stage (2) proposed nine storey tower. yarra council officers report. land: railway place [1-3]

Agenda Page 5

Yarra City Council – Internal Development Approvals Committee Agenda – Wednesday 29 August 2012

1.1 1-3 Railway Place, Cremorne (PLN11/0953) Executive Summary Purpose 1. This report provides Council with an assessment of Planning Application No. PLN11/0953

which seeks approval for development of the land for a nine storey building (plus a basement and roof deck), use of the land for dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirements associated with the dwelling and food and drink premises (café) uses, and waiver of the loading bay requirement.

Background 2. The application was lodged with Council on 15 November 2011 and, following a review of the

documentation submitted, further information was requested on 5 December 2011. Following the receipt of the required information, the application was advertised and 58 objections and 1 letter of support were received.

3. The application was referred externally to Vicroads, Transurban Citylink and the EPA, and internally to Council’s heritage adviser, engineering department, open space unit, ESD officer, services contracts unit (waste management), urban designer and acoustic engineer.

4. A Consultation meeting was held on 15 May and was attended by Councillor Clarke, Council officers, objectors and the permit applicant. This meeting did not result in any compromises.

5. However, in light of the issues raised in Council’s Urban Design advice, the Applicant lodged Amended plans under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 [the Act] on 10 August 2012. The amended plans form the basis of this assessment and make the following changes to the original, advertised plans:

(a) additional stores and relocated water tank in the basement; (b) café reduced in size from 62.5m² to 50m²; (c) building forecourt lowered in line with natural ground level (approximately 200mm); (d) bicycle stores relocated from the mezzanine to the ground floor, with an increased

provision from 31 to 42 spaces; (e) provision of 4 visitor bicycle stores adjacent to residential lobby; (f) ground floor setbacks modified:

(i) north – increased from 1.8m to 3m; (ii) east – increased from 1.6m to 2m; and (iii) south – reduced from 3.3m to 2.9m.

(g) first floor setbacks modified: (i) north – increased from 1.9m to 3.1m; (ii) east – increased from 1.6m to 2m; (iii) south – reduced from 3.8m to 3.3m; (iv) west – increased from 909mm to 960mm.

(h) larger storage cages provided (due to provision within basement), with a total 42 cages with an average size of 4.5m³;

(i) second to eighth floors repositioned generally as per lower levels; (j) ‘hinged’ windows modified to projecting ‘bay’ style windows. The bay windows would

be constructed of obscure glazing; (k) width of internal corridor opposite lift increased from 1.6m to 1.9m; and (l) design detail of east and west walls of top two floors (levels 7 and 8) modified, with

perforated metal screen detailing and exposed windows ‘capping’ the building.

Agenda Page 6


6. The plans were not readvertised because the changes are limited to minor building repositioning (minor having regard to the scale of the development) and design changes in light of Council’s Urban Design advice (i.e. no material detriment).

7. Planning Scheme Amendment VC90 (gazetted 5 June 2012) implemented a number of changes which are relevant to the assessment of car parking within the proposed development. In particular, the car parking requirements within Clause 52.06 were modified.

Use Clause 52.06 before Requirement Reduction

sought Clause 52.06

rate now (after VC90)

Requirement Reduction sought

Dwelling 2 car parking space per dwelling

84 spaces 62

1 car parking space per 1 and 2 bedroom dwelling 1 visitor parking space per 5 dwellings

42 resident

8 visitor

50 TOTAL

28

Café None specified (to Council's satisfaction)

0 0

4 car parking spaces per 100m² of leasable floor area

2 2

8. Given the statutory car parking requirement has been reduced by 32 spaces, re-advertising

was not warranted as a result of VC90 (i.e. again, no material detriment).

Key Planning Considerations 9. Key planning considerations include:

(a) clause 15.01 – Urban Environment (including the Design Guidelines for Higher Density

Residential Development); (b) clause 15.02 – Sustainable Development; (c) clause 15.03 – Heritage; (d) clause 16.01 – Residential Development; (e) clause 17.01 – Commercial; (f) clause 18.01 – Integrated Transport; (g) clause 18.02 – Movement Networks; (h) clause 21.04-1 – Accommodation and Housing; (i) clause 21.04-2 – Activity Centres; (j) clause 21.04-3 – Industry, Office and Commercial; (k) clause 21.05-1 – Heritage; (l) clause 21.05-2 – Urban Design; (m) clause 21.05-4 – Public Environment; (n) clause 21.06 – Transport; (o) clause 21.07-1 – Ecologically Sustainability Development; (p) clause 21.08-1 – Burnley, Cremorne, South Richmond; (q) clause 22.02 – Development Guidelines for Sites Subject to the Heritage Overlay; (r) clause 22.03 – Landmarks and Tall Structures; (s) clause 22.05 – Interface Uses Policy; (t) clause 22.07 – Development Abutting Laneways; (u) clause 22.12 – Public Open Space Contribution; (v) clause 34.01 – Business 1 Zone; (w) clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 5); (x) clause 45.07 – Citylink Project Overlay; (y) clause 52.06 – Car Parking; (z) clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of Vehicles; (aa) clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities; (bb) clause 52.35 – Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential

Development of Four or More Storeys; and (cc) clause 65 – Decision Guidelines.

Agenda Page 7


Key Issues 10. The key issues for Council in considering the proposal relate to:

(a) policy and physical context; (b) dwelling use; (c) public open space contribution; (d) urban design; (e) on site amenity; (f) environmental sustainability; (g) off-site amenity; (h) car parking / traffic; (i) loading facilities; (j) waste management; (k) bicycle parking and facilities; and (l) Objector concerns.

Objector Concerns 11. Fifty-eight (58) objections and one (1) letter of support were received to the application. The

points of objection can be summarised as: (a) neighbourhood character (scale, height, massing, surrounding heritage context, design

detailing, subdivision, loss of vegetation, materials); (b) visual bulk; (c) off-site amenity (overlooking, overshadowing, glare from glazing, noise, street

interface); (d) on-site amenity (noise from trains); (e) traffic/car parking/loading bay/bicycle parking; (f) waste management; (g) precedent; (h) overdevelopment; (i) insufficient ESD credentials; and (j) contrary to draft Swan Street Structure Plan.

12. The letter of support identified the activation provided by the ground level café, the low car

parking provision, and the acceptable overall height as positive features. Conclusion 13. Based on the following report, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant

planning policy and should therefore be supported. CONTACT OFFICER: Sarah Thomas TITLE: Principal Planner TEL: 92055005

Agenda Page 8


1.1 1-3 Railway Place, Cremorne (PLN11/0953) Trim Record Number: D12/58429 Responsible Officer: Co-ordinator Statutory Planning

Proposal: Development of the land for a nine storey building (plus a basement and roof deck), use of the land for dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirements associated with the dwelling and food and drink premises (café) uses, and waiver of the loading bay requirement.

Existing use: Car park Applicant: Richmond Icon Pty Ltd Zoning / Overlays: Business 1 Zone/ Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 5)/

Citylink Project Overlay Date of Application: 15 November 2011 Application Number: PLN11/0953

Planning History 1. Planning Permit No. 3222 was issued on 19 May 1986 for the use of the site as a car park.

This permit was amended on 11 February 2011 to delete a condition which prohibited fees or charges.

Background 2. The application was lodged with Council on 15 November 2011 and, following a review of the

documentation submitted, further information was requested on 5 December 2011. Following the receipt of the required information, the application was advertised and 58 objections and 1 letter of support were received.

3. The application was referred externally to Vicroads, Transurban Citylink and the EPA, and internally to Council’s Heritage Advisor, Engineering Department, Open Space Unit, ESD Officer, Services Contracts Unit (waste management), Urban Designer and Acoustic Engineer (the last two being external contractors).

4. However, in light of the issues raised in Council’s Urban Design advice, the Applicant lodged

Amended plans under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 [the Act] on 10 August 2012. The amended plans form the basis of this assessment and make the following changes to the original, advertised plans:

(a) additional stores and relocated water tank in the basement; (b) café reduced in size from 62.5m² to 50m²; (c) building forecourt lowered in line with natural ground level (approximately 200mm); (d) bicycle stores relocated from the mezzanine to the ground floor, with an increased

provision from 31 to 42 spaces; (e) provision of 4 visitor bicycle stores adjacent to residential lobby; (f) ground floor setbacks modified:

(i) north – increased from 1.8m to 3m; (ii) east – increased from 1.6m to 2m; and (iii) south – reduced from 3.3m to 2.9m.

(g) first floor setbacks modified: (i) north – increased from 1.9m to 3.1m; (ii) east – increased from 1.6m to 2m; (iii) south – reduced from 3.8m to 3.3m; (iv) west – increased from 909mm to 960mm.

Agenda Page 9


(h) larger storage cages provided (due to provision within basement), with a total 42 cages with an average size of 4.5m³;

(i) second to eighth floors repositioned generally as per lower levels; (j) ‘hinged’ windows modified to projecting ‘bay’ style windows. The bay windows would

be constructed of obscure glazing; (k) width of internal corridor opposite lift increased from 1.6m to 1.9m; and (l) design detail of east and west walls of top two floors (levels 7 and 8) modified, with

perforated metal screen detailing and exposed windows ‘capping’ the building.

5. The plans were not readvertised because the changes are limited to minor building repositioning (minor having regard to the scale of the development) and design changes in light of Council’s Urban Design advice (i.e. no material detriment).

6. Planning Scheme Amendment VC90 (gazetted 5 June 2012) implemented a number of changes which are relevant to the assessment of car parking within the proposed development. In particular, the car parking requirements within Clause 52.06 were modified.

Use Clause 52.06 before Requirement Reduction

sought Clause 52.06

rate now (after VC90)

Requirement Reduction sought

Dwelling 2 car parking space per dwelling

84 spaces 62

1 car parking space per 1 and 2 bedroom dwelling 1 visitor parking space per 5 dwellings

42 resident

8 visitor

50 TOTAL

28

Café None specified (to Council's satisfaction)

0 0

4 car parking spaces per 100m² of leasable floor area

2 2

7. Given the statutory car parking requirement has been reduced by 32 spaces, re-advertising

was not warranted as a result of VC90 (i.e. again, no material detriment). Existing Conditions

Subject Site

8. The subject site is located on the northern side of Railway Place, approximately 15m east of its intersection with Green Street. The site has a frontage to Railway Place of 19.2m, a depth of 30.5m and a total site area of 585m².

9. The site is currently paved with asphalt and used as a commercial car park accommodating 21 vehicles. Access to the car park is via the laneway which runs along the site’s western boundary. Seven trees are located on the site, five along the Railway Place frontage and two along the rear boundary. Surrounding Land

10. The subject site is contained within a pocket of Cremorne bounded by Swan Street to the

north, Church Street to the east and the railway line to the south and west.

11. In a broad sense, the surrounding area is largely commercial. Both Swan and Church Streets include a range of commercial uses including shops, cafes, restaurants and bars. The subject site is one of a small number of sites in this pocket that doesn’t have a frontage to one of these two streets. A limited number of dwellings exist locally, relevantly including five dwellings at the site immediately to the west (3 Green Street). Beyond Swan Street to the north, and the railway line to the south, are low scale residential areas.

Agenda Page 10


12. Public transport options nearby include trams along Swan and Church Streets, as well as access to Richmond and East Richmond train stations (the access points to these stations being 450m to the west and 140m to the east respectively). In terms of open space, White Street Park is located 70m to the south-west (across the railway line) with larger parks being Barkly Gardens, approximately 500m to the east, and Yarra Park, approximately 600m to the west.

13. In a more immediate sense the surrounding properties can be described as follows:

(a) To the north are commercial properties fronting Swan Street. These are generally

single or double storey as they front Swan Street (often of Victorian origins), with later single storey additions to the rear. The rear of these properties are generally built out or used for back-of-house purposes.

(b) To the east is a single storey commercially used building (warehouse/ gallery), constructed to all boundaries except for a front setback of approximately 7m. Beyond this are further commercial properties, including the Coles Supermarket, and an at-grade Council car park with provision for 123 vehicles.

(c) To the south of the site is Railway Place, which runs between Green Street to the west

and the Council car park to the east. On-street parking is provided on the northern side of the street, restricting traffic to a single lane (noting that it is a two way street). Beyond Railway Place is the railway line which leads from Richmond Station to the eastern suburbs. Directly opposite the subject site is a pedestrian underpass allowing passage between the northern and southern sides of the railway line. South of the railway line is a residential area, generally developed with low scale (single and double storey) dwellings.

(d) To the west is a 3.3m wide unnamed laneway which runs north from Railway Place and

terminates just to the north of the subject site. West of this laneway is a group of five, three storey dwellings, each with a roof deck. Two of these dwellings have garages at the ground level fronting the subject site, with bedroom and living room windows and balconies at the two levels above. Further west is Green Street, beyond which is the Dimmeys site, a two storey commercial building with a recent planning approval (Planning Permit No. PLN10/0734) for redevelopment of the land including the construction of a 10 storey tower. The Dimmeys building includes the iconic Dimmeys ball tower at its Swan Street frontage.

The Proposal 14. The proposal seeks approval for development of the land for a nine storey building (plus a

basement and roof deck), use of the land for dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirements associated with the dwelling and food and drink premises (café) uses, and waiver of the loading bay requirement. Details of the proposal are as follows: (a) The basement level includes the lower levels of the stackers, a plant area (including a

10,000 litre water tank) and 10 residential storage cages. (b) The ground level includes a café (50m²) and lobby entry to the residential component

fronting Railway Place. To the side and rear are the car parking area (allowing for 22 vehicles in stackers), with access provided from the laneway to the west. A bin storage area, services and a stairwell are also provided at this level, along with 42 bicycle parking spaces located externally along the northern and eastern property boundaries and 4 visitor bicycle parking spaces in the forecourt.

(c) A mezzanine level provides 32 residential storage cages and the upper levels of the stackers.

Agenda Page 11


(d) The next seven levels contain dwellings and are identical in layout. Each contains four, one bedroom units and two, two bedroom units. Units are oriented to the north, east and south and each includes a balcony of between 5m² and 7m². All habitable rooms have direct access to light and air.

(e) Atop the building sits a communal recreation deck, a laundry drying area and plant and equipment (including solar panels and the lift overrun).

15. The building has a maximum height of 28.9m and is generally setback 3m from the northern

boundary, 1.9m from the eastern boundary, 2m from the southern boundary and 800mm from the western boundary (in some instances architectural features project into these setbacks).

