city of kingston agenda 19 december 2011 notice 1 ... · city of kingston ordinary council meeting...

City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting

Agenda 19 December 2011

1

Notice is given that an Ordinary Meeting of Kingston City Council will be held at 7.00pm at the Cheltenham Office, 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, on Monday 19 December 2011. 1. Apologies 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting 28 November 2011 Minutes of Special Council Meeting 30 November 2011 3. Foreshadowed Declaration by Councillors, Officers or Contractors of any Conflict of

Interest [Note that any Conflicts of Interest need to be formally declared at the start of the meeting and immediately prior to the item being considered – type and nature of interest is required to be disclosed – if disclosed in writing to the CEO prior to the meeting only the type of interest needs to be disclosed prior to the item being considered.]

4. Petitions

Zebra Crossing in front of Coles entry/exit on Gladesville Blvd Patterson Lakes. Create a fenced off leash area away from playground at Reg Marlow Park.

5. Presentation of Awards Les Heimann

6. Reports from Village Committees Nil – No meetings held in December 7. Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations

8. Question Time 9. Environmental Sustainability Reports N 212 Planning Applications – November 2011 ..................................................................Page 3 N 213 KP67/10 – 139 Como Parade East, Parkdale............................................................2 N 214 KP166/11 – 235 – 237 Wickham Road, Moorabbin.................................................Page 37 N 215 KP913/10 – 465 – 467 Nepean Highway, Chelsea ..................................................Page 60 N 216 KP927/10 – 101 – 103 Mentone Parade, Mentone ...................................................Page 70 N 217 KP325/11 – 36 – 40 Jean Street, Cheltenham ........................................................Page 102 N 218 Moorabbin Arts Link ..............................................................................................Page 130 N 219 Kingston Active Youth Spaces Strategy – Final.....................................................Page 135 N 220 Contract 11/100 – Governor Road Traffic Signals .................................................Page 139 10. Community Sustainability Reports Nil 11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports N 221 Naming Proposal Allnutt Reserve...........................................................................Page 144 N 222 Public Art Policy.....................................................................................................Page 148 N 223 Council Election 2012 – MAV Tender Agency Proposal ......................................Page 151 N 224 Community Vision Project .....................................................................................Page 155 N 225 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule ....................................................................Page 158



2

N 226 Assembly of Council Report...................................................................................Page 160 12. Corporate Services Reports N 227 Summary of Audit Committee Meeting..................................................................Page 162 N 228 Draft School Crossing Supervisor Policy ...............................................................Page 164 13. Notices of Motion N 229 Notice of Rescission - Cr West ...............................................................................Page 167 N 230 Notice of Motion – Cr West....................................................................................Page 168 14. Urgent Business 15. Items in Camera N 231 Village Committee Annual Appointments..............................................................Page 169 N 232 Contractual Matter ..................................................................................................Page 176 N 233 Planning Scheme Amendment C111 (Southern Road) – Panel Report .................Page 188



3

9. Environmental Sustainability Reports N 212 Town Planning Application Decisions – November, 2011 Approved By: Rachel Hornsby -General Manager, Environmental Sustainability Author: Ian Nice – Manager, Planning Attached for information is the report of Town Planning Decisions for the month of November, 2011. A summary of the decisions is as follows:

Type of Decision Number of Decisions Made

Percentage (%)

Planning Permits 88 84 Notice of Decision 9 8 Refusal to Grant a Permit 1 1 Other - Withdrawn (3) - Prohibited (0) - Permit not required (2) - Lapsed (2)

7 7

Total 105 100 (NB: Percentage figures have been rounded) Recommendation That the report be noted.



4

Planning Decisions November, 2011 APPL. No. PROPERTY

ADDRESS SUBURB APPL. DATE DATE

DECIDED PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION DECISION VCAT

DECISION

KP-673/2011 19 Arunta Crescent

CLARINDA 7/09/2011 2/11/2011 Two (2) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-736/2011 49 Kalimna Street

CARRUM 27/09/2011 3/11/2011 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots

Permit Issued NO

KP-235/2010 236 Clarinda Road

HEATHERTON 22/04/2010 3/11/2011 Plant Nursery Permit Issued NO

KP-691/2011 3 Harold Street BONBEACH 8/09/2011 3/11/2011 Two (2) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-459/2011 18-20 Avondale Avenue

CHELSEA 4/07/2011 3/11/2011 Subdivide The Land Into Forty (40) Lots And Common Property

Permit Issued NO

KP-298/2011 8 Emma Street CARRUM 10/05/2011 3/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued NO

KP-302/2011 82 Keys Road CHELTENHAM 11/05/2011 3/11/2011 Use The Land As A Medical Centre (Speech Pathology), With A Reduction Of The Car Parking Requirement

Permit Issued NO

KP-460/2011 20 Berry Avenue

EDITHVALE 4/07/2011 3/11/2011 Three (3) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-753/2011 211 Gladesville Boulevard

PATTERSON LAKES

3/10/2011 3/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Jetty

Permit Issued NO

KP-466/2011 4 Nirringa Avenue

ASPENDALE 1/07/2011 4/11/2011 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots

Permit Issued NO

KP-369/2010 580-588 Heatherton Road

CLAYTON SOUTH

15/06/2010 4/11/2011 Mixed Use Development - Factory/Warehouse/Office And Creation Of Access To A Road In

Permit Issued NO



5




DECISION

A Road Zone - Category 1

KP-606/2011 215 Gladesville Boulevard

PATTERSON LAKES

12/08/2011 4/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Jetty.

Permit Issued NO

KP-759/2011 13 Palm Island Court

PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-760/2011 123 Palm Beach Drive

PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-754/2011 3 Palm Island Court

PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-717/2011 2 Lagoon Place PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO


PATTERSON LAKES

4/07/2011 4/11/2011 Replace Jetty 180 Permit Issued NO

KP-505/2010/A 5 Eric Avenue MORDIALLOC 20/07/2011 4/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued NO

KP-705/2011 3 Booker Street CHELTENHAM 13/09/2011 7/11/2011 Three (3) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-733/2011 25 Robert Street

PARKDALE 21/09/2011 7/11/2011 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots

Permit Issued NO

KP-714/2011 40 Riverside West

PATTERSON LAKES

19/09/2011 7/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Dwelling In A Special Building Overlay

Permit Issued NO

KP-342/2011 35 Ebb Street ASPENDALE 23/05/2011 7/11/2011 The Subdivision Of The Land Into Two (2) Lots With Common Property & The Creation Of Easement

Permit Issued NO



6




DECISION

KP-322/2011 21 Brownfield Street

PARKDALE 13/05/2011 7/11/2011 Dwelling Extension On Land Subjct To A Special Building Overlay

Permit Issued NO

KP-375/2011 4 213-223 Wells Road

CHELSEA HEIGHTS

6/06/2011 7/11/2011 Buildings & Works To Existing Factory/Warehouse; & Reduction Of Carparking Requirements

Permit Issued NO

KP-318/2011 6 Dawn Street HIGHETT 17/05/2011 7/11/2011 Four (4) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-431/2011 116-118 Gladesville Boulevard

PATTERSON LAKES

27/06/2011 7/11/2011 Use The Land For The Sale Of Liquor

Permit Issued NO

KP-449/2011 1 Frank Avenue CLAYTON SOUTH

30/06/2011 8/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of Three (3) Dwellings

Permit Issued NO

KP-608/2003/A 43 Levanswell Road

MOORABBIN 24/11/2010 8/11/2011 Buildings & Works Refused NO

KP-264/2011 8 Marabou Place

ASPENDALE 19/04/2011 9/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued NO

KP-10/2010 8 Maury Road CHELSEA 11/01/2010 9/11/2011 Sixteeen (16) Apartment Style Dwellings With Associated Basement Carparking

Permit Issued NO

KP-411/1995/A 106 McLeod Road

CARRUM 6/09/2011 9/11/2011 Child Care Centre Notice of Decision

NO

KP-631/2011 44 Harbour Drive

PATTERSON LAKES

24/08/2011 10/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Dwelling On Land Subject To Inundation Overlay

Permit Issued NO



7




DECISION

KP-808/2010 86 Charman Road

MENTONE 12/11/2010 10/11/2011 Mixed Use Development Notice of Decision

NO

KP-278/2011 Unit 2 16 Redholme Street

MOORABBIN 29/04/2011 10/11/2011 Dwelling Extension On A Lot Less Than 300 M2

Permit Issued NO

KP-228/2011 293 Station Street

CHELSEA 11/04/2011 10/11/2011 Two (2) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-378/2011 1 Forest Park Road

DINGLEY VILLAGE

6/06/2011 10/11/2011 Two (2) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-708/2010 8 Wilson Street CHELTENHAM 5/10/2010 14/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued NO

KP-439/2011 15 Teton Court HIGHETT 20/06/2011 15/11/2011 1st Floor Extension To Existing Office Warehouse

Permit Issued NO

KP-921/2010 60 Wilson Street

CHELTENHAM 24/12/2010 15/11/2011 Four (4) Dwellings Notice of Decision

NO

KP-194/2011 115 Chute Street

MORDIALLOC 28/03/2011 15/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Notice of Decision

NO



8




DECISION

KP-266/2011 7 Mallawa Street

CLAYTON SOUTH

18/04/2011 15/11/2011 Three (3) Dwellings Notice of Decision

NO

KP-91/2011 10 Jordan Street

CLAYTON SOUTH

14/02/2011 15/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued NO

KP-807/2010 2 393 Station Street

BONBEACH 12/11/2010 15/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of Two (2) Dwellings And A Two (2) Lot Subdivision

Permit Issued NO

KP-656/2011 12 Collocott Street

MORDIALLOC 30/08/2011 15/11/2011 Four (4) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-1092/2008/A

57 Royal Road BONBEACH 22/07/2011 15/11/2011 Two Dwellings / 2 Lot Sub Notice of Decision

NO

KP-699/2011 25 Keith Street PARKDALE 9/09/2011 16/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Extension Of An Existing Dwelling

Permit Not Required

NO

KP-644/2010 236 Clarinda Road

HEATHERTON 15/09/2010 16/11/2011 Earthworks & Fill Permit Issued NO

KP-447/2011 6-7 201-205 Thames Promenade

CHELSEA HEIGHTS

30/06/2011 16/11/2011 Use Of The Land For A Medical Centre, Reduction Of The Car Parking Requirements Pursuant To Clause 52.06 Of The Kingston Planning Scheme And Erection Of Two (2) Business Identification Signs

Permit Issued NO



9




DECISION

KP-406/2011 1 18 Sycamore Avenue

MENTONE 16/06/2011 16/11/2011 Two (2) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued NO

KP-453/2011 8 Wimmera Street

MOORABBIN 1/07/2011 16/11/2011 Develop Land For The Extension Of An Existing Dwelling On Land In A Special Building Overlay

Permit Issued NO

KP-694/2011 1 Maury Lane CHELSEA 13/09/2011 16/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Dwelling With An Internal Floor To Ceiling Height Greater Than 3.5 Metres

Permit Issued NO

KP-685/2009 530 Main Street MORDIALLOC 19/10/2009 16/11/2011 Subdivide Land Into 49 Lots With Common Property

Permit Issued NO

KP-496/2011 76-78 Balcombe Road

MENTONE 15/07/2011 17/11/2011 Subdivision Staged Permit Issued NO

KP-154/2011 15 Hayden Road

CLAYTON SOUTH

9/03/2011 17/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued NO

KP-467/2011 243 Wickham Road

MOORABBIN 5/07/2011 18/11/2011 Use The Land For The Purpsoe Of Trade Supplies

Permit Issued NO

KP-387/2011 14 Brigantine Court

PATTERSON LAKES


KP-185/2011 51 Bunney Road

CLARINDA 24/03/2011 18/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued NO

KP-727/2011 7A Renowden Street

CHELTENHAM 19/09/2011 18/11/2011 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots

Permit Issued NO



10




DECISION

KP-866/2009 2 Kingston Street

MORDIALLOC 17/02/2010 18/11/2011 To Develop The Land For The Construction Of Four (4) Dwellings

Notice of Decision

YES


PATTERSON LAKES

26/08/2011 18/11/2011 Relace Jetty 166 Permit Issued NO

KP-329/2011 33B Curlew Point Drive

PATTERSON LAKES


KP-423/2011 9 Castaway Court

PATTERSON LAKES

27/06/2011 18/11/2011 Jetty Replacement (Jetty No. 220)

Permit Issued NO

KP-623/2010 1 Kingston Road

HEATHERTON 7/09/2010 21/11/2011 Convenience Restaurant Notice of Decision

NO

KP-680/2011 1 Canberra Street

PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-854/2011 1 Keeling Court PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-747/2011 6 Lagoon Place PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-422/2011 23 Brigantine Court

PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-716/2011 2 Curlew Point Drive

PATTERSON LAKES


Permit Issued NO

KP-726/2011 5A Renowden Street

CHELTENHAM 19/09/2011 22/11/2011 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots

Permit Issued NO



11




DECISION

KP-820/2011 44 Davey Street

PARKDALE 21/10/2011 22/11/2011 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots And Create An Easement

Permit Issued NO

KP-634/2011 26 Glenelg Drive

CLAYTON SOUTH


KP-633/2011 7 Bond Street CLAYTON SOUTH


KP-851/2011 120-122 Nepean Highway

ASPENDALE 2/11/2011 22/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of Four (4) Carports

Permit Issued NO

KP-538/2010 1200 Centre Road

CLARINDA 13/08/2010 22/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Ground Floor Extension To An Existing Building For The Purpose Of A Restaurant, A Waiver Of The Carparking Requirement, Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Internally Illuminated Business Identificat

Permit Issued NO

KP-24/2009/A 40 Eighth Street

PARKDALE 30/06/2011 23/11/2011 Two Dwellings Withdrawn NO

KP-188/2011 42 Bowman Street

ASPENDALE 23/03/2011 24/11/2011 Two (2) Dwellings Lapsed NO

KP-120/2011 10 Fury Court CLAYTON SOUTH

1/03/2011 24/11/2011 Place Of Worship And Reduced Car Parking

Lapsed NO

KP-612/2011 16 Beachcomber Court

PATTERSON LAKES

19/08/2011 24/11/2011 Develop The Land For The Construction Of An Extension To Existing Dwelling

Permit Not Required

NO



12

N 213 139 Como Parade East, Parkdale – Planning Permit Application No. KP67/10 APPLICANT Imperium Design ADDRESS OF LAND No. 139 Como Parade East (Lots 25, 26 and 27 on

PS012234), PARKDALE VIC 3195 PROPOSAL FOUR (4) DWELLINGS PLANNING OFFICER Emma Hilderink REFERENCE NO. KP-67/2010 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 11 (Settlement) Clause 12: (Environmental and Landscape Values) Clause 15: (Built Environment and Heritage) Clause 16: (Housing)

RELEVANT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 21.05: MSS – Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

ZONE Clause 32.01: Residential 1 Zone OVERLAYS N/A PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential

Buildings GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA

Increased Housing Diversity

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVITY

N/A

DECISION DATE BY 13/09/2011 STATUTORY DAYS 132 days at 24/11/2011 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

23rd May 2010

1.0 KEY ISSUES 1.1 The key planning issues arising from this proposal relate to:

Traffic and Parking Neighbourhood character Private Open Space Integration with the Street Design Details

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and outbuildings on the land and construct

four (4) dwellings on this site.

2.2 Development summary:



13

Dwelling Floor Area (excluding garage)

Private Open Space No. of Bedrooms proposed

No. of Car Parking Spaces provided

1 108.6m² 54.5m² POS 3 2 (double garage) 2 87.4m² 53.5m2 (inc 38.5m² SPOS) 2 1 (single garage) 3 87.4m² 53.5m2 (inc 38.5m² SPOS) 2 1 (single garage) 4 87.4m² 53.5m2 (inc 38.5m² SPOS) 2 1 (single garage)

2.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 56 percent and a permeability percentage of 35. 2.4 Development Assessment Table:

Criteria ResCode Requirement Proposed Development Provision Private Open Space

An area of 40m2, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 25m2, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room.

Dwelling 1: complies Dwelling 2: complies Dwelling 3: complies Dwelling 4: complies

Car Parking

1 car parking space for one or two bedroom dwelling; and 2 car parking spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling, with 1 space under cover

Dwelling 1: complies Dwelling 2: complies Dwelling 3: complies Dwelling 4: complies

Front Setback

As the site is on a corner front walls of new development should be setback the same distance as the setback of the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Front walls of new development fronting the side street of a corner site should be setback at least the same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 3 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Dwelling 1: 4.0 metres - does not meet standard as the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment is 6.2 metres

Dwelling 2: 2.7 metres – does not comply Dwelling 3: 2.7 metres - does not comply Dwelling 4: 2.7 metres - does not comply (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

Site Coverage

Maximum 60% - as per ResCode

Site coverage is 56% and therefore complies

2.5 The proposed building materials, colours and finishes are summarised in the table below:

Roof: Black coloured cement roofing tiles Walls: Grey and white cement render with timber panel feature, austral zinc brick, and

ochre alucobond panelled wall cladding

Garage doors Panel lift style – painted dark grey Windows: Aluminium, natural anodised Driveways: Glazed charcoal coloured driveway and exposed aggregate



14

Front fencing: 1.7 metre high timber paling and 1.5 metre high semi-transparent merbeau / jarrah 3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject site is located on the north-west corner of Como Parade East and Bethell

Avenue, Parkdale. The land is regular in shape with a frontage width of 15.82 metres to Como Parade East, a frontage of 34.4 metres to Bethell Avenue and an overall site area of 672m2. There are no easements within the subject site. The land has a gradual fall of 0.6 metres from the north-east corner to the south-west corner of the site.

3.2 At present, the subject site is occupied by a single-storey brick veneer dwelling fronting

Como Parade East. Vehicle access to the site is via an existing right-of-way located adjacent to the north-east (rear) of the subject site. There are a number of mature exotic and native trees on the land. No significant vegetation exists on the land.

3.3 The surrounding area is characterised by predominantly single-storey dwellings and some

double-storey dwellings with recent examples of multi-dwellings closer to the Parkdale Railway Station.

3.4 The adjoining property at 137 Como Parade East comprises of a two storey dwelling with a

single level garage and habitable room abutting the eastern boundary of the subject site. This property has a private open space area about 5.3 metres wide extending from the rear of the garage and a room to the rear of the property.

3.5 Land to the rear, on the other side of the laneway, at 1 Bethell Avenue is a single storey

brick dwelling. The laneway runs between Bethell Avenue and Eighth Street and provides right of way access to seven properties.

3.6 Land opposite, on the other side of Bethell Avenue, comprises a single and two storey dual

occupancy developments. This development is located in a Business 1 Zone. Land directly opposite is the Melbourne to Frankston rail line with the Parkdale railway line diagonally opposite (approximately 100 metres to the east).

3.7 On the other side of the railway line in Como Parade West is the main shopping centre for

Parkdale (approximately 50 metres to the south opposite the railway line). This is a local activity centre and compares more favourably with the more sedate commercial area to the east of Bethell Avenue. The subject site is located approximately 1.25km from Parkdale Primary School and approximately 1.75km from Parkdale Secondary College. Public bus services also run along Como Parade East and West including services to Southland Shopping Centre.

4.0 TITLE DETAILS 4.1 A registered Covenant No. 1477873 exists on the Certificate of Title for the subject land

which states (amongst other things) that heirs, executors, administrators and transfers on:

“will not at anytime carry away or remove nor permit or allow to be excavated, carried away or removed from earth, clay, stone, gravel or sand from the said land except for the



15

purpose of excavating for the foundation of any building to be erected thereon or layout out gardens to be occupied therewith”.

The proposed development, however, is not expected to contravene the existing registered covenant on the subject site.

5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone and is not subject to any Overlays. 6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required

to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. 7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 7.1 Planning Application No. KP-144/2006 to develop the land for the construction of four (4)

dwellings was refused by Council on 16th August, 2006, with an appeal subsequently lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal). In its written order issued on 17th July, 2007, the Tribunal upheld Council’s decision to refuse a permit for the development of the site for four (4) double-storey dwellings.

The following design suggestions were made by the Tribunal to assist the applicant to pursue the four two storey dwelling development:

make greater attempt to step the upper level footprint of Dwellings 2, 3 and 4 back from

both side boundaries so that they produce a more recessive form and mass. consider deleting at least one bedroom, the retreat, and either the ensuite or bathroom

of each of those three dwellings; this might amount to a reduction of about 50% of the footprint to that shown on each of those dwellings.

provide a greater separation between Dwellings 2 and 3 for the entire separation distance and not just where it abuts the bedrooms of Dwellings 2 and 3

delete each protruding ensuite I recommend these features should be located behind the line of the front bedrooms, rather than protruding forward and accentuating their prominence on the Bethell Street Streetscape

No doubt if each dwelling is reduced to two bedrooms only, there is less onus to provide as many car parking spaces and it may obviate the car overhang issue.

7.2 Planning Application No. KP-14/2008 to develop the land for the construction of four (4)

dwellings was refused by Council, with an appeal subsequently lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In its written order issued on 17th June, 2009, the Tribunal upheld Council’s decision to refuse a permit for the development of the site for four (4) double-storey dwellings.

The Tribunal considered that the proposed changes to the application to address the earlier concerns of the Tribunal did not go far enough to warrant the granting of a permit. In summary, the Member believed the following issues remained outstanding:



16

Lack of certainty and clarity in the plans; Reduction in the footprint of the upper levels without reducing the number of

bedrooms resulted in a poor internal amenity outcome for future residents; Greater first floor setbacks were needed to increase street setbacks and improve

articulation and reduce overall mass; Car parking and access arrangements from Bethell Avenue, including reversing onto

Bethell Avenue and loss of street parking; and Location of private open space areas within the street setback.

The Tribunal concluded their decision with the following statement:

“It is my view that this is not an application that can be bought to a satisfactory standard by way of conditions in part because of a number of uncertainties the Tribunal has with the levels and setbacks as shown on the plans. Although I intend to refuse the permit it is fair to say that in my view the amended proposal is sufficiently respectful of the private open space and amenity of the dwelling to the west and I have no concerns with respect to the setback from Como Parade East given the corner location of the site, proximity to the Business 1 Zone and the encouragement provided in the Planning Scheme for higher density development on this location.”

The application currently before Council has made the following changes in response to the

reasons for the refusal of the applications KP-144/2006 and KP-14/2008:

1. The current plans being considered by the Council show an acceptable level of detail required to make a full assessment of the proposal.

2. The studies have been removed from Dwellings 2, 3 and 4 so that they now contain two

(2) bedrooms only. The Tribunal, in their decision above, noted that while the first floor footprints had been reduced from the previous proposal the redesign still contained three (3) bedrooms (i.e. the study could be used as a third bedroom). It is considered that the current application has now satisfactorily addressed this issue.

3. The current application proposes first floor setbacks to Bethell Avenue of between 4.0m

and 4.25m with a balcony off bedroom 3 of Dwelling 3 reducing the setback to 2.8 just metres. The previous proposal KP-14/2008 had first floor setbacks of 3.5 metres to Bethell Avenue. In its decision the Tribunal recommended that the first floor setbacks should be increased by at least 0.5 m.

Therefore it is suggested that the Bethell Avenue setback of Dwellings 2 and 3 be increased to 4.0 metres as per the direction of the Tribunal. It is also recommended that the setback of Dwelling 4 be increased to 5.0 metres, to provide a staggered setback along Bethell Avenue and to limit the visibility of Dwelling 4 when viewing the site from the corner of Bethell Avenue and Como Parade East. The increased setbacks can be included as conditions on any permit issued for the site.

4. Dwellings 2, 3 and 4, which gain access from Bethell Avenue, now contain two

bedrooms each. Therefore these dwellings only require one car parking space each, as per ResCode parking requirements. The reduction in car parking demand and traffic



17

generated by the smaller two-bedroom dwellings is considered to be an improvement to Bethell Avenue.

The current application proposes one (1) double and one (1) single width crossover along Bethell Avenue to serve Dwellings 2, 3 and 4. It is recommended that should a planning permit be issued for the development, a condition of permit be included requiring the double crossover serving Dwellings 2 and 3 to be changed to a single-width shared crossover so that street parking along Bethell Avenue is maximised. The changes to parking and limiting the number of crossovers along Bethell Avenue would address the concerns of the Tribunal.

5. The secluded private open space to the rear of Dwellings 2, 3 and 4 have been increased

by almost 30% so that the space will be more functional and now exceeds the minimum size required under ResCode. The location of the private open space area of Dwelling 1 within the street setback of Bethell Avenue and Como Parade East is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

- The area will be made secluded by the erection of a 1.7 metre high fencing, which

is considered to be not unreasonable along the Como Parade East frontage as it is a relatively busy main road;

- The subject land is a corner site and for this reason it is difficult to achieve secluded private open space to the rear of a dwelling;

- Has excellent northerly orientation; and

- The area of private open space for Dwelling 1 exceeds the minimum of 40m2 required by ResCode.

8.0 ADVERTISING 8.1 Prior to advertising, the Permit Applicant submitted revised plans on 4th June, 2010, that

essentially addressed the initial concerns outlined within the Planning Officer’s further information letter. These revised plans formed part of the advertising documentation, and are now under consideration by Council and, therefore, supersede all earlier plans.

8.2 As discussed, the proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite

property owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Forty (40) objections to the proposal were received. The main valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:

Neighbourhood character Car parking and traffic safety concerns Building height, bulk and scale Overdevelopment of the site Noise

8.3 The following objections raised are not valid planning considerations:

Heritage value of the existing dwelling



18

Devaluation of property 9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 9.1 A preliminary conference was held on 23rd September, 2011, with the relevant Planning

Officer, Ward Councillors, the Permit Applicant and fourteen (14) objectors in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

9.2 The above concerns were unable to be resolved at the preliminary conference, and the

objections still stand. 10.0 REFERRALS 10.1 The following internal referral departments were notified:

Council’s Development Engineer Council’s Vegetation Management Officer Council’s Street Tree Co-ordinator Council’s Roads and Drains Department

10.2 The Council’s Development Engineer had no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions

being included on any permit issued, including standard conditions to manage stormwater disposal and a condition to protect sight lines for vehicles exiting the adjoining laneway.

10.3 The Council’s Vegetation Management Officer had no objection to the proposal; subject to a

condition being imposed on any permit issued requiring the provision of a landscape plan. 10.4 The Council’s Street Tree Co-ordinator has agreed to the removal of a Bethell Avenue street

tree on the condition that the applicant pays Council $805.00 in costs to replace the trees. This payment will be required as a permit condition.

10.5 The Council’s Roads and Drains Department had no objection to the proposal, subject to

conditions being included on any permit issued to maintain footpath levels and boundary off-sets and to install an island between the crossovers for Dwellings 2 and 3.

11.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 11.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 11 (Settlement) Clause 12 (Environmental and Landscape Values) Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) Clause 16 (Housing)

11.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)



19

Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) Clause 22.11 (Residential Development Policy)

11.3 Particular Provisions

Clause 55 (Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings) – Refer to Appendix A for the Planning Officer’s full assessment against this Clause.

11.4 General Provisions Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)

11.5 Other Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause 21.05 –

Residential Land Use of the LPPF)

The land is located within Area No. 20 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile. There are no ‘critical’ built form characteristics identified for this profile area; however the following “major” built form characteristics have been identified:

Perceived lot patterns – depth 35-40m and frontage 12-15m Building placement – 1.0m narrower side setback, 5.0m front setback and 1-3m

wider side setback Building footprint – modulated Type and height of development – single storey detached dwellings orientated

towards the street Front boundary and garden – low wall or fence and landscape Building features – windows on corners and porches

The non-compliances with the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines “major” characteristics are discussed further in Section 13.1 of this report.

Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy)

The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and

suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character. Under the Guidelines, particular reference is made to new side-by-side or “duplex”

dwellings and suggests that the design of such dwellings should have regard to neighbourhood character. Specifically, “it is critical that duplex dwellings have a visual connection and address the street and, further, that they do not present merely as garaging and front doors only. Staggered front building lines and variation in design and materials will all contribute an improved final outcome”.



20

Further the Guidelines make the following reference to the consideration of pattern of development “If two or more dwellings are combined into a built form that retains the appearance of a single dwelling when viewed from the street, it is possible to increase the number of dwellings on a lot and respect the existing lot pattern. The surrounding private open space areas should also be designed to present the appearance of a single cartilage.”

It is considered that the proposed development does not raise any issues of non-compliance

with these guidelines. This is demonstrated through the varied front and side building setbacks, the use of different external building materials and colours and the front walls of each garage would be set behind the main façade of each dwelling.

12.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 12.1 State Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing). Essentially, the provisions within these clauses seek to achieve the fundamental objectives and policy outcomes sought by the Metropolitan Strategy – ‘Melbourne 2030’ and its recent update ‘Melbourne @ 5 Million’, which have been removed from an individual clause and integrated throughout the State Planning Policy Framework. The settlement policies at Clause 11 seek to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for all forms of land use in Victoria. Of particular relevance to housing, Clause 11 promotes housing diversity and urban consolidation objectives in the established urban realm. Clause 11.02-1 states that Planning Authorities should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period, taking account of opportunities for redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas as well consideration being had for environmental aspects, sustainable development and the costs associated with providing infrastructure. This clause states: Planning for urban growth, should consider:

o Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas;

o Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations; o The limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental quality; o Service limitations and the costs of providing infrastructure.

Clause 11.01-2 places particular emphasis on providing increased densities of housing in and around activity centres or sites that have good access to a range of services, facilities and transport options. Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) aims to ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value.



21

Housing objectives are further advanced at Clause 16. This Clause aims to encourage increased diversity in housing to meet the needs of the community through different life stages and respond to market demand for housing. In much the same vein as Clause 11, this Clause advances notions of consolidation of existing urban areas, particularly in and around activity centres and employment corridors that are well served by all infrastructure and services. The policies contained within Clause 16.01-4 encourage the provision of range of housing types to meet the increasingly diverse needs of the community. Emphasis is placed on development of well-designed medium density housing with respect to neighbourhood character. Further, this Clause aims to make better use of the existing infrastructure and provide more energy efficient housing. Policies pertaining to urban design, built form and heritage outcomes are found at Clause 15 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Of particular significance, Clause 15.01 encourages development to achieve high quality architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to neighbourhood character, minimises detrimental amenity impacts and achieves safety for future residents, and the community, through good design. The provisions of Clause 15.02 promote energy and resource efficiency through improved building design, urban consolidation and promotion of sustainable transport. It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. State Policy encourages well designed medium density housing that respects the character of the neighbourhood, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. The development itself achieves an acceptable design outcome for the site and its immediate abuttals, whilst enjoying convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including public transport nodes.

12.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The City of Kingston’s MSS at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, seeks to provide guidance to development in residential zoned land, mixed use zoned lands and land within activity centres. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston.

The subject land is identified within an Increased Housing Diversity area. The intention in these areas is for new medium density housing to comprise of a variety of housing types and layouts that respond to the established, yet evolving, urban character. As these residential areas are already established, the design of any new medium density housing proposal should display sensitivity to the existing residential context and respond to the amenity standards in these areas.

The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include:



22

Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change.

Objective 2: To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality.

Objective 3: To preserve and enhance well landscaped/vegetated environments and protect identified significant vegetation.

Objective 4: To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development.

Objective 5: To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses.

Objective 6: To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include:

Promote increased housing diversity in residential areas that are within convenient walking distance of public transport and activity notes (increased housing diversity areas). Such areas will accommodate a variety of medium density housing types and layouts at increased residential densities, responding to the established but evolving neighbourhood character.

Promote new residential development which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.

Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and quality of life for future occupants.

Encourage the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible.

Improve landscape character by accommodating appropriate landscaping within new residential developments.

Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, wast and recycling, and stormwater management.

Promote medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.

Ensure the siting and design of new residential development sensitively responds to interfaces with environmentally sensitive areas, including the foreshore.

Ensure that where medium and higher density residential areas are proposed adjacent to lower density residential areas, the design of such development takes proper account of its potential amenity impacts.

Ensure that the siting and design of new residential development is consistent with Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and that new development contributes to the maintenance and upgrade of local drainage



23

infrastructure as required, where such new development will impact on the capacity of such infrastructure.

Require the provision of car parking to satisfy the anticipated demand having regard to average car ownership levels in the area, the environmental capacity of the local street network and the proximity of public transport and nearby on and off street car parking.

Ensure that all new medium density housing provides adequate private open space that is appropriately landscaped.

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal, (subject to conditions), creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character, and the broader local neighbourhood character. Further discussion regarding these items will be outlined later within this report.

12.3 Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy

As outlined previously, the proposal is considered to generally comply and satisfy the applicable Local Planning Policy Framework, which essentially aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. Where a planning permit is required for residential development, where relevant, it is policy under Clause 22.11 to: Encourage all new residential development to respond positively and creatively to

neighbourhood character. Unless a preferred character is specified, the existing character is that which is to be considered.

In areas where building placement makes a major contribution to neighbourhood character, design new development to reinforce the established rhythm of buildings in the street and retain the existing single dwelling character of the streetscape.

Design duplex and side-by-side development to have a visual interconnection with the street rather than presenting merely as garages and front doors only. Staggered front building lines and variation in designs and materials should be used to avoid poor urban design impacts upon streetscapes.

Built form, siting and scale of development, it is policy, where relevant, to:

Encourage the two storey component of new medium density housing to be located towards the front of a site.

Ensure that two storey dwellings are designed to respond to the character of the local neighbourhood. Where the local neighbourhood is characterised by single storey development and this characteristic makes a major or critical contribution to neighbourhood character, new two storey development should incorporate rooms within the roof form of attic style dwellings, and should set the second storey building envelope back from the ground level envelope.

Ensure that any upper storey components towards the rear of sites are sensitively designed to avoid unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on neighbours.



24

Encourage well articulated and graduated elevations in order to avoid 'box-like' double storey designs, thus reducing visual bulk.

Ensure that the siting of new buildings respects the amenity of adjoining neighbours with regard to rear yards and garden outlooks from habitable living room windows.

Ensure that the design and layout of new dwellings incorporate features which minimise overlooking of adjacent properties.

Address potential overlooking through site layout planning as well as individual dwelling planning.

Car parking and vehicle access, it is policy, where relevant, to:

Ensure that adequate on-site car parking is provided to meet the needs of future residents and visitors and sited to reduce its impact on the streetscape.

Performance measures

Locating garages or carports at the rear of dwellings fronting a street wherever possible.

Ensuring that where garages are located in the street elevation, they are set back a greater distance than the front wall of the building.

Ensuring that garages and carports are sited so that a tandem car parking space can be provided in front of the garage or carport.

Incorporating garages and carports within the main roof line of the dwelling.

Stormwater run-off mitigation and quality management, it is policy, where relevant, to:

Ensure that new residential development limits the impact of increased stormwater run-off on drainage systems.


On-site infiltration should be maximised by:

Wherever possible, using unpaved landscape areas or porous paving.

Where appropriate, constructing on-site stormwater detention with delayed release into the stormwater drainage system.

Designing to limit the impervious area.

Incorporating on-site water re-cycling systems for stormwater run-off.

Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy essentially extends upon the provision contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) along with the State Planning Policy Framework provisions found at Clause 11 – Settlement and Clause 16 – Housing, effectively promoting higher density development around activity centres and locations close to public transport.

In summary, the proposal is seen to be strongly consistent with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework and, importantly, it delivers on some very specific objectives for the type and form of medium density development expected in areas such as this before the Council.

12.4 Zoning Provisions



25

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the purpose of the zone.

The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone specifies one variation to Clause 55 (ResCode), namely: Standard B32 - Front Fences Objective: The local variation requires a front fence within 3.0 metres of a street should not exceed 2.0 metres in height for streets in a Road Zone, Category 1 or 1.2 metres in height for other streets. This application proposes a 1.7 metre high timber fence in front of Dwelling 1 along Como Parade East and Bethell Avenue frontages, and a 1.5 metre high semi-transparent merbeau / jarrah fence along the Bethell Avenue frontage of Dwellings 2, 3 and 4. Refer to ResCode assessment in Section 13.1 below.

