agenda of council meeting - 7 july 2014 - city of … · web viewthat the council confirms the...

NOTICE PAPERMonday 7 July 2014 at 7pm

PLEASE NOTE THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL COMMENCE IN THE MALVERN BANQUET HALL, STONNINGTON CITY CENTRE

(ENTER FROM THE LANEWAY OFF GLENFERRIE ROAD, MALVERN)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

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

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 7 July 2014Order of Business and Index

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

of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 23 JUNE 2014.........................................................7

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

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

1. MILTON GRAY SCOUT HALL - 216 WATTLETREE ROAD...................................................................92. PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT 0579/11 – 279 - 281 TOORONGA ROAD, GLEN IRIS – S72

AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANNING PERMIT COMPRISING FOUR ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS, MODIFIED BASEMENT LAYOUT AND MINOR CHANGES TO THE BUILDING ENVELOPE............................15

3. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0708/13 - 4 CHAMBERS STREET, SOUTH YARRA – CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY BUILDING FOR A MEDICAL CENTRE, 5 DWELLINGS AND SIX CAR PARKING SPACES..................................................................................................................31

4. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0118/14 - 3 PLANT STREET, MALVERN – CONSTRUCTION OF ONE DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 500 SQUARE METRES..................................59

5. CHAPEL REVISION STRUCTURE PLAN AND AMENDMENT C172 ......................................................756. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C181 - THE AVENUE HERITAGE PRECINCT..................................837. PLAN MELBOURNE - METROPOLITAN PLANNING STRATEGY (MPS)................................................878. AMENDMENT C187 NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES - UPDATE...............................................................939. PRAHRAN RENEWAL MASTER PLAN, SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES..............9910. CHANGES TO THE VICTORIAN AND CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE (VCAT) ACT............................................10311. CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................10712. RECREATION STRATEGY 2014-2024...........................................................................................11113. PROPOSED NAMING OF PARK IN SURREY ROAD (PART OF FORMER DEPOT SITE) .........................11514. PROPOSAL TO RENAME BOWEN STREET RESERVE .....................................................................11915. TOORAK ROAD - KOOYONG - SOUTH PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF GLEN WAVERLEY RAIL LINE.....123

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.

16. PEEL STREET WINDSOR - PROPOSAL TO RETAIN PERMIT ZONE RESTRICTIONS FOLLOWING SIX (6) MONTH TRIAL........................................................................................................................ 127

17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT PUNT ROAD / PASLEY STREET NORTH, SOUTH YARRA - FUNDING CONTRIBUTION FROM VICROADS................................................................................................131

18. TEMPORARY OCCUPATION OF THREE (3) DARLING STREET CAR PARK BAYS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKS.............................................................................................................135

19. GARAGE SALE TRAIL - 2014/15 SUSTAINABILITY OUTREACH PROGRAM......................................13920. ARTS AND CULTURAL SPONSORSHIPS 2014/15 PART 1..............................................................14321. ARTS AND CULTURAL SPONSORSHIP APPLICATIONS 2014/15 PART 2......................................147

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD 2014...........................................................................................1512. PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT - 0495/11 - 38 - 40 CLAREMONT STREET, SOUTH YARRA –

ADDITION OF A FURTHER THREE LEVELS TO AN APPROVED MULTI-LEVEL DWELLING DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................ 151

3. ADDITIONAL HERITAGE CONSULTANT FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS..............................................1514. 18 RUSSELL STREET, TOORAK - GARAGE WITHIN FRONT SETBACK...............................................151

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

7 JULY 2014

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 23 June 2014 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 7

GENERAL BUSINESS7 JULY 2014

l) General Business

1. MILTON GRAY SCOUT HALL - 216 WATTLETREE ROAD

Manager Leisure and Libraries: Tony Oulton General Manager Social Development: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek Council affirmation of its previous decision not to renew its lease with the Scout Association of Australia (Victoria Branch) for land located in Milton Gray Reserve and to return the site to public open space.

BACKGROUND

Milton Gray Reserve is located at 216 Wattletree Road, Malvern, and contains a scout hall located in the middle of the park. It is understood that the scout hall was constructed circa 1952 and has not been used for scouting activities since 2001.

In 2006, Council resolved to enter into a number of new agreements for Council land occupied by the Scouts, including the 2nd Malvern Scout Group previously operating from the Milton Gray Reserve scout hall. The existing building was in poor condition and had not been used by an active scout group for many years. Council resolved however, that a new five-year lease would be granted to the scouts for the site. The resolution stated the following:

1. Subject to the satisfactory completion of sections 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act, Council proposes new leases to be executed by the Scouts within the next 6 months as follows;

Milton Gray – 5 years. Conditional on satisfactory building maintenance as documented in the building audit by the association, completion of an asbestos audit, the Association to use its best endeavours to establish a local scouting group. In the event that a group cannot be established the building will not be subject to a further lease.

2. That the terms and conditions of the leases (5 properties) be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer. Conditions will include a peppercorn rental, obligation to undertake a minimum of $80,000 in works in the first year of the lease, and ongoing maintenance works consistent with an annual building audit undertaken by the Association. Requirement to undertake an asbestos audit and implement the recommendations contained within the audit and disclose to users in accordance with the associated regulations.

The actions that have lead to Council’s reconsideration of the Scout’s lease are listed below:

Page 9


April 2011: Council wrote to Scouts seeking an update on building works and reminded them that a scout group needed to be formed by the end of the lease.

May 2011: Council Officers met with the Scouts to discuss the outstanding improvement works and potential discontinuation of the lease. Following this meeting, a letter was forwarded to the Scout Association confirming the requirement to complete all required building works including the installation of the access ramp and the need to establish a local scout group as conditions for the lease to be renewed.

1 January 2012: The scouts lease for the Milton Gray hall site expired. Some of the required building works remained incomplete at that time and no group was operating in the hall.

July 2012: Officers presented a report to Council detailing the status of the building works and recommending that Council not enter into a new lease for the Milton Gray site with the Scout Association. At that meeting, Council resolved to defer consideration of the lease between Council and Scouts at Milton Gray Reserve until December 2012.

August 2012: Officers met with the District Commissioner and Scout Association to confirm their intention to re-present the matter in early 2013 recommending that Council not renew the lease. The Scout Association noted their opposition to the action and outlined their intention to organise a new group and complete the required works.

November 2012: Officers met with the District Commissioner, Frank Moore, and confirmed their intention to recommend that the lease not be renewed. The District Commissioner presented a business plan to re-commence the group. The Project Business Plan outlined a detailed action plan that included a public meeting to discuss the opening of a new group at the Milton Gray Scout Hall on 22 April 2013. Key actions from the Project Business Plan included attending the Viva Youth Festival, uploading website information and arranging real estate advertising boards promoting the 2nd Malvern Scout Group. The Business Plan also included a list of key agencies, including Council, to be contacted to support the promotion of a new group.

March 2013: Officers prepare a report to Council. The Association had not provided any details regarding the establishment of the 2nd Malvern Scout Group nor had they completed any of the other actions in the Business Plan, such as attending the Viva Youth Festival or arranging advertising boards. Building works were still outstanding.

8 April 2013: Council resolved not to renew the lease. The resolution stated that Council would: Advise the Scout Association of Australia (Victorian Branch) that it does not

intend granting a new lease on the building in the Milton Gray Reserve, 216 Wattletree Road, Malvern.

Remove the Milton Gray scout hall and reinstate the land as public open space.

Page 10


Mid April 2013: Scout Association conducted a letterbox drop inviting local residents to attend a meeting at the hall on 22 April to establish a new scout group.

29 April 2013: Officers telephoned and wrote to the Scout Association to inform them of Council’s decision and to issue a formal Notice to Quit, advising that Council would take possession of the site in 30 days from the date the notice was served.

29 April 2013: Scout Association conducted an introductory meeting in the hall, which attracted approximately 20 people.

16 May 2013: Scout Association representatives met with Officers requesting that Council rescind their decision.

22 May 2013: The Scout Association wrote to the Mayor and Councillors requesting that Council reverse its decision and issue a new lease to the Scouts for this site.

27 May 2013: Councillors informally considered the written request from the Scouts to re-consider their decision.

28 May 2013: Following this meeting, the GM Social Development wrote to the Scout Association confirming that the mater had been discussed by all Councillors and that the decision would not be formally reconsidered by Council. The letter also noted that Councillors had expressed a desire to compensate Scouts Australia for their recent investment in the hall and had requested Officers ask for evidence of expenditure to enable a claim for compensation to be considered.

29 May 2013: Council took possession of the building and changed the locks.

June 2013: Council sent a letter to approximately 700 residents near the Milton Gray Reserve with a copy of the plan for landscaping (see Attachment 2) following the removal of the hall, seeking their feedback on the plan. 78 responses were received, with 32 supporting the removal and providing comments on the landscape plan and 46 noting their opposition to the removal of the hall.

June 2013, a Hazardous Building Materials Survey of the hall was undertaken. The findings of the building material survey found a range of hazardous materials including asbestos cement sheet, synthetic mineral fibre presumed to insulate the domestic hot water unit, based on the age of the building polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) fittings and possibly lead paint on original surfaces of the building.

24 June 2013: Council received a petition containing 611 signatures in support of retaining the hall.

July 2013: A planning application for demolition of the hall (within a heritage overlay area) was advertised to adjoining properties. Council received 45 objections, 16 from outside the adjoining area.

29 August 2013: East Ward Councillors and Officers met with the objectors.

Page 11


10 September 2013: The Mayor, East Ward Councillors, the CEO and other Officers met with representatives of the Scouts to hear them present their vision for the future of scouting in Stonnington.

October 2013: Council considered the planning application required for demolition of a building in a heritage overlay area and resolved to defer the application to the first meeting in 2014 and to consult with the local community on options for the hall and environs at Milton Gray Reserve.

12 November 2013: Council sent a survey to all residents within 300m of the Reserve as well as any residents included in the June letter drop. The letter and feedback form were sent to residents. By noon 29 November, the closing day, Council had received 171 responses from residents, as follows:

84 to retain the hall for use by the Scouts

79 to remove the hall and landscape as per the attached plan

8 had no preference

In the afternoon of 29 November, a resident hand-delivered 256 completed forms, all voting to retain the hall. With these responses, the results are:

340 to retain the hall for use by the Scouts

79 to remove the hall and landscape as per the attached plan

8 had no preference

October 2013: Heritage Victoria received a nomination by a third party for the scout hall to be considered for inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register. Council was advised that the nomination had been received and accepted for consideration. On 19 March 2014, Tim Smith, Executive Director of Heritage Victoria, advised Council that “An assessment of the cultural heritage significance of the above place has now been completed. As a result of this assessment, I will be recommending to the Heritage Council that the 2nd Malvern Scout Hall not be included in the Victorian Heritage Register.” And “If no submissions regarding my recommendation are received by 5 pm, Tuesday 20 May 2014, the Heritage Council will consider the matter at its 5 June 2014 meeting.”

19 March 2014: the East Ward Councillors met with representatives of the local scout group, including Chris Anderson, the local District Commissioner. At that meeting the scouts reported that the 2nd Malvern Scouts had two groups operating, including six Joeys and nine Cubs. The Cub group a leader, but the Joeys had yet to recruit a leader for the group. Both groups are meeting in the 4 th

Caulfield Scout Hall at 1A Birch Street, Caulfield South, approximately 2.5 kilometres from Milton Gray Reserve (see Attachment 3). The Scouts indicated that this hall is not in good condition.

At its meeting on 5 June, the Heritage Council considered the recommendation from Heritage Victoria that the scout hall is not of sufficient cultural heritage significance to warrant its inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register. The

Page 12


Heritage Council has approved the motion from Heritage Victoria confirming it will not be included in the Victorian Heritage Register.

DISCUSSION

The Milton Gray scout hall has been the subject of much discussion due to its location, the condition of the building and the lack of scouting activity since 2001.

The park is very popular with the surrounding residents. It caters for passive play activities and dog exercising (off-leash from 5pm to 9am daily).

As shown in attachment one, the location of the building has a significant impact on the use and the visual amenity of the park and its surrounds. Some residents have clearly stated their view that the park will be enhanced by the removal of the hall.

Council has undertaken community consultation in several forms over the past year and found the community to be divided in their views on the advantages and disadvantages of the hall remaining.

The Scouts have strongly advocated that the hall should remain and that Malvern 2nd scouting groups can be successful there. They have stated that although there are alternative venues for their activities within a few kilometres, they would prefer to have a local hall for their activities. The 2nd Malvern groups currently meet at 1A Birch Street, Caulfield South, approximately 2.5 kilometres from Milton Gray Reserve.

While the Scouts have noted that this hall is not in good condition, it would be possible for them to direct the compensation they receive from Council for the works at Milton Gray to upgrading the Caulfield Scout Hall.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Council currently receives a peppercorn rent from the Scouts for the Milton Gray Scout Hall site.

A decision to not renew the lease, demolish the building and re-instate the site is expected to cost $60,000.

Council has offered the Scout Association compensation for their recent works on the hall. The Scouts have stated that this cost was close to $60,000.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION The recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Page 13


It is acknowledged that the Scouts are disappointed in Council’s decision not to proceed with a new lease and the opportunity to attempt to re-establish a scout group at the hall. It is recognised that until 2001, the 2nd Malvern Scout Group had a long history of providing service to the Malvern community and is part of a world-wide movement that has helped shape the development of young people and adults for over 100 years. It is also recognised that site has an important role to play in the provision of open space and has an enormous potential as public open space and the enhancement of the public realm.

Based on the negative effect of the hall on the limited open space in the area, the inability of the Scout Association to activate a local scouting group within prescribed time frames set in 2006, and the ability of the Scouts to re-locate their activities to the Caulfield Scout Hall, it is recommended that Council re-affirms its decision not to renew the existing lease and return the site to public open space.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Milton Gray Building Location Attachment 1 of 3 Excluded

2. Milton Gray Reserve Concept Plan Attachment 2 of 3 Excluded

3. Location of Caulfield Scout Hall Attachment 3 of 3 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:

1. Council re-affirms its decision of 8 April 2013 to advise the Scout Association of Australia (Victorian Branch) that it does not intend granting a new lease on the land within Milton Gray Reserve, 216 Wattletree Road, Malvern.

2. Council re-affirms its decision of 8 April 2013 to remove the Milton Gray scout hall and reinstate the land as public open space, subject to approval of the planning application for demolition.

3. Once planning approval is received, Officers issue a formal notice, giving the Scouts 30 days to remove the building from the site or to remove any property from the building.

4. Council offers up to $60k to the Scouts as reimbursement of recent works undertaken in the hall, subject to documentation of costs incurred.

Page 14


2 PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT 0579/11 – 279 - 281 TOORONGA ROAD, GLEN IRIS – S72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANNING PERMIT COMPRISING FOUR ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS, MODIFIED BASEMENT LAYOUT AND MINOR CHANGES TO THE BUILDING ENVELOPE

Acting Statutory Planning Manager: Augarette MalkiGeneral Manager Planning & Development: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider an amendment to a permit to increase the number of dwellings from 20 to 24 and make changes to the building envelope at 279-281 Tooronga Road, Glen Iris.

Executive Summary

Applicant: CBRE Pty. Ltd.Ward: EastNew Zone: General Residential Zone (GRZ, Schedule 7)Zone as at dale of Lodgement:

Residential 1 Zone (R1Z)

Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 24/12/2013Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

62

Trigger for referral to Council:

7 or more objections

Number of objections: 11Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 13/03/2014Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Amend a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

Planning History

On 26 April 2012, Council issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant Planning Permit 579/11.

On 15 April 2013, Planning Permit 579/11 was issued at the direction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) allowing the construction of a multiunit development consisting of 20 dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirements and creation of access to a Road Zone Category 1.

Plans to comply with permit conditions 1, 3 and 7 were endorsed on 10 October 2013.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council’s consideration were prepared by BG Architecture, job number 11.17 and identified as drawing numbers TP.001, TP.100, TP.104, TP.300, TP.301, TP.400, TP.401 and TP.500 Council date stamped 24 December 2013 and TP.002, TP.101, TP.102, TP.103 and TP.200 Council date stamped 7 May 2014.

Additional supporting documents that form part of this amendment application include a landscaping plan prepared by John Patrick identified as drawing TP-01 Rev A, Traffic Impact

Page 15


Report prepared by Ratio and Planning Report prepared by Urbis support the application. All are Council date stamped 24 December 2013.

The amendment application seeks modifications to the permit preamble as follows:

EXISTING WORDING OF THE PREAMBLE

PROPOSED WORDING OF THE PREAMBLE

Preamble Construction of a multi unit development (20 dwellings), reduction in car parking requirements and creation of access to a road zone category 1 in accordance with endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions

Construction of a multi unit development (24 dwellings) and creation of access to a road zone category 1 in accordance with endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions

The amendment application seeks modifications to the permit conditions as follows:

Existing wording of condition Proposed wording of conditionCondition 3a) An additional planter box on the

west side of the west terrace of Unit 20.

An additional planter box on the west side of the west terrace of Unit 21.

Condition 3b) Provision of a raised garden bed area capable of accommodating a canopy tree at the western end of the central corridor between Units 6 and 5.

Provision of a raised garden bed area capable of accommodating a canopy tree at the western end of the central corridor between Units 6 and 7.

Condition 3c) Provision of a Pinnacle Lilly Pilly hedge or equivalent within the western setback of Unit 6.

Provision of a Pinnacle Lilly Pilly hedge or equivalent within the western setback of Unit 7.

Condition 3e) Provision of an aristocrat pear or equivalent in the southwest corner of the private open space of Unit 6.

Provision of an aristocrat pear or equivalent in the southwest corner of the private open space of Unit 7.

The amendment application seeks modifications to the plans as follows:

APPROVED

PROPOSED

Dwellings 20

(8x1 bed, 12x2bed)

24

(12x1 bed, 12x2bed)

Car Spaces 22

(20 resident and 2 visitor spaces)

31


Bicycle Spaces 14


27


Storage Cages 20 24

Ground Floor Dwellings 2 and 3 setback Dwelling 1 altered from 2

Page 16


4.2m from the northern boundary.

bedroom to 1 bedroom.

Dwellings previously known as 1, 2 and 3 compressed to contain an additional dwelling, now know as dwellings 2, 3 and 4 along the northern side of the ground floor.

Dwelling 4 setback an additional 0.5m from the northern boundary and expanded 0.9m towards the west. Decrease in building footprint by 0.45m2.

One light court measuring 1.61m (w) x 2m (d) between dwellings 2 and 3 on the northern elevation.

A light court added along the northern side of dwelling 2 measuring 1.61m (w) x 2m (d). A decrease in building footprint by 3.2m2.

First Floor Dwellings 10, 11, 12 and 13 setback between 2.9m and 5.2m from the northern boundary.

Dwellings previously known as 10, 11, 12 and 13 along the northern side of the first floor compressed to contain two additional one bedroom dwellings, now know as dwellings 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

A 1.61m (w) x 2.9m (d) separation between the balconies of dwellings 11 and 12.

Light court removed to create a balcony to dwelling 13.

Dwelling 13 expanded by 0.9m towards the northern boundary, an increase in floor area of 1.45m2.

Dwelling 14 expanded by 0.75m towards the northern boundary and 1m towards the west. Increase in floor area of 0.75m2.

Second Floor

Dwelling 19 setback between 7.2m and 7.8m from the northern boundary. Dwelling 22 (previously

Page 17


dwelling 19) expanded by 0.60m towards the northern boundary and 3m towards the west. An increase in floor area of 1.8m2 and reconfigured to remove the separate study area.

Dwelling 23 (previously dwelling 18) expanded towards the west (where part of dwelling 19 was previously). Bedrooms which were previously in the south-east corner now in the north-east corner.

New dwelling 24 created (where previously the bedrooms of dwelling 18 were).

Dwelling 18 setback between 9m and 10.1m from the eastern (front) boundary.

The living room of Dwelling 24 (previously part of dwelling 18) expanded by 1m towards the front boundary for a length of 4.7m. An increase in floor area of 4.7m2.

One additional dwelling added in the south-east corner.

Elevations Windows associated with each dwelling.

Windows associated with each dwelling moved to accord with internal layout changes.

Overlooking screens moved accordingly.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the west side of Tooronga Road and has the following significant characteristics:

The land is irregular in shape with a total site area of 1109m2; 279 Tooronga Road currently contains a single storey dwelling and 281 Tooronga

Road is vacant; The site has a frontage of 29.98m; The rear boundary abuts a bluestone right of way to the west for 26.825m; The side boundary abutting 277 Tooronga Road to the south is 38.395m; The side boundary abutting 285 Tooronga Road to the north is 37.775m;

Page 18


Tooronga Road has a mixed streetscape character which consists predominantly of single and double storey dwellings, with some examples of 2-3 storey medium density development, most notably at 285, 304 and 306 Tooronga Road;

Local shops and services can be found on Malvern Road, 250m to the south; and Tooronga Railway Station is approximately 150m to the north of the site.

The immediate vicinity is characterised by a range of different building types, from single and double storey detached homes to three storey buildings containing multiple dwellings.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.05 identifies this area as a ‘substantial change area’ where medium and higher density housing is to be directed.

Previous Planning Applications

A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications for either 279 or 281 Tooronga Road.

The Titles

The site at 279 Tooronga Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 08736 Folio 268, whilst the site at 281 Tooronga Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 03556 Folio 018. Neither lot is affected by any covenants or restrictions.

Planning Controls

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

Current Zone

Clause 32.08 – General Residential ZonePursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwelling on a lot.

Amendment C187, gazetted on 19 June 2014, implemented the General Residential Zone (GRZ, Schedule 7) to this site. The General Residential Zone does not restrict the number of dwellings allowed on a site but provides for a mandatory maximum building height of 11.5m (on a sloping site). The zoning also adds a requirement that basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.

The proposal complies with the mandatory height control. The proposal exceeds the non-mandatory basement site coverage requirement that exists within the new zoning. Transitional arrangements exist which require any application received prior to the new zones being introduced to be assessed against the relevant controls within the Stonnington Planning Scheme as at the date of receipt of the application.

Zone as at date of Lodgement

Clause 32.01 - Residential 1Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 a permit was required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 - Car Parking

Page 19


Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 a permit is not required as the proposal provides the statutory number of parking spaces. Clause 52.06-5 requires each one and two bedroom dwelling to provide one car parking space. Further, one visitor parking space must be provided to each five dwellings. As each dwelling is provided with at least one car parking space, and four visitor spaces are provided, the development complies with Clause 52.06.

Clause 52.29 – Land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1Pursuant to Clause 52.29 a permit is required to alter or create access to a main road. There is no proposal to modify the approved access.

Clause 55 - ResCodePursuant to Clause 55, a development of two or more dwellings on a lot must meet the objectives of this clause.

Relevant Planning Policies

15.01 Urban environment15.02 Sustainable development16.01 Residential development21.03 Vision21.05 Housing32.01 Residential 1 Zone52.06 Car parking55 ResCode

Advertising

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

The site is located in East Ward and objections from 12 different properties have been received. In summary, the objectors’ concerns include:

Excessive height and built form; Lack of appropriate landscaping; Added traffic congestion; Added parking congestion; Overdevelopment – four new apartments; Setback from the north boundary now non-compliant; Location of aerials and communications infrastructure not shown on plans; Density too high; Potential overlooking; and Reliance on borrowed light for some dwellings.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 13 March 2014. The meeting was attended by Councillors Stubbs and McMorrow, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. Following the meeting, the applicant continued discussions with some objectors, resulting in changes being made to the plans, including:

Setting the building back at ground level from the ‘dog leg’ along the northern boundary (dwelling 4) by an additional 0.3m;

Pushing the balcony to dwelling 14 at first floor 0.9m to the east, now proposed 0.485m to the east of the ‘dog leg’ along the northern boundary; and

Page 20


Pushing the balcony to dwelling 22 at second floor 1m to the east, now proposed 0.5m to the east of the ‘dog leg’ along the northern boundary.

The applicant formally amended the application on 7 May 2014. The revised plans were not advertised as it was considered that there would be no additional detriment over and above that previously advertised. The revised plans increase the proposed setbacks along the north boundary, and are the plans that form the basis of this assessment.

The objector residing closest to the ‘dog leg’ along the shared boundary withdrew their objection on 18 May 2014 after being provided a copy of the amended plans. There are now 11 objections on file.

Referrals

Transport & Parking Unit

Council’s Transport & Parking Unit reviewed the amended plans and confirmed that the proposed changes will not adversely impact on the basement functionality.

KEY ISSUES

The key issues with the proposal include consideration of the changes to the built form and whether the proposed parking provision is appropriate and functional.

State Planning Policy Framework

The State Policy objectives at Clause 16.01-2 encourages an increase in the proportion of new development to be within established urban areas. Clause 16.01-4 encourages a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs. Further, Clause 16.01-4 encourages well-designed medium-density housing which respects the neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency. This site is located within approximately 150m of Tooronga Railway Station and approximately 200m from a tram line along Malvern Road, making the site accessible to public transport.

The site is also located within walking distance to the Tooronga Road / Malvern Road Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre. The State Policy Framework at Clause 11.04-2 includes specific direction for the encouragement of a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around Neighborhood Activity Centres that is designed to fit the context and enhance the character of the area while providing a variety of housing options for different types of households.

It is considered that there is State Policy support for the redevelopment and residential intensification of the subject site. The proposal is consistent with these policies in that it provides for residential development that represents a more efficient residential use of the site in an existing residential area and improves housing choice. The site will be able to take advantage of nearby high quality public transport links and a number of community services and facilities in close proximity to the subject site.

Local Planning Policy Framework

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Local Planning Policies, like the State Planning Policy Framework, encourage medium and higher density housing that makes better use of existing

Page 21


infrastructure and urban design in residential areas that respects the existing character of the area and protects the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.

The site is located in a substantial change area, having an immediate abuttal to a main road, is in close proximity to the Tooronga Road / Malvern Road Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre and is accessible by tram and rail services. Council’s Local Policy calls for development that provides for residential infill (Clause 21.05-4) and includes objectives at Clause 21.05-2 (Location of residential development) to direct new housing development in locations with the highest level of accessibility to both an activity centre and the principal public transport network. It is considered that the site is suitably located to accommodate higher density development.

Changes to the Built Form

As per the summary of the proposed changes, the additional built form is principally proposed along the North and East Elevations. The extent of changes total less than 6m2 of additional building floor area.

At ground level, the wall associated with dwelling 4 is being setback an additional 0.5m from the north boundary, representing a decrease in building footprint of 0.45m2. A light court has been added between dwellings 2 and 3, decreasing the building footprint by a further 3.2m2.

At first floor, the terrace to dwellings 13 and dwelling 14 have been expanded by a total of 2.2m2 in area, and are no closer to the boundary than adjoining building elements, for example, the terraces to dwellings 12 and 14 and the wall of dwellings 12 and 13. The setbacks comply with Standard B17 Side and Rear Setbacks.

At second floor, part of the north wall of dwelling 22 will be pushed 0.6m closer to the north boundary, to line up with the remainder of this wall, and the wall associated with dwelling 23. The terrace will not be changing. The setbacks comply with Standard B17 Side and Rear Setbacks.

The neighbour who directly adjoins the area where these changes are proposed has viewed the amended plans (Council date stamped 7 May 2014) and has withdrawn their objection.

The front wall of dwelling 24 is proposed to be moved forward 1m forward for a length of 4.7m. This effectively aligns with the existing front wall of dwelling 23 and is considered appropriate as it is still articulated and remains approximately 4.5m behind the line of the level below and complies with the front setback Standard (B6).

The existing roof line remains unchanged.

There are no substantive changes proposed along the west (rear) or south (side) elevations.