16. The building is generally finished with precast concrete, glazing and perforated metal screens, with metal cladding, stone and wood also being used in smaller quantities. Four ornamental pear trees are proposed along the Railway Place property boundary.

17. The proposal is seeking to achieve an average energy efficiency rating of 8 stars, with no

unit being less than 7 stars. This is primarily achieved through use of efficient materials and fixtures, and the buildings orientation. Other ESD features include solar panels and a 10,000 litre water tank.

Planning Scheme Provisions

Zoning Business 1 Zone

18. Pursuant to clause 34.01-1 of the Yarra Planning Scheme [the Scheme], a permit is not required for use of the land for the food and drink premises (café), but is required for the dwelling use as the ground floor frontage exceeds 2m. Decision guidelines for use are contained at clause 34.01-2.

19. Pursuant to clause 34.01-4 of the Scheme, a permit is required to construct a building, or construct or carry out works. It is noted that the works are exempt from notice requirements and appeal rights as the site is more than 30m from the specified zones and uses.

Overlays Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 5)

20. Pursuant to clause 2.0 to schedule 5 of the Scheme, a planning permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

21. Pursuant to clause 5.0, notice of an application must be given to the specified authorities (the EPA, VicRoads and Transurban Citylink).

City Link Project Overlay

22. Pursuant to clause 45.07-1 of the Scheme, a planning permit is not required to use or develop land in the City Link Project area if the use or development is part of the Melbourne City Link Project or the Exhibition Street Extension Project.

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

23. Clause 52.06-2 requires that before a new use commences, the number of car parking spaces required under the table at clause 52.06-5 be provided.

Agenda Page 12


A permit may be granted to reduce or waive this requirement. Under the table at clause 52.06-5, a food and drink premises requires 4 spaces per 100m² of leasable floor area, whilst one car space is required per one or two bedroom dwelling as well as one visitor space for every five dwellings.

24. The proposal includes 50m² of food and drink premises, generating a requirement for 2 car spaces. The 42 dwellings generate a requirement for 42 resident car spaces and 8 visitor spaces. A total of 22 spaces are provided, all to be allocated to the dwellings. A reduction of 20 resident spaces, 8 visitor spaces and 2 food and drink premises spaces is therefore required (a total of 30 spaces). Considerations in reducing a car parking requirement are contained at Clause 52.06-6.

25. Requirements for the design and construction of car parking areas are contained at clauses

52.06-7 to 52.06-10.

Clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of Vehicles

26. Clause 52.07 requires that “no buildings or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale or goods or materials” unless space is provided for loading and unloading in accordance with specified requirements. This requirement may be varied where land space is insufficient, or adequate provision is made for the loading and unloading of vehicles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

27. These requirements are relevant to the ground level food and drink premises only. As no on-site loading/ unloading area is to be provided, a waiver of this requirement is sought.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities

28. Pursuant to clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities have been provided on the land. Pursuant to Clause 52.34-2, a permit may be granted to reduce, vary or waive these requirements. Table 1 at Clause 52.34-3 requires 1 space for every 5 dwellings for residents and 1 space for every 10 dwellings for visitors. The food and drink premises (nested under ‘retail’) requires 1 space to every 300m² for staff and 1 space to every 500m² for shoppers.

29. The proposal includes 42 dwellings, generating a requirement of 8 spaces for residents and 4 spaces for visitors. The food and drink premises (café) does not generate a requirement for any spaces. As 42 resident and 4 visitor bicycle spaces are provided, the proposal exceeds the requirements of the clause and no reduction is required.

30. Bicycle space design and signage requirements are at clauses 52.34-4 and 52.34-5

respectively.

Clause 52.35 – Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development of Four or More Storeys

31. Pursuant to clause 52.35-01, an urban context report and design response are required to be submitted with any application for a residential development of four or more storeys. Both were satisfactorily submitted. Clause 55

32. Clause 55 does not specifically apply to development in a Business 1 Zone, nor for development of four storeys or more. Nonetheless, the standards and objectives can be used as a guide in considering the acceptability of a residential development of this type as Clause 55 is a consideration within the Business 1 Zone Decision Guidelines.

Agenda Page 13


General Provisions

33. The decision guidelines outlined at clause 65 of the Scheme are relevant to all applications. Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. Before deciding on an application, the Responsible Authority must consider, amongst other things, the relevant State Planning Policy Frameworks and Local Planning Policy Framework, as well as the purpose of the Zone, Overlay or any other Provision. State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Clause 11 Settlement

34. Clause11.01-1 (Activity centre network) seeks “To build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres”. The site is located within the Swan Street MAC.

35. Clause 11.01-2 (Activity centre planning) seeks “To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community”.

36. Clause 11.04-2 (Activity Centre hierarchy) seeks “To create a network of activity centres comprising the Central Activities Districts, Principal Activity Centres, Major Activity Centres, Specialised Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Activity Centres”. In relation to Principal and Major Activity Centres, the policy aims to (as relevant): (a) Develop Principal and Major Activity Centres to accommodate ongoing investment and

change in retail, office, service and residential markets. (b) Ensure Principal and Major Activity Centres:

(i) Have a mix of activities that generate high number of trips including business, retail, services and entertainment.

(ii) Are well served by multiple public transport routes and are on the Principal Public Transport Network or capable of linking to that network.

(iii) Have the potential to grow and support intensive housing developments without conflicting with surrounding land-uses.

(c) Encourage Major Activity Centres with good public transport links to grow in preference to other centres with poor public transport links serving the same catchment.

37. Clause 11.04-4 (Central Melbourne) was recently amended by the State Government (VC92

– 29 June 2012), identifying the Richmond Railway Station Precinct as one of the sites supported for “…major development opportunities for high scale and high density mixed residential and commercial precincts…”. However, the ‘Precinct’ was not defined and this assessment does not imply that this site forms part of the identified ‘Precinct’. Clause 13 Environmental Risks

38. Clause 13.03-1 (Use of contaminated and potentially contaminated land) seeks “To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely”.

39. As the site has been used as a car park, it is likely that the soil has been exposed to vehicular oils and fluids. Although the DSE Practice Note for Potentially Contaminated land does not list a ‘car park’ as a high or medium risk activity, the EPA have suggested the need for environmental auditing in this instance (comments under the ‘referrals’ section of this report). A condition should therefore require soil testing, and possibly an environmental audit should the testing reveal the site is contaminated and not suitable for residential use untreated.

Agenda Page 14


40. Clause 13.04-1 (Noise abatement) seeks “To assist the control of noise effects on sensitive land uses”. Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

41. Clause 15.01-1 (Urban Design) seeks “to create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity”. This aim is built upon through the accompanying strategies and through Clause 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles), which includes the objective “to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.” The strategies at Clause 15.01-2 apply to this development.

42. Clause 15.01-4 (Design for Safety) includes, relevantly, a strategy to “ensure the design of buildings, public spaces and the mix of activities contribute to safety and perceptions of safety”.

43. Clause 15.01-5 (Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character) seeks, generally to ensure

development responds to its context.

44. Clause 15.02 (Sustainable Development) encourages energy efficient land use and development. This includes promoting urban consolidation and the integration of development with transport options.

Clause 16 Housing

45. Clause 16.01 (Residential Development) promotes an increase in housing within existing urban areas, particularly “in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport”. Strategic redevelopment sites are defined at Clause 16.01-3 as those that (amongst other things) are “able to provide ten or more dwelling units, close to activity centres and well served by public transport”. Clause 17 Economic Development

46. Clause 17.01-1 (Business) has the objective “to encourage 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 commercial facilities”. Clause 18 Transport

47. Clause 18.01-1 (Integrated Transport) seeks to ensure urban development is planned so that “access is provided to developments in accordance with forecast demand, taking advantage of all available modes of transport and to minimise adverse impacts on existing transport networks and the amenity of surrounding areas” and by requiring that “substantial increases in activity in employment corridors are connected to the Principal Public Transport Network”.

48. Clause 18.02-5 (Car parking) seeks to “ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located”. This requirement is subject to “the existing and potential modes of access including public transport, the demand for off-street car parking, road capacity and the potential for demand management of car parking”.

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.03 Vision

Agenda Page 15


49. The strategic vision for the City of Yarra is broken up into four themes, being land use, built form, transport and environmental sustainability.

50. In terms of land use, the vision includes a diversity of people, increased employment opportunities, increased provision of open space, and retail shopping strips which continue to provide for both local residents and the broader community.

51. Built form recognises the municipality’s strong heritage character and general low scale built form interspersed with areas of higher development and highly valued landmarks. Development will demonstrate design excellence.

52. Transport encourages bicycle and public transport use, while environmental sustainability encourages “state-of the-art environmental design”. Clause 21.04 Land Use

53. Clause 21.04-1 (Accommodation and housing) notes that the City of Yarra will continue to accommodate its share of housing growth, and that this housing growth will be located predominantly on strategic redevelopment sites within or close to activity centres.

54. Clause 21.04-2 (Activity centres) identifies Swan Street as one of the City of Yarra’s five Major Activity Centres. It is stated that “the Business 1 Zone footprint of existing activity centres should remain unchanged as there is scope for further development of the centres to meet demand”. Strategy 5.4 encourages residential development which does not compromise the business function of the activity centre.

55. Clause 21.04-3 (Industry, Office and Commercial) seeks to “increase the number and diversity of local employment opportunities”. Clause 21.05 Built Form

56. Clause 21.05-2 (Urban Design) paints a picture of a municipality which is predominantly low rise, but punctuated by pockets of higher built form such as in activity centres which are “generally Victorian and Edwardian in character, are generally two storeys, with some higher signature buildings”. Strategy 17.2 recommends that development on strategic redevelopment sites, or within activity centres, be no more than 5-6 storeys in height unless it meets specific design and locational requirements. New development should respond to and respect, rather than dominate, its surrounds and be of a high quality.

57. Clause 21.05-3 (Built Form Character) places the subject site within a non-residential area where the objective is to “improve the interface of development with the street”. Strategies include to “allow flexibility in built form in areas with a coarse urban grain (larger lots, fewer streets and lanes)”.

58. Clause 21.05-4 (Public environment) encourages development that engages the public realm and has a human scale at street level. Clause 21.06 Transport

59. Clause 21.06 (Transport) commences by stating that “Yarra needs to reduce car dependence by promoting walking, cycling and public transport use as viable and preferable alternatives”. It goes on to say that “parking availability is important for many people, however in Yarra unrestricted car use and parking is neither practical nor achievable”. Clause 21.07 Environmental Sustainability

60. Clause 21.07-1 (Ecologically Sustainable Development) encourages new development to incorporate environmentally sustainable design measures.

Agenda Page 16


Clause 21.08 Neighbourhood

61. Clause 21.08-2 (Burnley, Cremorne, South Richmond) notes the truly mixed character of this area. The Swan Street Major Activity Centre runs along the northern boundary of this area and can be broken up into three precincts, of which the subject site lies within “Swan Street west”. This precinct is described as incorporating “the core retail are of Swan Street and includes East Richmond Station. Swan Street, unlike the other major activity centres in Richmond, has a smaller pool of non local visitors, reflecting its stronger orientation towards servicing the needs of local residents”. Relevant Local Policies Clause 22.03 (Landmarks and Tall Structures)

62. Clause 22.03-4 identifies the Dimmeys Ball Tower as a landmark, and seeks to ensure that it remains as the principal built reference in the area. Clause 22.05 Interface Uses Policy

63. Clause 22.05-2 contains objectives which provide direction to deal with the conflict between residential and commercial or industrial uses. Clause 22.05-4.1 provides direction in terms of dwelling design, while Clause 22.05-4.2 provides direction for new nonresidential development near residential uses. Clause 22.07 Development Abutting Laneways

64. Clause 22.07-3 provides policy which generally seeks to ensure the maintenance of good access via laneways, promotes views to laneways from new development (but not sensitive areas across laneways) and that development respects the scale of surrounding built form. Clause 22.10 Built Form and Design Policy

65. This policy applies to all new development not contained within a heritage overlay. It is based around ten design elements, being; urban form and character, setbacks and building heights, street and public space quality, environmental sustainability, site coverage, on-site amenity, off-site amenity, landscaping and fencing, parking traffic and access, and service infrastructure. Each of these elements includes design objectives and design guidelines. Clause 22.12 Public open Space Contributions

66. This policy applies to residential and mixed use development and seeks to identify opportunities for a land contribution (instead of cash). The subject site is in an area in which a land contribution is preferred, however the site size is not sufficient to request a land contribution. Other documents The Swan Street Structure Plan [SSSP]

67. The SSSP identifies the redevelopment pressures on areas such as this, and the tension

between the retention of heritage fabric and the need to accommodate new buildings. Strategies include encouraging active retail frontages and providing for more intensive housing in appropriate areas, including SRSs. The SSSP identifies a preferred 5-6 storey building height for the site.

Agenda Page 17


68. The SSSP has been through public consultation and a decision on its adoption (or otherwise) is pending. It is therefore not considered to be a ‘seriously entertained policy’ as it is not Council’s adopted position. Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development [DSE Guidelines]

69. This applies to development of four or more storeys and provides six elements covering character, internal and external impacts. Clause 15.01-2 requires the consideration of this document. Activity Centre Design Guidelines

70. The Activity Centre Design Guidelines contains 8 design elements promoting good urban design within activity centres. Clause 15.01-2 requires the consideration of this document. East Richmond Station Precinct Improvements

71. Council has approved detailed designs to improve access and amenity in the East Richmond Station Precinct. The detailed designs include dedicated pedestrian and cyclist zones to improve access between the station and surrounding streets. The designs also propose to improve the urban environment around the station by planting new trees and installing extra seating and bike hoops to make the area more welcoming and safe.

72. On 6 August 2012, Council approved plans to complete detailed designs for improving

access around the station. 73. In early September, Council will advertise its intention to change the parking and access

conditions around the station behind Swan Street. Public feedback on those changes will be sought, with a report on the feedback collected expected to be considered by Council in December 2012.

Advertising 74. The application was advertised in accordance with Section 52 of the Act by way of 891

letters sent to the surrounding property owners/occupiers and two signs displayed on the Railway Place and laneway frontages of the site.

75. A total of 58 objections and 1 letter of support were received to the application. The points of objection can be summarised as:

(a) neighbourhood character (scale, height, massing, surrounding heritage context, design

detailing, subdivision, loss of vegetation, materials); (b) visual bulk; (c) off-site amenity (overlooking, overshadowing, glare from glazing, noise, street

interface); (d) on-site amenity (noise from trains);

Agenda Page 18


(e) traffic/car parking/loading bay/bicycle parking (including impact of car parking spaces on the site and implications for Dimmey’s);;

(f) waste management; (g) precedent; (h) overdevelopment; (i) insufficient ESD credentials; and (j) contrary to draft Swan Street Structure Plan.

