Agenda of Council Meeting - 22 May 2017 · Web viewMay 22, 2017 · Monday 22 May 2017 at 7pm....

NOTICE PAPERMonday 22 May 2017 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

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

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 22 May 2017Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayerb) Apologies c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63

of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 8 MAY 2017............................................................5

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

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 424 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0592/16 - 472 TOORAK ROAD, TOORAK - PART DEMOLITION, BUILDINGS AND WORKS ASSOCIATED WITH A FOOD AND DRINK PREMISES AND REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARK REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................7

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1139/16- MALVERN VALLEY GOLF COURSE HUB FACILITY, 1-3 GOLFERS DRIVE, MALVERN EAST - CHANGE THE LIQUOR LICENCE FROM A 'RESTAURANT AND CAFÉ' LICENCE TO AN 'ON-PREMISES' LICENCE, AND TO INCREASE THE AREA THAT LIQUOR IS PERMITTED TO BE CONSUMED OR SUPPLIED...................................................................................17

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0604/16 - 107 DARLING ROAD, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE............................................31

4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0466/16- 63 HEYINGTON PLACE, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE...............................................53

5. VCAT QUARTERLY REPORT – FIRST QUARTER OF 2017 – JANUARY 2017 TO MARCH 2017..........756. REFORMED RESIDENTIAL ZONES 2017..........................................................................................777. PARK TREE UPLIGHTING OPTIONS..................................................................................................838. PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT TO CAROLINE STREET SOUTH NAME...........................................879. PROPOSED CHANGES TO PROPERTY VALUATION PROCESSES.......................................................8910. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2016 TO MARCH 2017.............................................93

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

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.

1. PUBLIC LIABILITY CLAIM...............................................................................................................972. NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME..................................................................................97

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

22 MAY 2017

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 8 May 2017 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS22 MAY 2017

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0592/16 - 472 TOORAK ROAD, TOORAK - PART DEMOLITION, BUILDINGS AND WORKS ASSOCIATED WITH A FOOD AND DRINK PREMISES AND REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARK REQUIREMENTS

Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for part demolition, buildings and works associated with a food and drink premises (as of right use) in a Commercial 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay and Heritage Overlay and reduction of the car parking and loading and unloading facilities requirement at 472 Toorak Road, Toorak.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 8 May 2017. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Corso Interior Architecture

Ward: North

Zone: Commercial Zone 1 - Clause 34.01

Overlay: Design & Development Overlay – Schedule 9 (Toorak Village Activity Centre)

Heritage Overlay – Schedule 425 (Toorak Village Precinct)

Date lodged: 07 July 2016

Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

58

Trigger for referral to Council:

7 or more Objections

Number of objections: 11 Objections

Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 8 December 2016

Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

Page 7


BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Corso Architecture and are known as File No. 1621, Drawing No.s: 000-112 and Council date stamped 15 February 2017.

The subject site is currently used as a food & drink premises (Bakery/Café) known as “Egon’s”. A Food & Drink premises is an as-of-right use in the Commercial 1 Zone. The proposal involves a renovation and extension of the existing as-of-right use.

Key features of the proposal are: Partial demolition including removal of the existing kitchen. Enclosure of the existing unused deck above the garage to create an additional seating

area. The addition is constructed with a pitch gabled roof with a maximum height of 8.55m

Enclosure of the ground floor courtyard to create a new kitchen space and additional seating area in a previously unused corridor.

Construction of a first floor addition above the kitchen. Increase in the leasable floor area from 152sqm to 207sqm

The proposal was revised under s57a of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 on 15 February 2017 to include various measures to reduce impacts to the apartment building (50 Ross Street; 2 Lamin Lane; and 151 Canterbury Road) to the south following discussions at the consultative meeting. The following changes were made:

Acoustic screen to new motors above the kitchen area Double glazing on new windows to the rear seating area New roof windows to be non-openable Construction of first floor in double brick Rear window to be translucent stained glass.

Discussion Plans were received 2 March 2017 that show the form and decoration of 60 Ross Street superimposed over the East elevations. These have been included in the attachments.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Toorak Road. The site is rectangular in shape, has a primary frontage to Toorak Road of approximately 4m and a depth of approximately 30m.

The subject site is located within Heritage Overlay No. 425 (Toorak Village Precinct) and is graded “C” and described as a “double-storey interwar shop pair” alongside 474 Toorak Road. According to the citation report, the Toorak Village Precinct is historically significant as a shopping strip which has serviced the local community since the mid-1850s. The citation continues: the special character of the Village that emerged in the interwar period reflects the tastes of its affluent clientele.

A mix of building types and styles can be found in Toorak Village. Alongside similar interwar style shops can be found late-Victorian, Edwardian and a number of Tudor-revival style shops with a strong 1-2 storey scale.

The site’s immediate surrounds are described as follows:

To the immediate north is Toorak Road, a commercial strip that forms the main spine of Toorak Village, Toorak,

Page 8


To the immediate south is Lamin Lane, beyond which is an apartment complex at 50 Ross Street, 2 Lamin Lane and 151 Canterbury Road that lies outside the Heritage Overlay,

To the immediate east is 474 Toorak Road, containing a C-graded interwar shop. To the immediate west is No. 470 Toorak Road, containing a B graded Edwardian

shop, an unnamed right-of-way and 60 Ross Street, containing a B graded former stables building.

Previous Planning Application(s)

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

Planning Permit 642/98 for the subject site issued on 3 May 1999 for buildings and works to the existing building for use as a shop, store, workroom and dwelling

Planning Permit 639/02 for the subject site issued on 31 July 2002 for buildings and works to the existing building and car parking reduction associated with an office (real estate agent)

Planning Application 13/13 was received 11 January 2013 and proposed a car parking reduction associated with the use of the land as a cake shop (food & drink premises) on the subject site. A letter was issued on 24 January 2013 stating that no permit was required for the proposed reduction as a greater reduction had been previously issued.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 06177 Folio 208 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

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

Zone

Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1, a permit is not required to use the land as a food & drink premises (section 1 use).

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4, a permit is required for buildings and works. A permit is therefore required.

Overlays

Clause 43.01 - Heritage Overlay (Schedule 425 – Toorak Village Precinct)

Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a permit is required to demolish or remove a building and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.02 – Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 9 – Toorak Village Activity Centre)

Page 9


Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 - Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, four (4) spaces are required for every 100sqm of leasable floor area. The application proposes an increase of 55sqm of leasable floor area, this generates an additional requirement of two (2) car parking spaces. Given that no additional parking spaces are proposed, the application proposes a dispensation of two (2) spaces.

Clause 52.07 – Loading & Unloading of Vehicles

Pursuant to Clause 52.07-1, no buildings and works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles.

While the garage on the site has the ability to be used to load and unload vehicles, it has been designated as a car parking area and therefore a waiver of this requirement is sought.

Relevant Planning Policies

21.04 Economic Development

21.06 Built Environment & Heritage

22.04 Heritage Policy

22.18 Stormwater Management

22.20 Toorak Village Activity Centre

34.01 Commercial 1 Zone

43.01 Heritage Overlay

52.06 Car Parking

52.07 Loading & Unloading of Vehicles

65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

The site is located in North Ward and objections from 13 different properties were received in the original advertisement period, the objections raise concerns related to:

Overshadowing, privacy and visual bulk Noise and odour transference Lack of car parking Walls on boundary impacting solar access and amenity Lamin Lane Traffic to significantly increase as result of proposal

Page 10


Construction Management

A Consultative Meeting was held on 8 December 2016. The meeting was attended by Councillors Koce and Griffin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in changes to the plans as a revision was lodged on 15 February 2017 and is described above.

The revised plans were re-advertised in March 2017 pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and to current objectors to the application (notice was also given by placing two signs on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

Following re-advertisement, 1 supplementary objection was received, commenting on the revisions made, and 2 objections were withdrawn. The number of objections as at the time of the Council meeting is therefore 11.

Referrals

Heritage Advisor

The citation for the precinct is totally focussed on the Toorak Road frontage and as a consequence this addition has little impact on the significance of the precinct as described.

However the proposal is to construct a high pitched gable end on the south elevation immediately adjacent to the former stables building at 60 Ross Street (see submitted documents)

It would be preferable if the elevation of the addition was less dramatic (with a lesser gable end) so as not to detract from the presentation of the former stables.

The addition at the rear is not opposed, but the design of the southern elevation should be reconsidered.

Further discussion with the Heritage Advisor determined that the applicant should look to ensure that the tie rod/gable ornament at 60 Ross Street is not covered by the proposed first floor. Discussion plans (Received 2 March 2017) provided by the applicant indicate that approximately half of the tie rod ornamentation will be covered by the proposed buildings and the other half obscured by its roof. This is discussed further in the assessment section.

ASSESSMENT

Strategic Justification

Clause 21.04 Provides high-level guidance on the development of Activity Centres in the City of Stonnington. Clause 21.04-1 encourages the efficient use of existing commercial space to maintain and enhance existing activity centres such as Toorak Village. The proposal represents an extension to an existing building that intensifies and expands the existing use of the food and drink premises within an established Activity Centre.

Toorak Village is designated as a Group 3 (Neighbourhood – Large) Activity Centre pursuant to Clause 21.04 and therefore is suitable to accommodate a more intensive use of commercial land than the existing conditions.

Clause 22.20 (Toorak Village Activity Centre Policy) provides guidance for sites within Toorak Village more specifically.

Specifically, Clause 22.20-2 encourages development to undertake change in a manner that responds to local needs but also contributes to the incremental refurbishment of the whole

Page 11


activity centre as an objective of the policy. Further, Clause 22.20-3 encourages restaurant & café uses, particularly along Toorak Road. The proposal represents an expansion of such a use.

Schedule 9 to the Design & Development Overlay (Clause 43.02) provides further guidance to development in Toorak Village. Under the schedule, the subject site is designated as lying within a ‘minimal change area’. With regard to minimal change areas, the schedule states that (emphasis added):

Minimal Change Areas are areas with little or no visual change in the short to medium term. Potential change is constrained by heritage and neighbourhood character values.

It is noted that the proposal does not include any changes visible from the Toorak Road streetscape.

Heritage

The Citation to Heritage Overlay No. 425 makes it clear that the significant part of the Toorak Village Precinct is the Toorak Road-facing facades. This does not discount Lamin Lane as a heritage interface, especially as it runs alongside 60 Ross Street, a rare surviving example of a Victorian stable in an activity centre. The mock styling of the building visible from the rear is out of character for an interwar building and due to its height, detracts from the significance of 60 Ross Street, blocking oblique views and appearing more prominent in the streetscape.

60 Ross Street has a maximum height on the plans of 7.28m and it is recommended that a condition be placed on any permit reducing the maximum building height to this level. The condition should also specify that a hipped roof form is adopted, softening the impacts to the property across Lamin lane. It is noted that given the building is in the Interwar style, a flat roof would not be considered unfavourably from a heritage stand point.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has raised concern regarding the tie rod at 60 Ross Street being partially covered by the proposed extension. While this may impair the maintenance of the tie rod, that in itself is not a heritage concern. Further, while visibility of this element will decrease, this is unavoidable except through major changes to the layout of the proposal. On balance, the visibility of this tie rod should be considered to be of lesser importance than the benefits the proposal brings in satisfying the objectives of incremental refurbishment and more intensive use of commercial land.

Built Form & Amenity

Clause 2.4 of Schedule 9 to the Design & Development Overlay (Clause 43.02) states that:

New development should minimise amenity impacts on the surrounding residential area and provide a sensitive transition on sites abutting or adjacent to a Residential Zone. Amenity impacts including built form, scale, setback, overshadowing, overlooking and landscaping.

There is a strong and predominant 2 storey character of Toorak Village built to all boundaries. While this is the case, the proposed second storey with pitched gable and setback 1.84m from the rear boundary rises to a maximum height of 8.55m. This may be considered an unreasonable scaling or visual bulk impact. The proposed condition requiring a reduction of the maximum height to 7.28m will sufficiently reduce these impacts.

The proposed second storey will impact several of the north facing windows at 2 Lamin Lane. The addition (by virtue of Lamin Lane) is setback 5.44m from the habitable windows at 2 Lamin Lane.

It is noted that 2 Lamin Lane is located in a Commercial 1 Zone, dwellings within Commercial zones cannot expect the same level of amenity as those in purely residential areas due to a

Page 12


need to accommodate a diverse mix of uses. According to the north-facing window standard, a 4.6m setback is required for an 8.5m high wall opposite a north-facing window (or a 3.3m setback if the wall height is 7.2m). While rescode does not apply to this application, it is considered a good metric by which to measure amenity impacts on residential properties in this instance.

The proposed rear facing window is translucent and will not result in overlooking to any dwellings. A condition should be placed on the permit to ensure that it is no more than 25% transparent.

The proposed windows are double glazed and non-openable and the second storey addition is of double brick construction. This will minimise noise and odour transference to neighbouring properties.

The proposed boundary walls to the west and east will not lead to unreasonable amenity impacts. The proposed walls are located opposite service yards, car parks and abutting boundary walls. Given the tight subdivision pattern of this section of Toorak Village, and that the abutting uses are commercial in nature, the impacts on the built form to the west and east are not considered unreasonable.

Car Parking and Loading & Unloading

The proposal seeks a car parking reduction of two (2) spaces. Toorak Village is a large and diverse Activity Centre with a number of different uses. On this basis, the probability of multi-purpose trips is high and visitors by car have the opportunity to park in various public car parks and short-term street parking areas throughout the centre.

Further, the Centre is well serviced by public transport including the Route 8 Tram (Toorak-Moreland), the Route 605 Bus (Gardenvale to City) and is approximately 1km from Hawksburn Railway Station, which services the Pakenham, Cranbourne and Frankston rail lines.

By virtue of the surrounding activity centre, a reduction is considered acceptable.

All loading and unloading of deliveries of goods must be undertaken in accordance with Council’s local laws. It is considered that deliveries can be undertaken using the staff car space on site and on-street parking during off-peak hours for the centre.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

The proposed extension exceeds 50sqm in floor area and therefore requires a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response. As none has been submitted, this should be placed as a condition on the permit.

Objections

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

Overshadowing, privacy and visual bulk

As discussed in the built form & amenity section, the amenity impacts of the proposal are not considered unreasonable.

Noise and odour transference

Page 13


As discussed in the built form & amenity section, the applicant has taken several steps to reduce noise and odour impacts through the use of acoustic screening to services, double glazed and non-openable windows, and double brick construction.

Lack of car parking

As discussed under the car parking section, the proposed shortfall of two (2) spaces can be accommodated through existing parking and alternative transportation options.

Walls on boundary

Boundary walls are extremely common in Commercial centres, including Toorak Village. The proposed side boundary walls are considered appropriate.

Lamin Lane Traffic

Lamin Lane is a public road and the subject site is entitled to access it to use their car space and for pedestrian access for staff. All deliveries must be undertaken in accordance with the relevant local laws.

Construction Management

Construction management is the responsibility of the registered building surveyor.

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.

CONCLUSIONHaving assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The proposed extension is strategically justified by the Stonnington Planning Scheme The proposal will not lead to unreasonable heritage or amenity impacts

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 592/16 - 472 Toorak Road Toorak - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATIONThat a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 592/16 for the land located at 472 Toorak Road, Toorak, be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for

Page 14


part demolition, buildings and works associated with a food and drink premises in a Heritage Overlay, Design & Development Overlay and Commercial 1 Zone and associated reduction in the car parking and loading & unloading requirements subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with amended plans dated 15 February 2017 but modified to show:

a. A Water Sensitive Urban Design Response in accordance with Condition 3

b. The height of the rear first floor seating area above the garage to be reduced to a maximum building height of no more than 7.28m and include a hipped roof form

c. A notation specifying that the proposed south-facing window is no more than 25% transparent to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans.

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

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

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

a. The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES

Page 15


This permit is for the use of the land and/or buildings and does not constitute any authority to conduct a business requiring Health Act/Food Act registration without prior approval from the Councils Health Services.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.Unless a permit is not required under the Stonnington Planning Scheme, signs must not be constructed or displayed without a further planning permit.This property is located in a Heritage Overlay and planning permission may be required to demolish or otherwise externally alter any existing structures. External alterations include paint removal and any other form of decoration and works, but does not include re-painting an already painted surface.At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

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

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

Page 16


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1139/16- MALVERN VALLEY GOLF COURSE HUB FACILITY, 1-3 GOLFERS DRIVE, MALVERN EAST - CHANGE THE LIQUOR LICENCE FROM A 'RESTAURANT AND CAFÉ' LICENCE TO AN 'ON-PREMISES' LICENCE, AND TO INCREASE THE AREA THAT LIQUOR IS PERMITTED TO BE CONSUMED OR SUPPLIED


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the change of the liquor licence from a 'Restaurant and Café' licence to an 'On-Premises' licence, and to increase the area that liquor is permitted to be consumed or supplied at the Malvern Valley Golf Club, 1-3 Golfers Drive, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Ted Hart and AssociatesWard: EastZone: Public Park and Recreation ZoneOverlay: Land Subject to Inundation OverlayNeighbourhood Precinct: NADate lodged: 08 November 2016Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

138


More than 7 objections

Patron Numbers: Unchanged at 527 patronsNumber of objections: 13 objections from 10 different propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 4 April 2017Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plan that forms part of the basis of Council's consideration was prepared by Paul McDonald and Associates Pty Ltd and is known as Floor Plan File No. 85-74 Drawing No.s: DD-02A and Council date stamped 5 January 2017.

Key features of the proposal are:

The application proposes to change the existing class of liquor licence from a 'Restaurant and Café' licence to an 'On-Premises' licence. The differences are as follows:

o The primary purpose for a ‘Restaurant and Café’ licence is the provision of food and the predominant at all times is the preparation and serving of meals to be consumed on the licensed premises. Tables and chairs must be provided on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending the premises at any one time.

Page 17


The live performance of any musical works or the playing of recorded music is not permitted at higher than background music levels outside ordinary trading hours.

o The primary purpose for an ‘On-Premises’ licence is the provision of food and alcohol. The licence authorises the supply of liquor during ordinary trading hours and up to 1.00am the following day if permitted by the Commission.