Overlooking

The proposed design response continues to implement the previously approved screening devices / design techniques, where required, to prevent unreasonable overlooking of the adjoining properties to the north, south and west. In this regard, the design techniques relied

Page 22


upon to prevent unreasonable overlooking include 1.7 metre high obscured glazing and balcony balustrades, timber slatted screening, and louvered screens.

Car Parking Provision and Functionality

A total of 31 on-site car spaces are proposed. Some parking is now proposed within mechanical stacker units. Each 1 and 2 bedroom dwelling is required to provide a minimum 1 parking space, and 4 visitor spaces are required, generating a requirement to provide 28 spaces.

The development now provides a surplus of 3 parking spaces when assessed against Clause 52.06.

The main access ramp and crossover to Tooronga Road has not been modified. Council’s Transport & Parking Unit has reviewed the amended proposal and has not found any areas of concern introduced by the proposed amendments.

It is considered unlikely that the traffic generated by the additional 4 dwellings will adversely impact Tooronga Road which is a declared main road.

Bicycle Spaces

A total of 27 bicycle spaces are proposed. 24 bicycle spaces are proposed within the basement, thereby providing 1 space per dwelling, with 3 visitor spaces located adjacent to Tooronga Road at Ground Level. The provision of bicycle parking is not mandatory in developments of less than 4 storeys. As such it is considered a positive aspect of the application to provide 1 bicycle space for each dwelling, plus visitor spaces near the main entry.

Other Amenity Considerations

The additional built form is only proposed along the North and East Elevations and as such the proposal will not create unreasonable additional overshadowing to adjoining properties which are to the north, west and south.

All dwellings will continue to be provided with appropriately sized private open space areas which are directly accessible from living areas and will receive direct sunlight. In detail:

Ground Floor dwellings – SPOS range from 15 to 74 square metres; First Floor dwellings – SPOS range from 6 to 14 square metres; and Second Floor dwellings – SPOS range from 19 to 79 square metres.

Internal Amenity / Consideration of Dwellings Relying on Shared Light

The number of dwellings relying on ‘shared light’ to bedrooms will increase from 1 to 5 (being dwellings 5, 12, 13, 14 and 22). A total of 20% of the proposed dwellings will rely upon borrowed light which is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

It is generally considered that a range of apartment types, with a range of differing levels of amenity, will be offered within the development. Allowing a small proportion of dwellings to rely on borrowed light contributes to housing diversity located in a preferred location for increased housing density;

Page 23


All dwellings relying on borrowed light to habitable rooms are north facing and will receive direct sunlight. Only 1 of the 5 (dwelling 5) is located on the ground floor and at this point, the first floor does not cantilever over so natural light penetration will be acceptable;

Each bedroom within the borrowed light apartments are provided with sliding doors to enable sunlight to reach bedrooms when required.

Landscaping

The proposed design response does not alter the previously approved Ground Floor landscaping layout for the site. It is observed that:

The southern wall of the basement within the south-western corner has been extended 2 metres further south as part of the modified basement layout. This extension does not extend beyond the already approved paving over.

Adequate soil volume remains between the southern wall of the basement and the boundary to sustain the required canopy trees in this area.

It is noted that the applicant has not provided a full set of amended landscaping plans as part of this application. Given that the extent of the physical changes is minor, it is considered appropriate to approve the changes as proposed.

Waste Collection

Council endorsed a Waste Management Plan (WMP) for the previously approved development on 10 October 2013. This WMP indicated the provision of a Council kerbside collection. It is noted that the applicant is now proposing a private collection. This is considered appropriate and will require the submission of an amended WMP to Council for approval in accordance with condition 7.

Plant and Equipment

Conditions 1e) and 13 stipulated requirements relating to plant and equipment. Plans submitted to Council for endorsement on 30 July 2013 (endorsed on 10 October 2013) detailed the position of the plant platform located centrally on the roof. The conditions required the plant to be detailed on the plans and for all plant to be located or screened so as to be note visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties. The plant platform is screened so no plant can be seen from off the site. The platform is located as centrally as possible so as to be minimally visible.

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:

Page 24


The proposal exhibits a high level of compliance with ResCode; The proposal provides sufficient parking for residents and visitors and satisfies the

parking requirements at Clause 52.06; The external changes to the building are minor and in keeping with the overall design

intent; and Overlooking has been appropriately dealt with across all relevant elevations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0579-11 - 279 - 281 Tooronga Road Glen Iris - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That Planning Permit No: 0579/11 be amended for construction of a multi unit development (20 dwellings), reduction in car parking requirements and creation of access to a road zone category 1 at the land located at 279-281 Tooronga Road, Glen Iris, subject to the following amendments to the permit:

Plans to be amended as follows:

Basement Modification to internal layout of the basement including the introduction of 9 additional parking spaces, 13 additional bicycle spaces, 4 additional storage cages and larger waste area;

Increase in size of the basement in the south-west corner;

Ground Floor Changes to ground floor level associated with dwellings 2, 3 and 4 and an additional dwelling at this level;

First Floor Changes to first floor level associated with dwellings 13 and 14 and two additional dwellings at this level;

Second Floor Changes to second floor level associated with dwelling 22 and an additional dwelling at this level.

Permit preamble be amended as follows:

Construction of a multi unit development (24 dwellings) and creation of access to a road zone category 1 in accordance with endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions.

Permit conditions be amended as follows:

Condition 1 amended to refer to current plans; Condition 3a) amended to refer to dwelling 21 (in lieu of dwelling 20); Condition 3b) amended to refer to dwelling 6 & 7 (in lieu of dwellings 6 & 5); Condition 3c) amended to refer to dwelling 7 (in lieu of dwelling 6); and Condition 3e) amended to refer to dwelling 7 (in lieu of dwelling 6).

A full set of the proposed permit conditions is contained in Appendix 1 of this report.

Page 25


1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with TP.001, TP.100, TP.104, TP.300, TP.301, TP.400, TP.401 and TP.500 Council date stamped 24 December 2013 and TP.002, TP.101, TP.102, TP.103 and TP.200 Council date stamped 7 May 2014, but modified to show:

a) Changes to plans TP001, TP002 and Ground Floor Plan as shown in Revision C of the plans dated 6 March 2013;

b) A schedule of materials, colours and finishes;c) Any changes required by the landscape plan condition 3;d) A basement ramp cross section showing all grades and headroom;

sightline diagrams at the property boundary (potentially by removing a portion of common boundary fence); dimensions provided of the columns from the aisles; and a section through car space 10 to ensure appropriate vehicle clearance, generally in accordance with Australian Standards or the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

e) Any plant or equipment on the roof or elsewhere within the site;f) Relocation of the visitor bike racks from the southeast corner of the

frontage;g) Any changes required by condition 7 (waste); h) Measures to implement the traffic engineering recommendations set out

in the evidence report of Mr. Fairlie, Ratio dated February 2013;i) Provision of a timber slatted privacy screen to the west facing balcony of

Unit 14; andj) Any changes required by condition 9 (WSUD).

2. The development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan generally in accordance with that provided by John Patrick, dated December 2012, must be endorsed to form part of this permit. The landscape plan must show:

a) An additional planter box on the west side of the west terrace of Unit 21;b) Provision of a raised garden bed area capable of accommodating a

canopy tree at the western end of the central corridor between Units 6 and 7;

c) Provision of Pinnacle Lilly Pilly hedge or equivalent within the western setback of Unit 7;

d) Reduction in paving area to eastern courtyard of Unit 1 to 1.6m width to provide additional soft landscaping to the frontage; and

e) Provision of an aristocrat pear or equivalent in the southwest corner of the private open space of Unit 7.

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

5. All costs for the removal and replacement of the Pacific Sunset Maple street tree (approximately $750) are to be borne by the permit holder and paid for at the time of applying for a vehicle crossing permit. All works (removal, species

Page 26


selection and planting) in this regard will be undertaken by Council.

6. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the three street trees. This is to be 1 metre either side of the base of the trunk and run kerb to kerb to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. The fence must be constructed of chain mesh to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

a) Dimensions of waste areasb) The number of bins to be providedc) Method of waste and recyclables collectiond) Hours of waste and recyclables collection NB. These should correspond

with Council Local Laws e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collectionf) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimised

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

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

9. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan, landscape plan and/or stormwater management report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. All services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Before the development starts, a report for the legal point of stormwater discharge must be obtained from Council. A drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be completed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

12. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way other than to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Page 27


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

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

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

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

permit.

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

This permit is issued in accordance with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision P1618/2012 dated 28 March 2013.

NOTES:

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

ii. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:1. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the

development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

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

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

THIS PERMIT HAS BEEN AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Date of Amendment

Brief description of Amendment

Amended permit preamble:a) To allow for the construction of 24 dwellings in lieu of 20; andb) Delete the reference to reduction in parking requirements as

sufficient parking is now provided.

Page 28


Amended permit conditions:a) Condition 1 to refer to plans Council date stamped 24

December 2013 and 7 May 2014;b) Condition 3a) to refer to dwelling 21 (in lieu of dwelling 20);c) Condition 3b) to refer to dwellings 6 & 7 (in lieu of dwellings 6

& 5);d) Condition 3c) to refer to dwelling 7 (in lieu of dwelling 6); ande) Condition 3e) to refer to dwelling 7 (in lieu of dwelling 6).

Amended plans including:a) Increase in size of the basement in the south-west corner;b) Modification to internal layout of the basement including the

introduction of 9 additional parking spaces, 13 additional bicycle spaces, 4 additional storage cages and larger waste area;

c) Changes to ground floor level associated with dwellings 2, 3 and 4 and an additional dwelling at this level;

d) Changes to first floor level associated with dwellings 13 and 14 and two additional dwellings at this level; and

e) Changes to second floor level associated with dwelling 22 and an additional dwelling at this level.

Page 29


3 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0708/13 - 4 CHAMBERS STREET, SOUTH YARRA – CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY BUILDING FOR A MEDICAL CENTRE, 5 DWELLINGS AND SIX CAR PARKING SPACES


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for use and development of land as a medical centre and dwellings and reduction in the car parking requirement at 4 Chambers Street, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Applicant: John Klarica, Calibre PlanningWard: NorthNew Zone: General Residential Zone (GRZ, Schedule 1)Former Zone: Residential 1Overlay: Design and Development Overlay 7

Incorporated Plan Overlay 3Date lodged: 2/10/2013Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

More than 60 days


More than three storeys

Number of objections: 9 objections from 4 propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 7 May 2014Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Ascui Edwards Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: TP-12 – TP-30 all Revision C and Council date stamped 29 January 2014.

Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of the existing dwelling (no permit required). Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising a medical centre (dentist), five (5)

dwellings and six (6) car parking spaces. Basement Floor Plan comprises six car parking spaces within a car stacker, a turntable,

five stores (with A bicycle space in each), one separate bicycle space and a bin area. Ground Floor Plan comprises a medical centre (dentist) of 138m², a residential lobby, car

lift entrance, a 2,500L rainwater tank and landscaping along the western and part southern boundaries.

Level 1 Floor Plan comprises two, two bedroom dwellings. Level 2 Floor Plan comprises two, one bedroom dwellings. Level 3 Floor Plan comprises a one, one bedroom dwelling.

Page 31


The building is built to the northern and eastern boundaries at ground level. A staggered setback of between 700mm and 1.3m is provided along the western boundary and a setback of 1.98m is provided for 7.25m of the southern boundary (measured back from Chambers Street).

At Levels 1 and 2 the building is built to the northern, eastern and western (overhanging part of the ground floor) boundaries. A setback of between 3.68m and 4.38m is provided from the southern boundary at Level 1. A setback of between 6.36m and 7.3m is provided from the southern boundary at Level 2.

At Level 3 the building is built to the eastern boundary. However, a setback of 800mm is provided from the northern boundary, 900mm setback from the western boundary and between 8.63m and 9.03m is provided from the southern boundary.

The building has a maximum building height of 12.21m, measured from the centre of the Bond Street frontage (assuming RL13.69 is the footpath level being the midpoint between RL13.5 and RL13.89 as shown on the north elevation).

The medical centre (dentist) will operate with two persons providing health services, during the hours of 8:30am to 7:00pm Monday to Friday.

Of the six car parking spaces provided on site, 2 are proposed for the medical centre (dentist) and 4 are proposed for the residents.

The application originally included for the removal of the existing easement. However, following investigations, it has been deemed that the removal of the easement does not need to occur.

A Traffic Engineering Assessment prepared by Sustainable Transport Surveys and a Sustainable Design Assessment prepared by Sustainable Development Consultants also form part of the assessment of this application.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south east corner of Chambers Street and Bond Street, approximately 60m west of Chapel Street, South Yarra. The site has the following significant characteristics:

Is regular in shape with a frontage to Chambers Street of 15.36m, a frontage to Bond Street of 14.63m and an area of approximately 225m².

Is currently occupied by a single storey brick dwelling with vehicle access via an existing crossover to Chambers Street (south west corner of the site).

Chambers Street is a one-way (north bound) street between Bond and Oxford Streets and becomes two-way south of Bond Street and north of Oxford Street. Bond Street is also a one-way (west bound) street.

There is a slight fall in the land from the south west corner to the north east corner of approximately 0.43m.

The site is currently located within the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. It is zoned Residential 1 and affected by Design and Development Overlay 7 (Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre). It is strategically located within close proximity to Chapel Street, providing good access to shopping, services, tram routes and the South Yarra Railway Station.

It is noted that the draft Chapel reVision Structure Plan adopted by Council on 5 August 2013 removed the subject site and the residentially zoned land between Toorak Road, Chapel Street and the railway line from the Activity Centre boundary.

To the north of the site, at 6 Chambers Street, is a single storey dwelling with vehicle access from Bond Street. A current Planning Application (800/13) is being assessed by Council for a five storey residential building comprising 4 dwellings and 8 car parking spaces with access

Page 32


from the rear laneway. Further north, at 8 and 8A Chambers Street, is a three storey townhouse development. These dwellings are setback 2.842m from Chambers Street and are built to both side boundaries. At the rear, vehicle access is provided to a tandem garage (No.8) and a double garage (No.8A), both garage doors setback 1m from the rear title boundary. At the first floor level, deep terraces (10m deep) are provided to both dwellings orientated to the rear and include a northerly outlook. The second floor is setback to the same line as the first floor which includes offices orientated to the east. These townhouses have a maximum building height of 9.5m. Further north, at 10 and 10A Chambers Street, is a two storey townhouse development with vehicle access from the rear. Towards Oxford Street is a single storey dwelling, a two storey dwelling and a two storey multi-dwelling development. To the north of Oxford Street, there are two four storey multi-dwelling developments. To the east of 6 Chambers Street is a 3.6m wide right-of-way which connects Bond Street to Oxford Street. Beyond the right-of-way is a two storey commercial building. Further east is a two storey commercial building, a single storey dwelling and a four storey mixed use building (at the corner of Chapel Street and Bond Street).

To the east of the site, at 8 Bond Street, is a five storey residential building with basement car parking for 24 cars with access provided by a car lift from Bond Street. This building has recently completed construction. To its east, at 6 Bond Street, is a 3 storey office building. A current Planning Application (193/13) is being assessed by Council for buildings and works to increase the height of the existing building through the addition of two extra storeys (from three storeys to five storeys). The proposal also involves a reduction in car parking with 9 additional spaces to be provided in association with the additional floor area. Further east, at 4 Bond Street, is a three storey mixed use building and a two storey mixed use building (at the corner of Chapel Street and Bond Street).

To the south of the site, at 2 and 2A Chambers Street, is a two storey townhouse development with the private open space areas abutting the common boundary with the subject site. Further south is Lover’s Walk (a public walkway along the railway line connecting Toorak Road with Chapel Street), with the Pakenham/Frankston railway line beyond.

To the west of the site, on the opposite side of Chambers Street, is a mixture of single storey brick dwellings, two storey townhouses and two storey multi-dwelling buildings.


A search of Council records indicates that there are no recent planning applications for the site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 07618 Folio 072 as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 019912. A 0.91m drainage easement extends along the eastern boundary of the site.

Planning Controls


Current Zone

Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone

Page 33


Pursuant to Clause 32.08-1 a permit is required for use as a medical centre.Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwelling on a lot.Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.08-1.

No permit is required to use the land for dwellings.

A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Amendment C187, gazetted on 19 June 2014, implemented the General Residential Zone (GRZ, Schedule 1) to this site. The General Residential Zone does not restrict the number of dwellings allowed on a site but provides for a mandatory maximum building height of 13.5m. The zoning also adds a requirement that basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.

The proposal exceeds the non-mandatory basement site coverage requirement that exists within the new zoning. Transitional arrangements exist which require any application received prior to the new zones being introduced to be assessed against the relevant controls within the Stonnington Planning Scheme as at the date of receipt of the application.

Former Zone

Clause 32.01 – Residential 1Pursuant to Clause 32.01-1 a permit is required for use as a medical centre.Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. Pursuant to Clause 32.01-6 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.01-1.

No permit is required to use the land for dwellings.

A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Overlays

Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay 7 (Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre)Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Schedule 7 to the Overlay relates to the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. The site is within a moderate change area and the preferred maximum building height is 15m with a preferred minimum street wall height of 8m.

Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan OverlaySchedule 3 to the Overlay relates to the Late Night Liquor Licence Trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: Measuring the Saturation LevelsThis overlay is not applicable to this application as liquor is not proposed.


Clause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, before a new use commences the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.

Page 34


Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, Table 1 sets out the number of car parking spaces required for various uses.

A dwelling requires 1 car space to each one or two bedroom dwelling and 1 visitor space to each 5 dwellings for development of 5 or more dwellings.

A medical centre requires 5 car spaces to the first person providing health services plus 3 to every other person providing health services.

Hence, 5 spaces are required for the residents, 1 space for the residential visitors and 8 spaces for the medical centre, a total of 14 spaces.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3 a dwelling, in developments of four or more storeys, requires 1 space to each 5 dwellings and 1 space for visitor to each 10 dwellings.Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3 a medical centre requires 1 space to each 8 practitioners and 1 visitor space to each 4 practitioners.

Hence, 1 space is required for the residents and 1 for the medical centre visitors.

Clause 52.35 – Urban Context Report and Design Response for residential development of four or more storeysPursuant to Clause 52.35-1 an application for a residential development of four or more storey in a Residential 1 Zone must be accompanied by:

An urban context report. A design response.


State Planning Policy Framework:Clause 9 Plan MelbourneClause 11.01 Activity CentresClause 11.04 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01-1 Urban DesignClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 17.01-1 BusinessClause 18.02 Movement Networks

Local Planning Policy Framework:

Municipal Strategic Statement:Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 21.08 Infrastructure

Local Planning Policies:

Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy

Page 35


Chapel reVision

The Structure Plan for the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy is currently under review. The revision includes proposed changes to the building heights and setbacks of the different precincts that make up the Activity Centre. The draft Chapel reVision Structure Plan adopted by Council on 5 August 2013 removed the subject site and the residential zoned land between Toorak Road, Chapel Street and the railway line from the Activity Centre boundary.

Advertising

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

The site is located in North Ward and nine (9) objections from four (4) different properties have been received. They are summarised as follows:

Traffic and parking impacts Overdevelopment Commercial use in a residential zone Visual bulk, height and mass Inconsistency with the existing neighbourhood character Overlooking Overshadowing Loss of daylight Size of dwellings and amenity Lack of appropriate parking spaces provided on site Waste collection Noise Loss of on-site tree

A Consultative Meeting was held on 7 May 2014. The meeting was attended by Cr’s Chandler and Koce, the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the applicant submitting discussion plans on 19 May 2014 and they show the following amendments to the plans:

Setback of ground floor wall from the eastern boundary by 1.2m for a length of 3.6m. The setback will include an east facing window to the ground floor dentist, allow for planter area within the setback and a boundary fence of 1.7m (above floor level of the subject site).

A subsequent reduced setback is proposed from the Chambers Street setback (of the 1.98m offset from the southern boundary) from 7.25m to 6.15m. This will also result in the roof over this area being setback further. Previously the wall on the south eastern boundary measured 2.74m and a 1m setback was provided with a wall height of 3.51m (a 3.51m high wall was also proposed on the boundary with the existing wall). The discussion plans show a 2.74m high wall for the length of the boundary wall and a 1.98m setback for a reduced wall height of 3.07m.

The south western setback is also provided with an increased landscaping opportunity with the relocation of the rainwater tank to the basement level.

Referrals

Infrastructure

Page 36


Comments made on 10.3.14:

Easement:The easement is apparently required and the development must be moved clear of the easement.

Consent to build over the easement will not be issued by Council nor will agreement be given for the easement to be removed unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that a) the easement is not required for stormwater drainage and b) the affected property owner has formally agreed to the removal of the easement. It appears that the general grade of the property to the South is towards the easement and that the easement is required for that property therefore such a requirement would not be able to be satisfied.

Drainage:Conditions to be included on any permit to issue: Legal point of discharge. Existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate any

vehicular access).

Encourage the installation of water tanks.

Following a response from the applicant’s engineer and additional site investigations the following comments (18.4.14) were provided:

The neighbouring property to the South is the beneficiary of the easement and drain and as such Council is not a beneficiary, however we do have an interest in the easement based on Council’s responsibility for providing a legal means of drainage for all lots. It is therefore encumbent on Council to ensure that where possible any works affecting an easement do not unreasonably impact on use of the easement.

Based on Council’s report for the legal point of discharge issued in 1999 at the time of the construction of the development within 2 and 2a Chambers Street the discharge from this benefitting property was required to be connected to the Council drain in Chambers Street. The discharge from that new development therefore should not have been discharged through the subject easement. The ever present reality however is that there is a high probability that any plumber or drainer may not have complied with that report and may have connected some drainage from the site to the existing drain in the easement.

There is no conclusive evidence that the drain within the easement is redundant and it has to be assumed that the drain is a live drain and therefore this drain must be maintained.

As per the Building Regulations, Council is only empowered to consent to buildings over easements that are under the control of Council and not private drains such as this drain. It is therefore important that the benefitting property owner is made aware of the proposal to build over the easement.

Bearing in mind the above, Infrastructure has no objection to the works over the easement subject to following:

The benefitting owners must be made aware of the proposal to build over the easement prior to a planning permit being issued for the development.

The existing easement drain must be replaced in sewer quality UPVC pipe and must connect the existing easement drain from 2-2a Chambers Street through to the kerb and channel in Bond Street.

Page 37


The on-going owners of 4 Chambers Street must at their cost accept responsibility for the future maintenance of the drain and ensure that the drain is maintained in good condition at all times.

Following a further response from the applicant’s engineer, the following comments were made on 11.06.14:

The information is considered acceptable.

The following should be included as conditions on any permit:

The existing easement drain must be replaced in sewer quality UPVC pipe and must connect the existing easement drain from 2-2a Chambers Street through to the kerb and channel in Bond Street.

The on-going owners of 4 Chambers Street must at their cost accept responsibility for the future maintenance of the drain and ensure that the drain is maintained in good condition at all times.

Waste Management

A Waste Management Plan is required.

The successful Waste Management Plan will describe how a property’s solid waste stream is managed, and instruct the property’s owners, residents, occupiers, manager/s, and waste collectors of their roles and responsibilities within the waste stream. The successful Waste Management Plan will also articulate how the building proposes to align with the policy objectives detailed in the Victorian State Government’s; ‘Getting Full Value. The Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy’. As a final document, the development’s approved Waste Management Plan will be prepared, presented and stored in a manner for easy access and comprehension by all existing and future stakeholders of the development.

The proposed plans depict a ‘dedicated bin area’ at basement level. The only access from the basement to street level appears to be via the stairway or lift. The Waste Management Plan will have to clearly prescribe how the waste bins will be elevated to ground level and presented to the kerbside for collection, without compromising the amenity of any of the buildings occupants.

Transport & Parking

Comments made on 19.11.13

The statutory rate is 14 car parking spaces (5 for dwellings, 1 for dwelling visitors and 8 for medical centre). The proposal is providing 6 spaces (4 for dwellings and 2 for the medical centre). A reduction in one space for the residents is acceptable, provided they are aware that they will not be eligible for resident parking permits. The provision of two (2) parking spaces on site for the medical staff can be considered satisfactory based on projected staff levels.

The provision of no residential visitor parking space on site can be considered appropriate, noting that prospective visitors will have no alternative but to seek either commercial off-street parking or utilise other modes of transportation. The development does not include any on-site parking for medical centre visitors, or any additional spaces for medical centre employees beyond the practitioners, which is not considered appropriate. The Transport and Parking Unit recommends that an alternative use such as office might be appropriate, as the travel profile is different, and alternative modes to car travel are more suitable.

Page 38


It is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions in the area.

There are a number of concerns raised with the car parking layout and they are summarised as follows:

Sight distance at property boundary – has not been met. It is recommended that a pedestrian control light or mirror arrangement be implemented.

Column locations – The proposed column location is unsatisfactory as the column setback should be at least 750mm from the parking aisle for 5.4m long parking bay as per the Australian Standards for 90 degree parking.

Car Lift - The report submitted with the application does not suggest how the queuing will be managed for vehicles waiting to access the car park. Council cannot support the queuing of vehicles on Bond Street. The applicant is to submit queuing analysis and to demonstrate the size of the queuing area. It needs to be ensured if any queuing occurs along Bond Street traffic flow is not interrupted or delayed.

Minimum gradients of parking floors – should be shown

The headroom clearance, turntable and mechanical parking are considered satisfactory.

The statutory rate for bicycle spaces is 1 for residents and 1 for medical practitioners. The development provides 7, 5 to residents and 1 to the medical practitioner and 1 to visitors on the footpath. Dimensions of the bicycle parking areas should be provided on the plans. The proposal is to provide all bicycle parking in the basement as such, it is unlikely that any of this bicycle rails would be utilised by visitors and cannot be considered as visitor parking. Visitor bicycle spaces must be located in an area with convenient access from bicycle routes and main building entrances.

The plans indicate that the 3m wide vehicle crossing will be constructed. It is recommended that splays of 1.3m provided on each side of the crossover to accord with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy and standards.

The location of the vehicle crossing should take into consideration proximity to the vehicle crossing at 8 Bond Street. The minimum kerbside length required for one parallel on-street car parking space is 5.4m. Providing less than this length may result in vehicle overhanging the driveways and causing access obstruction. The applicant should consider widening the access point to assist in deterring motorists from parking in this location.

Following a further response from the applicant’s transport engineer, the following comments were made on 27.05.14:

The applicant’s argument referring to approximately 1800 off-street parking spaces within the Chapel Street activity centre, located within a short walking distance of the site, for visitors to the medical centre is not accepted.

The installation of a pedestrian control light or a mirror to assist with lines of sight for exiting vehicles is acceptable and would need to form part of a condition on any permit to issue so that it is shown on the plans.

The columns are located in the parking aisle, in front of the car stacker units, which is not considered appropriate. As such, the proposal should be revised so that there are no columns in the parking aisles.

Placing the car lift close to the property boundary eliminates the possibility to queue a waiting vehicle on private property whilst waiting to access the car lift, which is not considered

Page 39


appropriate. Bond Street is a narrow one-way street, and any queuing may affect the operation of the street including access obstruction, which should not occur as a result of substandard design associated with private property. The applicant’s Memo states that the proposed lift is consistent with the access arrangements at 8 Bond Street, which also includes a car lift. It should however be noted that the development at 8 Bond Street, South Yarra was rejected by Council and was ultimately approved by VCAT, whose members are generally not concerned about operational issues and associated impact to public land post development.

The floor gradients should be shown on the plans and form part of a condition on any permit to issue.Dimensions of the bicycle parking should be shown on the plans and form part of a condition on any permit to issue.

