Planning Committee meeting to be held at Darebin Civic Centre, 350 High Street Preston on Monday, 9 February 2015 at 5.30 pm.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015 Table of Contents
1. MEMBERSHIP ...... 1 2. APOLOGIES ...... 1 3. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...... 1 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ...... 1 5. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS ...... 2 5.1 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/700/2014 6 Oakhill Avenue, Reservoir VIC 3073 ...... 2 5.2 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/892/2014 703-707 Plenty Road, Reservoir VIC 3073 ...... 34 5.3 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/476/2014 15A Tovey Street, Reservoir VIC 3073 ...... 45 5.4 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/421/2014 185 Wingrove Street, Fairfield VIC 3078 ...... 64 5.5 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/835/2014 470-480 High Street, Northcote VIC 3070 ...... 79 6. OTHER BUSINESS ...... 99 6.1 List of Scheduled VCAT Appeals ...... 99 6.2 Significant Applications Update ...... 117 6.3 List of Applications for next Planning Committee Meeting ...... 121 7. CLOSE OF MEETING ...... 122
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015 Agenda
1. MEMBERSHIP
Councillors
Cr Steven Tsitas (Mayor) (Chairperson) Cr Vince Fontana Cr Gaetano Greco Cr Tim Laurence Cr Bo Li Cr Trent McCarthy Cr Angela Villella Cr Oliver Walsh (Deputy Mayor) Cr Julie Williams
Council Officers
Paul Crapper – Director Corporate and Planning Services Darren Rudd – Manager City Development Julie Smout – Coordinator Statutory Planning Jacinta Stevens – Manager Corporate Governance and Performance Jody Brodribb – Acting Coordinator Council Business
2. APOLOGIES
3. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION
MOVED: Cr. SECONDED: Cr.
THAT the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 December 2014 be confirmed as a correct record of business transacted.
Page 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
5. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
5.1 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/700/2014 6 Oakhill Avenue, Reservoir VIC 3073 AUTHOR: Principal Planner – Paul Miziewicz
DIRECTOR: Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant Owner Consultant
Ikonomidis Reid Pty Ltd Nickolas Daskalo Ikonomidis Reid Pty Ltd Green Heritage Compliance and Research
SUMMARY: • It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling on the site and construct four (4) double storey dwellings. • Each dwelling is to have two (2) bedrooms and one carspace provided in a garage. • Private secluded private open space is provided at ground floor level as follows:
o Dwelling 1 – 83 square metres of private open space including 41 square metres of secluded private open space;
o Dwelling 2 – 80 square metres of private open space including 38 square metres of secluded private open space;
o Dwelling 3 – 40 square metres of private open space including 32 square metres of secluded private open space;
o Dwelling 4 – 61 square metres of private open space including 49 square metres of secluded private open space. • The Certificate of Title accompanied the application and has a covenant. The covenant was varied pursuant to section 84 (1) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) on 3 May 2013. The covenant was varied by order of the Supreme Court of Victoria by replacing the words "more than on Messuage of Dwelling House with suitable outhouses and that such messuage shall be used as a private residence and for no other purpose and that no trade or business shall be carried on the aforesaid lots and shall not at any time hereafter excavate carry away or remove or permit to be removed any earth clay stone gravel or sand from the said lots except for the purpose of excavating for the foundations of any building to be erected thereon" with the words "more than four dwelling houses with outbuildings". The proposal does not breach the amended restrictive covenant. • It is important to note that the removal of covenants via the Supreme Court is a civil property matter involving beneficiaries to the title and is not a matter that Council would be involved in. This is explained further in the report.
Page 2 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• During the assessment of the application Planning Scheme Amendment C144 was approved. The amendment was to implement the recommendations of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee (RZAC) and update map notations to reflect the introduction of the reformed residential zones. Officers are of the firm view this is a mapping error and site should have been included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). The site is now General Residential Zone 2 (GRZ2), which places the same controls as the Residential 1 Zone. On the 31 of October the Chief Executive Officer sent a letter to the former Planning Minister to outline major discrepancies between the conclusion and reasoning of the RZSAC’s Stage 1 report and the application of the new residential zones as gazetted on 30 October 2014. Of particular note was the Oakhill Heritage Area (HO172 and 308), which was designated as Minimal Change Area in the Darebin Housing Strategy. The subject site is located within the Oakhill Heritage Area there is strategic direction from the Darebin Housing Strategy for minimal change to occur in this area. If the site was rezoned to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone transitional arrangements would be provided. This means regardless of the zone, Council is obliged to consider this application on its merits and on the basis of the planning scheme as it now reads. Given the aforementioned the proposal must be assessed with regards to the strategic context of the site and the purpose of the General Residential Zone. • It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issue subject to conditions.
CONSULTATION: • The application was advertised by; one (1) yellow laminated sign with dimensions of 0.90 metres x 0.60 metres. The sign was located approximately 1 metre south of the vehicle crossover, setback approximately 40 cm from the front boundary behind the front fence for 6 Oakhill Avenue and letters sent to affected properties. • Sixty-two (62) objections were received. • The application has been referred internally to Council’s Heritage Advisor, Capital Works Unit, Property Unit and Traffic Management Unit. Referral comment summary to be included in separate section later in report.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Planning Permit Application D/700/2014 be approved and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:
1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Floor Plan TP3, and Elevations TP4, dated 8 Oct 2014 and prepared by Ikonomidis Reid) but modified to show: a) The ground floor setback from Oakhill Avenue for Dwellings 1 and 2 increased to a minimum of 7.08 metres this is to be achieved without the reduction to any other setback. The ground floor porches can encroach within the front setback a maximum of 2.5 metres and must be less than 3.6 metres in height.
Page 3 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
b) Dwelling 1’s first floor east facing bedroom to be setback in line with Dwelling 2, this is to be achieved without the reduction of any other setback. c) Dwelling 1 to be provided with a hipped roof form. d) The eastern fence around the secluded private open space for Dwelling 4 to extend to the eastern wall of the powder room. e) The provision of pedestrian visibility splays measuring 2.0 metres (width across the rear adjacent the Right of Way) by 2.5 metres (depth into the site), to the proposed crossovers to the Right of Way. Where within the subject site, any structures or vegetation within these splays must be not more than 1.15 metres in height. f) The location of all plant and equipment (including air conditioners and the like). These are to be co-located where possible, screened to as to be minimally visible from the public realm and adjacent properties, located as far as practicable from site boundaries. Air conditioning units must be located at ground level. g) The height of fences on the northern, eastern and southern boundaries to be a minimum height of 1.8 metres as measured above natural ground level. Where necessary, the fence height may be increased by raising the height of the fence or by the provision of free-standing, self-supporting trellis adjacent the fence to the required height. If utilised, such trellis must be a maximum of 25% open and be fixed, permanent, durable and coloured or painted to blend with the development. h) Provide a diagram for the first floor screening to the northern habitable windows the section diagram must demonstrate how the screens minimise overlooking of adjoining properties in accordance with Standard B22 of the Darebin Planning Scheme. i) Vehicle Swept path diagram to confirm vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction. j) A comprehensive schedule of external materials, colours and finishes (including colour samples). Construction materials are to be low maintenance. External materials and finishes (including glazing) are to be of a low reflectivity level. The ground level is to be pressed red brick and the first floor to be render. Annotated coloured elevations showing the location/application of the materials, colours and finishes must be provided. k) The Landscape Plan must be submitted to comply with the requirements of condition 4. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit. 2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. This Permit will expire if either: • The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this Permit; or • The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
Page 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing: • Before this Permit expires; • Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or • Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion of the development or a stage of the development. 4. Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must incorporate: a) Details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed, including overhanging trees on adjoining properties. The genus, species, height and spread of all trees must be specified b) A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants c) Details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and hard paving (such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel) d) Street trees within the nature strip/s adjacent to the property e) All constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting, clotheslines etc f) Edge treatment between grass (lawn) and garden beds g) An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of entry doors, windows, gates and fences. An outline of buildings on adjoining land, including the location of windows and doors which face the subject site must also be shown h) The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services. Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided i) Clear graphics identifying trees (deciduous and evergreen), shrubs, groundcovers and climbers j) A scale, North Point and appropriate legend k) Provision of six (6) medium sized canopy trees, one located in each front setback and within the secluded private open space for each dwelling.
The species of all proposed plants selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. 6. No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
Page 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
7. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 8. Before the development is occupied vehicular crossings must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant crossings, crossing openings or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor submitted to the Responsible Authority. 10. All dwellings that share dividing walls and/or floors must be constructed to limit noise transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia. 11. Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 12. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 13. With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 14. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 15. Before occupation of the development, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be: a) Constructed; b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans; c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat; and d) Drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.
Page 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
16. Before the development is occupied vehicular crossings must be constructed to align with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant crossings, crossing openings or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. NOTATIONS (These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this permit or conditions of this permit) N1 Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. N2 Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations (including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals. N3 The amendments specified in Condition 1of this Permit and any additional modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition. Any “necessary or consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this condition, should be specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment. If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their approval under the relevant Sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more significant nature may require a new permit application. N4 This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the approval of this Planning Permit.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND • On 3 May 2013 the Covenant was varied by the order of the Supreme Court. The order provided the following comments:
o On 14 February 2013, the court made orders requiring notice of the application to be given to twenty four landowners who have benefit of the covenant. The Court also required the plaintiff to display enlarged copies of the notice on the property at 6 Oakhill Avenue, Reservoir. Affidavits of N.S Griffin swore on 3 April 2013 and G S Brown swore on 3 April 2013 proved substantial compliance with those orders.
Page 7 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
o There were no appearances for or on behalf of owners or mortgagees of lots having benefit of the covenant.
o The Court had regard to the affidavit evidence contained in the affidavits of Robert Walter Easton, a town planning consultant, sworn on 13 August 2012 and the affidavits of Tracey Pauline Rothwell sworn 23 November 2012 and 22 February 2013. The Court was satisfied that the proposed modification of the restrictive covenant will not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restriction.
o The covenant was varied pursuant to section 84 (1) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) by replacing the words "more than on Messuage of Dwelling House with suitable outhouses and that such messuage shall be used as a private residence and for no other purpose and that no trade or business shall be carried on the foresaid lots and shall not at any time hereafter excavate carry away or remove or permit to be removed any earth clay stone gravel or sand from the said lots except for the purpose of excavating for the foundations of any building to be erected thereon" with the words "more than four dwelling houses with outbuildings" • A search of Council’s physical and electronic records indicates that no notification was received in relation to the variation of the covenant. It would appear Council was not a beneficiary to the covenant and therefore may not have had standing to challenge an application for removal. Council must assess the application against the planning merits of the application and the proposal for four dwellings is reflective of the altered covenant. • The planning permit application was lodged on 30 July 2014. Planning Scheme Amendment C144 was approved on 30 October 2014. The Zone went from Residential 1 Zone to General Residential Zone 2 which has similar purposes and design requirements. Officers are of the firm view that the current zone is a mistake. Accordingly, on Council’s behalf the Chief Executive Officer has requested that the Minister for Planning take urgent action to address this and other errors identified. Regardless Council is obliged to consider the proposal in its current zoning while taking into account the strategic direction of the Darebin Housing Strategy. • The subject site is General Residential Zone 2 and there is strategic direction for the area to have minimal change, however there have been several cases heard at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) that considered how to assess an application during the transitional period. In Nikou v Boroondara CC [2014] VCAT 1362 (A proposal for 11, 2 storey dwellings and a basement car park which Council approved, and on appeal VCAT affirmed Council’s approval) the following commentary was provided: 9 Our attention was drawn to various Tribunal cases and the approach taken with respect to permit applications relying on the transitional provisions of Clause 32.09[10]. As recently summarised in 360 New Street Pty Ltd[11]:
• An application must respond to its physical and strategic contexts. • The Zone purpose must be considered in assessing an application. • Compared with the former Residential 1 Zone, the language of the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone with respect to
Page 8 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
neighbourhood character has raised the obligation to respond positively to, and implement, the preferred character. • Different outcomes can be contemplated for proposals relying on the transitional provisions (because they are not bound by the mandatory limitations such as the number and height of dwellings) but the response to the preferred neighbourhood character is an important consideration in an assessment of the merits. 10 We make the following findings with respect to submissions by Ms Nikou and Mr Gobbo QC as to how the planning context should be approached: • We do not accept that simply because the permit application involves more than four dwellings (i.e. more than two per lot) it must be refused or that it must be modified to reach the dwelling limit set by the Zone for non-transitional applications. This would be a wrong way to assess a permit application relying on the transitional provisions of (in this case) Clauses 32.09-3 and 32.09-8. The transitional provisions must have some effect[12]. As stated in 360 New Street Pty Ltd[13], it is possible for a development that is not limited to two dwellings per lot to achieve an acceptable outcome with respect to preferred character statements, objectives in Clause 55 referring to the achievement of a preferred character, and the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The reverse is also the case, that is, a proposal with two dwellings may be assessed and found to be unacceptable when considered on its own facts and circumstances. • The correct and proper approach is to assess whether the proposed 11 dwellings as designed in this permit application achieve an acceptable outcome having regard to the purposes of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, assisted by the decision guidelines, and other relevant matters directed by the Scheme. We explain the findings from our assessment below. • Whether the proposed development is found to be a radical departure or inappropriate for the subject land because it involves 11 dwellings must be assessed in relation to the site’s physical context and the components of the design response. This will enable a conclusion as to whether approval of the permit application is acceptable in terms of the preferred neighbourhood character and, as Mr Gobbo commented, whether it would be at odds with, or prejudice or undermine, the outcome being pursued in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. • The purpose of the General Residential Zone is to:
o To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.
o To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.
o To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.
Page 9 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• It is submitted below that the proposal appropriately responds to the neighbourhood character and adopted Council policy.
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area • The subject site is located on the eastern side of Oakhill Avenue, which runs in a north south direction. The site is irregular in shape with a 14.02 metre frontage and a maximum (northern) boundary length of 61.82 metres and southern boundary length of 52.01 metres with an angled rear (east) boundary of 18.38 metres for a total site area of approximately 817 square metres. • The site is within the General Residential Zone 2 and covered by the Heritage Overlay HO172 and Development Contribution Plan Overlay (which expired on the 1 July 2014). • The site consists of late 1960’s or early 70’s single storey red brick dwelling with a dark tiled roof. A vehicle crossover is located on the northern boundary of the site providing access from Oakhill Avenue. A right of way runs along the rear (east) of the site. • To the north of the site is a single storey brick and rendered dwelling of the English cottage era setback approximately 2.89 metres from the southern boundary and 5.15 metres from Oakhill Avenue, vehicle access is obtained via a crossover to the north. A group of seven (7) single storey units share the northern boundary and front Frier Avenue. Along the shared boundary there is secluded private open space and a garage. • East of the site lies a Right of Way and the rear of properties fronting Plenty Road. The built form of properties along Plenty road is varying one two and three storey buildings. • To the south of the site is 4 Oakhill Avenue a double storey brick and weatherboard dwelling with a Californian Bungalow appearance. The dwelling is setback 12.64 metres from Oakhill Avenue and 1.55 metres from the northern boundary. Vehicle access is obtained via a crossover to the south of the site off Oakhill Avenue and the secluded private open space is located to the rear of the property. • The property is well served by public transport. A tram stop is located at the corner of Plenty Road and Frier Avenue (route 86). Bus Route No. 555 and 567 located to the east and Regent train station located over a kilometre away to the west.
Proposal • It is proposed to demolish the existing building and construct four (4) double storey dwellings on the site. Details are as follows: • Dwellings 1 and 2 front Oakhill Avenue and appear as one building, they are double storey. At ground floor both dwellings have an open formal lounge past a water closet and laundry with an open meals/kitchen area which leads to secluded (ground floor) private open space to the rear. At first floor is two (2) bedrooms and bathroom. The car parking for both dwellings is located in garages along the northern boundary.
Page 10 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Dwellings 3 and 4 are located to the rear of the site with Dwelling 3 located midblock and Dwelling 4 against the Right of Way. Pedestrian access is available along the southern boundary. • Dwelling 3 and 4 have a similar layout, an open meals living area, laundry and powder room with alfresco and secluded private open space located at ground floor level. The first floor contain two (2) bedrooms an open study and a bathroom. Carparking for each dwelling is located next to each other in a garage. • All dwellings are provided with ground floor secluded private open space. • Vehicle access is to be obtained via the rear Right of Way. The redundant crossover to Oakhill Avenue is to be reinstated. • The proposed dwellings are to be constructed of face brickwork, render, scyon linea cladding or similar and concrete roof tiles.
Objections • Sixty-two (62) objections were received against this application.
Objections summarised • New dwellings contrary to heritage policy in particular the side by side dwellings, three pedestrian paths, entry gates and porch elements. • Top heavy • Excessive height and scale • Visual bulk to the north • Insufficient car parking • No visitor parking • Conflict between users of the laneway (children) and cars • Difficult vehicular manoeuvrability • North east corner creates unsafe space • Over development • Out of character • Loss of amenity; overlooking, overshadowing, • Noise • Excavation • Precedent • Extra rubbish bins • Inadequate open space • Poor design • Non compliant with Building regulation • Demolition of building
Page 11 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Reason to move to the area is the old charm this is being eroded • Cannot park outside their house • Construction on boundary.
Officer comment on summarised objections
New dwellings contrary to heritage policy in particular the side by side dwellings, three pedestrian paths, entry gates and porch elements.
The infill development (demolition and replacement buildings) have been assessed against Council’s Heritage Policy and referred to Council’s Heritage advisor, see assessment in this report.
No visitor insufficient car parking / Conflict between users of the laneway (children) and cars/ Difficult vehicular manoeuvrability / Cannot park outside their house
It is not considered that the increase in traffic from the subject development would place an unreasonable load on the surrounding street network. Additionally, no objections have been raised from Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit regarding traffic and its impact on the local street network. Car parking is addressed in the assessment section of this report, with particular focus upon Clause 52.06 and 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
North east corner creates unsafe space
It is officer’s opinion that the concerns over the north east corner is a valid concern. Condition 1d) will extend the boundary fence to eliminate the alcove which could be perceived as an unsafe area and improve the useability of the space. See report for assessment.
Bulk top heavy / Out of character
The proposed dwellings are to have a maximum height of 7.67 metres above natural ground level (NGL) which complies with the standard requiring a maximum height not exceeding 9 metres. The height of the dwellings will not have an adverse visual impact upon the neighbouring dwellings or the streetscape and is an appropriate transition from existing single and double storey dwellings located in the immediate area, the first floor is smaller than the ground floor level further reducing the bulk. Neighbourhood character, design, form and materials are addressed within the assessment section of this report with particular focus on Clause 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme and the relevant Neighbourhood Character Precinct Guidelines and Heritage Overlay.
Loss of amenity; overlooking, overshadowing
Issues such as overlooking, overshadowing, noise and general compliance with the provisions of clause 55 are discussed in the assessment section of this report. This assessment concludes that overshadowing complies with the standard and is not considered to be unreasonable. The standard is concerned with shadows to secluded private open space areas. Additionally, adequate daylight is available to the adjoining habitable room windows, in accordance with the relevant standard. Overlooking is assessed in the body of the report.
Page 12 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Noise
The proposed use is residential and will have noise impacts consistent with those normal to a residential zone, unlike a commercial or an industrial use which would create noise impacts that are not normal to a residential zone. Speech, laughter, music etc. are noises associated with residential uses and are generally not a relevant consideration in assessing medium density development.
