upc3 49 & 55 sackville street, kew - city of boroondara · including a tennis court, pool and...

Urban Planning Special Committee Agenda 02/05/16

UPC3 49 & 55 Sackville Street, Kew Application no.: PP15/00607 (File 40/409/02969) Responsible director John Luppino

City Planning Authorised by: Simon Mitchell

Manager Statutory Planning Report officer: Stephanie Ng -

Planning Officer Statutory Planning

Abstract Proposal 49 Sackville Street, Kew The proposal seeks to demolish the rear of the existing dwelling, which will result in approximately the front 26.0 metres of the existing dwelling being retained, including majority of the existing pitched tiled roof. There will be no change to the roof when viewed from Sackville Street. It is proposed to construct basement and ground floor extensions to the rear of the existing dwelling, which generally consists of an extension to an existing living area at basement level and an open plan kitchen/ dining/ living area, pantry, laundry, powder room, new WIR associated with Bedroom 1 and an air conditioner (AC) plant room on ground floor level. The design of the extension is conservative in nature and incorporates a pitched roof form to match the existing roof. 55 Sackville Street, Kew The proposal seeks to demolish an existing non-contributory brick dwelling including associated fencing, steps, paving, retaining walls, garden beds and landscaping on site. It is also proposed to remove an existing shed, carport, garage and sections of the existing driveway. A number of existing trees are to be removed. A private tennis court is to be constructed on ground floor level including four light poles, mesh fencing, retaining walls and landscaping throughout the site. A pitched roofed pavilion and a flat roofed timber pergola are also proposed towards the western boundary of 55 Sackville Street. It is also proposed to extend sections of the ground floor living room area associated with the dwelling at 49 Sackville Street onto the property at 55 Sackville Street. The extension is conservative in design with a pitched tile roof to match the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street. A basement garage is also proposed, comprising an open plan car parking area (six (6) car parking spaces), two storage areas, workshop, two tank rooms, a steamer room and bathroom setback approximately 38.91 metres from Sackville Street. A basement ramp is proposed to provide vehicle access to and from the existing driveway along the eastern boundary of the site. Issues The following are key issues in respect of this application:

The potential impact of the proposed development upon the heritage significance of the Sackville Street Precinct and the character and appearance of adjacent significant buildings.

City of Boroondara 49 Sackville Street of 123


Compliance with the Heritage Policy set out in the Boroondara Planning

Scheme. Whether the existing Himalayan Cedar Tree at 55 Sackville Street will be

adversely impacted as a result of the proposed development. Objections received.

Officer's response Details of the proposal, discussion of all objections and assessment against relevant controls and policies are contained in the attachment of this report. The proposal achieves full compliance against the relevant provisions of Clause 22.05 (Heritage Policy), Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay Schedule 162) as well as the mandatory building height requirements of Clause 32.09 (Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3). The proposal also has the support of Council’s Heritage Advisor. It is determined that the proposed tennis court complies with all performance requirements of the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999 subject to a range of standard conditions being applied to any permit issued. Both sites are in excess of 500 square metres and the sole planning permit trigger is the Heritage Overlay. As such, the provisions of Clause 54 (One Dwelling on a Lot) do not apply and the application is only subject to an assessment of matters raised by the Heritage Policy. Traffic, drainage and potential damage during construction are also not able to be considered in relation to this application. Two canopy trees are proposed to be removed. Council’s Arborist has assessed these trees and would consider that a Tree Protection Local Law approval would be granted if an application were to be made. The large Himalayan Cedar at the front of 55 Sackville Street is to be retained. The application does not propose any changes to the front garden of No. 49 Sackville Street. The application received a number of objections (9) and issues raised by the objectors have also been comprehensively addressed in the report.



Officers' recommendation That the Urban Planning Special Committee resolve that a Notice of Decision to Grant Planning Permit No. PP15/00607 for the demolition of an existing dwelling (55 Sackville Street) and partial demolition works to an existing dwelling (49 Sackville Street) and construction of buildings and works to an existing dwelling, including a tennis court, pool and fencing in a Heritage Overlay at 49 and 55 Sackville Street, Kew issued under the Boroondara Planning Scheme subject to the following conditions: Amended plans required 1. Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the plans are to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority they will be endorsed and will then form part of the Permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided, substantially in accordance with the advertised plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a) Two (2) or more canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when planted and

capable of reaching a height of 8-9 metres at maturity) on 55 Sackville Street;

b) a photographic heritage record of the outbuilding to be demolished located in the north-west corner of 55 Sackville Street. The heritage record must include:

Views of each elevation of the building; Two diagonally opposed views of each internal space in the

outbuilding; Architectural design detailing of the building; and Detailed photo of the brick construction.

The heritage record must be to a high standard and taken with appropriate photographic equipment and/or film using a recognised brand of reflex 35mm camera film or a 10 mega pixel minimum resolution digital camera. Digital images must be presented on an archival quality electronic storage device, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) A Construction Management Plan in accordance with Condition 19 of this

permit. d) A Tree Management Plan in accordance with Condition 21 of this permit.

Layout not to be altered 2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and

works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Drainage 3. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Removal of redundant vehicle crossovers 4. All disused or redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the area

reinstated with footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to match existing, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



Sediment laden run-off 5. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or

indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses during and after development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Tennis Court Site Works 6. Drainage resulting from the court must be intercepted to avoid any overflow and

must be connected to an approved point of discharge, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Tennis Court Landscaping 7. Any proposed landscaping associated with the tennis court must be maintained

over fill batters, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Tennis Court Lighting 8. The lighting system must not exceed an illumination level of 12 lux and an

average illumination of 10 lux when measured at the nearest habitable room window of an adjoining dwelling or at a point 3.0 metres outside the property boundary, whichever is the nearest to the light source, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The lighting system must comply with the 'Residential Tennis Court Lighting

Code' produced by the Tennis Court Builders Association of Australia, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The lights shall be fitted with automatic; tamper proof switches that ensure lights

do not operate outside the specified times, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. The lighting system must be baffled to ensure that the light source is not directly

visible from a habitable room window of an adjoining dwelling, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

12. The lighting system must be certified after installation by a qualified lighting

engineer, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Tennis court not to be used for commercial purposes 13. The court must only used for domestic use and must not be used for

commercial purposes such as tennis coaching or court hire, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Hours of use 14. The court must not be used between 10.30 pm and 8.00 am, to the satisfaction

of the Responsible Authority. Use of mechanical equipment 15. No mechanical equipment such as ball throwing machines may be operated

between 7.00 pm and 8.00 am, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Construction of tennis court 16. The method of construction must comply with the 'Guide Specifications for

Tennis Court Construction' produced by the Tennis Court Builders Association of Australia, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority



17. Adjoining residential properties must be notified before any works are

undertaken within 2 metres of the boundary, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Temporary barriers must be provided to protect areas of vegetation which are

outside the works site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Construction Management Plan 19. Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and

excavation, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed, the construction management plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be prepared in accordance with Council’s Construction Management Plan Template and provide details of the following:

a) Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of

this permit; b) Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff; c) Measures relating to removal of hazardous or dangerous material from the

site, where applicable; d) A plan showing the location of parking areas for construction and sub-

contractors' vehicles on and surrounding the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises. Any basement car park on the land must be made available for use by sub-constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay;

e) A Traffic Management Plan showing truck routes to and from the site; f) Swept path analysis demonstrating the ability for trucks to enter and exit

the site in a safe manner for the largest anticipated truck associated with the construction;

g) A plan showing the location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site;

h) Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the construction management plan;

i) Contact details of key construction site staff; and j) A site plan showing the location of any site sheds, on-site amenities,

building waste storage and the like, noting that Council does not support site sheds on Council road reserves.

Hours for demolition and construction 20. All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated

with the approved development must take place only during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:

Monday to Thursday: 7:00am to 6:30pm Friday: 7:00am to 5:00pm Saturday: 8:00am to 5:00pm Sunday & Public Holidays: No construction



Tree management plan 21. Prior to the endorsement of the plans referred to in Condition 1 of this permit, a

Tree Management Plan must be submitted by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist in relation to the management and maintenance of Cedrus deodara (Himalayan Cedar -Tree 1) on the site, the Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum - Tree 2), Quercus robur (English Oak - Tree 3) and the Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel - Tree 4) on the neighbouring properties, and must be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works including demolition and levelling of the site. The Tree Management Plan must make specific recommendations in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4970: 2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites and detail the following to the satisfaction of the responsible authority ensuring that the tree remains healthy and viable during construction.

a) A tree protection plan to scale is to be submitted along with the tree

management plan that is to show:

i. all tree protection zones and structural root zones, ii. all tree protection fenced off areas and areas where ground

protection systems will be used iii. The type of footings within the tree protection zone iv. All services to be located within the tree protection zone and a

notation to state that all services will either be located outside of the tree protection zone or bored under the tree protection zone; and

v. A notation to refer to the tree management plan for specific detail on what actions are required within the tree protection zone.

b) Details of how the root system of any tree to be retained will be managed.

This must detail any initial non-destructive trenching and pruning of any roots required to be undertaken by the project arborist.

c) Specification that a suitable time must be arranged with Council’s Arborist, who must be present to supervise any root excavation within the tree protection zone in relation to the Cedrus deodara (Himalayan Cedar -Tree 1) on the site, the Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum - Tree 2), Quercus robur (English Oak - Tree 3) and the Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel - Tree 4) on the neighbouring properties;

d) Supervision timetable and certification of tree management activities required by the Project Arborist to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

e) All remedial pruning works that are required to be performed on the tree development of the site. The pruning comments must reference Australian Standards 4373:2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees and a detailed photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur.

f) The recommendations contained in the approved tree management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Contractors to be advised of trees to be retained 22. The owner and occupier of the site must ensure that, prior to the

commencement of buildings and works, all contractors and tradespersons operating on the site are advised of the status of trees to be retained as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan and are advised of any obligations in relation to the protection of those trees.



Regulation of activities in Tree Protection Area 23. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within

the Tree Protection Area as detailed in the endorsed Tree Management Plan without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

Permit to expire: 24. This permit will expire if:

a) The development, including demolition does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit; or

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

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:

(i) within six (6) months afterwards if the development has not commenced;

or (ii) within twelve (12) months afterwards if the development has not been

completed.

Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal are unable to approve requests outside of the relevant time frame.

Notes: Headings are for ease of reference only and do not affect the interpretation of permit conditions. This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit may be required prior to the commencement of any works associated with the proposed development. Plant, equipment or services (other than those shown on the endorsed plans) that are visible from a street or a public park may require further planning permission. This includes air-conditioners, solar panels, water tank and the like. The Tree Protection Local Law requires that a Local Law Tree Permit be sought from Council for the removal and/or lopping of a 'Significant Tree' and/or excavation within the critical root zone of a Significant Tree. A list of Significant Trees is available at <http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/our-city/trees/significant-trees>. A Local Law Tree Permit is also required to remove, damage kill or destroy any identified 'Canopy Tree' which may include any excavation within the tree protection zone of a 'canopy tree'. The Tree Protection Local Law identifies a 'Canopy tree' as any tree with a single trunk circumference of 110cm or a combined circumference of a multi stemmed tree of 110cm or greater measured at 1.5m above ground level. A Planning Permit does not constitute a Local Law Tree Permit or permission to remove, damage kill or destroy a significant or canopy tree. The Tree Protection Local Law is available to download at <http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/our-city/trees/tree-works-permits> alternatively please contact Council’s Arborist - Statutory Planning (telephone 9278 4888) should a Local Law Tree Permit be required.



An Asset Protection Permit is required prior to the commencement of site works in accordance with Council’s Protection of Council Assets and Control of Building Sites Local Law 2011. Prior consent from Council and any and all public authorities is required to be obtained for alteration or reinstatement of assets or services affected as a result of the development. The full cost of reinstatement of any Council assets damaged as a result of demolition, building or construction works, must be met by the permit applicant or any other person responsible for such damage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Discharge to the legal point of discharge will be allowed subject to the flow being limited to a rate equivalent to pre-development levels or less. Any additional discharge and / or runoff above the pre-development level is to be detained on site, via an approved storm water detention system. This matter should be discussed with Council’s Asset Management Department. The permit application was not assessed against the provisions of Clause 54 - One Dwelling on a Lot (ResCode) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner to appoint a Registered Building Surveyor to determine compliance pursuant to the Building Regulations. Non-compliance with ResCode provisions will require dispensation from Council’s Building Services Department. Drainage: Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, the owner/developer must submit drainage plans for assessment and approval by the Responsible Authority (Asset Management). It is recommended that the existing Council drain is extended 28m along MacRobertsons Lane with a minimum 225mm diameter pipe to provide a sealed drainage connection the proposed tennis court and garage as well as the existing easement drain servicing 51 Sackville Street. The easement at 55 Sackville Street should contain private drainage and sewerage services for 51 Sackville Street. The developer must identify the location and depth of these services and develop a proposal for ensuring that these services are not interrupted by the proposed works. Any modification drainage and sewerage services from Sackville Street must be done with approval of the owners of 51 Sackville Street and Council. Additional information on the location of drainage and sewerage services from 51 Sackville Street is required and a proposal acceptable to all affected parties for the protection/relocation of these services is required before any drainage plans can be approved by the Responsible Authority (Asset Management). Stormwater drains are to be connected to a legal point of discharge approved by Council. Drainage Connections within a road reserve, right-of-way, parkland, within an easement or to a Health Act drain must be to Council’s standards. A Council Supervision Permit is required for this work. All fees and charges associated with the connection are to be borne by the applicant.


of 88

STATUTORY PLANNING OFFICERS REPORT Urban Planning Committee

Application Number PP15/00607Date Application Received 24/06/2015Planning Officer Stephanie Ng

Applicant SJB Planning Owner Ms HJ Oppy

Property Address 49 & 55 Sackville Street, Kew Proposal Demolition of an existing dwelling (55 Sackville

Street) and partial demolition works to an existing dwelling (49 Sackville Street) and construction of buildings and works to an existing dwelling, including a tennis court, pool and fencing in a Heritage Overlay.

Ward Cotham

Zoning Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3)

Overlays Heritage Overlay- Schedule 162 (HO162) Drainage Area of Interest? Yes

Advertised? Yes Number of Objections Received Nine (9) objections Recommendation Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit.

PLANS ASSESSED IN THIS REPORT Plans advertised in ‘October 2015’.

PROPOSAL

Appendix A - Plans

An application has been made to Council for the demolition of an existing dwelling (55 Sackville Street) and partial demolition of an existing dwelling (49 Sackville Street) and

Urban Planning Special Committee Agenda 02/05/16______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________City of Boroondara 49 Sackville Street of 123

of 88

construction of buildings and works to an existing dwelling (49 Sackville Street) including a spa, and a tennis court, fencing and a basement car park (55 Sackville Street) in a Heritage Overlay.

Details of the proposal are summarised as follows:-

49 Sackville Street

Demolition:

Demolition on this site includes:

The rear of the existing dwelling, which will result in approximately the front 26 metres of the existing dwelling being retained, including the majority of the existing pitched tile roof. The rooms to be demolished include:

Dining room area; Kitchen and associated pantry area; Laundry; Bedroom 1’s walk in robe (WIR); and Various internal walls (no planning approval required).

The existing terrace area (including steps) located to the rear of the existing dwelling.

Proposed alterations and additions:

Construction on this site includes:

An extension to the living area at the rear of the existing basement level and a walkway (coat area), store room and a set of stairs for the provision of access to and from the basement level of the existing dwelling to the proposed basement garage at 55 Sackville Street. The walkway area at basement level will be setback 1.375 metres from the northern boundary of 51 Sackville Street.

An open plan kitchen/dining/living area, pantry, laundry, powder room, new WIR associated with Bedroom 1 and an air conditioner (AC) plant room at ground floor.

The proposed addition that will be setback approximately 32.8 metres from the street frontage, sited behind the retained section of the existing dwelling.



of 88

The proposed addition is setback 5.0 metres from the western boundary (John Street), 11.98 metres from the northern (rear) boundary and 40.09 metres from the eastern boundary of 55 Sackville Street.