The vehicle crossing 1.3m wide splays should be shown on the plans and form part of a condition on any permit to issue. The issue of the length of the kerbside parking area between the proposed vehicle crossing and the vehicle crossing to the next door property at 8 Bond Street has not been addressed. The applicant should provide revised plans including the length of the available kerbside area, in order to clarify how this will operate without causing access obstructions to either of the driveways post development.

KEY ISSUES

State Policy

A number of State Planning Policies are relevant in regard to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include Clauses 11.01 (Activity Centres), 11.04 (Metropolitan Melbourne), 15.01 (Urban Environment), 16.01 (Residential Development), 17.01-1 (Business) and 18.02 (Movement Networks). The objectives listed provide a strong policy context for intensive housing developments within Principal Activity Centres that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. In particular, the State policy framework includes specific direction for the encouragement of a diversity of housing types in and around activity centers (11.01), increasing the supply of housing in existing urban areas (16.01), and ensuring housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice (16.01-4).

When considered against these policy directions there is strong State policy support for redevelopment of a site of this size and location within the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Principal Activity Centre for residential intensification. While the site may be strategically located for medium scale development, the design response must respect and enhance the existing neighbourhood character.

Local Policy

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement seeks to maintain and enhance a network and viable activity centres. Having regard to the Economic Development section of the MSS at Clause 21.04, a strategy includes to consolidate the activity centres hierarchy by promoting development and expansion as appropriate to the role and position of each centre as shown in the table.

The table to Clause 21.04-1 identifies the Prahran/South Yarra Centre as a Group 1 – Principal Centre which is a regional centre with both local and regional roles accommodating larger scale retail uses, complementary entertainment uses and goods and services to meet every day and specialty needs. This clause also promotes a mix of uses (retail, office, services, entertainment and residential uses) in all activity centres, to ensure safe and viable use of activity centres.

Page 40


Clause 21.05 (Housing) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme directs new residential developments to locations that are highly accessible to both Activity Centers and public transport networks and away from the lower density residential hinterland. The subject site is located within a substantial change area. Council’s local policies direct medium density housing to land shown on the Strategic Framework Plan as a Principal Activity Centre, and in accordance with any approved Structure Plan, provided the location and scale of the development meets the requirements of any adopted Structure Plans. However, in incremental change areas, the remaining residential areas, 2-3 storey multi-unit developments to lots capable of accommodating increased density are directed.

The Built Environment and Heritage section of the MSS at Clause 21.06 includes an objective to direct higher density development (residential and non-residential) to locations in and beside activity centres, beside Principal Public Transport Network, and away from residential hinterland. It also requires a high standard of built form, detailing and architectural design in all new development. Furthermore, it encourages a high standard of amenity within new developments, and with adjoining developments.

In light of the above, it is considered that the subject site has strategic support for medium density mixed use development. The location is appropriate for urban consolidation and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice. The proposed development adequately addresses policy objectives of urban consolidation, streetscape character, household diversity and building form and is responsive to its context.

Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity. These are discussed below.

Chapel Vision/Chapel reVision

The subject site is currently located within the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Principal Activity Centre. Council’s local policy at Clause 22.19 implements the contents of the relevant Chapel Vision Structure Plan (December 2007) in relation to land use. The subject site and immediate surrounding pocket is identified for moderate change pursuant to the Structure Plan document and this is reinforced in the relevant Design and Development Overlay 7. It includes a preferred maximum building height of 15m with a preferred minimum street wall height of 8m.

The Structure Plan for the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy is currently under review. The draft Chapel reVision Structure Plan adopted by Council on 5 August 2013 removed the subject site and the residential zoned land between Toorak Road, Chapel Street and the railway line from the Activity Centre boundary.

In a recent decision by VCAT, Macroach Investments Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2014] VCAT 267 (Order dated 13 March 2014), where Council’s refusal of a five storey building at 15 William Street was overturned, the following comments were made in regard to Chapel reVision at paragraphs 14 and 15:

Given the current status of the proposed amendments we are not persuaded they should be given any weight other than to serve as background information as to the Responsible Authority’s future thinking. Whilst the Amendments may have updated the Responsible Authority’s future thinking and strategic direction and may provide for a different development outcome of the site, they have not been subject to an independent Panel or independent scrutiny. Their final format is unknown and uncertain. Our assessment of this proposal is based therefore, on the current planning controls and strategies as they apply to the site.

Page 41


We cannot ignore what policy is seeking in this location. We cannot ignore the current direction of the planning scheme for this location. This site is well placed for higher density development. The real question is how high, how many apartments and what impact does it have on the neighbourhood?

Given that there have been no advances in Chapel reVision since the above order was made, it is considered reasonable that the current provisions of the Planning Scheme apply to the site. While the current strategic thinking has been amended for this area, the amendment process still needs to take its course and at this stage, it has not advanced far enough to be considered “seriously entertained”.

Notwithstanding the above, if the subject site and the area bound by Toorak Road, Chapel Street and the railway line were to be removed from DDO7, the site would become a General Residential Zone with a mandatory height limit of 13.5m. This would allow for a four storey building which is consistent with the current proposal.

Zone

The site is within the General Residential Zone which includes the following purposes:

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

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

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

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the above where it encourages a range of dwellings and for non-residential uses to serve local community needs. In addition, the site is located in excellent proximity to services and transport, consistent with policy for activity centres and urban consolidation.

Design and Development Overlay 7

The site is specifically identified under DDO7 as being within a moderate change area where there will be incremental opportunities for infill development consistent with the preferred future character of the area. The subject site and immediately surrounding area has a preferred maximum height limit of 15m under the DDO7. Within the Commercial 1 Zone to the east and north, the preferred maximum height is 19m. Growth and redevelopment should reflect the degree of change identified for each change area and the preferred maximum building heights specified in the Schedule to the Overlay.

The Schedule also states that new development adjoining land used for a dwelling or within a residential zone, including a Mixed Use Zone, should provide a sensitive transition and interface in terms of built form, scale, setbacks, overlooking, overshadowing and landscaping. The character objectives for this area encourage innovative, high quality and well designed buildings which complement the existing urban fabric and mixed use character of the Activity Centre and which achieves the preferred built form outcomes for the Activity Centre as set out in this Schedule.

Page 42


The current DDO7 allows for a preferred maximum building height of 15m with a preferred minimum street wall height of 8m. For preferred minimum street setbacks, Clause 55 applies. Preferred street setbacks apply to all streets adjoining a site (excluding a laneway). However, it is also noted that reduced upper level setbacks may be appropriate for corner sites and along side streets, subject to an appropriate site-specific design response.

The proposed development, at a maximum height of 12.21m, is below the discretionary height limit of 15m for this site. The built form provides significant rear setbacks of between 3.68m and 4.38m (at Level 1) and between 8.63m and 9.03m at Level 3. The building presents a three storey street wall to Bond and Chambers Streets, with the upper level setback from both frontages and treated differently to the street wall to appear as a recessive element.

The proposed building has a three storey wall height of approximately 10m. DDO7 suggests a street wall of 8m. No.8 Bond Street includes a varied street wall of between 6.8m and 9.1m with the third floor glass balustrade setback marginally from the street to height of 10.1m. Further east are larger two and three storey street walls. Given the adjoining street walls, the corner location, the slope in the land and the internal amenity provided to future occupants it is considered that the proposed street wall can be varied from the discretionary limit. The proposed street wall is varied and is articulated with balconies and a featured laser cut decorative screen providing a vertical rhythm.

The overall height of the building responds to the existing neighbourhood context and allows for a transition in height between the five storey building to the east, the two storey dwellings to the south and the varied heights along Chambers Street. Given the corner location, a robust built form can be accepted. With the significant setbacks from the rear, the built form minimises the impacts on the adjoining residential properties while still providing an acceptable redevelopment opportunity on the site.

The site is appropriately located in a strategic context, in a Residential 1 Zone and within a Principle Activity Centre for a multi level mixed use building. The ground floor presentation allows for a true mixed use building and is considered satisfactory in this location. The proposal responds well to its immediate and wider context. The overall height of the building is consistent with recently approved developments in the area and is below the (discretionary) preferred maximum building height under DDO7.

Clause 55

Neighbourhood Character/ Design Detail

As noted in the site and surrounds section of this report, the site is located within an area of varied character. There are single and two storey older dwellings and flat buildings mixed with a variety of single, double and up to five storeys non-residential and mixed use buildings. Given the location of the site, within a Principal Activity Centre, it is expected that a variety of building types and styles and uses exist collectively.

To the east, at 8 Bond Street, is a five storey residential building that has recently been constructed and includes vehicle access via a car lift to the east of the frontage. To the south, at 2 and 2A Chambers Street, is a two storey townhouse development with the rear private open space areas abutting the common boundary. To the north and west are a mixture of single, double, and triple storey dwellings and flat buildings.

The proposed development involves the construction of a four storey mixed use building for a medical centre (2 practitioners) and three levels comprising five dwellings. The three storey street wall with the upper level setback is considered to be consistent with this section of the Principal Activity Centre and responds appropriately to its abutting residential properties. The

Page 43


hard edge along the northern boundary is consistent with all other buildings fronting Bond Street, while the Chambers Street ground floor incorporates a staggered landscaped setback responding to the various setbacks provided along that street. The setbacks from the rear allow for a respectful response to the adjoining properties and the contemporary architecture of the building will respond appropriately to the site context and features. Important design elements such as setbacks, facade articulation, flat roof construction and building materials will respect the existing character of the street and provide a quality built form outcome.

The proposed development will provide a non-residential use at ground floor level and five one and two bedroom dwellings, which will add to the range of dwelling types being provided in this part of the municipality.

The development has a frontage to Bond Street rather than Chambers Street and this is considered appropriate given the orientation of the site and the interface with the adjoining properties. It is reasonable that the building presents to Bond Street so that it relates to No. 8 Bond Street and has a more transitional built form to the Chambers Street properties. The building will provide pedestrian and vehicle entry via Bond Street which provides a sense of address and presence to the street. The dwellings will also be orientated to Bond Street providing direct access to the north and passive surveillance to the street. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development represents a carefully considered design response that will complement this section of Bond Street and the Activity Centre as a whole.

Street Setback

The proposal incorporates a street setback of between 0.7m and 1.3m to Chambers Street at ground floor level. At Levels 1 and 2, the building is built to the Chambers Street boundary for a length of approximately 9m. At Level 3, a setback of 0.9m is provided from Chambers Street. The adjoining site to the south incorporates a varied Chambers Street setback of 5.22m near the common boundary and between 1.98m and 0.68m further south. The proposed Chambers Street setback is considered appropriate in this immediate context given the setbacks of the property to the south and the robust corner location of the site. It is noted that there are three pillars proposed within this setback that are only shown on the elevations. To ensure that the full intent of the setback proposed can be experienced, the pillars should be removed within the Chambers Street setback. The applicant has advised that this can be accommodated and as such will form part of a condition to remove them should any permit issue.

The proposal is built to the Bond Street boundary, with the exception of the pedestrian and vehicle entry which are setback 1.0m and 0.7m respectively from the boundary. At Levels 1 and 2, the building is built to the entire Bond Street boundary with windows to the balconies setback 1.6m. At Level 3, the windows are setback 1.4m, with a canopy extending over and setback 0.8m from northern boundary. Given the building at No.8 Bond Street which is built hard up to the northern boundary for three storeys with the balustrade of the fourth storey built to the boundary, the proposed building matches this response and is therefore acceptable. It is noted that part of the ground floor frontage contains a 0.9m deep canopy over the footpath which is setback 0.3m from the kerb. Given that the minimum setback proposed for any canopy should be 0.75m from the kerb, it is considered that a 0.45m deep canopy would serve no purpose and as such should be removed. A condition will be included on any permit to issue requiring its deletion.

While the proposed front setback is not strictly compliant with the Standard B6 setback, which requires a front setback of 1.98m to Chambers Street, it is considered that this requirement can be varied given that the site is located within a Principal Activity Centre, where more intensive development is expected. Furthermore, the articulated frontage and the upper level setbacks

Page 44


proposed will allow for a more appropriate response to the adjoining residential properties and reduce the impact on the streets.

Building Height

The proposed development measures 12.21m, measured from the centre of the Bond Street frontage. Standard B7 allows a maximum building height 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 maximum building height should not exceed 10 metres.

The proposal seeks a variation of this requirement, given the current DDO7 control on the site, allow for a preferred maximum building height is 15m. The proposed height is considered acceptable given the strategic context of the site and the existing 5 storey building to the east and the two storey buildings to the south and the general variation of heights in the immediate context. The proposal will not result in excessive height or bulk and it is considered that the objective to respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character is satisfied.

Site Coverage

The development proposes 88 per cent site coverage which is greater than the 60 per cent maximum suggested by Standard B8 at Clause 55.03-3. A variation to this requirement can be accepted given the existing high site coverage of the neighbourhood and the site’s location within a Principal Activity Centre.

Permeability

The permeable areas proposed are the landscaped planter boxes along the western and part southern boundaries. While they are planter areas, these will sit above the basement car park and as such, will be less permeable than if there was no basement below. Given the intensive development proposed for the immediate context and the inclusion of a rainwater tank for stormwater re-use, it is considered that a variation to the standard can be accepted in this location.

Energy Efficiency

Given the orientation of the subject site, all dwellings will have a northerly aspect and make appropriate use of solar access. The Sustainable Design Assessment submitted with the application is considered satisfactory and should be endorsed concurrently with any plans endorsed, should a permit issue.

Safety

The development incorporates a clear and identifiable residential entry to Bond Street.

Landscaping

Generally the area incorporates limited on-site landscaping. The proposal incorporates a landscaped area along the western and part southern boundaries. This is considered an acceptable outcome in the inner urban context and Principal Activity Centre. A landscape plan will be required to be submitted via a condition on any permit to issue.

Access

Page 45


The proposal seeks to remove the existing crossover to Chambers Street and provide a new entry via Bond Street. Chambers Street would be provided with an additional space, while Bond Street will have a space removed, thus resulting in no net loss of on-street parking spaces.

Parking Location

The car parking facilities are secure, convenient and provide safe and efficient access for residents and medical centre practitioners. A pedestrian control light or a mirror should be installed to assist with lines of sight for exiting vehicles and this will form part of a condition on any permit to issue.

Amenity Impacts

Side and Rear Setbacks

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

The proposed development complies with the numeric requirements of Standard B17 from the property to the south. It is considered that the southern elevation also complies with the objectives as the built form limits the impact on the amenity of the dwellings to the south while still ensuring that it responds appropriately to the intensification of the site, given its location within a Principal Activity Centre.

Walls on Boundaries

The proposed development will incorporate southern and eastern boundary walls.

With regard to the southern boundary wall, it will extend for a length of 7.4m. For 2.9m of this length, the wall is proposed at a height of 3.51m and will be constructed against the part of the existing wall on the abutting lot. The remaining 4.5m long wall will replace an existing 2.74m high wall and 1.75m high fence with a 2.74m high wall. It is considered that the proposed southern boundary wall complies with Standard B18.

With regard to the eastern boundary wall, it will extend height of all four levels with various setbacks from the south as follows: built to the southern boundary at Ground Level (to a height of between 2.74m and 3.51m), setback 3.68m at Level 1 (to a height of 6.27m), setback 7.29m at Level 2 (to a height of 9.48m) and setback 9.03m at Level 3 (to a height of 12.405m). The wall at Level 3 is also setback from the northern boundary 0.8m. There is an existing wall on

Page 46

South Elevation (Side Setback)Wall height Setback required Setback proposed

Ground Floor 3.54m 0-1m 1.98m

Level 1 6.17m 1.77m 3.68m – 4.38m

Level 2 9.27m 4.36m 6.36m – 7.3m

Level 3 11.97m 7.06m 8.63m – 9.03m


the boundary associated with No.8 Bond Street. This wall extends the length of the common boundary with the subject site at ground floor level and also extends in part to first floor level. While the proposal does not specifically comply with Standard B18, it is acknowledge that walls on boundaries are common in the neighbourhood and given the site’s location within a Principal Activity Centre, it is not unreasonable to expect walls on boundaries. The generous setbacks from the south allow the impacts on No.8 Bond Street to be minimised without compromising the redevelopment of the subject site. Hence, the walls on boundaries comply with the objective which seeks to ensure that the location, length and height of walls respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impacts on the amenity of existing dwellings.

Daylight to Existing Windows

All walls are setback appropriately to allow for adequate daylight to adjoining windows.

North- facing Windows

All north facing windows on the south abutting properties, No.2 and No.2A Chambers Street are setback more than 3m from the common boundary and as such this Standard is not applicable.

Overshadowing

The submitted shadow diagrams demonstrate that there will be a marginal increase in overshadowing to the southern abutting properties, No.2 and No.2A Chambers Street from 12 noon onwards.

For No.2A Chambers Street, there will be an increase in shadow at 12 noon only of 0.23m². There is no increase in shadow at other times of the day. For No.2 Chambers Street, there will be an increase in shadow from 12 noon onwards. An increase in shadow of 0.54m² at 12 noon, and increase of 0.56m² at 1pm, an increase of 0.59m² at 2pm and an increase of 0.59m² at 3pm. This additional shadow is due to the new boundary wall increasing from a 1.75m high fence to a 2.74 high wall, which is consistent with the height of the existing wall on the boundary but slightly longer. While the increase in shadow does not specifically comply with the standard which requires that ‘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’, it is considered that the increase is negligible and imperceptible as it will be less than 0.6m² over the afternoon. The proposal complies with the objective which seeks to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.

The submitted shadow diagrams also demonstrate that the existing secluded private open space of the west facing dwellings at No.8 Bond Street will be in shadow (cast from their own building) between 9am and 12 noon. In the afternoon, only the ground floor central apartment (Apt G-02) along the western boundary (with the larger secluded private open space) would experience additional overshadowing in the afternoon as a result of the proposed development.

While the increase in shadow does not specifically comply with the standard which requires that ‘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’, it is considered that the increase is marginal when compared to the existing conditions. Furthermore, given the urban context of the site, the design of the building at No.8 Bond Street, in particular the ground floor dwelling orientated to the western boundary and the generous setback provided along the southern boundary for the proposed development, it is considered that the increase in shadows to this one dwelling is inevitable and in fact poorly designed such

Page 47


that any development on the adjoining land would impact on the limited amount of sunlight it would otherwise receive.

The overshadowing impact on the adjoining properties is considered reasonable in this urban context where increased densities and larger built form is expected and encouraged.

Overlooking

There are habitable room windows orientated to the Chambers Street and Bond Street frontages and as such there is no reason to screen these windows. The south facing habitable room windows are all screened in accordance with this standard and includes a combination of 1700mm sill height windows and fixed obscure glazing up to 1700mm. Hence, the proposed development complies with this standard.

Internal Views

There is no opportunity for views within the development.

Noise Impacts

The proposed development will not create any undue noise that will affect any existing dwellings.

On-Site Amenity and Facilities

Accessibility and Dwelling Entry

All dwellings are accessible to people with limited mobility given the provision of a lift.

Daylight to New Windows

The new windows for all of the proposed dwellings will allow for an adequate amount of daylight into all new habitable rooms. As a result, the proposal will enjoy adequate daylight and complies with the standard.

Private Open Space

All dwellings will be afforded with a balcony that is to be accessed via a living area. All balconies will be a minimum of 8 square metres, which is considered acceptable.

Solar Access to Open Space

All dwellings will be provided with north facing balconies which will provide excellent solar access.

Storage

Each dwelling will be provided with a separate storage area in the basement.

Medical Centre Use

The proposed medical centre is a Section 2 Use and as such requires a permit. It is proposed to use the ground floor as a dental clinic with 2 practitioners which will operate 8.30am to

Page 48


7.00pm Monday to Friday. It is considered that the proposed use is supported in Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement which (at point 3.1 of Clause 21.04-1) encourages businesses that will provide services and employment opportunities for the local community, including services associated with education, health, medical and professional services. It further encourages (at point 1.1 of Clause 21.04-4) commercial and community uses permissible in residential zones to locate close to activity centre, community hubs, public transport and other related uses. In addition, policy seeks to ensure (at point 1.7 of Clause 21.04-4) that non-residential uses do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area through noise, hours of operation, traffic or parking associated with the use.

The following guidelines apply to commercial and community uses in residential zones:

Allowing small, non-residential uses to locate on land with frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1) provided they occupy an existing building constructed as a dwelling, a heritage building or the lower floors of a new residential development constructed and located in accordance with policy in this Scheme.

Requiring purpose built, non-residential uses to locate in or beside activity centres or on land which fronts a main road and which has a mixed use character, in order of preference:oin business or mixed use zones, particularly in Group 4 commercial centres, oroon land with sideage to or opposite a business or mixed use zone, oroon land which fronts a public car park, oroon land with a frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1), in locations that already have a

mixed use character and are close to a business or mixed use zone.

The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone and does not have a frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1), hence, it does not satisfy the first dot point above. However, the site is located within a Principal Activity Centre which satisfies the second dot point. In this instance, the site does not fall in either of the categories described below the second dot point. Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the proposed commercial use is satisfactory for the following reasons:

The site is adjacent to No.8 Bond Street which is adjacent to a Commercial 1 Zone. The proposed use as a dental clinic with 2 practitioners is not an intense use and will have

limited impact on the immediate area. A dentist operates different to a GP where visits are by appointment only. The proposed hours of operation are considered reasonable for the proposed use and will

only operate Monday to Friday. The site is located within a Principal Activity Centre and where there are other dentists

located along Bond Street. The use is a Section 2 use in the Residential 1 Zone, appropriately located away from

residential hinterland.

Hence, the proposed medical centre (dentist) is considered appropriate for the site, given the intensity and proposed hours of operation and will not adversely impact on the adjoining properties nor the immediate area.

Transport and Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the proposal requires a statutory rate of 14 car parking spaces for the 5 dwellings (5 spaces for dwellings and 1 space for resident visitors) and for the 2 practitioner medical centre (8 spaces - 5 spaces to the first person providing health services and 3 spaces to every other person providing health services). 6 car parking spaces are proposed and as such the proposal seeks a reduction of 8 car parking spaces required by the Planning Scheme. Four (4) car parking spaces are proposed for the residents and two (2) spaces are

Page 49


proposed for the medical centre. The proposed car parking rate is supported by Council’s Transport & Parking Unit for the residents, the resident visitors and the medical centre staff. However, they are not supportive of the lack of on-site parking for the medical centre visitors or for medical centre employees beyond the practitioners. It has been suggested that an alternative use such as an office might be more appropriate for the ground floor use as the travel profile is different and alternate modes of car travel are more suitable. However, an office is a prohibited use in a Residential 1 Zone.

It is considered that the proposal would be acceptable without the provision of visitor car parking for the medical centre given enough car parking has been provided to both the residential and commercial uses, and any visitors would have to rely on short term car parking or other modes of transport. The site is located within a Principal Activity Centre and public transport immediately available to this site is exceptional, notwithstanding the range or services which are located within immediate walking distance, thus resulting in no need for residents or visitors to rely on car use. The reduced supply of car parking is also supported by the fact that the resultant development will have a reduced impact on the local traffic environment. The Chapel Street environs are known to be congested and thus development with reduced car parking is encouraged. Furthermore, the lack of onsite car parking spaces is in line with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy which seeks to reduce car dependency by working towards having more people in the municipality choosing to walk, cycle and use public transport. By reducing the provision of car parking available to residents, visitors and the medical centre use, the objectives and strategies under this policy will be achieved. Hence, the allocation of spaces as proposed by the applicant is considered satisfactory.

It is worth noting that given the site constraints, any additional parking provided on site would need to be provided in the car stackers. Car stackers are not considered to be reasonable options for visitors as stated in Clause 52.06.

The additional traffic generated by the development is considered satisfactory.

The proposal generates a requirement for 1 resident bicycle space and 1 bicycle space for medical practitioners. The proposal provides 7 bicycle spaces, a surplus of 5. The spaces are allocated as follows: 5 to residents and 1 to the medical use and 1 to visitors on the footpath. All bicycle spaces should be appropriately located and dimensioned. The 1 visitor space on the footpath should be removed as it is not located within the site’s title boundary. These will form part of conditions on any permit to issue.

Council’s Transport & Parking Unit has identified a number of concerns with the layout of the car parking area. These are summarised in the referral section above. Most of the concerns relating to the site distance, floor gradients and vehicle crossover dimensions can be addressed by conditions on any permit to issue.

Council’s Transport & Parking Unit have raised concerns with the location of the car lift and the queuing of vehicles on Bond Street. The applicant’s traffic engineer has provided comments on the car lift operation and it is estimated that in a worst case scenario a total of 2 minutes per vehicle would be required to access a parking space in the basement from Bond Street or exit onto Bond Street. The probability of two vehicles meeting at the crossover would be 0.1% chance during peak periods. In the event that a vehicle is required to wait for another vehicle to exit the basement, this vehicle will be required to wait on Bond Street for a short period of time. If a vehicle is required to wait for another vehicle to enter the parking area before it is able to exit the basement, the vehicle will wait within the basement and will not have an impact on Bond Street. It is suggested that the lift be programmed to be located at ground level when not in use

Page 50


such that vehicles entering the lift from Bond Street would not be delayed. This can form part of a condition on any permit to issue.

It is considered that given the number of car spaces that will be serviced by the car lift, the applicant’s traffic engineers suggest that the proposal will result in 5 vehicle movements during each peak period. This is considered to be minimal in the surrounding context and as stated above, will not impact on the existing road network. The car lift is a suitable option in order to provide car parking on site.

With regard to the column located within the parking aisle, Council’s Transport & Parking Unit advised that these should be removed and/or placed within the car stackers. Given that the basement includes a turntable and the applicant has provided swept path diagrams indicating access to the car spaces, it is considered that the columns can be accepted in their proposed location. Furthermore, the column is required for structural purposes.

With regard to the number of on-street parking spaces being affected by the proposed new vehicle access, it is noted that Chambers Street currently allows for two on-street car parking spaces, either side of the vehicle crossing for the subject site. The proposal seeks to remove the vehicle access point from Chambers Street, thus allowing for an additional car parking space to be provided. The existing kerbside parking area along Bond Street appears to be approximately 13.96m, which would only allow for 2 parallel car parking spaces (west of the crossover to No.8 Bond Street), assuming 5.4m is required for each space. The introduction of the crossover required for the proposal would remove one useable space from Bond Street. However, given the increase of one space to Chambers Street, there would be no net loss of on-street car parking spaces overall. If the development was approved, only one car space could be accommodated between the crossover to No.8 Bond Street and Chambers Street given that there would not be enough space for two formal spaces. As such, this could proivde for an area for vehicles to wait in Bond Street, should there be a delay in waiting for the car lift.

Environmental Sustainable Design

The applicant submitted a Sustainable Design Assessment with the application. The Report is considered satisfactory and should be endorsed concurrently with any plans, should a permit issue.

Drainage/Infrastructure

Originally, the application sought to remove the existing drainage easement along the eastern boundary of the site. This is a private drain and not under the Control of Council. Council’s Infrastructure Unit has no objection to works over the easement provided the benefiting owners of the easement, No.2 and No.2A Chambers Street, are aware of the proposal to build over the easement and that two conditions are included on any permit to issue.

It is acknowledged that the owners are aware of the proposal to build over the easement given that they have viewed the application, objected to the proposal and also attended the Consultative Meeting.

Two conditions will be included on any permit to issue requiring that the existing easement drain be replaced and connected from No.2 and No.2A Chambers Street through to the kerb and channel in Bond Street and that the on-going owners of 4 Chambers Street accept responsibility for the future maintenance of the drain and ensure that the drain is maintained in good condition at all times.

In addition, conditions requiring the legal point of discharge and a drainage design for the development prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer and that the existing footpath level must

Page 51


not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate any vehicular access) will be included on any permit to issue.