It is also proposed to temporarily increase the area that liquor is permitted to be consumed or supplied (‘red-line’ area). The increase is required to facilitate the operation of the golf club whilst the main building and function facility is being renovated, that is, to allow golfers to have a place to sit and have a drink either before or after a game of golf. The extended area will include the existing pro-shop/kiosk building and adjoining office, and will also include the external space between this and the main building (refer to the ‘red-line’ plan). This extension in area is temporary and it is proposed that the red-line area revert back to the original red-line area following the completion of the renovations at the premises. This is a simple process involving an application to VCGLR to remove it from the liquor licence.

It is proposed that the existing patron numbers and hours of operation will remain unchanged. They are as follows:

o Maximum 527 patronso Trading hours as follows:

Sunday: Between 10am and 11.30pm; Sunday (being Christmas Eve or Day; New Year’s Eve or Day):

Between 10am and 1am the following morning; Good Friday: Between 12 noon and 11.30pm; Anzac Day (falling on Monday to Saturday): Between 7am and 1am

the following morning; Anzac Day (falling on a Sunday): Between 12 noon and 11.30pm; On any other day: between 7am and 1am the following morning.

The drawing/plan submitted with the application is the ‘red line’ plan that forms part of the licenced premises approval. It shows the existing ‘red line’ licenced area and the area where the ‘red line’ is proposed to be extended, incorporating the golf pro-shop/kiosk building and the landscaped/paved area outside the kiosk entry and between the kiosk and the main building.

Site and Surrounds

The site forming the Malvern Valley Golf Club is located on the north side of the Monash Freeway and is accessed via Golfers Drive. The northern boundary of the site is bounded by Gardiners Creek and the golf course stretches from Winton Road to the west all the way to Warrigal Road to the east and has an area of approximately 400,000 square meters.

The site is used as a golf course. Alongside the operation of the golf course, the main building on the site has been operating as a function centre with the pro-shop, kiosk and players amenities. The applicant advises that the function centre has been operating for approximately 40 years. This function centre use is operating under existing use rights, with the hours of operation restricted only by the existing liquor licence.

The site has the following significant characteristics:

Page 18


Golfers Drive runs off Waverley Road and adjoins Monash Freeway to the south and west and Holmesglen Institute of TAFE to the east. The golf club premises is located approximately 440m from this access point.

The golf club building is a single storey structure currently under renovation/refurbishment. It comprises of a number of function rooms, dining areas and lounge/bistro area with change rooms, toilets and commercial kitchen facilities. There are two external terraces, an external garden area and a centrally located roofed courtyard. Immediately adjoining the building is the golf pro-shop/kiosk building.

Residential properties abut the golf course at certain points including properties on the northern side of Thurso Street and eastern side of Thurnbury Crescent.

Dwellings along Lomond Terrace face the golf club building and are approximately 130 metres away at the closest point. The western side of Lomond Terrace both within the golf course and on the road reserve has vegetation and trees of varying height and density forming a screen and providing a landscaped interface to the site. The club building is visible from some points along Lomond Terrace (closer to Thurso Street) and there appears to be an embankment opposite properties closer to Argyll Street. Public access to the golf course is not available from Lomond Terrace, and there is a locked gate/entry at the intersection of Thurso Street and Lomond Terrace with a sign stating ‘No Entry Maintenance Track Only’.

The applicant has advised that it is anticipated that the refurbishment would be complete in approximately July 2017.



Planning Permit 791/04 for a variation of the existing licence to allow a General Liquor Licence was refused by Council on 5 January 2005 for the following reasons:

o The proposal is contrary to the intent of the underlying zone which is to recognise areas for public recreation.

o The existing on-premises licence is considered appropriate for the current activities associated with the use.

At the time of this application, the reception centre associated with the golf course had an ‘on-premises’ licence (Licence No. 32205800), and that the ‘general licence’ was sought to enable the selling of liquor off the premises. The report noted that a ‘general licence’ was more appropriate for a pub, hotel or tavern and not appropriate for the operation of the function/reception centre which operated on the site.

In 2009 a new class of liquor licence was introduced – 'Restaurant and Café' licence. A number of premises with ‘On-Premises’ licences were invited to change to the new class, which benefited from significantly lower fees. It appears that the licensee of the golf club premises elected to change to the new licence category at this time.

Planning Permit for 237/94 was issued in December 1994 for the use of a portion of the grassed area situated between Lomond Terrace and Scotchman’s Creek alongside the entrance to the Course for the purpose of an emergency car park and was subject to the following restrictions:

o To be used on a maximum of ten occasions between 30 September and 30 March for each 12 months and to be made unavailable on all other days.

o The gate must be locked at 7pm on each of the ten permitted days.

Page 19


o No access to be available from Thurso Street to the emergency car park. o To be used only on dry days only when the car parking facilities of the club

are full.o A maximum of 40 vehicles to be accommodated.o The area to be maintained as a grassed and planted area and the adjoining

embankment to provide a vegetated screen to the car park.o The use of the area as an emergency car park to cease by 30 March 1997.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Certificate of Title Volume 5717 Folio 270 / Plan of Subdivision 10109 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 36.02 – Public Park and Recreation ZonePursuant to Clause 36.02-1 and 36.02-2 - a permit is not required for the proposal as it does not change the use of the land nor propose any buildings and works.

Overlay(s)Clause 44.04 – Land Subject to Inundation OverlayPursuant to Clause 44.04-1 a permit is not required as there is no proposal to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.27 Licenced PremisesPursuant to Clause 52.27 a permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor if a licence is required under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. A licence is required under the Liquor Reform Act 1998 for the proposed change from one type of liquor licence to another, and therefore a planning permit is required under the provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Decision guidelines of this provision require the consideration of the following matters:

The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area. The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area. The cumulative impact of any existing licenced premises and the proposed licenced

premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.

It is noted that these provisions do not apply to a limited licence.


Clause 22.10 Licenced Premises Policy

Advertising

Page 20


The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing 3 signs on the site (one notice placed either side of Golfers Drive at Waverley Road which is the entrance to the premises, and one notice on the golf pro shop which forms part of the club premises). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and 13 objections from 10 different properties have been received. The grounds of objection are as follows:

Operational The hours on the existing liquor licence should be reduced, with last drinks served at

11.45pm; The ‘temporary’ change is proposed to become permanent once the renovations are

complete; There is no indication as to how many tables and chairs will be placed in the outdoor

area; No information is provided as to how patron departures will be monitored; As golf is only played during daytime hours, the use of the external seating area should

only be during daytime hours if it is for golfing patron use; Outdoor areas should only be licenced to 8pm when golfers finish playing; The use will operate as a pub;

Noise The location of the premises is at the bottom of a valley with dwellings above it and

noise is able to travel unobstructed to residents approx. 120 away; The expansion will add to noise already experienced from the freeway, Warrigal Road

and trains; Noise from amplified background music in the outdoor area until 1am is unacceptable

in the residential area; Have experienced problems with noise from amplified music from the premises in the

past, amplified music outside should not be permitted till 1am. EPA set guidelines for noise in residential areas to 10pm, with noise up to 11pm on Fridays and Saturdays;

A 'Restaurant and Café' Licence only permits music at background noise levels whereas an 'On-Premises' Licence permits amplified music;

Noise from people leaving the car park will affect residents; Should not be able to hear noise outside the hours permitted by EPA in residential

areas :o Mon to Thurs – before 7am or after 10pmo Fri – before 7am or after 11pmo Sat – before 9am or after 11pmo Sun – before 9am or after 10pm

Car Parking Concern with where 527 patrons would park; Council has previously committed that there would be no additional car parking on the

eastern side of Gardiners Creek;

Other The application was not advertised extensively, the notices on site were not in obvious

positions, and residents in Lomond Terrace should have been notified;

Page 21


The isolated position of the golf club could invite undesirable behaviour from outside the local community, gate crashers etc;

There is no necessity to change from a 'Restaurant and Café' Licence to an 'On-Premises' Licence;

The proposal should comply with requirements for Neighbourhood Residential Zone; Proposal does not comply with Council’s licenced policy; Golf course rubbish, storage etc should be removed from Lomond Park; Environmental impacts (eg on wildlife during breeding season).

A Consultative Meeting was held on 4 April 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillor Klisaris, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting provided an opportunity to clarify what aspects of the proposal require a planning permit and to discuss and clarify the issues of concern for residents.

The Consultative Meeting did not result in any changes to the proposal.

Referrals

Community & Health Planner

Council’s Community & Health Planner has supported the request to change from a restaurant/café licence to an on-premises licence subject to the following:

Reduction in extended temporary red-line area back to original area following the completion of the renovation.

It is considered appropriate to reduce the red-line area following completion of the renovations. This can be included as a condition of approval.

Building and Local Laws

Council’s Building and Local Laws have advised that Council has not received any complaints relating to the use of the function centre.

KEY ISSUES

Stonnington Planning Scheme

It is Council policy in Clause 22.10 (Licenced Premises Policy) that:

The operation of licenced premises should have no unreasonable impact on the amenity and safety of surrounding uses, in relation to noise, hours of operation and car parking demand.

The location of the licenced premises, its use, nature of surrounding uses and hours of operation, its zoning and the zoning of surrounding land be considered in the determination of the hours of operation of the licenced premise.

The preferred location for trading after 11:00pm is in principal and major activity centres, subject to compliance with all other aspects of this policy.

Trading after 11:00pm is discouraged for licenced premises adjacent to a residential zone/use unless the responsible authority is satisfied that the use will not adversely affect the amenity of the area.

Licenced premises should not be concentrated to the extent that there is an adverse cumulative effect on the area.

Day-time uses and active frontages are encouraged within activity centres.

Page 22


Licenced premises should be located so as to discourage patrons parking in a residential zone.

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

Light spill should not detract from the amenity of the surrounding area. Noise emissions from licenced premises should comply with the standards specified in

the State Environment Protection Policies. On-site noise attenuation measures be implemented where amenity impacts on

surrounding uses may result from licenced premises.

Both Clause 22.10 and Clause 52.27 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are applicable to the assessment of this application. It is identified within Clause 22.10 that Council's Saturation Policy 2010 indicates that most harm comes from late night venues with either General or On Premises licences operating after 12.00am- defined as a Source of Potential Harm. This proposal, however, is not for a new licenced premises (it has operated for many years) and the application does not intend to change the existing permitted hours of operation (operating to 1am) nor increase the number of permitted patrons (527).

It is policy that licenced premises should not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the surrounding uses in relation to noise, hours of operation, light spill, and car parking demand and the potential spill of car parking into residential areas. Clause 22.10 outlines that the surrounding uses and zoning should be considered when determining the hours of trading for a licenced premises, to address any potential amenity impacts. Furthermore Clause 22.10 directs liquor trading after 11.00pm to Principal Activity Centres subject to compliance with other aspects of the policy. Clause 52.27 (Licenced Premises) guides Council to consider the cumulative impact of any existing licenced premises and the proposed licenced premises on the amenity of the surrounding area, taking into account the hours of operation and number of patrons. The extent of the assessment is required to be proportional to the likely impact of the proposal. Clause 22.10 and Clause 52.27 discourage concentration of licenced premises to address the potential for an adverse cumulative effect on the area.


The site is situated within a Public Park and Recreation Zone (Clause 34.01) where the purpose includes:

To recognise areas for public recreation and open space. To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate. To provide for commercial uses where appropriate.

Use of the land for a reception/function centre within this zone requires a planning permit – as previously noted however, the premises has existing use rights and function facilities have been operating alongside the golf activities for many years. Nevertheless, the objectives of the zone recognise that some commercial uses can be permitted within this zone ‘where appropriate’.

Amenity impacts

Noise

Page 23


It is not anticipated that noise will be an issue with the change in licence type given t h a t the nature of the use, number of permitted patrons and the proposed operating hours will remain unchanged. Additional noise impacts may be possible from the external areas of the proposed extended red-line area. In light of this, it is considered appropriate to restrict the serving of alcohol to these areas to not occur beyond 9pm. Also, it is appropriate to include a condition of approval prohibiting entertainment or music (live or amplified) to the extended red-line area. In addition, it is appropriate to adopt the recommendation of Council’s Community & Health Planner and require a reduction in the red-line area back to the original approval following the completion of the renovation - this can be included as a condition of approval with an extension up to 31 December 2017 to accommodate any unexpected delays on the renovations of the premises.

With regard to the operation of the function centre, it has a number of outdoor terraces and there is potential for noise from these areas to impact on nearby residents. Given the existing use rights of the centre, Council cannot restrict the use of the outdoor terraces by guests but can restrict the permitted hours for the serving of alcohol to these areas. In response to Council’s Licenced Premises Policy, it is considered appropriate to restrict the serving of alcohol to these outdoor areas to 11pm Friday and Saturday and until 9.00pm Sunday to Thursday. This will be reflected as a condition of approval.

Number of Patrons

It is not proposed to increase the maximum number of patrons from the existing permitted number of 527. Whilst the extended red-line area is in operation, the maximum number of patrons will remain at 527.

Hours of Operation

The hours of operation are not proposed to alter from the existing approved hours, as follows:

Sunday: Between 10am and 11.30pm; Sunday (being Christmas Eve or Day; New Year’s Eve or Day): Between 10am and

1am the following morning; Good Friday: Between 12 noon and 11.30pm; Anzac Day (falling on Monday to Saturday): Between 7am and 1am the following

morning; Anzac Day (falling on a Sunday): Between 12 noon and 11.30pm; On any other day: between 7am and 1am the following morning.

In accordance with Council policy at Clause 22.10, liquor licences with trading hours past 11.00pm are generally only considered within Principal Activity Centres, but these hours of operation have previously been approved and form part of the current liquor licence for the premises. The function/reception centre use has been operating under existing use rights with the hours of operation restricted only by the existing liquor licence. As noted above, even though there is no intention to change the use on the site, Council can restrict the hours of the new licence given that a different type of licence is proposed. It is appropriate that the serving of alcohol to the outdoor areas of the premises (that is, the outdoor terrace and garden areas) cease by 11pm Friday and Saturday and by 9.00pm Sunday to Thursday. This restriction is appropriate as it is more likely that noise impacts from the operation of the function centre would occur from these external areas rather than from inside the building. Continuation of the operation of the function centre to 1.00am (till 11.30pm on a Sunday excluding the Sundays set out above) is appropriate for all parts of the building, noting that the function centre has previously been operating at these times and no noise complaints (as confirmed by Local Laws) have been received by Council.

Page 24


With regard to the proposed temporary extension of the ‘red-line’ licence area to incorporate the golf pro-shop/kiosk building and the landscaped/paved area outside the kiosk entry and between the kiosk and the main club building, there is potential for additional noise to be generated. The intension is for users of the golf course/club facilities to have a space where they can sit and have a drink following a game while the main building is undergoing renovation. It is considered appropriate that the licensing of this space be limited to 9.00pm on any day.

Compatibility with Surrounding Land and Uses

In accordance with Council policy at Clause 22.10, consideration of the surrounding uses and zoning is required. As identified previously the site is located within a Public Park and Recreation Zone. Surrounding land includes the Monash Freeway, railway line, golf course and parkland and the residential uses located approximately 130 metres from the club building. It is considered that the proposed changes, subject to the conditions outlined above, would not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. The operation of the reception/function rooms will continue under their existing use rights and alongside the golf club, and the proposed change in liquor licence will not cause a change in operation that would significantly impact on the amenity of the area.

Cumulative Impact

As the premises is already licenced, there would be no adverse cumulative impact as the number of licenced premises remains unchanged.

Car Parking

The number of patrons on the premises remains unchanged at 527, so there is no trigger for additional car parking to be provided on the site. The car parking requirement for a place of assembly (the land-use category within which a reception/function centre belongs) is 0.3 spaces per patron, equating to 158 car spaces. There are approximately 155 car spaces on the site.

Residents have expressed their concern with the previous use of the grassed area off Lomond Terrace for car parking (the land approved in 1994 for emergency parking). The operator has advised that this has not been formally permitted and will ensure that it does not continue to occur. It is noted that this approval to use the land for car parking lapsed in 1997 and enforcement action can be taken if it re-occurs.

Objections


Page 25


Residents have stated that the application was not advertised extensively. Three on-site notices were displayed (refer to photo below for sign locations). One notice was placed either side of Golfers Drive at Waverley Road which is the entrance to the premises, and one notice placed on the golf pro shop which forms part of the club premises. Notices were also posted to the owners and occupiers of abutting properties to the golf course (a total of 61 notices were sent). No further notice was required as there was no proposed increase to the number of patrons or hours of operation of the premises.

Location of Advertising Notices

Residents are concerned that the isolated position of the golf club could invite undesirable behaviour from outside the local community, gate crashers etc. It is a responsibility of management of the premises to ensure that appropriate security is provided to their premises, and a policing matter if undesirable behaviour occurs.

A number of objectors formed the view that there is no necessity to change from a 'Restaurant and Café' Licence to an 'On-Premises' Licence. The applicant explained that, given the nature of the use of the premises, the most appropriate licence is an ‘On-Premises’ licence. The premises has never operated as a restaurant and only club members or guests to a function have attended/will attend the premises, and not customers looking for a restaurant.

A concern was expressed that golf course rubbish, storage etc should be removed from Lomond Park. This is not a matter that can be addressed in the consideration of this planning application and should be followed up by the public land manager. The applicant has been advised of this issue.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

Page 26


The proposal responds adequately to the relevant State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

It is considered that the proposed change in liquor licence type will not significantly impact on the amenity of the area given the nature and operation of the existing premises (including the approved hours of operation and maximum patron numbers).

The planning permit conditions restricting the hours of use of the outdoor terraces would minimise amenity impacts.