76. The letter of support identified the activation provided by the ground level café, the low car

parking provision, and the acceptable overall height as positive features.

77. A Consultation Meeting was held on 15 May 2012 where and was attended by Councilor Clarke, the Permit Applicant, Objectors, and Planning Officers. The meeting did not result in any compromises.

Referrals 78. Unless otherwise stated, the referral comments have been made in relation to the original,

advertised plans. Re-referrals were not warranted (except in the case of Council’s Engineering Services Unit) as the amended plans primarily addressed urban design concerns and would not affect the interest of other referral authorities (internal or external).

External Referrals

79. Public Transport Victoria [PTV] – Formerly Department of Transport [DOT] – no objection.

80. DDO5 (VicRoads, CityLink and EPA)

(a) VicRoads – no objection;

(b) Transurban CityLink – no response within the prescribed time;

(c) EPA – As the subject site is over 700 metres from the City Link exhaust stack, it is unlikely that the proposed apartment block, with a height of approximately 37 metres, will affect the operation of the stack, by causing a downwash effect. It also seems unlikely that the operation of the stack will adversely affect the proposed development, however Council may wish to require the proponent to undertake an assessment of potential air quality impacts, particularly as the proposal includes a recreation deck / barbecue area on the roof. Atmospheric dispersion modelling, for example, would give clarity as to whether air quality objectives would be met at the development. EPA notes that the subject site is adjacent to a railway track. Council should satisfy itself that sufficient noise mitigation measures are incorporated into the development to protect future residents from amenity impacts related to train movements. EPA is constrained in its ability to resolve complaints regarding this issue, as train noise is exempted under section 251B of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. Large construction sites have the potential to cause significant adverse amenity and environmental impacts. Council may wish to require the applicant to prepare a Site Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the proposed development. A Site EMP should include performance objectives and suggested measures for: - erosion and sediment control; - contaminated stormwater management;

Agenda Page 19


- de-watering work sites; - dust control; - management of stockpiles and batters; - working in waterways and floodplains; - noise and vibration; - waste minimisation; - contaminated materials and wastes; - air quality; - litter; - storage of chemicals and fuel; - keeping roads clean; and - inspections, monitoring and audits. EPA recommends Council refers the applicant to the EPA Publication No. 480, ‘Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites’ for further guidance in developing the Site EMP. Consideration should also be given to the management systems which need to be put in place to ensure that the Council-approved Site EMP is implemented. Because construction sites are constantly changing, frequent inspection and monitoring is required to check the effectiveness of the environment protection measures which have been put in place via the Site EMP and any related planning permit conditions. The Authority has no objection to the issue of a permit for the proposed development, provided that the following matters are taken into account and addressed in any permit which may be issued: 1. The excavation of soil should be preceded by a site assessment to determine the

potential for contamination, in accordance with the Industrial Waste Fact Sheet – 1 Site Assessment (EPA Publication No. 1437, 2012).

2. Fill material used or generated during construction should be managed in accordance with Industrial Waste Fact Sheet – 2 Fill Material Management, 3 Segregation, and 4 Engineered / Structural Fill (EPA Publication Nos. 1438, 1439 and 1440, 2012)

3. All industrial waste generated during construction must be managed in accordance with EPA’s Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines.

4. Construction and post-construction activities must be in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA Publication No. 275, 1991).

5. Construction and post-construction activities must be in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA Publication No. 275, 1991).

6. All wastewater generated by the proposed development must be connected to reticulated sewerage.

(i) Officers do not support the suggestion for an assessment of potential air quality

impacts given the exhaust stacks are over 700mm away from the subject site. This would be an onerous requirement in this instance. Further, the EPA have not objected on the ground of air quality.

(ii) A construction management plan should also be imposed by way of a condition.

This report also deals with noise and vibration impacts given the site’s proximity to a train line.

(iii) Site contamination has already been dealt with (paragraph 39) and the remaining

conditions above (2 to 6) should be imposed by way of permit conditions. External Contractors

81. Urban Design (Rob McGauran) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OVERVIEW

Agenda Page 20


(a) 4.1. The site’s development for higher density mixed use has support in local and state

policy. (b) 4.2. The layouts of units is competently managed and provides a reasonable standard

of amenity. The provision of private open space for units is acceptable. (c) 4.3. The underlying ESD methodology for the project is sound. (d) 4.4. That being said there are a number of issues that will require substantial change if

the project is to acceptable:- (i) 4.4.1. Setbacks

- 4.4.1.1. The development has abutments on the sides to adjoining development. To the west the site abuts a laneway with mixed use development to the west. The proposal places windows and development within close proximity of these frontages resulting in overlooking and overshadowing.

- 4.4.1.2. The site provides a very modest setback to the north that requires any future development to the north to setback substantially further if an acceptable separation of upper levels is to be achieved.

- 4.4.1.3. Recommendation Setback residential levels a minimum 4.5m from habitable living areas with no part of the development to be less than 3m from the north boundary at residential levels

- 4.4.1.4. The eastern setback again proposes setbacks of only 3.6m to living area windows with 1500mm to the face of balconies. This should be amended to 4.5m to living room windows with no part of the development to be less than 3m from the eastern boundary at residential levels

(ii) 4.4.2. Visual bulk, execution and context

- 4.4.2.1. The proposal incorporates well articulated north and south elevations. In contrast the highly visible east and west walls rely on small cranks in the wall and a diversified palette at the stairwell to create visual interest. I am not convinced that the application of this concept has been well executed in this context. Owing to their proximity to neighbouring private open space, windows, narrow as they are, would need to be screened up to 1.7m. Alternative arrangements with increased setbacks would overcome this existing problem.

- 4.4.2.2. Recommendation : Increase the level of articulation to the east and west facades in conjunction with increased setbacks.

(iii) 4.4.3. Height

- 4.4.3.1. The site is in comparison to some adjacent sites, modest in scale. It does not enjoy a main street frontage and its north\ east and west boundaries are compromised by adjoining built form and the south by an interface with noisy rail infrastructure. The preferred heights for development in this precinct outlined in the draft structure plan are 5-6 storeys with a taller place making project earmarked for the east Richmond Station.

- 4.4.3.2. Along Swan Street there is a clear logic in retaining Dimmeys as the most visually prominent form and ensuring new development does not compromise this.

- 4.4.3.3. The project will be highly prominent from the East Richmond station environs, whilst the eastern aspect down Swan Street and the views from the elevated Richmond Hill areas will also make consideration of the scale and treatments of the proposal important.

- 4.4.3.4. I am not convinced that in this instance, the case has been made for the proposed scale in strategic, interface response, site characteristics or context terms. (a) The site does not enjoy a primary road frontage and adjoins low scale

development.

Agenda Page 21


(b) This adjoining development may change in the future and the footprint of the proposal should not be such as to compromise this strategic objective of overall development intensification in the precinct.

(c) The lateral views of the development demand a more convincing level of treatment than one which will largely read as a solid wall from many aspects most particularly the south east and east and south west and west.

(d) Greater setbacks from these interfaces would enable these frontages to be more animated with a higher quality of amenity for residents and a less compromised interface for adjoin properties.

(e) 4.4.4. Amenities

(i) 4.4.4.1. The organisation of the development is problematic in a number of areas. The bicycles storage elevation at level, will necessitate using the lift to park bicycles. Bicycle storage in this instance should be at ground level.

(ii) 4.4.4.2. Six cubic metres of storage should be provided for each unit in the development.

(iii) 4.4.4.3. The south interface and acoustic treatments should demonstrate that the interfaces to commercial activity and rail corridor abutments has been managed through the design of a building envelope that ensures acceptable standards are achieved for sleeping and daytime amenity.

CONCLUSION (f) 5.1. On balance the footprint needs to be reduced substantially. The organisation of the

building also needs to be amended to accommodate ground level or basement level storage for bicycles at higher than minimum levels.

(g) 5.2. Whilst some increase over the preferred height may be possible on a site such as this given its embedded nature in the precinct, it is not a site whose characteristics warrants special emphasis and any development would necessitate an improved design response to the resolution of the building in the round and the building in its response to the strategic ambitions of not only the subject site but the broader east

(h) Richmond precinct and the equitable development potential for adjoining properties and diminished impact on their amenity.

(i) 5.3. Storage for residents of average 6 cubic metres each should be provided (j) 5.4. Lift lobbies should be a minimum of 2.1m in width to enable manoeuvring of

furniture. (k) 5.5. With these changes the scale of development will also need to be reviewed to

determine how it might be better integrated and present in a less bulky manner to adjoining development to the east and west.

82. Acoustic (SLR)

(a) Background noise data used to derive day, evening and night period SEPP N-1 noise

limits has not clearly been explained and verified as appropriate for this specific site. MDA should provide a description of the location of where the data was obtained, the duration of the measurement, and the appropriateness of that data for use at this site. The noise limits are highly dependent on the measured „high”background noise levels, and there is some risk involved in applying high background noise data to a site with minimal actual site specific background levels.

(b) The short site survey was conducted on a single day in order to identify existing commercial noise emissions. It is not known if all commercial operations in the area (including elevated noise sources) have clearly been identified and quantified. Additional site attended measurements during evening and night would provide further clarification.

Agenda Page 22


(c) We also note that there is significant roof mounted mechanical plant located approximately 40m east of the development above the Coles supermarket. The proposed apartments would have exposed windows on the east facade. Some consideration of noise from this plant needs to be provided especially as it would operate during the night.

(d) There are a number of smaller fans and other mechanical items of plant distributed on the roofs of the adjacent commercial / light industrial uses that may also require some consideration. It is possible that some of this plant is no longer operational. Refer to image below.

(e) There has been no noise assessment provided of the west side carpark entry door noise during its operation.

(f) The assessment of the car stacker system is based on particularly low noise levels. MDA should provide the exact make / model used in the calculations or specify the required sound power levels in order to ensure compliance with SEPP N-1 and other requirements.

(g) Train vibration impacts are not considered. This may or may not be an issue but needs to be addressed.

Internal Referrals

83. Engineering Services Unit

Car Parking Provision – Residential and Café Uses (a) The proposed development comprises the construction of 42 dwellings (28 one-

bedroom dwellings and 14 two bedroom dwellings) and a café (62 square metres). The development will be serviced by a 22-space off-street car park. The site is located on the north side of Railway Street, approximately 15 metres east of Green Street. The site abuts commercial properties fronting Swan Street.

(b) All residents and prospective property owners of the new dwellings will be ineligible to apply for on-street resident and visitor parking permits. On-street parking for residents is not a practical or viable option, and the local roads surrounding the site cannot sustain any resident parking.

(c) In recent times, there has been a growing trend in the emergence of multi unit residential developments that are providing a proportion of residences without any on-site parking. When purchasing or intending to move into the dwellings, residents/occupants will know up-front that some of the dwellings have no on-site parking. These dwellings would be appropriate for persons who frequently use public transport, bicycles or other forms of sustainable transport – and it is also highly likely that the new dwellings would be specifically marketed towards this group.

(d) Geographically, the site is well positioned in terms of tram and rail services, as well as shops, a supermarket, conveniences and other essential facilities.

(e) For the café on the ground floor, these types of uses generally do not provide dedicated off-street parking for patrons. The café would attract persons already in the Swan Street activity centre or the new dwellings.

(f) Before a decision is made whether to grant a dispensation in the car parking requirement, the above factors should be taken into account.

Traffic Generation (g) All vehicle trips generated by this development would enter and exit the site via the

abutting bluestone Right of Way. The length of the Right of Way abuts the entire distance of the subject site’s western boundary. At this time, the Right of Way services the existing 21-space commercial car park on the subject property, three properties fronting Swan Street and two properties fronting Green Street. With the exception of the car park, there would be up to five off-street car parking spaces belonging to these properties that use the Right of Way. Essentially, the existing vehicle volumes using this Right of Way would not be high.

Agenda Page 23


(h) Traffic generated by the development would enter Railway Place and proceed to the arterial road network (Swan Street) either via Green Street or Royal Place. The development is expected to generate between 66 to 88 vehicle trips per day with seven to nine vehicle trips in each peak hour. This volume is not unduly high and should not compromise the traffic operation of the Right of Way, Railway Place, Green Street or Royal Place. The predicated PM peak hour traffic volumes and distribution for the site as shown in figure 24 appear reasonable.

(i) In 2011, a series of turning movement counts were conducted at the intersections of Swan Street/Green Street and Swan Street/Royal Place by Both Cardno Pty Ltd and Traffix Group. The purpose of these surveys was to assess existing traffic conditions at these locations and to analyse future operating conditions with the impending redevelopment of the Dimmeys site (140-160 Swan Street) and the East Richmond Railway Precinct Study. As indicated by Traffix Group, the traffic impacts associated with the Dimmeys redevelopment had been extensively assessed and were accepted as being reasonable by VCAT upon granting approval to the Dimmeys development application, subject to conditions.

(j) The analysis of the above intersections for assessing the traffic impacts of the subject development have incorporated the previously accepted data used in assessing post development conditions of the Dimmeys site. It is agreed that the traffic generated by the subject site will not be critical to the operation of the two intersections once the Dimmeys site is fully operational.

Access Arrangements (k) A site inspection of the bluestone Right of Way revealed that it has an effective

carriageway width of 3.17 metres and is in a serviceable condition. The property vehicular entrance is set back by approximately 1.0 metre. The proposed 5.7 metre wide entrance is considered satisfactory off this Right of Way.

Internal Layout and Use of Car Stackers (l) The development’s car park will be serviced by the TrendVario 4300 manufactured by

Klaus Multiparking GmbH. This device comprises two to three horizontal grids of individual parking platforms that can be shifted horizontally and vertically for vehicles to access a specific platform. The middle/ground level grid is referred to as the entrance level and has one empty space to enable platforms to shuffle.

(m) A check of the submitted drawings indicates that an 85th percentile vehicle can access and egress each platform.

(n) Engineering Services has no objection to the use of the device, provided it is maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

Road Infrastructure and Other Design Matters (o) The development of the site will require the provision of underground utility

connections. There is a high probability that the Right of Way will excavated and trenched for providing underground utilities. Upon completion of all building construction and utility connection works for the site, the Right of Way is to be fully reinstated in bluestone as required by Council’s Road Infrastructure Materials Policy, and at the developer’s expense. Any other areas of excavation or trenching within Municipal Roads for underground services will require full-width and full-depth road reinstatements to Council’s satisfaction and at the developer’s expense.

