planning Scheme as it relates to design.

The Public Realm

The building has been designed to address Orrong Road. The building has been designed with a contemporary style with vertical elements that break the building up into three modules. The use of white and brown stone cladding light grey and dark grey metal cladding for the facades combined with a significantly recessed fourth floor shaped element provide a highly articulated and visually interesting form that would have a positive impact on the public realm.


Safety

The proposed development will not detrimentally impact on the safety of the surrounding public environment. The proposed building has balconies and habitable room windows to the front which would provide passive surveillance over the street.

Landmarks, Views and Vistas

The proposed development does not detract from any landmarks, views or vistas. Notably, there are no specific planning controls such as a Design and Development Overlay which seek to protect views in this location.

Pedestrian Spaces

It is considered that the proposed design of the building will be respectful of the surrounding environment and enhance the visual and social experience of pedestrians walking along Orrong Road. The proposed design, building materials, finishes and the articulation of the building will provide visual interest to the area.

Heritage

The subject site is not affected by a Heritage Overlay and would not have an adverse impact on heritage character.

Consolidation of Site and Empty Sites

Should a planning permit be issued the site would need to be re-subdivided.

Light and Shade

The proposed development will not detrimentally impact the public realm.

Energy and Resource Efficiency

Given the orientation of the site, the development has maximised the northern aspect as much as possible. The proposal also implements ESD measures such as solar panels to improve the energy efficiency of the development.

Architectural Quality

The development is considered to be of a high quality design that incorporates a range of forms and materials that present as a well articulated and visually interesting building.

Landscape Architecture

Landscaping is an important feature of the surrounding neighbourhood. This landscaped character is significant due to the presence of mature street trees that line this section of Orrong Road as well as mature vegetation planted in the front and rear yards of properties in the area. It is noted that the issue of landscaping was addressed in the VCAT Order for the previous proposal and the Tribunal deemed the landscaping at the front of the site was appropriate having regard to the character of the area. The revised proposal incorporates even greater landscaping of the site with opportunities for in-ground canopy tree planting. Councils Arborist has reviewed the landscape concept plan submitted with the application and has advised that it is suitable for endorsement.


Amenity Impacts

As outlined in the preliminary matters, Clause 55 (ResCode) is not applicable to the assessment of the proposal. Nevertheless, Clause 55 provides a useful guide in considering the amenity impacts of the proposed building on adjoining residential properties. Under a Clause 55 assessment, amenity impacts would be assessed against the Side and Rear Setbacks (Clause 55.04-1), Daylight to Existing Windows (Clause 55.04-3) North Facing Windows (55.04-4), Overshadowing Open Space (Clause 55.04-5) and Overlooking (55.04-6) provision. An assessment against these provisions is provided below:

Side and Rear Setbacks

Western and Southern Boundaries.Plans and sections submitted with the proposal demonstrate compliance with the ResCode standard to both the south and west elevations.

Northern BoundaryThe plans show some minor non-compliance at second and third floor levels with the side and rear setbacks standard to the northern boundary. This is outlined below:

The ground floor and first floor walls are setback 3m from the boundary. The wall ranges in height from 7m to 7.9m above NGL. The standard requires setbacks of 2.09m to 2.99m. Therefore the proposed ground and first floor setbacks meet the standard.

The second floor wall and third floor balcony are setback between 3m to 4.5m from the boundary. The wall ranges in height from 11.105m to 11.2m above NGL. The standard requires setbacks of 6.195m to 6.29m. Therefore the proposed second floor setbacks do not meet the standard.

The third floor wall is setback 7.1m from the boundary. The wall ranges in height from 13.2m to 14.2m above NGL. The standard requires setbacks of 8.29m to 9.29m. Therefore the proposed third floor setbacks do not meet the standard.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings at 721 Orrong Road. Notably the proposal represents further setbacks, and a lower built form than what was previously considered by VCAT. Further the deletion of the north west balconies at first and second floor level further reduces the built form opposite the SPOS are of 721 Orrong Road. In addition it is noted that the NGL levels at 721 Orrong Road are approximately 700mm higher than the subject site (as indicated on the west elevation plan), therefore the level of non-compliance with the standard is less than what is indicated from the above assessment.

Further, it is noted that the area of non compliance is opposite the side facade at 721 Orrong Road and not opposite the SPOS area which was the primary concern raised in the previous VCAT decision. The current proposal no long proposes built form opposite the SPOS area at 721 Orrong Road, and is therefore now considered acceptable.

In addition to the above amenity considerations, it is noteworthy that the occupants of 721 Orrong Road have not objected to the proposed development.

In terms of neighbourhood character, the proposal adopts setbacks at all levels. Whilst the second and third floor setbacks do not meet the standard, they are considered appropriate in the context of the surrounding streetscape.


Given the proposal represents significant reductions in built form, through increased setbacks and a reduction in height, the proposed setbacks are considered appropriate in the context of the surrounding streetscape.

Daylight to Existing Windows / North Facing Windows

There are no north facing windows within 3m of the boundary with the subject site therefore the north facing windows standard is not applicable.

As for daylight to existing windows, the proposed development has significant setbacks from the abutting boundaries to ensure comfortable compliance with the daylight to existing windows standard.

Overlooking and Overshadowing Open Space

On the matter of Overlooking and Overshadowing Pages 9 and 10 (Para. 29) of the Order states:

“We are generally satisfied that the proposal does not create any unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties by way of overlooking and overshadowing.”

Further with regards to overshadowing it goes on to state:

“The shadow cast by the proposed building generally falls on the ground floor of 20 Lascelles Avenue and 711 Orrong Road between 9am and 3pm at the September Equinox. We agree with Mr Sheppard that it generally falls on the driveway of 711 Orrong Road rather than the rear secluded private open space. The shadow also generally falls within existing shadow cast onto 20 Lascelles Avenue at 9 and 10am. The outcome to be achieved is to maintain a reasonable level of sunlight to private open space and we find the shadow impact, including of the raised terrace at the front of 711 Orrong Road is acceptable.”

Shadow diagrams submitted with the advertised plans demonstrate that whilst there will be some overshadowing of neighbouring SPOS areas, this will not be for extended periods of time and will not be unreasonable. The revised proposal represents reductions in built form, increased setbacks and lower overall height. Therefore given the above and the conclusions reached in the previous VCAT Order it is considered that there will be no unreasonable impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings as a result of overshadowing.

With regards to overlooking the VCAT Order states:

“The potential for overlooking has been minimised by incorporating screening to 1.7 metres in height for balconies and windows where necessary. This is appropriate as the outcome to be achieved is to minimise the potential for overlooking rather than preventing overlooking entirely.”

The same design measures have been included into the design response, however it is noted that bedroom 2 of unit 1.3 is not screened and is within 9m of a habitable room at 711 Orrong Road. It is therefore considered appropriate to include a permit condition to ensure screening is provided in accordance with the requirements of Standard B17. Given the above, the proposal will limit opportunities for overlooking to neighbouring dwellings and is therefore considered acceptable.

Internal Amenity

The ten dwellings have a minimum size of 169sqm which would provide comfortable and practical living arrangements. All dwellings are provided with good access to natural light and ventilation.


No habitable rooms for this development rely on borrowed light with all bedrooms designed with direct access to natural light. The dwellings are all provided with individual areas of private open space in excess of 21sqm which will provide for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents. The development has also been designed to avoid any internal overlooking of any units within the development.

Traffic and Parking

Traffic Generation

No concerns were raised regarding traffic generation issues with the previous VCAT decision. As the proposal represents the same number of dwellings and the same number of car parking spaces as the previous proposal it is considered that this is not an issue for the current proposal.

Parking

The development proposes 10 dwellings (9 x 2 bedroom plus study and 1 x 3 bedroom). Therefore the parking requirement for the development is 20 residents’ spaces and 2 visitor spaces. 21 car parking spaces are proposed at basement level, however no visitor spaces are proposed. It is noted that the lack of visitor parking was not an issue with the previous proposal.

In this instance it is considered that a waiver of the visitor parking requirements can be supported.The site is located close to a large neighbourhood activity centre and has convenient access to public transport including tram services on Toorak Road (135m south of the site). This would allow visitors access to other transport alternatives that are easily and conveniently located to the site. The proposed waiver of the two visitor car spaces is also in line with the “Sustainable Transport Policy” adopted by Stonnington City Council in September 2008 which aims to create an integrated, sustainable, safe, convenient and accessible transport network that delivers priority to alternatives to single occupancy vehicles as a transportation option.

For these reasons, it is considered that the waiver of the two visitor car parking spaces measures favourably against the policy objective of Clause 22.13 (Parking Policy), the decision guidelines of 52.06, the policy principles of the Sustainable Transport Policy and would not adversely affect the surrounding area.

Access and Manoeuvring

Car parking is proposed to be at grade within the basement. The Transport and Parking Unit have confirmed that the proposed layout of the basement car park is generally acceptable. It is clear that the basement parking layout and access arrangements will function in a safe and efficient manner. Some additional information has been requested by permit condition. Subject to these conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable.

Waste

The submitted plans show that a waste storage area is to be provided in the basement near the front of the site. The waste area is located in a convenient location for residents / or private collectors to access and take out for collection. A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the application and Council’s Waste Management Coordinator was satisfied that this generally responds well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans. Subject to a permit condition requiring an updated Waste Management Plan to be submitted reflecting the revised plans, the waste management for the development is considered acceptable.


Environmental Sustainable Design

An Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) was submitted with the application (Energy Lab 05/03/2013) which was referred to Council’s ESD officer. Comments have been received that conclude that because the development is for 10 dwellings, the development falls within the large development category and technically a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) is required.

Notwithstanding this, the SDA was assessed and Council’s ESD Officer advised that the applicant is to submit an SMP addressing the following matters:

Energy Efficiency The STEPS assessment for energy and peak energy indicates a low-level of attainment

compared to similar apartments. This could be improved by specifying a higher rating for the gas hot water system, for example.

Specify if energy meters will be provided to individual apartments Any fixed indoor clothes drying facility must be marked on plans Condensing systems for AC units must be marked on plans Identify lighting type for car parking and common areas

Stormwater To comply with Stonnington’s WSUD policy, further information on the proposed rain garden

must be provided. Rainwater tanks must be annotated to show connection to the number of internal toilets

identified by STORM and a roof plans must be submitted confirming drainage area to be connected to the rainwater tank.

Selection of appropriate paving material (such as decking which is free to drain), gravel or permeable paver types will greatly increase permeability from terrace areas.

Building Materials Ensure specific standards and targets are identified for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

and use of recycled materials.

Transport The type and number of bicycle facilities to be provided is clearly identified on plans. This

includes identifying which spaces are allocated to residents and which for visitors.

Waste Management Ensure that strategies are identified for waste management at construction at operational

phases and that specific targets are identified in the SMP.

Urban Ecology This section should focus on measures to be taken to reduce impacts to existing site ecology,

such as retention of major trees, or measures that have been taken to enhance site ecology such as the planting of mature trees, native and drought-tolerant species.

Innovations Esure measures identified here provide an innovative approach, beyond standard practice.

Those currently identified represent standard practice in many cases.

Ongoing Building And Site Management Ensure this section reflects requirements in our SDAPP category.

As no fundamental issues have been identified by Council’s ESD officer it is recommended that a condition is included which requires SMP addressing the above matters.


Impact on Street Trees

In front of the site there are significant mature street trees. Council’s Arborist previously commented on these trees on the former application and advised that these trees will need to be protected during construction given the proximity of works to the trees. Whilst this was not formally commented on this time for this proposal, a discussion with Councils Arborists has confirmed that the street trees must be protected during construction. It is considered appropriate to apply Conditions requiring a Tree Management Plan and other measures to protect these trees.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made: TMP for the Queensland Brush Box located in the south west corner. It is considered

reasonable to ensure the protection of this tree by way of a permit condition. The development is 5-storeys not 4-storeys high – technically the development is 5-storeys

(any part of the basement over 1.2m is defined as an extra level). This is because a small section of the basement in the north west corner is 1.3m above NGL technically this part of the development is 5-storeys under the definitions outlined in the Planning Scheme. Notwithstanding this, most of the building is technically 4-storeys and the development would present as a 4-storey development. The point regarding 5-storeys is considered inconsequential in terms of the assessment of the proposal.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the proposal against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal as outlined in mediation plans, Council date stamped 16 August 2013 be supported for the following reasons: The proposal address the key reasons for refusal of the previous proposal outlined in VCAT

Order P2987/2011 The proposed development has an appropriate relationship on the interfaces of the adjoining

properties and ensures the amenity of these properties is not unreasonably impacted upon. The proposal is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning

Scheme. The sites location in close proximity to a large neighborhood activity centre (Toorak Village) and aligns with state and local polices for new housing to be located near activity centres.

The development is a high quality design that incorporates a range of forms and materials that present as a well articulated and visually interesting building both to the street and adjoining properties.


RECOMMENDATION

There are two recommendations. Recommendation ‘A’ is based on the Mediation Plans, Council date stamped 16 August 2013. Recommendation ‘B’ is based on the advertised plans Council date stamped 21 December 2012

Recommendation A - Mediation Plans

A. That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant Planning Permit No: 940/12 would have been issued, based on the mediation plans Council date stamped 16 August 2013, for the land located at 715, 717 and 719 Orrong Road under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the Construction of a Multi dwelling development on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone and associated reduction in the car parking requirements subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, 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 VCAT mediation plans Council date stamped 16 August 2013 but modified to show:

a) Screening design measures to the following areas:i. West facing balcony of unit 2.3 at second floor level to limit downward

views to 20 Lascelles Avenue to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

ii. A widened planter to the west facing portion of the balcony for unit 2.3 at third floor level to limit downward views to 20 Lascelles Avenue to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

iii. Window of Bedroom 2 to Unit 1.3.b) Details of obscure glazing and / or privacy screening designed to limit overlooking

to neighbouring properties in accordance with the requirements of Standard B17 or an alternative design solution to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) Details of the height and materials of the boundary fences as follows:i. New rendered fibre cement fence on the boundary with 20 Lascelles

Avenue to be constructed to the same height as the existing trellis fence on the boundary.

ii. New rendered fibre cement fence on the boundary with 711 Orrong Road to be a minimum 2.4m high above NGL to be constructed to the west of Unit G3 (starting from the car port of 711 Orrong Road moving west).

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.d) A revised landscape plan showing modified planting to the western and southern

boundaries to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.e) A Sustainable Management Plan as required by Condition 8.f) A revised basement floor plan clearly showing a 0.5m space between the parking

bays in the tandem arrangement servicing units G.1 and G.2.g) Turning templates demonstrating that access can be provided to parking bays 09

and 10.h) Wheel stops used where pedestrian access routes are provided behind parking

bays, to ensure vehicles do not encroach into the pedestrian access route. This applies to bays 05, 06, 07, 08, and 09.

i) Dimensioned widths for the pedestrian routes at basement level. j) Bollards or a similar barrier be used in the lobby area between bays 10 and 11 and

between bays 04 and 20 to prevent any parking occurring on the lobby extension. k) The proposed minimum and maximum floor gradients of the parking area.


l) Bicycle parking provision, in terms of amount of facilities, the type of bicycle storage facility proposed, and all relevant dimensions to be shown on plan.

m) Revised plans showing the headroom throughout the parking area with a minimum headroom height of 2.2m at the lowest point. This includes at the car park entry door, measured to the lowest point with the door in the open position.

n) A convex mirror proposed at the access to be shown on plan. o) The proposed vehicle crossover is to be designed in accordance with Council’s

Vehicle Crossing Policy. The proposed crossover is to be clearly dimensioned on the revised plans, noting any existing features which may be affected.

2. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the drawings and/or schedules endorsed to accompany the permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to occupation, 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.

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

The Tree Management Plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the Queensland Box Brush tree in the south west corner of the site and the mature street trees to the front of the 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) 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 Council’s Parks Unit.

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

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

e) The Tree Management Plan must include measures to protect the trees from the proposed connection to the substation and that this must be done by way of underground boring and not open trenching.

5. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Queensland Box Brush tree and the street trees to the front of the site to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. The fence must be constructed of 1.8m high chain mesh to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


6. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone of the two street trees 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.

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the application by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 22 March 2013 but updated to reflect the changes to the plans dated 16 August 2013.

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Sustainable Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Energy Lab Sustainable Design Assessment submitted on 05/03/2013 but modified to show:a) A revised STEPS assessment for energy and peak energy to be improved by

specifying a higher rating for the gas hot water system or an alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) Specify whether energy meters will be provided to individual apartments.c) Any fixed indoor clothes drying facility must be marked on plans.d) Condensing systems for AC units must be marked on plans.e) Identify lighting type for car parking and common areas.f) Further information on the proposed rain garden must be provided demonstrating

compliance with Council’s draft Water Sensitive Urban Design policy.g) Rainwater tanks must be annotated to show connection to the number of internal

toilets identified by the STORM Rating Report and roof plans must show drainage area to be connected to the rainwater tank.

h) Details of permeable paving materials to be used in the developmenti) The type and number of bicycle facilities to be provided is clearly identified on

plans including identifying which spaces are allocated to be allocated to residents and which for visitors.

j) Ensure that strategies are identified for waste management at construction at operational phases and that specific targets are identified in the Sustainable Management Plan.

k) Measures to be taken to reduce impacts to existing site ecology, such as retention of major trees, or measures that have been taken to enhance site ecology such as the planting of mature trees, native and drought-tolerant species.

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the development will be constructed and operated in accordance with the commitments outlined in the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan including any responsibilities for the ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring over the lifetime of the development.

9. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works allowed by this permit the owner and/or developer must submit a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Construction Management Plan must include details on how the construction will be undertaken so it has minimal impact on the environment. Details to be provided in the Construction Management Plan will include, but are not be limited to:a) Full work schedule/construction management plan for each individual stage to

ascertain impacts on surrounding properties;b) Public/worker access and safety issues;


c) Hours of construction activity (including at what stage “out of hours works” are proposed and what type of works are to be conducted outside the hours of operation;

d) The location of hoardings, hoists and workers amenities;e) The location of public precautions, loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes

and crane/hoisting zones, gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street;

f) Details as to how traffic and pedestrian safety and amenity will be controlled within the vicinity of the site and its surrounds;

g) The provision of a traffic management plan, including detailed plans that show all items to be placed on any street during all stages of construction in accordance with approval by the responsible Building Surveyor, entry and exit points for construction vehicles (including temporary and permanent vehicle crossings), traffic management during construction including road closures/road occupation/footpath closures, workzones/construction zones to accommodate vehicles and deliveries;

h) Service connections/road and footpath openings and anticipated impact on public land during the connection of different services;

i) Measures to be used to protect the Council infrastructure from damage;j) Existing services and environmental management;k) A list of all environmental hazards that the activities on-site pose ie; contaminated

soil, materials and waste, dust, stormwater contamination from run-off and wash-waters, sediment from the site on roads, construction noise, hours of operation, vibration, washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery, spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery etc;

l) Protection measures that will be undertaken to minimise the risk of the above hazards being realised;

m) Regular monitoring/inspections of the above protection measures; n) Identification as to who will be responsible for managing all of the above issues;

and o) Anticipated staging of the development.

The Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority prior to commencing construction and all buildings and works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.

You may still be required to obtain separate permits under the Local Law from Council’s Building Control Services Unit for various construction activities.

10. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development. Services must not run through the structural root zones of the street trees to the front of the site without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

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


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

15. Prior to the occupation of the building, privacy screens designed to limit overlooking as required in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

16. 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.


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

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

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

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

NOTES

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

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

The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

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


RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation B - Advertised Plans

B. That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Decision to Refuse Planning Permit No: 940/12 would have been issued based on the advertised plans Council date stamped 21 December 2012, for the land located at 715, 717 and 719 Orrong Road under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the Construction of a Multi dwelling development on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone and associated reduction in the car parking requirements on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development, by reason of excessive building height and insufficient setbacks to the western, southern and northern boundaries, would result in a building that is excessively bulky, prominent and visually obtrusive when viewed from the abutting dwellings, to the detriment of the amenity of neighbouring properties and contrary to Clauses 15, 22.02, 22.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. The proposed development proposes excessive massing and bulk to the side and rear boundaries that are inconsistent with the scale and bulk seen in the neighbourhood, to the detriment of neighbourhood character and neighbouring amenity and contrary to Clauses 15, 22.02 and 22.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

3. The proposed development, by reason of unobstructed views from bedroom 2 of Unit 1.3 to the north facing habitable room window at 711 Orrong, would result in overlooking and a loss of privacy for neighbouring occupants of this dwelling, to the detriment of neighbouring amenity and contrary to Clauses 15 and 22.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.


1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0473/12 - 44 - 46 BANGS STREET PRAHRAN – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for a mixed use development for dwellings and offices (permit not required) in the Commercial 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay and Special Building Overlay and associated reduction in car parking and bicycle spaces at 44 - 46 Bangs Street, Prahran.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Irmgard KlappWard: South Zone: Commercial 1 Overlay: Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 7), Special Building

Overlay Date lodged: 18/07/2012Statutory days: 317 Trigger for referral to Council:

Four or more storeys

Number of objections: 3 properties Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer 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 Interlandi Mantesso Architects entitled ”44 Bangs Street Prahran - Proposed Residential Development” Job No 11023 Drawing No’s TP3.06, TP4.01, TP4.02, TP4.03, TP3.02, TP3.03,TP5.01, TP5.02, TP5.03, TP5.04, TP.3.04, TP3.05, TP601, and TP6.02 Council date stamped 18 July 2012 and 26 September 2012. Key features of the proposal (as advertised) are:

The construction of a five storey building for a 22.5sqm office and seventeen (17) dwellings comprising 14 x 1 bedroom, 2 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings.

Thirteen (13) car parking spaces are to be provided on the ground floor in two car stacker systems with two separate access ways via Bangs and Regent Streets.

The dwellings vary in size from 38sqm to 166sqm provided with balconies a minimum area of 5sqm.

The proposal seeks to retain the shell of the existing two storey building and construct a new built form above the existing building. The new built form will be of a contemporary design finished in render with glazing and perforated screens.

The building will have a maximum height of 18m designed with a 15m four storey street wall and a recessed fifth storey. The building is configured as follows:


Ground The proposed ground floor is to contain an access / foyer area, an office and car parking. The office is proposed on the Bangs Street frontage and will have an area of 22.5sqm accessed through the main entry foyer for the development. Two separate car parking areas are proposed, consisting of a main car park for eleven (11) car spaces in a car stacker system access via Bangs Street and a separate car stacker system for two (2) parking spaces accessed from Regent Street.

First Floor The first floor is designed with six (6) x 1 bedroom dwellings positioned around a central access corridor. The dwellings range in size between 38 - 45sqm and are provided with terraces a minimum of 4.9sqm.

Second Floor The second floor has a similar layout to the first floor with six (6) x 1 bedroom dwellings positioned around a central access corridor. The dwellings range in size between 38 - 45sqm with terraces of approximately 5sqm.

Third Floor The third floor has a similar layout to the two lower floors but contains four dwellings consisting of 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 2 x 1 bedroom dwellings. The one bedroom dwellings are approximately 47sqm and the two bedroom dwellings approximately 79sqm. All of the dwellings have terraces between 5 and 9.6sqm.

Fourth Floor The fourth floor has a 156sqm penthouse dwelling comprising three bedrooms and a 127sqm terrace.

Plans for Consideration

Following concerns from Council Officers about the lack of activation at the street level for the Regent Street aspect the applicant has submitted plans for consideration to address this matter. The new plans consist of a revised ground and first floor plan drawn by Interlandi Mantesso Architects plan no TP4.01 Revision B June 2013 Council date stamped 25 June 2013.

The plan makes the following changes: A new 39.8sqm office to Regent Street A 10sqm enlargement of the office to the Bangs Street frontage. The enlarged office will have

an area of 33.4sqm. The increased floor area of the offices results in a loss of five (5) car spaces with eight (8)

spaces to be provided in total for the development under the revised proposal.

The plans were not formally amended but lodged as plans for consideration and therefore were not readvertised. The plans are considered in the assessment below.


Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the western side of Bangs Street, Prahran approximately 22m south of King Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

A rectangular shaped lot with a frontage to both Bangs Street (east) and Regent Street (west) of 19 metres, a depth of 16m, resulting in an overall site area of approximately 300 square metres.

The site is currently developed with a two storey brick building that covers the entire site. The building has a gable end to the street ranging between 8.5m at the low point to 11.1 m at the high point.

The building is currently used as a Warehouse / Office with Long Gully Estate Wines operating from the ground floor and Art Atelier on the first floor.

Two car spaces are currently provided on site, accessed via a vehicle crossover to Bangs Street.

The site is located within the Prahran (Central) precinct of the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre. The eastern part of this precinct, where the subject site is located, is an area currently undergoing transformation to a higher density mixed use area. The area is traditionally characterised by a mix of small scale warehouse and industrial activity with low density residential development. It is envisaged under Chapel Vision to be a mixed use area, based around a commercial employment core with a supporting local residential population. Under Chapel Vision, built form within Bangs Street has a preferred maximum building height of 19 metres (5 storeys). The site has excellent access to public transport with the Prahran train station located 580m west of the site and trams located close by on High and Chapel Streets.

There are a number of recent planning approvals for multi storey mixed use / medium density developments of a similar scale to the proposal in the nearby area. These include the following:

25 Mount Street (279/09 approved 23 September 2009). This permit approved a two dwelling development and a home office within a four storey (13.1m) building. Four car parking spaces are provided on the ground floor.

28 Clifton Street (363/09 approved 14 December 2009). This permit approved a multi dwelling development for 11 dwellings and a home office in a five storey (15.3m) building. Eleven car parking spaces provided in a stacker arrangement on the ground floor.

2 - 8 Bangs Street (379/11 approved 5 June 2012). This permit allows for a mixed use development for 21 dwellings and two offices within a five storey (22.8m) building. Ten (10) car spaces are provided in car stackers on the ground floor.

2 Anchor Place (420/11 approved 10 September 2012). This permit approved a mixed use development for 9 dwellings and an office in a five storey (20.4m) building (the front 2 storeys an existing A2 graded heritage building). No car parking spaces are provided for this development.

28 and 30 - 32 Mount Street (856/11 approved on 15 November 2012). This permit approved a mixed use development comprising 26 dwellings and an office within a six storey (18.8m) building. 19 car spaces are provided within a car stacker system on the ground floor.

The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

To the north at 48 Bangs Street is a single storey grey painted building that is occupied by “Prahran Motors” motor car and motorcycle repair workshop. The building on this site covers the entire site and is built directly to the boundary it shares with the subject site.


To the south at 40 - 42 Bangs Street is a single storey brick building currently used as a flower stylist. The building is built over the entire site and is also built directly to the boundary it shares with the subject site.

To the west on the opposite (western) side of Regent Street there are three properties that interface with the subject site, 35, 39 and 41-43 Regent Street. No 41 - 43 Regent Street is developed with a two storey brick building used for motor car repairs. 35 and 39 Regent Street are both two storey residential dwellings.

To the east on the opposite side of Bangs Street at 21 Bangs Street is a large two storey Office of Housing multi dwelling development. The development is designed with habitable windows and balconies that face onto the street.


There are no previous planning applications relevant to this proposal.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 06246 Folio 132 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 34.01 - Commercial 1Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 a permit is not required to use the land for dwellings or an office. Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required for buildings and works

Overlays

Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 7)Pursuant to Clause 43.02-1, a permit is required to construct a building or carry out works.

The site is located in an area designated for moderate change and the preferred maximum building height is 19m.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06-2 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied, the car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3 a permit may be granted to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under this clause.


The table at Clause 52.06-5 specifies the following requirements for car parking: 3.5 car parking spaces to each 100sqm of office net floor area 1 car parking space to each one bedroom dwelling; 2 car parking spaces to each three bedroom dwelling; 1 visitor car space to every five dwellings where there are more than five dwellings on a lot.

Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 the development (as advertised) should provide 22 car parking spaces (1 for the office, 18 for the dwellings and 3 visitor spaces). The development proposes 13 car parking spaces and therefore the application seeks a reduction of 9 spaces.

The development proposed in the plans for consideration should provide 23 spaces (2 for the office, 18 for the dwellings and 3 visitor spaces). The revised development proposes eight (8) spaces and therefore the revised application seeks a reduction of 15 spaces.

Clause 52.34 - Bicycle Facilities

Pursuant to clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities are provided on the land. This equates to 1 resident space per 5 dwellings and 1 visitor space per 10 dwellings. Therefore a total of 6 bicycle spaces are required. It is noted that the floor area of the office is insufficient to warrant a bicycle parking requirement. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements.


Clause 11.01 Activity CentresClause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 HousingClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.05 TransportClause 22.02 Urban Design PolicyClause 22.05 Residential Development in Commercial Areas PolicyClause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity and Interface PolicyClause 22.09 Retail Centres PolicyClause 22.12 Traffic PolicyClause 22.13 Parking PolicyClause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy

Amendment C161

This is an update to the existing Local Planning Policy Framework, and includes a new Municipal Strategic Statement, and the deletion of a number of local policies. Of relevance to this application the Urban Design Policy, Residential Development in Commercial Areas Policy, Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy, Retail Centres Policy, Traffic Policy and Parking Policy will be deleted.

The amendment has been exhibited, and the Panel report has been recently released. The Panel was generally supportive of the amendment subject to a number of changes. Those changes have recently been considered by Council who have adopted a modified version of the Panel recommendations.


Although the amendment is a major change to the Planning Scheme, it is considered that the principal assessment criteria relating to this application are still largely unchanged given that the site is still situated within a Principal Activity Centre in the existing and proposed Strategic Framework Plan and the Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 7 will remain unchanged.

Chapel Revision

The structure plan for the Chapel Street Activity Centre is currently under revision. The revision includes proposed changes to the building heights and setbacks of the different precinct that make up the activity centre. The Draft Structure Plan identifies the subject site to have a preferred maximum height of 25m (8 storeys). The proposed setbacks identified for the subject site is for a three storey street wall with a three (3) metre setback for the levels up to 20m and a setback of six (6) metres for the levels up to 25m.

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 South Ward and objections from three (3) different properties have been received. The objections are summarised as follows: Neighbourhood character Height and scale of building inappropriate to the area Bangs Street cannot accommodate more development Traffic Traffic safety / Impact on pedestrians Parking Overshadowing Overlooking

A Consultative Meeting was not held.