Landscape

A landscape plan was not submitted with the application. However, given that there are planter boxes proposed along the western and part southern boundaries, a condition will be included on any permit to issue requiring the submission and approval of a landscape plan.

Waste Management

A Waste Management Plan was not submitted with the application. However, a condition will be included on any permit to issue requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan.

Plans for Discussion

On 19 May 2014, the applicant submitted plans for discussion purposing and agreeing to the changes forming part of conditions on any permit to issue.

The reduction in height and extent of the ground floor boundary walls in the south east corner will reduce the amenity impacts to the adjoining residential properties. It is proposed to reduce the height of the wall along the eastern boundary from a part 2.74m and 3.51m high wall to a part 2.74m and 3.066m high wall setback 1.2m from the eastern boundary. A 1.7m (above floor level) high slat screen is proposed along the eastern boundary which will extend 0.3m above the existing boundary wall of the dwelling at 8 Bond Street (refer Section X-X). A planter area will be provided within this setback. It is considered that this amendment will assist in improving the outlook for the dwellings at 8 Bond Street and decrease the overshadowing impacts in the afternoon. This is considered an acceptable outcome and should form a condition for its inclusion on any permit to issue.

The setback of the wall from the eastern boundary and the additional setback of the higher roof form (albeit lower than the advertised plans) from the southern boundary will assist in improving the outlook for the dwelling at No.2 Chambers Street and decrease the overshadowing impacts in the afternoon. This is considered an acceptable outcome and should form a condition for its inclusion on any permit to issue.

The additional landscaping opportunities within the southern setback will require the relocation of the rainwater tank to the basement. Both the Sustainable Design Assessment and a landscape plan will need to address these amendments.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made: The subject site and the surrounding area are within a Principal Activity Centre were one

would expect and where Council policy encourages increased residential density and potentially a mix of uses.

There is no planning requirement for the retention of the existing tree on site. Any noise generated from air conditioning units will need to comply with the relevant EPA

laws and regulations. It is not considered that noise from the dwellings, balconies and commercial uses will have an unreasonable effect on nearby dwellings.

Page 52


In order to minimise the visual impact of the air conditioning units proposed along the southern elevation of the building, a condition will be included on any permit to issue requiring the units to be screened.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The building height and setbacks is considered to appropriately respond to the evolving

built form environment of the nearby area and strategic context of the site. The proposed uses are appropriate given the site’s location within a Principal Activity

Centre and will provide for greater housing choice and diversity within the area. Adequate provision is made for on and off site amenity, subject to permit conditions. Appropriate car parking and bicycle parking area provided.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0708-13 - 4 Chambers Street South Yarra - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0708/13 for the land located at 4 Chambers Street, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for use and development of land as a medical centre and dwellings and reduction in the car parking requirement subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised but modified to show:

Page 53


a) Amendments to the ground floor south eastern wall in accordance with the discussion plans received on 19 May 2014 showing:

i. Setback of the ground floor wall from the eastern boundary by 1.2m for a length of 3.6m and a subsequent 1.7m high screen (above the floor level of the subject site) along the eastern boundary. A west facing window can be included.

b) Amendments to the ground floor southern wall in accordance with the discussion plans received on 19 May 2014 showing:

i. A reduced setback from Chambers Street from 7.25m to 6.15m with an increased southern setback (1.98m) of the highest ground floor roof (which measures 3.07m high).

ii. Increase in the landscaping within the south western setback and subsequent relocation of the rainwater tank to the basement level.

c) Removal of the pillars along the western elevation and allow the first floor to overhang the ground floor.

d) Removal of the canopy over the footpath.e) The dimensions of the bicycle spaces in accordance with the Planning

Scheme or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. f) Removal of the visitor bicycle parking spaces from the Chambers Street

footpath.g) The floor gradients of the car parking area.h) The installation of a pedestrian control light or a mirror to assist with lines

of sight for exiting vehicles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.i) Screening of the air conditioning units along the southern elevation to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.j) Delete reference to remove easement on the ground floor.k) The vehicle crossing to show 1.3m wide splays or otherwise to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:a) Dimensions of waste areasb) The number of bins to be providedc) Method of waste and recyclables collectiond) Hours of waste and recyclables collection e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collectionf) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimised

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

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a revised Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) (similar to the Assessment submitted with the application but modified to address the requirements in Condition 1) 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

Page 54


Responsible Authority.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show:a) Details of surface finishes of pathways and drivewaysb) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

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

c) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the sited) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

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

or decked areas.

6. A maximum of two practitioners may provide dentist services from the premises.

7. The medical use hereby permitted must operate only between the hours of 8.30am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday.

8. The car lift must be programmed to be located at ground level when not in use.

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

10. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

11. 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.

12. The existing easement drain must be replaced in sewer quality UPVC pipe and must connect the existing easement drain from 2-2a Chambers Street through to the kerb and channel in Bond Street.

13. The on-going owners of 4 Chambers Street must at their cost accept responsibility for the future maintenance of the drain and ensure that the drain is maintained in good condition at all times.

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

15. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate any vehicular access) other than the provision of crossover to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Local Laws.

Page 55


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

18. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) and 1.7m sill height windows designed to limit overlooking 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.

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

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

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

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

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

permit. c) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit.d) The use is discontinued for a period of two years or more.

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

Notes

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

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

The 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 Unit.

The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive

Page 56


“Resident Parking Permits”.

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 57


4 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0118/14 - 3 PLANT STREET, MALVERN – CONSTRUCTION OF ONE DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 500 SQUARE METRES


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of one dwelling on the site at 3 Plant Street, Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Ravida Group P/LWard: NorthCurrent Zone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ2)Zone as at date of Lodgement:

Residential 1 Zone (R1Z)

Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 25/02/2014Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

55


Councillor Call Up

Number of objections: 2Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Ravida Group and are known as Job No. 2014/01, Drawing Nos: 1 of 7 through 7 of 7 Council date stamped 13 May 2014, and Drawing Nos: 8 of 10 through 10 of 10 Council date stamped 29 May 2014. A survey plan prepared by Rodney Aujard & Associates Council date stamped 25 February 2014 provides context information.

Key features of the proposal are:

It is proposed to construct one double storey dwelling; The dwelling is to be a 4 bedroom home, plus study. Living areas are generally at

ground level, with bedrooms at the first floor; A double car garage with a first floor loft is proposed towards the rear of the site,

gaining access from the right of way; Front fence to consist of part solid masonry and part masonry piers with steel infill with

variable height between 1.6m and 2.25m; and A swimming pool in the back yard.

Site and Surrounds

Page 59


The site is located on the west side of Plant Street, approximately 41m north of the intersection with Malvern Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

Contains a single storey masonry dwelling and garage; A frontage to Plant Street of 14.02m and a depth of 35.42m; An area of approximately 496.6m2; The land exhibits a rise from front to back of approximately 1m; and A number of trees, none of which can be defined as ‘significant’ under Council’s Local

Law.

The immediate vicinity is characterised by mainly detached single and double storey dwellings, although a couple of multi dwelling sites can be found further along the street to the north, on the east side of Plant Street.

Front setbacks are variable, and differ along the east and west side of the street. Setbacks on the east side range between 3m and 5.5m, whilst setbacks on the west side range between 3.5m and 7.7m. Front fences vary from no fencing through low brick and picket fence, to high brick and paling fences to between 1.8 and 2m. The site’s immediate surrounds are described as follows:

To the immediate south is No. 1 Plant Street, a double storey detached dwelling setback 7.5m from Plant Street. The ground floor of the building is constructed from brick, whilst the upper level (attic) is finished with painted cement sheet. This dwelling has a number of north facing windows facing the proposed development site and incorporates a pitched, tiled roof;

To the immediate north is No. 5 Plant Street. The site is occupied by a single storey detached dwelling setback 8m from Plant Street. The building is constructed from rendered brick and incorporates a pitched, tiled roof; and

To the east and west are Plant Street and a right of way respectively.

The subject site and surrounding area is zoned Residential 1. The subject site is located in close proximity to strip shopping centres in Malvern Road and Glenferrie Road and is a short drive to Malvern Central and Chapel Street. Education facilities within 2kms include Lauriston Girls School, Malvern Central School, De La Salle and St Josephs Primary. A number of public reserves are available within 2kms including Sir Robert Menzies Reserve, Malvern Cricket Ground and Malvern Public Gardens. Tooronga Railway Station is located 1.5km to the east and Malvern Railway Station is located approximately 2km to the south. The Route 72 Tram runs along Malvern Road, less than 50m from the property, and the Route 16 Tram runs along Glenferrie Road, less than 150m from the property.


A search of Council records indicates that there is no relevant planning history.

The Title

The site spans two lots and is described on Certificate of Title 11196 Folio 025 known as Lot 1 on Title Plan 676110H and Certificate of Title Volume 06607 Folio 312 known as Lot 1 on Title Plan 945272G. No covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


Page 60


Current Zone

Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential ZonePursuant to Clause 32.09-4 a permit is required to construct a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in area.

Amendment C187, gazetted on 19 June 2014, implemented the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ, Schedule 2) to this site. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone provides for a mandatory maximum building height of 9.0m, requirements for side setbacks for at least 5m beyond the front facade of the building and that basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.

The proposal is generally consistent with the newly adopted provisions. Transitional arrangements exist which require any application received prior to the new zones being introduced to be assessed against the relevant controls within the Stonnington Planning Scheme as at the date of receipt of the application.

Zone as at date of Lodgement

Clause 32.01 - Residential 1Pursuant to Clause 32.01-3 a permit is required to construct one dwelling on a lot where the lot area is less than 500 square metres.


Clause 52.06 - Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-1 the provisions of this clause do not apply to the construction of one dwelling on a lot in a residential zone.

Clause 54 - ResCodePursuant to Clause 54, the construction of one dwelling on a lot must meet the objectives of this clause.


15.01 Urban environment15.02 Sustainable development16.01 Residential development21.03 Vision21.05 Housing32.01 Residential 1 Zone54 ResCode

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 (one facing Plant Street and one facing the right of way at the rear). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and objections from 2 different properties have been received. In summary, the objectors’ concerns include:

Page 61


Proposed dwelling is too close to the frontage of the site, being forward of both adjoining houses;

The dwellings exceeds 8 metres in height; The multistory garage wall heights do not comply with ResCode; The garage and dwelling are to be built over a title boundary; Overshadowing; Reduction in natural light; Undesirable front setback in this part of the street; Overdevelopment on a lot of this size; Dwelling is completely out of character and unsympathetic; and The proposal will create privacy impacts.

As a result of discussions with Council officers and objectors, the applicant amended their application on 13 May 2014. The amendment was accompanied by a Statutory Declaration from the applicant advising Council that copies of the amended plans had been provided to both objectors.

The changes made to the plans Council date stamped 13 May 2014 include:

Front setback increased from 5m to 6.5m; Roof pitch reduced and building lowered to decrease maximum height from 9.0m to

8.5m; Provision of metal cladding in lieu of render on rear wall of the garage; and Provision of a lattice screen on the northern fence line, adjacent to the swimming pool,

to screen northerly views from the loft over the garage into number 5 Plant Street.

The revised plans were not advertised as the amendment was accompanied by a signed Statutory Declaration which satisfied Council that all affected parties had been advised. The revised plans increase the setback to the street, partially addressing some of the objectors’ concerns, and are unlikely to create impact to any parties other than the adjoining lots.

Referrals

Infrastructure Unit

The Infrastructure Unit has no concerns with the proposal, however it is important that the garage not be lowered below that proposed to ensure that protection is provided from stormwater runoff from the rear right-of-way. It is requested a condition be placed on the permit requiring a report for legal point of discharge be obtained from Council and a design prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer prior to a building permit being issued.

Urban Design

Council’s Urban Designer reviewed the original proposal and raised the following concerns: The front setback is shown as 5m; this is considerably less than the setback of the two

adjoining neighbours. The front setback should be increased to align with the two neighbouring properties;

There appears no precedent in the street for 2-storey ancillary buildings at the rear of residential properties; and

There does not appear to be a landscaping plan. All new development should be accompanied by an integrated, canopy-treed landscape garden setting.

Council’s Urban Designer reviewed the amended plans and provided the following comment:

Page 62


“I agree that the increased setback is now supportable, given the degree of setback variability in the street. The only remaining issue of concern is the absence of a Landscape Plan.”

KEY ISSUES

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 and Council officers are discussed in detail below.

State Planning Policy Framework

The State Policy objectives at Clause 16.01-2 encourages new development to be within established urban areas. Clause 16.01-4 encourages a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs. This site is located within approximately 1.5km of Tooronga Railway Station and a short walk to tram routes along Malvern Road and Glenferrie Road, making the site accessible to public transport.

The site is also located within walking distance to high quality strip shopping centres along Malvern Road and Glenferrie Road. It is considered that there is State Policy support for the redevelopment of the subject site. The proposal is consistent with these policies in that it provides for residential development that will be able to take advantage of existing public transport links and a number of community services and facilities in close proximity to the subject site.

Local Planning Policy Framework

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Local Planning Policies, like the State Planning Policy Framework, encourages housing that makes use of existing infrastructure and urban design in residential areas that respects the existing character of the area and protects the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.

The site is located in close proximity to strip shopping centres and rail and tram services. Council’s Local Policy calls for development that provides for residential infill (Clause 21.05-4) and includes objectives at Clause 21.05-2 (Location of residential development) to direct new housing development in locations with the highest level of accessibility to both an activity centre and the principal public transport network. It is considered that the site is suitably located.

A more detailed analysis of neighbourhood character, design, residential amenity and the requirements of Clause 54 are discussed below.

Proposed Scale and Neighbourhood Character

The application has been assessed against Clauses 16.01, 21.05 and 54.02-1 and exhibits a high level of compliance. The proposed dwelling is considered an appropriate fit with the neighbourhood for the following reasons:

The neighbourhood includes a mix of dwelling types, ranging from Victorian cottages to modern dwellings and large buildings containing multiple dwellings;

The amended front setback (as shown in plans Council date stamped 13 May 2014 is considered a reasonable response in a street where setbacks vary significantly;

Page 63


The proposed dwelling is set off both side boundaries (at the front) maintaining a consistency in visual separation between dwellings along the street;

The upper level is setback further from the side boundaries, reducing the bulk and complying with ResCode;

The use of render and pitched tiled roof form is consistent with other dwellings found in the street;

All setbacks are compliant with the relevant ResCode standards; and Low site coverage (46%) providing adequate opportunities for landscaping and space

around the dwelling.

For these reasons, the proposal is considered an appropriate response to its context.

Proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy

Council has prepared, exhibited and adopted Draft Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 22.23 which is known as Planning Scheme Amendment C175. This policy proposes to identify a number of neighbourhood character precincts, and to establish guidelines for development within each precinct.

The subject site falls within proposed precinct Garden Suburban 3 (GS3) which includes the following statement of preferred neighbourhood character:

“The Garden Suburban 3 (GS3) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Victorian, Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, one-two storey scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street.”

Further, the following design objectives are proposed:

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.

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

The proposed dwellings incorporate design details which reflect those found in the neighbourhood, including the types of material used, roof forms and window openings;

The proposed dwelling is appropriately sited, generally set off both side boundaries; Site coverage of approximately 46% is proposed, providing sufficient areas of open space

around the building to sustain vegetation and provide for the recreation needs of future residents;

The garage is proposed to be accessed from the rear lane, ensuring the front facade and yard are not dominated by garage forms; and

Page 64


The proposed front fence consists of masonry pillars with a majority being wrought iron / steel in-fill, allowing appropriate views into the front yard, and of the dwelling beyond, which is generally appropriate.

For these reasons, the proposal is considered to have appropriately responded to the draft neighbourhood character policy.

Setbacks, Building Height and Site Coverage

Standard A3 of ResCode suggests the front setback of the dwelling to equal the average of the two adjoining dwellings. In this instance, the Standard would suggest a setback of 7.6m. The front setback is proposed to be 6.5m which does not satisfy the Standard. When a proposal does not satisfy the Standard, Council must consider whether it satisfies the decision guidelines of the objective which include:

The design response; and Whether a different setback would be more appropriate taking into account the

prevailing setbacks of existing buildings on nearby lots.

Setbacks along Plant Street vary significantly. Along the west side, setbacks range from 5m to 7.7m, with a prevailing setback of approximately 6.5m. On the east side, (opposite the subject site), setbacks range from 3m to 6m. It is considered that the proposed setback of 6.5m is appropriate as this reflects the prevailing setback along the west side of Plant Street.

The building is proposed to be built to a maximum height of 8.5m above natural ground level. This complies with Standard A4 which stipulates a maximum height of 9m.

Proposed site coverage is approximately 46% which is well below the maximum specified by Standard A5 of 60%.

Proposed side and rear setbacks are detailed below:

South (side)

Ground Floor, study, laundry and kitchen – reqd. setback 1.0m, prop. 1.0mGround Floor, garage – reqd. setback 0m, prop. 0mFirst Floor, bedroom 1, stair and bedroom 2 – reqd. setback 1.66m, prop. 2.60mFirst Floor, loft over garage – reqd. setback between 0m and 1.75m, prop. 0m to 2.50m

North (side)

Ground Floor, living – reqd. setback 1.0m, prop. 1.0mGround Floor, dining – reqd. setback 1.66m, prop. 1.96mGround Floor, family – reqd. setback 0m, prop. 0mFirst Floor, walk in robe, ensuite, bedroom 4 and bedroom 3 – reqd. setback 1.66m, prop. 1.95m

West (rear)

Ground and First Floor, garage and loft over – reqd. setback between 0m and 1.75m, prop. 1m

All proposed side setbacks comply with Standard A10. The first floor loft over the garage at the rear of the site does not comply with Standard A10 in that a first floor at a height of 6.1m needs to be setback a minimum 1.75m from the rear boundary in lieu of 1.0m as proposed. When a proposal does not satisfy the Standard, Council must consider whether it satisfies the decision guidelines of the objective which include:

Page 65


The design response; The impact on the amenity of the habitable room windows and secluded private open

space of existing dwellings; and Whether the wall abuts a side or rear lane.

In this instance, the non-compliance is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

The built form faces a right of way at the rear and as such, the setback to the neighbour to the rear is in effect 4m;

The proposed garage with loft over is to be constructed adjacent to a shed structure on the adjoining lot to the south; and

Whilst there are no other double storey forms in rear yards near the subject site, there is a significant amount of built form in the rear yards adjacent to the subject site and the loft over the garage in question is modest in area.

Landscaping

Whilst the site contains a number of trees, none can be classified as ‘significant’ as defined by Council’s Local Law relating to tree removal. The applicant has not provided a proposed landscaping plan to Council. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the provision of detailed landscaping plan, providing two substantial canopy trees within the front setback.

It is noted that there are three trees located on number 1 Plant Street within 1m of the shared boundary. As the applicant has not provided any Arborist report or similar to confirm to Council that the proposed foundations will not adversely affect the health of these trees, a condition should be included requiring a Tree Management Plan be submitted investigating the vegetation in question and making recommendations as to foundation techniques to ensure the ongoing viability of the trees at 1 Plant Street, Malvern.

Amenity Impacts

Walls on BoundariesStandard A11 requires that a wall on a boundary (or within 200mm) not exceed a maximum average height of 3.2m above natural ground level and not exceed a length of 10m + 25% of the remaining boundary length. The following walls are proposed to be constructed on the boundary:

Garage wall for a length of 7.5m at an average maximum height of 3.0m; and Family room wall for a length of 5.7m at an average maximum height of 3.1m.

The proposal complies with Standard A11.

Daylight to Existing Windows

Standard A12 requires a light well of a minimum width of 1m clear to the sky with a minimum area of 3m2 to be provided to all existing habitable room windows. Works are setback a minimum 3.9m from any habitable room windows of the adjoining dwelling to the south (1 Plant Street) which satisfies the standard.

The survey plan provided by the applicant (prepared by Rodney Aujard & Associates Council date stamped 25 February 2014) indicates that the adjoining dwelling to the north (5 Plant Street) is setback from the shared boundary between 1.3m and 1.45m. This dwelling includes an eave which projects 0.45m beyond the wall, resulting in a minimum setback from the boundary adjacent to the proposed family room of 0.9m. The proposed family room wall is to be constructed 150mm off the northern boundary, providing 1.05m separation between

Page 66


the eave and the new wall, complying with Standard A12. A total separation of 1.55m will exist between the window and the wall, which satisfies the second element of this standard of being setback a distance equal to at least 50% of the height of the wall.

Neighbouring North Facing Windows

Standard A13 requires buildings to be setback a minimum distance from a boundary if north facing windows exist in a dwelling on an adjoining lot to the south within 3m of the boundary. In this case there are 4 north facing windows within 3m of the boundary, and as such, the building must be setback as follows:

A minimum 1m from the south boundary; plus 0.6 metres for each metre of height above 3.6m; plus 1 metre for each metre of height above 6.9m.

The proposed building is setback a minimum 1m from the boundary at ground level and so complie with this part of the Standard. At the top of the proposed wall, a setback of 2.4m is required, and 2.6m is proposed, complying with this component of the Standard. Based on an overall building height of 8.5m, a setback of at least 4.58m is required. The current proposal provides a setback of 5m which satisfies the Standard.

Overshadowing

Due to the orientation of the property, overshadowing will only occur over number 1 Plant Street and the right-of-way at the rear of the site. Diagrams provided by the applicant indicate that additional shadows will be cast over the secluded private open space (SPOS) area in the rear yard of 1 Plant Street. A minimum of 65m2 of SPOS will be unaffected for at least 5 hours between 9am and 3pm on 22 September which confirms compliance with Standard A14 which requires a minimum of 40m2 of SPOS be unaffected.

Overlooking

A number of windows have been provided at first floor level which have the potential to overlook adjoining properties at numbers 1 and 5 Plant Street. These include:

South facing, staircase and toilet; and North facing, ensuite, bedroom 4 and north facing, loft over garage.

Only two habitable room windows (north facing bedroom 4 and north facing loft over garage) are required to be considered (as the remaining windows are to non-habitable rooms). The plans provided by the applicant indicate screening to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level to the window to bedroom 4. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring details of this screen to be provided which confirms compliance with Standard A15. The north facing window associated with the loft over the garage is compliant as sights lines from this window do not reach the ground within any adjoining secluded private open space within 9m.

It is noted that there are some minor discrepancies which exist between the floor plans and elevations (the floor plans appear to be computer generated whilst the elevations appears to be hand drawn). Whilst these minor discrepancies do not impact the assessment of the application, a condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the plans to be consistent.

Visual Bulk

Page 67


As discussed previously under the heading setbacks and building height, the proposal complies with the setback provisions in all areas except the front setback to Plant Street and the rear setback of the first floor loft over the garage. These two non-compliances have been discussed previously within this report and are considered acceptable.

The proposal has responded well to the minor rise in the land from the front boundary towards the rear of the site by ‘cutting in’ approximately 0.5m to reduce the overall height of the dwelling above ground. The overall building height accords with that allowed by the zone.

Front Fence

Whilst it has been noted previously, during the discussion about neighbourhood character, that the proposed fencing design is generally appropriate, the ‘balance’ of the fence, and how that interacts with the dwelling, needs to be addressed.

The design of the front fence, running level between 1.6m and 2.25m in height, is considered inappropriate. Whilst a range of fencing types and heights can be found in the street, ranging from 0.9m timber picket to 2m high solid brick, most follow the contours of the land. The front fences of the adjoining properties (numbers 1 and 5 Plant Street) are both 1.8m high. A condition should be included on any permit which may issue requiring the fence to not exceed 1.8m at any point. By providing solid, rendered masonry elements for the sections of fence to the north and south of the dwelling, views past the dwelling and through the lot are obscured. In addition, the design of the fence draws attention to the verticality of the dwelling, emphasising the sheer front wall rather than allowing the eye to gain relief from seeing the single storey elements which exist to the north and south of the central double storey component.

It is considered necessary to include a condition on any permit which may issue that the design of the fence be modified to provide masonry piers and wrought iron / steel infill across the entire frontage of the site.

Other Grounds of Objection

One objector questioned that the proposal is to be built across multiple titles. The applicant has provided titles to Council that confirm that both lots are owned by the applicant. It is noted that issues of title boundaries, and fire rating, for example, are relevant Building Permit considerations.

Considerations of potential reduction in the amount of natural light reaching a property are measured using a number of Standards, including A10 (setbacks), A11 (walls on boundaries), A12 (daylight to existing windows) and A14 (overshadowing). As has been discussed earlier within this report, the proposal is compliant with all of these Standards and as such is considered acceptable.

Overdevelopment

Considerations of overdevelopment are subjective. Non-compliance with a number of standards, such as A3 (front setback), A4 (height), A5 (site coverage), A10 (setbacks), A11 (walls on boundaries), A12 (daylight to existing windows), A13 (north facing windows), A14 (overshadowing) and A15 (overlooking) are indicators of an overdevelopment.

Page 68


In this case, as discussed previously within this report, the proposal is considered to satisfy all of the abovementioned Standards and as such is considered an appropriate development for the site.

Consolidation of Lots

It is noted that on 17 June 2014 an application was received by Council to consolidate the two lots which make up the subject land (plan of consolidation 375095F). Council certified the plan of consolidation with compliance on 23 June 2014 and as of 1 July 2014, the plan has been lodged with the Titles Office, awaiting processing by Land Victoria. This consolidation has no effect on the decision to grant a planning permit to construct one dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres. The consolidation results in a total lot area of 496 square metres and is still the same physical land as has been considered by this permit application.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposal exhibits a high level of compliance with ResCode; The proposal is an appropriate form in an established residential area; The design addresses the draft neighbourhood character policy satisfactorily.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0118-14 - 3 Plant Street Malvern - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0118/14 for the land located at 3 Plant Street, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of one dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in a Residential 1 Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the application plans Council date stamped 13 May 2014 but modified to show:

a) Details of window screening demonstrating compliance with Clause 54.04-6 to the window to bedroom 4;

b) Elevations corrected to accurately accord with the floor plans;c) Proposed garage floor level marked to AHD and an annotation

added that the floor level is not to be changed without the written consent of the responsible authority;

Page 69


d) The proposed front fence to be modified so as to remove the solid sections at the north and south ends and introduction of pier and infill design generally as proposed to the same height and design;

e) The proposed front fence to be modified so that no part of the fence exceeds 1.8m in height above finished footpath level;

f) Dimensions of all major building elements to be included on the floor plans, including the length of all walls on the boundary and the dimensions of all windows;

g) Details of the operability of all windows;h) A detailed materials schedule;i) Details of the Tree Protection Zone drawn on the plans in

accordance with condition 5;j) A water sensitive urban design response in accordance with

condition 3;k) A landscape plan in accordance with condition 7; andl) A Tree Management Plan in accordance with condition 9.

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

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

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

5. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the street tree on Plant Street at a radius of 1.5 metres from the base of the trunk to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. The fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh or equivalent to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

Page 70


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

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

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

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

e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;f) A minimum of two canopy trees with a mature height of a

minimum 8m (minimum 2.5 metres tall when planted) in the front setback;.

g) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site; and

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

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

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

The tree management plan must detail measures, including potential footings design, to protect and ensure the viability of the three existing trees along the northern boundary of number 1 Plant Street adjacent to the proposed building works.

Without limiting the generality of the Tree Management Plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

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

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

10. Prior to a building permit being issued, a report for the legal point of

Page 71


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.

11. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.

12. 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.

13. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

14. 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.

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

16. 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.

NOTE:

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

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

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

Page 72


metres above its base; orc) 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.

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.

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

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

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

Attachments - Locality Plans, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations etc.

