NOTICE PAPER
Monday 4 May 2015 at 7pm
Council Chamber, Stonnington City Centre,
(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)
RECONCILIATION STATEMENT
We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Boonwurrung and Wurundjeri
people and offer our respects to the elders past and present. We recognise and respect the
cultural heritage of this land.
PRAYER
Almighty God, we humbly beseech you, to grant your blessing on this Council, direct and prosper
its deliberations to the advancement of your glory, and the true welfare of the people of the City of
Stonnington. Amen.
NOTE
Council business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure
section of Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1). Some copies are available with the agenda or
you can find a copy on Council’s website www.stonnington.vic.gov.au under local laws.
Page 2
Council Meeting
Notice Paper
Monday 4 May 2015
Order of Business and Index
a)
Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayer
b)
Apologies
c)
Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63
of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)
1.
MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 20 APRIL 2015 ............................................................ 5
d)
Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act1
e)
Questions to Council from Members of the Public
f)
Correspondence – (only if related to council business)
g)
h)
Questions to Council Officers from Councillors
Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters
i)
Notices of Motion
j)
k)
Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors
Reports by Delegates
l)
General Business
m)
n)
1.
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0480/14 - 86 BURKE ROAD, MALVERN EAST - THE PROPOSAL
SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH BASEMENT CAR PARK,
COMPRISING 20 APARTMENTS, AND A CAR PARKING WAIVER FOR 4 VISITOR SPACES............................ 7
2.
PLANNING PERMIT 0643/12 – 125 - 127 ALEXANDRA AVENUE, SOUTH YARRA – SECTION 72
AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANS TO CONVERT THE ROOF AREA INTO A TRAFFICABLE TERRACE
AND ASSOCIATED BALUSTRADE/PRIVACY SCREENING FOR THE PENTHOUSE ON LEVEL THREE. ...........31
3.
PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C204 - HERITAGE OVERLAY FOR 21 WILLIAM STREET, SOUTH
YARRA ...........................................................................................................................................43
4.
HAWKSBURN VILLAGE STRUCTURE PLAN - OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ...............................49
5.
AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S REPORT FOR 2014 ...............................................................................55
6.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE REPORTING FRAMEWORK......................................................57
7.
TOORAK ROAD/ELIZABETH STREET INTERSECTION, M ALVERN - TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION
PROGRESS REPORT .......................................................................................................................61
8.
MURPHY STREET, SOUTH YARRA - TRAFFIC M ANAGEMENT UPDATE ................................................65
9.
CATO STREET CAR PARK REDEVELOPMENT....................................................................................67
10.
COUNCIL DELEGATE TO PRAHRAN MISSION ....................................................................................73
11.
CONSIDERATION OF DONATION TO BAIRO PITE CLINIC ..................................................................... 75
Other General Business
Urgent Business
1
Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest
immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.
Page 3
o)
Confidential Business
1.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2014/15 ....................................................... 77
Page 4
ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
4 M AY 2015
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City
Council held on 20 April 2015 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington
City Council held on 20 April 2015 as an accurate record of the proceedings.
Page 5
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
l)
General Business
1
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0480/14 - 86 BURKE ROAD, MALVERN EAST - THE
PROPOSAL SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH
BASEMENT CAR PARK, COMPRISING 20 APARTMENTS, AND A CAR PARKING WAIVER
FOR 4 VISITOR SPACES
Statutory Planning Manager: Alexandra Kastaniotis
General Manager Planning & Development: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a three storey (plus
basement car park) apartment building at 86 Burke Road, Malvern East.
Executive Summary
Applicant:
Ward:
Zone:
Overlay:
Date lodged:
Statutory days: (as at
council meeting date)
Trigger for referral to
Council:
Cultural Heritage
Management Plan:
Number of objections:
Consultative Meeting:
Officer Recommendation:
Moda Corp
C/- Ratio Consultants
East
General Residential 7
None
18 June 2014
26 days
More than 7 objections
No
29
Yes – held on 19 February 2015
Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit
BACKGROUND
The Proposal
The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Bruce
Henderson Architects and are known as Job No. 34041, Drawing No.s: TP01 – TP09 and
Council date stamped 12 March 2015, and Landscape Plans prepared by Jack Merlo Design,
Drawing No’s TP01 – TP03, Council date stamped 01 April 2015 and 02 April 2015.
Page 7
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Key features of the proposal are:











Demolition of the existing dwelling (no permit required).