(p) The south end of the Right of Way is bounded on its west side by a building, fully occupying the north west corner of the junction of the Right of Way with Railway Place. As highlighted by Traffix Group, the installation of a convex mirror for vehicles exiting the Right of Way would assist in viewing any traffic or pedestrians along the west section of Railway Place.

Agenda Page 24


Although Council is generally reluctant to have mirrors installed on Public Highways, in this instance there is merit in having a mirror at the junction of the Right of Way and Railway Place, especially since there is no footpath along the north side of Railway Place. For this particular location, Engineering Services has no objection to the installation of a mirror. The mirror is to be installed and maintained at the developer’s expense.

(q) Along the property’s Railway Place boundary, there is an existing bluestone retaining wall which also functions as a barrier kerb. Railway Place has a one-way cross-fall which slopes form south to north. A number of grated pits are located on the north side of Railway Place and collect a considerable amount of stormwater run-off. It is essential that the retaining wall remains intact. In the event of a heavy storm or if the pits in Railway Place become blocked, the retaining wall would contain and channel any pooling of water within the road reserve. Removing the retaining wall may have serious consequences for the site.

(r) The setback area along the entire western boundary of the site should be constructed in a material other than bluestone and clearly differentiate the Right of Way from private property. The finished floor levels along the edge of the of the development’s setback area must be set 40 mm higher than the edge of the bluestone Right of Way – Council infrastructure requirement.

(s) The designer and developer must ensure that the cavity for the stackers and any portions of the development at or below natural surface level are completely waterproofed to prevent any subterranean water or any rainfall run-off from penetrating the walls or floors of the site. It is also the designer’s onus and responsibility to ensure that rainfall run-off does not enter the property in the event of a heavy storm. Adequate measures must be in place to prevent backwash from entering the property.

Drainage – Legal Point of Discharge (t) The applicant must apply for a Legal Point of Discharge under Regulation 610 –

Stormwater Drainage of the Building Regulations 2006 from Yarra Building Services unit.

(u) Any storm water drainage within the property must be provided and be connected to the nearest Council pit of adequate depth and capacity (legal point of discharge), to Council’s satisfaction under Section 200 of the Local Government Act 1989 and Regulation 610.

(v) Areas must be provided inside the property line and adjacent to the footpath to accommodate pits and meters. No private pits, valves or meters on Council property will be accepted.

84. The final ‘drainage’ comments are not planning related but should be conveyed to the

Applicant in the form of notations.

85. Council’s Engineering Services Unit have also commented on the S57A, amended plans, stating that they have no objection to the layout and functionality of the car park as shown on the revised drawings (Revision B).

86. Open Space Unit (a) …[I] went and looked at this the other day. There are 3 main gum trees along the front

boundary easy to west; Corymbia ficifolia - W.A flowering gum, Eucalyptus sideroxylon – Ironbark, Eucalyptus scoparia – Wallangarra white gum, plus some other scrubby native vegetation.

(b) While all the gums appear healthy the flowering gum and Ironbark have structural faults that makes them prone to major branch failure. (jpg 122, 119) The Wallangarra gum is not significant however ideally if possible it would be good to retain to provide some screening of the large development.

(c) Having said this, I am not sure how this would be achieved due to different levels from the roadway to the site (jpg 111).

Agenda Page 25


(d) At the end of the day if none of the vegetation is to be retained and I can see this being probable. Sufficient space above and below ground needs to be given to plant trees that will grow to around 12m+ tall to provide screening. E.g. fustigated oaks etc

87. Services Contracts Unit

…the Waste management Plan (WMP) from Leigh Design, dated 11 April 2012 is satisfactory from the Engineering Operations Branch’s perspective. I have attach the updated WMP for your records.

88. ESD Advisor Applicant ESD Commitments: (a) A BCA energy efficiency rating of at least 8 Star (average) and 7 Star (minimum) will be

achieved. (b) A minimum of 37 bicycle parking spaces will be provided for residents and visitors of

apartments. (c) Rainwater will be used for landscape irrigation, café toilet flushing and shower (revised

STORM report, or similar is required). (d) Apartments to have individual cold water meters. (e) A target-recycling/reuse rate of 70% of construction waste has been adopted. (f) Communal composting and clothes drying facilities will be located on the roof top. (g) An Owners Operational Manual will be prepared and provided to all residents. Application ESD Deficiencies: (h) Provide a revised STORM, confirming that Victoria’s best practice stormwater targets

will be met. (i) Due to high GHG emissions of electricity in Victoria, a central gas system (ideally solar

boosted), instead of electric instantaneous systems, should be specified. While electricity can be of renewable sources, the lowest quality energy should always be applied (low-exergy concept).

Outstanding Information and ESD Improvement Opportunities: (j) Consider providing protected (rain, intrusion, insects) window openings to facilitate the

use of night purging opportunities. These openings can be small openings, separate to the main windows.

(k) Consider orientating all bay windows (east and west facade) towards North in order to improve passive heat gains outside winter months and increase access to daylight.

(l) Consider improving the thermal performance of windows by selecting timber of PVC frames.

(m) Consider the inclusion of ‘master switches’ to individual apartments. (n) Indicate all storm water management implications on architectural drawings (e.g.

connected toilets, catchment areas and rainwater tank location and capacity).

Planning Considerations

89. The following key issues and policies will be used to frame this assessment: (a) policy and physical context; (b) dwelling use; (c) public open space contribution; (d) urban design; (e) on site amenity; (f) environmental sustainability;

Agenda Page 26


(g) off-site amenity; (h) car parking / traffic; (i) loading facilities; (j) waste management; (k) bicycle parking and facilities; and (l) Objector concerns.

Policy and physical context

90. In relation to the SPPF and LPPF it is considered that the proposed development achieves

the various land use and development objectives outlined earlier in this report, providing a good level of compliance with the relevant policies.

91. Broadly, the planning scheme at both the State and Local levels support the intensive redevelopment of the site having regard to clauses 11, 16.01 and 18.01 at the State level and clause 21.04 and the B1Z at a local level. At both State and local levels, there is a clear preference to encourage higher density developments in established activity centres or on strategic redevelopment sites [SRSs]. This ensures efficient use of infrastructure and supports Council’s preference that established residential areas experience residual increase in population and density.

92. Notably, clause 11.04 sets a clear direction for Principal and Major Activity Centres and

requires that planning assists Principal and Major Activity Centres to accommodate ongoing investment and change in retail, office, service and residential markets. More specifically, Major Activity Centres with good public transport links are encouraged to grow in preference to other centres with poor public transport links serving the same catchment.

93. Of relevance, VCAT commented on this principle in the recent Dimmey’s decision (Richmond

Icon Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2011] VCAT 2175 (8 November 2011)):

32. Swan Street is identified as a Major Activity Centre in accordance with the State

planning policies relating to activity centres. A Major Activity Centre is one that has a mix of activities, is well served by multiple public transport routes and has:

... the potential to grow and support intensive housing developments without conflicting with surrounding land-uses.

33. The reference to “intensive” housing is specific to Principal and Major Activity Centres

as, for example, Neighbourhood Activity Centres are described as having higher density housing that is designed to fit the context and enhance the character of the area. There are no such requirements for Principal and Major Activity Centres, which creates a window of opportunity for different building forms, heights and typologies that support intensive housing to that which may currently exist in a Principal or Major Activity Centre. In our opinion, State planning policy contemplates exactly what is proposed in this case – a taller building of differing materials and shape to that which currently exists.

Emphasis added.

94. At a local level, Council’s MSS (clause 21.04-1) directs higher density development and

forecast population increases to identified SRSs (being listed in clause 21.08 and other sites identified through any structure plans or urban design frameworks). While it is acknowledged that the subject site is not one of the identified SRSs at the local level, this fact alone should not prevent the site (or any other site) from having higher residential development, provided compliance with the relevant policies is achieved.

95. Again, VCAT has acknowledged that the intention of SRS policy in the Scheme was never to list and restrict all opportunities in the Municipality. Of relevance, VCAT commented on this principle in the LeBuild (Abbotsford) Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2010] VCAT 1240 (16 July 2010):

Agenda Page 27


24. Before proceeding to assess whether the proposed development represents an

acceptable built form outcome, it is important to establish whether the land is a strategic redevelopment site. This has implications for the application of policy, in particular Clause 21.05.

25. It was common ground between the parties that the land is not nominated as a strategic redevelopment site in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). Council attributed this to the fact that a permit for the site’s redevelopment existed at the time that Clause 21.08 was gazetted. Notwithstanding the absence of reference in the MSS, the Council’s and Applicant’s submissions supported the characterisation of the land as a strategic redevelopment site.

26. This issue was specifically addressed by the Tribunal at paragraphs 53 – 56 of its determination of Common Equity Housing Pty Ltd v Yarra City Council and Ors[10]. That case involved a similar situation where the site was not nominated as a strategic redevelopment site in Clause 21.08. Relevantly, the Tribunal stated:

[56] We do not think the mapped and listed sites should be regarded as being

exclusive. It will not always be possible to identify such sites into the future and opportunities that present themselves that fit the location criteria should be able to be considered for higher scale development. Any redevelopment will involve an assessment of a site’s physical and planning contexts resulting in different responses in different settings. That does not mean any site that can fit more than 10 dwellings in Yarra should be contemplated for 5-6+ storeys.

27. On the basis of the submissions, and Clause 12.01, we accept that the land can

reasonably be considered to be a strategic redevelopment site. This is particularly so having regard to its size and proximity to an activity centre and public transport. However, we agree with the statements of the Tribunal in Common Equity Housing that a contextual analysis is required to determine the acceptable form and scale of development on this land.

96. The subject site has the characteristics of being a SRS including, being located within a

major activity centre with excellent access to services and transport. The issue in this instance, is whether the site (albeit in a MAC and as a SRS) can accommodate a 9 storey building.

97. To guide the process of redevelopment and urban renewal of the subject site and surrounding land, a range of built form controls apply to the land. The eleven (11) design principles outlined in clause 15.01 (Urban Design) and clause 22.10 (Built Form and Design Policy) are the most relevant policies to assess the appropriateness of the built form and on and off-site amenity impacts. A detailed assessment against these policies and the relevant aspects of the DSE Design Guidelines for Higher Density Housing is provided later in this report.

98. Regarding the commercial aspect of the proposal (café), the State Policy encourages the

consolidation of existing urban areas in planning for urban growth with commercial development located near public transport. Specifically, the proposed development is supported by clause 17.02 (Business), which has an objective to encourage development of commercial services and provide more employment opportunities while efficiently using existing infrastructure.

Dwelling use

99. The use of the site as dwellings requires a planning permit in the B1Z where any frontage at

ground level exceeds a width of 2m. This is to ensure that an active, ground floor commercial frontage is maintained in the B1Z.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2010/1240.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=LeBuild#fn10

Agenda Page 28


100. In this instance, the residential frontage is 4.4m. Although the dwelling entry is greater than

2m, a permit may be granted for the dwelling use. Given the site is not part of a ‘retail strip’ as such (i.e. along Swan Street), a wider residential entry will not unreasonably interrupt the business frontage. In this context, a well articulated, illuminated residential entry will positively activate this section of Railway Place, which is currently devoid of clear entries and rather presents as the ‘side’ or ‘rear’ of commercial tenancies facing Swan Street.

101. Council’s Interface Uses Policy (clause 22.05) calls for dwellings in Business Zones to both:

(a) create a reasonable level of residential amenity; and (b) ensure that existing businesses can continue to operate efficiently.

102. These ‘use’ considerations are addressed further in this report under the ‘off-site amenity’

and ‘on-site amenity’ assessments. Public open space contribution

103. The subject site is in an area where land (in lieu of cash) is the preferred method of public open space contribution (area 3121B as outlined at clause 22.12). However, land has not been requested in this instance. The reasons for this are: (a) the proposed café at the ground floor would create a more appropriate ‘street

activation’;; (b) the size of the site does not lend itself to providing land for a park; (c) the provision of public open space would be small, or a ‘pocket park’. However, the site

is already 69m to the north-east of an existing pocket park (White Street Park) accessed from the subject site via the railway underpass); and

(d) the site is within walking distance to the MCG, Gosch’s Paddock and the Royal Botanic Gardens.

104. In this instance, the provision of cash in lieu of land is considered acceptable by way of a

public open space contribution. This cash payment will be addressed in any future subdivision stage. Urban design Site Analysis Plan and Context Report

105. The Applicant provided a site analysis plan and urban context report. The policy context

section above, and physical context assessment below, has summarised the key elements which should be considered.

Urban form and character

106. The site is located within the Swan Street MAC which contains a mixture of commercial and

residential land uses. Built form generally consists of one to two storey Victorian era shopfronts, with more recent extensions and infill developments. Immediate interfaces with the site include: (a) a three storey (plus roof terrace) residential development to the west across a 3.25m

wide ROW (12m high). Further west, across Green Street, is Dimmey’s, a two storey, red brick commercial building with the iconic ball tower (landmark identified in clause 22.03);

(b) a row of one to two storey shops and food and drinks premises to the north. These premises present sheds, rear yards and fences with gates (although there is no laneway to the south or carriageway easements affording these properties access rights);

Agenda Page 29


(c) a single storey photographic studio to the east (6.9m high). Further east are one to two storey commercial buildings, leading to a Council car park adjacent to East Richmond Train Station; and

(d) Railway Place to the south, with the Glen Waverly/Lilydale/Belgrave and Alamein train lines further south. Across the train line, the land is primarily zoned Residential 1 and contains a mixture of one to two storey dwellings.

107. It is also important to note that the Dimmey’s site has planning and heritage approval for a 10

storey (RL43.85 or 36m) cylindrical glass tower. The tower would be sited over 59m to the west of the subject site and contains 98 dwellings and 172 car parking spaces.

108. Physically, the site and its context provides both opportunities and constraints:

(a) opportunities: (i) MAC location; (ii) SRS classification (albeit not specifically identified in Council’s LPPF);; (iii) proximity to public transport modes (bus, train and tram); (iv) presence of a train line to the south (minimising off-site amenity impacts); and (v) an opportunity to assist in Council’s vision for the Richmond East Train Station

Precinct (i.e. developer contributions).

