agenda of council meeting - 6 august 2018 · web view8. endorsement of the princes gardens...

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 6 August 2018 at 7pm

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

Vision

Stonnington will be an inclusive, healthy, creative, sustainable and smart community.

Council’s vision will be implemented through four key pillars:

Community: An inclusive City that enhances the health and wellbeing of all residents, where people can feel safe, socially connected and engaged.

Liveability: The most desirable place to live, work and visit. Environment: A cleaner, safer and better environment for current and future

generations to enjoy. Economy: A City that will grow its premier status as a vibrant, innovative and

creative business community.

These pillars reflect the shared priorities of our community and Council, and are consistent with our history and vision for a liveable future. For each pillar, there is a framework for our strategies, actions and measures which outline the key services and projects to be delivered to our community.

The Strategic Resource Plan sets out how Council will provide the resources needed to implement strategies and actions within the Council Plan.

Councillors

Cr Steven Stefanopoulos, MayorCr Glen AtwellCr Marcia GriffinCr Jami KlisarisCr John Chandler Cr Sally DavisCr Judy HindleCr Matthew KoceCr Melina Sehr

NOTESCouncil business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2018 (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.

Councillors carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested with them under the Local Government Act 1989, and any other relevant legislation. Councillors impartially perform the Office of Councillor duties, in the best interests of the City of Stonnington residents to the best of their skills and judgement.

Councillors must formally declare their conflicts of interest in relation to any items listed on the agenda at the start of the meeting and immediately prior to the item being considered, in accordance with Sections 77 to 79 of the Act.

READING OF THE 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.

READING OF THE AFFIRMATION STATEMENT

We are reminded that as Councillors we are bound by our Oath of Office to undertake the duties of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the City of Stonnington and to faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in us under the Local Government Act and any other relevant Act

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

Welcome

Welcome to a Stonnington City Council meeting. These meetings are an important way to ensure that your democratically elected Councillors work for you in a fair and transparent way.

About this meeting

The first page of tonight’s agenda shows the different parts to the meeting, some of these are administrative and are required by Stonnington’s Local Law.

In the agenda you will also find a list of all the items to be discussed under ‘General Business’. Each report is written by a council officer and outlines the purpose of the report, relevant information and a recommended decision for councillors.

Council will consider the report and either accept, reject or make amendments to the recommendation. Council decisions are adopted if they receive a majority vote from the Councillors present at this meeting.

Arrangements to ensure meetings are accessible to the public

Council meetings are held at the Malvern Town Hall, corner High Street and Glenferrie Road (entry via Glenferrie Road by the door closest to the Malvern Police Station).

The Malvern Town Hall has an entrance ramp and elevators to ensure that the Council Chamber is accessible to the public. Fully accessible toilet and bathroom facilities are also available.

If you require translation, interpreting services or a hearing loop set up, please contact Council’s civic support on 03 8290 1331 to make appropriate arrangements before the meeting.

To ensure that people in the chamber can follow the meetings’ proceedings, proposed alternate resolutions, also known as ‘yellows’, are displayed on a screen and microphones are used during debate.

Live webcasting

Council meetings are webcast live via Council’s website, allowing those interested to view proceedings without attending Council meetings.

This gives people who may otherwise be unable to attend access to Council decisions and debate. A recording of the meeting is available on our website after the meeting (usually within 48 hours).

Only Councillors and Council officers seated around the Council table are visible on film. People in the public gallery will not be filmed, but if you speak, you will be recorded. Visit stonnington.vic.gov.au for more information.

Members of the galleryIf you choose to attend a council meeting as a member of the public gallery, you should note the role of the Chairperson and your responsibilities under the City of Stonnington General Local Law 2018(1).

Extracts from the Local Law:

81. Gallery to be Silent

(1) Visitors must not interject or take part in the debate.(2) The gallery must be silent at all times during any Council Meeting.(3) The ring tones of mobile telephones and other devices must be turned off by

people in the gallery at all times.

88. Recording or Filming Proceedings

(1) A person must not operate an audio tape, mobile telephone or other recording or transmitting equipment or film ('a device') at any Council Meeting without first obtaining the consent of the Chairperson.

(2) Consent given under sub-clause (1) may be revoked by the Chairperson at any time during the course of a meeting.

(3) If a device is operated, or suspected of being operated, in contravention of sub-clause (1), the Chairperson may:(a) order the person operating, or suspected of operating, the device to produce

the device to the Chairperson; and(b) arrange for any matter that has been recorded on the device in contravention of

sub-clause (1) to be deleted, erased or otherwise removed from the device.(4) Subject to sub-clause (5), the Chairperson shall return any device that has been

produced to him or her pursuant to sub-clause (3) at the conclusion of the relevant Council Meeting.

(5) If the Chairperson has been unable to arrange for the matter that has been recorded on the device in contravention of sub-clause (1) to be deleted, erased or otherwise removed from the device, the device shall be returned to the person as soon as practicable after the deletion, erasure or removal has been carried out.

84. Removal from Chamber of a Councillor or Member of the Public

The Chairperson, or Council in the case of a suspension under clause 82, may ask any Authorised Officer or member of Victoria Police to remove from the meeting (including the gallery):(1) any person who the Chairperson has ordered to be removed under clause 82(3); or(2) any Councillor who has been suspended under clause 82 and who has not

immediately left the Council Meeting.

50. Questions to Council from Members of the Public

(1) Questions to Council from members of the public will be considered as part of the order of business of an Ordinary Meeting only when submitted in the format outlined below:(a) Questions must be in writing and lodged at the office of the Chief Executive

Officer by 12 noon on the day of the next scheduled Ordinary Meeting.(b) A limit of five (5) questions per questioner applies.(c) Questions must include the name and address of the questioner and the date of

the question. Questions by facsimile or email are acceptable.(2) Within four (4) working days of receiving a complying question to Council from a

member of the public, the Chief Executive Officer will dispatch a notice to the member of the public who submitted the question, advising that the question has been received.

(3) At a meeting at which a question is to be considered:(a) The Chairperson will acknowledge that a question or questions have

been received from a (named) person and ask if that questioner is in the gallery. (b) If the questioner is present in the gallery, a summary of the subject

matter of the question(s) will be read out by the Chairperson and the questioner advised that a written reply to the question(s) will be issued within 14 days of that meeting date.

(c) If the questioner is not in the gallery, Council will respond to the question(s) in accordance with any standard correspondence to Council.

(4) The Chairperson has the discretion to allow a question to be asked and/or answered at the meeting that is in variance with the procedure in this Local Law.

(5) The Chairperson may refuse to acknowledge a question if, in the opinion of the Chairperson, the question is, or is potentially, defamatory, indecent, offensive, abusive, objectionable in language or substance, irrelevant, trivial, aimed at embarrassing a Councillor or a member of Council staff, outside Council’s powers or functions, has been asked at a previous Council Meeting and a reply issued, or relates to matters that come under section 89(2) of the Act.

(6) Any question relating to electoral matter during an Election Period will not be considered at any Council Meeting.

(7) A copy of the questions and responses will be tabled and inserted into the minutes of the following Council Meeting.

47. Open Meetings

(1) Subject to sub-clause (2), Council Meetings must be open to members of the public pursuant to section 89(1) of the Act.

(2) Council may resolve, under section 89(2) of the Act, that a meeting be closed to members of the public if Confidential Business is to be discussed.

Your cooperation is appreciated, we hope you enjoy the meeting.

Mayor and Councillors, Stonnington City Council

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 6 August 2018Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Affirmation Statementb) Introductionsc) Apologies d) 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 23 JULY 2018.........................................................9

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

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

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

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0498/17- 44-46 DUKE STREET, WINDSOR VIC 3181- CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 300SQM IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND REDUCTION TO THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT......................................11

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0258/17- 18 PARSLOW STREET, MALVERN VIC 3144- CONSTRUCT TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE.......................................................31

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 1225/16- 94 CHOMLEY STREET, PRAHRAN VIC 3181- EXTENSION TO A DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 500SQM IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE .........................55

4. 418 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN EAST, 1529 MALVERN ROAD, GLEN IRIS & 104 CAROLINE STREET, SOUTH YARRA - TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ........................................69

5. AMENDMENT C270 - FEDERATION HOUSES HERITAGE STUDY - ADOPTION.....................................756. AMENDMENT C276 - IMPROVEMENTS TO CHAPEL REVISION PLANNING CONTROLS -

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS................................................................................................817. METRO TUNNEL PROJECT - PROPOSED EARLY WORKS FOR EASTERN PORTAL..............................878. ENDORSEMENT OF THE PRINCES GARDENS MASTERPLAN .............................................................939. VEHICLE CROSSING APPLICATION – 76 LANG STREET, SOUTH YARRA.........................................10110. RECONCILIATION ACTION PLAN 2018-2020................................................................................10511. ELIZABETH STREET CAR PARK - MODIFY PARKING RATES..........................................................10712. VICTORIA TERRACE, SOUTH YARRA - SECTION 223 ADVERTISEMENT OF PROPOSED ROAD

CLOSURE TRIAL.........................................................................................................................111

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.

13. MILLEWA AVENUE, MALVERN EAST - PROPOSAL TO INSTALL NO STOPPING RESTRICTION........11914. COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019: TRY SOUTH YARRA PRE SCHOOL............................................12315. COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019: INCLUSION MELBOURNE...........................................................12516. COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019: MELBOURNE RAINBOW BAND................................................127

n) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. PRAHRAN MARKET PTY LTD VARIATION OF PURPOSE OF $1.0M LOAN.......................................129

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

6 AUGUST 2018

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 23 July 2018 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 23 July 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS6 AUGUST 2018

m) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0498/17- 44-46 DUKE STREET, WINDSOR VIC 3181- CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 300SQM IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND REDUCTION TO THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 9 July 2018. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration. The applicant has advised that they are continuing to prepare amended plans. These plans and an updated Council report will be available for consideration at the Council meeting of 20 August 2018

Executive Summary

Applicant: James Livingston PlanningWard: SouthZone: Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)Overlay: N/A Neighbourhood Precinct: Inner Urban PrecinctDate lodged: 05 June 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

68

Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor Call-upNumber of objections

Cultural Heritage Plan NoNumber of objections: 34 objections from 29 addressesConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 23 May 2018Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Cook Gordon Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: A01 (rev TP04), A02 (rev TP04), A03 (rev TP03), A04 (rev TP05), A05 (rev TP05), A06 (rev TP05), A07 (rev TP06), A08 (rev TP06), A09 (rev TP06), A10 (rev TP04), A11 (rev TP04), A12 (rev TP04), A13 (rev TP04), A14 (rev TP04), A15 (rev TP04), A16 (rev TP05), A17 (rev TP02), A18 (rev TP06), A19(rev TP03), A20 (rev TP04), A21 (rev TP04), A22 (rev TP04), A23 (rev TP04), A24 (rev TP04) and Council date stamped 2 May 2018.

Page 11


The application seeks permission for the construction of a double storey dwelling. Key features of the proposal are:

General

Full demolition of the existing dwelling (note: a planning permit is not required for demolition)

Construction of a new double storey dwelling. The proposal has a maximum building height of 7.33m (measured from natural ground

level and shown on the proposed west elevation). Pedestrian access and entries are provided from Duke Street. No onsite car parking is provided. The proposal is to consist of a contemporary architectural style. The proposed

materials and finishes include brick, metal roof cladding, flat metal plate finish, perforated metal mesh, metal louvered screen and perforated metal mesh.

Ground Floor

To the north, the proposal provides a centrally positioned entry section which has a width of 2.91m and a depth of 1.26m. The remainder of the dwelling is to be constructed on the northern boundary.

To the south, the proposal incorporates a lightwell, which has a setback of 6.025m from Primrose Street, a length of 4.825m and a width of 1.49-1.565m. The remainder of the dwelling is to be constructed on the southern boundary.

To the west, the proposal allows for a setback of 1.29m. To the east, the proposal is setback 6.035m from the boundary. The eastern section of

the site will be used as the main area of secluded private open space. An open steel pergola (i.e. uncovered) will be installed above the rear garden.

The ground floor comprises a study, an open plan kitchen / dining / living room and service areas.

First Floor

The first floor adopts the same boundary setbacks to align with the ground floor layout. The first floor comprises a secondary living room, two bedrooms and associated

bathrooms.

The development plans that form the basis of this assessment are plans (A01 – A24, Council date stamped 2 May 2018). These plans were formally declared pursuant to Clause 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and supersede the originally advertised plans (Council date stamped 27 January 2017). The revised plans were submitted to respond to concerns raised by Council and objectors, and show the following key changes:

The introduction of a hipped roof form to the rear section The rear (i.e. eastern) setback to be increased from 4.305m to 6.035m The depth of a lightwell on the south elevation to be increased from 4.2m to 4.825m A west facing window at first floor to be modified in shape

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Duke Street and Primrose Street. It is approximately 181.1m east of the intersection with Chapel Street, and 55.8m west of the intersection with Hornby Street.

The subject site has the following significant characteristics:

Page 12


The land is rectangular in shape, yielding a total site area of approximately 120sqm. The land has dual frontage: to the west, it provides a frontage of 5.23m to Primrose

Street; to the north, it adjoins Duke Street with a frontage of 24.51m. The land is currently improved by a two-bedroom single storey weatherboard dwelling. Pedestrian access is provided from Duke Street. No onsite car parking arrangement is provided.

The surrounding land is predominantly residential consisting mostly of single and double storey dwellings on smaller lots, mixed with a number of double storey brick dwellings and occasionally apartment buildings. Whilst the lot size varies, the immediate context generally reflects a fine grain pattern of development.

The subject site has four interfaces, which are summarised as follows:

To the immediate south is a property at 18 Primrose Street, Windsor, which houses a double storey dwelling with a contemporary rear addition.

To the immediate north, the subject site abuts Duke Street, which is a narrow one-way street that runs from Hornby Street to Chapel Street. On the opposite side of Duke Street are properties at 39, 45, 47 and 49 Duke Street respectively. Of significance is that the four properties are affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO129), which is commonly described as a Hornby-Mary Streets Urban Conservation Area. Specifically, the land at 39 Duke Street houses an A1 graded gothic style federation building which was previously known as the Red Lion Hotel and is currently used as a dwelling. The land at 45 Duke Street is improved by an A1 graded semi-detached single storey dwelling, paired with the dwelling at 47 Duke Street. The site at 49 Duke Street contains a B-graded single storey brick dwelling with a pitched roof.

To the immediate west, the subject site abuts Primrose Street, which is a narrow two-way street that runs from Duke Street to James Street. On the other side of the street is 42 Duke Street, which houses a single storey rendered dwelling.

To the immediate east is 48 Duke Street, which is developed with a single storey, single fronted weatherboard cottage.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications for the subject site.

However, it is noted that Planning Permit No. 905/13 was issued to the southern adjoining property at 18 Primrose Street, which is relevant to the application at hand and will be discussed later in this assessment.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04691 Folio 097 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 696060H.

An easement extends to the immediate south of the subject site, with a length of approximately 9.45m and a width of approximately 0.37m. The Title also specifies that the right to use the said easement is limited to the purpose of overhanging eaves. Given the placement of this easement, a condition is recommended, requiring that notations are included on all site / floor plans, confirming that all new works will be constructed within the title boundaries on the subject site. Any subsequent amendments to the proposal should ensure that all new works (including boundary fencing) are clearly depicted within the title boundaries.

No covenants affect the land.

Page 13


Planning Controls

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

ZoneClause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, a planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 300 square metres.

The application proposes to construct a new dwelling on a lot of 120 square metres. A planning permit is therefore required under the zone.

Furthermore, as stipulated in Schedule 3 to the zone, a building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed a height of 9 metres. The proposed maximum building height is 7.33m and complies with the height controls.

Schedule 3 also sets out variations to requirements stipulated in Clause 54 (One Dwelling on a lot), which are stated as follows:

Standard Requirement Site coverage A5 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area. Front fence height A20 Maximum height of 2 metres in streets in a Road

Zone, Category 1.Other streets 1.2 metres maximum height.

OverlayThe subject site is not affected by any overlays.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-1, Clause 52.06 does not apply to the construct and use of one dwelling on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone unless the zone or a schedule to zone specifies that a permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot.

As outlined above, the proposal triggers a planning permit under the zone, Clause 52.06 therefore applies to this application.

Pursuant to Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5, 2 car parking spaces are required to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as a bedroom).

The proposal encompasses one study room on the ground floor and two bedrooms on the first floor; and is therefore considered a three bedroom dwelling. In accordance with Table 1, 2 car parking spaces should be provided.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a planning permit is required to reduce (including to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5. As no onsite car parking is provided, a planning permit is required for the reduction to car parking requirement.

Clause 54 – One Dwelling on a Lot

Relevant Planning Policies

Page 14


21.06 Built Environment and Heritage 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)52.06 Car Parking 54 One Dwelling on a Lot 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.

4 objections (from 3 affected properties) were received in the initial public notice.

Key aspects of the objections during the initial advertising period are summarised below:

Inconsistency with the neighbourhood character Amenity impacts in relation to daylight access to north-facing windows and

overshadowing Amenity impacts in relation to overlooking Over-development Visual bulk on the Primrose Street and Duke Street Inappropriate car parking arrangement

A Consultative Meeting was held on 23 May 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Hindle and Sehr, representatives of the applicant, objectors and their representative, and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the following changes to the advertised plans:

The introduction of a hipped roof form to the rear section The rear (i.e. eastern) setback increased from 4.305m to 6.035m The width of a lightwell on the south elevation increased from 4.2m to 4.8m A west facing window at first floor to be modified in shape

The revised plans were circulated to all objectors via email. 30 further objections were received and can be summarised as follows:

Inconsistency with the planning policy framework Inconsistency with the heritage character of Duke Street Inadequate car parking provision Overshadowing Overlooking Inappropriate material use on the southern elevation Lack of design details

No objections have been withdrawn. The total number of objections counts as 34 (from 29 addresses).

Referrals

Urban Design

Page 15


Comments from Council’s Urban Design Advisor on the revised plans advised that:

Scale: the proposal for a 2-storey contemporary infill development on the subject site is not an unusual scale for a corner site in this neighbourhood.

Form: the proposed building is a contemporary interpretation of a simple pitched roof-form. Visual break is introduced in the building form, together with projecting window at first floor, adds visual interest and articulates the form of the building as it presents to Duke Street.

Setbacks: given the corner lot, a zero setback to Duke Street is consistent with the character of corner buildings in the area. The small setback to Primrose Street is appropriate for this context.

Materials and colour scheme: recycled common red bricks and dark-grey colouring for the subsidiary elements are supported. The face-brickwork on the south elevation is not supported as it creates a visual conflict with the predominant material – red-brick.

Fenestration: the relatively large sizes of the first floor windows and their (horizontal) rectangular shape(s), are at odds with the predominant character of the window sizes and proportions found in the Victorian/Edwardian-era buildings in the neighbourhood. It is suggested that a more finely-scaled and vertically-proportioned window arrangement would result in a better integration of the building with the character of the neighbourhood.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to construct a double storey dwelling at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor. As the permit triggers concern Clause 32.09 (Neighbourhood Residential Zone) and Clause 52.06 (Car Parking), the key issues that Council has to determine are:

Is the proposal acceptable in neighbourhood character terms? Will the proposal unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining properties? Does the proposal provide an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants? Is the car parking reduction (to zero) acceptable?

The proposal is acceptable in neighbourhood character terms.

Having considered the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, the proposal is considered to be respectful and compatible with the existing neighbourhood character with the following considerations:

Consistency with the policy direction

At State level, Clause 15.01-1 seeks to create urban environments that provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identify. Clause 15.01-5 also has an objective to recognise and protect neighbourhood character and sense of place and Clause 15.03-1 has an objective to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.

The objectives in the State Planning Policy Framework are reiterated in the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). This includes: Clause 21.05, which identifies the subject site as part of Incremental Change Area,

where multi-unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable to accommodating increased policy is encouraged;

Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity), which seeks to ensure new development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking associated with the use.

Page 16


Clause 21.06-4 (Built form Character), which seeks to provide for medium density (2-3 storey) development provided the development respects the preferred character of the precinct.

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policies require the design of a development to respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and be appropriate for its setting. Objectors are concerned that the proposal does not respect the existing character of this neighbourhood by virtue of its height, scale and form. The proposal is considered appropriate for the following reasons: As the subject site is situated in an Incremental Change Area, the construction of a 2-

storey dwelling is responsive to housing policy provisions. The overall height of the development, at two storeys, is consistent with the scale of

many of the surrounding properties. As presented in the streetscapes of Duke Street and Primrose Street, two storey development (including single storey with first floor additions) is an emerging character of the area. On Duke Street, the land at 37 Duke Street has a visible first floor addition; and the properties at 39 Duke Street; and 67 Hornby Street are constructed with zero setback to the street. Similarly, on Primrose Street, to the immediate south, the land at 18 Primrose Street is featured by its contemporary first floor addition; and the land at 21 Primrose Street also has a visible first floor component on the street elevation. Furthermore, while the proposal presents more obviously to the streets (due to the corner site nature), it should be noted that many nearby examples possess more visual dominant features when viewed from the street. For instance, the land at 33-35 James Street (located approximately 100m south of the site) contains a four storey apartment building; and the land at 30 James Street is improved by a three-storey apartment building. As such, it is clear that the varied context would support the proposal, as the scale integrates well with the existing character of the surrounds.

The subject site is located in an area where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both side boundaries. This pattern of development has formed a prevailing character of this area, as it is common and reasonable to have properties constructed in very close proximity to the side boundaries of narrow sites. The proposal incorporates boundary walls on the northern and the southern boundary. This is considered a reflective response to the surrounds and consistent with the context.

The policy calls for new building in an innovative and contemporary manner and building materials that are in stark contrast with the character of the streetscape should be avoided. This proposal adopts a contemporary architectural style and incorporates recycled brickwork as a response to the dominant character of the streets. The proposal therefore is considered consistent with the policy controls and appropriate to the character of the area.

Consistency with the existing character

The LPPF also includes an objective at Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), to ensure that development reflects the intention of the statement of preferred neighbourhood character and design guidelines for each precinct.

The subject site is located in an Inner Urban Precinct (IU) that occupies the southern and western part of the municipality. This precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar dwellings. Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominate, the rhythm of development.

In conjunction with the referral comments from Council’s Urban Design Advisor, the proposed design response is appropriate in this neighbourhood. With regard to the first floor

Page 17


component particularly, it is worth noting that two storey development has become a more common aspect of Melbourne’s built form. As the Tribunal remarked in Waylan Consulting Group v Moreland CC [2000] VCAT 1198, ‘… double storey dwellings are not two headed monsters. They are normal housing type throughout the metropolitan area’. Member Keaney also commented in Rendevski v City of Greater Geelong [1999] VCAT 1886:

Leaving aside the fact that this would not be the first two storey “intrusion” (either for a single home or multi-unit), the Tribunal would be reluctant to reject what is a perfectly normal and acceptable form of development right throughout our urban areas, except if the neighbourhood characteristics were so pristine and important so as to make a two storey proposal unacceptable.

With a view to the immediate context, double storey dwellings are not an uncommon feature of this area. For instance, the land at No. 20, 23, 28 Duke Street have visible first floor additions; and the southern adjoining property at 18 Primrose Street has distinct additions at ground and first floor levels. Given the variety in building heights and the absence of design-specific overlays (such as Heritage Overlay or Neighbourhood Character Overlay), it is considered that the proposal with a maximum height of 7.33m will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact on the character of this neighbourhood.

Built form

The proposal does not introduce a built form that is dominant or overwhelming to this neighbourhood. The 2-storey red-brick building on the corner of Duke Street and Hornby Street is one of the nearby examples on a corner site. Specifically, the said land is at 67 Hornby Street and contains a 2-storey brick dwelling built on the street frontages and the northern boundary. It is also noted that the street facades read as continuous double storey boundary walls with no break. The proposal however introduces pedestrian access and entries via Duke Street, which in return presents an articulated built form thereby reducing the dominance of double storey boundary wall to the street and providing visual interest.

Having regard to the existing context, it is considered that the proposed built form provides an acceptable response to its neighbourhood. Although the proposal is to be constructed along the northern and southern boundaries, as discussed above, the narrow and small subdivision pattern of the area has reinforced a prevailing character where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both side boundaries. Furthermore, the immediate context does not present a consistent pattern; rather it is featured by mixed built forms. The proposal therefore is not considered too remote or farfetched from the established mixed nature of the surrounds.

Additionally, in the wider neighbourhood, it is noted that the land at 14 White Street (located the corner of James Street and White Street) houses a contemporary example of a double storey redevelopment on a corner site of a similar size to the subject site. The development incorporates face brickworks on the ground floor; and continuous first floor boundary wall to White Street with dark grey vertical cladding.

With all the above considerations, the proposed built form is considered appropriate and will sit comfortably in its context.

Site Layout and Building Massing

Street setback

Page 18


With specific regard to the street setback requirements, it is noted that the site is located on a corner. Standard A3 stipulates the following preferred setbacks for developments on corner sites.