Page 73


5. CHAPEL REVISION STRUCTURE PLAN AND AMENDMENT C172

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

Outline feedback from stage 3 community/stakeholder consultation on Chapel reVision

Recommend changes to the draft Chapel reVision Structure Plan and background documents (CrVSP) resulting from consideration of feedback

Recommend adoption of the CrVSP

Authorise Council officers to prepare amendment documentation for Amendment C172 – Chapel Street Activity Centre Permanent Planning Controls and endorse a schedule to the Activity Centre Zone, for exhibition

Authorise Council officers to prepare new interim planning controls to bring these controls in line with the adopted CrVSP.

BACKGROUND

Chapel Vision 2007-2031

The Chapel Vision Structure Plan was developed between 2005 and 2007 and adopted by Council in December 2007. Interim planning controls were introduced on 5 November 2010 to implement this plan into the Stonnington Planning Scheme, and are now due to expire on 31 October 2014.

Chapel reVision 2013-2031

Chapel reVision was commissioned in 2012 to review Chapel Vision 2007 in order to develop permanent planning controls for the Chapel Street Activity Centre. The following expert consultants were commissioned to assist with various stages of the project: Rothelowman – Architects and urban design Hansen Partnership – Planning and urban design SGS Economics & Planning – Urban economists GTA Consultants – Transport Strategy Capire – Social Impact Assessment Glossop Town Planning – Preparation of Permanent Planning Controls

On 5 August 2013, Council at its meeting endorsed the draft CrVSP for public exhibition. Reports summarising Stage 1 and 2 consultation on the draft CrVSP are attached to the Council report dated 5 August 2013.

Conditional authorisation was granted to prepare Amendment C172 on 29 September 2013, with a schedule to the Activity Centre Zone being the planning tool for permanent planning controls as outlined in Practice Note 56. Authorisation for Amendment C172 is due to expire on 29 September 2014.

At a Council briefing on 21 October 2013 Council noted a report which recommended undertaking community consultation on the draft CrVSP prior to exhibition of Amendment C172.

The Chapel reVision project involves four key stages of consultation:

Stage 1: Information gathering/community input (complete)

Page 75


Stage 2: Internal review and feedback (complete)

Stage 3: Review and feedback on the draft Structure Plan (complete)

Stage 4: Statutory exhibition of the CrVSP and draft Am C172 (proposed)

The Chapel reVision project or CrVSP comprises a package of documents and studies:

1. Chapel reVision Structure Plan (Attachment 1)

2. Chapel reVision Discussion Paper: A summary paper that distils the information derived from the background reports, and provides more details in terms of the actions required to implement the Structure Plan (Attachment 2)

3. Chapel reVision Neighbourhood Framework Plans (Attachment 3)

4. Chapel reVision Transport Strategy (GTA Consultants, 2013) (Attachment 4)

5. Chapel reVision Social Impact Assessment (Capire, 2013) (Attachment 5)

6. Chapel reVision Population Profiling (SGS Economics, 2013) (Attachment 6)

7. Chapel reVision Development Projections and Development Capacity Memo (SGS Economics, 2013) (Attachment 7a and 7b)

8. Chapel reVision – Economic feasibility / advice on the draft schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone (SGS Economics May 2014) (Attachment 8)

DISCUSSION

Stage 3 consultation program: review and feedback on Chapel reVision

Opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft CrVSP was offered between 19 February and 13 March 2014.

Attachment 9 outlines feedback from the stage 3 consultation activities and relevant findings.

Approximately 188 people were directly engaged during the three week consultation period. Over 1000 individual comments were received and grouped against 32 different themes. Contribution was as follows:

Completing a survey - mail or online 92 surveys submitted

Written submissions received via email/mail 45 submissions

Participants at ‘Walk and Talk Tours’ 34 participants (39 registered)

Contributors to the Online Poll 18 respondents

Website page reads – Main information page

Website page reads – Chapel reVision page

442 unique visitors/598 views

428 unique visitors/521 views

Chapel reVision documents downloaded from website:

- Draft Plan

- FAQ

- Brochure

287 downloads

116 downloads

65 downloads

Summary brochure delivered to households within and around the Activity Centre Boundary

19,793 brochures delivered

Page 76


Postcards informing of the consultation delivered to households west of Williams Road to Punt Road

9,645 postcards delivered

Feedback from several internal departments was also received and considered.

The raw data gathered during the stage 3 consultation program is available on Council’s website to download.

Attachment 10a provides a response to the 32 emerging themes from the consultation program and summarises the raw data collected during stage 3 consultation (this document includes text from all source data: surveys, polls, written submissions and tours).

Attachment 10b provides only a direct response to a summary of all written submissions received.

Brief overview of feedback received during stage 3 consultation:

Key areas of support: Key areas of concern:Protecting and retaining heritage Facadism / loss of heritage

Lower building heights along Chapel Street in Windsor (keep village / human scale)

Overdevelopment

Footpath widening, new links and pedestrian priority spaces

Oppose 8 storey development in and behind Chapel Street Windsor

Increases in public open space / improvements to public realm.

Development of 8 storeys along McIlwrick Street Windsor (residential/heritage street)

Retain and encourage small scale business, particularly in Windsor and planning controls to prevent the displacement of these uses

Traffic and parking in St John Street

Developing a new secondary economy behind Chapel Street in side streets and laneways by activating and widening these spaces as a new address

Congestion/lack of car parking

Recognition of different neighbourhoods within the Activity Centre

Request from developers for higher building heights/density, particularly on sites in South Yarra

Environmentally Sustainable Design and Water Sensitive Urban Design

Amenity / noise / safety /conflicting uses.

Recommended changes to the draft CrVSP

Attachment 11 outlines the recommended changes and associated rationale for these changes to the draft CrVSP, as a result of considering all feedback received during stages 3 consultation. Key changes include:

Giving greater weight to heritage and implementation of the heritage policy and guidelines within the permanent planning controls

Removing properties in residential use and a heritage overlay in parts of McIlwrick Street Windsor from the Activity Centre Boundary and rezoning these to a Residential Zone

Reducing the preferred maximum building height from 8 to 5 storeys behind Chapel Street in Windsor

Providing a new street wall response and upper level setback requirement for side streets in Windsor

Page 77


Providing a consistent street wall response to provide higher floor to floor heights for adaptable building design within the lower levels of buildings in both main and side streets

Proposing a mandatory maximum building height of 12 storeys for the north-east corner of Dandenong Road and Chapel Street, and further clarification and guidance about scope of development in this area.

Whilst retaining the same number of storeys, altering the proposed maximum building height to include provision for adaptable floor space within the first three levels of buildings, and allowance for other design elements usual to buildings (parapet, railings etc). A permit is recommended to be required to alter the minimum floor to floor heights for ground (level 1) at 4m and level 2 and 3 at 3.8m. The following adjustments to advertised floor heights is recommended:

Draft Chapel reVision – Consultation Version Chapel reVision – Proposed Version for adoption

8 storeys / 25m 8 storeys / 27m


5 storeys / 17.5 m 5 storeys / 18m

Preferred max 3 storeys / 11.6mMandatory max 4 storeys / 14.6m

Preferred max 3 storeys / 12mMandatory max 4 storeys / 14.6m


Reducing the wall height for sites directly abutting a residential interface/zone from 10m to 9.5m

Increasing the wall height from 10m to 12m where a laneway/small street provides a separation from a residential interface/zone

Increasing the street wall height for laneways and/or small streets and open space interfaces from 10m to 12m to allow for adaptable floor spaces within the first 3 levels of the building

Allocating some sites within 11m height areas to a preferred maximum height of 9m as this scale of development is more appropriate/consistent for these sites

Removing parts of railway reserve from Commercial Road to Argo Street from the Activity Centre Boundary

Removing the Elizabeth Street car park as a key strategic development site

Indentifying a series of indicative short to medium and medium to long-term routes for the proposed north/south regional shared path

Further traffic and parking analysis to consider laneway widening, including alternative access to properties as part of Amendment C172 – permanent planning controls.

Enhancing strategic justification and rationale for a number of key initiatives in the CrVSP i.e. widening of footpaths and laneways.

Amendment C172 – Permanent planning controls

Conditional authorisation was received under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 29 September 2013 to prepare Amendment C172 and for the use of an Activity Centre Zone (ACZ). This authorisation is due to expire on 29 September 2014.

Page 78


SGS Economics and Planning were commissioned to undertake further economic and feasibility analysis to explore conditional authorisation and the use of the ACZ. The findings of this report can be viewed in Attachment 8 and in summary identifies:

A loss of 610 jobs within the Activity Centre between 2006-2011 due to residential development outpricing commercial activity

The implementation of the ACZ aims to achieve long-term net community benefit by creating a resilient activity centre

Tailoring the mix of land uses through triggering a permit for residential use in the first three levels of a building by using the ACZ (objectives/decision guidelines) to implement the current objectives of the new metropolitan planning strategy - Plan Melbourne

Economic analysis to determine impacts from requiring commercial floor space within lower levels of new development. SGS’s report identifies that the economic impacts could be absorbed by the property sector, however, the implementation of commercial floor space within the first 3 levels should continue to be assessed on a case by case basis.

The ACZ is the preferred tool for the Chapel Street Activity Centre, as outlined in Practice Note 56. SGS have advised that this tool will work towards achieving a balance of housing and jobs within the Activity Centre.

A draft schedule to the ACZ is a confidential attachment to this report which will be made publicly available during the statutory exhibition process.

Interim planning controls

As interim planning controls for the Activity Centre are due to expire on 31 October 2014 and the current interim planning controls are inconsistent with the adopted CrVSP, new interim controls will be sought to better align the Stonnington Planning Scheme with the adopted CrVSP.

As extensive community consultation programs have been undertaken on Chapel reVision, a request could be lodged with the Minister to use powers of intervention under section 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to introduce new interim planning controls as part of Amendment C202 without statutory exhibition. This would enable the initiatives, including built form outcomes, within the CrVSP to be introduced while permanent planning controls are progressed as part of Amendment C172. These new interim controls should apply until Amendment C172 is approved and introduced into the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

As a schedule to the ACZ is a Zone and not an Overlay, it requires a rezoning of land within the Activity Centre Boundary to introduce a new tool into the Stonnington Planning Scheme (Amendment C172). For this reason the ACZ is not considered to be a tool which can be used as an interim measure to introduce interim planning controls. The ACZ is suited to a process which introduces permanent planning controls to involve statutory exhibition of the amendment. A local policy and schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO), similar to existing interim controls Clause 22.19 and DDO7 – Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre, should be revised to implement the general intent of Chapel reVision. However, it is noted that a local policy and DDO will be less effective than the proposed ACZ in requiring commercial land use within the Activity Centre and assessing residential land use within the first three levels of a building in order to work towards achieving the balance of housing and jobs within the Activity Centre.

Page 79


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Consideration of Chapel reVision once adopted

Chapel reVision will move towards being more seriously entertained policy if adopted, and once Amendment C172 - permanent planning controls are exhibited. The Statutory Planning unit will be requested to consider Chapel reVision, as part of their assessment of current planning applications within the Activity Centre.

Plan Melbourne has now been finalised and was integrated into the planning scheme on 30 May 2014. The Prahran/South Yarra Principal Activity Centre is now considered as an Activity Centre under Plan Melbourne and the Windsor and Toorak Road South Yarra Large Neighbourhood Activity Centres classified as Neighbourhood Centres. The Forrest Hill precinct has been identified as an Urban Renewal area.

The new residential zones have been implemented into the Stonnington Planning Scheme as part of Amendment C187, which affects some land within and around the Activity Centre Boundary.

Adopted CrVSP versus current interim planning controls

The main initiatives in Chapel reVision which will be inconsistent with current interim planning controls once Chapel reVision is adopted will include:

Higher floor to floor height within podium levels of buildings

Require commercial floor space in lower levels of buildings

Lower building heights along Chapel Street Windsor

Clearer guidance about non specified building height areas in DDO7

Lower building heights across the Activity Centre where 19m was proposed in DDO7 and 18 metres is now proposed in Chapel reVision

Street wall requirements

Setbacks to upper levels of buildings to respond to side streets, small streets and/or laneways and residential properties surrounding the Activity Centre Boundary

Require setbacks for footpath and laneway widening

Identification of key strategic development sites

Higher building heights in Bangs/Regent/Mount Street (19m to 27m)

Remove some areas of residential land from the Activity Centre Boundary – particularly land bound by Toorak Road, Chapel Street and the railway line (Chambers/Williams Street) which are now subject to lower mandatory height controls under the new residential zones

Include land along High Street and Commercial/Malvern Road within the Activity Centre Boundary and require a response to the residential interface for these sites.

A period of time will exist where planning applications will be assessed against interim policy (which has not been tested by a Planning Panel but existing policy within the Stonnington Planning Scheme) whilst an adopted Structure Plan is in place (that has ‘reviewed’ the Chapel Vision Structure Plan 2007-2031 which forms the basis of the current interim planning controls).

As discussed above, to minimise uncertainty and inconsistency, new interim planning controls will be pursued to replace current planning controls consistent with Chapel reVision.

Page 80



Additional work required to prepare the draft CrVSP and the preparation of permanent planning controls for exhibition is included within the 2013/14 and 2014/15 City Strategy Budget.

Indicative Project Timelines

July 2014 Aug / Sept 2014

Nov/Dec 2014

Feb/March 2015 May 2015 June 2015

Report to Council – adoption of CrV

Exhibition Am C172

Reports to Council - Am C172

Panel Council Approval

CONCLUSION

Extensive community/stakeholder consultation was undertaken during the stage 3 consultation program for Chapel reVision, with over 1000 comments considered. A series of changes to Chapel reVision are recommended to Council for consideration along with adoption of a revised CrVSP and associated background documentation (as attached).

Statutory exhibition of Amendment C172 is proposed as part of pursuing permanent planning controls for the Chapel Street Activity Centre.

New interim planning controls in line with the current adopted CrVSP will be requested to introduce the adopted CrVSP into planning policy whilst Amendment C172 is pursued.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 11 of 12 - summary of proposed changes to CrV 1July14

2. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 2 of 12 - DISCUSSION PAPER 1 July 14

3. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 1 of 12 - STRUCTURE PLAN 27 June14

4. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 3 of 12 - NFPs 1 July 14

5. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 4 of 12 - Transport Strategy 30 June 14

6. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 5 of 12 - SIA 1 July 2014

7. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 6 of 12 - SGS Pop Profiling Report May 2013

8. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 7a of 12 - Chapel reVision SGS Dev Proj report

9. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 7b of 12 - SGS capacity memo July 2014

10. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 8 of 12 - SGS Report ACZ feasibility 17 May 2014

11. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 9 of 12 - overall consultation report

12. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 10A of 12 - Response to all feedback - 30June14

13. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Att 10B of 12 - Response to feedback recieved by email - 30 June 14

Page 81


14. 07.07.14 Chapel reVision - Confidential Attachment 12 - Draft ACZ 30 June 14

Confidential

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Adopt the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and background documents as

outlined in Attachments 1 to 8.2. Support the changes proposed to the draft Chapel reVision Structure Plan and

background documentation as outlined in Attachment 10A, 10B and 11.3. Apply the recommendations from the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and

background documents as Council policy for assessing planning permits applications within the Chapel Street Activity Centre.

4. Authorise Officers to make minor refinements, edits and enhancements to strategic justification/rationale to the adopted version of the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and background documentation, and to the draft Schedule to the Activity Centre Zone.

5. Authorise Council Officers to prepare permanent planning controls for Amendment C172 for exhibition, generally consistent with the adopted Chapel reVision Structure Plan.

6. Endorse a draft schedule to the Activity Centre Zone (included in confidential Attachment 12) for exhibition.

7. Authorise Council Officers to prepare amendment documentation and new interim planning controls (Amendment C202) to be included in the Stonnington Planning Scheme which are generally consistent with the adopted Chapel reVision Structure Plan.

8. Request the Minister for Planning to use intervention powers under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to approve interim planning controls (Amendment C202) which are generally consistent with the adopted Chapel reVision Structure Plan until the introduction of permanent planning controls proposed as part of Amendment C172.

9. Pursue the implementation of key priority implementation projects as outlined in the Implementation section of the Chapel reVision Structure Plan.

10. Acknowledge the constructive input from submitters, stakeholders and registered interested parties involved in the preparation of the Chapel reVision project and advise them of Council's decision.

Page 82


6. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C181 - THE AVENUE HERITAGE PRECINCT


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the submission received on Amendment C181 following exhibition and decide whether to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider the submission and the amendment.

BACKGROUND

Heritage Strategy Council adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan in December 2006. The Action Plan followed the preparation of Council’s Thematic Environmental History 2006 (adopted 2006 with Update 1 prepared in 2009) and was designed to provide Council with a sound framework for a comprehensive and coordinated review of existing heritage places and the assessment of new places.

Council’s Heritage Strategy addresses the issue of buildings not currently under the Heritage Overlay which warrant heritage protection.

Context A planning permit application (No. 548/12) was received by Council on 15 August 2012 to demolish the building at No. 42 The Avenue to use the land for an at-grade car park associated with The Avenue Private Hospital (which is located to the north of the Hospital site).

The dwelling at No. 42 The Avenue, Windsor is a substantial double-fronted Victorian dwelling, previously identified as an A2 graded building in the Prahran Character and Conservation Study (1992). Council’s property records indicate that the building dates from c.1884.

It was identified by Council officers that the property at No. 42 The Avenue had been mistakenly omitted from the mapping that accompanied the Prahran Heritage Review (1993) and consequently excluded from Heritage Overlay 148 (HO148) - The Avenue Precinct that applies to properties directly to the north.

At its meeting on 6 May 2013, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C182 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to provide interim heritage protection to the place at No. 42 The Avenue, Windsor. Amendment C182 was subsequently approved by the Minister for Planning on 20 June 2013.

Council also resolved to request to the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation of Amendment C181 to extend the Heritage Overlay (HO148) to include the land at No. 42 The Avenue, Windsor on a permanent basis.

Amendment C181 also proposes to protect street trees on the eastern side of The Avenue by extending the boundary of HO148 to include the footpath and median strip adjacent to properties at No’s 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56 The Avenue, Windsor (refer to Attachment 1).

Officers commissioned consultant Bryce Raworth to update the citation to the current format. The Avenue Precinct, including the building at No. 42 The Avenue, has been identified as

Page 83


being of local historical and aesthetic significance to the City of Stonnington in the revised citation (heritage report).

Exhibition In accordance with section 8A (7) of the Planning Environment Act 1987, Council was advised by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) that Council may prepare Amendment C181 'without authorisation’. Amendment C181 was placed on public exhibition between 17 April 2014 and 19 May 2014.

Notification and exhibition of the amendment was carried out via a number of measures including:

Letters sent to the owner of No. 42 The Avenue, to owners and occupiers of properties already within the Heritage Overlay (HO148) and to prescribed authorities.

Public notice in the Government Gazette on 17 April 2014 and Stonnington Leader on 15 April 2014.

Public viewing file at Prahran Town Hall.

Full amendment documentation on DTPLI and Stonnington websites.

DISCUSSION

As a result of exhibition, one (1) submission was received which opposed the inclusion of the street trees in the Heritage Overlay. The street trees are directly adjacent to the submitter’s property, located on Council land.

In summary, the submission opposes the expansion of the boundary of Heritage Overlay (HO148) to include the footpath and nature strip adjacent to properties at No. 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56 The Avenue, Windsor. The submission does not object to the inclusion of No. 42 The Avenue within HO148.

The submission cited that the inclusion of the street trees and nature strip along eastern side of The Avenue in the Heritage Overlay would generate an unnecessary administrative burden, impeding future maintenance and repairs of the trees and their root structure and crossovers along part of The Avenue streetscape.

A summary of the submission and officer response to the issues raised is in Attachment 2.

It is considered that the concerns raised in the submission do not address heritage matters and do not reduce the heritage significance of the identified mature plane street trees. The Avenue Precinct is of aesthetic significance for its largely intact collection of late Victorian buildings and the mature plane street trees along the eastern side of the street provide a garden setting for these buildings and are a key heritage attribute of the precinct. The revised heritage citation for HO148 identifies the importance of these trees.

It should be noted that a planning permit to remove, destroy or lop a tree will not be required for the street trees given that tree controls are not proposed to be included in the Schedule to Clause 43.01 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The inclusion of the street trees in the Heritage Overlay provide recognition that the trees are significant and form an integral part of the precinct; however, the Heritage Overlay will not increase the administrative burden in maintaining the trees.

On this basis, it is recommended that no changes be made to the Amendment and that the nature strip along the eastern side of The Avenue be retained in the extended Heritage Overlay area.

Next Steps

Page 84


Council must forward the submission and the amendment to a Panel, if it is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address the issues that were raised in the submission 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 confirm the hearing dates.

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 15, Council must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days of the closing date of submissions (ie. By 14 July 2014) unless an extension of time is sought by Council. The only remaining Council meeting prior to that date is 7 July 2014.

Pre-set panel dates for a directions hearing and Panel hearing were arranged prior to exhibition however Council officers have advised Planning Panels Victoria that these dates cannot be met and that alternative dates are required.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Amendment C181 is consistent with the following Council Plan strategy:

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

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

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


Cost for the protection of heritage places within the municipality has been included in the budget of Council's Strategic Planning Unit for 2013/2014.

April/May 2014 September 2014 October/ November 2014

December 2014

Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

CONCLUSION

Amendment C181 seeks to introduce a permanent heritage control, HO148, to land at 42 The Avenue, Windsor. The Amendment also proposes to protect street trees on the eastern side of The Avenue by extending the boundary of HO148 to include the footpath and median strip adjacent to properties at No’s 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56 The Avenue, Windsor.

Exhibition of Amendment C181 has been completed. One submission was received. The submission seeks changes to the Amendment to remove the street trees from the Amendment. It is recommended that no changes be made to the Amendment as a result of the submission. Council must formally request that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel to consider the submission and the amendment if it wishes to proceed with the Amendment.

Council’s position to the Panel will be based on the response to the submission in this report and Attachment 2 that Council support heritage controls for No. 42 The Avenue and the street trees, footpath and median strip along part of the eastern side of The Avenue.

Page 85




ATTACHMENTS

1. ATTACHMENT 1 of 2 - The Avenue Heritage Overlay Map Excluded

2. ATTACHMENT 2 of 2 - Summary Response to Submission Excluded

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

thePlanning and Environment Act 1987 to hear the submission and consider the proposed Amendment C181 The Avenue Heritage Overlay to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel, Council adopts a position in support of Amendment C181 The Avenue Heritage Overlay, generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submission as contained in this report and Attachment 2.

3. Advises the submitter to proposed Amendment C181 The Avenue Heritage Overlay of Council’s decision.

4. Refers the submission and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider proposed Amendment C181.

Page 86


7. PLAN MELBOURNE - METROPOLITAN PLANNING STRATEGY (MPS)


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to: Note that the Minister for Planning released the final version of Plan Melbourne

(Metropolitan Planning Strategy) on 19 May 2014. Note that Plan Melbourne is linked to and will impact on Council’s key strategic planning

projects.

BACKGROUND

On 9 October 2013 the Minister for Planning released Draft Plan Melbourne for comment. The Draft Plan Melbourne outlined the Victorian Government’s planning vision for Melbourne to 2050 and will replace the previous Metropolitan Planning Strategy - Melbourne 2030.

In November 2013 Council undertook consultation on the Draft Plan Melbourne. This consultation included drop-in information sessions, a designated web page, email alerts and surveys. Council's submission was informed by feedback received as part of community consultation. On 2 December 2013 Council endorsed a submission on Draft Plan Melbourne which contained 31 recommended changes to Draft Plan Melbourne. Council's submission was submitted to State Government by the required date of 6 December 2013.

DISCUSSION

The final Plan Melbourne was released on 19 May 2014 and subsequent changes were made to the State Planning Policy Framework on 30 May 2014 (Amendment VC106) to include Plan Melbourne in all Victorian planning schemes.

Submission on Draft Plan Melbourne

Of the 31 recommendations put forward by the Council in its submission, 23 have not led to any changes within Plan Melbourne, 5 have led to partial changes and only 3 have led to direct changes in accordance with Council’s recommendations. Each recommendation is addressed in Attachment 1.

The following discussion expands upon some of the key elements of Plan Melbourne and implications for Stonnington.

Overview - Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne sets a vision for the type of city Melbourne will become by 2050. It considers likely trends and decisions required to shape Melbourne over the next 40 years including planning for growth, housing, transport and employment.

Plan Melbourne divides metropolitan Melbourne into 5 Sub-regions (see Attachment 2); Central, Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern. The City of Stonnington is located in the Central Sub-region (see Attachment 3) with the Cities of Melbourne, Maribyrnong, Yarra and

Page 87


Port Phillip. Plan Melbourne anticipates that the population within the Central Sub-region will grow from 485,000 to between an additional 230,000 to 280,000 people by 2031.

Plan Melbourne proposes to achieve this population growth through medium and high density developments in Activity Centres, Urban Renewal areas (including the Forrest Hill Precinct) and areas that are zoned Residential Growth or Mixed Use.

The Central Sub-region contains an expanded central city. While the expanded central city does not have defined boundaries, it does not appear to extend into the City of Stonnington (see Attachment 4).

Locations for High Density Housing

Council in its submission (Recommendation 14) requested the removal of reference to higher density housing within 400 metres of an Activity Centre, to be replaced with ‘identification of suitable areas in locally specific structure plans and planning controls’.

This Direction has been amended to remove the reference to 400 metres from the boundary of commercial zones in Activity Centres.

Key areas to accommodate higher density housing are now identified as urban renewal precincts and sites, land within the new Residential Growth Zone, the expanded central city, National Employment Clusters, Metropolitan Activity Centres (existing and future) and Activity Centres. (Initiative 2.2.1)

The City of Stonnington does not contain any National Employment Clusters or Metropolitan Activity Centres. However, Chadstone, Malvern/ Armadale, Prahran/ South Yarra and Toorak Village are identified as Activity Centres. The Forrest Hill Precinct is identified as an Urban Renewal precinct along with the Caulfield Station Precinct which falls predominantly in the City of Glen Eira.

Higher density development is expected to be directed to these areas (Activity Centres, Forrest Hill and Caulfield Station Precincts) along with those residential areas in the Residential Growth Zone.

Design Standards for High Density Developments

Plan Melbourne recognises that a good standard of design and amenity goes well beyond what a building looks like and its particular architectural style. There is currently no regulation in Victoria to stipulate how apartments must be designed, beyond what is required under the National Construction Code.

Plan Melbourne (Initiative 2.1.5) directs the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) to undertake the following short term actions: Update design guidelines and introduce measurable standards for high-density

residential and mixed-use development; and Review the design, layout, internal living amenity and balcony needs of apartments.

(This action has been moved from medium-term to short-term as recommended in Council's submission – Recommendation 11).

In May 2014 Council officers met with the Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) to discuss the lack of, and opportunities for design standards for high density developments. The OVGA are currently advocating to DTPLI for revisions to the Victoria Planning Provisions to address the lack of design standards. Council will continue to

Page 88


advocate with the OVGA for state wide policy to address internal design standards for high density developments.

Forrest Hill Precinct

Plan Melbourne identifies the Forrest Hill Precinct as an urban renewal precinct and includes the following description at Table 1 (page 31): To take advantage of underutilised land close to jobs, services and public transport infrastructure, to provide new housing, jobs and services. Renewal projects in defined precincts and sites will play an important role in accommodating future housing and employment growth and making better use of existing infrastructure.

The current structure planning for Forrest Hill through Chapel reVision is generally consistent with this strategic direction.

Chadstone Shopping Centre

In its submission (Recommendation 7), Council requested Chadstone be listed as a National Employment Cluster rather than an Activity Centre. Plan Melbourne still lists Chadstone as an Activity Centre rather than a National Employment Cluster.

