4.2 1 beryl avenue, oakleigh south … › files › assets › public › about...council meeting,...

Council Meeting, 29 September 2015 Section 4.2 – Page 7

1 Beryl Avenue, Oakleigh South - Application For Development Plan Approval (TP422)

4.2 1 BERYL AVENUE, OAKLEIGH SOUTH APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL

(TP422)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This application seeks approval of a Development Plan in accordance with the requirements of Development Plan Overlay 5.

The Development Plan proposes a broad master plan for the future development and use of the land for residential purposes. The Development Plan is required pursuant to the provisions of the Development Plan Overlay 5 (DPO5) provisions in the Monash Planning Scheme. The application was subject to community consultation. The owners and occupants of properties within a 1 kilometre radius of the site were notified of the proposal and invited to make submissions. One thousand one hundred and twenty seven (1127) community submissions to the proposal have been received. Key issues to be considered relate to the appropriateness of the scale of the proposal, vegetation removal, car parking provision and traffic impact. This report assesses the proposal against the provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme including the relevant state and local planning policy framework and issues raised within the submission received. The submitted Development Plan does not adequately satisfy the requirepments of DPO5 and should not be supported.

RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Panagakos

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER: Angela Hughes

RESPONSIBLE PLANNERS: James Heitmann

WARD: Oakleigh

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1 Beryl Avenue, Oakleigh South

PRE-APPLICATION MEETING: Yes

NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS: 1127

ZONING: General Residential Zone (Schedule 1)

EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant

OVERLAY: Development plan Overlay (Schedule 5)

RELEVANT CLAUSES:

State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 10.01 (Purpose)

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21 (Municipal Strategic



Clause 10.02 (Goal)

Clause 10.04 (Integrated Decision Making)

Clause 11 (Settlement) Clause 11.04 (Metropolitan Melbourne) Clause 14.02-1 (Catchment Planning and Management) Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) Clause 16 (Housing) Clause 16.01-2 (Location of Residential Development) Clause 16.01-3 (Strategic Redevelopment Sites) Clause 16.01-4 (Housing Diversity)

Statement)

Clause 21.04 (Residential Development)

Clause 21.08 (Transport and Traffic) Clause 22.01 (Residential Development and Character Policy) Clause 22.04 (Stormwater Management Policy) Clause 22.05 (Tree Conservation) Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) Clause 52.34 (Bicycle facilities) General Provisions

Clause 65.01 (Decision Guidelines)



LOCALITY PLAN

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

SUBJECT SITE



RECOMMENDATION:

That Council resolves to not approve the submitted Development Plan (Urbis, April 2015) for 1 Beryl Avenue, Oakleigh South based on the following grounds:

1. The submitted development plan does not satisfy the requirements and decision guidelines of schedule 5 to the development plan overlay.

2. The development plan poorly integrates with the neighbourhood character of the surrounding area.

3. The scale and density of the submitted development plan is excessive.

4. The development plan does not provide for appropriate inclusion and retention of existing vegetation.

5. The development plan is inconsistent with Council’s Residential Development and Character Policy.

BACKGROUND:

History The subject land is the former Oakleigh South Primary School located on the north-eastern corner of the intersection of Beryl Avenue and Golf Road in Oakleigh South. The school occupied the land from the late 1950’s until the end of 2001. Former school buildings have been demolished and the land is currently vacant. The land formed part of Amendment GC05 to the Monash Planning Scheme. The land was rezoned from Public Use Zone 2 (Education) to Residential Growth Zone 1 and applied the Development Plan Overlay 5 to the land. The Site and Surrounds The subject land is located on the north-eastern corner of the intersection of Beryl Avenue and Golf Road in Oakleigh South. The land is a large and irregular shaped parcel having an overall area of 1.826 hectares. The land has a slight fall of 1.5 metres from north-east to south-east. An existing drainage and sewerage easement runs through the centre of the site. The land has a 169.77 metre frontage to Beryl Avenue along the southern boundary, 106.45 metre frontage to Golf Road along the western boundary and 42.67 metre frontage to the end of Bakers Road adjacent to the eastern boundary. The Metropolitan Golf Club abuts the land to the immediate north-east, residential properties orientated to Barholme Court and Golf Road span the northern boundary. The land contains