12.5 Overlay Provisions

No overlay controls are applicable to the subject site.

13.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 13.1 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode)

of the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. There appear to be the following areas of minor non-compliance, which are discussed below:

Clause 55.02 – Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure Standard B1 Neighbourhood Character - The objective of this Clause 55.02-1 is ‘to ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site and surrounding area’. Standard B1 of ResCode suggests that the proposed design should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

The existing neighbourhood character is mixed and comprises predominantly single-storey detached dwellings with commercial development opposite the site to the south east. There is clear policy direction to support medium density housing because development in this location will be able to take advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services. The acceptability of the proposed development is therefore assessed in relation to the evolving urban character of the area and should not be assessed solely in relation to the existing neighbourhood character. Both earlier decisions by the Tribunal found that a proposal for four double-storey dwellings was consistent with the preferred medium density housing character of the area. The location of private open space within the street setbacks of Dwelling 1, and the proposed double crossover for Dwellings 2 and 3 are aspects of the proposal that are considered to be out of character with the existing residential neighbourhood. The location of private open space for Dwelling 1 is considered to be respectful of the existing character as it will be screened by fencing and will therefore not adversely impact on the adjoining residential properties. The double crossover to Dwellings 2 and 3 may negatively impact on



26

the existing public parking resource due to relatively high demand for public parking in the area. It is therefore recommended that the double width crossover be changed to a single width crossover to maximise on-street parking.

Standard B5 Integration with the Street - High fencing in front of dwellings should be avoided if practicable to promote the integration of the layout of a development with the street. This application proposes 1.7 metre high fencing to screen the private open space areas within the Bethell Avenue and Como Parade East street setbacks of Dwelling 1. A 1.5 metre high fence is also proposed along the remainder of Bethell Avenue property boundary. A 1.7 metre high fence is considered appropriate along Como Parade East as the street has a relatively high traffic volume due to its close proximity to the railway station and the Parkdale Activity Centre. A public car par is also located directly opposite the subject site on Como Parade East and a 1.7 metre high fence is not considered unreasonable to provide privacy to residents of the subject site. The 1.7 metre high fence along part of Bethell Avenue is considered acceptable as it is a corner site and the continuation of it along the frontage of Dwelling 1 is appropriate. The proposed 1.5 metre high fence along the Bethell Avenue frontage of Dwellings 2, 3 and 4 should be reduced in height to 1.2 metres which will be more consistent with the adjoining property to the east. A reduce fence height is necessary to protect sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting the laneway abutting the site to the east. Finally each dwelling provides secluded private open space at the rear so a higher fence along Bethell Avenue is not need to screen the front open spaces. Clause 55.03 - Site Layout and Building Massing

Standard B6 Street Setback - In accordance with requirements under this standard,

Dwelling 1, fronting Como Parade East, should have a minimum setback of 6.2 metres, based on the setback of the front wall of the abutting allotment. The proposed front setback of 4.0 metres is less than required, however, the proposed setback is considered to be appropriate for the following reasons:

Although the proposed setback does not meet the technical requirements of this

Standard, it is considered that the development provides a reasonable transition between the adjoining properties to the southeast along Como Parade East, which have a zero street setback. It is, therefore, considered that front setback proposed is consistent with the broader streetscape rhythm and will not cause detriment to the neighbourhood character.

The front setback is large enough to accommodate substantial landscaping including the provision of canopy trees.

Dwellings fronting Bethell Avenue should have a minimum street setback of 3.0 metres.

Dwellings 2 – 4 are currently shown as 2.7 metres from the road boundary, given the direction by the Tribunal for greater setbacks from Bethell Avenue it is recommended that the setback be increased to 3.0 metres as a condition on any permit issued for the site.



27

With respect to the street setbacks of the first floor from Bethell Avenue, it is suggested that Dwellings 2 and 3 be increased to 4.0 metres. It is also recommended that the first floor setback of Dwelling 4 be increased to 5.0 metres, to provide a staggered setback along Bethell Avenue and to limit the visibility of Dwelling 4 when viewing the site from the corner of Bethell Avenue and Como Parade East. The increased setbacks can be included as conditions on any permit issued for the site.

Standard B13 Landscaping - Landscape plans were referred to Council’s Vegetation Management Officer who recommended that amended plans be requested via Condition 1 of any approval. It is considered that there would be sufficient unsealed surface areas within the rear and front setbacks of the proposed development to provide adequate landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies. A condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring a landscape plan with an associated planting schedule that addresses the requirements specified by Council’s Vegetation Management Officer. The crossover proposed will interfere with existing street tree within the Bethell Avenue naturestrip, and as such the proposal was referred to Council’s Street Tree Co-ordinator, who requires the payment of $805.00 in costs to replace the trees. This payment will be required as a permit condition.

Clause 55.05 – On-site Amenity & Facilities

Standard B28 Private Open Space – A dwelling in the Residential 1 Zone should have private open space consisting of 40 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25 square metres, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room. Private open space for Dwelling 1 is provided within the front (Como Parade East) and side (Bethell Avenue) street setbacks. The private open space within the front setback is not ‘secluded’ private open space as specified in Standard B28. Secluded private open space is provided along the Bethell Avenue frontage and has an area of 29m2 with a minimum dimension of 3.0 metres is provided to the side of the dwelling with convenient access from the meals and living rooms. This area of secluded private open space has good access to northerly sun-light, exceeds the minimum 25m2 area required, and can be screened by a 1.7 metre high fence for privacy. The proposal meets the requirements of this standard and it is therefore considered that the development provides adequate useable private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.

Clause 55.06 – Detailed Design Standard B31 Design Details – The purpose of Clause 55.06 is to encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. The design detail of the proposed dwellings is considered to respect the preferred medium density character as well as the existing mixed use character of the neighbourhood. Specifically the flat roofs and contemporary design are complimentary to the commercial buildings to the south east of the site on Como Parade East.



28

The existing residential character is predominantly single-storey detached brick dwellings with pitched roofs, and the proposed built form helps to retain the appearance of two detached dwellings when viewed from Bethell Avenue due to the separation between the first floor levels of Dwellings 2 and 3. Garages have been setback behind the front wall of each dwelling and are therefore visually compatible with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. However it is suggested that the following changes be made to the detailed design to reduce the visual bulk and mass of the dwellings: - Reduced the floor to ceiling height of Dwelling 1 to reduce the overall height and

dominance of this corner dwelling; - Rationalisation if the materials, colours and finishes to reduce bulk and mass of the

development; - Deletion of the brick pillars and walls that protrude beyond the Bethell Avenue façade of

each dwelling; - Replace the Dwelling 2 and 3 first floor skillion roofs with a flat roof to improve

separation between the dwellings; and - Increased setback from Bethell Avenue for Dwelling 4 to reduce the visual impact of

this dwelling when viewed from Como Parade East.

Standard B32 Front Fences - See discussion in Standard B5 above.

14.0 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE It is important to note that the Subject Land is not identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity.

15.0 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 15.1 Neighbourhood Character

The applicant has taken on board the neighbourhood character recommendations of Council and the Tribunal in their current application. The proposal is considered to be respectful of the existing mixed use character of the neighbourhood and also respectful of the preferred character which includes medium density development, for the reasons outlined above in Section 13.1 of this report. This position has been confirmed in two earlier Tribunal decisions.

15.2 Car parking and Traffic Safety

The proposal provides the required number of on-site car parking in accordance with the car parking provisions of Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposed number of car parking spaces, their dimensions and location are in accordance with the relevant standards contained within Clause 55.03 Site Layout and Building Massing. Therefore it is considered that adequate car parking will be provided to enable future residents to park their vehicles on-site and not rely on on-street car parking

One new single-width crossover is proposed on Como Parade East and one new double width crossover is proposed on Bethell Avenue which will result in the loss of some on-street parking. Therefore it is recommended that should a permit be issued the double width



29

crossover be changed to a shared single-width crossover to maximise public on-street parking. Finally, it is considered that the surrounding road network would be able to accommodate any additional vehicle movements that are generated by the new dwellings. The proposal does not raise any traffic concerns.

15.3 Building Height, Bulk, Location and Scale

The proposal meets the relevant objectives and standards contain within ResCode for boundary and street setbacks and height (refer to ResCode Assessment Appendix A).

15.4 Overdevelopment

As outlined above, the proposal achieves a reasonable level of compliance with the provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including relevant local residential policy, municipal strategic statement and Clause 55, subject to the inclusion of recommended permit conditions. The site is located within an area that has been identified as suitable for medium density housing. The development of the site for four double-storey dwellings is therefore anticipated and considered to be consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character of the area. This position has been confirmed in earlier Tribunal decisions.

It is considered that the proposal will represent an appropriate design solution for the site, again subject to the inclusion of recommended permit conditions, and can be accommodated on the land, without adverse impact to abutting properties or the surrounding area. As such, the proposal is not considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

15.5 Noise

The proposed development is not expected to generate any detrimental levels of noise. 15.6 Non-planning Matters

Objectors also raised concerns about the heritage value of the existing dwelling, and the devaluation of their properties. The existing dwelling is not protected by a Heritage Overlay, therefore the heritage value of such cannot be considered. Property values are not a valid consideration when assessing an application for a planning permit.

16.0 CONCLUSION: 16.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal be supported

subject to the adoption of the recommended permit conditions to ensure that the proposed development achieves a high quality design, achieves good internal amenity as well as responding appropriately to the site and its immediate interfaces.

16.2 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the site as evidenced by:

The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the surrounding area;



30

The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to appropriate conditions); and,

The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the MSS, Residential Development Policy (inclusive of the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines), Residential 1 Zoning and the Schedule to the Zone, Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings, and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

16.3 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered

reasonable and warrants support.



31

APPENDIX A – RESCODE ASSESSMENT Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone)

Title and Objective Complies with Standard?

Requirement and Proposed

B1 Neighbourhood Character Design respects existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. Development responds to features of the site and surrounding area.

Yes The proposed development is generally site responsive to the features of the site and surrounding properties. See report Section 13.1.

B2 Residential Policy Residential development is consistent with housing policies in the SPPF, LPPF including the MSS and local planning policies. Support medium densities in areas to take advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services.

Yes The subject site is located within an area designated for “increased housing diversity area” under Council’s Residential Development Policy. See report Section 12.3.

B3 Dwelling Diversity Encourages a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings.

N/A

B4 Infrastructure Provides appropriate utility services and infrastructure without overloading the capacity.

Yes All reticulated services are currently available to the subject site. No easements are contained within the subject site.

B5 Integration with the Street Integrate the layout of development with the street

No See report.

B6 Street Setback The setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site.

No Required: 6.2 metres (Como Parade East) and 3.0 metres (Bethell Avenue) Proposed: 4.0 metres (Como Parade East) and 3.0 metres (Bethell Avenue) See report Section 13.1.

B7 Building Height Building height should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Yes Maximum: 9 metres Proposed: 7.35 metres

B8 Site Coverage Site coverage should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

Yes Maximum: 60% Proposed: 56%



32

Requirement and Proposed Title and Objective Complies with Standard?

B9 Permeability Reduce the impact of stormwater run-off on the drainage system and facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration.

Yes At least: 20% Proposed: 35%

B10 Energy Efficiency Achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and residential buildings. Ensure orientation and layout reduces fossil fuel energy use and makes appropriate use of daylight and solar energy.

Yes Each dwelling would have good solar access to the main living areas and private open space areas.

B11 Open Space Integrate layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or adjacent to the development.

N/A

B12 Safety Layout to provide safety and security for residents and property.

Yes Good surveillance opportunities would be provided for each dwelling.

B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping. To encourage: Development that respects the landscape

character of the neighbourhood.

Development that maintains and enhances habitat for plants and animals in locations of habitat importance.

The retention of mature vegetation on the site.

Yes No significant vegetation would be removed from the subject site. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has recommended that a landscape plan be submitted as a part of any permit issued for the proposal.

B14 Access Ensure the safe, manageable and convenient vehicle access to and from the development. Ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects neighbourhood character.

Yes A new single crossover along the site’s Como Parade frontage and a new double-crossover along the site’s Bethell Avenue frontage would be created. No more than 26.3% of the Bethell Avenue frontage will be taken up by vehicle crossovers.

B15 Parking Location Provide resident and visitor vehicles with convenient parking. Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. Protect residents from vehicular noise within developments.

Yes The proposed number of car parking spaces, their dimensions and location are in accordance with the relevant standards contained within Clause 55.03 Site Layout and Building Massing.

B16 Parking Provision Ensure car and bicycle parking meets the needs of residents and visitors.

Yes Required: 5 (one per two-bedroom dwelling and two per three-bedroom dwelling)



33


Accessways should be practical, attractive and easily maintainable.

Proposed: 5 (two spaces for Dwelling 1, and one space each for Dwellings 2, 3 and 4)

B17 Side and Rear Setbacks Ensure the height and setback respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.

Yes Dwelling 1 Required: Ground Floor North: 0m (on boundary) East: N/A South: 2.0m (side street) West: N/A (frontage) First Floor North: 1.78m East: N/A South: 1.78m West: N/A (frontage) Dwelling 2 Ground Floor Required: North: 1.0m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A First Floor North: 1.87m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A Dwelling 3 Ground Floor Required: North: 1.0m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A First Floor North: 1.78m East: N/A

Dwelling 1 Proposed: Ground Floor North: 0m (on boundary) East: N/A South: 3.0m (side street) West: N/A (frontage) First Floor North: 1.8m East: N/A South: 4.0m West: N/A (frontage) Dwelling 2 Ground Floor Proposed: North: 3.3m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A First Floor North: 2.75m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A Dwelling 3 Ground Floor Required: North: 3.3m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A First Floor North: 3.75 East: N/A



34


South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A Dwelling 4 Ground Floor Required: North: 1.0m East: 0m (on boundary) South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A First Floor North: 1.78m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A

South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A Dwelling 4 Ground Floor Required: North: 3.3m East: 0m (on boundary) South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A First Floor North: 3.75m East: N/A South: N/A (frontage) West: N/A

B18 Walls on Boundaries Ensure the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.

Yes Maximum: 10 metres plus 25 per cent of the remaining length of the boundary. Proposed: 6.3m on east and 6.3m north boundaries (length) Maximum Average Height: 3.0 m Maximum Height: 3.6 m Proposed MAH: 3.0m Proposed MH: 3.0m

B19 Daylight to Existing Windows Allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows.

Yes All existing windows on adjoining properties will receive adequate daylight.

B20 North Facing Windows Allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows.

Yes There are no north facing windows adjoining the site.

B21 Overshadowing Open Space Ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.

Yes Most of the shadow likely to be generated by the proposed development would be cast within the subject site with some additional shadow to the west (Como Parade East) during the morning hours based on the submitted shadow diagrams.

B22 Overlooking Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows.

Yes Fixed obscure glazing, or highlight window to a minimum height of 1.7 metres are provided to first floor windows.



35


B23 Internal Views Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within the same development.

Yes Fixed obscure glazing, or highlight window to a minimum height of 1.7 metres are provided to first floor windows. Internal fencing is proposed to screen private open space areas within the subject site.

B24 Noise Impacts Protect residents from external noise and contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings.

Yes No noise sources

B25 Accessibility Consider people with limited mobility in the design of developments.

Yes Each dwelling can be easily accessed or modified as required for people with limited mobility.

B26 Dwelling Entry Provide a sense of identity to each dwelling/residential building.

Yes Each dwelling is visible from the street or internal driveway with its own identity.

B27 Daylight to New Windows Allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows.

Yes New windows have access to adequate daylight.

B28 Private Open Space Provide reasonable recreation and service needs of residents by adequate private open space.

Yes Required: 40m2 for each dwelling, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25 square metres, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room, Proposed: Dwelling 1 has all its provided open space located within the front setback. See report Section 13.1.

B29 Solar Access to Open Space Allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings/buildings.

Yes Open space areas are orientated towards north and therefore received adequate sunlight.

B30 Storage Provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling.

Yes 6m3 storage areas are provided within the open space areas of each dwelling.

B31 Design Detail Encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Yes See report Section 13.1



36


B32 Front Fences Encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

No Maximum: 1.2m Proposed: 1.7 (Como Parade East) and 1.5 (Bethell Avenue) See report Sections 12.4 and 13.1.

B33 Common Property Ensure car parking, access areas and other communal open space is practical, attractive and easily maintained. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.

N/A

B34 Site Services Ensure site services and facilities can be installed and easily maintained and are accessible, adequate and attractive. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.

Yes Site services and facilities can be installed and easily maintained.

ATTACHMENT 1 – RECOMMENDATION That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to develop the land for the construction of four (4) dwellings be issued, subject following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 4th June, 2010, but modified to show:

a. the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:

i. an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the site. The schedule must be shown on the plan;

ii. the delineation of all garden beds, paving, grassed areas, retaining walls, fences and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill throughout the development;

iii. all existing trees on the site and within three (3) metres to the boundary of the site on adjoining properties, accurately illustrated to represent actual canopy width and labelled with botanical name, height and whether the tree is proposed to be retained or removed;

iv. a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees;

v. adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1.0 metre, planted at 1.0 metre intervals);

vi. the provision of two (2) suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy trees within the front setback of Dwelling 1 facing Como Parade East and the provision of one (1) suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy trees within each front setback of Dwellings 2, 3 and 4. One (1) small (at maturity) tree is required within each private open space area of Dwellings 2, 3 and 4, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority.

vii. sustainable lawn areas and plant species taking current water restrictions into consideration;

viii. all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at time of planting;

ix. medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm;

x. the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements;

b. the 1.5 metre high Bethell Avenue boundary fence reduced to 1.2 metres;

c. the 2.1 metre high laneway boundary fence is to be no higher than 1.2 metres at a minimum distance of a 3.0 metres from the Bethell Avenue boundary;

d. a notation on the plans stating that footpath and property boundary levels are not to be altered;

e. the provision of a common layback with a triangle of grass between the infill sections of the vehicle crossovers to Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3;

f. the provision of rainwater tanks clearly nominated for the new dwellings with water re-use for toilet flushing;

g. the proposed double width crossover along Bethell Avenue to Dwellings 2 and 3 changed to a single width crossover with a shared driveway to the garages and the tandem parking spaces in front of each garage deleted;

h. the garage to Dwelling 4 to be setback 3.5 metres from the Bethell Avenue frontage and the tandem space in front of the garage deleted;

i. all reinstatement works, footpath, kerb and channel, vehicle crossings are to be to the satisfaction of the relevant authority;

j. a 1.0 metre reduction in the floor to ceiling height for bedroom 3 of Dwelling 1 with the pitched roof lowered accordingly;

k. a rationalisation in the use of the proposed materials, colours and finishes so that the bulk and mass of the dwellings is reduced;

l. the skillion roofs of Dwellings 2 and 3 replaced with flat roofs with a reduced building height;

m. the deletion of the brick walls that protrude beyond the front facades of the dwellings along Bethell Avenue;

n. the deletion of the brick pillars that protrude above the roof of the family room of Dwelling 1;

o. the ground floor of Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3 set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from the Bethell Avenue property boundary;

p. the first floor of Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3 setback a minimum of 4.0 metres from the Bethell Avenue property boundary;

q. the ground floor of Dwelling 4 setback 4.0 metres from the Bethell Avenue property boundary;

r. the first floor of Dwelling 4 setback 5.0 metres from the Bethell Avenue property boundary;

s. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations and driveways of the development;

t. the location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like, clearly shown; and

u. the guttering pertaining to the garages on boundary on the site’s eastern and western property boundaries nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundaries of the subject land;

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the new fences required under Conditions 1b and 1c of this permit must be erected to Council’s satisfaction, at the full cost of the applicant/owner(s).

4. Prior to the removal of the tree from the site’s Bethell Avenue nature strip the Developer/Owner must pay to Council a compensation, removal and replacement fee ($805.00) (including GST) for the removal of this existing tree. The removal of this tree must be undertaken by Council, and the Developer/Owner must advise Council when this tree is required to be removed.

5. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Site Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The Site Management Plan must clearly set out measures to prevent amenity loss to surrounding properties during the construction period. The Plan is to include, but limited to, measures to control the emission of dust/sand, rubbish on site, loading/unloading times, construction times, and parking of builder’s vehicles etc. This plan when endorsed must not be varied without the prior approval of the Responsible Authority. It must also be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which

incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.

9. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the

stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).

10. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto

adjacent properties. 11. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, or by such later date as is

approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel, vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be

removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible

Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

13. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must

be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.

14. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking

vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue.

The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit.

Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit.

Note: Before removing / pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any contractor engaged to remove any vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation

Management Officer to verify if a Local Laws Permits is required for the removal of such vegetation.

Note: Telstra assets (triple pit and pillar) will require modification or relocation to the satisfaction of Telstra.

Or

In the event that the Council wishes to oppose the Officer’s recommendation to support the application, it can do so on the following grounds:

1. The proposal would have an adverse affect on the amenity of an established residential neighbourhood.

2. The proposal constitutes an over-development of the site.

3. The proposal fails to satisfy all the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), in particular Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character, Clause 55.02-5 Integration with the Street, Clause 55.03-1 Street Setback, Clause 55.03-10 Parking Location, Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space, Clause 55.06-1 Detailed Design and Clause 55.06-2 Front Fences.

4. The proposal does not fully satisfy the requirements of Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy, of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

5. The proposal fails to meet the objectives and strategic directions of the Municipal Strategic Statement – Residential Land Use contained at Clause 21.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.



37

N 214 235 – 237 Wickham Road, Moorabbin – Planning Permit Application No. KP-166/11 APPLICANT Real Estate Concepts c/- Keen Planning Services Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND No. 235 - 237 (Lot 156 & Lot 157 on PS063570) Wickham

Road, Moorabbin 3189 PROPOSAL Develop the Land for the Construction of Nine (9) Dwellings PLANNING OFFICER Emma Hilderink REFERENCE NO. KP-166/3011 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15: Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16: Housing


Clause 21.05: MSS – Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

ZONE Clause 32.06: Residential 3 Zone & Schedule to the Zone OVERLAYS Clause 44.05: Special Building Overlay PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA

Incremental Housing Change


No

DECISION DATE BY 4th September 2011 STATUTORY DAYS 112 days at 26th October 2011 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

24thJune, 2011


Neighbourhood character Residential policy Integration with the street Street setback Walls on boundaries Front fences

2.0 PROPOSAL



38

2.1 It is proposed to construct nine (9), double-storey dwellings in three locations across the subject site. Eleven (11) on-site car parking spaces would be located at the north-west corner of the subject land with vehicle access to be provided from Rowans Road.


Dwelling Floor Area (excluding garage / verandah)

Private Open Space No. of Bedrooms proposed


1 80.09m² 68.46m2 secluded private open space 2 1 2 80.09m² 63.73m2 secluded private open space 2 1 3 80.09m² 31.4m2 secluded private open space plus

12.7m2 private open space (total 44.1m2) 2 1

4 78.92m2 26.7m2 secluded private open space plus 16.9m2 private open space (total 43.6m2)

2 1

5 78.92m2 32m2 secluded private open space plus 12.8m2 private open space (total 44.8m2)

2 1

6 80.09m² 102.8m2 secluded private open space 2 1 7 80.09m² 46.5m2 secluded private open space 2 1 8 78.92m2 48.5m2 secluded private open space 2 1 9 78.92m2 48.8m2 secluded private open space 2 1

2.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 39 percent and a permeability percentage of

33%. 2.4 Development Assessment Table:

Criteria ResCode Requirement Proposed Development Provision Private Open Space

Incremental Housing Change requirements – Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone: 40m2, located to the side / rear of the dwelling, achieving a minimum dimension of 5.0 metres for a 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling with convenient access from a living room.

Does not comply. Each dwelling would be provided with at least 40m2 of private open space in the form of ground level and upper floor balcony areas. However, the minimum dimension of 5.0 metres required under the Schedule to the Residential 3 has not been achieved for all dwellings except Dwelling 6. (Refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

Car Parking One (1) car parking space for each one (1) or two (2) bedroom dwelling. One (1) visitor car parking space is required for every five (5) dwellings proposed.

Complies. Each dwelling would be provided with one (1) on site car parking space. Two (2) visitor car parking spaces are also proposed. (Refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).



39

Front Setback The average distance of the setbacks of the front walls of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Does not comply. Dwellings 7, 8 and 9 fronting Wickham Road do not meet the minimum front setback of 6.56 metres as required under Standard B6 (Street Setback). (Refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

Site Coverage Maximum 50% - as per Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone.

Complies. Site coverage is 33% (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

2.5 The proposed building materials, colours and finishes for the proposed development are

summarised in the table below:

Roof: Not specified. The proposed roof line features both a low pitch and flat roof. Walls: Combination: face brickwork, rendered brickwork and weatherboard cladding.

Colours not specified. Garage doors N/A Windows: Anodised aluminium windows with double-glazed glass and acoustic seals. Driveways: Bitumen surface. Front fencing: A 1.8 metre high solid masonry fence is proposed to be constructed along the site’s

Wickham Road frontage. A 1.2 metre and 1.8 metre high solid masonry fence is proposed to be constructed along the site’s Rowans Road frontages.

Boundary fences:

A new 2.0 metre high solid masonry fence is proposed to be constructed along the length of the site’s north (rear) property boundary fence whilst a new 2.4 metre high solid masonry fence is proposed to be constructed along the site’s east (side) property boundary which is shared with the existing industrial site at No. 239 Wickham Road.

3.0 SITE& SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject land comprises a site area of 1359m2 at the north-west corner of the intersection

of Wickham Road and Rowans Road, Moorabbin. The topography of the site is relatively flat and devoid of any significant vegetation. The site is encumbered by a 1.83 metre wide easement adjacent to the site’s north (rear) property boundary.

3.2 No formalised vehicle access to the site is currently available along either of the site’s street

frontages. A bus stop, however, is located adjacent to the south-east corner of the subject site on Wickham Road.

3.3 The surrounding residential area to the north (rear), west (opposite side of Rowans Road) typically comprises of detached, single storey, brick veneer and weatherboard dwellings with pitched/flat roofs. There are, however, some examples of double-storey development within the surrounding area. Dwellings are usually sited with generous side setbacks, creating a regular rhythm to the streetscape. There is no predominant fencing style in the neighbourhood.

3.4 Land to east of the subject site at No. 239 Wickham Road and onwards is zoned Industrial 1,

as is all land to the south-east opposite the site on Wickham Road. Directly opposite the subject site to the east on Wickham Road is a physiotherapy clinic. Other commercial and



40

industrial uses in the close vicinity of the subject land consist of a doggie daycare, Mitre 10 trade centre, machinery hire services, and motor vehicle repair workshops.

3.5 Land to the North………

3.6 Wickham Road is identified as a Road Zone Category 1. The intersection at Wickham Road

and Rowans Road directly adjacent to the south-west corner of the subject site is signalised. 4.0 TITLE DETAILS 4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there is no

restrictive covenant on the title. 5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 3 Zone and is subject to a Special Building

Overlay (where Melbourne Water is the floodplain authority). 6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.06-4 (Residential 3 Zone) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a

planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. 6.2 Pursuant to Clause 32.06-4 (Residential 3 Zone) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a

planning permit is required to construct a front fence within three (3) metres of a street if the height exceeds the maximum specified under the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone.

6.3 Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1 (Special Building Overlay) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct a building and carry out works.

7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 7.1 Council records indicate that no recent planning approvals have issued in relation to the

subject site.

8.0 ADVERTISING

8.1 Prior to advertising, the Permit Applicant submitted revised plans on the 24thJune, 2011, pursuant to Section 50 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, that essentially addressed some of the initial concerns outlined within the Planning Officer’s further information letter. It is this set of amended plans that formed part of the advertising documentation.

8.2 As discussed, the proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining two (2) notices on site for fourteen (14) days. The advertising process was satisfactorily completed and eight (8) objections were received to the proposal.

8.3 The main grounds of objection can be summarised under the following heading:



41

Car parking; Noise; Neighbourhood character; Building bulk and mass; Flooding and drainage concerns; Industrial and residential interface; and Property values.

9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE MEETING

9.1 A preliminary conference meeting was held at Council’s Cheltenham Office on the 1st

September, 2011, with the Applicant, Council’s Planning Officer and five (5) objectors in attendance.

9.2 The main concerns outlined in the previous section of this report were discussed at length;

however, no resolution was reached. 10.0 AMENDMENTS AFTER ADVERTISING 10.1 The Permit Applicant submitted revised plans on 22nd November 2011, (pursuant to Section

57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) that essentially sought to address some of the concerns raised by Council during subsequent discussions between the applicant and Council officers. The following changes were made to the plans:

Provision of a 3 metre (minimum) setback to Dwellings 3 – 6 from the Rowans Road

frontage;

Lowered front fence height for Dwellings 3 – 6 along the Rowans Road frontage; and

Minor alterations to the car parking spaces / landscaping strips with a 1.5 metre wide landscaping strip located behind the high front fence, large enough to accommodate tall species which can grow above the fence line positively contributing to the landscape character of the area.

10.2 The amendments were considered to be improvements to the proposal and the changes

would not cause detriment to any other party and for these reasons the amended plans were not required to be re-advertised. It is these revised plans that are now under consideration by Council.

11.0 REFERRALS 11.1 Pursuant to Clause 44.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the application was referred to

Melbourne Water. No objection was offered to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions and advice notes on any permit issued.

11.2 The following internal Council referral departments were notified:

Council’s Development Engineer; Council’s Roads & Drains Department; Council’s Traffic Engineering Department; Council’s Vegetation Management Officer;



42

Council’s Strategic Planning Department (Urban Design); Council’s Waste Collection Co-ordinator; Council’s Sustainable Development Officer.

11.3 The Council’s Development Engineer had no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions

being included on any permit issued, relating primarily to the management of stormwater and the protection of an existing drainage easement.

11.4 The Council’s Roads & Drains Department had no objection to the proposal, subject to

conditions being included on any permit issued relating to the reinstatement of the footpath and maintaining the existing boundary and footpath levels.

11.5 The Council’s Traffic Engineering Department had no objection to the proposal, subject to

conditions being included on any permit issued for the provision of bicycle parks, a splay to be provided to the edge of the driveway, the provision of a Traffic Management Plan, and the inclusion of an advice note regarding residential parking permits.

11.6 The Council’s Vegetation Management Officer had no objection to the proposal, subject to

conditions being included on any permit issued for the provision of a landscape plan. 11.7 The Council’s Waste Collection Co-ordinator had no objection to the proposal, and advised

that the development is not of a size large enough to warrant a waste management plan. 11.8 The Council’s Sustainable Development Officer and Council’s Strategic Planning

Department (Urban Design) had no objection to the proposal, and provided a number of recommendations on ways to improve the sustainable and urban design elements of the development, that were provided to the applicant for their consideration.


Clause 11 (Settlement) Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) Clause 16 (Housing)

12.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) Clause 22.11 (Residential Development Policy)



12.4 General Provisions

Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)



43

12.5 Other

Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Revision 2007 Incorporated Document under Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF).

The land is located within Area No. 1 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile. Two (2) “major characteristics” are identified within this area, being: - Building placement; - Front boundary and garden. The proposed front setback along Wickham Road varies between 3.267 m and 3.79 m. The dominant building setbacks specified for this area are front setbacks ranging from between 7-10 metres, side setbacks of 3-5 metres and the narrower side setbacks of between 1-3 metres. A reduced front setback for the respective dwellings fronting Wickham Road is considered reasonable in this instance given that the directly adjoining site to the east at No. 239 Wickham Road is developed and used for industrial purposes, and does not reflect the typical Area No. 1 character profile. With regards to the low front fencing character identified within the surrounding residential area, Council officers must give consideration to the design constraints offered by the subject site due it its location directly adjacent to an intersection with a main road and the industrial land directly to the east on Wickham Road. Therefore, the use of high front fencing along the Wickham Road street frontage is considered reasonable in this instance. High fencing is also proposed along part of the Rowans Road frontage, in front of the communal car parking area. High fencing is considered unreasonable in this location and does not present well to the street and will hide the proposed landscape planting. Therefore it is recommended that a condition be included on any permit issued for the continuation of the 1.2 metre high fence along the remainder of the frontage. The 1.8 metre high fence screening the rubbish bin area is acceptable.

Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy)


suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character. It is considered that the proposed development does not raise any issues of non-compliance

with these guidelines. The proposed development would allow each of the new dwellings to be orientated towards both Wickham Road and Rowans Road. It is noted also the subject site only has direct abuttal to one (1) residential property to the north at No. 86 Rowans Road and, as such, is relatively isolated from the surrounding residential area of Moorabbin.




44

The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing). Essentially, the provisions within these clauses seek to achieve the fundamental objectives and policy outcomes sought by the Metropolitan Strategy – ‘Melbourne 2030’ and its recent update ‘Melbourne @ 5 Million’, which have been removed from an individual clause and integrated throughout the State Planning Policy Framework. It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. The development itself achieves an acceptable design outcome for the site and its immediate abuttals, whilst enjoying convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including public transport nodes.



The subject land is identified within an Incremental Housing Change Area. The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained. The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include: Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to

increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change.









45

Promote lower density housing in established suburban areas that do not have direct access to activity/transport nodes and “encourage” only incremental change in housing density (incremental housing change areas). Such areas will retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots.





Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, waste and recycling, and stormwater management.




Ensure that the siting and design of new residential development is consistent with Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and that new development contributes to the maintenance and upgrade of local drainage infrastructure as required, where such new development will impact on the capacity of such infrastructure.



It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character which comprises a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses, and the broader local neighbourhood character. Further discussion regarding these items will be outlined later within this report.




46

As outlined previously, the proposal is considered to generally comply and satisfy the applicable Local Planning Policy Framework, which essentially aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. Where a planning permit is required for residential development, where relevant, it is policy under Clause 22.11 to: Encourage all new residential development to respond positively and creatively

to neighbourhood character. Unless a preferred character is specified, the existing character is that which is to be considered.


Incremental Housing Change Areas

In areas identified for incremental housing change, ensure that new housing development is responsive to maintaining the existing and preferred single dwelling/lower density nature of these areas.





Encourage well-articulated and graduated elevations in order to avoid 'box-like' double storey designs, thus reducing visual bulk.




It is considered that the proposed development has been designed and sited in accordance with the above policies (where applicable). The site is relatively unique as it has not been previously developed for residential use, and it abuts a significant industrial area. The only residential property that has direct abuttal with the subject site is located to the north at No. 86 Rowans Road and it is contended that the proposal would not have any detrimental impact on this property as it is separate from the subject site by an accessway to the Melbourne Water industrial land to the east. It is considered that the proposal’s built form



47

responds to the industrial and commercial character of the adjoining properties to the east and south.








All car parking facilities would be located at the north-west corner of the subject site with direct access from Rowans Road. The communal car parking area is not located to the rear of the development. However landscaping in proposed along the Rowans Road frontage to screen and soften the appearance of the car park area. Accordingly, Council officers consider that the proposal satisfies the relevant policies to provide the needs of future residents and visitors and to reduce its impact on the streetscape.









Council’s Development Engineers have recommended conditions to be imposed upon any planning permit issued for the proposed development that would maximise on-site infiltration for the subject site.

Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy of the Kingston Planning Scheme encourages single dwellings or dual occupancy style developments on ‘average sized lots’ within areas designated for Incremental Housing Change. Council’s Strategic Planning Department undertook a study across the municipality in 2003 to identify any emerging patterns with regard to average lot sizes. As such, six (6) areas were identified within the municipality, each having their own ‘average lot size’ calculation.