The overall building height of the addition will be 8.26 above the natural ground level which matches the existing predominant ridgeline.

The additional ground floor area will be 81.2 square metres and the proposed building envelope will protrude a maximum 8.265 metres beyond the existing footprint at the rear of the existing dwelling.

A proposed terrace area with roof will be located at the rear of the addition. It will be setback approximately 9.0 metres from the northern (rear) boundary and 9.8 metres from the eastern boundary (John Street). The overall height of the terrace will be 7.07 metres above the natural ground level.

A proposed spa adjacent to the existing swimming pool will be located towards the north-eastern (rear) corner of the site.

The extension consists of a conservative design with a pitched tile roof to match the existing dwelling. The external finishes proposed for ground floor will comprise a combination of rough render and smooth render paint finishes on masonry walls, to match the existing dwelling.

The existing garage will be converted into a billiard room. It is noted that external works associated this includes conversion of the existing double swing doors (east elevation) into windows. The elevation plans indicate that new painted finish is to be applied to the existing painted surfaces of the existing garage.

55 Sackville Street

Demolition:

Demolition on this site will include:

An existing non-contributory single storey brick dwelling, including associated fencing, steps, paving, retaining walls, garden beds and landscaping on site.

The existing brick shed located at the north-western corner of the site.



of 88

The existing carport and brick garage located at the north-eastern corner of the site.

The existing brick wall with paling fence and gate along the northern boundary of the site.

The demolition of the existing concrete driveway located along the eastern boundary of the site. Demolition of the driveway commences approximately 13.55 metres from Sackville Street. The remainder of the existing concrete driveway to Sackville Street will be retained.

Proposed buildings and works:

Construction on this site includes:

A basement garage containing an open plan parking area comprising of six (6) car parking spaces, two storage areas, a workshop, two tank rooms, steam room and a bathroom,all of which will be setback 1.495 metres from the northern boundary of 51 Sackville Street and 38.91 metres from Sackville Street itself;

A walkway with store/ coat room area will provide access to and from the proposed basement garage area at 55 Sackville Street to the basement level of the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street. The walkway area on basement level will be setback 1.375 metres from the northern boundary of 51 Sackville Street;

A set of stairs located towards the northern boundary of the site will provide access to and from the basement level and the tennis court above.

An extension (living room area) at ground floor level associated with the existing dwelling that will be located over the title of 55 Sackville Street. The extension will be sited 1.85 metres to the north of 51 Sackville Street and will be setback 11.98 metres from the northern boundary (rear).

The extension to create the living room will conservative in design with a pitched tile roof to match the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street. The external finishes will match the proposed additions to the existing dwelling, as mentioned above.



of 88

Driveway/ basement ramp:

The proposal includes the construction of a driveway/ basement ramp to provide vehicle access to and from the existing driveway along the eastern boundary of the site to the proposed basement garage. The proposed driveway ramp commences approximately 13.55 metres from Sackville Street and includes a 1.0 metre concrete balustrade.

Fencing:

A new paling fence ranging between 2-3 metres in height is proposed along the northern boundary of the site (MacRobertsons Lane).

The elevation plans indicate that new render and paint finish will be applied to the existing 1.8 metre high rendered brick fence fronting Sackville Street.

Pavilion and pergola:

A partially open-sided single storey pitched roofed pavilion will be located at the north-western corner of the site. The pavilion will have a maximum height of 5.07 metres (measured to the top of roof) and incorporate a fireplace/ chimney with a render finish. The pavilion will be constructed out of masonry (paint and render finish) with a pitched tiled roof.

A pergola is proposed between the proposed pavilion and living room extension. The pergola will be constructed out of timber (paint finish) with a flat roof.

Tennis court:

The application includes the construction of a private tennis court (measuring 34.93m X 18.685m) at ground floor level that includes:

The installation of four (4) metal light poles with a maximum height of 8.0 metres;

The installation of a 3.6 metre high tennis court mesh fence (measured from finished surface level of the tennis court) around the proposed tennis court;

Retaining walls (100mm-600mm) around the proposed tennis court; and Landscaping works located around the proposed tennis court to a height

of approximately 5-8 metres.



of 88

The proposed tennis court will be built substantially on natural ground level with sections towards the north-eastern corner of the site excavated approximately 250mm below natural ground level (NGL).

Tree Removal

A number of trees and shrubs are proposed to be removed including:

Two (2) trees (Tree 5: Japanese Maple and Tree 6: Cut Leaf Birch) located towards the western boundary of the site. Both trees require Tree Protection Local Law Permit for removal. The Arborist Report (prepared by Peter Clark from Treescape Consulting Pty Ltd, dated Number 2015) submitted with the application assesses both Tree Nos. 5 and 6 having low retention value and not being worthy of long term retention on the site. This is discussed in Council’s Arborist referral comments.

It is noted that to date, no Tree Protection Local Law application for the removal of trees has been submitted.

No other trees on site require Local Law Permit for removal as they are not defined as significant or canopy trees. It should be noted that the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay provides that tree controls do not apply to this site.

THE SITE

Appendix B - Locality Plan

Site 49 Sackville Street, Kew 55 Sackville Street, Kew



of 88

Aerial Map

Figure 1 - Aerial view of the subject site at 49 Sackville Street, Kew (Weave, October 2015)

Figure 2 - Aerial view of the subject site at 55 Sackville Street, Kew (Weave, October 2015)

Site Location 49 Sackville Street is located on the north-east corner ofSackville Street and John Street.

55 Sackville Street is located on the north side of Sackville Street.

Width of Frontage

21.34m 13.11m

MaximumDepth of Site

57.84m 57.84m

Total Site Area

1234m2 1241m2

Easements 49 Sackville Street is not encumbered by any easements.

55 Sackville Street is encumbered by a 1.22 metre wide drainage easement (running in a north-south direction) situated towards the western boundary of the site and extending east-west along the southern boundary, adjoining 51 Sackville Street.

Fall of the Land

Over the two sites, there is a slight fall of approximately 1.75 metres from the south-east corner of 55 Sackville Street to the north-west corner of 49 Sackville Street.

FrontFencingDetails

A 1.2m high rendered brick fence with iron pickets is located along the frontage of the site.

A 1.8 metre high rendered brick fence is located along the frontage of the site.

ExistingConditions

The site is currently developed with a 1920s single storey detached dwelling (Interwar

The site is currently developed with a single storey detached dwelling likely to be constructed in the 1970s



of 88

Bungalow) with a tiled pitched roof.

with flat roof.

HeritageGrading

Contributory Non-contributory

VehicleAccess

Vehicle access is via a crossover and driveway via John Street, adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

Vehicle access is via a crossover and driveway via Sackville Street, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

Vegetation The site contains a substantial canopy tree located within the front setback of the site. This tree not listed on the significant tree register.

The site contains a number of trees and shrubs of which only one tree (Tree No. 1: Himalayan Cedar) is considered to be a substantial canopy tree. This tree not listed on the significant tree register.

49 Sackville Street

The subject site at 49 Sackville Street is currently developed with a 1920s detached dwelling (Interwar Bungalow) that comprises brick and render finishes to the external walls and a tiled pitched roof.

The existing building is setback a minimum of 14.0 metres from the Sackville Street frontage and between 3.8 metres and 5.0 metres from the John Street side boundary.

There is a basement with cellar located beneath the kitchen and dining room. An elevated terrace is located to the north of the living room. A swimming pool is located within the secluded private open space, adjacent to the

northern title boundary. Vehicle access is via two crossovers and driveways adjacent to the northern

boundary of the site (via John Street). A triple garage is located 1.84 metres from John Street.

The front setback of the site consists of paving and well maintained garden beds dispersed across the frontage, which includes a canopy tree. This tree will be maintained.



of 88

Figure 3 - Subject site at 49 Sackville Street, Kew (primary street frontage)

Figure 4 - Subject site at 49 Sackville Street, Kew - Oblique view (south-west) taken from the corner of Sackville Street and John Street



of 88

Figure 5 and 6 - Subject site at 49 Sackville Street, Kew - View taken along John Street (secondary street frontage)

Figure 7 - Subject site at 49 Sackville Street, Kew - Existing garage taken from John Street (secondary street frontage)



of 88

55 Sackville Street The subject site at 55 Sackville Street is currently developed with a 1970s single

storey dwelling with a flat roof form. The existing building is setback a minimum of 38.64 metres from Sackville Street

and is largely sited behind the property at 51 Sackville Street. Vehicle access is via a battleaxe driveway running along the eastern boundary of the

land (via Sackville Street, refer to Figure 8 and 9). Vehicle access is also provided via a gate, located to the rear, northern boundary of

the site (via MacRobertsons Lane, refer to Figure 10). The Sackville Street entrance to 55 Sackville Street consists of a 1.8 metre high

solid brick fence with render finish and timber gates. The front setback adjoining the eastern boundary of the site contains a mature

Himalayan Cedar tree which is considered to be a substantial tree and worthy of retention (Figure 9). The proposal does not include removal of this tree.

Figure 8 - Subject site at 55 Sackville Street, Kew



of 88

Figure 9 - Subject site at 55 Sackville Street, Kew - Driveway and Tree No. 1: Himalayan Cedar, taken from Sackville Street

Figure 10 - Subject site at 55 Sackville Street, Kew - View taken from MacRobertson Lane (rear laneway)



of 88

THE SURROUNDING AREA

Figure 11 - Zoning and Overlay Map of the subject sites and surrounds (Weave, October 2015).

Figure 12 - Aerial view of the subject sites and surrounds (Weave, October 2015).

Subject siteat 55SackvilleStreet






of 88

North:To the north is a right of way known as MacRobertsons Lane. The lane is approximately 4.6 metres wide (Figure 13).

Across the right-of-way is a single storey Italianate dwelling situated at 2 John Street (Figure 14). This property, known as “Hermon“, is affected by Heritage Overlay 318 and has an individual significant grading.

Across the right-of-way from 55 Sackville Street are two properties at 28 Rowland Street and 30 Rowland Street. Both have recently been developed with two storey detached dwellings. It is noted that these properties are not affected by any overlays.

Figure 13 - Photograph of the Mac Robertson’s Lane; a rear laneway located along the rear, northern boundary of the site.

Figure 14 - 2 John Street, Kew



of 88

East:The property to the east and south of the subject land at 51 Sackville Street is occupied by a single storey brick interwar dwelling (Figure 15). Further to the east of 55 Sackville Street, the property at 59 Sackville Street is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling (Figure 16). Both these properties are affected by Heritage Overlay 162 and are graded as significant.

Figure 15 - 51 Sackville Street, Kew




of 88

West:The north-western corner of Sackville Street and John Street (43 Sackville Street) is occupied by a two storey brick Victorian mansion known as "Pomeroy" (Figure 17). The property is affected by Heritage Overlay 234 and has an individual significant grading. It also has a National Trust classification.

To the rear of ‘Pomeroy’ is 1A John Street. This property is occupied by a single storey, dwelling on land which formerly comprised a portion of the "Pomeroy" site. This property is not affected by any overlays.


South:To the south, on the opposite side of Sackville Street are properties (42 and 44 Sackville Street) developed with detached homes. The building at 48 Sackville Street isSackville Nursing Home and a property containing a two-storey dwelling known as “Padua House” (52 Sackville Street). Nos. 42 and 44 Sackville Street are graded as contributory and non-contributory respectively within Heritage Overlay 162 (refer to Figures 18 and 19).

Both the Sackville Nursing Home and Padua House are graded as ‘significant’ properties within Heritage Overlay 162. These buildings are set back in excess of 20m from the Sackville Street frontage.



of 88

Figure 18 - 42 Sackville Street, Kew (Contributory)

Figure 19 - 44 Sackville Street, Kew (Non-contributory)



of 88

Figure 20 - Sackville Nursing Home at 48 Sackville Street, Kew (Significant)

Figure 21 - Padua House, 52 Sackville Street, Kew (Significant)

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The following statement of significance provides a summary of the significance and key attributes of Boroondara's Heritage Overlay precinct (HO162). Unless otherwise



of 88

referenced, the statements have been identified in the Review of Heritage Overlay Precinct Citations (2006) prepared by Lovell Chen Pty Ltd.

Heritage Precinct HO162 Sackville Street Precinct, Kew

Statement of Significance

The Sackville Street Precinct, Kew, is an area of heritage significance for the following reasons:

The place contains a number of individually significant mansions generally dating from the late Victorian period, set on generous allotments. These are supported, visually, by a series of smaller houses which range in date from the Victorian era to the Federation and interwar periods. There are several pleasant houses from the post-WWII period.

As is the case for Harcourt Street Hawthorn (HO151), the area is important for its ability to demonstrate a pattern of early mansion development supplemented by smaller houses added from the Federation through to more recent periods.

The area is notable for its imposing envelope of street trees which arch over the street for most of its length, and for its large and mature gardens.

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT/AGREEMENTS

No covenant or restriction has been registered on Title for this property.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

Is the site within an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity? No Is a Cultural Heritage Management Plan required? N/A

PERMIT/SITE HISTORY

Details of previous applications at 49 Sackville Street are as follows:-

ApplicationNo

Date of Decision

Decision Description of Proposal

BOR/98/00815 13/11/1998 Permit Construct additions and alterations to an existing dwelling.

BOR 99/393 20/8/2001 Refused Develop the land for a new dwelling in a heritage area (dual occupancy).



of 88

ApplicationNo

Date of Decision

Decision Description of Proposal

PP02/00297 30/4/2003 Permit Part demolition and construction of additions and alterations to an existing dwelling, demolition of an existing carport and construction of a garage, crossovers (2) and boundary fencing in a heritage area.

PP08/00495 27/5/2008 Permit Construct a swimming pool in a Heritage Overlay.

History at 49 Sackville Street:

Council records indicate that all of the above issued planning permits have been acted upon.

In relation to permit application BOR 99/393, Council’s decision to refuse to grant this planning permit was upheld at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 20 August 2001 (Appendix C - McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & Ors [2001] VCAT 1940 (20 August 2001)).

ProposalPlanning application BOR 99/393 related to the site at 49 Sackville Street and included the following:

Extension to the existing dwelling; and Construction of an additional single storey dwelling to the rear of the existing

dwelling at 49 Sackville Street.

Key design elements included: Proposed single storey "U" shaped dwelling with an overall height of 6.46m. The top ends of the "U" shape were proposed to abut the northern boundary (two walls having lengths of approximately 4.4m) and the eastern side of the "U" was to abut the eastern boundary (a wall of approximately 9m abutting a garage wall of 7m on the neighbouring property to the east).A setback of 5 metres to the John Street frontage.Access to the underground two car garage via a curved 5 metre long driveway and new crossover to Sackville Street. The existing dwelling consists of a ground floor with two bedrooms, dining, living, family, meals, kitchen and laundry (260.1sqm) and the previously approved (BOR98/815) but not constructed first floor consisting of three (3) bedrooms (116sqm). The existing double garage with access to John Street and the existing family room meals area w/c and laundry and deck are to be demolished to make way for the proposed new dwelling.



of 88

A basement garage and terrace above for the existing dwelling with access to Sackville Street.

Figure 22 - Site and floor plans of the proposed works under planning permit application BOR99/393

Figure 23 - West elevation plan (John Street) of the proposed works under planning permit application BOR99/393

N



of 88

Planning Assessment determined at the Tribunal (The full planning assessment can be found on pages 10-16 of 16 of Appendix C)

In summary, the Tribunal determined that the additional dwelling proposed to the rear of 49 Sackville Street was not appropriate based on neighbourhood character grounds including:

Creation of an allotment of 352sqm which is less than one-third the size of most other allotments in John Street;

Boundary to boundary development (along three property lines); Lack of front and rear gardens; Lack of separation between the two dwellings; and Period reproduction style in design of the proposed dwelling.