scattered vegetation along the boundaries of the land and within a cluster located within the centre of the site. The land is located within an established residential area originally developed in the mid 1950’s and 1960’s. The built form of the surrounding area is distinctly characterised by modest detached dwellings on large allotments typical of the era in which the surrounding area was originally developed. Characteristics which contribute to the character of the area include dwellings with generous and well articulated building setback to the street, dwellings typically setback from the side and rear boundaries, predominant single storey built form, brick and weatherboard dwellings with pitched roofs and well landscaped front setbacks. More recent development includes replacement of the original housing stock with new large dwellings and some multi-dwelling unit development. An aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding land can be found attached to this report (Attachment 2).

PROPOSAL:

The application seeks approval of a Development Plan as required by Clause 43.04 (Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 5) of the Monash Planning Scheme. The submitted Development Plan proposes:

56 townhouse lots ranging in size from 54 m2-383m2 comprising: 13 x three storey attached townhouses adjacent to the north-eastern

boundary taking advantage of aspect to The Metropolitan Golf Club. 10 x two storey semi detached townhouses orientated to Beryl

Avenue. 5 x two storey semi-detached townhouses orientated to Golf Road. 8 x two storey attached townhouses orientated to the Council

reserve adjacent to the Golf Road-Delia Street-Cameron Avenue roundabout.

16 x two storey attached dwellings surrounding the internal loop road.

1 x studio above garage unit orientated to the internal road.

Apartment super-lot within the centre of the site having an overall area of 2915m2 detailing a building envelope up-to three storeys. The developer has indicated the proposed apartment building is estimated to provide 60-65 one, two and three bedroom apartments.

Landscaped pocket park within the centre of the site including retention of a 23 metre high Corymbia maculate (Spotted Gum).

Internal loop road with two access points to Beryl Avenue. Attachment 1 details plans forming part of the application.



DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENT:

The land is subject to Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 (DPO5).

A Development Plan is required to be approved by the responsible for the land prior to issue of a permit allowing further development and subdivision. The provisions of the Development Plan Overlay exempt future permit application from public notification and review.

Key requirements of the development plan specify:

Where residential uses are proposed, provide a range of dwelling types to cater for a variety of housing needs.

Where non-residential uses are proposed, details of the nature of the proposed use, including hours of operation, stall and visitor numbers, and traffic and parking management plan.

Incorporate sustainable design features to address water and waste management, solar access and energy saving initiatives, to deliver lower living costs for future residents.

Create a composition of varied building forms and heights across the site.

Provide for a high quality of internal amenity for future residents.

Respect the amenity of adjoining interfaces for providing for a maximum of 2 storey built form adjacent to or opposite any existing single storey residential development.

Any taller buildings across the balance of the site should be carefully graduated with reference to analysis of shadow, visual amenity impacts and the character of the area.

Apply appropriate buffer treatments at the interface with any non-residential uses on adjoining properties.

Create opportunities for improved local permeability through provision of new pedestrian/cycle pathways or new local street networks where appropriate.

Incorporate any significant native vegetation into the design of the development.

Attachment 3 details the zoning and overlays applicable to the subject site and surrounding land.

CONSULTATION:

Display of the Development Plan Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of DPO5 the proposal was displayed for public comment.



The owners and occupants of residential properties within a 1.0 kilometre radius of the subject land were notified of the proposal. The formal consultation period ran from 22 June 2015 to 22 July 2015. A copy of documentation forming part of the development proposal was made available to view on Council’s website and at the Glen Waverley Civic Centre throughout the consultation period. Public information session A public information session was held during the consultation period from 5:00pm-8:00pm on 2 July 2015. Council officer’s and representatives from the development plan applicant were available to provide information about the proposal. The public information session was attended by approximately 100 residents. Community Submissions A total of 1127 written submissions to the proposal were received following the conclusion of the consultation period. The majority of written submissions objected to the proposal. Key issues raised within the submissions can be summarised:

Built form and scale.

Excessive development density.