48

The subject site is identified within Area 2 of this study. The average lot size within this area has been calculated to be 613.10m2, which results in a suggested development density of 1 dwelling per 306.55m2. Given that the subject site features an area of 1359m2, the proposed development would result in a dwelling density of 1 dwelling per 151m2 which falls well short of the minimum average lot size suggested for this area. The subject site has some unique characteristics that set it apart from a typical Residential 3 zoned property, including the abutting industrial land uses and its current informal use as a car park. The implications this has on this particular area of non-compliance will be discussed in further detail in the following sections of this report.

Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy essentially extends upon the provision contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) along with the State Planning Policy Framework provisions found at Clause 14.02-2 – Settlement and Clause 16.02 – Medium Density Housing, effectively promoting high-density development around activity centres and locations close to public transport.

In summary, the proposal is seen to be not inconsistent with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework and, importantly, it delivers on some very specific objectives for the type and form of medium density development expected in areas that do not have a high residential value or strong residential character, such as this before the Council.



The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone specifies variations to three (3) standards of Clause 55 (ResCode), namely:

Standard B8 – Site Coverage: The local variation is nominated as a maximum of 50%. The proposed site coverage for the development is 33% and is consistent with the Schedule requirements. Standard B28 – Private Open Space: The local variation requires an area of 40m2, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40m2, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room.

Whilst each dwelling would be provided with at least 40m2 of private open space, a minimum dimension of 5.0 metres is not achieved for any of the dwellings with the exception of Dwelling 6. This will be discussed in further detail in the following sections of this report. Standard B32 – Front Fences: The local variation requires a front fence within 3 metres of a street must not exceed 2 metres in height for streets in a Road Zone – Category 1 or 1.2 metres in height for any other street. A 1.8 metre high masonry fence is proposed to be constructed along the site’s Wickham Road frontage (to the south) and part of the Rowans Road frontage (to the west). Given that



49

Wickham Road is identified as being a Road Zone Category 1, the height of the proposed fence is considered appropriate. However, the proposed front fence along the site’s Rowans Road frontage exceeds the maximum height of 1.2 metres specified for all roads other than main roads on land subject to the provisions of the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone. This will be discussed further in the following section of this report.


The subject site is affected by a Special Building Overlay, in accordance with the provisions under Clause 44.05 of the Scheme. The application was referred to Melbourne Water (as the relevant floodplain authority) who offered no objection to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of a suitable condition on any permit issued for the proposal.

14.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT)

14.1 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode)

of the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. There appear to be the following area of non-compliance, which are discussed below:

Standard B1 Neighbourhood Character - The objective under this Standard is “to ensure that the design respects the existing or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character”. The subject site is located within Profile Area No. 1 of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (2007) which identifies two (2) major built form characteristics of existing residential development in this area being “building placement” and “low front fences and gardens”. The proposed front building setbacks of Dwellings 6-9 fronting Wickham Road (ranging between 3.27 metres and 3.76 metres) does not conform with the dominant front setback character of between 7-10 metres of existing dwellings located within the nominated profile area. Additionally, the proposed development would result in high front fencing along both of the site’s street frontages. Council officers consider that the subject site is not a “typical” residential allotment within Profile Area No. 1 given its location at an intersection of a main road and its interface with land zoned for industrial land to the east at No. 239 Wickham Road and the established commercial area to the south. The proposed development is contemporary in nature and not generally consistent with the built form character of the established residential area to the north (rear), east (opposite Rowans Road) and south (opposite Wickham Road). However, it offers a good transition between existing residential development and the existing industry located to the east along Wickham Road. The subject site only has one (1) immediate residential interface to the north (side) and has been sensitively designed so as not to impose itself on the property at No. 86 Rowans Road. Accordingly, a variation to this Standard is considered appropriate with respect to the proposal in this instance.



50

Standard B2 Residential Policy - As previously mentioned, the proposal requires consideration under Council’s Residential Development Policy under Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Whilst the proposal satisfactorily achieves the design requirements under this Policy, Council officers note that the average lot size would exceed that calculated for the area which is 1 dwelling for every 306.55m2 of site area. The proposal would result in a development density of 1 dwelling for every 151m2 of land area, which is approximately 50% higher than suggested for new residential development in this area. A variation is considered appropriate to this Standard mainly based on the reasons outlined under the section discussing compliance with Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character in this report. The subject land is not considered to be a “typical” residential property zoned Residential 3 and presents a number of design constraints given its location next to an intersection with a main road and its interface with industrial land to the east. The design and siting of the proposed development does not unduly affect the only directly adjoining residential property to the north (rear) and, as such, offers a good planning outcome for the subject site.

Standard B5 Integration with the Street - The objective of this Standard is “to integrate the layout of the development with the street”. Dwellings 7-9 fronting Wickham Road would all feature 1.8 metre high front fencing along the street frontage. This would limit any visual connection between the proposed dwellings and the adjoining street. A condition of any permit issued for the proposal should require the proposed gate entrance for each dwelling to be at least 25% transparent to allow some visibility from the dwelling entries to the street frontage. Also, Dwellings 1 and 2 would not have a direct frontage to Rowans Road as they would be located to the rear of the proposed car parking area at the north-west corner of the site. These dwellings, however, would have access via a common accessway that allows for pedestrian movement through the site from Rowans Road to Wickham Road. Standard B6 Street Setback - The objective of this Standard is “to ensure the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site”. In accordance with requirements under this Standard, each dwelling fronting Wickham Road should have a minimum setback of 6.56 metres, based on the guidelines for a corner site. The proposed minimum front setback of 3.23 metres is less than the average, however, the proposed setback is considered to be appropriate for the following reasons: The subject site is a corner allotment location with direct abuttal to an intersection

with a main road and the land also features a direct interface with industrial land to the east at No. 239 Wickham Road. A reduced front setback is being sought for Dwellings 7-9 fronting Wickham Road based on the reasoning that the directly adjoining property is industrial land and the proposal offers an appropriate “transition” between modest residential development on the opposite side of Rowans



51

Road to the east and the existing industrial development to the east on Wickham Road.

Although the proposed setback does not meet the technical requirements of this Standard, it is considered that the development provides a reasonable transition between the adjoining properties and meets the overriding objective of this Clause.

There is no prevailing setback rhythm within this street.

The setbacks have been designed to be staggered to minimise any perception of building bulk when viewed from the street and adjoining properties.

The front setback is large enough to accommodate substantial landscaping including the provision of canopy trees.

Accordingly, a variation to this Standard is considered reasonable in this instance.

Standard B17 Side & Rear Setbacks - The objective of this Standard is “to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings”. The submitted plans show that the first floor level building setback of Dwelling 9 from the site’s east (side) property boundary would be constructed with a zero-lot boundary setback, resulting in a 6.4 metre high wall along this section of the site’s east (side) property boundary. Council officers note, however, that this property boundary is shared with the adjoining industrial property at No. 239 Wickham Road. As such, the location and height of the proposed wall on this section of the shared property boundary should not detrimentally affect the adjoining property given the industrial nature of this site. Accordingly, a variation to this Standard is considered reasonable in this instance. Standard B18 Walls on Boundaries - The objective of this Standard is “to ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of the existing dwellings”. As discussed above, the proposal includes the construction of a 6.4 metre high wall along a section of the site’s east (side) property boundary. Under this Standard, the height of any wall constructed on or within 150mm of a property boundary should not exceed a height of 3.6 metres and a maximum average height of 3.0 metres above natural ground level. As such, the respective wall to be constructed along the site’s east (side) property boundary does not comply with this requirement.

Council officers, however, consider that a variation to this Standard is reasonable in this instance given that the proposed wall would directly adjoin the existing industrial site at No. 239 Wickham Road. Accordingly, it is envisaged that the height of the proposed wall should not result in any material property to the adjoining property. Standard B28 Private Open Space - The objective of this Standard is “to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents”.



52

As previously mentioned, the secluded private open space area of each dwelling (except Dwelling 6) does not meet the minimum dimension of 5.0 metres required under the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone. Council officers consider that a variation to this Standard is warranted in this instance given that the dimension and area of each secluded private open space area would allow sufficient space for the recreation and service needs of the likely residents. Furthermore, the total private open space area nominated for each dwelling exceeds the minimum required for a two (2) bedroom dwelling.

Standard B30 Storage - The objective of this Standard is “to provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling”. Each dwelling should be provided with 4.5m3 of externally accessible storage. Whilst the proposal nominates externally accessible storage areas adjacent to the proposed car parking area, this Standard requires the provision of at least 6m3 of storage space. A condition of any permit issued for the proposal could adequately address this matter.

Standard B32 – Front Fences - The objective of this Standard is “to encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character”. As previously discussed, the height of part of the proposed front fence along the site’s Rowans Road frontage exceeds the maximum specified under the Schedule to the Zone (being 1.2 metres). The high fence would screen the communal car park area and rubbish bins. Council officers concur that the screening of rubbish bins is a reasonable basis for allowing a 1.8 metre high front fence, however recommend that the fence height be lowered in front of visitor car space #2 to improve the interaction with the street, improve safety and to allow the landscaping to grow above the height of the fence to soften the appearance of the car park.

15.0 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTION

Car Parking and Traffic - It is considered that the proposal adequately accommodates on-site parking and visitor car parking demands. This is demonstrated by full compliance with the requirements of Standard B16 (Parking Provision) of Clause 55 with the provision of eleven (11) on-site car parking spaces, including two (2) visitor car parking spaces. Furthermore, it is considered that the surrounding road network would be able to accommodate any additional vehicle movements that are generated by the new dwellings. The proposal does not raise any unreasonable traffic concerns and is supported by Council’s Traffic Engineering Department. Concern has also been raised in with regards to the current business operation which utilises the subject site for car parking and the need to relocate parking off-site as a result. This is not considered to be a valid ground of consideration with respect to this proposal.



53

Noise – An objection has been raised in relation to the additional residential noise generated by the development of the site for nine (9) dwellings. Given that only one (1) residential property has a direct interface with the subject land, any noise generated by the likely future occupants should not reduce the amenity of the adjoining property to the north at No. 86 Rowans Road.

Neighbourhood Character - While the proposed development is contemporary in nature, the development is provided with various elements which are consistent with the existing and emerging neighbourhood character of the surrounding. It is important to note that the subject site offers an opportunity for more intensive development given its location between residential and industrial land and its immediate proximity to a main road intersection. The semi-detached nature of the proposed construction is also consistent with existing residential development in the area and Dwellings 3-6 fronting Rowans Road offer good passive surveillance over Rowans Road and good street level interaction due to the low fencing along this boundary. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would sit appropriately within the context of the adjoining land uses and is site responsive given the constraints of the subject land.

Building Bulk/Mass – Council officers believe that the design and siting of the

proposed dwellings do not demonstrate an excessive level of building bulk and mass throughout the subject site. Each of the new dwellings feature upper floor levels that are well setback from any respective property boundary and the proposed development would essentially be sited in three (3) clusters or “blocks”. The layout of the proposal should ensure that the development would not present as a visually bulky development from either of the street frontages or the adjoining residential property to the north. A condition of any permit issued for the proposed development should require any endorsed plans to show full details of all external building materials, finishes and colours. An appropriate combination of difference building materials and colours should ensure that any building mass of the proposed dwellings should be minimised as a result.

Flooding/Drainage–Council’s Development Engineer and Melbourne Water (as the

relevant floodplain authority) have offered conditional consent to the proposal development and, as such, should not result in any additional infrastructure demands on the existing drainage system in the immediate surrounding area.

Industrial/Residential Interface – Whilst it is acknowledged that the location of an industrial site directly adjacent to the property presents a planning challenge, Council officers consider that the Applicant has incorporated adequate noise attenuation measures through the construction of the proposed dwellings (including double-glazed windows, acoustic seals and solid masonry walls) which should minimise any noise associated with the adjoining industry.

It is important to note, however, that the subject site is zoned for residential purposes. Further, the design and layout of the proposed dwellings should ensure that the future likely residents would enjoy a good standard of amenity as a result.

Property Values – This ground of objection is not considered to hold any planning

merit in the consideration of this proposal.



54


subject to the adoption of the recommended permit conditions to ensure that the proposed development achieves a high quality design, achieves good internal amenity as well as responding appropriately to the site and its immediate industrial and residential interfaces.



The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to

appropriate conditions); and, The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme,

including the MSS, Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy, Residential Development Policy (inclusive of the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines), Residential 3 zoning and the Schedule to the zone, Special Building Overlay (SBO), Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings, and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

16.3 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered

reasonable and warrants support.



55

APPENDIX A – RESCODE ASSESSMENT Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone).



B1 Neighbourhood Character Design respects existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. Development responds to features of the site and surrounding area.

No The proposed development is generally site responsive given the existing constraints. However, the proposal does not incorporate the two (2) “major characteristics” identified within Profile Area No. 1 of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, being building placement and low front fences. See report for further discussion.


No The subject site is located within an area designated for “incremental housing change” and does not meet the average lot size calculated for the area. See report for further discussion.


N/A Nine (9) dwellings are proposed.


Yes A number of engineering conditions are recommended on any planning permit issued regarding the protection of the site’s drainage infrastructure.


No Whilst the dwellings would be orientated towards both Rowans Road and Wickham Road, it is proposed to construct a 1.8 metre high front fence along both street frontages. See report for further discussion.


No The proposed dwellings fronting Wickham Road do not meet the minimum front setback of 6.56 metres required along this frontage. See report for further discussion.


Yes Maximum: 9 metres Proposed: 6.4 metres



56



Yes Maximum:50% Proposed: 39%


Yes At least: 20% Proposed:33%


Yes The site is orientated in a north/south direction. The proposed dwellings would have good upper floor level setbacks from each respective property boundary. See report.


N/A


Yes Good surveillance opportunities would be provided for each dwelling. See report.

B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping. To encourage: Development that respects the

landscape character of the neighbourhood.



Yes No significant vegetation would be removed from the subject site. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has advised that the submitted landscape plan is suitable for endorsement as a part of any permit issued for the proposal.


Yes A new double-width vehicle crossover is proposed to be constructed along the site’s Rowans Road frontage. No change is proposed along the site’s Wickham Road frontage. All vehicles should be able to egress the site in a forwards direction. See report.

B15 Parking Location Yes Each dwelling is provided with a



57


Provide resident and visitor vehicles with convenient parking. Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. Protect residents from vehicular noise within developments.

uncovered car parking space located within a communal parking area. The car parking area is reasonable conveniently located to the road and two the proposed dwellings and has been design for safe and efficient vehicle movements within the site. Pedestrian access to two of the dwellings will be through the communal car parking area, which is wide and will have good visibility and therefore should not create any pedestrian safety issues. Unreasonable vehicle noise is not expected to be generated from the car park due to the relatively low numbers of cars being parked there at any one time.

B16 Parking Provision Ensure car and bicycle parking meets the needs of residents and visitors. Accessways should be practical, attractive and easily maintainable.

Yes Required: Ten (10) Proposed: Eleven (11), including two (2) visitor car parking spaces.


No The first floor level side building setback for Dwelling 9 from the site’s east (side) property boundary would be constructed on the boundary at this level. All other side setbacks comply. See report for further discussion.


No A 6.4 metre high wall associated with Dwelling 9 is proposed to be constructed along the site’s east property boundary. See report for further discussion.


Yes Complies. All existing windows on adjoining properties will continue to receive adequate daylight.


Yes Complies. There are no north facing windows impacted.


Yes Most of the shadow likely to be generated by the proposed development would be cast within the subject site.



58



Yes No direct views would be afforded into the adjoining residential property to the north (rear) at No. 86 Rowans Road.


Yes Visual screening is proposed to all upper floor habitable room windows and balconies where they would be located less than 9.0 metres from another HRW or private open space area within the proposed development site.


Yes The subject site may be affected by noise associated with the adjoining industrial property to the east at No. 239 Wickham Road. However, the proposal incorporates noise attenuation measures such as double-glazed windows, acoustic window seals, etc. See report.


Yes Dwellings can be readily modified to provide access for persons with limited mobility.


Yes Each dwelling has its own independent entrance, and the dwellings with frontage to Wickham Road and Rowans Road have direct access to the street. See report.


Yes Adequate daylight is provided to new habitable room windows.


No Required: 40m2 for each dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 5.0 metres. Proposed: A minimum area of 40m2 for each dwelling. A minimum 5.0 metres is not provided for the POS areas associated with any of the dwellings (except Dwelling 6). See report for further discussion.


Yes Reasonable north solar access to the private opens areas of each dwelling. Complies with Standard.


No A 4.5m3 externally accessible storage area is nominated for each dwelling. See report for further discussion.



59



Yes The proposed dwellings have been designed and sited to ensure minimal visual impact on the adjoining properties. See report.


No A 1.8 metre high front fence is proposed along both street frontages. See report for further discussion.


Yes Common property including car parking, bin storage areas, vehicle and pedestrian accessways and landscaped areas will be delineated, attractive and easily maintained. Common property will be managed by an Owners Corporation.


Yes Site services and facilities can be installed and easily maintained.

ATTACHMENT 1 – RECOMMENDATION That Council issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to develop the land for the construction of nine (9) dwellings on land affected by a Special Building Overlay, subject following conditions: 1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on the 22nd November, 2011, but modified to show:

a. the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule

for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:

i. an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species

type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the site. The schedule must be shown on the plan;



iv. a range of plant types from ground types to large shrubs and trees; v. adequate planting densities (e.g. plants with a mature width of 1 metre,

planted at 1 metre intervals); vi. the provision of one (1) suitable medium-sized (at maturity) tree within the

front setback area of Dwellings 6, 7, 8 and 9 and one (1) small (at maturity) tree within the private open space of each dwelling with all species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority;


viii. all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres high at time of planting; ix. medium to large shrubs and trees provided in pot sizes of 200mm or

greater; and x. the provision of a notation on the landscape plan regarding site

preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements.

b. a comprehensive detailed drainage strategy of the site incorporating water

sensitive urban design treatments, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

c. bedroom 2 of Dwelling 1 redesigned so it does not to project over the existing easement along the site’s north (rear) property boundary;

d. provision of a notation on the plans stating “easement drain must be protected at

all times during construction”; e. no trees planted within the easement with intrusive roots that may affect the

drainage; f. a notation stating that “property boundary and footpath levels are not to be

altered”; g. a notation stating “offset between the footpath and property boundary is not be

altered”; h. a notation stating “the proposed vehicle crossing is not to exceed 3 metres in

width and align 90 degrees to the kerb”;

i. the entry gate associated with Dwellings 7, 8 and 9 nominated as featuring at least 25% transparency;

j. each upper floor balcony area nominated with a minimum dimension of 1.6

metres;

k. the externally accessible storage area for each dwelling nominated as a minimum of 6m3;

l. the front fence height reduced to 1.2 metres in front of Visitor 2 car space along

the Rowans Road street frontage; m. all side fences for Block A within 3.0 metres of Rowans Road to transition up to

1.8 metres in height from the front boundary;

n. kitchen windows added the ground floor elevations of Dwellings 3 to 6 so that the ground floors do not present to the street as blank walls;

o. the 1.8 metre high western fence and gate of Dwelling 2 relocated so that the

pedestrian access is widened; p. the deletion of storerooms 3 – 5 located adjacent to the car park, with the

remaining storerooms allocated to Dwellings 3 – 6, and the provision of individual storerooms within the rear secluded private open space for Dwellings 7 – 9;

q. the relocation of the entry gate to Dwelling 2, to the western fence (aligning with

the entry door), and the remainder of the western fence relocated ! metres to the east, with the common pedestrian access widened accordingly;

r. the provision of a landscaped strip between the car spaces for Dwelling 9 and the

Visitor space No. 1; s. the location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and

the like, clearly shown for both dwellings; t. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including

samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations, front fences and driveways of the development; and

u. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the

prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Conditions required by Melbourne Water:

a. Polluted and/or sediment laden run-off shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or waterways;

b. Dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level; and

c. Garages must be constructed with finished surface levels with a minimum of 150mm above the applicable flood level.

4. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as

shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and

the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

6. The drain, as described in Condition 1d) of this permit, must be protected at all times

during construction. 7. The proposed footings within the rear easement and located along the easement

must be below the invert of the easement drain and a 300mm wide clearance must be maintained.

8. Any existing stormwater pits must be cleared from any obstructions and raised to the

proposed finished surface level to Council’s satisfaction. 9. A CCTV report of the easement drain must be carried out after upgrade and must be

lodged with Council prior to a Building Permit and Occupancy Permits to verify that building over the easement works have not adversely affected Council drainage infrastructure. Any defects identified in the CCTV report are to be rectified at the Owner/Developer’s expense.

10. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater treatment works which

incorporate water sensitive urban design principles (including re-use) to improve discharge quality and a detention system for any increase in run-off as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on treatment options. The detention system must have a restricted outflow limited to 11 l/s and store run-off that exceeds the run-off from 35% of the site area.

11. Before the development commences, a drainage plan showing the method of

treatment and discharge to the nominated point must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be prepared by a qualified person and

show all details of the proposed drainage works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).

12. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto

adjacent properties. 13. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, or by such later date as is

approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel, vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

15. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.

16. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works on the site in conjunction with

the approved development, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be submitted to and approved by Council, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified traffic consultant/engineer, with all costs, including the construction of any required works to be wholly borne by the applicant/permit holder.

17. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the

plans. c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all-

weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and

surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than

rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit

issue. The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit

issue. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions

shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9235 2517, quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 190337. The applicable flood level for this property is 33.39 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

Note: It is noted that the development includes masonry walls and bin storage to be built

over the rear easement. Separate consent from Council and the relevant service authority is required to build over the easements and will need to be obtained prior to the issue of a Building Permit.

Note: Residents shall not be issued with Residential Parking Permits. Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the

necessary Building Permit. Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed

Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit.

Note: Before removing / pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any

contractor engaged to remove any vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation Management Officer to verify if a Local Laws Permits is required for the removal of such vegetation.

OR

In the event that the Council wishes to oppose the Officer’s recommendation to support the application, it can do so on the following grounds:

1. The proposal would have an adverse affect on the amenity of an established residential neighbourhood.

2. The proposal constitutes an over-development of the site.

3. The proposal fails to satisfy all the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), in particular Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character, Clause 55.02-2 Residential Policy, Clause 55.02-5 Integration with the Street, Clause

55.03-1 Street Setback, Clause 55.04-2 Wall on Boundaries and Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space and Clause 55.05-6 Storage.

4. The proposal does not fully satisfy the requirements of Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy, of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

5. The proposal fails to meet the objectives and strategic directions of the Municipal Strategic Statement – Residential Land Use contained at Clause 21.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.



60

N 215 465-467 Nepean Highway, Chelsea – Planning Permit Application No. KP-913/10

APPLICANT: Strintzos Group c/- Apex Town Planning ADDRESS OF LAND: No. 465-467 (Lot 4 & Lot 5 Block E on PS005211) Nepean

Highway, Chelsea MELWAY REF: 97B2 PROPOSAL Develop and Use the Land for an Emergency Services Facility

(Ambulance Station), and Alter Access to a Road in a Road Zone Category 1.

CONTACT OFFICER: Emma Hilderink FILE NO: KP-913/2010 ZONING: Clause 32.01 - Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) OVERLAY(S): Clause 43.02 - Design & Development Overlay (Schedules 1 & 7) KINGSTON PLANNING SCHEME CONTROLS:

State Planning Policy Framework Clause 11: Settlement Clause 13: Environmental Risks Clause 15: Built Environment & Heritage Clause 18: Transport Clause 19: Infrastructure Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21.02: Municipal Profile Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 21.12: Transport, Movement and Access Particular Provisions Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone


No

DECISION BY: 25th

September 2011 NET DAYS: 119 days at 23

rd November 2011

CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

4th

March 2011

1. MAIN ISSUES RELATING TO THIS APPLICATION

- Traffic Impact / Access Issues - Proposed Use - Building Height - Amenity Considerations

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS



61

2.1 The subject site comprises two (2) allotments with a total area of 1300.58 m2 located

on the western side of Nepean Highway, Chelsea. The land has a combined frontage width of 30.48 metres, and a depth of 42.67 metres. A 3.0 metre wide constructed right-of-way exists directly to the rear (west) of the subject site over which the subject site has a legal right of access. The topography of the land is relatively flat and is devoid of any significant vegetation.

2.2 Each allotment currently contains a single dwelling with independent vehicle access to

Nepean Highway via a shared double crossover between the two (2) properties. At present, no street trees exist within the road reserve located directly adjacent to the site’s Nepean Highway frontage. No easements are contained within the subject land and no Section 173 Agreements or restrictive covenants encumber the subject land.

2.3 The subject site is located south of the main commercial shopping precinct of Chelsea

which is identified as a “Major Activity Centre” under the State Government’s Melbourne @ 5 Million policy statement. The land directly adjacent to the subject land comprises of a combination of residential and commercial uses, including a medical centre directly to the north of the subject site at No. 464 Nepean Highway and a service station to the south at No. 469-472 Nepean Highway.

2.4 To the immediate west (rear) of the subject site is a 3.0 metre wide right-of-way,

known as Le Souef Lane, which is used for vehicle access to properties that front Nepean Highway, Maury Road to the north and Newington Parade to the south. Opposite the ROW to the west (rear), the properties known as No. 2 Maury Road and No. 4 Le Souef Lane are developed and used for residential purposes. Land directly opposite Nepean Highway to the east (front) is identified as a railway reserve which serves the Melbourne to Frankston line.

3. PROPOSAL 3.1 It is proposed to develop and use the land for the purpose of an emergency services

facility (ambulance station) and to alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1. The existing dwellings and associated outbuildings on both allotments would be demolished as a part of the proposal.

3.2 The development component of this application would comprise a building sited

adjacent to the site’s north (side) property boundary with an enclosed ambulance garage extending across the site towards the south (side) property boundary setback 7.18 metres from the front property boundary. A minimum front building setback of 6.3 metres is proposed (to the training room) which is consistent with the existing buildings on the adjoining properties to the north and south of the subject site. It is noted that the proposed building would feature a maximum height of 8.02 metres above natural ground level, due to its skillion roof form. The building would include an office, training room, four (4) restrooms for employees, a locker room, a kitchen, dining area and staff amenities. A small courtyard area is also proposed and would be located on the northern side of the building with direct access from the living and dining room area.



62

3.3 Two (2) storage rooms would also be located at the southern end of the proposed ambulance garage. The garage would be accessed from the adjoining right-of-way (Le Souef Lane) to the west (rear) and the ambulance vehicles would egress the site directly onto Nepean Highway. It is anticipated that the proposed garage would accommodate three (3) ambulance vehicles at any one time. Staff would use the right-of-way to access and egress the subject site where eight (8) on-site car parking spaces are designated towards the rear of the land.

3.4 A 2.0 metre high colorbond fence and security gate would be constructed at the rear of

the property and the balance of the subject site would be landscaped. The existing crossover along the site’s Nepean Highway frontage would be increased to a minimum width of 11.645 metres to enable the ambulance vehicles to adequately egress the site in a forwards direction.

3.5 It is envisaged that a maximum of six (6) staff would be on the premises at any one (1)

time and the proposed facility would operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week.

3.6 No signage is proposed as a part of this application. 4. HISTORY 4.1 Planning Application No. KP-680/2003 was previously considered by Council at the

subject sites for the development of the land for fifteen (15) dwellings with basement car parking. This application was determined by the Victorian Civil & Administrative

Tribunal (VCAT) on the 14th

September, 2004, who ordered that no permit was to issue due to concerns about internal amenity, potential offsite impacts and building massing.

4.2 It is noted that this proposal would have required all vehicle access to and from the

site be made via Le Souef Lane with the access lane made wider and a pedestrian footpath included. The access arrangements were not raised as a design deficiency by the Tribunal.

5. ADVERTISING 5.5 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property

owners and occupiers and by maintaining two (2) notices on site for fourteen (14) days. Ten (10) objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:

- Impact on residential amenity (noise, lights, sirens); - Use of the laneway; and - Traffic concerns.


- Devaluation of property; and



63

- Other civil matters. 6. PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE

6.1 A preliminary conference was held on the 12th

May, 2011, with the relevant Planning Officer, a Ward Councillor, the Permit Applicant, the Owner and four (4) representatives from Ambulance Victoria, and nine (9) objectors in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

6.2 The above concerns were unable to be resolved at the conference, and the objections

still stand. 7. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS 7.1 The site is within a Residential 1 Zone and is subject to a Design & Development

Overlay (Schedule 1 & 7). 7.2 Nepean Highway is identified in a Road Zone Category 1. 7.3 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-1 (Residential 1 Zone) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a

planning permit is required to use the site for an “emergency services facility” (ambulance station) as a Section 2 use.

7.4 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-6 (Residential 1 Zone) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a

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

7.5 Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 (Design & Development Overlay) of the Kingston

Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

7.6 Pursuant to Clause 52.29 (Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

8. REFERRALS 8.1 The application was referred to:

- Council’s Development Engineer - Council’s Road and Drains Department - Council’s Vegetation Management Officer - Council’s Sustainable Development Officer - Council’s Traffic Engineering Department - VicRoads

8.2 The Council’s Development Engineer had no objection to the proposal, subject to

conditions being included on any permit issued, including standard conditions to manage stormwater disposal.



64

8.3 The Council’s Roads and Drains Department had no objection to the proposal, subject

to conditions being included on any permit issued to maintain footpath levels and boundary off-sets.

8.4 Council’s Vegetation Management Officer had no objection to the proposal, subject to

the provision of a landscape plan and planting as a condition on any permit issued. 8.5 Council’s Sustainable Development Officer had no objection to the proposal, however

made a number of recommendations to improve the sustainable design of the proposal such as the inclusion of solar water heating, rain gardens, bicycle parking and water tanks.

8.6 Council’s Traffic Engineering Department has a number of concerns regarding the use

of Le Souef Lane to the rear, namely in relation to pedestrian and traffic safety given that the laneway is only three (3) metres wide and provides the only pedestrian access to a number of dwellings.

8.7 VicRoads initially objected to the proposal, however conditional consent has now

been provided (refer to Section 9.8 of this report). 9. DISCUSSION 9.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 13 Environmental Risks Clause 15 Built Environment & Heritage Clause 18 Transport Clause 19 Infrastructure

It is considered that the proposed development and use satisfies each of the relevant strategic objectives and policies outlined in the above sections of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Specifically, the strategic directions outlined in the above sections of the Scheme clearly promote the location of health and community services in areas where they can be integrated into local communities. Clause 18.02-4 (Management of the Road System) of the Scheme aims “to manage the road system to achieve integration, choice and balance by developing an efficient and safe network and making the most of existing infrastructure”. One of the specific strategies under this Policy is to ensure that the road space compliments land use and is managed to meet community and business needs. Vic Roads has offered conditional consent to the proposed access arrangements from the site onto Nepean Highway by requiring the Applicant/Owner to pay for the installation of warning signals on the north and south approaches to the subject site and “keep clear” line-marking in front of the site on the road. As such, this strategy is considered to have been achieved with respect to this proposal.



65

Under Clause 19.02-1 (Health Facilities) of the Scheme, one of the key strategies outlined is to “facilitate the location of health-related facilities (including acute health, aged care and disability services and community care facilities) with consideration given to demographic trends, the existing and future demand requirements and the integration of services into communities”. Given the site’s proximity to the Chelsea Activity Centre and the ageing population of the municipality, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives under this section of the Scheme.

9.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

Clause 21.02 Municipal Profile Clause 21.04 Vision Clause 21.05 Residential Land Use Clause 21.12 Transport, Movement and Access

It is considered that the proposal satisfies each of the relevant policies and objectives outlined in the above sections of the Scheme.

Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Scheme identifies that the impact of future population changes on the supply and demand for community and social facilities as being a key issue for residential land use. Strategy 7 of this Policy aims “to ensure all residential neighbourhoods in Kingston are provided with supporting social infrastructure adequate to the population’s needs”. The proposed land use is considered appropriate for the subject site given the adjoining commercial land uses to the north and south and the direct access available to Nepean Highway.

Clause 21.12 (Transport, Movement & Access) of the Scheme identifies one of the key issues for planning within the municipality as being retail/commercial activity centres located on main arterial roads experiencing high volumes of arterial through traffic which causes conflict with local user movements. Objective 2 under this Policy aims “to integrate public transport, road, pedestrian and cycle systems with activity centres, schools and other community and social infrastructure, as a means of providing equitable and safe vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist movement and access for the community”. It is considered that the proposed access arrangements for the subject site are appropriate given the site’s location on Nepean Highway and the use of the existing rear laneway to the rear.

9.3 Zoning

The site is located in the following Zone:

Clause 32.01 (Residential 1 Zone) Under the provisions of the Residential 1 Zone, the use of the land for an emergency services facility is identified as a Section 2 “unspecified” use. The objectives of the Zone allow for a number of non-residential uses including community and health related uses, where appropriate.



66

It is considered that the proposed use and development is consistent with the relevant objectives and provisions of the Zone in this instance.

9.4 Overlays

The following Overlay Controls apply to this site: Clause 43.02 (Design and Development Overlay) DDO1 – Urban Coastal Height Control Area DDO7- Urban Coastal Foreshore Setback Control Area The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives of this Overlay, namely in relation to building height, building bulk and setbacks to adjoining sites that are compatible and enhance the local character of the area. However, the proposed development would exceed the maximum building height specified under Schedule 1 to the Overlay which states “a single-storey building (which may include a basement car park with a maximum height of 1.2 metres above natural ground level) must not exceed 6.0 metres in overall height”. The additional height is in the skillion roof which provides visual interest to the building. However the provision of the Overlay prevents the additional height unless the development is for the replacement of an existing building already exceeding the height restriction. The existing dwelling is 6.6 metres high; however the maximum height of the proposed ambulance station will be 8.02 metres high. As the existing dwelling currently exceeds the 6.0 metre height restriction, it is considered reasonable that the ambulance station can also be constructed to this height; however there is no justification for the height to be increased further. Therefore it is recommended that a condition be included on any permit issued to ensure that the overall height of the building does not exceed 6.6 metres.

Given that the subject site does not have any direct foreshore boundary, the provisions of Schedule 7 of this Overlay is not applicable to this application in this instance. See Section 9.7 of this report for further discussion).


The following Clauses are applicable to this application: Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) Under Clause 52.06-5 of the Scheme, the use of the land for an “emergency services facility” is not specified as use listed within the table where car parking rates are nominated. Where a use is not specified under this table, an adequate number of car parking spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The provision of eight (8) on-site car parking spaces is considered appropriate in this instance given the low number of employees (six) on the premises at any one time. Furthermore, no patients will be permitted to access the subject site given the nature of



67

the proposed use. As such, the number of on-site car parking spaces is considered adequate with regards to the proposed use. Clause 52.29 (Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1) Where an application includes the creation or removal of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1, it must be referred to the relevant Roads Authority. In this instance, Vic Roads have been involved in extensive discussions and meetings with the Owner, Applicant and Council officers namely in relation to the proposed access arrangements to and from the subject site. Vic Roads have since offered no objection to the proposal, subject to the inclusion a number of conditions to be placed on any planning permit issued relating to the management of traffic from the site onto Nepean Highway, including the provision of signage, line-markings and traffic signal management.


Clause 65: Decision Guidelines It is considered that the proposal satisfies all of the relevant decision guidelines under this section of the Scheme.

9.7 Land Use

The proposed use of the land for an ambulance station is considered appropriate in this instance given that the subject site would have direct access to Nepean Highway and the site itself is located between two established commercial uses (a medical centre and a service station). The nature of the proposed use has been raised as a concern by Objectors, notably in relation to the potential impact of the use of the site on residential amenity. The existing Chelsea ambulance station located on Station Street currently receives an average of 11.5 call outs per day and it is expected that this frequency would be maintained with the proposed facility. The Applicant has advised that ambulance vehicles accessing the subject site via the rear laneway would not activate their sirens upon approaching the station. Further, the sirens of an ambulance vehicle will not always be enabled when leaving the site via Nepean Highway in all instances and usually only in a code 1 emergency (life-threatening situation). The design and siting of the proposed building should not adversely affect any of the rear (west) adjoining properties located on the laneway as it would be of single-storey construction and would incorporate external building materials that are reflective of recent housing development in the surrounding area. No overshadowing to the nearby residential properties is likely as result of the proposed building. The small number of employees (six) to occupy the premises at any one time is not likely to unduly affect the adjoining residential properties through noise associated with staff vehicles and general noise on the subject site.