Construct a three storey apartment building with basement car park. The apartment
building comprises 20 dwellings (10 x 1 bedroom dwellings, 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings,
and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings). The ground floor level contains 8 dwellings, the first floor
contains 9 dwellings, and the second floor contains 3 dwellings.
All dwellings have an open plan kitchen, dining room, and living room layout. The
ground floor dwellings are provided with courtyards, whereas the dwellings at the first
floor and second floor have access to balconies. Secluded Private Open Spaces range
from 107.9 square metres to 8.1 square metres.
The basement contains a total of 24 resident only car spaces, a bike store, individual
storage areas, including above bonnet storage, with access provided via the ramp to
the rear laneway.
Two existing crossovers to Burke Road are proposed to be removed and re-instated.
The apartment building is orientated towards Burke Road with a central pedestrian
access provided to Burke Road.
The apartment building has a total height of 11.5 metres.
The apartment building has a front setback of 10.447 metres at the ground floor level,
with the balconies to first floor apartments 1.09 and 1.01 protruding into this setback by
1.68 metres, and the planter boxes to second floor apartment 2.03 protruding into this
setback by .801 metres.
The apartment building is of a contemporary architectural design and utilises a mix of
external building materials including face brickwork, render, and stone cladding in a
variety of neutral colours (such as greys and browns), aluminium window frames, and
terracotta tiles for the front pitched roof, and colourbond for the remaining roof sections.
The roof is broken up into three sections with a pitched section fronting the street, a flat
section to the mid section and a dual pitched roof section to the rear.
The proposal involves a solid front fence with a maximum height of 1.7 metres setback
approximately 2.5 metres from the front title boundary. The fence is constructed out of
stone cladding and metal box framework. Vegetation is proposed to be planted forward
of the front fence.
The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.
Amended plans, received on 11 March 2015, supersede the advertised plans and detail the
following changes;





Increased rear setback at the ground floor from the eastern living room wall of
Apartment G.04 from 4 metres to 6 metres, and reconfiguration of the refuse room to
increase the floor area and internalise the access. The change to the refuse room has
resulted in the deletion of one bedroom to Apartment G.05.
Increased rear eastern setback at the first floor from 1.585 metres to the balcony and
4.02 metres to the building façade; now increased to 4.8 metres to the balcony of
Apartment 1.04 and 6 metres to the eastern building façade of Apartment 1.04.
Increased rear eastern setback at the second floor level from 3.99 metres to the planter
boxes adjacent to the balcony of Apartment 2.01; increased to 4.823 metres. The
setback of the building façade remains at a setback of 9.03 metres.
Increased areas of landscaping.
Altered basement layout.
Page 8
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the eastern side of Burke Road in Malvern East. The site has the
following significant characteristics:




The site is zoned General Residential 7 and no overlays affect the site.
The site is regular in shape with a frontage to Burke Road of 21.34 metres, a depth of
58.09 metres and an area of approximately 1240 square metres.
The site contains a single storey dwelling with pitched tiled roof, a medium height
picket fence, a generous front and rear yard, and two crossovers to Burke Road.
The site has a fall of approximately 1.83 metres from front to rear.
The immediate surrounds are described as follows;





To the north of the site lie four double storey townhouses with pitched roofs known as
No. 88 Burke Road, No. 2A, 2B, and 2C Brunel Street, Malvern East. The four
townhouses are connected. The secluded private open space to No. 88 Burke Road is
located to the north and east of the dwelling, with what appears to be a service yard to
the south. The secluded private open space areas to No. 2A, 2B, and 2C, are located
to the south. To the north of these properties lies Brunel Street.
No. 84 Burke Road is located to the south of the subject site and contains a double
storey dwelling with pitched roof, a generous front and rear yard, a high solid timber
front fence, and a single crossover to Burke Road. Planning Application 115/15 is
currently with the Planning Department for consideration, the application has been
advertised and a decision is yet to be made. The application proposes a three storey
apartment building containing 19 dwellings (including a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom
dwellings), with a basement car park comprising resident and visitor spaces.
No. 82 Burke Road is located to the south of No. 84 Burke Road and is the last lot
before Paxton Street. The site contains a single storey dwelling with pitched roof, a
generous front and rear yard, a high solid brick front fence, with access provided via
the rear laneway. Planning Application 1175/14 is currently with the Planning
Department for consideration, the application has been advertised and a decision is yet
to be made. The application proposes the construction of a three storey apartment
building containing 23 dwellings (including a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings), with a
basement car park containing resident only spaces.
The land located opposite to the subject site, to the west of Burke Road, is affected by
a Heritage Overlay and is zoned Neighbourhood Residential which will effectively limit
future development.