It is noted that the application was advertised under the provisions of the Business 2 Zone. Under the provisions of this zone a permit was required for the proposed use of the site for dwellings. Since the completion of advertising Planning Scheme Amendment VC100 has introduced a new Commercial 1 Zone (Clause 34.01) which replaces the Business 2 Zone. Under the provisions of the Commercial 1 Zone at Clause 34.01, a Planning Permit is no longer required for the use of the site for dwellings.

Referrals

Melbourne Water

Comments have been received from Melbourne Water that they do not object to the proposal subject to the inclusion of standard conditions. The finished floor level is required to be 300mm above the flood level of 16.14m to AHD.


Urban Deign

Comments have been received from Council’s Urban Designer that there are four issues of concern towards the proposal (as advertised). The concerns relate to the following:

The two proposed vehicle entrances to Bangs and Regent Streets limit the potential for activation at street level. For this development only a single vehicular access is supported.

Related to the above concern is the lack of any active uses on the two street frontages where only a small office is proposed to Bangs Street and no active interface is proposed to Regent Street. It is recommended that the office on Bangs Street should be increased by 20-25sqm and that a similar office should be provided on the Regent Street frontage.

The development is considered to have poor internal amenity with a useable floor space of only 33sqm proposed and terraces of 5sqm. This is not considered acceptable for a contemporary higher density apartment living. It is recommended that a maximum of 4 apartments should be provided per floor.

The final concern is in regard to the restricted daylight that would be created by the screening around the terraces which would restrict daylight penetration to a number of the dwellings.


Comments have been received from Council’s Transport and Parking Department that the development proposes a shortfall of 9 spaces. It has been noted that parking in the area is limited and the additional demand created by the development will not be able to be accommodated. Nevertheless, the shortfall is supported by the Transport and Parking Department due to the location of the site; existing conditions will not allow future occupants to rely on street parking and the availability of public transport in the area.

No concerns have been raised about traffic generation with comments provided that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact upon existing traffic conditions in the area.

Concerns have been raised about the proposed location of the vehicle crossing to Regent Street as it would form one continuous vehicle crossover when joined with an existing crossover already provided to the property to the south at 40 Regent Street. The absence of any kerb between the two crossings is contrary to the Councils Vehicle Crossover Policy. Concerns have also been raised about the potential conflict with vehicles using the existing crossing at 40 Regent Street. Comments have also been provided that the redundant crossing will need to be reinstated and that the existing crossover on Bangs Street that is proposed to be utilised for the development should be altered to provide appropriate splays.

The Transport and Parking Department require more information in regard to the proposed car stackers. Manufactures specifications have not been provided for the Parklift Unit and details of the exact type of stacker and useable widths and lengths need to be provided. More detail is also required for the Combilift particularly what type and platform /length will be used.

The Transport and Parking Department also require more information in regard to the location and spacing of columns, details of pedestrian doors within the parking area, gradients of parking floors, ramp grades and widths, headroom, sight distance at property boundaries and bicycle facilities.

Infrastructure

Comments have been received that Melbourne Water will set the required floor levels. Council’s Infrastructure Unit have noted that any floor levels that may be set are such that access for the car park can be gained without requiring any changes to the existing footpath levels.


To this effect it has been suggested that a condition is included that vehicle access ramps must be fully contained within the property and that the footpath levels at the property line must not be lowered or altered.

Council’s Infrastructure Unit has also required a condition for a report for the legal point of discharge be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer. The installation of water tanks for re-cycling and to address WSUD have also been encouraged.

Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD)

Council’s ESD officer has provided comments that some measures have been taken to ensure the development considers sustainable design aspects including all habitable rooms designed with access to daylight and opportunities for north facing living being maximised. However, a full assessment could not be done as further information is required on a number of issues. In particular Council’s ESD officer has outlined the following requirements:

The provision of a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) is required which addresses the 10 key sustainability categories in the Sustainable Design Assessment

The submission of information confirming compliance with the 6 star standard required by Building Commission Victoria

A response to Council’s draft policy on Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Details of bicycle spaces and provision for an increase in the number of bicycle spaces

provided for the development and the provision of shower and locker space. Shadow analysis of impact on adjacent property Details of roof treatment, location of plant and any proposed solar panels and drainage

information

Waste

Comments have been provided from Council’s Waste Management Coordinator that the standard allocation of waste bins for the development would be 19 x 240 litre bins. Comments were provided that for a residential development of this magnitude it is highly recommended that the developer contact Council’s Waste Management Department to discuss the possible alternatives to a weekly 240 litre MGB style collection which would be to the benefit of the proposed development, neighbourhood amenity and Council.

The application was lodged with a Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 21 September 2012. Council’s Waste Management Coordinator is satisfied that the document responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans but that the following change should be made to the proposal:

The plans to depict a Bin store area of approximately 3m x 3m as stated in the Waste Management Plan (WMP).

The necessity of a bin tug to be reviewed It has been recommended that any permit to be issued includes a condition requiring the submission of a Waste Management Plan that is similar to the WMP prepared for the application but updated to reflect the above changes.


KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

State Policy

A number of provisions from the State Section of the Planning Scheme are relevant in the regard to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include the commentary about Activity Centres (11.01), Metropolitan Melbourne (11.04), Urban Design (15.01), Residential Development (16.01) and Transport (18). At the State policy level these policy objectivities provide a strong policy impetus for the residential intensification of sites that are located within and around main activity centres and which are well served by physical and social infrastructure. In particular the State policy framework includes specific direction for encouragement of a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centers (11.01-2) and a particular direction for major activity centres to grow and support intensive housing developments (11.04-2), particularly those centres with good public transport links. Clause 16.01 seeks direction to increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the established urban area, particularly at activity centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites, and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield and dispersed development areas. When considered against this policy direction there is strong state policy support for the proposed development and residential intensification of an existing site which is located in the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Principal Activity Centre.

Local Policy

The Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan indentifies locations where specific outcomes are encouraged. In regard to residential intensification this framework identifies activity centres and certain arterial roads where medium density housing and higher scale development may be supported (21.01-2).This is further reiterated in the Local Policy on Housing (21.03) which directs residential development to activity centres as components of new development and arterial roads where a high proportion of medium density housing already exists. Clause 22.05 (Residential Development in Commercial Areas Policy) also encourages residential development in commercial areas, particularly in the upper floors of existing buildings.

The local Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy (22.19) provides specific direction in regard to the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre. Under this policy the subject site and surrounding area is identified for moderate change pursuant to the Structure Plan document and further reinforced in the relevant Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 7. Clause 22.19 includes objectives to accommodate housing growth and diversity by providing a range of housing types and tenure including higher density and mixed use development. The objectives also encourage sustainable transport options including walking, cycling and public transport and the facilitation of these sustainable transport modes.

When considered against the Strategic Framework Plan, and these local polices there is a strong level of support for the development of the site for a mixed use development for a higher residential density development and reduction of car parking.

The Residential Development in Commercial Areas Policy directs development to be carried out to standards of design and construction that maintains the character and amenity of the surrounding area (22.05-2). The Urban Design policy (22.02) encourages innovation, good design and high standards in the construction of new buildings as well as the renovation and recycling of existing buildings (22.02-2). Clause 22.19 also includes specific direction that new development in the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre includes land uses on the ground floor that contribute to a vibrant street life and provide a safe environment.


The proposed five storey building within the shell of an existing two storey building measures favourably with these local design polices. The height and setbacks proposed generally align with the design standards of the Design and Development Overlay and reflect recent approvals for new mixed use development in this part of the activity centre. The amended proposal (plans for consideration) also measures favourably against the specific policy direction for active ground floor uses. The proposed offices to Bangs and Regent Streets will help activate and enhance these two streets. The specific design and impact of the proposed building will be considered in detail in the assessment of built form below.

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

Built Form

Given Clause 55 (ResCode) does not specifically apply to the assessment of this development by virtue of the fact that the site is located in a Commercial 1 Zone and the proposed building is five storeys, the proposed built form has been assessed against Clause 15.01-1, Urban Design, and the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7. The assessment of this application must take into account the Urban Design Guidelines outlined in Clause 15.01-1, and should take into account the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004).

The site is specifically identified under the relevant Design and Development Overlay 7 (DDO7) as a moderate change area where a moderate change in new development is expected to occur. The subject site and immediately surrounding area has a preferred height limit of 19m under the applicable DDO7. Growth and redevelopment should reflect the degree of change identified for each change area and the preferred maximum building heights specified in the Schedule to the Overlay. The street setback is specified as a street wall height (0m setback) with any part of the building that exceeds 12m being setback 6m. Given the site has dual frontages to two different streets; these controls apply to both these frontages. The Schedule also states that development should seek to open up building facades to passing pedestrian traffic. The character objectives for the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre encourage innovative, high quality and well designed buildings which complement the existing urban fabric and mixed use character of the Activity Centre and which achieves the preferred built form outcomes for the Activity Centre as set out in this Schedule.

The following is an assessment against the guidelines in Clause 15.01-1:

Context

The proposed building has a maximum height of 18m designed with the fifth storey setback above a four storey (15m high) street wall. The setbacks to the upper level are 2.3m to Regent Street and 3.0m to Bangs Street. The height is slightly lower than the 19m preferred height limit identified for this part of the activity centre and the street wall height and setbacks do not directly align with the 12m high street wall and 6m setback that is preferred under the Design and Development Overlay.

In this instance the height and setback proposed are considered appropriate given the size and configuration of the lot and other recent approvals for similar mixed use development nearby. The subject site has dual frontages to Bangs and Regent Street and it is not possible to provide the suggested 6m setback to both frontages and allow sufficient area for an upper floor above the street wall.


The proposed street wall and setback also corresponds to other recent development approved in this part of the activity centre and in particular the development at 2 - 8 Bangs Street which is located on the same street. The development at 2 - 8 Bangs Street was approved by Planning Permit 379/11 on 5 June 2012. The permits allows for a mixed use development for 21 dwellings and two offices within a five storey building. The building has a height of 22.8m with a 14.2m high street wall fifth storey setback 2.6m from Regent Street and 3.3m from Bangs Street.

The proposed application has a street wall with a height that generally matches the building at 2 - 8 Bangs Street and a setback from the two street frontages that is almost identical to the other development. The building that has been proposed would therefore be consistent to other development and fit comfortably within the Bangs and Regents Street streetscapes and the established character of the precinct.

The Public Realm

The building that has been proposed in the plans for consideration has been designed to address both Bangs Street and Regent Street and to incorporate ground level office use that would help activate and enhance the streetscape. Car parking access will be provided through part of the Bangs Street frontage but this is no more than what already exists for the current building. Overall, with the development of the ground floor offices the development will help activate the street and improve the public realm within this precinct. Should a permit be issued it is recommended that a condition is included requiring plans to be submitted which include office uses on the two frontages as depicted in the plans for consideration.

Safety

The proposed development will not detrimentally impact on the safety of the surrounding public environment. The development of the two offices at the ground level will provide active frontages during the day and the building facades consist of windows or openings to terraces which would provide passive surveillance opportunities. A roller door would provide security to vehicle access and basement car parking.

Landmarks, Views and Vistas

The proposed five storey building would not impact on or diminish or obstruct views to any landmarks, views and vistas within the vicinity. The immediately surrounding area is designated for substantial change and the building height proposed is anticipated.

Pedestrian Spaces

The design of the proposed building responds well to the prevailing context and pedestrian environment given it promotes streetscape interaction at ground level to Bangs and Regent Streets noting the provision of commercial tenancies on both frontages.

Heritage

The subject site is not located within any immediate proximity to a Heritage Overlay or historical buildings of any significance.

Consolidation of Site and Empty Sites

The proposal seeks to redevelop an existing warehouse in a manner that is consistent with the site’s development potential. As such the development of the site is encouraged and the current proposal is acceptable subject to conditions on any permit issued.


Light and Shade

Given the inner city location of the subject site and the desired built form outcomes, the public realm would not be detrimentally impacted upon to an unreasonable degree by the proposed development. Given the orientation of the site, there will be some increased shadow over Bangs and Regent Streets throughout the day. The extent of shadow over the public realm is considered reasonable in this location.

Energy and Resource Efficiency

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s ESD officer who has provided comments that the development is designed with all habitable rooms provided with access to daylight and opportunities for north facing living being maximised. A full assessment was not completed as further information is required but no fundamental energy or resource issues have been identified.

Architectural Quality

The development is considered to be of a high quality design that incorporates a range of forms and materials that present as a well articulated and visually interesting building. The existing two storey form is proposed to be retained which will help create an interesting building that would provide a cotemporary development that retains a link to the past industrial character of the area.

Landscape Architecture

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 and matches the character of the area.

Amenity Impacts

The subject site sits within an area traditionally developed with a range of warehouses, offices and other commercial land uses. In recent times this area has begun to be transformed to one more characterised as a mixed use area with ground level offices or other commercial activity and upper floor residential dwellings. This transformation has markedly increased with the adoption of the Design and Development Schedule 7, which encourages mixed use development up to 19m high.

At the moment the Bangs and Regent Street area is a zone of transition where a number of existing traditional warehouse type uses can still be found juxtapose against a number of planning approvals for the development of multi storey mixed use, predominately residential buildings. This changing form has not yet emerged in this section of the street and the subject site has non sensitive interfaces to both the north and south. To the north at 48 Bangs Street is a single storey building that is occupied by “Prahran Motors” and to the south at 40 - 42 Bangs Street is a single storey brick building currently used as a flower stylist. The non sensitive interfaces of these two adjacent lots means that the proposed development does not have any potential amenity impact on adjacent property.Residential land uses are located to both the east (21 Bangs Street) and west (35 - 37 and 39 Regent Street) on the opposite sides of Bangs and Regent Streets. However, the orientation of these properties and the separation created by the two streets ensures the proposed development would not create any unreasonable visual impact, overshadowing, impact on daylight to windows or unreasonable overlooking.


Traffic and Parking

Congestion

Comments have been received from Council’s Traffic and Parking Department that the traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact upon existing traffic conditions in the area.

Parking Provision

The application proposed in the plans for consideration seeks a reduction of 15 statutory parking spaces with 23 spaces required under Clause 52.06 (2 for the office, 18 for the dwellings and 3 visitor spaces) and eight (8) spaces provided.

Council’s Transport and Parking Department have not considered the parking reduction being sought in the plans for consideration but have provided comments on the original proposal which sought approval for a reduction of nine (9) spaces. This reduction of nine (9) spaces was supported on the basis of the location of the site; existing conditions will not allow future occupants to rely on street parking and the availability of public transport in the area.

In considering the reduction in car parking, the location of the site within a principle activity centre and the high availability of public transport within the immediate area provide persuasive reasons for a reduction in car parking. The Chapel Street activity centre provides a grouping of many essential commercial (shops, supermarkets and entertainment) and community (libraries, recreation etc) facilities that would ensure the needs of residents are catered for by the local area. Further, the high availability of public transport in the area which includes both trains and trams within walking distance allows residents transport alternatives that are easily and conveniently located to the proposed development. The proposed reduction in car parking is also in line with the “Sustainable Transport Policy” adopted by Stonnington City Council which aims to create an integrated sustainable, safe, convenient and accessible transport network that delivers priority to alternatives to single occupancy vehicles as a transportation option.

It is further noted that a number of developments have been approved in the nearby area with reduced car parking. This includes the development of a multi storey building for 9 dwellings at 2 Anchor Place (420/11) which did not provide any car parking spaces.