Excavation
Excavation may be required to construct the dwellings. This is not a valid planning consideration.
Precedent
The possibility of setting an undesirable precedent cannot be substantiated and is not a relevant planning consideration. This is particularly relevant given the strong likelihood the surrounding area is likely to revert to a Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
Extra rubbish bins
There are four (4) dwellings proposed, the site has a frontage of 14.02 metres with no crossovers to the street provided. There is sufficient space to accommodate the bins within the existing naturestrip. For a development of this scale it is reasonable for the collection of the bins to be the responsibility of the occupiers of each dwelling.
Inadequate open space/ Poor design
Secluded Private open space has been provided in accordance with the requirement of the Darebin Planning Scheme. It is the officer’s view the internal layout provides an acceptable level of internal amenity when assessed against Clause 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
Non-compliant with Building regulation
It is unclear what building requirements are not being met by this proposal however prior to construction a building permit would be required to be issued. Regardless the proposal would be assessed on its planning merits and is unable to consider matters that are to be dealt with under relevant building legislation.
Demolition of building
Heritage Overlay does not prevent a building from being demolished. The demolition must be assessed against the decision guidelines of the Overlay a full assessment can be found in the assessment section of this report.
Page 13 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Reason to move to the area is the old charm this is being eroded
Respondents have formed the view that the development and future residents of this building would disrupt the family feel of the area. This view runs against the principles of social inclusion, the values celebrated by Council in the Council Plan and is baseless and cannot be given consideration as part of the planning process.
Construction on boundary
Boundary construction can occur within the zone please see report for assessment. The height and length of boundary wall is appropriate.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Heritage Considerations:
The subject site is located within the Heritage Overlay (HO172) -
Referral comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor (summarised):
Property appears to be identified as significant however clearly a latter addition an independent Heritage Consultant should provide a report to confirm this.
The design is acceptable subject to the following modifications: - Confirm that render is to be used at first floor and red bricks at ground floor - Dwelling 1’s first floor to be in line with Dwelling 2 to ‘straighten it out’ - Provide a hipped roof form
A heritage report prepared by Green Heritage Compliance and Research was submitted and reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor, who agreed with the findings of the report the building had no heritage significance.
Statement Of Significance (Preston - Oakhill Avenue) – Taken from the Darebin Heritage Review (Andrew Ward, February 2001, Vol 1.)
Page 14 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The primary issue of significance is the aesthetic effect from the Inter – war dwellings constructed of brick and ‘spacious’ front gardens and low level front fences
The proposal is required to be assessed against the decision guidelines at Clause 43.01-4 of the overlay controls. Generally the proposal complies with all relevant policies and guidelines as:
Page 15 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state wide policies for residential development with respect to housing. The thrust of the policy is to Clause 11 is to accommodate projected population growth over a 15 year period. It also identifies that areas to public transportation are potential multi-unit developments.
Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage has the design objective for:
Heritage • New development should respect, but not simply copy, historic precedents and create a worthy legacy for future generations.
Heritage conservation
Objective • To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.
Strategies • Identify, assess and document places of natural and cultural heritage significance as a basis for their inclusion in the planning scheme. • 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.
Support adaptive reuse of heritage buildings whose use has become redundant.
Clause 16 sets out the housing diversity for the municipality with an objective to ‘promote a housing market that meets the community needs‘
Objective • To provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.
Strategies • Ensure housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice, particularly in the middle and outer suburbs.
Page 16 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Encourage the development of well-designed medium-density housing which: • Respects the neighbourhood character. • Improves housing choice. • Makes better use of existing infrastructure. • Improves energy efficiency of housing. • Support opportunities for a wide range of income groups to choose housing in well serviced locations.
Ensure planning for growth areas provides for a mix of housing types and higher housing densities in and around activity centres.
The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.
As submitted by the applicant and confirmed by Council’s Heritage Advisor it is considered that the building is not significant in heritage grounds, the building is built in the late 1960’s and is an anomaly in the street. It is key to ensure the replacement buildings sit comfortably within the Heritage context of the streetscape and area.
The proposal provides a front garden and low level fence, conditions requiring a simplified façade and hipped roof form will further allow for a sympathetic insertion within the street.
Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.
The site is located within the Preston Oakhill Avenue HO172. The City of Darebin Heritage Review 2000 Vol. 1 has a map that identifies the property as being a Significant Heritage Place. The heritage overlay citation was written by Andrew Ward describes key characteristics of the precinct as: • Garden Suburb character created by low fences, nature strips and a diversity of 1920’s and 1930’s (inter-war) house styles • The significant houses are the inter-war examples that are visually appealing through more pronounced architectural expression • The houses are uniformly middle class • The dominant building fabric is red brick and fences are rendered brick • Front gardens are larger than earlier subdivisions in the area.
The statement of significance goes on to say that: • The area is aesthetically significant with a diverse range of housing • Low front fences and spacious front gardens • Housing stock generally single storey with tiled roofs that are hipped or gabled.
The permit applicant has submitted a report from Green Heritage and comments provided by Council’s Heritage Advisor confirm that the site is not significant as outlined in the Andrew Ward Study. The building is not from the Interwar period, and without the aesthetic
Page 17 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
importance of the broader area with housing styles ranging from California Bungalows, English Cottages, Spanish Mission and Colonial Revival Vilas.
The proposal provides for a form that appropriately transition between the double storey to the south at 4 Oakhill and single storey to the north at 8 Oakhill and the units fronting Frier Avenue. Conditions will require a simplified upper storey and material palette to respect the area.
A low level front fence is proposed and sufficient area to plant front gardens are to be provided which responds to the statement of significance.
Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
The statement of significance places an importance on the large front spacious gardens and low level front fences, the design response provides for front garden and a low level fence. The site has been incorrectly identified as being a significant place by both Council’s Heritage Advisor and the applicant’s Heritage Consultant.
The proposal has been provided with a consistent front setback compared to the wider area, articulation through a smaller first floor compared to the ground floor and simplified building form.
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.
The building to the south is setback at 12.6 metres and the property to the north is setback 5.15 metres, the proposal is setback a minimum of 6 metres it is recommended that the setback is increased to a minimum of 7.01 metres to provide an appropriate transition within the street. The top levels are not setback the distance of one room however the porch element provides articulation and assist in achieving the intention of this design requirement.
Council’s Heritage Advisor recommends that the upper floor should be altered so Dwelling 1’s eastern bedroom is in line with Dwelling 2’s eastern bedroom and the roof form be altered to a hipped roof to provide a simplified first floor which can be read as a subordinate element within the streetscape.
The rear yard character in this location can be viewed as varied due largely to the sites proximity to the rear of Plenty Road commercial properties. Characteristic of properties with rear lane access there are example of outbuilding and garages located adjacent the Right of Way. Directly to the north at Frier Avenue there is a 7 dwelling development, which provides minimal landscaping.
One additional storey above the existing is considered to be an appropriate transition and there are setbacks of 4.26 metres and 4.75 metres which further reduce the impacts of the development. There are also examples nearby of two storey forms 3 Oakhill Avenue (opposite the subject site), 4 Oakhill Avenue (adjacent the subject site), 12 Oakhill Avenue, 13 Oakhill Avenue and 14 Oakhill Avenue. There are other examples of double storey buildings along Tyler Street and Plenty Road.
Page 18 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
As discussed above the building on site was not constructed during the inter-war period which forms the basis of the Heritage Overlay. A search of Council’s records indicates a building permit issue for the construction of a dwelling on 15 November 1968. The key values identified in the Statement of Significance do not appear to be impacted through the demolition of the building. This view is reflected in Council’s Heritage Advisor’s comments and the expert report submitted with the application.
Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
The proposed development will incorporate four (4) double storey dwellings, two (2) that will front Oakhill Avenue. A consistent setback of 7.08 metres is to be provided, with a low level front fence and sympathetic materials used, when the proposal is compared against the existing dwelling it is considered that the replacement building is an appropriate outcome.
Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
If the property is subdivided the property frontage would still appear as one building and it is considered that this would not impact upon 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.
If the property is subdivided the property frontage would still appear as one building and it is considered that this would not impact upon the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place as the form will still be read as one building and a low level front fence.
Whether the lopping or development will adversely affect the health, appearance or significance of the tree.
No trees have been identified within the schedule to the Heritage Overlay although vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of the application no significant trees are proposed to be removed and there is sufficient room to plant vegetation.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the purpose of the overlay.
Neighbourhood Character Precinct Guideline Assessment D5 Inter War
The Darebin Neighbourhood Character Study was introduced into the planning scheme as a reference document in 2008. The study identifies neighbourhood character precincts, with the subject land falling into Precinct D5, which covers a relatively large irregular area from south of Beauchamp Street to north of Northern hay Street and East of High Street and west of Albert Street. The style of development in this precinct is described as;
Californian bungalows and other interwar style dwellings surrounded by garden settings are typical of this precinct...Low front fences and low-scale but established gardens contribute to the openness of the area. Infill development in this precinct is generally limited and varied in style. Some newer homes are
Page 19 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
respectful of older style dwellings in terms of scale and form, whereas others tend to dominate streetscapes through the use of inappropriate materials or inconsistent scale.
The interwar styles and California Bungalows are evident within the immediate streetscape and there is limited infill development presumably from the Heritage Overlay and the single dwelling covenants within the area.
Existing Buildings
The existing building is to be demolished, the site is covered by a Heritage Overlay. The Heritage Overlay does not prohibit the demolition of buildings but requires a planning permit. The building is clearly from the late 60’s and at odds with the statement of significance provided in support of the Heritage Overlay.
Complies
Vegetation
The proposal provides for a large setback which can accommodate canopy trees and landscaping that is consistent with the neighbourhood character.
Complies
Siting
Provision has been made for front gardens.
The development provides adequate space for landscaping within the front setback and the rear yards of dwellings to provide for the planting of canopy trees.
The rhythm and spacing within the streetscape can be seen to be respected through the proposal, the dwellings are to be setback from the southern boundary and northern boundary apart from the garages located midblock. Within the Street there are examples of boundary construction (8 and 10 Oakhill Avenue). Taking into account the built form context of the surrounding properties it is considered that the design response is appropriate.
The proposed development will maintain a substantial front garden space compatible with the neighbourhood character. The garages for the proposed development will be located to the rear of the dwellings and will not dominate the streetscape vehicle access is to be obtained via the rear Right of Way with the crossover being reinstated which will provide no vehicle crossover to the frontage.
Complies
Height and building form
The predominate height within the Street has examples of single and double built form, the building is located to the southern end of Oakhill Avenue north of the Tyler Street intersection, where higher forms in Plenty Road are clearly visible.
Page 20 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The property to the south is a robust double storey building, to the north single storey dwellings and across Oakhill Avenue are examples of double and single storey dwellings to the east are the backs of commercial properties fronting Plenty Road. The proposal comprises four (4) double storey dwellings the two dwellings that front the street appear as one double storey dwelling. The character statement talks of respect for the predominate height and form the double storey form throughout the site can be seen as responding to its surrounding context.
The proposal presents to the street as a single double storey dwelling in an area containing a mixture of building styles, generally set behind low front fences. In this context, the proposed front dwellings are not disproportionate relative to the scale of buildings in the immediate area.
Complies
Frontage width
The predominate frontage widths within the street are 14 metres although two (2) dwellings are proposed the appearance will be of one building, that will maintain the predominate frontage widths within the street.
The character study allows for lengthways subdivision to occur if all other siting requirements are met. It is considered that through the design the buildings appear as one form, the design objective of the study has been met. Conditions will ensure compliance with all other siting requirements relating to the front setback.
Complies subject to condition
Materials and design detail
Articulation in the façade is achieved through the use of brick, render and lightweight surfaces to the walls, as well as setbacks and varied fenestrations in windows and door openings. The design detail can be further modified via condition to sit more comfortably within the streetscape. This can be achieved by providing a hipped roof and simplified material palette with the changes recommended the design and materials can be seen to appropriately respect the character of the existing dwellings and wider area.
Complies subject to condition
Front boundary treatment
A low level front fence is proposed.
Complies
Clause 55 Assessment
The following sections provide discussion on fundamental areas of Clause 55 including variations of standards and matters informing conditions of the recommendation above.
Page 21 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause 55.02-1 B1 Neighbourhood Character:
This element has been considered above in the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines Assessment. It is considered that the development subject to the modifications requested by Council’s heritage adviser would sit comfortably within its neighbourhood context.
Complies
Clause 55.02-2 B2 Residential Policy
The proposal is accompanied by an acceptable written statement and design response. The proposal generally complies with the State Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Policy Framework including Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
Complies
Clause 55.02-5 B5 Integration with the Street
The proposal provides adequate vehicle links via the Right of Way and pedestrian links with separate pedestrian entries. The development fronts the street network. No high front fencing is proposed.
Complies
Clause 55.03-1 B6 Street Setback
The front setbacks of the adjoining dwellings are 12.64 metres (calculated as 9 metres) and 5.15 metres. The standard therefore requires a setback of 7.075 metres.
The proposed front setback of 6 metres does not comply with the standard, a condition will seek compliance with the standard as there is a varied front setback within the streetscape with general setbacks around the 5 – 7 metres:
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.03-2 B7 Building Height
The proposed dwellings are to have a maximum height of 7.69 metres which complies with the standard requiring a maximum height not exceeding 9.0 metres.
Complies
Clause 55.03-3 B8 Site Coverage
The area covered by buildings should not exceed a site coverage of 60%. The site coverage is 41%.
Complies
Page 22 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause 55.03-4 B9 Permeability
To reduce the impact of increased stormwater run-off on the drainage system and to facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration, at least 20% of the site should be permeable. Permeability is 37%
Complies
Clause 55.03-7 B12 Safety
The entrances to the dwellings are adequately visible from the internal accessway and/or the street.
The development is designed to provide good lighting, visibility and surveillance of car parking and the internal accessway besides the north east corner of the site to Dwelling 4. A condition will require the fence to continue to the eastern bathroom wall of Dwelling 4.
The private open space within the development is protected from inappropriate use as a public thoroughfare.
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.03-8 B13 Landscaping
The surrounding landscape character is generally semi mature and informal with large open spaces and spacious setbacks.
The open spaces and setbacks are generally large enough to provide sufficient landscaping.
A detailed landscape plan will be required as a condition of any approval.
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.03-9 B14 Access
Vehicle access to and from the site is safe, manageable and convenient. The number and design of the vehicle crossover(s) respects the neighbourhood character.
The width of the accessway is 3.0 metres.
As part of the proposal there will be no vehicle crossover to the street which complies with the policy.
Adequate turning areas are provided to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction, although complex Council’s Traffic Unit have considered the internal layout appropriate. A condition will require swept path diagrams to indicate vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction.
Complies
Page 23 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause 55.03-10 B15 Parking Location
Parking facilities will be proximate to the dwellings they serve.
The proposed garages are an adequately secure form of parking.
The access is observable.
The west-facing habitable room windows of Dwellings 3 and 4 are set back from the accessway by at least 2 metres from the common accessway.
Complies
Clause 55.04-1 B17 Side and Rear Setbacks
Ground floor
Boundary Wall height Required Setback Proposed setback Northern – Dwelling 2 3.0 metres 1.0 metres 1.09 metres Northern – Dwelling 3 3.0 metres 1.0 metres 2.04 metres Northern – Dwelling 4 3.0 metres 1.0 metres 1.0 metres Eastern – Dwelling 4 3.0 metres 1.0 metres Against Right of Way on an angle Southern – Dwelling 4 4.2 metres 1.18 metres 4.61 metres Southern – Dwelling 3 4.2 metres 1.18 metres 4.61 metres Southern – Dwelling 1 3.0 metres 1.0 metres 3.09 metres
First Floor
Boundary Wall height Required Setback Proposed setback Northern – Dwelling 2 5.65 metres 1.62 metres 1.72 metres Northern – Dwelling 3 5.73 metres 1.64 metres 4.26 metres Northern – Dwelling 4 5.77 metres 1.65 metres 4.26 metres Eastern – Dwelling 4 5.87 metres 1.68 metres 2.0 metres Southern – Dwelling 4 5.67 metres 1.62 metres 4.75 metres Southern – Dwelling 3 5.61 metres 1.60 metres 4.75 metres Southern – Dwelling 1 5.75 metres 1.65 metres 3.72 metres
The eastern setback for Dwelling 4 is on an angle due to the lot boundary and Right of Way the non-compliance with the standard will have minimal impact as the boundary wall is adjacent a laneway.
Complies with objective
Page 24 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause 55.04-2 B18 Walls on Boundaries
The standard requires that a wall be of a length of no more than 10 metres plus 25% of the remaining length of the boundary of an adjoining lot, and a height not exceeding an average of 3.2 metres.
Boundary and length Maximum length Proposed length allowable Northern: 61.82 metres 22.96 metres 7.8 metres Eastern: 18.38 metres 12.1 metres Corner of Dwelling 4
The wall heights of 3.2 metres average comply with the standard.
Complies
Clause 55.04-3 B19 Daylight to Existing Windows
An area of at least 3.0 square metres with a minimum dimension of 1.0 metre clear to the sky is provided opposite all existing habitable room windows, which complies with the standard.
The development allows adequate daylight to neighbouring existing habitable room windows.
Complies
Clause 55.04-4 B20 North Facing Windows
There are no north-facing habitable room windows on adjoining properties which would be affected by the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of this standard.
Complies
Clause 55.04-5 B21 Overshadowing
Overshadowing of adjoining open space meets the standard and objective.
No additional overshadowing is caused to residential properties’ Secluded Private Open Space.
Complies
Clause 55.04-6 B22 Overlooking
The proposed dwellings have finished floor levels less than 0.8m above natural ground level at the boundary. Details of the ground floor fence levels have not been confirmed a condition will require that the northern, eastern and southern fences to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level, this will sufficiently limit overlooking.
Page 25 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The development is designed to limit views into neighbouring secluded private open space and habitable room windows.
All upper storey windows are appropriately screened to ensure no overlooking. However further details of the screening mechanism is required to confirm compliance with Standard B22
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.04-7 B23 Internal Views
Any potential for internal views between dwellings is minimised by proposed 1.8 metre high fences separating each dwelling’s secluded private open space.
Measures outlined under Standard B22 to screen views of adjoining properties also minimise internal views from upper levels.
The development is designed to limit views into the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within a development.
Complies
Clause 55.04-8 B24 Noise Impacts
There are no obvious noise sources to or from the development. A condition will require the confirmation of fall roof top equipment.
Complies
Clause 55.05-1 B25 Accessibility
The proposed dwellings can be made accessible for people with limited mobility by construction of a ramp, if required.
Complies
Clause 55.05-2 B26 Dwelling Entry
The entries are visible and easily identifiable. A sense of address and shelter is also provided. The walkway along the southern boundary has a sufficient width to allow pedestrian access and the entry arbor provides for an entry feature to Dwellings 3 and 4.
Complies
Clause 55.05-3 B27 Daylight to New Windows
Adequate daylight will be available to the windows in the new development.
All new habitable room windows within the development will be located to face an outdoor area of at least 3.0 square metres with a minimum dimension of 1.0 metre clear to the sky, except for Dwelling 2’s north facing lounge and kitchen windows which have an eave within the setback however there are alternative forms of solar access through east and west
Page 26 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
facing windows to allow for adequate solar penetration into the habitable rooms the objective can be seen to be met.
Complies with objective
Clause 55.05-4 B28 Private Open Space
The development provides adequate private open space (pos) for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.