(b) constraints (i) proximity of dwellings to the west (including balconies, habitable room windows

and roof decks); (ii) the narrow width of Railway Place (5m – bollard to edge of bitumen); and (iii) the absence of a ‘formal’ footpath (albeit this could also be an opportunity for any

design). Massing

109. A ‘typical’ response to mitigate off-site amenity impacts and provide a human scale within the

street is to provide a podium and tower configuration. In this instance, the proposal has not adopted this approach due to the site’s unique positioning behind the primarily Swan Street retail frontage.

110. The DSE Guidelines acknowledge that ‘Taller buildings without a podium level create a dramatic urban form and this may be appropriate on some sites where the local context can support this approach’ (objective 2.2, design suggestion 2.2.2).

111. This site is reasonably well concealed from primary vantage points along Swan Street, with

the proposal utilising the surrounding 1-3 storey building stock as a ‘podium’ to shield views to what would normally be an unreasonably ‘sheer’ design treatment in this context. This assessment requires a sophisticated understanding of the actual view lines afforded to the proposal.

112. Pages 9 and 10 of the Applicant’s Urban Context Report include perspectives of the

proposed development.

Agenda Page 30


Extract of Applicant’s urban context report (page 9).

113. Essentially, these perspectives show:

(a) from the west, north-west and north-east, east and south-east, the development is

either shielded by nearby built form or appears as a ‘tower’ above the ‘podium’ of 1 to 2 storey buildings along Swan Street;

West (Swan Street)

North-west (Dando Street)

North-east (Waverly Street)

Agenda Page 31


East (Docker Street)

South-east (Shakespeare Place)

(b) from the north (i.e. along Clifton Street), the northern end of the building would be exposed, aided by the rise of Clifton Street. However, the design detailing and use of perforated metal screens and balcony recesses results in an active façade that would actively integrated with the rectilinear forms along Swan Street;

North (Clifton Street)

(c) from the south (including south-east and south-west vantage points), the building is exposed by the train line. However, the train line is over 25m wide, providing a reasonable setback from the R1Z land to the south, ensuring the 9 storey height does not create unreasonable visual bulk.

South-east (Richmond East Station)

Agenda Page 32


South-east (Adolf Street)

South-east (Chestnut Street)

South (Laneway off Railway Crescent)

South-west (Green Street [south of railway])

South-west (Railway Crescent)

Agenda Page 33


Height and setbacks

114. This section of the assessment will address matters such as height and setbacks from an urban design and streetscape perspective, with off-site amenity addressed later.

115. As a prelude to the height and setback assessment, local policy states that developments in activity centres and on SRSs should generally not exceed a height of 5-6 storeys, save for a number of ‘tradeoffs’ which may justify a taller development outcome.

116. A recent VCAT decision (ACCC Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2012] (9 August 2012)), provides further

guidance as to what could be expected in the Swan Street MAC (NOTE: Stewart Street is affected by a Heritage Overlay where this site is not). The Stewart Street application (5 and 9-13 Stewart Street, Richmond) was for a 14 storey residential building with a café and office at ground level. Council did not support the application (Section 79 – failure to grant a permit appeal) and raised the following concerns:

(a) height, bulk and neighbourhood character; (b) heritage; (c) off-site amenity; and (d) oversupply of car parking.

117. VCAT refused to grant a permit in its order dated 9 August 2012 and of relevance to height, stated:

60. There were statements by various experts and submitters about what the building

height should be, for example Mr McGauran suggested 6-7 storeys with possibly an additional two levels on the north side subject to the quality of the design resolution. We have not turned our minds to what precise height a building on this site should be because we agree with Mr McGauran that it is the quality of the design resolution that will, in part, determine whether a building height is acceptable or not on the subject land. However, it is clear that the surrounding redevelopments of heights in the order of 6-7 storeys have had more regard to the existing built form character of the area and have contributed to the establishment of a new character that generally utilises the solid heritage base with contemporary additions above. Whilst employing differing design treatments, none seek to dominate the precinct.

61. We think the success or appropriateness of these redevelopments has been achieved

by employing an appropriate scale and setbacks, and by the selection of materials that are ‘well mannered’ in the context. We do not agree with Mr Biasci that the building’s wide variety of façade treatments diminishes its overall mass and stimulates visual interest. Rather, for the reasons we have outlined above, we have come to the conclusion that the proposed ‘signature’ or iconographic building does not achieve an acceptable planning outcome on the subject land.

118. Contextually, the proposal is 8m lower than the approve Dimmey’s tower and over 16m lower

than the refused Stewart Street proposal.

119. Council’s Urban Design Advice raised issues with the proposed height in terms of strategic, interface, site characteristics and context terms. Each of these is addressed below:

(a) strategic – contrary to the Urban Design Advice, the officer position (as outlined

throughout this report) supports higher density developments in these locations (MAC and SRS);

(b) interface – addressed in detail at paragraphs 190-198 from an off-site amenity perspective;

Agenda Page 34


(c) site characteristics – although the site does not enjoy a primary road frontage, the unique characteristics of this site lend it to a tower form that would not be dissimilar to Dimmey’s (albeit 8m lower). The proposal also only incorporates 22 on-site car parking spaces, not raising traffic volume concerns as a result of this development;

(d) context – it is acknowledged that the site context may change in the future. Although applications must be assessed on existing context, the DSE Guidelines require consideration of reasonable development potential on surrounding sites (objective 2.6). The original (advertised) plans proposed balconies 1m off the northern boundary and 1.5m off the eastern boundary. These setbacks would have unreasonably impacted the development potential for the sites to the north and east. Developments should reasonably ‘future proof’ themselves in this regard. In response, the Applicant has amended the plans to provide 2.8m (balcony), 3m (bedroom windows) and 4.2m (living room windows) setbacks from the northern boundary to reasonably ‘future proof’ the building from any development on the sites to the north. Although the Urban Design Advice recommended a 4.5m setback for living room windows, a 300mm variation is considered to be negligible given the scale of the development. The amended plans have also increased the east boundary setback to 1.9m, with living room windows setback 4.2m. The Urban Design Advice was again to achieve 4.5m (habitable room) and 3m (balcony) setbacks. Again, the 300mm living room setback variation is considered to be negligible having regard to the scale of the development. Although the balconies are setback 1.9m from the boundary, the warehouse site to the east is only 9.2m wide and would not be expected to result in a 9 storey building as is envisaged in this instance. A 1.9m setback from the east boundary is therefore considered reasonable.

120. Each interface will now be addressed in greater detail, addressing height and setbacks from

an urban design perspective.

South

121. The 25m width of the train line has already been identified as providing an appropriate buffer to the R1Z land to the south. The impact of the 9 storey wall must also be considered in its immediate context along Railway Place.

122. The ground floor is setback between 2.9m (café) and 4.4m (dwelling entry) from the south title boundary, with the floors above setback a minimum 2m. This 900mm to 2.4m ‘overhang’ provides a protected entry for residents and a sheltered, transitional space for café customers. With an absence of a northern footpath along Railway Place, this setback will improve pedestrian safety where there is currently only a narrow bollarded pedestrian path on the south side of the street.

123. Where an absence of a ‘podium’ at the lower levels would normally appear imposing within a

streetscape, this negative ground floor ‘reveal’ reflects the hard edge, industrial character of Railway Place and offers an improvement to pedestrian conditions by offering a sheltered, paved ‘plaza’.

124. The DSE Guidelines suggest that upper level setbacks can:

(a) mitigate adverse wind impacts; (b) allow greater light access to the street; (c) broaden views of the sky; and (d) reduce the ‘canyon’ effect for pedestrians at street level.

125. The absence of upper level setbacks:

Agenda Page 35


(a) does not create adverse wind conditions (see paragraph 143); (b) would overshadow the pedestrian path on the south side of the street throughout the

day. However, Railway Place is not a street that enjoys a high level of amenity. On balance, the streetscape improvements as a result of the proposal (including a ground floor ‘plaza’ and activation of a café) outweigh this impact;;

(c) would not create a ‘canyon’ effect or unreasonably restrict views to the sky due to the presence of the rail line, protecting views to the south; and

(d) the narrow width of Railway Place restricts ability to experience the height of the building from close proximity.

West

126. The ground floor has been setback 905mm from the west title boundary, ensuring reasonable vehicular access can be provided to the subject site and garages on the west side of the ROW.

127. The main consideration for this interface is off-site amenity, which is addressed at paragraphs 190-198.

128. From a built form perspective, the 3 storey building to the west aids the transition in height to

the proposed development when seen from the west and north-west along Swan Street.

129. The issue with the west and east elevations however, is that the side walls were originally rather ‘bland’ with limited articulation beyond hinged windows. Council’s Urban Design advice suggested that these walls be articulated and increased setbacks be provided to address overlooking and visual bulk concerns. (Off-site amenity is addressed later in this assessment.)

130. The Applicant has since amended the plans to provide a two storey ‘capping’ design with

metal perforated screen detailing to the upper two levels. The ‘hinged’ windows have also been modified to obscure glazed bay projections, further articulating these elements. The amended plans result in a high quality architectural response to the site’s context. North

131. Paragraph 113(b) above has already identified that the rise of Richmond Hill and 1 to 2

storey height of the shop fronts along Swan Street leave the 9 storey building exposed (from Clifton Street in particular).

132. Given the proposal is setback over 38m south of Swan Street, it is clear that a further setback will not render the development invisible from the northern vantage points. The question becomes whether or not a 9 storey building is acceptable in this context.

133. This site is an opportunity to provide a taller form in a MAC, on a site unencumbered by a

Heritage Overlay. The presence of the rail line and commercial properties to the north and east also restrict sensitive interfaces. Although Council policy is to generally encourage 5-6 storey heights on these sites, strategy 17.2 at clause 21.05-2 offers a number of ‘tradeoffs’ where taller forms may be acceptable. Having regard to these factors, the following assessment is offered from the northern perspective:

(a) the 1-2 storey building stock to the north of the site serve as a ‘podium’, with the

building appearing as a backdrop to the heritage forms in the foreground; (b) additional setbacks from the northern boundary would not be perceived along Clifton

Street (for example); (c) the design is of a high quality, further improved through the capping approach adopted

on the upper two levels of the east and west elevations; (a) the Applicant has committed to a BCA energy efficiency rating of at least 8 Star

(average) and 7 Star (minimum), where the minimum is currently 6 stars; and

Agenda Page 36


(d) not only does the proposal improve the interface of the site with Railway Place (compared to the car park, a café and residential foyer would activate the street), but this application provides an opportunity for Council to seek developer contributions to aid the vision for the Richmond East Station precinct. The Applicant has agreed to pay $50,000 in developer contributions for a bluestone pitcher channel between Green Street and Royal Place ($20,000) and bluestone strips close to bollards and trees ($30,000). This can be required by way of a permit condition.

134. Council’s local policy identifies the character of the Municipality as having ‘pockets of higher

development’. In combination with the Dimmey’s Development and noting the depth and lack of sensitive interfaces of sites to the north and east, this proposal may lead to the development of such a “pocket”. This proposal would add interest to the urban form and skyline, as is supported by clause 22.03-3 (Landmarks and Tall Structures Policy) of the Scheme. East

135. As with views from the west, the 1-2 storey building stock to the east aids the transition in

height to the proposed development when seen from the east and north-east along Swan Street, Railway Place and the Richmond East Station. The modified ‘capped’ arrangement and bay style windows also provide visual interest to the exposed side walls of the development.

136. Again, this assessment of height and setbacks is from an urban design, not an off-site amenity perspective; this will occur later in this report. Light and shade

137. In a ‘standard’ context, where the site is bound by typical footpaths either side of a roadway,

one urban design guide for appropriate height and setbacks is to try and achieve limited shadowing over the adjacent far footpath.

138. In this instance however, Railway Place does not have a ‘standard’ footpath, rather a bollarded section of the roadway has been allocated to pedestrians. Council’s vision for Railway Place is to upgrade the roadway with new asphalt paving along with bollards and a bluestone strip to define ‘carriageway’ and ‘pedestrian’ segments. Although this would create result in an improved urban design outcome, the pedestrian strip would not be a high amenity walkway given its location adjacent to the train line.

139. Reviewing the shadow diagrams provided by the Applicant (September Equinox), the

development would overshadow the roadway, pedestrian link and rail line throughout the day. This is an acceptable outcome however and does not necessitate further south boundary setbacks due to:

(a) the pedestrian path not being a ‘typical’ footpath with high levels of amenity (due to

adjacent train line); and (b) the remainder of the shadows being cast over a roadway and train line.

140. Given the width of Railway Place, the overshadowing impact to the public realm is acceptable. Overshadowing of private land is considered in the off-site amenity section of this assessment. Street, public space quality and safety

141. Compared to the existing open air car park, this application would make the following

improvements to the public realm:

Agenda Page 37


(a) the café and residential foyer would activate the streetscape (supported by objective 3.2 of the DSE Guidelines);

(b) upper level balconies would provide passive surveillance opportunities and would improve the perceived safety of Railway Place and the adjacent laneway to the west;

(c) the design is well articulated and provides visual interest for observers; (d) the vehicular entry is at the ‘side’ of the building, utilising the ROW (supported by

objective 3.2 of the DSE Guidelines); (e) the paved forecourt within the front setback offers a pedestrian refuge on the north side

of Railway Place where there is currently only a formal pedestrian area on the south side of the street; and

(f) developer contributions for the bluestone strips on the north and south sides of Railway Place (to a total of $50,000).

142. Design suggestion 3.2.4 of the DSE Guidelines is to ‘avoid recesses to ground level street

frontages that could allow concealment’. The setback at the northern end of the site could create an unsafe enclave. However, the Applicant wants to keep this open to maintain the informal delivery and access arrangements to the shops fronting Swan Street (two of these properties have gates that provide access to the subject site – albeit in the absence of a formal, legal arrangement). The Applicant has offered to provide a gate and lock this space at night. A gate should therefore be positioned at the western end of this setback to prevent antisocial behavior and an unsafe enclave. The gate should be visually transparent to again, prevent this becoming an unsafe area. Wind

143. The Applicant has not provided a wind assessment. Should a permit issue, this should be required by way of a permit condition and could require the planting of trees to mitigate wind impacts (trees are already proposed along the south title boundary). The development is also reasonably shielded from the west, north and east by built form.

Landmarks, views and vistas

144. The site is located to the east of the Dimmey’s ball tower, an identified landmark in clause

22.03 of the Scheme.

145. The recent ‘Dimmey’s’ VCAT decision provided the following on this matter:

64. The policy goes on to identify particular views of the silhouette/profile of some landmarks, but this does not include Dimmey’s ball tower. Background to this policy is contained in the Reference Document City of Yarra Built Form Review (July 2003). It describes these landmarks as highly valued by the community as they “stand out against the sky” when viewed from street level”.