Neighbourhood integration.

Vegetation removal.

Open space and landscaping.

Increased traffic and road congestion.

Compliance with requirements of DPO5 and Rescode. Attachment 4 details the location of properties which have made a submission to the proposal within the nearby surrounding area. Referrals

Internal Referral The application was referred to Council’s Traffic and Drainage Engineers for comment. Relevant comments form part of the assessment of the application.

DISCUSSION:

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

State and Local Planning Policy Framework Plan Melbourne is the Metropolitan Strategy that planning authorities must consider when assessing applications for planning permits. The key directions that are of particular relevance to the proposal are:

“Understand and plan for expected housing needs.”



“Reduce the cost of living by increasing housing supply near services and public transport.”

“Facilitate the supply of affordable housing.” Initiatives seek to locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close locations that offer good access to services and transport and employment areas. Relevant housing objectives and strategies of activity centres policy found at Clause 11.01 seek:

“Provide different types of housing, including forms of higher density housing.”

“Encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres.”

Housing policy at Clause 16.01 seeks to:

“Increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land.”

“Locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.”

“Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.”

Increased residential density and dwelling diversity is sought by state and local policies. The proposed development is considered inconsistent with the local planning policy framework in respect of its impact on neighbourhood character and housing diversity objectives. The development plan should be designed to better respond to the context of the surrounding area. The subject land is not located in close proximity to an activity centre and has limited public transport connections. The strategic policy justification for a development of the intensity proposed is poor and unjustified given the locality and context. The density and design response of the proposal is at odds with the established built form of the surrounding area and poorly responds to residential policy objectives relating to neighbourhood character and built form outcomes. Whilst the site does provide an opportunity for infill medium density development and increased density, the design response needs to have better regard for the surrounding context and applicable residential development policy. The Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21 identifies the Garden City Character of the municipality as a core value held by the community and Council. Garden City Character principles are overarching policy objectives being significant and important consideration in all land use and development decisions.



At Clause 21.04 (Residential Development Policy) Council's goal is for residential development in the City to be balanced in providing a variety of housing styles whilst remaining sympathetic to existing neighbourhood character. The Residential Development and Character Policy at Clause 22.01 seeks to ensure that new development is successfully integrated into existing residential environments, with minimal streetscape or amenity impact, and designed to achieve outcomes that enhance the Garden City Character of the area. Tree Conservation Policy at Clause 22.05 seek to maintain, enhance and extend the Garden City Character throughout Monash by ensuring that new development and redevelopment is consistent with and contributes to the Garden City Character as set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement. The submitted development plan poorly responds to Garden City Character and Vegetation Retention Policy objectives. The development plan is dominated by intense built form outcomes that poorly integrate and fail to adequately complement the established character of the surrounding area. The design response seeks to retain minimal existing vegetation and does not adequately respond to tree retention objectives. Housing Diversity DPO5 specifically requires the development plan to provide for a range of dwelling types to cater for varied housing needs. The submitted proposal provides for 6 different housing types as follows:

DWELLING TYPE BUILDING HEIGHT & SETBACK

CAR PARKING SECLUDED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

Two storey semi-attached townhouses.

Lots 1-5, 46-47, 49-56

(15 dwellings) orientated to Beryl Avenue and Golf Road

Dwellings typically comprise of 4 bedrooms, 2 internal living spaces at ground level.

Double storey typically up to 7.2 metres in height.

Street setback of 4m-8m.

No direct interface with adjoining residential properties. Proposed boundary setback of 5.055m to 50 Golf Road.

Double garage provided to each dwelling. Garages setback typically setback 6m-8m to allow for additional vehicle parking forward of the garages.

Accessed via new vehicle crossovers to Beryl Avenue and Golf Road. Vehicle crossovers typically paired/combined.

Ground level courtyard space of 40m

2-52.5m

2

with minimum width of 3.0m.

Two storey attached townhouses.

Lots 6-13 (6 dwellings) orientated to Golf Road adjacent to existing pocket park and roundabout.

Dwellings typically comprise of 2 bedrooms, 2 internal living spaces at ground level.


Street setback of 3m.