For these reasons, it is considered that the waiver of 15 car parking spaces measures favourably against the policy objective of Clause 22.13 (Parking Policy), the decision guidelines of 52.06-1, the policy principles of the Sustainable Transport Policy and would not create any effects that would adversely affect the surrounding area.

Access and Manoeuvring

Council’s Transport and Parking Department raised concerns about the proposed vehicle crossing to Regent Street as it would form one continuous vehicle crossover when joined with an existing crossover already provided to the property to the south at 40 Regent Street. The plans for consideration have resolved this issue by removing vehicle access to Regent Street. It is recommended that should a permit be issued a condition is included requiring vehicle access and associated vehicle crossing to be removed as depicted in the plans for consideration Council date stamped 25 June 2013. It is noted that the “Plans for Consideration” still includes a notation for the crossover to Regent Street which appears to be have left on the pans in error. It is recommended that a condition is included requiring the note to be removed from the plans.


The Transport and Parking Department require more information in regard to the proposed car stackers, the location and spacing of columns, details of pedestrian doors within the parking area, gradients of parking floors, ramp grades and widths, headroom, sight distance at property boundaries and bicycle facilities.

It is recommended that specifications for the access requirements such that they are generally in accordance with the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be included as conditions should a permit be issued for the development.

Internal Amenity

The proposed development contains 17 dwellings which range in size between 38.4sqm (Unit 1-02) and 166.8sqm (Unit 4.01). All dwellings are provided with individual private open space areas ranging between 5sqm on the lower floors to a 127.4sqm terrace for the unit on the top floor.

Council’s Urban Designer has provided comments that the size of the units and private open space areas that have been provided are not acceptable for contemporary higher density apartment living.Larger dwellings undoubtedly provide better internal amenity than smaller dwellings and in this regard the comments from Council’s Urban Designer are supported. Nevertheless in this instance there are a number of reasons why the proposed size of the units is considered acceptable. Firstly, there is no policy which specifies a minimum size of apartments. Secondly, the size of the dwellings that have been proposed are not considered small enough to be a fundamental problem for future occupiers. All dwellings are configured to utilise the space available as much as possible and the design has maximised opportunities for all living areas to have access to natural light and ventilation. Thirdly, the smaller (sub 40sqm) dwellings are only a small (8 dwellings) proportion of the development and the mix of apartment sizes provides opportunities for a mix of housing types in the same development. Finally, the size of dwellings that have been proposed is consistent with other recent development in the nearby area. The development approved at 2 - 8 Bangs Street including a number of dwellings with floor areas of approximately 40sqm.

Council’s Urban Designer also raised concerns that the screening of the lower level terraces would restrict daylight penetration into some of the dwellings. This applicant responded to this concern through the submission of a 3D perspective picture (Drawing no SK-03 “Visuals”, Council date stamped 22 February 2013) which shows that the openings through the lower level brick building that is to be retained will not be obstructed and will have good access to natural daylight.

Special Building Overlay

The application has been referred to Melbourne Water and comments have been received that they do not object to the application. Melbourne Water required a number of conditions to be included should a planning permit be approved and it is recommended these are included.

Infrastructure

Comments have been received from Council’s Infrastructure Unit that a condition be included on any permit for a report for the legal point of discharge be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer. A condition has also been requested that the existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered. It is recommended that these be included as conditions should a permit be issued.


Waste

The submitted plans show that a waste storage area is to be provided on the ground floor. The location of the waste area is convenient and accessible to future residents. Waste is to be collected by municipal services. A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the application which was referred to Council’s Waste Management Coordinator. It was found that the plan responded well to the waste management challenges presented by the development except for the following issues:

The plans to depict a “Bin Store” area of approximately 3m x 3m as stated in the Waste Management Plan (WMP).

The necessity of a bin tug to be reviewed

Council’s Waste Management Coordinator has required a condition on any permit which specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan (similar to the plan that was submitted with the application) but modified with the above changes.

Environmental Sustainable Design

The application has been referred to Councils ESD Officer who has noted that a full assessment could not be done as further information is required on a number of issues. No fundamental issues have been identified by Council’s ESD officer and it was noted that the development has been designed so that all habitable rooms have access to daylight and that opportunities for north facing living have been maximised. It is recommended that a condition is included which requires an updated ESD report.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

Council has a seriously entertained draft policy (Clause 22.18) entitled Stormwater Management (Urban Design). The Policy requires a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response be submitted for any application that involves either the construction of a new building or the extension of an existing building which is 50m2 or greater in floor area.

The applicant has not provided any information in relation to The City of Stonnington Water Sensitive Urban Design Draft Policy and it is therefore recommended that should a permit be issued a condition be included requiring measures to be adopted to satisfactorily comply with Water Sensitive Urban Design requirements.

Objections

Grounds of objection have already been discussed in the body of the report.




CONCLUSION


The proposal is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme and in particular the strategic framework for the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre.

The building’s height and setbacks are consistent to other development and would fit comfortably with the evolving built form environment of the surrounding area and the strategic context of the site.

The proposed development does not have any potential amenity impact on adjacent property given the non sensitive interfaces of adjacent property.

Traffic generated by the development would not significantly impact upon existing traffic conditions in the area.

The parking provided is sufficient for the type of development in this activity centre location.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No 473/12 for the land located at 44 Bangs Street, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a mixed use development for dwellings and offices (permit not required) in the Commercial 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay and Special Building Overlay and associated reduction in car parking and bicycle spaces subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, 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 advertised plans Council date stamped 18 July 2012 and 26 September 2012 but modified to show:

a) A 39sqm office to Regent Street and enlarged office to Bangs Street as depicted on the “Plans for Consideration” referenced as plan no TP4.01 Revision B June 2013 Council date stamped 25 June 2013

b) The notation of a vehicle Crossover to Regent Street removed from the plans.

c) A “Bin Store” area of approximately 3m x 3m shown on the Ground Floor Plan as referenced in the Waste Management Plan (WMP)

d) Manufactures specifications of proposed car stacker, the location and spacing of columns, details of pedestrian doors within the parking area, gradients of parking floors, ramp grades and widths, headroom, sight distance at property boundaries and bicycle facilities such that they are generally in accordance with the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

e) Any changes required by conditions 5 and 7.

2. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the drawings and/or schedules endorsed to accompany the permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the application by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 21 September 2012 but updated as follows:

a) A review of the necessity of a bin tug

4. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Ventilation systems must be designed and installed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a) Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed

b) Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards

c) Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved

d) Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.

e) Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time.

f) The submission of information confirming compliance with the 6 star standard required by Building Commission Victoria

g) A response to Council’s draft policy on Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)h) Details of bicycle spaces and provision for an increase in the number of bicycle

spaces provided for the development and the provision of shower and locker space.

i) Shadow analysis of impact on adjacent property j) Details of roof treatment, location of panty and any proposed solar panels and

drainage information

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.

6. 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.


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


Melbourne Water Conditions

9. No polluted and or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses.

10. The proposed dwellings, including lobby, services and lift must be constructed with finished floor levels set a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

11. The ground floor car park and car stackers must be constructed with finished surface levels a minimum of 150mm above the applicable flood level.

12. Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwellings, a certified survey plans, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water’s requirements.

End Melbourne Water Conditions

13. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.

14. Prior to occupation, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking herby 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 to the satisfaction of the Reasonable Authority.

15. 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.

16. Vehicle access ramps must be fully contained within the title boundary.

17. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate access to the parking area).

18. 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.

19. All services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


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

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

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:

If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9679 7517 quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 209046

The applicable flood level for the property that has a probability of occurrence of 1% in any one year is 16.14 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD)

The owners and occupiers of the dwellings herby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”. 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.


1.5. PLANNING PERMIT 0441/09 - 12 CUNNINGHAM STREET SOUTH YARRA – AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PLANNING PERMIT TO REMOVE CONDITIONS RELATING TO A PROPOSED GARAGE/STUDIO ADDITION AND RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR THE RELOCATION AND REDESIGN OF THE REAR BALCONY SCREENING AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORT STRUCTURE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a Section 72 amendment application to a Planning Permit and Plans to allow for removal of the proposed garage/studio addition, plus retrospective approval for the relocation and redesign of the rear balcony screening and associated support structure.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Antony AleknaWard: NorthZone: Residential 1Overlay: Heritage Overlay No. 128Date lodged: 26/04/2013Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor call up

Number of objections: 4Consultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Amend Planning Permit and Plans

BACKGROUND

History of Planning Permit No.441/09

Planning application No.441/09 was lodged on 30th June, 2009 for the part demolition, alterations and additions to a dwelling on a lot less than 500m2 in a Heritage Overlay. The application was advertised in October, 2009 and two objections were received from the owner/occupiers at No.s 20 and 22 Oxford Street relating to:

Neighbourhood character Amenity Impacts Potential Future Development Impacts Potential Graffiti Impacts

A Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit was issued on 12th March 2010 under delegation. No appeals were lodged with the Tribunal and therefore Planning Permit No.441/09 was issued on 22nd April 2010. Plans were endorsed on 4th February 2011. The endorsed plans indicate the following screening measures:

Provision of a fixed screen to 1.7m above floor level attached to the first floor southern and eastern elevations of the first floor deck with no more than 25% transparency.

Provision of a fixed screen to 1.7m above floor level attached to the first floor north elevation with a maximum of 25% openings. This screen was to be constructed in “M1 – aluminium privacy screen louvres (charcoal)”. These northern screens project over the ground floor.


In August 2010, an amendment was lodged pursuant to Section 72 of the Act for the following:

Partially replace the existing garage with a double storey garage/studio addition. Construct the garage/studio addition to a maximum height of 6.15m above nominal

ground level. Modify the materials of the approved dwelling addition from timber and panel cladding

to off white render. Modify the material of the northern boundary fence to the secluded private open space

from panel cladding to off white render and aluminium frames Convert one north facing highlight window to two north facing highlight windows. Install a skylight and flue to the approved dwelling addition. Internal reconfiguration Install a new air conditioner on the existing dwelling

The amendment was advertised and two objections were received from the owner/occupiers at No’s 20 and 22 Oxford Street relating to:

Does not respect existing character Non compliance with ResCode Visual bulk Overlooking Inaccuracies on existing conditions plans Overdevelopment / Potential second dwelling Shed structure may be inadequate to support a second floor Location of air-conditioning plant Noise impacts Impact to existing street light on corner of Oxford Lane and subject site

A Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit was issued on 30th November 2011 under delegation subject to permit conditions 1j) and 1k). No appeals were lodged with the Tribunal.

Enforcement History

Concerns have been raised by objecting parties that the as built building does not comply with the plans in the following areas:

The building height of the approved development and whether or not it is generally in accordance with the endorsed plans;

The lack of permanent screening to the first floor north-facing habitable room windows; and The redesigned first floor balcony and support structure that has been constructed without

approval.

A site inspection revealed that a redesigned first floor balcony, pergola and screening in the first floor elevation has been constructed without planning approval. These works are the subject of this amendment application.

A second compliance issue relates to the lack of permanent screening for the first floor north elevation habitable room windows. Whilst temporary screening has been installed inside the windows, Council officers are currently in the process of requiring the owner to install the permanent screens in accordance with the endorsed plans.


A separate report is tabled at this meeting for Council to consider the compliance of the completed development approved under Planning Permit No.441/09. One of the compliance issues associated with the development is whether or not the building height is generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.

The Proposal

This amendment request was lodged on 26th April, 2013 for the following:

Firstly, it is proposed to delete Condition 1(j) i-xii on the NOD for the Amended Planning Permit No.441/09 that states:

1j) The existing garage to be demolished and replaced with a garage/studio addition generally in accordance with Drawing No.s TP01, TP02-B, TP03-3, TP03-C to TP06-C, TP07, TP08, TP09, TP10-B to TP12-B Council date stamped 5th August 2011 showing:

i. The existing levels on the subject site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

ii. The demolition and replacement of the entirety of the existing garage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

iii. A new wall on the southern boundary to a maximum height of 3.08m to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

iv. A new wall on the northern boundary to a maximum height of 5.95m to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

v. A new wall on the eastern boundary to a maximum height of 5.95m to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

vi. A reduction in the overall height of the proposed garage/studio to a maximum height of 5.95m above nominal ground level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

vii. The proposed first floor deck reduced in area to align with the first floor west facing walls of the studio to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

viii. A solid screen on the northern elevation of the first floor deck fixed to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

ix. The proposed air-conditioning plant (if any) to be located on the southern elevation of the first floor studio.

x. All new walls to the proposed garage/studio to be sited within the Title Boundary.

xi. The proposed first floor deck to the studio to be fixed and screened in accordance with Standard A15 or a sight line diagram showing that there is no overlooking into No.10 Cunningham Street or No.20 Oxford Street from the first floor deck, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

xii. Show the location of all proposed windows on the proposed floor plans to match the proposed elevation plans.

Secondly, the application seeks retrospective approval for the relocation and redesign of the rear balcony screening and associated support structure as described in Project No. A0088-1, Plan TP04-C& TP06-B Council date stamped 26th April, 2013 that proposes:

Construction of a pergola structure extending the length of the deck from the first floor east elevation to support the balustrade/screening of the deck. The structure includes four support vertical posts and four overhead angled support posts.

Provision of fixed 1700mm high screens on the north, east and south elevation of the first floor deck/balcony. The screens include horizontal battens with no more than 25% openings.


Site and Surrounds:

The subject site is located at 12 Cunningham Street, South Yarra, on the eastern side of the road reserve, approximately 41 metres south of the Oxford Street / Cunningham Street T-intersection. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is rectangular, measuring a frontage of 6.81 metres, a depth of 42.67 metres, and a site area of 290.61 square metres.

The site contains a single storey B graded dwelling with a two storey contemporary extension at the rear;

Oxford Lane abuts the site to the east, providing vehicle access and the north boundary abuts a right of way;

North of the laneway is the rear of properties at No.s 18, 20 & 22 Oxford Street.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 5587 Folio 265 on Title Plan 24891N and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

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.

Note: Only the changes to the approved proposal are considered as part of this application for amendment.


Residential 1 ZoneClause: 32.01

Pursuant to Clause 32.01-1, a planning permit is required for the construction of a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres. Furthermore, the Clause states that a development must meet the requirements of Clause 54.

Heritage Overlay HO128Clause:43.01

The site is affected by Heritage Overlay HO128 – Cunningham Street Urban Conservation Area. A permit is required to partially demolish a building and to construct a building or carry out works. Decision Guidelines area at Clause 43.01-5.

Particular ProvisionsClause 54 - One dwelling on a lot

A standard contains the requirements to meet the objective. A development must meet all of the objectives of this clause and should meet all of the standards of this clause.


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. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and objections from 4 different properties have been received. The objections can be summarised as follows:

Pergola o Design compounds the visual bulk of the additiono The vertical posts and overhead beams create an additional obstruction of what is left

of views of the southern sky.o Structure looks poorly designed with cracking treated pine and no support braces for

the vertical postso Retrospective approval should not be approvedo Pergola is not a support structure for the balcony

Screening o Use of horizontal slat screening does not satisfy the requirement to avoid direct views

into private open space areas of No. 20 Oxford Street.o Use of horizontal slats do not fit in with the neighbourhood and was not agreed by all

partieso Screens fail standard A15 of Res Code as there is greater potential to view between

the slats into adjoining properties than previously approved louvreso Screens increase visual bulk as louvred screens have a softer appearanceo Screens do not comply with endorsed plans or Building Codeo Loss of privacy o Overlookingo Appearance

Balcony does not include stainless steel wire balustrade

Structural concerns with construction of pergola and the mounting plates overhanging the rear of the building 20 - 30mm

Conditions o Conditions should not be removed in relation to building heights, screening and air-

conditioning plant.