To the east of the subject site, adjacent to the rear laneway, lies No. 2 Brunel Street.
No. 2 Brunel Street contains a single storey dwelling with pitched roof, low brick fence,
outbuilding to the rear eastern section of the site, generous front and rear yard, and a
single crossover to No. 2 Brunel Street.
The surrounding land is characterised by a mix of detached single and double storey
dwellings with generous areas of private open space to the front and rear, and multi-dwelling
developments generally townhouses or units (generally single and double storey). Some
multi-storey apartment buildings are located along Burke Road such as the three storey
apartment building at No. 100 Burke Road (approved under Planning Permit 1285/04), and
the three storey apartment building located at No. 114 Burke Road (approved under Planning
Permit 855/12). Furthermore a three storey apartment building at No. 75 – 77 Burke Road
has been approved under Planning Permit 464/13 (construction has not started to date). The
existing buildings include a range of architectural periods.
Page 9
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Many of the existing dwellings within the surrounding land contain terracotta and slate tiled
roofs, overhanging eaves, face brickwork, chimneys, and porticos or similar entry point
features. Streetscapes within the area tend to be leafy with mature trees.
The site is located approximately 485 metres from the corner of Wattletree Road and Burke
Road intersection which is identified as being a small neighbourhood activity centre, and
approximately 685 metres from the Waverly Road and Burke Road intersection, which is
again identified as a small neighbourhood activity centre. Commercial buildings and uses are
located further to the north along Burke Road. Central Park, one of the municipalities’ high
quality public open spaces, is located to the north-west of the subject site, approximately 78
metres as the crow flies.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates that there have not been any relevant planning
applications for the subject site. Planning Application 707/12 for the construction of a three
storey apartment building (plus basement), comprising 21 dwellings, at No. 82 Burke Road,
was refused with the decision upheld by VCAT. Importantly the VCAT Order (A18 Pty Ltd v
Stonnington CC [2014] VCAT 1015 (18 August 2014)) discusses the site as one which could,
in principle, support a medium density development, however the proposal had an
unacceptable design response to Paxton Street and No. 84 Burke Road.
The Title
The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 03490 Folio 916 as Lot 215 on Plan of
Subdivision TP474230X and has a right of carriage way to the rear laneway. No covenants
or easements affect the land.
Planning Controls
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone
Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone – Schedule 7
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
An application to construct more than one dwelling on a lot must meet the requirements of
Clause 55. Schedule 7 to the zone prescribes a mandatory maximum height of 11.5 metres
as the site has a fall of 2.55 degrees at a cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the
building. A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by
no more than 1.2 metres. The schedule introduces additional requirements to Standards B8,
B17, and B18 that will be discussed in more detail within the Clause 55 assessment.
Particular Provisions
Clause 52.06 Car Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being
occupied, the car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as
approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3 a permit may be granted to reduce (including reduce to zero) the
requirement to provide the number of car parking spaces required under this clause.
Page 10
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The table at Clause 52.06-5 states one car space is required for each one to two bedroom
dwelling, two spaces for each three bedroom dwelling, and one visitor space is required to
each 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings. The proposal generates a
requirement of 23 resident spaces and visitor spaces. The basement comprises 24 resident
only car spaces. The proposal requires a waiver of the 4 visitor spaces required.
Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities
Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle
facilities and associated signage are provided on the land. Given the development is less
than four storeys, the requirements of this clause are not applicable, however the proposal
includes 6 bicycle spaces located within the basement.
Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings
Given Clause 32.01-4 is triggered an assessment against Clause 55 is required.
Relevant Planning Policies
Clause 11
Clause 15
Clause 16
Clause 21.03
Clause 21.05
Clause 21.06
Clause 22.18
Clause 32.08
Clause 52.06
Clause 55
Clause 65
Settlement
Built Environment and Heritage
Housing
Vision
Housing
Built Environment and Heritage
Stormwater Management; Water Sensitive Urban Design
General Residential Zone (Schedule 7)
Car Parking
Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings
Decision Guidelines
Amendment C175 – Neighbourhood Character Local Policy
Amendment C175 has been prepared to introduce a new Neighbourhood Character Policy
into the local section of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Neighbourhood Character
local planning policy includes the preferred character statements, design objectives and
design responses to be taken from the precinct profiles. This policy will clarify the preferred
neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal
respects and reinforces the preferred character.
Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014, which recommends that the
Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to minor modifications. As a result, Amendment
C175 has reached a stage that it can be considered as a seriously entertained planning
policy. Due consideration should be given to the proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy.