68

It is considered that the proposed development and use generally complies and satisfies the State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines.

Amenity Issues A number of the general amenity concerns have already been discussed in the above paragraph. However, one of the objections received relates to the 24 hour per day use of the subject site. As previously mentioned, the Applicant and Ambulance Victoria are committed to implementing strategies to ensure that the residential amenity of the adjoining properties to the west (rear) is protected and would be required to adhere to the relevant standards and requirements of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). Traffic Issues The matter of vehicle access to and from the site, particularly in relation to the use of Le Souef Lane to the rear (west), has been the main issue in relation to the proposed development and use. Whilst Vic Roads has now offered conditional consent to the proposal, Council’s Traffic Engineering Department has unresolved concerns regarding the use of the laneway namely with relation to the issue of pedestrian safety. This issue was also a matter raised in a number of objections received by Council through the public notification process. It is worth acknowledging that Le Souef Lane is a designated right-of-way for the purpose of vehicle access to all adjoining properties between Maury Road to the north and Newington Parade to the south. The Applicant has stated that ambulance drivers are acutely aware of the importance of road safety and would take necessary care when returning the vehicles back to the subject site via the laneway. Council officers would also like to highlight that the use of Le Souef Lane for vehicle access to the subject site was not critical to the Tribunal’s determination (VCAT

Reference P1361/2004 dated 14th

September, 2004) which proposed to develop the land for 15 dwellings and a basement car park allowing for 28 car parking spaces.

10. OBJECTORS CONCERNS 10.1 Impact on residential amenity (noise, lights, sirens) Objectors raised concern about the noise, lights and sirens from the ambulances

affecting the reasonable enjoyment of their residential properties. Ambulance Victoria has noted that only ambulances leaving the site during a code 1 emergency would use their siren and it is expected that this would occur up to 1 – 3 times per day. The applicant has noted that at night when traffic volumes are lower, the need to use sirens will be rarer. The propose frequency of siren use and strategies to manage nose are considered to be satisfactory to protect the amenity of residential neighbours. It is also noted that Nepean Highway is a major arterial road which currently has a relatively high level of traffic noise.



69

10.2 Use of the laneway

Objectors raised concerns regarding the use of Le Souef Lane as the entry to the ambulance station. Le Souef Lane is 3.0 metres wide and provides pedestrian and vehicle access to a number of dwellings. Le Souef Lane is designated as a right-of-way for the purpose of vehicle access to all adjoining properties between Maury Road to the north and Newington Parade to the south. The proposal is for ambulances to exit the site via Nepean Highway and enter the site via Le Souef Lane. Staff will enter and exit the site via the Lane. Staff vehicle movements along Le Souef Lane are considered to be an acceptable use of the Lane. The Applicant has stated that ambulance drivers are acutely aware of the importance of road safety and would take necessary care when returning the vehicles back to the subject site via the laneway. Ambulance Victoria has advised that vehicles do not often return to the site during a shift. Signs will be located along Le Souef Lane to advise motorists and pedestrians of potential ambulances travelling along the Lane. Given the relatively low number of vehicle movements expected along Le Souef Lane and because ambulances will not be travelling along the Lane at speed to respond to call-outs, it is suggested that the proposed use of Le Soeuf Lane acceptable.

10.3 Traffic concerns Objectors raised concerns regarding traffic safety along Nepean Highway. VicRoads

have provided their consent to the proposal, subject to conditions. Traffic concerns regarding the use of Le Soeuf Lane have been discussed in the previous paragraph.

11. CONCLUSION 11.1 The proposed use and development is considered appropriate for the site as evidenced

by:

- The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the surrounding area;

- The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to appropriate conditions); and,

- The proposal satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the SPPF, MSS, Zoning / Overlay controls and Particular Provisions.

11.2 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is

considered reasonable and warrants support.

ATTACHMENT 1 – RECOMMENDATION That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued to develop and use the land for an emergency services facility (ambulance station), and alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1, subject following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on the 4th March, 2011 and 11th October, 2011, but modified to show:

a. the provision of a landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site

showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:




iv. a range of plant types from ground types to large shrubs and trees, species must comprise a minimum of 80% indigenous coastal species;

v. adequate planting densities (e.g. plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1 metre intervals);

vi. the provision of two (2) medium-sized (at maturity) tree within the front setback of the property and two (2) small (at maturity) tree within the rear of the development, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority;

vii. all trees provided at a minimum of three (3) metres in height at the time of planting;

viii. sustainable lawn areas and plant species taking current water restrictions into consideration;

ix. all shrubs, grasses and ground covers to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm;

x. the provision of a notation on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements.

b. a notation on the plans stating that the property boundary and footpath levels are not to be altered;

c. details of any proposed traffic signage including their number, size, height, wording and location;

d. a notation on the floor / site plan stating: “The redundant vehicle crossing must be removed, kerb & channel must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority”;

e. a 1.8 m wide footpath along the Nepean Highway frontage, comprising 8.3% black oxide with 600mm x 600mm saw cuts and a nature strip behind the kerb along the length of the property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

f. the rear access to the Le Soeuf Lane Right of Way modified so that two-way vehicle traffic can enter and exit the site, to the satisfaction of Responsible Authority;

g. all requirements specified by Vic Roads, in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit;

h. the maximum height of the skillion roof not exceeding 6.0 metres;

i. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar; and

j. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule (including samples) for all external elevations and driveways of the development.

2. The development and/or use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered

without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Conditions Required by VicRoads:

a. Before the commencement of the development, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads. When approved by VicRoads, the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two (2) copies must be provided.

The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans date stamped 28th

February, 2011, but modified to include:

i. Key features of the road reserve in particular the signals at Nepean Highway and Argyle Avenue intersection and associated infrastructure including line marking, signals hardware, lanterns, etc.

ii. The Keep Clear line marking must be in accordance with VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual Vol. 2, Chapter 18, Edition 4, November, 2010. The Keep Clear line marking on the south bound lane must not encroach into the right turn lane on Nepean Highway.

iii. Installation of two (2) “ambulance station” warning signs (W5-37A) installed approximately 80m and 120m south of the site facing northbound traffic on both sides of Nepean Highway.

b. Before the commencement of the use, a public lighting and traffic signal layout, including the proposed signal phasing must be submitted to VicRoads for approval.

c. Before the commencement of any works required by VicRoads under this permit, a detailed engineering design must be prepared generally in accordance with the accepted functional layout plan and to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

d. Before the use of the permitted development, all works in accordance with the above VicRoads conditions must be completed to the satisfaction of VicRoads and at no cost to VicRoads.

e. The preparation of the detailed engineering design and the construction and completion of all work must be undertaken in a manner consistent with the current VicRoads policy, procedures and standards and at no cost to VicRoads. In order to

meet VicRoads’ requirements for these tasks the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements documented as “Standard Requirements – Developer Funded Projects” and any other requirements considered necessary depending on the nature of the work.

f. No work must be commenced in, on, under or over the road reserve without having first obtaining all necessary approval under the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, and any other relevant acts or regulations created under those Acts.

4. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates

the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bio retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.

5. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the

stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).

6. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent

properties. 7. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction

Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, business operations on the site during construction.

8. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development and/or

use, through the: i) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land. ii) Appearance of any building, works or materials.

iii) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.

iv) Presence of vermin. v) Any other way. 9. Before occupation of the development hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on

the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Before occupation of the development hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking

vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

- Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

- Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

- Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

- Drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. - Line-marked to indicate each car space, all access lanes and, if necessary, the

direction in which vehicles are to travel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

In accordance with any Council adopted guidelines for the construction of car parks.

11. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times

and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 12. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas. 13. The permitted use may operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week. 14. A maximum of six (6) staff may be on-site at any one time. 15. The development and / or use of the site shall not cause nuisance or be detrimental to

the amenity of the neighbourhood by the emission of noise. In this regard any nuisance shall be assessed in accordance with the Australian Standards AS1055 and AS2107 relating to the measurement of Environmental Noise and recommended sound levels.

16. Concrete kerbs or other barriers must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority to prevent direct vehicle access to an adjoining road other than by a vehicle crossing.

17. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be

removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

18. All external surfaces of the building elevations must be finished in accordance with the

schedule on the endorsed plans and maintained in good condition to the Responsible Authority’s satisfaction.

19. No signs or other advertising or identification may be erected or displayed on the site

without written Council consent. 20. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction

of the Responsible Authority. 21. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will

expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

- The development and/or use are not started within two (2) years from date of this permit.

- The development is not completed within (4) years from the date of this permit.


Note: Prior to the commencement of the development or use you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit. OR In the event that Council wishes to oppose the application, it can do so on the following grounds: 1. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of an established residential

neighbourhood. 2. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the safe and efficient operation of the

road network.



70

N 216 101-103 Mentone Parade, Mentone – Planning Permit Application No. KP927/10

APPLICANT ADG Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND 101-103 Mentone Parade, MENTONE VIC 3194 (Lot

1 on TP 760499F) PROPOSAL Use and develop the land for the construction of sixteen

(16) dwellings and a shop, with a reduction of the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 and loading requirements of Clause 52.07 of the Kingston Planning Scheme

PLANNING OFFICER Tanya Sokolowski REFERENCE NO. KP-927/2010 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 11: Settlement Clause 15: Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16: Housing Clause 17: Economic Development Clause 18: Transport


Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision

Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 21.06: Retail & Commercial Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

ZONE Clause 34.01: Business 1 Zone OVERLAYS Clause 43.02: Schedule 18 of the Design Development

Overlay PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 52.06: Car Parking

Clause 52.07: Loading & Unloading of Vehicles Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities Clause 52.35: Urban Context Report & Design Response for Residential Development of Four Storeys or More

GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA

Not applicable


No

DECISION DATE BY 4 December 2011 STATUTORY DAYS 34 days at 7 November 2011 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

5 October 2011

1.0 KEY ISSUES



71

1.1 The key planning issues arising from this proposal relate to: Traffic considerations Neighbourhood character Amenity impact (internal and external) Energy efficiency

2.0 PROPOSAL (AS AMENDED) 2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing double storey shop and outbuildings on the site,

and construct a five storey mixed use development with a basement car park. The proposed development would comprise a shop at the ground floor and sixteen (16) dwellings above.

2.2 Analysing each level of the development, the following is proposed:

Basement Sixteen (16) car spaces (including 7 within car stackers) Bicycle storage area with provision of 18 bicycle racks A bin store Sixteen (16) storage cages of a minimum of 6 cubic metres each One (1) storage area located off the car space for Dwelling 1 Mechanical plant room Two (2) underground water tanks One lift and stairwell to access upper floors

Ground floor

One (1) shop (green grocer) with 419.27 square metres of floor area A small internal loading bay area associated with the shop Two (2) under croft car parking spaces Residential foyer with one lift and one stair well A pedestrian path extending along the length of the southern side boundary,

connecting Mentone Parade to Old Bakery Lane

First and Second floors Six (6) dwellings, of which 1 would comprise 1 bedroom and 5 would

comprise two bedrooms One lift and stairwell

Third floor Two (2) dwellings, each comprised of two bedrooms One lift and stairwell

Fourth floor

Two (2) dwellings, each comprised of two bedrooms One lift and stairwell

General



72

The development would comprise overall, a total of fourteen (14) x 2 bedroom dwellings and two (2) x 1 bedroom dwellings

The proposed total building height is 17.17 metres Balconies are provided to each dwelling ranging in size from a minimum of 8

square metres to 18.26 square metres

2.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 100 percent and a permeability percentage of 12.

2.4 The development is proposed to be built up to the north and south side boundaries.

The following minimum dimensions from the site’s east (front) and west (rear) property boundaries are proposed:

East (front) Boundary to Mentone

Parade

West (rear) Boundary to Old

Bakery Lane

Ground Floor: 0 metres 0 metres

First Floor: 1.93 metres with balconies

encroaching up to the front boundary

1.64 metres with balconies

encroaching up to the rear

boundary

Second Floor: 5 metres, with balconies setback 2.8

metres

1.94 metres with balconies

encroaching (min setback of

300mm increasing to 1.28 metres)

Third Floor: 26.14 metres 2.99 metres with balconies

encroaching (min. setback of

981mm increasing to 3 metres)

Fourth floor: 26.25 metres 3.99 metres with balconies

encroaching (min. setback of 1.97

metres increasing to 4.18 metres)

2.5 The proposed building is of a contemporary style, with a flat roof. Bold vertical

elements are proposed including slats to the southern elevation over the stairwell, as well as a curved aluminium feature frame to both the north and south elevations. A variety of materials is proposed including textured concrete panels to add visual interest. The colour palette chosen entails relatively neutral colours and tones.

3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject site is located on the west side of Mentone Parade, with a frontage width

of 15.09 metres, total site depth on the southern boundary of 56.46 metres and overall area of 668 square metres. The site contains a double storey building and single storey outbuildings to the rear. Two commercial tenancies are located within the building.



73

Vehicle access to the site is currently from Old Bakery Lane. No easements encumber the site.

3.2 The subject site is located within Mentone Activity Centre, where development is

typical of commercial centres with shops and other retail premises generally contained within a mix of single and double storey buildings. To the rear of the site is Old Bakery Lane and a Council owned public car park. Abutting the site to the south at No. 97-99 Mentone Parade are single storey shops, and likewise abutting the site to the north at No. 105 Mentone Parade. Opposite the site on the east side of Mentone Parade is Kilbreda College which is a large site with boundaries on Mentone Parade, Florence Street, Como Parade West and Commercial Road. The site is comprised of single, double and three storey buildings.

3.3 More broadly, within the vicinity of the subject site to the west and south is

residentially zoned land, with multi-dwelling and infill development having a significant presence. This is indicative of proximity to the commercial precinct and fixed rail transport. To the north and east of the site beyond the Frankston railway line is also residentially zoned land. Approximately 260 metres north of the subject site at No. 76-78 Balcombe Road is a medium density mixed used development that is currently under construction. That development will be five storeys with a basement car park once completed. Another larger scale building of four storeys has been approved, outside of the Activity Centre at No. 33-35 Childers Street (approx. 480 metres north-east of the subject site). This development will contain forty one (41) dwellings.



74

3.4 An aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounds is provided below:

Subject Site Melway Ref: 87 A6, 86 K6

Source: IntraMaps

4.0 TITLE DETAILS 4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there

is no restrictive covenant on the title. 5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1 The subject site is located within a Business 1 Zone and is subject to Schedule 18 of

the Design Development Overlay. 6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 (Business 1 Zone) of the Scheme, a planning permit is

required to construct a building or construct and carry out works. 6.2 Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 (Business 1 Zone) of the Scheme, a planning permit is

required to use the land for a dwelling, where any frontage at ground level exceeds 2 metres;



75

6.3 Pursuant to Schedule 18 of Clause 43.02 (Design Development Overlay), a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct and carry out works.

6.4 Pursuant to Clause 52.06 (Car Parking), a planning permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement.

6.5 Pursuant to Clause 52.07 (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles), a planning permit is

required for a waiver of loading requirements. 7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 7.1 Council records indicate that there is no relevant planning history relating to this site.

8.0 ADVERTISING 8.1 Prior to advertising, the Permit Applicant submitted revised plans on 23 June 2011

(pursuant to Section 50 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) that essentially sought to address some of the concerns raised in Council’s further information letter but have since been amended pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (following the advertising process), to address the outstanding concerns raised by Council officers.

As discussed, the proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and

opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. No objections to the proposal were received.

8.2 The amendments made to the plans following the advertising process generally

entailed increasing the depth of some light wells and balconies, particularly to first floor dwellings, and the inclusion of roller shutters to the south side walls of the shop to allow this area to be opened up to the pedestrian path during business hours.

8.3 The revised plans submitted after the advertising process constitute those that are now

under consideration by Council and, therefore, supersede all earlier plans. The amended plans were not re-advertised as they did not propose substantial changes to the overall built form.

9.0 REFERRALS 9.1 The following internal referral departments were notified:

Council’s Development Engineer advised of no objection subject to standard

drainage conditions being included. Council’s Activity Centre Place Manager acknowledged that the proposal was

consistent with current policy within the Planning Scheme in regard to height controls, but noted that it exceeded the 4 storey height limit contemplated by the Mentone Structure Plan. Overall the proposal was considered to provide a high



76

quality design, it was recommended that the first floor east balconies be converted to winter gardens, treatment at ground level to roller shutters and the upper level deleted, with dwellings relocated to the third floor.

Council’s City Strategy Department reiterated the advice provided by Council’s Activity Place Manager.

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer advised of no objection to the proposal.

Council’s Traffic Engineer advised of an objection to the proposed car stackers as it was believed that there are maintenance issues and no customer parking provided for the shop use. It is noted that car stackers are regularly proposed and have been supported by Council. The site does not currently provide customer car parking for the exiting shops.

Council’s Waste Management Department advised of no objection subject to the applicant providing a Waste Management Plan for approval.

Council’s Roads and Drains Department advised of no objection subject to conditions such as the requirement for an apex at the entrance to the basement ramp to prevent overland water flows.

Council’s Sustainable Development Officer advised of no objection and provided recommendations to increase access to daylight.


Clause 11: Settlement Clause 15: Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16: Housing Clause 17: Economic Development Clause 18: Transport Clause 19: Infrastructure

10.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 21.06: Retail and Commercial Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

10.3 Zoning

Clause 34.01: Business 1 Zone

10.4 Overlay



77

Clause 43.02: Design Development Overlay (Schedule 18)


Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.07: Loading & Unloading of Vehicles Clause 52.34: Bicycle Parking Clause 52.35: Urban Design Context Report and Design Response For Residential

Development Of Four Or More Storeys

Note: While providing a useful guide to assessing the pertinent residential issues for the application, the provisions of Clause 55 (ResCode) do not apply, as the application is for a development of four (4) or more storeys. Accordingly, the development must be assessed against the objectives and strategies of Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage).

10.6 General Provisions Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)

10.7 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document within Clause

21.05: Residential Land Use)

The subject site is located outside the area designated within the Guidelines, and accordingly, are not considered relevant to this application.

11.7 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy)


suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character.

The Guidelines tend to focus on the design of multi-unit developments, and are not very informative in the consideration of larger scale apartment buildings of this nature. For this reason, an assessment against the suggestions contained within the Guidelines has not been provided for this proposal.


The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage), Clause 16 (Housing), Clause 17 (Economic Development), Clause 18 (Transport), Clause 19 (Infrastructure). The SPPF requires Council to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.



78

Clause 11 (Settlement) seeks to ensure that a sufficient supply of land is available for housing, employment, recreation and open space, commercial and community facilities and infrastructure.

Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) aims to ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value. Clause 16 (Housing) encourages the provision of housing diversity (including affordable housing), that has access to services and be planned for long term sustainability. It also seeks to ensure the efficient provision of supporting infrastructure. Clause 17 (Economic Development) is geared towards providing a strong and innovative economy. Clause 17.01-1 (Business) encourages development which meets the community’s needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities. Clause 18 (Transport) encourages the development of an integrated and sustainable transport system that provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods, and is safe. Clause 19 (Infrastructure) aims to ensure that the development of social and physical infrastructure is provided in a way that is efficient, equitable, accessible and timely. It is submitted that the proposed development generally satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land which is deemed suitable for residential development, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning (provided that any frontage width at ground level does not exceed 2 metres). The development itself achieves an acceptable design outcome for the site and its immediate abuttals, whilst enjoying convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including public transport nodes. It is further acknowledged that the proposed scale of development is appropriate within the context of the site.


The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) contains Council’s strategic direction, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), which is an extension of the direction established by the SPPF, and the local policies that implement the LPPF. Within Clause 21 (MSS) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the following six (6) attributes are submitted as being the most relevant to the consideration of the proposal: Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium



79

Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 21.06: Retail and Commercial Land Use

Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy After reviewing the relevant strategic directions that emerge from the abovementioned Clauses, the following can be summarised: Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium identifies the need for the

Municipality to provide suitable housing stock that meets future housing demands and to sustain an appropriate mix of supporting urban infrastructure. It is further stated that recent pressures for new development, consolidation and medium density housing has resulted in change to the amenity and character of local areas. It is acknowledged that careful management will be required in order to integrate urban consolidation objectives with an understanding of specific character issues applicable to certain neighbourhoods.

Clause 21.04-3: Strategic framework plan (Clause 21.04 Vision), provides for the

strategic direction for future land use planning and development within the City of Kingston. This Policy includes a Strategic Land Use Framework Plan, which identifies the location of where specific land use outcomes are anticipated, supported and promoted.

The major strategic directions identified on the overall Framework Plan include:

o Locations for promotion of medium and higher density housing opportunities i.e. areas designated for increased density housing opportunities and activity centres.

The City of Kingston’s MSS at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Kingston

Planning Scheme, seeks to provide guidance to development in residential zoned land, mixed use zoned land and land within activity centres. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston.

Pertinent to the consideration of this application, the policy goes on to state that

“The vision for Kingston’s residential areas outlined in the Kingston Residential Strategy - September 2000 is: to promote and facilitate both increased local housing diversity to meet the changing housing needs of the community and increased liveability within an integrated planning framework. The MSS seeks to promote medium density housing in locations better suited to accommodating housing change and to moderate the rate and type of housing change in other locations”.

Relevant objectives and strategies in Clause 21.05-3: Residential Land Use include:

o To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing housing needs of current and future



80

populations, taking account of the capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. This is to be achieved through encouraging residential development within activity centres via mixed-use development, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres.

o To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting new residential development, which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.

o To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. To be achieved through promoting medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.

o To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses.

o To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

o To recognise and response to special housing needs within the community. Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.05 essentially reinforces State Planning Policy at Clause 12.06, stressing the need to encourage urban consolidation in appropriate locations and to accommodate projected population increases.

Clause 21.06: Retail and Commercial Land Use is broken into six (6) key objectives. The first of which looks at protecting and strengthening the hierarchy of activity centres. The subject land is located within the Mentone Activity Centre, which is identified as a ‘Major Activity Centre’ within the City of Kingston. The Strategic Direction for the Mentone Activity Centre is to:

o Encourage entertainment/restaurant uses where continuous active frontage

is not undermined. o Reinforce the centre’s edged by encouraging residential development on

the centre’s periphery.

The proposal seeks to continue the existing green grocer use within the new building, ensuring that the development contributes to a continuance of the existing retail mix found within the Mentone Activity Centre. Objective 3 of Clause 21.06 seeks to reinforce the built form character and function of activity centres consistent with the position in the hierarchy of activity centres. Strategies to implement the objective include the use of structure plans to provide direction in relation to a variety of areas, including enhancing the character and physical image of the centre, identifying the right mix and location of land use activity and guiding the scale of new buildings.

Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy - as outlined previously, the proposal is

considered to generally comply and satisfy the applicable Local Planning Policy



81

Framework, which essentially aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations.

Where a planning permit is required for residential development, where relevant, it is policy under Clause 22.11 to:

Encourage all new residential development to respond positively and creatively



Design duplex and side-by-side development to have a visual interconnection with the street rather than presenting merely as garages and front doors only. Staggered front building lines and variation in designs and materials should be used to avoid poor urban design impacts upon streetscapes.















82















The subject site is zoned Business 1. The purpose of the Business 1 Zone is: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning

Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; and

To encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complementary commercial, entertainment and community uses.

Pursuant to Clause 34.04 – Business 1 Zone of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a Planning Permit is required to:

construct a building or construct or carry out works.



83

It is noted that the proposed dwellings and shop are an ‘as of right’ (Section 1) use and do not require a Planning Permit.

The appropriateness of the development is discussed further in this report, however the overall proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the objectives of the Business 1 Zone.


The subject site is located subject to Schedule 18 of the Design Development Overlay. The general design objectives of the Overlay seek:

o To reinforce the urban form, character, streetscape of the Mentone Activity Centre.

o To achieve responsive and sensitively designed development that is of a high architectural quality and urban design standard.

o To achieve appropriately designed development that is consistent with the built form outcomes and heights envisaged by this Overlay.

o To ensure development has proper regard for the established, streetscape and development pattern in terms of building design, height, scale, and siting.

o To preserve solar access to adjoining residential zones, dwellings, public and private open space and pedestrian accessways.

o To protect and enhance key views, vistas and landmarks. o To protect and enhance places of cultural heritage significance.

It is acknowledged that the overall height of 5 storeys exceeds the maximum height contemplated in the Mentone Activity Centre Structure Plan (discussed below); however the proposed height is consistent with the current planning policy which applies to the site, contained within Schedule 18 of the Design Development Overlay (DDO18). The design presents a three storey built form to Mentone Parade, with a significant setback of the fourth and fifth storeys. In relation to DDO18, the site falls within two precincts. The front half of the site is located within Precinct E1 which specifies a limitation of 2-3 storeys, whilst the rear half is within Precinct E2 which specifies a limitation of 4-5 storeys.

A number of design standards are identified for each Precinct within the DDO18. Of particular relevance Precinct E1 notes:

o Any third storey must be setback a minimum of 5 metres from the frontage to enable a robust 2 storey building form with a maximum building height of 8.5 metres. Balconies may encroach within the third storey setback but must be setback 2.8 metres fro the frontage and be of an open appearance;

o Upper 2 storeys to be light weight in appearance. Designs shall contain a level of façade articulation and material detailing that distinguishes the lower floors from the upper floors to maintain a robust and traditional 2 storey street wall façade.



84

o Encourage new additions and development that demonstrate contemporary architectural detailing but where the form and fenestration respond to the heritage and village characteristics of the precinct.

o Encourage zero setbacks at front and side boundaries to facilitate equal access to open space for shop top development.

Precinct E2 contains the following relevant design standards:

o Any 3rd storey should be setback a minimum of 3 metres from a laneway building edge.

o Upper 2 storeys to be light weight in appearance. Designs shall contain a level of façade articulation and material detailing that distinguishes the lower floors from the upper floors to maintain a robust and traditional 2 storey street wall façade.

o Ensure development addresses laneways and enables an improved and active pedestrian scaled thoroughfare.

o Encourage new additions and development that demonstrate contemporary architectural detailing but where the form and fenestration respond to the heritage and village characteristics of the precinct.

o Encourage zero setbacks at front and side boundaries to facilitate equal access to open space for shop top development.

The design has had regard to the above design standards, and meets the front and rear setbacks that are specified, as well as the maximum heights for each of the precincts. The orientation of dwellings and balconies to Old Bakery Lane, as discussed above, appropriately addresses this laneway. Overall the proposal is considered consistent with the objectives of DDO18.

11.5 Other Council Policies - Mentone Activity Centre Structure Plan

The Mentone Structure Plan was adopted by Council on 11 July 2011, and whilst it does not form part of the Planning Scheme, achieves a status of ‘seriously entertained document’. The following amendment should be read in this context. The Mentone Structure Plan identifies the subject site within Precinct A – Retail Core. The relevant objectives of Precinct A of the Structure Plan include:

o Maximum 3 or 4 storey overall height pending location; o Consistent 2 storey street edge to commercial street frontages and the

maintenance of the existing fine grain shopfronts; o Further activate ground floor shopfronts with shop top housing or office uses

in upper levels; o Facilitate site consolidation as a means of ensuring:

- Desired built form outcomes can be achieved on what are often narrow allotments;

- Objectives to activate rear laneways;



85

- Sufficient space can be provided for basement car parking. o Encourage generous balcony spaces, articulation and lightweight materials

to reduce building bulk and ensure surveillance. The proposed basement allows sufficient space for parking to be accommodated within the subject site for future residents, and staff of the green grocery. The proposed continued use at ground floor for a shop (green grocer) will ensure that the existing grain of shopfronts is maintained, whilst providing for activation at upper levels with dwellings. This is further enhanced by balconies which will have views of Mentone Parade and Old Bakery Lane to the rear where the Mentone Structure Plan seeks to increase pedestrian activity. The orientation of dwellings and balconies to the rear of the site with views of and access to Old Bakery Lane is deemed an acceptable response to the site and will promote the desired increase in pedestrian activity through a growth in residents as well as improving the pedestrian realm through passive surveillance. The current site layout has an informal pedestrian walkway along the southern side boundary connecting Mentone Parade with the Council owned car park to the rear of the site. The proposal will maintain and improve this connection via a more formalised pathway, which will also be integrated with the green grocery where roller shutters will be able to be open along the shops southern side during business hours. Whilst the height of the proposal will exceed the height contemplated within the Mentone Structure Plan, the height meets the current planning policy which applies to the site. The overall proposal is still considered to be consistent with the objectives that are specified for Precinct A and will result in a good planning outcome for the subject site and the broader locality.


Clause 52.06: Car Parking The purposes of this provision are:

To ensure that car parking facilities are provided in accordance with:

- The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

- Any parking precinct plan. To provide the opportunity to use parking precinct plans in appropriate locations.

To promote the efficient use of car spaces through the consolidation of car parking facilities.

To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.

To ensure that the design of car parking areas:

- Does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, in particular the amenity of pedestrians and other road users.

- Achieves a high standard of urban design.



86

- Creates a safe environment for users, particularly at night. - Enables easy and efficient use. - Protects the role and function of nearby roads. - Facilitates the use of public transport and the movement and delivery of

goods.

Clause 52.06-1 notes that a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required car spaces have been provided on the land.

The required spaces are identified in the table to Clause 52.06-5. The table at Clause 52.06-5 notes that a:

Dwelling, other than Caretaker’s house if at least 2 on a lot, requires 2 car

parking spaces to each dwelling.

A shop requires 8 spaces per 100 square metres of leasable floor area.

Clause 52.06 allows a permit to be granted to vary the statutory parking requirements having regard to the following decision guidelines: Any relevant parking precinct plan.

The availability of car parking in the locality.

The availability of public transport in the locality.

Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces.

Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land.

Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement.

Local traffic management.

Local amenity including pedestrian amenity.

An empirical assessment of car parking demand.

Any other relevant consideration.

The proposal requires the provision of 32 car spaces for the residential component and 33 car spaces for the shop. The proposal provides a total of eighteen (18) car parking spaces, and therefore a permit is required for the reduced amount, this is discussed further at Section 12.3 of this report.

Clause 52.07: Loading & Unloading of Vehicles



87

The primary purpose of this Clause is ‘to set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety’. Clause 52.07 allows a permit to be granted to reduce or waive the requirements if either: The land area is insufficient; or

Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The proposal would provide a loading bay within the shop to its rear, accessed from Old Bakery Lane, however the dimensions do not meet the minimum required by this Clause. The plans also indicate sharing of car parking and additional loading area for the shop externally, towards the rear of the site, this is discussed further at Section 12.4 of this report.

Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities

The purpose of this Clause is:

To encourage cycling as a mode of transport.

To provide secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and associated shower and change facilities.

Clause 52.34-1 states that a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.

Under Clause 52.34-2 states that a permit may be granted to vary, reduce or waive the requirements of Clause 52.34-3 and Clause 52.34-4. An application is exempt from the notice and decision requirements and appeal rights of some sections of the Act.

Clause 52.34-3 requires in developments of four (4) or more storeys that one (1) residents bicycle space per five (5) dwellings, and one (1) visitor bicycle space per ten (10) dwellings be provided. A shop requires 1 employee space to each 600 square metres of leasable floor area if the floor area exceeds 1000 square metres, and 1 shopper space to each 500 square metres of leasable floor area if the floor area exceeds 1000 square metres.

Under the requirements of this section of the Scheme, a total of four (4) on-site bicycle

parking spaces are required with 3 spaces for residents, and 1 space for visitors. No additional requirement for bicycle parking spaces is generated as the proposed

shop is less than 1000 square metres in floor area. A total of eighteen (18) spaces are proposed within the basement.



88

Clause 52.35: Urban Design Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development Of Four Or More Storeys

The purpose of that Clause is;

To ensure that an urban context report is prepared before a residential development of four or more storeys is designed and that the design responds to the existing urban context and preferred future development of the area.

A satisfactory urban context report and design response was prepared prior to advertising of the development, in accordance with the requirements of the Clause.

Clause 65: Decision Guidelines For this application the requirements of Clause 65.01 for the approval of an application or plan is of relevance. This Clause outlines the requirements that the responsible authority must consider when determining the application.

12.0 ASSESSMENT 12.1 Use

The proposed Shop at ground floor is considered to be appropriate with regard to the site being located within a Business 1 Zone. It is proposed that the existing green grocer will use this ground floor tenancy, providing continuity and an essential retail activity for residents in the locality. The proposed dwellings above the retail use are appropriate, with the proposed apartments providing a different housing type to what is commonly found in the area, as well as housing which is close to public transport. More residents in the area will increase the viability of the commercial precinct and local businesses, whilst offering greater opportunities for people to live near where they work. It is recommended that the pedestrian entry from Mentone Parade is reduced to 2 metres, allowing an increase in façade width to the shop, which is considered appropriate with regard to the Business 1 Zone and retaining a strong commercial front to the building.

12.2 Development Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 and Clause 43.02, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

The design principles contained at Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) are applicable to this development for both the commercial and residential components. Clause 55 is not applicable to the assessment of the proposed dwellings, due to the height of the building and the Business 1 zoning of the land. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the applicable design principles contained within Clause 15.



89

The Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004), which is a reference document at Clause 15 of the SPPF, and are considered to provide a more comprehensive guide in the assessment of the design and built form of residential development of four (4) or more storeys. As such, discussion of the proposal against each of the applicable design elements is provided below. Element 1 – Urban Context Encourages buildings that respond creatively to their existing context and to the aspirations for the future development of the area and encourages creative designs that are based on a clear understanding of the urban context and neighbourhood character.

To ensure proposed buildings respond creatively to their existing context, an Urban Context Report is required to accompany an application of four (4) or more storeys, which provides a detailed response to the character of the area and identifies the opportunities and constraints for the site. The application is accompanied by an Urban Context Report which has appropriately identified planning scheme objectives and requirements in relation to the subject site, along with information which has assessed the existing character of the locality and the site’s opportunities and constraints. The submitted Urban Context Report is considered satisfactory.

It is considered that the proposed development has appropriately taken into account the strategic context of the site, satisfying requirements of these Guidelines as well as those contained within Clause 15.01-2 of the Planning Scheme. The subject site is centrally located within the Mentone Activity Centre where it is considered that increased residential densities can be appropriately accommodated with regard to access to critical infrastructure, as well as providing an increased residential population to build upon the Centre’s dynamism and viability.

The site’s location within the commercial heart of the Activity Centre results in the site having less sensitive interfaces for a higher density residential development of five storeys – particularly with regard to its rear laneway access, opportunities to overlook the public car park area and activate Old Bakery Lane. The proposed design will retain the existing lot pattern, where currently the shops on the site occupy the site’s frontage from boundary to boundary. The proposal will retain the boundary to boundary built form, and whilst one commercial tenancy would replace two, the grain of development and frontage occupied by the green grocer will be similar and sympathetic of surrounding development. The building will present as a three storey development to the street, with a similar height to some existing double storey shops in the street which have high parapets, such as at No. 107 Mentone Parade. The five storey component of the development, which is located towards the rear half of the site, would have limited visibility from Mentone Parade. It is noted that opposite the site, the Kilbreda College has a three storey building with a hard edge up to the site’s front boundary.



90

Overall the site is considered to have an appropriate strategic context to support a residential development within the Mentone Activity Centre.