Concern development will limit future applications in area

Non complianceo Building height o Screens to north facing windowso Deck and pergola o Planning and Building Standards


KEY ISSUES

The assessment is limited to the decision guidelines at Clauses 32.01-3, 43.01- 4, 54, and 65 of the Scheme. This assessment is confined to the issues relating to the relocation and redesign of the rear balcony and screening, and removal of the conditions relating to an approved garage/studio addition at the rear of the property.

Heritage Overlay No.128 - Building and Works

The Heritage Guidelines highlight the importance of maintaining the character of the streetscape and ensuring the proposal will not adversely affect the heritage significance of the precinct through such factors as location, bulk, form and appearance of new works. The relocation and redesign of the rear balcony involves introducing a pergola like structure above the approved deck, locating the screening directly above the deck on the northern elevation (previously it projected beyond the balcony) and modifying the material of the screening from aluminium louvres to horizontal timber battens. These changes will not affect the significance of the heritage place given that the works are located to the rear of the dwelling and setback over 36 metres from Cunningham Street. It is also noted that the subject site is located on the edge of the Heritage Overlay Area and that part of the laneway running parallel to the rear half of the subject site is not included in the Heritage Overlay Area. As such, views from the Heritage Overlay Area are limited. Given this, it is considered that the proposal meets the purpose of the Heritage Overlay.

The second part of the assessment is based on how the proposal meets the relevant objectives and standards of Clause 54.

Clause 54.04-5 - Overlooking

The objective of Standard A15 is to limit not prohibit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows.

The current endorsed plans indicate:

The southern and eastern sides of the first floor rear deck are to have fixed screens to 1.7 metres above floor level and no more than 25% transparent. The materiality of these screens has not been identified.

The northern elevation of the first floor rear deck is to have fixed screens to 1.7 metres above floor level and no more than 25% transparent, and they are to be constructed of “aluminium privacy screen louvers (charcoal)”.

This amendment application seeks to modify the above screening. The submitted plans indicate the provision of horizontal timber batten screening on the north, south and east elevations of the deck with a notation stating no more than 25% transparency.

The critical factor in assessing the suitability of the amended balcony design is whether the proposal will achieve the required level of screening in accordance with Standard A15 of Res Code.


Standard A15 requires that:

A deck “with a direct view into a habitable room window of existing dwelling within a horizontal distance of 9 metres (measured at ground level) of the window, balcony, terrace, deck or patio should be either:

Offset a minimum of 1.5 metres from the edge of one window to the edge of the other,or

Have sill heights of at least 1.7 metres above floor level, or Have obscure glazing in any part of the window below 1.7 metres above floor level, or Have permanently fixed external screens to at least 1.7 metres above floor level and be

no more than 25 per cent transparent.”

Screens used to obscure a view should be:

Perforated panels or trellis with a maximum of 25 per cent openings or solid translucent panels.

Permanent, fixed and durable. Designed and coloured to blend in with the development

The submitted plans propose the use of horizontal timber batten screens on the north, south and east elevation of the balcony. The screens are not angled to prevent downward views. However, the screens are shown to be fixed to 1.7 metres above floor level and no more than 25% transparent, which complies with the requirements listed above.

The objectors consider the use of horizontal timber battens is unsatisfactory as it will allow a greater angle of view between the slats than the previously approved aluminium privacy screen louvers. It is considered that the horizontal timber battens affixed to the side of the balcony satisfies the requirements of Standard A15. It is not considered that the timber battens need to be angled to satisfy the overlooking requirement as the wording of the standard does not state that it has to be angled screening to achieve the 25% transparency requirement.

It is considered that the horizontal timber battens are in compliance with the above provisions of Standard A15 as they are permanent, fixed and durable, have a maximum of 25% openings, and are designed to blend in with the contemporary design of the addition.

Notwithstanding the above, it is relevant to note that Condition No. 1 (f) vii states:

The first floor bedroom/retreat and deck to be screened in accordance with Standard A15 so that there is no overlooking into the habitable room windows or private open space of the adjoining properties within 9 metres.

This condition is to be retained as part of Planning Permit No.441/09. There are two main parts to the above condition. As noted earlier the provision of horizontal timber batten screening on the north, south and east sides of the deck as described on the plans is considered to comply with Standard A15, which meets the first part of the condition. The second part of the condition requires screening to be in accordance with Standard A15 so that there is no overlooking of the adjoining properties within 9 metres. It is noted that the purpose of this condition was to limit unreasonable views into the secluded private open space of neighbouring properties within 9 metres.


The objectors consider that the horizontal timber batten screening as constructed will afford views between the spacing of the battens into their properties within a 9 metre radius. Given the objections received from the residents to the north and the wording of the condition ‘as read’, it is considered that the north elevation of the deck should continue to be screened with ‘M1 – aluminium privacy screen louvers’ as per the originally endorsed plans. To be specific, the louvers are to be fixed to 1.7 metres above floor level, no more than 25% transparent and angled to prevent downward views. The appearance of the screening is to continue to be consistent with the screening approved to the north elevation windows. It is considered appropriate to allow the redesign of the screening so that it no longer projects beyond the deck.

The screening to the south and east sides of the deck as described on the plans is considered to meet the intent of the condition. It has not been confirmed on site if the screens as constructed are fixed to 1700mm high above finished floor level and no more than 25% transparent. Part B of this recommendation will ensure that the works as constructed comply with these requirements.

Removal of Condition No. 1(j)

The deletion of conditions relating to the approved garage/studio addition at the rear of the property can be supported. These works are no longer being pursued by the applicant.

The previous Officer report included analysis of the additions against the provisions of Clause 54 that resulted in the recommendation of a number of conditions to maintain privacy and amenity to abutting properties.

Condition No.1 (j) required amended plans to be submitted to ensure the works were in accordance with concept plans received on 5th August, 2011, were within the title boundary, and screening was provided to prevent overlooking.

Given these works are no longer being pursued, it considered reasonable to delete this condition from any amended permit.

The objectors are concerned that condition No. 1(j) should be retained on the permit as it relates to the existing levels on the subject site. However, Condition No.1 (j) specifically relates to the construction of the replacement garage and the associated plans submitted on the 5th August 2011. This condition does not translate to the entire development.

Outstanding Issues

North Elevation Screening for the Dwelling

The endorsed plans indicate the north elevation includes “M1 – aluminium privacy screen louvres (charcoal)” to the first floor north elevation windows. It would appear that the word ‘louvres’ has been omitted from the advertised plans as submitted by the applicant for the current proposal.

This amendment is not part of the formal written request for amendments to the endorsed plans currently under consideration. This change is not being considered or supported. Therefore, the applicant will need to correct the plans to match the original endorsed plans requiring “M1 – aluminium privacy screen louvres (charcoal)” to the first floor north elevation windows.


Finishes

The previous amendment included the following modifications to the approved dwelling addition in accordance with condition 1(k) of the planning permit.

Modify the materials of the approved dwelling addition from timber and panel cladding to off white render.

Modify the material of the northern boundary fence to the secluded private open space from panel cladding to off white render and aluminium frames

Convert one north facing highlight window to two north facing highlight windows. Install a skylight and flue to the approved dwelling addition. Internal reconfiguration Install a new air conditioner on the existing dwelling

The endorsed plans have not been updated to comply with Condition No.1(k).

It has been identified during the advertising of this amendment application, that the dwelling has been completed with the modified materials listed above. However, the endorsed plans and the subsequently advertised plans continue to show the first floor to be constructed with timber panelling. Any plan to be endorsed as part of the approval of this current amendment application must be corrected so as to also comply with condition 1(k).

Objections


Pergola – Visual Bulk – It is not considered that inclusion of pergola over the first floor balcony with screening will significantly increase the bulk and scale of the dwelling at the rear of the site given the originally endorsed plans also included privacy screens that would have had some impact in the building form at the rear of the dwelling. In addition, it was deemed appropriate to support a two storey garage/studio addition at the rear. Given that the garage/studio addition is no longer being pursued, the resultant change to visual bulk is acceptable.

Views - Whilst it is recognised that views may form part of residential amenity, there is no specific controls within the Stonnington Planning Scheme that protects residents’ rights to a view. It is not considered that the extent of views lost by the construction of the four posts of the pergola and screening would warrant refusal of this request for amendment.

Structural Integrity of Pergola – The construction of the decking/pergola must comply with the relevant Building regulations.

Building height – Refer to the associated item discussing the issue elsewhere in this agenda.




CONCLUSION


The bulk, scale and siting of the deck and pergola structure is acceptable. The amendment to the balcony screening complies with the requirements of Standard A15 of

the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The deletion of Condition No.1 (j) is no longer required as the construction of the garage/studio

addition is not being pursued. The north elevation of the deck to be provided with ‘M1 – aluminium privacy screen louvers’.

RECOMMENDATION

A. That a Notice of Decision to Amend Planning Permit No: 0441/09 for the land located at 12 Cunningham Street, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme to remove conditions for the Planning Permit and plans relating to the proposed garage/studio addition, plus retrospective approval for the relocation and redesign of the rear balcony screening and associated support structure subject to the following:

1. Delete Condition 1 (j) i to xii

2. Amend the plans generally in accordance with plans as described in Project No. A0088-1, Plan TP04-C& TP06-B Council date stamped 26th April 2013, showing:

Construction of a pergola structure extending from the first floor east elevation to support the balustrade/screening of the deck. The structure includes four support vertical posts and four overhead angled support posts.

Provision of fixed 1700mm high screens that include horizontal battens with no more than 25% openings on the east and south elevation of the deck/balcony.

Provision of ‘M1 - Aluminium Privacy Screens – Charcoal’ to the north elevation of the deck/balcony that are fixed to 1700mm high above finished floor level, no more than 25 transparent and angled to prevent downward views.

Correction of anomalies on the plans:

The screening to the north elevation habitable room windows to match the existing endorsed plans (M1 - Aluminium Privacy Screens – Charcoal).

The plans and elevations for the dwelling to comply with condition 1(k) as appropriate.

B. That the amended plans in reflection of Part A of the Resolution be submitted to Council within 28 days of this decision and that the works required to comply with the endorsed plans be undertaken within 90 days of the endorsed plans being issued.


1.6. PLANNING PERMIT 441/09 – 12 CUNNINGHAM STREET SOUTH YARRA – REVIEW OF COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT


PURPOSE

For Council to consider the compliance of a completed development approved under Planning Permit 441/09 at 12 Cunningham Street, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Ward: EastZone: Residential 1Overlay: Heritage Overlay 128Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor call up

Officer Recommendation: That the report be noted

BACKGROUND

Application historyThis site and its recent development has been the subject of ongoing planning compliance questions. This report outlines the planning history associated with the development of the site, the planning compliance questions and the Officer assessment of these issues.

Planning application 441/09 was lodged on 30 June 2009 for part demolition, alterations and additions to a dwelling on a lot less than 500sqm in a Heritage Overlay. The works consisted of a two storey extension to the rear of the existing dwelling. The extension consisted of an open plan kitchen/dining/living area at ground floor and 3 bedrooms at first floor.

The application was advertised in October 2009 and Council received two objections. The objections were from 10 Cunningham Street and 20 Oxford Street. The objections raised concerns with neighbourhood character, amenity impacts, future development impacts and graffiti concerns.

Following assessment of the application, a Notice of Decision was issued on 12 March 2010 under delegation. No appeals were lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and consequently, Planning Permit 441/09 was issued on 22 April 2010.

The Planning Permit contained a number of conditions requiring further detail of parts of the existing dwelling to be demolished, changes to the floor plans to reflect revisions that were sent to Council during the assessment process and screening measures to ensure no unreasonable overlooking.

Plans were endorsed to form part of the Permit on 4 February 2011.

The applicant lodged an amendment application pursuant to Section 72 of the Act in conjunction with the plans submitted for endorsement. This amendment sought permission to construct a double storey garage/studio at the rear of the site, amend the finishes of the dwelling extension and undertake minor internal works.


The amendment application was advertised in December 2010 and Council received two objections similar to those raised to the original application.

A Notice of Decision to Amend a Permit was issued on 30 November 2011 under delegation. No appeals were lodged with VCAT.

A further amendment to the permit was lodged on 26 April 2013 for retrospective approval for a first floor balcony/pergola structure at the rear of the dwelling. This application is currently being assessed by Council officers and will be presented to Council at its meeting on 16 September 2013.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Cunningham Street, South Yarra, approximately 140m south of Toorak Road and 110m east of Chapel Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is rectangular with a frontage width of 6.81 m, a depth of 42.67m and a site area of 290sqm.

Oxford Lane abuts the site to the east and an unnamed lane abuts the site to the north. The site contains a single storey B-graded dwelling with a two storey contemporary extension

at the rear. North of the laneway at 22 Oxford Street is the property owned and occupied by the residents

who have concerns towards possible non-compliance of the approved development.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 5587 Folio 265 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 24891N. No covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

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

ZoneClause 32.01 – Residential1 ZonePursuant to Clause 32.01-1 a planning permit was required to construct or extend a dwelling on a lot less than 500sqm.

Over/ay(s)Clause 43.01 – Heritage OverlayPursuant to Clause 43.01-3 a planning permit was required to partially demolish a building and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular ProvisionsClause 54 – One dwelling on a lotA development must meet the Objectives of this Clause.


KEY ISSUES

There are three key compliance issues associated with this development:

The building height of the approved development and whether or not it is generally in accordance with the endorsed plans;

The lack of permanent screening to the first floor north-facing habitable room windows; and The redesigned first floor balcony and support structure that has been constructed without

approval.

Building Height

The extension was approved at a maximum building height of 7m as noted in the Delegate’s report of 11 March 2010.

In late 2011, the owner/occupier of 22 Oxford Street initially raised concerns with Council Enforcement Officers that the constructed development height was taller than what was shown on the endorsed plans. The complainant believed that the approved development height was 6.6m. However, the officer report and endorsed plans indicated the approved development height was to be 7m, not 6.6m as alleged by the complainant.

Council’s Enforcement Officer reviewed the height of the constructed development and confirmed it was built at 7m and therefore in accordance with the endorsed plans. Despite this, the complainant has maintained that the development was not compliant with the plans. Council officers reiterated previous advice that the development had been built in accordance with the endorsed plans.

In April 2012, the complainant reiterated his concerns in relation to the building height. Council Officers provided a further response in May 2012 to the same effect as previously.

In August 2012, Council Officers remeasured the development and advised the complainant that it appeared the development might not comply with the endorsed plans. The permit holder was then advised to either; undertake additional survey quality information to show compliance with the endorsed plans, modify the building to bring it into compliance with the endorsed plans or lodge an amendment for Council to consider the building as built.

No response was received from the permit holder and no amendments to the plans were requested by the permit holder. Following this, Council engaged Reeds Consulting in November 2012 to undertake surveys of the building to assess its compliance with the endorsed drawings, specifically in regard to the building height concerns.