Particular discussion is provided at paragraphs 26 and 30 of the decision, with regard to the scale of the proposed extension works to the existing dwelling and what was considered appropriate. It is noted that the ‘extension works’ as referenced by the Tribunal are part of extension works on the ground floor and include a first floor level previously approved by Council via Planning Permit BOR/98/00815 on 19 August 1999.

26. Mention has already been made of the substantial additions and alterations proposed to the existing dwelling. Those alterations will involve second storey hips to the eastern, western and northern sides of the existing house. The result will be a very substantial two-storey house. Although these additions and renovations are part of the permit application presently before us, they have been included so that the development of the site, including the proposed second residence, can be considered as a whole. As we have said, a planning permit for the additions and alterations has already been granted and is still current. Although it is open to this Tribunal to review that planning permission, the objectors did not urge this course upon us. Rather, they argued, in Mr Earle's words, that the proposed extension represents "the absolute maximum that this site can tolerate and be in any way compatible with the neighbourhood environment." We agree. The neighbourhood character considerations which tell against the new dwelling are amplified when one has regard to the sheer scale of the renovations.

30. In our view the Sackville Street heritage precinct makes a contribution - indirect perhaps, but real - to the character of the southern end of John Street. Part of such character is provided by `Pomeroy', the mansion on the north-west corner. The house is set well back from its John Street frontage. The side garden is given over to large trees and ferns which combine most attractively with the trees in the nature strip and the grand gateway entrance. In some respects the proposed substantial additions to the existing house on the subject property, coupled with an appropriate rear garden development, would sit comfortably with `Pomeroy', in its large garden setting. The in-fill design would however, destroy any such symmetry.



of 88

31. It cannot be doubted that those who buy property in the immediate vicinity of Sackville Street, albeit not in Sackville Street, value the proximity of that "premier street". Sackville Street is aesthetically linked to streets like John Street by the plane trees common to both streets, the garden environment shared by both streets (albeit on a more modest scale in John Street), the width of both streets (John Street is of roughly the same width as Sackville Street), and by No 2 John Street, diagonally opposite `Pomeroy'. In considering the impact the second dwelling would have on the character of the neighbourhood, one may properly have regard to the contribution the Sackville Street heritage precinct makes to the character of the southern end of John Street. The impact, we think, would be negative. The characteristics of the proposed new dwelling are the antithesis of those which produced the Sackville Street Heritage Overlay.

35. We emphasise that we have decided this case principally on neighbourhood character issues, not on heritage grounds. The two overlap, of course. The characteristics which justify a heritage overlay will also, sometimes, be determinative of neighbourhood character.

The above history of the site will have limited relevance to the existing application. The proposed application is significantly more modest than the previous application for the additional dwelling on the lot. The refused application would have had a significant impact upon the John Streetscape. The application included a protruding basement garage and terrace facing John Street with a 5.0 metre setback. The application also included a substantial change to the existing roof of the heritage building to accommodate at first floor level three additional bedrooms, two bathrooms and a balcony. Furthermore, the application also included the provision of an additional dwelling facing John Street which would have a façade width of approximately 15 metres set atop of a partially protruding basement.

While the proposal of the current application and the previously refused application were significantly different, it is also relevant to note that the planning controls are different as the previous application was for two or more dwellings on a lot and therefore required an assessment against Council’s Residential Urban Character Study and the former Good Design Guide.

History at 55 Sackville Street:

It is noted that the site at 55 Sackville Street was subdivided from 51 Sackville Street, Kew in 1969.

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, the application was advertised by:-



of 88

Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land; and Placing signs on the land for a period of 14 days.

Nine (9) objections have been received to the proposal. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:-

Heritage matters:

49 Sackville Street:

The proposed buildings and works to 49 Sackville Street are inconsistent with the purposes and decision guidelines of Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

An on-site inspection will readily reveal, the excessive bulk of the proposed extension that gives the appearance of a substantial building surrounding the back of the MacRobertson residence, which effect is given further embellishment by the proposal that the entrance to the ramp replicates the fabric and colour of the dwelling and front fence of 49 Sackville Street. This whole approach severely compromises the architectural integrity of the MacRobertson residence (51 Sackville Street) and should not be allowed if the objectives of the Heritage Overlay are to be met.

The alteration proposed to the roof line of 49 Sackville Street does not comply with the objectives of the Heritage Policy of the Council and should not be allowed - as the policy states, changes to “visible roof forms of ‘contributory’ heritage places will not normally be allowed”. The policy also states that the “principal visible roof forms of the heritage place” should not change. The proposal is contrary to those objectives.

The bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building works on 49 Sackville Street adversely affect the significance of that place as a contributory heritage place. It is not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the overall heritage precinct.

The proposed renovations and extensions to 49 Sackville Street, in themselves, do not comply with the Heritage Overlay and Heritage Policy of the Council, let alone what affect such has on the MacRobertson residence.

The high roof, which its special tiles, forms an essential component of the architectural merit of the MacRobertson residence. The proposed extension to the 49 Sackville Street property is anathema to its architectural uniqueness and integrity and will be a visual impost.



of 88


The building of the pergola and pavilion in this area adds an unacceptable bulk that offends the neighbourhood character to John Street, which as the Tribunal indicated, is in effect interwoven with the Sackville Precinct neighbourhood character which is so valued.

Neighbourhood character and built form:


The extension to 49 Sackville Street is excessive in bulk and configuration. The extension to 49 Sackville Street is a massive over development of an

already substantial existing dwelling. From Sackville Street, the tennis court light towers are visible, which again

challenges the architectural integrity of the MacRobertson residence. The streetscape in John Street, with the building of the pavilion is diminished by

the bulk of that building and the loss of trees. The proposed development detracts from the neighbourhood character.


The extension of the dwelling into 55 Sackville Street adds weight to the assertion of offensive bulk. It is offensive to the neighbourhood character for various reasons, not least of which is the destruction of significant vegetation which adds to the neighbourhood character recognised by VCAT as an integral part of the neighbourhood character needing to be preserved.

The proposed ramp is out of character in the neighbourhood. The proposed ramp will dissect the adjoining significant properties and diminish the neighbourhood character in Sackville Street - in the area extending from John Street to Ross Street, where to date no ramps exist.

The proposed tennis court is detrimental to the environment and the garden aspect of the neighbourhood.

The loss of trees would amount to a serious diminution of the neighbourhood character and would be against the objective of the Council’s tree protection policy. The need for preservation of the garden/ vegetation setting is addressed in the VCAT decision (McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & OrsP2000/64653).

Demolition works:



of 88

The shed in the north-west corner of 55 Sackville Street is part of Sir Macpherson Robertson’s original concept for the MacRobertson Residence. It is made from the same “Cherry Ripe” size bricks that the main residence is made from and forms a unique aspect of the architectural heritage of the site and should be preserved. Sir Macpherson Robertson referred to the bricks used for his residence as his “Cherry Ripes” as they reminded him of his famous chocolate product.

The existing building at 55 Sackville Street is very distinctive for its era and should be retained.

Landscaping opportunities:

55 Sackville Street will have site coverage in excess of 90% (see the Boroondara Residential Design Policy for what is considered appropriate site coverage).The foot print of the tennis court is enormous, covering the roofing slab of the garage, most of 55 Sackville Street, which in turn stops the permeability that presently exists.

Drainage:

The resultant development, should it proceed, will be a significant collector of stormwater that will be prevented from trenching in any proportion the water table, through pervious surfaces, which is important for the continued survival of the significant vegetation in the area.

The bulk of the footprint for the whole of the development almost totally seals the surface from water penetration to the water table.

Building over easement:

It is proposed that a concrete slab be built over an easement set out on the title of 55 Sackville Street. The property at 51 Sackville Street objects to this. Also, the proposed planting of “shrubs” in a planter box style beds along the southern boundary of 55 Sackville Street, will restrict access to this easement.

Extend the development across title boundaries:

The proposed development is uncharacteristic of the Sackville Precinct as it intends to extend over the existing title line almost by 6 metres along the northern boundary of the MacRobertson Residence (51 Sackville Street, Kew).



of 88

Nowhere in the Sackville Precinct is there anything other than straight north-south boundary lines on the east and west boundaries. To allow an encroachment over existing title lines is contraindicated for the preservations of neighbourhood character.

The proposal will not be in keeping with the boundary lines subsisting in all other allotments visible along Sackville Street. This offends the Boroondara Planning Scheme which stipulates that newly created lots (which a consolidation of the titles of 49 and 55 Street will be) respects the prevailing subdivision patterns of the street.

Tree/ vegetation removal and damage to trees:

Vegetation has long been identified as an essential component that has, and continues to, distinguish the Sackville Precinct. See the VCAT decision (McSteenTan Architects v Boroondara CC & Ors P2000/64653) for a discussion of this aspect.

Tree removal:

There are two healthy young mature Silver Birch trees (Betula pendula) in the western portion of 55 Sackville Street. These trees are to be removed. Tree of that age (22 - 25 years) would expect to have a further 40 - 50 years of life. They not only provide a vision of vegetation to the Sackville Street streetscape, they also provide the same to the streetscape to the southern end of John Street. Refer to the significance of the John Street considerations as discussed in the VCAT decision (McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & Ors P2000/64653)where value was put on the need for such from a neighbourhood character perspective.

The removal of trees on 49 and 55 Sackville Street will be detrimental to the neighbourhood character.

Damage to trees:

The excavation to facilitate the ramp will be cut into the critical root zone of a very large and established spruce tree (located towards the entrance of the driveway at 55 Sackville Street).

The cut of the ramp will also destroy a significant “Ghost Gum“ located at 59 Sackville Street and as a consequence of the necessity to destroy the critical root zone of that tree which inevitably will cause it to die, or at least, become unstable representing a hazard.



of 88

Similarly, it will affect the root system of a massive tree located across MacRobertsons Lane at the rear of 30 Rowland Street.

The disruption to the root systems may even extend to the substantial tree on the boundary of MacRobertsons Lane and the rear of 28 Rowland Street.

McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & Ors [2001] VCAT 1940 (20 August 2001):

The VCAT decision considered a proposed building of a second dwelling at the rear of the site. It is considered that the proposed development of the rear of 49 Sackville Street is in direct parallel to what was previously rejected by VCAT, notwithstanding the proposed development intends to extend over the existing title line almost by 6 metres along the northern boundary of the Mac Robertson Residence.

The decision makers in the VCAT decision agreed with the submission that the then proposed renovations at 49 Sackville Street, (which were not opposed and which are now in place at the site today) represent “the absolute maximum that this site can tolerate and be compatible with the neighbourhood environment”.They went onto say, “the neighbourhood character considerations which tell against the new dwelling are amplified when one has regard to the sheer scale of the renovations”.

As the VCAT decision addressed, development at the corner of John Street and MacRobertsons Lane affects the neighbourhood character, with reference being made to the Italianate dwelling at 2 John Street being a contiguous consideration. This more so, as since the VCAT decision, the owner of the Italianate dwelling has done extensive renovations and re-established a wrought iron and bluestone front fence in place of an offending high timber paling fence referred to in the VCAT decision. No. 2 John Street now carries a classification under the Victorian Heritage scheme as it is graded “B” in the Kew Conservation Study.

Tennis Court:

The proposed tennis court has an east-west orientation. As such, it will be one of the few (if any) east-west tennis courts in Melbourne. Its orientation makes the court functionally deficient, being restricted as to optimum use because of sun glare during the day. The only unaffected use of the court would be at night. This would see it being used at a time of most imposition on the quite enjoyment of neighbours.

The lighting for the tennis court will have adverse effects on the use of two bedrooms situated on the second level of the MacRobertson residence.



of 88

The netting, fencing, lights and elevation of the tennis court will be visually detrimental to the neighbourhood character.

It is proposed that the tennis court not be used until 7.30am. This is too early to be woken by the sound of tennis being played so very close to neighbouring bedrooms.

Amenity Impacts/ Loss of Privacy:

The proposed extension along the north-west corner of the MacRobertson residence for almost 6.0 metres directly intrudes on the quiet enjoyment of our private secluded space which includes a sunken garden with a fountain and bench seating area located in the north-west corner of the MacRobertson residence.

The extension and establishment of a living room, pergola and a “pavilion”, of which the last two are open facilities for people to watch tennis, with no doubt the noise of the barracking audience, together with the noise of the tennis itself, will seriously affect that private secluded space.

Other matters:

The underground garage is to be used to store a vintage car collection of a third party. Cars will be moved from where they are presently stored at a commercial site, which is appropriate use for that site, to a residential location where it will be an inappropriate use.

The owner of 49 Sackville Street has no need for additional garage facilities. The crossovers are to be retained. This is not consistent with the new proposed

use of the garage as a billiard room. The wall demarking the 5 tank area is not a structural wall. The ceiling slab to the

garage is to be supported by transverse n/s running beams. The end result will be an unrestricted underground area which well and truly exceeds any need for the parking of the owner’s two cars.

The so called ‘tank area’ will be opened up for storage of more cars, or other activities not compatible with residential use.

The size of the underground garage is not reflective of a use for garaging of cars associated with domestic/ residential use. Its size lends itself to non-resident uses that may disrupt the residential character of the neighbourhood in the Sackville Precinct (eg. Small business activities and manufacturing).

If the garage is to be used by visitors, then both occupiers of the MacRobertson Residence and 59 Sackville Street would be subjected to vehicular traffic that,



of 88

having regard to the narrow and close proximately of the driveway to the MacRobertson Residence (in particular), will amount to an unwarranted impost on the quiet enjoyment presently enjoyed consistent with a residential area.

The elevation submitted in support of the planning application for the Sackville Street streetscape is disingenuous, deceptive and inaccurate, both in commission and omission. There should be elevations taken from the opposite side of Sackville Street looking at a north-east direction.

Nuisance during construction / excavation:

The proposed underground garage necessitates a very significant excavation in respect of depth, length and width. This will require, over a significant time, access to the site of a large excavator and truckloads of fill for the proposed works.

To gain access to the site, only the narrow driveway to 55 Sackville Street can be used. This will require very large trucks and trailers to back down the driveway (disrupting traffic in Sackville Street). There is a high probability that damage will be caused to existing walls.

The construction of the ramp runs the real risk of undermining the feature bluestone wall on the eastern boundary of the MacRobertson Residence.

The volume of this traffic will be very significant and the noise and disruption (vibration and dust) cause by slow moving heavy truck passing within 2.5m of the MacRobertson residence (a bedroom) will be so onerous as to warrant that it should not be allowed in the first place.

The proposal will require over a significant period of time, access to the site of large and noisy machinery including trucks which will access the site via the driveway at 55 Sackville Street. The driveway is located immediately adjacent to 51 Sackville Street’s bedrooms.

The volume of traffic via heavy machinery and trucks will cause significant disruption to the residents at MacRobertson residence’s quite enjoyment of their dwelling as well as noise, vibration and dust.

Defective notice and insufficient information:

The deficiencies with the notice includes the failure to correctly identify the land upon which buildings and works were proposed, the failure to place a notice on land at 55 Sackville Street, the failure of the notice to be kept on the façade at 49 Sackville Street for the appropriate length of time.



of 88

The plans do not accurately represent the development particularly the elevation plans couple with the fact that there is no heritage report prepared by an appropriate qualified heritage consultant nor is there any arboricultural report presents a situation where the Council does not have any full and proper information to allow it come to a view about the proposed development and what affects it will have on the heritage precinct and to the trees.

It is noted that one (1) objection has been withdrawn subsequent to submission of an Arborist Report and discussions with the applicant / land owner.

Therefore the total number of objections to the proposal is nine (9).

CONSULTATION MEETING

A consultation meeting was held on the 4 February 2016. The applicant, objectors from 51 Sackville Street, Ward Councillor and planning officers attended the meeting.

The objectors from 51 Sackville Street provided external arborist advice which made the following points:

The arborist report supplied by the applicant is incorrect;‘Given that the centre of the trunk [Tree 1] is some 1.05m from the boundary, the driveway will go through the trunk. It is obvious that the tree has to be removed’;

The proposal will have a negative impact on the condition of Tree 2 located at 59 Sackville Street;

The proposal will have a substantially greater than 10% encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) area of Tree 3 located at 59 Sackville Street; and

The proposal will have more than 10% encroachment into the TPZ of Tree 4 located at 30 Rowland Street.