Plan Melbourne (Initiative 1.2.3) recognises Chadstone as a freestanding shopping centre that has the capacity to provide diversified activities including commercial or mixed uses. Plan Melbourne has the following description:Chadstone Shopping Centre, which currently provides over 5000 retail jobs and attracts approximately 20 million visitors each year, proposes to add significant office and hotel floor space in coming years. Opportunities for future diversification, investment and employment growth in these centres should be explored and facilitated through planning provisions where appropriate.”

Chadstone Shopping Centre is listed as a key partner for the future Monash Employment Cluster due to the existing linkages between the shopping centre and the Monash University campuses of Clayton and Caulfield. Plan Melbourne seeks to strengthen these links.

Stonnington City Council is not listed as a Council partner in this context. However officers have had initial discussions with the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) regarding the progression of planning in this area. Officers will bring a report to Council on this in the context of priorities for structure planning going forward.

Caulfield Station Precinct

The Caulfield Station Precinct has been identified as a ‘Potential urban renewal opportunity/investigation site'. Plan Melbourne identifies that:Land around railway stations and train corridors can provide valuable development opportunities, due to the access to public transport. Over the coming decades, we will be building a number of new railway stations as we develop the network and we will ensure these are integrated with land development. Existing stations and corridors will also be assessed for their development potential. (Initiative 1.6.1)

There is no further information on the Caulfield Station Precinct or how much development is expected.

In its submission (Recommendation 9) Council requested that the Caulfield Station Precinct not extend north of Dandenong Road given the limited development opportunities on the

Page 89


northern side of Dandenong Road. Plan Melbourne still shows the boundary of the Caulfield Station Precinct extending north of Dandenong Road into the City of Stonnington (see Attachment 3). This extension could impact negatively on the intact and low scale residential area within Malvern East that is largely covered by a Heritage Overlay and is proposed to be included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) is the lead agency for identified urban renewal precincts and it is understood that this precinct is not a high priority for the MPA. Council has provided the MPA with its Urban Design Framework for the area (Dandenong Road Urban Design Guidelines) and will continue its discussions with the MPA on this issue.

Both the Caulfield Station Precinct and Monash Employment Cluster fall outside the Central sub-region. It is important that Council continue to build links to the MPA and surrounding Councils beyond the Central sub-region.

Melbourne Rail Link Project

Council's submission (Recommendation 15) recommended that improvements to train stations especially South Yarra station be brought forward as a short-term initiative. Commencement of the construction of the Melbourne Rail Link (formally Melbourne Metro project) has been brought forward from a medium-term action to a short-term action.

Plan Melbourne (Initiative 3.1.2) no longer references Melbourne Metro as a project as it has been replaced by the Melbourne Rail Link Project. The Melbourne Rail Link will link South Yarra station and Southern Cross station with two new stations at Domain and Montague through the construction of a new rail tunnel. Underground platforms will be constructed at South Yarra station as part of the construction of the new rail tunnel. The railway line will be known as the Frankston to Belgrave/ Lilydale Loop Line, which will utilise the City Loop but will not pass through Flinders Street Station (see Attachment 5). The State Government has allocated up to $11 billion to the Melbourne Rail Link Project as part of the 2014/15 Victorian Budget announcement over a period of 10 years, however it is understood construction is expected to commence in mid 2016.

The Melbourne Rail Link Project also includes the Airport Rail Link, the South East Rail Link (to the Port of Hastings) and investigations in future rail links to Rowville and Doncaster including a possible rail tunnel from Clifton Hill to the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewable Area.

The Melbourne Rail Link no longer provides a rail connection to the Parkville Employment Cluster. However, Plan Melbourne notes that Parkville will get a public transport upgrade package, the details of which are unknown. The possible rail tunnel from Clifton Hill to the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewable Area would include a station at Parkville (see Attachment 6). Should this tunnel be constructed, public transport connections across the expanded central city will be greatly improved for residents and business owners within the City of Stonnington.

Upgrade to the Dandenong Corridor

Plan Melbourne includes an update of the Cranbourne Pakenham Corridor to increase capacity to the Line. Works will affect stations in South Yarra, Armadale, Malvern and Hawksburn. Council will have further opportunities to input and advocate to this project

Page 90


during consultation. As part of the Budget announcement, $2.5 million was included to fund the necessary works from 2014-2019.

Metropolitan Planning Authority

The Minister for Planning has established the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) to assist with the implementation of Plan Melbourne. The new MPA has been formed from the recently expanded Growth Areas Authority (GAA).

The MPA will plan state-significant sites and precincts; help coordinate whole-of government integrated land use, and overview Plan Melbourne delivery. The MPA will have a large role in strategic direction for the Central Subregion. The MPA will have a role in the preparation of structure plans for state-significant projects (due to their city-shaping outcomes) for national employment clusters, metropolitan activity centres, the expanded central city to a lesser extent and urban-renewal precincts (Forrest Hill precinct and Caulfield Station precinct which includes the area north of Dandenong Road).

Plan Melbourne (Initiative 1.4.2) identifies that the MPA will also work with the Central Sub-region to prepare an integrated framework plan for growth that includes land use, transport, infrastructure and open space. This framework plan will build on the Inner Melbourne Action Plan 2005.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Plan Melbourne and its vision will have significant policy implications for shaping the future of Melbourne over the next 40 years. Plan Melbourne will have policy implications for future planning, development and transport, particularly in Activity Centres and Urban Renewal Precincts within the City of Stonnington.

Plan Melbourne results in a greater role for State Government, specifically the MPA, in partnering with Local Government to guide strategic planning decisions.

Plan Melbourne refers to a greater role for State Government in coordinating strategic planning within sub-regions specifically in relation to housing densities, employment nodes, activity centres and major transport nodes. This may directly impact Council’s implementation of State Government Planning Zone Reforms (i.e. residential, commercial etc.).

The MPA will establish and chair Sub-regional Planning Groups. These groups will comprise local government chief executive officers and senior officers of DTPLI. Each group will be supported by working groups of senior local government officers and officers from relevant state government departments.

The aim of the subregional planning groups is to work with the MPA to implement Plan Melbourne by collectively planning for jobs, housing and investment in infrastructure and services in each sub-region. Officers will continue to advocate Council’s position through these forums.

Planning Policy Framework

It is expected that Plan Melbourne will be further referenced in the Victoria Planning Provisions through the reformed Planning Policy Framework when it is released by the Minister for Planning. Consultation on the draft Planning Policy Framework was undertaken

Page 91


by the Ministerial Advisory Committee and was completed at the end of May 2014. It is anticipated that the Ministerial Advisory Committee will submit its final report on the reformed Planning Policy Framework to the Minister for Planning by 30 June 2014.


The implementation of Plan Melbourne will have ongoing impacts on a number of Council’s departments.

Some of the initiatives identified in Plan Melbourne have been budgeted for and other have not, but will be considered according to their priority.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Legal advice is likely to be sought regarding specific issues as required.

CONCLUSION

Over the next 40 years, Melbourne will continue to grow, both geographically and in population. Plan Melbourne's vision is for this to occur in such a way that Melbourne will become a global city of opportunity and choice.

The City of Stonnington is well placed to benefit from the inner and middle ring focus that is proposed within Plan Melbourne. Stonnington will need to continue to advocate for key items outlined in its submission to Plan Melbourne that have not been addressed.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Plan Melbourne - Attachment 2 of 6 Excluded






RECOMMENDATIONThat Council notes that the final version of Plan Melbourne (Metropolitan Planning Strategy) was released on 19 May 2014 and is linked to and will impact on Council’s key strategic planning projects.

Page 92


8. AMENDMENT C187 NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES - UPDATE


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the approval of Amendment C187 New Residential Zones and minor changes to the zone provisions and outline applicable transitional provisions.

BACKGROUND

In July 2012, the Minister for Planning released proposed zone reforms representing significant changes to the Victorian Planning System. The final residential zones were released to Councils in July 2013. All Victorian Councils have one year until July 2014 to introduce the new zones. After this date the General Residential Zone will automatically apply to all residential land in municipalities where Councils have chosen not to introduce the new zones. Introduction of the new zones after 1 July 2014 will require a full planning scheme amendment, including public exhibition and panel review process.

In July 2013, the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) released Practice Note 78 ‘Applying the Residential Zones’. The criteria outlined in this note broadly aligned with Stonnington’s Municipal Strategic Statement (Clause 21.05) and both were used to apply the new residential zones initially, focusing housing growth close to public transport networks within Stonnington including railway stations and activity centres.

At its meeting on 1 July 2013, Council endorsed the approach to community consultation and on 2 September 2013, Council released the draft zone proposals to the community. Subsequently 62,000 community brochures were sent to households within Stonnington followed by an extensive consultation programme. The feedback received identified a number of issues as being important to the Stonnington municipality as a whole, regardless of whether residents were satisfied with their zoning.

Following the close of consultation, further consideration of factors influencing the application of the zones was undertaken. This included consideration of draft Plan Melbourne, community feedback, economic development and neighbourhood character.

Options regarding the next steps in the implementation of the new zones were also considered and presented to Councillors at its closed meeting on 2 December 2013. In the context of the initiatives contained in Plan Melbourne and the potential implications for Stonnington, it was considered preferable for a decision to be made on the new residential zones by the end of the year.

At its meeting on 16 December 2013, Council resolved to adopt the proposed zone provisions as outlined in the Report and Attachments and request the Minister for Planning to prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C187 to introduce the new planning provisions into the Planning Scheme. In accordance with this resolution, the request for approval was lodged with the Minister for Planning on 24 December 2013.

Residential Zones Standing Advisory CommitteeOn 24 December 2013, the Minister for Planning announced the intention to establish a Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee. The Committee was appointed in early 2014 with the purpose of providing advice on the suitability of the residential zones and the method proposed to introduce the zones into a Council planning scheme.

Page 93


The Committee was appointed to assist Councils that may not have up to date local housing policies and may have difficulty in meeting the State Government June 2014 deadline. Several Councils including the City of Moreland requested an Advisory Committee.

Stonnington’s request to the Minister for Planning for a Planning Scheme Amendment to implement the new residential planning zones was lodged on 24 December 2013 prior to the announcement of the Standing Advisory Committee. Council’s extensive community consultation supported by strategic policy ensured the Committee process was not required by Stonnington.

DISCUSSION

Following lodgement of C187, further information was provided to DTPLI regarding Amendment C187. This also included minor amendments to the varied Clause 54 and 55 standards for front fence heights and Clause 55 standard for landscaping. These amendments were minor in nature and sought to assist with usability.

Approval of Amendment C187On 12 June 2014, approval of Amendment C187 was received from the Minister for Planning. Notice of the approval was subsequently published in the Victoria Government Gazette on 19 June 2014, introducing the new zones and maximum height controls for residential buildings and dwellings in much of the residential area.

During the process of approval, the Minister for Planning made changes to the numbering of Council’s schedules to the General Residential Zone. These were minor in nature and did not change any requirements of the zone or variations to rescode. The change is outlined below:

Adopted provision at Council Meeting 16 December 2013

Approved provision by Minister for Planning 13 June 2014

Schedule numbers to the General Residential Zone ranged from GRZ1 to GRZ6 with height variation areas grouped in tables.

Schedule numbers to the General Residential Zone range from GRZ1 to GRZ13. Each height variation is included in an individual schedule.

A mapping anomaly has also been identified affecting 7 sites in Toorak (683, 685, 687, 689, 691, 693-697 Orrong Road and 14 Martin Court). The schedule area applied to these sites should be GRZ3 as adopted at Council (16 December 2013), however the schedule area that has been approved and gazetted is GRZ2. This anomaly will be addressed in a future anomalies amendment.

At its meeting on 16 December 2013, Council adopted proposals for the new residential zones which represented the following proportions of residential land in Stonnington:

Residential Growth Zone: 5%;

General Residential Zone: 57.5%; and

Neighbourhood Residential Zone: 37.5%.

As a result of approval of Amendment C187, no changes were made to these proportions.

Transitional provisionsAmendment C187 has inserted transitional provisions (as adopted at 16 December 2013 Council meeting) into the Planning Scheme for those planning applications currently being assessed.

Page 94


The new residential zones have introduced additional restrictions for dwellings and residential buildings regarding height and some Clause 54 and 55 rescode standards. These vary according to the zone and area. As such, the transitional provisions ensure that the schedules to the zones do not apply to those applications to construct a dwelling or residential building made before the gazettal date of C187 (19 June 2014). In these instances, applications will be assessed against the former Residential 1 Zone. However, the purpose of the new zone will still need to be taken into account in the assessment of planning applications.

In the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, transitional provisions ensure that Clauses 32.09-3 (maximum number of dwellings on a lot), 32.09-8 (maximum building height requirement for dwelling or residential building) and the schedules to the zone do not apply to applications made before the gazettal date of C187.

There are also transitional provisions in place regarding applications to extend the time for a permit to construct or extend a dwelling. Schedules to the new zones will not apply to some applications to extend planning permits which have already been granted prior to the gazettal of C187.

Notification of approval of Amendment C187 to the Stonnington CommunityNotification of the approval of C187 to the Stonnington community is being undertaken through the following means:

Advertisements have been placed in the Stonnington Leader (June) and an article is to be included in the June/July edition of In Stonnington;

Brochures are being sent to all owners and occupiers within the Stonnington residential area. The fold-out map as incorporated in the brochure is included as Attachment 1;

Council’s website has been updated with the latest information including fact sheets on each zone, frequently asked questions and a link to DTPLI’s website for a full copy of the approved documentation;

Those registered on Council’s database as part of the previous round of consultation have received an email or letter update; and

Meetings have been held with all affected internal departments regarding the changes.

It is anticipated that the majority of enquiries received by Council will relate to the final transitional provisions and zone provisions.

Next stepsThe planning zone reforms represented a major overhaul of the Victorian planning system. Implementation of the reforms has been interpreted very differently by municipalities across Metropolitan Melbourne. New variations to planning provisions will need to be monitored and tested. Future changes may be required to Stonnington’s Planning Scheme to address any issues that arise. These need to be considered in the context of the Strategic Planning work programme and resource implications. In particular, the future work anticipated includes:

Analysis of lot sizes within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone with a view to implement a sliding density scale for larger lots;

Re-align some Design and Development Overlay provisions with zone schedules for consistency;

Re-align zone schedules with future Neighbourhood Character Overlay areas for consistency;

Address dual/split zone properties through a series of Planning Scheme Amendments;

Review of the municipalities mixed-use areas with a view to implementing an appropriate built form framework;

Page 95


Prepare higher density design guidelines for residential buildings of five or more storeys.

It is important to note that the implementation of the new residential zones has been considered in the context of other strategic work Council is currently undertaking including Chapel ReVision, the upcoming Glenferrie Road/High Street Structure Plan and Neighbourhood Character Local Policy (Amendment C175).

Amendment C185 which proposes to introduce to the next scheduled areas Neighbourhood Character and Design and Development Overlays (Victorian and Edwardian and Edwardian Precincts) can now progress. Council has previously authorised officers to prepare the Amendment. Given the approval of Amendment C187, consideration of aligning the future neighbourhood character overlay provisions with the new zone schedules can commence. Once this is resolved, preparation of Amendment C185 will be undertaken.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The new residential zones will bring much anticipated certainty to the community regarding built form outcomes within Stonnington. Given the extent of the changes, it is important that these changes are monitored to ensure the outcomes they result in are as anticipated. As discussed above, transitional provisions are in place for the consideration of valid applications that were lodged prior to the approval of Amendment C187.

Amendment VC116The Minister for Planning has prepared, adopted and approved Amendment VC116 to all planning schemes and the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP).

The Amendment implements the General Residential Zone into Victorian planning schemes where the reformed residential zones have not been applied by 1 July 2014 and deletes the Residential 1, 2 and 3 Zones from the VPPs and planning schemes. The Stonnington Planning Scheme has been updated to remove reference to the previous Residential 1 Zone.

A new Ministerial Direction about the residential zones has also been approved. As part of that direction, planning authorities are required to evaluate and monitor the implications of the application of any of the three new residential zones within two years of their gazettal into the planning scheme. Specifically planning authorities must assess the effect of the residential zones on housing supply, housing prices, infill development site land prices and the availability of land for infill development, but are not limited to those matters.

Amendment C175 Neighbourhood Character Local PolicyOn 2 December 2013, Council resolved to place Amendment C175 on hold pending the progress of the new residential zones. Following the submission of C187 to the Minister for Planning, Amendment C175 was progressed to a Panel Hearing.

The interrelationship and consistency between the proposed neighbourhood character local policy, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the new residential zones was considered during the preparation of both amendments. The proposed policy has regard to the new residential zones and MSS, including acknowledging that the neighbourhood character provisions may be difficult to be met in locations where substantial change is anticipated. The proposed policy seeks to ensure that new development and change still contributes positively to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area and new development in these areas will be required to have regard to all other aspects of preferred neighbourhood character.

A Panel Hearing for Amendment C175 was held on 15 and 16 April 2014. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Panel determined that the matter will be adjourned pending the gazettal of the new residential zones for Stonnington.

The decision to adjourn came after a submission by Cabrini Hospital stating that approving the amendment was premature prior to finalisation of the residential zones. In addition,

Page 96


Cabrini raised new matters not raised in earlier submissions. Council will need to address these in its closing submission when the hearing reconvenes.

Officers have requested that the Panel reconvene as soon as possible now the zones have been approved and gazetted. Council will then make its closing submission to the Panel.

Building ControlIn accordance with the General Residential and Neighbourhood Residential Zones, a planning permit is not required for the construction of a single dwelling on lots larger than 500 sqm (unless otherwise triggered by an overlay). In the Residential Growth Zone, a planning permit is not required for the construction of a single dwelling on lots larger than 300sqm. In these circumstances, a building permit is required to construct a single dwelling.

Any variations to ResCode (Clause 54 and 55) specified in local planning schemes are utilised in the assessment of building permit applications. The mandatory maximum height limits specified in the new residential zones or their schedules will also apply to building permits which will require some changes to current building legislation.

Should any inconsistencies occur between the new planning provisions and existing building regulations, the planning provision takes precedence.


The preparation of Amendment C187 has incurred costs relating to resourcing and preparation. Community notification of the Minister for Planning’s approval of C187 has also incurred costs associated with resourcing, advertising, printing and preparation of community materials. An additional resource was engaged to assist in rolling out the planning zones, consultation and to manage enquiries. This has been covered within the Strategic Planning Operating Budget.

Other resource implications include a potential increase in planning scheme amendment requests associated with the new provisions, such as requests from land owners or developers to remove mandatory (maximum) heights applicable to their sites or requests from landowners or residents in the General Residential Zone seeking inclusion of their property or street in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Where some variations to rescode relating to front fence height have been made, this may result in an increase in planning applications for front fences within 3 metres of a street. Additional resources may be required to support Council at VCAT following the change to the criteria for planning matters that can be heard under VCAT’s Major Cases List. All developments in a Residential Growth Zone including residential developments of any value are now eligible to be included in the Major Cases List and hence their resolution expedited.

Officers consider monitoring of the zones will be important. The additional requirements in place through Ministerial Direction 16: Residential Zones will have additional resource implications.


The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C187 which exempts some uses from notice requirements.

In the short term, legal advice has been sought regarding specific issues as required.

CONCLUSION

Page 97


Amendment C187 represents a balanced planning outcome for Stonnington where residential growth is directed to existing activity centres and areas close to some main roads, public transport routes and railway stations. Implementation of the residential zones within Stonnington provides a greater level of clarity and certainty to the community. This follows extensive community consultation and monitoring the implementation of the new residential zone provisions will be important in continuing to achieve sustainable planning outcomes for Stonnington.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council note the update on the approval of Amendment C187 New Residential Zones.

Page 98


9. PRAHRAN RENEWAL MASTER PLAN, SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

Manager Communications & Community Planning: Matt Clear General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the draft submission outlining Council’s feedback to the Department of Human Services on the design concepts and treatments featured in the master plan for the housing estates comprising the Prahran Renewal project.

BACKGROUND

The Prahran Renewal project is a major undertaking of the Department of Human Services to redevelop the Horace Petty, Bangs, King and Essex streets housing estates in Prahran.

The Department has been working on this project since 2010 when planning commenced on the building at the corner of Malvern Road and Surrey Road which was completed in December 2012. Planning for the broader master plan of all estates commenced in 2011. Consultation with Councillors and the community has occurred periodically, in 2011, 2012 and early 2013; and the Department has again provided the opportunity for Council’s involvement during a current phase of consultation.

Council’s key messages to the Department throughout the development of the master plan can be summarised as:

The desire for ongoing dialogue and engagement with residents, the broader community and Council throughout the project;

The need to achieve key objectives of community connectedness, wellbeing, and safety;

The need to integrate seamlessly with surrounding areas;

The need to achieve a large allocation of public open space;

The need for linkages and connections in and through the sites, incorporating the surrounding areas;

The opportunity for achieving a high quality, positive legacy for future generations through excellent design to enhance neighbourhood amenity; and

The need to be environmentally sustainable.

On 30 May 2014, design concepts were released by the Department for comment. An extensive consultation program is currently in process, whereby the Department is seeking feedback on the master plan elements until 4 July 2014 (an extension has been granted by the Department to allow Council to make a submission following its meeting on 7 July 2014).

The Department has provided Council with several opportunities to be informed of the master plan concepts in preparation for the community consultation, including briefing meetings, an information session and a walking tour.

In preparing a draft submission, a process of gathering feedback from the various departments with an interest in the project was undertaken. The Council departments that have reviewed the plans include:

Transport and Parking – for traffic management, road safety, sustainable transport and parking;

Page 99


Leisure and Libraries – for physical activity, open space provision and development and other recreational facilities and spaces;

Environmental Sustainability – for consideration of environmental sustainable design initiatives and environmental impact;

Aged, Diversity, Health and Animal Management – for provision of health services and conditions that will particularly be appropriate to older adults and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;

Family and Children’s Services – for provision of facilities and spaces appropriate to children, youth and families;

Communications and Community Planning – to consider accessibility, safer design and the encouragement of a healthy living environment;

City Strategy – for consistency with the principles of the draft Chapel reVision Structure Plan; and

Public Spaces and Capital Works – for infrastructure and development impacts.

Comments from officers in these departments have been coordinated and compiled into a draft submission (attached), and consolidated with comments provided by Councillors.

DISCUSSION

The proposed redevelopment of the Prahran housing estates presents a great opportunity for residents on the estates and the local community. The approach taken to the development of the master plan by the Department, of being consultative, precinct-based and presenting an exciting long term vision for renewal is commended.

The submission categorises feedback into the themes of; mixed use; built form and urban design; movement, connections and linkages; open space, sport and recreation; and environmental sustainability.

It is evident that the Department has attempted to address Council’s earlier feedback through various design features. Some opportunities for refinement and improvement have been identified, and these are outlined in the submission.

A summary of the key points made in the submission for each theme follows:

Mixed use; o The opportunity for retention of the single largest landholding in Prahran in public

ownership is encouraged. While the inclusion of private housing in the development proposal is understood, Council highlights the importance of private housing to be affordable, in-keeping with the objectives for the site in supporting the needs of members of the community suffering disadvantage. Council encourages careful consideration of the model for providing the long term affordability of housing on the estates.

o Activation of the site through mixed use activities at ground floor facilities is supported, but with some consideration given to the types of uses so as to limit the risk for potential harm-producing uses (such as packaged liquor outlets). The inclusion of a social enterprise as part of this mix is posed in Council’s submission.

o The inclusion of community infrastructure and health services as allocated in the plans is critical. Council recommends that the design around these facilities considers a community hub concept and encourages joint planning.

Page 100


Built form and urban design;o Council supports the design concept that removes the ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ tower buildings as

the best option for improving the integration of the sites with surrounding areas. Other features included in the plans that will assist with integration are supported, such as a mixture of design, building heights and the creation of individual street addresses.

o The effort that has been made to limit overshadowing and optimise access is recognised.

o The scaling of the building heights throughout the sites helps with achieving appropriate street frontages. A preference for a lower building height to the 10-15 storeys proposed in Princes Street is raised.

o The suggestion is made for the inclusion of public art.

Movement, connections and linkages;o The features of widening roadways and footpaths are key elements that will help to

improve connectivity in, through and between the sites and surrounding areas.

o Concerns are raised around increased traffic volume in Bray Street and Essex Street and the submission prompts further attention to Essex Street, particularly in light of the need to plan for the future of the Prahran Aquatic Centre.

o The need for provision for bus parking is reinforced, and the opportunity for improved public transport access through the location of interchanges in the immediate proximity of the sites is highlighted.

o To support the opportunity for optimising space, the submission reinforces the need for underground parking as much as possible.

Open space, sport and recreation;o The importance of public open space is reinforced. In the submission Council invites

the opportunity for more collaborative planning of the public open space to consider recreational use, dogs, and potential provision for more active needs.

o The importance of the Adventure Playground and its retention on the site is reinforced.

Environmental sustainability;o Council supports the many sustainability concepts presented in the plan and

encourages the establishment of targets for energy consumption and building performance to ensure the sustainability of the buildings.

CONCLUSION

Careful consideration has been given to the draft master plan concepts for the Prahran Renewal public housing redevelopment project that are presently being consulted on by the Department of Human Services. A draft submission has been prepared as a response to the draft master plan concepts for consideration by Council. The submission supports many of

Page 101


the design elements which respond to earlier feedback provided by Council to the Department. Some refinements and improvements have been highlighted, and Council welcomes the opportunity for more collaborative planning to optimise opportunities for open space development.


The Prahran Renewal project and consideration of the master plan concepts presents multiple opportunities to engage with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 which are reflected in the draft submission prepared.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Prahran Renewal master plan concepts, draft submision Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Endorses the draft submission on the Prahran Renewal master plan concepts.2. Submits its comments on the Prahran Renewal master plan concepts to the

Department of Human Services on 8 July 2014.

Page 102


10. CHANGES TO THE VICTORIAN AND CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE (VCAT) ACT

Planning Appeals Coordinator: Gareth Gale General Manager Planning & Development: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to brief Councillors on changes made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Amendment Bill 2014.

BACKGROUNDOn 1 April 2014, the VCAT Amendment Bill 2014 received Royal Assent, and became effective on 2 June 2014. No community consultation occurred as part of this Amendment.

DISCUSSIONThe Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment Bill 2014 contains substantial reforms relevant to the planning jurisdiction.

Most significantly, the reforms would enable the Tribunal to:

1. Invite a responsible authority to reconsider its decision at any time in a review proceeding

2. Make an order in relation to fees (including application and hearing fees), separate from its power to award costs

3. More actively manage the use and giving of expert evidence in proceedings

4. Make an order removing a person as a party to a proceeding if it considers that:

the person's interests are not affected by the proceeding; or

the person is not a proper or necessary party to the proceeding

5. Delegate certain functions of the Tribunal (such as making procedural orders or consent orders) to its registrars.

It is the first two reforms that are likely to be of most significance to Council. Below is a summary of those two proposed reforms.

New section 51A - Tribunal May Invite Decision-Maker to Reconsider Decision

In the context of the planning jurisdiction, this new provision would enable the Tribunal to invite a responsible authority (usually Council) to reconsider its decision at any time in the proceeding. The new section provides that on receiving the invitation to reconsider, the responsible authority may:

Affirm the decision

Page 103


Vary the decision

Set aside the decision and substitute a new decision for it.

The new provision requires the Tribunal to ensure that, as far as possible, a proceeding's priority is not affected by inviting the responsible authority to reconsider its decision (unless the parties consent). As a consequence, the Tribunal may specify a timeframe within which a responsible authority may reconsider its decision.