The matter is further clouded by the poor quality of the plans. There are no NGL, AHD or RL points to use as reference points as the endorsed plans contain internal floor to ceiling levels. Given the poor quality of the plans, Reeds Consulting determined the building heights by measuring the internal floor to ceiling levels. In their correspondence to Council they advised that "NGL can be a hard level to determine, particularly after a development has taken place .... Therefore, without a known relationship to NGL prior to the development taking place, we believe any current comparison of the building to the current NGL is a flawed comparison."

The advice from Reeds Consulting indicated that there are minor discrepancies in the height of the as built development when compared to the endorsed plans. On the north elevation, the ground floor parapet is 2cm higher than the design and the first storey parapet has been built 7cm higher than the design shown on the endorsed plans.


The complainant questioned this advice and how the measurements were undertaken. In January 2013, Reeds provided further advice at the request of Council. This reiterated their initial advice and further noted that their measurements were undertaken by establishing a Temporary Bench Mark (TBM) and measuring the internal floor levels connected to these TBMs. They provided the following table comparing the heights of the as built extension (from the internal ground floor level to the ground and first floor parapets) in comparison to the endorsed plans:

Endorsed Plans SurveyGround Storey 3.40m 3.42mFirst Storey 6.60m 6.67m

As can be seen from the table, the height difference between the endorsed plans and the survey commissioned by Council is negligible.

These discrepancies were considered to be minor and deemed to be “generally in accordance” with the endorsed plans based on the surveyors advice. Council again notified the complainant that it considered that the building had been constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans and that no further action would be pursued by Council. Advice was also provided that the matter could be further pursued at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal via the review provisions of Section 149A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 should the complainant disagree with Council’s assessment.

As noted in the Delegate’s report for the original application, the building height was approved at 7m. The 6.6m measurement is in actual fact, the measurement of the internal floor level of the ground to the parapet level, not an external measurement of the building height. The building surveyor for the project confirmed this in a letter to the Building Commission dated 7 March 2012.

In April 2013 the complainant disagreed with Council’s advice and advised he would undertake an independent survey of the building. The survey commissioned by the complainant produces significantly different levels to those provided to Council by Reeds Consulting.

The survey information provided by the complainant appears to incorrectly assume that the dark line on the endorsed elevation is natural ground level and compares the levels of the lane to internal floor levels for the development. Furthermore, there is no information other than a hand drawn sketch and spot levels, so it is impossible to determine whether the base of the complainant’s elevation is the laneway, the bluestone kerb sitting above the laneway or the altered ground levels inside the property at 12 Cunningham Street. It is for this reason that Reeds Consulting advised a more accurate comparison must be undertaken from the internal floor levels as that is the only information provided on the endorsed plans.

It is considered that the building height of the extension is generally in accordance with the endorsed plans for Planning Permit 441/09 and that no further action should be pursued on this matter.

Screening

Having regard to the screening non-compliance, the owner has placed temporary screens within the first floor elevation windows. These screens have been in place well after occupation of the development. Council Enforcement Officers are in the process of ensuring the owner of 12 Cunningham erects permanent screens as shown on the endorsed plan should the landowner fail to positively respond to the compliance request.


Additional works without permission

It is further noted that the owner has constructed a first floor balcony and associated structure that was not shown on the endorsed plans.

The landowner has applied for an amendment to the approved plans under Planning Permit 441/09 seeking retrospective approval to allow for the redesign of the rear first floor balcony/pergola screening and retention of the associated support structure. It also proposed to remove conditions related to a proposed garage/studio addition that is no longer being pursued. In essence, the proposal seeks to allow the retention of the screening and support structure on the balcony as constructed.

This amendment application is the subject of a separate report on this agenda and will be considered by Council at its meeting of Monday 16 September 2013.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the compliance issues, it is recommended that the following occur:

No further action be pursued in relation to the building height as it is considered that the extension has been built generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.

Council Officers pursue the non-compliance in relation to the screening. Council assesses the amendment application for the illegal structure at the rear first floor.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note this report for Planning Permit 441/09 at 12 Cunningham Street, South Yarra and that:

1. No further action be pursued in relation to the building height as it is considered that the extension has been built generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.

2. Council Officers pursue the non-compliance in relation to the screening.3. Council assesses the amendment application for the illegal structure at the rear first

floor.


1.7. PLANNING APPLICATION 0056/76 - 489 - 505 TOORAK ROAD TOORAK - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR A WASTE BIN STORAGE STRUCTURE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for a Section 72 amendment application to a Planning Permit and plans to allow for the provision of a waste bin storage structure at 489 – 505 Toorak Road, Toorak.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Lester TrickeyWard: NorthZone: Business 1Overlay: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 9 Date lodged: 19/04/2013Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

122


Councillor Call Up

Number of objections: 1Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by the applicant and are known as File No. 56/76, Drawing No’s: Sheet 1 of 1 Council date stamped 19th April 2013 and photos.


Retrospective amendment to the plans to allow for the provision of a waste bin storage structure on a landscaped median strip within the car park at the rear of the property.

The structure is metal, with corrugated roofing and part corrugated screening on the northern facade. It has the capacity to house approximately 18 x 240L bins.

The application does not propose changes to the conditions.

Should the amendment application be approved, it is considered that the permit will need to be amended to modify condition 3 and 7 which currently state:

Condition 3: “The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and so delineated on the endorsed plan shall be made available for such use and shall not be used for any other purpose and at all times in conformity with such plan there shall be clearly indicated on the ground the boundaries of all such car spaces and access lanes and direction in which vehicles should proceed along the access lanes.”


Condition 7: “Garden Areas shown on the endorsed plan shall be landscaped and maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.”

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the northern side of the road reserve, approximately 95 metres west of Grange Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is zoned Commercial 1 and is affected by a Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 9)

The site has two access points, from Toorak Road (front) and from Jackson Street (rear). The land is irregular in shape with a total area of approximately 2593sqm, including a

frontage of 38.57m to Toorak Road and a frontage of 27.64m to Jackson Street. The site is located in the Toorak Village Commercial Precinct. The land is currently used as a mixed use development in line with Planning Permit No.56/76. The land is developed with a two storey building, comprising two parallel shopping arcades

known as ‘The Village Way’ and ‘The Village Walk’. A large car park is located to the north (rear) of the building, accessed from Jackson Street. With specific regard to this proposal, the new bin store area is proposed on a median strip

between two car parking aisles, near the eastern boundary of the car parking (northern) section of the site.

Surrounding land includes:

Adjoining to the southwest and southeast the land is zoned Commercial 1. These sites comprise shops and offices fronting Toorak Road.

Adjoining to the northwest at 22 Jackson Street, the land is zoned Public Use Zone 6 and the site is developed with a Council owned public car park.

To the north, on the other side of Jackson Street, the land is zoned Residential 1. Immediately to the north at 19 – 21 Jackson Street, the site is developed with an education centre.

To the northeast at 28-30 Jackson Street, the land is zoned Commercial 1 and the site is developed with a seven storey residential building (retirement living) and public car park. At ground level, the interface with the proposed bin store area is that of a pedestrian access ramp which is located adjacent a vehicle ramp. At first floor level, the interface with the proposed bin store area is that of two open terraces which abut the title boundary and serve as open space for Apartments 1.04 and 1.05 respectively.



Planning Permit No. 56/76, which is the permit that is the subject of this amendment application, was issued on 17th June 1976 for buildings and works for the purposes of shops, offices and associated car parking.

Planning Permit No.558/02 was issued by VCAT on 3rd March 2004 for the subdivision of the land. In total 46 principle lots and 41 associated car parking lots were created.

Planning Permit No.734/05 was issued VCAT on 26th June 2004 for the subdivision of the land. The application was refused by Council as it was deemed to contravene the permits listed above. VCAT set aside Council’s decision and approved the application.Planning Permit 734/05 allowing the subdivision of the site and requires the car parking spaces to be open to the general public during the following minimum hours:

i. Monday to Wednesday 7.00am to 8.00pm


ii. Thursday 7.00am to 10.00pmiii. Friday 7.00am to 2.00am the following day.iv. Saturday 8.00am to 2.00am the following day; andv. Sunday 8.00am to 8.00pm.

Planning Permit No.509/12 was issued under delegation for buildings and works to a mixed use development to allow for a lift at the rear of the building and the relocation of two car spaces.

The Title

The site is currently contained in Title Volume 11006 Folio 210 known as the land in plan of consolidation 105501. The application specifically affects the area titled common property No.2.

No covenants or easements affect the proposal.

Planning Controls


Commercial 1 ZoneClause 34.01

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Overlay(s)

Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 9)Clause 43.02

Pursuant to Clause 43.02 and the schedule a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.


Clause 34.01 Commercial 1 ZoneClause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 9

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. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and one objection has been received. This can be summarised as follows:

Failure to follow comply with Council's Rules and Regulations (unauthorised, illegal addition) Failure to notify residents prior to construction Structure does not meet Council's requirement Visual amenity impact - Unit overlooks the Car Park and Bins


Referrals

Waste

Council’s Waste Coordinator has advised that the application can be supported for several reasons: This application attempts to bring the development into conformance with the City of

Stonnington Local Law 2008 (No.1) Clause 900 (2) which states:

“The owner of commercial and residential land on which there are more than one premises must:

a) Construct on the land an area for the storage of waste receptacles; andb) Ensure that the area constructed is screened from view and maintained in a clean and

sanitary condition.”

Seemingly no consideration had been made for the storage of waste receptacles when this development was originally devised, approved or built.

It is understood that once this oversight was realised (in the 1970’s), Council provided – and still provides today – waste receptacles in the adjoining Council owned public car park for tenants of the subject development to dispose of their wastes. In providing a storage area for waste bins on their own land Council can permanently remove the waste receptacles from the adjoining public car park. Participating traders will then have Council provided waste services at a level equitable with all other traders within the municipality.

Council’s Waste Coordinator has also advised that any approval should be conditional on the submission and approval of a successful Waste Management Plan (WMP), including specifically:

how the bin population will be managed within the store; directions on how traders will correctly disposed of their wastes; how bins will be collected – including the frequency of, and how they will be presented for,

collection; the protocol and frequency of housekeeping, including litter collection and the removal of

illicitly dumped wastes; and, how the amenity of the local vicinity will be maintained.

The Waste Management Plan will also include explicit instruction that ensures continual compliance with the Stonnington Local Law.


Council’s Senior Transport Engineer had the following concerns with the proposal:

If the car park was fully occupied, it would be difficult or impossible to move the bins. Typically where access is provided from within a parking bay, it is generally only appropriate if

the area accessed is allocated to the same user as the affected parking bay. It is understood this is not the case in the presented example, and as such would generally be deemed unsatisfactory.

Council’s Transport Engineer has also advised that there is potential for the bin store to be struck by overhanging vehicles. It was noted that there are wheel stops and the bin store is set back from the kerb, so this is likely only a concern for large vehicles, possibly with tow bars or bullbars.


If the proposed bin store area had been included in this location in a new development, Transport and Parking would raise a concern regarding the access to the storage area.

Council’s Senior Transport Engineer has advised that the bin store should be removed from this location if possible. It was further noted that the removal of car parking bays to provide access to the bin store area will not be supported under any circumstances.

Arborist

Council’s Arborist has advised that the location of the bin storage area will not have any detrimental effect on the health of the two mature Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane) trees located within the median strip.

Health

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that approximately one year ago a health inspection determined that all food shops in this shopping complex must be provided with an individual cleaners’ sink or a bin wash area, or alternatively a communal bin wash area must be provided. Following discussions with the landlord, Council’s Environmental Health Officer advised that a communal bin wash area should be provided in a suitable area, usually at the rear of the site with convenient access away from the public. This area could be internal such as in a toilet block or near a stairwell provided it is closed off from public access.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that the current location was never recommended or endorsed by Council’s Health Department. The current location is not considered appropriate because of the potential negative impacts to the public, including from the smell or appearance of any rubbish. In addition, the public access to this location often results in the dumping of rubbish in this location and other behaviour such as people urinating in this area, which would adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Following a complaint from surrounding residents, Local Laws commenced enforcement proceedings on this matter.

KEY ISSUES

This application seeks retrospective approval for a waste bin storage structure that was recently erected on one of the landscaped median strips at the rear of the property. The structure was built predominantly to provide weather protection as well as in part screening to a number of bins that are now stored on the landscaped median strip. The landscaped median strip contains two mature trees and is bordered by car spaces either side. The bins are accessed through the car spaces, via ramps that have been located in three areas affecting five car spaces.

Following a complaint from surrounding residents relating to the sight and smell of waste, Council’s Local Laws Department commenced enforcement proceedings on this matter. It was determined that planning approval was required for the structure and that a Planning Permit Amendment was required to Planning Permit No.56/76.

Planning Permit No.56/76 was issued on 17th June 1976 for the land at 489-505 Toorak Road, Toorak, to allow for buildings and works for the purpose of Shops, Offices and Associated Car Parking. Notably, the endorsed plans do not show the location of waste storage areas and there are no conditions relating to waste management or collection. The applicant has advised that the waste storage area was previously located next to the stairs west of the site, however they have been relocated due to fire safety regulations and due to Council’s request for a bin wash down area.


As noted in the referrals section earlier, Council’s Environmental Health Officer undertook a health inspection at the premises last year and determined that all food shops in this shopping complex must be provided with either: an individual cleaners’ sink or a bin wash area, or alternatively a communal bin wash area. It was also advised that these types of food premises were always required to be provided with some form of a wash down facility, but for an unknown reason none were installed in the development. The current location of the waste bin storage structure was never recommended or endorsed by Council’s Health Department.

The current location of the waste bin storage structure is considered to contravene conditions 3 and 7 of Planning Permit No.56/76 which currently states:

Condition 7: “Garden Areas shown on the endorsed plan shall be landscaped and maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.”

Condition 3: “The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and so delineated on the endorsed plan shall be made available for such use and shall not be used for any other purpose and at all times in conformity with such plan there shall be clearly indicated on the ground the boundaries of all such car spaces and access lanes and direction in which vehicles should proceed along the access lanes.”

The applicant has advised that the bins are used for recycled waste only and no food waste. In addition, the applicant has advised that the bins are taken out to the Toorak Road frontage every Wednesday evening by the tenants of the shops after clearway times have commenced so that Council trucks can collect the rubbish from that frontage and the bins are then stored back in their location the next morning at times when the car spaces are usually vacant.

Notably, the built form of the structure is not of concern. Although, there are a number of balconies and habitable room windows overlooking the waste area from the residential building at 28 – 30 Jackson Street, the structure will appear alongside a high wall on the eastern boundary of the subject site, which is to the seven storey residential building.

It is the associated waste storage and collection that is concerning. It cannot be guaranteed that the associated use will not result in detrimental amenity impacts to the neighbourhood or to the operation of the car park. Although the rubbish bins themselves do have locks on them, the waste area remains open to the public and the bins must be manoeuvred between vehicles. In considering the request for retrospective approval for the location of the waste bin storage structure, the Stonnington Planning Scheme advises that Council must have regard to the decision guidelines at Clause 34.01-8 (Commercial 1 Zone) as appropriate:

- The movement of pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicles providing for supplies, waste removal, emergency services and public transport.

- The provision of car parking.- The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access

from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and the landscaping of land adjoining a road.

- The storage of rubbish and materials for recycling.- Defining the responsibility for the maintenance of buildings, landscaping and paved areas.

Council’s Waste Management Coordinator has no concerns with the proposal, subject to the submission and approval of a successful Waste Management Plan (WMP). This could enable Council to remove waste receptacles in the adjoining Council owned public car park.