65. The content of the policy leads us to conclude that it does not require there to be no

visible structure near Dimmey’s ball tower, but rather that the ball tower remain “the principal built reference”. We are of the view this means any nearby structure should be visually subservient to the ball tower having regard to the ball tower’s architectural complexity, richness of detailing and its position on the street frontage. The question then becomes in which views does the new tower need to be visually subservient? We agree with the findings of the Tribunal in Crema Group that the policy is not intended to preserve and protect every possible view from public spaces. We also agree with the findings of the Tribunal in Cremorne Corporation that key or important views need to be carefully dealt with, not every incidental view.

Views of the Ball Tower 66. Many of the experts before us agreed the key or important views were those from

Swan Street, particularly looking west toward the ball tower.

Agenda Page 38


Mr Czarny was the only expert who formed the view the proposal was unacceptable having regard to clause 22.03. Mr Biacsi, Mr Deutscher and Professor Reed concluded the new tower will not unreasonably impact upon the landmark status of the ball tower. We are persuaded particularly by Mr Deutscher’s analysis that: o There are relatively few places from which the ball tower can be well viewed and

that not all views are of equal worth; o Swan Street views are critical to its public appreciation; and o Views of less or little value include the view from White Park, to the south across

the railway line, a park that by comparison has relatively minor use and from which the ball tower, while visible, is not a critical skyline feature.

67. We also note that Professor Reed had no objection to a taller building across the rear

of the site, a location that would have more effectively closed off southern views of Dimmey’s ball tower.

68. The view analysis submitted with the application (in the urban context report) demonstrates how the generous setback of the proposed new tower from Swan Street ensures the two tall elements will be distinct in the majority of the views along Swan Street. Indeed, there will be a number of views along Swan Street where the ball tower will be seen without any view of the glass tower. We agree with Ms Brennan the new tower may form a backdrop to the ball tower when standing in various locations on the opposite side of Swan Street looking south (including other streets that run north-south off Swan Street). However, we are of the view the ball tower will remain, even then, the principal built reference as it is in the foreground and has significant detailing that will contrast with the ‘calm’ glass facade.

69. We therefore conclude that the proposed 10 storey glass tower is acceptable in terms of its relationship with the Dimmey’s ball tower.

146. In this instance, the proposal would not impact views to the ball tower from Swan Street (see

paragraph 113 above) and the ball tower would even still be visible from Church Street (the exposed bridge over the rail line in particular) due to its positioning close to Swan Street.

147. In light of the above, the proposal will ensure that the Dimmey’s ball tower remains the

principal built form reference in the area, in particular along Swan Street.

Site coverage/Permeability

148. Although the site does not contain any buildings, the asphalt paving results in the site being impervious. Clause 22.10 acknowledges that the ResCode standard (although not strictly applicable) of 60% site coverage is not relevant in this inner city context, with a recommendation for 80% site coverage.

149. In this instance, the proposal results in a site coverage of 70% and maintains the imperious nature of the site.

150. Although the site will remain impervious, the 10,000 litre rain water tank will reduce the

amount of storm water entering the drainage system.

151. The site coverage of 70 is also supported, being less than is envisaged in clause 22.10, where the commercial built form commonly results in 100% site coverage, with hard edge forms (residential development to the west included).

Landscaping

152. The development includes the removal of all trees from the site. There are no tree controls in this instance, however Council’s Environment Local Law may necessitate a permit for tree removal. This requirement should be conveyed to the Applicant in the form of a notation.

Agenda Page 39


153. Council’s Open Space Unit raised no objection to the removal of the trees on the site,

however it was suggested that the proposed landscaping along the south title boundary be around 12m tall to provide screening of the development.

154. The proposal includes four ornamental pears, planted at a height of 4m with the capacity to

grow to 11m. This is considered to meet the intent of Council’s Open Space Unit comments.

155. The proposal also incorporates two planter beds adjacent to the laneway and native grasses (Kangaroo Grass) on the roof deck. Within this inner City context, the extent of landscaping is considered to both reflect the character of the area and provide an improvement to the public realm.

Architectural excellence

156. This application would result in a high quality urban design response on a site which is currently poorly integrated with the street.

157. The Applicant has considered the urban design response obtained by Council, offering a metal screen capping and projecting glass bay windows to articulate the east and west elevations. The north and south elevations are highly articulated through articulated balconies, again including metal screen detailing.

158. The use of materials response to the character of the area, being a mixture of solid (concrete

finishes) and intricate forms (metal screens). Service infrastructure

159. The development includes a services cupboard at the ground floor, however ancillaries (including air conditioner units) are not shown on the plans. Should a permit issue, a condition should require details of all ancillaries, screened where necessary.

Urban design summary

160. Subject to the conditions contained in this report, the proposal responds to the physical and policy context of the subject site. On-site amenity

161. Relevant on-site amenity considerations will be addressed by way of themes.

Overlooking

162. The layout of the dwellings does not give rise to internal overlooking concerns.

Noise

163. The Applicant provided an acoustic report, prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics, which included on-site acoustic testing on 28 October 2011. Council obtained a peer review of the acoustic report, undertaken by SLA Acoustics, due to the sensitive interface with the train line.

164. Addressing on-site amenity, the Marshall Day report has had regard to:

(a) SEPP N-1; (b) Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008; (c) sleep disturbance criteria;

Agenda Page 40


(d) Australian Standard AS2107-2000 Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors; and

(e) Queensland Code of Practice-Railway Noise Management (November 2007) (no Victorian equivalent – Queensland code considered above NSW guidelines given they have no formal status).

165. Section 9 of the Applicant’s acoustic report recommended the following in light of the site

context (train line, traffic and mechanical services from nearby commercial properties):

(a) either single or double glazing (greater thickness to south façade); (b) acoustic seals; (c) acoustic roof treatment to top level; and (d) external wall construction minimums (many options provided).

166. However, Council’s peer review of the report (SLA Acoustics) identified the following

deficiencies in the Applicant’s acoustic report: (a) background testing was limited; not day and night and did not address the Coles

rooftop plant and mechanical items on other commercial tenancies; (b) no assessment of the proposed car park entry door on nearby properties; (c) the car stacker noise levels are quite low; and (d) train vibration impacts have not been considered.

167. The Applicant provided an updated Marshall Day Acoustic Report (dated 17 August 2012),

including further testing (9-17 May 2012) and additional data from 2010. The report still suggests that the development can meet relevant SEPP N-1 requirements, along with sleep disturbance criteria. However, a condition should require the acoustic report to address nearby roof plant/mechanical equipment and confirm that current background noise data is considered in relation to the car stacker and vehicular entrance door noise.

168. The amended Marshall Day Acoustic Report also established that the proposal should not be subject to unreasonable vibrations from the train line. The Marshall Day Acoustic Report stated that:

In the case of this development, it is assumed that building structure would be of concrete floor and wall construction, founded on strip footings. On the basis of these assumptions and the results of the field survey results and predictions for the proposed Dimmeys development (MDA Report No. Rp002 R02 2010269ML dated 5 April 2012) which is situated adjacent to the same section of railway at a similar buffer distance, the train induced structural vibration and structure-borne noise intrusion into the apartments closest to the railway is predicted to comply with the acceptable criteria.

169. However, a detailed analysis was not undertaken.

170. The Dimmey’s VCAT decision commented on vibration:

96. We note that the Tribunal cases referred to earlier did not comment upon structure-

borne vibration induced noise. This is an issue in this case and we accept Mr Marks’ evidence that the train vibration is predicted to meet the AS2670.2-19901 night-time criteria based on up to 450 train passes per 16 hour day period. The structure-borne vibration is predicted by Mr Marks to be between 98 and 100dB, which will result in a predicted internal sound level of 39dBA. Mr Marks said the predicted maximum internal vibration-induced noise level should be 10dB less than the airborne noise levels. This means the structure-borne (vibration) noise level should not exceed 40dBA in bedrooms and 50dBA in living rooms.

1 Australian Standard 2670.2-1990 Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1-80Hz)

Agenda Page 41


As the predicted internal bedroom level of 39dBA is quite close to the 40dBA in the bedrooms and the 450 train passes is less than the Director of Public Transport’s submission of 530 trains per day, we will impose a condition requiring this to be verified as part of the detailed construction phase to ensure compliance in the bedrooms with Mr Marks’ requirement for an internal structure-borne vibration induced noise level of 10dB less than the airborne noise levels.

Emphasis added.

171. A condition should therefore require an amended acoustic report, ensuring that the structure-

borne (vibration) noise level does not exceed 40dBA in bedrooms and 50dBA in living rooms. Private and communal open space

172. Each dwelling is provided with a balcony ranging from 5m² to 7m². Although the ResCode standard (not strictly applicable) is for a minimum 8m² area of private open space, this proposal includes a 276m² roof deck for residents. The roof deck includes a BBQ area, sundeck, landscaping and clothes drying facilities (screened from view by laser cut screens) will achieve an appropriate outcome on balance to ensure the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents is met.

Solar Amenity and daylight to windows

173. The dwellings will all enjoy reasonable daylight access: (a) west – The ROW provides a 3.3m wide ‘buffer’ from the 3 storey dwellings to the west,

allowing adequate daylight access for the dwellings on levels 1 to 2 and unencumbered daylight access for the dwellings on levels 3 to 8;

(b) north – The proposal has been amended to provide a minimum 3m setback for habitable room windows and a 2.8m setback for balconies. The ResCode requirement (although not strictly applicable – Standard B27 – Daylight to new windows objective) is to achieve a minimum 3m boundary setback for habitable room windows, which is achieved;

(c) east – the east facing living room windows are setback 4.2m from the boundary, however the bedroom windows are setback a minimum 1.4m. The unique bay style configuration of these windows, however, angles views to the north and south ensuring that adequate daylight is afforded to these bedrooms, even if the site to the east was to be developed. The east facing balconies are setback 2.7m from the boundary. Again, although they are reasonably unencumbered by the existing built form to the east, the 2.7m setback (300mm shy of the 'daylight to new windows’ standard – although not strictly applicable) will ensure these balconies and adjacent living room windows will enjoy reasonable daylight levels; and

(d) south – the presence of Railway Place and the train line to the south ensures that although these apartments face south, they will be unencumbered and continue to receive adequate ambient daylight levels.

Storage

174. Council’s Urban Design Advice suggested that 6m³ of storage should be provided, in line with the ResCode requirements. However, with separate bicycle parking and roof top storage for lawn mowers and gardening equipment, a reduced provision of 4.5m³ is considered to be sufficient for the storage needs of residents.

Internal circulation/way finding

175. Given the layout of the development, way finding would not be problematic. However, Council’s Urban Design Advice suggested that the residential corridors be increased to a minimum 2.1m.

Agenda Page 42


As there is no requirement in the Scheme and the minimum Building Regulations are for a 1m clearance, the 1.9m corridor width opposite the lifts is considered to be sufficient for allowing residents to maneuver furniture into/out of the dwellings.

176. Subject to the conditions contained in this report, the development will achieve a reasonable

level of on-site amenity. Environmental sustainability

177. The Applicant has voluntarily agreed to participate in Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process [SDAPP] program and provided a Sustainable Management Plan [SMP] prepared by GIW Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd.

178. The SMP outlines the following ESD commitments:

(b) a BCA energy efficiency rating of at least 8 Star (average) and 7 Star (minimum); (c) a minimum of 37 bicycle parking spaces (resident and visitor); (d) rainwater will be used for landscape irrigation, café toilet flushing and shower (revised

STORM report, or similar is required); (e) apartments to have individual cold water meters; (f) a target-recycling/reuse rate of 70 per cent of construction waste; (g) communal composting and clothes drying facilities will be located on the roof deck; and (h) an Owners Operational Manual will be prepared and provided to all residents.

179. Council’s ESD Advisor has identified the following application deficiencies/opportunities:

(a) Provide a revised STORM, confirming that Victoria’s best practice stormwater targets will be met.

180. This can be required by way of a permit condition.

(b) Due to high GHG emissions of electricity in Victoria, a central gas system (ideally solar

boosted), instead of electric instantaneous systems, should be specified. While electricity can be of renewable sources, the lowest quality energy should always be applied (low-energy concept).

181. The Applicant discussed this request with GIW Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd and they

stated that they continue to support electric instantaneous HWUs, rather than a gas fired central hot water service for the following reasons:

(a) Very low water wastage in comparison to centralised plant. GIW has calculated that a

centralised heating/storage system with reticulation to apartments would result in 458kL water wastage per annum. This equates to an annual water loss 20% more than that of decentralised instantaneous electric HWUs.

(b) A centralised heating system with a building ring main would have an anticipated heat loss of 32.5% in a typical 24 hour period over that of a decentralised system.

(c) Decentralisation of water heating services replaces the need for complex and expensive hydraulic infrastructure associated with central heating plants (eg. ring mains, circulation pumps, etc.). This will in turn avoid the need for resources to be used to make and maintain the pipework, insulation, pumps and other infrastructure.

(d) Gas storage systems are required to be preheated to 60°C and then tempered with cold water at the fixture, whilst electric instantaneous units heat to a more usable temperature of 50°C.

(e) Unit spatial considerations – electric instantaneous units have a small physical footprint, are light and compact; an important consideration in spatially constrained apartment buildings.

Agenda Page 43


(f) Instantaneous units are a simple and versatile installation. There is no need for separate drainage for the unit or a pressure safety valve, and they can be mounted almost anywhere.

(g) Instantaneous HWU’s are in close proximity to the point of use with relatively low hot water demand in apartments.

(h) No maintenance is required for HWUs. (i) They remove the cost of hot water metering and administrative charges (meter reading)

for tenants. (j) They provide autonomy of operation which has proven links to increased user

efficiency. (k) No hot water utility charges are incurred for vacant apartments. (l) Very high efficiency: heat is provided to flowing water in real time and only when

required. (m) The introduction of the carbon tax will result in an increased retail electricity price for

coal fired power, leading to a more competitive electricity wholesale supply segment in which renewable energy technologies can compete more readily. The likely result is a reduced carbon emission intensity associated with mains grid electrical power supply relative to natural gas. ‘Green’ electricity is expected to make up an increasing share of the available supply, and the cost difference between ‘green’ and ‘dirty’ power is expected to diminish.

(n) Residents will be encouraged to take up green power as a renewable source of energy from the outset, and this will become easier to maintain as electricity from renewable energy sources becomes more cost effective.