According to the Amendment, the subject site falls within a Garden Suburban Precinct
(Schedule 4) (“GS4”). An assessment against the Neighbourhood Character Policy will be
provided below.
Advertising
The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment
Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing
two signs on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed
satisfactorily.
Page 11
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The site is located in East Ward and objections from 29 different properties have been
received, the objections can be summarised as follows;















The development is inconsistent with neighbourhood character, and existing
streetscape, in terms of number of storeys, building height, and general built form.
Density of dwellings considered too high.
Adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.
Amenity impacts to the secluded private open spaces of No. 2A, 2B, and 2C Brunel
Street, No. 88 Burke Road and No. 1 Paxton Street, and loss of privacy to all abutting
properties.
Noise impacts and air quality impacts to No. 1 Paxton Street due to location of
basement entry point, and overlooking and overshadowing impacts to the secluded
private open space, pool and west facing windows.
Visual Bulk impacts to surrounding properties.
Traffic safety concerns, traffic generation/congestion (particularly to Paxton Street and
Brunel Street), impact on street parking, and suitability of the existing laneway for
access. Concerns raised also relate to the anticipated traffic generation and parking
associated with the combination of the three developments (at the subject site, No. 82
and No.84 Burke Road, Malvern East).
Impact on existing infrastructure due to number of dwellings proposed.
Loss of vegetation.
Cumulative effect of the three developments at the subject side, No. 82 and No.84
Burke Road, Malvern East.
Maximum height of the General Residential Zone (GRZ7) is exceeded.
Development fails to meet the objectives of the GRZ7.
Development fails to meet the requirements of Clause 55.
Possibility of the development to be used as student housing.
Waste collection from rear laneway.
A Consultative Meeting was held on 19 February 2015. The meeting was attended by
Councillor McMorrow, Councillor Stubbs, and Councillor Davie, representatives of the
applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. Following the consultation meeting, the
applicant submitted amended plans, received on 11 March 2015, in an attempt to address
Council concerns. The changes included within the amended plans have been listed under
the proposal section of this report and include an increased rear setback.
Referrals
Urban Design
Plans Council date stamped 07 October 2015 were reviewed by Council’s Urban Designer.
The plans have been superseded by the amended plans Council date stamped 11 March
2015. The initial comments provided remain to be relevant. Summarised comments are
provided below;

The proposal is a result of a thoughtful analysis of the scale, form, and design
character influence of the residential context of Burke Road. The building integrates
well within the existing and evolving streetscape of Burke Road. The variation of roof
forms along the length of the building serves to articulate the overall form of the
building as it presents to the adjacent neighbouring properties.

The proposed Landscape Plan is an appropriate response and also acknowledges the
presence of substantive neighbouring canopy trees in close proximity to the shared site
boundaries.
Page 12
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015

Comments provided in relation to the plans, Council date stamped 07 October 2015,
highlighted that the building tended to crowd the rear boundary and presented an
appreciable degree of visual bulk to the private open space of No.2 Brunel Street and,
to a lesser extent, the private open space of No.1 Paxton Street on the East side of the
rear laneway. It was suggested that this rear setback be increased to address this
issue. Amended plans, Council date stamped 11 March 2015, detail an increased rear
setback at the ground floor, first floor and second floor, that address the visual bulk
impacts to No. 2C and 2 Brunel Street, and No. 1 Paxton Street
Traffic
Councils Transport and Traffic Department have provided comment on the amended plans,
Council date stamped 11 March 2015, detailing an amended basement layout. Previous
comments provided in relation to the superseded plans, Council date stamped 10 October
2015, remain largely applicable. Comments are summarised below;









The proposal generates the requirement of 27 car spaces (23 resident and 4 visitor
spaces). The proposal incorporates 24 resident only car spaces, which requires the
waiver of 5 visitor spaces, and is one space in excess of the standard resident car
parking requirements.
It is recommended that onsite visitor spaces are provided. The excess in residential
parking provision should be allocated to the use by visitors to the development.
The traffic generation assessment presented in the Traffic Report can be accepted in
this instance. Given the current low volumes of traffic along the Right-of-Way, it is not
expected that the traffic generated by the development will adversely impact upon the
existing operation of the road network.
Plans detailing further information regarding the proposed left in/left out arrangement
are required.
Revised material is to be submitted demonstrating the headroom clearance, in
accordance with the Australian Standards, throughout the car park and at the entrance
with the door open.