It is considered appropriate to permit the extended red-line area on a temporary basis only to allow for the completion of the renovations to the facility.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 1139-16 - Malvern Valley Golf Course Hub Facility 1-3 Golfers Drive, Malvern East

Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1139/16 for the land located at Malvern Valley Golf Course Hub Facility, 1-3 Golfers Drive, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a change to the liquor licence from a 'Restaurant and Café' licence to an 'On-Premises' licence, and to increase the area that liquor is permitted to be consumed or supplied subject to the following conditions:

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

2. Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the sale and consumption of liquor within the building is only permitted as follows:

Sunday: Between 10am and 11.30pm; Sunday (being Christmas Eve or Day; New Year’s Eve or Day):

Between 10am and 1am the following morning; Good Friday: Between 12 noon and 11.30pm; Anzac Day (falling on Monday to Saturday): Between 7am and 1am

the following morning; Anzac Day (falling on a Sunday): Between 12 noon and 11.30pm; On any other day: between 7am and 1am the following morning.

3. The sale and consumption of liquor within the outdoor terrace and garden areas (excluding the extended red-line area restricted by Condition 4) is only permitted till 9.00pm Sunday to Thursday and 11.00pm Friday and Saturday.

4. The sale and consumption of liquor within the extended red-line area is only permitted until 9.00pm daily.

5. A maximum number of 527 patrons may be housed on the premises at any one time to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. No entertainment or music (live or amplified) may be provided on the temporary extended red-line area hereby approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 27


7. The extended red-line area must revert back to the original red-line area following the completion of the renovations at the Malvern Valley Golf Club premises or by 31 December 2017 (whichever occurs first).

8. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council Collection) must be conducted between the hours of 7.00am and 4.00pm Mondays to Fridays and between 9.00am and 1.00 pm on Saturdays to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. Bottles and rubbish must not be removed from within the premises between the hours of 11pm and 7am the following day.

10. Prior to the commencement of the new licence, a Noise and Amenity Action Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority containing the following information:

a) The identification of all noise sources associated with the licenced premises (including, but not limited to, music noise, external areas allocated for smokers, queuing lines, entries and exits to the premises and courtyards).

b) Hours of operation for all parts of the premises.c) Details of the provision of music including the frequency and hours of

entertainment provided by live bands and DJs.d) The identification of noise sensitive areas including residential uses and

accommodation in close proximity to the licenced premises.e) Measures to be undertaken to address all noise sources identified,

including on and off-site noise attenuation measures.f) Details of staffing arrangements including numbers and working hours of

all security staff.g) Standard procedures to be undertaken by staff in the event of a

complaint by a member of the public, the Victoria Police, an authorised officer of the responsible authority or an officer of the liquor licensing authority.

h) Location of lighting within the boundaries of the site, security lighting outside the licenced premises and any overspill of lighting.

i) Details of waste management plan including storage and hours of collection for general rubbish and bottles, and delivery times associated with the licenced premises.

j) Details of any measures to work with neighbours or other residents in the immediate area to address complaints and general operational issues.

k) Any other measures to be undertaken to ensure minimal impacts from the licenced premises.

l) Location and operation of air-conditioning, exhaust fan systems and security alarms.

The approved Noise and Amenity Action Plan will form part of the permit and the use must operate in accordance with it to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. The licencee of the liquor licence approved under this permit must become a member and active participant in the Stonnington Liquor Accord to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 28


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

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the prescribed timeframes, where the use allowed by the permit has not yet started.

NOTES:

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

B Unless a permit is not required under the Stonnington Planning Scheme, signs must not be constructed or displayed without a further planning permit.

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

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Attachments - Locality Plans, Site Plan, Floor Plans,

Page 29


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0604/16 - 107 DARLING ROAD, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone comprising a three storey building containing a total of 9 dwellings (3 two-bedroom, and 6 three-bedroom dwellings) over a basement containing 19 car spaces at 107 Darling Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: proUrbanWard: EastZone: General Residential Zone – Clause 32.08 - Schedule 10 -

Garden River & Garden SuburbanOverlay: N/ANeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 4 Date lodged: 15 July 2016Statutory days: (as at Council meeting date)

18


More than 7 objections

Cultural Heritage Plan NoNumber of objections: Twelve (12) Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 1 December 2016Officer 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 Bruce Henderson Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: TP-201, TP-202, TP-203, TP-204, TP-205, TP-300, TP-301, TP-302, TP-303, TP-304, TP-305, TP-306, TP-400, TP401, TP-402, TP-403, TP-404, TP-405, TP-406, TP-407, TP-500, TP-501, TP-502, TP-600, TP-610, TP-700, TP-701, TP-702, TP-703, TP-704 all Revision 4 and Council date stamped 4 May 2017.

Key features of the proposal are:

The construction of a three storey building comprising nine (9) dwellings made up of six 3-bedroom dwellings and three 2-bedroom dwellings constructed over a basement.

A total of 19 car spaces are provided in the basement. The development proposes a row of 4 x three storey dwellings fronting Darling Road

and a row of 5 x two and three storey dwellings at the rear. Breaks in the buildings are

Page 31


provided between Dwelling 2 and 3 (front row) and between Dwelling 6 and 7 (back row) which run in an east to west direction.

The front and rear rows of dwellings are also separated by 4.2 metre wide break that runs in a north to south direction providing a landscaped walkway for pedestrian access to the dwellings at the rear from Darling Road.

Pedestrian access to the dwellings at the front of the site will be via individual private entrances via Darling Road.

Private open space for each of the four dwellings facing Darling Road is provided within the front setback, while the private open space for the row of dwellings to the rear is situated within the rear setback on the west side of the building. Small balconies are provided on Level 2 for all three storey dwellings.

The existing crossover to the north of the site’s frontage will be modified to allow for vehicle access to the proposed basement from Darling Road.

Each dwelling is provided a secure double car garage (in a tandem arrangement) along with storage at the basement level.

One (1) visitor space is provided between Dwellings 6 and 7. The building will have a maximum overall building height of 9.9 metres. The building will be constructed from a range of materials including metal cladding,

concrete, rendered and painted finishes, timber, metal balustrades and glazing.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the west side of Darling Road, Malvern East approximately 130 metres north of the intersection with Waverley Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The subject site is a single lot with a total site area of 1420 sq. m. The site is regular in shape and has a street frontage of 33 metres and a site depth of

42 metres. The land previously featured a large Edwardian dwelling with late extensions to the

rear consisting of both single and double storey elements. The additions extended to the rear (west) and south boundaries.

The building was previously used as a nursing home known as Kalimna House Private Nursing Home.

Parking for the nursing home was provided at the rear of the building via the lane. The site is now vacant and the building and associated landscaping have been

removed. There is an evident fall across the land of approximately 2 metres from north to south. An existing crossover exists to Darling Road to the north of the site.

To the immediate north is No. 109 Darling Road which contains a double storey Edwardian dwelling with a garage constructed within the south-west corner of the site. A large area of secluded private open space is located to the west of the dwelling.

Directly to the east of the subject site is Darling Road, a two way street with parallel parking on both sides of the road reserve. The site is less than 200 metres to the north of the Waverley Road tram service. The site is also directly served by a bus service on its Darling Road frontage and Malvern Railway Station is approximately 1km to the east. Built form in this street consists of mainly single and double storey detached dwellings.

To the south of the subject site is No. 103-105 Darling Road which is occupied by a single storey triple fronted dwelling, with sheds and single storey garages constructed along the north (common) boundary. Secluded private open space is located to the west of the dwelling.

Page 32


Immediately to the west of the subject site is a laneway that runs parallel with Darling Road and provides rear access to the residential properties fronting both Darling Road and Beech Street to the west.

Across the laneway are the rear private open spaces of No. 24, No. 26 and No. 28 Beech Street. These properties are within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and a Neighbourhood Character Overlay and are currently developed with single storey detached dwellings. There are some outbuildings and garage along the rear of these properties abutting the lane and mature vegetation is visible within these backyards. These lots have a mandatory maximum building height of 9 metres.



Planning Permit 1023/04 issued on 1 April 2005 for buildings and works to the existing nursing home.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 09464 Folio 399 known as Plan of Consolidation 153510 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 32.08 - General Residential Zone, Schedule 10

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 (Construction or extension of a dwelling or residential buildingMinimum garden area requirement) the following applies:

Whether or not a planning permit is required for the construction or extension of a dwelling or residential building on a lot, a lot must provide the minimum garden area at ground level as set out in the following table:

Clause 32.08-6 states that a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-9 (Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building) a building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling or a residential building that:

Page 33


exceeds the maximum building height specified in a schedule to this zone; or contains more than the maximum number of storeys specified in a schedule to this

zone.

If no maximum building height or maximum number of storeys is specified in a schedule to this zone:

the building height must not exceed 11 metres; and the building must contain no more than 3 storeys at any point.

A basement is not a storey for the purposes of calculating the number of storeys contained in a building.

A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no more than 1.2 metres.

Schedule 10 to this Zone stipulates a mandatory maximum building height of 9 metres or 10 metres on a sloping site. The subject site has a mandatory maximum height of 10 metres due to the slope and must not exceed 3 storeys at any point.

The schedule also varies the following Clause 55 Standards:Standard Requirement

Site coverage A5 and B8 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.Landscaping B13 In addition to the requirements of B13, at least one canopy

tree should be planted on the site.Side and rearsetbacks

A10 and B17 For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies.

Walls onboundaries

A11 and B18 Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-14 (Transitional provisions) the minimum garden area requirement of Clause 32.08-4 and the maximum building height and number of storeys requirements of Clause 32.08-9 introduced by Amendment VC110 do not apply to a planning permit application for the construction or extension of a dwelling or residential building lodged before the approval date of Amendment VC110 (approved 27 March 2017).

This application has been amended on 4 May 2017 via Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and therefore does not benefit from the transitional provisions.

Overlay(s)

No Overlays affect the site.


Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, prior to a new use commencing or a new building be occupied the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.

Page 34


The table at Clause 52.06-5 states that 1 car space is to be provided to each one or two bedroom dwelling; or 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling; plus 1 car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

As this development proposes 3 two-bedroom and 6 three-bedroom dwellings, a total of 15 spaces are required to the dwellings along with one (1) visitor space. The proposed development provides 19 car spaces within a basement, two (2) to each dwelling and one (1) visitor space which exceeds the statutory requirement.

Clause 55 – Two dwellings on a lot and residential buildings

A development:

Must meet all of the objectives of this clause. Should meet all of the standards of this clause.

If a zone or a schedule to a zone specifies a requirement of a standard different from a requirement set out in this clause, the requirement in the zone or a schedule to the zone applies.


Clause 11 SettlementClause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 HousingClause 18.02 Movement networks

Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.08 InfrastructureClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development PolicyClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) PolicyClause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing four (4) signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and objections from 12 different properties have been received. The concerns of the objectors can be summarized as follows: Insufficient boundary setbacks; Visual bulk; Unreasonable traffic and car parking impacts; Impacts on the general amenity of the area; Overlooking and privacy concerns ; Neighbourhood character; Loss of daylight to neighbouring windows; The four storey scale of the building is excessive; Insufficient landscaping;

Page 35


The proposal will set a precedent; Detracts from the Neighbourhood Character Overlay on Beech Street; Overdevelopment; Construction impacts and noise; and Air-conditioning units are not shown on plans.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 1 December 2016. The meeting was attended by Councillors Klisaris, Davis and Atwell, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council Planning Officer.

Following this meeting, the application plans were amended under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on 4 May 2017 to address concerns raised by the Planning Department. The plans were amended to address a number of concerns raised by the Planning Department and show the following changes:

Deletion of one (1) dwelling from the rear (west) row of dwellings. 3m wide break introduced between Dwellings 06 and 07. Removal of the third floor levels of Dwellings 09 and 05. Removal of the dining /study areas on the north and south boundaries associated with

Dwellings 09 and 05 respectively. Introduction of one (1) visitor car space within the basement. Updated overlooking screening and windows fixed. Notations included that operable obscure glass windows are to be awning style

restricted to a maximum opening of 120mm. Operable shading to select north facing windows. Basement layout details shown including the addition of a convex mirror and internal

garage dimensions.

The changes to the plans have reduced the development from the plans as advertised and have provided a designated visitor car space. It is considered that no additional material detriment will result from the amended plans and the reduction in parking initially sought is no longer proposed. No advertising of the amended plans was deemed necessary. Objectors will be advised of the changes to the plans via the Council Meeting invitation.

Referrals

Urban Design (Comments based on plans as advertised)

Subject to some suggested refinements (below), this is a well-designed contemporary town-house development that adds to the diversity of housing in the area. The form is structured as three 2-storey ‘base’ buildings with recessed upper levels that are well-articulated, both in plan and in 3-dimensions.

The form and scale transition, and setbacks, to the rear lane and to the NRZ to the West, are satisfactory, however the landscape interface should be strengthened.

Similarly, the interfaces between Town-Houses 05 &10 and the respective neighbouring private open spaces of No.109 to the North and No.103-105 to the South, will need to be suitably screened with small canopy trees.

It is suggested that the following matters should be addressed:

1. The Landscape Plan does not indicate the mature height of proposed canopy trees; and this should be corrected.

Page 36


2. The ‘Study/Dining’ areas, associated with the Ground-Level of Town Houses 05 & 10, project to the side boundaries and preclude the ability for small canopy-tree landscaping to screen the interfaces with the neighbouring private open spaces of No.109 to the North, and No.103-105 to the South. These projections should be deleted in favour of a small canopy treed landscape interface.

3. The Plant Schedule appears to indicate that the ‘canopy trees’ within the rear setback will be only 3.5m in height (?). The Schedule should be revised to clearly indicate that proposed canopy trees will be at least 7m in height, in order to provide effective perimeter screening to sensitive interfaces to the North, South and West.

Planner Note: The ‘Study/Dining’ areas have been deleted on the amended plans. An updated landscape plan will be required via conditions of any permit that issues to ensure appropriate canopy trees are provided to the side and rear of the new buildings.

Landscape (Comments based on plans as advertised)

The landscape concept is supported. Permit Condition - Protection fencing must be afforded to the mature Pyrus calleryana

(Callery Pear) street tree at this location prior to construction works occurring. Fencing must comply with Section 4 of AS 4970.

A street tree bond of $5000 to be required via a condition of any permit. .

Transport and Parking Department (Comments based on plans as advertised)

It is the view of Council’s Transport and Parking Unit that visitor parking should be provided on-site, particularly in light of the overall surplus. Notwithstanding, it is noted that all onsite parking is to be provided in the form of onsite garages, which may not be appropriate for use by visitors to a development.

Traffic generation is unlikely to impact the surrounding road network. Each garage located within the basement will have a headroom clearance of 2.1m.

This can be considered satisfactory as the approach is flat. The applicant is to ensure that the minimum clear height of 2.1m is provided throughout all the garages and is to be clearly shown on revised plans.

Sight triangles on either side of the accessway are acceptable. The internal sight distance to vehicles travelling on the ramp appears to be impacted by

the internal wall. Vehicles in the garages may not see vehicles travelling down the ramp which may cause conflicts. It is recommended that some control such as a convex mirror be implemented to alert vehicles, to minimize the risk of conflicts around these walls.

The applicant is to confirm that an internal length of 6m is provided for the double garages.

Garage door dimensions exceed the requirements of the Planning Scheme. The length of the internal tandem garages is sufficient to cater for two vehicles parked

in tandem and can be considered satisfactory. An aisle width of 5.8m is provided between the garages in the basement. This appears

to be tight for a vehicle to enter/exit the garages. A swept path assessment has been provided in the TIA to demonstrate that a B85 vehicle can enter and exit the garages chosen for the assessment. One additional movement can be generally accepted as this is a private garage, however it appears that accessing these garages will be difficult for residents of the development.

The ramp gradients and grade changes along the accessway which accord with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

Page 37


The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking area. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1.

There is no Planning Scheme requirement to provide bicycle parking for the proposed development.

It appears that any modification to the vehicle crossing may impact an existing Telstra pit. It is not clear from the plans how close the proposed crossing will be to this pit and if it will be required to be removed / relocated.

Planner Note: The above have been addressed via the amended plans submitted to Council on 4 May 2017.

Environmentally Sustainable Design (Comments based on plans as advertised)

The BESS Assessment included in the SMP shows as a draft. To be accepted as a finalised report, this must be finalised in the BESS tool.

Due to the design and dual aspect nature of the development, daylight, natural ventilation and direct sunlight would be to best practice.

Fixed external shading is required for all north elevation windows in order to prevent passive solar gain in summer while enabling warming winter sun to reach the glazing. A fixed overhang that projects 45% of the glazing height should achieve this.

Operable external shading should be provided to east and west facing glazing and is preferred to fixed shading devices. This could be in the form of operable louvers, sliding shutters or external blinds.

Other aspects include positive initiatives.

Planner Note: An updated BESS Report will be required via permit conditions. The shading of north, east and west windows has been addressed via the amended plans (4 May 2017). The plans show passive shading via eaves to the east and west, while the north facing windows that will be impacted by direct northern sunlight have included fixed shading.

Waste

A comprehensive Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared was submitted which responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans.

The WMP must include the option of utilising Council’s waste services.

Planner Note: An updated WMP will be required via a condition of approval to address the above.

Infrastructure

The following conditions should be included as conditions on any permit issued:

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

The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland

Page 38


flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line.

Planner Note: The above conditions will be included on any permit issued.

KEY ISSUES


The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres and close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

The subject site is within the General Residential Zone where the purpose, amongst other things, is:

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations

offering good access to services and transport.

At a local level, the subject site not located on a main road and is defined as being within an “incremental change area” as part of Council’s Strategic Framework Plan (Clause 21.03-3). An incremental change area sits outside the Heritage Overlay and Neighbourhood Character Overlay, and it is policy to direct multi-unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable of accommodating increased density. Council’s local policies also seek to promote housing diversity by encouraging residential infill development consistent with maintaining a balance of dwelling types in the area.

The subject site is a large parcel of land (1420sq. m in area) and is within 200 metres of the Waverley Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre which provides a range of local services and community facilities and public transport (trams). The Darling Train Station and East Malvern Train Station, are also within close proximity.

Based on the above attributes, the subject site is deemed to be capable of accommodating a medium density residential development comprising townhouses varying between 2 and 3 storeys in height.

Neighbourhood Character

The surrounding residential area along Darling Road has traditionally been characterised by single and double storey dwellings generally in the form of detached houses on generous allotments with large front and rear yards and landscaping. More recently, some medium density developments are observed in the area.