This is achieved through the provision of 40 square metres of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 25 square metres, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room.
Total POS Secluded POS Minimum dimension of secluded POS Dwelling 1 83 square 41 square metres 4.64 metres metres Dwelling 2 80 square 38 square metres 5.24 metres metres Dwelling 3 40 square 32 square metres 3.59 metres metres Dwelling 4 61 square 49 square metres 3.0 metres metres
All secluded private open space areas have direct access to a living room.
Complies
Clause 55.05-5 B29 Solar Access to Open Space
Solar access is provided into the secluded private open space of the new dwellings as follows:
Wall Height to North Dwelling 1 N/A as no wall to north Dwelling 2 N/A as no wall to north Dwelling 3 N/A as no wall to north Dwelling 4 N/A as no wall to north
The depths outlined above apply to an area of secluded private open space of no less than 25 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3.0 square metres.
Complies
Page 27 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause 55.05-6 B30 Storage
Adequate storage facilities are provided for the dwellings. This is provided in the form of 6 cubic metres of externally accessible secure storage.
Complies
Clause 55.06-1 B31 Design Detail
The design detail has been assessed under the neighbourhood character and heritage guidelines areas previously in the report the design is acceptable subject to conditions
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.06-2 B32 Front Fences
The front fence is designed to respect the existing neighbourhood character. In this instance the fence height is low allowing the dwellings to be viewed from the street.
Complies
Clause 52.06 Car Parking
Number of Parking Spaces Required
One car parking space within a garage is provided for each of the one and two bedroom dwellings.
Design Standards for Car parking
The car parking spaces, the carports, the garaging and the accessways have appropriate dimension to enable efficient use and management.
The car parking facilities are designed, surfaced and graded to reduce run-off and allow stormwater to drain into the site.
Dwelling 1 and 2’s open lunge cannot reasonably be used as a bedroom, whilst Dwelling 3 and 4’s studies have dimensions and are open to the stairwell it is considered to adequately restrict their use as bedrooms.
Garage dimensions of 6.0 metres length x 3.5 metres width comply with the minimum requirements of the standard.
Access dimensions to the car spaces comply with the standard.
Visibility splays are required at the accessway interface with the Right of Way to protect pedestrians. This has been requested as a condition of approval.
Page 28 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
CLAUSE 55 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Clause Std Compliance Std Obj 55.02-1 B1 Neighbourhood character Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.02-2 B2 Residential policy The proposal complies with the relevant residential Y Y policies outlined in the Darebin Planning Scheme. Please see assessment in the body of this report
55.02-3 B3 Dwelling diversity N/A as development contains less than 10 dwellings N/A N/A
55.02-4 B4 Infrastructure Adequate infrastructure exists to support new Y Y development
55.02-5 B5 Integration with the street Dwellings 1 and 2 appropriately integrate with the Y Y Street. Please see assessment in the body of this report
55.03-1 B6 Street setback The required setback is 7.08 metres, Dwelling 2 is Y Y set back 7.2 metres and 6.6 metres from the street frontage and Dwelling 1 is setback 6.6 metres from the street frontage. A condition will require the setback to comply with the standard. Please see assessment in the body of this report
55.03-2 B7 Building height 7.69 metres. Y Y
55.03-3 B8 Site coverage 41% Y Y
55.03-4 B9 Permeability 37% Y Y
55.03-5 B10 Energy efficiency Dwellings are considered to be generally energy Y Y efficient and will not unreasonably impact adjoining properties.
55.03-6 B11 Open space N/A as the site does not abut public open space. N/A N/A
Page 29 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause Std Compliance 55.03-7 B12 Safety The proposed development is generally secure and Y Y the creation of unsafe spaces has been avoided, with the exception of the north east corner of the site opposite Dwelling 4’s kitchen wall. A condition will require the fence around the secluded private open space for Dwelling 4 to run in a straight line to the powder room. Please see assessment in the body of this report
55.03-8 B13 Landscaping Adequate areas are provided for appropriate Y Y landscaping and a landscape plan has been required as a condition of approval.
55.03-9 B14 Access Access is sufficient and respects the character of the Y Y area.
55.03-10 B15 Parking location Parking facilities are proximate to the dwellings they Y Y serve, the access is observable, habitable room windows are sufficiently set back from accessways.
55.04-1 B17 Side and rear setbacks The objective of this standard has been met. Please N Y see assessment in the body of this report
55.04-2 B18 Walls on boundaries Length: 7.8 metres Y Y Height:2.61 metres Walls on boundaries comply with the requirements of this standard.
55.04-3 B19 Daylight to existing windows Sufficient setbacks exist to allow adequate daylight Y Y
55.04-4 B20 North-facing windows There are no north facing windows within 3.0 metres N/A N/A of the common boundary with the subject site.
55.04-5 B21 Overshadowing open space Shadow cast by the development is within the Y Y parametres set out by the standard.
55.04-6 B22 Overlooking Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.04-7 B23 Internal views
Page 30 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause Std Compliance Internal views are appropriately treated to limit Y Y extent of internal overlooking.
55.04-8 B24 Noise impacts Noise impacts are consistent with those in a Y Y residential zone.
55.05-1 B25 Accessibility The ground levels of the proposal can be made Y Y accessible for people with limited mobility.
55.05-2 B26 Dwelling entry Entries to the dwellings are identifiable and provide Y Y an adequate area for transition.
55.05-3 B27 Daylight to new windows Please see assessment in the body of this report. N Y
55.05-4 B28 Private open space Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.05-5 B29 Solar access to open space Sufficient depth is provided for adequate solar Y Y access.
55.05-6 B30 Storage Sufficient storage areas are provided. Y Y
55.06-1 B31 Design detail Design detail of dwellings is appropriate in the Y Y neighbourhood setting. Please see assessment in the body of this report
55.06-2 B32 Front fences A 1 metre high front fence is proposed which is Y Y appropriate in the neighbourhood context.
55.06-3 B33 Common property Common property areas are appropriate and Y Y manageable.
55.06-4 B34 Site services Sufficient areas for site services are provided. Y Y
Page 31 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority Response Capital Works No objection, subject to condition included in recommendation. Transport Management and No objection, subject to condition included in Planning recommendation see body of report for details. Heritage Advisor No objection, subject to condition included in recommendation see body of report for details. Property Unit No objection.
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required • Clause 32.08-4 – development of the land for two or more dwellings • Clause 43.01-1 – demolish building and construction of a building
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme Relevant Clauses SPPF 11.02-1, 15.01-1, 15.01-5, 15.02, 16.01, 19.03-1 LPPF 21.05-1, 21.05-2, 21.05-3, 22.04 Zone 32.01 Overlay 43.01, 45.06 Particular provisions 52.06, 55 General provisions 65.01 Neighbourhood D5 Inter-War Character Precinct
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
All new dwellings are required to achieve a minimum six (6) star energy rating under the relevant building controls.
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Other
Nil
Page 32 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
Page 33 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
5.2 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/892/2014 703-707 Plenty Road, Reservoir VIC 3073 AUTHOR: Principal Planner – Jolyon Boyle
DIRECTOR: Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant Owner Consultant
Mister Plan Man VIP Refrigeration & Shop N/A Equipment Pty Ltd
SUMMARY: • Use of the land for the purpose of a funeral parlour. • The funeral parlour will not host burial services. • The funeral parlour comprises an office and an area for viewing the deceased. • 11 car parking spaces are provided on site. • A restrictive covenant applies. The proposal does not contravene the covenant. • A Commercial Zone 1 applies to the land. • Recommendation – It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued subject to conditions.
CONSULTATION: • Public notification was undertaken by the posting of letters to adjacent owners and occupier and the display of two (2) signs on site. • 55 objections were received. • The application was internally to Council’s Transport Management and Planning unit and the Property Management unit.
Page 34 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Planning Permit Application D/892/2014 be approved and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Drg No. 025414104 dated September 2014) but modified to show: a) One (1) disabled car parking space in accordance with AS2890.6:2009. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit. 2. The layout of the use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. This Permit will expire if the use is not started within three (3) years from the date of this Permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the time referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within six (6) months after the expiry date. 4. The amenity of the area must not be adversely affected by the use or development as a result of the: a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land; and/or b) Appearance of any building, works, stored goods or materials; and/or c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil; and/or d) In any other way, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 5. Funeral or memorial services must not be conducted on the land at any time. 6. The cremation of bodies must not be conducted on the land at any time. 7. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, the number of patrons on the premises at any one time must not exceed 40. 8. The use may operate only between the hours of 9:00am to 8:00pm. Viewing days must be by appointment only and must be between the hours of 7:00pm and 8:00pm. 9. The loading and unloading of bodies must only be carried out within the building with the roller doors shut. All loading and unloading from vehicles must only be carried out on the subject land and must be conducted in a manner which does not cause any interference with the circulation and parking of vehicles on the land or on abutting streets. 10. Noise from the premises must not exceed the relevant limits prescribed by the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1. 11. No goods, equipment, packaging material, or any other material/object must be stored, or left exposed, outside a building so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Page 35 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
12. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 13. Before the use starts areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be: a) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes; to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.
NOTATIONS: • Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. • Nothing in the granting of this permit should be construed as granting any permission other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations (including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals. • The amendments specified in Condition 1 of this Permit and any additional modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition. Any “necessary or consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this condition, should be specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment. • If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their approval under the relevant Sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more significant nature may require a new permit application. • This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the approval of this Planning Permit.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The site was previously occupied by Doors a-Plenty a retailer in doors and fittings.
Doors a-Plenty ceased trading in late 2013.
Page 36 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area • The site provides a width of 24.38 metres, a depth of 38 metres and an area of 924 square metres. • The site is located on the south west corner of Plenty Road and Walsal Avenue. • A right of way is located to the rear of the site. • The site accommodates a single storey commercial building constructed to the front and side boundaries and setback approximately 11 metres from the rear boundary. • On site car parking is located at the rear of the site with access to the right of way (ROW). • The building provides a pedestrian entrance to Plenty Road and Walsal Avenue. • Roller door access is provided to Walsal Avenue. • The site forms part of a larger commercial area located on either side of Plenty Road. • Residential properties are located to the rear of the site beyond the ROW and directly opposite the site on the opposite side of Plenty Road. • A Commercial 1 Zone applies to the land. • Land to the east west is located within residential zone. • Plenty Road is a Road Zone (category 1) road. • The site is subject to a Planning Scheme Amendment which seeks to introduce a Design and Development Overlay to the site and adjacent sites on Plenty Road. • South of the site, fronting Plenty Road, is a fruit and vegetable shop and associated car park. • North of the site at the corner of Plenty Road and Walsal Avenue is the Shamrock Hotel. A drive-through bottle shop associated with the hotel is located adjacent the Walsal Avenue frontage. • On the opposite side of Plenty Road are properties located with a General Residential Zone (Schedule 2). Further north on the opposite side of Plenty Road are further commercial premises located within the Commercial 1 Zone. • West of the site beyond the right of way is the side boundary associated with a single storey dwelling occupying of No. 1 Walsal Avenue. The side boundary of this property comprises a tall double brick fence. • Tram services are available on Plenty Road. Bus services are available on Plenty Road and Walsal Avenue.
Proposal
The proposal involves the use of the premises as a Funeral Parlour. Details are as follows: • The operation of the funeral parlour does not include funeral services. • The use includes cool room storage, preparation area and a viewing service for family and friends of the deceased.
Page 37 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The viewing area is located at the front of the site, with a maximum capacity for 40 people. • Office space, consultation rooms and toilet facilities are provided. • The hours of operation are 9:00am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday. • Viewing times are by appointment only and are generally between 7:00pm to 8:00pm. • Three (3) staff will be present on site. • Access to a garage is provided from Walsal Avenue. • 11 car parking spaces are provided at the rear of the site with access to the ROW. • The proposal does not include any external works to the existing building.
Amendment C137:
Amendment C137 applies to land abutting Plenty Road. The Amendment seeks to apply a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17 (DDO17) to land abutting Plenty Road. The amendment has been adopted by Council and exhibited. Submissions by Council and affected property owners have been presented to a Panel. The panel report was released in July 2014.
The amendment was informed by the Plenty Road Urban Design Framework which is proposed to be included as a reference document in DDO17. The proposed DDO17 contains requirements relating to building heights and form, setbacks and commercial frontages.
Objections • 55 objections were received.
Objections summarised • Use of land:
o The type of use is unsuitable for the area o Locating a funeral parlour near to schools, child care centre and pub is inappropriate
o It is not a normal business. • A funeral parlour is not socially or culturally acceptable • Car parking • Traffic congestion • Noise • Impact upon Heritage Overlay • Impact upon the bus stop • Property value.
Page 38 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Officer comment on summarised objections
Use of the land
The proposed use is one that is discretionary under the provisions of the Commercial 1 Zone. Therefore there is scope for a permit to be issued in this case. It cannot simply be asserted that because the proposal does not involve a typical commercial use such as a café or shop that the use is inappropriate or unsuitable within the zone. The zone provisions contemplate circumstances when it will be appropriate for a permit to be issued for a range of uses including a funeral parlour. The existence of discretion does not automatically mean that a permit should or will be issued. This is made clear under the provisions of clause 34.01-2. Rather, what needs to be considered is whether, in overall terms, the outcome is acceptable. In considering this issue, the attributes of the site make it a suitable candidate for a funeral parlour. The site previously operated as a shop and is located adjacent a category 1 main road with good access to public transport. The level of on-site parking is also high in comparison with other similar commercial properties in the wider area. The use does not include funeral services and would therefore have a reduced amenity impact compared to larger funeral parlours which would hold a larger number of people. The site also affords two (2) street frontages and is separated from the nearest residential property by a ROW, making it a relatively isolated site.
Social and cultural considerations
Potential social and cultural impacts are not relevant considerations when considering a planning application for a funeral parlour. An objection on the basis of social or cultural grounds runs against the principles of social inclusion is baseless and cannot be given consideration as part of the planning process.
Car parking and Traffic congestion
Car parking and traffic is considered under the Clause 52.06 assessment below.
Noise
The proposed use is commercial and will have noise impacts consistent with those normal to a commercial zone. The movement of people and speech are all noises generally associated with the operation of a commercial use. It is not considered that this use will be substantially different to the surrounding commercial uses along Plenty Road.
Heritage Overlay
The site and properties located immediately adjacent the site are not located within a Heritage Overlay. The proposal has no apparent impact upon the Heritage Overlay located north west of the site.
Impact upon the bus stop
The use will not have any impact upon the operation of the bus stop located adjacent the site on Walsal Avenue.
Property value
Property values are speculative and are not a relevant planning consideration.
Page 39 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Use:
The site is situated in a Commercial 1 Zone, which has the following purposes: • To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. • To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses. • To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.
The proposal involves the use of the existing premises as a Funeral Parlour. The Planning Scheme defines a funeral parlour as “Land used to organise and conduct funerals, memorial services, or the like. It includes the storage and preparation of bodies for burial or cremation”. In this case the site will not host funeral services (these are to be conducted elsewhere). The main use of the premises will be for administration and the storage, preparation and display of the deceased for viewing purposes.
The use is appropriately located in a Commercial 1 Zone. However, it is a section 2 use and requires an assessment of its potential impact upon the surrounding area. The following is noted in assessing the proposal against the relevant decision guidelines (Clause 34.01- 2):
The use will not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, through the: • Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land - the surrounding uses are similar in nature and it is expected that there would be some use of vehicles to transport goods to and from the site. However, loading and unloading may be confined to within the building by a condition on any approval. • Appearance of any stored goods or materials - the storage will be inside the building and will not be able to be viewed from the street or neighbouring properties. This may be included as a condition on any approval. • Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, odour, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil - This can be ensured by placing conditions on any approval.
The proposal generally complies with SPPF and LPPF in that it is located in a commercial area. The use is contained within a commercial building which has previously been used as a shop. The use essentially involves administration and the storage and the preparation of the deceased for viewing by relatively small groups of friends and family. Nonetheless the site is located adjacent a residential zone and therefore the use should be sensitive to this context.
Objections to the proposal contend that the use will have a negative impact upon the amenity of the neighbourhood. The impact of funeral parlours has been considered on numerous occasions by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, who have found that only in compelling circumstances would the impact associated with a funeral parlour warrant the refusal of a planning application.
Page 40 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Whether the impact of a funeral facility will be of such concern is a matter of judging the particular circumstances of the use’s physical context and layout and the decision guidelines of the planning scheme.
In Chun v Mitchell Shire Council, Member Margaret Baird concluded that: “…the Tribunal accepts…that funeral parlours and their association with death can potentially be disturbing to members of the community…However, put simply, a case has not been made out to enable the Tribunal to find that, based on the decisions guidelines of the Planning Scheme that must be applied, the proposed funeral parlour will cause such detriment that the proposal should be rejected,. Rather the layout of the proposed use and its peak operation will minimise the impact of its presence on the adjacent site….”
This is further elaborated upon by Member Hadjigeorgiou Walsh V Banyule CC: “Like in so many other instances once the operation of such a use begins after the initial concerns subside the residents generally continue to exist quite comfortably with their neighbours. The key issues of concern such as the delivery and removal of deceased persons has been sensitively designed to ensure such activities are undertaken out of public view. That is the vehicles are located and parked at the rear of the building. Given the low intensity of use and activity on site it is unlikely that parking will be at such a level as to cause an impact on street Thus I am of the view that while there may be a circumstance when the psychological impact of a funeral parlour nearby may be such that would lead to a refusal (perhaps locating one next to an aged person home) there is nothing in this application that would bring me to that conclusion…”
In this case the existing building is being maintained. The existing building presents discreetly to the adjacent residential area, noting that all windows facing Walsal Street and the ROW provide opaque glazing which restrict any opportunity for pedestrians to gain views into the building. There are no expanses of windows to the building that would allow views into the cool room or preparation room. The windows presenting to the corner and the Plenty Road frontage provide clear glazing and could be internally screened to provide privacy if required.
This type of use is not one which is generally visited by the public, save for friends and relatives of the deceased. Further, the operation is able to be mindful of the effects on residents and can take relatively simple measures to ensure potentially disturbing activity is minimised and hidden from public view. For example, the loading/unloading area is contained within the building and should be done within the premises with the roller door shut so as not to draw attention to the use.
The proposed hours of operation are 9:00am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday. Viewing times are by appointment only and will generally be between 7:00pm and 8:00pm. The proposed hours of operation are close to or within standard daylight business hours and are compatible with the nearby area, which includes some uses with later operating hours including the Shamrock Hotel.
Three (3) staff will be present on site which is considered to be relatively low.
The nearby commercial uses will not have an impact on the subject proposal.
Page 41 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The use of the site is not identified under Clause 52.10 (Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential).
Adequate services are available for the use given that it is an established area. Transport to and from the site is able to use the surrounding road network and will not affect amenity. It is not expected that there will be any unreasonable increase in traffic or parking. Parking, access and loading is discussed below.
It is considered that subject to conditions, the use is acceptable for the site and area.
Car Parking:
The use seeks to accommodate a maximum of 40 patrons. Clause 52.06 recommends the provision of 0.3 car parking spaces to each patron permitted to a Funeral Parlour.