No direct interface with adjoining residential properties.

Single vehicle garage located to the rear of the dwelling orientated to proposed internal loop road.


2-37m

2 with

minimum width of 3.0m.



DWELLING TYPE BUILDING HEIGHT & SETBACK

CAR PARKING SECLUDED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

Two storey attached townhouses.

Lots 14-29, 43-45 orientated to the proposed intern loop road.

Lots 22-29 are located adjacent to the northern boundary to the rear of properties at 13, 15 and 17 Barholme Court

Dwellings typically comprise of 3 bedrooms, internal living spaces at ground level.


Street setback of 3.0 metres.

Setback of 5.0 metres to the northern boundary adjacent to the rear of properties at 13, 15 and 17 Barholme Court

Single vehicle garage with additional tandem car space located forward of the garage.


2 with

minimum width of 3.0m.

Three storey attached townhouses.

Lots 30-42 orientated to the proposed intern loop road.

Rear of dwellings are located adjacent to the north-eastern boundary abutting The Metropolitan Golf Club.

Dwellings typically comprise of 3 bedrooms, internal living spaces at ground level.

Three storey height typically up to 8.96 metres.


Direct interface with The Metropolitan Golf Club adjacent to the north-eastern boundary.

Single vehicle garage with additional tandem car space located forward of the garage.


2. Balcony

space of 10m2 provided

adjacent to first floor living areas.

Studio unit above garage.

Lot 48 orientated to the internal loop road.

Single bedroom dwelling located above garage with.

Zero metre/lot line setback to the street.

No direct interface with adjoining residential properties.

Single vehicle garage orientated to proposed internal loop road.

Balcony space of 8.3m2

provided adjacent to living areas.

Three storey apartment building located within the centre of the site. 60-65 apartment dwellings.

Lot 57 orientated to the internal loop road.

Layout and dwelling numbers not nominated.

Three storey height.


Basement providing for 1 car space to each 1 & 2 bedroom dwelling, 2 car spaces to each dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms.

Detail not provided. Expectation that 8m

2

balconies would be provided to each dwelling.

The submitted development provides a reasonable mix of varied housing types including dwellings with varied numbers of bedrooms, layouts and sizes. Of some concern is the complete lack of detached and semi-detached single story dwellings forming proposal. The aging population of Monash and limited supply



suitable housing for an aging population is recognised by the Monash Housing Strategy 2014. The development plan could better respond to housing diversity requirements that cater for an aging population and persons with limited mobility through the inclusion of single storey dwellings. Whilst the proposal does provide some diversity in housing types, the design response groups housing types into grouped block resulting in monotonous development presentation at odds with the surrounding context. Neighbourhood Character and Design Response The submitted development plan does not have adequate or appropriate regard to the existing built form of the immediate surrounding area comprising predominantly of modest, detached dwellings. The predominantly attached built form of the proposal is out of context within the surrounding area which is dominated by detached dwellings with varied setbacks, well landscaped front gardens and a more traditional suburban form. The provision of an apartment building within this locality is out of character with the established character of the surrounding context and desired future character as envisaged by relevant policy. The architectural styling of the proposal is dominated by attached two and three storey built forms, visually dominant upper level massing, generic and repetitious façade detailing, garages and driveways at ground level which dominate the street aspect and compromise the potential for meaningful landscaping. The design response poorly responds to the context of the surrounding area. Whilst the re-zoning and development plan requirement envisaged a medium density outcome for the site, the density and design response of the scale proposal is inappropriate having regard to the established context of the surrounding area. The visual bulk of two and three storey dwellings, attached building forms and three storey apartment development is out of context with the modest scale of development within the surrounding area. The development of apartment scale and form within this locality has poor strategic merit given the relative isolated locality, limited access to services and established form of the surrounding area. It is considered that a design response for the site should better integrate new residential development with greater regard for the existing and preferred character of the surrounding area. The design response should be of a less intensive scale, provide for greater upper level building separation, more substantial ground floor secluded private open space areas providing for less intensive building massing, reduced building density, greater building separation and larger open space areas allowing for increased landscaping provision and opportunities for canopy tree planting throughout the site. Built form and scale

Built form and scale requirements of DPO5 seek to: Create a composition of varied building forms and heights across the site.