The subject site is within the Garden Suburban 4 Precinct at Clause 22.23 (Council’s Local Neighbourhood Character Policy). The statement of preferred character for this precinct includes the following:

Page 39


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

The design objectives for this precinct seek:

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

To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape. To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the

details of buildings in the area. To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings. To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the

neighbourhood. To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures. To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the

street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.

Overall, the proposal responds positively to the neighbourhood character guidelines for the precinct as follows:

The proposed development proposes two and three storey forms that are well articulated and provide a good transition in scale to the surrounding built form.

The building detailing uses well defined framing elements and finer grain details to articulate each dwelling and break up the visual width of the building when viewed from Darling Road.

The side and rear setbacks maintain the rhythm of built form in the area and provides adequate spacing between the neighbouring properties.

The front, side and rear setbacks, including the basement, will allow for the establishment of large canopy trees and will reinforce a garden setting around the new buildings.

Car parking will be fully concealed within a basement level which ensures that it is not visually dominant.

The proposed front fence is to be low for the extent of the street frontage.

The plans show the use of timber batten screening across the building. There is a desire to avoid the potential for the timber screens deteriorating and becoming unsightly. The applicant has confirmed that they are happy for the screen materials to be converted to aluminium or a similar material to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This will be addressed by way of a condition of any permit that issues. Subject to the condition above, the development is deemed to be a high quality design response that will sit comfortably within this neighbourhood. Further consideration of the design response and any amenity impacts are detailed in the following sections of this report.

Site Layout and Building Massing

Street Setback

Page 40


The new dwellings are setback from Darling Road between 8.7 and 8.8 metres, while the dwelling entries are further recessed at 9.6 metres from the street. The adjoining properties to the north and south are setback approximately 8.8 metres and 11 metres, respectively.

Based on the average of the two adjoining properties, the required setback is 9 metres. While there is minor non-compliance proposed (200-300mm), the setbacks will match the dwelling to the north and will provide for a suitable setback capable of accommodating canopy trees. The setbacks as proposed will continue to reflect the rhythm of other buildings in the street and are therefore considered to be acceptable.

Building Height

Due to the slope in the land, the mandatory maximum building height for this site is 10 metres, plus 1.2 metres for a lift overrun. As proposed, no part of the building, including the lift overrun will exceed 10 metres at any point. This is compliant with the mandatory height control for this lot and meets the Standard.

Site Coverage and Permeability

The Garden Suburban 4 Precinct discourages high site coverage that prevents an adequate landscape response. The revised plans have ensured site coverage does not exceed 43% at ground floor level, with permeability at 25% of the overall site area. Both of these figures comply with the Clause 55 Standards.

The basement footprint proposed by this development is confirmed at 75% of the site area and therefore complies with the varied Clause 55 requirements included within the Schedule to the Zone.

In accordance with the minimum garden area requirement under the General Residential Zone, this development provides the minimum 35% garden area at the ground floor level.

As proposed, the site coverage and permeability will allow for adequate in-ground planting as sought by Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy.

Energy Efficiency

The new dwellings have been designed with good access to natural light and ventilation. All habitable rooms have an external window and operable glazing to promote cross ventilation and allow for future occupants to effectively manage natural ventilation of the dwellings. In addition, all areas of private open space will receive adequate solar access and north sunlight.

It has been recommended by Council’s ESD Officer that a fixed overhang that projects above the north facing glazing would prevent passive solar gain in summer while enabling warming winter sun to reach the glazing. It is also recommended that operable external shading should be provided to east and west facing glazing. Adequate shading devices and eaves have been highlighted on the amended plans submitted to Council on 4 May 2017.

The Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) provided in support of this application confirms that all dwellings have been designed having regard to Council’s SDAPP recommendations and each dwelling achieves a minimum 6.5 star average energy efficiency rating, meets the minimum insulation and glazing performance figures and exceeds the minimum best practice score of BESS. The BESS report that was submitted is a draft so before an accurate assessment can be made a final edit of a BESS report must be submitted. This will be included on the permit as a condition of approval.

Page 41


The development therefore, complies with the Energy Efficiency Standard and provides an adequate response to Council’s ESD Policy (Clause 22.05), subject to conditions. It is noted that the SMP has not been updated to reflect the changes on the amended plans and this will form a condition of approval.

The development will not unreasonably reduce solar access to an adjoining property.

Landscaping

The landscape plan has not been updated to reflect the changes shown on the amended plans. As advertised the landscape response includes a variety of trees to help soften the built form and ensure that the development provides an adequate garden setting. As a result of the amendments at the ground floor level and the removal of the ‘Study/Dining’ areas greater opportunity now exists to include canopy trees along the northern and southern boundaries.

In accordance with the advice of Council’s Urban Designer and to achieve the modified requirements of the Schedule to the Zone for Standard B13, the landscape plans must be updated to include canopy trees of at least 7 metres in height, in order to provide effective perimeter screening to sensitive interfaces to the front and rear of the building. Screening vegetation will also be required within the side and rear setbacks. An updated landscape plan will be required via a condition of any permit issues.

Access

Standard B14 states that the width of access ways should not exceed 33% of the street frontage. The proposed crossover is shown to have a width of 3.6 metres (not including splays) to Darling Road. This equates to 11% of the site’s eastern frontage. As this is well below the 33%, the crossing comfortably complies with Standard B14.

Amenity Impacts

Side and Rear Setbacks

The development is setback from all boundaries, including the basement. The setbacks and wall heights vary across the site due to the slope in the land. All setbacks comply with the recommended setbacks of Standard B17.

South Interface

All setbacks on the south side of the building comply with the recommended setbacks of Standard B17.

Specifically, the buildings are setback between 1.88 metres and 2.2 metres at Ground and Level 1. The setbacks recommended for a wall of between 5.6-5.69 metres is 1.63 metres. Therefore, the proposed setbacks comply.

At Level 2 the front row of dwellings are setback 4.5 metres from the south boundary, while the rear row of dwellings are setback 7.8 metres. The wall heights vary between 8.7 metres for the front row and 9.1 metres for the rear row, requiring setbacks of 3.79 metres and 4.19 metres, respectively. The south wall of the retreat to Dwelling 01 (7.89m in height)

Page 42


encroaches within this setback as does the balcony (6.8m in height), however both have lower wall heights above natural ground level and both achieve the recommended setbacks of Standard B17, being 2.98 metres and 1.96 metres respectively.

West Interface

On the west side of the development the setbacks to the rear are fully compliant with the recommended setbacks of Standard B17.

At Ground Level a minimum setback of 5.37 metres is provided to the rear lane. At Level 1 the setback is reduced in parts to 4.3 metres with some architectural features setback 3.7 metres and some parts of the building are recessed up to 5.4 metres from the rear. The recommended setback of 1.63 metres is exceeded.

At Level 2, only the three middle dwellings have a third floor level and these are setback 7.3 metres, with balconies proposed to be 5.6 metres from the rear boundary. The rear laneway provides an additional 3 metres separation to the properties on the west of lane, fronting Beech Street. As per Standard B17 a setback of 2.5 metres is required to the face of the balconies, while a setback of 4.29 metres is required to the face of the building. Both setbacks are in excess of the recommendations of Standard B17 and therefore comply.

North Interface

The proposed setbacks on the north side of the building comply with Standard B17.

At Ground and Level 1 the building is setback between 1.88 metres and 2.2 metres with a wall height of 6.4 metres. The recommended setback of 1.84 metres is exceeded.

At Level 2 the front row of dwellings are setback 5.08 metres (3.3 metres to the balcony) from the north boundary, while the rear row of dwellings are setback 7.33 metres. The recommended setback of 4.99 metres is achieved, while the balcony also meets the required setback of 3.29 metres.

Walls on Boundary

No walls on boundaries are proposed.

It is noted that walls were initially proposed on both the north and south boundaries associated with Dwelling 05 and 10. These were shown on the advertised plans. However, amended plans have removed the ‘Study/Dining’ areas so that there are no walls proposed on a boundary as part of this application. The removal of these walls allows for greater opportunities for landscaping within the side setbacks.

Daylight to Existing windows

The setbacks as proposed ensure that all windows on all adjoining properties maintain adequate access to daylight in accordance with Standards B19 and B20.

North

The habitable room windows on the property to the north are located between 1.5 and 1.6 metres from the south boundary (common boundary with the subject site). The windows are located opposite the proposed vehicle access way at Ground Level which provides a setback of 5 metres to the boundary, meaning the development is setback 6.5 metres from the adjacent windows at Ground level.

Page 43


At Level 1 the new development is setback 1.8 metres from the north boundary, resulting in a setback of 3.3 metres from the adjacent windows. At Level 2, the balcony is setback 3.24 metres from the boundary, equating to a total setback from the windows of 4.74 metres.

Standard B19 (Daylight to existing windows objective), recommends that a new wall constructed opposite an existing window should be set back from the window at least 50 per cent of the height of the new wall. The setbacks as proposed comply with the recommendations of Standard B19 by providing a setback of 6.5 metres at Ground level, 3.3 metres at Level 1 with a wall height of 6.1 metres and 4.74 metres at Level 2 for a wall of 7.6 metres in height.

West

As there is a laneway located to the west of the site, there are no habitable room windows in close proximity of the rear boundary.

South

The north facing windows on the dwelling to the south are located 3.025 metres from the boundary of the subject site. Windows located in excess of 3 metres from the south boundary of the subject site will not be unreasonably affected by this development as determined by Standard B20 (North facing windows objective).

Overshadowing

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

Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.

If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.

The shadow diagrams confirm that the development will cast shadow to the south over the existing shed and garages and the concrete driveway at No. 103-105 Darling Road. The diagrams demonstrate that the majority of the secluded private open space will remain unaffected between 9am and 3pm on the Equinox. It is noted that the revised plans have reduced the built form to the rear and as such, have further reduced any overshadowing to the shed and garages. The proposal complies with Standard B21 and will not unreasonably overshadow any adjoining private open space on the Equinox. In excess of 75% of the secluded private open space will receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.

Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9 metre, 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.

Page 44


The Standard does not apply to any overlooking issues from the proposed ground level as the existing and proposed fences will prevent any unreasonable overlooking issues.

The proposal adequately addresses overlooking by providing a combination of highlight windows (1.7m above finished floor level) and 1.7 metre high obscure glass windows for all glazing to habitable room windows above the ground floor level with an outlook beyond the subject site to the north, south and west. Where obscure glass windows are shown to be operable a note has been applied that confirms that the awning style windows will be restricted 120mm to restrict views towards the adjoining properties.

The west facing balconies on Level 2 have not been screened along the west side. This is acceptable as the areas of private open space associated with the dwellings fronting Beech Street are located in excess of 9 metres from these balconies ensuring no unreasonable overlooking.

The two balconies at Level 2 to the north and south of the front row of dwellings have been screened to 1.7 metres above finished floor level with a privacy screen to limit views to the adjoining dwellings to the north and south. The floor plans note that these are to be B22 compliant.

All proposed overlooking treatments will ensure that the new dwellings will limit overlooking both beyond the site, and within the site itself in accordance with Standard B22 and B23.

Noise Impacts

The proposed residential development is not anticipated to generate noise above and beyond that normally associated with a residential building. All air conditioning units will be required to be screened via a condition of any permit issued and noise must at all times comply with the relevant state noise regulations as set by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

The applicant has confirmed that the heating / cooling units will be located within the basement, in the centrally positioned services areas identified on the basement plan. The location of the units within the basement will be confirmed via a permit condition to ensure this outcome.

Internal Amenity

The development is considered to offer a good level of internal amenity. The new dwellings have large internal living areas and good sized private open spaces. Each dwelling is provided with a minimum of two (2) secure car spaces and storage facilities within the basement. A lift is contained within each basement providing access to the levels above for those with limited mobility.

All dwellings have an east and west aspect providing access to daylight and northern sunlight.

The dwellings have been designed to have a good sense of address via covered entries accessed from landscaped paths, directly accessible from Darling Road.

The amenity of the new dwellings is deemed to be of an acceptable standard and complies with the Objectives of Clause 55.05.

Car Parking and Traffic

Page 45


The development fully complies with the statutory car parking requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme by providing two on-site car spaces to each new dwelling that will be secure and conveniently located within the basement. Additionally, the amended plans have introduced one (1) visitor parking bay within the basement which also complies with the statutory requirements.

Some concerns were raised by the Traffic Engineers with regard to dimensions of the access from the garages for B99 vehicles, potential conflicts along the ramp, and the location of a Telstra pit within the modified crossover.

These concerns are not deemed to be fundamental. The conflict along the ramp has been addressed through the use of convex mirrors shown on the amended plans dated 4 May 2017. Access to garages by a B99 vehicle is not considered to be of concern as this is a private basement and garages will be regularly used by the same vehicles and occupants will become familiar with the parking arrangements. The internal length of 6 metres for all double garages to meet the Planning Scheme requirements has also been shown on the amended plans dated 4 May 2017.

The issue of the vehicle crossing is also subject to approvals outside of the planning permit process. Permission from the relevant authorities will be required to relocate any services or pits. This will form a condition of any permit issued.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

The development proposes to install a 20,000L rainwater tank and raingardens to address the policy requirements of Clause 22.18. A STORM Report rating of 100% has been confirmed which meets the minimum best practice requirements.

Objections


Construction impacts.

Construction impacts are not a relevant planning consideration and will be assessed at the building permit stage.

The proposal will set a precedent.

Each planning application is assessed on its own merits and is subject to the relevant planning scheme provisions at the time the application is made to Council.

The air-conditioning units are not shown on plans.

A condition of approval will require that all air conditioning units must be screened and baffled and must be located within the service area within the basement.



Page 46


CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposed development reflects the preferred neighbourhood character and is in

accordance with State and local planning policies for a medium density residential development in a well serviced location.

The design provides adequate space for canopy trees and other vegetation to be planted around the building, strengthening the garden character of the area.

The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with the Clause 55 Objectives.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 604-16 - 107 Darling Road Malvern East - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 604/16 for the land located at 107 Darling Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for Construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans received by Council on 4 May 2017 but modified to show:

(a) The heating and cooling units to be confirmed as being located within the centrally positioned services areas identified on the basement plan;

(b) All timber screen materials to be converted to aluminium or a similar material to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(c) Any changes to the plans to comply with Conditions 3 (Landscape Plan), 6 (Sustainable Design Assessment) and 7 (Waste Management Plan);

all to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape concept plans dated 25 August 2016 prepared by Infinity Ben Scott Garden Design, and must show:

Page 47


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

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

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

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.f) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the siteg) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio

or decked areas.h) Height of canopy trees at maturity;i) Large canopy trees of at least 7 metres in height to be provided within the

front and rear setbacks;j) Screening trees to be shown to the north, south and west boundaries;

all to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. 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.

5. Prior to the commencement of all works, a security deposit of $5000.00 must be lodged with Council to ensure the development will not impact on the long term health of the Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) street tree. This deposit will be refunded when Council is satisfied that the health of this tree is not affected by the development.

6. Protection fencing must be afforded to the mature Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear) street tree at this location prior to construction works occurring. Fencing must comply with Section 4 of AS 4970.

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SDA must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The SDA must be generally in accordance with the Sustainability Management Plan prepared by Low Impact Development dated 15 August 2016 but modified to show:

a) A finalised version of the BESS Report b) Consistency with the archietcural plans and any conditon 1

requirements.

Page 48


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.

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by One Mile Grid and dated 15 July 2016 but modified to include the option of utilising Council’s waste services.

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.

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

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

11. 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.

12. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the permit holder must obtain approval from Council’s Building and Local Laws Department to construct or modify any vehicle crossover/s providing access to the subject site. The issue of a planning permit does not provide approval for vehicular crossovers which are outside of the title boundary.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in

Page 49


accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this

permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

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

ii. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:

a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or

b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or

c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 50


Page 51


4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0466/16- 63 HEYINGTON PLACE, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for Construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone at 63 Heyington Place, Toorak.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis Pty LtdWard: NorthZone: General Residential Zone – Schedule 8Overlay: NoneNeighbourhood Precinct: Garden EstateDate lodged: 16 June 2016Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

189


Councillor Call Up

Number of objections: 11Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Architecton and are known as Drawing No.s: TP2-001, TP2-002, TP2-003, TP2-004, TP2-005, TP2-006, TP2-100, TP2-101, TP2-102, TP2-104, TP2-105, TP2-106, TP2-107, TP2-109, TP2-110, TP5-001,TP5-002, TP5-003, TP5-004, TP5-005, TP6-001, TP6-002, TP6-003, TP6-004, Shadow Diagrams known as 6.01, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07, Materials Selection, all Council date stamped 6 October 2016. Landscape Plans prepared by Jack Merlo known as TP01, TP02,TP03, TP04, TP05, TP06TP07, 14 October 2016.

It is proposed to construct a 4 storey apartment building on the land. The following are the key aspects of the proposal:

A total of 13 Apartments each containing 3 bedrooms. A total of 30 car spaces including 28 resident spaces and 2 visitor spaces provided in

basement. Vehicle access via a double width crossover and two way driveway from Heyington

Place. An overall building height of 12.949 metres. A mixture of materials and finishes including stone tile, clear glazing, cobblestone,

aluminium windows frames.

Page 53


It is noted that a set of plans for discussion were provided by the applicant on 25 January 2017. These plans show potential increases to upper level and balcony setbacks, additional landscaping in planter boxes, and increase to the street setback at the north-east corner of the building. These plans did not address the concerns of Council officers and did not result in any formal amendments to the proposal and the following assessment is based on the formal application plans being those advertised in October 2016.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the western side of Heyington Place, Toorak, approximately 890 metres south of Toorak Road and approximately 74 metres south-west of the Yarra River. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The subject land is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Heyington Place of approximately 32 metres, a maximum depth of approximately 52.4 metres, and an area of approximately 1657 square metres.

The site is currently occupied by a detached double storey dwelling constructed of rendered brick, a garage and in-ground pool within the front setback and a tennis court to the rear. The site has a fall of approximately 2.4 metres from west (rear) to east (front).

The surrounding area has the following significant characteristics:

Features residential development with a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings. A small number of multi-unit buildings are dispersed throughout the area, these are predominantly in the form of 1960s-1970s units.