Minimum setback from front street:

If there is a building on the abutting allotment facing the front street, the same distance as the setback of the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Minimum setback from side street

The same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 2 metres, whichever is the lesser.

The proposed setback to the primary frontage of Duke Street will be zero, which means that a variation to the Standard is required as the eastern neighbouring property at 48 Duke Street has a setback of approximately 2m. A variation may be supported on the basis that the existing dwelling on the site is built to the northern (Duke Street) boundary. Furthermore, the existing neighbourhood character has a prevailing feature where boundary construction is common given the narrow nature of the sites in this area. In the immediate context, it is noted that two storey sheer walls constructed alongside boundaries are not uncommon. The proposal is therefore not inconsistent with the character of this neighbourhood.

The proposed setback to Primrose Street is 1.29m which generally aligns with the setback of the principle façade of the southern neighbouring property at 18 Primrose Street.

Site Coverage

Standard A5 states that the maximum site coverage is 60 per cent. The existing site coverage is 66% and the proposed site coverage is 63%. Given the reduction in the overall site coverage, the proposal is considered an improved design outcome and can be supported.

Permeability

Standard A6 requires a minimum permeability of 20 per cent. The proposed impervious surface area is 67%, which allows for 33% of the site to be permeable. The proposal therefore complies. It is however recommended that the permeable surface should be clearly outlined in the site or floor plans. A relevant condition will therefore be included.

Design detail

The design detail of the proposed dwelling are considered to be appropriate. Reasons are outlined below:

Firstly, as discussed above, the built form and the scale (of being a 2-storey property) respond to the character of the area appropriately.

Secondly, the proposed pitched roof is consistent with the nearby properties.

Thirdly, in terms of façade articulation and detailing, efforts have been made to provide a positive response to the streetscapes of Duke Street and Primrose Street. For instance, the proposed street façades incorporate windows and introduce entries to articulate the double storey walls. This approach is considered acceptable in principle. With particular respect to

Page 19


the window shapes, it is noted that the first floor north facing windows are of large sizes, which are at odds with the predominant character of the window sizes and proportions found in the Victorian/Edwardian-era buildings in the neighbourhood. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring a more finely-scaled and vertically-proportioned window arrangement to be provided at the first floor level on the north elevation.

Furthermore, the material palette responds to materials that are not uncommon in the neighbourhood. The proposal incorporates recycled common red bricks for the external cladding, this is considered responsive to the variety of existing red-brick buildings in the area. The proposal also incorporates dark-grey colouring for window frames, screening and roofing, which complements the red brickwork and can be supported.

Additionally, one of the objectors raised concerns regarding the white finishes to be applied on the southern elevation. As outlined in the referral comments, this treatment is not supported as a portion of this wall is visible from Primrose Street; and will likely cause a visual conflicts in material/colour with the north and west elevations of red-brick. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the south elevation materials/colour to be consistent with the north and west elevations.

Front fence

In accordance with Standard A20, the maximum height of front fences on Duke Street and Primrose Street should not exceed 1.2m. The Objective is to ‘encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character’. The proposal is considered to meet the objective for the following reasons:

The subject site sits in a corner, abutting Primrose Street and Duke Street. Traditionally, for corner sites, the narrow street is treated as the primary; and the other as the secondary. Primrose Street is therefore considered the frontage. On Primrose Street, the proposal incorporates a 1.5m timber paling fence. This is supported as it is consistent with other front fences along Primrose Street, in terms of the materials and colour finishes.

On Duke Street, pedestrian access and entries are proposed. The proposed pedestrian entry is enclosed with a timber paling fence with a height of less than 1.5m. This is considered responsive to the surrounds. It is also noted that at the eastern end, a 1.89m high timber paling fence is included. As shown on the proposed site plan, an additional access is provided from the rear section. The proposed north elevation however does not specifically depict the proposed additional access. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the second access to be clearly depicted on the north elevation with dimensions and used for pedestrian access only.

For all the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the scale, massing and form of the proposal are appropriate in this locale and will assimilate well into the neighbourhood.

The proposal will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

This application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of Clause 54 and the section below outlines the key findings:

Side and rear setbacks

Standard A10 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The proposed extension is largely constructed along the side boundaries (refer to

Page 20


assessment of Standard A11 below). However, part of the first floor extension is setback from the side boundaries.

Ground Floor

To the south, the proposed wall height does not exceed 3.6m and the required minimum setback is therefore 1m. As the proposal introduces a lightwell, the section where the internal staircase is located is to be set back 1.49m (minimum) and thus complies. The remaining is to be constructed on the boundary and will be assessed under Standard A11 (Walls on boundaries) below.

To the east, the proposal allows for a setback of 6.035m to accommodate a rear garden (i.e. secluded private open space). As the proposed wall height does not exceed 3.6m, the required setback should be 1m. The proposal therefore complies.

First floor

The first floor is to be constructed to be aligned with the ground floor layout and provides for the same boundary setbacks around the building.

To the south, the proposed wall height is 5.47m and the required minimum setback therefore is 1.56m. The proposed lightwell allows for a minimum setback of 1.49m from the boundary.

To the east, the proposed building height is 5.55m and the required minimum setback therefore is 1.59m. The proposal is to be set back 6.035m from the rear boundary and thus complies.

A variation is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

1. To the south, the proposal incorporates a lightwell, which ensures daylight access to the existing north facing windows. This will be discussed in the assessment of Standard A13 (North facing window objective) below.

2. Given the narrow spacing between properties in this neighbourhood, the variation is considered to be acceptable from a character perspective.

3. The existing dwelling is constructed on the northern and southern boundaries. The proposal is not considered remote from its existing condition.

Wall on boundaries

The proposed building will be constructed along both the northern and southern boundaries. The impact of the proposal with regard to the northern (Duke Street) boundary has been assessed above. Assessment of the proposed southern wall on boundary is provided as follows:

In accordance with Standard A11, the permissible maximum length of walls on boundary is 13.63m.

Standard A11 also states a new wall should not exceed an average of 3.2m with no part higher than 3.6m. As the proposal is to be constructed on the southern boundaries at both levels, a variation to the Standard is required. It is considered that the Objective of Clause 54.04-2 is satisfied for the following reasons:

Page 21


To the south, the ground floor boundary wall is generally consistent with the existing boundary wall in terms of the height and the length. Consequently, any impact will be generally consistent with the existing condition. The proposal introduces a lightwell to the immediate east of the ground floor study. The dimensions of the lightwell provide daylight access to the southern adjoining land. (Note: a detailed discussion is included in the assessment against Standard A13 (North facing windows objective) below).

The existing southern boundary wall has a total length of approximately 20m and a height of more than 3m. The front section of the existing southern boundary wall is directly opposite the ground floor habitable room window contained in the property at 18 Primrose Street; and the remainder is constructed simultaneously adjacent to the neighbour’s wall. In this proposal, where the ground floor habitable room window in the southern adjoining property is located, a lightwell is introduced and enclosed with a boundary wall of 2.19m in height (maximum). As a result of the reduction in the wall height, the consequential amenity impact on the southern adjoining property will be reasonably lessened.

With regard to the southern interface, the wall on boundary will not be positioned directly opposite the main rear courtyard of 18 Primrose Street, meaning visual bulk impacts to this space will not be unreasonable.

In light of the above, the proposed boundary walls are consistent with the character of developments in this neighbourhood and will not cause detriments to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Daylight to existing windows

To the west and the north, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street and Duke Street. The Standard does not apply.

To the east, no habitable room windows are located opposite the subject site. The Standard therefore does not apply with respect to these interfaces.

To the south, all habitable room windows except one are defined as north facing windows and an assessment will be included in the following assessment against Standard A13 (North-facing windows) below.

The one non-north facing window of the neighbouring property at No. 18 Primrose Street that is applicable in this assessment is a narrow window that is part of the access door that connects the rear open plan living / kitchen area to the northern external access path. Given the angle of this window, it is not technically defined as a north facing window and therefore must be assessed against Standard A12 under the Daylight to Existing Windows Objective.

A variation to the Standard will be required as part of the proposed building on the boundary will be positioned opposite this angled window. A variation may be supported on the basis that the proposed light court will sit just west of the angled window allowing for adequate light access into this space. It is also noted that the window already receives compromised light under its existing arrangement. Importantly, it should be noted that this angled window is not the only source of light for this open plan kitchen / dining / living room, as the floor-to-ceiling east facing glazing door / windows is used as the main source of daylight access.

North-facing windows

The North Facing Windows Objective states the following:

Page 22


To allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows.

Standard A13 applies to any neighbouring north facing habitable room window that is positioned within 3m of the property boundary. The Standard provides a numeric boundary setback requirement based on the height of the proposed wall when positioned opposite the neighbouring north facing windows.

On the southern neighbouring lot at 18 Primrose Street, there is one north facing window at ground level, which serves a bedroom and a number of north facing windows at first floor level, which serve the two bedrooms respectively. A detailed assessment of all applicable windows is provided as follows:

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring ground floor window:

The ground floor north facing bedroom window to 18 Primrose Street is positioned opposite the proposed lightwell. The northern end of the lightwell (i.e. the internal staircase) is proposed to be 6.09m in height, which means the wall should be set back 2.49m from the boundary in order to comply with the Standard. A setback of 1.49m – 1.565m has been provided resulting in a variation to the Standard. This is supported on the basis that due to the existing wall on the boundary, and the associated eave, the affected window already receives little daylight and even less direct sunlight. It is considered that the proposal will result in an improved arrangement in relation to light access to this window, despite not complying with the Standard.

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring first floor bedroom windows:

The upper level for 18 Primrose Street has a slightly unorthodox window arrangement where one bedroom (Bedroom 2) is served by a standard north facing window that wraps around to the western wall of this bedroom. It is also noted that both first floor bedrooms along with the first floor study are served by clerestory windows that sit higher (and further setback) from the main first floor north facing wall. Assessment against the clerestory windows is provided below.

With specific regard to the impact on the north facing Bedroom 2 window to 18 Primrose Street, it is noted that the proposal has a wall height of 5.47m and the Standard requires a setback of 2.12m. The proposal will be partly built to the boundary when positioned opposite this window and partly set back 1.49m. A variation to the Standard is supported on the basis that a majority of the window is positioned opposite the proposed light court which is set back adequately from the boundary to allow sufficient solar access. This is evident by the fact that if the ground floor levels were deleted from the calculations (which is reasonable given the affected window serves a first floor room) the light court element of the arrangement would comply with Standard A13. It is also noted that this room also benefits from unobstructed western light provided by a small west facing window.

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring first floor clerestory windows:

The clerestory windows are set back approximately 1m from the boundary and sit higher than the main walls of all the upper level rooms in question. For the most part,

Page 23


the proposal will result in a wall being built on the boundary when positioned opposite these windows which technically results in a variation to Standard A13. However, given the height of these windows, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable obstruction to daylight or sunlight access to these windows.

In light of the above, the proposal can be supported.

Overshadowing

The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard A14. 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 Objective itself states that ‘ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space’.

As demonstrated on the submitted shadow diagrams, key findings are comprised of:

To the west, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street. No secluded private open space will be unreasonably overshadowed.

To the north, due to the orientation, the proposal will not create any overshadowing.

To the east, the subject site has a direct interface with the front section of the land at 48 Duke Street, the proposed shadow will be largely contained in the side service yard or the front setback associated with the eastern adjoining land. In the absence of any overshadowing cast onto the secluded private open space (at the rear, in the south), the proposal is considered to meet the Standard.

To the south, given the sensitivity, the following aspects are examined: At 9am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 10am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 11am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 12pm, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 1pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 0.2sqm. At 2pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 1.9sqm. At 3pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 3.16sqm.

A variation to the Standard is required due to the size of the neighbouring open space. However, it is considered that the proposal meets the Objective considering that compliance with the Standard is achieved for the most part. The Standard requires a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September. As outlined above, from 9am to 2pm, there will be an increase of 0.2sqm at 1pm and an increase of 1.9sqm at 2pm. The increased 0.2sqm is considered minor in nature and negligible. At 2pm, although the increased shadow amounts to 1.9sqm, which is also considered a minor amount in this inner urban context,

Page 24


Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard A15. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.

To the west and the north, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street and Duke Street respectively. The Standard therefore does not apply.

To the east, on the ground floor, a 2m brick fence is proposed thereby preventing overlooking. On the first floor, a metal louvred privacy screening is to be installed up to 1.7m above the finished floor level and thus complies.

To the south, on the ground floor, the boundary wall has a minimum height exceeding 1.7m and thus complies.

On the first floor, no screening is proposed for the south facing stair window. Given the stair is not a habitable room, screening is not required. Screening is provided to the west facing Bed 2 window and the east facing living room window respectively in order to limit unreasonable views from these windows over the light court and into the neighbouring habitable room windows at 18 Primrose Street. Screening will be provided by way of perforated metal with a maximum transparency of 25%. A condition is recommend, requiring details of the proposed screening including certificate from manufactures.

The proposal provides an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants.

The proposed extension benefits from its northerly aspect and will provide the occupants with the necessary components for comfortable living, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms, clear outlook and direct solar/daylight access. In addition, the provision of private open space complies with the requirements of Standard A17. Furthermore, the relevant Building Regulations are in place to ensure the proposed development meets the relevant energy efficiency standards. As a result, the proposal will provide the occupants with an adequate level of internal amenity.

The proposed car parking reduction is acceptable.

The proposal does not include any onsite car parking spaces. This is considered acceptable with the following consideration: Pursuant to Clause 52.06, 2 car parking space should be provided to the proposal (that

comprises two bedrooms and a study room). As no onsite car parking spaces are provided, the application seeks permission for the reduction in the car parking requirement.

The subject site is located with convenient access to a wide range of public transport. It is located approximately 180m east of Chapel Street and 220m south of High Street, where numerous trams and buses are operated. It is also within walking distance to Prahran Railway Station and Windsor Railway Station. Given the location, the subject site will be well serviced by public transport.

Furthermore, off street car parking and public parking space are usually accessible, allowing for the timed car parking during daylight hours and less restricted car parking during evenings and weekends.

Policy at Clause 22.23 states that the built environment within the municipality is designed to promote the use of walking, cycling and public transport; to minimise car dependency; and to promote the use of low emissions vehicle technologies and

Page 25


supporting infrastructure. As such, the proposed waiver of car parking spaces responds to the Policy appropriately.

Overall, a reduction in the car parking requirement is acceptable.

Objections

The only key issue raised by the objectors that has not been discussed above concerns the existing crossover located to the north-east corner of the subject site.

With respect to the existing crossover, the applicant provided additional information on 12 June 2018, depicting the exact location and dimensions of the existing crossover. It is noted that this crossover has a total width of 5.055m and shared with the eastern adjoining property at 48 Duke Street. As the application does not include any onsite car parking space, it is recommended to remove the portion of the existing crossover associated with the subject site, so that potentially, an additional on street car parking space may be gained. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the reinstatement of the existing crossover associated with the subject site. This conditioned reinstatement should not have any impact on the access to the land at 48 Duke Street.

Additionally, as discussed in the design detail section, it is unclear whether an additional entry is provided from the eastern end of the northern boundary. A condition will be included below, seeking clarifications.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposal provides an appropriate response to the character of this neighbourhood. The proposed extension will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining

properties. The proposal will offer the occupants an adequate level of internal amenity. The reduction in car parking requirement is acceptable.

Page 26


Attachments

1. 44 Duke Street Windsor Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 498/17 for the land located at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement 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 revised plans (Council date received on 2 May 2018) but modified to show:

a) The existing crossover adjacent to the site boundary is to be reinstated while maintaining appropriate access to 48 Duke Street.

b) The proposed second entry access at the eastern end of the north elevation to be clearly depicted with dimensions. Notations should be included, indicating that this access is for pedestrian only.

c) The south elevation brickworks (in white finish) amended to be consistent with the materials / colours on the north and west elevations.

d) The first floor windows on the north elevation amended to provide a more finely scaled and vertically-proportioned windows.

e) A certificate of verification from the manufacturer certifying that the proposed perforated panels are no more than 25% transparent.

f) A section plan detailing circumference of each puncture and calculation of total transparency of the proposed perforated panels.

g) All permeable surfaces to be identified on the ground floor level plan and shown to equate to a minimum of 20% of the overall site area.

h) Notations to be included on all site / floor plans, confirming that all new works will be constructed within the title boundaries on the subject site. Any subsequent amendments to the proposal to ensure that all new works (including boundary fencing) are clearly depicted within the title boundaries.

i) Any requirements in Condition 3. j) Any subsequent changes required by Condition 3.

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 without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Page 27


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a) A site plan showing the location of proposed stormwater treatment measures and the location and area (square metres) of impermeable surfaces that drain to each treatment measure.

b) A report outlining how the application achieves the objectives of this policy including stormwater treatment modelling. Please note that for the modeling requirement you can use the following free program to demonstrate best practice, which is equivalent to a score of 100% or more: http://storm.melbournewater.com.au

c) If any water tank is proposed the plans must indicate the tank’s capacity in litres and what the tank is connected to (e.g. toilets).

d) If any rain garden is proposed, design details must be provided including cross sections which show details of the depth and materials for each layer of the rain garden.

e) Details of proposed maintenance measures for stormwater treatment measures including location of maintenance access to rainwater tanks if below ground.

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: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. Any crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. Separate consent for crossovers is required from Council’s Building and Local Law Unit.

C. 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

Page 28

http://storm.melbournewater.com.au/


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.

D. 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 29


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0258/17- 18 PARSLOW STREET, MALVERN VIC 3144- CONSTRUCT TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone at 18 Parslow Street, Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: The North Planning Pty LtdWard: EastZone: General Residential ZoneOverlay: Nil Neighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 3Date lodged: 24 March 2017, revised plans received 19 April 2018 Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

81


Councillor Call-up

Number of objections: Objections from four (4) properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 19 June 2018Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The original plans (Revision B) advertised in November 2017 proposed a development which is very similar to the revised scheme considered in this report. The details of the revised proposal are described below and the variations from the original scheme are itemised at the end of the description.

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Finley Roberts Design and are known as File No. 16-172, Drawing No.s: TP-01 to TP-11 Revision C and Council date stamped 18 May 2018.

The application proposes the construction of two double-storey four-bedroom dwellings, each provided with a double car garage (one with access from Parslow Street and the other accessed via the laneway at the rear of the site). Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of the existing building (no permit required). Construction of two side-by-side two-storey dwellings.

Dwelling 1 (positioned on the southern portion of the site) has a double car garage which is to be accessed via the existing vehicle crossing off Parslow Street. The

Page 31


entrance to this dwelling is central to the frontage via a pedestrian gate. A guest bedroom with en-suite, a powder room, laundry and open plan kitchen/living/dining room are provided on the ground floor level. Secluded private open space (41.65 square meters) for this dwelling is provided within the rear courtyard and has direct access from the living/dining space of the dwelling. Three bedrooms (master with en-suite and WIR), a bathroom and open leisure room are provided on the first floor level.

Dwelling 1 is partly constructed along the southern boundary for a length of 5.5m (living room) with an average wall height of 3.045m. Varying setbacks ranging from 1m to 1.415m are provided from the southern boundary for the remainder of the ground level. The first floor level of this dwelling is setback between 2.135m to 2.735m from the southern boundary.

Dwelling 2 (positioned on the northern portion of the site) has pedestrian access via a gate within the existing 1.9m high rendered fence on Parslow Street. A guest bedroom with en-suite, a powder room, laundry and open plan kitchen/living/dining room are provided on the ground floor level. Secluded private open space (40 square meters) for this dwelling is provided within the rear courtyard and has direct access from the living/dining space of the dwelling. A double car garage adjoins the open space area which is accessed via the laneway (width of 3.71m) at the rear of the site. Three bedrooms (master with en-suite), a bathroom and open leisure room are provided on the first floor level.

Dwelling 2 is partly constructed along the northern boundary (Note: includes construction on or within 200mm of a side boundary) for a length of 4.7m (porch and entry) and 6m (dining room) with an average wall height of 3m and 3.1m respectively. The garage (6.4m length) is also constructed along the boundary adjoining the garage of 20 Parslow Street. Varying setbacks ranging from 2m (at the dwelling entry) and 1.1m are provided from the northern boundary for the remainder of the ground level. The first floor level of this dwelling is setback between 1.535m to 2.005m from the northern boundary.

Dwelling 1 has a frontage setback of 10.15m from Parslow Street, and Dwelling 2 has a frontage setback of 8.895m.

The maximum overall building height of the proposal is 6.675m. The dwellings present as an integrated form to Parslow Street contained within a

domestic-sized two storey envelope appearing as a single dwelling, presenting to the street in an asymmetrical form utilising the existing vehicle crossing with one garage visible. The second garage is located at the rear of the site accessed via the laneway.

The site coverage of the proposed development is approximately 60%, with 34.47% of the site meeting the garden area requirement.

Note: The dashed line that appears on the ground floor, first floor and roof plans shows the outline of the existing dwelling on the site (shown on TP02).

The revised application was formally submitted to Council to address officer concerns regarding the presentation and prominence of the double garage to Parslow Street (by setting back the garage from Parslow Street and using a combination of materials and finishes and introducing a window within the garage door), and the siting of the first floor of Dwelling 2 into the site relative to the adjoining secluded private open space area (by pushing the first-floor level forward to minimise impact on this secluded private open space area). The applicant also took the opportunity to include other changes. These plans show the following changes to the original plans advertised in November 2017:

The garage of Dwelling 1 setback a further 0.5m from the site frontage to 9.665m; The first floor level of Dwelling 1 positioned 1.5m closer to the site frontage to 10.015m;

Page 32


Bedroom 2 of Dwelling 2 positioned closer to the north boundary (was 2m, now 1.535m);

The ground level guest bedroom of Dwelling 1 positioned closer to the south boundary (was 2.12m, now 1.415m);

The front façade materials and finishes of the garage of Dwelling 1 altered by the use of two contrasting finishes (‘Ebony’ stained cedar battens and ‘Vivid White’ rendered finish) and the inclusion of a vertical window within the panel door;

Relocation of bin stores (from within the secluded private open space area to the side setback of each dwelling) and water tanks (now located below the garage slabs);

Retention of part of the existing front fence (approximately 6m length in front of Dwelling 2) with the installation of a gate adjacent to the north boundary for pedestrian access to Dwelling 2.

The revised plans Council date stamped 18 May 2018 Revision C will form the basis of this assessment.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Parslow Street approximately 145m north of Malvern Road. It is currently developed with a two-storey 1970/1980’s dwelling, with the two-storey portion located at the rear of the dwelling which is setback approximately 3m from the rear boundary. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Parslow Street of 14.326m, a depth of 42.672m and an overall area of 611.13 sq m. The site is relatively flat and there are no easements shown on title.

Vehicle access is provided by a crossing located approximately 3m from the southern title boundary.

A 1.9m high rendered/painted brick fence extends along the Parslow Street boundary. A substantial portion of the frontage setback area of the existing dwelling is

concreted/paved, in addition to a smaller north-facing open space area. A number of ornamental trees are located along the side boundaries on the subject and

adjoining sites, and within the rear setback area of the site. In addition, a 12m high Lemon scented gum is located within the laneway to the rear of the site less than 2m from the south-east corner of the allotment.

Parslow Street is developed with housing of different eras, with the southern section retaining a larger proportion of the original Edwardian dwellings than other parts of the street, interspersed with newer development. The area features a mixture of brick, render, cladding and weatherboard dwellings of hipped and gable roofing together with more recent buildings that are much larger in scale and incorporating parapet roof forms. The street contains both single dwelling and multi dwelling development.

Adjoining development is as follows:

20 Parslow Street is located to the north, occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling with a frontage setback of 9.14m and a 1.9m high picket fence. This dwelling has a side setback 1.145m from the common boundary and three south-facing windows face towards the subject site. Secluded private open space on this site is located to the rear of the dwelling, with a large garage extending across the rear of the allotment and accessed via the laneway.

16 Parslow Street is located to the south of the site and is developed with a two-storey weatherboard dwelling (second storey recessed from the primary building façade), with both hip and gable roof forms. This dwelling has a frontage setback of 8.53m, with a 1.7m high picket fence. There are a number of north-facing habitable room windows

Page 33


with outlook towards the subject site. Secluded private open space is located within the rear portion of the site.

A laneway is located to the rear of the site with a width of 3.71m and provides vehicle access to a number of garages in the vicinity. To the east of the laneway is the rear/secluded private open space areas of dwellings fronting Cressy Street.


A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications for the subject site.

A two-dwelling development proposal for 14 Parslow Street was submitted in 2016. The applicant is currently reviewing possible changes to address Council concerns.

The Title

The site is described as Lots 1 & 2 on Certificate of Title Volume 06295 Folio 957 / Plan of Subdivision 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 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone contains a mandatory height limit of 9 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres. The mandatory height for the site is 9 metres.

The proposed development has a maximum height of 6.675m.