At the meeting, officers advised that any amenity (assessments under Clause 54) drainage, traffic and tree matters cannot be assessed with this application given the permit trigger is in relation to Heritage Overlay controls only. Comments have been received from relevant Council Departments and officers regarding these matters for the purpose of providing responses to the objections and to provide information to the permit applicant.

The arborist advice provided by the objectors was subsequently referred to Council’s Arborist for review (a detailed response is provided below).

No objections have been withdrawn as a result of the meeting.



of 88

INTERNAL REFERRALS

The application was referred to the following:-

Heritage

Council’s previous Heritage Advisor provided the following comments on 15 July 2015:

Contributory dwelling within HO162.

Partial demolition and construct new alterations and additions, basement car park, tennis court, pool and external landscaping.

Generally no concerns with the proposal as the demolition is to the rear and has little or no consequence to the presentation of the building from the street, the bulk of the work is to the rear and/or underground and where the work is visible from the street it is undertaken in a sympathetic and recessive manner. One point of note however is the copying of detail. All new works need to be identifiable as such. Therefore the two proposed chimneys to the rear need to be less detailed than those of the original building.

As the Council’s Heritage Advisor has changed since the lodgement of the application, further comments based on the advertised plans was provided with Council’s current Heritage Advisor on 23 March 2016:

Proposal

Partial demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of new alterations and additions, basement car park, tennis court, pool and external landscaping.

Comments

Demolition

The demolition works are located to the rear of the dwelling and are not visible from the primary street frontage. The loss of fabric at the rear is supportable as the works are considered minor and will have little or no consequence on the presentation of the building and its contribution to the precinct as a whole.

Additions

The additions to the existing dwelling are minor in nature. The bulk of the work is located to the rear of the site and will be largely concealed from the primary street frontage. Where visible from John Street (secondary frontage) the addition



of 88

has been undertaken in a sympathetic and recessive manner that will not impact on the dwellings contribution to the precinct. The works adopt a traditional architectural language, utilising terracotta roof tiles and a combination of smooth and rough render to match existing. The modern window proportions and simplified chimney detailing allows the new addition to be distinguishable as such.The proposed underground basement is not considered to have an impact on the precinct as a whole. The proposed ramp begins over 13m from the street, limiting views of this element, and will be partially concealed by the gate and curved driveway. There will be no impact on the adjacent significant dwelling or wider precinct as a result of the proposed ramp or basement. The proposed tennis court is largely concealed from the street by the significant dwelling at 51 Sackville Street, and as it involves limited built form (fence and lighting) is not considered to have an impact on the adjacent significant dwelling or precinct as a whole.The works to existing fences are minor in nature, and raise no concern from a heritage perspective.

Officer Comment

Following the submission of revised plans (showing less detailed chimneys than the original building) in response to Council’s Heritage Advisor’s initial comments, Council’s Heritage Advisor has no further concerns with the proposed building and works.

Arborist

I have visited the site and have reviewed the Arborist report. I am satisfied with the recommendations of the Arborist Report, however, we could require a specific tree management plan to guide construction of the driveway and basement car park.

Trees number 5 and 6 are of poor condition and low landscape significance. These trees may be removed but a Local Law permit application will be required.

Further comments in response to the additional Arborist Report (prepared by Galbraith and Associates Pty Ltd dated 3 February 2016) and submitted by the Objector was provided on 7 April 2016 as follows:

As discussed: my comments regarding each tree are:

Tree 1 - Himalayan Cypress



of 88

The existing driveway is to be retained and follow the same alignment. The driveway grade does not change until approximately 6 metres to the north of the tree. Given the existing driveway and the small amount of excavation towards the north of the driveway (less than 10% of the tree protection zone) I am satisfied that the works proposed will not impact the tree. The Galbraith report states that the driveway will go through the trunk which is incorrect. This tree can be retained and protected.

Tree 2 - Yellow Gum.

I agree that the report from Treescape mis-identified the species, however from personal communication with Peter from Treescape he acknowledged that the species was incorrect and the tree TPZ data was also incorrect and put it down to a data collection error. However, I observed the excavation by hand and I was satisfied that the proposed cut for the basement was in the correct location as I measured it on site as being approximately 1.5m - 1.7m from the boundary.

The trench was shallow because beyond this point Peter Clark from Treescape probed the soil and it was a very hard clay pan. It was determined on site by myself that there was no need for further exploratory work as root growth would be limited further down the soil profile.

In regards to the root size, the roots were not over 100mm thick. I measured the roots and concur with Peter Clarks observations.

Tree 3 - English Oak

The tree is located approximately 4 metres from the proposed basement cut. Given this setback, it represents an encroachment of approximately 15% (just over the 10% minor encroachment as based upon the Australian Standard). This is not a ‘substantially’ greater encroachment as noted by Rob Galbraith. With proper care by an Arborist on site during initial excavation, there will be no long term impact on this tree.

Tree 4 - Camphor Laurel.

The tree is a large tree and has a large tree protection zone ‘on paper’, however in reality the extensive brick footings along the northern boundary would have restricted most if not all root growth into the subject site.

I am not concerned by the location of the proposed basement from the northern boundary as I don’t believe that there will be any impact upon this tree.

In regards to trees 5 and 6 within the property, a Cut Leaf Birch and Japanese Maple, both trees will be issued a permit for removal based upon their overall condition and low



of 88

landscape significance. These trees are not visible from the street and do not contribute to the treed canopy of the area.

Officer Comment

Council’s Arborist has advised that it appears the objector’s arborist has misinterpreted the proposed works. The proposed basement ramp commences approximately 13.55 metres from Sackville Street. The existing driveway between the proposed basement ramp and Sackville Street is to be retained and remain untouched. The only trees to be removed are a Cut Leaf Birch and Japanese Maple. Council’s Arborist has assessed these tree and has concluded that if a Tree Protection Local Law application be made, that it is likely that a permit would issue.

A tree management plan has been recommended as a condition of the planning permit.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The application was not required to be referred externally.

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

The officers responsible for this report have no direct or indirect interests requiring disclosure.

CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing this application, consideration has been given to the following:-

The objectives of planning in Victoria as detailed in Section 4 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987;

Section 60 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; The relevant provisions and decision guidelines of the Boroondara Planning

Scheme including the decision guidelines of Clause 65; and The nine (9) objections received.

This proposal does not raise any significant adverse social or economic impacts. General social and economic impacts are addressed by the planning policy assessment below.



of 88

BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME

ZONING & OVERLAYS

Appendix D - Zoning Map

Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ3)

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on:

A lot of between 300 square metres and 500 square metres as specified in the schedule to the zone.

A permit is required to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of the street if the fence is associated with one dwelling on:-

A lot of less than 300 square metres, or A lot of less than the lot size specified in a schedule to this zone, (Clause 2 of

Schedule 3 to Clause 32.09 states that a permit is required to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of a street on a lot of less than 500 square metres) and

The fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 54.06-2.

A development must meet the requirements of Clause 54.

No permit is required to:-

Construct or carry out works normal to a dwelling. Construct or extend an out-building (other than a garage or carport) on a lot

provided the gross floor area of the out-building does not exceed 10 square metres and the maximum building height is not more than 3 metres above ground level.

Officer Comment:

As the lot sizes are more than 500 square metres, a planning permit is not required for the proposed buildings and works associated with the construction of an extension to the existing dwelling under the provisions of the zone. As such, the proposal is not subject to a ResCode assessment.



of 88

Maximum Building Height

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-8 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, the maximum height of a building used for the purpose of a dwelling or residential building must not exceed the building height specified in a schedule to this zone. If no building height is specified, the height of a building must not exceed 8 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 9 metres.

This does not apply to: An extension of an existing building that exceeds the specified building height

provided that the extension does not exceed the existing building height. An extension of an existing building or the construction of a new building that

exceeds the specified building height which does not exceed the height of immediately adjacent buildings facing the same street.

The rebuilding of a lawful building or works which have been damaged or destroyed.

A building which exceeds the specified building height for which a valid building permit was in effect prior to the introduction of this provision

Officer Comment

Whilst a permit is not required for the construction of extension works to an existing dwelling under the requirements of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the proposed extension to the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street is required to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory maximum height requirement for the zone, which is 9.0 metres from natural ground level in this case, given the slope of the land.

The proposed extension works details maximum height 8.255 metres from natural ground level and is therefore compliant with the mandatory height limit.

Heritage Overlay (HO162)

Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is required to:

Demolish or remove a building. Construct a building or construct or carry out works, including:

A fence.



of 88

A domestic swimming pool or spa and associated mechanical and safety equipment.

A pergola or verandah, including an open-sided pergola or verandah to a dwelling with a finished floor level not more than 800mm above ground level and a maximum building height of 3 metres above ground level.

A deck, including a deck to a dwelling with a finished floor level not more than 800mm above ground level.

Externally alter a building by rendering. Carry out works that change the appearance of a heritage place or which

are not undertaken to the same details, specifications and materials.

The purpose of the overlay is:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places. To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise be prohibited if this will demonstrably assist with the conservation of the significance of the heritage place.

The decision guidelines under the overlay are as follows:

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place. Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable conservation policy. Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place. Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.



of 88

Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed subdivision may result in development which will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the proposed sign will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place. Whether the lopping or development will adversely affect the health, appearance or significance of the tree.

The subject land is located within the Sackville Street Precinct (HO162).

Officer comment The proposal is generally considered to be consistent with the decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay.

49 Sackville Street The proposed extensions to the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street are located to the rear of the existing dwelling and will be largely concealed from the primary (Sackville) street frontage. Where visible from the secondary (John) street frontage, the proposal adopts a conservative design approach that is considered a suitable response to Council’s Heritage Policy with traditional architectural language and materials to match the existing contributory dwelling on site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed rear extension’s location, scale, form and design will not detract from the heritage significance of the Sackville Street Precinct and the existing heritage dwelling on the land.

55 Sackville Street Similarly, the proposed underground basement, tennis court and associated pavilion and pergola on ground floor level are not considered to have an unreasonable impact on the heritage precinct as a whole. The proposed ramp setback 13.55 metres from Sackville Street and will be partially concealed by the existing 1.8m high gate and front fence and curved nature of the driveway. The proposed tennis court and associated pavilion and pergola will be largely concealed from the street by the significant dwelling at 51 Sackville Street, and as the proposed works involves limited built form, it is not considered to have an unreasonable impact on the adjacent significant dwelling or on the significance of the wider heritage precinct.



of 88

The decision guidelines are considered to be incorporated in the requirements of Clause 22.05 (Heritage Policy) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme and a more detailed assessment against these provisions is contained in that section of this report.

PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

Pursuant to Clause 52.21, a permit is required to construct, use or illuminate a private tennis court if the performance requirements of the Private Tennis Court Development Code of Practice (hereafter the 'Code of Practice') are not met. Subject to conditions, the application will meet the Code of Practice. These are outlined and discussed below.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme provides that before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

The matters set out in Section 60 of the Act. The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework,

including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision Any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision. The orderly planning of the area. The effect on the amenity of the area. The proximity of the land to any public land. Factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or reduce water

quality. Whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or improve the

quality of stormwater within and exiting the site. The extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of its destruction. Whether native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or allowed to

regenerate. The degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the location of the

land and the use, development or management of the land so as to minimise any such hazard.

Two recent decisions of VCAT provide clear guidance on the parameters within which a permit application which is triggered solely by the Heritage Overlay should be assessed.



of 88

These are discussed in detail in the Heritage Policy section of this report.

OFFICER ASSESSMENT

STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The following State policies are relevant to the assessment of the current application:

Clause 9 - Plan Melbourne Clause 11 - Settlement Clause 15 - Built Environment & Heritage Clause 16 – Housing

Plan Melbourne is a long-term plan to accommodate Melbourne’s future growth in population and employment. It seeks to integrate long-term land use, infrastructure and transport planning to meet the population, housing and employment needs for the future and to build a vibrant central city core.

Plan Melbourne provides communities with clear direction about the future of their neighbourhoods, identifies areas that can accommodate future growth, seeks to ensure that any new development will make a positive contribution to local areas whilst simultaneously acting to protect the majority of our existing suburban areas from inappropriate development.

Clause 15.03 (Heritage) aims to:

Provide for the protection of natural heritage sites and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and biological diversity. Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of, aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value. Encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future generations. Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place. Encourage the conservation and restoration of contributory elements. Ensure an appropriate setting and context for heritage places is maintained or enhanced.



of 88

The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the objectives outlined in the relevant Clauses of the State Planning Policy Framework. This is discussed in detail below.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The following local policy is relevant to the assessment of the current application:

Clause 22.05 - Heritage Policy

The objectives of Heritage Policy are:

To encourage the retention and conservation of all ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places in the Heritage Overlay. To consider the cultural heritage significance described in the statement of significance for any heritage place as part of the design process of any proposal and when making decisions about proposed buildings and works associated with that place. To ensure that works, including conservation, alterations, additions and new development, respect the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place. To ensure that subdivision respects the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place. To ensure that, when determining or when considering issues of bulk, form and appearance of additions or new development, the evaluation is based on the characteristics of the significant or contributory components of the fabric of the heritage place, rather than any non-contributory elements that may exist in the area.To promote urban and architectural design which clearly and positively supports the ongoing significance of heritage places. To retain original fabric that contributes to the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place. To ensure that development within activity centres respects, protects and enhances the cultural heritage significance of identified heritage places.

The following policies apply when considering planning permit applications under the Heritage Overlay.

Statement of Significance

It is policy to:



of 88

Take into account the statement of significance for a heritage place when making decisions about proposed buildings and works associated with that place; Where more than one statement of significance exists in relation to a heritage place, only the more recent statement of significance should be considered. Where an individual heritage place is located within a heritage study, any proposal must have regard to both the most recent statement of significance for the individual place (where available) as well as the most recent statement of significance for the heritage precinct in which it is located.

Heritage Precinct - Statement of Significance HO162 Sackville Street Precinct, Kew

The Sackville Street Precinct, Kew, is an area of heritage significance for the following reasons:

The place contains a number of individually significant mansions generally dating from the late Victorian period, set on generous allotments. These are supported, visually, by a series of smaller houses which range in date from the Victorian era to the Federation and interwar periods. There are several pleasant houses from the post-WWII period.

As is the case for Harcourt Street Hawthorn (HO151), the area is important for its ability to demonstrate a pattern of early mansion development supplemented by smaller houses added from the Federation through to more recent periods.

The area is notable for its imposing envelope of street trees which arch over the street for most of its length, and for its large and mature gardens.

Officer Comment

This precinct is dominated by Victorian era development, interspersed with some Federation and later development. The area is significant for its early mansion development on generous sized lots.

The dwelling at 49 Sackville Street has a contributory heritage status whilst the subject site at 55 Sackville Street is developed with a non-contributory dwelling.

The retention of most of the contributory building, with a modest addition to the rear is consistent with the Heritage Policy. The demolition of a non-contributory dwelling and replacement with a tennis court/ basement garage is considered to be consistent with the policy. It is not considered that the application will be detrimental to the heritage value of the precinct.



of 88

The mature garden of 49 Sackville Street will maintained through retention of the front setback to Sackville Street and the side setback to John Street. These setbacks will provide sufficient opportunity to maintain existing canopy trees and provides a garden setting for the host building.

In relation to 55 Sackville Street, this site has a large Himalayan Cedar located along the driveway and this tree will be maintained. The remainder of the site contains insignificant trees that do not significantly add to the area.

Given the location of the proposed tennis court and basement car park, opportunities for trees will only be located around the periphery of these elements. Notwithstanding this, there is the ability for such landscaping to soften views to the tennis court and contribute to the garden setting.

The compliance of the proposal with the objectives of the Heritage Policy are discussed in more detail in the assessment of the proposal against the detailed policy requirements set out below.