The residential nature of the wider area is broken up with the presence of St. Kevins College campuses to the north and east of the subject site and St. Catherines Girls School to the south.

Other notable features of the area include Heyington Railway Station and railway lines located approximately 83 metres to the south-east of the site the Yarra River is directly to the east and north of this railway land.

To the north of the subject site abutting approximately 50% of the boundary is a double storey brick dwelling at No. 65 Heyington Place. This dwelling includes a garage within the street setback location on the front boundary of the site.

Abutting the rear 50% of the northern boundary is a part-two, part-three storey townhouse development featuring one detached and two semi-detached dwellings. The secluded private open space of these dwellings is located adjacent to the subject site.

To the south of the site is a laneway with a vacant lot at No. 57 Heyington Place opposite. There is a current building application for construction of a double storey dwelling on this property.

Also to the south of the site is a single dwelling at No. 7 Gawith Court. This dwelling includes some north facing windows which face the adjoining laneway and subject site.

To the east of the site is No. 64 Heyington Place which is occupied by a double storey dwelling.

To the west of the site are single storey dwellings located at No. 2 and No. 3 Lawrenny Court. These dwellings include secluded private open space areas which are partially oriented toward the subject site.


A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications.

The Title

Page 54


The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04611 Folio 047 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 595077C. No covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


General Residential Zone - Clause 32.08

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6 a permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot.

Schedule 8 to the zone stipulates a maximum mandatory height limit of 12 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 13 metres. The applicant has provided plans to show that the site has a slope of 5 degrees, accordingly, the maximum building height limit is 13 metres. The proposed building has a height of 12.949 metres which complies.

A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no more than 1.2 metres.

The schedule also includes modified ResCode standards as follows:

Standard RequirementSite coverage A5 and B8 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site

area.Landscaping B13 In addition to the requirements of B13, at least one

canopy tree should be planted on the site.Side and rearsetbacks

A10 and B17 For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.

Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies

Walls onboundaries

A11 and B18 Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind.

Amendment VC110 It is noted that Planning Scheme Amendment VC110 was introduced on 27 March 2017. This amendment introduced new garden area and height controls to residential zones including:

A new garden area requirement which is applicable to construction or extension of a dwelling or residential buildings.

A new maximum building height requirement for residential buildings.

Within the General Residential Zone it is a requirement that a building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling or a residential building that:

exceeds the maximum building height specified in a schedule to this zone; or

Page 55


contains more than the maximum number of storeys specified in a schedule to this zone.

If no maximum building height or maximum number of storeys is specified in a schedule to this zone:

the building height must not exceed 11 metres; and the building must contain no more than 3 storeys at any point

Transitional provisions are included at Clause 32.08-14 (General Residential Zone) which outline that the minimum garden area requirement and the maximum building height and number of storeys requirements of Clause 32.09-9 introduced by Amendment VC110 do not apply to a planning permit application for the construction or extension of a dwelling or residential building lodged before the approval date of Amendment VC110 (27 March 2017). Accordingly, these new requirements do not apply to the current application as it was lodged on 8 June 2016.


Car Parking – Clause 52.06Pursuant 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.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 a dwelling requires the following car parking 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 generates a statutory requirement to provide 26 spaces for residents and 2 car spaces for visitors. The proposal provides 28 resident car spaces with each dwelling to have 2 car spaces aside from Apartments 3.01 and 3.2 which are to have 3 car spaces each. The basement car park also includes 2 visitor car spaces. Therefore, a permit is not required in relation to car parking.

Bicycle Parking - Clause 52.34Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, 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 52.34-3 a dwelling requires the following rates:

In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 5 dwellings for residents. In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 10 dwellings for visitors.

The proposal requires 3 bicycle spaces and provides 10 bicycle spaces in the basement.

Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Building - Clause 55An application for two or more dwellings on a lot must meet the objectives of Clause 55.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage – Clause 15.03

Page 56


It is noted that the subject site is located within 200 metres of the Yarra River and is therefore within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. Section 46 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 stipulates that a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) is required under for a proposed activity if the regulations require the preparation of the plan.

Regulation 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 states that a cultural heritage management plan is required for an activity if all or part of the activity area is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and all or part of the activity is a high impact activity. Regulation 45 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 states that the construction of three or more dwellings on a lot is a high impact activity. It is noted that the proposal is not exempt under Regulation 8A as the subject site is greater than 1100 square metres (1657 square metres).

The applicant has received certification of a preliminary aboriginal heritage test from Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Accordingly, Council is satisfied that a cultural heritage management plan is not required.


Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 15.03 Aboriginal cultural heritageClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 32.08 General Residential ZoneClause 52.06 Car parkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

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

The site is located in North Ward and objections from 11 different properties have been received. The objections are summarised as follows:

Not in keeping with neighbourhood character Excessive building height Traffic and parking impacts Inadequate landscape response Overlooking impacts Noise impacts Excessive visual bulk Proposal would set a precedent Excessive dwelling density Overshadowing Impacts on property values Overdevelopment Impacts on heritage building at No. 4 Lawrenny Court

Page 57


Non-compliance with ResCode in relation to dwelling diversity, street setback, site coverage, building height, solar access, screening

Lack of internal daylight access

A Consultative Meeting was not held as officers are recommending that the application be refused.

Referrals

Urban Design

The scale and extent of the building form is excessive when viewed from Heyington Place and neighbouring properties. In its current form and scale, the building dominates the predominantly 2-storey streetscape and the interfaces with the neighbouring residential properties.

In these respects, the proposal is inconsistent with the design guidelines for the ‘Garden Estate’ Precinct in the Neighbourhood Character Policy (at Clause 22.23 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme) which seeks to avoid:

- Development that is out of scale with the streetscape. - New developments and extensions that are visually bulky.

The building (i.e. the external face of the Level 2 terrace) is located approximately 1m forward of the adjoining building at No.65 Heyington Place. This, in combination with the excessive scale of the building, will have a dominating effect on the street frontage. The front setback should be increased to, at least, align with No.65.

The proposed side and rear setbacks provided are considered insufficient to provide a suitable transition in height and scale to the low-scale residential dwellings to the north and west. Greater side and rear setbacks and a reduction in the extent of built form are recommended to reduce the extent of visual bulk presenting to neighbouring residential interfaces.

The perimeter landscaping appears to be largely confined to small, above-ground planter boxes lining the inside face of the surrounding retaining walls. In my opinion, this is inconsistent with Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy (at Clause 22.23). The proposed development does not respond to the character of the area outlined for the ‘Garden Estate’ precinct which states:

- The Garden Estate character precinct comprises large, high quality buildings set within spacious, landscaped gardens. Generous front and side setbacks allow space for substantial planting and canopy trees, which reinforces the leafy character of the precinct and contributes to the Yarra River landscape setting.

The proposal is also inconsistent with the design guidelines set out for the Garden Estate precinct which seeks to avoid:

- Excessive site coverage and hard surfaces that leave inadequate space for trees and vegetation to complement the sensitive landscape environs; and

- Inadequate space for planting around buildings.

Page 58


In summary, the proposal presents as a large and visually bulky form that is inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood and dominates the predominantly 2-storey streetscape and the neighbouring residential interfaces.

The scope for a meaningful landscape setting, commensurate with the significant size of the site, is highly constrained by the excessive size of the building footprint. In terms of its scale, bulk, excessive building footprint and inadequate landscape response, the proposal is inconsistent with the design objectives of the ‘Garden Estate’ Neighbourhood Character precinct.

Infrastructure

The proposed ground floor level is very low relative to the site levels and is well below the lowest level of the site. The consequence of this is that it is likely that the development will flood from its own drainage discharge as well as there being a strong probability that there will also be surcharge back into the property from the Council drain into which it will be connected.

Under the Building Regulations the RBS is required to ensure that the building is protected from a 1 in 100 year storm and based on the current proposed levels of the building this cannot apparently be satisfied. The applicant should engage a suitably qualified Engineer to look at this matter and to recommend appropriate floor levels. It is likely that this will mean that the ground floor levels will need to be raised and significantly above the lowest level of the site to allow an overland flowpath around the building to be created to provide protection from the above flooding.

Pumps cannot be relied upon nor be expected to provide that protection and in particular given that the most likely time the pumps will fail would be during a storm with associated power black outs. Regardless of any back up power source provided, it is not possible to guarantee a 100% effective drainage system to protect against flooding or drainage damage to the below ground rooms.

If a permit is issued, the following should be addressed as conditions:

- should be included requiring 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.

- The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line

- The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.

- There will be significant additional stormwater runoff generated by the development and there are known drainage problems and flooding

Page 59


downstream of the property. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit.

Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 7,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

Parks

The proposal lists a mature Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) street tree to be removed to facilitate a crossover construction. This tree has structural deficiencies (split branch unions) and Council will now actively remove this tree based on the compromised stability of the crown.

The submitted basement plan indicates reasonably generous setbacks from the property boundary, but the sectional diagrams show the ground floor slab extending far beyond the basement envelope.

Minimal above ground space has been afforded to certain sections of the perimeter where landscape content (trees) are intended.

Landscape content above basement must be clearly identified and soil volumes provided to be noted on the plan.

If a permit is issued a condition should be included requiring protection fencing must be afforded to the mature Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) & Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum)street trees at this location prior to construction works occurring. Fencing must comply with Section 4 of AS 4970.

Transport and Parking

30 parking spaces are provided on-site with 28 spaces allocated to residents and 2 spaces to visitors. This exceeds the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The traffic impact as a result of the proposal is unlikely to impact the surrounding road network.

The width of the vehicle ramp exceeds the requirements of the Australian Standards and will be sufficient to cater for two-way flow within the basement car park.

The minimum headroom clearance proposed is 2.3m for the ramp and this is increased throughout the car park. This exceeds the requirements in the Australian Standards.

A formal sight triangle has not been provided to the south of the accessway, however due to the width of the accessway and that the vehicle crossing is proposed to be shared with the adjacent Right of Way (RoW) as a shared crossing, a formal sight triangle will not be required as this crossing will provide clear lines of sight. 1. Notwithstanding, the TIA states that to improve the sight lines to the Right of Way (RoW), a convex mirror should be installed. This has been included on the plans and can be considered satisfactory.

The applicant has provided swept path diagrams to demonstrate that a B99 vehicle and a waste vehicle can access the site from Heyington Place whilst maintaining two-way movement.

The sight distance for vehicles travelling around corners in the car park appears to be impacted by the internal walls of the lift core/storage areas. Vehicles in opposing directions will not see each other around the corner which may cause conflicts. The

Page 60


applicant has provided convex mirrors at each corner to assist with this issue. This can be considered satisfactory.

The parking bays have been dimensioned at 4.9m by 2.6m which are accessed from an aisle width of 6.4m. This meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The parking spaces located next to walls have been widened and have been set back a minimum of 300mm from the walls. This can also be considered satisfactory.

A corrective movement may be required to access/egress some parking spaces. This can be considered satisfactory as the spaces are located within the basement car park and will not affect the operation of the public road network. Overall the access arrangements of the parking spaces within the car park can be considered satisfactory.

Tandem bays are proposed within the basement car park. These spaces have been lengthened to 5.4m to incorporate the Planning Scheme requirement of 500mm between spaces and can be considered satisfactory.

The columns located throughout the basement car park have been setback from the aisle, however this setback has not been dimensioned on the plans.

The proposed storage cages will not protrude into the parking spaces. These cages can be considered satisfactory.

The plans show the ramp gradients and grade changes along the accessway ramp which accord with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1.

Bicycle parking provision exceeds the requirements of the Planning Scheme. It is recommended that the visitor bicycle space be relocated to the ground floor

(preferably closest to the entrance) for ease of access to visitors. The plans do not specify the height that the Ned Kelly racks will be mounted. This is to

be confirmed. In addition, the Ned Kelly racks are proposed to be spaced at 500mm centre to centre. As such, the racks are to be staggered in height.

The design of the Arc De Triomphe rails must be clearly shown on the plans.

ESD Officer

It is noted that the comments below are dated 15 August 2016. The assessment detailed further in this report under ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ accounts for the changes made to the plans and reports following provision of the comments below.

The daylight simulation submitted is clear, includes assumptions, sample contour plot and conclusions.

The daylight simulation shows that daylight to living areas of apartments G.02, G.03 and 1.05 will be below best practice.

From these results, it is apparent that living areas to apartments 1.02, 1.03, 2.02 and 2.05 may not meet best practice daylight access. This could result in over 40% of apartments not meeting best practice for daylight.

Daylight to bedrooms is to best practice. This is a positive outcome. No natural daylight and natural ventilation to corridors. Consideration should be given

to this. The plans show that 81% of apartments will be cross-ventilated. This is a positive

outcome. The three single aspect apartments (G.02, 1.02 and 2.02) will not be effectively

ventilated. In addressing daylight provision to the living areas to these apartments, effective ventilation may also be improved. This should be considered.

All dwellings except G.04 would receive 3 hours of direct sunlight to private open space and living areas in mid-winter between 9 am and 3 pm. Therefore the development would achieve best practice for direct sunlight access.

Page 61


Fixed external shading is required for all north elevation windows in order to prevent passive solar gain in summer while enabling warming winter sun to reach the glazing. A fixed overhang that projects 45% of the glazing height should achieve this.

Operable external shading should be provided to east and west facing glazing and is preferred to fixed shading devices. This could be in the form of operable louvers, sliding shutters or external blinds.

The SMP includes commitment to 6.8 star average NatHERS ratings with sample ratings of thermally similar dwellings included. This is a good initiative.

The SMP and plans show solar contribution to hot water. This is a good initiative and must be shown on the roof plan.

Considering the roof space and solar access available, a solar PV system is recommended to reduce energy use and costs. This will significantly improve the environmental performance of the development.

Stormwater management is proposed to be addressed via installation of a 15,000 litre rainwater tank in the basement. The STORM report demonstrates that this would meet the water quality objectives of the Stormwater Management policy at Clause 22.18. This must be shown on basement plan and annotation included of connection to all toilets and garden irrigation. The roof plan must show the areas to drain to the rainwater tank.

The SMP includes comments related to BESS Credit Transport 1.1 (page 12) which are contradictory. This must be addressed.

The bicycle spaces shown on the basement is a poor location for encouraging frequent bicycle use. On ground level is preferred.

The plans and Waste Management Plan note a chute system with diverter for waste and recycling separation. This is supported.

Waste Management

The waste management plan prepared by Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd and dated 20 September 2016 responds appropriately to the waste management challenges present in the plans.

Any Planning Permit issued for this development should include a condition specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Context

The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres and close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

The subject site is located in an incremental change area as defined under Clause 21.05 of the Planning Scheme, as it is not on a “tram / bus priority route”, and is not within or adjacent to an activity centre. Clause 21.05 outlines that multi-dwelling development of 2-3 storeys be directed to such areas. The proposal at four storeys is considered to be inconsistent with the policy direction for the location of increased residential densities.

It is also noted that Amendment VC110 has introduced new maximum mandatory height limits of no more than 3 storeys for properties within a General Residential Zone. Whilst the

Page 62


current proposal benefits from the transitional provisions included in the zone, it is apparent that there will not be any redevelopment in the surrounding area of the same scale.

The site is within the Garden Estate Neighbourhood Character Precinct as defined by Council’s Local Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23. The statement of preferred character for this precinct includes the following:

The Garden Estate character precinct comprises large, high quality buildings set within spacious, landscaped gardens. Generous front and side setbacks allow space for substantial planting and canopy trees, which reinforces the leafy character of the precinct and contributes to the Yarra River landscape setting. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form and scale of the precinct. Where adjoining the Yarra, buildings address both the street and the River. While many properties have high front fences, these are designed to incorporate some visually permeable elements or landscaping.

The proposal does not provide space for canopy trees and other vegetation. The inconsistent setbacks and limited space around the building and basement fail to allow for substantial planting to soften the appearance of the building. This is fundamental concern of this proposal.

The scale of the building is deemed to be problematic as the building crowds the boundaries and provides an unsatisfactory landscape response for a building of the height and scale proposed. Further consideration of neighbourhood character and amenity impacts are discussed in the following sections of this report.


An assessment has been carried out against the Objectives of the relevant State and local planning policies and Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The issues of particular relevance are discussed below:


The proposal fails to achieve several of the design objectives of Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) as it relates to the Garden Estate Neighbourhood Character Precinct. Specifically, the proposal fails to meet the following objectives:

To ensure buildings make a positive contribution to the Yarra River environs. To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape. To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings. To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the

neighbourhood.

The building is insufficiently setback from the street and due to the scale of the building will dominate the streetscape. The space around the building is not reflective of the adjoining sites and the building does not allow for adequate landscaping and canopy trees. Further reasons for the non-compliances with the above objectives are discussed in greater detail throughout this assessment.

Built Form

Street setback

Page 63


Given the property to the south at No. 57 Heyington Place is currently vacant, the proposal should respond to the street setback of 5.8 metres of the building to the north.

The adjoining property to the north includes a garage which sits forward of the dwelling on the street boundary. However, this is a small scale structure and not a visually dominant presence within the street. The height of the garage is not dissimilar to the height of the front fence. Accordingly, it is considered that the key building edge is based on the dwelling façade at No. 65 Heyington Place which is setback 5.8 metres from the street. It is also noted that the street setback varies between 7.4 metres to 11.9 metres along the south-west side of Heyington Place, an average of 8.3 metres (based on the buildings at No. 55 Heyington Place, 65 Heyington Place, and 67 Heyington Place)

On this basis, it is considered that the proposal should respond to the adjoining dwelling façade and be setback at least 5.87 metres. The proposal is setback a minimum of 4.75 metres to the first floor balcony at the northern end of the site. It is noted that the frontage of the building is generally straight, however, the street boundary is curved which results in variation across the length of the setback. The proposal does not align with building of the adjoining dwelling and will sit forward of predominant building edge of dwellings on the south-west side of Heyington Place.

The proposal fails to meet the Objective of Standard B6 (Street setback) of Clause 55.03-1.