Element 2 – Building Envelope This element aims to ensure that new development is appropriate to the scale of nearby streets, other public spaces, and buildings and to relate building height to street width and intended character. The objective also aims to protect sunlight access to public spaces, to respond to existing or preferred neighbourhood character, to ensure building separation supports private amenity and reinforces neighbourhood character, and to ensure that areas can develop with an equitable access to outlook and open space. The objective aims to ensure that visual impact to dwellings at the rear are appropriate to the context and to maximise informal or passive surveillance of streets and other public open spaces. Height and Massing: Schedule 18 of the Design Development Overlay (DDO18) places restrictions on the height of the proposed building which have been met. The design satisfies the height controls that are specified for the two precincts that the site covers – Precinct E1 and E2. Precinct E1 sets a limit of 2 to 3 storeys, with any third storey element setback a minimum of 5 metres from the frontage. Balconies may encroach, but must be setback 2.8 metres. A strong two storey building form is encouraged. In this instance the third storey setback is largely met, with planter boxes encroaching into the 2.8 metre setback. Council’s Activity Centre Place Manager has suggested that in order to reinforce the two storey hard edge that the plans are amended to show ‘winter gardens’ to Dwelling’s 1 and 2 of the first floor. Effectively it would entail the proposed balconies being provided with operable windows to the street edge. This effect could also be achieved through other design features such louvres or decorative perforated screens to create a loggia, and a condition is recommended to be included on any permit issued to amend plans accordingly, allowing flexibility for the applicant to provide a design to fulfil the intention of this requirement. The rear half of the site, located within Precinct E2 would entail a five storey built form consistent with the height restriction specified. The overlay states that any third storey should be setback a minimum of 3 metres from the laneway building edge. The building is proposed to be setback a minimum of 1.9 metres, increasing to 2.86 metres with balconies encroaching. While the setback is not met, it is considered that the design will achieve a good degree of integration with Old Bakery Lane, with the proposed balconies activating this laneway by orienting dwellings towards it. The fourth and fifth storeys increase their setbacks from the rear, and as recommended by the design standards, would entail light weight materials and colours. The proposed site coverage is consistent with the built form found within the activity centre, and would be expected to be common element within a Business 1 Zone. The five storey height to the rear of the site is a departure from the single, double and three storey buildings found in proximity of the site, however, as discussed above, this massing towards the rear of the site is contemplated by the local policy found within DDO18. The five storey component of the building is highly articulated with varied



91

rear setbacks, along with the incorporation of balconies, structural architectural features and a mix of building materials breaking up the visual presentation of massing. The north and south side elevations are also well articulated through the use of architectural features, materials and fenestrations.

Street Setbacks: Existing conditions on the site result in the commercial building having a zero street setback to Mentone Parade. The proposal will entail a zero street setback on this frontage, which is appropriate with regard to the commercial nature of the street where all shops are built up to their respective lot boundary. As discussed above, within this locality a hard edge two storey element is encouraged, with a condition recommended that the two balconies oriented to the street for Dwelling’s 1 and 2 must be enclosed, and may entail operable windows, louvres or another treatment. The third floor meets the setbacks required by the DDO. As previously outlined, the street setbacks specified in DDO18 for Old Bakery Lane are not met at the third storey, however the setbacks are increased for the further two storeys above. Existing setbacks from the lane are varied, for this section of Old Bakery Lane between Florence Street to the north and Brindisi Street to the south, approximately half of the properties have zero lot setbacks, with the remainder of sites having car parking and outbuildings located to the rear of commercial buildings that are oriented to Mentone Parade. The proposed built form to the rear of the site would be consistent with the varied character of built form along the laneway.

Relationships to Adjoining Buildings:

The proposal will generally entail zero side setbacks to the north and south boundaries. This form of boundary to boundary development is mirrored on other lots in this shopping strip, where shared walls are a prevailing characteristic. To achieve adequate internal amenity to dwellings, light courts and balconies are proposed along parts of each of these elevations. Currently, development to the north and south abutting the site is single storey in form, however future development of these sites will need to take into consideration the location of light courts and balconies to ensure that amenity is not unreasonably compromised. As this proposal is the first of its kind it has taken advantage of opportunities to build to the boundary and provide balconies to its sides, in the absence of higher built form on abutting lots. In order to ameliorate any impacts on the potential to develop the abutting lots in the future, it is strongly recommended that the locations of several balconies are amended or setbacks increased from side boundaries in order to provide adequate access to daylight in the event that the adjoining lot is developed. These recommended changes will be discussed further under Element 5. It is noted that the development of the northern property (No. 105 Mentone Parade) would possibly require a consolidation of lots to achieve an adequate site width to provide appropriate setbacks from north facing balconies on the subject site. Given the relatively narrow lot at No. 105 Mentone Parade, this would most likely be encouraged for any further development regardless of what might be developed on the subject site. The commercial nature of the abutting lots is advantageous to the development in that any overshadowing caused by the development would not impact upon residential



92

private open spaces and any balconies/windows will not cause overlooking concerns to residential living or recreation areas. The orientation of the site makes it difficult to eliminate the overshadowing that will occur to commercial properties, particularly to the south. The impact on the public realm will be different throughout the day allowing for a balance of light and shade, consistent with the design principles of Clause 15.01-2.

Views to and from Residential Units: The proposal will entail the orientation of living areas and balconies to each street frontage, with a good degree of passive surveillance from balconies to the Mentone Parade frontage, and Old Bakery Lane to the rear, which will enhance both perceived and real safety outcomes in the immediate area. This approach is consistent with the safety and public realm objectives contained within the urban design principles of Clause 15.01-2. In order to improve these views, it is recommended that changes are made to the internal layouts of dwelling’s 13 and 15 to orient main living areas to Old Bakery Lane, where currently a master bedroom with balcony is proposed. As the site is located within a commercial precinct, overlooking from the proposal to residential properties is not a concern. The proposal does entail screening to balconies and some habitable rooms that are oriented to the north and south. Whilst overlooking is not a concern, the applicant has provided screening treatments in anticipation of future development of abutting sites. This is considered a satisfactory approach and will assist future development on the abutting sites.

Wind protection: Given the five (5) storey nature of the application, it is considered that the stepped building form and articulation applied to the external facades of the proposed development and building mass will assist in reducing wind turbulence at ground level. This is particularly the case with regard to Mentone Parade, where the building height would not be dissimilar to the existing building height on the site or on nearby sites.

Roof forms: The proposed flat roof design is considered to be in keeping with the contemporary style of the development and assists in minimising the overall building height. The type of roof form proposed is not considered atypical to other forms of development in the immediate commercial precinct. Element 3 - Street Pattern and Street-Edge Quality Aims to create walkable areas within a safe and interesting public setting and to closely integrate the layout and occupation patterns of new development with the street. This objective also encourages entrances with a strong identity. Entrances that provide a transition from the street to residential interiors by accentuating and identifying building entrances to provide good visual and physical connections between the street and lobby spaces. It is important to ensure that car parking does not dominate or detract from the streetscape. Front fences should respect and contribute to the neighbourhood character and avoid creating inactive frontages as a result of fencing private open spaces.



93

The shared infrastructure in higher density development, including circulation, parking and service spaces is important to ensure that buildings function well, are efficient and capable of being properly maintained. Street Pattern and Street Edge Integration: The existing street pattern and size of the lot will remain, with the proposal maintaining built form boundary to boundary, and the retention of shared walls to each abutting property. As previously discussed, the fine grain of the streetscape in Mentone Parade will be retained, with the commercial premises at ground floor providing continuity between the existing conditions and the proposed development. The proposal will also entail a pedestrian walkway connecting Mentone Parade and Old Bakery Lane which will enhance connectivity to the public car park at the rear. The Mentone Structure Plan seeks to address improving pedestrian links throughout the Centre, particularly in regard to Old Bakery Lane and Granary Lane. A permit condition is however recommended to provide security cameras within the walkway, which would also include cameras and security entry to the residential lobby. It is also recommended that the width of the pedestrian entry from Mentone Parade is decreased, so that it is no greater than 2 metres, with an increase to the shop front façade width, enhancing the commercial interface of the building at ground level. The ground floor treatment to the proposed building is not ideal, with the west façade largely taken up by roller shutters, the basement ramp and under croft car parking. As a way of improving the building’s street edge integration to Old Bakery Lane a permit condition is recommended to improve the design detail proposed to the two roller shutters, as well as potential surfacing treatment to add visual interest, and improving the pedestrian entry to the building to enhance its visibility.

Building Entries:

Pedestrian entries are proposed to the front of the building from Mentone Parade, and to the rear of the building for access from Old Bakery Lane. The entry from Mentone Parade is appropriately designed so as to signify a separate entry from the ground floor commercial tenancy, though the entry from the rear of the site is recommended to be improved. The door is recessed from the rear boundary, and an architectural feature on the boundary such as a portico treatment would enhance its legibility as a pedestrian entry to the building, along with addressing signage.

Element 4 - Circulation and Services Aims to provide adequate, safe and efficient car parking layouts, bicycle areas and pedestrian entries to buildings. Encourages the creation of shared living spaces that contribute positively to the experience of living in high density developments. This objective also aims to minimise running and maintenance costs and to minimise water use, collect and reuse stormwater where practical, use natural irrigation in landscaping and provide a clear method of refuse disposal. Parking Layout:



94

The proposed basement ramp is 3.6 metres wide, which will not allow for two way traffic, this is considered acceptable provided that convex mirrors are provided at appropriate locations within the basement and entry to the ramp to allow vehicles entering and exiting the site visibility of one another. A convex mirror located at the entry to the property will also enable vehicles exiting the site greater visibility of any pedestrians or vehicles using the laneway. The layout of the basement would provide seven (7) spaces within car stackers, and the remainder as standard car spaces. The specifications of the model of Klaus car stacker chosen would require a pit length of 5.4 metres, with the current dimension of 5.36 metres inadequate; this minor variation is recommended to be remedied by a permit condition. The remainder of car spaces are generally satisfactory, whilst it is noted that some spaces will require four vehicle movements to exit spaces – this is the case for spaces numbered 13-15 inclusive. This is not desirable; however the narrow width of the lot significantly restricts parking locations but will still enable the movement of vehicles in and out of spaces. Overall the dimensions of proposed car parking spaces are satisfactory subject to two minor amendments (increase the width of car space No. 4 to 2.9 metres and reduce car space No. 12 to 2.9 metres) where these spaces abut a wall. Accessway dimensions are also satisfactory. The sufficiency of the number of car parking spaces proposed will be discussed further below in this report. The extent of the mechanical plant room which abuts car spaces numbered 13 and 14 is recommended to be reduced in size. It has been clarified with the applicant’s designer that the space allocated to the plant is larger than what would most likely be required. A greater separation between the door to the plant room and the abutting car space is recommended to better enable access and any movement of equipment that may be required.

Within the basement, locations are nominated for storage cages, bicycle racks and bins. The areas of each are adequate and accessible for their nominated use. At ground floor two (2) car spaces are proposed for the commercial tenancy. The Traffic Report submitted by the applicant has recommended that the eastern most car space length is increased from 4.9 metres to 5.4 metres to ensure that one vehicle does not overhang the other which will be required by a permit condition. This parking area is also proposed to be a shared loading bay – in addition to the internal loading bay. The appropriateness of this arrangement will be discussed further below in this report.

Signage and way finding measures will be required to direct traffic and denote the allocation of car spaces; this can be required by a permit condition. Overall, subject to conditions the layout of car parking areas is considered adequate.

Circulation Spaces:



95

The shared spaces within the building have been designed in accordance with the suggestions outlined in the guidelines. Hallway widths, stairwells and the proposed lift are considered sufficient for the movement of furniture etc.

Site Services: It is considered that due consideration has been given to the service operations necessary for a development of this nature. Adequate provision has been made for refuse collection, mail delivery, emergency services access, etc. It is recommended that mailboxes are relocated to the residential lobby of the building, rather than the pedestrian walkway which will also be used by the general public. A detailed Waste Management Plan (WMP) has not been submitted for review; however the plans have been amended in line with referral comments provided by Council’s Waste Management Department to provide fifteen 240 litre bins comprised of 5 general waste bins and 10 recycling bins. It is recommended that a WMP be required by a permit condition to detail how waste will be managed on the site, with a preference that if possible, Council collection services are used. If this option is not viable, details must be provided for private collection.

A permit condition is recommended requiring the provision of external clotheslines to balconies wherever possible – ensuring that these can be appropriately screened and folded away when not needed.

Element 5 - Building Layout and Design The objective aims to provide a range of dwelling sizes and types in higher density residential developments, to optimise the layout of buildings in response to occupants’ needs as well as identified external influences and characteristics of a site and to promote buildings of high architectural quality and visual interest. The objective also identifies the need to provide adequate storage space for household needs, to ensure that a good standard of natural lighting and ventilation is provided to internal building spaces.

Dwelling Diversity: The dwellings are a mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms, providing for some diversity of households, within an apartment style format. All the dwellings are provided with lift access, and are therefore suitable for persons with limited mobility.

Building Layout: Dwellings are provided with adequate dimensions and at times generous bedrooms to accommodate furniture, providing useable and comfortable living spaces. Dwellings are also provided with storage/linen cupboards, with external storage cages in the basement of 6 cubic metres adding to the area of storage available for each dwelling. Each bedroom would also contain built in robes. The internal spaces and extent of storage available to each dwelling is deemed satisfactory, contributing to a good degree of internal amenity achieved to dwelling. The orientation of dwellings to the site’s rear and front boundaries generally allows for good access to daylight to dwellings and balcony areas. Whilst the site’s east-west orientation presents a 55 metre north facing sideage, the building will be built up to



96

the boundary, and the provision of windows on either the north or south boundaries would not be supported. Light courts and balconies are therefore relied on to provide daylight to habitable rooms. The majority of bedrooms will be reliant on light courts, with the exception of dwelling 15 where the master bedroom will have access to a balcony oriented to the west. Light courts are generally provided with a minimum dimension of 1 metre and overall area of 3 square metres, with many exceeding these dimensions (with the exception of dwelling 4 discussed below). While Clause 55 (ResCode) is not applicable to this development it can be used as a guide to assess amenity impacts and in this instance daylight achieved to habitable room windows would satisfy Clause 55.05-3 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, or can do so subject to conditions. Dwellings that are most impacted with regard to daylight access are centrally located within the building on the first and second floors – dwelling’s 3, 4, 9 and 10. Clerestory windows are recommended to dwelling’s 9 and 10 at the second floor which will improve access to daylight to each, particularly where northern sunlight can be provided. This will leave two apartments at the first floor, (one of which would be south facing) with a reliance on light courts and balconies to side boundaries to all habitable rooms. The balcony proposed for the south oriented dwelling 4 has not been dimensioned, however would appear to have a minimum depth of 1.7 metres increasing to 2 metres and an overall area of 8.7 square metres. The light court provided to the master bedroom has a minimum dimension of approximately 700mm, increasing to 1 metre. It is considered that the balcony is of a sufficient dimension to allow access to daylight, with the balcony above recessed from the boundary by 900mm. The balcony would also abut a light court to its west so that it is not enclosed by walls on both sides. The proposed light court to the master bedroom is recommended to be increased to have a minimum 1 metre depth. Dwelling 3 is a similar scenario, however the balcony and light court are north facing and the balcony would have a minimum depth of 2.4 metres. The balcony of dwelling 9 would also overhang this balcony, but would be recessed 900mm. It is recommended that the current balcony locations for dwelling’s 9 and 10 are deleted, with these areas to remain as voids to allow adequate solar access for the balconies of dwelling’s 3 and 4 below. It is recommended that the second bedroom of dwelling’s 9 and 10 are deleted, with balconies provided in these locations. This will ensure that the first floor balconies will receive adequate solar access and will also aid the capacity of the abutting north and south lots to be further developed in the future.

The provision of clerestory windows to dwelling’s 16 and 7, and recommended clerestory windows to dwelling’s 9 and 10 will also improve overall internal amenity achieved.

An Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Report was submitted which has provided an assessment of the development. The report utilised the Moreland STEPS assessment and First Rate 5 assessment, concluding that the dwellings will achieve an average star rating of 8, with the lowest rated dwelling being dwelling 4 with a rate of 7.4 stars. These ratings exceed building requirements, however the measures identified within the report to achieve high ratings are not reflected on the plans – such as clotheslines and nominating what water tanks will be used for. This is recommended to be rectified by a permit condition. This approach is also considered to be in keeping with the energy and resource efficiency design principles contained with Clause 15.01-2 which promote more efficient use of resources and energy within buildings.



97

Design Detail: The building design proposed has addressed the long and narrow character of the site, providing good articulation to all elevations, including those to the north and south which may over time be obscured by development on abutting lots when/if they are further developed. The design will provide well integrated frontages to Mentone Parade and Old Bakery Lane. Subject to a condition to enclose the first floor east facing balconies of dwelling’s 1 and 2, this will provide a two storey hard edge to the street, enhancing the commercial presentation within the streetscape and complimenting the existing relatively low scale village character within Mentone Parade. Similarly, the orientation of balconies at upper levels to Old Bakery Lane are a good response to activate the laneway, providing important views between the public and private realm – including towards the Council owned public car park beyond the laneway. As has been previously discussed, the design detail at ground floor presenting to Old Bakery Lane requires improvements to activate this frontage at a pedestrian eye level. This will entail a more prominent pedestrian entry and a design feature to the roller shutter of the shop. The stepping in of balconies to the upper floors, with varied materials and architectural features incorporated into facades helps to break up the presentation of visual mass presenting to each respective street/laneway interface. The north and south elevations are highly articulated through the use of vertical elements such as feature columns and slats to the south elevation of the stairwell combined with bold architectural features such as a curved aluminium frame and textured concrete panels to provide for a visually interesting built form. These elements successfully break up massing presenting on these long façades. A fully detailed colour and materials schedule, including samples, is recommended to be provided by way of a permit condition with an encouragement for the use of light colour tones. The current materials schedule and elevations have not fully detailed materials and colours that would be employed, generally it would appear that lighter weight colours and materials would be used, however a condition can further clarify this. Element 6 - Open Space and Landscape Design New developments should contribute to the creation of private and public open spaces that are accessible, attractive, safe and comfortable for their users and to allow solar access to the private and shared open spaces of new high density residential units. New developments should integrate the design of shared and private open space into the overall building design and facade composition and to provide greenery for open spaces. In areas of higher residential development, residents and visitors will rely in part on public open space for relaxation, recreation and meeting places, therefore, access to adequate and safe public open spaces is essential for the well being of the whole community. Public open spaces need to be appropriate to the context of the development.



98

Private and Communal Open Space:

Each dwelling is provided with private open space in the form of a balcony. Dimensions vary between dwellings, with the majority exceeding the minimum required depth of 1.6 metres and total area of 8 square metres, with the exception of Dwelling 9. All proposed balconies are accessed from living areas. Whilst Clause 55 (ResCode) is not applicable to residential developments of four or more storeys, it provides a helpful benchmark to assess the adequacy of proposed balconies. The areas of private open space proposed are consistent with those required under Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Planning Scheme and generally exceed the requirements of ResCode, with the exception of Dwelling 9 – with a recommendation that this balcony is increased from 7.6 square metres to a minimum of 8 square metres by increasing its length. Where some balconies are proposed to be provided with a depth of 1.6 metres, it is recommended that minimum depths are increased to 1.8 metres to ensure that these areas are useable and have an adequate degree of amenity, with the exception of dwelling 9. The 1.6 metre width is considered adequate for dwelling 9 with regard to the balcony located below for dwelling 3. In order to maximise access to light, the balcony above to dwelling 9 should be recessed from the boundary line. Another recommended condition is that where any external air-conditioning/heating units are proposed to balconies that these are screened from view and located outside of the main useable areas of private open space. The proposed extent of site coverage does not allow for landscaped areas as ground level, however planter boxes are proposed to some balconies at the first and second floors, with two of these balconies oriented to the Mentone Parade frontage. At the ground floor planting is shown along part of the southern boundary of the pedestrian path; however this will not have access to daylight and plans should be amended to remove this landscaping. It is recommended that the external pathway is provided with permeable paving to decrease stormwater run off from the site.

12.3 Car Parking & Traffic

Under the provisions of Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the following car parking rates are applicable to the proposed development:

2 car parking spaces for each dwelling – 2 x 16 dwellings = 32 spaces Shop – 8 car spaces per 100 square metres of leasable floor area = 33 spaces

It is proposed to provide a total of eighteen (18) car spaces – allocating one (1) car

space to each dwelling, located within the basement, and two (2) car spaces for the shop at ground floor. It is noted that current conditions on the site do not provide customer car parking for the two existing shops.

Both State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks outline a goal for reducing reliance on car use as a significant strategy for providing for sustainable growth. As part of this goal, policies seek to encourage the location of residential and commercial



99

development within activity centres, which are able to support lesser rates of on-site parking provision due to the availability of public transport. Mixed use development within these areas support local populations being able to both live and work within their neighbourhood, and thus further reduce reliance on car travel. Another element of achieving a reduction in car reliance depends upon behavioural change to encourage the uptake of alternative modes of travel. It is considered that where developments are appropriately located, with good access to public transport, that a reduction in on-site car parking can encourage residents, visitors and staff to seek alternatives to car use. It is accepted that the parking rates specified within ResCode provide a better benchmark of parking requirements for developments of four or more storeys. The application of ResCode parking rates in these circumstances is accepted by Councils and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), and more accurately reflects the smaller households which generally occupy apartment style developments. This approach is also consistent with the Advisory Committee Report (dated August, 2007) for the Review of Parking Provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions (Clause 52.06) which has recommended that Clause 52.06 is amended to adopt ResCode residential parking rates. In this instance the proposal would meet the requirement to provide all dwellings with one (1) car space. The application does not provide any visitor car parking. If Clause 55 were to be used as a benchmark, 3 visitor spaces would be required. The proposal has sought to rely upon the availability of on-street parking and the public car park located to the rear of the site to provide both visitor car parking and customer car parking. A traffic report prepared by O’Brien Traffic, dated 15 April 2011 was submitted with the application. An inventory of parking within 250 metres walking distance of the site found approximately 285 car spaces. The report has provided details of parking surveys that were conducted earlier this year on Tuesday 8 February at 12.30pm, Friday 11 February at 6pm and Saturday 12 February at 11am. The parking surveys found vacancy rates varying between 22% and 65%, with greater availability after business hours, which are generally the times where visitation rates to dwellings are higher. The availability of on and off-street parking, particularly with regard to the public car park to the rear of the site, is able to meet the needs of visitors to the site. Similarly, the proposed car parking reduction in relation to the shop is considered satisfactory. The current shop does not provide customer parking, with customers of the green grocers using on-street parking or the public car park off Old Bakery Lane. This continued arrangement will meet the likely parking demand generated by the proposal. The traffic report provided information relating to surveys of shops undertaken by O’Briens, which showed a typical peak parking demand of 3-4 spaces per 100 square metres, compared to the rate of 8 per 100 square metres specified by Clause 52.06. This would equate to a requirement for the subject site of 13 spaces, with typically 20% required for staffing (2.6 spaces). The provision of two car spaces to the rear of the site for this purpose is deemed suitable for the likely number of staff members for the shop. As outlined above, the continued arrangement of not providing customer car parking onsite is satisfactory, with adequate car parking available nearby.



100

Council’s Traffic Engineers expressed concerns regarding the provision of car stackers within the basement, and no customer parking provided on the subject site. For the reasons outlined above, as a continued condition, reliance on off-site parking for customers is considered appropriate. In relation to the car stackers, concerns appear to primarily relate to issues around maintenance and servicing. It is noted that stackers are becoming a common occurrence, with Council approving developments which have sought to provide all or a percentage of car parking within stackers. As with any mechanical equipment within a development, requirements for service and maintenance are matters to be dealt with by residents and owners corporations. The low number of dwellings and cars for the development, in combination with an increased likelihood of residents using public transport for daily trips to work, all amount to a probable small number of trips generated. The traffic report has estimated the shop and dwellings generating up to 10 trips to/from the site in any hour, with up to 8 trips in each of the morning and evening peak travel hours. This level of traffic is quite moderate and able to be absorbed within the local road network.

12.4 Vehicle Loading & Unloading It is proposed to provide a small loading bay within the rear of the shop which does not satisfy the dimensions specified within Clause 52.07. Plans also indicate a shared parking and loading area towards the rear of the site. It is proposed that the shop at ground level will continue to be used by a green grocer, with deliveries to the site usually performed by small vans. The use of the internal loading bay would also impinge on the two car parking spaces, however as the allocation of parking is to the shop it is considered a manageable arrangement and can be planned for on the days that deliveries take place. Council’s Traffic Engineers did not object to the proposed reduction of the loading requirements.

12.5 Bicycle Facilities It is proposed to provide eighteen (18) bicycle spaces within the basement exceeding the requirement to provide four (4) resident spaces and one (1) visitor space. The proposal would provide a minimum of one to each dwelling and two for visitors and is considered a good outcome.


subject to the adoption of the recommended permit conditions to ensure that the proposed development achieves a high quality design, achieves good internal amenity as well as responding appropriately to the site and its immediate interfaces.




101


Suitability of the site for higher density mixed use development having regard to the policy context and applicable planning provisions;

In general, acceptability of the built form of the proposed development, specifically in regard to height;

Consideration of any external amenity impacts; Adequacy of internal amenity subject to conditions; Consideration of the provision of car parking (to dwellings and shop) and

traffic related matters, subject to conditions; The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning

Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Business 1 Zone, the relevant Particular Provisions and Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).



ATTACHMENT 1 - RECOMMENDATION

That a Planning Permit be issued to develop the land for the construction of sixteen (16) dwellings and a shop with a reduction in the car parking requirement of Clause 52.06 and reduction of the loading requirements of Clause 52.07 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 5 October 2011, but modified to show:

a) the provision of a notation on the plans stating: “Footpath along Mentone Parade and carriageway at the rear of the property must be reinstated to Council’s standard and satisfaction. Contact Road and Drains Department for reinstatement treatment details”;

b) the basement ramp longitudinal section with grades and apex at a minimum of 16.9 to Australian Height Datum, or alternative engineering solution, as otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority;

c) the provision of rainwater tank/s with a capacity relative to the size of the roofs nominated for water re-use for toilet flushing;

d) the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated, with a variation in materials between the two driveways;

e) the provision of permeable paving to the pedestrian path extending from the rear of the building to the rear (west) boundary;

f) a portico or alternative treatment at the rear (west) boundary to the pedestrian path, providing a more prominent and visible pedestrian entry at the property boundary;

g) the easternmost ground floor car space increased in length to 5.4 metres;

h) plans to nominate the fencing treatment on the southern boundary to the rear of the building;

i) the provision of a roller shutter grille and intercom secure entry at the car park entry;

j) treatment to the roller shutter to the shop to provide visual interest, this may be in the form of painted artwork or materials or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority;

k) full details regarding the type of car stacker system/s to be clearly specified on the basement floor plans, with access to be provided for the 85th percentile design vehicle as defined in AS2890.11-2004;

l) car space No. 4 increased to 2.9 metres width and car space No. 12 decreased to 2.9 metres width;

m) a reduction of the mechanical plant room, with bollards to its sides to clearly delineate and maintain pedestrian access to its entry;

n) the locations of convex mirrors at the start and end of the basement ramp to enable clear sightlines of pedestrians and other vehicles in accordance with AS 2890.1:2004 Figure 3.3 Minimum Sight Lines For Pedestrian Safety;

o) dimensions of storage areas and allocations to each dwelling;

p) the first floor balconies of dwelling’s 1 and 8 either enclosed with operable windows or provided with screening treatments to provide a hard street edge to Mentone Parade;

q) dwelling’s 9 and 10 each provided with clerestory windows;

r) the light court to the master bedroom of dwelling 4 provided with a minimum dimension of 1 metre;

s) the balcony of dwelling 9 increased to a minimum of 8 square metres, with the 900mm setback from the north boundary retained;

t) the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples, for all external elevations and driveways of the development with light colour tones where appropriate to be predominantly selected for the external facades of the building to increase heat reflection from those surfaces most exposed to heat loads, and where possible, the selection of applied finishes to the building’s façade to be of heat resistant properties;

u) the location of any external heating/cooling units, plant equipment, lift overruns and clothes drying facilities clearly shown, with these suitably screened and where located on balcony areas must have minimal interruptions to the useability of that area;

v) relocate mailboxes within the residential lobby;

w) security cameras within the pedestrian walkway and a secure intercom entry to the residential lobby;

x) the pedestrian entry from Mentone Parade reduced in width to be no greater than 2 metres, with the shop front façade increased accordingly;

y) the conversion of the second bedroom in Dwelling 9 into a terrace with the deletion of the current balcony for this dwelling;

z) the conversion of the meals area of Dwelling 10 into a terrace, with the deletion of the current balcony for this dwelling;

aa) dwelling 13 reduced in size to ensure that no built form protrudes great than 0.5 metres into the space occupied by a terrace or balcony below, and reconfigured (if necessary) to orientate the main living areas and balcony towards Old Bakery Lane. The balcony to achieve a minimum of 8 square metres;

bb) dwelling 15 reduced in size to ensure that no built form protrudes great than 0.5 metres into the space occupied by a terrace or balcony below, and reconfigured (if necessary) to orientate the main living areas and balcony towards Old Bakery Lane. The balcony to achieve a minimum of 8 square metres; and

cc) measures identified within the ESD Report prepared by Efficient Energy Choices dated 28 February 2011.

2. The development and use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to the endorsement of Plans pursuant to Condition 1 of this Permit, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include but is not limited to:

a. The supply of bins for both ‘general waste’ and ‘recyclable waste’ and demonstrating how the garbage and recycling aspects of the development will operate, including minimisation of bin numbers where possible to increase collection efficiency;

b. The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size and number of containers and procedure(s) put in place as to how tenants/occupiers are required to dispose of waste;

c. Spatial provision for on-site storage;

d. Private contractor details; and

e. The size of the collection vehicle and the frequency, time and point of collection, with waste collection to occur with minimal interference to pedestrian amenity.

The waste management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The waste management plan must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but not limited to, the following:

a. a detailed schedule of works which includes full project timing including right of way works and any footpath works;

b. full details of any proposed construction hoarding locations, temporary footpath closures, proposed public safety signage and any proposed crane location positions external to the subject land;

c. a full traffic management plan which is approved by VicRoads and details all proposed local or main road partial or full closures, locations as to how concrete pours will be managed including vehicle storage locations and all required temporary signage and suggested locations;

d. all proposed locations for how materials will be stored on and if permitted off site including site sheds and facilities;

e. the location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles during construction;

f. full details as to the location and means in which loading/unloading of materials will occur;

g. the means in which construction waste / waste materials will be managed both on and from the site;

h. the means in which dust will be suppressed during construction i. business operations on the site during construction; j. site security; and k. construction times, noise and vibration controls.

5. An apex (ie. hump) to a minimum level of 16.9 AHD must be provided to fully protect the proposed entrance to the basement car park from overland flows or implement an alternative engineering solution of major flooding, approved by the Council. This apex is to continue through any driveways or pathways that may cross it. The apex is to be a permanent structure (eg. Hump in concrete driveway/pathway, sleeper retaining wall, solid brick fence/wall). Low mounded soli on its own is unlikely to be acceptable due to the likelihood of future disturbance.

6. The footpath along Mentone Parade and carriageway located at the rear of the property must be reinstated to Council’s standard and satisfaction.

7. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council’s Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the sue of an infiltration or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connect for reuse and a detention system.

8. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).

9. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.

10. The footpath, carriageway and property boundary levels are not to be altered.

11. The obscure glazing to balconies shown on the endorsed plans must be through frosted glass or similarly treated glass, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Adhesive film or the like that can be removed must not be used.

12. All fixed external screening to prevent overlooking marked on the endorsed plans shall be maintained by the owner of the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the

Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.


a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



15. Any changes to external boundary fencing required for under this development shall be constructed at the cost of the owner of No. 101-103 Mentone Parade, Mentone to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


18. Service units, including air conditioning/heating units, must not be located where they will be visible from any public area.

19. Any changes to external boundary fencing required for under this development shall be constructed at the cost of the owner of No. 101-103 Mentone Parade, Mentone to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. The development must be provided with lighting capable of illuminating access to each car parking space, bicycle parking space, store, rubbish bin, recycling bin, pedestrian walkways, stairwells, lift, dwelling entrances and entry foyer. Lighting must be located, directed, shielded and of limited intensity so that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.









Note: Except where no permit is required under the provisions of the Planning Scheme, no sign, flashing or intermittent lights, bunting or advertising device may be erected or displayed on the land without the permission of the Responsible Authority.

Prior to the erection of any advertising signs on the land, consultation should be made with officers of the Town Planning Department to determine the relevant Planning Scheme Controls.

OR In the event that Council wishes to oppose the application, it can do so using the following grounds:

1. The inadequate provision of car parking fails to meet the objectives of Clause 52.06 and the objective and strategies of Clause 18.02-5 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, which will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

2. The proposal fails to provide an acceptable level of internal amenity, through the lack of daylight to balconies and habitable rooms.

3. The proposal fails to take into account future development on adjoining lots and therefore prejudices any future development on these sites.



102

N 217 36-40 Jean Street, Cheltenham – Planning Permit Application No. KP325/11

APPLICANT Beyprop Pty Ltd c/- Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND No. 36-40 (Lots 38, 39 & 40 on PS007711) Jean Street,

Cheltenham 3192 PROPOSAL Develop the land to construct thirty (30) dwellings PLANNING OFFICER Tanya Sokolowski REFERENCE NO. KP325/2011 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 11: Settlement Clause 15: Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16: Housing


Clause 21.05: MSS – Residential Land Use Clause 22.01: Cheltenham Business Centre Policy Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

ZONE Clause 32.01: Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) OVERLAYS None applicable PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot &

Residential Buildings GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA

Increased Housing Diversity


No

DECISION DATE BY 2 October 2011 STATUTORY DAYS 111 days at 22 November 2011 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

5 August, 2011


Neighbourhood character Integration with the street and front fences Parking provision Private open space

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwellings and associated outbuildings on this

site and construct a three-storey high residential building containing thirty (30) dwellings with basement car parking. A total of thirty five (35) car spaces are proposed, comprised of 30 allocated to residents and 5 allocated to visitors.



103

2.2 The building would be split into two separate masses with their length oriented on a

north/south axis, connected by central communal pathways/elevated walkways in which a stairwell and lift would be located. The total proposed building height is 10.05 metres. On the ground floor would be 11 dwellings, on the first floor 10 dwellings and on the second floor 9 dwellings. All dwellings will comprise two (2) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms and open plan living and kitchen areas.

2.3 The basement would be accessed from a crossover located approximately 13 metres

from the southern site boundary and 26.2 metres from the northern site boundary. Located in the basement are thirty five (35) car spaces, storage areas for each dwelling, two (2) locations nominated for bin storage, a lift and a stairwell.

2.4 A central ground floor courtyard area is proposed between the two buildings, in which

ten (10) bicycle racks would be located.


Dwelling Floor Area m2(excluding garage / verandah)

Private Open Space (m2)

No. of Bedrooms proposed


1 85 117 2 1 2 84 43 2 1 3 85 44 2 1 4 98 26 2 1 5 85 113 2 1 6 85 131 2 1 7 84 59 3 1 8 84 59 2 1 9 84 59 2 1 10 84 59 2 1 11 85 130 2 1 12 85 19 2 1 13 84 11 2 1 14 84 10 2 1 15 84 11 2 1 16 85 19 2 1 17 75 22 2 1 18 74 10 2 1 19 74 13 2 1 20 74 10 2 1 21 75 22 2 1 22 75 30 2 1 23 74 21 2 1 24 74 21 2 1 25 74 22 2 1 26 75 30 2 1



104

Dwelling Floor Area m2(excluding garage / verandah)

Private Open Space (m2)

No. of Bedrooms proposed


27 75 26 2 1 28 74 12 2 1 29 74 12 2 1 30 75 26 2 1

2.6 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 53% percent and a permeability

percentage of 39%. 2.7 Development Assessment Table: Criteria ResCode Requirement Proposed Development Provision Private Open Space

An area of 40m2, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 25m2, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room or a balcony area of 8m2 with a minimum dimension of 1.6 metres.

Complies, with the exception of the ground level private open space for Dwelling 4 where 26m2 is proposed whereas a minimum area of 40m2 is required. Balconies to upper floors either meet or exceed the minimum requirement for 8 square metres. See report for further discussion.