Page 34


Schedule 10 also includes modified ResCode standards as follows:

Standard RequirementSite Coverage A3 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 Rear Setbacks

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 on Boundaries

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

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 (Minimum garden area requirement) the following applies:

As the subject site has an area of 611.13 square metres, a minimum 30% of the lot must be set aside for garden area. The revised plans (TP-05) confirm that 34.4% garden area is provided as part of this development.

Overlay

The site is not affected by any planning overlays.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a dwelling of 3 or more bedrooms requires two car spaces, one of which must be covered. Two car spaces must therefore be provided to each dwelling. The proposal includes a two-car garage for each dwelling, and therefore meets the requirements of this provision.

Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot

A proposal to construct two or more dwellings on a lot must meet the relevant objectives of Clause 55.

Page 35


As noted above, Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone includes variations to Standards B8 (Site coverage), B13 (Landscaping), B17 (Side and rear setbacks) and B18 (Walls on boundaries). The applicable variations are discussed in the assessment section below.


Clause 11.04 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01 Urban environmentClause 15.02 Sustainable developmentClause 16.01 Residential developmentClause 18.01 TransportClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built environment and HeritageClause 21.08 InfrastructureClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone – Schedule 10Clause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a LotClause 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 one sign on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and objections from four different properties have been received as follows:

Impact on the neighbourhood character, the area does not have a mixed character and is predominantly single-storey. Scale, form, siting and design are out of character with other development. Use of materials, eg colorbond roof, is not appropriate.

Impact on north-facing windows, especially access to winter sun. Loss of views. VCAT has previously refused other two-dwelling developments in the area (7 & 8

Parslow Street). Object to removal or alteration of fence between 18 & 20 Parslow Street. Overlooking into open space area to the rear of the subject site, master bedroom

windows should have privacy screens to 1.7m. Arborist report does not note the 12 Camelia trees along the boundary of 16 Parslow

Street (says only 2 trees in this location). These will be at risk from development.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 19 June 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillor Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans but facilitated discussion between the parties which continued after the meeting, and an agreed outcome was reached with two objectors with regard to the following items:

In response to concerns with a Cressy Street (rear of site) resident, the applicant has agreed to the following:

Page 36


o Fixed, external metal horizontal screens to be included outside the east facing master suite windows of Dwelling’s 1 & 2. The horizontal slats are to be 1.7m above the finished first floor level and positioned on a 45 degree angle to prevent horizontal and downward views. A cross section of the screen is to be provided to demonstrate that no horizontal or downward views can be gained.

A copy of a signed agreement between the owner/developer of the site and the owners/occupiers of 16 Parslow Street was provided to Council, and applies subject to the withdrawal of the objection. Within this agreement:

o The owner/developer agrees to the inclusion of a condition requiring a Tree Management Plan (TMP) for the protection of trees on the adjoining site (full wording not provided here).

o The south-facing Bedroom 2 and Leisure room windows converted to highlight windows with a sill height of 1.8m above finished floor level.

o Any new heating or cooling units for both dwellings be placed on the new roof in proximity to the party wall. Any new unit must not be in direct view of the north facing first floor bedroom of 16 Parslow Street.

In addition to these items which the applicant has requested to be included as conditions on any permit issued, the applicant has advised that agreement has also been reached with regard to the choice of Arborist to prepare the TMP and manage the process during the construction phase, the replacement boundary fence, and the replacement of trees which need to be removed to facilitate the development. The applicant and objector did not request that these be included as conditions of approval. It is noted that proposed Condition 11 requires that Council be notified of the appointment and qualifications of the project arborist concurrent with the endorsement of plans.

With regard to the location of heating and cooling units on the roof, it is recommended that the first part of the agreement regarding the central location of the services be included as a condition of approval, but not the second part – a central location should achieve this fairly for both adjoining residents rather than screening views from one side only (which may increase visibility from the other side or from the street) and is considered adequate to address this concern.

Referrals

Parks

Council has no objection to the proposed tree removal within the site. A TMP condition would be prudent when considering the close proximity of mature

neighbouring trees adjacent to the southern boundary (trees 6 & 7 in submitted report). Street tree protection to be included.

Canopy tree inclusion must be notated within the rear setbacks of both dwellings. The single canopy tree inclusion for the front setback must be a species that is more

vigorous in establishing in Melbourne’s climate than Jacaranda mimosifolia.

Planner CommentConditions will be included on any approval issued regarding the requirements for a Tree Management Plan to protect neighbouring trees adjacent to the southern boundary (trees 6 & 7 in submitted report). It is noted that this may be expanded to include protection of additional trees as agreed to by the applicant. In addition, an amended landscape plan will be required to provide for canopy

Page 37


trees to be provided within the rear setbacks of both dwellings; and for replacement of the proposed Jacaranda mimosifolia proposed within the frontage setback with a species that is more vigorous in establishing in Melbourne’s climate.

Infrastructure

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. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

The existing levels of the right-of-way must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate the garage floor level). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow along the ROW is not able to enter the garage due to any lowering of the ROW levels.

Planner CommentThese conditions will be included on any planning approval.

Transport & Parking

Parking provision is adequate. The size of the garages meets Planning Scheme requirements. Use of the existing vehicle crossing with no modifications is acceptable. Traffic generation of 6 vehicle trips per dwelling per day will be generated, equating to

a daily traffic generation of 12 vehicle trips. Of the total trips, it is expected that 10% will occur during the peak times which equates to 1- 2 vehicle trips and considered unlikely to negatively impact on the road network.

The applicant is required to form the transition from the formed rear garage floor to the laneway to provide an even surface.

The sight triangles as drawn are satisfactory, however the applicant is requested to specify that any permanent structures (fences etc) or landscaping that are within these areas, will not exceed 900mm in height.

Provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the property onto the laneway. This can be achieved with convex mirrors.

Provide swept path diagrams to confirm a B99 vehicle can turn in /out of the garage to /from the laneway in one movement. This must be able to be achieved with another vehicle already parked within the garage.

Planner CommentConditions will be included on any approval issued regarding the requirements for: the transition from the formed rear garage floor to the laneway to provide an even surface (without altering the laneway levels); any permanent structures or landscaping that are within the sight triangles to not exceed 900mm in height; and provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the property onto the laneway with the use of convex mirrors or other method to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

With regard to the comment for the provision of swept path diagrams to confirm access to the garage at the rear of the site with a B99 vehicle, the applicant has provided diagrams for a B85 vehicle showing that it can turn in /out of the garage to /from the laneway in one movement, with another vehicle already parked within the garage. The applicant has argued that given the space limitation (narrow laneway) coupled with low traffic volumes, the use of B85 vehicle dimensions is appropriate and in line with the Australian Standards. It is noted that the dimensions of the garage complies with the Planning Scheme requirements. The Planning Scheme does not specify that a garage must

Page 38


be able to accommodate a B99 vehicle. Compliance with the requirements for B85 vehicle accommodation is supported, and a requirement will not be made for variations to the garage to accommodate a B99 vehicle.

KEY ISSUES

Assessment

The key issues with the proposal include whether the development respects the existing neighbourhood character and whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on residential amenity. These key issues as well as issues raised by objectors are discussed in detail below.

Local Planning Policy Framework

In considering an appropriate design response, Clause 21.06 (Built environment and heritage) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme emphasises the need for development to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and respect the amenity of adjoining properties. Within residential areas, it is policy to ‘protect and enhance the varied, distinctive and valued character elements of residential neighbourhoods across the City of Stonnington’ by retaining ‘ the low rise character of the majority of the incremental and minimal change areas’ and providing ‘for medium density (2-3 storey) development provided the development respects the preferred character of the precinct.’

Other relevant objectives in this part of the planning scheme include ‘to repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’ achieved by: retaining established trees and vegetation in front and side setbacks; ensuring that developments incorporate a designated landscape setting, particularly by providing consistent front setbacks, with substantial canopy tree vegetation; and avoiding extensive site coverage in medium and higher density developments so as to provide canopy landscaping, having regard to the existing or preferred character of the area.

Achieving ‘high standards of amenity within new developments, and with adjoining developments’ is a key objective to be achieved by: ensuring that there is no unreasonable amenity impact on adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking associated with the use; ensuring a sensitive transition with adjoining lower density development in terms of built form, scale, setbacks and visual bulk; and encourage planting appropriate to the character of the area in front gardens and native planting (preferably indigenous) in rear gardens, to enhance habitat values while also respecting the area’s character, amenity and European heritage.

It is considered that the subject site has strategic support for the construction of two dwellings on the site. The location is considered an “incremental change area”, given that it is not within a Heritage or Neighbourhood Character Overlay, which is appropriate for infill development and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice within proximity to an activity centre (Malvern Village) and is well served by public transport options.

Neighbourhood CharacterBuilt Form and Neighbourhood Character

Page 39


The application has been assessed against Clauses 16.01 and 21.05 and is considered to be a site responsive design which will sit comfortably in the emerging streetscape, acknowledging that there will be some change in neighbourhood character (two-storey contemporary design in a predominantly single-storey area). The two-storey built form adjoins the secluded private open space area of the dwelling to the south of the site. It is noted that the layout of the existing dwelling includes its two-storey form towards the rear of the site, well beyond that proposed as part of this application. The applicant has argued that the proposal, and in particular Dwelling 1, has a lesser impact on the dwelling to the south of the site when compared to the existing dwelling, and its visual presence onto the secluded open space area of the neighbouring allotment. The extent of built form through the site is appropriate. The overall two-storey height of the proposed development is appropriate within this area.

Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.23) seeks to clarify the existing neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal respects and reinforces any preferred character.

The subject land forms part of the ‘Garden Suburban 3’ precinct. This has the following preferred character statement:

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

Further, the following relevant design objectives apply:

To encourage the retention of intact, period 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.

There is no demolition protection to consider retention of the existing dwelling on the site, noting that it is not a period dwelling. The neighbourhood is developed with housing of different eras featuring both single dwelling and multi dwelling development, with the southern section retaining a larger proportion of the original Edwardian dwellings that other parts of the street, interspersed with newer development. The area features a mixture of brick, render and weatherboard dwellings of hipped and gable roofing together with more recent buildings that are much larger in scale and incorporating parapet roof forms.

Page 40


Contemporary development in the vicinity of the site include:

7 Parslow Street - two-storey Provincial-style single dwelling with at-grade parking within the dwelling frontage;

8 Parslow Street – two-storey dwelling of grey-render finish with brick detailing; 19 Parslow Street – two-storey dwelling over basement car parking with cream-render

finish; 24 Parslow Street – a two-storey dwelling of grey-render finish; 30 Parslow Street – two two-storey side-by-side dwellings of grey-render finish;

The development proposes a rendered finish (‘Vivid’ white) as the predominant material and black aluminium-framed windows, with the garage door on Parslow Street comprising a combination of render-finish with a window and ebony-stained cedar battens (used to reduce the impact of the garage to the streetscape). The existing dwelling and fence on the site is painted white, with the colour used on a number of fences and as the main colour of some dwellings in the vicinity of the site, though predominant colours are shades of cream and grey. The materials palate proposed is considered acceptable.

The proposed dwellings, by virtue of siting one of the garages on Parslow Street utilising the existing vehicle crossing and the second garage located to the rear laneway, and the asymmetrical design on both levels are designed to appear as a single larger dwelling, responding to the neighbourhood character of mainly single dwellings. The pedestrian entries to the site, one within the existing front fence and one adjoining the driveway but recessed from the site frontage, differentiate each of the dwellings giving them a distinct presence in the street but in a subtle way which does not detract from the single-dwelling design approach.

Boundary to boundary construction is not typical within the neighbourhood, but its impact within this streetscape is minimised by the frontage setback (12.8m for Dwelling 2 behind the retained front fence and more than 25m from the frontage for Dwelling 1). The impact of the boundary to boundary construction would not be highly visible given that it would be obscured by the high retained front fence on the northern side and by a recessed fence adjoining the garage on the other side, and is acceptable.

The dwelling design is consistent with the objectives of Clause 22.23 which seek that new dwellings reference rather than mimic the existing dwellings. The proposal is considered to meet the Neighbourhood Character Standard B1 and Design Detail Standard B31.

Street Setback

Street setback Standard at Clause 55.03-1 of the Scheme indicates that a new building should be setback the average of the dwellings on either side of the subject site or 9m, whichever is the lesser. 20 Parslow Street has a street setback of 9.14m to the front wall (approximately 10.5m to the front door) and 16 Parslow Street has a street setback of 8.53m to the front wall (approximately 10.5m to the front door), resulting in a prescribed setback requirement of 8.635m. The development proposes a setback 8.895m to the guest bedroom of Dwelling 2, and 10m to the garage, which meets the standard. The proposal complies.

Building Height

Page 41


The ResCode standard (B7) and the mandatory maximum height controls at Clause 32.08 specify a maximum height of 9m. The proposal has a maximum height of 6.675m above the existing natural ground level, complying with the standard.

Site Coverage

Standard B8 prescribes a maximum site coverage of 60% and the proposed development has a site coverage of 56.83%, meeting the standard.

Permeability

Standard B9 prescribes a minimum permeability of 20% and the proposed development has a permeability across the site of approximately 33%. The proposal meets the standard.

Landscape

Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone requires at least one canopy tree to be planted on the site. The landscape plan for the development proposes a Jacaranda mimosifolia within the frontage setback – Council’s Arborist has required replacement of this with a species that is more vigorous in establishing in Melbourne’s climate. This will be included as a conditions of approval. In addition, Council’s Arborist has also recommended canopy trees to be provided within the rear setbacks of both dwellings, which will also be required as conditions of approval.

Front Fence

Standard B32 requires a maximum front fence height of 1.5m. The application proposes retention of part of the existing front fence (approximately 6m length in front of Dwelling 2) which has a height of 1.9m, with a pedestrian entry gate constructed for Dwelling 2. A section of approximately 2m of the existing fence will be removed to create pedestrian access for Dwelling 1, with a gate and enclosure setback approximately 3m. The portion of 1.9m high fence to the south of driveway will be removed, with the area behind landscaped. Approximately 43% of the frontage will be fenced.

The adjoining site at 20 Parslow Street to the north has a 1.7m high (approximately) timber picket fence. The site at 16 Parslow Street to the south has a 1.7m high (approximately) timber picket fence. Fences in the immediate vicinity vary, with a combination of medium to high timber picket fences, low brick, high render, and combination pillar with metal picket infill.

An objective of the Neighbourhood Character Policy seeks to ensure that ‘fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the street and retain views to dwellings and gardens’, with high, solid front fencing avoided. Removing portions of the existing fence will create a sense of openness, allowing visibility to the dwelling entries and views to the landscaped area to the south of the garage. It is considered that the changes to the existing fence will appropriately achieve this objective, and is considered appropriate.

Amenity Impacts

Page 42


Side & Rear Setbacks

Standard B17 at Clause 55.04-1 is the relevant assessment for side and rear setbacks, noting that Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone requires the side setback for at least 5 metres behind the front facade of a new building of a minimum of 2 metres from one side boundary and 1 metre from the other side boundary. The proposed development achieves a setback of 2m from the north boundary for 3.9m behind the front façade of Dwelling 2, and a setback of 1m from the south boundary of Dwelling 1. Only part of the standard is achieved, however, this is supported as the setback proposed does maintain the rhythm of development in the street and the porch in front of the dwelling entry is open (though covered). This is respectful of the neighbourhood character and is supported.

The assessment of remaining setbacks is as follows:

Wall Height Required Setback Proposed Setback CompliesNorth - Ground Floor- First Floor

3.025m 6.6m6.52m & 6.65m

1m 1.9m1.88m – 1.92m

1.1m (Kitchen)1.535m (B2, Bath, Leisure)2.005m (B3, Master)

Yes NoYes

South - Ground Floor- First Floor

3.3m (approx.)6.415m6.565m (max.)

1.0m1.84m1.89m

1.15 & 1.415m2.14m (WIR, Ensuite)2.735m (Master, B3, B2)

Yes Yes Yes

East (Rear)Dwelling 1- Ground Floor- First Floor

4.245m6.565m

1.19m1.89m

5.76m 7.945m

Yes Yes

The proposal meets this standard except in one area being the first-floor leisure room, ensuite (master), bathroom and Bedroom 2 of Dwelling 2. This part of the development is located opposite habitable room windows of the adjoining dwelling to the north. These windows are setback 2.68m from the dwelling wall. Where a variation to the standard is sought, one of the decision guidelines includes the amenity impact of the variation. Following an assessment of daylight provision to the windows, it was concluded that a condition requiring compliance with the daylight provisions of Standard B19 be included on any approval issued. This will likely require a combination of increased boundary setback and reduction of wall height and will ensure that the amenity of the adjoining residents is protected. The condition will ensure compliance with the objectives of Standard B17.

An assessment of setbacks from the rear boundary for Dwelling 2 was not made given the construction of the garage to this boundary. It is noted that the first floor level achieves a setback of 11.5m from the rear boundary.

Walls on Boundary

Standard B18 at Clause 55.04-1 is the relevant assessment for walls on boundaries, noting that Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone sets out that walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street.

The boundary wall of Dwelling 1 is setback more than 15m from the front wall of the dwelling meeting the varied standard. The boundary wall of Dwelling 2 is setback 3.9m from the front wall of the dwelling and does not comply with the varied standard. ResCode sets out

Page 43


decision guidelines to determine if a variation is appropriate, and Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone requires that consideration be given as to whether the proposal meets the preferred neighbourhood character statement and design objectives of the precinct.

The north and south boundaries have a length of 42.672m, allowing a maximum wall length of 18.18m along the boundaries. The proposed length of wall constructed along the boundaries is:

Dwelling 1 – 5.5m average wall height of 3.045m Dwelling 2 - 4.7m (average wall height of 3m), 6m (average wall height of 3.1m) and

6.4m (max. wall height 3.85m)= 17.1m

Given the wall heights noted above, the height will not exceed the maximum height of 3.6m specified in Standard B18 except in the case of the garage of Dwelling 2 at the rear of the site which adjoins an existing garage on the adjoining lot to the north. The Standard is considered met.

Boundary to boundary construction is not typical within the neighbourhood, but its impact within this streetscape is minimised by the frontage setback (12.8m for Dwelling 2 behind the retained front fence and for Dwelling 1). The impact of the boundary to boundary construction would not be highly visible given that it would be obscured by the high retained front fence on the northern side and by a recessed fence adjoining the garage on the other side, and is acceptable.

Daylight to existing Windows

North

The dwelling to the north of the subject site has three habitable room windows facing the subject site which are setback 1.145m from the common boundary. The entry wall (height of 3m) of Dwelling 2 is opposite two windows and the first floor wall (6.6m height) is opposite all three windows. Standard B19 states that a wall greater than 3m in height opposite a habitable room window should be setback from that window at least 50% of the wall height. An assessment is provided below:

Wall Wall Height Required Setback

Proposed Setback Complies?

Ground Floor 3m NA 1.145m NA First Floor 6.53m 3.265m 2.68m No

The available setback of 2.68m would permit a maximum wall height of 5.36m. There are a number of ways to achieve compliance, with a combination of increased boundary setback and reduction of wall height considered the most appropriate approach. In this instance, a condition requiring compliance with the daylight provisions of Standard B19 will be included as a condition on any approval issued.

South

The dwelling to the south of the subject site has two ground level habitable room windows facing the subject site which are setback 2.045m from the common boundary. Standard B19

Page 44


states that a wall greater than 3m in height opposite a habitable room window should be setback from that window at least 50% of the wall height. An assessment is provided below:

Wall Wall Height Required Setback Proposed Setback Complies?

Ground Floor 3.2m 1.6m 3.46m Yes

First Floor 6.4m 3.2m 4.78m Yes

North-Facing Windows

Standard B20 seeks to ensure that adequate solar access is provided to existing north-facing habitable room windows located within 3m of a boundary on an adjoining lot. The dwelling to the south of the subject site has two ground floor north-facing habitable room windows which are setback 2.045m from the common boundary. With a wall height of 6.4m opposite these windows, a setback of 2.68m from the common boundary is required. Dwelling 1 is setback 2.735m from the boundary and complies with the standard.

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.

Shadows would be cast over a portion of the secluded private open space area of 16 Parslow Street, predominantly within the side setback area of its dwelling and over a portion of the rear secluded private open space throughout the day. At all times adequate solar access in accordance with the standard would be available to the secluded private open space area this dwelling.

Overlooking

First floor habitable room windows to both side boundaries (north & south) have fixed obscure glass to 1.7m. Bathroom windows are openable (awning-style) and have obscure glass for the full height (bathrooms are non-habitable rooms and technically do not require privacy screening). This meets the requirements of Standard B22. Windows facing Parslow Street are clear, and the first-floor master bedroom windows at the rear of the site are also unscreened.

The applicant has agreed to provide additional screening to a number of windows following from the planning consultation meeting, as follows:

The south facing window of Bed 2 and Leisure (Dwelling 1) to be converted to a highlight window, with a sill height of no less than 1.8m above the finished floor level.

Page 45


Fixed, external metal horizontal screens to be included outside the east facing master suite windows of Dwelling’s 1 & 2. The horizontal slats are to be 1.7m in height (above the finished first floor level) and positioned on a 45 degree angle to prevent horizontal and downward views. A cross section of the screen is to be provided to demonstrate that no horizontal or downward views can be gained.

Whilst exceeding the requirements of Standard B22, these will be reflected as conditions of approval.

Internal Amenity

An appropriate level of internal amenity for future residents of the site is provided as follows:

Dwelling Entry

The dwelling entries will be accessed via individual gates on Parslow Street with the entries protected by a porch, providing a sense of personal address.

Daylight to New Windows

Adequate daylight is provided to all habitable rooms, including kitchens, with each new window provided an adequate light court of at least 3sqm (with a minimum dimension of 1m) as specified by Standard B27. The first floor south-facing windows, which will become highlight windows as agreed to with the adjoining residents, will be required to be adjusted (made wider) to ensure that the rooms receive adequate daylight – an appropriate condition will be included on any approval issued.

Private Open Space

Each of the two dwellings will have access to a secluded private open space area of more than 40sq m adjoining the open plan living/dining rooms, with total private open space areas of approximately 80 sq m for Dwelling 1 and approximately 70 sq m for Dwelling 2. The provision meets the requirements of Standard B28.

Standard B29 seeks to ensure that adequate solar access is provided to the secluded private open space areas. The southern boundary of secluded private open space should be set back from any wall on the north of the space at least 2m + 0.9m of the height of any wall. Both secluded private open space areas comply with the standard.

Storage

Each of the two dwellings includes sufficient storage opportunities throughout, with bicycle racks noted within the garages and space available for an external shed if required. This is considered to meet the requirements of Standard B31.

Having regard to all of the above, the proposal is considered to meet the provisions of Clause 55, subject to the conditions discussed.

Objections

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

Page 46


A resident has noted that VCAT has previously refused other two-dwelling developments in the area (7 & 8 Parslow Street). The VCAT decision for 7 Parslow Street was in 2006 and for 8 Parslow Street in 2008. Planning policy has changed since the time of these decisions were made, and Council has undertaken much strategic work including the Neighbourhood Character Policy and introducing Neighbourhood Character Overlays to areas warranting additional protection. The character of the neighbourhood has also changed in this time, with a number of more contemporary dwellings constructed in recent years. Each application must be assessed based on its merits.

An objector is concerned with the removal or alteration of the boundary fence between 18 & 20 Parslow Street. The Fences Act applies to issues with boundary fences and they are not dealt with at the planning permit stage.

The applicant has negotiated with the adjoining owner that any heating or cooling units for both dwellings to be placed centrally on the new roof in proximity to the party wall to maximise their proximity to the adjoining residents. Specific wording was included, with the following also provided: ‘Any new unit must not be in direct view of the north facing first floor bedroom of no. 16 Parslow Street’. It is recommended that the first part of the agreement regarding the central location of the services be included as a condition of approval, but not the second part – a central location should achieve this fairly for both adjoining residents and is considered adequate.

It was noted that the submitted Arborist report did not note the 12 Camelia trees along the boundary of 16 Parslow Street (states only 2 trees in this location). Negotiations have been continuing from the planning consultation meeting between the applicant and objector, and a Tree Management Plan has been proposed to identify measures to protect these trees and others on the adjoining site. This would be separate from the Tree Management Plan required by Council’s Arborist.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

Clause 22.05 requires that a development of 2-9 dwellings include a Sustainable Design Assessment demonstrating best practice. An SDA has been submitted and the development achieves a BESS score of 50%. The SDA report has some incomplete sections (mainly relating to items to be marked on the floor plans) and a condition will be placed on the permit ensuring a revised report be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.

A Water Sensitive Urban Design response has also been provided as part of the ESD report and a STORM rating of 102% is achieved.

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 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

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

Page 47


The design and detailing of the development makes it appear as a single larger dwelling, adequately responding to the neighbourhood character context. Whilst the proposal will change the immediate context, it nevertheless represents an appropriate architectural response which responds to its wider context within the neighbourhood and would sit comfortably within the emerging streetscape of Parslow Street.

The proposed height and form is appropriate within the area where newer dwellings are typically two storeys in height.

The development would not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining residents.