Building Height

The Objective of Standard B7, is to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Schedule 8 (Garden Estate) to the Zone recognises that buildings must not exceed a height of 13 metres on the subject site, given the slope of the land. There is no dispute that there are large buildings of up to three storeys in the surrounding area. The surrounding buildings although large, are predominantly two and three storeys in height and follow the topography of the land. As encouraged by the Design Objectives at Clause 22.23, built form responses in this precinct should:

Design buildings to reflect the undulating topography in their form, scale and layout and minimise the need for cut and fill; and

Reflect the predominant scale of the streetscape.

This development seeks to construct the building to 12.949 metres and cut into the site, pushing the ground floor level well below natural ground level (almost a full storey at approximately 3 metres below natural ground to the rear). If the ground floor level of the building was set at natural ground level, this four storey proposal would exceed the mandatory height limit for the Zone. This suggests that the building as proposed is excessive for this site. It is considered that the proposed building height does not reflect the existing or preferred character of this area.While, the building does not technically fail to meet the maximum height controls for the subject site, the building does raise concerns with neighbourhood character, internal amenity and flooding as will be discussed throughout this assessment.

Council’s Infrastructure Department have reviewed the floor levels on the plans and they are of the view that if constructed as designed it is likely to be subject to serious flooding. They have recommended that the applicant engage a suitably experienced and qualified Engineer to look at this matter and to recommend appropriate floor and development levels. It is likely that this will mean that the ground floor levels will need to be raised significantly. If this were to occur the upper floor level would exceed the mandatory maximum building height for this Zone and therefore this cannot be supported.

Page 64


Site Coverage and Permeability

The proposed building will result in 62% site coverage and permeability of 25% as per the figures provided by the applicant.

The permeability complies with the relevant Standards. Additionally, the basement coverage equates to 75% coverage of the overall site area, which complies with the modified Standard B8. Despite this, it is considered that the proposal fails to appropriate respond to the site coverage objective. The size and siting of the basement and building footprint appear to crowd the boundaries limiting opportunities for a suitable landscape response as sought by Standard B13 and Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) as discussed below.

Landscaping

The landscape response is deemed to be poor. The basement is large and is located along a large portion of the south boundary. This limits the space available for landscaping. It is also noted that whilst the basement walls along the south have been shown as a thick wall with pylons, the north, east and west walls of the basement are shown to be relatively thin. These thinner walls are unlikely to be constructed in this way and would likely need to be increased in width. This will reduce the overall basement setbacks and results in a misrepresentation of the true amount of space available for planting.

The building and basement footprint of this proposal is considered to be excessive and greater setbacks should be incorporated to allow for viable opportunities for screening vegetation and canopy trees around the building. As proposed, the development fails to achieve the landscaping objectives of State and local planning policies, including Standard B13 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Energy Efficiency

The development is deemed to achieve the broad energy efficiency Objectives of Standard B10. However, Apartments G.02 and G.03 are located below natural ground level which will limit the amount of daylight and sunlight into these spaces.

The Environmental Sustainable Design Report submitted with this application further confirms an average energy rating of 6.8 stars for the dwellings, just above the minimum 6.5 stars required by BESS.

Access

2. The new development is to be accessed via a new double width crossover from Heyington Place. The crossover will occupy approximately 20% of the frontage which complies with Standard B14. It is noted that Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have raised concerns with the lack of separation between the crossover and a 1m separation should be incorporated to address this and avoid potential conflict.

Amenity Impacts

Side and Rear Setbacks

Page 65


The setbacks and wall heights vary across the site due to the slope in the land. The basement and part of Apartment G.03 are located on the south boundary.

Ground Level

At the ground floor level the setbacks to the north are setback 3.5 metres. The setback to the west vary due to the alignment of the rear boundary between 4 – 4.995 metres. Along the south boundary the minimum setback proposed is 3.31 metres. Given much of the ground floor level is located below natural ground, the highest portion of this level is approximately 2.6 metres.While the majority of the ground floor level setbacks comply with the setbacks recommended by Standard B17, the setbacks will limit opportunities for meaningful screening vegetation capable of softening the building bulk when viewed from the adjoining residential properties and oblique views from Heyington Place. The setbacks also appear compliant as a result of the building cutting into natural ground level to create subterranean apartments, which are problematic in terms of internal amenity and flooding.

First, Second and Third Floor Levels

The minimum setbacks at the upper levels are set out in the table below:

South

First Floor level Second Floor Level Third Floor LevelMaximum Wall Height

5.41 metres 8.8 metres 12.365 metres

Setback Required 1.54 metres 3.89 metres 7.445 metres

Setback Proposed 3.31 metres6.31 metres including laneway

3.31 metres6.31 metres including laneway

4.135 metres7.135 metres including laneway

North




Setback Proposed 3.514 metres 3.514 metres 6.726 metres

West

Page 66





Setback Proposed 4.05 metres 4.05 metres 6.542 metres

As evident on the plans, there are some areas of non-compliance at the second and third floor levels. The building will appear visual bulky when viewed from the adjoining properties as a result of the non-compliant setbacks on these levels and this is further exacerbated as a result of the lack of space and landscaping opportunities around the perimeter of the building.

It is considered that the setbacks should be increased to, at a minimum, comply with the recommendations of Standard B17 for a building of this scale and height on land which is approximately 1657 square metres in area.Walls on Boundaries

Bedroom 3 of apartment G.03 and the terrace above associated with Apartment 1.03 is proposed to be constructed on the south (laneway) boundary of the site. Given almost all of the ground floor level at the rear of the building is to be below natural ground, the wall will have a maximum height of 1 metre above natural ground level. Daylight to windows

There are habitable room windows facing the subject site located at No. 65 Heyington Place. These are setback approximately 0.75 metres from the common boundary.

First Floor level

First Floor Balcony (with full height screening)

Second Floor Level

Second Floor Level Balcony (with 1.7 metre high screen)

Third Floor Level

Maximum Wall Height

5.96 metres

6.185 metres 9.25 metres 7.72 metres 12.85 metres

Setback Required

2.98 metres

3.09 metres 4.625 metres


Setback Proposed

4.26 metres



The first and second floor level balconies are located within close proximity to the northern boundary. The setbacks proposed fall short of the standard and it is considered that this will have an adverse impact on the daylight access of the adjoining dwelling.

The dwelling at No. 7 Gawith Court includes north-facing windows located approximately 3.5 metres from the southern boundary of the subject site.

South ElevationMaximum Wall 12.365 metres

Page 67


HeightSetback Required 6.18 metres

Setback Proposed 8.439 metres including laneway

The dwellings at No. 2 and 3 Lawrenny Court include habitable room windows along their rear facades, however, these do not appear to be oriented directly toward the subject site. It is not clear exactly where the existing adjoining windows are located. Accordingly, the assessment below is based on the minimum setbacks of the adjoining dwelling from the proposed development. The table below shows that the setbacks proposed would be adequate.

West FacadeMaximum Wall Height

11.03 metres

Setback Required 5.51 metres

Setback Proposed 6.223 – 7.96 metres

Given that that the setbacks to the north fall short of Standard B19, it is considered the proposal will negatively impact daylight to the adjoining dwelling and does not meet the objective.

Overshadowing

Overshadowing impacts are assessed against Standard B21, which recommends:

Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.

If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.

South

To the immediate east of the subject site is a laneway. Part of the proposed shadow will impact the secluded private open space (SPOS) area to No. 7 Gawith Court at 3pm. The secluded private open space area to this property is relatively large at approximately 540 square metres. This space appears to be unaffected by shadow from 9am to 2pm aside from some marginal shadow cast by boundary fencing. It is anticipated that the SPOS to the south will maintain a minimum 40 square metres of sunlight throughout the day in accordance with Standard B21.

The property at No. 57 Heyington Place is currently vacant. Based on Council’s building records it appears that a new double storey dwelling is proposed with secluded private open space located to the north, adjacent to the laneway. The proposal will overshadow this space at 3pm only and this is considered acceptable.

West

Page 68


The proposal will cast shadow to the adjoining western SPOS areas at 9am and 10am. Shadow will be greatest at 9am and by 10am most proposed shadow will fall within existing shadow cast by the boundary fence. The shape of the adjoining SPOS areas are unusual. However, based on the shadow plans provided by the applicant, the largest, most usable areas of open space will not be affected by shadow from the proposal for 5 hours between 10am and 3pm.

Overall, overshadowing from the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Overlooking

With regard to overlooking, Standard B22 specifies that any new windows or balconies with an outlook to a sensitive interface within a horizontal distance of 9 metres (measured at ground level) to be screened to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

Within the proposed building there is potential to overlook sensitive interfaces to the east, north and west.

No overlooking will occur at the ground floor level as all boundaries are shown to have fencing that will limit views. Additionally, as the building is to be below natural ground level, the boundary fencing will provide screening up to 5.1 metres above the ground floor finished floor level.

North Interface

Section G shows that the views from the first floor bedroom windows of apartment 2.02 will be restricted by the existing boundary fence. This is considered acceptable.The remaining windows and balconies along the north elevation are not shown to be screened and this is not considered to comply with the standard given that all of these are located within 9 metres of the neighbouring secluded private open space areas at No. 65 Heyington Place and No. 52 Lansell Road. Section G also shows sightlines from second floor level, indicating that direct views will not be obtained. However, the way this has been shown is considered incorrect as the applicable horizontal distance of 9 metres (measured at ground level) has not been applied as specified within Standard B22. Rather, the 9 metre distance has been taken from the applicable windows. Accordingly, it is considered that all north facing bedroom windows at second floor level and the study window and balcony of apartment 2.03 will have potential for overlooking and do not comply with Standard B22.

The balconies of apartments 2.01 and 2.02 are shown to have 1.7 metre high louvre screens. this may comply with Standard B22, however, no detail of the operability, spacing, or depth of this screening has been shown and it is not clear how this will address overlooking.

At third floor level a planter box is proposed along the northern edge of the terrace. This will create additional distance from the adjoining open space and windows and restrict sightlines.

East Interface

To the east the ground and first floor levels will both be screened via the retaining walls and fencing along the east boundary.

Given the extent of cut proposed, the fence sitting atop natural ground level at the boundary will have an overall height of 5.1 metres above the finished floor level of the ground floor and a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of first floor. This complies with Standard B22.

Page 69


At second floor level it appears that the balcony of Apartment 2.03 is likely to overlook a window at No. 2 Lawrenny Court. However, Section D does not show the location of this window in the wall of the adjoining dwelling (which is shown on the proposed floor plans). The sightlines shown on Section D indicate that there would be clear views to No. 2 Lawrenny Court over the boundary fencing.

It also appears that the windows at second floor level would have clear views to adjoining eastern windows. The floor plans indicate that location of windows is not clear due to the surveyor being unable to obtain access. Based on real estate images from October 2016 there are windows to the rear of No. 3 Lawrenny Court which have not been shown on the proposed floor plans or sections. The rear kitchen and master bedroom windows of Apartment 2.03 would have views to the adjoining windows, the view lines are reflected in Sections A and B. It is noted that the sections indicate that a hedge will block views to the adjoining property. However, vegetation is not considered appropriate to address overlooking concerns.

Similarly, restriction of overlooking from the top level terrace relies on the hedge within the adjoining property which is not supported.

West Interface

The ground level windows and open space areas will be screened by boundary fencing. In addition, the Bedroom 2 window and terrace of Apartment 1.03 will be screened by south boundary fencing to a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

The following will have views to adjoining habitable room windows at No. 7 Gawith Court and secluded private open space area at No. 57 Heyington Place:

The south facing habitable room windows of Apartment 1.04 to adjoining secluded private open space and windows.

The south facing habitable room windows and the terrace of Apartment 2.04 to adjoining secluded private open space and windows.

Bedroom 2 and 3 of Apartment 2.03, master bedroom of Apartment 2.04 to the windows and secluded private open space of No. 7 Gawith Court.

It is noted that windows and the front terrace of the top level are 9 metres or more from the south adjoining habitable windows and secluded private open space areas.

On-Site Amenity

Although the apartments will be of a large size and all habitable rooms will have access to natural light and ventilation there are concerns with the apartments on the ground floor level on the east and north side of the building that sit below natural ground. The cutting into the site will result in poor internal amenity for the subterranean ground-floor habitable spaces and significantly increases the risk of on-site flooding. This is not good design practice and is not supported.

As insufficient space has been provided around the building, the outlook from the ground floor apartments will be poor, with views of high boundary fences. These rooms will have an outlook to a fence of up to 4.4 - 5.1 metres in height. This will also impede sunlight into the secluded private open space areas at ground level given retaining walls and boundary

Page 70


fences will be setback only 3.55 metres from the southern boundary of the open space areas.

It is noted that dwelling storage, waste storage, mail boxes, water and gas services have all been adequately accommodated on site.

Traffic & Parking

The proposed number of car spaces exceeds the car parking requirement at Clause 52.06.

The design of the basement is generally acceptable according to the requirements of Clause 52.06 and based on a review by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit. Specifically, the width of the vehicle ramp, the headroom clearance along the ramp and throughout the basement, and the dimensions of car spaces is satisfactory.

3. Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have advised that the traffic impact as a result of the proposal is unlikely to impact the surrounding road network.4.5. It is noted that a formal sight triangle has not been provided to the south of the accessway, however due to the width of the accessway and that the vehicle crossing is proposed to be shared with the adjacent Right of Way (RoW) as a shared crossing, a formal sight triangle will not be required as this crossing will provide clear lines of sight. Notwithstanding, the applicant has proposed a convex mirror to improve the sight lines to the Right of Way (RoW). This has been included on the plans and can be considered satisfactory. 6.7. Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have advised that the sight distance for vehicles travelling around corners within the car park appears to be impacted by the internal walls of the lift core/storage areas. Vehicles in opposing directions will not see each other around the corner which may cause conflicts. The applicant has provided convex mirrors at each corner to assist with this issue. This can be considered satisfactory.8.9. A corrective movement may be required to access/egress some parking spaces. This can be considered satisfactory as the spaces are located within the basement car park and will not affect the operation of the public road network.

10.11. The 15 proposed bicycle parking spaces satisfies Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme.12.13. If a permit were to be issued the following details should be updated on the plans (as per the advice of Council’s Transport and Parking Unit)

14. The columns located throughout the basement car park have been setback from the

aisle, however this setback has not been dimensioned on the plans. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas

and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1. It is recommended that the visitor bicycle space be relocated to the ground floor

(preferably closest to the entrance) for ease of access to visitors. The plans do not specify the height that the Ned Kelly racks will be mounted. This is to

be confirmed. In addition, the Ned Kelly racks are proposed to be spaced at 500mm centre to centre. As such, the racks are to be staggered in height.

The design of the Arc De Triomphe rails must be clearly shown on the plans.

Environmentally Sustainable Development

Page 71


A sustainable management plan (SMP) prepared by Sustainability House has been submitted. Comments from Council’s ESD officer indicate that the the design response in relation to daylight, shading and transport is not acceptable.

The daylight modelling referred to in the SMP details bedrooms only and not living areas. Living areas are discussed in terms of direct sunlight rather than daylight. It is anticipated that for Apartment G.02, given the depth of living area, the overhanging balcony and the location of the apartment below natural ground level and boundary fencing daylight will be poor. In addition, Apartment G.03 is located below natural ground and fencing and is not expected to achieve good daylight and sustainable design outcomes. It is also noted that the living areas of Apartments 1.02 and 2.02 are deep and have overhanging balconies which may reduce daylight access. This cannot be confirmed given that these rooms have not been modelled as part of the SMP. The three single aspect apartments (G.02, 1.02 and 2.02) will not be effectively cross ventilated. In addressing daylight provision to the living areas to these apartments, effective ventilation may also be improved. This should be addressed.

The SMP indicates that all dwellings would receive 3 hours of direct sunlight to private open space and living areas in mid-winter between 9 am and 3 pm. Therefore the development would achieve best practice for direct sunlight access.

Fixed external shading should be provided for all north elevation windows in order to prevent passive solar gain in summer while enabling warming winter sun to reach the glazing. A fixed overhang that projects 45% of the glazing height should achieve this. Operable external shading should be provided to east and west facing glazing and is preferred to fixed shading devices. This could be in the form of operable louvers, sliding shutters or external blinds.

The SMP includes commitment to 6.8 star average NatHERS ratings with sample ratings of thermally similar dwellings included. This is a good initiative.

The SMP and plans show solar contribution to the hot water. This is a good initiative and must be shown on the roof plan.

Considering the roof space and solar access available, a solar PV system is recommended to reduce energy use and costs. This will significantly improve the environmental performance of the development.

Stormwater management is proposed to be addressed via installation of a 20,000 litre rainwater tank in the basement. The STORM report demonstrates that this would meet the water quality objectives of the Stormwater Management policy at Clause 22.18. The basement plan shows the water tank, its size and connection to all toilets. The basement and roof plans should also confirm the area of roof to drain to the water tank.

The plans show 15 bicycle spaces which meets best practice standard of 1 per dwelling. The bicycle spaces are shown in the basement which is a poor location for encouraging frequent bicycle use. On ground level is preferred with Basement 1 as second best.

The plans and Waste Management Plan note a chute system with diverter for waste and recycling separation. This is supported.

Overall, aside from the internal amenity and daylight access of some apartments, the proposal is considered to have an adequate ESD response. However, the daylight access is a significant concern which has not been resolved given that no material has been provided to demonstrate the outcome for daylight.

Page 72


Objections


Proposal would set a precedent.This is not a planning consideration. Each application is assessed on its merits on a case by case basis.

Impacts on property values.This is not a planning consideration.

Impacts on heritage building at No. 4 Lawrenny Court.It is not considered that the proposal would impact the heritage value of this building. The subject site is not within a Heritage Overlay and does not adjoin the individual Heritage Overlay applied to No. 4 Lawrenny Court.

Human Rights ConsiderationThis 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 refused for the following reasons:

The scale, massing and siting of the building is inappropriate. The proposal will result in unreasonable visual bulk and overlooking impacts. The proposed ground floor finished floor levels sit too low relative to natural ground

level and will result in unacceptable flooding and poor internal amenity.