Respect the amenity of adjoining interfaces for providing for a maximum of 2 storey built form adjacent to or opposite any existing single storey residential development. Any taller buildings across the balance of the site should be carefully graduated with reference to analysis of shadow, visual amenity impacts and the character of the area. The overall objective for the land to achieve an integrated medium density residential development offering a choice and diversity of housing opportunities and types, appropriate to its setting and achieving a high quality of amenity and urban design

The proposed 2 to 3 storey heights and built form are not necessarily considered to be inappropriate in principle, especially given the size of the site and strategic opportunity for a well designed medium density housing outcome. However the design response needs to take a more integrated approach to built form and scale having regard to the established form of the surrounding area. Greater variation in building height, height graduation and increased upper level separation would result in a better integrated development.

The proposed three storey apartment building and attached form of the proposed townhouses is inconsistent with the desired future character statement for the area. Any development of the subject land needs to suitably integrate with the established and emerging built form of the surrounds.

The three storey attached townhouses orientated to The Metropolitan Golf Course exploits the aspect to the adjoining property resulting in a visually dominant and obtrusive built form outcome at the expense of the landscape and recreational amenity of the adjoining property. The dwellings provide for a setback of 3.0 metres adjacent to the common boundary compromising the alibility for any meaningful on-site landscaping provision. The attached form of these dwellings results in an unbroken building mass of approximately 75 metres in length and up to 9 metres in height in what was previously an inconspicuous and vegetated landscape setting. The three storey scale and continuous massing of the development to this interface is inappropriate and should be refined to provide a more low key aspect to The Metropolitan Golf Club.

The interface of Lots 22 to 29 adjacent to the northern boundary results in a unbroken continuous massing impact 52 metres in length, setback 3.5 to 5 metres at ground level. Whilst the dwellings provide for some variation in façade setback and recessive upper levels, the attached form of these dwellings is inappropriate given the adjoining rear yard interface. The submitted indicative architectural detailing and theme of these dwellings is somewhat plain with



lightweight upper level construction, flat roof form and poorly proportioned windows which are not complimentary of the proposed development.

The surrounding development comprises predominantly modest detached dwellings, interspersed with a number of double-storey medium density housing developments. The newer development is generally sympathetic to the older housing stock, with some dwellings containing the first floor within pitched roofs, and others with smaller first floor footprints, all detached at the upper level.

The design of the proposal poorly integrates with the built form in the surrounding area with regard to both streetscape and rear yard character. The architectural styling of the proposal is not in keeping with the established built form and neighborhood. The proposed development is visually dominant in its presentation to the internal streets being up to three storeys in height and dominated by garages, car parking and internal roads at street level.

Whilst townhouses located along the perimeter of the site orientated to Golf Road and Beryl Avenue provide for greater building separation, the aspect to the street is still dominated by garages, associated vehicle crossovers and acessways, building setbacks of 4 to 6 metres, canterlevered and visually dominant upper storey massing which is at odds with the surrounding context.

The development at ground level is dominated by the prominence of garages and accessways. The orientation of garages along the western edge of the internal road at the entry to the development is poor urban design outcome at the entry to the development. The internal road network is generally dominated by garages and accessway compromising the streetscape interface of the entry to the development and public realm of common areas. The dominance of garages is a consequence of the intense density of the proposal, narrow dwelling widths, rear loaded design of dwellings 6 to 13, significant number of vehicle crossovers throughout the development and limited street setbacks. The dominance of garages, accessways and car parking is further exacerbated by limited opportunities for landscaping elements as a result of the provision of indented visitor car parking areas within typical nature strip spaces.

Essentially the scale the proposal is out of context with the surrounding built form. The apartment and attached townhouse components of the development are not typical of the character of the surrounding area which comprises mostly detached single and double storey dwellings. Surrounding dwellings have a good sense of address and street aspect, in keeping with the suburban nature and form of the neighborhood. The proposal lacks a suitable sense of address and appropriate dwelling orientation to the street, poorly complimenting the surrounding built form.