One possible opportunity for Council to reconsider its decision might be following mediation and/or the amendment of plans. However, this process only seems warranted in order to avoid a hearing extending across multiple days – cases which are generally contained within the Major Cases List. Given there is clear intent in the new provisions to ensure a proceeding is not delayed further, coupled with the fact that all Major Cases List applications have hearings listed only six weeks after any mediation, it is difficult to contemplate under what circumstance this process will be useful.

It is further noted that Council already has the opportunity to reconsider its position during a VCAT process. As such, this change to the VCAT Act might not offer any new real change other than introducing a more formal mechanism to do so.

This new process raises a number of procedural questions which are yet to be understood.

New Section 115 – New Power to Make Orders in Relation to Fees

This section provides that the Tribunal may, at any time, make an order that a party to the proceeding:

Reimburse another party the whole or any part of any fee paid by that other party in the proceeding;

Pay, on behalf of another party, the whole or any part of any fee that may be required to be paid in the future by that other party in the proceeding;

Reimburse another party the whole or any part of any fee that may be paid in the future by that other party in the proceeding; and

Require a party to pay the whole or any part of a fee in future in the proceeding.

The key area that this could be useful for Council is in Enforcement Order Applications (EAO’s). Given EAO’s are generally only made in the situation where Council is forced to do so, the Tribunal could award the reimbursement of the $802 fee to Council.

SUMMARY

Page 104


The new changes to the VCAT have been introduced with little forewarning or consultation.

The implications of the changes, and particularly those at the new section 51A, are unclear amongst those working within the planning profession. At this stage, there appears little opportunity to enact this new provision, particularly given there is clear intent in the new provisions to ensure a proceeding is not delayed further.

The new changes will be monitored to better inform our understanding of how they will affect Council and other stakeholders.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION The recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council note this report.

Page 105


11. CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Manager Public Spaces & Capital Works: Rick Kwasek General Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

This report proposes that a Working Group be established with Councillor, Council Officer and Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) representatives to assist in developing an agreed implementation plan for the Chapel Street Master plan.

The Working Group will first be required to resolve the terms of reference for the Group with the final membership determined based on the agreed Terms of Reference.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 2 June 2014, in considering the budget submission from the Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) resolved as follows;

That Councillors, Council Officers and the Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) work collaboratively during 2014/2015 to develop an agreed implementation plan for the Chapel Street Master plan with an aim to potentially reduce the project timeframe from 7 to 5 years, with quarterly updates to be brought back to Council.

The Implementation program for the Chapel Street Master Plan has been prioritised into short, medium and long term improvement opportunities (refer attachment 1). In accordance with the adopted Strategic Resource Plan, the program with a total estimated cost of $12m is programmed to be delivered over 8 years (at $1.5m p.a.). The first year of the implementation plan is complete leaving 7 years to deliver the remainder of the program which is referred to in the above resolution.

In order to give effect to the Council resolution it is proposed to establish a Working Group with a membership including Councillors, relevant Council officers, and representatives from Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc).

DISCUSSION

In consideration of the budget submission, Council resolved to work collaboratively with Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) so as to ensure agreement regarding the priorities and funding for the implementation of the Chapel Street Master Plan.

This report proposes establishing a Working Group, with say 2 Councillor representatives (a chair and an alternate), 3/4 Council officers (City Works, Economic Development, other Department representatives as appropriate) and 3/4 representatives from Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc).

It is proposed that the Working Group meet on a quarterly basis, and that the minutes of the meetings then inform the preparation of the quarterly status report to Council as required by the above resolution.

Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) have been working on initiatives for the revitalisation of Chapel Street for some time, the implementation of the Master Plan being one element of the overall objective of the revitalisation agenda.

Page 107


It is also proposed that the scope for the terms of reference be developed by the Working Group and that consideration be given to the role of the Group in terms of the broader Chapel Street re-vitalisation agenda.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The above proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Economic Development Strategy 2012, and the Council Plan 2013 – 2017 objectives for Prosperity.


The current 4 year Strategic Resource Plan adopted as part of the 2014/15 budget incorporates annual allocations as follows;

2014/15 $2m

2015/16 $1.5m

2016/17 $1.5m

2017/18 $1.5m

Shortening the delivery timeframe to 5 years as proposed in the Council resolution will impact on the annual capital requirements, which will need to be referred for consideration in the preparation of future budgets.


Nil.

CONCLUSION

This report proposes that to give effect to the Council resolution of 2 June 2014 a Working Group be established with Councillor, Council Officer and Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) representatives.

Once Council has indicated support for this approach, and nominated Councillor representatives accordingly, it is proposed to schedule a meeting with nominated Council Officers and representatives from the Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) to commence the process.

One of the first tasks of the Working Group will be to resolve the terms of reference for the Group. It is proposed that in preparation of the terms of reference consideration be given to broadening the scope of the working Group to supporting Chapel Street Precinct (Streets Ahead Promotions Inc) in their current agenda for the revitalisation of Chapel Street.

The final membership of the Groups in terms of numbers and representation will be determined based on the agreed Terms of Reference.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Chapel Street Master Plan Implementation Program Excluded

Page 108


RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. Councillors (Names) be nominated to the proposed Chapel Street Revitalisation

Working Group.2. Draft Terms of Reference be developed for the Working Group in consultation

with the nominated Councillor representatives.3. The draft Terms of Reference be presented to Council for consideration.

Page 109


12. RECREATION STRATEGY 2014-2024

Manager Leisure and Libraries: Tony Oulton General Manager Social Development: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the draft Recreation Strategy 2014-2024 to Council for its consideration and to seek approval to publicly exhibit the document.

BACKGROUND

Council, at its meeting on 8 April 2013, resolved to support the development of a Recreation Strategy with the goal to create the healthiest and most active community in Victoria by providing inclusive and sustainable sport and recreation opportunities and facilities where our community can achieve physical and mental wellbeing.

To this end, the Recreation Strategy aims to establish key priorities and guide the planning, development, maintenance, management and delivery of sport and recreation opportunities and facilities over the next ten years to maximise opportunities for physical activity. The report contained background information into the need to develop a strategy and highlighted a number of trends occurring within the sport and recreation industry.

The following four key objectives were endorsed by Council to guide the development of the Recreation Strategy and its priorities:

Identify strategies that maximise opportunities to increase participation in physical activity and recreation with the view to improving the health and wellbeing of our community;

Develop a plan that identifies and prioritises the provision, upgrade and development of sport and recreation infrastructure to meet future sport and recreation needs of the community;

Define Council’s role in the provision of sport and recreation and facilities, services and programs; and

Identify a broad range of solutions to ongoing sport and recreation issues.

Community consultation was undertaken between April and July 2013 and included surveys, written submissions, community meetings and focus groups. Key findings from the consultation with Councillors and the community indicated that:

Stonnington’s population is increasing; Participation in sport and recreation is increasing; Sport and recreation opportunities have historically serviced participation by males; Current sport and recreation infrastructure is not well suited to broad use across

different sectors; Council needs to take a proactive approach to the maintenance and development of

sport and recreation facilities to continue to meet the needs of all stakeholders; There is an opportunity to further embrace the role of technology in promoting sport

and recreation; and Extended seasons and more use by existing clubs is placing greater pressure on the

existing high level of demand for facilities.

Page 111


All information was considered having regard to previous research and benchmarking undertaken as part of the Recreation Strategy – Discussion Paper. Emerging issues identified through the consultation and Discussion Paper were collated and used to form the basis of the Recreation Strategy – Issues Paper, presented to Council in November 2013. The Issues Paper outlined six key areas that have been addressed in the draft Recreation Strategy:

Quality of facilities/aging infrastructure;

Existing geographic conditions;

Gender inequity;

Overuse of Stonnington sportsgrounds;

Policies and procedures; and

Education and information.

DISCUSSION

In response to the Issues Paper, the draft Recreation Strategy outlines six priority areas for Council to focus on over the next 10 years:

1. Quality Facilities: Many of Council’s sport and recreation facilities no longer meet the requirements of clubs and do not allow the full potential of sporting precincts to be realised. A range of policies and actions have been identified to improve the standard of Council facilities and increase opportunities for active participation in suitable locations.

2. Accessible Facilities: The historic nature of development within Stonnington has influenced the location of Council’s sport and recreation facilities and infrastructure. Many are located in the northern and eastern end of the municipality, while there is a lack of recreation facilities available to residents at the western end of the municipality. The result of this is a lack of opportunities for physical activity for the most disadvantaged segments of the community. A range of strategies and specific actions have been identified to address this issue, including the prioritisation of infrastructure developments in Prahran, Windsor and South Yarra and the continuation of sustainable and affordable physical activity programs for the community.

3. Equitable Provision: The draft Recreation Strategy identifies that in recent times, sports that provide equal participation opportunities for both sexes have greatly increased in popularity, without the commensurate re-allocation of resources and infrastructure. A range of strategies and specific actions have been identified to address this issue, including the prioritisation of resources for female sport.

4. Sustainable Sportsground Use: Based on the current allocated use and forecast growth of sports clubs within Stonnington, the allocated use of sports grounds is unsustainable. Many grounds are already over used or compromised by their existing levels of use, resulting in increased risk, poor playing surfaces and disgruntled residents and casual users. A number of actions have been identified to reduce the load on existing sportsgrounds including the use of synthetic surfaces and the revision of the sports ground allocation policy.

5. Policy and Procedure Development: Many of the current policies governing Recreation operations require updating to remain relevant and accommodate

Page 112


contemporary sport and recreation issues. As a result, the service is often forced into reactive decision making and potential problems continue to gather momentum. The use of open space by personal trainers and commercial operators are two areas that require particular attention.

6. Education and Information: A number of actions have been identified to better educate the community about the benefits of sport and recreation participation. Opportunities include the use of social media channels (i.e. Facebook, Twitter etc.) and consolidation of marketing and promotional material to effectively promote active and healthy lifestyle opportunities within Stonnington and better inform residents, clubs and users groups of opportunities to participate in sport and recreation.

A copy of the draft Recreation Strategy 2014-2014 is included as Attachment 1 to this report and is proposed to be placed on public exhibition after being received by Council. Officers will collate and consider any written submissions made as part of this process and provide a further written report to Council outlining any proposed changes to the strategy and summary of the findings.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The following Council plans, policies and strategies have helped to inform the development of the draft Recreation Strategy:

Council Plan 2013-17

Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-17

Public Realm Strategy 2010

Sustainable Transport Policy 2008

Walking Policy 2011

Youth Strategy 2010-14

Access and Inclusion Plan 2014-17

Older Persons Strategy 2008

Cultural Diversity Policy 2010-14

Pavilion Redevelopment Strategy 2009

Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15

Creating Open Space Strategy 2013

When adopted, the Recreation Strategy will sit under the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan and aside a number of other strategies, overseeing a number of specific policies, studies and actions emanating from the strategy. It is anticipated that a number of policies, strategies and plans will be presented to Council shortly after the adoption of the Recreation Strategy, including:

Sportsground Hierarchy;

Tennis Facility Strategy;

Indoor Stadium Feasibility Study; and

Sportsground and Pavilion Allocation and Charging Policy.


Page 113


The draft Recreation Strategy action plan provides a summary on the anticipated funding method of each of the proposed actions. Many of these actions will not require additional financial investment, have already been considered in the Recreation Services operating budget or through the 5 year Strategic Resource Plan.

Capital funding will be required over the next 5-10 years to fund the key actions that have been identified in the draft Recreation Strategy and do not have funding allocated to them.

A business case will be developed where additional resources are required to implement the Recreation Strategy actions.


The recommendations made to address the issue of equity are designed to meet the objectives of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, in particular section 71 – Discrimination in Sport.


CONCLUSION

The draft Recreation Strategy 2014-2024 has been developed in accordance with the adopted objectives of the Recreation Strategy and has a vision to create the healthiest and most active community in Victoria through maximising opportunities for active participation across the whole community.

Public exhibition of the draft Recreation Strategy 2014-2024 will provide a further opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the proposed directions for sport and recreation in Stonnington. Any feedback generated from this process will be considered and used in the refinement of the Strategy to ensure it accurately reflects the community’s intent for key priorities over the next ten years.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Recreation Strategy Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. Council receives the draft Recreation Strategy 2014-2024.2. Council releases the draft Recreation Strategy 2014-2024 for public exhibition.3. Officers prepare a further report for Council outlining feedback on the draft

Strategy and present the revised draft for Council’s consideration.

Page 114


13. PROPOSED NAMING OF PARK IN SURREY ROAD (PART OF FORMER DEPOT SITE)

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is consider the response to the community consultation and to determine on the name of the park located in Surrey Road South Yarra (part of the former depot site).

BACKGROUND

The Surrey Road Depot was purchased by the Prahran Council in 1888 when the tipping of rubbish was then into clay pit holes around the municipality. In 1907 the new modern method of waste disposal was introduced with the construction of the municipal destructor and even produced electricity to the grid.

The destructor was finally replaced in 1965 however the incineration of refuse decreased with environmental considerations and was finally replaced with a machine that baled the refuse in one tonne bales. This method finally ceased and was closed in 2007 with waste transported to a shared facility in Clayton.

The Stables at the rear of the depot originally housed fourteen horses which were replaced by motor vehicles by the 1950s. The stables are heritage listed and were retained on the site when it was re-developed after the depot closure.

The Council depot was relocated from Surrey Road into the new Council Depot in Tooronga Road in 2008. Part of the old site was sold with the front section retained for a park.

DISCUSSIONIn 2011 a report to Councillor Briefing of 15 March 2011 advised that consultation on possible names had been undertaken in 2008 when the concept plan for the park was initially developed. Of 600 residents invited to comment, there were only 32 written submissions and of these only 13 commented on the possible names that were proposed at that time being:Surrey Park; Surrey Gardens; Surrey Road Gardens, or Wurundgeri Gardens. Councillors indicated at that time that they were not supportive of the proposed name (7 submissions supported the name Surrey Park), and wished to have further discussion on this matter.

With the development of the park nearing completion the process of the naming of the park needed to commence. The History Unit was further consulted and possible names provided and the Citizens for Reconciliation Committee also consulted together with Auntie Carolyn Briggs as requested from Council Briefing of 17 February 2014.

A report to Council on 7 April 2014 resolved:

“That Council:

1. Commence community consultation on the naming of the new park in Surrey Road and consult on the following names:

Surrey Park; and Wominjeka Park

in accordance with the Office of Geographic Guidelines and required processes to determine the support for either name; and

2. A further report be brought back to Council after the consultation.”

Page 115


The proposal was advertised in the Leader Newspaper on 20 May 2014 and consultation of neighbouring properties undertaken.

The community consultation has now been completed as follows:

Properties

Surveyed

Total Responses received

For

Surrey Park

For

Wominjeka Park

333 126 (37.8%) 99 (78.8%) 27 (21.2%)

Other submissions

received

1 1 1

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council is required to follow the Office of Geographic Guidelines (OGN) for the naming of any features. This requires community consultation and also consultation with the Koori community.


The naming of the park is part of Council’s usual budget activities and the plaque part of the park development.


Compliance with the OGN Guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The community consultation gave a more indicative response that that conducted in 2008 with the name Surrey Park clearly the preferred option.


Council has considered this report under the Human Rights obligations and considers that this recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. name the park situated at the former council depot site (67-73 Surrey Road South Yarra) – Surrey Park;

2. advise the Registrar of Geographic Names of the decision.

3. place an advertisement in the Stonnington Leader in the ‘Public Notices’ section advising the decision.

4. notify the following bodies of this decision:

Page 116


Melways Publishing Pty Ltd Melbourne Water Address Management Metropolitan Fire Brigade The Divisional Returning Officer Boral Energy 21 Universal Press Metropolitan Ambulance Service State Electoral Office Victoria Commissioner of Land Tax Telstra Australia Post Office of Geographical Names Prahran Historical Society Vic Roads – Metropolitan South Eastern Region City Power United Energy

5. prepare the necessary signs and plaques for the park opening ceremony.

Page 117


14. PROPOSAL TO RENAME BOWEN STREET RESERVE

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider the responses from community consultation and re-name the Bowen Street Reserve or Bowen Gardens – the Richard Moss Reserve.

BACKGROUND

Council has been approached by a resident and subsequently the Stonnington History Group asking if it would consider the re-naming of the reserve to the R G Moss Reserve. Currently the name of the park - Bowen Street Reserve or Bowen Gardens, has only been applied based on its location.

DISCUSSION

Over the past year, Council has undertaken work at the Bowen Street Reserve in Malvern East, demolishing a number of old and disused buildings and planting out trees and shrubs. This work has also included the demolition of the former Chadstone Library, known as the R G Moss Library.

Richard (Dick) George Moss was a Councillor of the former City of Malvern (East Ward) from 1940 to 1963 and Mayor in 1946-47. For the majority of his period as a Councillor he was also Chairman of the Finance Committee. He was also a member of the Malvern Library Committee since its inception. Cr Moss died in office in 1963 prior to the opening of the Chadstone Library on 20 May 1964.

Cr Moss had a distinguished war record from the First World War, being awarded a Military Cross for bravery in action in France. On his return he was a Lt. Col. in command of the 37th/52nd Battalion in the militia stationed at Caulfield. On the outbreak of WWII he was appointed to command camps at Balcombe, Watsonia and Royal Park.

Apart from his Council duties he took a great interest in Legacy and was a member, past president and committee member of the East Malvern RSL, and was actively engaged in welfare work.

On the professional side he was in the Victorian Police Force prior to WWI. On his return after the war he had a timber mill at Noojee then later returned to Melbourne and formed the Noojee Slipper Co Pty Ltd at Abbotsford. Among his other interests he was a Director of Olympic Cables Ltd.

On a personal side he was married and had three daughters and a son. At least one member of his family still resides in Stonnington.

Further, the Office of Geographic Names has been working on a project to names, roads, suburbs and other geographic features in honour of Victorian War Veterans as part of the national Anzac centenary commemoration 2014- 2018.

Council resolved on 3 February 2014:

“That Council:

Page 119


1. Support the proposal to re-name Bowen Street Reserve the R G Moss Reserve;2. Contact any family members of the late R G Moss to advise of and seek their support for

the proposal; and3. Commence the required community consultation and advertising once the family has

indicated their support of the proposal.”

The family were contacted and were delighted at the proposal. However on contacting the Office of Geographic Names it was determined that the use of initials such as the R G Moss Reserve does not meet the guidelines and that the preferred name is Richard Moss Reserve.

Given this, consultation of the surrounding properties was undertaken with that name. The proposal was also advertised in the Leader Newspaper on 20 May 2014.

One hundred and ten properties (110) were surveyed with 36 responses (32.7%). Of these 32 (88.9%) were in support of the proposal and many expressed appreciation for the proposal and a number who also supported the name R G Moss Reserve – although this was not surveyed as an option. Only four (11.1%) did not support the proposal.

Other comments received related to consideration of the reinstatement of the JK Senior Hall at Phoenix Park after a well respected principal of Chadstone High School.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council is required to comply with the Office of Geographic Names Guidelines.


The costs incurred will be for the changing the signs on the reserve and the streets, a plaque with the history of the name and a small unveiling ceremony with the family and Council.

CONCLUSION

There has been good community support for this proposal and in this year of recognition of our WWI war veterans the continued recognition of Richard Moss is appropriate.


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

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. re-name the park currently known as Bowen Street Reserve or Bowen Gardens the – Richard Moss Reserve;

2. advise the Registrar of Geographic Names of the decision.

3. place an advertisement in the Stonnington Leader in the ‘Public Notices’ section advising the decision.

4. notify the following bodies of this decision:

Page 120


Melways Publishing Pty Ltd Melbourne Water Address Management Metropolitan Fire Brigade The Divisional Returning Officer Boral Energy 21 Universal Press Metropolitan Ambulance Service State Electoral Office Victoria Commissioner of Land Tax Telstra Australia Post Office of Geographical Names Prahran Historical Society Vic Roads – Metropolitan South Eastern Region City Power United Energy

5. prepare the necessary signs and plaques and undertake a small naming ceremony.

Page 121


15. TOORAK ROAD - KOOYONG - SOUTH PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF GLEN WAVERLEY RAIL LINE

Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan General Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To seek Council endorsement of :

A concept design of a pedestrian crossing of the Glen Waverley Rail line on the south side of Toorak Road; and,

The proposal being forwarded to VicTrack and VicRoads for consideration of funding as a state transport initiative.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting of 30 September, 2014 Cr. Hibbins raised the issue of providing a pedestrian crossing of the Glen Waverley rail line on the south side of Toorak Road.

The minutes of the meeting read;

“Cr Hibbins said he had been contacted via social media by a resident noting that pedestrians are unable to cross safely from Toorak Road to Milton Parade. There is a pedestrian crossing only on one side of the train tracks. Cr Hibbins asked that a report be prepared in relation to the installation of a pedestrian crossing.”

Officers subsequently advised an independent traffic consultant would be engaged to review the need for a crossing at the site and prepare a concept design for consideration.

O’Brien Traffic (OBT) were subsequently engaged to undertake the investigation, and at their request independent traffic surveyors were engaged to provide traffic surveys on typical weekdays and on a week end to gauge current demand.

The resulting assessment and concept design are attached for Councillors’ information.

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the subject site, reviewing the pedestrian survey data, considering both State and Council policies/strategies OBT concluded that,

“Both State and Council policies strongly support a pedestrian crossing of the rail line on the southern side of Toorak Road. Pedestrian surveys have shown that a significant proportion of pedestrians crossing the rail line currently do so on the southern side, despite the lack of a crossing and signs instructing them not to do so. Additionally it is anticipated that there is suppressed pedestrian demand due to the lack of a suitable facility.”

As VicTrack are the responsible managers of the rail reserve they were consulted as to their views on installing a pedestrian crossing of the track at the subject location. The advice received is;

“Given there is currently no pedestrian crossing on the Southern side of Toorak Road (Glen Waverley Line) it is not part of the funding associated with the State Level Crossing Upgrade Project, nor is it on the list, given it doesn’t currently exist. As a result, if you would like to look at the potential of providing a new pedestrian crossing at this location, this is something that would need to be funded by Council.”

Page 123


VicTrack have further advised they are currently;

“… delivering a new pedestrian crossing within the City of Casey that is being funded by the City of Casey given the crossing had been requested by Council as a result of residential and commercial development taking place in the nearby vicinity.

The cost of this crossing was in the order of $600,000 GST Exclusive. However, it is important to note that we are currently delivering the project on behalf of the Council well below budget at this stage.”

The estimated cost of a crossing in Toorak Road is around $716,000, although this is also expected to reduce if the project is delivered by VicTrack. Although signal controller boxes are already in place, VicTrack advises the estimate takes account of compliance with current standards, likely services affected and the limited hours available to work due to the need to not interrupt rail services.

Councillors should note that pedestrians using the footway on the southern side of Toorak Road at the railway line are 30% of the pedestrians crossing the railway line in total. As can be seen from the photographs below, pedestrians have to step out to the kerb where the fencing stops and then walk on an uneven bitumen surface, taking care to keep clear of passing vehicles.

Page 124


Officers have put to the view to VicTrack representatives that given the existing usage, VicTrack should be prepared to consider fully or part-funding the work. VicTrack staff have advised the funding conditions are set for them by Public Transport Victoria, but they are prepared to raise this site with them for consideration of funding.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

As outlined in the OBT report the proposal would be consistent with Plan Melbourne, the Victorian Government’s “Pedestrian Access Strategy” (2010) in that it would contribute to a well connected walking network and reduce barriers to people walking their local neighbourhood. The proposal is also consistent with Council’s Walking Policy which aims to encourage walking and create pedestrian friendly environments.


The estimated cost of providing the proposed crossing is significant at $716,000. No funds are available in 14/15 capital works program. Council could consider funding for this project as part of the preparation of future budgets.


The works proposed are on VicTrack land. Council is highlighting to the responsible agency the need for a facility to be provided.

CONCLUSION

Given the estimated cost of the work and the VicTrack advice on Council funding being required, it is suggested the OBT report and concept plan be forwarded to VicTrack and their advice sought as to when such works could be funded by them, and whether any joint contribution by Council could bring forward a construction date.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Toorak Road - South Side - Ped Xng Rail line - Attachment Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Endorse the concept plan prepared by O’Brien Traffic for a proposed rail

pedestrian crossing on the south side of Toorak Road at the Glen Waverley Rail line.2. Write to VicTrack and local members of parliament to formally request that this

project be prioritised for funding.

Page 125


16. PEEL STREET WINDSOR - PROPOSAL TO RETAIN PERMIT ZONE RESTRICTIONS FOLLOWING SIX (6) MONTH TRIAL

Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To seek approval to retain the ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions on the north side of Peel Street, Windsor between Upton Road and Punt Road, operating from 6pm to Midnight, now that the trial period of six (6) months has elapsed.

Council has previously considered the matter of parking restrictions on Peel Street and it was resolved that Permit Zone restrictions be installed on a trial basis. As such, it is appropriate to forward this issue to Council for resolution.

BACKGROUND

Detailed background information is outlined in Attachment 1. The following is a dot point summary of the recent history of this issue:

‘Permit Zone’ restriction installed on north side of Peel Street in December 2009;

‘Permit Zone’ restriction removed on 7 December 2009 at direction of Council following receipt of a petition;

Petition received seeking ‘Permit Zone’ evening restrictions in March 2012;

Council directed consultation with residents be conducted with regard to the installation of a ‘Permit Zone’ evening restriction at meeting on 21 May 2012;

Circular letter distributed to residents in June 2012 with a proposal to install ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions on the north side of Peel Street, Windsor between Upton Road and Punt Road, operating from 6pm to Midnight;

A total of 90 properties were distributed the circular, with 32 replies received, equating to a 36% response rate, with 66% in support and 34% opposed;

Counter petition received seeking to abandon the ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions in favour of extending the existing restrictions to end at 9pm instead of the current 6pm end time;

Recommendation submitted to Council to abandon the proposal based on the repeating pattern of events;

Council directed officers consult residents with a modified proposal to extend the existing restrictions to midnight and include weekends at the meeting on 27 August 2012;

Circular letter distributed to residents in October 2012 with a proposal to extend existing restrictions on both sides of Peel Street, Windsor between Upton Road and Punt Road, to operate until midnight, including weekends;

A total of 87 properties were distributed the circular, with 27 replies received, equating to a 31% response rate, with 33% in support and 63% opposed;

Recommendation submitted to Council to abandon the proposal based on the repeating pattern of events; and

Cr Sehr requested a meeting be organised with residents of Peel Street to seek a resolution to the ongoing concerns;

Page 127


Meeting was held with residents/traders of Peel Street between Upton Road and Punt Road and south ward Councillors on 22 May 2013 to discuss the issue and seek a resolution;

The meeting attendance register was signed by representatives of 12 properties. As the discussion progressed, it became clear that the majority of attendees would prefer “Permit Zone” restrictions on one side of the street. It was agreed that the side of the street was irrelevant, but that the side providing more parking opportunities for residents would be most appropriate;

Based on the consensus at the meeting it was recommended that a ‘Permit Zone’ restriction operating between 6pm and Midnight be installed on the side of Peel Street providing the most resident parking opportunities, and that this be trialled for six months.

It was resolved at the Council Meeting on 22 July 2013 that ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions on the north side of Peel Street, Windsor between Upton Road and Punt Road, operating from 6pm to Midnight be installed for a trial period of six (6) months. In addition, it was resolved that baseline parking surveys were to be completed in the evenings on a weeknight and weekend night prior to any change in the restriction and again following the six month trial to understand the change in parking along Peel Street.

DISCUSSION

Parking occupancy surveys were completed in line with the Council resolution outlined above. These surveys were conducted on Saturday, 15 June 2013 and Thursday, 20 June 2013 and again on Saturday, 1 March 2014 and Thursday, 5 March 2014. The results are shown below.