Use Requirement Parking provided Requirement Funeral Parlour 0.3 spaces / patron permitted 11 spaces 12 spaces
The proposal provides 11 spaces on the site where clause 52.05 recommends the provision of 12 spaces. In assessing whether sufficient car parking is provided on the site the following is noted: • There is no parking precinct plan to which Council may assess the proposal therefore the assessment of the application must be on its merits. • The car parking reduction sought is limited to one (1) space. • On-street car parking is available on nearby streets. • Public Transport is available with tram services available on Plenty Road and bus services available on Plenty and Walsal Avenue. • The use does not involve funeral or memorial services which typically attract a greater parking demand. • The historical use of the premises has been as a shop which has a car parking rate of approximately double the rate required for a funeral parlour. • Pedestrian amenity will not alter. • The development will generate some additional vehicle movements on the local road network, however it is not considered that such additional movements would necessarily conflict substantially with existing traffic. Furthermore patrons and staff may choose to use public transport which is available on Plenty Road and Walsal Avenue. • The Transport Management and Planning Unit advise that the 11 car spaces would be sufficient for the proposed use.
For above reasons it is not considered that the use will place an unreasonable load on the traffic and parking conditions and the parking provision is considered acceptable.
Page 42 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Amendment C137:
Amendment C137 applies to land abutting High Street and Plenty Road. The Amendment seeks to introduce a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17 (DDO17) to the site and surrounding land fronting Plenty Road. The amendment has been adopted by Council and exhibited. Submissions by Council and affected property owners have been presented to a Panel and the Panel report has been released. This policy is therefore at the seriously entertained stage.
The proposal does not conflict with the aims and objectives of Amendment C137.
Conclusion:
The site is within a commercial area and is not expected to cause unreasonable detriment to surrounding uses. The provision of car parking is also acceptable for the site and area.
It is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of the State Planning Policy Framework, Local Planning Policy Framework, and Municipal Strategic Statement and is therefore acceptable.
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority Response Property Management No objection. Transport Management No objection, subject to a condition included in and Planning recommendation.
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required • Clause 34.01 – Use of land for the purpose of a funeral parlour • Clause 52.06 – A reduction to the car parking requirement
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme Relevant Clauses SPPF 11.02-1, 17.01-1, 19.02-4 LPPF 21.05-6 Zone 34.01 Overlay 45.06 Particular provisions 52.06 General provisions 65.01 Neighbourhood N/A Character Precinct
Page 43 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
Nil
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Other
Nil
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
Page 44 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
5.3 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/476/2014 15A Tovey Street, Reservoir VIC 3073 AUTHOR: Principal Planner – Craig Murphy
DIRECTOR: Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant: Owner: Graphos Architects Pty Ltd Newco Corporation Pty Ltd; Glendale Investments Group Pty Ltd; Benvale Excavations Pty Ltd
SUMMARY: • This application was reported to the Planning Committee on 22 December 2014. At the meeting it was resolved to defer the item for further consultation between the applicant and objectors. • By email on 27 January 2015, the applicant respectfully declined to engage in further consultation on the basis that significant effort had been made following the notice period. No consultation has been undertaken (refer Background below). • The land is located within the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (GRZ1). • In April 2014 Council was alerted that a number of portable living units had been placed on the land without obtaining a planning permit. Following investigation by Council’s Planning Investigation Officer it was revealed that no permit had been obtained for the current use of the land which commenced in or around 2008/2009. • The applicant now seeks retrospective approval to use the land for the purpose of a Residential Building (Supported Residential Services) and construct buildings and works to extend the existing building (comprising 28 portable living units). • Car parking is to be provided to Council’s satisfaction. • The Certificate of Title does not indicate that there is a restrictive covenant which applies to the land. • It is recommended that the application be approved and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to conditions.
CONSULTATION: • Notice of the application was given under Section 52(1) of the Act by mailing of notices to affected properties. • 52 objections have been received to date.
Page 45 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The application was referred externally to SP Ausnet and Public Transport Victoria for comment. • The application was referred internally to Council Capital Works and Transport Management and Planning units for comment.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Planning Permit Application D/476/2014 be approved and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Project No. 14-999, Drawing Nos. A02 and A03 (both Rev. A) prepared by Graphos Architects) but modified to show: a) Deletion of reference to ‘Proposed extremity of easement’. b) The height of fences on the northern and western boundaries (where adjacent to 21-25 Tovey Street and 8-24 Ryan Street but not including the SPI PowerNet easement) to be a minimum height of 1.8 metres as measured above natural ground level. Where necessary, the fence height may be increased by raising the height of the fence or by the provision of free-standing, self-supporting trellis adjacent the fence to the required height. If utilised, such trellis must be a maximum of 25% open and be fixed, permanent, durable and coloured or painted to blend with the development. c) Provision of a clearly defined and lit (e.g. baffled bollard lighting) pedestrian path between the driveway adjacent to the site entry and building foyer. d) Areas set aside for the storage/collection of waste in accordance with Condition No. 7 of this Permit. e) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition No. 8 of this Permit.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit. 2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. The layout of the use(s) as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 4. This Permit will expire if either: • The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this Permit; or • The development is not completed or the use is not started within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
Page 46 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing: • Before this Permit expires; • Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or • Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion of the development or a stage of the development. 5. Within 60 days of the date of issue of this permit, a Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must include: a) The name and contact details of the person responsible for the day to day management of the premises; b) A requirement for a sign to be displayed in a location visible to the public detailing the name and contact details of the person who can be contacted to respond to incidents in the surrounding area; c) Arrangements for the maintenance of landscaped areas; d) Arrangements to provide information to residents regarding public transport and taxi services in the area; e) House rules for the purposes of protecting the amenity of the area and details of their distribution to Supported Residential Services residents; f) Arrangements for a register of complaints from residents of the Merrilands Estate area regarding the appearance of the facility or the behaviour of residents and arrangements for access to the register by Darebin City Council; and g) Arrangements to ensure prompt responses by the management of the Supported Residential Services facility to reported behavioural incidents by Supported Residential Services residents that occur in the Merrilands Estate neighbourhood.
The use must operate and be managed in accordance with the conditions and provisions of the approved Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 6. The number of lodging rooms available for residents at any one time must not exceed 100. 7. Within 60 days of the date of issue of this permit, a waste management plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, demonstrating the operation of the garbage and recyclables storage area must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
The plan/documentation must demonstrate the means by which garbage and recyclables will be stored on the site and must clearly detail: what waste services will be provided (ie. cardboard paper plastic and metals recycling or comingled waste, general waste and even organic waste), types of bins, types of collection vehicles, frequency of collection, times of collection, location of collection point for vehicles, location of bins for collection and any other relevant matter. The plan may require bin sharing or that collection be undertaken by a private contractor if it cannot be
Page 47 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that the kerb-side collection of individual bins will not cause car parking and/ or amenity issues.
Waste storage and collection must be undertaken in accordance with the approved management plan and must be conducted in such a manner as not to affect the amenity of the surrounding area and which does not cause any interference with the circulation and parking of vehicles on abutting streets. 8. Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must incorporate: a) Detail of communal open space. b) Details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed, including overhanging trees on adjoining properties. The genus, species, height and spread of all trees must be specified. c) A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants. The planting schedule must comply with the requirements of SP Ausnet (refer Condition Nos. 14-21 of this Permit). d) Details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and hard paving (such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel). e) Street trees within the nature strip/s adjacent to the property. f) All constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting, clotheslines etc. g) Edge treatment between grass (lawn) and garden beds. h) An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of entry doors, windows, gates and fences. An outline of buildings on adjoining land, including the location of windows and doors which face the subject site must also be shown. i) The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services. Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided. j) Clear graphics identifying trees (deciduous and evergreen), shrubs, groundcovers and climbers. k) A scale, North Point and appropriate legend.
The species of all proposed plants selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
Page 48 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
10. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 11. The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 12. Before occupation of the development, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be: a) Constructed; b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans; c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat; and d) Drained
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose. 13. The amenity of the area must not be adversely affected by the use or development as a result of the: a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land; and/or b) Appearance of any building, works, stored goods or materials; and/or c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil; and/or
in any other way, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
SP AUSNET CONDITIONS 14. No part of the proposed buildings, including eaves, awnings, canopies, shelters and the like, is permitted on SPI PowerNet's easement. 15. Any services traversing the easement must be installed underground. 16. All trees and shrubs planted on the easement must not exceed 3 metres maximum mature growth height. 17. The storage of flammable materials is not permitted on the easement. 18. Natural ground surface levels on the easement must not be altered by the stockpiling of excavated material or by landscaping without prior written approval from SPI PowerNet. 19. Vehicles and equipment exceeding 3 metres operating height are not permitted on the easement during construction without prior written approval from SPI PowerNet. 20. Scaffolding is not permitted on the easement. 21. All future works within the easement must be submitted to SPI PowerNet and approved in writing prior to the commencement of work on site.
Page 49 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
NOTATIONS (These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this permit or conditions of this permit)
N1 Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. N2 Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations (including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals. N3 The amendments specified in Condition 1 of this Permit and any additional modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition. Any “necessary or consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this condition, should be specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment. If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their approval under the relevant sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more significant nature may require a new permit application. N4 This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the approval of this Planning Permit. N5 This permit absorbs Council’s satisfaction for the provision of car parking under Clause 52.06-5A of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Council records indicate the following Planning Permit applications relevant to the subject land: • PT1291 – Permit issued for an Aged Care Facility • PT4103 – Permit issued for the construction of a garden shed • PT4749 – Permit issued for an extension to the existing building • PT6283 – Permit issued for the construction of a garage • D/237/99 – Permit issued for alterations to the existing building • D/269/2002 – Permit issued for alterations to the existing building • D/139/2006 – Refusal issued for the display of a promotion sign.
Page 50 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
In April 2014 Council was alerted that a number of portable living units had been placed on the land without obtaining a planning permit. Following investigation by Council’s Planning Investigation Officer it was revealed that no permit had been obtained for the current use of the land which commenced in or around 2008/2009. This application was reported to the Planning Committee on 22 December 2014. At the meeting it was resolved that: • This application be deferred to a Planning Committee meeting in early 2015 to allow sufficient time for the applicant and objectors to have time for further discussions on the proposed 28 portable buildings and for Council to receive further details on the Management Plan addressing major points of objection. • Council facilitate the consultation between the Applicant and Objectors. • Further information be provided regarding the Waste Management Plan. • Further information be provided regarding Parking. • Further information be provided on the optimum number of dwellings.
Via email on 27 January 2015 the applicant respectfully declined to engage in further consultation. The basis for this was that the applicant had already gone to lengths to consult with objectors following the notice period including mailing of letters and facilitating a meeting to discuss issues at the Reservoir Lodge facility.
It is understood the applicant has forwarded written correspondence to all Councillors respectfully declining the invitation for consultation along with a full set of reasons.
Following this, Council officers have determined that facilitating consultation with the absence of the permit applicant would yield no benefit to the resolution of the issues, or the timely determination of the application at hand.
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area • The subject site is a large, generally triangular parcel of 1.267 hectares bound by the residential lots fronting Tovey Street (north), McShane Street (east), Glasgow Avenue (south) and Ryan Street (west). • The site is located within the General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 and is encumbered by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay. • A number of easements traverse the site. Notably these include 1.83 metre drainage and electricity easements around the entire perimeter of the site, and a 34.21-56.82 metre wide electricity easement that encompasses the entire south-east portion of the site. • The site is currently occupied by a single storey building comprising 49 lodging rooms and associated common facilities. A driveway, sheds and open car parking area are located along the northern side of the property. Until 2008/2009 this configuration was used as a Residential Aged Car Facility. • The site is located within the Merrilands residential estate. The area comprises a uniform and intact residential subdivision with a generally consistent grain and prevailing detached housing stock.
Page 51 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The sites immediately abutting the subject land comprises single detached single storey dwellings of post-war brick construction with tile hipped roofs. Many dwellings have had more recent flat roof/lean-to extensions to the rear and/or construction of garages within the rear setback. The land at No. 2 Ryan Street is currently vacant. • The site itself forms one of a number parcels set aside originally (in 1921) as a park reserve. Many of these have since been discontinued and utilised for non-residential uses. • The site’s hinterland location is serviced by bus services 558 and 555 in close proximity with Ruthven Railway Station located approximately 1km south-east.
Proposal • The applicant seeks retrospective approval for the use of the land as a Residential Building - Supported Residential Services (SRS). • It is proposed to construct buildings and works to extend the existing building comprising 28 portable living units. • The existing building comprises 49 lodging rooms with communal facilities throughout. • The extension includes 23 two-bedroom and 5 one-bedroom units. • Car parking is to be provided to the satisfaction of Council and is reliant on the existing 22 spaces within the existing car park area.
Objections
• 52 objections have been received to date.
Objections summarised • Neighbourhood Character • Density and overdevelopment • Noise • Alleged criminal and anti-social behaviour • Safety • Traffic and Car Parking • Proximity of development to neighbouring properties • Loss of vegetation • Rates and revenue from the proposed use • Application lodgement date • Devaluation of property and neighbourhood reputation • Cessation of former use as a Residential Aged Care Facility and retrospective nature of the current application • Proximity of other similar facilities.
Page 52 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Officer comment on summarised objections
Neighbourhood Character
The test under the Scheme is for development to respect neighbourhood character – not necessarily replicate it. Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy (2007) provides the relevant design guidelines which are set out in the Planning Assessment below.
Density and overdevelopment
The development of the site needs to be considered with regard to the characteristics of the site and surrounds. The 100 lodging rooms proposed will be across the site’s substantial 1.267 hectare area, adopts a single storey height and low site coverage of under 25%.
Noise
The use is characterised under ‘Accommodation’ and for the reasons set out in the planning assessment below is appropriate for the residential context. The resultant noise will be generally typical to an urban residential area and conditions requiring a facility management plan to be provided will adequately manage any off-site amenity impacts as a result of the use.
Alleged criminal and anti-social behaviour
Allegations of criminal and anti-social behaviour are a matter handled by Victoria Police and are not able to be considered under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or the Darebin Planning Scheme.
Safety
There is no indication that the proposed development will result in an unsafe environment. The new living units will be connected to the existing building via a covered walkway area and a condition will require a clearly defined pedestrian path be provided to the building entry.
Traffic and Car Parking
The provision of car parking does not form a planning permit trigger for the current application (as distinct from Council satisfaction). In any event, having regard to the amenity of the surrounding area the car parking provided on site is acceptable for the anticipated demand. Further details are provided in the assessment below.
Proximity of development to neighbouring properties
The proposed living units are well set back from the site’s boundaries well in excess of the requirement of Clause 55.04-1 – Standard B17.
Page 53 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Loss of vegetation
Only two (2) existing trees are proposed for removal as part of the proposal which is acceptable given the absence of any vegetation controls and extent of landscaping to be retained. Furthermore, a condition will require a landscape plan to be provided prior to the commencement of the development.
Rates and revenue from the proposed use
The collection of rates and revenue from the use and development of land is not a relevant planning consideration.
Application lodgement date
An objector has expressed concern with the application lodgement date. Review of the documentation indicates that the application was erroneously dated received (i.e. stamped) as 16 June 2013 in lieu of 2014. This error is purely clerical and has been corrected in Council’s register.
Devaluation of property and neighbourhood reputation
The devaluation of property is speculative and not a relevant planning consideration.
Cessation of former use as a Residential Aged Care Facility and retrospective nature of the current application
The retrospective nature of the application has no influence in Council’s discretion as responsible authority however does provide a better appreciation of the proposed use in its context. The long-standing principle for retrospective applications sets out "the permit applicant should neither be punished nor rewarded for undertaking work before a permit was obtained." (see Van Egmond v City of Knox, Bassett & Ors (1985) PABR 249).
Proximity of other similar facilities
The Darebin Planning Scheme does not place a threshold distance or cap on the number of SRS facilities in particular areas. Rather the purpose of the zone is to provide such facilities to serve local community needs. The applicant’s need to provide additional lodging rooms demonstrates a community need, thus the use of the land generally gives effect to the purpose of the zone.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Use – Residential Building (Supported Residential Services)
The applicant seeks retrospective approval for the use of the land as a Residential Building forming a Section 2 use under the provisions of the General Residential Zone. Specifically, the building will comprise a SRS facility which provides a range of support services and accommodate to a diverse range of the community.
Page 54 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Importantly, the operational requirements of the SRS are governed under the provisions of the Supported Residential Services (Private Proprietors) Act 2010 and the Supported Residential Services (Private Proprietors) Regulations 2012. Consequently, Council’s consideration is strictly limited to the appropriateness of the proposed land use under the provisions of the zone. The zone sets out (as relevant) the following decision guidelines: • The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. • The purpose of this zone. • Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use. • Whether the use generally serves local community needs. • The scale and intensity of the use and development. • The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works. • The proposed landscaping. • The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways. • Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities. • The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.
The proposed use satisfies the above guidelines on the basis of the following: • The proposed use is broadly supported by State and local policy including Clause 16 which encourages a mix of housing types that responds to community needs. Clause 19.02-1 specifically seeks to “[f]acilitate the location of health-related facilities (including acute health, aged care, disability services and community care facilities) with consideration given to demographic trends, the existing and future demand requirements and the integration of services into communities”. Furthermore, both Council’s current, and recently adopted Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) support the proposed use. In particular, Clause 21.05-3 of the adopted MSS noted the potential for community services to be delivered more locally in response to community needs and trends. • The purpose of the GRZ specifically allows, among other things, community uses the serve local community needs in appropriate locations. • A residential building sits under the broader ‘Accommodation’ group of land uses and primarily serves to accommodate persons. This is similar to a dwelling use save for the accommodation provided not being of a self-contained form of housing. This approach is consistent with a raft of Tribunal decisions including 332 Alma Road Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2008] VCAT 2254 and O'Connor Assets Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2014] VCAT 69. In O’Connor the Tribunal specifically noted that “[The SPPF] sets the principle that such accommodation is appropriate in all residential areas”. To ensure the ongoing operation of the use adequately respects the amenity of the surrounding area, and to supplement the independent legislation that governs the facility, the provision of a facility management plan has been included as a condition. • The combined application received that seeks to expand the existing building confirms that there is community need for the services provided in the SRS.
Page 55 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The appropriateness of the scale, intensity layout of the use is measured through the objectives, standards and decision guidelines set out in Clause 55 (refer assessment below). In this case, the intensity of the use given the characteristics of the site is relatively benign. A condition will limit the provision of lodging rooms to a maximum of 100. • Car parking matters are considered independently under the provisions of Clause 52.06 (refer assessment below). • Due to the site’s narrow frontage to Tovey Street, the collection of waste from the site presents some management difficulty. Due to the number of lodging rooms proposed the provision of a waste management plan is appropriate and has been required by means of condition.
Neighbourhood Character Precinct Guideline Assessment
The subject site is located within Neighbourhood Character Precinct G4 which sets out the following preferred future character statement: The established residential character of this area will be retained and enhanced, with a combination of larger scale single dwellings or townhouses in the west and smaller scale dwellings, units and townhouses in east of the precinct closer to the rail line. Some older dwellings will be extended and renovated, and new dwellings will be contemporary in design and will reflect the predominant building materials, colours and forms in the streetscape. New development will also adopt front and side setbacks that are consistent with those in the area, providing adequate garden area around buildings for planting of substantial vegetation. Further planting of vegetation, particularly canopy trees, will be encouraged in existing private gardens, to create a more leafy feel to the area. Adjoining the Merri, Edgars and Central Creeks, new development and redevelopment will interact with the creek corridor, fronting onto this space and providing open fencing. The planting themes of the creek corridor will be encouraged in private gardens, providing a stronger reference and link to this important landscape element in the precinct.