Attachments

1. PA - 0258/17- 18 Parslow Street, Malvern VIC 3144 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 258/17 for the land located at 18 Parslow Street, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans TP-01 to TP-11 Revision C and Council date stamped 18 May 2018 and the Landscape Plan Council date stamped 16 November 2017 but modified to show:

a) Correctly show the setback of the garage of Dwelling 1 from Parslow Street.

b) Show the dimension length of construction on (or within 200mm) of the boundaries.

c) Remove the outline of the existing dwelling from the ground floor, first floor and roof plans.

d) Provide an even surface for the transition from the formed rear garage floor to the laneway without altering the laneway levels.

e) Provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the property onto the laneway with the use of convex mirrors or other method to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

f) The south facing window of Bed 2 and Leisure (Dwelling 1) to be converted to highlight windows, with a sill height of no less than 1.8m above the finished floor level. The width/size of these windows to be increased to ensure compliance with Standard B27 Daylight to New Windows.

g) Fixed, external metal horizontal screens to be included outside the east facing master suite windows of both dwellings. The horizontal slats are to be 1.7m in height (above the finished first floor level) and positioned on a 45 degree angle to prevent horizontal and downward views. A cross section of the screen is to be provided to demonstrate that no horizontal or downward views can be gained.

h) Provide a note on TP-04 and the landscape plan to state that any permanent structures or landscaping within the sightline triangles

Page 48


adjoining the driveway to not exceed 900mm in height.i) The wall height and/or setback opposite the habitable room windows of

20 Parslow Street to comply with the daylight provisions of Standard B19. j) Any new heating or cooling units for both dwellings to be placed

centrally on the new roof in proximity to the party wall too minimize visibility from adjoining lots.

k) A schedule of the materials and finishes.l) Any changes as required by Condition 5 (Sustainable Design

Assessment including stormwater management measures) of this permit.m) Any changes as required by Condition 9 (Tree Management Plan (1)) of

this permit.n) Any changes as required by Condition 18 (landscape plan) of this permit.o) Show the trees identified for protection by Condition 16 (Tree

Management Plan (2)) of this permit.


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, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. 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. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

4. The existing levels of the right-of-way must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate the garage floor level). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow along the ROW is not able to enter the garage due to any lowering of the ROW levels.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SDA must be in accordance with the SDA report prepared by Green Rate and received by Council on 2 August 2017 but updated to: ensure that all sections are complete; and incorporate any changes to the plans required by conditions of this permit.

6. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SDA Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SDA Report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and Water Sensitive Urban Design response provided in the Sustainable Design Assessment.

8. Prior to the occupation of the building, the fixed privacy screens required in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 must be installed to the

Page 49


satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

9. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans in accordance with Condition 1, a Tree Management Plan (1) prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Tree Management Plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the Tree Management Plan (AS 4970).

The Tree Management Plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of Trees 1 (street tree), 6 (located within 16 Parslow Street) & 7 (located within the laneway at the rear of the site).

Among other things, the Tree Management Plan must include the following information:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone. b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and a method of protection of exposed roots. c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Responsible Authority's Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the Tree Management Plan must be authorised by the Responsible Authority's Parks Unit.

10. Prior to the endorsement of plans and prior to any development commencing on the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the owner/ developer must enter into a Deed with the Responsible Authority and provide it with a bank guarantee of $1024 for Tree 1 - Melaleuca styphelioides as security against a failure to protect the health of this tree. The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Deed, including those incurred by the responsible authority. Once a period of 12 months has lapsed following the completion of all works at the site the Responsible Authority may discharge the bank guarantee upon the written request of the obligor. At that time, the Responsible Authority will inspect the tree(s) and, provided they have not been detrimentally affected, the bank guarantee will be discharged.

11. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans or prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), whichever occurs sooner, a letter of engagement must be provided to the Responsible Authority from the project arborist selected to oversee all relevant tree protection works. The project arborist must be an appropriately experienced and qualified professional (minimum Cert IV or equivalent in experience).

12. The project arborist must maintain a log book detailing all site visits. The log book must be made available to the Responsible Authority within 24 hours of

Page 50


any request.

13. Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the project arborist must advise the Responsible Authority in writing that the Tree Protection Fences have been installed to their satisfaction.

14. Prior to the commencement of any works on the land, each Tree Protection Zone nominated within TMP OR on the approved Landscape Plan must:

a) be fenced with temporary fencing in accordance with the attached specifications annotated in this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) include a notice on the fence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority advising on the purpose of the Tree Protection Zone, the need to retain and maintain the temporary fencing and that fines will be imposed for removal or damage of the fencing and trees.

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

15. A copy of the tree protection zones are to be included in any contract for the construction of the site or for any other works which may impact upon the trees.

16. Before the development starts, a Tree Management Plan (2) (report) and Tree Protection Plan (drawing), must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The Tree Management Plan (2) (report) must be specific to the site, be in accordance with Australian Standard: Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS4970-2009 and include:

Details of Tree Protection Zones for all trees to be retained on the site and for all trees on neighbouring properties where any part of the Tree Protection Zone falls within the subject site, including tree no. 2-4 & the Camelia trees along the northern boundary of no. 16 Parslow Street;

Comment on methods to be utilised and instruction on how to deploy them;

Comment on when the protection measures are to be deployed; Comment on when the protection measures can be modified; Process that will be followed if any damage occurs to a tree; Process that will be followed if construction works require alteration

to protection measures outlined in report; and Stages of development at which inspections will occur.

Any proposed alteration to the plan must be assessed by the site arborist and can only occur following the approval of the site arborist. Such approval must be noted and provided to the Responsible Authority within 28 working days of a written request.

Any damaged tree must be inspected by the site arborist without any delay and remedial actions undertaken. Such actions must be documented.

The Tree Protection Plan must be drawn to scale and show the location of all tree protection measures to be utilised.

Page 51


If tree protection measures are proposed to be changed during the development, one plan for each stage of tree protection measures must be submitted.

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

18. Before the development starts, a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan is to be based on the Landscape Plan prepared Zenith Concepts Landscape Design but modified to show the following: canopy trees to be provided within the rear setbacks of both dwellings; replacement of the proposed Jacaranda mimosifolia proposed within the frontage setback with a species that is more vigorous in establishing in Melbourne’s climate, all to the satisfaction of Council.

19. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

20. 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.


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

23. 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.


Page 52


NOTES:

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

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

“Significant tree” means a tree:

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.


C. The permit holder / developer must advise Council in writing that a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued in respect to the development and that the 12 month establishment period has commenced.

D. Council has adopted a zero tolerance approach in respect to the failure to implement the vegetation related requirements of Planning Permits and endorsed documentation. Any failure to fully adhere to these requirements will be cause for prosecution. This is the first and only warning which will be issued.

E. 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.

F. 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


Page 53


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 1225/16- 94 CHOMLEY STREET, PRAHRAN VIC 3181- EXTENSION TO A DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 500SQM IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for an extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm in a General Residential Zone at 94 Chomley Street, Prahran.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Hemingway Building DesignWard: SouthZone: Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone (Schedule 12) Overlay: N/A Neighbourhood Precinct: Inner Urban Precinct Date lodged: 02 December 2016Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

98


Councillor Call-Up

Number of objections: 3 objections from 3 addresses Consultative Meeting: Yes

15 November 2017Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Hemingway Building Design and are known as Site Plan (1 of 13), Existing Conditions (2 of 13), Proposed Ground Floor Plan (3 of 13), Proposed First Floor Plan (4 of 13), Chomley Street Elevation (5 of 13), Proposed Elevations (6 of 13), Stormwater Management Plan (7 of 13), Proposed Roof Plan (8 of 13), Shadow cast at 9am (9 of 13), Shadow cast at 10am (10 of 13), Shadow cast at 12pm (11 of 13), Shadow cast at 2pm (12 of 13) and Shadow cast at 3pm (13 of 13), and Council date stamped 22 February 2018.

The application seeks permission for an extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm in a General Residential Zone.

Key feature of the proposal consists of:

The existing single storey dwelling remains unchanged. The proposal is confined to a first floor addition, which is to be constructed above an

existing garage at the rear of the site. To the north, the proposal is to be constructed on the boundary. To the east, the proposal is set back 1.3m from the boundary. To the south, the proposal is set back 2m from the boundary.

Page 55


To the west, the proposal has the same setback as the existing garage and is constructed to be aligned with the western wall of the existing garage.

The proposal has a maximum building height of 6.585m, measured from natural ground level and shown on the proposed north elevation.

The proposal incorporates a pitched roofing structure. The proposed materials are sympathetic to the existing dwelling, predominantly

featured by brickwork. The proposed first floor addition is comprised of a bathroom, an open plan bedroom /

living / dining area, and a balcony.

The plans that form the basis of this assessment are plans outlined above, described as sheet 1-13 of 13 and Council date stamped 22 February 2018. These plans were formally declared pursuant to Clause 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and supersede the originally advertised plans (Council date stamped 14 February 2017). The revised plans were submitted to respond to concerns raised by Council and objectors, and show the following key changes:

Relocation of the external staircase to the proposed first floor addition from the south elevation to the west elevation

Reduction to the overall building height from 7.545m to 6.585m Increase to the southern setback from 0.99m to 2m Inclusion of 1.7m high screening to the external staircase

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Chomley Street. It is approximately 66m south of the intersection with High Street and 77m north of the intersection with Willis Street.

The subject site has the following significant characteristics:

The land is rectangular in shape, yielding a total site area of approximately 386sqm. The land has dual frontage: to the west, it provides a frontage of 7.9m to Chomley

Street; and to the east, it interfaces with an unnamed lane with a frontage of 8.1m. A single storey dwelling currently improves the land. Pedestrian access is provided from Chomley Street with vehicle access from the

unnamed laneway at the rear, leading to an existing garage.

The subject site has four interfaces, which can be summarised as follows: To the immediate north is a property addressed to No. 96 Chomley Street, which

houses a double storey dwelling. Planning Permit No. 1224/16 was recently issued (dated 22 November 2017) under the direction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This permit allows extension to a dwelling on a lot under 500sqm in a General Residential Zone. Specially, the permitted extension concerns the extension of the rear section of the existing dwelling and the construction of a double storey building at the rear of the site. Details of this application will be discussed in the later assessment.

To the immediate east the subject site adjoins an unnamed lane. On the opposite side of the lane is a property addressed to No. 6 Highbury Grove, which is improved by a B-graded single storey Victorian villa. Further to the east, land sits in General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and is affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO178).

To the immediate south are two properties addressed to No. 92 and No. 1/92 Chomley Street respectively. The former contains a double storey brick dwelling with a pitched

Page 56


roof located at the Chomley Street (western) end of the site. The latter is a standalone two storey dwelling that was permitted under Planning Permit No. 1082/05 (dated 5 June 2006) under the direction of the Tribunal. The additional dwelling at the rear reads as a double storey rendered dwelling with a flat roof.

To the immediate west, the subject site abuts Chomley Street. On the opposite side of the street are two properties addressed to No. 127 & 129 Chomley Street respectively (from the south to the north). Both sites are improved by a single storey dwelling with a pitched roof.


A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications for the subject site. There is relevant planning history associated with both abutting properties to the north and the south, and this is outlined as follows:

No. 96 Chomley Street:

A Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit was issued by Council on 30 June 2017 for Planning Application No. 1224/16, approving a proposal for the extension of the existing dwelling and the construction of a first floor addition to the existing garage building at the rear of the site.

An objector lodged an appeal against Council’s Notice of Decision and the matter was heard at a VCAT hearing on 30 October 2017.

The Tribunal issued an Order on 10 November 2017 directing that a planning permit be issued. The citation for this decision is Burton v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 1813 (10 November 2017).

Planning Permit No. 1224/16 was subsequently issued on 22 November 2017. Plans were endorsed on 9 July 2018. The Permit has not been acted on to date.

No. 92 and 1/92 Chomley Street:

A Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit was issued by Council on 14 February 2006 for Planning Application No. 1082/05, approving a proposal for two dwellings on a lot (specifically a new additional two storey dwelling at the rear).

An objector lodged an appeal against Council’s Notice of Decision and the matter was heard at a VCAT hearing on 25 May 2006.

The Tribunal issued an Order on 1 June 2006 directing that a planning permit be issued. The citation for this decision is Keeble v Stonnington CC [2006] VCAT 1016 (1 June 2006)

Planning Permit No. 1082/05 was subsequently issued on 5 June 2006. Plans were endorsed on 31 July 2006. The Permit has been acted upon and assessment of this application will take into

account the as built form.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04941 Folio 029 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 388043B and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


Page 57


ZoneClause 32.08 – General Residential Zone (Schedule 12)

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-5, a planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 500 square metres;

The application proposes a first floor addition above an existing garage (i.e. an extension) associated with an existing dwelling on a lot of 368sqm. A planning permit is therefore required under the zone.

Furthermore, as stipulated in Schedule 12 to the zone, a building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed a height of 9 metres. The proposed maximum building height is 6.585m and complies with the height controls.

OverlayThe subject site is not affected by any overlays.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-1, Clause 52.06 does not apply to the extension of one dwelling on a lot in the General Residential Zone.

The proposal seeks permission to construct an extension to an existing dwelling in a General Residential Zone. The proposal meets the above requirements and the car parking requirement therefore is not applicable.


21.06 Built Environment and Heritage 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy 32.08 General Residential Zone 54 One Dwelling on a Lot 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application was first 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 was completed satisfactory.

Three objections from three affected properties were received.

Key aspects of the objections during the initial advertising period are summarised below: Inconsistency with the established neighbourhood character Non-compliance with side and rear boundary setbacks requirement Non-compliance with walls on boundaries requirement Overlooking Overshadowing Excessive building height resulting in visual bulk Loss of amenity in terms of daylight access to north facing windows of the property at

No. 1/92 Chomley Street Increased traffic congestion in the laneway

Page 58


Possibility to convert the rear addition in a separate dwelling No car park provided to the front dwelling; and no separate entrance for the two

properties No onsite amenity provided to the proposed addition

A Consultative Meeting was held on 15 November 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillors Hindle and Stefanopoulos, representative of the applicant, objectors and two Council planning officers. The meeting resulted in the following changes to the advertised plans:

Relocation of the external staircase to the proposed first floor addition from the south elevation to the west elevation

Reduction to the overall building height from 7.545m to 6.585m Increase to the southern setback from 0.99m to 2m Inclusion of 1.7m high screening to the external staircase

The revised plans, date stamped 22 February 2018, were re-advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the objectors. The public notification of the application was completed satisfactory.

No further objections have been received and no previous objections have been withdrawn, meaning the objector count remains at three.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to construct an extension to a dwelling at 94 Chomley Street, Prahran. As the permit trigger concerns Clause 32.08 (General Residential Zone), the key issues that Council has to determine are:

Does the proposal give rise to a second dwelling? Is the proposal acceptable in neighbourhood character terms? Will the proposal unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining properties? Does the proposal provide an adequate level of internal amenity?

Does the proposal give rise to a second dwelling?

As outlined above, the proposal is for the construction of a first floor addition above an existing garage. The question put to Council is whether the proposed first floor addition constitutes an additional dwelling.

Pursuant to Clause 74 (Land use terms) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, the definition of a dwelling is stated as follows:

A building used as a self-contained residence which must include:a) A kitchen sink;b) Food preparation facilities; c) A closet plan and wash basin;It includes out-buildings and works normal to a dwelling.

As shown on the proposed first floor plan, the proposal is comprised of a bathroom, an open plan bedroom / living / dining area, and a balcony. It however does not contain a kitchen sink and/or food preparation facilities. The proposal therefore does not meet the requirement of a self-contained residence; and will not give rise to a second dwelling.

Page 59


It is noted that objectors have stated that the proposal has the potential to be converted into a separate dwelling, resulting in inadequate car parking provision and poor internal amenity. As iterated above, in accordance with the statutory definition, the proposal does not encompass all essential components that are required in a self-contained dwelling. That being said, the proposed balcony would offer a secluded private open space to the first floor addition. Considering this proposal is not a separate dwelling either by definition or practicality, an additional secluded private open space above the existing secluded private open space is not considered necessary and will add visual bulk to the adjoining private open space area. It is therefore recommended to remove this balcony by way of conditions.

Overall, the proposal does not give rise a second dwelling.

Is the proposal acceptable in neighbourhood character terms?

At State level, Clause 15.01-1 seeks to create urban environments that provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identify. Clause 15.01-5 also has an objective to recognise and protect neighbourhood character and sense of place.

The objectives in the State Planning Policy Framework are reiterated in the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). This includes:

Clause 21.05, which identifies the subject site as part of Incremental Change Area, where multi-unit development (2-3 storeys).

Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity), which seeks to ensure new development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking associated with the use.

Clause 21.06-4 (Built form Character), which seeks to provide for medium density (2-3 storey) development provided the development respects the preferred character of the precinct.

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policies require the design of a development to respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and be appropriate for its setting. Objectors are concerned that the proposal does not respect the existing character of this neighbourhood by virtue of its height, scale and form. The proposal is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

The subject site is situated in an Incremental Change Area, where extension to an existing dwelling on narrow lots has formed an emerging character of the area.

The proposal is confined to a first floor addition above an existing garage at the rear. Rear additions (including single and double storey buildings) are not uncommon in this neighbourhood. For instance, garages constructed along the unnamed lane are found on the sites at 90 and 98 Chomely Street; and No. 2, 2A, 4, 6, 4/8 and 14 Highbury Street. Furthermore, double storey dwellings or additions contributes to part of the character in this area. For instance, the southern adjoining land contains two independent double storey dwellings, one located in the front and the other at the rear. The recently approved development in the northern adjoining land adopts a similar layout, featured by a double storey building located at the rear.

The subject site is located in an area where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both boundaries. This pattern of development forms part of the character of this area. It is common to have properties constructed in very close proximity to the side boundaries of narrow sites. The proposal however allows for adequate setbacks from the side and rear boundaries. This is considered a reflective and respectful response to the surrounds.

Page 60


The policy calls for new building in an innovative and contemporary manner and building materials that are in stark contrast with the character of the streetscape should be avoided. This proposal incorporates brickwork to match the existing dwelling and is considered consistent with the policy direction and responsive to the dominant character of the area.

Consistency with the existing character

The LPPF also includes an objective at Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), to ensure that development reflects the intention of the statement of preferred neighbourhood character and design guidelines for each precinct.

The subject site is located in an Inner Urban Precinct (IU) that occupies the southern and western part of the municipality. This precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar dwellings. Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominant, the rhythm of development.

Objectors are concerned that the proposal does not integrate well with the character of Chomley Street. With a view to the immediate context, single and/or double storey rear additions are not an uncommon feature of the area. It is also noted that the proposal has a mere height of 6.585m and is set back approximately 40m from the Chomley Street streetscape. Given the heavily recessed nature, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact on the existing streetscape.

Built form

The proposal does not introduce a built form that is dominant or overwhelming to this neighbourhood. Specifically, the 2-storey independent dwelling on the southern adjoining land at No. 1/92 Chomely Street is an early example in this area. As shown on the endorsed plans, this dwelling has a maximum building height of 5.65m. The recent approved development on the northern adjoining land at No. 96 Chomley Street includes double storey built form to the rear of the site (with a maximum building height of 6.9m) and will be constructed to the southern boundary and with minimum setbacks from the northern and the eastern boundaries.

The proposal has a maximum building height of 6.585m, which does not exceed the scope of the approved works in the immediate interfaces. Furthermore, the proposal also allows for adequate setbacks from the southern and the eastern boundaries, which in return presents a recessed built form, particularly when viewing from its southern adjoining land at No. 92 and 1/92 Chomley Street. It should also be noted that the proposed southern setback will result in minimal unreasonable amenity impacts to the south (note: a detailed discussion is included below).

While it is considered that the two storey outbuilding is appropriate, it is considered that the balcony at first floor level will result in visual bulk. A condition will be included requiring the balcony to be deleted.

Having regard to the existing context, it is considered that the proposed built form provides an acceptable response to its neighbourhood subject to the removal of the balcony. Although the proposal is to be constructed along the northern boundary, as discussed above, the narrow and small subdivision pattern of the area has reinforced a prevailing character where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both side boundaries. Furthermore, the immediate context does not present a consistent development pattern; rather it varies on a

Page 61


site-by-site basis. The proposal therefore is not considered too remote or farfetched from the established mixed nature of the surrounds.

Overall, the proposed built form is considered appropriate and will sit comfortably in its context.

Site Layout and Building Massing

Street setback

The existing dwelling remains unchanged and the street setback will not be altered. The Standard therefore is not triggered.

Site Coverage

Standard A5 states that the maximum site coverage is 60 per cent.

The proposed first floor addition does not encroach the existing building footprint at ground level, although it introduces a first floor balcony which has a total area of 8sqm. As demonstrated on the submitted area schedule, the proposed site coverage is equivalent to 31% and complies.

Permeability

Standard A6 requires a minimum permeability of 20 per cent. The proposed permeability is 33% and thus complies. It is however recommended that the permeable surface should be clearly outlined in the site or floor plans. A relevant condition will therefore be included.

Design detail

The design detail of the proposed dwelling are considered to be appropriate. Reasons are outlined below:

Firstly, as discussed above, the built form and the scale (of being a 2-storey property) respond to the character of the area appropriately.

Furthermore, the proposed pitched roof is consistent with the nearby properties.

Lastly, the proposal incorporates brickwork to match the existing dwelling on the subject site. This is considered a consistent and responsive approach to the surrounds. However, a schedule of materials has not been provided in the development plans at hand. A condition will therefore be placed, requiring the submission of a schedule of materials.

Having considered the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, the proposal is considered to be respectful and compatible with the existing neighbourhood character; and acceptable in neighbourhood character terms.

Will the proposal cause unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties?

This application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of Clause 54 and the section below outlines the key findings:

Side and rear setbacks

Page 62


To the north, the proposal is to be constructed on the boundary and will be assessed under Standard A11 (Walls on boundaries objective) below.

To the south, the proposed wall height is 4.94m and the required minimum setback therefore is 1.4m. The proposal provides a setback of 2m and complies.

To the west, the proposal has a distance of approximately 13m from the existing dwelling. The Standard does not apply.

To the east, the proposed wall height is 4.94m and the required minimum setback is 1.4m. The proposal allows for a setback of 1.3m and therefore does not comply. Given that the wall adjoins an unnamed lane and beyond the lane a garage associated with the property at 6 Highbury Grove is constructed, the proposal is considered acceptable.

Wall on boundaries

The proposed first floor addition will be constructed on the northern boundary, resulting in a total length of 7m and a maximum wall height of approximately 6.58m.

In accordance with Standard A11, the permissible maximum length of walls on boundary is 19.54m. As the existing dwelling does not encompass a northern boundary wall, the proposed length of the northern boundary wall at the rear complies with the Standard.

With respect to the wall height, the Standard requires a maximum wall height of 3.6m and an average wall height of 3.2m. A variation to this component is therefore required. A variation is considered reasonable for the following reasons:

In the current condition, the northern boundary wall interfaces with the secluded private open space contained in the land at No. 96 Chomley Street. In the event that the existing condition remains unchanged, due to the orientation, the proposal will not result in any overshadowing onto the secluded private open space in question. Furthermore, no windows are proposed in the north elevation and no overlooking issues will be of a consequence. Additionally, it is noted that the proposal has a distance of approximately 9m from the existing dwelling at No. 96 Chomley Street, meaning visual bulk impacts to the dwelling itself will be minimal.

As stated above, a Planning Permit No. 1224/16 was recently issued under the direction of the Tribunal, which allows a double storey addition at No. 96 Chomley Street. In the event that the permitted development is constructed, the proposal is still considered an acceptable planning outcome for the following reasons:

The approved development at No. 96 Chomley Street has a southern boundary wall at the ground and the first floor levels.

The southern boundary wall at No. 96 Chomley Street has an eastern setback of 0.5m from the boundary and a total length of 6.76m. Resultantly, the proposal will exceed the envelope of the boundary wall in question by 1m towards the western aspect. However, the encroachment has a minimal interface with the secluded private open space in the northern adjoining land. Given its minor nature in scale, this segment in question will not result in any undue amenity impact.

Additionally, it is noted that the owners / occupants at No. 96 have no objection to this proposal.

In light of the above, the proposed northern boundary is consistent with other developments in the neighbourhood and will not cause undue detriment to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Page 63


Daylight to existing windows

To the north, the existing condition depicts secluded private open space associated with the land at No. 96 Chomley Street. It is reiterated that if the proposed addition at No. 96, approved under Planning Permit No. 1224/16 is built, there are no proposed habitable room windows that will be affected.

To the south, north facing windows are located in the dwelling at No. 1/92 Chomley Street. An assessment will be included in details under Standard A13 (North facing window objective).

North-facing windows

The North Facing Windows Objective states the following:

To allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows.

Standard A13 applies to any neighbouring north facing habitable room window that is positioned within 3m of the property boundary. The Standard provides a numeric boundary setback requirement based on the height of the proposed wall when positioned opposite the neighbouring north facing windows.