A splay has been provided on the north side of the proposed access point, which at
1.54m deep does not meet the minimum requirements of the Planning Scheme, which
requires a depth of 2.5m. Compliance with the standard sight triangles is required,
amended plans will need to be submitted detailing compliance.
A stairwell wall intrudes into the parking aisle (which does not reduce the overall width
of the aisle), this will impact access to parking spaces 07, 08 and 19. Whilst multiple
movements may sometimes be accepted in residential car parks, this should not occur
as a result of structures that intrude into trafficable areas.
Access into the parking space 12, allocated to dwelling G06 will require multiple
movements. Whilst multiple movements can be considered acceptable in residential
car parks, this should not occur for parking spaces located at the bottom of the ramp.
As multiple movements at the bottom of the ramp may impact access to the entire car
park, these spaces should be easily and conveniently accessed, without the need for
multiple movements. Further to this, due to the restricted access, vehicles may need to
access the parking space in reverse (as shown in the swept path diagrams), which may
be a problem given the proposed wall mounted bike racks. Further, should larger
vehicles be parked in this parking space, these will necessarily protrude into the
parking aisle, and impact the operation of the ramp, affecting access to the entire car
park. This is cannot be accepted and needs to be revised.
Pedestrian safety associated with the access to the stairwell within the basement is
raised as a concern.
Page 13
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015


Australian Standards require a 1 in 200 (0.5%) grade across parking areas for drainage
purposes, plans demonstrating compliance are required.
Bicycle spaces proposed exceed the minimum spaces required by the proposal. The
wall mounted spaces are not supported as it is stated that they may restrict access to
the car spaces, particularly for larger vehicles and in instances where cars reverse into
car spaces.
ESD
Plans and Sustainable Management Plan (SMP), Council date stamped 07 October 2015,
were referred to Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Design Officer, and have been
superseded by Plans Council date stamped 11 March 2015, however the referral comments
provided remain relevant. Summarised comments are provided below;









Some concerns are raised in respect to the internal amenity of the development, due to
the number of units proposed for the site, daylight and ventilation potential for a
number of units will be compromised.
Kitchens for units G02 and G03 are located close to the apartment entrance where,
due to apartment configuration, daylight access would be restricted. It is anticipated
that kitchen areas would not meet Council’s SDAPP best practice daylight
requirements. It is recommended that designs for these apartments to be revised.
Poor daylight outcome is anticipated for South facing Units 1.06, 1.07 and 1.08.
Windows for these units face on to small balconies which are overhung by balconies of
units above and, in the case of Units 1.06 and 1.07, are enclosed by 1.7m high
bluestone colour balustrades. It is recommended that the design aspect is reviewed.
It is recommended that user operable external shading such as louvers are added to
western facade windows to reduce solar heat gain from low angle summer sun.
Operable windows are to be detailed on all plans to confirm the ventilation strategy.
The SMP indicates that a 6.4 star average rating will be achieved for the units, however
no information is provided on which units were assessed or their scores. Indicative
scores provided for a representative number of units from differing orientations is
requested. A full list of fabric assumptions utilised for the energy assessments must
also be included.
The solar panels are proposed to provide power for a common area demand. However,
panels are currently located to the south of a pitched area of roof and may be
compromised by overshadowing. They should be located closer to the northern edge of
the roof to ensure efficient operation.
Details of the rainwater garden need to be detailed on the plans, correction of
impermeable areas is also required within the Water Sensitive Urban Design response.
The applicant should commit to the development of a construction phase storemwater
pollution reduction strategy.
The applicant is to identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and
ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring for the sustainability initiatives
identified.
A revised SMP, Council date stamped 17 December 2014, has been updated to include all
impervious areas which has resulted in an increased rain garden (9.5 square metres). An
appendix to the revised SMP details sample energy ratings demonstrating that a 6.4 average
star rating can be achieved, and calculations have been provided demonstrating that the
solar photovoltaic panels provided will not be subject to overshadowing in their current
location. The information regarding the star rating and the solar panels needs to be included
within the SMP; this will be addressed via a permit condition. No further changes are
required to the SMP however the plans will need to detail which windows are operable and
include the specifics of the rainwater garden (on the landscape plan).
Page 14
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Landscape
Plans Council date stamped 07 October 2015 were reviewed by Council’s Landscape
Department. The plans have been superseded by the amended plans Council date stamped
01 April and 02 April 2015, however the initial comments provided remain to be relevant.
Council’s Landscape Department provided advice stating that the proposed tree removal
within the site is acceptable. A permit condition is recommended for the protection of the
Tristaniopsis laurina (Kanooka) street tree which will be reflected within the permit conditions.