Demolition

It is policy to:

Retain ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places and not normally allow their total demolition. Permit partial demolition of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places for the purpose of additions and alterations if the additions and alterations will not adversely affect the cultural heritage significance of the place and the proposed addition or alteration is in accordance with the provisions of this policy. Permit partial demolition to remove non-original and non-contributory additions to heritage places in line with the conservation provisions of this policy. Consider the following, as appropriate, before determining an application for demolition of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places or parts of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places:

The cultural heritage significance of the heritage place, and, when located in a heritage precinct, the contribution of the place to the significance of the precinct; Whether the demolition or removal of the entire heritage place or any part of the place will adversely affect cultural heritage significance; Whether the demolition or removal contributes to the long-term conservation of the heritage place; and



of 88

Whether the heritage place is structurally unsound. The poor condition of a heritage place should not in itself, be a reason for permitting demolition of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places.

Require an application for a new building or works to accompany a demolition application. The demolition or removal of any heritage place or part of a heritage place will not normally be approved until a replacement building or development is approved. Require a visual record of the important or original fabric of any ‘significant’ heritage place which is to be demolished or removed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to demolition being approved. Normally permit the demolition of ‘non-contributory’ places. However, the demolition or removal of ‘non-contributory’ places will not generally be approved until a replacement building or development is approved. An application for a new building or works should accompany a demolition application.

Officer Comment

49 Sackville Street The proposal is consistent with Clause 22.05 in relation to the partial demolition. It is proposed to demolish the rear portion of the existing dwelling, as well as the existing rear wall of the basement level, whilst the entire front portion of the original dwelling (26 metres) will be retained. The sections of the dwelling to be demolished will be located to the rear of the dwelling and will not be visible from the primary (Sackville) street frontage and therefore do not contribute significantly to the heritage significance of the precinct.

The extent of demolition works does not remove any significant fabric of the existing dwelling as Council records indicate that the sections to be demolished are of recent, later additions.

As viewed from the secondary street (John Street), the dwelling extension to the rear is considered to be consistent with the remainder of Council's Heritage Policy, as discussed further in the report.

55 Sackville Street As the existing dwelling at 55 Sackville Street is a non-contributory building, the demolition is not considered to have any detrimental impact upon the heritage precinct.

The policy states that ‘the demolition or removal of ‘non-contributory’ places will not generally be approved until a replacement building or development is approved. An application for a new building or works should accompany a demolition application.’ In



of 88

this case a tennis court, pavilion and pergola are proposed to replace the existing dwelling. It is considered that the proposed tennis court is consistent with Council's Heritage Policy. Due to the court's location, it will not be easily visible from Sackville Street, being sited behind the dwelling at 51 Sackville Street and proposed landscaping. As such, the tennis court will not have any significant visual impact on the street. It is therefore considered that the proposed tennis court will not unreasonably impact on the significance of the heritage precinct.

The demolition of garden beds, fencing and outbuildings such as the garage, carport and shed is considered acceptable, as these outbuildings are located towards the north, rear boundary of the site and contribute little to the significance of the precinct when viewed from Sackville Street. It is considered that the replacement vehicle accommodation facilities (basement level garage and basement ramp accessed from the existing driveway and crossover on Sackville Street) are all considered to be acceptable on heritage grounds. This is discussed further below.

It is noted that one of the matters raised in the objections related to the demolition of an outbuilding located in the north-west corner of the site at 55 Sackville Street. It was advised that this outbuilding was originally associated with the MacRoberstson Residence at 51 Sackville Street. Given the interesting association with the significant property at 51 Sackville Street, it is considered suitable to impose a condition on any planning permit issued that requires the provision of an archival record of the outbuilding.

Conservation of ‘Significant’ or ‘Contributory’ Heritage Places

For all ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places it is policy to:

Encourage the conservation of significant external fabric, particularly fabric seen from the street. Encourage the restoration and/or reconstruction of a known original or earlier appearance, particularly as viewed from the street. Restoration and/or reconstruction works should be based on historical evidence. For reconstruction works, in cases where no evidence is available, a simple and understated contemporary design incorporating a traditional form and bulk may be acceptable. Ensure that restoration and reconstruction is undertaken using appropriate replacement materials. Encourage the removal of alterations and additions that detract from the significance of a heritage place. Discourage the painting of previously unpainted surfaces.



of 88

Discourage sandblasting of render, masonry or timber surfaces. In the case of commercial buildings, encourage the retention, restoration or reconstruction of original or early shopfronts and/or verandahs. In the case of commercial buildings, where historical evidence of an early street verandah exists, it may be appropriate to reinstate a timber or cast iron verandah based on historical models. In cases where no evidence is available, a simple and understated contemporary design incorporating a traditional form and scale may be acceptable. Discourage the introduction of architectural features, where it is known that these features were not originally present, with the exception of street verandahs to commercial buildings, as outlined in the above point.

Officer Discussion

The plans indicate that the front fence of 55 Sackville Street is to be rendered with new painting to existing painted surfaces. The applicant has clarified that new render will only be applied to existing render surfaces. No other changes are proposed to the existing front façade at 49 Sackville Street or the remainder of the retained sections of the dwelling.

Alterations to ‘Significant’ or ‘Contributory’ Heritage Places

It is policy that:

All alterations which are not restoration or reconstruction works should be directed at maintaining the cultural heritage significance and integrity of the place. New openings in the principal façade(s) or principal visible roof forms of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places will not normally be permitted. Any new signage on a heritage building should minimise visual clutter and should not obscure or destroy any architectural features of cultural heritage significance.

Officer Discussion

The application does not seek to create any new openings in the principal façade of the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street, as the proposed demolition and extension is located to the rear of the existing dwelling.

Additions to ‘Significant’ or ‘Contributory’ Heritage Places

It is policy that all additions to ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places:



of 88

Should not change the principal façade or principal visible roof forms of the heritage place. Should not alter or obscure fabric that contributes to the cultural heritage significance of any part of a ‘significant’ heritage place. Should be designed in a manner that responds to, is respectful of, and is compatible with the built form and architectural treatment of the heritage place. Should make use of materials and surface finishes that are complementary to the original fabric of the heritage place but should be discernible as new. Details (including, but not limited to the type and form of windows, doors, architectural features and verandahs) should be interpretive, that is, a simplified, modern interpretation of the historic form rather than a direct reproduction. That involve ground level additions, should preferably be located to the rear of the building where they have less impact on any aesthetic and architectural contribution of the building to the streetscape and/or heritage precinct. These additions should be visually recessive and read as a secondary element to the heritage place. Where side setbacks are an important feature in a heritage precinct, ground level additions should have side setbacks that are the same or similar to those of the precinct. That involve upper level additions to commercial, retail or industrial heritage buildings, should be sufficiently set back from the front facade to appear as a secondary element of the heritage place and provide a clear distinction between the original building and the new addition. That involve upper level additions to dwelling forms (as shown in Figure 1), should be sited and massed behind the principal façade and principal visible roof forms so they are not visible from the street. Upper-storey additions may be considered to be ‘not visible from the street’ if:

they are sited within an “envelope” created by projecting a sight line from 1.6 metres above ground level (this being the eye level of an adult person of average height) from a point where the footpath on the opposite side of the road meets the property line directly opposite the site to the top of the front parapet or the ridge of the principal roof form (see Figure 21), and



of 88

Figure 24 - Site line diagram

they are centrally sited or are sited to ensure that where visible to oblique views, the additions are visually recessive and read as secondary elements to the heritage place and that those views are minimised. Particular regard is to be given to the roof form of the existing building and the location of any driveway on the site as the driveway side setback generally allows for greater visibility of the addition.

For corner sites, the sight line is taken from the primary street frontage. All additions visible from other street frontages should be distinct from, and read as a secondary element to, the heritage place. Applications for upper-storey additions should be accompanied by oblique view diagrams from each side of the property boundary, taken from the point where the footpath meets the side edge of the property boundary on the opposite side of the road and looking towards the proposed addition. Vegetation and fences are not considered to be permanent screening and will not be taken into account when determining if a proposed addition is visible from the street.

Officer Discussion

49 Sackville StreetThere will not be any alterations to the front facade of the original dwelling. The proposed extensions setback approximately 32.8 metres from Sackville Street will be at ground level, located to the rear of the site and will be largely concealed from the primary street frontage. The presentation of the principal façade and the principal visible



of 88

roof form of the existing dwelling will still remain the same, when viewed from Sackville Street.

The additional ground floor area will only be 81.2 square metres and the proposed building envelope will protrude a maximum 8.265 metres beyond the existing footprint at the rear of the existing dwelling.

Where visible from John Street (secondary frontage) and MacRobertsons Lane, the design of the proposed extension is sympathetic and conservative in nature, using traditional architectural language and materials such as dark concrete roof tiles and a combination of smooth and rough render to match the existing dwelling on site. It should be noted that the views from John Street and MacRobertsons Lane are limited by high fencing.

The modern window proportions and simplified chimney detailing allows the new addition to be distinguishable from the original dwelling. Therefore, the proposed rear extension’s location, bulk, form and design will not significantly detract the heritage significance of the heritage place, Sackville Street Precinct and the character and appearance of adjacent buildings.

New Buildings and Additions and Alterations to Non-Contributory Places in a Heritage Overlay

For new buildings and additions and alterations to non-contributory places in a Heritage Overlay, it is policy to:-

Take account of the statement of significance for the heritage precinct when considering designs for new buildings or additions/alterations to non-contributory places. Ensure proposals are respectful of the existing scale, massing, form and siting of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ places in the heritage precinct, as these places are viewed from the street. Ensure proposals are respectful of the context of adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ places, the immediate streetscape and the heritage precinct as a whole.Encourage good quality contemporary design and discourage the replication of historic forms and detailing. Require proposals to conform with the following guidelines:

SitingNew buildings and additions/alterations to non-contributory places should be oriented in a similar manner to the siting of adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places and to the heritage precinct as a whole.



of 88

Façade height and setbacks The position of a new building and its façade height or an addition/alteration to the façade of a non-contributory place should not dominate adjoining ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places. Generally, this means that the façade of a new building or an addition/alteration to the façade of a non-contributory building should neither exceed in height, nor be positioned forward of, the adjoining heritage place(s). Conversely, the height of the façade should not be significantly lower than prevailing heights of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places in the precinct, especially where the precinct has a consistent façade height. The façade should also not be substantially set back behind prevailing façade setbacks of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places in the heritage precinct, especially where the heritage precinct has a consistent front setback.

Where side setbacks are an important feature of the heritage precinct, proposals should have side setbacks that reflect those of adjacent places, particularly those of adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places.

Building height and form The height and form of a new building or an addition/alteration to a non-contributory place should respect the height and form of adjacent and surrounding ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places, as these places are viewed from the street. This design characteristic may be achieved:

If located in a heritage precinct or part of a heritage precinct that has a consistent building height and form, the completed height of the new building or addition/alteration to a non-contributory place should be no higher than the roof ridgeline of the adjacent buildings when viewed from the street, but may include a higher, unobtrusive component to the rear, or If located in a heritage precinct or part of a heritage precinct with a diverse building height and form, and adjacent to a ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage place, the new building or addition/alteration to a non-contributory place should be of a height and form that respects both the adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places and the prevailing height and form of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ places in the precinct, but may include a higher, unobtrusive component to the rear, or If located in a heritage precinct or part of a heritage precinct with a diverse building height and form, but not adjacent to a ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage place, the new building or addition/alteration to a Non-contributory place should be of a height and form that respects the prevailing height and form of ‘Significant’ and ‘Contributory’ heritage places in the precinct.

Roof form and window and door proportions The roof form and the window and door proportions of new buildings and additions/alterations to Non-contributory places should be similar too or sit well with the prevailing forms in the heritage precinct.



of 88

Materials, surface finishes and details New buildings and additions/alterations to non-contributory places should display the following design characteristics:

Wall elevations are to be articulated in a manner that is complementary to the heritage precinct through their massing and form and the use of materials and finishes. Materials, textures and finishes are to complement materials evident in the heritage precinct.Colour schemes are to complement the appearance and significance of the heritage precinct.

Officer Comment

Tennis Court at 55 Sackville Street The proposed tennis court at 55 Sackville Street is consistent with Council's Heritage Policy. Due to the court's location, it will not be readily visible from Sackville Street, as it will be largely concealed by the dwelling at 51 Sackville Street. The secondary view of the court from John Street will also be very limited as it will be an oblique view along MacRobertsons Lane, or between buildings at 49 Sackville Street and setback approximately 27 metres from John Street. As a result, the tennis court will not have any significant impact on the heritage precinct.

The proposed works associated with the tennis court including four metal light poles (with a maximum height of 8.0 metres), 3.6m high mesh fence, retaining walls (between 100-600mm in height) and landscaping works (to a height of approximately 5-8 metres) involves limited built form and will not be readily visible from Sackville Street or John Street. Therefore they will have little impact on the heritage precinct. The tennis court will have no significant impact on the heritage dwelling on site when viewed from Sackville Street or John Street. The court abuts the proposed addition to the rear of the part of the dwelling being retained.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has not raised any concerns with the proposed tennis court and associated works in this location.

Vehicle Accommodation, Outbuildings and Services

Vehicle accommodation and other outbuildings and services should not dominate heritage places.

It is policy to:



of 88

Ensure that vehicle accommodation and other services do not dominate heritage places, by encouraging adoption of the following design guidelines:

Minimising new vehicle cross-overs in the case of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places or in a heritage precinct with narrow street frontage or where few or no crossovers exist or where rear laneway access is available. Allowing the relocation of existing vehicle crossovers only where this does not negatively impact on the significance a heritage place. Generally discouraging the widening of vehicle crossovers, except in the interests of traffic safety, or the construction of large areas of paving or other hard surfaces in the front setback. Encouraging the location of new carports, garages and outbuildings to the rear of the main building, where the character of the heritage place supports that location, or at the side of the building behind the main front building line (excluding verandahs, porches, bay windows or similar projecting features). Encouraging the location of replacement carports, garages or outbuildings to follow the same principles as for new ones, even if the structure being replaced is located in the front setback. Encouraging new carports, garages and outbuildings that are visible from the street to use wall openings, roof forms and materials used should complement, but not replicate the main building or the characteristics of the heritage precinct. Discouraging the location of swimming pools in the front setback. Allowing the location of rain water tanks, hot water systems, air-conditioning units and other equipment in areas visible from the street only when it can be shown that they will not detract from the heritage significance of the place. Where there is no reasonable alternative, ancillaries and services, including those that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions or water consumption such as solar panels, solar hot water services or water storage tanks, may be visible from the street, but should be sensitively located to minimise their visibility/visual impact. Visual roof fixtures, such as solar panels, should align with the profile of the roof and should not be mounted on protruding frames.

Officer Discussion

Spa and paving at 49 Sackville Street The proposed installation of a spa adjacent to the existing swimming pool and associated paving works will be located within the rear yard. Visibility of the spa and paving works from Sackville Street, John Street and MacRobertsons Lane will not be possible.



of 88

Council’s Heritage Advisor has not raised any concerns with the installation of the spa and associated paving works in this location.

Basement garage, ramp, and driveway at 55 Sackville Street The basement garage will effectively be below ground level, with the opening to the garage being largely hidden from street view. Therefore there will be no unreasonable impact on the heritage place or wider precinct.

The existing vehicle crossover that is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site is to be retained, which is supported by policy. This crossover currently provides vehicle access to a driveway that extends along the eastern boundary. The majority of the driveway is approximately 3.0 metres in width, with a concrete surface.

The application seeks to retain 13.55 metres of the existing concrete driveway from Sackville Street whilst removing the remainder of the existing driveway and replacing this with a new basement ramp to provide access for the proposed basement garage. The new basement ramp will be located along the eastern boundary of the site for a length of 24.04 metres, behind the portion of the existing concrete driveway to be retained.