182. Officers are therefore not recommending a change to the proposed separate, electric hot water systems. (c) Consider providing protected (rain, intrusion, insects) window openings to facilitate the

use of night purging opportunities. These openings can be small openings, separate to the main windows.

183. The Applicant has agreed to provide separate windows for night purging.

(d) Consider orientating all bay windows (east and west facade) towards North in order to

improve passive heat gains outside winter months and increase access to daylight.

184. The development has sought to maximise the use of northern daylight and the unencumbered ambient daylight opportunities to the south.

185. The amended (S57A) plans also hinge the bay windows to the north across levels 2 to 6,

save for the unit 5-5 and 6-5 bedroom bay windows. This can be addressed by way of a permit condition and given the site’s context, would not give rise to any unreasonable overlooking opportunities. (e) Consider improving the thermal performance of windows by selecting timber of PVC

frames.

186. Given the Applicant has committed to an average 8 star rating, even with the use of aluminum window frames, this suggestion is not recommended in the form of a permit condition. The Applicant has also indicated they do not wish to make this modification. (f) Consider the inclusion of ‘master switches’ to individual apartments.

187. The Applicant has agreed to this suggestion and could be imposed by way of a permit condition. (g) Indicate all storm water management implications on architectural drawings (e.g.

connected toilets, catchment areas and rainwater tank location and capacity).

Agenda Page 44


188. This can be required by way of a permit condition.

189. Subject to the conditions contained in this report, the proposal will achieve a high level of environmental efficiency, in accordance with clause 15.02-1 and clause 21.07-1 of the Scheme.

Off-site amenity

190. Potential impacts will be considered in turn, having regard to the DSE Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, Council’s Interface Uses Policy and Development Abutting Laneways Policy. It is noted that the most sensitive interface is the residential building to the west. Overshadowing and daylight to windows

Extract from Applicant’s Urban Context Report

191. The development has been designed to: (a) not overshadow the northernmost two dwellings (4 and 5) to the west at any time; (b) overshadow the dwelling 2 and 3 roof decks up until 11.00 am;

Given the roof decks will remain reasonably unencumbered from 11.00 pm onwards, this impact is acceptable;

(c) overshadow the dwelling 1 roof deck up until 12.00 pm; Given this roof decks will remain reasonably unencumbered from 12.00 pm onwards (and largely unencumbered after 11.00 am), this impact is acceptable.

(d) overshadow the east facing windows and second floor balcony of dwelling 3 up until 11.00 am; and

(e) overshadow the east facing windows and second floor balconies of dwellings 1 and 2 up until 12.00 pm. Having regard to the layout of the dwellings to the west, the east facing windows are either to bedrooms or living/dining/kitchen areas. The impact on bedrooms is acceptable given they will continue to enjoy ambient daylight by virtue of the 3.3m wide ROW and 800mm setback. The impact on the living/dining/kitchen windows is also acceptable given these rooms are open plan and enjoy dual aspect with west facing windows.

Agenda Page 45


An objector concern was that the Dimmey’s development would impact the daylight to the west facing windows. However, the Dimmey’s tower is over 43.5m to the west of these windows and would not significantly impact ambient daylight afforded to these windows (it is noted that overshadowing as a result of this tower would not start to affect the Green Street properties until after 2.00 pm). Although these windows would only receive direct sunlight between 12 midday and 2.00pm, the separation afforded by Green Street and the ROW (and 800mm setback of the proposed building), will ensure a reasonable level of daylight to these windows.

Overlooking

192. The level 1 to 6 western bedroom windows have been modified to a ‘bay style’, with a fin

ensuring that views can not be provided to the adjacent habitable room windows or private open space areas within a 45 degree arc or 9m radius.

193. The north facing balconies are also more than 9m from the habitable room windows and private open space areas when the 45 degree arc is considered.

194. The level 7 and 8 west facing windows are provided with obscure glazing, however they have

not been nominated as ‘fixed’. Although this would typically occur, this is not considered to be necessary in this instance as these windows are vertically separated from the roof decks to the west by over 10m. On balance, the impact on internal amenity (should they be ‘fixed’) would outweigh any perceived overlooking impacts to the west.

Noise

195. The Applicant’s Acoustic Report considered the following potential noise sources as part of this development: (a) mechanical services noise; (b) car stacker operations. (c) refrigeration compressors, condensers and exhaust fans associated with the cafe (also

on-site impact); and (d) car park roller door (also on-site impact).

196. Specific recommendations were not made, however it was stated that any mechanical system (car stacker, air conditioner units, commercial compressors, condensers and exhaust fans) would need to meet the SEPP N-1 limits.

197. Council’s peer review indicated that the car stacker noise assumptions were low and that no testing had been undertaken for the roller door. Should a permit issue, a condition should require further acoustic testing and specific recommendations having regard to the specific mechanical plant and equipment, including car stacker, garage door, commercial and residential mechanical services, demonstrating compliance with SEPP N-1, sleep disturbance criteria and any other relevant consideration.

198. Subject to the conditions contained in this report, the development will not unreasonably

impact the amenity of the surrounding area.

Car parking / traffic

Car parking requirements 199. Under clause 52.06 of the Scheme, the Applicant is seeking the following parking

dispensation:

(a) dwelling – 20 space reduction sought (42 required, 22 provided);

Agenda Page 46


(b) dwelling visitor – 8 space reduction sought (none provided); and (c) café (nested within ‘food and drinks premises’) – 2 space reduction sought (none

provided). 200. Policy wise, Council’s Local Policy at clause 21.06 is to reduce the reliance on the private

motor car, encouraging walking, cycling and public transport as alternative transport modes.

201. The Applicant provided a traffic report, prepared by Traffix. The report included traffic surveys, a review of sustainable transport options and an empirical assessment of parking demand.

202. The traffic survey was undertaken in the following area:

Extract from Applicant’s traffic report.

203. The report found 219-257 publicly accessible on-street parking spaces in the area (variation

due to ‘permit zone’, ‘loading zone’ and ‘no stopping’ restrictions at certain times).

204. An objector concern was that the site itself would lose 21 car parking spaces as a result of the development. It is noted that the survey conducted by the Applicant did not take these spaces into account.

Agenda Page 47


Extract from Applicant’s traffic report.

205. The above survey results show a high demand for on-street car parking, with 30 to 68

spaces being available during survey times.

206. Analysing the available empirical evidence and ABS data, the Applicant’s traffic report suggests the following anticipated parking demands:

(a) Dwelling – for apartments and units in the suburb of Richmond, the extrapolation of

ASD data would generate a demand for 32 car parking spaces. With 22 provided, this would still indicate a shortfall of 10 spaces. However, the site is within walking distance of two train stations, suggesting that residents without car parking would elect to use public transport, walking or cycling alternatives, modes supported in the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. The site is also within 300m of a car share pod.

(b) Dwelling visitor – Empirical evidence suggests a visitor parking demand of 0.12 spaces per dwelling at peak times. This proposal sees a parking shortfall of 5 spaces should this rate be applied.

The Applicant’s traffic report suggests that peak demand for visitor parking would occur outside normal business hours. However, parking surveys were conducted across the day (11.00 am, 2.00 pm, 5.00 pm and 9.00 pm on a Thursday and Saturday). Reviewing the car parking survey results above, there were at least 30 publically available parking spaces available in peak times. Again, with the site being easily accessible via public transport modes (as well as walking and cycling), the provision of no on-site visitor spaces is supported by the State and Local Policies. Council’s Engineering Services Unit supported the car parking reduction, indicating that residents would not be eligible for resident or visitor parking permits.

(c) Café – The car parking survey established that at least 30, publically accessible car

parking spaces were available. This would cater for the statutory parking requirement of 2 spaces associated with the café. In addition, as has been supported by Council’s Engineering Services Unit, the café is not likely to generate a car parking demand due to its size and proximity to the MAC (i.e. it is likely customers would already be in the area).

Agenda Page 48


(d) Even if the loss of 21 on-site spaces is considered, the empirical evidence suggests there would be a shortfall of 8 on-street parking spaces (30 available – 21 on-site to be removed – 10 dwelling – 5 dwelling visitor – 2 café). However, the availability of only 30 on-street spaces was only at 9.00 pm during the survey times, where the other periods would be able to accommodate any on-street parking demand. Nevertheless, the site is well served by public transport and would provide viable alternatives in line with Council’s Local Policy (including walking and cycling). This is an option that a number of the long term users of the car park currently on the site may choose (noting that much of the available on-street parking is short term only).

207. An objector concern was that the subject site was used as a ‘Dimmey’s car park. A review of

the history files has revealed that the car parking associated with a shop and warehouse extension (adjacent to Swan Street) in 1987 (planning permit No. 3965) was proved on the basis that 21 car parking spaces be provided at 1-3 Railway Place. This permit does not preclude any decision on this development, however it has implications for the Dimmey’s site (14-160 Swan Street). The options for this owner are: (a) commence the development as approved by PLN10/0734, which did not rely on car

parking on this site; or (b) apply to amend planning permit 3965.

The owner of Dimmey’s has been made aware of this.

208. Another objector concern was that Dimmey’s had been approved on the basis that there was

a public car park on the subject site. The VCAT order does not state this. A review of the Applicant’s Expert Traffic Witness report (prepared by Cardno Grogan Richards) stated that there were 10 publically accessible spaces on the subject site, with 12 being reserved (albeit there are only 21 spaces on the site). Although this formed part of the VCAT consideration, the permit did not tie the approved Dimmey’s development to these spaces (Section 173 Agreement, for example) and it is not unreasonable to envisage that a public car park on private land could be developed in the future. This assessment has taken the loss of 21 on-site spaces into consideration in conjunction with the Applicant’s parking survey results. Layout, manoeuvrability and safety

209. Council’s Engineering Services Unit raised no concern with the general layout of the car park. However should a permit issue, a condition should ensure that the car stacker is installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer specifications.

210. The Applicant’s traffic report suggested that driver visibility be improved through the provision of a mirror at the junction of the ROW and Railway place. This should be required by way of a permit condition and be installed at the Permit Holder’s expense to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Traffic

211. Given the site currently contains 21 car parking spaces, only one additional on-site space

proposed as part of this proposal. Of course, traffic movements would be different for residential as opposed to ‘pay and display’ arrangements, however the Applicant’s traffic report suggests there would be between 66 to 88 vehicle trips per day, with 7 to 9 generated in each peak hour. Council’s Engineering Services Unit agrees that the surrounding road network can accommodate this volume of traffic.

212. Reviewing the Applicant’s analysis on page 39 of the traffic report, which incorporates the proposal and the Dimmey’s development traffic movements, the proposal would have no noticeable impact on queuing times at the intersection of Swan and Green Streets.

Agenda Page 49


Other

213. Council’s Engineering Services Unit indicated that the development will require the provision of services under the bluestone ROW. The Applicant has responded, stating that the west boundary setback does not necessitate any works to the ROW. In any event, should the Applicant damage the ROW, a condition should be imposed to ensure it is reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the permit holder’s expense.

214. The Application includes the removal of a bluestone planter bed along the southern boundary. Although this would create a positive public realm improvement, Council’s Engineering Services Unit raised issue with potential flooding having regard to the fall of Railway Place. Should a permit issue, a condition should require the provision of a planter or raised paving in the forecourt at least as high as the current planter bed.

215. Finally, Council’s Engineering Services Unit have indicated that the Applicant will need to

ensure that the basement is protected from storm water runoff and flooding. As the site is not subject to a LSIO or SBO, this should not form a permit condition. Further, the Applicant has indicated that this is a separate matter dealt with outside the planning process where basements are involved. Loading facilities

216. The café is not provided with an on-site loading bay. A permit is therefore required under

clause 52.07, where a permit may be granted if either,

(a) the land area is insufficient; or (b) adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority. 217. The Applicant’s traffic report has stated that the proposal does not require an on-site loading

bay because:

(a) the size of the café will not generate the need for large deliveries; (b) there is sufficient on-street parking and loading opportunities to service a café of this

scale; and (c) cafes and restaurants along Swan Street are not generally provided with on-site

loading and rely on on-street arrangements. 218. The closest on-street loading bay to the site is in front of Coles on Swan Street, an

approximately 135m walk of the subject site (walking from Swan Street, down Green Street and through to Railway Place). Although this is a generous walk, it is a reasonable option for deliveries to the café.

Waste management

219. This proposal seeks Council collection for residential waste and private collection for café

waste.

220. A central bin store is located in the ground floor, accessed via the car park area (adjacent to the lift and café). Residents and the café tenants would carry bags to the ground floor waste area, with residents taking rubbish down lifts or stairs (no chute).

221. Residential waste collection would occur from the kerbside, with residents or the owner’s corporation coordinating the placement of bins in the front setback of the development the night before.

222. Commercial waste collection would also occur from the kerbside, with collection staff having access to the bin room (i.e. bins do not need to be placed on the kerb the night before).

Agenda Page 50


Waste collection would be carried-out by rear-lift vehicles (nom. 8.8m long and 4m operational height).

223. Council’s Services Contracts Unit has raised no objection to these waste collection methods and storage arrangements.

Bicycle parking and facilities

224. The development includes 46 bicycle parking spaces, 42 for residents and 4 for visitors.

225. With the Scheme having a requirement for 12 spaces, the development exceeds the

minimum requirements. Instead of providing a rate of 1:5 residential bicycle stores, the proposal provides 1:1 spaces.

226. Although clause 52.34-3 requires a change room, this is not necessary for a dwelling use

where residents could simply go home to change. This is also the case for the residential visitor requirement, where a change room is not considered necessary (visitors could always change when visiting residents).

227. The layout of the spaces is of a concern having regard to the clause 52.34-4 requirements

and the need to maintain a 1m end aisle space for parking maneuverability. Some variation can be tolerated when clause 52.34-4 is concerned (e.g. the ‘ned kelly’ bicycle parking systems does not meet the minimum space dimensions). Therefore, should a permit issue, a condition should ensure that:

(a) at least 46 spaces continue to be provided; (b) the 1m blind aisle extension be maintained clear of bicycles; (c) bicycle racks are positioned to ensure ease of access; and (d) when bicycles are positioned on the racks, a minimum 1m path behind is maintained.

228. A permit condition should also ensure that bicycle signage is provided as per clause 52.34-5

of the Scheme.