The proposal has a direct interface with the southern adjoining property at No. 1/92 Chomley Street. As shown on the endorsed plans under Planning Permit 1082/05 associated with the dwelling at No. 1/92 Chomley Street, on the ground floor, a northern boundary wall is constructed with no window incorporated. The Standard is therefore not triggered.

On the first floor, there is one north-facing highlight window that serves a bedroom. The endorsed plans also indicate that this north-facing window in question has a setback of 1m from the shared boundary. Assessment of the impact on this north-facing window is stated below:

On the ground floor, the subject site contains an existing garage. As it was constructed before the southern adjoining dwelling was approved and forms part of the existing condition, the Standard is not triggered.

On the first floor, the proposed southern wall height is 4.94m, which requires a minimum setback of 1.8m from the boundary. The proposal allows for a setback of 2m from the boundary and thus complies.

It is noted that the proposed first floor plan indicates that the north-facing window in question has a setback of 1.2m from the boundary. Given the inconsistency, a condition is recommended, requiring the setback to be clearly dimensioned on the plan

In light of the above, the proposal can be supported.

Overshadowing

The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard A14. This Standard states the following:

Page 64


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 Objective itself states that ‘ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space’.

As demonstrated on the submitted shadow diagrams, key findings are comprised of:

To the west, the proposal interfaces with the secluded private open space contained in the subject site. Due to the sufficient setback from the existing dwelling, the proposal allows adequate sunlight to the secluded private open space and is considered acceptable.

To the east, as shown on the shadow diagrams, the additional overshadowing will be cast onto the rear lane between 9am and 2pm. The proposal therefore complies. At 3pm, it is noted that additional overshadowing will be cast onto the eastern adjoining land at No. 6 Highbury Grove. However, it is also noted that a single storey addition (i.e. a garage) is constructed at the rear of the dwelling; and thus, the proposal will not have any impact on the secluded private open space contained in the eastern adjoining land at any given time between 9am and 3pm.

To the south, as shown on the shadow diagrams, no additional overshadowing will be cast onto the southern adjoining land (including No. 92 and 1/92 Chomley Street). The proposal therefore complies.

Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard A15. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.

As the ground floor of the rear building is identified as a garage, the Standard does not apply.

On the first floor, to the north, east and south, no windows are proposed. The Standard therefore is not triggered. To the west, screening up to 1.7m above the floor level is incorporated to the balcony and the staircase. Opaque glass is the nominated material. As discussed above, the nature of the proposal (i.e. an extension to an existing dwelling) does not require the provision of an additional secluded private open space and the balcony adds visual bulk to the adjoining private open space; and it is recommended to delete the balcony from the proposal. An additional condition will be included requiring the subsequent screening of the west facing first floor window in accordance with Standard A15. This condition will require the specific use of opaque glass as that is what was proposed for the balcony that is now to be deleted.

This approach will also assist in preventing any undue overlooking issues.

Overall, the proposal will not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

Page 65


Does the proposal provide an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants?

The proposed extension benefits from its substantial physical separation from the existing dwelling and will provide the occupants with the necessary components for comfortable living, including adequate daylight access to the existing dwelling and the rear addition, the adequate provision of windows and direct solar/daylight access through skylights. Additionally, it is worth noting that relevant Building Regulations are in place to ensure the proposed development meets the relevant energy efficiency standards. As a result, the proposal will provide the occupants with an adequate level of internal amenity.

Additionally, it is noted that the applicant submitted a Stormwater Management Plan, which details 3 raingardens to be installed. In accordance with Council’s Stormwater Management Policy at Clause 22.18, the Policy applies to extension to existing buildings which are 50 square metres in floor area or greater. As the proposal has a total floor area of 42sqm, a Water Sensitive Urban Design is not required.

In conclusion, the proposal provides an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants.

Objections

The only objection that has not been discussed in the above assessment is related to the increased traffic congestion. What should be reemphasised here is that the proposal does not introduce an additional dwelling; and purely provides as an additional living space for the current occupants. Moreover, it is worth noting that no additional car parking spaces are provided. Given that the capacity of the existing garage remains unaltered, the proposal will not result in additional traffic flow; and the traffic condition in the rear lane will unlikely be unreasonable impacted.


This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposal does not give rise to an additional dwelling; and is treated as an

extension to the existing dwelling by definition stipulated in the planning scheme. The proposal provides an appropriate response to the character of this neighbourhood. The proposed extension will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining

properties, regardless of whether or not the works approved for No. 96 are constructed. The proposal will offer the occupants an adequate level of internal amenity.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 1225/16- 94 Chomley Street, Prahran VIC 3181 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1225/16 for the land located

Page 66


at 94 Chomley Street, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for an extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm 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 revised plans (Council date received on 22 February 2018) but modified to show:

a) The proposed first floor balcony associated with the first floor addition above the existing garage at the rear to be deleted; and any subsequent changes required to the external staircase.

b) Subsequent screening to the first floor west facing window with opaque glass to a minimum height of 1.7m above finished floor level in accordance with Standard A15 of Clause 54.

c) A schedule of proposed external finishes (including roof materials) and colours of all buildings (including colour swatches)

d) All permeable surfaces to be identified on the ground floor level plan and shown to equate to a minimum of 20% of the overall site area

e) The correct location and setback of the first floor north facing habitable room window of the southern neighbouring dwelling.


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 without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.


4. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard A15 of Clause 54 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.

5. 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.


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

Page 67


permits are obtained.

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

“Significant tree” means a tree: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; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.


C. 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


Page 68


4. 418 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN EAST, 1529 MALVERN ROAD, GLEN IRIS & 104 CAROLINE STREET, SOUTH YARRA - TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is provide information to Council in relation to the installation of proposed telecommunications facilities by TPG Telecom Limited.

BACKGROUND

Relevant Provisions

Council regularly receives notifications from major mobile phone service carriers (e.g. Telstra, Optus, Vodafone and TPG) in relation to the installation of new facilities or upgrade of existing ones. The installation of these facilities is governed by the following provisions:

• Telecommunications Act 1997 (Commonwealth) (the Act);• Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determinations 2018 (Commonwealth)

(the Determination). The Communications Alliance has also issued an Industry Code C564:2011 (Mobile Phone Base Station Deployment) (the Industry Code). This Industry Code applies to carriers who are installing and operating radio communications facilities. The Communications Alliance was formed to provide a unified voice for the Australian communications industry.

Clause 5 of the Industry Code states that carriers must notify the occupier of a residence in close proximity to the proposed site. Guidance is provided to the carriers, which states that close proximity ‘may be within 10 to 20 metres’ from the proposed facilities.

Clause 6 of the Industry Code requires the carriers to prepare a draft consultation plan that is to be sent to Council for comment. The consultation plan details all relevant interested and affected parties. The Industry Code also requires that a public notice be placed on the site until construction is completed. Council has the opportunity to provide comments on the draft consultation plan, if any additional key stakeholders should be notified and whether there are any significant events within the community that may be relevant.

The carriers will also provide specifications of a proposed facility. This information is required to enable assessment as to whether the facility is considered to meet the definitions of a Low-Impact Facility as defined under the Determinations.

A proposed radio communication facility is considered to be low impact in a residential, commercial, industrial and rural areas if it meets the following requirements:

With a separate antenna not more than 1.2 metre long; and With a cabinet that does not exceed 1 cubic metre in volume.

Page 69


Pursuant to Clause 52.19 (Telecommunications Facility) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a facility that meets the definition of being a low-impact facility does not require a Planning Permit. Therefore, should Council conclude that a proposed facility meets the low-impact definition, no planning permit is required.

If the site is affected by any Planning Overlay, including Neighborhood Character Overlay, Heritage Overlay and Significant Landscape Overlay, a planning permit is still not required. Pursuant to Clause 62.02-1 (Buildings and works not requiring a permit), a permit is not required for buildings and works associated with a telecommunication facility if the requirements of Clause 52.19 are met. That is, should Council determine that the proposed facility satisfies the definitions of low-impact, a permit is not required in any overlay.

Based on the legal advice received, Council may write to the carrier objecting to the proposed facility. If Council lodges an objection, the relevant Carrier is obliged to consider that submission/objection. The Industry Code does not limit Council’s grounds of objection. The Industry Code requires the carrier to prepare a report following the consultation period. The report is to be sent to Council and made available to the public.

If a proposed facility is a low-impact facility, other than lodging a submission with the carrier, Council does not have any other legal avenue to stop a carrier from constructing the facility.

Should a person disagree with Council and/or the carriers’ determination on whether the proposed infrastructure is low-impact, a declaration may be sought from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under Section 149A(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. A complaint may also be lodged with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.

Section 122 of the Act allows the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to issue a formal warning if a carrier contravenes the Industry Code. Council is not under an obligation to respond to any notice of a proposed telecommunication facility.

Potential Health Impact

The carrier in their submission is required to include an Environmental Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Report. This report provides a summary of levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic energy around a proposed facility. The report is developed using methodology developed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

In considering potential health impacts the Tribunal decision in Mason & Ors v Greater Geelong City Council and Telstra Corporation (Red Dot) [2013] VCAT 2057 is considered useful. Although the facilities considered in this matter were not low-impact, its consideration of potential health impact is of relevance.

The Tribunal made an order following a practice day hearing where the Tribunal considered whether the following grounds lodged by the applicant for review (the objectors) should be struck out:

a) the ground relating to concerns over the impacts of electromagnetic radiation from the proposed telecommunications facility;

b) the grounds relating to concerns about the impacts on public health and/or to the users of nearby land, insofar as they relate to radiofrequency fields or electromagnetic radiation from the proposed telecommunications facility.

Page 70


The Tribunal concluded that under Section 376 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is given the power to make technical standards. These technical standards include standards protecting health and safety of those who operate, work on, use the services of, or are otherwise reasonably likely to be affected by the operation of a telecommunication facility.

The ACMA has adopted a mandatory standard through the Radio communications (Electromagnetic Radiation – Human Exposure) Standard 2014. The standard makes mandatory the exposure limits in the Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields – 3 kHz to 300 GHz determined by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). The ARPANSA standard is consistent with the World Health Organization guidelines.

In its determination, the Tribunal stated that:

15. Neither the responsible authority nor VCAT has the expertise to second-guess the ARPANSA standard, nor to impose a different standard. The most the responsible authority can do is to ensure the permit applicant has provided the relevant information as part of its planning application and, if a permit is granted (and although perhaps a little superfluous), impose a permit condition mandating compliance with the ARPANSA standard. That has occurred here.

The Tribunal therefore decided to strike out the applicant for review’s grounds in relation to electromagnetic radiation and/or related public health concerns stemming from the operation of the proposed facility, as it is not relevant to the planning assessment of a telecommunications facility where the ARPANSA standard is met.

DISCUSSION

418 Wattletree Road, Malvern East

On 8 May 2018, TPG Telecom Limited notified Council of their intention to install mobile phone facilities within the Road Reserve, adjacent to 418 Wattletree Road. The proposed facilities include three antennas each with a height of 275mm; and a radio remote unit (the cabinet) with a volume of 0.08 cubic metre. The facility is to be installed and attached to an existing electricity pole. United Energy is the asset owner.

In accordance with the Schedule, Part 1, Item 8 of the Determinations, a radio communication facility in a residential, commercial, industrial and rural area is considered to be low impact if it features:

a) a separate antenna not more than 1.2 metres long; and

b) a cabinet that does not exceed 1 cubic metre in volume.

Furthermore, where the proposed facility is to be installed on a public utility structure, the total co-located volume of the co-located facilities is to be no more than 25 percent than the volume of the original infrastructure. The carrier is also required to confirm that the noise that is likely to result from the operation of the co-located facilities will be less than or equal to the levels of noise that resulted from the operation of the public utility structure.

In the instance of 418 Wattletree Road, the proposed facilities includes the installation of three separate antennas of a maximum length of 0.275 metres and the cabinet has a total volume of 0.08 cubic metre. Even if combined, the three antennas have a total length of 0.825 metre. Based on this, the proposed facilities are considered to be low-impact in accordance with the Determinations.

Page 71


In terms of the consultation plan, the extent of notification used by TPG Telecom is 78 metres to the east, 83 metres to the south, 60 metres to the west and 66 metres to the north of the proposed facilities. This notification area exceeds that recommended under Clause 5.1.2 of the Industry Code which recommends notice be sent to properties within 10 to 20 metres from the proposed facility. Although it is irrelevant to this proposed facility, it is worth noting that the public notice requirement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, only requires notice to be given to lots adjoining the subject land. The extent of notice is therefore considered appropriate.

TPG Telecom also provided Council and all interested parties with an Environmental EME Report. The EME Report suggests a 5.025 percent of public exposure limit, when the reasonable limit is referenced as being 100 percent or less. This is well within the ARPNSA Standard.

1529 Malvern Road, Glen Iris

On 30 April 2018, TPG Telecom Limited notified Council of their intention to install mobile phone facilities within the Road Reserve, adjacent to 1529 Malvern Road. The proposed facilities include three antennas each with a height of 275mm; and a radio remote units (the cabinet) with a volume of 0.08 cubic metre. The facility is to be installed and attached to an existing utility pole. Yarra Trams is the asset owner.





In the instance of 1529 Malvern Road, the proposed facilities includes the installation of three separate antennas of a maximum length of 0.275 metres and the cabinet has a total volume of 0.08 cubic metre. Even if combined, the three antennas have a total length of 0.825 metre. Based on this, the proposed facilities are considered to be low-impact in accordance of the Determinations.

In terms of the consultation plan, the extent of notification used by TPG Telecom is 43 metres to the east, 51 metres to the south, 76 metres to the west and 53 metres to the north of the proposed facilities. This notification area exceeds that recommended under Clause 5.1.2 of the Industry Code which recommends notice be sent to properties within 10 to 20 metres from the proposed facility.

TPG Telecom also provided Council and all interested parties with an Environmental EME Report. The EME Report demonstrates a 2.35 percent of public exposure limit, when the reasonable limit is referenced as being 100 percent or less. This is well within the ARPNSA Standard.

Page 72


104 Caroline Street, South Yarra

On 11 May 2018, TPG Telecom Limited notified Council of their intention to install mobile phone facilities within the Road Reserve, adjacent to 104 Caroline Street. The proposed facilities include two antennas each with a height of 275mm; and a radio remote units (the cabinet) with a volume of 0.08 cubic metre. The facility is to be installed and attached to an existing utility pole. Citipower is the asset owner.





In the instance of 104 Caroline Street, the proposed facilities includes the installation of two separate antennas of a maximum length of 0.275 metres and the cabinet has a total volume of 0.08 cubic metre. Even if combined, the two antennas have a total length of 0.55 metre. Based on this, the proposed facilities are considered to be low-impact in accordance of the Determinations.

In terms of the consultation plan, the extent of notification used by TPG Telecom is 66.5 metres to the east, 45 metres to the south, 74 metres to the west and 45 metres to the north of the proposed facilities. TPG Telecom also notified Melbourne Girls Grammar which is located over 60 metres to the south of the proposed facility. This notification area exceeds that recommended under Clause 5.1.2 of the Industry Code which recommends notice be sent to properties within 10 to 20 metres from the proposed facility.

TPG Telecom also provided Council and all interested parties with an Environmental EME Report. The EME Report demonstrates a 5.68 percent of public exposure limit, when the reasonable limit is referenced as being 100 percent or less. This is well within the ARPNSA Standard.


This report has been prepared 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 reviewed the proposed telecommunication facilities for the Road Reserves at 418 Wattletree Road, 1529 Malvern Road and 104 Caroline Street against the relevant Act, Determination and Industry Code, it is considered that:

The classifications of TPG Telecom Limited of the proposed telecom facilities as low-impact facilities is appropriate.

Page 73


As the facilities are considered to be low-impact, no planning permit is required pursuant to Clause 52.19 and Clause 62.02-1 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The extent and methodology for consultation used by TPG Telecom Limited is in accordance with the Industry Code C564:2011.

The electromagnetic energy generated from the facilities appears to comply with the ARPANSA standard.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 418 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, 1529 Malvern Road, Glen Iris & 104 Caroline Street, South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 3

Plans


Plans


Plans

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Note the assessments undertaken in line with the applicable Commonwealth Legislation and associated assessment tools.

2. Advise submitting parties of the legislative framework applicable to the assessment of telecommunication facilities.

Page 74


5. AMENDMENT C270 - FEDERATION HOUSES HERITAGE STUDY - ADOPTION

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider: the recommendations of the planning Panel for Amendment C270 adopting Amendment C270 with changes and request the Minister for Planning to

approve the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

Council has a strong program of heritage investigation and protection. In December 2006, Council adopted its Heritage Action Plan which is currently being reviewed. One stage of the Action Plan is to identify buildings that are of heritage significance not currently included within the Heritage Overlay (HO).

Federation Houses Study 2017The Federation Houses Study 2017 (GJM Heritage) investigated the significance of the houses grouped under the Federation era theme. The scope was limited to ‘Federation Houses’ which is defined as a building constructed as a dwelling, in the period between 1890 and 1918.

The Federation Houses Study specifically considered buildings that demonstrate architectural characteristics of the Federation period, including the influences from the Arts and Crafts, Queen Anne and Bungalow styles.

The findings and recommendations of the Study were reported to Council at its 18 September 2017 meeting, where Council resolved to pursue Amendment C270 to apply permanent heritage controls to the thirty-six (36) places and two precincts recommended in the Federation Houses Study. Authorisation was received on 18 October 2017.

Interim Heritage Protection – Amendment C269At its meeting on 18 September 2017 Council also resolved to request the Minister for Planning apply interim heritage protection (via Amendment C269) to the 36 Federation places and 2 Federation precincts included in Amendment C270.

On 16 January 2018 the Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning (DELWP) approved Amendment C269 and it was gazetted on 25 January 2018. The interim heritage controls expire on 30 September 2018.

Public Exhibition – Amendment C270Formal exhibition of the Amendment took place from 9 November to 11 December 2017. During this period Council received twenty-four (24) submissions. Six (6) of these supported the Amendment and eighteen (18) objected to the Amendment. The submissions presented a variety of issues including; concerns about the accuracy of the heritage citation, the heritage significance of the place, restrictions on future development, impact on property value, cost burden to owners, compensation and whether the HO aligns with neighbouring development.

Page 75


Consideration of SubmissionsCouncil considered the submissions received on Amendment C270 at its meeting on 19 February 2018. Council acknowledged that it was unable to vary the amendment to address all the issues raised in objecting submissions and resolved to refer the Amendment and all submissions to an independent Planning Panel.

In considering the submissions, a small number of changes to the Amendment were agreed to by Council and were put forward in presenting its position to the Planning Panel. They included:

Update certain citations, to better reflect changes that have occurred to the place. Realign the HO boundary to 36 Lansell Road, Toorak to reflect the original

subdivision. Modify the heritage controls specified in the HO schedule for:

o 120 Kooyong Road, Armadale (HO602) – remove fence controls.o 1 and 3 Dixon Street, Malvern (HO612) – remove fence controls.o 11 A’Beckett Street, Prahran (HO624) – remove fence controls.o 45 Lansell Road, Toorak (HO630) – remove outbuilding controls.

Panel HearingAn independent Planning Panel was appointed to consider and hear submissions in regards to Amendment C270.

The Panel Hearing was held at the Malvern Town Hall on 14, 16, 17 and 18 May 2018. The Panel comprised two Members, Cathie McRobert (chair) and Dr Timothy Hubbard.

The Panel undertook an unaccompanied site inspection in the week of 14 May 2018.

The Panel Report was received by Council on 27 June 2018 and released on 2 July 2018.

DISCUSSION

The Panel Report considered the key issues raised in the submissions to Amendment C270. This included general issues that were common to several submitters. The Panel grouped these issues as follows:

Whether the Study methodology provided the necessary rigour to justify the inclusion of places in the HO. Criticisms related to:

o whether the identification of properties for assessment, the comparative analysis and the rigour of assessments were sound

o the broad style typologies adopted for houses built in the periodo the thresholds adopted by the Study for inclusion of places in individual HOs

and whether they were applied appropriatelyo the lack of visibility of heritage fabric from the public realm compromising the

assessment of properties and being accorded insufficient weight in assessments.

The HO would devalue properties, reduce development potential, constrain rights to modify buildings, and impose permit application requirements that create an unwanted burden.

The significance of specific properties does not warrant their inclusion in the HO.

The Panel also reviewed specific heritage places where submissions raised issue with a place not having sufficient heritage significance to warrant inclusion in the HO or that the boundary of the HO was not appropriate.

Panel Conclusions and Recommendations

Page 76


“The Panel concluded that all of the places that were the subject of submissions meet the threshold and should be included in the HO.”

In regards to the group of general issues detailed above, the Panel responded with the following:

The Study’s Methodology

The Panel concluded that the Study generally adhered to the protocols established in Planning Practice Note 1, was undertaken by recognised experts, and set out reasonable limits to its period and sensibly subdivided the initial large sample into three subgroups (Queen Anne, Arts and Crafts, Federation Bungalow).

Threshold of significance and Letter Grading

The Panel reflected on the use of pre-set conditions in the methodology of the Study and the letter grading in the citations.

The Panel considered that both of these tools were unnecessary for determining the heritage significance of a place and should rely on the Practice Note and nationally accepted heritage criteria. It was interpreted during the Panel that Council was trying to elevate the threshold for heritage significance and this approach should be reconsidered in future studies.

The Panel recommended that Council remove the letter grading from all citations included in the Amendment.

The letter grading system no longer aligns with the Practice Note. Council has also been advised by previous Panels to refrain from using the letter grading system in new heritage assessments. Council’s heritage policy is currently worded to acknowledge both letter grading and significant, contributory and ungraded places. Therefore, if Council were to remove the letter grading from the citations as per the Panel’s recommendation, it would not have an impact in the way these places are assessed.

Council officers support the removal of letter grading from the citation.

The effect of modifications and visibility from the street

The Panel concluded that the sifting process through the Study was reasonable, objective and expert. The Study took into account the effect of modification on the integrity of places. This was reflected in the citations and the extent of heritage significance.

The Panel also concluded that it is a long standing acceptance that a place’s heritage significance is not dependent on it being visible from the public realm.

Economic impacts, owner’s rights and administrative burden

Several submitters raised concerns about the impact the HO would have on their property values, rights and their ability to develop their property.

The Panel noted that the Charter for Human Rights recognises there may be restrictions in relation to property, stating:

A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law (Panel emphasis).

The Panel considered the limitations on how people develop their property if the HO applies reinforces the need for sound justification to introduce new controls. The Panel considered that the fundamental question is whether specific places meet the threshold of local heritage significance and therefore the threshold for benefit to the community.

The Panel concluded that it is a well-accepted practice in Victoria for Planning Schemes to regulate the development of a place to achieve a community benefit of protecting significant

Page 77


heritage values. Planning scheme amendment considerations relate to broader community social and economic effects rather than private impacts.

Post Panel Citation Review

The Panel recommended that Council:

After access to the property by Council’s heritage expert has been provided, refine the Place Citation for 36 Lansell Road Toorak to:

Confirm elements of the property that are significant. Explicitly identify elements of the property that do not contribute to or impact on

its heritage significance.

Council officers have made the owner of 36 Lansell Road, Toorak aware of the Panel’s recommendations. Council has not yet received a response from the owner. If Council does not receive a response from the owner it will submit the citation with changes adopted by Council to the Minister for Planning for approval.

The Panel concluded that a similar approach could be taken for the place at 32 Huntingtower Road Armadale. The Panel did not make this a recommendation in the report.

The Panel concluded:

“If desired by the owner and after access to the property by Council’s heritage expert, the place citation to [sic] could be refined to explicitly identify elements of the property that do not contribute to or impact on its heritage significance.”

As part of the Federation Houses Study Council requested access to properties not visible from the public realm, which included the place at 32 Huntingtower Road. Council officers and heritage consultant have visited the place prior to exhibition to further refine the citation. The owner for 32 Huntingtower Road, Armadale has been given the opportunity to make submissions during exhibition and at the Panel Hearing. Council has agreed to changes after considering submissions (refer to Attachment 1). It is not recommended that Council alters the citation beyond changes recommended in Attachment 2 as all relevant information has been considered.

These comments made by the Panel are unusual given site visits undertaken during the preparation of the Study and following submissions as well as by panel members during the Hearing.

Adoption of Amendment C270It is recommended that Amendment C270 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the changes outlined above and in Attachment 2 to this report.

Amendment C270 will replace interim heritage controls placed on 36 heritage places and 2 precincts, introduced through Amendment C269.

Council is required to formally decide how to proceed with Amendment C270 within 40 business days of receiving the Panel Report (by 21 August 2018), unless an exemption is sought. In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can choose to adopt the amendment without changes, adopt the amendment with changes, or abandon the amendment.

Ultimately, it is the Minister for Planning who will make the final decision on the Amendment.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Page 78


The City of Stonnington is committed to the retention and conservation of its heritage houses. The Amendment will deliver an outcome for protection of houses of heritage value and significance in the municipality, consistent with the objectives of the planning scheme.