Council’s Arborist has raised no concerns with the proposal. It is not expected that the structure will negatively impact on the two mature trees located in the landscaped median strip, however there will be a loss of greenery to this area.

Council’s Health Officer is not supportive of the proposal. Council’s Health Officer considers that the location is inappropriate because it is located at a considerable distance from the food premises in the development and the waste area is open to the public which is likely to attract the dumping of rubbish and other inappropriate behaviour.

Council’s Transport and Parking Officer is generally not supportive of the proposal. Council’s Transport and Parking Officer is concerned with the impact of the proposal on operation of the car park.Having regard to the decision guidelines listed earlier, it is considered that the proposed waste bin storage structure is unacceptable and will unreasonably impact on the amenity of the area for the following reasons:

The design and location of the bin storage structure may unreasonably impact on the amenity of the area due to the associated sight and smell of waste.

The location of the bin storage structure will result in the loss of landscaped areas. The location of the bin storage structure impacts on the area set aside for parking, due to the

potential for larger vehicles striking the structure. The location of the bin storage structure requires bins to be manoeuvred through car spaces,

which has the potential to scrape cars parked in the parking bays. The design of the bin storage structure allowing the waste area to be accessible to the public

has the potential to attract unsightly dumping of rubbish and other undesirable behaviour.

On balance, the waste storage area and management is inadequate and unresolved. Given the above, it is considered that the location of the waste bin storage structure cannot be supported in the current form.

It is recommended that the bins are relocated to a dedicated area for waste collection and storage closer to the existing building on site and in a structure that ensures the bins are not accessible to the public. The applicant has advised in writing that they are not willing to reconsider the location of the storage structure because it would necessitate the loss of car spaces.

The difficulties the applicant would face in proposing a reduction of car spaces at this site is acknowledged. It is noted that Council’s Senior Transport Engineer has advised that the Parking and Transport Department would not support the removal of any car spaces under any circumstances. However, the current location for the waste storage area should only be considered a temporary solution.

The current location of the waste storage area will result in detrimental impacts to the amenity of the neighbourhood and the operation of the car park in the long term. Furthermore, Councils Waste Management Coordinator intends to also remove the waste receptacles currently provided for this development from the adjoining Council car park. This is likely to substantially increase the amount of waste to be stored in this location, possibly including food waste. Since the applicant is not willing to reconsider the proposal at this stage or provide a waste management plan, it is recommended to refuse the application in the current form.




CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be refused.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Refusal to Grant an Section 72 Amendment to Planning Permit No:56/76 for the land located at 489 to 505 Toorak Road, Toorak be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for retrospective approval for a waste bin storage structure on the following grounds:1. The location of the waste bin storage structure contravenes conditions 3 and 7 of

Planning Permit No. 56/76.2. The location of the waste bin storage structure will be detrimental to the amenity of the

area.3. The location of the waste bin storage structure impacts on the area set aside for

parking.


1.8. PLANNING PERMIT 313/12 – 5/529 CHAPEL STREET SOUTH YARRA – REVIEW OF COMPLETED ADVERTISING SIGN


PURPOSE

For Council to note resident concerns in relation to an approved advertising sign at 5/529 Chapel Street, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Ward: NorthZone: Public Use ZoneOverlay: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor call up

Officer Recommendation: That the report be noted

BACKGROUND

This site and its recently constructed electronic major promotion sign has been the subject of recent concerns from residents in Palermo Street. This report outlines the planning history associated with the approval of the sign, the concerns from residents and the Officer assessment of these issues.

Application history

Planning application 313/12 was lodged on 22 May 2012 for the construction and display of an electronic high wall major promotion sign in a Public Use Zone and Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7. The sign consisted of an LED electronic sign measuring 5.12m2 with an area of 26.2sqm. The sign would display moving interchangeable images of general advertising material, promotional content for VicLand projects and community announcements and updates.

The application was advertised in July 2012 and Council received objections from 4 different properties, all located on Chapel Street. The objections raised concerns with the size of the sign, visual clutter, light spill and illumination and impacts on the amenity and character of the area.

Council considered the application at its’ 10 September 2012 meeting and resolved to issue a Notice of Decision. This was issued on 17 September 2012. No appeals were lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and consequently, Planning Permit 313/12 was issued on 17 October 2012.

On 8 November 2012, the permit holder lodged an appeal with VCAT against two conditions of the permit; one in relation to the expiry of the sign and the other prohibiting the rotation of images and displaying of animations/movies.

The appeal was ultimately withdrawn on the basis that the parties agreed to allow the opportunity to apply to extend the permit at the end of its 15 year expiry date. A subsequent Section 72 Amendment was lodged with Council and Officers amended the condition to allow for the possibility of an extension. The condition relating to images management remains. A copy of Planning Permit 313/12 and the associated endorsed plans is attached to this report.


A copy of planning permit 713/12 and the associated endorsed plans is attached to this report.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the western side of Chapel Street, on the north-west corner of its intersection with Arthur Street. The land has the following characteristics:

Frontage to Chapel Street of 28.63m, a maximum depth of approximately 24m and an overall site area of approximately 645sqm.

The land is developed with a three-storey mixed use development which is constructed at street level to Chapel Street, over a railway line. The ground floor consists of three shops while the upper two levels consist of an apartment, office floor space and large terrace.

The land falls within the South Yarra/Prahran Principal Activity Centre, which comprises a diverse range of commercial and entertainment uses. Features of adjoining land and nearby properties are as follows:

North of the subject site, across the Lovers Walk laneway is 531 Chapel Street, comprising a three storey building which contains one shop on the ground floor and two offices above.

To the east is 512-516 Chapel Street which comprises a large double storey commercial property. Beyond this building is a Residential 1 Zone and residences are located approximately 55m from the subject site on Palermo Street. The residential area of Palermo Street is separated from the Activity Centre by a planter box which acts as a physical and landscape barrier.

South of the subject site, on the opposite side of Arthur Street at 527 Chapel Street, is a double storey building, comprising a shop on the ground floor and an office on the first floor. The building at 527 Chapel Street is constructed along its Arthur Street frontage with no setback at the first floor. Land further west of 527 Chapel Street is the Residential 1 Zone which features multi-unit and single dwelling buildings.

To the immediate west of the subject site is the railway line. Residential properties along the north side of Arthur Street commence approximately 90m west of the subject site.

The Title

The land is known as Volume 10362 Folio 393 and is described as Lot 5 on Plan of Subdivision 407441B. There is no restrictive covenant on the title of land.

Planning Controls

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

ZoneClause 36.01 – Public Use ZonePursuant to Clause 36.01-7 advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone, except for the PUZ4 (Transport), is in Category 4 unless a different requirement is specified in the schedule to this zone.

For land within the PUZ4 (Transport), the category of advertising control which applies is the category which applies to the adjoining zone nearest to the land. If land is equidistant from two or more adjoining zones, the least restrictive category applies. Where the Road Zone is the nearest adjoining zone, a permit is required to display a sign.


At the time of assessment, the nearest zone was the Business 1 Zone. However this is now the Commercial 1 Zone following Planning Scheme Amendment VC100. Pursuant to the provisions of this zone, like the Business 1 Zone, signage restrictions fall within Category 1 at Clause 52.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

OverlayClause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7Pursuant to Clause 43.02-4 advertising sign controls are at Clause 52.05 unless otherwise specified in a schedule to this overlay. Schedule 7 of this Overlay does not vary the requirements above.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.05 – Advertising SignsAs per the requirements of Clause 36.01-7 the land falls within Category 1 which applies to all commercial areas and applies minimum limitations with regard to signage. An electronic high wall major promotion sign falls within Section 2 at the table to Clause 52.05-7 and therefore a permit is required.

Furthermore, the requirements of Clause 52.05-6 (Major Promotion Sign) sets out specific guidelines and conditions which are to be included as part of any approval. Decision guidelines for major promotion signs are also outlined at Clause 52.05-6.

Under the requisites for Clause 52.05-1, the application for an electronic sign is not required to be referred to VicRoads as the sign is not within 60m of a freeway or arterial road declared under the Road Management Act 2004.


Clause 11.01 Activity CentresClause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 17.01-1 BusinessClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 22.02 Urban Design PolicyClause 22.03 Advertising PolicyClause 22.09 Retail Centres PolicyClause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre PolicyClause 52.05 Advertising SignageClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Issues raised by the Complainants:

Council has received two complaints in relation to the sign. The first complainant is from 26 Palermo Street who has raised concerns in relation to the extent of light spill into Palermo Street at various locations including at the Jam Factory car park entrance, at the corner of Cunningham Street and adjacent to Clara Street.

The second complainant is from 32 Palermo Street, approximately 180m east of the sign. This owner/occupier has raised concerns in relation the extent of light spill into the third floor habitable rooms of his property.

KEY ISSUES

The primary area of concern relates to the level and intensity of illumination as viewed from residential properties in Palermo Street.


In regard to the level of illumination, the Officer’s assessment of the sign stated:

“Consideration of potential amenity impacts as determined by Clause 52.05-3 relates in this instance to the extent of illumination and its output on the surrounding residential properties. As the sign is located on the eastern facade of the building the only residences to be potentially affected by the sign are located along Palermo Street and are in excess 55 metres from the sign.

The acceptability of the sign must be considered in the context of its location within a Principal Activity Centre and on a main road. A lighting report provided as part of this application details that the luminance output of the sign will not be unreasonable on the properties to the east which are affected to a greater extent by street lights and lights within the adjacent car park. The sign will be installed with automatic ambient light condition sensors to control light intensity output/luminance throughout the day and night to further achieve an acceptable level of light spill on Chapel Street and the surrounding area. A control device will be required by way of a condition.

The extent of illumination within the public realm is considered to be acceptable based on the lux levels provided by the applicant. It is asserted that the lux levels would not exceed 5 lux, when compared to an average street light of between 10 and 20 lux. It is also noted that there are no residential windows with a direct outlook to the sign.The sign is considered to be located a sufficient distance from residential properties to not have an unreasonable impact with regard to light spill and glare. It is also noted that no objections were received from the surrounding residential addresses during the public notification period.”

To ensure adequate levels of residential amenity could be maintained, conditions were included on the permit to ensure the impacts would not be unreasonable. More specifically, conditions 7, 8 and 9 state:

7 The sign must not display images using an unreasonably high intensity of light in the signs, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8 The sign must be fitted with automatic light conditions sensors to control light intensity output/luminance, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9 The intensity of the light in the sign must be limited so as to not cause glare or distraction to motorists or other persons or loss of amenity in the surrounding area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Following construction and display of the sign, Council has received two complaints. Site inspections and observations to ascertain the impact of the sign on the amenity of the area and Palermo Street have been undertaken by Officers.

The first complainant is from 26 Palermo Street. The complainant’s concern relates to the amenity of the street rather than to his private property.

The second complainant is located at 32 Palermo Street. The affected area is the 3rd level of the development.

It is noted that the separation distance between the sign location and the commencement of the Residential Area of Palermo Street is approximately 65m. The complainant’s properties are located 155m (26 Palermo) and 180m (32 Palermo) from the sign. The key issues of concern raised relate to the impact on the amenity of Palermo Street and the impact on the internal amenity of one of the complainants properties.


Officers have discussed the highlighted concerns with the operator of the sign. In response, the sign operator has undertaken to “turn down” the luminage level of the sign. They have also indicated a willingness to assist in contributions to any possible landscaping treatments or fixed shutters (or the like) on the complainants building.

Officers have undertaken a preliminary assessment of mitigation options with regard to the capacity to provide canopy vegetation to provide a visual buffer, the existing landscaping garden bed that provides separation between the residential and commercial areas of Palermo Street has been reviewed. It was noted that existing electrical wires provided an impediment to any additional, higher vegetation being incorporated.

The majority of dwellings in Palermo Street have a north-south orientation. This is advantageous in that they are not orientated to the sign.

Options of screening on the complainants building have only been discussed in a preliminary manner to date. Officers are continuing to liaise with both the operator of the sign and the complainants in an effort to arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome.



CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council Officers continue to work with affected parties to minimise and/or reduce the extent of light spill.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note this report.


2. APPLICATION FOR VEHICLE CROSSING – 25 VALETTA STREET, MALVERN

Manager: Madeleine GroveGeneral Manager: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the issues related to an application for a vehicle crossing at 25 Valetta Street Malvern. The report was requested by Cr Sehr.

BACKGROUND

# Valetta Street runs in an East-West direction, between Glenferrie Road and Irving Street. A traffic survey was conducted in 2011 outside property number 17 Valetta St and confirmed that the majority of motorists were travelling at, or below, 42 km/h. The traffic surveys also indicated that the volume of traffic was approximately 1000 vehicles per day. On-street parking on both kerbsides is evident. Traffic flow is in both directions, with a carriageway width of approximately 9m. Valetta Street has a 45 alignment change midway through it. The site that is the location for this application is located within the alignment change, (see Attachment One).

# The property at 25 Valetta Street does not currently have a vehicle crossing to the front of the residence. An application for vehicle crossing was submitted by James Gooley (Visioneer Builders) on 12 February 2013. The application was for one vehicle crossing. The application included two options for the crossover location. Option one was to locate the crossing to the west, while option two was to locate the crossing to the east of the property frontage, (see Attachment Two). Both options required assessment by Council’s Infrastructure Department and Council’s Arborist. It is worthwhile to note that an assessment of traffic movement in Valetta St is currently being undertaken as part of a traffic study related to Cabrini Hospital.

DISCUSSION

Policy Context

The assessment as to whether or not to grant a permit for a vehicle crossing relies on Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy 2007 which identifies a number objectives including, to prevent inappropriate loss of significant street trees, vegetation and landscaping, to prevent unnecessary loss of on-street car parking and to protect the safety and amenity of pedestrians and motorists.

The objectives of the Vehicle Crossing Policy are:

To enable appropriately situated and constructed vehicular access between the road pavement and private property

To prevent inappropriate loss of significant trees, vegetation and landscaping To prevent unnecessary loss of on-street parking To control the impact of crossings on utility infrastructure, street furniture and other

assets To control the impact of crossings on the visual amenity of streetscapes by avoiding

excessive dominance


To protect the safety and amenity of pedestrians and motorists.

Arborist assessment

One of the vehicle crossing options (Option one), identified by the applicant for the proposed location of a vehicle crossing required assessment by Council’s Arborist. The Officer reported that a street tree (Trident Maple) was in the path of the crossing. It was determined by the Senior Arborist that the street tree could be removed and replaced for a fee of $750.00. This issue did not impact on the decision not to approve the Vehicle crossing application.

Infrastructure issues

# The location of 25 Valetta Street is on a bend (see Attachment Three). This required details of the crossing options to be referred to the Transport and Parking Unit for assessment. The assessment of both options identified that neither location for a crossing at 25 Valetta Street was suitable for the following reasons:

Valetta Street is a narrow Street with high traffic and parking demand. A crossing would result in the loss of kerbside parking and no associated parking gain. If a crossing was permitted, Officers considered it is likely that Council would soon receive requests to remove parking to improve sight distances. This was not considered a desirable outcome as it would further diminish available parking in the Street.

Both proposed vehicle crossing options are located on the road bend and negotiating the

curved exit while reversing from the property would be problematic due to sight distance limitations in both directions.