It is considered that a more appropriate design response for the site would be less visually dominant, more modest in scale and massing, and provide for



appropriate setback to the street and adjoining properties. Architectural styling and design detail should be more reflective and sympathetic of the predominant character and form of the surrounding area including dwellings with a more individual sense of address and substantially landscaped front setback.

New development should achieve high standards in architecture and urban design. The proposed design response poorly integrates with the built form of the surrounding area. The scale of the development rising to up to three storeys in height is at odds with the modest and unassuming nature of existing dwellings within the surrounding area. The visual impact and indicative design detail represents poor architectural and urban design response to the established residential form of the surrounding area. The façade treatment lacks appropriate visual interest and further exacerbates the bulk and dominance of the façade. A more graduated building height and greater separation dwellings would result in a more appropriate and sympathetic transition between the surrounding residential from and the subject site. Greater façade articulation and utilization of softer materials and finishes in keeping with the form of the surrounding area would further improve the transition. Any design response should have appropriate regard for the existing neighbourhood character.

Street Setback The proposed street setbacks are typically 3 to 6 metres. These setbacks are not appropriate having regard to the prevailing setback of the surrounding area which typically range from 7 to 12.1 metres. In justifying any reduction in street setback, development needs to have regard to the prevailing setbacks of the surrounding area, the presentation of the development to the street including adequacy of landscaping opportunities, and appropriateness of the scale of the proposed development within the streetscape and context of the surrounding area.

Open, substantially landscaped front gardens and the provision of large canopy trees with street setback are significant elements of the established character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The considerable encroachment of the development into the street setback inappropriately integrates the development with the established built from of the surrounding area. Siting development of the proposed scale and intensity is inappropriate given the locality and context of this established residential area.

Vegetation Retention

The issue of vegetation retention and the provisions of DPO5 that relate to vegetation retention have been subject to various legal interpretations. The officer position on DPO 5 is that the development plan must include a landscape plan; the landscaping plan must incorporate any vegetation that is significant; and the landscape plan must also incorporate those trees rated as ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ in the 2013 Tree Logic Assessment. A planning permit must then be generally in accordance with the approved development plan.



Given the approach taken by the applicant in the submitted development plans, they seem far from complying with the provisions of DPO 5. However, even putting the requirements of DPO 5 to one side for the moment (assuming that was possible) as a general proposition, the proposed approach to tree retention in the submitted development plans is poor and falls far short of a reasonable response and this itself is a sufficient basis to not approve of the submitted development plans.

The submitted development plan proposes retention of only 3 trees.

The 2013 Tree Logic Assessment nominates 23 trees with an aboricultual rating of moderate retention value. No trees were attributed with an aboricultural rating of high retention value. The trees are generally Victorian and Australian native eucalypt species and range in height from 7 to 24 metres.

The majority of vegetation (17 trees) with moderate retention value are predominantly located within the centre of the site and would require a substantial modification to the proposed development plan should these trees be retained. Eight (8) trees of moderate retention value are located within close proximity to the boundaries of the sites in areas which would generally be best suited to secluded private open space and street setback areas and yet the proposed development plan has also failed to incorporate these trees into the landscaping response.

The proposed development plan does not adequately provide for vegetation retention let alone incorporate the existing significant vegetation as required by DPO5.

Landscaping The submitted development plan includes an "indicative" landscape concept plan for the site. The landscape scheme for the site includes a mix of native and exotic planting across the site with a mature height of 5 to 10 metres.

The minimal street setbacks, closely located vehicle crossovers, small sized ground level secluded private open spaces areas and minimal provision of nature strip spaces results in limited areas for meaningful landscaping and canopy tree provision . At the least, the submitted development plan should incorporate increased landscaping areas throughout the site and greater retention of existing significant vegetation to better complement and integrate the site with the surrounding area. Adhering to the provisions of DPO 5, the submitted development plan should be revised to retain the trees rated as ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ in the 2013 Tree Logic Assessment.