Table 1: Percentage of Occupied Car Spaces on Peel Street - % Overall (% Permit Vehicles)

South Side North Side

Sat 15 Jun 2013 Sat 1 Mar 2014 Sat 15 Jun 2013 Sat 1 Mar 2014

7pm 65% (41%) 65% (60%) 66% (53%) 65% (87%)

10pm 76% (50%) 75% (62%) 86% (52%) 70% (84%)

Thu 20 Jun 2013 Thu 6 Mar 2014 Thu 20 Jun 2013 Thu 6 Mar 2014

7pm 49% (31%) 49% (71%) 62% (53%) 69% (90%)

10pm 61% (43%) 69% (73%) 71% (59%) 79% (88%)

The survey results indicate that the parking occupancy has not changed significantly, but the proportion of residents parking has increased. This is shown by the much higher percentage of vehicles displaying permits. The percentage of vehicles displaying permits has increased on both sides of the street. The surveys also show that parking opportunities are still available for residents.

At the completion of the parking surveys, the opinion of the residents in Peel Street from Upton Road and Punt Road were sought regarding the new restrictions, via a mail back circular.

The circular included the above table for the information of residents/traders.

Page 128


The circular was distributed to Peel Street residents between Upton Road and Punt Road in May 2014 with the following wording:

To retain the current ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions on the north side of Peel Street, Windsor between Upton Road and Punt Road, operating from 6pm to Midnight or to revert back to the previous ‘2 hour’ restriction.

Community Opinion

A total of 90 properties were distributed the circular with 12 replies received, equating to a 13% response rate. The low response rate may be due to the protracted prior consultation which has occurred. The responses received are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 2: Community Opinion

Feedback

The response rate to the circular is relatively low. Typically when response rates are low, retention of the status quo is recommended (and typically this is to abandon the proposal). In this case, retention of the ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions maintains the status quo. The majority of respondents indicated that retaining the restriction is their preferred option.

The comments in support of the proposal were generally very positive, as many residents felt that the new restriction has allowed for more parking spaces to be available along the street for residents. This has improved their ability to park at times which they previous experienced difficulties (ie. early evening).

A respondent who objected to the proposal felt that vehicles from neighbouring properties were now parking outside their property therefore there was no on-street parking available when they returned home from work. The parking surveys suggest however, that parking opportunities for residents exist along Peel Street due to the introduction of the ‘Permit Zone’. Other respondents who objected to the proposal did not provide any comment.

CONCLUSION

The results of the consultation indicate support to retain the ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions following the completion of the trial, as increased parking opportunities for residents have become available. This is supported by the parking occupancy survey results. is supported by the data provided from the parking survey results. The proposal to retain the ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions on the north side of Peel Street, Windsor between Upton Road and Punt Road, operating from 6pm to Midnight was supported by 75% of respondents, and opposed by 25% of respondents.



Page 129

Proposal Retain Revert Back Not Stated Total

Retain ‘Permit Zone’ or revert

back9 (75%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%) 12 of 90 (13%)


ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Detailed Background Information Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. ‘Permit Zone’ restrictions on the north side of Peel Street, Windsor between

Upton Road and Punt Road operating from 6pm to Midnight be retained following the six (6) month trial.

2. Those property occupiers previously consulted be notified of the decision.

Page 130


17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT PUNT ROAD / PASLEY STREET NORTH, SOUTH YARRA - FUNDING CONTRIBUTION FROM VICROADS


PURPOSE

To update Council of the results of the before and after traffic surveys following the relocation of the traffic signals at Punt Road / Pasley Street North, South Yarra.

To advise Council of VicRoads offer to contribute $25,000 for future traffic management works in local streets in the surrounding area required as a result of the relocation of the traffic signals.

BACKGROUND

Council officers were previously advised that VicRoads had funding to investigate the installation of traffic signals at the Punt Road / Pasley St North, intersection. VicRoads also advised that the funding of this project was an election commitment under the Network Improvements Program (not Road Safety).

A review of the proposal and the subsequent correspondence between Council officers and VicRoads was incorporated into a report to Council on 4 July 2011 that resolved:

“That Council: Advises VicRoads that the City of Stonnington has concerns regarding this

proposal as it may potentially increase the attractiveness (increase in traffic) of Fawkner Street as a through traffic route.

Requests VicRoads to undertake a Road Safety Audit as part of the design assessment.

Requests VicRoads to undertake consultation with Punt Road traders between Fawkner Street and Lang Street and residents in the nearby side streets intersecting with Punt Road, including Fawkner Street, Nicholson Street and Lang Street.”

Council officers and VicRoads met on 26 July 2011 to discuss the proposal and the above decision. VicRoads prepared a process aimed at addressing Council’s concerns, and this was subsequently incorporated into a report to Council on 15 August 2011 that resolved:

“That Council:Offer no objection to the project subject to VicRoads agreeing to:

Undertake a full “before” and “after” study of the impact of the signalisation in Fawkner Street and Lang Street.

Provide sufficient funding in the project budget to undertake the above study and implement kerb extensions and splitter island treatments at Lang and Fawkner Street intersection with Punt Road if required.

Undertake Road Safety Audits of all works proposed at the design stage and forward to Council for consideration along with the design.”

Each of the above Council reports is attached.

DISCUSSION

Page 131


The works have now been completed (approximately July/August 2013), and the results of the full “Before and After” study required to satisfy the above decision have been received. The report prepared by VicRoads’ consultant for the “Before and After” assessment is attached. The results of the study are outlined below, summarised by the affected street. The streets within the City of Stonnington (and the VicRoads arterial Punt Road) have been considered here.

It should be noted that Council officers had concerns regarding the time period in which the after study was completed. The study occurred only one (1) month after the signals were relocated, and traffic may not have returned to normal at this time.

Fawkner Street

Tube counts for Fawkner Street showed no significant change. During the AM peak there was a slight increase in eastbound traffic which may show a trend of motorists starting to try and skip the traffic signals. This may increase in the future.

The delays appeared to have shortened post-installation (although this may be impacted by an outlier in the before surveys), however they have become more frequent, particularly in the PM peak period. The 95th percentile delay has increased in the PM peak period.

Lang Street

Delays to traffic in Lang Street appear less frequent post-installation, however where delays occur they are longer in duration. The overall impact to traffic post-installation is not significant.

In the case of each of the above local streets, the overall volume and the volume profile through the day were largely unchanged in the “Before and After” surveys.

Punt Road

The 95th percentile queues during PM peak times for Punt Road (southbound) traffic have decreased dramatically, whereas during AM peak times, the 95th percentile queue increases by one (1) vehicle. The PM decreases could be due to mass congestion from Commercial Road not being counted in the survey until the congestion was clear.

Delays have increased for southbound traffic which is directly attributable to the modification of the signals, especially for right turning vehicles. The right turn is fully controlled however this has not improved the situation as vehicles turning right are now being delayed the most. Before the signals were modified, right turning vehicles had long delays waiting for gaps in northbound traffic, however the control of the movement has not helped, and has increased these delays. This could be due to the current phasing.

A lot of congestion from Toorak Road not being counted has altered the results for Punt Road (northbound) traffic.

A large increase was noted in PM period 95th percentile queue lengths, especially in the right lane, however the queues settle after 4:30pm, and this has been helped by the installation of the signals.

Delays for northbound traffic have become more frequent and longer since installation of signals.

From a community perspective, it is important to note that no complaints from residents in the surrounding streets have been received following the completion of the works.

Page 132


Notwithstanding, VicRoads has, in line with the second dot point in the Council decision of 15 August 2011, offered $25,000 in funding to Council to complete any future survey work or remedial works in Lang Street and/or Fawkner Street in the future if required. This funding would allow for, indicatively, counts along these streets, minor intersection threshold treatments, speed cushion installation, etc., which may be required in the future.

CONCLUSION

The works to relocate the Punt Road / Pasley Street North pedestrian operated traffic signals are now complete, and the “Before and After” study which was required by Council has been completed and submitted for review. The study was completed shortly after the works were completed which showed that conditions on the nearby local streets Lang Street and Fawkner Street were largely unchanged. No resident complaints have been received following the works.

VicRoads has provided Council with an amount of $25,000 in funding to complete additional survey work and complete any further remedial works in Lang Street and/or Fawkner Street as required.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Before and After Study Report Excluded

2. Punt Road / Pasley Street North, South Yarra - Proposed Relocation of Pedestrian Operated Signals - Council Report 4 July 2011

Excluded

3. Punt Road / Pasley Street North, South Yarra - Proposed Relocation of Pedestrian Operated Signals - Council Report 15 August 2011

Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat the advice be noted.

Page 133


18. TEMPORARY OCCUPATION OF THREE (3) DARLING STREET CAR PARK BAYS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKS


PURPOSE

To seek approval to permit the occupation of three (3) parking bays in the Darling Street off-street car park to assist with the construction works at 8-10 Murphy Street, South Yarra.

To seek approval to permit the full closure of Station Street between Murphy Street and the east extent of the car park occupation during works times, which can occur as a maximum from 7am to 8pm Monday to Friday, and from 9am to 8pm Saturday.

BACKGROUND

Council has been approached by the developers of the site at 8-10 Murphy Street, South Yarra requesting the occupation of public areas to assist with their construction activity. The development is a residential building housing 37 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom dwellings, with an underground parking area.

Works are anticipated to commence during the third quarter of 2014, and proceed for 18 months. At a meeting held on 29 May 2014 the developer proposed occupation of three (3) parking spaces within the Darling Street off-street car park to house site amenities to assist with building works.

The developer has also proposed the full closure of Station Street between Murphy Street and the east extent of the proposed car park occupation to provide a loading zone and general works area while building works are occurring. The applicant has stated that at the end of works each day, Station Street will be reopened to traffic. The maximum working hours, as indicated by the applicant in their submission, are 7am to 8pm Monday to Friday, and 9am to 8pm Saturday.

The full closure has been proposed noting that the site on the south side of Murphy Street (2-6 Murphy Street) has also requested occupation of Station Street for lifting during their works. The full closure is intended to allow the construction at both sites to occur simultaneously, noting that the developers/builders will need to work together to ensure this occurs.

The proposed occupation of the parking spaces and the closure of Station Street is illustrated in the diagram below. A larger version is also included as Attachment A.

Page 135


DISCUSSION

Car Park Occupation

The occupation of the proposed three (3) parking spaces in the car park may result in some concerns from surrounding construction sites, and potentially from car park users.

Nearby construction sites which are already underway have previously requested the occupation of the car park to assist with building works, such as the site at 9 Darling Street, South Yarra and the site at 2-6 Murphy Street, South Yarra. These requests were not supported, as community objections in areas of relatively high parking demand were anticipated. The developers of these other sites may therefore complain if the subject site at 8-10 Murphy Street is granted an occupation.

Requests for occupation of public car parks for such purposes have not generally been supported in the past. However, in this case the developer has demonstrated that due to the site layout and surrounding road conditions, no other alternatives are available. The initial request was for the occupation of 10 parking bays within the Darling Street off-street car park, and this has been reduced to three (3) parking bays through the use of two-storey amenities. This is considered the minimum possible occupation to provide the required amenities. The parking aisles will not be impacted.

Notwithstanding the above, the occupation will incur a fee. Parking in the Darling Street car park requires the purchase of a ticket, and the fee levied for the builders’ occupation is commensurate with the parking fee which would be incurred if a vehicle was parked in a bay.

Page 136


The fee incurred in the Darling Street car park for the use of one parking bay is $1.40 per hour for the first two hours, and then $2.20 per each hour thereafter. The rate per parking bay for the occupation would therefore be $51.20 per day, or $358.40 per week (based on a 7 day per week occupation).

As the duration of occupation is unknown, it is recommended that this be administrated by the Building Department. When the dates are known, the applicant should either be requested to pay the entire fee upfront (calculated based on anticipated duration of the works), with an additional fee payable for each week after the agreed duration, or alternatively the fee could be payed monthly in advance. The fee is payable into the cost centre account R4170/2420.

Closure of Station Street

The closure of Station Street is proposed to allow construction activities to occur from Station Street, instead of from the Murphy Street frontage of the site. It is understood that the site on the south side of Station Street is also proposing to load and unload materials from Station Street, and therefore in order to allow works to proceed from both sites simultaneously, a full closure is requested.

However, it is noted that at this stage the proposed road occupations for the site at 2-6 Murphy Street have not been finalised. A ‘Works Zone’ restriction was installed to assist with the works on the Murphy Street frontage of the site, and a proposal to utilise Station Street for loading is currently being assessed by the Transport and Parking Unit.

The proposal to close Station Street is considered reasonable in-principle, however it is recommended that an agreement between the developers of the subject site at 8-10 Murphy Street and the developers of the site at 2-6 Murphy Street be struck prior to any approval for a full closure be granted. Any closure would also be subject to the submission of detailed Traffic Management Plans to the Building Department for approval, at which time it is anticipated that the plans would be submitted to the Transport and Parking Unit for assessment and comment, and also to detailed consultation/notification of surrounding properties to determine if there are any local objections to the proposal. Any closure would also be subject to the conditions of other closures in the municipality, including the requirement for letter drops to surrounding properties, adherence to AS1742.3, etc.

Support from the Toorak Road South Yarra Business Association Inc

As part of the submission for both the above aspects of the proposal, the developer has provided a letter from the Toorak Road South Yarra Business Association Inc in support of the occupation of three (3) parking bays within the Darling Street off-street car park, and also the closure of Station Street for construction activities.

Included within this support is a statement that as a result, there is an understanding that no trucks will be parked, or load and unload materials, on Murphy Street.

The plans submitted indicate that this is the proposal for the subject site, however it should be noted that other sites currently have works occurring from Murphy Street, and this is expected to continue into the future.


As outlined above, the rate per parking bay for the occupation would therefore be $51.20 per day, or $358.40 per week (based on a 7 day per week occupation). It is recommended that this be administrated by the Building Department.

Page 137


The applicant should either be requested to pay the entire fee upfront (calculated based on anticipated duration of the works), with an additional fee payable for each week after the agreed duration, or alternatively the fee could be payed monthly in advance. The fee is payable into the cost centre account R4170/2420.

CONCLUSION

The proposal to occupy three (3) parking spaces in the Darling Street off-street car park can be supported in consideration of the limited alternatives for the developer, and noting that the original request for 10 parking bays has been reduced to three (3) parking bays through the use of two-storey amenities. The occupation of these bays will incur a fee.

The proposal to fully close Station Street during works hours to assist with construction can be supported in-principle, subject to the submission of satisfactory Traffic Management Plans approved by the Building Department, agreement with the site on the south side of Murphy Street regarding management of the closure and building operations during the closure, consultation/notification with surrounding property occupiers and resolution of any objections, and the standard conditions applied to all road closures.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment A - Full Size Plan of the Proposal Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Approve the occupation of three (3) parking bays in the Darling Street off-street

car park for the placement of site amenities, subject to payment of an occupation fee of $358.40 per week.

2. Approve in-principle the full closure of Station Street during works hours, subject to the following, in addition to normal road occupation permit conditions:- Agreement with the site on the south side of Station Street regarding the

closure, and the operation of works during the closure;- Consultation/notification with surrounding property occupiers, and

resolution of any objections; - Submission of detailed Traffic Management Plans approved by the Building

Department.

Page 138


19. GARAGE SALE TRAIL - 2014/15 SUSTAINABILITY OUTREACH PROGRAM

Sustainable Environment Officer: Katherine Cocks General Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the Garage Sale Trail initiative, which will be delivered as part of the 2014/15 Sustainability Outreach Program.

BACKGROUND

The Garage Sale Trail partners with local Councils, private sector organisations and the media to encourage communities across Australia to hold garage sales on one particular day each year. The objectives of the Garage Trail Sale initiative are to promote:

Waste minimisation concepts including reuse and reduced waste to landfill,

Increase community connectedness

Creativity amongst the community and

Stimulation of local economies.

The Garage Sale Trail originated in New South Wales, where it began as a partnership with one council and 126 garage sales in 2010. By 2013, it had grown to a national event, with over 100 partner councils across Australia. In 2013, 24 Victorian Councils participated in the program, including a number of those neighbouring Stonnington. Evaluation data from the 2013 Garage Sale Trail indicates that more than 7000 garage sales were registered, 350,000 sellers and buyers were involved on the day, 1,574,803 items were sold and, on average, participants made 13 new neighbourly connections.

In 2014 the Garage Sale Trail will be held on Saturday 25 October throughout the country. This year it is endorsed by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and is supported by Sustainability Victoria, with media partnerships in place with ABC Local Radio and the Leader Newspaper Group. Based on feedback from the participating Councils in the 2013 Garage Sale Trail, improvements have been made to the 2014 program including individual Council branded marketing material and a Victorian representative from the Garage Sale Trail to assist Councils in the delivery of the program.

Councils contribute funding to the Garage Trail Sale which is communicated and promoted at a local, state and national level. Hosting of a garage sale as part of the program is free for all participants. Through providing funding of $7500 to support the 2014 Garage Sale Trail, Council is provided with the following:

Communication materials including localised posters, social media content, video content and digital advertisements to assist in community engagement around the program

Inclusion on Garage Sale Trail website and app where residents can register their sales and buyers see what’s on offer.

Access to media partners including ABC Local Radio and the Leader Newspaper.

Statewide representatives, including a Council manager, Digital manager and PR manager, to assist councils in program delivery.

Page 139


Reporting of real time campaign statistics and reporting of post event waste, environmental, economic, community and local media outcomes.

The program would be enhanced in Stonnington through additional local marketing in Council’s own publications, including In Stonnington, Council’s website and social media.

DISCUSSION

As a program, the Garage Sale Trail aligns strongly with the 2013-17 Council Plan, relating to multiple strategies within all four key pillars; Community, Environment, Liveability and Prosperity. It also meets goals and objectives of the Sustainability Environment Strategy 2013-17, within the strategic priority areas 'Minimising Waste and Maximising Resource Recovery' and ‘Environmental Education’.

The Garage Sale Trail supports the main aims of the Sustainability Outreach Program, which Council has developed to promote and support sustainable behaviour within the community and build the community’s capacity to respond to sustainability challenges. Therefore the Sustainability Outreach Program is the ideal platform from which to deliver the Garage Sale Trail, and there is sufficient financial and staff resources available for its implementation.

Whilst this project would be driven by the Sustainability Outreach Officer within Council’s Sustainable Environment Unit, it would also be a collaborative effort involving Council’s Marketing and Communications and Corporate and Community Planning Units to ensure successful delivery. Currently, the majority of residents participating in events as part of Council’s Environmental Education Program, are motivated to attend for environmental reasons. The Garage Sale Trail appeals to a broader sector of the community, not only those interested in the environment, but also those keen on developing more community/neighbourly connections, exploring their local area, being creative and making money. Once these sectors are engaged, there is a significant opportunity to then provide this broader audience with waste minimisation and environmental messages.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

As a program, the Garage Sale Trail aligns strongly with the 2013-17 Council plan where it relates to multiple strategies within all key pillars; Community, Environment, Liveability and Prosperity.

The Garage Sale Trail also meets goals and objectives within the strategic priority areas 'Minimising Waste and Maximising Resource Recovery' and ‘Environmental Education’ of the 2013 – 17 Sustainable Environment Strategy.


Council have funded participation in the 2014 Garage Sale Trail through the Sustainability Outreach Program Capital budget, at a cost of $7,500 excluding GST.

CONCLUSION

Page 140


The Garage Sale Trail has grown since its introduction in New South Wales in 2010, to a national program in 2013, where over 100 Councils participated. Evaluation data from 2013 indicates significant levels of participation by both buyers and sellers with more than 7000 garage sales registered and a resulting average of 13 new neighbourly connections made per participant.

The program aligns with a number of key strategic documents including the 2013-17 Council Plan and the 2013-17 Sustainable Environment Strategy. It supports the aims of the Sustainability Outreach Program, where sufficient financial and staff resources are available for the programs. An added benefit of the program is increased collaboration between Council units, resulting from its delivery.

It also provides a significant opportunity to provide waste minimisation and sustainability messages to a broader sector of the community, who may not currently be engaged in our existing Environmental Education Program.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council note the inclusion of the Garage Sale Trail within the 2014/15 Sustainability Outreach Program.

Page 141


20. ARTS AND CULTURAL SPONSORSHIPS 2014/15 PART 1

Manager Economic & Cultural Development: Francesca Valmorbida Manager City Strategy: Susan Price

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider projects and programs to be funded through Council’s Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program for the 2014/15 financial year.

BACKGROUND

Council’s support of arts and cultural activities, particularly festivals and events, is an investment in the community’s wellbeing.

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program reflects the strategic vision of the Arts and Cultural Strategy:

Arts and Culture continues to be valued and promoted;

Arts and Culture surprises, delights and engages the community and beyond;

Creative talents are encouraged and supported through sustainable links and partnerships

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship Guidelines are based upon Council’s Arts and Cultural Strategy’s key themes:

Leadership and Advocacy;

Creative Communities;

Creative Spaces and

Sharing the Creative City.

All the above play an important role in community building.

The following criteria were also used in assessing the applications:

Capacity to successfully deliver the project;

Successful partnership with a City of Stonnington based organisation;

Funding programs that compliment areas/genres that are not currently catered for by Council;

Support of emerging artists;

Likelihood of the project proceeding without Council support;

Contribution to the development of local youth; and

Overall benefit to the community.

Applications for Arts and Cultural Sponsorships opened on 11 March 2014 and closed 22 March 2014. Potential applicants were advised that applications were opening via the Stonnington Leader (advertisement), Arts Hub (advertisement) and promotion via direct email, Council’s website, In Stonnington and via social media outlets. Please see attached the Stonnington Arts & Cultural Sponsorship Application Form 2014-15 for your reference.

Due to the ongoing review of the Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program no new triennial applications were sought during this round. Existing triennial recipients whose agreements are concluding at the end of the 2013/14 financial year were advised in writing that they would need to apply for annual funding rather than triennial this year.

Page 143


DISCUSSION

Council has received forty-two applications for cash and in-kind support totalling

$719,398, four of which were late. The 2014/15 operating budget has an allocation of $325,000 for Arts and Cultural Sponsorships of which $27,500 is already committed in an existing triennial agreement (Polyglot), therefore the total available pool is $297,500.

There are three applications where there are anticipated conflicts of interests, these applications totalling requests of $37,000 in cash and $31,900 in-kind support will be considered in a separate paper.

The range and volume of applications this year has been very good, in fact it’s one of the largest in volume received for many years.

Detailed listings of the applications for Annual Arts and Cultural Sponsorships are attached.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program sits within the strategic objectives of Community and Liveability of the Council Plan. The program is aligned with Council’s strategy to recognise and enhance Stonnington’s diverse culture and indigenous heritage through programs and events which support the arts, traditions and heritage.

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program reflects the strategic visions of the Arts and Cultural Strategy:

Arts and Culture to be valued and promoted;

Arts and Culture surprises, delights and engages the community and beyond;

Creative talents are encouraged and supported through sustainable links and partnerships

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorships and Guidelines are based upon Council’s Arts and Cultural Strategy’s four key themes:



Creative Spaces and



Council’s 2014/15 budget has an allocation of $325,000 of which $27,500 is already committed in an existing triennial agreement (Polyglot), therefore leaving a remaining pool of $297,500.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are in line with the Arts and Cultural Sponsorships Guidelines and the Arts and Cultural Strategy.



Page 144


ATTACHMENTS

1. Arts and Cultural Sponsorship Annual Attachment 1 of 3 Excluded

2. Stonnington Arts and Cultural Sponsorship Attachment 2 of 3 Excluded

3. Stonnington Arts & Cultural Sponsorship Application Form 2014-15 Attachment 3 of 3

Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council adopts the recommended Annual Arts and Cultural Sponsorships for the 2014/15 financial year as detailed in the attached documents.

Page 145


21. ARTS AND CULTURAL SPONSORSHIP APPLICATIONS 2014/15 PART 2

Manager Economic & Cultural Development: Francesca Valmorbida General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider three projects and programs for funding through Council’s Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program for the 2014/15 financial year. These programs have been separated from those in Part 1 due to potential conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND

Council’s support of arts and cultural activities, particularly festivals and events, is an investment in the community’s wellbeing.

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program reflects the strategic vision of the Arts and Cultural Strategy:

Arts and Culture continues to be valued and promoted;

Arts and Culture surprises and delights and engages the community and beyond;

Creative talents are encouraged and supported through sustainable links and partnerships.

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship Guidelines are based upon Council’s Arts and Cultural Strategy’s key themes:



Creative Spaces and


All the above play an important role in community building.

The following criteria were also used in assessing the applications:

Capacity to successfully deliver the project;

Successful partnership with a City of Stonnington based organisation;

Funding programs that compliment areas/genres that are not currently catered for by Council;

Support of emerging artists;

Likelihood of the project proceeding without Council support;

Contribution to the development of local youth; and

Overall benefit to the community.

Applications for Arts and Cultural Sponsorships opened 11 March 2014 and closed 22 April 2014 with three late applications accepted (italicised). Potential applicants were advised that applications were opening via the Stonnington Leader (advertisement), Arts Hub (advertisement) and promotion via direct email, Council’s website, In Stonnington and via social media outlets.

Due to the ongoing review of the Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program no new triennial applications were sought during this round. Existing triennial recipients whose agreements

Page 147


are concluding at the end of the 2013/14 financial year were advised in writing that they would need to apply for annual funding rather than triennial this year.

DISCUSSION

In addition to the applications already considered there are an additional three applications, being:

Children’s Literature Australia Network (CLAN);

Rotary Club of Chadstone/ East Malvern;

Lyric Opera Company (please note that this application was a late submission).

Detailed listings of these applications are attached.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program sits within the strategic objectives of Community and Liveability of the Council Plan. The program is aligned with Council’s strategy to recognise and enhance Stonnington’s diverse culture and indigenous heritage through programs and events which support the arts, traditions and heritage.

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program reflects the strategic visions of the Arts and Cultural Strategy:

Arts and Culture to be valued and promoted; Arts and Culture surprises, delights and engages the community and beyond; Creative talents are encouraged and supported through sustainable links and

partnerships.

The Arts and Cultural Sponsorships and Guidelines are based upon Council’s Arts and Cultural Strategy’s four key themes:

Leadership and Advocacy; Creative Communities; Creative Spaces and Sharing the Creative City.


Council’s 2014/15 operating budget has an allocation of $325,000 of which $27,500 is already committed to an existing triennial agreement (Polyglot). These three applications represent requests totalling $68,900 in cash and in-kind.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are in line with the Arts and Cultural Sponsorships Guidelines and the Arts and Cultural Strategy.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Stonnington Arts & Cultural Sponsorship Application Form 2014-15 Excluded

Page 148


Attachment 1 of 1

2. Arts and Cultural Sponsorships Draft Annual Allocations Part 2 of 3 Excluded

3. Arts and Cultural Sponsorships Attachment 3 of 3 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council adopts the recommended Annual Arts and Cultural Sponsorships for the 2014/15 financial year as detailed in the attached documents.

Page 149

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS7 JULY 2014

o) Confidential

1. CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD 2014Civic Support Officer: Judy HoganConfidential report circulated separately.

2. PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT - 0495/11 - 38 - 40 CLAREMONT STREET, SOUTH YARRA – ADDITION OF A FURTHER THREE LEVELS TO AN APPROVED MULTI-LEVEL DWELLING DEVELOPMENT

Planning Appeals Coordinator: Gareth GaleConfidential report circulated separately.

3. ADDITIONAL HERITAGE CONSULTANT FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Planning Appeals Coordinator: Gareth GaleConfidential report circulated separately.

4. 18 RUSSELL STREET, TOORAK - GARAGE WITHIN FRONT SETBACK

Manager Building and Local Laws: Madeleine GroveConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 151

agenda of council meeting - 7 july 2014 - city of … · web viewthat the council confirms the...

Documents