Car Parking One (1) car parking space for each one (1) or two (2)bedroom dwelling and two (2) car parking spaces for each three (3) or more bedroom dwelling, with one (1) space under cover. One (1) visitor car

parking space is required for every five (5) dwellings.

Does not comply. A total of thirty-six (36) on-site car parking spaces are required for the proposal, given that one (1) car parking space is required each of the proposed dwellings and one (1) visitor car parking space is required for every five (5) dwellings. The development proposes to provide thirty-five (35) on-site car parking spaces at a basement level.

Front Setback The average distance of the setbacks of the front walls of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Complies. The minimum front setback of the proposed residential building is 10.18 metres (balconies encroaching), which generously exceeds the average of 7.79m of adjoining setbacks.

Site Coverage Maximum 60% - as per ResCode.

Site coverage is 53% and therefore complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

2.8 The proposed building materials, colours and finishes for the proposed development

are summarised in the table below: Roof: Not specified (flat roof proposed). Walls: Rendered brick work in Dulux “Western Myall” for main external walls and

rendered brick work in Dulux “Grey Pebble” for the balcony areas. Weather groove vertical panels are also proposed to be incorporated in the external elevation of the proposed development. Stone wall feature to be incorporated into the front façade of the proposed building. A combination of colours and tones are proposed.



105

Garage doors Not specified for the proposed basement car parking area. Windows: Aluminium powder coated frames (Dulux “Precious Steel Pearl Satin”). Driveways: Concrete for the basement ramp and access (charcoal colour). Front fencing: A maximum 2.0 metre high fence is proposed to be constructed within the

front setback of the proposed dwellings to front Jean Street so as to enclose their private open space areas.

Boundary fences: All timber paling fencing along the site’s north-west (side), north-east (rear) and south-east (side) property boundaries would be retained or replaced as necessary.

3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject site comprises three (3) allotments on the north-east side of Jean Street,

Cheltenham, with a combined land area of 2411m2. The site is regular in shape and features a total street frontage width of 45.72 metres and a depth of 53.92 metres. The topography of the subject land is relatively flat and no easements are contained within the subject site.

3.2 Three (3) single-storey dwellings and associated outbuildings exist on the subject site with independent vehicle access available from Jean Street. A number of established trees are located throughout the subject site and are predominantly located within the rear private open space area of each existing dwelling. A large street tree is located to the front of No. 38 Jean Street.

3.3 Adjoining the subject land to its north-west is a three (3), single storey, unit development (No. 42 Jean Street). Abutting the site to its rear (north-east) is a three (3) storey residential development (No. 1 Garfield Street), a double storey, attached form, residential development (No. 1A Garfield Street) and a single storey unit development (No. 3 Garfield Street). Land adjoining the site to the south-east contains a single storey brick veneer dwelling.

3.4 The surrounding area typically comprises of a combination of older housing stock comprising single dwellings on single allotments and more recent examples of contemporary medium density housing, including the properties directly to the rear (north-east) fronting Garfield Street. The architectural style and built form of existing residential development in the surrounding area is varied, however, the majority of dwellings feature front setbacks of at least 5 metres with reasonable side building setbacks. Most existing dwellings are of single-storey or double-storey construction. There is no predominant fencing style in the neighbourhood.

3.5 The subject site is located within close proximity to Southland Shopping Centre (approximately 100 metres to the north), an established public transport route along Nepean Highway to the north-east, local schools and public reserves.

4.0 TITLE DETAILS



106

4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there are no restrictive covenants on any of the respective titles.

5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone and is not subject to any

overlay controls. 6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is

required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. 7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 7.1 A number of recent planning applications have been made in relation to the subject

land, namely: Planning Application No. KP752/2009 was refused by the City of Kingston in

July, 2010 for the development of the land to construct thirty-two (32) dwellings. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 22 October, 2010, in Beyprop Pty Ltd v Kingston City Council [2010] VCAT 1717, whereby it was directed that a permit must not be granted for this application. In the Tribunal’s written order, Member Rundell acknowledged that that the site was suitable for a more intense, ‘apartment style’ development: “I think that assembling three lots to create a development site of approximately 2400 square metres is a special opportunity to insert an apartment building into the lower scale streetscape in a manner that does not look discordant or uncomfortable. A larger site offers opportunities to provide setbacks, introduce articulation, and variance in the built form and soften a development with larger canopy landscaping”. Whilst the context of the site was deemed suitable for medium density development the design did not provide adequate consideration of on-site and off-site amenity impacts. The primary grounds of refusal related to the proposal presenting an unreasonable degree of visual bulk and massing to adjoining properties to the site’s sides, poor internal amenity with regard to bedrooms relying on light wells and mechanical ventilation, and poor solar access to south facing private open spaces and dwellings. Member Rundell stated that the design’s visual bulk was exacerbated by extensive screening and balustrade heights that were incorporated to prevent overlooking.

Planning Permit No. KP726/04 was issued by the City of Kingston on 6 April, 2005, for the development of the land at No. 38-40 Jean Street, Cheltenham, for ten (10) dwellings.



107

Planning Application No. KP221/03 was refused by the City of Kingston on 24 September, 2003, for the development of the site at No. 38-40 Jean Street, Cheltenham for twelve (12) dwellings. Council’s decision was upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 4 March, 2004, whereby it was directed that a permit must not be granted for this application. The main grounds of refusal primarily related to overdevelopment of the site evidenced by excessive screening, poor private open spaces and the proposal presenting an inappropriate response to the site’s context.

8.0 ADVERTISING

8.1 Prior to advertising, the Permit Applicant submitted revised plans on 5 August, 2011

pursuant to Section 50 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, that sought to address the initial design matters outlined within the Planning Officer’s further information letter. It is these revised plans that formed part of the advertising documentation and constitute the considered plans in the determination of this application.

8.2 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property

owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Twenty four (24) objections to the proposal were received. The grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:

Overshadowing; Neighbourhood character; Overdevelopment of the site; Car parking and traffic concerns; Overlooking; Impact on existing infrastructure.


Precedence for future development.

8.4 No further amendments were made to the application after the public notification

process. 9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 9.1 A preliminary conference was held on 29 September, 2011, with the relevant Planning

Officer, Permit Applicant and fifteen (15) objectors in attendance. 9.2 The above concerns were discussed at length, however, no resolution was reached.

No objections have been withdrawn since this meeting. 10.0 REFERRALS

10.1 The following internal Council referral departments were notified:



108

Council’s Development Engineer advised of no objections subject to conditions

including standard drainage conditions and the incorporation of water sensitive urban design principles.

Council’s Roads & Drains Department provided conditions to be included on any permit issued relating to reinstatement requirements for footpath, kerb and channel and conditions requiring no alteration of footpath levels.

Council’s Traffic Engineering Department advised of no objection, noting that the provision of car parking was satisfactory.

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer advised of no objection with the inclusion of a requirement to provide an updated landscaping plan and the incorporation of a tree protection zone to the Yellow Gum located within the front setback of the subject site at No. 40 Jean Street, Cheltenham.

Council’s Strategic Planning Department (Urban Design) advised of no objection and provided feedback on design detail that required further consideration including the front fence treatment.

Council’s Waste Management Coordinator advised of no objection and required a condition to be included to provide for a Waste Management Plan.

Council’s Sustainable Development Officer provided comments regarding the STEPS assessment and requested more detail to substantiate statements or scores achieved in the STEPS assessment.

Council’s Street Trees Coordinator advised of no objection to the proposal provided that a minimum of 3 metres setback is shown between the street tree and proposed crossover, and conditions are included to provide a tree protection barrier prior to any site works.


Clause 11 (Settlement) Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) Clause 16 (Housing)

11.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) Clause 22.01 (Cheltenham Business Centre Policy) Clause 22.11 (Residential Development Policy)




Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)



109

11.5 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause

21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF).

The land is located within Area No. 31 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the preferred character of the area in line with Council’s Cheltenham Business Centre Policy under Clause 22.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. No “critical” or “major characteristics” have been identified within this profile area.

11.6 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy).


suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character.

It is considered that the proposed development generally accords with these guidelines (where applicable) in this instance.


The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing). Essentially, the provisions within these clauses seek to achieve the fundamental objectives and policy outcomes sought by the Metropolitan Strategy – ‘Melbourne 2030’ and its recent update ‘Melbourne @ 5 Million’, which have been removed from an individual clause and integrated throughout the State Planning Policy Framework. It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. The development itself achieves an acceptable design outcome for the site and its immediate abuttals, whilst enjoying convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including public transport nodes.



The subject land is identified within an Increased Housing Diversity area.



110

The intention in these areas is for new medium density housing to comprise of a variety of housing types and layouts that respond to the established, yet evolving, urban character. As these residential areas are already established, the design of any new medium density housing proposal should display sensitivity to the existing residential context and respond to the amenity standards in these areas. The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include: Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the

municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change.







Promote increased housing diversity in residential areas that are within convenient walking distance of public transport and activity notes (increased housing diversity areas). Such areas will accommodate a variety of medium density housing types and layouts at increased residential densities, responding to the established but evolving neighbourhood character.





Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, waste and recycling, and stormwater management.



111




Ensure that the siting and design of new residential development is consistent with Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and that new development contributes to the maintenance and upgrade of local drainage infrastructure as required, where such new development will impact on the capacity of such infrastructure.



It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character, and the broader local neighbourhood character. Further discussion regarding these items will be outlined later within this report.

12.3 Clause 22.01 - Cheltenham Business Centre Policy

The subject site is located within Area J (Medium Density Residential Precinct) under the Cheltenham Business Framework Plan. Medium Density Residential Precinct The key policies relating to new development within this precinct (where relevant), are as follows: Medium density residential development be encouraged with a mixture of

accommodation types and building scales. Development optimises site utilisation, is innovative, responsive to its streetscape

context and incorporates the following design features: o A high level of articulation in building setbacks, facades and roof lines. o Open landscaped front gardens. o Low or transparent front fencing styles.



112

Where site consolidation is proposed, the following design responses may be supported where the amenity of adjoining properties will not be significantly reduced: o Multi-level buildings (up to a maximum of two storey plus attic, giving three

levels). o Construction of single storey walls on side boundaries. o Flexibility in the size and layout of private open space. o Reduction in street frontage setbacks.

The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the above policies relating to articulation and landscaping. With the consolidation of three (3) sites, the proposed development has taken the opportunity to provide greater building setbacks from each property boundary including a minimum 10.2 metres setback from Jean Street. The proposal does entail high front fencing to enclose private open spaces, which is contrary to the policy’s encouragement for low or transparent fencing. The proposed development also seeks to incorporate a third storey element in the form of a full level, rather than an attic style as suggested in the policy. However, the proposed third floor level is provided with increased side and rear setbacks. While considered a conventional storey (as opposed to an attic style), it is considered that the setbacks and articulation proposed to the third floor level are appropriate and in this instance, with the setbacks proposed limiting the visual impact to adjoining properties and the street. In the previous VCAT decision relating to this site. Member Rundell noted that a three storey development is appropriate given proximity to Southland and strategic directions for increased housing diversity in this area.


As outlined previously, the proposal is considered to generally comply and satisfy the applicable Local Planning Policy Framework, which essentially aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. Where a planning permit is required for residential development, where relevant, it is policy under Clause 22.11 to: Encourage all new residential development to respond positively and creatively







113
























114





The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone specifies variations to one (1) standard under Clause 55 (ResCode), namely:

Standard B32 – Front Fences: The local variation requires a front fence within 3 metres of a street must not exceed 2 metres in height for streets in a Road Zone – Category 1 or 1.2 metres in height for any other street. The proposed front fence would be a maximum of 2.0 metres high and does not satisfy the requirements of the Schedule 1 to the Zone. Refer to Section 13.0 of this report for further discussion.


No overlay controls are applicable to the subject site. 13.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 13.1 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55

(ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. There appear to be the following areas of non-compliance, which are discussed below:

Clause 55.02 – Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character The objectives of this Clause are: To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. To ensure that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.



115

The existing neighbourhood character is somewhat varied. Evidence of infill and multi-dwelling developments has resulted in a mix of lot sizes; however some commonalities entail dwellings that are predominantly setback from at least one side boundary with accessways and parking to the side and street setbacks that are generally between 7 and 9 metres. Some examples of lesser street setbacks of approximately 5 metres can be found at No’s 42 and 44 Jean Street. Built form is also mixed, with both single and double storeys, hipped and gabled roof forms. Double fronted and triple fronted dwellings can also be found in the street, with an example abutting the site at No. 34 Jean Street and at No.’s 30-32 and 33 Jean Street. The proposal entails a setback of 9.8 metres measured to the southern portion of the ground floor, increasingly marginally to 10.18 metres to the northern portion of the ground floor, generously exceeding the required average setback of 7.74 metres. In order to provide a greater separation between the buildings, and push some of the proposed mass forward, a reduced staggered setback is recommended, along with the relocation of ground floor private open spaces to the rear of the ground floor dwelling’s 1-5 inclusive. Layout changes will be required to these dwellings, as well as consequent changes to upper floors and the location of access to all dwellings, including lifts and stairwells. Recommended changes will most likely result in the deletion or reduction in size of some dwellings. These changes, including varied street setbacks are considered consistent and sympathetic with the streetscape character. A street setback of 6 metres to dwelling’s 1-3 would provide an adequate transition to the existing 5 metre setback of the abutting property at No. 42 Jean Street. A setback of 7.5 metres is recommended to dwelling’s 4 and 5, which is in keeping with the broader streetscape and also providing a transition to the abutting setback at No. 34 Jean Street (10.58 metres). The removal of private open space from the front setback is deemed a more suitable outcome, where the proposed location is considered inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood character. The removal of high front fencing will retain an open yard area, including the retention of an existing and established Yellow Gum tree within the front yard of No. 40 Jean Street.

Standard B3 – Dwelling Diversity The objective of this Clause is “to encourage a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings”. Each dwelling would contain two (2) bedrooms only and the size of each apartment would not be greatly varied. The Standard suggests that a range of dwelling sizes and bedroom numbers should be offered in new developments where ten (10) or more dwellings are proposed.



116

A variation of this Standard may be considered acceptable, noting that the municipality of Kingston has a high number of large, detached dwellings. As Member Rundell discussed in the previous VCAT decision relating to this site, there is a demand for smaller dwellings to meet a growing need. The proposal will assist in providing a diversification of dwelling types in this locality. The changes that are recommended above in discussion relating to Neighbourhood Character would also most likely impact upon the number of dwellings or size, these changes would provide an opportunity to include 1 bedroom dwellings, aiding in the diversity of dwelling sizes within the development. Clause 55.03 – Site Layout and Building Massing Standard B5 – Integration with the Street The objective of this Clause is “to integrate the layout of the development with the street”. The submitted amended plans show that Dwellings 1 to 5 located at the ground floor level fronting Jean Street would feature high front fronting within the front setback area for the purpose of enclosing the front private open space area of these dwellings. The provision of private open spaces to the front of dwellings is generally discouraged, and as discussed above under Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character, it is recommended that changes are made to relocate private open spaces for dwelling’s 1-5 inclusive to the rear of these dwellings, with the removal of high front fencing eliminating concerns about street integration and the suitability of private open space to the front of dwellings. Clause 55.03 – Site Layout & Building Massing

Standard B16 – Parking Provision One of the key objectives of this Clause is “to ensure that the car and bicycle parking for residents and visitors is appropriate to the needs of residents”. In accordance with the Standard, the proposed development generates a requirement of a total of thirty-six (36) on-site car parking spaces with thirty (30) car spaces required for the proposed dwellings and six (6) visitor car parking spaces. The proposal would provide a total of thirty-five (35) on-site car parking spaces, resulting in a deficiency of one (1) car parking space for visitors. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department have reviewed the amended proposal and consider that the amount of car parking spaces proposed is adequate in this instance. It is also worth noting that the proposed development would result in the removal of two (2) existing vehicle crossovers along the site’s Jean Street frontage with the nature strip to be subsequently reinstated. This would result in the provision of an additional two (2) on-street car parking spaces in front of the subject site within Jean Street.



117

Accordingly, a variation to this Standard is considered to be warranted in this instance.

Clause 55.05 – Onsite amenity and facilities Standard B28 – Private Open Space The objective of this Clause is “to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents”. Under the Standard, a minimum area of 40m2 with a dimension of 3.0 metres of private open space is required where dwellings have access to ground floor areas. Secluded private open space should be provided to the side or rear of dwellings. Dwelling 4 fronting Jean Street would only be provided with a total private open space area of 26m2 at the ground level. Dwelling’s 1-5 inclusive would all have their private open space oriented to the front. As discussed above it is recommended that ground floor private open spaces for dwelling’s 1-5 are relocated to the rear of dwellings, requiring changes to the internal layout to ensure that spaces are oriented off main living areas. A decrease in the street setback of the eastern building would allow for a greater separation between the two building masses to ensure that adequate solar access is achieved to these ground floor spaces. Further changes are also recommended to internalise a common walkway and lift/stairwell access for the eastern building, with no overhang of ground floor open spaces. These areas would require a minimum depth of 9 metres and a minimum of 40 square metres will be able to be achieved for each. Front yards will be able to supplement these private open spaces but they will not be relied upon for secluded open space. Clause 55.06 – Detailed Design Standard B31 – Design Detail The objective of this Clause is “to encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character” The proposal is considered to have overall merit, however the design proposes a high degree of horizontal, elongated elements on the east and west elevations which exacerbates the appearance of massing, with this further enhanced by the glass balustrades and screening. It is strongly recommended that the design incorporates further architectural features that provide vertical elements and are sensitively incorporated into the design, and further investigation into using a mix of balustrade materials and screening devices. This is recommended by way of permit condition and is considered to be relatively easily achievable. It is also noted that a materials schedule has been provided, however it is recommended that a more detailed schedule is provided, which utilises lighter colours and light weight materials at the upper storeys of the building. This is also recommended by way of a permit condition. Standard B32 – Front Fences



118

The objective of this Clause is “to encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character”. The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone requires that front fences should not exceed 1.2 metres in height or 1.5 metres where the site fronts a Road Zone Category 1. The proposal seeks the provision of a 2.0metre (maximum)high front fence along the site’s Jean Street frontage. As discussed above, the height has been proposed to enclose the ground floor private open spaces. The recommended changes to relocate private open space also entail a recommendation to delete the high fencing which would enclose these spaces, alleviating this concern regarding inappropriate high fencing.

Standard B34 – Site Services

Wherever possible it is recommended that external clotheslines that are appropriately screened from public view are provided.

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) was not submitted by the applicant, therefore a WMP is required by a permit condition to demonstrate that waste will be appropriately managed on the site.

14.0 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 14.1 As previously discussed, eighteen (18) objections have been received to the proposal.

The following section provides a response to each of the main grounds of objection received to the application. Overshadowing – Given the proposed side and rear setbacks of the upper floor

levels of the new development, the majority of shadow cast by the proposed development would fall within the subject site. Shadow diagrams based on the September equinox for the proposed dwellings show that minimal overshadowing would affect the adjoining properties largely due to the site’s orientation and the proposed building setbacks.

Neighbourhood Character - Whilst the proposed development is contemporary in nature, the development is provided with various elements which are consistent with the existing and emerging neighbourhood character. All adjoining and opposite properties to the subject site (with the exception of No. 34 Jean Street to the south-east) have been developed for medium density housing. Most notably are the two (2) adjoining development sites to the north-east (rear) of the subject site which feature high densities, including a three-storey high apartment building at No. 1 Garfield Street.

A number of the objections received have expressed concern regarding the changing character of the surrounding areas of Jean Street, Garfield Street and May Street from predominantly single dwelling allotments to medium density housing development sites. Council officers acknowledge that the neighbourhood character of this precinct located south of Southland Shopping Centre is evolving



119

at a steady rate. However, the type and nature of residential development occurring is consistent with that promoted and encouraged under Council’s Cheltenham Business Centre Policy.

Car Parking and Traffic - It is considered that the proposal adequately accommodates on-site parking and visitor car parking demands. Whilst the proposed development would be deficient one (1) visitor car parking space, Council officers consider that the removal of two (2) existing crossovers and the reinstatement of the nature strip would create an additional opportunity for two (2) on-street car parking spaces. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department has raised no major issues with the proposal and has stated that the amount of on-site car parking for the proposal is adequate in this instance. Furthermore, it is considered that the surrounding road network would be able to accommodate any additional vehicle movements that are generated by the new dwellings. This assertion was supported by VCAT in the previous decision relating to this site.

Overlooking – Objectors have raised some concerns regarding overlooking, particularly those properties that directly adjoin the subject site to the north-west (side), north-east (rear) and south-east (side). All upper floor level balconies and habitable room windows would be installed with screening devices, in accordance with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of ResCode, preventing any unreasonable overlooking opportunities.

Overdevelopment – a number of the submissions received by Council raised concern in relation to the number of dwellings proposed as a part of the development. As outlined above, the proposal achieves a high level of compliance with the provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including relevant local residential policy (namely Council’s Cheltenham Business Centre Policy, Municipal Strategic Statement and Clause 55). It is considered that the proposal, subject to conditions, represents an appropriate design solution for the site, and can be accommodated on the land, without adverse impact to abutting properties or the surrounding area. As such, the proposal is not considered to represent an overdevelopment.

Impact on Infrastructure – A number of objections have been submitted with

regard to the potential impact of the proposed development on existing drainage and sewerage infrastructure with the surrounding streets. The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer whom has offered no objection to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of a number of conditions to be included on any permit issued for the proposal.


subject to the adoption of the recommended permit conditions to ensure that the



120

proposed development achieves a high quality design, achieves good internal amenity as well as responding appropriately to the site and its immediate interfaces.



The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to appropriate conditions); and,

The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the MSS, Council’s Cheltenham Business Centre Policy, Council’s Residential Development Policy (inclusive of the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines), Residential 1 zoning and the Schedule to the zone, Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).





121

APPENDIX A – RESCODE ASSESSMENT Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone).



B1 Neighbourhood Character Design respects existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.Development responds to features of the site and surrounding area.

Yes The proposed development is generally site responsive. Similar types of medium density housing developments exist within the surrounding area. No major or critical characteristics are identified for Area 31. See report at Section 13 for further discussion.


Yes The subject site is located within an area designated for “increased housing diversity” under the Residential 1 Zone and also under Council’s Cheltenham Business Centre Policy (Clause 22.01 of the Scheme). See report.


No Each of the proposed dwellings would comprise of two (2) bedrooms. Whilst the proposal does not contain a mix of dwelling sizes it will contribute to the diversity of housing choices available in the broader locality, and is considered to meet the overall objective. See report at Section 13.


Yes The site has access to adequate road and drainage infrastructure. The development will need to make application to the appropriate suppliers for water, sewerage, electricity, gas and phone services. Given surrounding developments, it is not expected that this development will unreasonably overload the capacity of those services. Council’s Engineers advised of conditions to be included to ensure adequate drainage of the site and limiting offsite drainage impacts



122



including the use of water sensitive urban design principles.


No The proposed development would be orientated towards Jean Street and the ground level dwellings facing the street frontage would feature a maximum 2.0 metre high front fence to enclose the secluded private open space areas within the front setback area. This front fencing is recommended to be removed, and ground floor private open spaces relocated to the rear of dwelling’s 1-5. See report for further discussion.


Yes The proposed development would feature a minimum front setback of 9.8 metres from Jean Street, whereas a minimum front setback of 7.74 metres is required under this Standard.


Yes Variation required. Maximum: 9.0 metres Proposed: 10.05 metres Whilst the numerical standard is exceeded the overall objective of this clause is met, whereby developments above two storeys can be supported in appropriate locations where policy supports such medium density development. This site is suitable for three storey development and is consistent with other development in the locality such as the three storey development at No. 1 Garfield Street, Cheltenham. The building has limited the impact of its proposed height through considerable setbacks at the upper floor.


Yes Maximum: 60% Proposed: 53%


Yes At least: 20% Proposed: 39% The objective and standard are met.



123




Yes The proposal should ensure that each dwelling receives adequate natural daylight and maximise energy efficiency, where possible. Passive solar shading devices are recommended to north and east facing windows on the third floor where no balcony overhang would protect these windows. The proposal will not impact on the energy efficiency of adjoining properties. A STEPS assessment was provided with the application, however full details of how these scores have been arrived at has not been provided and it has not been demonstrated how the development would achieve an average energy rating requirement of 6 stars and minimum rating of 5 stars. An ESD report is recommended, with relevant measures to be shown on plans eg. Solar panels etc.


N/A The development does not propose on site communal open space.


Yes Good surveillance opportunities would be provided for each dwelling. Views from dwellings to the street front will be achieved from ground and upper floor balconies. Private open spaces will be adequately secured.

B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping. To encourage: Development that respects the

landscape character of the neighbourhood.



Yes No significant vegetation would be removed from the subject site. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has advised of conditions to be included to provide for a Landscape Plan and have specified that the Yellow Gum located within the frontage of No. 40 Jean Street must be retained with a 3 metre TPZ condition recommended. The TPZ requirement will not impinge upon the proposed building.



124




Yes Two (2) existing vehicle crossovers would be removed and a single access point is proposed, to be centrally located along the site’s Jean Street frontage. Two (2) on street car parking spaces will be able to be reinstated due to the removal of crossovers. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department are satisfied with the proposed access arrangements both to and from the site and within the proposed basement car parking area. All vehicles should be able to egress the site in a forwards direction.

B15 Parking Location Provide resident and visitor vehicles with convenient parking. Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. Protect residents from vehicular noise within developments.

Yes The proposed basement car parking area is considered to be fully workable and should not result in any additional demand for on-street car parking within Garfield Street.

B16 Parking Provision Ensure car and bicycle parking meets the needs of residents and visitors. Accessways should be practical, attractive and easily maintainable.

No Required: Thirty-six (36) Proposed: Thirty-five (35) The proposal would provide five (5) on-site visitors car parking spaces whereas a minimum of six (6) visitor spaces are required. See report for further discussion. The basement layout is considered satisfactory, with dimensions of car parking spaces and accessways sufficient to meet the requirements of this Standard.


Yes Ground floor setbacks exceed the required 1 metre setback with a minimum of 1.4 metres proposed to the north and south boundaries. The first floor is generally setback 4.9 metres, with 4.8 metres provided to the north elevation to the front building. Where the wall height is 9.5 metres a minimum setback of 4.59 metres is required to the first and second floor. Setbacks at the second floor are generally



125



increased, particularly to the rear/east building with setbacks generously exceeding requirements.


N/A No walls are proposed to be constructed along any of the site’s property boundaries.


Yes Existing windows will be provided with appropriate light courts.


Yes A window is located at No. 32 Jean Street which is within 3 metres of the shared boundary with the subject site. This window when measured against the Standard is however at an axis perpendicular to its surface oriented greater than 30 degrees east and therefore does not meet the criteria for an existing north facing window.


Yes Most of the shadow likely to be generated by the proposed development would be cast within the subject site. Shadow which is cast in the afternoon at 3pm to the adjoining No. 32 Jean Street will not impact on the minimum 5 hours of sunlight required to that private open space.


Yes Visual screening or highlight windows are proposed for all upper floor habitable room windows and balconies where located within 9 metres of an adjoining habitable room window or SPOS area.



126




Yes Internal views to ground floor private open spaces oriented to the street will be possible from upper floors, however the primary areas which are shown as paved and located immediately adjacent to dwellings would be protected by the overhang of balconies above. Screening devices are recommended to balconies which would shield direct views downward but maintain views to the street. Internal views are otherwise prevented by high balcony balustrades or highlight windows to habitable rooms adjacent to the internal courtyard area.


Yes Any noise created as a result of this proposal can be directly attributed to typical residential noises associated with typical residential land use. It is not anticipated that the proposal will result in increased noise levels internally or externally.


Yes If required the proposed dwellings could be modified for people of limited mobility. A lift is proposed to provide access to all floors of the development.


Yes A central communal lobby area is proposed for all residents and visitors to the subject site and is easily identifiable. An intercom security entry is recommended to be provided.



127




Yes New windows will receive adequate daylight access. Windows to many bedrooms (31 out of a total of 60) are oriented to the internal courtyard area between the two building masses. These windows are in the form of high light windows to avoid internal views. The location of shared pedestrian paths/walkways at the upper levels will be located over these windows, however these walkways are not enclosed, which will allow light penetration. Some bedrooms would appear to not be shown with windows (eg. dwellings 21 and 26) a condition is recommended to rectify this.


No Variation Required: 40m2 for each dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 3.0 metres, or minimum 8m2 for balcony areas with a minimum dimension of 1.6 metres. Proposed: The designated POS area for each dwelling is achieved with the exception of the ground level area for Dwelling 4 as only 26m2 is proposed where a minimum of 40m2 is required. Secluded ground floor private open spaces are also proposed to be located to the front of dwelling’s 1-5, this is considered inappropriate. See report for further discussion at Section 13.


Yes Ground floor open spaces and upper floor balconies are appropriately oriented and will receive adequate solar access.



128




Yes An externally accessible storage area is nominated for each dwelling within the proposed basement car parking area. Dimensions have not been provided and will be required by a permit condition requiring a minimum of 6 cubic metres.


Yes, subject to conditions

The design detail of the proposed development is generally consistent of the evolving neighbourhood character of the area however it is recommended that the street elevation and east elevation are improved upon where currently they entail a large degree of horizontal forms and massing. A condition is recommended to improve the articulation of these facades which may include the use of vertical architectural elements and varied material treatments to balconies and for screening devices.


No Variation required. A 2.0 metre high (maximum) front fence is proposed to be constructed within 3.0 metres of the street setback, whereas a maximum height of 1.2 is permissible under Schedule 1 to the Residential 1 Zone. See report for further discussion at Section 13, which recommends the deletion of high front fencing and relocation of ground floor private open spaces to the rear of dwellings.


Yes Shared areas including the basement, lobby and pedestrian paths will form common property. They are easily identified and capable of management.



129




Yes, subject to conditions

An external clothesline, details of a lift overrun and details of the location of any external heating/cooling units should be required for the proposed development. A Waste Management Plan is also required to demonstrate that waste can be appropriately managed on the site. See report for further discussion.

ATTACHMENT 1 - RECOMMENDATION That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to develop the land for the construction of thirty (30) dwellings, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 5 August, 2011, but modified to show:

a. the provision of a landscape plan in accordance with the submitted development plan and the City of Kingston Landscape Plan Checklist, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:




iv. a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees;

v. adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1 metre intervals);

vi. provision of two (2) additional suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy within the front setback of the property and one (1) small to medium sized tree (at maturity) tree located within the private open space area of each ground floor dwelling, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority;


viii. planting located between the front boundary and fencing to ground floor private open spaces to be shown as low scale in nature, incorporating native grasses and groundcovers;

ix. all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at the time of planting;

x. medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm;

xi. the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements;

xii. a notation on the plan stating that all tree roots of the nature strip tree along the Jean Street frontage that are over 50mm are not to be cut and all tree roots less than 50mm are to be cut with a sharp saw;

xiii. the retention of the Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum) growing within the front setback of No. 40 Jean Street; and

xiv. the provision of a notation of the Tree Protection Details as provided in Condition 3, 4 and 5 of this permit. This includes all nominated tree protection zones to be drawn to scale on the plans.

b. the stair/lift core rotated 90 degrees to only service the first and second floors of the eastern building, with the central walkway deleted;

c. the ground floor street setback of dwelling’s 1 – 3 (inclusive) reduced to 6 metres, and dwelling’s 4 and 5 reduced to 7.5 metres; private open spaces to these dwellings relocated to the rear, with internal layout changes made to orient living areas to private open space areas; and entries to each dwelling oriented to the street. Private open spaces to be a minimum of forty (40) square metres and minimum depth of nine (9) metres, enclosed by 1.8 metre high fencing;

d. consequent street setback changes as a result of c) to the upper floors of dwelling’s 12-16 (inclusive) and 22-26 (inclusive);

e. the provision of a ground floor core with lift and stairwell to service the first and second floors of the western building, this may result in the deletion of a dwelling;

f. the elevated shared walkway of the western building internalised at the first and second floors, with no part to overhang ground floor private open spaces;

g. the front fencing proposed to enclose the front yards of dwelling’s 1-5 (inclusive) removed;

h. the provision of passive solar shading devices to north and east facing second floor windows;

i. all elevations to clearly dimension balustrade and window sill heights;

j. delete boundary fencing from north, south and east elevations;

k. locations of all windows clearly shown;

l. improved articulation to the east and west elevations which may include incorporating vertical architectural elements, varied materials to balustrades and alternative screening devices;

m. the location of any external heating/cooling units, plant equipment, and lift overruns clearly shown, with these suitably screened and where located on balcony areas must have minimal interruptions to the useability of that area;

n. external clotheslines nominated for each dwelling and appropriately screened from public view;

o. external security lighting within the basement car parking area and along the footpath access extending from Jean Street;

p. a comprehensive detailed drainage strategy of the site incorporating rainwater tanks and Water Sensitive Urban Design Treatments to the satisfaction of Council;

q. the rain water tanks within the basement nominated as being for the use of toilet flushing and landscaping irrigation;

r. the basement ramp longitudinal section with grades;

s. the minimum overhead height clearance within the car park, including the basement ramp is required to be 2.2 metres (in accordance with Clause 5.3.1 of AS/ANZS 2890.1:2004, page 18);

t. the provision of a roller shutter grille and intercom secure entry at the car park entry;

u. the five (5) designated “visitor car spaces” clearly signed and delineated to be easily locatable for non-residents and others unfamiliar with the car park layout;

v. a notation on the plan stating “footpath and property boundary levels are not to be altered without the written consent from the Roads and Drains Department”;

w. a notation on the plan stating “offset between the footpath and property boundary is not to be altered”;

x. a notation on the plan stating “redundant vehicle crossings are to be removed and reinstated to the satisfaction of Council’s Roads and Drains Department”;

y. a notation on the plan stating that “the vehicle crossing is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Roads and Drains Department in accordance with Kingston’s Standard Drawings”;

z. columns located a minimum of 750mm from the entry to car spaces;

aa. dimensions of bicycle storage areas for residents and visitors, to comply with Clause 54.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the Australian Standard for Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3-1993) and Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14: Bicycle;

bb. an intercom security entry to the main pedestrian entry to the building;

cc. dimensions of storage areas, with these to be a minimum of six (6) cubic metres;

dd. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples, for all external elevations and driveways of the development with light colour tones where appropriate to be predominantly selected for the external facades of the building to increase heat reflection from those surfaces most exposed to heat loads, and where possible, the selection of applied finishes to the building’s façade to be of heat resistant properties;

ee. full details of louvre screening to prevent overlooking, with louvres angled upwards, preventing downward views and no more than 25 percent (25%) transparency; and

ff. any measures identified within the ESD report required by Condition 8 of this Permit.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) must be installed at a distance of three (3) metres from the Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum) located in the front setback of No. 40 Jean Street and three (3) metres from the street tree located in the nature strip of Jean Street to the front of the site. A qualified arborist is to be employed to oversee any works (excavation and/or construction) outside this zone. The following must be observed with three (3) metres of the tree:

a) the existing soil level must not be altered either by fill excavation;

b) the soil must not be compacted or the soil’s drainage changed;

c) no fuels, oils, chemicals, poisons, rubbish and other materials harmful to trees are to be stored or dispersed;

d) no storage of equipment, machinery or material is to occur;

e) open trenching to lay underground services e.g. water, gas, etc. must not be used;

f) tree roots must not be severed or injured; or

g) machinery must not be used to remove any existing concrete, bricks or other materials

without the further written consent of Council’s Vegetation Management Officer.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Tree Protection Fence defined by a 1.2 metre high temporary fence constructed using steel or timber posts fixed in the ground or to a concrete pad, with the fence’s side panels to be constructed of cyclone mesh wire or similar strong metal mesh or netting, must be erected three (3) metres in a radius from the Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum) and three (3) metres in a radius form the tree located in the nature strip of Jean Street to the front of the site. The above requirements in Condition 2 of this permit must be observed within this area.