Although typically applied to the construction of self-contained dwellings, the Scheme requires that all development within residential zones provide an appropriate fit with the neighbourhood’s character. The proposed extension of the existing building comprising 28 portable living units provides an acceptable response to the precinct design objectives as follows:
Vegetation
The development retains the existing vegetation that aligns the site boundaries as well as providing ample opportunities for future landscaping within communal areas.
A condition will require a detailed landscape plan for the site.
Complies subject to condition
Siting
As noted above the development retains significant space for landscaping throughout the site, notwithstanding restrictions in the electricity easement.
Page 56 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The siting of the proposed units respects the prevailing character being set off the site boundaries by at least 3.0 metres and providing space between the individual living units.
Car parking is being retained as existing and will not be visible to the public realm.
Complies
Height and Building Form
Each of the proposed living units is of a single storey height compatible with the prevailing character.
The units are comparatively small in the context of the site and the visual separation reflects the detached character of the area.
Complies
Materials and Design Details
The proposed living units adopt non-descript design details and a modest gabled roof form which are seen widely in the immediate area. The units are constructed of a horizontal profile, painted weatherboard cladding which is an appropriate material for the precinct.
Complies
Front Boundary Treatment
No front fence is proposed for the site’s narrow street frontage which is an acceptable design response.
Complies
Clause 55 Assessment
The following sections provide discussion on fundamental areas of Clause 55 including variations of standards and matters informing conditions of the recommendation above.
Clause 55.04-6 B22 Overlooking
The proposed living units are single storey and have finished floor levels less than 0.8 metres above natural ground level at the boundary. A condition will require that the boundary fences (where adjacent to the proposed units) provide an effective visual barrier to a minimum height of 1.8 metres.
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.05-2 B26 Dwelling Entry
The building fronts the site entry from Tovey Street and generally provides an adequate entry for the site. A condition will require a clearly defined and lit pedestrian path between the shared parking spaces/site entry areas to the building foyer.
Page 57 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.05-4 B28 Private Open Space
The development provides adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.
The residential building is provided with over 4,500 square metres of private open space across multiple areas of the site.
Complies
Clause 55.06-3 B33 Common Property
The public, communal and private areas within the development are clearly delineated. The common property is functional and capable of efficient management.
The communal areas associated with the building form a key component of the site and a condition requiring a landscape plan will set out the details and specifications of the communal areas of the site.
Complies subject to condition
Clause 55.06-4 B34 Site Services
Sufficient area is provided to allow for the installation and the maintenance of site services. As noted above, a waste management plan will be required for the site to ensure adequate waste storage and collection is undertaken.
Complies subject to condition
Clause 52.06 Car Parking
Clause 52.06-5A states:
“Where a use of land is not specified in Table 1 or where a car parking requirement is not specified for the use in another provision of the planning scheme or in a schedule to the Parking Overlay, before a new use commences or the floor area or site area of an existing use is increased, car parking spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.”
The proposed car parking is satisfactory for the following reasons: • The existing car park located to the north-east corner of the site will be retained in its current arrangement comprising 22 spaces. • Additional spaces will be provided at the building entry including two (2) dedicated accessible spaces. • Staff numbers are low generally comprising four (4) persons from 7.00am-7.00pm and one (1) on-site manager.
Page 58 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Visitors to the site are anticipated to be low and intermittent with the only regular vehicle trip comprising an on-site doctor once per week. • Most residents seek support services off-site providing integration and access to the broader community. • Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit has expressed no objection to the proposed use.
Imposing conditions relating to staff numbers is not considered appropriate in this instance as: • There is no permit requirement (as distinct from Council satisfaction) for car parking; and • Maximum staff numbers may in turn conflict with requirements under the Supported Residential Services (Private Proprietors) Act 2010 and associated Regulations.
Conditions imposed limiting the magnitude of the use to a maximum of 100 lodging rooms will indirectly limit the car parking demand of the site.
CLAUSE 55 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Clause Std Compliance Std Obj 55.02-1 B1 Neighbourhood character Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.02-2 B2 Residential policy The proposal complies with the relevant residential Y Y policies outlined in the Darebin Planning Scheme.
55.02-3 B3 Dwelling diversity The development does not contained any self- N/A N/A contained dwellings.
55.02-4 B4 Infrastructure Adequate infrastructure exists to support new Y Y development
55.02-5 B5 Integration with the street The existing building entry adequately addressed Y Y the site frontage.
55.03-1 B6 Street setback No change proposed. Y Y
55.03-2 B7 Building height 3.63 metres Y Y
55.03-3 B8 Site coverage 23% Y Y
Page 59 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause Std Compliance
55.03-4 B9 Permeability 70% Y Y
55.03-5 B10 Energy efficiency Portable living units provided with external shading Y Y devices.
55.03-6 B11 Open space N/A as the site does not abut public open space. N/A N/A
55.03-7 B12 Safety The proposed development is secure and the Y Y creation of unsafe spaces has been avoided.
55.03-8 B13 Landscaping Adequate areas are provided for appropriate Y Y landscaping and a landscape plan has been required as a condition of approval.
55.03-9 B14 Access Access is sufficient and respects the character of Y Y the area.
55.03-10 B15 Parking location Parking facilities are proximate to the building, the Y Y access is observable, habitable room windows are sufficiently set back from accessways.
55.04-1 B17 Side and rear setbacks Dwellings are set back in accordance with the Y Y requirements of this standard.
55.04-2 B18 Walls on boundaries No on boundary construction is proposed N/A N/A
55.04-3 B19 Daylight to existing windows Sufficient setbacks exist to allow adequate daylight Y Y
55.04-4 B20 North-facing windows There are no north facing windows within 3.0 N/A N/A metres of the common boundary with the subject site.
55.04-5 B21 Overshadowing open space Shadow cast by the development is within the Y Y parametres set out by the standard.
Page 60 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause Std Compliance 55.04-6 B22 Overlooking Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.04-7 B23 Internal views There are no internal views Y Y
55.04-8 B24 Noise impacts Noise impacts are consistent with those in a Y Y residential zone.
55.05-1 B25 Accessibility All lodging rooms are accessible via the integrated Y Y covered walkway.
55.05-2 B26 Dwelling entry Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.05-3 B27 Daylight to new windows Adequate setbacks are proposed to allow Y Y appropriate daylight access.
55.05-4 B28 Private open space Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.05-5 B29 Solar access to open space Sufficient depth is provided for adequate solar Y Y access.
55.05-6 B30 Storage The proposal does not comprise individual N/A N/A dwellings.
55.06-1 B31 Design detail Design detail of the building is appropriate in the Y Y neighbourhood setting.
55.06-2 B32 Front fences No front fence is proposed which is acceptable. Y Y
55.06-3 B33 Common property Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
55.06-4 B34 Site services Please see assessment in the body of this report. Y Y
Page 61 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority Response Capital Works No objection, subject to condition included in recommendation. Transport Management and No objection. Planning SP Ausnet No objection, subject to condition included in recommendation. Public Transport Victoria No objection.
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required • Clause 32.08-1: Use of the land as a Residential Building • Clause 32.08-4: Extension of a Residential Building • Clause 32.08-6: Buildings and works associated with a Section 2 Use
Clause 52.06-5 does not define a rate for a residential building; therefore car parking is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme Relevant Clauses SPPF 11.02-1, 15.01-1, 15.01-5, 15.02, 16.01, 19.03-1 LPPF 21.05-1, 21.05-2, 21.05-3, 22.04 Zone 32.08 Overlay 45.06 Particular provisions 52.06, 52.36, 55 General provisions 65.01, 66.02 Neighbourhood G4 Character Precinct
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
The building will be subject to the requirements of Section J of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Page 62 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Other
Nil
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
Page 63 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
5.4 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/421/2014 185 Wingrove Street, Fairfield VIC 3078 AUTHOR: Principal Planner – Jacquie Payne
DIRECTOR: Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant Owner Consultant
David De Giovanni Town Brian Douglas Reed N/A Planning
SUMMARY: • It is proposed to remove the existing dwelling and construct one (1) dwelling and four (4) units (as labelled on the plan) three (3) of which are double storey and two (2) of which are triple storey. Each residence will have two (2) or more bedrooms and open space in the form of either a balcony space or a ground level courtyard (see Proposal section of this report for a more detailed description). • The subject land is Zoned General Residential 2. • The application has been appealed at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (failure of the responsible authority to grant the permit within the prescribed time). • A restrictive covenant does not apply to the land and this has been confirmed by a signed Statutory Declaration form. • It is recommended that the Planning Committee form a view not to support the proposal and submit to VCAT that a Notice of Refusal be issued based on grounds outlined in this report.
CONSULTATION: • Notice of the application was given by posting a sign on the land and mailing of notices to affected properties. • Five (5) objections were received against the application. • The application was referred internally to the following units in Council: Capital Works; Transport Management and Planning; Darebin Parks. • The application was referred externally to VicTrack.
Page 64 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Planning Committee form a view that Planning Permit Application D/421/2014 be refused and a Notice of Refusal be issued subject to the following grounds: 1. The proposal does not meet the objectives of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Study in terms of: a) Vegetation b) Siting c) Height and Building Form d) Materials and Design Detail. 2. The proposal does not meet the objectives of Clause 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme, more particularly: - Standard B1: Neighbourhood Character – The proposal is not site responsive and introduces a building form and bulk which is foreign to the streetscape, as noted above. - Standard B2: Residential Policy – The design response is inappropriate and fails to adequately respond to the specific attributes of Clause 22.04 Neighbourhood Character Policy. - Standard B7: Building Height – The design response does not comply with the objective and will have an adverse visual impact when viewed from adjoining areas of secluded private open space. - Standard B10: Energy Efficiency – The internal amenity of Units 2 to 4 are compromised as a result of minimal access to natural and northern light. - Standard B12: Safety - The entrances to Units 2 to 4 are obscured from Wingrove Street and are not adequately visible from the internal access-way. - Standard B13: Landscaping – The proposal fails to provide sufficient space for the planting of meaningful vegetation. - Standard B24: Noise Issues - The proposed development does not demonstrate sufficient noise attenuation measures in relation to the Hurstbridge Railway Line. - Standard B26: Dwelling Entry – The entryways of Units 2 to 4 are obscured from Wingrove Street, lack shelter and their own sense of identity.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
There is no relevant planning permit history for the site on Council’s records.
On the 22 December 2014 an application for review was lodged at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (failure of the responsible authority to grant the permit within the prescribed time).
Page 65 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area • The subject site is located on the southern side of Wingrove Street and is rectangular in shape with an overall area of 652 square metres. • The site is located in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 and is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay. • The land is currently occupied by a modest fibro cement dwelling, which has a simple form, is rectangular in building shape and is covered by a basic pitched roof that presents a modest gable to the street. The land is well vegetated with several existing canopy trees located on the site. • To the east of the site is a modest single storey dwelling. This dwelling is well setback from its respective side boundaries and has extensive areas of open space along its western and southern boundaries. • To the west of the site is a medium density housing development, comprising three dwellings at 187 Wingrove Street. A double storey attic style dwelling is located to the front of the site with two (2) double storey dwellings located to the rear of the site. The rear dwellings present sheer double storey walls to the train line and are designed with north facing courtyards. • Abutting the site to the south is the Hurstbridge Railway Line and adjoining land. • To the north of the site is Fairfield Primary School. • The wider area has a mixed character with the north side of Wingrove Street displaying mixed building types due to the school and the southern side of Wingrove Street has many examples of single and double storey dwellings, displaying Edwardian character elements in a mix of old and new dwelling stock. • The area is well located with respect to public transport, schools and Fairfield Village, which are 300 metres to the west of the subject site.
Proposal • It is proposed to remove the existing dwelling and construct 1 dwelling and 4 units (5 dwellings in total, as labelled on the plans) as follows. • Dwelling 1 has four (4) bedrooms and two (2) car spaces in a tandem arrangement and with one in a garage. This dwelling has its own vehicle access from Wingrove Street. • The meals and family room open onto a north-east facing courtyard of 40 square metres. • Units 1 to 4 are sited in a row formation down the western side of the site. Each dwelling has two (2) bedrooms and a single garage. • The central Dwellings, 2 and 3, are triple storey in height with the living areas located at the second level. • Units 1 to 4 all have access to first or second level balconies.
Objections • Five (5) objections received.
Page 66 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Objections summarised • Overdevelopment of the site • Out of context with the immediate neighbourhood character • Visually bulky • Lack of landscaping • Traffic hazard and parking difficulties • Would set an undesirable precedent • Overlooking • Noise during construction.
Officer comment on summarised objections
Overdevelopment of the site
The design response is such that five dwellings appear as an overdevelopment of the site, because of a lack of landscaping and high site coverage. A different design response, one where Dwelling 1 is reduced in size, could perhaps yield 5 dwellings and not appear as an overdevelopment of the site. At present the design response is poor and the amenity of the dwellings, particularly Unit 4 is not sufficient.
Out of context with the immediate neighbourhood character
The proposal is out of scale with adjoining buildings because it has three (3) storeys, which is a departure from the single and double storey dwellings that are the prevailing dwelling typology. Additionally the presentation of development to the street and a lack of space on the site for appropriate landscaping and canopy trees in particular means, the proposal appears visually bulky without means of softening by landscaping.
Visually bulky
Elements of the proposal which contribute to visual bulk include the solid, attached form lengthways down the site, in combination with the overall height of the development and cantilevered upper levels.
Lack of landscaping
The proposal does not seek to have meaningful space for the planting of trees on site. The site is mostly covered with buildings and concrete except for the front garden and courtyard of Dwelling 1.
The floor plan affords few opportunities for planting along the property boundaries to ‘soften’ the development or contribute to the established garden character of the area, characterised by strong representation of canopy trees.
The proposal demonstrates loss of space for the planting of vegetation and does not contribute to the preferred or existing character of the area.
Page 67 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Traffic hazard and parking difficulties
Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit have advised that they don’t foresee any traffic hazards or difficulties arising from the proposal and have advised that the waiver of the visitor space is acceptable.
The notation on the plans stating that the tandem car space is a visitor car space is incorrect and would only be used by the occupants of Dwelling 1.
Would set an undesirable precedent
It is possible that the site could accommodate five (5) dwellings (perhaps four (4) more comfortably) however the current design response is poor and is not in keeping with the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of the area. In this respect, the proposal would set an undesirable precedent.
Overlooking
The plans indicate there will be no overlooking from the upper level windows and balconies provided the western and eastern boundary fences are increased to 2 metres high. Additionally, angled windows appear to ensure there is no overlooking into adjoining areas of secluded private open space or into adjoining habitable room windows.
Noise during construction
Noise from trucks etc. during the construction phase of development is a temporary and unavoidable consequence of development and not a reason to refuse development.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Darebin Housing Strategy
The Darebin Housing Strategy (Amendment C138) was adopted by Council on the 15 September 2014 and is currently with the Minister for Planning for approval.
The Strategy nominates the site as one for incremental change, where a moderate level of development over time is permitted. Specifically a mixture of single and semi-detached dwellings, as well as infill development including 2-3 stories is encouraged, depending on the local character and conditions of the area.
The density of the development is not the issue in this instance but the design response, which leaves little space for landscaping of the site, poor internal amenity of the units and a building mass which will impact on the streetscape and adjoining areas of secluded private open space.
Page 68 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Neighbourhood Character Precinct Guideline Assessment
Existing Buildings
The existing building contributes to the streetscape, however the site is not located in a Heritage Overlay therefore, the building may be demolished without planning permission.
Where a proposal includes the removal of an existing dwelling the design should be sympathetic to the streetscape character and adhere to the setback requirements. At present the proposal inadequately addresses these requirements and is considered out of scale and context with the streetscape.
Partially complies
Vegetation
The proposal does not seek to have meaningful space for the planting of trees on site. The site is mostly covered with buildings and concrete except for the front garden and courtyard of Dwelling 1.
The floor plan affords few opportunities for planting along the property boundaries to ‘soften’ the development or contribute to the established garden character of the area.
The proposal fails to provide sufficient space for canopy trees which are a strong element of the local garden character.
The proposal demonstrates loss of space for the planting of vegetation and does not contribute to the preferred or existing character of the area.
Does not comply
Siting
While the front setback can accommodate vegetation, unfortunately the increase in built form results in limited opportunities for canopy planting. In particular, the spaces left along the eastern and western boundaries are not generous and will not support the landscaping and canopy planting envisioned under the Guidelines.
The garage of Dwelling 1 should be recessed further on site to ensure a detached appearance prevails to the street. Ideally, the garage should be setback from the boundary or setback further on site. While boundary to boundary construction is proposed at the rear, this is acceptable as it abuts the rail line to the south and does not impact on the free- standing detached character to the street.
Two (2) access-ways are proposed which is acceptable in this instance due to the width of the block. Except for Dwelling 1, the proposed garages for Units 1 to 4 are sited behind the front of the dwelling, which is encouraged.
Does not comply
Page 69 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Height and building form
The upper storey displays minimal setbacks (if any) from the ground floor and from the property boundaries (1.8 metres from the eastern boundary and 3.3 metres from the western boundary). The solid, attached form of the building, in combination with the overall height of the development and cantilevered upper levels contribute to an unacceptable level of visual bulk (unlike the attached units at 173 Wingrove Street which are separated and appear as two (2) distinct forms).
Other elements of the building massing which contribute to the appearance of visual bulk, include triple and double storey construction lengthways down the entire site (except for the front garden) and the presentation of development to the street. The overall result is a building that is out of scale with adjoining buildings and disrespectful of the rear yard garden character.
Does not comply
Materials and design detail
Wingrove Street presents as a mix of building styles and designs from different eras. It is important to respect these elements and the contemporary interpretation of the proposed development is generally considered acceptable in this instance. The use of materials including block-work, render and timber reference materials found elsewhere in the streetscape and their application is generally considered acceptable.
The design references Edwardian characteristics including gable elements, pitched roof forms and narrow vertical windows, however the expanse of building as it presents to the street and the lack of upper level setbacks means the proposed development appears bulky in the streetscape. As encouraged by the neighbourhood character guidelines the upper floors should be set back approximately the depth of a room from the ground floor to reduce the visual bulk of a straight up two storey form. While the overall height of the development is under the 9 metre maximum allowed under the standard, the building massing and lack of separation at the upper levels are not characteristic of the area and will appear overly dominant against the backdrop of the adjoining dwellings and the traditional buildings of the school.
The proposed design response is incompatible with the guidelines with respect to massing and the lack of upper storey setbacks, as explained above.
Does not comply
Front boundary treatment
The plans indicate that no front fence is proposed. This is acceptable and will maintain views between the streetscape and development.
Complies
Page 70 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause 55 Assessment
The following sections provide discussion on fundamental areas of Clause 55 where the development is not compliant.
Clause 55.03-2 B7 Building Height
The proposed dwellings are to have a maximum height of 8.6 metres, which complies numerically with the standard requiring a maximum height not exceeding 9 metres. While the overall height of the building is less than the maximum 9 metres, the upper level setbacks are not sufficient and when combined with the cantilevered first floor will appear visually bulky from the streetscape and adjoining areas of secluded private open space.
Does not comply with objective
Clause 55.03-5 B10 Energy Efficiency
The proposal is not considered to be energy efficient with Unit 4 having minimal access to natural light in the main living areas. Natural light to the meals, kitchen and family area is via a small west facing window and south facing opening of the balcony. While the balcony is open to the sky, the kitchen area will rely heavily on artificial light as will the bathroom.
Additionally the bathrooms and bedrooms of Units 2 and 3 on the first floor receive either no natural light or very little, with the window of bedroom 2 of Unit 3 tucked behind the door.