Sustainable Design Features



The layout and siting of proposed buildings have been designed with limited regard for northerly aspect and maximised solar access for living areas and secluded private open space areas opportunities. Further inclusion of innovative environmentally sustainable design (ESD) and water sensitive urban design (WSUD) within the proposal would assist in providing a better design and outcome for this site.

Car Parking, Access & Traffic Impact The proposal provides for car parking generally in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06.

Car parking for the development is provided as follows:

DWELLING TYPE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS

CLAUSE 52.06 REQUIREMENT

CAR SPACES PROVIDED

3 bedroom with single car garage and tandem visitor space

32 2 space per dwelling 64

4 bedroom with double garage

15 2 spaces per dwelling 30

2 bedrooms with single car garage

8 1 space per dwelling 8

Lot 57 Apartments (1-3 bedrooms)

60-65 1 space/1 & 2 bedroom dwelling

2 spaces/3 bedroom dwelling

Car parking to be provided in

basement to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority. Exact

number to be advised.

Visitor Parking 56 townhouses

60-65 apartments

1 space per 5 dwellings

/apartments

20 indented parking spaces

Potential additional visitor parking

provision within apartment building

basement

The proposed development plan provides for adequate onsite car parking. The traffic impact of the proposed development on the local road network was raised as a significant issue within community submissions, as the surrounding area suffers from some congestion and vehicle queuing during the morning peak and afternoon school pick up times already. The site has reasonable links to the arterial road network including North Road (to the north via Golf Road), Centre Road (to the south via Cameron Avenue) and Warrigal Road (to the west via Delia Street).



The predicted traffic generation from the development is relatively low and expected to have an acceptable impact within the capacity of the local traffic network. Peak traffic generation from the development is expected to be 73 vehicle trips per peak hour. Daily traffic volume from the development is predicted to be 726 vehicle trips per day which is within the capacity of the existing local road network. Council’s traffic engineers have raised issues with some aspects of the proposed design of the car parking and access arrangements which would require modification. Concerns relate to internal pedestrian pathway widths, turning manoeuvrers, bicycle space location, car parking design specifications and associated requirements. A substantial number of dwellings (32) are reliant on tandem visitor car spaces which are located forward of the garages and overhang vehicle crossovers and accessways. The tight design of the car parking layout is further evidence of the excessive density of the proposal and has the potential to cause vehicle management, manoeuvrability and on street parking issues following occupation of the development. The significant number of indented car parking spaces compromises the ability for nature strip provision and street planting which assist in tempering vehicles travelling at speed and soften the overall presentation of the development. Pedestrian Links & Permeability Requirements of DPO5 seek to:

“Create opportunities for improved local permeability through provision of new pedestrian/cycle pathways or new local street networks where appropriate.”

The development plan proposes pedestrian paths along one side of internal accessways and an additional pedestrian link through to Golf Road adjacent to the northern boundary. The 5.05 metre width of the pedestrian link adjacent to the northern boundary is relatively narrow and would raise safety concerns given the limited ability for passive surveillance given that the link would be bordered by fences on either side. Pedestrian amenity throughout the development is compromised by the limited areas of landscaping adjacent to internal streets, excessive number and visual dominance of vehicle crossovers at the streetscape interface.

CONCLUSION:

Whilst the proposal would satisfy the increased density objectives of the Monash Planning Scheme, it would do so at the expense of the existing and future neighbourhood character of the area. While the proposal provides for reasonable dwelling diversity, the design response fails to suitable meet design requirements relating to density, neighbourhood character and site integration. The design response displays inadequate regard for the surrounding context having insufficient consideration of neighbourhood character, established and emerging built form, building height and scale, height transition, design detail,



overshadowing, overlooking, street setback, landscaping, open space provision and future amenity outcomes for residents. Substantial land size is not sole justification for development of increased density and scale. The proposal is excessive in its built form given the locality, does not demonstrate site responsive design and constitutes an overdevelopment of the subject land. It is recommended that the application not be supported.



LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Proposed Development Plans. Attachment 2 – Aerial Photograph (October 2014). Attachment 3 – Zoning and Overlays Map. Attachment 4 – Submission Properties Location Map.

4.2 1 beryl avenue, oakleigh south … › files › assets › public › about...council meeting,...

Documents