Attachments

1. PA - 466-16 - 63 Heyington Place Toorak - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No: 466/16 for the land located at 63 Heyington Place, Toorak be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone on the following grounds:

1. The proposed scale, mass and siting of the development is inappropriate in the local context and does not reflect the preferred neighbourhood character as specified by the Objectives of Standard B1 (Neighbourhood Character objective) and Standard B6 (Street setback) of Clause 55, and Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. The development fails to provide an adequate landscape response as sought by Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage), Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), Clause 55.03-8 (Landscaping) of the

Page 73


Stonnington Planning Scheme.

3. The development crowds the side, rear and street boundaries and presents an excessive degree of visual bulk to the street and neighbouring properties and does not comply with Clause 55.03-1 (Street Setback Objective), 55.04-1 (Side and Rear Setbacks) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

4. The development will have an adverse amenity impact on daylight to existing windows on neighbouring properties and does not comply with Clause 55.04-3 (Daylight to Existing Windows) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

5. The development will result in unreasonable overlooking impacts and does not comply with Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

6. The extent of the basement and building footprint is excessive and crowds the site boundaries.

7. The proposed ground floor finished floors levels sit too low relative to natural ground level and will result in an unacceptable flood risk. It is unclear if the development can be appropriately drained without the need to raise the floor levels. Any increase in building height to facilitate drainage may result in the building exceeding the mandatory maximum building height as specified by the Schedule to the Zone.

8. The cutting into the site will result in poor internal amenity for the subterranean ground-floor habitable spaces in terms of daylight access and outlook.

Page 74


5. VCAT QUARTERLY REPORT – FIRST QUARTER OF 2017 – JANUARY 2017 TO MARCH 2017


PURPOSE

To inform Councillors of VCAT Planning decisions received between January and March 2017.

BACKGROUND

Council has acknowledged that it is important to review and understand how decisions at VCAT are made and the implications of those decisions. As a result, this quarterly report is prepared, outlining all decisions administered by VCAT for the first quarter of 2017.

KEY ISSUES

28 cases were determined by VCAT in the first quarter of 2017 – up from 21 in the third and 22 in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Included within the first quarter period were 16 wins (57%) and 5 losses (18%). The remaining 25% comprised part wins or losses or withdrawn applications.

Positions of consent (15) are counted as wins, as Council only consents to the matter being settled if it is satisfied with the resulting outcome. The continued high number of consent positions for this period (43%) is a reflection on the positive work of all parties at Compulsory Conferences. The timely responses from Ward Councillors to requests to ratify agreements is acknowledged.

There were a number of notable cases in the first quarter of 2017.

At 29-31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra, an application was refused by Council for a number of reasons, including heritage. Following a Council resolution to seek interim heritage controls for the site which was subsequently approved by the Minister prior to the hearing. As such, the heritage overlay was relevant and indeed the most important issue at the hearing. However, the Tribunal disagreed that the proposal was unacceptable with regard to the heritage impact to the property. The Tribunal found that the most important element of the building was its façade, which was being retained unaltered. It was not concerned with the significant demolition of the building nor the minimal front setbacks of the first floor addition.

It is noted that neighbour has taken the Tribunal’s decision to the Supreme Court although Council has sought not to participate. Separately, permanent controls for this building have been supported by an independent Panel although the Panel also stated that should the approved works be constructed, a post-development assessment should be carried out to evaluate whether the Heritage Overlay continues to be justified.

Another significant application sought the construction of a seven storey building at a large site adjacent to the Gardiners Creek and at the entry to the Municipality when approaching from Boorondara City Council (the old China Buffet site).

Page 75


Council opposed the application for reasons relating to its impact to its immediate environs, including the Gardiners Creek and High Street. The site was zoned Residential Growth and was designated a Substantial Change Area within Council’s MSS.

The Tribunal determined that the proposal was generally acceptable and should be approved. The design detail of the proposed building was a particular reason why the Tribunal determined to grant a planning permit given the building was constructed fully with a unique glass design and detail. The Tribunal found that this gave it a rich character that was sympathetic to its environs. The location of the site, which was essentially divorced from a typical streetscape and residential abuttals, was another reason why the Tribunal approved the proposed building.

Lastly, the proposal for a tower within Forrest Hill at 627 Chapel Street was refused by the Tribunal – essentially agreeing with Council that the building was far too tall for its context; the proposed plaza at ground floor level had inherent issues; and wind issues were yet to be resolved.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive and note the VCAT Report (January 2017 – March 2017).

Page 76


6. REFORMED RESIDENTIAL ZONES 2017

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the introduction of recent residential zones changes into Planning Schemes across Victoria on 27 March 2017.

BACKGROUND

Residential Zone reforms were announced in July 2012. Stonnington Council implemented the new zones through a comprehensive process including consultation in 2013. They were approved and included in the Planning Scheme in June 2014. In November 2015, the Minister for Planning appointed the ‘Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee’ to report on the application of zones that provide for residential development in Melbourne.

From December 2015 to March 2016, the Committee sought submissions on Residential State of Play Reports that were made available in February 2016. The City of Stonnington made a submission and appeared at the Hearing held from April to May 2016. The Advisory Committee then reported to the Minister for Planning in July 2016.

On 27 March 2017, the Minister for Planning approved Amendment VC110 which introduced further reformed residential zones into planning schemes across Victoria. The Advisory Committee’s Report was released at the same time as this Amendment was approved. The reformed residential zones are one part of a broader package of reforms that also includes the refresh of Plan Melbourne, both announced on 11 March 2017, and the Better Apartments Design Standards, gazetted on 13 April 2017.

The incorporation of the new residential zones into planning schemes across Victoria have replaced some aspects of the residential zones introduced in 2014. In three years’ time, the State Government anticipates that all aspects of the 2014 residential zones will be replaced by the reformed zones.

DISCUSSION

Key issues

The residential zone reforms were in part informed by the Advisory Committee’s Report to the Minister for Planning which provided nine overall recommendations. The Committee found that significant time and resources had been expended in the application of the 2014 residential zones and it is not necessary or practical to undo the use of those zones.

The stated purpose of the reformed residential zones is to ‘provide a fairer approach to managing residential development and deliver consistent outcomes across Victoria’s suburbs, towns and cities to deliver certainty in residential areas’. Plan Melbourne also states applying the residential zones and Mixed Use Zone to encourage a diversity of lot sizes and housing types in the short and long term.

On 27 March 2017, some aspects of Stonnington’s Neighbourhood Residential, General Residential, Residential Growth and Mixed Use Zones were changed by VC110. The changes applied to new planning and building permit applications immediately, however, transitional arrangements within the reformed zones stipulate that development proposals that were under consideration are not affected by the garden area requirements, building height and storey changes.

Page 77


The remaining aspects have been changed in the Victorian Planning Provisions but will require Council to undertake a transition process within three years in order to apply.

It is understood that this transition process will be facilitated by a streamlined amendment process, potentially a Ministerial amendment. Councils may also be required to rezone some residential land via a full amendment process if it can better fit into a different residential zone.

The changes that now apply to new planning and building permit applications within Stonnington are as follows:

Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ):

Limit of maximum two dwellings on a lot removed Mandatory garden area requirements for lots greater than 400sqm (and where vacant

lots less than 400sqm are being created) introduced Maximum of 2 storeys now applies (excluding a basement) to recognise low rise

suburban character and prevent the construction of 3 storey developments in these areas

Maximum building height of 8 metres changed to 9 metres (change not applicable to Stonnington given 9m height limit already applies) to recognise the average height of 2 storey houses across many different areas

Some exemptions to the maximum building height have been amended to clarify the situations where they apply

General Residential Zone (GRZ):

Mandatory garden area requirements for lots greater than 400sqm (and where vacant lots less than 400sqm are being created) introduced

Maximum number of storeys (maximum of 3) introduced Maximum building height of 11 metres applies where Stonnington has no maximum

heights in this zone (eg 9 metres discretionary) but can be varied to higher maximum height limit. Where Stonnington has maximum heights these remain

Some exemptions to the maximum building height have been amended to clarify the situations where they apply

Garden area requirements for NRZ and GRZ:

The new garden area requirement applies to all land in the NRZ and GRZ. A minimum percentage of the land must be set aside at ground level for garden areas as follows:

Lot Size Minimum % of a lot to set aside as garden area

Vacant lot less than 400 square metres

25%

400-500 square metres 25%

501-600 square metres 30%

Above 650 square metres 35%

The new requirements apply alongside the site coverage and permeability standards set out in the Planning Scheme. The same area of a site might be set aside to address garden area, permeable surfaces and areas not covered by buildings however each requirement is different and applications will need to address each individually.

Page 78


Whilst permeability and site coverage are performance based controls that can be varied, the new garden area requirement must be met and cannot be reduced. A garden area does not include driveways, areas for car parking, or any buildings or roofed areas, but does include swimming pools, tennis courts and open entertainment areas. The minimum dimension of the garden area is 1 metre.

Residential Growth Zone (RGZ):

Some exemptions to the maximum building height have been amended to clarify the situations where they apply.

No change to height limits – Stonnington’s 13.5 metre maximum and discretionary areas continue to apply.

Other Changes:

Schedules to the Residential Zones

The reforms have also included updates and changes to the schedules of the residential zones. Currently, Stonnington’s 2014 schedules to the residential zones continue to apply however these will need to be transitioned to the new format and content over the next 3 years. The State Government have indicated that they are to lead on this process. How this could occur is currently being scoped by Council officers in discussion with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

NRZ Schedule Changes GRZ Schedule Changes RGZ Schedule Changes

Schedule must contain neighbourhood, heritage, environment or landscape character objectives to be achieved for the area

Schedule may contain neighbourhood character objectives to be achieved for the area

Schedule must contain design objectives to be achieved for the area

Heights can be varied to a higher maximum height and more storeys but cannot be lower than 9 metres.

Heights can be varied to a higher maximum height and more storeys but cannot be lower than 11 metres.

Heights can be varied to a higher maximum height but cannot be lower than 13.5 metres.

Purpose of the Residential Zones

The reforms have also amended each of the zone purposes. It is understood that the intention of the changes was to make the circumstances clearer where the zones should be applied. The State Government has released an action plan for the implementation of the reformed residential zones. The action plan outlines the preparation of a ‘range of revised Planning Practice Notes and Advisory Notes’ to provide advice on applying the residential zones by 30 June 2017. There is also an intention by State Government to support Councils to consolidate their planning schemes and to define neighbourhood character, heritage and environmental values in their residential zones.

Implications:

Initial assessment of the reformed provisions has identified that one potential issue has arisen with the garden area requirements. Clarification from State Government is required regarding the provision of garden area at ground level as this is defined as the natural level of a site at any point. The implication of this is development can not include any change to the natural ground level which is particularly problematic where a site is on a slope.

Page 79


The mandatory three storey requirement for land zoned General Residential may be problematic where the schedule identifies a height of 12 metres or greater. However, with the new limit on the number of storeys allowable within the NRZ and GRZ, there is the expectation that this will stop applications that include as many levels as possible and can result in poor design outcomes.

The reformed requirements may result in changes to the size of single dwellings Council typically assesses on lots in the 400 to 500 square metre range. The garden area requirements may impact upon those proposals for single dwellings which are typically larger in size with large alfresco/covered areas, high site coverage and low site permeability resulting in a smaller dwelling. Also, with the removal of the maximum two dwellings on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, some developers may choose to propose three smaller dwellings (instead of two larger dwellings) that may still meet all the ResCode requirements and respond well to the neighbourhood character.

At this stage the Building Act and Regulations and Minister’s Guidelines have not been updated to reflect the reforms. This results in inconsistency between the Building Act and Planning and Environment Act, in that a building may comply with the Building Act, but be in breach of planning measures, particularly for lots greater than 500 square metres. At this stage, the timing of DELWP’s planned assistance with the transition to the reformed zones is unclear but Council has been advised that this will be led by the Department. It is unclear how this would be resourced. Clarification has been sought from DELWP on the use of the new schedules for current amendments that have undergone public exhibition and the Department’s planned timeframe for assistance with the transition.

As the reformed zones are tested over time, it is likely that there will be emerging issues or areas of uncertainty that arise, for example the relationship between Neighbourhood Character and Design and Development Overlays and the new format schedules. The State Government led Smart Planning program aims to reduce the size and complexity of Victoria’s planning regulation including reducing inconsistencies between overlays (such as the Neighbourhood Character Overlay) and local schedules to zones. DELWP have indicated that over time this could mean there are less Neighbourhood Character and Design and Development Overlays within Planning Schemes. Part of the transition to the new zone schedule formats will be to consider what provisions can be included in the schedules instead of the overlays whilst still retaining the objectives. The new format schedule at this stage will not be able to completely replace these provisions, however these types of issues may form part of State Government’s considerations in the future.

Given that the new Plan Melbourne has been included into Planning Schemes and an upcoming planning scheme review is scheduled following adoption of the Council Plan in June, there could be an opportunity to consider the transition more holistically.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Council Plan (2013-2017) includes a number of relevant objectives and strategies. In particular, the Plan aims to balance the competing demands of maintaining residential amenity and population growth through appropriate planning.

The reformed Plan Melbourne identifies outcomes, objectives and directions to provide housing choice and affordability and liveable communities and neighbourhoods. Policy 2.1.4 in particular, is to provide certainty about the scale of growth in the suburbs. The review of the residential zones will give greater certainty to the community by strengthening mandatory height provisions and site coverage requirements in each of the residential zones.

Page 80


FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The application of the new residential zones will need to be monitored. The schedules to the new zones will require review and assessment against the heights and number of storeys nominated in the header clause. This will be added to the City Strategy Unit’s work program and will create additional demands on resourcing and may require reconsideration of priorities.

As the reforms have not yet been included in the Building Act and Regulations and Minister’s Guidelines, the inconsistency between the Building and Planning and Environment Acts may also create additional demands on resourcing within Building Control.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Legal advice will be obtained, as required.

CONCLUSION

The reformed residential zones were included in planning schemes on 27 March 2017. Officers are liaising with State Government to better understand the implications for current planning scheme amendments and the timeframe to receive assistance in transitioning to the new schedules.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council notes the Reformed Residential Zones gazetted into the Stonnington Planning Scheme on 27 March 2017 and the subsequent monitoring, review and liaison with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning that is required.

Page 81


7. PARK TREE UPLIGHTING OPTIONS

Manager Parks & Environment: Simon Holloway General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present options and costs to install uplighting for a number of prominent trees in significant parks throughout the municipality and recommend a proposed way forward.

This report responds to a request by Cr Griffin.

BACKGROUND

Request for uplighting

A report was requested on the potential to introduce additional uplighting of a number prominent trees in significant parks in the City of Stonnington to enhance night time public amenity.

Uplighting trees in prominent public locations can enhance night time visual amenity, improve perceptions of community safety and assist to activate public spaces.

DISCUSSION

Location options

Trees most suitable for uplighting are those that are suitably structured, visually significant in the landscape and prominent in the public domain.

Two locations have been nominated to-date, including Como Park and Princes Gardens.

At Como Park, a visually prominent and suitable tree has been identified near the corner of Williams Road and Williams Road North. Uplighting of this large Willow tree will be seen from the road and will benefit park users using the path. There are also other trees in that vicinity that could be lit up.

At Princes Gardens, a visually prominent and suitable tree has been identified near the entrance to Chapel Off Chapel. Uplighting of this large Plane tree will be seen from the road and within the park and will benefit park users using the central path through the park. There are also other trees in that gardens that could be lit up.

Lighting options

Council’s Parks & Environment Department has investigated options and costs to install uplighting for a number of prominent trees in significant parks.

A key consideration is the availability and proximity of electricity supply to the tree. The two key options available include:

Hard wired power supplyThis option requires an existing power supply in the general vicinity of the tree and trenching a new supply line to the location of the light box at the base of the tree.

Page 83


Solar power supplyThis option requires the installation of a standalone photovoltaic (PV) solar power supply a distance away from the tree to avoid shading. This would include a pole, PV cell and battery unit and trenching from the pole to the light box at the base of the tree.

Advantages and disadvantages of lighting options

Solar powered lighting options offer the advantage of being able to uplight trees remote from an existing power supply. However, solar powered lighting options are typically more expensive than hard wired options (see below), require the installation of additional infrastructure in the landscape (pole, cell and battery) and are more subjected to vandalism and theft.

Hard wired lighting options tend to be less expensive, require no additional infrastructure in the landscape and are less subjected to vandalism. However, hard wired lighting options are limited to trees within an affordable range of an existing power supply.

Cost estimates

Council’s Parks & Environment Department has obtained quotes for the installation of tree uplighting for a single tree in Como Park.

Hard wired power supplyThis option has been explored for various trees where an existing power supply is located.

The cost estimate for this option was approximately $3,000 + GST.

This option would involve trenching a power supply to the tree base and installation of a light at ground level within a vandal resistant cage.

Solar power supplyThis option was explored for the Willow tree in the park near the corner of Williams Road and Williams Road North, where no existing power supply is located.

The cost estimate for this option was approximately $7,000 + GST.

This option would involve the installation of a 5.5m, 89mm diameter, hot dip galvanised lowerable pole, 120W PV cell located on the pole, underground trenching and a light at ground level within a vandal resistant cage.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

None


The proposed installation of lighting to uplight a single tree is estimated at approximately $3,000 + GST for a hard wired power supply option and $7,000 + GST for a standalone solar powered option.

The installation of park tree uplighting can be accommodated within existing capital budgets for park improvements.

Page 84


LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

None

CONCLUSION

There is the potential to install uplighting for a number of prominent trees in significant parks throughout the municipality.

The targeted uplighting of trees in prominent locations within parks can provide a range of benefits, including enhancing night time visual amenity, improving perceptions of community safety and assisting to activate public spaces.

Two potential sites have been nominated to-date, including Como Park and Princes Gardens.

Cost estimates for the installation of uplighting to park trees are in the range of $3,000 + GST for a hard wired power supply option and $7,000 + GST for a standalone solar powered option.

The trial program will enable Council to evaluate the options, costs, advantages, disadvantages and benefits of park tree uplighting, trial different options and identify other potential sites and trees for uplighting throughout the municipality.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Implement a trial program of uplighting prominent trees in significant parks

throughout the municipality.2. Acknowledge the range of benefits provided by targeted tree uplighting in

significant parks, including enhancing park amenity and improving community safety.