Finally the Landscape Department advised that the applicant may wish to review the use of
Carpinus betulus (European Hornbeam) within the front setback, as it is an exposed west
facing position which this species does not particularly thrive in Melbourne’s climate. The
revised landscape plans, Council date stamped 01 & 02 April 2015, show additional plantings
(including small trees) along the northern and southern setbacks, no new species have been
introduced. It is noted that the European Hornbeam’s within the front setback have been
retained and the applicant has confirmed that the landscape architect responsible for the
landscape plan is confident in the species viability, given that the landscape architect is
suitably qualified, the proposed use of the European Hornbeam’s is considered acceptable.
Waste
Plans and Waste Management Plan, Council date stamped 07 October 2015, have been
superseded by Plans Council date stamped 11 March 2015, which details a refuse storage
area. The refuse area has been increased, contains internal access and an external roller
door to the laneway. Council’s Waste Management Department has advised that a
discrepancy exists between the net waste storage areas and the area of the ‘Refuse Store’
as depicted on the ground floor plan Council date stamped 07 October 2015. The Waste
Department also raised concerns relating to the location and lack of convenience associated
for the residents, and remoteness of the proposed location and the associated likelihood of
inappropriate storage and aggregation of wastes in other areas of the development.
Council’s Waste Officer has confirmed that the amended refuse store, shown on plans
Council date stamped 12 March 2015, addresses the concerns as the area has been
increased from approximately 6 square metres to approximately 24 square metres and is
now easily accessible internally via an internal corridor.
Infrastructure
Plans, Council date stamped 07 October 2015, have been superseded by Plans Council date
stamped 11 March 2015; however the comments continue to remain relevant to the
amended plans. Council’s Infrastructure Department have requested standard permit
conditions relating to a report for the legal point of discharge, maintenance of the existing
footpath levels, and the reinstatement of the crossovers to Burke Road. The recommended
conditions will be included in the permit.
KEY ISSUES
Strategic Justification
The purpose of the General Residential Zone (Schedule 7) is to implement State and Local
Planning Policies, to encourage development that respects the existing neighbourhood
character, to implement neighbourhood policy, provide diversity of housing and moderate
housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport. The State
Planning Policy Framework encourages higher density development located in or close to
activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.
Page 15
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
In addition, local policies call for well-designed medium density housing that respects
neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing
infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.
Having regard to the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning
Scheme and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, it is considered that the
proposed development is consistent with the strategic directions of the State and Local
Policy Framework, in particular Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 16.01 (Residential
Development), Clause 21.03 (Vision for the City), Clause 21.05 (Housing) and Clause 21.06
(Built Environment and Heritage).
The proposal seeks to construct 20 dwellings in a well serviced location within the
municipality. The location of the proposed development satisfies the strategies set out in
Clause 16.01-2 (Location of residential development) which encourages ‘higher density
development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment
corridors and public transport’. Clause 21.05 (Housing) directs the majority of new housing
development to locations with the highest accessibility to both an Activity Centre and the
Principle Public Transport Network, and away from the residential hinterland. The site is
located on Burke Road, one of the municipalities main roads, and within reasonable
proximity to two small neighbourhood activity centres. Furthermore although Burke Road is
not nominated as a Priority Bus route within Clause 21.03, it is serviced by a bus route and
the subject site is within walking distance to a Tram route along Wattletree Road.
The site is identified, pursuant to Clause 21.05-2 (Location of residential development) as
being within an Incremental Change Area, where multi-unit developments of 2-3 storeys, to
lots capable of accommodating increased density, is directed. Given the site context and
characteristics of the site (generous area, regular shape, generally unrestrictive topography)
it is considered that the site can accommodate increased density.
Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage) sets out a number of key issues, objectives
and strategies relating to the built environment and heritage of the municipality.
The objective of Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape character) is ‘to repair and reinforce the high
quality landscape character of the City’. Generally speaking Clause 21.06-2 encourages new
development to incorporate a designated landscape setting with substantial canopy
vegetation, adequate setbacks for sufficient planting of canopy trees, avoidance of excessive
site coverage within medium and higher density development, and planting appropriate to the
character of the area in front gardens and native (preferably indigenous) in rear gardens, to
enhance habitat values while also respecting the area’s character, amenity and European
heritage. The proposal incorporates adequate setbacks to allow for landscaping, particularly
within the front setback to respond to the landscape character of the area.
Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity) aims ‘to achieve high standards of amenity within new
developments, and with adjoining developments’. It is considered that the proposal provides
for a good level of internal amenity with most habitable room windows provided with direct
access to natural light, appropriate room dimensions, good internal layout and connections,
and adequate areas of private open space provided. The proposal does not result in
unreasonable amenity impacts which will be discussed in more detail within the Clause 55
assessment. Although the development will present as a substantial built form in comparison
to the existing development located at the site, it is considered acceptable in light of the site
context, positioning of the building, architectural features, and suitable extent of landscaping
proposed.
Page 16
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The increased rear setbacks to the building at the ground floor and first floor (and increased
setback to part of the planter boxes at the second floor) reduce visual bulk impacts to the
secluded private open space areas of No. 2C Brunel Street, No. 2 Brunel Street, and No. 1
Paxton Street. The southern ground floor side setback of the building (southern wall of
apartment G.06 & G05) protects the vegetation located within No. 84 Burke Road and also
reduces the visual bulk impacts to the secluded private open space of No. 84 Burke Road.
Clause 21.06-4 (Built form character) aims to provide new development that does not
undermine the valued character of the City, to promote good design in all new developments,
ensuring the integration of new development with its surrounds, and to promote special
protection for areas of highly consistent character. It is considered that the architectural
design responds appropriately to the existing character and has utilised elements, such as a
pitched terracotta tiled roof fronting Burke Road, and sections of face brickwork, which are
recognizable within the surrounds. The eastern side of Burke Road is likely to undergo some
change due to the strategic support for medium density development and lack of restrictive
overlays, such as the heritage overlay that affects the western side of Burke Road. It is
considered that the scale of the development and presentation to the street is acceptable.
Member Naylor’s comments regarding the suitability of the site for medium density
development are outlined at paragraph 11 of A18 Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2014] VCAT
1015 (18 August 2014):
Plan Melbourne contains an example of applying the GRZ in Greater Dandenong and
explains that it is applied to incremental change areas where lower-scale, medium-density
development of 2-3 storeys is preferred. Planning policy in this case says the site is in an
incremental change area and GRZ7 provides for three storey development. Further, in an
existing neighbourhood with generally 1-2 storey high buildings, a three storey building is an
incremental change and a three storey apartment building can be described as moderate
housing growth. For all of these reasons, I am satisfied the planning scheme zone and
policies provide support for a three storey building on this site.
The location is appropriate for urban consolidation and provides an opportunity for increased
housing choice. It is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily addresses
policy objectives of urban consolidation, streetscape character, household diversity, building
form and landscape character and is responsive to its context.
Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the
proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential
amenity. These are discussed further below.
Clause 55
Neighbourhood Character/ Design Detail
As discussed above, the surrounding area is characterised by a mix of detached dwellings,
smaller multi-dwelling developments (such as townhouses and units), and to a lesser extent
apartment buildings. What is notable within the area is the consistent use of pitched tiled
roofs, the use of face brickwork, notable entry points, and leafy streetscapes with mature
trees (particularly in regards to the roads connecting to Burke Road i.e. Paxton Street and
Brunel Street). The development has been setback off all boundaries to respond to the
existing landscape character where spacing around buildings allows for established trees.
Furthermore the setback of the fence allows the planting of small trees to improve the
integration of the development with the street.
Page 17
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Although the scale of the development is not reflective of the predominant development
character within the area, it is considered that the Eastern side of Burke Road will undergo
some change, as discussed above, due to strategic policy support for medium density
developments. Furthermore the intention of the Neighbourhood Character Standard of
Clause 55 (Standard B1) is not replication of existing building stock, rather to ensure that
character is respected. It is considered that the development respects the existing character
through the use of specific building materials and design detailing; such as the use of a
pitched terracotta tiled roof and use of other materials that are characteristic of the area.
Amendment C175 identifies the area as the Garden Suburban 4 Precinct (GS4). The
preferred future character for the GS4 comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with
Edwardian, Interwar or Post‐war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds.
Regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees.
New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while
complementing the key aspects of building form, one‐two storey scale and design detail of
the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens
and buildings from the street. It is considered that the proposed building responds to the
preferred future character statement by incorporating adequate setbacks, suitable areas for
landscaping, fencing that is softened by a landscaped setback, and an appropriate
graduation from double storey to three storey built form.