The Amendment is consistent with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:

“Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development”

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

“Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington”

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

“Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural and cultural or historic significance”

The Amendment is consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy (2006) and Heritage Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not included within the Heritage Overlay.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The financial cost of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit for 2017/2018 and 2018/2019.

The indicative timeframe for Amendment C270 is shown in the table below.

October 2017 November 2017

February 2018 May 2018 August 2018 Late 2018

Authorisation ExhibitionConsideration

of Submissions

Panel Hearing Adoption Approval

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C270 and have been able to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C270 proposes to apply permanent heritage controls to 36 Federation Places and 2 Federation Precincts. The Panel concluded that all places met the threshold and should be included in the HO. Following further information provided during the amendment process, the Panel has recommended some changes as set out above and in Attachment 2.

Council will discuss further possible updates to the citation of 36 Lansell Road, Toorak with the owner, if permitted.

Amendment C270 will replace the interim heritage controls placed on the 36 places and 2 precincts, introduced via Amendment C269.

It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C270 as exhibited with changes recommended in the Panel Report and Attachment 2.


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

Attachments

Page 79


1. Attachment 1 - Amendment C270 Panel Report Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Proposed changes to Citations Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:1. Notes the public release of the Panel Report of Amendment C270.

2. On considering the Panel report, adopts Amendment C270 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme, with changes since exhibition outlined in Attachment 2 pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C270 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises the submitters to Amendment C270 of Council’s Decision.

Page 80


6. AMENDMENT C276 - IMPROVEMENTS TO CHAPEL REVISION PLANNING CONTROLS - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:

The submissions received in response to Amendment C276; A response to the submissions for the purpose of Council’s position at Panel; and Requesting the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider

submissions on Amendment C276.

BACKGROUND

Chapel Revision

The Chapel reVision Structure Plan was commissioned in 2012 to review Chapel Vision in order to inform permanent planning controls for the Chapel Street Activity Centre. The “Chapel Street Activity Centre” is a term used to capture the Prahran/South Yarra Major Activity Centre, Chapel Street, Windsor Neighbourhood Centre and Toorak Road, South Yarra Neighbourhood Centre.

The Chapel reVision Structure Plan provides a long term strategic plan which aims to guide a range of important aspects including development, land use movement, public realm, open space, strategic opportunities, economic and social planning and sustainability.

The Structure Plan and associated background documents were adopted by Council in July 2014 after extensive community consultation (three stage consultation process).

Amendment C172

Amendment C172 applied permanent planning controls to the Chapel Street Activity Centre to implement the Chapel reVision Structure Plan. The planning controls include the introduction of the Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1 (ACZ1) to direct built form, height and preferred land use mix.

Council adopted the Amendment on 7 September 2015 and submitted the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. Following approval by the Minister for Planning, Amendment C172 came into effect on 10 August 2017.

Preparation of Amendment C276

Changes were identified through the ongoing review of the planning controls by Council officers. Council engaged Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd to provide comment on these proposed changes as the lead urban design consultant for the preparation of Chapel reVision.

Page 81


At its meeting on 9 April 2018, Council endorsed the preparation of Amendment C276 – Improvements to Chapel reVision Planning Controls. The Amendment seeks to implement a number of changes to Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone, rezone a number of properties and make changes to local policy.

Exhibition

Following authorisation from the Minister for Planning, Amendment C276 was placed on public exhibition from 17 May until 18 June 2018. Notification and exhibition of the Amendment was carried out via the following measures:

Direct notification (via letter) to all owners within the area affected by the Amendment as well as prescribed authorities on 14 May 2018.

Public viewing file of amendment documentation at Council’s Planning Counter, Malvern.

Full amendment documentation on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and City of Stonnington’s websites.

Notices placed in the Stonnington Leader on 15 May 2018 and the Government Gazette on 17 May 2018.

Council Officers were available to meet and discuss specific questions with stakeholders.

DISCUSSION

As a result of exhibition, Council received twenty six (26) submissions. Fifteen (15) of these support the Amendment as exhibited, seven (7) take an alternative position, and four (4) do not take a position on the amendment.

Summary of SubmissionsThe submissions can be separated into 7 themes, with key themes outlined below (a full response to all submissions is included in Attachment 1).

Proposed Changes to River Street Built Form Controls

A number of submissions related to the proposed changes to the built form controls for properties along River Street, including:

a reduction of the preferred maximum height for properties on the eastern side of River Street, north of Malcolm Street, from 18m (5 storeys) to 12m (3 storeys); and

an increase in the front setback requirements for built form above 21 metres for properties south of Malcolm Street (from 4 metres to 6 metres).

Although a majority of these submissions are in support of the proposed changes, two (2) are objections. These objections are on the basis that the proposed revisions do not align with the strategic context of the area. Council undertook a further review of the built form controls within this location due to its unique locational characteristics, as highlighted through recent planning permit application assessments. Following this review, Council’s urban design experts are of the view that it is appropriate to reduce the preferred maximum height and alter the rear setbacks to the northern end of River Street; and change the interface setback type for properties along River Street south of Malcolm Street. This is due to the following:

- fine grain residential allotments and contemporary lower rise residential development with a ground level setback are more prevalent north of Malcolm Street. The existing topography (3 storey form located at the northern end of River Street are likely to have a comparable effect to 5 storey form at the southern end of River Street)

- the greater level of sensitivity of the adjacent Neighbourhood Residential Zone within Heritage Overlay 149

Page 82


- remnant light industrial warehouse/ non-residential forms and recent mid-rise development (up to 4 storey) are commonly found south of Malcolm Street

- existing contemporary 3-4 storey forms have demonstrated how upper level setbacks (2m or greater) with private open space opportunities can achieve a more desirable street-based response

- a discretionary ‘Type 2’ Interface Setback has been applied [12m street wall height, with a 3m setback above and a further 3m setback above 21m] in line with urban design expert advice and for consistency within the Activity Centre Zone

On this basis, no change is proposed to the exhibited amendment.

Proposed Change to Interface Setback North of Open Space

Submissions no. 11 and 24 raised objections to the application of this interface control on properties now adjacent to existing/proposed public open space.

The Amendment updates the setback requirements to maintain amenity to future open spaces if and/or when development is to occur to the north. It is a discretionary control applied to all interfaces north of open space and can be assessed in detail during a development application process. It is consistent with the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and is being applied to properties north of recently purchased sites for open space.

No change is proposed to the exhibited amendment.

Preferred Maximum Building Height Exceedance

Submission No. 21 objects to the proposed relocation of the ‘preferred maximum building height may be exceeded in some circumstances’ control from under ‘Height and massing guidelines’ to ‘Height and massing requirements’, stating that this change would make the provision a mandatory control.

The change from ‘guideline’ to ‘requirement’ is intended to provide more weight to this consideration within the statutory assessment of planning permit applications under the Activity Centre Zone. The original intent through the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and Amendment C172 was for these considerations to be relevant for all proposals seeking to exceed the preferred maximum height. This change clarifies this intention and enshrines it in the statutory process to ensure a fair and transparent assessment process for all proposals seeking to exceed preferred maximum heights. It is noted that this would still be a discretionary provision.


Key Strategic Development Sites

Submission no. 23 raised concerns relating to the location of the ‘Key Strategic Development Site’ marker on the Windsor Village Precinct Map (it is not proposed to change as part of this amendment).

The current location of the subject marker on the precinct map due to graphic design reasons (so it doesn’t overlap with other attributes on the map) and is intended to apply to the wider precinct (WV-7) between the rail alignment and Dandenong Road; which is reflected in the corresponding text. It is noted that Amendment C276 does not propose to change the location of this marker.


Changes to the AmendmentOverall, no changes to the Amendment are proposed in response to the submissions received.

Separate to feedback received from submissions, a mapping anomaly was identified in the Forrest Hill Precinct Map, specifically in sub-precinct Forrest Hill 10. A line is missing on the

Page 83


map that is meant to show a 4 metre preferred setback above the street wall height. It is recommended that this mapping anomaly be corrected as part of the Amendment process.

Next StepsCouncil must forward submissions received on Amendment C276 to an independent Panel, if it is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address all the issues raised in submissions, and it intends to continue with the amendment process.

Council needs to make a formal request to the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel, after which Planning Panels Victoria will advise of the hearing dates.

On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C276, a report will be prepared for Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed changes to Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone will better allow the vision for the Chapel Street Activity Centre to be realised. The proposed changes also support the ongoing delivery of Council’s Strategies for Creating Open Spaces process, which includes the identification and acquisition of land for the purposes of public open space.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The financial cost of planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy unit for both 2017/18 and 2018/19.

The indicative timeframe for Amendment C276 is identified in the table below:

March 2018 May-June 2018

August 2018 September 2018

October 2018

February 2019

Authorisation Exhibition Consideration of Submissions

Directions Hearing

Panel Hearing

Council Adoption


All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C276 and will have the opportunity to be heard by an independent Planning Panel as required.

CONCLUSION

Following ongoing review and monitoring, Amendment C276 proposes to make changes to the Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1 to ensure effective statutory assessments of planning application proposals.

Council received twenty six (26) submissions to Amendment C276. In response to the submissions received, it is recommended that Council request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to hear submissions and consider Amendment C276. Council’s proposed position at Panel is outlined in this report and Attachment 1.


Page 84



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Requests that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of

the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions to proposed Amendment C276 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel Hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C276, generally in accordance with the Officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 1.

3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C276.

4. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C276 of Council’s decision.

Page 85


7. METRO TUNNEL PROJECT - PROPOSED EARLY WORKS FOR EASTERN PORTAL

Manager City Strategy: Susan PriceManager Parks & Environment : Simon Holloway General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to brief Council on the proposed Rail Infrastructure Alliance Early Works program and schedule affecting the Eastern Portal area of South Yarra, east of the Sandringham Rail Corridor – part of the Metro Tunnel Project.

BACKGROUND

The Victorian Government is constructing two new nine kilometre rail tunnels and five new underground stations as part of the Metro Tunnel Project, connecting the Cranbourne/Pakenham line with the Sunbury line. While the majority of the route crosses through the City of Melbourne, the Eastern Portal (tunnel entrance) will be located in South Yarra, within the City of Stonnington.

As detailed previously, the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority has recently been incorporated into the umbrella body of Rail Projects Victoria, which manages all major rail infrastructure projects across Victoria.

In regard to the Eastern Portal, there are two separate contracts which are relevant, the Cross Yarra Partnership (CYP) contract, and the Rail Infrastructure Alliance (RIA) contract. The project area of each contract is shown on Attachment 1.

Cross Yarra Partnership

CYP has been awarded the contract to build the tunnels and stations, comprising a consortium led by Lend Lease Engineering, John Holland, Bouygues Construction and Capella Capital. This contract includes all mechanical and electrical systems, tunnel and stations maintenance and commercial development opportunities.

For Stonnington, the CYP contract extends to works within the Osborne Street Reserve only (at the northern end), and involves the construction of a tunnel boring machine retrieval shaft, and, in its legacy state, an ancillary building above the tunnels, which will accommodate plant and emergency access. It also includes below ground tunnel works west of the Osborne Street Reserve.

CYP works have now commenced, and parking and directional changes to Osborne Street are in place. The CYP contractors are in the process of setting up a site compound behind the Osborne Street hoardings, and piling works will commence toward the end of August. Works in this area will continue for several years.

Rail Infrastructure Alliance

On 16 July 2018, the State Government announced that a consortium comprising John Holland, CPB Contractors and AECOM has been selected as the preferred bidder to build the Metro Tunnel entrances in Kensington and South Yarra. This consortium is known as Metro Gateway.

Page 87

https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/construction/kensington/western-tunnel-entrance-location


The works’ package includes the track decline and tunnel portal cut and cover structures (located within the area of the Eastern Portal to the east of the Sandringham rail corridor) and existing track reconfiguration and modification of existing rail infrastructure (eg. signalling). Additionally, this contract includes works on train lines further out in the suburbs to maximise the benefits of the Metro Tunnel Project and the extra capacity it creates. Most RIA works are expected to be finished by the end of 2025, in line with the completion of the tunnels and stations.

It is understood that the RIA contract will be awarded later in 2018.

DISCUSSION

Rail Infrastructure Alliance Early Works

Site preparation (known as RIA Early Works) are scheduled to begin shortly in the Eastern Portal area, specifically in the area bounded between Toorak Road to the north, Chapel Street to the east, Arthur Street to the south, and the Sandringham rail corridor to the west (refer Attachment 2 – Eastern Portal. These works will be undertaken by the State Government - Rail Projects Victoria - readying the portal area ahead of the actual Metro Gateway contract commencement later in the year.

The Early Works programme is different to that which was originally proposed during the initial Environmental Effects Statement process, conducted during 2016. This appears to be as a result of, and in response to, the emerging detail about the methodology proposed by the preferred bidder, Metro Gateway.

Where previously, it had been proposed and expected that the RIA contractor would build and utilise a new construction access bridge from Osborne Street over the Sandringham Rail Corridor to the South Yarra Siding Reserve, this is no longer the case. This bridge will still be delivered, but as a legacy item after the works are complete, providing pedestrian/cyclist access connecting Osborne Street to the South Yarra Siding Reserve.

It is understood that a decision was made by State Government to separate the land affected by the two contracts (as shown in Attachment 1 – CYP & RIA) and therefore, the RIA bidder’s response has been to propose truck movement and site access from streets other than Osborne Street.

The Early Works plans include significant transport, parking and tree removal impacts, affecting in particular Toorak Road and Chapel Street, William, Chambers, Bond, and Arthur Streets.

In summary, it is understood that:

To access South Yarra Siding Reserve (the southern side of the decline structure and related works), trucks will use Chapel Street, Arthur Street and the southern-most section of William Street.

To access the northern side of the track works, trucks will use William Street, Chambers Street and Bond Street.

South Yarra Siding Reserve will be occupied for a period of some years from 1 September 2018 to allow these works to commence.

Page 88

https://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/about-the-project/project-benefits


Implementation of traffic / parking changes and closure of Lovers Walk will follow soon after (dates still being confirmed).

Attachment 2: Early Works Plans provide more detail which is also outlined in this report.

Specifically, the following is proposed:

Cranbourne/Pakenham Rail corridor

Piling works along both the northern and southern sides of the rail corridor. The northern piling works extend along the basic alignment of Lovers Walk, from 15 William Street to the intersection with Chambers Street. The southern piling works extend from the midway point of the South Yarra Siding Reserve to a point just east of the existing (but to be removed) Arthur Street car park.

Erection of hoardings around the entire site, as per the attached plans.

It is noted that removal of the William Street bridge across this corridor will follow as part of the Metro Gateway contract.

Toorak Road

Installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Toorak Road and William Street. This will necessitate the removal of some parking spaces on the northern side of Toorak Road in the vicinity of this intersection.

William Street

Installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Toorak Road and William Street and make changes necessary to facilitate truck turning movements into and out of William Street. This is likely to involve removal of parking on both sides of William Street near the intersection, some kerb realignment, and possibly removal of some footpath trading tables and chairs.

Removal of all parking along the eastern side of William Street between Toorak Road and Arthur Street

Removal of parking on the western side of William Street from 15 William Street south to Arthur Street.

Removal of approximately 15 trees currently located along both sides of William Street. It is noted that these trees were not proposed for removal via the EES process, and each tree now identified for removal will have to be assessed via a rigorous process.

Termination of the William Street road reserve at a point just north of 15 William Street and hoarding erected, preparing for the later removal of the William Street bridge.

Demolition of the dwellings at 5 and 7 William Street.

Chambers Street

Page 89


Termination of the Chambers Street road reserve at the intersection of Bond Street and the erection of hoardings in this location. Maintain access for 2-4 Chambers Street and provide new access arrangement for 8 William Street properties from Chambers Street.

Removal of all parking along the eastern side of Chambers Street, between Toorak Road and the rail corridor.

Removal of parking on the western side of Chambers Street from a point to the immediate south of 13 Chambers Street to the rail corridor.

Removal of four (4) additional trees in Chambers Street.

Bond Street

Removal of all parking along Bond Street (on both sides).

Reconfiguration of traffic direction in Bond Street to make it two way at all times between Chambers Street and Chapel Street (where currently it is dedicated one way, west bound).

Chapel Street

Installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Chapel and Arthur Streets to facilitate truck turning movements.

Corresponding removal of parking spaces on the east side of Chapel Street in the vicinity of Arthur Street to facilitate truck turning movements.

Arthur Street

Removal of all parking on both sides of Arthur Street between Chapel Street and the intersection of William Street.

Erection of hoardings along the northern side of Arthur Street, between Chapel and the west side of 25 Arthur Street, extending over the footpath into the roadway on the northern side – removing access to the northern footpath entirely and reducing the road reserve area.

Removal of turning restrictions and kerb extensions/traffic island at the intersection of Arthur and William Streets to facilitate truck turning movements in this location.

Demolition of dwellings at 25 and 27 Arthur Street and removal/demolition of the Arthur Street car park.

Dwellings at 3-5 Chambers Street, 6 and 15 William Street have already been demolished.

Consultation

Page 90


The RIA Early Works plans have been released for public comment from Monday 23 July to Friday 10 August 2018.

Representatives from Rail Projects Victoria are door knocking and holding a number of information sessions for the community (residents and traders) during the next few weeks.

In light of the works now proposed, and the extent of proposed traffic and parking changes and tree loss, it is expected that strong resident and business interest will be generated.

Council Officers are preparing a written response to the early works plans and will submit this during the consultation phase.

ProcessCouncil has provided information to Rail Projects Victoria in relation to the various permissions that are required to enable these changes and works, and the processes and timelines that must be followed to achieve these. In light of the tight timelines that the Government and contractors appear to be working towards, it appears likely that the Government will opt to utilise the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act 2009 to facilitate these changes.

Under this Act, the State Government, or its appointed project authority, has powers to open, discontinue, construct, relocate or realign any road. It is simply required to advise the relevant coordinating road authority (Council) before exercising these powers.

Notwithstanding this likelihood, Council Officers are proceeding with preparation and lodgement of a co-ordinated submission in relation to the Rail Infrastructure Alliance Early Works Plan, highlighting various concerns with the extent of road closures, parking loss, tree removal, and the need for proper construction management plans and mitigation which acknowledges the imposition on residents and traders.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

No policy implications have been identified at this time. Officers will assess the plans in the context of Stonnington’s existing policies and strategies.


Council currently has an Officer dedicated to managing and advocating for Stonnington’s interests in regard to the Metro Tunnel Project. This Officer co-ordinates relevant and various expertise across Council (including planning, traffic, parking and transport, urban design, environmentally sustainable design, infrastructure and visual arts). Resources for this project stretch across the organisation to input to the planning and design phase of the project, and approvals for works.

The position is funded by Rail Projects Victoria. This funding arrangement is reviewed every six months, and is currently valid until the end of 2018. Additional funding from Rail Projects Victoria to assist Council in the management and mitigation of the effects of the Project on the municipality will be sought as necessary and appropriate.


Relevant legal advice or implications have not been identified at this stage, but may emerge in the future and advice will be sought as required.

CONCLUSION

Page 91


The Metro Tunnel Project is an important project for Melbourne which will have a noticeable impact on the Eastern Portal area within South Yarra for the foreseeable future. It is important that the City of Stonnington continues to advocate for the best possible outcomes for the community.

Council Officers are continuing to work with representatives from Rail Projects Victoria and the various contractors on these and other impacts on Stonnington, to achieve the best and most workable outcomes for our community in the context of this project of state significance.



Attachments

1. RIA Early Works Plans Excluded

2. Metro Tunnel Project - RIA & CYP land Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Notes the proposed Rail Infrastructure Alliance Early Works proposed program and schedule affecting the Eastern Portal area of South Yarra, east of the Sandringham Rail Corridor; and

2. Notes that Council Officers are preparing and lodging a coordinated submission in relation to the Rail Infrastructure Alliance Early Works Plan, highlighting various concerns with the extent of road closures, parking loss, tree removal, and the need for proper construction management plans and mitigation which acknowledges the imposition on residents and traders.

Page 92


8. ENDORSEMENT OF THE PRINCES GARDENS MASTERPLAN

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

PURPOSE

Following an extensive community consultation the purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the Princes Gardens Masterplan.

BACKGROUND

Princes Gardens is a 3.5 hectare site located between Malvern Road to the north, Essex Street to the east, Princes Close to the south and Little Chapel Street to the west. The park is used by the community for a variety of active and passive recreational activities, entertainment and arts and cultural events. The various Council owned and managed facilities facilitating these activities include:

Skate park, including half pipe Tennis courts Playground facilities Grassed open spaces and hard paved areas Chapel off Chapel events and gallery space The Prahran Aquatic Centre Stonnington Youth Services house Maternal Child health Princes Close Child Care centre

Princes Gardens is bordered on three sides by the Department of Human Services housing estates. Many residents within these estates rely on the gardens for passive and active recreation and general health and well-being. The greater demographic context surrounding Princes Gardens includes high density residential housing and commercial properties with a mix of lower socio-economic and affluent residents living within the local neighbourhood.

Previous stakeholder engagement processes, along with analysis of available local demographic statistics (using ProfileID databases) determined that almost half of the park users are between 26 and 45 and live in relatively close proximity to the gardens. High incidents of criminal activity, including drug taking and theft within the gardens are regularly registered by the local police. With the projected increase in local population over the coming decades, along with the gardens close proximity to government housing, the need for Princes Gardens to continue to provide high quality, accessible and safe facilities and amenities is essential in contributing to a healthy community.

Significant public realm improvements to Princes Gardens have been identified within the Chapel ReVision Neighbourhood Framework Plan, 2015 which suggests,

to ‘investigate opportunities to expand the park and provide more open space’ (Pg. 43)

‘improve the pedestrian links through the park’ (Pg. 44) and ‘undertake ongoing master planning for Princes Gardens’ (Pg. 44).

Page 93


In April 2016, Council officers undertook a stakeholder engagement process to gather base data and community sentiment for the facilities within Princes Gardens. As part of this process, the local community and various service authorities were asked a series of questions relating to current uses issues and opportunities for improvements within Princes Gardens. In summary, this process found that:

The most common used facilities within Princes Gardens were:

Open lawn areas and seating Prahran aquatic centre is highly used Basketball courts Skate park, (excluding the half pipe) Playground facilities Community facility buildings Existing path networks

The most commonly identified issues within Princes Gardens related to:

Security and perceived safety Poor lighting and passive surveillance Inappropriate use of public spaces, waste disposal.

The most common feedback on ‘future wants’ for Princes Gardens were:

Improved sightlines and connections through the park More usable open space and improved lighting More picnic/bbq facilities, Play elements for toddles, shaded seating areas Improved toilet facilities, Community events (music, farmers markets, art, multi-cultural food days) More car parking

A framework plan was developed based on this feedback and proposed a series of key objectives for Princes Gardens to continue to provide a range of community services. The framework plan provided a high level response to critical contextual relationships between buildings and open spaces and to improve highly valued facilities whilst proposing to improve access, safety and useability of the park. DISCUSSION

Following Council endorsement of the Princes Gardens Framework Plan, Council officers developed a draft masterplan which proposed specific design interventions to improve various open spaces, paths, facilities and buildings to ensure the gardens remain useable, safe and relevant for future decades. The draft Masterplan used the initiatives and recommendations within the framework plan to identify council owned buildings and various park amenities to be redeveloped, retained or relocated. The draft Masterplan identified seventeen individual objectives to be delivered within five stages of works. The most significant stage of the proposal was stage 1- Central Axis Path, which sought to address real and perceived safety concerns by ‘establishing a central pedestrian avenue as a key north-south axis, connecting Malvern Road in the north with Princes Close in the south…’ with ‘…feature paving, street and park furniture, lighting and wayfinding signage…’ (Draft masterplan objectives 1).

Page 94


The draft masterplan also proposed general materials and finishes of specific spaces to improve aesthetics and character and create a consistent landscape language throughout the park.

As an extension of the current masterplan initiatives, Council’s recent purchase of the property at 290 Malvern Road will provide further opportunities to increase open space and improve access from the north east corner of the site.

The master plan acknowledges the potential future redevelopment of the Prahran Aquatic Centre. Any future redevelopment of the Centre will be the subject of a separate and independent consultation process.

Draft Masterplan Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement on the draft Princes Gardens Masterplan was undertaken from the 12 to the 26 March, 2018 and sought feedback on each of the proposed design objectives. The local community were notified of the upcoming engagement program via social media, Council’s dedicated webpage and a postcard sent to 10,000 residents and businesses surrounding the park. The community were able to provide feedback on the draft Masterplan via:

An online survey Two drop-in consultation sessions held in Princes Gardens Social media channels

Internal council departments and service authority were also invited to provide feedback via a consultation session and park walk held during the stakeholder engagement program.

Council officers received strong uptake during the stakeholder engagement program with over 850 views of Council’s dedicated webpage, 60 individual responses to the online survey and over 100 comments on Facebook. There was also estimated 50 attendees over the two drop-in consultation sessions.

The draft Princes Gardens Masterplan was generally strongly supported by the local community. Below is a snapshot of the 60 survey responses to the survey (refer attachment 1- Princes Gardens Draft Masterplan Consultation Summary).