3. Support Como Park and Princes Gardens being the two sites for the trial program.

4. Proceed with the installation of a solar powered tree uplight at Como Park and the installation of a hard wired tree uplight at Princes Gardens.

5. Request a further report to be prepared on the trial program, including the nomination of other potential sites and trees for uplighting throughout the municipality.

Page 85


8. PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT TO CAROLINE STREET SOUTH NAME

Manager Governance & Corporate Services: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to review the responses on the survey regarding the possible removal of the word South from the street name Caroline Street South, South Yarra.

BACKGROUND

Council has been approached by a resident of Caroline Street South asking if there is a need for the South to remain on the name of the street given that the numbering continues over Toorak Road along Caroline Street.

This can be a sensitive matter as some people are quite wedded to the name of the street they live in.

A Confidential report went to the meeting of Council on 20 February 2017 to determine whether to proceed or not. Council resolved as follows:

That Council:1. seek the views of the residents/ratepayers of Caroline Street South and Caroline

Street;2. seek the views of the wider community by advertising the proposal after

notification of the Caroline Street South and Caroline Street residents/ratepayers; and

3. a further report come back to Council with the results of the community consultation.

DISCUSSION

The results from the survey of properties in both Caroline Street South and Caroline Street are as follows:

Total No. Properties

Analysis of Respondents Type Vote

Owner/

occupier

Occupier/

renter

Non-resident owner

House Unit Yes No No reply

Caroline Street South

51

Plus 2 SCC

11 0 6 32 18 13 (25.5%)

4 (7.8%)

34 (66.7%)

Caroline Street

415 60 2 56 47 368 81 (19.52

%

35 (8.42%)

299 (72%)

Totals 466

Plus 2 SCC

71 2 62 79 386 94 (20.17

%)

39 (8.37%)

333 (71.46%)

No submissions were received from the external advertising on this subject.

Page 87


While there was a good response of 28.6% to the survey, of this 20.17% were in support but overall with almost 72% not responding. If this is broken down to just Caroline Street South the support is 22.5% with 66.7% not responding.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

While the Office of Geographic Names is supportive of losing the word South from street names when it is continuous in alignment and still in the same suburb, community support for such a request must be demonstrated. The above results do not do this.


This is funded within existing resources.

CONCLUSION

Given that there is no clear indication of full support for this proposal the status quo would remain, that is, no change of name at this time.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council not proceed to amend the street name Caroline Street South, South Yarra.

Page 88


9. PROPOSED CHANGES TO PROPERTY VALUATION PROCESSES

City Valuer: Peter Fitzgerald Manager Governance & Corporate Services: Fabienne ThewlisGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

To appraise Councillors of fundamental changes proposed by the State Government in relation to property valuations processes used in determining Council rates and recommend that representations be made to members of Parliament to express opposition.

BACKGROUND

Announced concurrent with the release of the 2017/18 State Budget, the State Government has advised that it intends to make major changes to the processes associated with undertaking property valuations for rating proposes. Proposed to commence 1 July 2018 the Government seeks to enact that:

(i) the Valuer General shall take over the responsibility for all valuations for rating / tax purposes; and

(ii) all valuations shall be undertaken annually.

The current, longstanding system in place is that the valuation processes have been the responsibility of Local Government - i.e. individual Councils.

Changes implemented in the late 1990s required valuations to be undertaken more frequently to a common (2 yearly) cycle throughout the state. (Previously had been every four years for the metropolitan Councils and every 6 years for country Councils.)

Recent trends have also seen more Councils elect to have the task performed by contractors rather than by Council employed staff, particularly through the Compulsory Competitive Tendering era, although this had been more common in regional Victoria. In 2009 the State Government legislated that Councils have the option of transferring their responsibilities for valuation processes to the Valuer General. This was advanced primarily on the prospect of mitigating cost. Since then about 15, mostly smaller rural municipalities, have ‘opted in’ to relinquish control of all of their valuation functions with now only around nine Councils having an in-house Valuers.

What is now proposed, after decades of stable and established systems of valuation facilitating the collection of over $8 billion of property taxes annually, the State Government has declared its intention to unilaterally change the whole process.

DISCUSSION

This proposed legislation would impact Local Government on a number of levels. Issues that arise include:

1 There is no doubt there would be extra cost in producing a new valuation every year - whoever undertakes the task with no material benefit to the Local Government sector. Going forward, Councils would receive a bill for Valuation services over which they have no control.

Page 89


2 The redistribution of the rate burden occurring every year meaning no consistent rate increases – each year’s rates will be dependent on how a property value moves relative to the average movement in property values. (This sits uncomfortably with the Governments ‘Rate Capping’ initiatives which has broadly been taken by ratepayers as an expectation of consistent capped increases in their annual individual bills.)

3 As a result of point 2 above, the prospect of greater numbers of Valuation Objections is very real, with attendant extra cost and the risk to revenue.

4 The prospect of the cost of staff redundancies, which in regional areas the effects are often exacerbated.

5 Councils would lose control generally on a number of levels, likely including:- the timing and amount of supplementary valuation revenue - the extent and cost of litigation- customer service levels as they relate to valuation matters

6 The potential to impact on the calculation/prediction of Special Rates that is currently conducted in an off-cycle valuation year.

7 The loss of income from the sale of data to Water Boards for their use8 The potential additional costs for undertaking functions currently performed in-house

such as valuations for public open space contributions (planning) and valuation of Council assets.

If implemented the measures announced are not in the interests of Local Government.

Considering the enduring stability of the system it seeks to replace, the question must be asked why the change?

There is little doubt that in an environment of escalating property prices that annual valuations will significantly augment Land Tax revenues because rates of Land Tax climb significantly as a property’s value increases. There is substantial bracket creep every time a revaluation sees values surge. For example, had annual valuations been in place last year, extra Land Tax of around $240 million is estimated to go to State Government revenue. The change to move revaluation cycles closer together is a policy decision however with a purpose that is reasonably transparent.

The drive for the State Government taking control of all valuation processes is unclear. The status quo consists of a framework where the Valuer General independently certifies valuations undertaken by/on behalf of Councils. A major issue with the changes as proposed by the Government, is the lack in the transparency of process as well as the perception of the erosion of independence in the role of the Valuer General.

One of the real strengths of the current system is the inbuilt objectivity that protects all Victorian Land tax payers in having Local Government undertake the valuations used for assessing Land Tax. There is a real possibility that the major motivation for the State Government taking over the process is to ensure that the valuations processes are undertaken in such a way that no opportunity to maximise revenues is missed.

There are just under 2.9 million rateable properties in Victoria with a total assessed value of $1,784 billion. Rates and Taxes administered and collected annually by Local Government2

on the strength of this rate base are just on 6 billion dollars annually. This is more than twice the amount collected in State Government Land Tax. Significant also is the fact that Land Tax Assessments affect only a small number of citizens. As a result the number of Land Tax bills issued would be a small fraction of the 2.9 million (approx...) rate notices sent each year to the broader Victorian populace.

Rate revenue represents the vast proportion of funding for Local Government, and as such the sector is highly invested in ensuring that their communities can have a high level of

2 Though the Fire Services Levy is a State Tax, it is administered and collected entirely by Local Government utilising improved bases of value for assessment, the same as the Municipal Rate collection processes.

Page 90


confidence in the valuation processes that provide their financial base. To have this vital process unilaterally removed without any consultation or reasoning gives cause for severe reservations on behalf of all Victorian property owners.

There are also compelling operational arguments strongly favouring the current system. When the Valuer General previously attempted to take over valuation processes from Local Government a number of years ago, one of the justifications at the time was the supposed economies of scale. Such arguments remain somewhat unconvincing because of the context/ circumstances in which rating valuations take place, namely: All inspection processes, an innate feature of any valuation task, by their nature carry no

economies of scale whatsoever. The opposite is true if constant travel to distant locations from a centralised base is required

A raft of information that informs the municipal valuation task such as building permits, planning processes, sales information, changes of ownership, subdivisions, etc.… will in any event still have to be derived from and continue be undertaken at, and by, each individual municipality

Engagement with individual ratepayers in providing the requisite customer standards does not lend itself to bulk handling.

The familiarity associated with ‘knowing your patch’ that enables the strongest valuation outcomes is not consistent with a high degree of aggregation.

There are a range of computer systems currently used by the different Councils throughout the state performing the valuation function which would have to be converted into the one. Current systems however are usually strongly imbedded incorporating highly integrated and individually tailored data sets generally linked to mainframe and other satellite systems. Combining all this and getting Councils other systems ‘talking’ to an externally managed state-wide valuations system is a huge task that will cost many millions of dollars. (The Valuer general is yet to even put this to tender.) Significant on-going buy-in from individual Councils will be required to enable permanent links from different systems and data sets.

Notwithstanding that by every measure Local Government has much greater critical mass and is therefore much more heavily invested in in the valuation processes, there has been no consultation and no sound reasoning provided for such a profound change.

Rates based on property valuations represents the main revenue source for Local Government. There has been no public consultation on this to determine the views of the Victorian ratepayers to receiving their annual Council rates notice that is:

(i) less predictable that their current rate notice; and

(ii) based on a valuation generated by the State Government


It is considered that this will impact Council financially in a number of ways which include

- the extra cost in producing a new valuation every year;

- anticipated elevated levels of objection (i.e. with a new valuation every year) with attendant risk to rate revenues and the prospect of greater legal costs (who will bear this cost)

- the possible cost of redundancies

Page 91


- loss of control over the timing and extent of supplementary valuations and therefore supp’ revenue (budgeted supplementary valuation revenue is in excess of $1 million per year) – the question is would this now be undertaken through the year.

CONCLUSION

It is concerning that this change was communicated through the budget papers and not through communication and consultation with Local Government. The proposed fundamental change has cost, operational and other impacts on Councils and our community. It is important for Council to engage and advocate our concerns on these proposed changes.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council write to all local members of the Victorian Parliament, the Minister for Local Government, the Treasurer, the Shadow Treasurer, and the Shadow Minister for Local Government, setting out its concerns about the legislation and the reasons for such opposition, and seeking their support in it not proceeding.

Page 92


10. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2016 TO MARCH 2017

Manager Finance: Scott Moore General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

To provide Council with an update of financial performance for the nine months ended March 2017.

BACKGROUND

Section 138 of the Local Government Act requires the provision of a quarterly financial report to an open Council meeting comparing the budgeted revenue and expenditure for the financial year with the actual revenue and expenditure to date.

DISCUSSION

Executive SummaryThe year to date net surplus including open space contributions at 31 March 2017 was $39.5M against a budget of $22.1M, a positive variance of $17.4M.

The year to date net surplus excluding open space contributions at 31 March 2017 was $26.8M against a budget of $16.8M, a positive variance of $10.0M.

The surplus is expected to increase to $43.6M by 30 June 2017 ($29.6M excluding open space contributions), resulting in a favourable full year variance to budget of $15.3M ($8.3M excluding public open space contributions).

The favourable $17.4M year to date surplus budget variance was largely due to: Higher operating income (excluding contributions) $4.5M, particularly rates income

$1.3M, statutory fees and fines $1.9M, user fees $524K, operating grants $1.1M and reimbursements $196K, less a timing difference in the receipt of capital grant funding ($525K).

Higher contributions income $7.4M, primarily open space contributions year to date budget permanent differences forecast to continue to year end.

Lower employee costs $424K, materials and services expenditure $3.4M (year to date budget timing differences largely not forecast to continue to year end), depreciation and amortisation $897K, finance costs $389K and operating initiatives expenditure $451K. These are marginally offset by an unfavourable variance in community grants payments ($130K).

As at 31 March 2017, Council held cash and investments before restricted cash assets totalling $116.4M ($11.0M after restricted cash assets of statutory reserves, discretionary reserves, unspent grants and capital works deferrals).

With Net assets of $2.4B at 31 March 2017, Council achieved a year to date working capital ratio of 2.45, indicating continued strong ability to meet its current financial commitments.

Page 93


Operating ResultThe favourable full year forecast to budget variance of $15.3M is expected to be primarily due to the net effect of the following items:

$1.1M higher than budgeted supplementary rates and garbage charge income.

$2.1M higher than budgeted statutory fees and fines income, mainly due to increased statutory planning fees $1.0M, following the DELWP review of Planning and Subdivision Fees that became effective in October 2016, and parking enforcement income $882K.

$532K higher than budgeted user fees income, mainly due to increased car parking $174K, Building and Local Laws fees and permits $331K and Aquatic Centres income $247K (mainly the Learn to Swim program). These increases are partly offset by lower than budgeted Golf Course green fees and café income $137K, due to the closure for hub redevelopment works, and Chapel Off Chapel income $133K, also due to the closure for building works.

$7.3M higher than budgeted contributions income, predominantly due to the Planning Scheme Amendment C186 increase to public open space contribution rates.

$537K higher than budgeted operating grants income in the Youth, Maternal & Child Health and In Home services.

$328K higher than budgeted reimbursements, mainly in Parks and Environment from Melbourne Metro Rail Authority $194K and in Urban and Infrastructure Projects $82K.

$294K less than budgeted other revenue, mainly in lower than budgeted Community Aged Support grant waivers ($68K) and lower rental income in Property Co-ordination, Chapel Off Chapel and Venues and Facilities ($355K). These reductions are partly offset by a forecast increase in Recreation Facilities rental income $141K.

$1.8M net underspend in employee costs against budget, including: Defined Benefits Superannuation funding call now unlikely $1.8M; Library Services $111K;In Home Services $93K; Economic Development Arts and Culture $126K; Chapel Off Chapel $78K; Waste Management $104K; Statutory Planning $179K; and Roads and Drains $96K. Partly offsetting these reductions are overspends in Service Centres ($112K), Aquatic Services ($281K), Child Care Services ($98K), Waste Disposal ($31K) and Building and Local Law Services ($173K).

$439K net underspend in materials and services costs against budget. This includes lower than budgeted expenditure in Governance and Corporate Support major contract payments $369K, Physical Operations waste disposal and tipping fees $375K, Transport parking enforcement major contract payments $395K, Statutory Planning and Planning Enforcement consulting and legal fees $169K, Golf Course Management costs $90K and Service Centre costs $61K. These forecast underspends are partly offset by higher than budgeted Records Management costs ($143K), Parks and Environment major contract payments ($161K), Parking Control stamp duty and lodgement costs from new infringement regulation unit fee increases ($500K) and Aquatic Services utilities and minor service contract costs ($218K).

$780K lower than budgeted depreciation as a result of unforeseen revaluation decrements in recreational, leisure and community, parks, open space and building assets at 30 June 2016.

Page 94


$518K lower than budgeted interest expense as a result of the Cato Street project loan not being drawn this financial year, due to Council agreed project deferral.

$64K lower than budgeted operating capital expenditure, mainly due to: Energy Efficient Street Lighting conversion funds transferred to the LED street lights upgrade capital works $200K; Major Structure Plan Development project behind schedule $111K; Profile ID project savings $54K; Melbourne Metro Rail Authority project labour costs unbudgeted ($155K); and Strategic Masterplan Neighbourhood Character & Heritage Density Guideline project increased expenditure ($153K).

Capital Works ExpenditureNet committed Capital Works expenditure excluding Operating Initiatives at 31 March 2017 was $51.0M. This includes:

Malvern Town Hall precinct public realm spatial improvements $443K,

Drainage works $1.6M,

Footpath replacements $756K,

Local road refurbishment $1.1M and resurfacing $3.8M,

Yarra River Biodiversity project $1.2M,

Prahran Market works $701K,

Forrest Hill Public Realm $1.1M,

Chapel Street precinct masterplan implementation $1.7M,

Civic precinct project $566K,

Cato Street redevelopment $3.1M,

Harold Holt Swim centre pool tiling $612K,

Chapel off Chapel passenger lift $353K,

Prahran Town Hall masterplan $2.0K,

Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $204K,

Malvern Valley Golf Course Condition Audit $2.0M,

Property purchases for open space realm $18.3M,

Windsor siding masterplan $224K,

Tennis facilities review and redevelopment strategy $229K,

Surrey Road water ground management $247K.

Net year to date committed capital expenditure equates to 73% of the full year net budget.

Full year net capital expenditure (excluding Operating initiatives) is forecast to be $55.5M against a net budget of $69.6M. Capital works carry-overs and deferrals to 2017/18 are currently estimated at $31.6M (including Cato St $19.0M, Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $4.4M, Prahran Town Hall master plan development $2.3M, Gardiner Park redevelopment $1.6M, Harold Holt Swim centre masterplan $889K and Malvern Valley Golf Course condition audit $600K).

Cash Flow

Page 95


Cash and investments total $116.4M as at 31 March 2017, with $105.5M restricted to reserve funds, long service leaves entitlements, trust funds and deposits, unspent grants and capital works carry-overs and deferrals.

The cash position is expected to be $102.0M surplus at 30 June 2017 before restricted cash assets ($716K cash deficit after total restricted cash assets; $23.8M cash surplus after restricted cash assets excluding discretionary reserves). The forecast increases in developer contribution reserve, trust funds and deposits, and capital works carry-overs / deferrals contribute to the forecast reduction in unrestricted cash.

The attachment provides Council with the following: Income Statement to 31 March 2017 Full Year Forecast Major Variance Analysis as at 31 March 2017 Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2017 Cash Flow Statement as at 31 March 2017 Financial Performance Indicators to 31 March 2017 Capital Works Expenditure Report as at 31 March 2017.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Financial Report for the period July 2016 to March 2017 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives and notes the Financial Report for the City of Stonnington for the nine months ended 31 March 2017.

Page 96


o) Confidential

1. PUBLIC LIABILITY CLAIM

Corporate Counsel: Michael SmithConfidential report circulated separately.

2. NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

Manager Aged, Diversity, Health & Animal Management: Penny PavlouConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 97

Agenda of Council Meeting - 22 May 2017 · Web viewMay 22, 2017 · Monday 22 May 2017 at 7pm....

Documents

Transcript of Agenda of Council Meeting - 22 May 2017 · Web viewMay 22, 2017 · Monday 22 May 2017 at 7pm....