5. All tree pruning work must be in accordance with the Australian Standards AS4373 (2007) “Pruning of Amenity Trees” and by undertaken by a qualified and experienced arborist.

6. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


8. Prior to the endorsement of the Plans required pursuant to Condition 1 of this permit, the provision of an updated ESD report prepared by a suitably qualified professional must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, to reflect changes made within the built form and reduction of dwellings. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the Permit and shall thereafter be complied

with. The ESD report must include, but is not limited to, how the development will achieve a minimum 5 star and average 6 star energy rating, detailed initiatives for stormwater harvesting, insulation, daylighting, collective rainwater tanks and/or individual rainwater tanks, public and private landscape irrigation, energy efficient concepts, waste and recycling, building materials, glazing and internal/ cross-flow ventilation and the like.

9. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bio retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system. The detention system must have a restricted outflow limited to 20 l/s and store run-off that exceeds the run-off from 35% of the site area.

10. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).

11. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.

12. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but not limited to, the following:

a. a detailed schedule of works which includes full project timing including right of way works and any footpath works;

b. full details of any proposed construction hoarding locations, temporary footpath closures, proposed public safety signage and any proposed crane location positions external to the subject land;

c. a full traffic management plan with details all proposed local or main road partial or full closures, locations as to how concrete pours will be managed including vehicle storage locations and all required temporary signage and suggested locations;

d. all proposed locations for how materials will be stored on and if permitted off site including site sheds and facilities;

e. the location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles during construction;

f. full details as to the location and means in which loading/unloading of materials will occur;

g. the means in which construction waste / waste materials will be managed both on and from the site;

h. the means in which dust will be suppressed during construction i. business operations on the site during construction; j. site security; and k. construction times, noise and vibration controls.

13. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three (3) copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include but is not limited to:

a) The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size and number of containers.

b) Spatial provision for on-site storage.

c) Details whether waste collection is to be performed by Council’s services or privately contracted.

d) The size of the collection vehicle and the frequency, time and point of collection.

The waste management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The waste management plan must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

14. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel, vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

16. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner of No. 36-40 Jean Street, Cheltenham.

17. Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times:

a. Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; and

b. Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm.

Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.


a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all-weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.




20. Service units, including air conditioning/heating units, must not be located where they will be visible from any public area.

21. The development must be provided with lighting capable of illuminating access to each car parking space, bicycle parking space, store, rubbish bin, recycling bin, pedestrian walkways, stairwells, lift, dwelling entrances and entry foyer. Lighting must be located, directed, shielded and of limited intensity so that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22. The obscure glazing to balconies shown on the endorsed plans must be through frosted glass or similarly treated glass, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Adhesive film or the like that can be removed must not be used.

23. All fixed external screening to prevent overlooking marked on the endorsed plans shall be maintained by the owner of the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.








Note: Before removing / pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any contractor engaged to remove any vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation Management Officer to verify if a Local Laws Permits is required for the removal of such vegetation.

OR In the event that Council wishes to oppose the application, it can do so using the following grounds:

1. The proposed design will not allow for adequate integration with the street due to high front fencing and provision of secluded private open space within the front setback, which fails to satisfy Clause 55.02-5 – Integration with the Street Objective, and also fails to meet the requirements of Clause 55.06-2 – Front fences Objective.



130

N 218 Moorabbin Arts Link Approved by: Rachel Hornsby, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Aidan Mullen, Place Manager Activity Centres

1. Purpose

The report seeks approval for Capital Works funding for the Moorabbin Arts Link project to supplement the application for funding to the Department of Justice (DoJ) under the Community Safety Infrastructure Grants Program and a possible contribution from the Department of Transport.

2. Council Plan

This report relates to the Council Plan 2009-2013, in particular; Planned Outcome 1: Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community. 1.5 Safe environment and a positive sense of security The project aims to make the existing pedestrian link between the Moorabbin train Station

and the Kingston Arts Centre a safer connection, particularly at night. Planned Outcome 2: A Sustainable Environment. 2.2 Striving for a balance between development and amenity The project aims to improve the amenity around the Trains Station and Bus Interchange to

encourage the use of public transport. Planned Outcome 3: healthy, Strong and Connected Communities. 3.2 Strong, cohesive and engaged communities The project aims to heavily integrate art which reflects the Moorabbin community and

provide the Kingston Arts Centre an outdoor exhibition space.

3. Background

This project provides an improved safe pedestrian link between the Kingston Arts Centre and the Moorabbin Station, and has been identified as a priority and achievable project for Moorabbin in the short term.

4. Summary and Conclusion

A well integrated concept design for the Moorabbin Arts Link response has been developed and provided to Councillors. This report seeks approval for a funding method to deliver this project. The concept design will also to be used for funding applications and in discussions with VicTrack. The concept has been developed with the aim to complete the works within this financial year. The project will continue to be managed by the Activity Centres team with close consultation with the relevant internal teams.



131

5. Consultation

This project has been identified as appropriate for the Public Safety Infrastructure Fund Grants Program and a grant application, which has been lead by the Community Engagement team. Property Services is leading discussions with VicTrack and adjacent owners to gain a licence on their land for these works. As there is an existing pedestrian link and these works aim to improve that link, it is expected there will not be any issues with gaining a licence. Where artwork is proposed to be projected onto or located on adjacent buildings the owners’ agreement will also be sought. Input has also been sought from other Council teams including, Arts & Cultural Services as well as Arts, Planning, Festivals & Events who have been and will be involved to ensure that the project adds to the strong art presence in Moorabbin. The Infrastructure and Parks teams have also been involved to ensure works align with Council standards.

6. Issues

This site is located at the intersection of Nepean Highway and South Road Moorabbin to the rear of Kingston City Hall and alongside the train line at Moorabbin train station. With the Kingston Arts Centre and an increased number of people living in this precinct, pedestrian access to the train station is critical. There is a pathway that presently runs alongside the train track, however there are significant environmental and design issues which contribute to public perceptions that this is an unsafe area. The project will improve the area with better lighting, materials and installation of furniture to facilitate a better ‘sense of pride’ within the area. There are also two main art installations which aim to improve safety through lighting and night time activation. A new surface treatment will wrap around the City Hall linking the railway path to the main entrance to the building. The Concept proposes two visual art projections at the rear to the Kingston City Hall. An opportunity exists for a third projector to be located to project onto the Clock Tower. The installation cost and 12 month maintenance cost has been included in the estimated cost. The third projector has not been included in the estimate, but would be another $15,000. It is recommended that an annual maintenance budget of $15,000 be provided to service the three projectors.

There are three key components to this proposal: Area 1 - Station Entrance, includes upgraded pavements, lighting, planting, fencing and furniture installation. Estimated Cost - $202,320 Area 2 - Pedestrian Connection, includes installation of furniture and lighting and light art treatments and upgraded pavement works. Estimated Cost - $253,740 Area 3 - Bus interchange, includes upgraded pavements, furniture, lighting and fencing. Estimated Cost – $76,440 (not included in funding options)



132

Victoria Police are supportive of the proposed infrastructure work to discourage crime and enable them to more easily police the area and protect the public. While this project is not specially identified in the adopted Moorabbin Structure Plan, it does successfully align with its objectives, including:

To create a contemporary station entry To provide for better connections to key recreational spaces and provide new spaces

that are pleasant and safe to use To return Moorabbin to a place where pedestrian activity is thriving To encourage and prioritise the use of sustainable modes of transport to and from the

centre, especially walking, cycling and public transport; and To encourage buildings that demonstrates architectural and environmental

excellence. As well as meeting these objectives, the proposed works look to rejuvenate the Moorabbin Station surrounds and help address the Kingston City Hall interface with the railway line and Nepean Highway. These works are proposed to be completed in the very short term, acting as an important catalyst for the proposed future Axispace (above railway) development, demonstrating how the railway interface can become an exciting and safe pedestrian realm.

7. Funding & Delivery

Due to the complexities of Train Station surrounds, the funding model for this project would be a combination of sources, including State Government and Council funds. A funding application has been made to the DoJ requesting $169,000 for the implementation of safety improvements within the Moorabbin Arts Link project. Other funding sources, such as Department Planning & Community Development’s (DPCD) Community Support Grants or the proposed Changing Places Program could be sought. It should be noted that there are no Department of Transport funding streams available at this time. Council funding allocation could be sourced through a number of ways, including: Funding Option A - Council’s Capital Works Budget: There is an existing allocation of $595,200 for the implementation of Structure Plans of Moorabbin & Mordialloc for the 2011/12 financial year. Funding Option B - Council’s Open Space Reserve Fund: The new adjacent housing complex contributed approximately $120,000 to the fund and Council may wish to use those funds to upgrade the public space at the station entrance and pedestrian link. Funding Option C- A combination of the above. The delivery options below are based on a combination of Council funding (amount varies) and $169,000 funding from the Department of Justice. Improvements not included in each option, could be sought from other funding sources.



133

Delivery Option 1 – Construct Areas 01 & 02 (with artwork) Make improvements to the Nepean Highway Station entrance, the pedestrian connection along the railway line and around Kingston City Hall. A combination of pavement upgrade, new furniture, planting, lighting and visual art projects and art lightboxes would be funded. Council funding - $290,000 Delivery Option 2 – Construct Area 02 & Area 01 (without artwork) Make improvements to the Nepean Highway Station entrance, the pedestrian connection along the railway line and around Kingston City Hall. A combination of pavement upgrade, new furniture, planting and lighting would be funded. The visual art projects, art lightboxes and pavement treatments would not be funded. Council funding - $170,000 The proposed artworks were included in the DoJ funding application as associated lighting and activation help to improve the perception and actual safety at night. Delivery Option 2 does not include these improvements but does include standard lighting and pavements improvements and so some DoJ funding would be available. An option for a third projector to be located to project onto the Clock Tower would require an additional $15,000, not included in the above delivery options. It is recommended that an annual Arts Centre maintenance budget of $15,000 be provided to service the projectors.

It is expected that construction of this project will be completed by June 2012.

8. Triple Bottom Line Checklist

Environmental The concept design has taken into account the impact on the environment. The work has been developed according to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles and will contribute to a much more pleasant physical environment for residents and visitors to Moorabbin. Social The proposed infrastructure work will improve safety for the Moorabbin community across Kingston generally and more specifically for the residents who live and work and use the amenities around the identified locations. The work will also improved community perceptions of safety. Financial The estimated costs for the project and proposed funding sources are outlined in the report.



134

9. Recommendation

That Council resolve:

1. To deliver Moorabbin Arts Link as described in Delivery Option 1

2. To allocate $290,000 of Council’s 2011/12 Capital Works Budget for Structure Plan Implementation stream for the delivery of the Moorabbin Arts Link project.

3. That progression of this project to be subject to a successful funding application to the Department of Justice.

Attachments: Attachment A - Moorabbin Arts Link Concept Proposal (TRIM No: 11/118241).



135

N 219 Kingston Active Youth Spaces Strategy - Final Approved by: Rachel Hornsby, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Hannah Croughan, Leisure Planner

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of the final version of the Kingston 2011 Active Youth Spaces Strategy.

2. Council Plan

This project relates to the Council Plan as follows: Planned Outcome 1 – Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community Strategy 1.2 – Accessible and shared open spaces that promote social connectedness and

active, healthy lifestyles Strategy 1.3 – Quality community facilities that are accessible, safe and well utilised Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy Strong and Connected Communities Strategy 3.4 - Monitor and plan for the changing needs and aspirations of the

community - Ensure currency of existing policies, plans and strategies to support our community to achieve a strong, healthy and active life

The Active Youth Spaces Strategy links specifically to actions within the Council Plan. It will be used as a guiding document for future provision of accessible, safe and well utilised active youth spaces and open space in Kingston and will assist Council to address the changing leisure needs and aspirations of young residents.

3. Background

As part of its ongoing strategic leisure planning function Council determined to review the 2002 Skate and BMX Strategy and develop a 2011 Kingston Active Youth Spaces Strategy. The Strategy was developed throughout 2011 with approval from Council in September, the draft Strategy was made available for a four week public comment period during October 2011. Preparation of the strategy was 50% funded ($27,000) by the state government via the 2010-2011 Community Facility Funding Program. Insight Leisure Planning was engaged to work with Officers to prepare the strategy. A map of existing facilities is Attachment 1.



136


The Kingston 2011 Active Youth Spaces Strategy presents recommendations based around key themes identified via the community engagement process and literature/trend review. It proposes actions that Council can pursue in order to meet stakeholders’ expressed desires for accessible, integrated and suitably challenging spaces. The four week public comment period has confirmed stakeholder acceptance of the recommendations made within the draft Strategy. The Strategy is recommended for implementation across a ten year period (2011-2021) and will be used to guide future years’ capital works programs. It will also support applications for funding which Council may pursue during this ten year timeframe.

5. Consultation

During the four week public comment period, feedback was sought from stakeholders and our community regarding the site specific recommendations and the proposed strategies for addressing the issues that had been identified. The online public forum which was established for the project, was re-opened for the four week period to record comments and feedback. During the four week period, the online forum was visited 626 times. While visiting the forum site, the 212 visitors viewed pages 1068 times. Only 5 comments were left regarding the Strategy (plus three submissions made via other means) however 146 of the 212 visitors to the site actually downloaded and viewed the draft Strategy. Given that the draft Strategy was viewed via the forum almost 150 times and there were only five comments made, the site administrators suggest it is reasonable to assume this as general stakeholder acceptance of the document and the recommended strategies. Visitors to the site needed to be ‘logged in’ to download the draft Strategy and to leave feedback. Had they wished to make comment contrary to the draft Strategy’s contents, there were no extra steps that needed to be completed making it quite simple for participants to provide their comments had they so desired. The submissions are discussed in Section 6 issues and full details of the online forum are provided in Attachment 2. In addition to the online forum, copies of the draft strategy and public comment forms were made available in Customer Service Centres, public libraries, leisure centres, Kingston Youth Services at Southland, local community centres and at key local skate/bmx retail outlets. A media release was issued and Council’s on-hold message service included details about the project. A direct email was distributed to all 41 registered stakeholders. Council’s Youth Consultative Committee and all nine Village Committees were specifically invited to provide feedback and copies of the draft and feedback forms were provided to each.



137

6. Issues

The Kingston 2011 Active Youth Spaces Strategy (Attachment 3) identifies that the quantity and distribution of existing active youth facilities within Kingston is adequate and as such does not recommend the creation of any new sites over the course of the coming ten years (2012-2022). It does however recommend that the quality of our existing sites be enhanced in order to meet current and future demand and that this be guided by the application of a hierarchy of site classifications (Regional, District, Local). Council currently adopts this method of classification for its open space and playgrounds. As well as highlighting key values held by the community and stakeholders for the future provision of active youth spaces, the Strategy also makes site specific recommendations for Kingston’s 6 existing active youth spaces. These are intended as key design considerations. Any capital works at these sites will be the subject of a separate budget bid, design and consultation process ahead of any works being undertaken. Nine submissions were received regarding the draft Strategy none of which oppose the Strategy’s content. Submissions provided support for the process undertaken to develop the Strategy or highlighted site specific design elements which the submitter wishes to see provided within an upgraded facility. Two submitters expressed their desire for active youth spaces to better provide for scooting and for younger children (aged 5-12). The Active Youth Spaces Strategy focuses in the main part on young people aged 12-25 however it was identified through consultation and site visits that locally there is great interest from children under 10 to be involved in scooting in particular, and to share the existing spaces with other users. This is reflected in: Section 1.2 Strategic Basis: “the considerable age range of core users (that is, 5-24

years) means varied skill levels from beginner to advanced and therefore reinforces the importance of providing appropriate facilities that can cater for participation pathways and skill development”.

Section 2. Strategic Provision Principles: “the City acknowledges that Active Youth

Spaces are utilised by a broad range, therefore a mix of skill levels and development opportunities will be considered in individual site design”.

The indicative cost to implement all Strategy recommendations including site specific capital works improvements remains as follows: Short Term = 0-3 years from adoption $537,500 Medium Term = 4-6 years $597,500 Long Term = 6-10+ years $180,000

The ten year total amounts to $1,295,000. It should be noted that a number of the recommendations will have financial implications for Council that are not able to be precisely quantified at this stage; informed estimates have been provided pending further investigation, design and/or service review. Funding to implement the Strategy will be sought via grants, developer contributions and other suitable external sources/partners/sponsors. Where possible the Strategy will be



138

implemented in conjunction with other Council projects, using existing budgets, for example park improvements/upgrades.


Environmental - Implementation of the adopted Strategy can have a positive environmental effect through amenity and landscaping improvements.

Social - Positive social outcomes have already been attained via this project including a

consultation process which meaningfully engaged the community and involved them in the planning of active youth spaces. Additionally, providing spaces within which young people can be physically active that are consistent with existing and forecast needs will ensure that the community’s ability to gain the social, health and wellbeing benefits associated with being physically active and interacting with others is improved.

Financial – The Strategy is intended to provide guidance to Council about strategic

investment in active spaces for young people and if subscribed to, will allow all works to be programmed according to identified needs and asset renewal/replacement timeframes. Additional funds from grants, developer contributions and any other suitable external sources/partners/sponsors will allow Council to complete a greater number of projects, and the adopted Strategy will strengthen and support Council’s efforts to obtain external funding.

8. Recommendation

That the attached final version of the Kingston 2011 Active Youth Spaces Strategy be adopted by Council. Attachments: TRIM Ref: 11/111647 – Attachment 1 –Active Youth Spaces Strategy FINAL VERSION TRIM Ref: 11/123386 – Attachment 2 – Stakeholder comments about Active Youth Spaces & proposed responses



139

N 220 Contract No 11/100 - Governor Road & Burdekin Boulevard Intersection - Widening & Traffic Signal Installation, Braeside

Approved by: Rachel Hornsby – General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Brian Trower – Team Leader Roads & Drains

1. Purpose

This report seeks Council’s approval to accept tenders for Contract No 11/100 – Governor Road and Burdekin Boulevard Intersection Widening & Traffic Signal Installation, Braeside. It is proposed that 2CONSTRUCT PTY LTD be accepted as the preferred tenderer for this contract based on their submitted tender of $1,239,490.00 .

2. Council Plan

2.1. Sustaining Kingston’s Assets

2.1.1. Implement Kingston’s Asset Management program including:

Identify & undertake priority works

3. Background

The construction of the Burdekin Boulevard – Governor Road intersection forms part of the Section 173 agreement between Waterways Residential Development and Council. The warrants to build the traffic signals have not been met for VicRoads to agree to the construction by the developer at this stage however it can be completed by Council under the roads program of work. It is seen as a direct benefit to the residents of Waterways to have the intersection constructed at this stage. Waterways Development have provided full funding to complete the project and meet their obligations at no net cost to Council.

4. Brief Description of the Work under the Contract

The works involved in this contract includes the widening of the existing Governor Road and Burdekin Boulevard intersection to implement a right turn lane, traffic signals and public lighting. Items covered as part of this contract include:

Construct of flexible pavement widening Construct of concrete kerbing Install of drainage pipes Install of guard rail Install Light poles with all associated works Install traffic signal pedestals with all associated works



140

5. Tenders Received

Tenders were advertised in The Age on Saturday 24 September 2011 and closed at 2.00pm on Thursday 13 October 2011. Four (4) tenders were received, details of which are set out in the Confidential Attachment.

6. Project Funding

Waterways Residential Development Pty Ltd has provided funding to Council of $1,554,499.26 which is the total cost of the project including construction costs, fees, permits, GST and a reasonable contingency amount.

7. Evaluation Panel

The tenders were assessed by: Tony Pell – Senior Construction Engineer Emad Nashed – Construction Engineer


The Evaluation Panel has ranked 2CONSTRUCT PTY LTD highly for this contract. The panel believes that 2CONSTRUCT PTY LTD have demonstrated their ability via their tender submission and previous works undertaken for Kingston City Council, to provide the best overall value for the construction of CONTRACT NO. 11/100– GOVERNOR ROAD & BURDEKIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION WIDENING & TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, BRAESIDE.


Environmental Impact - Environmental impacts during construction of these works will be minimised due to measures put in place for controlling stormwater runoff quality, including silt barriers and straw bales. The final outcome of the works will alleviate a significant traffic issue in the area.

Social Impact - There will be inconveniences during the works which are typical of a major road widening contract such as this one. A Special Clauses document was prepared as part of the contract package, which outlines a number of requirements set out by Council to stage the works and minimise community disruption as much as possible.

Budget/Financial Impact - For the subject contract the preferred tenderer represents the best outcome to Council in terms of value for money and level of risk. The submitted price from the preferred contractor is below the Design Engineer’s estimate.



141

10. Recommendation

That Council awards CONTRACT NO. 11/100 – GOVERNOR ROAD & BURDEKIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION WIDENING & TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, BRAESIDE – on a Lump Sum basis to 2CONSTRUCT PTY LTD for the tendered price of $1,239,490.00. Please refer to the Confidential Attachment outlining the scoring matrix and all other submissions. Attachments: Confidential Attachment



142



143



144

11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports N 221 Naming Proposal – Allnutt Reserve Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development and Governance Author: Phil DeLosa, Program Leader Governance

1. Purpose

To consider a request/proposal for the naming of a section or prominent area adjoining the Mordialloc Creek after the Allnutt Family following public consultation on the proposal. A map of the area to be named is attached (refer to Attachment 1).

2. Council Plan

Planned Outcome – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.1 – Be Community Centric. This is an opportunity to recognise the valuable contribution of local residents.

3. Background

The naming request was received from Mr Wayne Imlach of 6 Bowman Street, Mordialloc, who provided a history of the contribution of the Allnutt Family to the area which is attached for information (refer to Attachment 2). This matter was considered at a Councillors’ Information Session on 10 October 2011 where it was advised that officers would undertake a process of checking all the information and placing the proposal out for public consultation.


This proposal complies with the “Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010”, a document prepared by the State Government under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998. These guidelines are mandatory for naming authorities in Victoria and are overseen by the Office of Geographic Names (OGN). The proposal has also been generally supported by the community and it is recommended that Council accept the naming proposal.

5. Consultation

Council has consulted with the public on the naming proposal in accordance with the OGN Guidelines.



145

Consultation involved;

notifying the immediate community by letter (this included residents, ratepayers and businesses within the immediate area directly affected by the proposal),

advertising in local newspapers (advertisements were placed in the

Mordialloc/Chelsea Leader newspaper on 14 November 2011 and the Moorabbin/Kingston Leader newspaper on 16 November 2011).

Feedback from the consultation resulted in 6 responses (1 verbal) all supporting the proposal. There was no feedback objecting to the proposal. Copies of the responses are attached (refer to Attachment 3).

6. Issues

Council must check that the naming proposal conforms to the principles outlined in the OGN Guidelines. These principles specify the issues for Council to consider. Principle 1(A) Language The proposal is easy to pronounce, spell and write and accords with grammatical roles including no apostrophes. Principle 1(B) Recognising the public interest The proposal recognises the significant contribution of the Allnutt Family to the area and has been generally supported by the community. Principle 1(C) Ensuring public safety The proposal will not present any confusion for emergency response, transport, communication and rail services as the proposal names a section of unused road reserve adjacent to the Mordialloc Creek. Principle 1(D) Ensuring names are not duplicated There are no other Allnutt names within close proximity. Principle 1(E) Directional names to be avoided Noted – not applicable. Principle 1 (F) Assigning extent to a feature, locality or road The area to be named has been clearly defined (refer to Attachment 2). Principle 1(G) Linking the name to the place The name is relevant to the local area and has been initiated by a member of the local community. Principle 1(H) Using commemorative names The names of people who are still alive should be avoided. Following discussions with the OGN it was confirmed that this proposal is acceptable given it recognises 3 generations of the Allnutt Family. It was suggested that consent should be received from family members still alive that they accept the naming proposal.



146

Consent was received by return email and letter from family members. Principle 1 (I) Using commercial and business names Not applicable. Principle 1 (J) Names must not be discriminatory Noted. Principle 1 (K) Recognition and use of Indigenous Australian names Noted – not applicable. Principle 1 (L) Dual names Not applicable. Principle 1 (M) Consulting with the public Refer to Section 5 of this report – Consultation. Principle 1 (N) Lodging, considering and addressing objections No objections have been received. Principle 1 (O) Notification of a naming discussion A naming proposal can only be notified to stakeholders after the Registrar of Geographic Names has registered the name in VICNAMES (the Register of Geographic Names). Principle 1 (P) Signage Council must not erect or display signage prior to receiving advice from the Registrar that the naming proposal has been approved, gazetted and registered or recorded in VICNAMES. Principle 2 (A) Feature type A feature type should be included in the feature name. The name Allnutt Reserve recognises that the area will be a reserve. Principle 2 (B) Waterways Not applicable – there is to be no development activity on the area. Principle 2 (C) Locational names The name is not based on a locational name. Principle 2 (D) Base names Not applicable – the feature is not being named under a private sponsorship contract.

7. Options

Council has 2 options – to either approve or reject the proposal. Given the general support from the community and the recognition of the contribution of the Allnutt Family to the local area it is recommended that Council approve the proposal.



147


Environmental - Not applicable Social - The naming proposal has a significant social impact by recognising

the contribution of a local community family. Communities are built on the efforts and input of the local community having a significant impact on the local history, fabric and development of the community.

Financial - The possible cost of signage if the proposal is approved.

9. Recommendation

1. That Council approve the proposal to name the section of road reserve adjacent to the Mordialloc Creek and Bowman Street Mordialloc as shown in Attachment 1.

2. That the naming proposal be lodged with the Office of Geographic Names for consideration. Attachments: Attachment No 1 – Trim No 11/105283 Map of area to be named Attachment No 2 – Trim No 11/74794 History of the contribution of the Allnutt Family to the area Attachment No 3 – Copies of responses

PARANA STR

EET

PARANA STR

EET

PARANA STREET

PARANA STREET

PARANA STREET

PARANA STR

EET

PARANA STR

EET

PARANA STREET

PARANA STREET

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

NEPEAN HIGHW

AY

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREET

BOWMAN STREETUNNAMEDUNNAMEDUNNAMEDUNNAMEDUNNAMEDUNNAMEDUNNAMEDUNNAMEDUNNAMED

2A

8

1A6

4

1A

1-4

1/ 11

14

2712

103

16

ALLNUTT RESERVE

0 25.00 50.00

meters

MapXtreme 2008 ® SDK Developer License, © 2009 Pitney Bowes Software Inc.

Proposed Naming – Allnutt Reserve

Contains VicMap information © The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2006. Reproduced by permission of DSE. All reasonable effort is taken to keep the information presented by the on-line mapping system accurate and up-to-date, however NO WARRANTY is given

that is free from error or omission. The information is presented as a guide only. For Definitive information on Planning Scheme or properties please contact the City Of Kingston Customer Service Centre.

5 Oct. 11



148

N 222 Public Art Policy Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development and

Governance Author: Suzanne Snooks, Arts and Cultural Development Coordinator

1. Purpose

This purpose of this report is to present the Public Art Policy (refer attachment) for Council consideration and formal adoption.

2. Council Plan

Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities Strategy 3.2 - Strong, cohesive and engaged communities

Development of the Public Art Policy is consistent with the City’s Vision for a diverse, dynamic community where we all share a sustainable, safe, attractive environment and a thriving economy.

3. Background

The 2005-2008 Arts and Cultural Strategy was the first to be adopted by the City of Kingston. This Strategy achieved many great outcomes for the Kingston community and placed master plans at the ready for development of facilities managed by Kingston City Council. Consultation for the preparation of Kingston’s first Arts & Cultural Strategy, identified the need to develop a strategic direction for public art in Kingston. One of the main issues raised during this period was the need for Council to adopt a policy position on the level and type of support available for the management of unsolicited proposals for public art projects. Council currently has no policies in place for the development, management and maintenance of existing and new public art projects. Following a period of consultation, two documents are being prepared for Council consideration; The first, the attached Public Art Policy, sets down a process or system for decision-

making for managing public art in Kingston. The second, a Public Art Strategy, will outline a strategic response and vision for public

art in Kingston and will be presented to Council in 2012.


The Public Art Policy provides a clear guide and framework for Council in the development, planning, maintenance, de-accessioning, acquisition and integration of public art in Kingston. It recommends the establishment of a Public Art Advisory Panel to oversee and make recommendations on Public Art in Kingston. It has been developed with extensive input from the community and it is now finalised for Council adoption.



149

5. Consultation

Community engagement and consultation methodologies were utilised to gather quantitative and qualitative information about the community’s position on public art and their needs and values. Research and consultation has been carried out by an independent consultant, engaged to facilitate the process and summarise the key issues. Their consultation methodologies included:

Public Focus Group (28 attendees) Council Staff Focus Group (17 attendees) Written correspondence (x 9) Staff interviews (x 4) Public Art Steering Committee (x 2) Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (x 1) Site Visits (x12)

6. Issues

6.1 Process for Development of Public Art Council currently has no policies in place for the development, management and maintenance of existing and new public art projects. This includes community art projects that lead to permanent, temporary or ephemeral installations of artworks. As such, the City would benefit from the introduction a Public Art Advisory Panel (PAAP) whose role is to provide expert advice to the City on matters relating to Public Art, including offering advice on unsolicited proposals and the assessment of Public Art proposals, ensuring a high standard of public art. The Panel would include:

Two City Councillors One member of the Arts and Cultural Committee (ACAC) Two recognised external artistic advisors from different artistic fields (i.e.

professional artists, curators and architects) Coordinator Arts and Cultural Development Panel of Council Officers as appropriate, representing City Strategy, Community

Buildings, Parks Projects and Design and Arts and Cultural Services Co-opted member as appropriate and needed (i.e. Village Committee Chair,

Local Historian, Indigenous, Youth or Multicultural representative). 6.2 Civic Collection Register The Policy stipulates that the City of Kingston will maintain a Civic Art Collection Register comprised of paintings and artefacts, Plaques and Monuments and Public Art. Each area of Council’s Collection (paintings and artefacts, Plaques and Monuments and Public Art) is currently registered, however there is no current maintenance schedule for Kingston’s Collection of Public Art (sculptural works in public spaces). This will seek to be addressed as we adopt Council’s new Asset Management System and will also be listed as an action within the Public Art Strategy to be presented in early 2012.



150


Environmental -The policy considers the environment in terms of cultural infrastructure and community use of Kingston’s natural features, both at a municipal and local level. Social – The policy highlights actions that will promote health, education and creative engagement across Kingston. There are opportunities to develop and engage new audiences and to further address the social and cultural needs of the community. Financial - The policy is to be undertaken within existing financial and human resources. There is also an annual allocation of $20,000 to Capital Works.

9. Recommendation

That Council resolve to: a. Adopt the attached Public Art Policy b. Nominate Councillors Paul Peulich and Rosemary West OAM as the Council representatives on the Public Art Advisory Panel (PAAP).

Attachments: Attachment 1 - Public Art Policy

Kingston

A liveable, creative city

Public Art Policy

Enqui r ies and Comments to : publ icar tpo l icy@kingston .vic .go v.au

Public Art Policy

Arts and Cultural Development, City of Kingston PO Box 1000, Mentone, VIC, 3194

(By hand to 1230 Nepean Hwy, Cheltenham)

mailto:[email protected]

Contents

1 . In t roduct ion 3

1 .1 In t roduc t i on 3

1 .2 Why i s Pub l i c A r t impor tan t 3 1 .3 De f in i t i ons 3

1 .4 App roaches t o Pub l i c A r t 4

2 Po l icy Framew ork and Procedures 5

2 .1 Pub l i c A r t Adv i so ry Pane l 5 2 .2 Acqu is i t i on and Se lec t i on Cr i t e r i a 5 2 .3 App l i ca t i ons fo r Pub l i c A r t 6

2 .4 Appo in tmen t and Se lec t i on o f A r t i s t s 7

2 .5 G i f t i ng o r Dona t ion by pa r ty o the r than Counc i l 7 2 .6 Con t rac t Managemen t 8 2 .7 A r t i s t Copy r igh t and Mora l R igh ts 8 2 .8 C iv i c Co l l ec t i on Documen ta t i on and Access Management 9

2 .9 Conserva t i on and Care 9 2 .10 Reques ts to Purchase Pub l i c A r t 9 2 .11 De-Access ion ing 9 2 .12 D isposa l 10 2 .13 Appea l Process 10

3 Public Art Policy

1. Int roduct ion 1 .1 In t roduc t ion

Kingston City Council’s Public Art Policy provides direction for a public art program that revitalises public places and spaces through connections with our history, cultures, stories and diversity. The Public Art Policy arises from Kingston, a Liveable, Creative City: Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15. This Public Art Policy provides a clear framework to further develop the Kingston Civic Collection through:

Formalising systems and structures for public art Providing a process for public art programming and commissions which will give

established and emerging artists exciting and challenging opportunities to work The outcomes of the Public Art Policy will increase liveability through advancing opportunities for participation and street life in the public domain; improve aesthetics in public places; enhance opportunities for local artists; increase understanding and interest in our diverse cultures, stories, histories and heritages through collaborative development with the community, developers, local businesses, state organisations and Council. This policy does not cover historical/commemorative plaques and interpretive signs. 1 .2 Wh y i s Pub l i c Ar t impor tan t?

Public Art plays an important role in Placemaking as it responds to the historic, cultural, environmental, social and/or aesthetic character of a community and place. Public Art can help us understand who we are through our shared and diverse histories and stories. It has the capacity to create a sense of belonging, foster dialogue, encourage social interaction and revitalise public places and spaces. Importantly, Public Art is freely available for us to see, touch, hear or even smell and it can surprise, educate and captivate us. This Public Art Policy provides a framework to ensure that the City of Kingston’s Public Art Program reflects and celebrates our diverse histories, stories, cultures and a sense of place. 1 .3 De f in i t ions

Public Art refers to art in any medium that has been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited, performed or staged in the public domain. It may be a commissioned work by professional artist/s or a community inspired collaboration between an artist/s, multi disciplinary teams and members of a community. There are three types of Public Art: Emphemeral (short term): any art form that is transitory, changing and exists for a brief time in the public domain. Ephemeral works may include expressions of art that bring life, fun and interest to public spaces and events such as pop up art, platform art, street art, multimedia, circus, puppetry, readings, performance, busking, music, new media and technologies.

4 Public Art Policy

Temporary (medium term): any work that has a limited life such as at a special event or less than 5 years. Temporary works may include expressions of art such as light and sound installation, land and environmental art, billboard art, community, vertical and water gardens, trompe d’oeil, stencil art, kinetic art. Permanent (long term): any work that is permanently sited in the public domain; a definition of permanent in relation to this policy to be considered by the Kingston Public Art Panel. Permanent works may include expressions of art such as visual markers and entrance gateways, sculptures, memorials, building and architectural design elements, street and park furniture and functional forms, trompe d’oeil, sound and light installations, paving, kinetic art. 1.4 Approaches to Public Art

There are many approaches to Public Art, here are four common models: Site Curated Art sited in public spaces and informed by a specific and unique design brief to achieve cultural, historical and aesthetic significance. Architectural Design Public Art that is integrated into architecture as part of the conceptual project; it can be for interior or exterior spaces and is built-in artworks, artistic features and treatments that are functional or non functional. Collaborative design Public Art created through a collaborative approach by professionals; artists, architects, urban designers, landscape architects, graphic designers and/ or other relevant designers. Community Engagement Public Art created through initial and ongoing community consultation and interpretative research to respond to the social, environmental, cultural or historical issues. Public Art may be solely designed by an artist in response to the community consultation, by a team of professionals or by community members working with an artist and team.