Other elements which contribute to the development having poor energy efficiency are: - Minimal access to northern light for Units 2 to 4; - Minimal cross ventilation in the design; - No shading devices shown above the western and northern windows and doors.
Does not comply
Clause 55.03-7 B12 Safety
The entrances to Units 2 to 4 are not adequately visible from the internal access-way or the street. The laundry of Unit 1 obscures views to Wingrove Street and a door is not sufficient as an entryway and could be mistaken for entry to the garages.
Further demarcation in the form of a porch element, step or landing (as opposed to the cantilevered upper level) is required to ensure the entries are clearly identifiable and to reduce the risk of incidents between car manoeuvrability and occupants.
The development otherwise has adequate lighting, visibility and surveillance of car parking and the internal access-way.
The private open space within the development is protected from inappropriate use as a public thoroughfare.
Does not comply
Page 71 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause 55.03-8 B13 Landscaping
The surrounding landscape character is generally semi mature and informal with large open spaces and spacious setbacks.
The open spaces and setbacks are inadequate and will not be able to support landscaping and canopy planting which would respect the preferred and existing neighbourhood character of the area.
Does not comply
Clause 55.04-8 B24 Noise Impacts
The proposed development may be impacted upon by Hurstbridge Railway Line abutting the site to the south. There are no noise attenuation measures shown on the plans to demonstrate how the proposed development will mitigate impacts from the railway line.
The first train in the morning will arrive at Fairfield Station at 5.27am with the last train departing from there at 1.35am. As the train station is approximately 300 metres away, beeping noises associated with train doors opening and crossing Station Street, may be more pronounced at those quieter times.
At present the amenity of Unit 4 may be compromised as a result of the location of the balcony directly opening onto the line until further justification can be provided with states otherwise.
Does not comply
Clause 55.05-2 B26 Dwelling Entry
The entries to Units 2 to 4 are not clearly visible and easily identifiable from Wingrove Street or the internal access-way. The entryways lack shelter and a transitional space to give the units there own sense of identity.
Does not comply
Clause 52.06 Car Parking
Number of Parking Spaces Required
One car parking space is provided for Units 1 to 4.
Two car parking spaces are provided for Dwelling 1 which has 4 bedrooms.
No visitor car parking space has been provided.
Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit have advised that they support the waiver of the visitor car space.
Page 72 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Design Standards for Car parking
The car parking spaces, the carports, the garaging and the access-ways have appropriate dimensions to enable efficient use and management of the site, except for Unit 1, which is compromised by the laundry. Council’s Transport Management and Planning unit have advised that turning movements will be affected by the laundry and either the laundry must be relocated or the garage set back 0.5 metres.
The car parking facilities are designed, surfaced and graded to reduce run-off and allow stormwater to drain into the site.
Garage dimensions of 6 metres long x 3.5 metres wide comply with the minimum requirements of the standard.
Access dimensions to the car spaces comply with the standard.
NOTE* The plans are misleading as they state that a visitor car space is located in the tandem car space of Dwelling 1. This is not correct as the tandem car space will be used solely by the occupants of dwelling1.
Visibility splays have not been shown on the plans and would be required if the application were to be approved.
Conclusion
The proposal does not comply with elements of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Study and Clause 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme. The layout of the units is poor, with rooms having no access to natural light or ventilation which will result in reliance on artificial lighting (particularly for Unit 4).
A different layout with a reduced building footprint for Dwelling 1, increased internal amenity for the units and less of a bulky upper floor presentation to the street would be more appropriate in this location.
CLAUSE 55 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Clause Std Compliance Std Obj 55.02-1 B1 Neighbourhood character The proposal does not comply with most elements of N N Council’s Neighbourhood Character Study.
55.02-2 B2 Residential policy The proposal does not comply with most elements of N N Council’s Neighbourhood Character study (Clause 22.04) outlined in the Darebin Planning Scheme.
55.02-3 B3 Dwelling diversity N/A as development contains less than 10 dwellings N/A N/A
Page 73 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause Std Compliance
55.02-4 B4 Infrastructure Adequate infrastructure exists to support new Y Y development.
55.02-5 B5 Integration with the street The development appropriately integrates with the Y Y Street.
55.03-1 B6 Street setback The required setback is 5.5 metres and the Y Y dwellings are set back 5.5 metres from the street frontage.
55.03-2 B7 Building height The proposed building height is 8.6 metres above Y N natural ground level which complies numerically with the standard, however the building will appear visually bulky from the streetscape and adjoining areas of secluded private open space to the west.
55.03-3 B8 Site coverage 54% Y Y
55.03-4 B9 Permeability 23% Y Y
55.03-5 B10 Energy efficiency The units are not considered to be energy efficient N N with either poor or no access to northern light.
55.03-6 B11 Open space N/A as the site does not abut public open space. N/A N/A
55.03-7 B12 Safety The entry-ways to Units 2 to 4 are not clearly N N identifiable from the internal access-way or Wingrove Street. There should be further demarcation to reduce risk of incident between occupants and vehicle manoeuvrability.
55.03-8 B13 Landscaping The proposal doesn’t supply enough open space for N N the planting of meaningful vegetation envisaged for the character of the area.
55.03-9 B14 Access Access is sufficient and respects the character of the Y Y area.
Page 74 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause Std Compliance
55.03-10 B15 Parking location Parking facilities are proximate to the dwellings they Y Y serve, the access is observable and habitable room windows are sufficiently set back from access-ways.
55.04-1 B17 Side and rear setbacks Dwellings are set back in accordance with the Y Y requirements of this standard.
55.04-2 B18 Walls on boundaries See detailed assessment in the main body of the Y Y report.
55.04-3 B19 Daylight to existing windows Sufficient setbacks exist to allow adequate daylight Y Y
55.04-4 B20 North-facing windows There are no north facing windows within 3 metres N/A N/A of the common boundary with the subject site.
55.04-5 B21 Overshadowing open space Shadow cast by the development is within the Y Y parametres set out by the standard.
55.04-6 B22 Overlooking The plans indicate that the proposed development Y Y will not overlook into the adjoining areas of secluded private open space.
55.04-7 B23 Internal views There are no internal views Y Y
55.04-8 B24 Noise impacts No noise attenuation measures have been shown on N N the plans. It would appear the development and particularly Unit 4 would be impacted upon by use of the Hurstbridge Railway line to the south.
55.05-1 B25 Accessibility The ground level of Dwelling 1 could be made Y Y accessible for people with limited mobility.
55.05-2 B26 Dwelling entry The entryways to Units 2 to 4 are obscured from N N Wingrove Street by the laundry of Unit 1. The entryways lack shelter and a transitional space to give the units there own sense of identity.
Page 75 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Clause Std Compliance 55.05-3 B27 Daylight to new windows Adequate setbacks are proposed to allow Y Y appropriate daylight access.
55.05-4 B28 Private open space The dwelling and units have been provided with Y Y adequate open space as per the numerical requirements of the standard.
55.05-5 B29 Solar access to open space Sufficient depth is provided for adequate solar Y Y access.
55.05-6 B30 Storage Sufficient storage areas are provided. Y Y
55.06-1 B31 Design detail The proposed design response is incompatible with N N the guidelines with respect to massing and a lack of upper storey setbacks, otherwise elements of the contemporary interpretation of the streetscape are acceptable with respect to use of materials and their application.
55.06-2 B32 Front fences No front fence is proposed which is acceptable. Y Y
55.06-3 B33 Common property Common property areas are appropriate and Y Y manageable.
55.06-4 B34 Site services Sufficient areas for site services are provided. Y Y
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority Response Capital Works No objection, subject to condition* Transport Management No objection, subject to conditions* and Planning Darebin Parks No objection, subject to conditions* VicTrack No objection, subject to conditions* *See file and Clause 55 Compliance Summary for details
Page 76 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required • Clause 32.08-4 of the Darebin Planning Scheme requires a planning permit to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. • Clause 52.06-2 (car-parking) before, an existing use is increased by the measure specified in Column C of Table 1 in Clause 52.06-5 for that use, the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme Relevant Clauses SPPF 11.02-1, 15.01-1, 15.01-5, 15.02, 16.01, 19.03-1 LPPF 21.05-1, 21.05-2, 21.05-3, 22.04 Zone 32.08 Overlay 45.06 Particular provisions 52.06, 55 General provisions 65.01 Neighbourhood B3 Character Precinct
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
All new dwellings are required to achieve a minimum six (6) star energy rating under the relevant building controls.
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Other
Nil
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
Page 77 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
Page 78 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
5.5 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/835/2014 470-480 High Street, Northcote VIC 3070 AUTHOR: Principal Planner – Craig Murphy
DIRECTOR: Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant Owner Consultant
Koukouvitakis Property S. Koukouvitakis and V. SJB Planning P/L Group c/- SJB Planning Koukouvitakis PO Box 1149 P/L SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205
Metaxas Architects P/L 152 Queensberry Street CARLTON VIC 3053
First Port Consulting Level 3, 480 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000
Traffix Group P/L Suite 8, 431 Bourke Road GLEN IRIS VIC 3146
Leigh Design P/L PO Box 2599 MT WAVERLEY VIC 3149
Urban Digestor Level 8, 180 Russell Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000
SUMMARY: • An application has been lodged with the Tribunal against Council’s failure to make a decision within the prescribed time. • It is proposed to construct a seven (7) storey mixed-use building (over two (2) basement levels) comprising a shop, café and 43 dwellings. A reduction of car parking and waiver of loading/unloading requirements is sought for the building. • The subject site is burdened by a registered restrictive covenant contained in Instrument of Transfer No. E595223. The covenant generally restricts the use and development of the land for a petrol filling station, motor repairs, liquid fuel depot, motor garage or the like. The proposal is not considered to contravene the terms of the covenant.
Page 79 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The proposal is subject to the objectives and policy of the Northcote Major Activity Centre and the Northcote Activity Centre Structure Plan (April 2007). • The subject site is a Commercial Zone 1 area. • Recommendation – It is recommended that a Notice of Refusal be issued based on the grounds set out below.
CONSULTATION: • Notice of the application was given pursuant to Section 52(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the Act’). Notice was in the form of placing signs on the subject site and mailing notices to the owners and occupiers of neighbouring land. • 88 objections have been received to date. • The application was referred externally to Melbourne Water under Section 55 of the Act. • The application was referred internally to the following departments for comment:
o ESD Officer; o Urban Designer; o Transport Management and Planning Unit; o Capital Works Unit; o Property Management Unit; and o Waste Management Unit.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the application be recommended for refusal at the forthcoming Tribunal hearing on the following grounds: 1. The proposal fails to satisfy key objectives and policy of Clause 22.11 (Northcote Major Activity Centre) and the Northcote Activity Centre Structure Plan (April 2007) with regard to environmentally sustainable design, protection of key public views, improvement of the public realm and achieving transition to adjacent residential hinterland. 2. The proposal fails to satisfy the design objectives, requirements and outcomes set out in the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14, in particular: • Urban Design and Heritage: The proposal fails to provide appropriate weather protection to the public realm, does not incorporate any landscaping elements, and adopts a palette of materials and finishes that will present as monolithic and dominant. • Building Design: The proposal fails to incorporate adequate passive design principles, capitalise on the northern orientation of the site or utilise ESD initiatives.
Page 80 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Building Setbacks: The setbacks to both High and Dennis streets do not provide an appropriate street wall to define to public realm or recession to the upper levels of the building. Similarly the rear setback does not achieve adequate transition or amenity protection to the neighbouring residential area. • Building Height: The building height exceeds the requirements of the policy, unreasonably erodes the protected view lines from All Nations Park and exacerbates the deficiencies of building massing. 3. The proposal fails to satisfy the design objectives of the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development in particular: • Element 1: The development erroneously interprets and responds to the surrounding context and neighbourhood character. • Element 2: The height, massing and setbacks are inappropriate for the public realm and neighbouring properties. • Element 3: The development fails to provide adequate amenity and weather protection to the public realm. • Element 5: The building design and layout provides poor internal amenity to future occupants. • Element 6: The development does not provide any landscaping or communal open space areas. 4. The proposed basement layout does not comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06 or AS2890.1-2004 and does not provide adequate or usable services for all dwellings. 5. The proposal is not site-responsive. 6. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Council records indicate the following planning permit application relevant to the subject site: • PD3958 – Relocation of car parking spaces and playground. • PD4328 – Construction of a fence. • D/836/2000 – Use of the land for a gymnasium. • D381/2004 – Increase of operating hours associated with the existing gymnasium to operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area • The site is located on the eastern side of High Street, Northcote on the southern corner of the intersection with Dennis Street. • The land is a substantial parcel with a 32.61 metre frontage to High Street, a 30.48 metre frontage to Dennis Street comprising a total area of 993.95 square metres.
Page 81 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The subject site is located within the Commercial 1 Zone (‘C1Z’) and is encumbered by the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14 (‘DDO14’), Special Building Overlay (‘SBO’) and the Development Contributions Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (‘DCPO1’). • The site is currently occupied by a double storey building comprising retail tenancies at ground floor and a 24-hour gymnasium at first floor. Car parking is provided at the rear (east) of the site via the right of way. • The site is located at the northern end of the Northcote Activity Centre spine which comprises a mix of retail uses. The surrounding area is comprised of a number of remnant single and double storey buildings often from the Victorian era and a number of more recent mixed-use development of four or more storeys. • To the east of the site across the right of way is a row of single storey detached cottages fronting Dennis Street. • To the south of the site are two attached double storey Victorian shops with dwellings above (located within Heritage Overlay – HO130). • To the west across High Street is a recently completed mixed-use development (479 High Street) and a row of single storey shops. • To the north of the site across Dennis Street is a used car yard. • The land benefits from a number of proximate public transport options including the No. 86 tram (along High Street), Croxton Railway Station (250 metres west) and supplementary bus services.
Proposal • Demolition of the existing double storey building (as of right – no permit required). • Construction of a seven (7) storey building over two (2) levels of basement. • The basement levels will comprise 51 car parking spaces, 43 residential storage spaces, 20 bicycle parking spaces and associated services. • The ground floor will comprise 544 square metres of retail space, a 119 square metre café, and residential entry from Dennis Street and associated services. • Levels 2 – 7 will comprise 12 one-bedroom and 31 two-bedroom apartments. • Private open space is provided in the form of balconies for each dwelling ranging from 7 – 49 square metres. No communal open space is provided within the development. • A reduction of the requisite car parking is sought for the residential visitor and retail uses. • A waiver of on-site loading/unloading requirements is sought.
Objections • 88 objections have been received against the application.
Objections summarised • Loss of the existing use/business operator (gymnasium). • Traffic and car parking. • Extent and nature of notice.
Page 82 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Cumulative impact of high density mixed-use development. • Building height and visual bulk. • Interface with neighbouring residential hinterland. • Off-site amenity impacts including overlooking and overshadowing. • Non-compliance with the DDO14 including loss of identified views. • Impact on neighbouring heritage places. • Wind and impacts on the public realm.
Officer comment on summarised objections
Loss of the existing use/business operator (gymnasium).
Although the contribution that the existing business/operator provides to the community is acknowledged, the Darebin Planning Scheme cannot protect the existing use in perpetuity. The current building is not protected by a Heritage Overlay or the like thus can be demolished without a permit. There are no planning controls or restrictions on title that compel the ongoing use of the land as a gym.
With regard to the retention of existing businesses, in Porter v Port Phillip CC [2007] VCAT 46 the Tribunal noted:
“I understand community concern about loss of an existing service but such loss can be influenced by many factors well beyond the scope of planning policy and control. Market demand and supply and personal decisions by private operators are just some of those factors. The Scheme provides no control over retention of occupancy, either existing or proposed, and I do not find this ground of review substantiated.”
An further, in Franmark Properties Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2007] VCAT 2314
“We understand that existing business owners would have concerns about these matters but there is limited control in the Scheme over the types of retail outlets permitted in a Business 1 zone and over retention of a business. The continued operation of a business is influenced by many factors well beyond the scope of planning policy and control including market supply and demand, personal choices and circumstances of business owners.”
Traffic and car parking.
A number of objections raised concern with an increase of traffic and car parking demand as a result of the proposal. Ultimately an increase is an inevitable part of the proposal, and the future development of the activity centre; however the test under the Darebin Planning Scheme is whether such an increase is acceptable.
Traffic and car parking matters are assessed under the Clause 52.06 assessment below.
Page 83 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Extent and nature of notice to tenants and the public.
The duration of the public notice period is a statutory period prescribed by the Act (and associated Regulations).
There is no obligation under the Act for the permit applicant to notify the occupier of a site that an application has been made. Notice/communication between the owner and occupier of the retail tenancies is a matter handled under the Retail Leases Act 2003.
Cumulative impact of higher density mixed-use development.
The determination of permit application typically involves the balancing of policy to derive acceptable outcomes. In this case, the subject site is located within a higher order activity centre well serviced by both public transport and existing amenities. Both State and local policies generally support the intensification of land in such a location. A summary of the broader policy applicable to the application is provided below.
Building height and visual bulk.
The DDO14 provides policy guidance and performance criteria for, among other things, the height and massing of buildings within the Northcote Activity Centre. An assessment of the proposal against the requirements of the DDO14 is provided below.
Interface with neighbouring residential hinterland.
The interface with neighbouring properties, mainly the rear boundary where the site abuts the residential hinterland is defined by the requirements of the DDO14. In the present case an extrapolation of the ‘Standard B17’ envelope applies. An assessment of the proposal against the requirements of the DDO14 is provided below.
Off-site amenity impacts including overlooking and overshadowing.
Off-site amenity impacts are absorbed by the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. Overlooking is a matter that can readily be addressed via condition (in the event a permit was issued) while rectifying height, siting and massing issues of the proposal would improve issues of overshadowing to neighbouring properties.
Non-compliance with the DDO14 including loss of identified views.
The requirements of the DDO14 are discretionary and the test regarding identified view corridors is a threshold of reasonableness. The proposed building will project notably above the prevailing horizon line beyond that of the surrounding buildings.
Furthermore, being located to the north-west of All Nations Park the building is located within the direct view of the Macedon Ranges. An assessment of the proposal against the requirements of the DDO14 is provided below.
Impact on neighbouring heritage places.
The subject site abuts two original double storey shopfronts (466 and 468 High Street). Any proposed building should provide a respectful design response to the heritage fabric. As noted in the assessment below, the siting, massing and architectural treatment of the High Street façade does not achieve a sympathetic response to the heritage buildings.
Page 84 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Wind and impacts on the public realm.
The presence of higher buildings along the High Street corridor has the potential to create wind tunnelling at ground level and compromise the amenity of the public realm. Relevant policies (discussed below) address this via appropriate building massing. The proposal’s non-compliance with the DDO14 may add to a cumulative impact of wind tunnelling in the future however with the present streetscape character being of primarily single and double storey buildings the proposal, in isolation is not anticipated to result in unreasonable wind impacts.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
POLICY FRAMEWORK
State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
Clause 11 (Settlement) provides overarching guidance for anticipating and responding to the needs of existing and future communities. In particular Clause 11.01 sets out the following objectives for the development of activity centre:
To build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres.
To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community.
The provision of higher density housing within centres is a central strategy to achieving these objectives.
The role of diverse, affordable and well located housing is introduced by Clause 11.04-2 which in turn informs the provisions of Clause 16 (Housing). Of particular note, Clause 16.01 sets out the following objectives:
To promote a housing market that meets community needs.
To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.
To provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.
To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services.
Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) sets out design criteria for the built environment. In particular, Clause 15.01 provides the following objectives to achieve quality and appropriate urban design outcomes:
To create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.
Page 85 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
To achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)
The LPPF furthers the objectives and strategies of the SPPF. Council’s draft Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), forming part of Amendment C138, identifies key issues confronting the future growth of the municipality with objectives and strategies to address them.
The subject site is located within a defined Activities Area and Strategic Corridor. Clause 21.01 of the draft MSS notes:
The High Street corridor has significant potential for intensification of retail, commercial, office, and residential uses.
Clause 22.03 and 22.04 continue to provide the following relevant strategies:
In Substantial Housing Change Areas, encourage a variety of housing typologies at increased densities and to discourage underdevelopment, with the scale of development appropriate to precinct characteristics and context as identified by a structure plan or adopted policy of Council.
Generally encourage residential or mixed use development of four or more storeys on… [s]ites within walking distance of a railway station or a Principal or Major Activities Centre.
Support a diversity of housing types, sizes, designs and configurations and support (re)development at higher overall densities in Substantial Housing Change Areas and on Strategic Opportunity Sites, as identified in the Housing Framework Plan.
Ensure mixed use developments are designed to provide adequate amenity to residences on the site, minimising the need for screening and limiting unreasonable negative amenity impacts on surrounding residential uses.
Facilitate intensive development, including commercial and residential development, in and around principal and major activities areas consistent with the relevant structure plans for these areas.
Clause 22.11 (Northcote Major Activity Centre) provides policy guidance for the centre in which the subject site is located. In particular for the High Street North (Precinct HN) area it is policy to:
Support redevelopment with an emphasis on office use, commercial and non core retail use at ground floor level with intensified residential use above.
On the basis of the foregoing an intensive mixed-use development achieves State and local policy support on the basis of the following: • Activity centres such as Northcote are areas defined to accommodate intensive mixed- use redevelopment.
Page 86 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Housing consolidation in and around activity centres is an important component of their future viability and function. • High Street retains a central role within the municipality as a functional retail and commercial corridor. • The extent of intensification is reliant upon achieving quality and acceptable design outcomes with regard to the strategic and physical context of the subject site.
USE – ACCOMMODATION
The use of the subject site for the purpose of Accommodation requires a planning permit under Clause 34.01-1 as the ground floor frontage exceeds 2.0 metres. In this instance the use is acceptable for the following reasons: • Both State and local policies encourage mixed-use redevelopment in the centre which includes the provision of higher density accommodation. • The proposed residential frontage still gives effect to the purpose of the Commercial 1 Zone. • The ground floor frontage is approximately 2.2 metres only marginally exceeding the requisite frontage to be considered as-of-right (i.e. no permit required). • The residential frontage is orientated towards Dennis Street and will not disrupt the primary retail/commercial High Street interface. • The frontage proposed comprises only the entry foyer with no dwelling floor area provided at ground level.
BUILDINGS AND WORKS
The following sections assess the proposed buildings and works against the applicable built form controls.
Commercial 1 Zone Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: • The movement of pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicles providing for supplies, waste removal, emergency services and public transport. • The provision of car parking. • The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and the landscaping of land adjoining a road. • The storage of rubbish and materials for recycling. • Defining the responsibility for the maintenance of buildings, landscaping and paved areas. • Consideration of the overlooking and overshadowing as a result of building or works affecting adjoining land in a General Residential Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone or Township Zone. • The availability of and connection to services.
Page 87 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The design of buildings to provide for solar access. • The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54 and Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement.
The above requirements are generally absorbed by other sections of this report. The provisions of Clause 54 and 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme do not apply to developments of five (5) or more storeys however are accepted as guides for certain on- and off-site amenity considerations. These are absorbed by the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.
Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14
The Northcote Activity Centre Structure Plan, April 2007 (NAC Structure Plan) identifies 10 precincts where change will occur as tabled in the DDO14. The subject site is located within the High Street North precinct which supports the main convenience retail area in the Central Northcote Precinct.
Clause 3.0 of the DDO14 states:
New development should address the above design objectives and design requirements for the centre as well as any design outcomes and design requirements specified for individual precincts in Table 1 to this schedule.
Clause 5.0 continues to provide the following decision guidelines for Council when considering applications under the DDO14:
Whether the proposed development achieves the design objectives, design requirements and design outcomes of this schedule.
The architectural quality and innovative response of the building design.
The impact of the building on any identified viewlines.
The contribution the development makes to urban design and the streetscapes of the area, including pedestrian and public spaces and car parking areas.
Use of environmentally sustainable design principles and techniques.
The following sections provide an assessment of the proposal against the relevant requirements (absorbing the decision guidelines of the overlay).
Transport and Access • The subject site is serviced by a strong network of public transport modes, including tram, train and buses within easy walking distance. • Whilst car parking is provided at an appropriate rate for the dwellings, visitors and shoppers have the option to walk, cycle or take public transport to and from the site. The choice will be left to residential visitors and retail patrons. • Vehicle access has been located at the eastern end of the lot off the secondary Dennis Street frontage. Although not disruptive to the primary High Street frontage the development fails to capitalise on the right of way abuttal to the east.
Page 88 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Urban Design and Heritage • The development will retain its active ground floor frontage to High Street and will not disrupt existing pedestrian paths/movement. The applicant proposes a 1.2 metre awning over the High Street and Dennis Street frontages which fail to provide adequate weather protection and pedestrian amenity in the public realm. • The proposal is to cover 100% of the site consistent with the commercial frontage however the development provides no nominal landscaping (e.g. balcony planter boxes or green walls) that interfaces with the public realm. • Surface treatments should be high quality and durable. The reliance of extensive render surfaces and pre-cast concrete panels is not considered to provide the required range of texture and quality deserving of this key location. The monolithic colour palette will present as overly stark and dominant to the public realm and absence of contrast above the street wall limits visual recession. If the application were to be supported, it would be expected that materials, finishes and colours would need to be reconsidered and improved. Building Design • The applicant has provided a Sustainable Management Plan report which has been reviewed by Council’s ESD Officer. Objection has been raised regarding a number of fundamental elements including:
o Inadequate shading/heat gain and consequential reliance on mechanical cooling; o Inadequate use of north-facing habitable areas; o Inadequate access to daylight and reliance on ‘battle-axe’ bedroom configurations;
o Unacceptable depth of living area at times in excess of 10 metres; o No water tank connections for the residential components of the development; o Inadequate waste management and absence of a recycling chute; and o Inferior provision of bicycle parking spaces for both residents and visitors. • The development provides active ground floor frontages via the commercial spaces and passive surveillance of the public realm is achieved through the location of balconies fronting both High Street and Dennis Street. • Noise attenuation measures could be addressed via conditions in the event the proposal was supported. Building Setback – High Street • Buildings with a High Street frontage should be built to the front boundary to a height of 8 - 10 metres and then set back a minimum of 1.5 metres from the front boundary per floor. • To High Street the ground floor will be built to the front boundary with Levels 2 – 4 above setback 1.99 metres to the building line with individual cantilevered balconies extending to the boundary. • The modulation and transparent presentation of the balconies fails to provide an adequate street wall treatment to enclose the public realm. The presence of balconies is not an issue per se and in fact provide appropriate surveillance; however the absence of weight and solidarity in their appearance undermines the intent of the policy.
Page 89 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• The short section of street wall (i.e. the corner dwellings) extends some four (4) storeys to a height of 14.755 metres – exceeding the policy requirement. The building line to Levels 5 – 7 above steps back to 3.0 metres and then 5.99 metres however the continued use of cantilevered balconies erodes any recession of the upper levels. • Council’s Urban Designer has provided comment that the High Street façade, particularly at its southern end where the form is reinforced by vertical fin elements will present as overwhelming the public domain. Moreover a more sensitive treatment is required as the building transitions from the fine grain heritage shop fronts at 466 and 468 High Street. Building Setback – Dennis Street • The Design Outcomes for Precinct A3 state that buildings over 8.0 metres in height should be constructed to the Dennis Street alignment for up to a height of between 8 and 10 metres above ground level, and set back a minimum of 1.5 metres from the front building face per floor. • As with the High Street treatment the ground floor is built to the street alignment with Levels 2 – 7 above setback with projecting balconies cantilevered to abut the boundary. Again, the corner component is overly dominant with what extends to be a sheer seven storey element at the intersection. Building Setback – Rear (East) Boundary • The proposal is subject to the rear setback requirements as per Figure 3 and 3A of the DDO14. • The southern portion of the development demonstrates compliance with the rear setback profile however all levels on the north side of the site (i.e. closest to Dennis Street) extend beyond the permissible building envelope. The site abuts a series of single storey cottages to the east which Precinct A9 envisages being redeveloped for up to 3-4 storeys. • Given the policy direction, an appropriately designed street wall along Dennis Street (refer above) could be an acceptable encroachment. In this instance however the encroachment at Levels 4 – 7 exacerbates the dominance of the Dennis Street façade, does not provide an adequate transition in scale or visual separation to the adjacent hinterland, and extends into the site so as to impact the amenity of neighbouring dwellings. Building Height • The Design Outcomes for Precinct A3 impose a discretionary five storey building height with the maximum height determined by maintaining the view corridor to the horizon from All Nations Park. The subject site is undoubtedly located within the view corridor being north-west of All Nations Park. Documentation provided by the applicant goes to emphasising the notable projection above the prevailing horizon line. Although discretionary, the policy seeks to mitigate an unreasonable encroachment which in this case is notably greater than the surrounding buildings. • The extent of erosion to the view corridor and inability for the development to present appropriately to the various interfaces (discussed in the above sections) affirms that the site is unable to accommodate a seven storey, 25.165 metre building while achieving the design objectives and outcomes of the DDO14.
Page 90 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development
These guidelines have been developed to help apply design principles to proposals for higher density residential development of four (4) or more storey. The guidelines are structured around six (6) elements of design consideration, of which the proposal is assessed as follows:
Element 1 - Urban context
The opportunities and constraints of the site include: • Activity centre location; • Public transport access; • Prominent corner site with two street frontages; • Rear vehicle access via right of way; • Adjoining heritage buildings; • Adjoining fine grain cottages but with policy intent of intensification; • Land subject to overland flow (via the SBO); and • Boundary to boundary construction typical of the C1Z.
The Urban Context Report provided (erroneously) identifies the subject site as a ‘secondary activity node’. The site exhibits a number of characteristics, such as a corner location and large land consignment which make it a suitable candidate for redevelopment however this cannot be construed as a secondary activity node. Both the policy intent and characteristics on the ground affirm that the subject site and Precinct A3 serve an entirely supplementary role in the centre.
On this basis the design proceeds to take liberties with the extent of massing as it presents to both the public realm and adjoining properties. As noted above, the vague treatment of the podium levels abutting the street do not provide adequate definition of the public realm, particularly along the commercial interface of High Street. To Dennis Street the context report overestimates what is purported to be intensive three-storey redevelopment to the street alignment rather than modest intensification commensurate with the adjacent hinterland context.
The development does not capitalise on the right of way abuttal instead providing vehicle access on the Dennis Street frontage. Similarly, the northern aspect of the site is not adequately utilised with limited habitable space orientated to this side of the lot.
Element 2 – Building Envelope
The proposal’s issues with regard to building height and massing are discussed in detail above. In short, the podium presentation to High Street, aggressive corner treatment and overwhelming building mass to Dennis Street are incongruous with the areas context. The building’s failings with regard to the requirements of the DDO14 speak to inappropriate height and massing for the site and surrounding area.
Both the neighbouring heritage buildings to the south of the site and applicable policy for adjacent Precinct A9 to the east reinforce that a better defined three-storey podium, in line with the DDO14 would be an appropriate scale and treatment for the area and maintain an
Page 91 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
acceptable pedestrian scale environment at ground level. This would need to be coupled with more recessive middle and upper components of the building and greater transition in scale.
Given the site’s commercial context the high-site coverage and absence of any street setback at the ground level is an appropriate treatment.
Reductions in the building envelope will also improve solar access to neighbouring secluded private open space to the east which presently show significant overshadowing of neighbouring secluded private open space beyond 2.00pm (as at 22 September).
The proposed development will not unduly compromise the development potential of neighbouring sites.
Element 3 – Street Pattern and Street Edge Quality
The proposal maintains the existing access and street networks along High and Dennis Streets. Limited opportunity exists to create cross-site pedestrian links however both the residential and commercial uses are provided with direct access from the street network.
Active frontages are achieved to High Street with both the retail and café areas, the latter wrapping around to the Dennis Street frontage. Direct access from the street to both premises is provided. There is opportunity to further modulate the larger retail space consistent with the prevailing grain of High Street, depending on future use. The development fails to provide adequate weather protection to the public realm. Blank facades are limited to the eastern end of the Dennis Street frontage to limit their impact on the active interfaces.
Car parking does not dominate the street frontage being located within the basement however the entry ramp will be highly visible along Dennis Street in lieu of utilising the right of way.
The commercial and residential entries are clearly defined with the latter located on Dennis Street. Council’s Urban Designer has expressed no objection to the treatment of the residential entry.
Element 4 – Circulation and Services
The parking layout of the development has been reviewed by Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit. A number of deficiencies have been identified however these could be addressed via condition in the event a permit was issued. A detailed assessment is provided below.
The circulation spaces are central to the building core with no access to natural light and ventilation. Mechanical ventilation would be required. Facilities such as mailboxes and central lift are provided and the internal corridors are of sufficient dimensions.
On-site services are basic with only commercial spaces connected to recycled water and solar panels located on the roof. Council’s ESD Officer has also expressed concern with a communal waste chute for both general and recycled waste.
Page 92 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Boosters, substation and other plant are clearly defined and delineated from communal resident areas. It is unclear where commercial facilities such as the café kitchen, exhaust flues will be located.
The proposed collection of waste by a private contractor is generally acceptable however collection within the no standing area of Dennis Street is not feasible.
Element 5 – Building Layout and Design
The 43 dwellings comprising one and two-bedroom accommodation provide a sufficient range of dwelling diversity.
Apartments and flats are normally smaller than other forms of housing. The careful use of space is critical to creating well laid out, efficient and comfortable apartments. The dwellings are oriented to High Street, Dennis Street or the right of way. Despite the favourable access to natural light and ventilation, many apartments rely on long and narrow battle-axe configurations, are adjacent to areas that are overhung by the storey above and/or will need to be screened to 1.7 metres (to prevent overlooking to the east), and/or are provided with excessively deep living areas some in excess of 10 metres from a light source. Other strategies such as large light courts and/or removing battle axe type bedrooms could improve the design.
As all dwellings are elevated above the ground floor any windows/balconies abutting the site boundaries provide generally acceptable amenity. Each dwelling is provided with a designated storage area within the basement. In the event the development was supported, a number of storage cages with just 300mm clearance from parking spaces would need to be relocated to allow access.
Design details of the building were addressed under the DDO14 assessment above.
Element 6 – Open Space and Landscape Design
The proposed boundary to boundary construction will not allow the inclusion of substantial, in-ground landscaping opportunities in the development. No effort has been made to provide supplementary landscaping to soften the form such as planter boxes or ‘green wall’ elements.
Each dwelling is provided with private open space in the form of balconies adjoining the living areas. These are orientated to the east, north and west with balconies requiring screening to prevent overlooking generally provided with areas/dimensions in excess of Clause 55 requirements. Exceptions to this are apartments 305 and 305 however if a permit were to be issued, this could be addressed via a condition.
The development does not propose any communal open space areas.
Special Building Overlay
The application was referred to Melbourne Water pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. No objection has been expressed subject to conditions and notations set out in the response dated 27 October 2014.
In the event a permit were to issue, the conditions set out by Melbourne Water must be included pursuant to Section 62(1)(a) of the Act.
Page 93 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS
Car Parking
The following sections provide an assessment of the proposal against the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06.
Provision
The required and proposed car parking for the development is as follows:
Use Rate Area/No. Required Proposed Dwellings – 1-bed 1/dwelling 12 dwellings 12 spaces 12 spaces Dwellings – 2-bed 1/dwelling 31 dwellings 31 spaces 31 spaces Dwellings – Visitor 0.2/dwelling 43 dwellings 8 spaces - Shop 4/100m2 544m2 21 spaces 7 spaces Food and Drink 4/100m2 119m2 4 spaces 1 space Total 76 spaces 51 spaces
A reduction is sought for the residential visitor, shop and café car parking demand. Having reviewed the application against the requirements of Clause 52.06-6 the reduction is acceptable on the basis of the following: • The site benefits from a number of locational characteristics which support a reduction of car parking including an activity centre location which facilitates multi-purpose trips and a range of public transport options. • Peak overflow demand is expected to occur during the weekend (20 spaces) with demand outside of business hours being in the order of five (5) spaces. This overflow demand will be generally short-stay users. • The overflow demand can be accommodated within the on-street car parking available and alternative modes of transport. This aligns with broad Council policy which supports the use of sustainable transport use. • The site can inherit some parking credits from the existing gymnasium use which Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit estimates to operate with a shortfall of 23 spaces. To offset the reduction sought, Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit would, in the event a permit was to be issued, require the following: • Provision of a sustainable transport display near the building entry. • A minimum of five (5) additional shopper/visitor bicycle spaces near the building entry or an equivalent contribution to public bicycle infrastructure in proximity to the site. • A minimum of three (3) additional employee/resident bicycle spaces.
Page 94 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Design Standards for Car parking
The car parking spaces and the accessways generally have appropriate dimension to enable efficient use and management.
The car parking facilities are designed, surfaced and graded to reduce run-off and allow stormwater to drain into the site.
Access dimensions to the car spaces generally comply with the standard.
All vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction, and adequate headroom clearance is provided.
Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit have expressed concern with the initial basement grade required to satisfy Melbourne Water’s apex requirements. If approved, a condition would require a revised basement design that complies with either the requirements of Clause 52.06 or the Australian Standard.
The gate must be relocated a minimum of 6.0 metres from the boundary to allow at least one (1) car to queue without encroaching the footpath. This must be clarified as it is shown at 2.5 metres on the plans but noted as in excess of 12 metres in the traffic report provided.
Visibility splays are required at the accessway interface with the footpath to protect pedestrians. This could be requested as a condition of any approval.
Bicycle Parking
The proposed development generates the following statutory car parking demand pursuant to Clause 52.34-3:
Rate Employee / Visitor / Use Resident Shopper Employee / Resident Visitor / Shopper Dwelling 1 resident space to each 1 visitor space to each 9 spaces 4 spaces (four or more 5 dwellings 10 dwellings storeys) 2 2 Retail 1 to each 300m 1 to each 500m Nil Nil premises 2 2 Shop 1 to each 600m 1 to each 500m N/A N/A 2 (>1000m ) Total Requirement 9 spaces 4 spaces
The applicant proposes a total of 20 ‘Ned Kelly’ style bike space interspersed within the general basement area.
Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit have expressed objection to both the exhaustive reliance on hanging style bike racks and also their location within the general basement area. If a permit were to be issued, the bicycle areas must be redesigned to provide a minimum of 25% at-grade spaces with all bicycles to be stored within a secure lockable area.
Page 95 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Additionally, given the high rate of bike use in the Northcote area, resident bicycle space provision should exceed the statutory demand which could be accommodated with a more rationalised basement layout and use of ground floor space.
Loading/Unloading
The application seeks a waiver of the loading and unloading requirements in association with the shops on the land. Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit did not object to the waiver on the basis that there is an on-street loading bay available on High Street near the site.