Page 95


As shown above, the objectives of the draft masterplan that the community were most supportive of were:

1. Upgrade of central pedestrian avenue including upgraded lighting (90% support)2. New east- west path from Lt. Chapel Street into the Gardens (90% support)3. New picnic and BBQ facilities and Improved access and entry points from Princes

Close (80% support)

While the removal of one of the three non-compliant tennis courts received some opposition (35% opposition) Council has a commitment on improving council’s facilities to be compliant and safe. 41% of respondents supported the proposed change with 24% providing a neutral response to the improvement. However when comparing feedback on this objective alone, it is relatively balanced against support for (41%) and neutral of (24%).

In their current alignment, the three existing tennis courts do not provide the required physical run off space for users and as such do not comply with the current Australian Design Standards. The removal of one tennis court and modification of the remaining two will allow for these standards to be achieved. Removing one tennis court also provides the opportunity to implement a multi-use court within the space which would increase the user group for these facilities.

Removing one of the three tennis courts also contributes to addressing the most significant issues within Princes Gardens; security, safety of users, drug taking and theft. Replacing the easternmost tennis Court and associated fencing with a well light grassed open space will allow for better sight lines within this area, increase levels of passive surveillance and will also allow for the ultimate alignment of the central pathway. Because of these reasons, the reconfiguration of the tennis courts remained a key objective within the final masterplan, discussed below.

Page 96


Final Princes Gardens Masterplan The final masterplan (refer attachment 2 - Final Princes Gardens Masterplan) incorporated feedback received during the stakeholder engagement program. As there was significant support for the draft masterplan, only minor changes were made to the final proposal. These included:

Providing more green open space and less paved areas at the frontage to Malvern Road

Relocating the two tennis courts further east to improve the frontage to Little Chapel Street

Upgrading the existing public toilet facilities and providing an additional facility at the Malvern Road frontage

Install flood lights managed on a timer system to balance night use with local residents and

Reducing the ‘grandeur’ of the Southern entrance to the park from Princes Close

State Government Community Safety GrantCouncil was successful in receiving a $250,000 grant from the state government for the master plan works which address and improve community safety within public spaces. This grant further supports the need to improve safety within the precinct and justifies the need for the masterplan to be implemented. Subject to Council endorsement of the masterplan, this grant will be allocated to stage 1- main access path of the delivery project within the 2018/19 financial year.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Princes Gardens Masterplan aligns with Council’s strategic direction identified in the following strategies

Council Plan, 2017-2021: ‘Strategically invest in open spaces, sporting fields and community facilities, and

optimise use according to community needs’ (Pg. 2) ‘Enhance the design outcomes of public spaces, places and buildings’ (Pg. 2) ‘Enhance biodiversity values throughout the City to protect and increase flora and

fauna’ (Pg. 2)

Chapel ReVision Neighbourhood Framework Plan, 2015: ‘Princes Gardens: Investigate opportunities to expand the park and create more open

space’ (Pg. 43) ‘Princes Gardens: Improve pedestrian links through the park’ (Pg.44) ‘Princes Gardens: Ongoing Master planning for the park’ (Pg. 44) ‘Princes Gardens: Opportunity to consolidate community facilities’ (Pg. 44) ‘Princes Gardens: Improve presence of this parkland’ (Pg. 44)

Page 97



Below is a cost estimates for design and construction of the five individual stages of the masterplan:

Stage Estimate Contingency Total estimateStage 1- Main axis path $ 915,000 $150,000 $1,065,000Stage 2- Chapel forecourt $ 570,000 $ 85,000 $ 655,000Stage 3- Tennis precinct $ 430,000 $ 70,000 $ 500,000Stage 4- Future aquatic centre area (excluding all building works)

$ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 175,000

Stage 5- Future skate park precinct & open space (excluding all building works)

$1,050,000 $157,500 $1,207,500

Total $1,052,065 $487,500 $3,602,500

As shown above the total estimate of costs for delivery of all stages of the masterplan, excluding any building demolition or redevelopment works is $3.6M. These high level costs are appropriate for the detail provided within the masterplan. More accurate cost plans will be developed as the level of detail and design progresses for each individual stage of works.

It is suggested that Council’s annual budget allocation for delivery of the Princes Gardens Masterplan reflect the staging plan to deliver one stage of works per financial year. In-line with the above cost estimates, Council have allocated funding of $845,000 towards design and construction of Stage 1- main axis path within the 2018/19 financial year. An additional $250,000 has also been granted from the state government as part of the Community Safety Infrastructure Grants Program, totalling an available budget of $950,000 towards design and construction of stage 1- Main Axis Path. Indicative values have been allocated within Council’s forward budget towards this project. Future stages will be reviewed and amended as part of Council’s future budget adoption processes as the project progresses.


There is no known legal advice or implications associated with the endorsement of the Princes Gardens Masterplan

CONCLUSION

The process for preparation and finalisation of the Princes Gardens masterplan has involved extensive stakeholder engagement, feedback from users of the park and incorporates advice provided from relevant professions and service providers.. The final Masterplan seeks to address issues relating to security and safety issues as the primary objective as well as creating better movement through and useability of facilities within the park. These design objectives align with Council’s long-term strategic direction for the precinct.

The total cost for design and construction of the five stages of delivery, excluding any associated building works is estimated to be $3.6M. Should Council choose to endorse the Princes Gardens Masterplan, Council officers will further develop designs for Princes Gardens, including a palette of materials and landscape treatments, lighting, furniture design and wayfinding and signage elements. Detailed designs will be developed in line with the staging plan, Council’s allocated budgets and indicative cost estimates.

Page 98


Funding of $845,000 for stage 1- Main Axis path has been allocated within Council’s 2018/19 financial year budget and an additional $250,000 has been granted from the state government’s Community Safety Infrastructure Grants program for the initial stage of works. At the masterplan level, initial design and construction costs for stage 1- Main axis path have been estimated at $1,065,000. This estimate aligns with Council’s budget allocation and will be refined as the level of detail for stage 1 progresses.


The development of the Princes Gardens Masterplan will seek to improve the safety, functionality and useability of the existing public spaces and buildings for the local community. These objectives align with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006; in particular:

Part 2, item 12 Freedom of movement, Part 2 item 16 peaceful assembly and freedom of association and Part 2, item 18 taking part in public life

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Princes Gardens Master Plan Summary Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Princes Gardens Final Masterplan Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Endorse the Princes Gardens Masterplan 2. Note A ‘CPTED’ (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) analysis will

be undertaken on each design stage3. Note the delivery of stage 1- Main Axis Path and lighting improvements within

the 2018/19 financial year. 4. Refer funding for implementation of the subsequent stages of the masterplan for

consideration as part of the preparation of future capital works budgets.

Page 99


9. VEHICLE CROSSING APPLICATION – 76 LANG STREET, SOUTH YARRA

Manager Building and Local Law Services: Madeleine Grove General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to determine a Vehicle Crossing Application for 76 Lang Street, South Yarra.

BACKGROUND

Vehicle Crossing Policy and Application

Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy was adopted by Council on 17 September 2007.

On 25 January 2018 a complaint was made to Council regarding an unauthorised crossing/ ramp treatment which had been applied to the road on the Powell Street frontage of 76 Lang Street, to achieve a vehicle crossing to an entrance. Following investigation of this matter the owner of the site was directed to remove the ramp treatment. This direction has been complied with.

The property builder has since applied for a permanent vehicle crossing on 2 May 2018.

The applicant proposes to construct a new vehicle crossing on the Powell Street frontage of the property. The proposal is for a 2.5m wide vehicle crossing.

Planning Permit

A planning permit application was lodged in 2012, for a two storey dwelling.

Permit 876/12 approved a new three bedroom dwelling and ‘reduction in car parking’ on a lot under 500 square metres and in a Special Building Overlay at 76 Lang Street. The application was assessed under the provisions of Clause 54 (Res Code).

The endorsed plans show a double storey dwelling with a small area of private open space in the front set back and a slightly larger area at the rear of the dwelling.

A car parking space and vehicle crossing are not shown on the endorsed plans. The applicant argued that it was not necessary to provide car parking on site as there was sufficient on street parking and public transport was in close proximity.

Council agreed to waive the car parking requirement and the planning permit for the new dwelling includes “reduction in car parking” in the preamble.

It should also be noted that the land at the rear of the dwelling (the land that would serve as a car parking space if a crossing was approved) was included in the private open space calculations submitted by the applicant. Should this crossover be supported an application to amend the Planning Permit would need to be submitted to Council to change the use of this space from private open space to car parking.

Page 101


Council’s Statutory Planning Department advise that the current approved plans identifies two areas of private open space and the change to provide a car parking space would mean that one area of private open space with northern orientation would be retained. The area to the north could be considered as the main area of secluded private open space as it faces north and is provided with a direct connection to the living area.

DISCUSSION

In considering this application under Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy, the following factors are relevant:

Transport and Parking Assessment

The Plans submitted to Statutory Planning show the area within the property, behind the roller door as private open space and at no point was the area assessed as a car parking space as part of the development proposal.

These omissions in the plans short circuited the required assessment process that would have, in this instance, identified insufficient space within the property to accommodate a single car garage or carport.

Infrastructure Assessment

Council’s Infrastructure Department does not support the applicant’s proposal based on Council’s standards that require a vehicle crossing width of 3m when the proposed width is 2.5m.

A number of pits would also require relocation and the applicant is responsible for seeking approval from the relevant Service Authorities to relocate these if this request was to be approved.

Removal of a Healthy Street Tree

The construction of the vehicle crossing to Council standards would by implication require the removal of a 30 year old Callery Pear tree from its present location in the footpath on the Powell Street frontage of the property (refer Attachment One).

Council’s Arborist is of the view that a successful relocation of such a substantial tree is not possible with existing equipment. As a consequence, the choice is either to retain a healthy street tree or to remove the tree to allow for the construction of the proposed vehicle crossing.

The tree is in good health with sound structural integrity and has a life expectancy of 20+ years. It is also worth noting that the tree contributes considerably to physical amenity of Powell Street as it is part of an avenue of established Callery Pear trees.

CONCLUSION

The Vehicle Crossing application for 76 Lang Street has been considered by Officers in consultation with relevant Council Departments.

Page 102


It is considered that the application fails to meet Council Vehicle Crossing Policy objectives, namely:

To enable appropriately situated and constructed vehicular access between the road pavement and private property;

To control the impact of crossings on utility infrastructure, street furniture and other assets;

To prevent inappropriate loss of significant street trees, vegetation and landscaping.

The outstanding factor of the space and the basis for the Officer’s refusal is the removal of the Callery Pear street tree. The vehicle crossing application is not supported as the crossing cannot be constructed on the Powell Street frontage of 76 Lang Street without the destruction of the street tree.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Vehicle Crossing Application - 76 Lang Street South Yarra - Attachment 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Refuse the Vehicle Crossing Application for 76 Lang Street, South Yarra on the

basis of non-compliance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy and the Urban Forest Strategy with the objective of preventing inappropriate loss of significant street trees, vegetation and landscaping

2. Advise the Applicant of Council’s decision.

Page 103


10. RECONCILIATION ACTION PLAN 2018-2020

Community Support Coordinator: Julie Fry General Manager Community & Culture: Cath Harrod

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to present the Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) 2018 – 2020, including the Statement of Commitment to Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples for endorsement by Council.

BACKGROUND

The Reconciliation Action Pan (RAP) 2018 – 2020 has been developed in consultation with the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and Traditional Owners. Consultation with internal stakeholders and the wider general community has also contributed to the development of the RAP.

Since the draft Plan was approved by Council in July 2017, Council officers have worked closely with Reconciliation Australia to achieve the final version.

The RAP 2018 – 2020 adheres to Reconciliation Australia’s core principles of respect, building relationships and developing opportunities. The Plan’s aim is to build on Council’s previous achievements and to further develop relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the wider Stonnington community.

The RAP 2018 – 2020 encompasses three key areas:

Relationships: The City of Stonnington recognises that reconciliation is achieved through strong and mutually respectful relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians.

Respect: The City of Stonnington acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first peoples of Australia.

Opportunities: The City of Stonnington respects the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to self-determination and the best possible outcomes for individual, family and community life.

Since 2001 a Statement of Commitment to Indigenous Australians has been published on Council’s website and includes a written acknowledgement of Aboriginal cultural heritage and traditional land ownership in official documents including the City of Stonnington’s Council Plan and Annual Report.

DISCUSSION

The draft Reconciliation Action Plan 2018-2020 has been made available for public consultation since 21 July 2017 by;

Circulating the draft Plan to all previous contributors and inviting them to provide their feedback in writing to Council,

Circulating the draft Plan to local organisations and local agencies,

Providing copies of the draft Plan for display in each of the libraries and customer service areas and inviting feedback, and

Making the draft Plan available on Council’s website and inviting feedback.

Page 105


Council officers met with each of the Traditional Owner groups relevant to the land where the City of Stonnington is located to seek their feedback and support. This included the;

Boon Wurrung Foundation,

Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural Heritage Council, and

Bunurong Land Council (Aboriginal Corporation).

The RAP 2018 – 2020 has gone through the extensive review process set out by the national endorsing body Reconciliation Australia. This process required a submission process of a number of iterations of the document before endorsement status was granted in July 2018.

Council received six responses to the request for feedback on the draft Plan (attachment 2). All of the responses were over all positive. Some responses provided detailed suggestions for Council’s consideration. Attachment 2 provides details of how these have been considered as part of the final document.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Reconciliation Action Plan 2018 – 2020 has been aligned with the Council Plan and, in particular, will assist Council to deliver the Council Plan objectives of Community and Liveability. The Plan provides clear focused actions that aim to improve the health and wellbeing outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our community.


The costs of implementation of the RAP 2018 – 2020 are included within Council’s Capital Works expenditure budget as part of the strategic resource plan.

CONCLUSION

The Reconciliation Action Plan 2018 – 2020 and its vision provide a clear platform for Council to work with and support our local Aboriginal and Torres Strait community. The Plan will provide increased dialogue with Traditional Owners and to provide ongoing education across our organisation and the community.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Reconciliation Action Plan 2018-2020 Excluded

2. Community Feedback Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council approves the Reconciliation Action Plan 2018 – 2020 and Statement of Commitment to Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Page 106


11. ELIZABETH STREET CAR PARK - MODIFY PARKING RATES

Student Engineer: Umesh Jegarajan Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To seek approval to abolish the early birds parking rate at the Elizabeth Street car park on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays.

BACKGROUND

The Elizabeth Street car park is a multi-deck car park with approximately 639 parking spaces (including 10 DDA compliant disabled parking spaces). While the car park is located adjacent to the Prahran Market, the car park supports the wider retail precinct, including the Market.

In the past, there have been requests from the Prahran Market to make changes to the car park. To briefly summarise, these include:

Cordoning off 108 parking spaces on the ground level of the car park between the hours of 11pm and 9am, in August 2014; and

Most recently, as a result of the Cato Square construction, modifying early bird parking rates to conclude at 9am daily, in March 2018.

Due to the sensitive nature of the issues, it was considered appropriate to report the matter to Council, and consider options moving forward to address the ongoing concerns.

DISCUSSION

Council’s car park consultant collated data for May 2018, which was not affected by public holidays. This was four months after the closure of Cato Street car park, and therefore may be able to capture any transference of parking to Elizabeth Street car park.

The below graph illustrates that on Market weekdays (green), the car park has nearly 600 parking spaces occupied, and is approaching capacity.

Page 107


Accepted practice is to generally consider a car park full is when the occupancy is over 90-95%. At this stage, circulating traffic would typically have difficulty locating conveniently available spaces and effectively believe the car park is full. In the Elizabeth Street car park, a 90% occupancy would mean that vacant parking spaces are generally available on the roof.

Council’s car park consultant advises the Elizabeth Street car park typically operates satisfactorily up to 95% occupancy due to the high turnover on market days with the number of vehicles entering being matched by significant concurrent exits. When the car park starts to get to 95% occupancy, car park attendants delay entries until sufficient exits have occurred to allow circulation for spaces. While this is not ideal this generally occurred rarely in the past but has been more frequent since Cato Square car park construction commenced.

In the chart above, the car park occupancy approximately exceeded 90% between the hours of 11am and 2pm on a Tuesday and Thursday. This meant that for an approximate 3 hour period, there were less than 64 parking spaces available. It should be noted that these days are Market days.

In build-up to Easter the occupancies increased further culminating in the car park exceeding 95% occupancy between 11am-2pm on the Tuesday, and between 10am-4pm on the Thursday prior to Good Friday. This obviously caused concerns to be expressed by Market Management, however Council’s car park consultant advises the Victoria Market experiences a similar trading pattern and car parks are not typically designed for such extreme trading peaks.

More recently, in the last 4 weeks from mid-June to mid-July 90% occupancy has only been approach on 5 days. On 4 of those days the occupancy peaked for 1 hour only and on the other day for 2 hours.

The data from earlier this year in the summer/autumn was higher and the occupancy rates decrease in the winter lull period. Council’s car park consultant advises that although the problem has reduced at present, based on other commercial car park experience, parking demands will ramp up in the warmer months from around October through to Christmas trading and beyond.

Given this scenario, Council needs to be prepared to make adjustments to the operation to ensure maximum spaces are available for customer parking during the Cato Square car park construction through to April 2019. Whilst it is expected there will be full occupancies during the extreme shopping peaks – prior to Cup Day, prior to Christmas, possibly Boxing Day etc. – at other times measures to prioritise customer parking would assist the day-to-day operation of the car park.

Parking Types in Elizabeth Street Car Park

There are essentially 3 types of parking occurring in the Elizabeth Street Car Park and these are discussed below.

1. Permanent Parkers – these are motorists who pay a monthly fee to park 24/7 in the car park in unallocated spaces. They are typically market traders and local employees of the Chapel Street centre. There has been some transfer of this type of parking from the King Street car park, when fees were adjusted there to free up more casual parking for the Chapel Street area south of Malvern Road, affected by the Cato Square construction. Whilst there was an initial increase in this type of parking at Elizabeth Street, a limit was set and no new permanent parking spaces are being offered when a motorist ceases the arrangement. This will reduce this type of parking incrementally during the Cato Square construction.

Page 108


2. Casual Parkers – these are motorists who pay the hourly rate applicable for their duration of stay on daily basis. They are typically customers or visitors to the centre. They are the parkers most affected and denied access when occupancies get excessive.

3. Early-Birds – these are motorists who pay a casual parking rate, but at a reduced fee because they arrive prior to 9am on a week-day and stay all day. The volume of Early-Birds has remained relatively constant over the previous 12 months and currently constitutes about 37% of the total daily weekday volumes. Typically this parking conflicts with the casual parking on weekday market days (Tuesday, Thursday and Friday).

Options for Council

Option 1: Abolish early bird parking rates on Market weekdaysOption 1 involves the abolishment of early bird parking rates on Market weekdays (Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays). Currently, early birds are able to enter the car park prior to 9am and pay a flat rate of $10.50 on Market days (all days except Mondays and Wednesdays). There are approximately 253 early birds per day using the Elizabeth Street car park. If the removal of the early bird rate resulted in only a 20% reduction of these, this would potentially free up an additional 50 spaces on market days, which would address a significant proportion of the problems recently experienced

If the early bird parking rate is abolished on Market weekdays (Tuesday, Thursdays, and Fridays), motorists could pay up to $17.30 per day. Please note, the figures are current until 31 July 2018. From 1 August 2018, new fees will be in place in accordance with Council’s 2018/19 Budget.

From the outset, it should be noted that this is not an exercise to raise revenue, but rather to discourage some longer stay vehicles from using the car park, to free up spaces for casual parkers (customers). As previously mentioned, the problem times during Market weekdays are between 11am and 2pm. The preferred way to ensure parking availability is to have fewer longer stay motorists using the car park. As this is not a revenue-raising exercise, the abolishment of early bird parking rates are only proposed for Market weekdays. Mondays, Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays are not proposed to be altered, as the parking occupancies are not generally an issue on those days.

The uptake of early bird parkers is generally by staff in the area. Staff parking is generally the type of parking that could be transferred to sustainable transport modes, including cycling and public transport. By altering early bird parking, it is only anticipated to improve customer parking, as most customers would enter the car park after 9am, and generally stay for a maximum of 2 hours.

In considering the above, it must be acknowledged that a number of early bird parkers comprise staff from Prahran Market. There is no way to detail the exact number of early bird parkers who are staff, as this knowledge is generally speculative from the car park staff on-site. However, as the Prahran Market has requested changes to improve parking for its customers, it is reasonable to expect the market traders and their staff to help contribute to the solution. By proceeding with this option, it may cause complaints by the Market staff, but both demands can’t be fully satisfied with a fixed parking supply.

Option 1 will still provide opportunities for staff to park, they just have to pay a greater fee per day than currently. Council’s car parks, including Elizabeth Street, are generally cheaper than the commercial car parks within the area.

In terms of implementation, the programming and changes to the signage board could occur within 2 weeks of a decision being made. Notification signage would be installed within the car park 2 weeks prior to any fee changes.

Page 109


This could either be a legacy change, in that it would be retained in future or installed as a temporary change that would be removed upon completion of the Cato Square project.

Option 2: Introduce a “nested” parking area to push all early bird parkers to the roof of the car park.

Option 2 involves the installation of a second entry/exit gate on the ramp up to the roof of the car park (Level 2), so all early bird parkers need to park on the roof to quality for the early bird parking rate.

This method is primarily used in commercial car parks within the CBD, however is reliant on additional infrastructure.

The current system is not set up for this method, and therefore involves major capital expenditure to be operational (potentially in excess of $200,000). Further, since the car park has not been designed to operate this way, there would be a large number of parking spaces permanently removed (in the order of 15-20 spaces) to accommodate the infrastructure. The procurement of infrastructure will also take a minimum of 12 weeks to order, plus time for installation.

While this may have the advantage of providing lower level parking for short stay customer parking, it will not likely significantly decrease the current occupancies of the car park unless some fee increases were applied as well; in fact, it would increase the occupancies, because the net number of spaces would reduce due to removal of spaces.

Option 3: Cordon off a further 61 parking spaces across the ground level and level 1.

Option 3 involves proceeding to cordon off a further 20 parking spaces on the ground level, and 41 parking spaces on Level 1, which has been delegated to Manager Transport and Parking previously.

This method involves minor capital expenditure ($1,000) to install rope barriers to prevent early bird parkers utilising the parking spaces on the south side of the car park, which the Market refer to as “premium” parking spaces. The spaces would be opened up after 9am, similar to the other cordoned off parking spaces.

The aim of this method is to free up lower level spaces for the short stay customer parking, however as there is minimum disincentive for long stay parking (other than park on the higher levels in the car park), it would unlikely address the current occupancy issues in the car park.

It does however, have the advantage over option2 of being less cost and parking spaces are not required to be removed to accommodate additional equipment.

Officer Assessment

It is recommended to proceed with Option 1, as this option potentially can provide more parking opportunities within the car park, which is the intention of the Market. This Option could also be implemented quickly (within 3 to 4 weeks). Whilst this may be considered temporary, as a result of the Cato Square car park closure, it is recommended Option 1 remain in place until Council determines otherwise and a further report be considered on any adjustments to the Elizabeth Street Car Park operation after the Cato Square Car Park comes on-stream and the changes to parking patterns in the area can be determined.

Page 110


Options 2 and 3 look to segregate or transfer early bird parkers, however do little to decrease the current occupancies. Option 2 requires a minimum of 12 weeks to procure, and a further 2-3 weeks for installation. Given the time constraints currently being experienced, this would not be a viable option.

Option 3 requires a similar timeframe to Option 1 to implement. Notification signage would be installed 2 weeks prior to any programming and sign changes, to advise motorists to the upcoming change.


For Option 1, the programming and sign changes would be in the order of around $600 ex GST, and can be covered in the existing operating budget.

CONCLUSION

In an attempt to address the ongoing concerns of the Prahran Market, it is recommended that the early bird parking rates on Market weekdays (Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays) be abolished. It is anticipated that this would decrease the occupancy in the car park, and assist the concerns raised by the Market.

This change in operation should be implemented in October, 2018 or earlier if parking occupancies indicate short stay parkers are regularly having difficulty obtaining spaces in the car park.

The decision on whether the early-bird fees on Market weekdays can be re-introduced after Cato Square is open can be made when the parking patterns are known with Cato Square operating.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Approve the removal of early bird parking rates on Market weekdays (Tuesdays,

Thursdays, and Fridays) commencing October 2018, or earlier if parking occupancy levels increase to a level in which short stay parkers are regularly being denied parking at peak times.

2. Authorise officers to determine the timing of any implementation prior to October, 2018

3. Notification signage be installed in the car park 2 weeks prior to any fee or sign changes.

4. Review whether early bird parking fees be reintroduced on Market weekdays when the Cato Square project is operating and parking patterns are known.