The proposed basement ramp is approximately 4.0-4.49 metres in width and is setback 200mm from the western boundary and approximately 910mm - 1.75 metres from the eastern boundary for a distance of approximately 24.05 metres. This area along the eastern boundary will be available for landscaping. A 1.0m high concrete balustrade above natural ground level is proposed along the proposed basement ramp with a 1.3 metre high planter box and landscaping proposed over the balustrade above the garage entry. A rendered and painted finish will be applied to the walls of the basement ramp.

The front setback adjoining the existing concrete driveway will otherwise remain as formal landscaped areas including the existing Himalayan Cedar tree (Tree 1) proposed to be retained.

The proposed basement ramp with 1.0 - 1.3 metre high balustrade walls above natural ground level is considered to be an appropriate design response to the site and the surrounding area. The garage roller door will be located entirely below natural ground level and therefore will not be readily visible from Sackville Street. In regards to the ramp, the proposed setback from the street, high fence and gate and curved nature of the driveway (refer to Figure 9) will successfully limit the impact from the street.



of 88

Pavilion and pergola at 55 Sackville Street The proposed open-sided single storey pitched roofed pavilion and timber pergola is to be located to the western boundary of the site.

The pavilion and pergola will be conservative in design and will have no impact on the heritage place. The pavilion and pergola will not be visible from the primary street frontage (Sackville Street) and not readily visible from John Street (secondary street frontage). Therefore they have little impact on the heritage precinct.

Fences

It is policy to:

Retain original or early fences of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places. Encourage the reconstruction of original fences where historical evidence exists of their form, or encourage the construction of new front fences in sympathy to the period and design of the ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage place. The National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Technical Bulletin 8.1 Fences & Gates (1988) provides guidance on fencing styles. In the case of new buildings or alterations and additions to non-contributory places, encourage the construction of front fences that are sympathetic to the cultural heritage significance and character of the heritage precinct. Discourage the construction of high fences that block the view of the main façade of a ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ place from the street or, in the case of Non-contributory places, detract from the streetscape of the heritage area.

Officer Discussion

A new 2-3 metres high paling fence is proposed along the northern boundary of the site (MacRobertsons Lane). Fences and wall on boundaries located along MacRobertsons Lane are generally high, ranging from 1.8m to 3.0m in height (refer below).



of 88

Figure 25 and 26 - Rear boundary fences of properties along MacRobertsons Lane

Therefore, the proposed fence will not detrimentally affect the significance of the heritage precinct given that the proposed siting, height and materials are consistent with other fences along MacRobertsons Lane.

The elevation plans indicate that new render and paint finish are to be applied to the existing 1.8 metre high rendered brick fence fronting Sackville Street. Council’s Heritage Advisor is supportive of the works to the existing fence, as its minor in nature and raises no concerns from a heritage perspective.



of 88

PARTICULAR PROVISIONS ASSESSMENT

Assessment against Clause 52.21 - Private Tennis Court

As stated, a permit is required if the performance requirements of the Code of Practice are not met. It is determined that the proposed tennis court complies with all performance requirements of the Code of Practice subject to a range of standard conditions being applied to any permit issued. It should be noted that applying the recommended conditions for tennis court associated with private dwelling is common practice. The following table is an assessment against the performance requirements:

Performance Requirement Comment on Compliance

Element 1: Court Location

The court must be at least 3 metres from a street frontage

Complies

The proposed tennis court is located 38.98 metres from Sackville Street and 30.41 metres from John Street.

The court must be at least 3 metres from an adjoining dwelling if the court is to be illuminated

Complies

The tennis court is proposed to be illuminated and is setback more than 3.0m from all adjoining dwellings.

South:

The proposed tennis court has a minimum setback of 3.68 metres from the adjoining dwelling to the south at 51 Sackville Street.

East:

The proposed tennis court has a minimum setback of 7.3 metres from the adjoining dwelling to the east at 59 Sackville Street.

North:

The proposed tennis court has a minimum setback of 20.8 metres from the adjoining dwelling to the north-west



of 88

at 2 John Street.

The proposed tennis court has a setback in excess of 7.0 metres (measured to 28 Rowland Street’s property title boundary line) from the adjoining dwelling to the north at 28 Rowland Street.

The proposed tennis court has a setback in excess of 7.0 metres (measured to 30 Rowland Street’s property title boundary line) from the adjoining dwelling to the north at 30 Rowland Street.

The court must be at least 20 metres from a Melbourne Water declared main drain

Complies

The tennis court is located approximately 27 metres from the closet stormwater main drain located towards the corner of John Street and MacRobertsons lane.

Element 2: Fencing and Enclosures

If less than 1 metre from a property boundary, the court fencing or other enclosure must not be more than 3 metres in height above the court surface

Complies

The minimum setback of a fence from a property boundary is 1.39 metres (from the southern boundary).

The maximum height of the court fencing is 3.6 metres above the tennis court surface. This is acceptable as the proposed tennis court is located more than 1.0m from a property boundary and the setback is to be landscaped.

If less than 1 metre from a property boundary, the court fencing or other enclosure must be of a maintenance free material and use non-intrusive colours

Complies

The proposed tennis court is more than 1.0m from a property boundary.

The tennis court mesh material is proposed to be finished in black. This is considered recessive and non-intrusive in



of 88

colour.

If less than 1 metre from a property boundary, the court fencing or other enclosure must not be solid or enclosed for a height of more than 2 metre above the court surface.

Complies

The proposed tennis court is not less than 1.0m from a property boundary.

Nonetheless, the enclosure is of a mesh fence, which is not solid or enclosed.

Element 3: Site Works

The site on which the court is to be constructed must not have a slope of more than 20 per cent overall.

Complies

The subject site is generally flat across the land with a slight fall of approximately 400mm from the east to the west of the site. Given the length of the court (west to east) is 34.93 metres, the site will have a slope of approximately 1.15 - 2 per cent overall across the site.

Excavation or filling must not exceed 1 metre in depth within 1 metres of a property boundary.

Complies

The proposed tennis court is to be built on substantially natural ground level with sections towards the north-eastern corner of the site excavated approximately 250mm below natural ground level (NGL).

Filling must not exceed 2.5 metres in depth at any point on the court site.

Complies

There is no filling proposed which exceeds 2.5m in depth at any point on the court site.

Drainage resulting from the court must be intercepted to avoid any overflow and must be connected to an approved point of discharge.

This requirement can be addressed by a condition of any permit issued.

Element 4: Landscaping

No vegetation may be removed, in an urban zone, within 3 metres of a street frontage or adjoining public land

Complies

The two canopy trees (located along the western boundary of 55 Sackville Street)



of 88

are proposed to be removed (Tree 5 - Japanese Maple and Tree 6 - Cut Leaf Birch). These trees of a size which will require a Local Law Permit for removal.

Council’s Arborist has determined that Tree Nos. 5 and 6 are of poor condition and low landscape significance.

Nonetheless, due to the location of the subject site at 55 Sackville Street, no vegetation located within 3.0 metres of a street frontage or adjoining public land is proposed to be removed.

If a permit is required, replanting must occur in excess of the number of trees removed and should comprise indigenous or species similar to those removed.

Complies

Trees and shrubs are proposed to be planted around the court which will provide as visual and aesthetic barrier to the tennis court.

A condition on the permit can require more than two trees to be planted throughout the site in replacement of the two trees proposed to be removed (Tree Nos. 5 and 6).

Temporary barriers must be provided to protect areas of vegetation which are outside the work site.

Complies

In accordance with Council’s Arborist referral comments, a Tree Management Plan for the protection of Tree 1 (Himalayan Cedar) on the site, Tree 2 (Yellow Gum), Tree 3 (English Oak) and Tree 4 (Camphor Laurel) on the neighbouring properties will be required as a condition of permit to protect trees during construction.

Landscaping must be maintained over fill batters.


Element 5: Illumination



of 88

Any lighting system must not exceed an illumination level of 12 lux and an average illumination level of 10 lux when measured at the nearest habitable room window of an adjoining dwelling or at a point 3 metres outside the property boundary, whichever is nearer to the light source.

Complies

The floor plans specifically details that the proposed tennis court lighting system ‘must not exceed an illumination level of 12 lux and an average illumination of 10 lux when measured at the nearest habitable room window of an adjoining dwelling or at a point 3 metres outside the property boundary, whichever is the nearest to the light source’.


Any lighting system must comply with the 'Residential Tennis Court Lighting Code' produced by the Tennis Court Builders Association of Australia.


Any lighting system must be baffled to ensure that a light source is not directly visible from a habitable room window of an adjoining dwelling.


Any lighting system must use light poles which are not more than 8 metres above the court surface.

Complies

The proposed light poles are a maximum of 8.0 metres above the court surface.

Any lighting system must be certified after installation by a qualified lighting engineer.


Element 6: Privacy

The court must not be used for commercial purposes such as tennis coaching or court hire.


The court must not be used between 10.30 pm and 8 am.


No mechanical equipment such as ball throwing machines may be operated between 7 pm and 8 am.




of 88

Element 7: Construction Methods

Adjoining residential properties shall be notified before any works are undertaken within 2 metres of the boundary.


Temporary barriers must be provided to protect areas of vegetation which are outside the works site.


The method of construction must comply with the 'Guide Specifications for Tennis Court Construction' produced by the Tennis Court Builders Association of Australia.


These guidelines outline specifications for tennis courts that need to be considered in the development and use of suitable specifications including:

(a) proper court size;

(b) orientation of courts;

(c) slope and drainage of courts;

(d) base and construction materials;

(e) type and speed of surface; and

(f) general information on lighting, fencing, nets, net posts, windscreens, maintenance and resurfacing.

Officer Comment

It is considered that the proposed tennis court suitably addresses and responds to the requirements of the Code of Practice subject to the application of a number of standard conditions. It is considered to be appropriate for the site.



of 88

OBJECTION RESPONSE

Total Number of Objections Received: Nine (9)

Summary of Objection Officer Comment Heritage matters: 49 Sackville Street: The proposed buildings and works to 49

Sackville Street are inconsistent with the purposes and decision guidelines of Clause 43.01 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

As discussed above, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay. All matters requiring consideration under the Heritage Policy have been considered in this report.

The alteration proposed to the roof line of 49 Sackville Street does not comply with the objectives of the Heritage Policy of the Council and should not be allowed - as the policy states, changes to “visibleroof forms of ‘contributory’ heritage places will not normally be allowed”. The policy also states that the “principalvisible roof forms of the heritage place”should not change. The proposal is contrary to those objectives.

Pursuant to Clause 22.05 (Heritage Policy) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, it is policy that:

“New openings in the principal façade(s) or principal visible roof forms of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places will not normally be permitted.”

The proposed alterations to the existing roof line are limited to the rear sections of the existing dwelling, setback approximately 32.8 metres from Sackville Street. The change affects the roof form over the rear dining room, kitchen and laundry. The principle visible roof viewed from Sackville Street is not proposed to be altered. This is consistent with the Heritage Policy.

Where visible from John Street (secondary frontage), the proposed alteration to the roof is sympathetic and conservative in nature, using dark concrete roof tiles to match the existing pitched roof form of the existing dwelling on site. This is consistent with the Heritage Policy and will not adversely affect the heritage place or precinct.



of 88

The bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building works on 49 Sackville Street adversely affect the significance of that place as a contributory heritage place. It is not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the overall heritage precinct.

The proposed renovations and extensions to 49 Sackville Street, in themselves, do not comply with the Heritage Overlay and Heritage Policy of the Council, let alone what affect such has on the MacRobertson residence.

An on-site inspection will readily reveal, the excessive bulk of the proposed extension that gives the appearance of a substantial building surrounding the back of the MacRobertson residence, which effect is given further embellishment by the proposal that the entrance to the ramp replicates the fabric and colour of the dwelling and front fence of 49 Sackville Street. This whole approach severely compromises the architectural integrity of the MacRobertson residence (51 Sackville Street) and should not be allowed if the objectives of the Heritage Overlay are to be met.

The high roof, which its special tiles, forms an essential component of the architectural merit of the MacRobertson residence. The proposed extension to the 49 Sackville Street property is anathema to its architectural uniqueness and integrity and will be a visual impost.

The proposed extension works to 49 Sackville Street will be setback approximately 32.8 metres from Sackville Street, will be at ground level, located to the rear of the existing dwelling on site and therefore will be largely concealed from the primary street frontage.

The extensions projects 8.265 metres north of the current footprint of the house. Where visible from John Street (secondary frontage), the design of the proposed extension will be sympathetic and conservative in nature, using traditional architectural language and materials to match the existing dwelling on site. The modern window proportions and simplified chimney detailing allows the new extension to be distinguishable from the original dwelling.

Therefore, the proposed rear extension’s location, bulk and design is consistent with the objectives of the Heritage Overlay and will not adversely impact on the significance of the heritage place or heritage precinct.

In relation to the basement ramp, the proposed entrance to the basement ramp (1-1.3m high balustrades) is largely hidden from street view and therefore entirely meets the objectives of the Heritage Overlay.

The proposed material and finishes for the entrance to the basement ramp comprise of 1.0-1.3 metre high concrete balustrades with a rendered and painted finish to be applied to the walls. This is considered to be an appropriate design response to the heritage significance of the surrounding area and heritage place.

As the proposed 1.0 - 1.3 metre high



of 88

balustrade walls associated with the basement ramp will be located 13.55 metres from Sackville Street and be largely concealed by the existing 1.8m high gate, front fence (refer to Figure 8) and curved nature of the driveway, the proposed basement ramp is not considered to have an unreasonable impact on the adjacent significant dwelling.

55 Sackville Street: The building of the pergola and pavilion

in this area adds an unacceptable bulk that offends the neighbourhood character to John Street, which as the Tribunal indicated, is in effect interwoven with the Sackville Precinct neighbourhood character which is so valued.

The timber pergola will not be visible from Sackville Street, largely obscured from John Street and MacRobertsons Lane and therefore will have no impact on the heritage precinct.

The proposed partially open-sided single storey pitched roofed pavilion located to the north-western corner of the site will have a maximum height of 5.07 metres and be constructed out of masonry (paint and render finish) with a pitched tiled roof. Where visible from John Street and MacRobertsons Lane, the pavilion has been undertaken in a sympathetic and conservative manner that will not have a negative impact on the precinct.

It should be noted that neighbourhood character impact of the pergola and pavilion is not a relevant considerations under the Heritage Overlay. Clause 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, specifically exempts proposals requiring planning approval solely because of their location in heritage areas.

Neighbourhood character and built form:

49 Sackville Street: The extension to 49 Sackville Street is

excessive in their bulk and configuration.

The proposed extension to the driveway can not be assessed against the provisions of Clause 22.07 Neighbourhood Character or Clause



of 88

55 Sackville Street: The extension into 55 Sackville Street

adds weight to the assertion of offensive bulk. It is offensive to the neighbourhood character and in particular, is the destruction of significant vegetation which adds to the neighbourhood character recognised by VCAT as an integral part of the neighbourhood character needing to be preserved.

The streetscape in John Street, with the building of the pavilion is diminished by the bulk of that building and the loss of trees. The proposed development detracts from the neighbourhood character.

32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 (with the exception of the mandatory height controls). Specifically, Clause 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character) states:

This policy applies to the following applications within residential zones:

All other planning permit applications in residential areas, including discretionary uses, but excluding proposals requiring planning approval solely because of their location in heritage areas.

The applicable design objectives and decision guidelines contained within Clause 22.05 (Heritage Policy) and Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) are applicable and have been considered in detail within this report.

Nonetheless, as 26.78 metres of the existing residence is to be retained as measured from the front facade, with 8.265 metres proposed beyond the existing footprint at the rear of the existing dwelling, it is not considered that the proposed extension will not dominate the existing dwelling or be a dominant element form within either Sackville Street or John Street.

Two canopy trees are proposed to be removed in order to construct the tennis court. Council’s Arborist has advised that the two trees are in poor condition and of low landscape significance. Should an application be lodged under Council’s Tree Protection Local Law, it is likely that a permit would issue.