In light of these concerns, the options assessed by Officers for a crossing do not meet the standards and requirements, as a crossover would:

Reduce the number of available car parking spaces Compromise safety by reducing sight distances for pedestrians and motorists

DISCUSSION

Officers have assessed the vehicle crossing application in light of Council’s Adopted Policy. Although the issue of the tree on the nature strip could be addressed by removal of the existing Trident Maple and replacement in an alternative location, the application could not be supported due to safety concerns arising from the proposed crossing location and the impact on existing car parking in the street.

It is worthwhile to note that the reason provided for the vehicle crossing is that one of the householders as 25 Valetta Street has an illness that requires them to park closer to the property. It is noted that the property at 25 Valetta Street is serviced by a rear right of way that could be explored by the owner as an alternative access point to the property.


HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

The recommendation has been assessed in line with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and identified that any impact on the Human Rights of the resident would be offset by the consideration of safety concerns and parking needs of the broader community.

RECOMMENDATION

That the assessment of the proposed vehicle crossing at 25 Valetta Street, Malvern be noted.


3. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR MALVERN BANQUET HALL: MALVERN LACROSSE CLUB

(Author: Judy Hogan)(General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council regarding a request for an in-kind waiver of the fee for the use of Malvern Banquet Hall for this financial year.

BACKGROUND

A request has been received from Chris Ive, Secretary of Malvern Lacrosse Club requesting the in-kind use of Malvern Banquet Hall on Saturday 12 October 2013 for their presentation evening. Malvern Lacrosse Club were granted an in kind waiver of the fee for the use of Malvern Town Hall by Council in the 2012/2013 Community Grants funding round. The Club were unable to take up this offer as the venue was unavailable due to the use of the Malvern Town Hall by the Victorian Electoral Commission for conducting the Council Election for a number of weeks. As such the Club were not able to make use of the in kind waiver they were granted by the end of the 2012/2013 financial year. Grants are not carried over to the next financial year and the Club failed to apply for a 2013/2014 community grant.

As the Malvern Town Hall is unavailable on the date requested a booking for the Malvern Banquet Hall has been made for Saturday 12 October 2013.

The full cost for the use of the Malvern Banquet Hall would be $860.

The request for funding has been recommended for refusal as the request is outside the timelines for requests for funding through the community grants process.

Given the timeline for this event and the lead up arrangements which need to be made this request has been brought to Council for decision at this time.

RECOMMENDATION

That the request from Malvern Lacrosse Club for the waiver of the fee for the in-kind use of Malvern Banquet Hall on Saturday 12 October 2013 be refused.


4. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR MALVERN BANQUET HALL: AUSTRALIA SRI LANKA MEDICAL AID TEAM

(Author: Judy Hogan)(General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council regarding a request for an in-kind waiver of the fee for the use of Malvern Town Hall for this financial year.

BACKGROUND

A request has been received from Dr Sian Hughes, President Australia Sri Lanka Medical Aid Team – AuSLMAT requesting the in kind waiver of the fee for the use of the Malvern Town Hall on 26 October 2013 for a fund raising event. AuSLMAT was set up after the Boxing Day Tsunami and the medical teams (many who work at local Stonnington Hospitals) have been visiting Sri Lanka to support the public medical services..

A booking has been made for the Malvern Town Hall on the date requested. The full cost for the use of the Malvern Banquet Hall would be $2000.

The request for funding has been recommended for refusal as the request is outside the timelines for requests for funding through the community grants process and the group is not located within the municipality.

Given the timeline for this event and the lead up arrangements which need to be made this request has been brought to Council for decision at this time.

RECOMMENDATION

That the request from AuSLMAT for the waiver of the fee for the in-kind use of Malvern Banquet Hall on Saturday 26 October 2013 be refused.


5. APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS UNDER THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1997 & THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989.

Manager: Madeleine Grove General Manager: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

To authorise nominated Council Officers under the Planning and Environment Act 1997, for the purposes of enforcing the Planning and Environment Act 1997. A resolution of Council is required to achieve the authorisations.

BACKGROUND

Following a recent review of Authorisations to Council officers, Council has received legal advice that suggests that Council officers engaged in enforcing the provisions of Planning and Environment Act 1997 should be appointed by a resolution of Council pursuant to section 147(4) of Planning and Environment Act 1997. Further, that section 188(2(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1997 provides that Councils’ cannot delegate the power to authorise officers for the purposes of enforcing the Planning and Environment Act 1997.

DISCUSSION

Council’s Planning and Development Division has appointed David Rosevear as a new Field Service Officer who will be engaged in Planning Enforcement at various times.

In order to perform their duties, staff are required to be authorised and nominated pursuant to the Acts and regulations listed hereunder and be required to appear as informants in proceedings instituted by the City of Stonnington in relation to beaches of or failures to comply with various provisions of the Acts or Regulations. These provisions include:

1.1 Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 for the purposes of the

administration of the Local Government Act 1989 and Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1997 for the purposes of authorising the officers generally to institute proceedings for offences against the Acts and regulations described.

1.2 Without limiting paragraph (1.1) for the purpose to administer and enforce the following Acts and Regulations (including any subordinate legislation under them):

the Local Government Act 1989 the Planning and Environment Act 1987 the regulations made under those acts.


and authorises David Rosevear generally to institute proceedings on behalf of the City of Stonnington for offences against –

the Local Government Act 1989 the Planning and Environment Act 1987 under section 232 of the Local Government Act 1989 the regulations made under those acts.

# Accordingly, the attached instrument of appointment and authorisation under the Local

Government Act 1989 is provided for signing by the Chief Executive Officer and resolution of Council.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

This authorisation procedure is in accordance with advice provided by Council’s legal advisors.

CONCLUSION

The authorisations are in accordance with legal advice and are required by Council officers to discharge their duties in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements.


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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council exercises the powers conferred by section 147(4)) of the Planning and Environment Act, 1994, and resolves to appoint David Rosevear for the purposes of enforcing the Planning and Environment Act 1997.

2. That David Rosevear is appointed as an authorised officer pursuant to section 223 and 224 of the Local Government and the authorisation be signed and sealed.


6. DOG OFF LEASH PROPOSAL

Manager: Penny PavlouGeneral Manager: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the results of the community consultation following the six month trial period of the off-leash arrangements at the Chris Gahan Reserve, and to recommend to Council that the off-leash arrangements remain in place.

BACKGROUND

At a meeting of Council on 3 December 2012, Council determined that:

1. The Chris Gahan Reserve is designated as an off-leash park from 6.00am to 9.00am and 4.00pm to 8.00pm daily. For a period of six months after Gazettal, Council officers will monitor the use of the park to determine whether the change of use has affected the safety and enjoyment of all park users.

2. Council makes an order pursuant to Section 26 (2) of the Domestic Animals Act to allow for dogs to be exercised off a chain cord or leash in a Designated Reserve, namely Chris Gahan Reserve, Hornby Street, Prahran, between 6.00am to 9.00am and 4.00pm to 8.00pm daily only, if the owner or person in charge carries a chain, cord or leash sufficient to bring the dog under effective control if the dog behaves in a manner which threatens any person or animal

3. A report is presented to Council in August 2013 at the conclusion of the six month trial period with an Officer recommendation to either revert the Chris Gahan Reserve to an on-leash park or to confirm the shared use status of the park as an off-leash park from 6.00am to 9.00am and 4.00pm to 8.00pm daily.

DISCUSSION

# In July 2013, Council conducted a survey of residents living adjacent to the park and in a radius of 300 metres of the Chris Gahan reserve to gain feedback on the six month trial that has been in place since December 2012. Attachment One contains a copy of the survey. The survey was distributed to approximately 1200 properties. Attachment Two contains a map showing the properties that were letter dropped.

In total, 122 responses were received. The information was analysed and the findings are as follows:

91% of respondents stated they use the Chris Gahan Reserve. 60% of respondents stated they do not own a dog. 43% of respondents used the Chris Gahan Reserve with their dog/s during the

designated off lead times, 6-9am and 4-8pm. (Three respondents had dogs in the past and used the reserve during these times. They are no longer dog owners.)

75% of respondents stated they use the Chris Gahan Reserve during both off lead and on lead times.


70% of respondents indicated they use the Chris Gahan Reserve for reasons other than exercising their dog/s.

73% of respondents indicated they want Chris Gahan Reserve to remain an off leash park as per the trial period, between the hours of 6am and 9am and 4pm and 8pm daily

89% of respondents who own a dog are in favour of the Reserve to remain an off leash park as per the trial period, between the hours of 6am and 9am and 4pm and 8pm daily

11% of respondents who own a dog are not in favour of the Reserve to remain an off leash park as per the trial period, between the hours of 6am and 9am and 4pm and 8pm daily

During the period of the trial two complainants wrote to Council objecting to the off leash park arrangement continuing. These objections have been included in the results.

# Most comments received from residents have been supportive of the off-leash arrangements. The main theme of these comments is the opportunity for increased social interaction between dog owners and other residents. However, there are a significant number of comments received that opposed the arrangements. These comments focussed on an increased amount of dog faeces, dog rushes and child safety issues. Comments also indicate a potential conflict between dog owners and others and their use of the Reserve. Comments can be found in Attachment Three.

There are three off-leash parks near Chris Gahan Reserve. Windsor Siding (Union Street, Windsor) is 450 meters away; Victoria Gardens (High Street, Prahran) is 480 metres away; and Lumley Gardens (Lumley Court, Prahran) is 500 metres away. These parks are easily accessible from the Chris Gahan Reserve by foot. In addition, Alma Reserve on the south side of Dandenong Road, St Kilda East, within the City of Port Phillip and is a designated off-leash reserve. This reserve is 400 metres away from the Chris Gahan Reserve and is accessible by a footbridge located approximately 30 metres east of Hornby Street.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The process to regulate the control of dogs by either means of restraint or times of presence unrestrained is found within the Domestic Animals Act 1994. In 2000 Council designated a number of Stonnington parks and reserves as off-leash areas pursuant to Section 26(2) of the Act. Section 26(2) requires that any orders made by Council under this Section must be advertised in the Government Gazette and a local paper circulating within the District. Orders are made by resolution of Council and therefore can be amended or changed by another resolution of Council.


The recommendations of this report comply with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Based on the survey results which show that 73 percent of respondents are in favour of the time-share off-leash arrangements, Officers recommend that the Chris Gahan Reserve remain as a shared off-leash park from 6.00am to 9.00am and 4.00pm to 8.00pm daily.


RECOMMENDATION

That

1. The Chris Gahan Reserve remains a designated as an off-leash park from 6.00am to 9.00am and 4.00pm to 8.00pm daily.

2. Council confirms the previous order pursuant to Section 26 (2) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to allow for dogs to be exercised off a chain cord or leash in a Designated Reserve, namely Chris Gahan Reserve, Hornby Street, Prahran, between 6.00am to 9.00am and 4.00pm to 8.00pm daily only, if the owner or person in charge:

carries a chain, cord or leash sufficient to bring the dog under effective control if the dog behaves in a manner which threatens any person or animal

does not allow the dog to worry or threaten any person or animal.


7. STONNINGTON GIFT PARTNERSHIP REQUEST

Manager: Tony OultonGeneral Manager: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider a request from the Stonnington Gift Committee of Management and Prahran Cricket Club for Council to increase its financial and in-kind support for the Stonnington Gift and become a partner and major provider of the event.

BACKGROUND

Early 2010 the Prahran Cricket Club (PCC) approached Council with a proposal to revive the Stonnington Gift, a professional athletic event formerly known as the Prahran Gift and held between 1968 and 1998 at Toorak Park. The club proposed to run the Gift as a major community event and fundraising opportunity for the club.

The club requested a cash and in-kind contribution from Council of between $30,000 and $50,000 to support the event and predicted that within three years the event would be fully sustainable and not require ongoing Council support. At its meeting held 19 July 2010, Council resolved to provide in-kind support for the 2011 Gift, evaluate its success and consider a further funding request for future events.

At its meeting held 19 September 2011, Council considered a further report regarding the ongoing support of the Gift and resolved to provide a cash contribution of $15,000 to sponsor the Women’s Gift and in-kind support up to a maximum of $5,000, for a period of three years from 2011-2014. A condition of the funding was that the women’s event offers equal prize money to the men’s event.

# As part of the funding agreement, the PCC is required to submit a report to Council each year on the success of the event. A copy of the 2013 Stonnington Gift event report and review completed by the Committee of Management (COM) is included as Attachment 1 to this report and includes specific recommendations from the COM regarding ways in which the Gift can be improved through increased support from Council.

The PCC has provided income and expenditure details for the 2013 event, which reported an operating surplus of $6,670.94, a moderate increase from the amount of $3,575.94 achieved in 2011. Specific details regarding attendances and economic impact were not collected from the 2013 event as requested by Council.

The Stonnington Gift Committee of Management (COM) believes that this is an acceptable result.

The 2014 Stonnington Gift is scheduled to occur on Friday 21 February 2014.

DISCUSSION

Following the review of the 2013 Gift, the PCC sent a request covering several ways that Council could further support the Stonnington Gift. The Committee requested that Council commit to the event beyond 2014 and provided a greater level of financial and in-kind support.


As a result of the Committee’s request, Council officers attended the August meeting of the Stonnington Gift Organising Committee and discussed ways in which Council could provide greater support to the event.

The Committee requested that Council commits to support the event for a further three years beyond 2014 and assist with the promotion and advertising of the supporter’s club. The goal of the supporter’s club is to attract up to 200 individual businesses and individuals within Stonnington, each paying $100 to become an official supporter of the event and help make the event viable.

Additional funding was also sought, starting in 2014, and officers recommend that the funding be increased by $5,000 – in 2014 and in the three-year extension – to assist the Committee to cover operational expenses, such as the sound system, security, portable fridge and St Johns Ambulance. This is in addition to the $15,000 for prize money of the women’s event. Provision of a further three year agreement should be contingent upon the success of the 2014 event, and satisfactory achievement of agreed key performance indicators including and not limited to attendances, sponsorship, event satisfaction and economic impact measured through survey.

The Committee has reviewed the fees at other similar events and intends to increase its entry fee to $10. The Committee believes this entry fee is very reasonable when compared to other running events.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

While there is not a direct policy implication, events are generally assessed by their attractiveness to the local community.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

It is recommended that Council continues to sponsor the Stonnington Gift through 2017 and provides a cash contribution of $20,000 pa and continues to provide in-kind support of up to a maximum of $10,000 pa.


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

CONCLUSION

The Prahran Cricket Club has outlined ways that Council could further support the Stonnington Gift. The Club requested that Council provide additional funding of up to $12,500 for the 2014 Gift and increased in-kind support.

Officers recommend a funding increase of $5,000, a three-year extension to the existing funding agreement beyond 2014 and the continuation of in-kind support for ground preparation and promotion.


RECOMMENDATIONS

That:

1. Council increase its funding for the Stonnington Gift in 2014 as major sponsor of the Women’s Gift, providing $20,000 cash contribution and up to $10,000 of in-kind support toward the event.

2. Council agrees to sponsor the event for a further three years from 2015 to 2017 and maintain existing funding levels and in-kind support, contingent upon the success of the 2014 event and achievement of key performance indicators as agreed by the Stonnington Gift Committee and Council’s Chief Executive Officer.


n) Confidential Business

1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PROPERTY

(Author / General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

Confidential report circulated separately.

pro-forma for notice paper word 7 - city of web viewnotice paper. 16 september 2013 ... the drainage...

Documents