Objector concerns

neighbourhood character (scale, height, massing, surrounding heritage context, design detailing, subdivision, loss of vegetation, materials); visual bulk;

229. Neighbourhood character and visual bulk is addressed throughout the urban design

assessment at paragraphs 106-160. No planning permit is required for the removal of vegetation and a separate planning permit would be required for any future subdivision.

off-site amenity (overlooking, overshadowing, glare from glazing, noise, street interface);

230. Off-site amenity is addressed at paragraphs 190-198.

on-site amenity (noise from trains);

231. On-site amenity is addressed at paragraphs 161-176.

traffic/car parking/loading bay/bicycle parking (including impact of car parking spaces on the site and implications for Dimmey’s);; waste management;

232. These matters are addressed at paragraphs 199-228.

Agenda Page 51


precedent; 233. Each application must be considered on its own merits.

overdevelopment; 234. The scale of the development has been considered in its context throughout paragraphs 106-

160 and did not indicate that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.

insufficient ESD credentials; and

235. ESD matters are addressed at paragraphs 177-189.

contrary to draft Swan Street Structure Plan.

236. The SSSP is not a seriously entertained document (i.e. it is not Council’s adopted policy). An assessment of the proposal against the SSSP is therefore premature.

Conclusion 237. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in light of the relevant state and local policies,

the Business 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 5) and the CityLink Project Overlay and subject to the conditional changes outlined in the above assessment should therefore be approved.

RECOMMENDATION That having considered all objections and relevant planning documents, that the Committee resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit (PLN11/0953) for the development of the land for a nine storey building (plus a basement and roof deck), use of the land for dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirements associated with the dwelling and food and drink premises (café) uses, and waiver of the loading bay requirement. at 1-3 Railway Place, Cremorne VIC 3121 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 generally in accordance with the advertised plans (received by Council on 10 August 2010) but modified to show:

(a) the bay windows to dwellings 5-5 and 6-5 hinged to orientate north; (b) location of all ancillaries (air conditioner units, etc.), visually screened from views from

street level; (c) in relation to bicycle parking (spaces adjacent to the east title boundary):

(i) the 1m blind aisle extension be maintained clear of the bicycles; (ii) bicycle racks are positioned to ensure ease of access (taking into account handle

bar width, etc.); and (iii) when bicycles are positioned on the racks, a minimum 1m path behind is

maintained; and (iv) at least 42 spaces continue to be provided (in addition to the 4 visitor spaces

within the front setback). (d) bicycle signage as per clause 52.34-5 of the Yarra Planning Scheme; (e) the provision of a mirror at the junction of the ROW and Railway Place, with a note

confirming this must be installed at the Permit Holder’s expense to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(f) the setback area along the western boundary constructed in a material other than bluestone to clearly differentiate the ROW from private property;

Agenda Page 52


(g) the finished floor levels along the edge of the of the development’s setback area set a minimum 40mm higher than the edge of the bluestone ROW;

(h) a set of highly detailed ‘typical’ elevations to demonstrate ‘craftsmanship’ in the quality and application of façade finishes and details. Including illustrating the design logic supporting the selection of the various components;

(i) a detailed lighting plan for all publically accessible areas including private, communal and the public laneways ensuring lighting is baffled to minimise light spill;

(j) the provision of a planter or raised paving in the forecourt at the southern boundary of the site, at least as high as the current planter bed to prevent stormwater from Railway Place from entering the site;

(k) a gate at the western end of the northern setback/passage. The gate must be locked at night and may remain open during the day;

(l) all works recommended in the endorsed Acoustic Report referred to in condition 11; (m) all works recommended in the endorsed ESD report referred to in condition 14; and (n) all works recommended in the Wind report referred to in condition 15.

Endorsed Plans 2. All development and use must accord with the endorsed plans. Any alterations must be

approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. 3. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified. Any alterations

must be approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Ongoing involvement of the architect 4. As part of the ongoing consultant team, Armsby Architects must be retained to complete the

design and provide architectural oversight of the delivery of the detailed design as shown in the endorsed plans during the construction unless with the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.

Environmental Audit 5. Before commencement of construction or carrying out of any buildings and works, save for

demolition, bulk excavation and site preparation/remediation works, the owner must submit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority either: (a) A site assessment prepared by a suitably qualified environmental professional that

determines if an environmental audit is required and, if not, the assessment: (i) confirms that the site is or can be made suitable for residential use; and (ii) specifies requirements to effectively manage contamination prior to the

occupation of the land for residential use; or (b) A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part

IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or (c) An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must

make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for residential use.

6. Any ongoing groundwater management and abatement of groundwater contamination must

be in accordance with all requirements of any Clean Up Notice issued by the Environment Protection Authority under section 62A of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or any other relevant written notice or direction issued by the Environment Protection Authority, to the satisfaction of the Environment Protection Authority.

7. A copy of the site assessment, certificate of environmental audit and/or statement, and the

complete audit report and audit area plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.

Agenda Page 53


8. The use and/or development/buildings and works allowed by this permit must comply with the directions and conditions of any site assessment or statement of environmental audit issued for the land.

9. Prior to the occupation of dwellings and commencement of the childcare centre use a letter

must be submitted to the Responsible Authority by an Environmental Auditor accredited with the EPA, to advise that all construction and remediation works necessary and required by a site assessment or an environmental audit or statement have been carried out.

10. Any handling and disposal of contaminated site soil must be in accordance with the

requirements of any statement of environmental audit issued for the land, the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority and the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Acoustic Treatments 11. Before the plans are endorsed, an updated acoustic report generally in accordance with the

Marshall Day Acoustics report dated 10 November 2011 must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the acoustic report will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer and include an assessment of how the requirements of State Environment Protection Policy N-1, sleep disturbance criteria and relevant Australian Standards will be met and must prescribe the form of acoustic treatment to:

(a) protect all dwelling occupants from external noise sources, including but not limited to

nearby plant and equipment and train line vibrations; (b) protect dwelling occupants from internal noise sources, including the café (including

plant and equipment), residential plant and equipment, lift core, garage door and car stackers;

(c) protect nearby occupants from noise generated from the mechanical plant equipment (including residential air conditioner units), ventilation mechanisms, car stackers and garage doors installed or constructed as part of the development; and

(d) protect all dwelling occupants from external noise sources associated with the abutting rail system to achieve an internal noise level of 50dBA Lmax in bedrooms and 60dBA Lmax in living rooms and to achieve internal structure-borne vibration induced noise levels not exceeding 40dBA in bedrooms and 50dBA in living rooms.

12. The recommendations and any works contained in the approved acoustic report pursuant to

condition 11 must be implemented and completed and where they are recommendations of an ongoing nature must be maintained all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Within two months of all of the uses commencing, an updated acoustic report prepared by a

suitably qualified acoustic consultant must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority demonstrating that the required level of noise attenuation has been achieved in accordance with condition 11 of the permit or, if not, what works must be undertaken to achieve the required levels of noise attenuation.

Environmentally Sustainable Design Principles 14. Before the plans are endorsed, an amended Environmentally Sustainable Report to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the report will then form part of this permit. The Report must be generally in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan dated 27 January 2012 and prepared by GIW Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd but modified to address the following:

(a) protected (rain, intrusion, insects) window openings to facilitate the use of night purging

opportunities. These openings can be small openings, separate to the main windows;

Agenda Page 54


(b) inclusion of ‘master switches’ to individual apartments (save for critical items such as fridges and freezers); and

(c) a revised STORM assessment, confirming that Victoria’s best practice stormwater targets will be met.

Wind Assessment 15. Before the plans are endorsed, a wind assessment report to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must be prepared by a suitably qualified expert and must include a detailed wind study of all communal areas and publically accessible areas (or a desktop study if considered suitable by the Responsible Authority).

16. In the event the wind assessment report required under condition 15 recommends measures

are required to moderate wind impacts, those recommendation must be incorporated into the design and once constructed thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Developer contributions 17. Prior to commencement of the development the permit holder must make a one off

contribution of a maximum of $50,000 to the Responsible Authority to be used for a bluestone pitcher channel between Green Street and Royal Place and bluestone strips close to bollards and trees.

Car parking, crossovers and footpaths 18. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles, together with the associated access lanes as

delineated on the endorsed plan must: (a) be provided and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the

commencement of the development hereby permitted; (b) thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; (c) be made available for such use at all times and not used for any other purpose; (d) be properly formed to such levels that it can be used in accordance with the endorsed

plan; and (e) be drained and sealed with an all weather seal coat all to the satisfaction on the

Responsible Authority. 19. Any redundant vehicle crossings must be broken out and reinstated with paving, kerb and

channel of the surrounding area. The cost of these reinstatement works must be borne by the Permit Holder.

20. Any damaged road(s) and footpath(s) adjacent to the development site as a result of the

development must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at the expense of the Permit Holder.

21. All vehicle crossings must be constructed in accordance with City of Yarra Standard

Drawings and Specifications. 22. The development’s finished floor levels relative to the existing footpath and road levels must

be such that pedestrian and vehicular access accord with the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004.

23. All existing kerb and channel, and road pavement surface levels should not be altered.

Council may permit the adjustment of Building Line levels to provide access in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004.

24. Car stackers must be installed and maintained in accordance with Manufacture requirements

and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Agenda Page 55


General amenity 25. Alarms associated with the commercial premises must be directly connected to a security

service and must not produce noise beyond the premises. 26. The amenity of the area, particularly the Yarra River Corridor, must not be detrimentally

affected by the use or development, through: (a) the transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from land; (b) the appearance of any buildings, works or materials; and (c) the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam,

soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, or the presence of vermin. 27. All buildings must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority. 28. Noise emanating from the development, including plant and other equipment, must comply

with the State Environment Protection Policy N-1 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Landscaping 29. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed

plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 30. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority including that any dead or diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

Lighting 31. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to

each car parking spaces, storage, 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.

General 32. Privacy screens as required in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed prior to

occupation of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter.

33. All piping and ducting, other than for drainage above the ground floor storey of the building

must be concealed. Waste Management 34. Before the plans are endorsed, an updated Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Waste Management Plan will then form part of this permit. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design, dated 10 November 2011.

35. The collection of all waste must be in accordance with the approved Waste Management

Plan. Rubbish, including bottles and packaging material, must at all times be stored within the building and screened from external view and be managed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan.

Agenda Page 56


Construction Management Plan 36. Before any development commences, a Construction 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 as evidence of its approval. The plan must provide for or include the following: (a) a pre-conditions survey (dilapidation report) of the subject site and all adjacent Council

roads frontages and nearby road infrastructure; (b) protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area

reasonably proximate to the site); (c) remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area

reasonably proximate to the site); (d) containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of clean up

procedures in the event of build up of matter outside the site; (e) on site facilities for vehicle washing; (f) the location of loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes and crane/hoisting zones,

gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street;

(g) site security; (h) management of any environmental hazards that the activities on-site pose including but

not limited to: contaminated soil, materials and waste, dust, stormwater contamination from run-off and wash-waters, sediment from the site on roads, washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery, spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery;

(i) construction program; (j) preferred arrangements for trucks delivering to the site including delivery and unloading

points and expected frequency; (k) parking facilities for construction workers; (l) measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operate in accordance with the

Construction Management Plan; (m) an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to

local services; (n) an emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the

Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced; (o) the provision of a traffic management plan to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002

Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads;

(p) a noise and vibration management plan showing methods to minimise noise and vibration impacts on nearby properties and to demonstrate compliance with Noise Control Guideline 12 for Construction (Publication 1254) as issued by the Environment Protection Authority in October 2008, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In this regard, consideration (amongst other matters) may be given to: (i) using lower noise work practice and equipment; (ii) the suitability of the site for the use of an electric crane; (iii) silencing all mechanical plant by the best practical means using current

technology; and (iv) fitting all pneumatic tools operated near a residential area with an effective

silencer on their air exhaust port. 37. During the construction, the following must occur:

(a) any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system to comply with EPA guidelines;

(b) stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the premises enters the stormwater drainage system;

(c) vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the site;

Agenda Page 57


(d) the cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on site and not on adjacent footpaths or roads;

(e) all litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be disposed of responsibly; and

(f) all site operations must comply with the EPA Publication TG302/92. 38. The development once commenced, must be completed to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority. EPA conditions (39-43) 39. Fill material used or generated during construction should be managed in accordance with Industrial Waste Fact Sheet – 2 Fill Material Management, 3 Segregation, and 4 Engineered / Structural Fill (EPA Publication Nos. 1438, 1439 and 1440, 2012) 40. All industrial waste generated during construction must be managed in accordance with EPA’s Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines. 41. Construction and post-construction activities must be in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA Publication No. 275, 1991). 42. Construction and post-construction activities must be in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA Publication No. 275, 1991). 43. All wastewater generated by the proposed development must be connected to reticulated sewerage. Expiry 44. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit; (b) the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit; and (c) the dwelling use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit. The Responsible Authority may approve extensions to these time limits if requests are made before the permit expires or within 3 months afterwards.

NOTE: A building permit maybe required before development is commenced. Please contact Council’s Building Department on PH 9205 5351 to confirm. NOTE: In accordance with the Yarra Planning Scheme, a 4.5 per cent public open space contribution may apply in the event of the subdivision of the land. NOTE: The design and construction of the vehicle crossing must also satisfy the requirements of Council’s Community Amenity unit’s Vehicular Access into Properties (Info Sheet and Application Form) before a vehicle crossing permit can be issued. NOTE: The Permit Holder must apply for a Legal Point of Discharge under Regulation 610 – Stormwater Drainage of the Building Regulations 2006 from Yarra Building Services Unit. NOTE: Any storm water drainage within the property must be provided and be connected to the nearest Council pit of adequate depth and capacity (legal point of discharge), to Council’s satisfaction under Section 200 of the Local Government Act 1989 and Regulation 610. NOTE: Areas must be provided inside the property line and adjacent to the footpath to accommodate pits and meters. No private pits, valves or meters on Council property will be accepted.

Agenda Page 58


NOTE: The site must be drained to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. NOTE: All future residents, employees and occupiers residing within the development approved under this permit will not be permitted to obtain resident, employee or visitor parking permits. NOTE: A copy of this permit and the endorsed plan (and any subsequent variation) must form part of the document to any Contract of Sale or Lease for any part of the site after the date of the permit. NOTE: The food premises are required to comply with health and food safety regulations before commencing operation. Please contact Council’s Public Health Unit on 9205 5166. NOTE: A local law permit may be required for tree removal. Please contact Council’s Building and Regulatory Services Unit on 9205 5063. CONTACT OFFICER: Sarah Thomas TITLE: Principal Planner TEL: 92055005

stage (2) proposed nine storey tower. yarra council officers report. land: railway place [1-3]

Documents

use clause

x clause

car parking z clause

heritage d clause

housing i clause

commercial f clause

transport o clause

policy t clause