The high roof, which its special tiles, forms an essential component of the architectural merit of the MacRobertson residence. The proposed extension to

TThe design of the proposed extension is conservative in nature, using traditional architectural language and materials such as dark concrete roof tiles with a



of 88

the 49 Sackville Street property is anathema to its architectural uniqueness and integrity and will be a visual impost.

pitched roof form to match the existing dwelling on site and will not impact negatively on the existing heritage place or precinct. This is considered in keeping with the Heritage Policy.

It is considered that the proposed development will not have any impact upon any existing nearby ‘significant’ graded properties, including MacRobertsons residence at 51 Sackville Street.

The extension to 49 Sackville Street is a massive over development of an already substantial existing dwelling.

An assessment of whether the addition is an overdevelopment is not relevant. In any case, the proposed ground floor addition of 81.2sqm to the existing dwelling on ground floor level is considered to be reasonable and complies with relevant heritage policy.

From Sackville Street, the tennis court light poles are visible, which again challenges the architectural integrity of the MacRobertson residence.

The construction of a tennis court in a Heritage Overlay is exempt from notice and review pursuant to Clause 43.01-3 (exemption from notice and review) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

Nevertheless, concerns that the proposal will have a negative impact on the heritage value of 51 Sackville Street and from Sackville Street are not shared by officers, including Council’s Heritage Advisor. The light poles are narrow building envelopes and are not considered to be a significant visual impact

It is considered that the appropriate consideration for assessment of heritage impact from the private realm under Council’s Heritage Policy is set out in Altson v Boroondara CC P2817/2013 (4April 2014) at 1 College Place, Kew.



of 88

Particular discussion is provided at paragraphs 20-23 of the decision, with regard to the weight to be given to assessment of the impacts of the proposal on the public realm (ie, the street) versus the private realm (ie, adjoining properties).

Extract of Altson v Boroondara CC P2817/2013:

20. Clause 43.01-2 requires consideration, as appropriate, of any applicable heritage study and any applicable conservation study. Local heritage policy at Clause 22.05 includes relevant policy references such as the Building Conservation Guidelines City of Kew Urban Conservation Study, 1988, Vol 2 and City of Kew Heritage Advice Notes 1-6, 1991.

21. Policy at 22.05-3 for ground level additions seeks, amongst other matters, to locate additions at the rear where they will have less impact on the streetscape or heritage precinct. Policy also asks that upper levels should be sited and massed behind the principle façade. The proposal largely achieves both these outcomes, although I anticipate that a small section of the first floor may be visible from the south west over the top of the new dwelling at 3 College Place. None of the extension will be viewed with 855 Glenferrie Road in the background, and the retention of the front part of 1 College Place ensures that the character along College Place remains largely unchanged. Specifically there is no



of 88

change to the views of the two dwellings along College Place and hence no loss of the heritage value of 855 Glenferrie Road when viewed from the public realm.

22. I stress that the emphasis in local policy is on those views from the public realm, hence the policy statement about locating additions at the rear. Figure 1 in Clause 22.05-3 demonstrates that limiting views from the street rather than private properties is the main focus of heritage policy. Even for corner sites, policy states that the sight line is taken from the primary street frontage. The primacy of street views is even reinforced, for example, for new buildings and additions and alterations to non-contributory places which seeks to ‘Ensure proposals are respectful of the existing scale, massing, form and siting of ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ places in the heritage precinct, as these places are viewed from the street’(my emphasis).

23. Because heritage policy is so strongly encouraging alterations and additions to be located at the rear, it is inevitable that new buildings will be viewed from surrounding properties. That was certainly the case in all the previous applications on the review site. I am therefore not persuaded that the proposed development will have any adverse impact on the heritage value of 855 Glenferrie Road when viewed from the public realm.

In accordance with the above, it is considered that the assessment of the impact of a development within a



of 88

Heritage Precinct emphasises the importance of views from the public, in particular primary street frontage and not the private realm.

The proposed light poles will range from 7.5-8.0m in height above the court surface. Given these light poles will be setback a minimum of 39.2 metres from Sackville Street and be largely sited behind and concealed by the existing dwelling at 51 Sackville Street, it is not considered that these light poles will adversely affect the significance of the place from the heritage significance of the Sackville Street Precinct.

The proposed ramp is out of character in the neighbourhood. The proposed ramp will dissect the adjoining significant properties and diminish the neighbourhood character in Sackville Street; in the area extending from John Street to Ross Street where to date no ramps exist.

The assessment of the ramp is exempt from consideration under Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy. Nevertheless, the design of the proposed basement ramp and garage will have an inconsequential impact on the Sackville Street Precinct as it is not readily visible from the site frontage.

The existing front fence, gates and curved nature of the driveway will screen views to the ramp and basement from Sackville Street.

The construction of the ramp runs the real risk of undermining the feature bluestone wall on the eastern boundary of the MacRobertson Residence.

Potential damage to the adjoining property from construction is not a matter that can be considered through the planning process. It would be dealt with through the Building approval process.

The proposed tennis court is detrimental to the environment and the garden aspect of the neighbourhood.

Tennis courts are not uncommon in residential areas and it is generally considered that such developments are acceptable in residential zones subject to the considerations set out in the Planning Scheme and the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999.



of 88

As the proposed tennis court meets the elements (subject to conditions) as required under the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999, it is considered to be acceptable in terms of impact on the environment and garden aspect of the neighbourhood.

55 Sackville Street will have site coverage in excess of 90% (see the Boroondara Residential Design Policy for what is considered appropriate site coverage).The foot print of the tennis court is enormous, covering with its roofing slab over the garage, most of 55 Sackville Street, which in turn stops the permeability that presently exists.

Council’s Residential Design Policy is not relevant to the assessment of this application given that the works are limited to an extension and construction of a tennis court associated with one dwelling.

Demolition works

The shed in the north-west corner of 55 Sackville Street is part of Sir Macpherson Robertson’s original concept for the MacRobertson Residence. It is made from the same “Cherry Ripe” size bricks that the main residence is made from and forms a unique aspect of the architectural heritage of the site and should be preserved. Sir Macpherson Robertson referred to the bricked used for his residence as his “Cherry Ripes” as they reminded him of his famous chocolate product.

The removal of the existing shed is considered acceptable. Council’s Heritage Advisor has not raised any concerns with the demolition of the existing shed at 55 Sackville Street. Due to the previous subdivision of the site, the outbuilding has lost its connection with the dwelling at 51 Sackville Street.

The subject shed is located to the north-west, rear corner of 55 Sackville Street and is not visible from the primary (Sackville) Street and therefore does not contribute to the heritage significance of the precinct.

It is therefore considered that the proposed demolition of the shed will not significantly impact on the significance of the heritage place or heritage precinct.

For the Council record, a condition can be imposed on any planning permit issued that requires the permit holder to



of 88

submit an archival record of the outbuilding.

The existing building at 55 Sackville Street is very distinctive for its era and should be retained.

The dwelling at 55 Sackville Street has not been assessed as having any particular heritage significance. It is graded as non-contributory in Heritage Overlay 162.

Council’s heritage policy allows for the demolition of non-contributory dwellings subject to the replacement development complying with the requirements of this policy. This has been discussed in detail in the report.

Drainage and building over easements

The resultant development, should it proceed, will be a significant collector of stormwater that will be prevented from trenching in any proportion the water table, through pervious surfaces, which is important for the continued survival of the significant vegetation in the area.

The bulk of the footprint for the whole of the development almost totally seals the surface from water penetration to the water table.

It is proposed that a concrete slab be built over an easement set out on the title of 55 Sackville Street. The property at 51 Sackville Street objects to this. Also, the proposed planting of “shrubs” in a planter box style beds along the southern boundary of 55 Sackville Street, will restrict access to this easement.

Drainage and building over easement issues are not relevant matters that can be considered through this planning application, where the assessment of the buildings and works is limited to heritage matters and the tennis court provisions in the scheme.

Drainage matters will be dealt with through the Building approval process.Notes have been recommended as part of Officer recommendation to alert of the permit applicant of drainage matters.

Any buildings and works over an easement will be addressed and considered under the relevant Building Regulations at the time a building permit is sought.

Extend the development across title boundaries

The proposed development is uncharacteristic of the Sackville Precinct as it intends to extend over the existing title line almost by 6 metres along the northern boundary of the MacRobertson

The living room extension at 55 Sackville Street will not be readily visible from either Sackville Street or John Street and therefore will not significantly impact on the significance of the heritage place or



of 88

Residence (51 Sackville Street, Kew). Nowhere in the Sackville Precinct is

there anything other than straight north-south boundary lines on the east and west boundaries. To allow an encroachment over existing title lines is contraindicated for the preservations of neighbourhood character.

The proposal will not be in keeping with the boundary lines subsisting in all other allotments visible along Sackville Street. This offends the Boroondara Planning Scheme which stipulates that newly created lots (which a consolidation of the titles of 49 and 55 Street will be) respects the prevailing subdivision patterns of the street.

heritage precinct.

It is noted that an application for the consolidation of lots in a Heritage Overlay does not require planning permission.

Notwithstanding this, 55 Sackville Street is already a battle axe lot resulting from a subdivision in 1969. Consolidation with 49 Sackville Street will have no impact on the subdivision pattern from a heritage perspective.

Tree/ vegetation removal and damage to trees Tree removal: Vegetation has long been identified as

an essential component that has, and continues to, distinguish the Sackville Precinct. See the VCAT decision (McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & Ors P2000/64653) for a discussion of this aspect.There are two healthy young mature Cut Leaf birch trees (Betula pendula) in the western portion of 55 Sackville Street. These trees are to be removed. Tree of that age (22 - 25 years) would expect to have a further 40 - 50 years of life. They not only provide a vision of vegetation to the Sackville Street streetscape, they also provide the same to the streetscape to the southern end of John Street. Refer to the significance of the John Street considerations as discussed in the VCAT decision (McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & Ors P2000/64653)where value was put on the need for such from a neighbourhood character perspective.

The Heritage Precinct in which the subject site is located does not include specific controls with regard to tree removal and the subject site is not affected by any planning overlays which pertain to vegetation removal.

It is noted that a number of trees are proposed to be removed at 55 Sackville Street, including two (2) canopy trees, as defined by Council’s Tree Protection Local Law.

It should be noted that Council’s Arborist has advised that two (2) trees (Tree 5 - Japanese Maple and Tree 6 - Cut Leaf Birch) to the western boundary of 55 Sackville Street are likely to gain support for removal as they are in poor condition and do not provide a significant contribution to the wider tree canopy of the area.

It is noted that the removal of any canopy tree is subject to a Local Law application. A note will be included on any permit



of 88

The removal of trees on 49 and 55 Sackville Street will be detrimental to the neighbourhood character.

The loss of trees would amount to a serious diminution of the neighbourhood character and would be against the objective of the Council’s tree protection policy. The need for preservation of the garden/ vegetation setting is addressed in the VCAT decision (McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & OrsP2000/64653).

issued which will require that a Local Law Permit be obtained before any canopy trees are removed.

The Statement of Significance for the Sackville Street Heritage Precinct describes area is notable for its imposing envelope of street trees which arch over the street for most of its length, and for its large and mature gardens. The mature garden within the front setback of the subject site at 49 Sackville Street is to be retained, which is consistent with the Statement of Significance for the Heritage Overlay 162 - Sackville Street Precinct, which indicates that mature gardens are characteristic of the area.

Other than the removal of the Cut Leaf Birch and the Japanese Maples, there are no other noteworthy vegetation to be removed. Importantly, the proposal allows for the future planting of vegetation, including canopy trees, shrubs and ground covers which all contribute to mature gardens of the area.

In relation to the removal of the trees for the accommodation of the new tennis court, The Code of Practice Private Tennis Court Development, March 1999 only seeks the retention of trees within 3.0 metres of the street frontage or public land.

Trees and shrubs are proposed to be planted around the court which will provide as visual and aesthetic barrier to the tennis court.

A condition on the permit can require more than two trees to be planted throughout the site in replacement of the two trees proposed to be removed (Tree Nos. 5 and 6).



of 88

Damage to trees: The excavation to facilitate the ramp will

be cut into the critical root zone of a very large and established spruce tree (located towards the entrance of the driveway at 55 Sackville Street).

The cut of the ramp will also destroy a significant “Ghost Gum“ located at 59 Sackville Street and as a consequence of the necessity to destroy the critical root zone of that tree which inevitably will cause it to die, or at least, become unstable representing a hazard.

Similarly, it will affect the root system of a massive tree located across MacRobertsons Lane at the rear of 30 Rowland Street.

The disruption to the root systems may even extend to the substantial tree on the boundary of MacRobertsons Lane and the rear of 28 Rowland Street.

The Heritage Precinct in which the subject site is located does not include specific tree controls.

The VCAT decision in Duster v Boroondara CC [2010] VCAT 1140,pertaining to 26 Victoria Road, Camberwell for demolition/alterations and additions on land subject to the Heritage Overlay, where the Heritage Overlay was the sole permit trigger, included a legal ruling in respect to the impact of the proposal of a number of trees. This concluded as follows:

‘The heritage overlay could, but does not require planning permission for the removal of trees. No other planning permission is required to remove trees. No reference is made in any of clauses 15.03, 21.05 or 22.05 that the preservation of gardens and landscaping is an objective or policy outcome sought in this heritage precinct. Clause 22.05 only briefly mentions gardens and statement of significance has only fleeting reference to gardens in general, and no particular trees or gardens are identified as having their own heritage significance. Gardens and landscaping are not matters to be considered in assessing new buildings in a heritage place. The relevant matters to be assessed relate to the scale, form, architectural styles and materials of the proposed buildings. Hence, I concur with Member Code. I give no weight to the removal of vegetation arising from this development or to the evidence of Mr Andrews. In my view weight could only be given if the relevant identify the gardens and landscaping as having heritage significance or making an important contribution to the heritage



of 88

place.’

Council is unable to consider impacts on adjoining vegetation within the context of the heritage controls, therefore impacts on vegetation are a civil matter.

Nonetheless, the Himalayan Cedar tree (Tree 1) located to the south-eastern boundary of 55 Sackville Street will be retained.

The objector’s Arborist report/ preliminary advice prepared by Galbraith & Associates (dated 3 February 2016) claiming that Tree 1 has to be removed as a result of the proposed ramp/ driveway works is incorrect.

The proposed driveway ramp starts approximately 13.55 metres from Sackville Street. The existing driveway is to be retained and follow the same alignment. The driveway grade does not change until approximately 6.0 metres to the north of the tree. Given the existing driveway and the small amount of excavation towards the north of the driveway (less than 10% of the tree protection zone), Council’s Arborist is satisfied that the buildings and works proposed will not impact the tree. The Galbraith report states that the driveway will go through the trunk which is incorrect.

The Yellow Gum tree (Tree 2) is located at 59 Sackville Street towards the common boundary with 55 Sackville Street. It is correct that the arborist report from Treescape Consulting mis-identified the species in relation to Tree 2. However, it is advised that the Planning Officer and Council’s Arborist do not rely solely on the submitted material.



of 88

Council’s Arborist has provided the following response in relation to this tree:

‘I agree that the report from Treescape mis-identified the species, however from personal communication with Peter from Treescape he acknowledged that the species was incorrect and the tree TPZ data was also incorrect and put it down to a data collection error. However, I observed the excavation by hand and I was satisfied that the proposed cut for the basement was in the correct location as I measured it on site as being approximately 1.5m - 1.7m fro the boundary.

The trench was shallow because beyond this point Peter Clark from Treescape probed the soil and it was a very hard clay pan. It was determined on site by myself that there was no need for further exploratory work as root growth would be limited further down the soil profile.

In regards to the root size, the roots were not over 100mm thick. I measured the roots and concur with Peter Clarks observations.’

Council’s Arborist has provided the following response in relation to the existing English Oak at 59 Sackville Street:

‘The tree is located approximately 4 metres from the proposed basement cut. Given this setback, it represents an encroachment of approximately 15% (just over the 10% minor encroachment as based upon the Australian Standard). This is not a ‘substantially’ greater encroachment as noted by Rob Galbraith. With proper care by an Arborist



of 88

on site during initial excavation, there will be no long term impact on this tree.’