2. Pol icy F ramework and Procedures

2 .1 Pub l i c Ar t Adv iso ry Pane l

Public Art at the City of Kingston will be overseen by a Public Art Advisory Panel (PAAP). The role of Panel is to provide advice to Council on matters relating to Public Art, contributing to developing a Program aligned with Council’s strategic vision. The Panel assist Council in offering advice on unsolicited proposals, the assessment of Public Art proposals and ensuring a high standard of public art. The Panel includes:

Two City Councillors One member of the Arts and Cultural Committee (ACAC) Two recognised external artistic advisors from different artistic fields (i.e. professional

artists, curators and architects) Coordinator Arts and Cultural Development Panel of Council Officers as appropriate, representing City Strategy, Community

Buildings, Parks Projects and Design and Arts and Cultural Services Co-opted member as appropriate and needed (i.e. Village Committee Chair, Local

Historian, Indigenous, Youth or Multicultural representative).

The Public Art Advisory Panel is responsible for: Reviewing the Civic Art Collection on a 5 year basis or as required Providing written recommendations to Council on applications for as well as the

acquisition and de-accessioning of Public Art (using the processes outlined in this Policy) Providing a formal written report to the Council’s Property Services on all newly acquired

permanent works or de-accessioning. 2 .2 Acqu is i t ion and Se lec t ion Cr i te r i a

The Public Art Advisory Panel will be responsible for the approval, acquisition and evaluation of all public art (permanent, temporary or ephemeral) proposed by the City of Kingston, community organisations or the private sector within the City of Kingston. Assessment will be based on the following criteria:

Relevance to the objectives and actions of Kingston a liveable, creative City: Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15 and the principles, selection and de-accession guidelines of this Public Art Policy

Involvement of a recognised artist, a group of artists, a team of appropriate design professionals in collaboration with an artist or in collaboration with members of the community through a community cultural development process

Artistic merit Relevance and appropriateness of the work to the site and or community identity Level of community support Consistency with current planning, heritage and environmental policies where appropriate Evidence of sustainable design practices Complies with Occupational Health and Safety and public access Consideration of maintenance and durability requirements Evidence of funding source and budget including an allocation for ongoing maintenance, if

needed Non-duplication of monuments commemorating the same or similar events.

6 Public Art Policy

Additional Considerations: If the artist/s has a unique connection to Kingston Works by professional artists that depict Kingston and are of significant state, national or

international importance. 2 .3 App l i ca t ions fo r Pub l i c Ar t

Applications for Public Art must be submitted to the Public Art Advisory Panel and include: Statement of intent Details of artist/s and other creative personnel including Curriculum Vitae, images, DVD or

text of past work An interest in and/or experience of working in a collaborative team Representation of proposed work eg drawings, maquette, digital images, sound recording Technical information including materials, fabrication, maintenance etc Proposed site plan with diagrams or visualisations of proposed work in relation to site Detailed budget including funding and ongoing maintenance Grant the City a curatorial role in the selection of artist/s Address the Selection Criteria (2.2)

Council Commissioning Permanent Public Art

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Gauge community interest via Local Area Plans

Develop Brief Fabrication

Research historical and cultural stories

Call for submissions/tenders Installation

Develop Design concept Selection of artists/creative team Public awareness and marketing campaign

Report to Council Conservation and documentation

Contract awarded and signed

7 Public Art Policy

Applications from the community for Permanent Public Art

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Demonstrate Community interest and intention

Submit application to Public Art Advisory Panel with budget, site plan and addressing selection criteria

Fabrication

Identify partners and budget Develop brief Installation

Research relevant Local Area Plans; planning permits etc

Select artists and creative team Public awareness and marketing campaign

Develop preliminary design concept

Report to Council Conservation and documentation

Contact Council to gauge interest

Contract awarded and signed with time frame and roles clearly defined

2 . 4 Appo in tment and Se lec t ion o f Ar t i s t

In determining the appointment and selection of Artists to make a contribution to the Civic Collection, Council may employ the following options:

Open submission following advertisement to enable professional and emerging artists to register interest

Limited competition by an invitation to a small number of recommended artists who are paid to produce first stage design proposals and/or invited for interview

Direct invitation by artists approached directly and invited to undertake a commission or in response to artists themselves initiating a proposal

Purchase of contemporary work, directly from the artist, studio or gallery or from open or limited submission.

2 .5 G i f t ing o r Dona t ion b y par ty o ther than Counc i l

Gifting or donations of artworks on Council land and/or in the public domain will be considered twice yearly by the Public Art Advisory Panel (2.1). The donor body must provide:

A formal written proposal for the donation addressing 2.2 and 2.3 In addition if the donor is registered for the Commonwealth Government’s Cultural Gifts

Program this will be considered an advantage http://www.arts.gov.au/funding-support/tax-incentives/cultural-gifts-program/about-program

Public Art Advisory Panel will submit a recommendation report to Council for consideration.

http://www.arts.gov.au/funding-support/tax-incentives/cultural-gifts-program/about-program

http://www.arts.gov.au/funding-support/tax-incentives/cultural-gifts-program/about-program

8 Public Art Policy

2 .6 Cont rac t Ma nagement

All successful proposals will be entered into through a formal contract. Contract for Donations will include:

Responsibilities of each party (Council, donor group, sponsor, artist, outside contractors) The agreement will address transport, installation, OH&S and Risk management, transfer

of title, provenance, conservation, copyright, moral rights, de-accessioning, documentation and other areas as deemed necessary

Donated works will be registered on the Civic Collections Register (2.8) and appropriate documents

It is the responsibility of the Public Art Advisory Panel to provide a written formal report to Property Services on all newly acquired works.

Contract for Commissioning of permanent, temporary or ephemeral public art will include:

Responsibilities of each party (Council, partners, sponsor, artist, outside contractors, etc) The agreement will address project funding, project supervision, fabrication, transport,

installation, conservation, appeal processes, copyright, moral rights, de-accessioning, documentation and other areas as deemed necessary

Completed and installed works will be registered on the Civic Collections Register (2.8) and appropriate documents

It is the responsibility of the Public Art Advisory Panel to provide a written formal report to Property Services on all newly acquired works.

2 .7 A r t i s t Cop yr i gh t and Mora l R i gh ts

With amendments that came into force on 26 July 2007, Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 provides for comprehensive moral rights protection in Australia for authors of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, film-makers (producers, directors and screenwriters) and also for performers. This legislation provides creators with three rights. They are:

The right of attribution of authorship or performership — to be named in connection with one’s work, film or performance

The right against false attribution of authorship or performership of a work, film or performance, and

The right of integrity of authorship or performership — the right of an author or performer to object to treatment of a work, film or performance that demeans their reputation.

Moral rights last for the same time as copyright in a work, the term of which is usually the creator’s life plus 70 years. While it is not necessary for an artist or creator to expressly preserve their moral rights, contracts may include a clause to this effect. It should be noted that moral rights apply to people and not to corporations. Unlike copyright, moral rights are personal property and cannot be transferred. See Copyright Amendment Act 2006

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Act1.nsf/0/C8E557D7AAAED1F2CA257242000CE35D?OpenDocument

9 Public Art Policy

The work will be: Labelled in full view with the following information as a minimum requirement: artist's

name, title of the artwork, date of the work, medium and as appropriate, the name of the donor

Not be displayed so as to be obscured or altered without written permission of the artist Not be displayed if it is in disrepair.

2 .8 C iv ic Co l l ec t ion Documenta t ion and Access Management

Council will maintain a Civic Collection Register comprised of an Art Register which includes paintings and artefacts, and a Monuments and Plaques Register. The City will continue to document, audit and catalogue the Civic Collection Register to enable identification and management including conservation and care, valuation, lending etc. Access to the Civic Collection will be provided to the public via:

Digital access through the Council and external web sites Programs, exhibitions and display of the Civic Collection Publications and reproductions Supervised research access.

2 .9 Conserva t ion and Care

Council will continue to regularly assess works in its Civic Collection including conservation and refurbishment of historical items, civic monuments and the public art collection. Items for priority conservation will be listed annually according to the budget allocation. Priority works and items will be assessed and treated by professional conservators where required. 2 .10 Reques ts to Purchase Pub l i c Ar t

Council will not consider any requests to purchase items from its Civic Collection unless that item has been identified by the Public Art Advisory Panel (PAAP) as surplus in its five yearly review of the City’s Civic Art Collection.

2 . 11 De -Access ion ing

When de-accessioning consideration should be given in the first instance to lending the item to a suitable accredited organisation; if a work is to be sold, donated, moved or destroyed all reasonable efforts to locate the artist must be adhered to by the Council. If de-accessioning is approved a six month cooling off period will apply. The Public Art Advisory Panel can recommend to Council the de-accession a work if it:

Has ephemeral or limited life Does not fall within the current selection criteria Is in poor condition and is considered to have insufficient significance to warrant the

allocation of resources for continuing conservation and/or storage Serves no specific purpose, is unsuitable for and is not required for research Increased in value to the extent that the work becomes a viable asset to be sold Duplicates another item and is of lesser significance than its duplicate or is a fake Is irreparably damaged, destroyed or stolen with no prospect of retrieval Is a public safety risk or at high risk of vandalism Significant changes in the use, character or design of the artwork site have impacted

considerably on the suitability of the artwork remaining in its present location.

10 Public Art Policy

2 .12 D isposa l

The Public Art Advisory Panel can recommend to Council the disposal of a work through: Donation, transfer or sale to an institution where that item can be demonstrated to have

relevance Donation or sale (if appropriate) to its donor or creator Sale on the open market Destruction where no other option is suitable All proceeds from sales will be used for the Public Art Program.

2 .13 Appea l P rocess

Unsuccessful applicants may request one (1) face-to-face presentation to the Public Art Advisory Panel. If a presentation is granted and PAAP does not accept the proposal no other correspondence will be undertaken. No appeals will be entertained on the grounds of the panel’s aesthetic evaluation of an existing or proposed work.



151

N 223 2012 Council Election -MAV Tender Agency Proposal Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development & Governance Author: Phil DeLosa, Program Leader Governance

1. Purpose

To inform Council about a proposal for the MAV to act as an agent assisting Councils with their election tender process.

2. Council Plan

Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders. The 2012 Election is an important event in promoting community leadership.

3. Background

In 2008, Kingston along with other Councils appointed the MAV to act as an agent to tender the Council Elections. Previously Councils had conducted their own tender process to appoint a contractor to conduct the elections. This resulted in each Council preparing its own tender documentation, evaluating tenders received, and negotiating details with tenderers. The MAV tendered on behalf of 48 Councils in 2008. Currently, the MAV will act on behalf of 67 Councils for the 2012 Election.


The proposal for the MAV to act as a tender agent for Councils aims to achieve a more efficient and consistent process for the awarding of Council election tenders in Victoria. For minimal cost, participating Councils will gain access to legally vetted documentation, tender evaluation and negotiation. The MAV has advised verbally the deadline to appoint the MAV is mid to late February 2012.

5. Consultation

To date Council officers have been liaising with the MAV and have recently attended an information meeting conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission regarding plans for next year’s election. 6. Issues 6.1 Local Circumstances to be Reflected in Contract Each Council has local circumstances particular to it that need to be reflected in the contract documentation. For example, in view of its multi-cultural community, Kingston has always required the successful tenderer to include a multi-lingual information pamphlet with each ballot pack. In the 2008 Election, Kingston also requested an extension to the election office



152

opening hours for a week after the Election and requested declaration of the results once they are known. The MAV advises that each Council will be able to detail its special requirements as an appendix to the contract document so that these will be included and costed in the tenders received. 6.2 Voting at a Council Election It is a major consideration of the contract whether the election will be conducted by postal voting or attendance voting and Council is required to consider its view on this matter. In 2008 Council conducted the election by postal voting. Section 41A(2A) of the Local Government Act states that “Voting at a general election must be conducted by the same means, whether attendance or postal voting, as the previous general election was conducted unless the Council has decided at least 8 months before the election day (27 February 2012) to change the means of conducting the voting”. The main advantages of postal voting include:

greater convenience for voters, particularly for those with limited mobility, the aged or those in remote areas;

increased participation rates, particularly non-resident owners; lower number of informal votes; more consistent levels of information for all candidates, avoiding a disadvantage for

candidates not as well resourced.

It is recommended that Council maintains postal voting for the 2012 Election primarily because postal voting has historically achieved a higher voter participation rate.

7. Options

There are 2 options regarding the tendering of the Council election process:

a) Appoint the MAV as tender agent and access the MAV’s contract documentation, to which Kingston will have the option to ask for Kingston-specific requirements to be added by way of a separate schedule. This option is recommended.

b) Re-use Council’s documentation (used in the 2005 election), and to administer the

tender process ourselves, as in past elections. This option is not recommended. The MAV’s proposal is aimed at achieving a more efficient process which avoids duplication of effort between Councils and more standardised documentation and procedures. Officers have examined each option and have concluded that appointing the MAV as tender agent has the most merit. Participating Councils would pay the MAV a set fee of up to $2000 for them to act as our agent for the tender and to use their tender documentation.



153

Under the MAV agent option: The MAV will:

1. issue the tender; 2. co-ordinate a tender evaluation group which will consider tenders received (the MAV

advises that each participating Council will receive an invitation to this group);

3. negotiate the services agreement with the successful tenderer Kingston will:

1. provide all information reasonably required by the MAV; 2. provide input on draft documentation prepared by the MAV;

3. Accept the successful tenderer selected through the tender evaluation process.

The tender itself is mainly an issue about legislative compliance. Realistically there is only one option for this tender and that is the VEC, but as the cost of conducting Kingston’s 2012 Council elections will exceed $150.000, under the Local Government Act 1989, Council must go through a public tender process. The advantages of participating in such an agency arrangement for the tender are:

Access for participating Councils to legally vetted tender documentation for a fairly small cost. Using Kingston’s own legal counsel to do this review on Kingston’s own documentation would be more expensive;

The VEC will be able to prepare tenders more efficiently in response to standardised

tender documents and thereby possibly reduce costs due to economies of scale;

Council will be able to ensure that costs being charged under the contract are consistent with those being charged to other Councils;

Significant time savings at officer level with the MAV preparing tender contract

documentation and administering the tender;

The ability to customise the eventuating contract documentation. The disadvantages might be:

Kingston has tender documentation potentially available for use for the 2012 election (ie adapt the documentation used in 2005);

The potential loss of direct control over the tender process given that Council is not

running the process itself. Having a Kingston representative on the tender evaluation panel may allay some of these concerns.



154

Officers are of the view that the tender agency proposal has significant merit.

8. Triple Bottom Line

Financial: Budgetary provision is anticipated for the conducting of the Elections.

Expenditure in the order of $400,000 plus GST occurred for the elections in 2008.

Social: Elected Councillors set strategic & policy directions for the community.

Elections are an important part of the community’s democratic process.

9. Recommendation

That 1. Council appoint the Municipal Association of Victoria as the Council’s agent to undertake a public tender for the provision of electoral services for the 2012 election. 2. Council authorise the CEO to sign and seal the Deed of Agreement with the Municipal Association of Victoria for the tendering for the provision of electoral services for the 2012 election. 3. Council authorise the CEO to finalise contract arrangements with the preferred tender for the provision of electoral services for the 2012 election. 4. Council acknowledges that by authorising the CEO to enter into this contract, it is committing to the allocation of funds for the procurement of electoral services in the 2012/2013 Council budget. 5. Council adopt the same voting method as that used in the 2008 general election for the 2012 general election ie postal voting.



155

N 224 Community Visioning Process Overview and Consulting Services (Request for Quotation 11/33) to support the Kingston Community Visioning project Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager - Organisational Development and Governance Author: Robyn Cochrane, Program Leader – Organisational Planning and Performance 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the revised Community Visioning Process and to outline the evaluation process and preferred consulting company. 2. Council Plan Consideration of this report is consistent with:

Planned Outcome 5: Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.2: Create a shared vision for the future

The proposed recommendation directly supports Strategic Action 5.2.1 (Actively engage with the community to develop a new Community Vision). 3. Background Council at its 28 March 2011 Ordinary Meeting approved the development of a long term (20 to 25 year) Community Vision for Kingston. The agreed approach to develop the Community Vision involved the establishment of a Steering Group (currently comprising the Cr. Ronke (Mayor), Cr. Brownlees, Cr. Staikos, the General Manager - Organisational Development and Governance, and the Program Leader - Organisational Planning and Performance), and a Reference Panel (comprising the Mayor, 10 community representatives and 10 Council employees). At the Ordinary Council Meeting in March, an initial timeline for the Community Visioning project was approved and it was agreed that consulting services would be sought to support the project. 4. Summary and Conclusion After considering a range of community engagement options, the Community Vision Reference Panel has developed a revised Community Visioning Process for Council to note (see Attachment 1). Following the careful assessment of the submitted quotations, the Evaluation Panel and Community Vision Steering Group consider the proposal of The Launch Box offers the best value service to Council.



156

5. Issues 5.1 Community Visioning Process Council at its 28 March 2011 Ordinary Meeting approved an initial timeline for the Community Visioning project. This timeline involved five key stages: Information Sharing and Gathering (October 2011 to February 2012); Facilitated Discussion (February to May 2012); Testing of Themes and Priorities (May to October 2012); Draft Community Vision Document (October 2012 to June 2013); and Launch Community Vision (June to September 2013). Following extensive discussion of a range of considerations surrounding community engagement by the Community Vision Reference Panel, a revised approach for the community consultation activities has been developed and is presented in Attachment 1 (Community Visioning Process). This Process builds upon the initial timelines and activities and incorporates the Council Care-taker period (from 25 September 2012). Similar to the initial timeline, the Process involves six key stages: Information Sharing, Data Gathering and Theme Development (December 2011 to March 2012); Interest Group Meetings (January to March 2012); Area Based Meetings (April to June 2012); City Wide Forum (November 2012); Draft Community Vision document (December 2012 to February 2013), and Adopted Vision (March to July 2013). 5.2 Engagement of Consulting Company Brief Description of the Scope of Consulting Services Following an unsuccessful public tendering process, it was decided to commit additional internal resources to the project. Robyn Cochrane (Program Leader – Organisational Planning and Performance) now coordinates the project and is the key contact person. As a consequence the project deliverables and requirements were reviewed and made more explicit in the request for quotation documentation. Further, following extensive discussion by the Community Vision Reference Panel, a revised process as described above will commence implementation in late December. A request for tender was refocussed to the following deliverables: Advice and professional expertise provided as required Delivery of three days of community workshops and a summary report of themes Delivery of five focus groups (or equivalent) and a summary report of themes Production of a draft Community Vision report Quotations Received A list of suitable consulting companies was researched and developed. Six appropriate consulting companies were identified who had experience in community consultation in the local government sector and/or community visioning experience. A direct approach was made to the consulting companies listed in confidential Attachment 2.



157

Evaluation Panel and Processes Six conforming quotations were received. Quotations were assessed in accordance with the evaluation criteria set out in the Request for Quotation document: Value for money of proposal Experience undertaking similar projects Proven track record Availability of resources The evaluation process comprised: Assessment by a panel comprising Tim Bearup, Jason Stubbs, Trish Smyth and Robyn

Cochrane, including short-listing (see confidential Attachment 3) Interview of the short-listed consulting companies by the Steering Committee 9. Triple Bottom Line Checklist Financial impact – The recommended approach and use of the recommended consulting

company represents the best outcome to Council in terms of value for money, level of risk, and service quality. The amount tendered as outlined in confidential Attachment 3 is within the budget allocated.

Social – The selection of a suitably experienced consulting company and inclusive consultation framework to support the Community Visioning project is vital to the successful engagement of, and partnership with, the Kingston community.

Environmental – Not applicable. Recommendation That Council resolve to: 1. Note the revised Community Visioning Process. 2. Note The Launch Box consulting company will be engaged to facilitate and support the

delivery of the Community Visioning project. Attachment 1. Community Visioning Process Attachment 2. List of Quotations received - Confidential Attachment 3. Summary Evaluation Matrix for Community Vision Consulting Services - Confidential

City Wide Forum

Purpose is to:(i)Communicate

findings(ii)Validate findings(iii)Prioritise actions

Area

Based

Meeting

Area

Based

Meeting

Area

Based

Meeting

Area

Based

Meeting

Draft

Visio

n

Adopte

d Vision

Data G

athering Information

Theme D

evelopment

Interest Group

Meetings

Council Care‐taker Period starts 25

September (Election

‐27 October)

January – March 2012 April –

June 2012 November 2012 February 2013 July 2013

Community Visioning Process19 December 2011



158

N 225 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development &

Governance Author: Phil DeLosa, Program Leader Governance

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek formal Council approval of the expenditure of Ward funds in accordance with the ‘Expenditure of Ward Funds Policy’.

2. Council Plan

Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.3 – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership

The reporting of Ward Fund Grants meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.

3. Background The Council, on 23 March 2009, adopted a revised policy for the expenditure of ward funds. Each financial year during a Council term, Kingston Councillors are allocated $6,000 in ward funds for utilisation in accordance with the adopted policy. Part 2 of the policy, which outlines the limitations on the expenditure of ward funds, specifies that Councillors may propose that ward funds be allocated for initiatives that aim to:

“a) assist a recognised community group (including sporting/recreational body, arts/cultural group, charity, youth group, pre-school, playgroup, senior citizens club, historical society, friendship group, environmental group, trader organisation or toy library) which provides a service, program or activity used by or of benefit to Kingston residents;

b) assist an individual who is a resident of the City of Kingston to participate in a sporting, recreational or cultural activity, or other pursuit of a personal development nature, or who is in necessitous circumstances;

c) Support an event or activity which will be of benefit or interest to residents of the City

of Kingston;

d) Support the key external themes of enhancement of the physical environment or the development of community well being, identified in the Council Plan.”

It should be noted that the policy also enables a Ward Councillor to propose that his / her ward funds be expended outside of the Councillor’s specific ward, provided that the ward funds are expended for the benefit of the Kingston community, and that one or more of the criteria set out above are met.



159

The table below lists the Councillor requests for the expenditure of ward funds received since the last Ordinary Council Meeting. Table of Councillor requests:

Councillor Ward Initiative Request

Date Amount

$

Cr Staikos North Bruthen Street Kindergarten

(50th Anniversary Celebrations)

29/11/2011 $500.00

Cr Moloney South St Louis Primary School Aspendale

(2 x $125 Scholarship prizes)

5/12/2011 $250.00

Cr Ronke South Junior Mayor Fundraiser (Lighthouse Foundation)

13/12/2011 $200.00

Cr Ronke South Carrum Primary School (Sponsorship for Water Safety Camp)

12/12/2011 $200.00

Cr Shewan South Carrum Primary School (Sponsorship for Water Safety Camp)

12/12/2011 $200.00

Cr Moloney South Carrum Primary School (Sponsorship for Water Safety Camp)

12/12/2011 $200.00

Cr Brownlees Central Sandringham Mad Paddle Appeal 15/12/2011 $500.00

Recommendation That Council approve the expenditure of ward funds in accordance with the table of Councillor requests.



160

N 226 Assembly of Council Record Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

and Governance Author: Phil DeLosa, Program Leader, Governance

1. Purpose

This report provides copies of the Assembly of Council records in line with the Local Government Act amendments which came into effect on 24 September 2010 to support openness and transparency of Governance processes.

2. Council Plan

Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.3 – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership

The reporting of Assembly of Council meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.

3. Background

An amendment to the Local Government Act now requires that Assembly of Council records are reported to the next possible Council Meeting. This amendment seeks to promote openness and transparency of Council decision making.


Attached are the Assembly of Council records completed for the month in the lead up to the Council Meeting. The report is provided in line with the Local Government Act section 80A which requires that the record of an assembly must be reported to the next practical ordinary Council meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

5. Issues

The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of every assembly of Councillors. These records must be reported to the next Ordinary Council Meeting The written record only needs to be a simple document that records: - The names of all Councillors and staff at the meeting, - A list of the matters considered, - Any conflict of interest disclosed by a Councillor, and - Whether a Councillor who disclosed a conflict left the room. A standard Assembly of Council form will generally be used as the record for the purposes of the Act. These form the attachment to the report. At times however to avoid duplication



161

minutes of some meetings may be attached as the record of the Assembly if they include the required information, including disclosures. The Act does not require details of a conflict of interest disclosure at an assembly to be recorded.

6. Recommendation

That Council notes the contents of this report.

Attachments: Assembly of Council forms



162

12. Corporate Services Reports N 227 Summary of Audit Committee Meetings Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Author: Hayley White - Team Leader, Financial Accounting As a part of Council’s governance obligations to its community the Audit Committee was established as an independent Advisory Committee to Council in 1997.

The Audit Committee is established to assist the co-ordination of relevant activities of management, the internal audit function and the external auditor to facilitate achieving overall organisational objectives in an efficient and effective manner. As part of Council’s governance obligations to its community, Council has constituted the Audit Committee under a Charter to facilitate the following outcomes as a part of its work program:- 1. The enhancement of the credibility and objectivity of internal and external financial

reporting; 2. Effective management of financial and other risks and the protection of Council assets; 3. Compliance with laws and regulations as well as use of best practice guidelines; 4. The effectiveness of the internal audit function; and 5. The provision of an effective means of communication between the external auditor,

internal audit, management and the Council. This report forms part of the on-going communication between the Audit Committee and Council. The key items considered by the Audit Committee in the August & September 2011 meetings (refer to confidential attachment for detailed minutes) included:

- Consideration of the 2010/2011 Annual Financial Statements - Results of the 2011 CAATs review - Summary of the new Workplace Safety Act - Terms of reference for Cash Handling internal audit - Status update on progress of Internal Audit Plan - Internal audit register status update of outstanding items - 2010/2011 Annual Accounts update & draft management letter - Update on Corporate Services

Conclusion

Council has an on-going obligation to the community to properly utilise the resources put at its disposal. The Audit Committee and the activities that it oversees is one mechanism that allows the community to feel confident that Council is properly discharging stewardship and governance obligations.



163

Recommendation

That the summary of the Audit Committee activities be noted and the Audit Committee be thanked for its good work.



164

N 228 Draft School Crossing Supervisor Policy Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Author: Robyn Horner, Manager Statutory Education and Compliance

1. Purpose

This report presents a draft Children’s Crossing Supervisors Policy for Council’s consideration. The Policy will provide guidance to Council on the management and funding of children’s crossings and crossing supervisors. The Policy aims to ensure a consistent procedural approach in the management of children’s crossing within Kingston.

2. Background

In 1975 the State introduced the School Crossing Scheme which focussed on road safety specifically for the provision of safe road crossings for children. When the scheme was introduced the State contributed two thirds of the funding whilst Councils contributed the remaining one third. Local Government has continued to administer the supervisor scheme, inclusive of the employment, supervision and training of supervisors, installation and maintenance of infrastructure and annual traffic/pedestrian analysis.

By 1993 the funding contributions had shifted to the following - State 55%, Councils 45%

Councils are now the primary funding source. Councils are currently contributing 80% of the funding costs, administering the scheme managing the balance of risk management and community expectation. The total cost to Council of this service is $588,000 in 2011/12.

Kingston Council had previously determined that supervisors should only be employed where State funding was provided for sites that met the Vic Roads warrants. This resulted in difficulties in meeting the community’s expectations of the continued provision of supervised children’s school crossings. Without exception Council has on a case by case basis provided support for individual crossings that failed to meet warrant levels for a 6 to 12 month period to either allow the school to transition to an unsupervised crossing or in the hope that the warrant might be met in the next annual assessment.


Council currently supports 62 crossings. This has been as low as 57 and as high as 65 crossings. The draft Policy will be a statement of commitment from Council to continue to fund and maintain the current number (62) and locations of children’s crossing for continued community safety, regardless of the provision of part funding from VicRoads. In addition to this Council should commit to support any additional new locations identified that are eligible for VicRoads funding.



165

The adoption of the Policy will provide guidance for the consistent administration of the Children’s Crossing Supervisors Program.

4. Consultation

Consultation has occurred with Traffic Engineers, School Principals and Local Laws during the development of this Policy.

5. Issues

The lack of guaranteed provision of a supervised children’s crossing has significant negative impacts upon our residents and the school and wider community. The removal of supervised school crossings results in failing to meet the community’s expectations for the continued provision of safe road crossings for school aged children. Further to this, the impact on the administration of the program increases substantially by way of staff redundancies, relocation of crossings, etc. The recent pedestrian/vehicular counts identified Narrumburn Road, Clayton South crossing as not meeting the required funding warrants. Not withstanding this, Narrumburn Road crossing, has been included in Council’s recent grant application under Other Factors. Council may not receive funding for this crossing. Council will lose funding in 2012/13 for the following crossings: Clayton Road (corner Fairbank Road) x 1 supervisor Westall Road x2 supervisors Eulinga Road x1 supervisor (trial road closure to occur which will result in this location

not requiring a supervisor during the trial) Councillors should note that only one child was utilising the crossing at Clayton Road at the intersection of Fairbank Road at the time of the recent counts. The usage fluctuates from year to year. An additional two (2) new eligible crossing locations have been identified and included in the 2011/13 funding application. These are EeI Race Road in Carrum and Lower Dandenong Road, Parkdale. If the draft Policy is adopted Council will be operating a total of 65 crossings in 2012/13 (62 eligible and 3 non-eligible crossings).

6. Options

Option 1. Adopt the Draft School Crossing Supervisor Policy This will provide clarity and consistency for the management and administration of the School Crossing Supervisor Program. The community will be assured of the continued commitment of the provision of supervised crossings at all current locations. This option is recommended.

Option 2. Continue to assess crossings on a case by case basis. This option is not recommended.



166


Environmental –N/A Social – The community will be assured of the continued commitment of the provision

of supervised crossings at all current locations. This will enable Council to promote road safety to school aged children.

Financial – The adoption of this Policy should not impact on the continued sourcing of grant funding to support the program. As the number of funded eligible crossings fluctuates only minimally from year to year, the impact on the overall funding received by Council is limited. Council receives approximately $3000 in funding per eligible crossing. The total cost per crossing it approximately $12,600 excluding infrastructure and program administration).

8. Recommendation

That Council adopt the attached draft School Crossing Supervisor Policy. Attachments: Draft School Crossing Supervisor Policy 11/125903

POLICY

SCHOOL CROSSING SUPERVISORS PROGRAM Note: In cases of discrepancy between this policy and the legislation, the Legislation should be relied upon. INTRODUCTION This Policy provides guidance to Council on the management and funding of children’s crossings and crossing supervisors. The Policy aims to ensure a consistent procedural approach in the management of children’s crossing within Kingston. DEFINITIONS “Warrants” - are the calculations used to determine if a crossing site is eligible for a VicRoads Grants subsidy for the provision of a Children’s Crossing Supervisor. Warrants are based on traffic and pedestrian volumes within a given time frame. The warrants are calculated as follows: Children’s crossing for primary school children-where the number of children

(minimum 20) multiplied by the number of vehicles in an hour (minimum 100) exceeds 5,000.

Children’s crossings for secondary school children-where the number of children (minimum 20) multiplied by the number of vehicles in one hour (minimum 250) exceeds 25,000.

Pedestrian operated signals-more than 20 primary school children per hour. “Other Factors/Special Needs” – children with special needs or disabilities or other factors affecting safety, such as excessive speed, road geometry, limited sight distance, volume of heavy vehicles or road width. GUIDING PRINCIPLES Promote safe road crossings for school aged children Council will focus it’s service on all schools within the City of Kingston Council will continue to fund and maintain the current number and locations of

children’s crossing for continued community safety, regardless of the loss of funding from VicRoads.

Council will commit to support any additional new locations identified that are eligible for VicRoads funding

Council will be guided by Vic Roads and their warrant calculation system to assist in determining the appropriate locations for supervised children’s crossings.

Council will take into consideration the reasons that a crossing was lodged under “Other Factors” in a Grant application.

Council to determine if they accept Vic Roads decision and the risk level of not providing a supervised children’s crossing at a particular location.

RELATED STRATEGIES City of Kingston Road Safety Strategy Children’s Crossing Supervisor Scheme Guidelines – VicRoads HISTORY In 1975 the State introduced the School Crossing Scheme which focussed on road safety specifically for the provision of safe road crossings for children. When the scheme was introduced the State contributed two thirds of the funding whilst Councils contributed the remaining one third. Local Government has continued to administer the supervisor scheme, inclusive of the employment, supervision and training of supervisors, installation and maintenance of infrastructure and annual traffic/pedestrian analysis. By 1993 the funding contributions had shifted to the following - State 55%, Councils 45% Councils are now the primary funding source. Councils are currently contributing 80% of the funding costs, administering the scheme managing the balance of risk management and community expectation. Kingston Council had previously determined that supervisors should only be employed where State funding was provided for sites that met the Vic Roads warrants. This resulted in difficulties in meeting the community’s expectations of the continued provision of supervised children’s school crossings. FUNDING State Government subsidies are available to municipalities for the provision of Children’s Crossing Supervisor’s under the Children’s Crossing Supervisors Scheme. Council’s can make application for funding in accordance with the schemes guidelines on an annual basis. Vic Roads are responsible for setting the schemes guidelines and warrants that specify the requirements for site eligibility and the administration arrangements for the scheme. Each year Council’s Traffic Engineers carry out counts at all current children’s crossing sites and nominated sites that may require a new crossing and allocated supervisor. These figures are submitted to Vic Roads for consideration. For crossings that do not meet the warrant requirements, Council staff will determine if it is necessary to include these sites in the grant application under “special needs” or “other factors”. The number of sites eligible for funding within Kingston fluctuates marginally from year to year. Sometimes there is a need to close one site but establish another as pedestrian needs change. Once the results of the grant application are known, Council administers the subsidy and provides Children’s Crossing Supervisors for those crossings that were accepted as eligible sites by Vic Roads. Councils are the primary funding source for this program. RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNCIL Administer the Children’s Crossing Supervisor Scheme Employment, supervision and training of supervisors

Site assessment for the provision of a supervised crossing or other treatments to assist in providing safe pedestrian movement

Installation and maintenance of crossing infrastructure Conduct annual traffic/pedestrian analysis Submit application for grant funding Consult with key stakeholders PROVISION OF CROSSING SUPERVISORS The current children crossings have been in place for many years and provide safety for Primary School students. Removing any current supervised crossings will have a major impact on pedestrian safety. The appointment of a supervisor is not dependant on a Government subsidy and Council may appoint a supervisor on a voluntary or paid basis, provided the person is properly trained and equipped and infrastructure is in place. Council will continue to fund and maintain the current number and locations of children’s crossing for continued community safety, regardless of the loss of funding from VicRoads. If a children’s crossing continues to fail to meet the warrant requirement for funding, Council may consider the removal of a supervisor whilst keeping the infrastructure in place. If however the crossing remains unutilised Council’s Traffic Engineers will consider the formal removal of the crossing infrastructure in consultation with Statutory Education and Compliance Department and the affected schools in the immediate area.



167

13. Notices of Motion N 229 Notice of Rescission “I move that the resolution of Council at the Council meeting on Monday 28 November for agenda item N192, KP79/11- 8 to 18 Bendigo Street Cheltenham and 13 to 17 Wilson Street Cheltenham be rescinded.” Cr Rosemary West 29 November 2011



168

N 230 Notice of Motion – Cheltenham Manor Condition Considering that:

Will Bromhead of Ratio Consultants still has to get back to me with a response from his client regarding whether they would accept the following extra condition I have proposed for the Cheltenham Manor extension application;

A foreshadowed motion would be necessary in the event that the rescission motion already lodged is carried;

Some Councillors have indicated they were not clear during the debate on this matter at the November Ordinary Council meeting that the primary purpose of the proposal to retain the peppercorn tree was to provide a more adequate setback so as to protect the amenity of the residents of the neighbouring property, which has its deck and habitable windows only 4m away from a three storey building.

Foreshadowed Motion In the event that my rescission motion is successful, I move that: Council approve the Cheltenham Manor extension application on the same conditions adopted at the November Ordinary meeting with the following additional condition:

That the building be set back by 7.7m from the northern frontage for approximately five metres opposite the deck of Unit 5, 19 Wilson Street and so as to enable retention of the peppercorn tree;

That the requirement to retain the large tree in the south western corner (tree 15) be deleted.

Cr Rosemary West OAM Central Ward

city of kingston agenda 19 december 2011 notice 1 ... · city of kingston ordinary council meeting...

Documents