5. The Prahran Market be notified of the decision.

12. VICTORIA TERRACE, SOUTH YARRA - SECTION 223 ADVERTISEMENT OF PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE TRIAL

Page 111


Senior Transport Engineer: Jordan Allan Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To advise Council of the responses from the community received as part of the consultation process conducted under Section 223 of the Local Government Act.

To seek approval to proceed with the proposal for the full closure of Victoria Terrace, South Yarra, for a trial period of nine months.

BACKGROUND

Victoria Terrace was subject to a proposal to trial a one-way flow arrangement in 2017, which was exhibited under the provisions of Section 223 of the Local Government Act. At the Council meeting of 5 February 2018, a report was considered and the following was resolved:

1. Note the responses received as part of the Section 223 advertisement process;2. Abandon the proposal for the one-way flow option (westbound) concept for treatment

of Victoria Terrace, South Yarra, for a trial period of nine months;3. The full closure option be exhibited under the Section 223 process of the Local

Government Act;4. The area bounded by Chapel Street, Alexandra Avenue, Toorak Road, and

properties fronting Tivoli Road and Copelen Street be notified of the proposal and the Section 223 process;

5. A further report be presented to Council at the conclusion of the Section 223 consultation process in point 3;

6. Those who submitted responses as part of the current Section 223 advertisement process be notified of the decision.

This report seeks to address point 5 above.

The full closure option was exhibited under the Section 223 process.

Letters were delivered to all properties in the area bounded by Chapel Street, Alexandra Avenue, Toorak Road, and properties fronting Tivoli Road and Copelen Street (some 1835 properties) advising of the proposal, and the particulars of the process. The letter sent to residents is included as Attachment 1.

An advertisement was published in “The Age” newspaper on Saturday 17 March 2018.

DISCUSSION

A total of 29 submissions were received in response to the Section 223 advertisement. These were categorised as either generally in favour of the proposed trial, or generally opposed to the proposed trial. The breakdown is outlined in the table below.

Page 112


In Favour Opposed

21(72%)

8(28%)

A response opposed to the proposal was provided from the body corporate of a large development, which includes 77 dwellings. However, it is noted that some residents of the development responded individually, and not all responses were aligned with the body corporate. This has been included as a single response.

A copy of the submissions (with identifying details redacted) is included as Attachment 2.

The tables below shows a summary of the comments provided and issues raised, the number of responses that raised the issue, and an officer’s response. The issues are listed in order of frequency raised.

The following table is those comments from respondents in support of the proposed trial.

Comment # Officer’s ResponseTraffic has become unacceptable in Victoria Terrace, including speed, rat-run traffic, congestion, conflicts between vehicles travelling opposite directions

19 The proposed closure would reduce traffic in Victoria Terrace, as it could no longer be used as a rat-run. The traffic related issues such as speed, conflict management, congestion etc would be addressed by the trial proceeding.

Proposed closure supports overarching guidelines to direct traffic away from local streets and into arterial roads

12 The proposed trial would remove the ability to use Victoria Terrace as a rat-run, and may discourage some traffic from cutting through the local road network.

The closure allows opportunity for a pocket park and increases residential amenity

12 The possibility of a pocket park was a key comment from respondents. This would not be part of the trial, but could be considered should the trial proceed, and be successful.

The closure would provide a barrier between high-development areas and heritage/low-density areas

9 This was also an issue for residents. While not a main reason for the trial, this demarcation may be created if the trial were to proceed.

This will improve safety of property including parked cars, walls, fences, and garage doors

8 This is not a primary reason for the trial, but a reduction in traffic may assist. However, it should be noted that 3-point turns are common in dead end streets, and anecdotally the complaints of property damage are more common as a result of 3-point turns.

Current conditions are a safety issue for pedestrians

4 The reduction in through traffic on Victoria Terrace if the trial were to proceed would improve pedestrian amenity.

There is precedent for closures demonstrated in nearby Cunningham Street and Palermo Street

3 There are closures at Cunningham Street and Palermo Street which were implemented during the 1980s. The submissions indicated that this is a precedent, however the matter before Council is not whether it is possible to close Victoria Terrace, but rather whether it has support from the community. The closures of Cunningham Street and Palermo Street have no bearing on this.

Page 113


Parking is made worse by vehicles circulating looking for spaces

2 The proposal is not designed to alter parking behaviour. Parking restriction changes are not part of the proposal.

The majority of responses cited the existing traffic as a key concern, and were supportive of the trail to address this. The respondents felt that the closure was supported by overarching guidelines for traffic management, and were interested in the benefits to residential amenity and the possible creation of a pocket park.

Those opposed to the proposed trial also provided comments in their feedback. These are summarised in the table below.

Issue Raised # Officer’s ResponseThe proposal does not indicate what the impact will be on River Street and Malcolm Street. Traffic will get worse.

4 An investigation undertaken by an independent expert as part of the previous one-way proposal considered the options available and did not conclude that any option would create an unacceptable traffic condition

This will impact emergency vehicles and garbage trucks

3 Closures in local streets are common, and can be communicated to emergency services to ensure they are aware of changed conditions. The design of the trial treatment would consider the needs of garbage collection.

Too many streets in the area are down to a single lane with parking on both sides. This causes congestion

2 The strong preference from residents has always been to maintain as much parking as possible on-street. Removing parking to assist through traffic on a local street is not in keeping with the design to limit through traffic.

More traffic will have to use the intersection of Malcolm Street and River Street, which is poorly designed

2 The intersection of Malcolm Street and River Street is designed to encourage traffic to use the south part of River Street and the west part of Malcolm Street (the more commercial parts), and not to enter the residential sections of the street. This is achieved by making the movements in the residential streets more difficult, and by lowering the priority.

The proposal will make it harder to park

2 This proposal is not designed to impact on-street parking, either by making it easier or harder to park.

I will have to go around the block to access my property

2 This is a known downside to the proposal. It is noted that the detour is approximately 350m, and requires only left turns.

Criteria for determining the success of the trial has not been outlined

1 It is anticipated that a post-trial assessment would include a further independent expert assessment of the traffic conditions, and a survey of directly affected residents.

Have there been serious accidents to warrant making changes?

1 This proposal has been driven by community desire for change, not as a result of specific incidents.

There will be more u-turns at the north end of Tivoli Road

1 This may be the case, at least initially, but it is unclear why this is a specific concern. The level of traffic in the street overall would be expected to reduce significantly.

There will be safety risks for pedestrians

1 It is unclear how reducing traffic in Tivoli Road and Victoria Terrace would be a safety concern for pedestrians.

Victoria Terrace is needed for access between Alexandra Avenue and Toorak Road

1 This type of rat-run movement is not desirable, and the reduction in this traffic is a goal of the proposal.

Under Section 223 Clause (1) (iv) of the Local Government Act, responders are given the opportunity to be heard in support of their submissions. In this instance, 6 submitters made presentations to the Council. The hearing occurred on 12 June 2018 at 6:45pm.

Page 114


The first 4 presenters were in favour of the trial full closure of Victoria Terrace.

Presenter 1 comments are summarised below:

There is traffic chaos at the bend of Tivoli Road into Victoria Terrace; I am strongly in favour of the trial, and represent multiple occupiers in my building; There is gridlock occurring in Victoria Terrace at present; There is a desire from residents for a peaceful residential enclave.


I live close to the Victoria Terrace intersection with River Street, where congestion is worst;

Over the 10 years I have lived here conditions have worsened, and the last 2 years it has been hard to get in and out of my property;

Conditions will only get worse; There is a community benefit to undertaking the trial; Similar treatments have been used in Cunningham Street; My neighbours are in agreement with me on this matter.


There are precedents for closing streets, such as Cunningham Street and Oxford Street;

There is an opportunity to add green space, not much but it is significant; The trial would create a hard line between the Chapel Street commercial area, and

the residential area to the east; There are u-turns occurring at the bend at present; Satellite navigation may be directing vehicles to use Victoria Terrace, and this will

need to be updated if the road is closed.


Over the course of the 18 month process, we have formed a cohesive community group in support of the closure;

There are 23 active households and over 60 people in the group; Our aim is for safer streets; We didn’t support the one-way trial, but we do support the closure trial; Some ideas for pocket parks have come through the process; The proposal would provide some heritage protection, and reduce encroachment

from Forest Hill; It would be a wholesome outcome, keeping residential streets for residents; It would encourage more traffic to use the arterial roads; We look forward to the trial, and a good management outcome.

The remaining 2 presenters were not in favour of the proposal, and attended to raise their objections. These were for different reasons.


I am a River Street resident, and I object to the proposal; I overlook the intersection of River Street and Victoria Terrace; There would be more traffic in River Street as a result of the closure; The closure would be worse for my family, including young people and the elderly; There are emergency access concerns; When there are works occurring on River Street, access is even more affected.


Page 115


I am in favour of the previous one-way trial; I have lived in the area for 21 years. The people in my building prefer the one-way trial, and there are a lot of residents; Closure of Victoria Terrace would make congestion worse; I don’t believe the closure will fix anything; The whole area should be looked at to remedy rat-run traffic.

The breakdown of presenters are their opinion of the proposal (67% in favour, 33% opposed) reflected the written submissions received (72% in favour, 28% opposed).

A consultant’s report was submitted as part of the previous report submitted to the Council meeting on 5 February 2018. The report did not suggest that any of the options investigated (one-way flow, full closure, or do-nothing) would create an unreasonable impact on surrounding intersections or streets. Each of the options investigated had advantages and disadvantages, but based on the assessment provided each was considered a viable option.

Based on the consultant’s report, there was no strong case to be made on purely engineering grounds for any course of action.

As such, it is recommended that the option which has the most support be adopted. This is the proposed full closure trial, which was supported by 72% of written submitters to the S223 process, and opposed by 28% of written submitters.


The proposed full closure trial could be implemented using signage and spiked down kerbs. This would be appropriate for a temporary treatment. An example of a similar treatment was recently implemented by the Cross-Yarra Partnership on Osborne Street, South Yarra for a temporary one-way arrangement, and this is shown in the image below.

Page 116


A similar treatment could be implemented on Victoria Terrace. It is anticipated that the signage, kerbing, and linemarking would cost in the order of $10,000, and the cost of current “before” and “after” traffic surveys with independent external review is likely to be around $25-$30,000, but may vary depending on surveys required. These costs would be accommodated in the 2018/19 Capital Budget.

CONCLUSION

The responses from the community received as part of the Section 223 process are noted. A total of 29 responses were received with 72% of written responses in favour of the full closure trial, and 28% opposed.

The traffic analysis and modelling undertaken by Traffic Engineers Cardno as part of the preparation of an earlier Council report did not identify any one of the possible treatments as being compelling from a traffic management perspective.

As such, it is recommended that the preferred option for the community be adopted, being the full closure of Victoria Terrace, South Yarra, for a trial period of nine months.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Letter to Residents Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Responses to S223 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Trial a full closure of Victoria Terrace, South Yarra for a period of 9 months;2. Undertake an independent evaluation of the traffic impact during the trial period;3. After the 9 month trial, consult with the affected community directly abutting

Victoria Terrace and the section of Tivoli Road north of Malcolm Street seeking their feedback on the trial, and their preference for either permanently closing Victoria Terrace or reopening the street;

4. Consider a further report to Council following the trial, including the result of the consultation to seek a decision regarding the future of Victoria Terrace;

5. Notify all property occupiers previously consulted, and those who submitted a written response to the S223 consultation, of this decision.

Page 117


13. MILLEWA AVENUE, MALVERN EAST - PROPOSAL TO INSTALL NO STOPPING RESTRICTION

Senior Transport Engineer: Jordan Allan Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To report to Council the results of the consultation with residents abutting Millewa Avenue, Malvern East regarding a NO STOPPING restriction, and to seek approval to install a NO STOPPING restriction on the west side of the street, as soon as practical.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting of 23 April 2018, a report was considered which outlined the history of resident concerns and actions taken by Council in Millewa Avenue, Malvern East, including the results of the most recent consultation with residents regarding their support for the installation of NO STOPPING restrictions as a first step in the suite of improvements for the street. The following was resolved at the meeting:

1. Council note the level of support from the residents of Millewa Avenue for the proposed improvement works, including the implementation of NO STOPPING restrictions.

2. Residents be advised of the outcome of the consultation, and that further consultation be undertaken on options for installation of the NO STOPPING restrictions.

3. A report be prepared for Council consideration following the further community consultation process outlining the proposed configuration for the NO STOPPING restrictions, and outlining the scope and implementation program for the project.

In accordance with the resolution, 2 concept options were developed for the implementation of NO STOPPING restrictions on Millewa Avenue, being as follows:

Option 1 - NO STOPPING restrictions along the west side (The west side has been selected to as it results in more parking spaces than selecting the east side – approximately 69 spaces); or

Option 2 - Staggered parking along the street so as to maximise parking – approximately 71 spaces.

These concept options are presented as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

A consultation circular letter was prepared which outlined the scope of works, a rough program of implementation for the Millewa Avenue improvements, and sought specific comment regarding a preference for Option 1 or Option 2 above.

Residents were also asked if they would prefer to have the restrictions implemented immediately, or in conjunction with the improvement works.

The letter noted that surveys undertaken previously indicated that there are sufficient parking opportunities available for residents to park near their properties (with the surveys showing a maximum occupancy rate of 32% and the average occupancy rate of approximately 27%).

It further noted that under the current arrangements, residents are required to alternate parking so as to ensure access along the street.

Page 119


It was therefore not anticipated that the options for introduction of NO STOPPING restrictions would reduce the overall parking capacity of the street.

A copy of the consultation letter is included as Attachment 3.

DISCUSSION

Parking Proposal

Letters were delivered by hand to 94 properties abutting Millewa Avenue. A total of 47 responses were received, which represents a 52% response rate.

NO STOPPING Restriction

Residents were asked to select either Option 1 or Option 2 for the installation of NO STOPPING restrictions on Millewa Avenue.

A summary of the responses received is shown in the below table.

Proposal Option 1 Option 2 Not Stated Total

Install NO STOPPING Restrictions

22

(47%)

18

(38%)

7

(15%)

47 of 94

(52%)

There were 7 responses which have been counted as “not stated”. These responses were deemed to be non-compliant. In each of these 7 responses, the submitter had filled out the form as though in support of Option 1 (the NO STOPPING restriction operating on the west side of the street, with parking on the other side), but had crossed out the word “west”, and replaced it with “east”. Up to 4 of these responses appear to have been completed by the same individual, however they were discounted as the response was non-compliant.

As outlined previously, the NO STOPPING on one side was proposed on the west side, with parking on the east side, as it maximised the provision of parking. Residents were given a choice between either this option, or an option to stagger the parking along the length. As with any parking proposal there are many possible combinations of restrictions, but it is necessary to limit the choice to ensure meaningful results can be drawn from consultation (and to avoid overly confusing consultation).

Further, some of these non-compliant responses did not include the names of respondents or signatures, just the address.

As such, while these responses could be seen to be supportive of parking occurring only on one side of the street (and thus, Option 1), they were instead considered to be non-compliant.

The remaining respondents selected either Option 1 or Option 2, with a slight preference (22 to 18) for Option 1. In this instance the “do nothing” option, which is normally taken as the default position, is not available. There is a commitment through the earlier consultation to adopt either Option 1 or Option 2.

As such, based on the slight preference for Option 1, it is recommended that this be implemented.

Page 120


Timing of Implementation

Residents were also asked to indicate if they would prefer the restrictions being installed immediately, or in conjunction with improvement works. A summary of the responses received is shown in the below table.

Proposal ImmediatelyWith

Improvement Works

Not Stated Total

Preferred Time for Installation of Restrictions

38

(81%)

2

(4%)

7

(15%)

47 of 94

(52%)

In this case there is a strong preference for the restrictions to be installed immediately.

Summary

Based on the response from residents, there is a slight preference for Option 1 (the installation of NO STOPPING restrictions on the west side of the street), and a strong preference for the restrictions to be installed immediately. As the “do nothing” option is not available, it is recommended that Option 1 be implemented, as soon as practical.

Scope and Implementation Program for the Project

The resolution from the Council meeting of 23 April 2018 included a requirement to outline the scope and implementation program for the project.

The proposed improvement works include;

Construction of a new drain along Millewa Avenue, underneath new kerbing; Reinstatement kerbing for the entire length of Millewa Avenue, with reconstruction of

driveway access where required; and Resurfacing of the existing concrete road with asphalt.

Funding has been allocated in future budgets for these works; approximately $554,000 in 2018-19, and $700,000 in 2019-20. The project will be constructed in two (2) stages over the next two (2) financial years, and will begin in March 2019.

Stage 1 – Waverley Road to Alvie Street – March to June 2019; and Stage 2 – Alvie Street to Dandenong Road – July to October 2019.

CONCLUSION

Residents of properties abutting Millewa Avenue were distributed a circular seeking their feedback on options to install NO STOPPING restrictions on Millewa Avenue, Malvern East. The options provided were to either install restrictions on one side of the street for the full length, or to stagger parking along the street. Respondents supported the option for one side of the street in a 22 to 18 vote. There were 7 responses received which did not support either option. Respondents voted strongly in favour of implementing the changes immediately.

It is therefore recommended that the option for the NO STOPPING restriction to be implemented on the west side of the street for the full length to be implemented, as soon as practical.

Page 121




ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Option 1 - Parking on One Side Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Option 2 - Staggered Parking Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - Consultation Letter Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Install NO STOPPING restrictions on the west side of Millewa Avenue, Malvern

East for the full length of the street;2. Install permissive parking signage on the east side of Millewa Avenue, Malvern

East from a location approximately 10m south of Waverley Road to a location approximately 10m north of Dandenong Road to highlight that this side of the street is available for parking;

3. Those previously consulted be notified of the decision and the program of future works for Millewa Avenue as outlined in the report.

Page 122


14. COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019: TRY SOUTH YARRA PRE SCHOOL

Civic Support Officer: Judy Hogan Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne ThewlisGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider an application for cash funding from TRY Australia Children’s Services for the TRY South Yarra pre-school program based at the Horace Petty Estate, South Yarra. The group submitted a community grant application for the 2018/2019 financial year by the due date however it did not appear on the schedule that was considered by Council on 9July, 2018.

BACKGROUND

Try Australia Children’s Services submitted an application for funding for the TRY South Yarra pre-school based at the Horace Petty Estate, South Yarra. The application was submitted in a timely manner and reviewed and assessed by Council Officers, the Community Grants Working Group and presented to Councillor Briefing Session for consideration for the amount of $15,000 and a partnership agreement for three years of funding. Due to an administrative error the recommended funding amount did not carry over to the Council agenda Community Grant Attachment 1 together with the other Community Grants applications considered by Council on 9 July 2018.

DISCUSSION

As mentioned above Council Officers recommended support for the program as did the Community Grants Working Group and no issues were raised at the Councillor Briefing.

In support of their application it is noted ‘TRY South Yarra offers a funded kindergarten program under the funding guidelines of the Department of Education and Training (DET) as well as a three year old program of five hours over two sessions. TRY South Yarra has a strong history of supporting families and working together with families to ensure that each child reaches their full potential. It aims to provide a learning program based on the children’s individual developmental needs, interests and abilities and to work in partnership with families to provide an early childhood program which engages children in quality learning experiences.

This project aims to provide opportunities for vulnerable children to have access to a high quality early childhood program. To provide educational experiences for children who would not otherwise have the opportunity to utilise different materials or mediums. Our program offers experiences based on children's interests, offering challenges and opportunity for children to explore and express using equipment which may not be available outside of an educational program.

The Educators plan and implement experiences following the interests of individual children within the kindergarten program. The Educators are guided by the requirements of the National Quality Standards. Materials required will be individualised to each experience and may vary from art and craft materials to natural materials utilised in both the indoor and outdoor environments.

Page 123


The Early Years Framework supports Educators to challenge all children. Educators explore the individual interests of the children through observations and daily interactions. They then plan and implement a play based program based on the observations taken. The grant would assist the service to purchase much required educational resources.

The children and families of the Horace Petty Estate will be provided will an opportunity to express their creativity whilst connecting with their local community.’

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The grant application period is in March to April each year with grants then processed and submitted for consideration in July for the financial year. This application was received within this period and assessed by Officers, the Working Group and went to Briefing all within the grant process period.


The cash budget for community grants for 2018-2019 has not been fully expended and has a current balance of $46,079.

CONCLUSION

This application has been brought to Council due to an administrative error that omitted the application from the Council papers for consideration on 9 July 2018 and it is therefore not considered to be outside the community grants period and, as such, Council Officers recommend approval.


These documents have been assessed for compliance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and it is considered that they meet the requirements of the Charter.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council approve a cash grant for the TRY South Yarra Pre School Program of $15,000 (GST exclusive) through the Community Grants 2018/2019 Program and for a Partnership Agreement of a three year term.

Page 124


15. COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019: INCLUSION MELBOURNE


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider an application for in-kind funding from Inclusion Melbourne. The group submitted a community grant application for the 2018/2019 financial year by the due date however it did not appear on the schedule that was considered by Council on 9 July, 2018.

BACKGROUND

Inclusion Melbourne had submitted an application for funding for in-kind use of the Phoenix Park Community Centre for training services for people with an intellectual disability. This is a service which has been run from this site for a number of years and is fully supported by Community and Culture.

The application was submitted in a timely manner and reviewed and assessed by Council Officers, the Community Grants Working Group and presented to Councillor Briefing Session for consideration for the amount of $14,400 for in-kind funding. Due to an administrative error the recommended funding amount did not carry over to the Council agenda Community Grant Attachment 1 together with the other Community Grants applications considered by Council on 9 July 2018.

DISCUSSION


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The grant application period is in March to April each year with grants then processed and submitted for consideration in July for the financial year. This application was received within this period and assessed by Council Officers, the Community Grants Working Group and went to Councillor Briefing all within the grant process period.


The in-kind budget for community grants for 2018-2019 has not been fully expended and has a current balance of $54,481.

CONCLUSION


Page 125




RECOMMENDATIONThat Council approve an in-kind grant for Inclusion Melbourne of $14,400 (GST exclusive) for use of the Phoenix Park Community Centre through the Community Grant 2018/2019 Program.

Page 126


16. COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019: MELBOURNE RAINBOW BAND


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider an application for in-kind funding from Melbourne Rainbow Band. The group submitted a community grant application for the 2018/2019 financial year by the due date however it did not appear on the schedule that was considered by Council on 9 July, 2018.

BACKGROUND

The Melbourne Rainbow Band had submitted an application for funding for in-kind use of the Council buses on the Labour Day weekend in 2019 which will allow members to travel to a regional event in Daylesford.

The band notes in support of their application ‘In the coming 12 months we will venture to regional Victoria to entertain the communities in Daylesford in March 2019. Our rehearsals are significant evenings of musical refinement, communication and interaction. During coffee break, members have a chance to socialise, support each other and develop interpersonal care and interaction. Often the Band is described as a second family and for some this is a group of people that understands and cares for them more than their biological family. Our Open Rehearsal evening is an advertised rehearsal where musicians from in and around Stonnington are invited to "try out" the band as part of the band's continual recruitment drive. It provides a chance for us to welcome interested persons from recent festival events like Midsumma Carnival Day, who have signed up to try out the band, to bring their instruments and play in the ensemble. Mentioned earlier was a planned outing to country Victoria, this is where we aim to utilise the Council Buses to provide affordable and efficient transport to members. The Victorian AIDS Council continues to ensure our regional Victorians have access to the similar health care systems available to LGBTI people in urban areas. The Melbourne Rainbow Band and VAC has a visible presence for the LGBTI community in these areas. The Melbourne Rainbow Band wants to support this event which focuses on creating a safe and fun environment for LGBTI regional youth & others who don't often have the space to be themselves. We will be a part of the 2019 Labour Day long weekend festivities at Daylesford during the Sunday Street March and Carnival Day, this is Australia's largest regional LGBTI festival and attracts participants from all over Australia, as well as raising much needed funds for local emergency services and local area facilities.’

The application was submitted in a timely manner and reviewed and assessed by Council Officers, the Community Grants Working Group and presented to Councillor Briefing Session for consideration for the amount of $248 in-kind funding for use of the Council buses. Due to an administrative error the recommended funding amount did not carry over to the Council agenda Community Grant Attachment 1 together with the other Community Grants applications considered by Council on 9 July 2018, only the application which Council did approve for an in-kind grant for the use of the Prahran RSL Memorial Hall for rehearsals.

Page 127


DISCUSSION


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The grant application period is in March to April each year with grants then processed and submitted for consideration in July for the financial year. This application was received within this period and assessed by Council Officers, the Community Grants Working Group and went to Councillor Briefing all within the grant process period.


The in-kind budget for community grants for 2018-2019 has not been fully expended and has a current balance of $54,481.

CONCLUSION




RECOMMENDATIONThat Council approve an in-kind grant for the Melbourne Rainbow Band of $248 (GST exclusive) for use of Council Buses through the Community Grant 2018/2019 Program.

Page 128


o) Confidential

1. PRAHRAN MARKET PTY LTD VARIATION OF PURPOSE OF $1.0M LOAN

General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff CockramConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 129

agenda of council meeting - 6 august 2018 · web view8. endorsement of the princes gardens...

Documents