Council’s Arborist has provided the following response in relation to the existing Camphor Laurel at 30 Rowland Street:

‘The tree is a large tree and has a large tree protection zone ‘on paper’, however in reality the extensive brick footings along the northern boundary would have restricted most if not all root growth into the subject site.

I am not concerned by the location of the proposed basement from the northern boundary as I don’t believe that there will be any impact upon this tree.’

Based on the assessment of Council’s Arborist, the ramp and basement garage will not significantly impact on the above trees.

McSteen Tan Architects v Boroondara CC & Ors [2001] VCAT 1940 (20 August 2001) The VCAT decision considered a

proposed building of a second dwelling at the rear of the site. It is considered that the proposed development of the rear of 49 Sackville Street is in direct parallel to what was previously rejected by VCAT, notwithstanding the proposed development intends to extend over the existing title line almost by 6 metres along the northern boundary of the Mac Robertson Residence.

The proposed works as part of the previous planning application BOR 99/393 is described on within previous sections of the report. It is not considered that the proposed buildings and works in this application are in parallel to what was previously refused by Council and the Tribunal due to the following reasons:

Planning application BOR 99/393 proposed an additional dwelling to the rear of 49 Sackville Street, facing John Street. This proposed the creation of an allotment of 352sqm which is less than one-third the size of most other allotments in John Street;

The additional dwelling comprised of a boundary to boundary built form



of 88

development, extending from the rear of the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street to the boundary of the site;

Within the 5.0m front and side setback proposed for the additional dwelling and the existing dwelling at 49 Sackville Street, the proposal included two 5.0m wide basement ramps leading into two partially protruding basement garages from John Street for each dwelling;

The previous application included a large first floor addition that would have been highly visible from John Street and significantly modified the existing roof form of the heritage building;

The design of the additional dwelling was proposed to be of period reproduction style;

The heritage policy at the time of this application is different to Council’s existing heritage policy at Clause 22.05; and

As an additional dwelling is proposed, additional assessments against Council’s former Residential Urban Character Study and the former Good Design Guide would have been required.

This application does not propose any of the above and therefore is not considered relevant to what was previously refused.

The decision makers in the VCAT decision agreed with the submission that the then proposed renovations at 49 Sackville Street, (which were not opposed and which are now in place at the site today) represent “the absolute maximum that this site can tolerate and be compatible with the neighbourhood environment”. They went onto say, “the

This application is contextually different from the previous proposal as it does not include an additional dwelling on the lot.

As previously advised, an assessment of the dwelling addition against neighbourhood character is not possible, because the Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.07) specifically exempt



of 88

neighbourhood character considerations which tell against the new dwelling are amplified when one has regard to the sheer scale of the renovations”.

such assessment. The assessment of the application can only be undertaken in respect to heritage matters and tennis court provisions contained in Clause 52.21 (Private Tennis Court) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme. Heritage matters are assessed against Council’s Heritage Policy in Clause 22.05 and Clause 43.01 under the Heritage Overlay.

Notwithstanding, particular discussion is provided at paragraph 26 of the decision, with regard to the scale of the proposed ‘extension works’ to the existing dwelling (49 Sackville Street) and what was considered appropriate.

26. Mention has already been made of the substantial additions and alterations proposed to the existing dwelling. Those alterations will involve second storey hips to the eastern, western and northern sides of the existing house. The result will be a very substantial two-storey house. Although these additions and renovations are part of the permit application presently before us, they have been included so that the development of the site, including the proposed second residence, can be considered as a whole. As we have said, a planning permit for the additions and alterations has already been granted and is still current. Although it is open to this Tribunal to review that planning permission, the objectors did not urge this course upon us. Rather, they argued, in Mr Earle's words, that the proposed extension represents "the absolute maximum that this site can tolerate and be in any way compatible with the neighbourhood environment."We agree. The neighbourhood character considerations which tell against the new dwelling are amplified when one has regard to the sheer scale of the



of 88

The VCAT decision addressed development at the corner of John Street and MacRobertsons Lane affects the neighbourhood character, with reference being made to the Italianate dwelling at

renovations.

It is noted that the ‘extension works’ as referenced by the Tribunal are part of extension works on the ground floor and included a first floor level addition previously approved by Council via Planning Permit BOR/98/00815 on 19 August 1999. It is also noted that to date, the first floor addition as previously approved for 49 Sackville Street (Figure 22) was never built. The application for VCAT also included a semi basement garage with ramp access off John Street and a terrace above, for the existing dwelling.

As advised above, the previous decision is of limited relevance to this application.It is noted that this application will result in only a single dwelling being located at 49 Sackville Street with no first floor addition and that the vehicle access to this property will now use the existing vehicle crossing at 55 Sackville Street.The proposed ground floor addition will be 8.265 metres beyond the existing ground floor building envelope which is a modest extension for an existing single dwelling.

Paragraph 30 of the decision discussed the neighbourhood character of John Street with references made to the ‘Pomeroy’, dwelling at 2 John Street.

30. In our view the Sackville Street heritage precinct makes a contribution - indirect perhaps, but real - to the character of the southern end of John Street. Part of such character is provided by `Pomeroy', the mansion on the north-west corner. The house is set well back from its John Street frontage. The side garden is given over to large trees and



of 88

2 John Street being a contiguous consideration. This more so, as since the VCAT decision, the owner of the Italianate dwelling has done extensive renovations and re-established a wrought iron and bluestone front fence in place of an offending high timber paling fence referred to in the VCAT decision. 2 John Street now carries a classification under the Victorian Heritage scheme as is graded “B” in the Kew Conservation Study.

ferns which combine most attractively with the trees in the nature strip and the grand gateway entrance. In some respects the proposed substantial additions to the existing house on the subject property, coupled with an appropriate rear garden development, would sit comfortably with `Pomeroy', in its large garden setting. The in-fill design would however, destroy any such symmetry.

The previous application included a new additional dwelling in the rear yard of the existing heritage dwelling that would significantly impact upon the ‘significant’ graded heritage property to the north.This application will convert an existing garage to a billiard room that will effectively maintain the existing presence to John Street.

Tennis Court

The proposed tennis court has an east-west orientation. As such, it will be one of the few (if any) east-west tennis courts in Melbourne. Its orientation makes the court functionally deficient, being restricted as to optimum use because of sun glare during the day. The only unaffected use of the court would be at night. This would see it being used at a time of most imposition on the quite enjoyment of neighbours.

The netting, fencing, lights and elevation of the tennis court will be visually detrimental to the neighbourhood character.

The orientation of the tennis court is not in itself relevant to the assessment of this application.

A proposed condition seeks to limit the use of the court to the hours set out in the performance requirements of Element 6 set out in the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999.

Subject to standard conditions, the application meets the Tennis Court controls set out in the Planning Scheme.

The lighting for the tennis court will have adverse effects on the use of two bedrooms situated on the second level of the MacRobertson residence.

The performance requirement (Element 1.3.1) of the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999 requires a minimum setback of 3.0m from an adjoining dwelling if the court is to be illuminated. The tennis court is proposed



of 88

to be setback 3.68 metres from the adjoining dwelling to the south at 51 Sackville Street and therefore fully complies with this requirement.

Furthermore, the proposed light poles will have a minimum setback distance of 4.27 metres from the closest habitable room window associated with 51 Sackville Street.

The floor plans specifically details that the proposed tennis court lighting system ‘must not exceed an illumination level of 12 lux and an average illumination of 10 lux when measured at the nearest habitable room window of an adjoining dwelling or at a point 3 metres outside the property boundary, whichever is the nearest to the light source’. This detail is in accordance with the performance requirement (Element 5.3.1) of the Codeof Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999.

Further conditions under Element 5 (Illumination) of the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999 are also recommended to be included as conditions of any permit issued including:

Any lighting system must comply with the 'Residential Tennis Court Lighting Code' produced by the Tennis Court Builders Association of Australia; Any lighting system must be baffled to ensure that a light source is not directly visible from a habitable room window of an adjoining dwelling; and Any lighting system must be certified after installation by a qualified lighting engineer.

It is proposed that the tennis court not be used until 7.30am. That is too early to be

In accordance with the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March



of 88

woken by the sound of tennis being played so very close to our bedrooms.

1999:The court must not be used between 10.30 pm and 8 am; and No mechanical equipment such as ball throwing machines may be operated between 7 pm and 8 am.

The above two requirements can be a condition of permit to ensure the proposed tennis court will be in compliance with the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999 requirements.

Amenity Impacts/ Loss of Privacy

The proposed extension along the north-west corner of the MacRobertson residence for almost 6.0 metres directly intrudes of the quite enjoyment of our private secluded space which includes a sunken garden with a fountain and bench seating area located in the north-west corner of the MacRobertson residence.

The extension and establishment of a living room, pergola and a “pavilion”, of which the last two are open facilities for people to watch tennis, with no doubt the noise of the barracking audience, together with the noise of the tennis itself, will seriously affect that private

The subject sites are 1234 square metres for 49 Sackville Street and 1241 square metres for 55 Sackville Street. Pursuant to the zoning of the land, a planning permit is only required for development on a lot of less than 500 square metres.

The VCAT decision Bowman v Boroondara CC [2016] VCAT 301 (2March 2016) provides clear guidance on the parameters against which an application triggered by the Heritage Overlay must be assessed. This expressly excludes an assessment against Clause 54 (ResCode). As such, the application cannot be assessed with respect to the development standards and objectives of Clause 54 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, which include loss of privacy and amenity impacts.

Amendment VC33 to the Planning Scheme removes consideration of ResCode from the Heritage Overlay.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the proposed extensions associated with the



of 88

secluded space. existing dwelling. The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit and is not a matter that can be considered in this assessment.

Nonetheless, a proposed condition seeks to limit the use of the court to the hours set out in the performance requirement of Element 6 set out in the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court DevelopmentMarch 1999.

Other matters

The underground garage is to be used to store a vintage car collection of a third party. Cars will be moved from where they are presently stored at a commercial site, which is appropriate use for that site, to a residential location where it will be an inappropriate use.

The wall demarking the 5 tank area is not a structural wall. The ceiling slab to the garage is to be supported by transverse n/s running beams. The end result will be an unrestricted underground area which well and truly exceeds any need for the parking of the owner’s two cars.

The so called ‘tank area’ will be opened up for storage of more cars, or other activities not compatible with residential use.

It is advised that any business on the site must meet the requirements prescribed in Clause 52.11 (Home Occupation) of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

As the application does not include to change the use of the site, the assessment of the application is limited to the buildings and works in a heritage overlay and the tennis court provisions in the scheme.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal have generally found subjective claims that a proposal may change the use of the site are difficult, if not impossible to gauge and of no assistance to the determination of a planning permit application.

The owner of 49 Sackville Street has no need for additional garage facilities.

The necessity for an additional garage facility is not a matter that can be considered through this planning application, where the assessment is limited to heritage consideration of the buildings and works and the tennis court provisions in the scheme.

The crossovers are to be retained. This is not consistent with the new proposed

As the existing garage is proposed to convert into a billiard room, a permit condition will be required for all disused



of 88

use of the garage as a billiard room. or redundant vehicle crossovers to be removed and the area reinstated with footpath, naturestrip, blustone kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The size of the underground garage is not reflective of a use for garaging of cars associated with domestic/ residential use. Its size lends itself to non-resident uses that may disrupt the residential character of the neighbourhood in the Sackville Precinct (eg. Small business activities and manufacturing).

The necessity for the proposed size of the basement garage is not a matter that can be considered through this planning application, where the assessment is limited to heritage considerations of the buildings and works and the tennis court provisions in the scheme.

If the garage is to be used by visitors, then both occupiers of the MacRobertson Residence and 59 Sackville Street would be subjected to vehicular traffic that, having regard to the narrow and close proximately of the driveway to the MacRobertson Residence (in particular), will amount to an unwarranted impost on the quiet enjoyment presently enjoyed consistent with a residential area.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the proposed basement ramp along the eastern boundary.

The consideration of this planning application is confined only to heritage matters and potential noise is not a matter that may be considered through the assessment of this application. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in a suburban setting. Any future issues regarding excessive noise, if they arise should be pursued under Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Nuisance during construction / excavation:

The proposed underground garage necessitates a very significant excavation in respect of depth, length and width. This will require, over a significant time, access to the site of a large excavator and truckloads of fill for the proposed works.

The volume of this traffic will be very significant and the noise and disruption

These are not relevant matters that can be considered through this planning application, where the assessment of the buildings and works is limited to heritage matters and the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999.

Some noise and other off site impacts are



of 88

(vibration and dust) cause by slow moving heavy truck passing within 2.5m of the MacRobertson residence (a bedroom) will be so onerous as to warrant that it should not be allowed in the first place.

The proposal will require over a significant period of time, access to the Site of large and noisy machinery including trucks which will access the site via the driveway at 55 Sackville Street. The driveway is located immediately adjacent to 51 Sackville Street’s bedrooms.

The volume of traffic via heavy machinery and trucks will cause significant disruption to the residents at MacRobertson residence’s quite enjoyment of their dwelling as well as noise, vibration and dust.

inevitable when any construction occurs. The developer will be required to meet relevant Local Law and EPA regulations regarding construction practices to ensure these impacts are mitigated.

Nevertheless, a Construction Management Plan can be required as a condition of any permit issued to manage heavy vehicle movements, dust suppression and hours of construction.

To gain access to the site, only the narrow driveway to 55 Sackville Street can be used. This will require very large trucks and trailers to back down the driveway (disrupting traffic in Sackville Street). High probability that damage will be caused to existing walls.

Potential damage to the adjoining property from construction is a matter dealt with by the relevant building surveyor. It is not a matter that can be considered through the planning process.

This process is detailed and assessed under Part 7, Sections 84-101 of the Building Act 1993.

Defective notice and insufficient information:

The deficiencies with the notice includes the failure to correctly identify the land upon which buildings and works were proposed, the failure to place a notice on land at 55 Sackville Street, the failure of the notice to be kept on the façade at 49 Sackville Street for the appropriate length of time.

It is considered that notice has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Section 52 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.

Direct notices (letters) was sent to owners and occupiers of all adjoining properties. Four (4) signs were erected on the land (one facing MacRobertsons Lane, one facing John Street and two facing Sackville Street). As required, the two signs facing Sackville Street were



of 88

erected along the front property boundaries at 49 Sackville Street and 55 Sackville Street. Although the additional sign facing Sackville Street at 55 Sackville Street was erected after the other signs, all signs has been displayed correctly for a minimum of 14 days as required.

The signs erected on the land identified the that the land affected by the application is located at 49 & 55 Sackville Street, Kew and that the application is for a permit for:

‘Demolition of an existing dwelling (55 Sackville Street) and Partial demolition works to an existing dwelling (49 Sackville Street) and construction of buildings and works to an existing dwelling, including a tennis court, pool and fencing in a Heritage Overlay.’

The plans do not accurately represent the development particularly the elevation plans couple with the fact that there is no heritage report prepared by an appropriate qualified heritage consultant nor is there any arboricultural report presents a situation where the Council does not have any full and proper information to allow it come to a view about the proposed development and what affects it will have on the heritage precinct and to the trees.

The elevation submitted in support of the planning application for the Sackville Street streetscape is disingenuous, deceptive and inaccurate, both in commission and omission. There should be elevations taken from the opposite side of Sackville Street looking at a north-east direction.

The Officer’s assessment is not solely dependent on the submitted material. However, it is considered that there is sufficient information provided for Council to undertake an appropriate assessment including sufficient information on the plans, an assessment of the site and surrounds, heritage significance of the Sackville Street Precinct, an assessment against the performance requirements of the Code of Practice - Private Tennis Court Development March 1999 and expert advice provided from Council’s Heritage Advisor.




______________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix C


upc3 49 & 55 sackville street, kew - city of boroondara · including a tennis court, pool and...

Documents