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority Response Capital Works No objection, subject to the land being drained to the satisfaction of Council. Transport Management Objection based on use of Dennis Street in lieu of the right and Planning of way, the proposed basement grades, gate location, bicycle parking and waste collection. See body of report for details. ESD Officer Objection based on internal amenity issues (such as ventilation and access to daylight), passive design principles and incorporation of ESD initiatives. See body of report for details.
Urban Designer Objection based on overall building height, form and massing as it relates to both the public realm and neighbouring properties, and compliance with design outcomes set out in the DDO14. See body of report for details. Waste Management No objection to waste collection via private contractor. Property Management No objection to the use of the adjacent right of way (if required) Melbourne Water No objection, subject to conditions provided in response dated 27 October 2014.
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required • Clause 34.01-1: Use of the land for the purpose of Accommodation • Clause 34.01-4: Construction of buildings and works • Clause 43.02-2: Construction of buildings and works • Clause 44.05-1: Construction of buildings and works • Clause 52.06-3: Reduction of car parking requirements • Clause 52.07: Waiver of loading and unloading requirements
Page 96 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme Relevant Clauses SPPF 11, 15, 16 LPPF 21.05, 22.11 Zone 34.01 Overlay 43.02, 44.05, 45.06 Particular provisions 52.06, 52.07, 52.34 General provisions 65.01, 66 Northcote Activity A3 Centre Precinct
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
All new dwellings are required to achieve a minimum six (6) star energy rating under the relevant building controls.
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Other
Nil
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
Page 97 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
Page 98 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
6. OTHER BUSINESS
6.1 List of Scheduled VCAT Appeals
Following is a list of scheduled VCAT appeals for the information of the Planning Committee. The table includes appeals heard as well as those scheduled for the coming months (but does not include mediations and practice day hearings).
Where an appeal has been adjourned and a new hearing date not yet set, the details appear with the text ‘struck out’.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the list of Scheduled VCAT Appeals be noted.
Page 99 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Delegate Decisions before VCAT October 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal Medium density housing 13 Hayes Street, development Matter withdrawn by Northcote Notice of Decision - No hearing 14/10/2014 D/715/2013 comprising the respondent objectors. Permit Objector Appeal required. construction of Granted. Rucker four (4) double storey dwellings
Page 100 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
October 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal In respect of heritage matters, VCAT was satisfied that the proposal to retain The partial the front and first two rooms demolition, of the original Victorian and the dwelling was “an entirely construction of appropriate for a site in a alterations and heritage area” and had no additions to Council’s 100 Charles Street, concerns about the the existing Notice of Decision – decision Northcote proposal’s impacts on the 28/10/2014 D/814/2013 dwelling on Objector Appeal; varied – heritage values of the area. land affected Conditions Appeal Permit Rucker In respect of amenity by a Heritage Granted impacts on 98 Charles Overlay and Street, the Tribunal was on a lot with an satisfied subject to a area less than reduction in wall heights, 300 square that the proposal was metres acceptable in an area where walls on boundary were common.
Page 101 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
November 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal VCAT agreed with Council that the as constructed fence, with a height of 2 metres to 2.4 metres, is not Construction acceptable in terms of a of 2.0m high response to local policy, picket front Clause 54 and the fence within neighbourhood character. Council’s 3.0m of a 6 Beaconsfield Refusal set street to an Notwithstanding the above, Parade, Northcote Refusal – Applicant aside 11/11/2014 D/44/2014 existing single VCAT was satisfied with appeal dwelling on a supporting the proposal Rucker Permit lot of less than subject to conditions Granted 300sqm and in requiring a reduced height a special fence with a maximum post building height of 1.8 metres and overlay pickets of 1.7 metres (for a level design) or 1.5 metres to 1.8 metres if a scallop design is used.
Page 102 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
November 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal VCAT was satisfied the proposal was acceptable subject to a number of Medium design changes, including density ensuring the 3 storey housing building presented as 2 development storeys to Pender Street and Council’s 13 Pender Street, comprising a condition requiring a Decision Set Thornbury ground/basem Refusal - Applicant reduction in size of the upper 14/11/2014 D/932/2013 Aside – ent car park appeal floor (to minimise impact on Permit Rucker and sixteen adjoining secluded private Granted (16) open spaces). Also, VCAT apartments required an additional car over four (4) space for the development stories. as it had concerns a 2 bedroom dwelling with rumpus could be used as a 3 bedroom dwelling. Appeal to Misconceived 27 McGregor Street, VCAT against application - appeal VCAT struck out the No planning Fairfield Application 14/11/2014 Council refusal against refusal application as it relates to a application Struck Out by under Building under Building matter under Building no. Rucker VCAT legislation legislation Legislation.
Page 103 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
November 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal The Tribunal considered the proposal “had too many compromises. It described it as “inadequately resolved” A medium and an “overdevelopment” - density Council’s 105 Barton Street, particularly when regard was housing Decision Reservoir Refusal - Applicant had to the proposed front 17/11/2014 D/876/2013 development Affirmed – No appeal setback, minimal landscape comprised of 6 Permit La Trobe opportunities, the double storey Granted compromised nature of the dwellings balconies due to extensive screening and the length of unbroken form proposed through the site.
Page 104 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
November 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal A medium density housing Permit issued by consent of 130 McMahon Road, development Council parties after negotiating Reservoir 21/11/2014 D293/2014 comprising the Refusal (Officer) decision set acceptable design changes
construction of aside between the permit applicant La Trobe three (3) and Council. dwellings
The applicant substituted plans (now showing a 3 Four (4) storey storey building) prior to the development hearing and Council 94 High Street, comprising ten Council supported the proposal Preston (10) dwellings, Refusal - Applicant 26/11/2014 D1046/2013 decision set subject to conditions. The a shop and a appeal aside Tribunal agreed that the Cazaly reduction to revised proposal responded the car parking to the context and also the requirement. provisions of Amendment C137.
Page 105 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
December 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal Council A medium decision density 5 Harbury Street, varied in development Permit issued by consent of Reservoir Notice of Decision – accordance 5/12/2014 D/209/2014 comprising 4 parties Objector Appeal with a consent double storey La Trobe order signed dwellings by all parties
Buildings and The Permit Applicant prior to works the hearing provided Council comprising a with independent heritage single storey advice. As a result of this extension with independent advice, Council Council’s associated and the Permit applicant 36 Ryan Street, decision demolition were able to negotiate a Northcote varied 8/12/2014 D/959/2013/B works to the Conditions Appeal consent order which VCAT
rear of an granted. This position meant Rucker Permit existing that windows nearest the Granted dwelling in a street retained their heritage Heritage and appearance but windows Special further away from the street Building could be more modern in Overlay appearance.
Page 106 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
December 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal Construction of a medium density housing development comprised of a four 76-78 Plenty Refusal to Amend a (4) storey building Road, Preston Permit (retrospective) Application Application was withdrawn by 9/12/2014 D/85/2007E containing 13 withdrawn the permit applicant. dwellings and one Cazaly Applicant Appeal (1) home and a reduction in the associated car parking requirement VCAT was satisfied the proposal would make a positive contribution to neighbourhood character. The construction of However, the absence of car three (3) dwellings parking was critical to VCAT in (one [1] double Council’s 30 Separation refusing the application. In storey and two [2] decision Street, Fairfield Refusal – Applicant particular it noted the proposal 9/12/2014 D/682/2013 single storey); and affirmed – Appeal was not convenient walking the reduction of the No Permit Rucker distance from a station and car parking Granted that on street parking in requirements for Separation Street is difficult Dwellings 2 and 3. due to its width. Lastly, the Tribunal did not consider that the 2 rear units had an adequate sense of address.
Page 107 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
January 2015 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal A medium The Tribunal deleted the density conditions requiring removal housing of the existing crossover and development reinstatement of comprising the landscaping. In reaching this 14 Murphy Grove, construction of decision, the Tribunal noted Appealed Preston a double that the proposals 7/01/2015 D/722/2013 Conditions Appeal conditions storey dwelling contribution to landscape deleted Cazaly to the rear of character of the area would existing be the same with or without dwelling and the conditions, as Council an extension had already endorsed a to the existing landscape plan showing on dwelling gravel in the area. 27 Glasgow Avenue, Application to Reservoir 8/01/2015 D/138/2014 Cancel Permit Delegate VCAT Decision Pending
D138/2014 La Trobe Application to amend planning Matter adjourned by VCAT 601 Gilbert Road, 13/01/2015 D/868/1999 permit Conditions appeal as it appears the planning Preston D/868/1999 to permit expired in 2003. increase red line area
Page 108 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
February 2015 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal Construction of seven 42 Pender Street, dwellings and Thornbury Refusal – Applicant 2/02/2015 D/269/2014 a reduction of Appeal the visitor car Rucker parking requirements Construction of a medium density 6 Spratling Street, housing Reservoir Notice of Decision – 18/02/2014 D/230/2014 development Objector Appeal comprised of La Trobe four (4) double storey dwellings
Page 109 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
Planning Committee Decisions before VCAT
October 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal The Tribunal noted that the site is unusual in that it had no street frontages and was bound by a car park to its north, west and south boundaries. Further, it was A housing also noted that the Preston development Central (Precinct R) policy comprising the applying to the site was of construction of Council Officer “little assistance”; save to a four (4) Council’s Recommended NOD say that it discouraged 649 High Street, storey building decision set underdevelopment. Preston (plus roof aside 15/10/2014 D/992/2013 Council Decision – terrace) Refusal Nevertheless, the Tribunal Cazaly consisting of Permit noted that the use of the eight (8) Granted Applicant Appeal land as dwellings was dwellings and appropriate given the site’s a reduction in residential zoning. The the car parking Tribunal also noted that the requirement permit applicant had sought to minimise the exposed nature of the building through articulation and cantilevered forms.
Page 110 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
As part of granting a permit, the Tribunal did accept Council’s proposed condition requiring an acoustic assessment to ensure new dwellings would receive an appropriate level of amenity (from sound impacts) as a result of being mostly surrounded by a car park. Further, the Tribunal included its own condition to emphasise the building’s entry in response to Council’s concerns about the lack of visibility for the pedestrian entrance.
As a final point, the Tribunal raised concerns with the timing of the amendment of Council’s grounds of refusal. While the above may be correct in isolation, at the same time VCAT did not detail any concerns with the matters that formed Council’s original grounds of refusal (building’s height, site coverage/permeability side and rear setbacks, and walls on boundaries)..
Page 111 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
October 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal The original application was for a 13 storey development containing 94 dwellings, 3 commercial tenancies and 61 car spaces. Prior to the mediation, the permit applicant circulated plans which reduced the proposal to 9 storeys, as well as A 13-storey significantly addressing most building Refusal (by Officer) of Council’s grounds of comprising 94 Settled at refusal. dwellings, Amended Plans Mediation on 3-15 High Street, three (3) (foreshadowed) to 17 September In reaching agreement with Preston commercial 29/10/2014 D/366/2014 be considered by 2014. Council and the tenancies and Committee if above neighbouring residents, the Cazaly a reduction to mandatory height No hearing permit applicant agreed to the car parking limit or >5 objector required. reduce the building in height and loading parties to meet the proposed and unloading mandatory height limit (i.e. requirements. 25m at High Street) contained in Council’s amended Design and Development Overlay Schedule 3 (in Amendment C137).
Based on the reduction in height (and therefore
Page 112 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
apartment numbers), Council was satisfied that the parking waiver sought was acceptable and that with some minor internal changes, the commercial tenancies would be much more useful.
November 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal No Matters Determined by the Planning Committee went to Hearing in November 2014
Page 113 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
December 2014 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal VCAT considered that the proposal, located on a corner position at the end of a streetscape, adjacent to non period homes, parkland and a railway reserve created a “somewhat unique development context in this neighbourhood”. Because of this context, VCAT had no issue with the double storey Council Officer height of the proposal as Council’s Recommended NOD well as its contemporary 35 Beaconsfield Construction Decision Set design response. Even Parade, Northcote of 4 double Aside 11/12/2014 D/841/2013 Council Decision – though Council was critical storey Refusal of the landscape response Rucker dwellings Permit provided, VCAT did not Granted Applicant Appeal sharer this concern and was of the view the landscape response to Railway Place would be an improvement. VCAT was also satisfied the proposal was not an overdevelopment as it did not cause unreasonable amenity impacts, responded appropriately to neighbourhood character and provided future
Page 114 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
occupants with acceptable internal amenity.
January 2015 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal Construction of a 4 storey development comprising Matter adjourned part heard 66 Station Street, Notice of Decision – 20/01/2015 D/1033/2013 one office, 15 as the hearing went beyond Fairfield Objector Appeal dwellings and its allocated time. a reduction to the car parking requirement
Page 115 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
February 2015 Date of App. No. Property/Ward Proposal Council VCAT Result Hearing Decision/Nature of Decision Appeal Medium density housing development comprising two Council Officer (2) double Recommended NOD 21 David Street, storey Preston 6/02/2015 D/298/2014 buildings with Council Decision –
five (5) Refusal Cazaly dwellings and a reduction of Applicant Appeal car parking (equivalent to one (1) visitor space)
Matters completed and to be heard to 28/02/2015.
Page 116 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
6.2 Significant Applications Update
Below is a list of applications with a cost of construction of at least $3,000,000 currently under consideration.
• Address • 6-34 High Street, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/1007/2012 • Proposal • Construction of a mixed use development Description containing 209 dwellings, seven (7) retail tenancies and gymnasium contained within a 16 level building plus basement car parking • • Date Received 20 December 2012 • • Status Advertising completed • Address • 195-209 St Georges Road, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/1011/2012 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 102 dwellings & Description supermarket (6 storey building) • Date Received • 20 December 2012 • • Status Application being assessed • Address • 200 High Street, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/523/2014 • Proposal • Mixed use development comprising 31 dwellings Description and 3 shops within a 4 storey building • Date Received • 24 June 2014 • • Status Awaiting Consultation • Address • 531 St Georges Road, Thornbury • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/485/2014 • Proposal • Residential development – 33 dwellings (6 storey Description building) • Date Received • 17 June 2014 • • Status Further information requested • Address • 435-437 High Street, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/966/2013 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 20 dwellings & 2 shops Description (5 storey building) • Date Received • 11 December 2013 • • Status Further information requested • Address • 629 Plenty Road, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/482/2013 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 30 dwellings & 1 retail Description premises (6 storey building) • Date Received • 5 July 2013 • • Status Planning Committee formed the opinion that the
Page 117 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
application would not be supported at forthcoming VCAT hearing • Address • 716 High Street, Thornbury • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/474/2013 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 41 dwellings & 4 retail Description tenancies (5 storey building) • Date Received • 3 July 2013 • • Status Advertising completed • Address • 41 Separation Street, Fairfield • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/564/2014 • Proposal • Residential development – 11 dwellings Description • Date Received • 27 June 2014 • • Status Currently advertising • Address • 3 Harold Street, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/36/2014 • Proposal • Medium density housing – 13 dwellings (3 storey Description building) • Date Received • 24 January 2014 • • Status Amendment to application received • Address • 136-138 Plenty Road, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/300/2013 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 15 dwellings & 1 shop Description • Date Received • 3 May 2013 • • Status Report in process • Address • 301 St Georges Road, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/403/2014 • Proposal • Residential development – 22 dwellings (4 storey Description building • Date Received • 26 May 2014 • • Status Advertising completed • Address • 254-256 Murray Road, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/519/2014 • Proposal • Residential development – 15 dwellings within a Description four level building • Date Received • 20 June 2014 • • Status Further information received • Address • 759 Gilbert Road, Reservoir • Ward • La Trobe • Application No • D/334/2014 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 14 dwellings & 1 shop Description • Date Received • 9 May 2014 • • Status Planning Permit issued
Page 118 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Address • 787-789 Heidelberg Road, Alphington • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/354/2014 • Proposal • Redevelopment of shop and office Description • Date Received • 13 May 2014 • • Status Section 57A amendment received • Address • 470-480 High Street, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/835/2014 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 43 dwellings, 1 retail Description showroom & 1 Food and Drink Premises • Date Received • 12 September 2014 • • Status To be reported to Planning Committee 9 February 2015 • Address • 2 McCutcheon Street, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/814/2014 • Proposal • Residential development – 30 dwellings (four (4) Description storey building) • Date Received • 8 September 2014 • • Status Advertising completed • Address • 1056-1070 Plenty Road, Bundoora • Ward • Latrobe • Application No • D/759/2014 • Proposal • Residential development – 39 dwellings Description • Date Received • 12 August 2014 • • Status Referrals sent • Address • 208-216 High Street, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/865/2014 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 76 dwellings & 4 shops Description • Date Received • 23 September 2014 • • Status Referrals sent • Address • 137 St Georges Road, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D930/2014 • Proposal • Use and development of the land for the purpose Description of a service station • Date Received • 11 November 2014 • • Status Currently advertising • Address • 397 Murray Road, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D947/2014 • Proposal • Construction of 16 dwellings and alteration to Description access to a Road Zone Category 1 • Date Received • 15 October 2014 • • Status Currently advertising amended plans • Address • 425 Plenty Road, Preston
Page 119 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
• Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D992/2014 • Proposal • Construction of a six (6) storey building Description comprising 24 dwellings and two (2) shops • Date Received • 3 November 2014 • Status • Further information requested • Address • 70 Dundas Street, Thornbury • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D1030/2014 • Proposal • Construction of 10 dwellings Description • Date Received • 18 November 2014 • • Status Further information requested • Address • 365 Bell Street, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D1054/2014 • Proposal • Construction of a six (6) storey residential Description building with a ground level shop • Date Received • 21 November 2014 • • Status Referrals sent • Address • 223 Gower Street, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D1110/2014 • Proposal • Construction of 20 x three (3) storey dwellings Description • Date Received • 9 December 2014 • • Status Referrals sent • Address • 29 Railway Place, Fairfield • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/1164/2014 • Proposal • Mixed use development – 30 dwellings & (one) 1 Description shop • Date Received • 29 December 2014 • • Status Referrals sent
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Significant Applications Update be noted.
Page 120 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
6.3 List of Applications for next Planning Committee Meeting
Below is a list of applications for the upcoming Planning Committee Meeting. Please note that this list of applications is based upon best available advice at the time of publishing the Planning Committee Agenda. For confirmation of agenda items reference should be made to the Planning Committee Agenda on Council’s website the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting.
• Address • 301-303 St Georges Road, Northcote • Ward • Rucker • Application No • D/403/2014 • Proposal • Construction of a four (4) storey building containing 22 dwellings • No. of objections • 20 • Address • 10 Hobson Street, Thornbury • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/547/2014 • Proposal • Construction of three (3) dwellings • No. of objections • Eight (8) • Address • 9 Hughes Parade, Reservoir • Ward • Latrobe • Application No • D/571/2013 • Proposal • Construction of three (3) dwellings • No. of objections • Nine (9) • Address • 9-11 Harbury Street, Reservoir • Ward • Latrobe • Application No • D/508/2014 • Proposal • Construction of 12 dwellings • No. of objections • 11 • Address • 7-7A Harold Street, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/868/2014 • Proposal • Construction of a three (3) storey building containing 13 dwellings • No. of objections • Six (6) • Address • 136-138 Plenty Road, Preston • Ward • Cazaly • Application No • D/300/2013 • Proposal • Construction of a five (5) storey building containing 15 dwellings and one shop • No. of objections • 24
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the List of Applications for the next Planning Committee meeting be noted.
Page 121 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 9 FEBRUARY 2015
7. CLOSE OF MEETING
Page 122