The proposed front fence with a maximum height of 1.7 metres meets the standard
requirements of Standard B32 of Clause 55.06-2 (Front fences objective) which allows for a
2 metre high front fence. Within the immediate surrounds fences range in heights and styles,
including a number of high solid front fences (such as those at No. 88, No. 84 & No. 82
Burke Road). The landscaped buffer between the fencing and the front title boundary softens
the solid materials utilised, and does not detract from the good level of integration that
building has with the street. The building achieves it’s good level of integration with an
orientation towards Burke Road and a focal entry point.
Dwelling diversity
The apartment building comprises 20 dwellings with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments
(10 x 1 bedroom dwellings, 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings, and 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings).
Street setback
Standard B6 of Clause 55.03-1 (Street setback objective) prescribes a standard front setback
requirement of 9 metres for the subject site. The ground floor setback of 10.447 metres is in
excess of this requirement, part of the west facing first floor balconies to apartments 1.01 and
1.09 encroach within the setback slightly (.242 metres), which is considered to be a minor
variation and will not have a detrimental impact on the integration of the development with
the street or impact the level at which the building responds to the existing spacing provided
to developments. Furthermore the first floor balconies (and planter boxes at the second floor)
create interest and articulation to the front facade.
Building Height
The schedule to the zone introduces a mandatory maximum height of 11.5 metres (plus 1.2
metres for the lift overrun) for the subject site due to the slope of the land. The proposed
building height of 11.5 metres meets the mandatory maximum requirement. The transition
from two storeys to three storeys is considered acceptable, due to the transition of only one
storey combined with the side setbacks proposed.
Page 18
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Furthermore the rear setbacks ranging from a maximum of 6 metres at the ground floor level
and first floor level, and 8.768 metres at the second floor level responds appropriately to the
properties to the east of the laneway, and No.2C Brunel Street, and the location of their
secluded private open space areas.
Site Coverage
The proposal involves site coverage at ground floor level of 54.8% (not including the ramp)
and 60.17% (including the ramp) and a basement site coverage of 72.66% (including ramp).
The proposal requires a minor variation of 0.17% to the 60% standard site coverage
requirement, and complies with the 75% standard requirement for basement site coverage.
The proposed site coverage is respectful of the existing neighbourhood character, as it
provides for acceptable areas of the site that can be landscaped, particularly within in the
front setback. Furthermore the extent of the building footprint, combined with setbacks and
landscaping, reduces the visual bulk impacts to the surrounding properties and the minor
variation of 0.17% for the ground floor is considered to be acceptable.
Permeability
The proposal involves a permeability level which meets the standard 20% permeability
requirement. The development must respond to Clause 22.18 of the Stonnington Planning
Scheme (Stormwater Management: Water Sensitive Urban Design) which will further reduce
any stormwater runoff.
Energy Efficiency
The proposed development has made appropriate use of daylight where possible. North
facing windows, terraces, and balconies are provided to dwellings facing north, and east and
west facing habitable room windows and balconies have been incorporated to improve
access to daylight. The dwellings located to the south have been provided with terraces and
balconies however access to sunlight is restricted due to the orientation. Council’s ESD
Officer has raised concerns with the restricted access to sunlight for kitchens to apartments
G02 and G03, and south facing apartments 1.06, 1.07 and 1.08 due to the above
overhanging balconies and provision of privacy screening. Although the kitchens to G02 and
G03 do not have direct access to daylight the internal layout provides direct access to
daylight for the living room and bedroom, and is therefore considered acceptable. Daylight
modelling, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, for apartment 1.06, 1.07 and 1.08
will be requested as a permit condition.
The development has incorporated sustainability features such as solar panels to further
decrease the dependency on fossil fuels. In any given instance, the Building Regulations will
require a 6 star energy efficiency rating. In addition the development will not have a
detrimental impact on the energy efficiency of the adjoining properties, as overshadowing of
habitable room windows and secluded private open spaces proposed is not excessive, this
will be discussed further below.
Landscaping
It is considered that the proposal allows for an acceptable level of landscaping and protects
the vegetation within the adjoining properties to an acceptable extent, although it is worthy to
note the Planning Application 115/15 for No. 84 Burke Road involves the removal of all trees
within the title boundaries to make way for the proposed apartment building.
Page 19
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The proposal incorporates the removal of all vegetation on site, this is considered acceptable
as the vegetation is not considered significant, and Council’s Landscape Department have
confirmed that they do not have any concern with the proposed vegetation removal.
The revised landscape plans, Council date stamped 01 & 02 April 2015, show additional
plantings (including small trees) along the northern and southern setbacks, no new species
have been introduced. As discussed previously it is noted that the European Hornbeam’s
within the front setback have been retained and the applicant has confirmed that the
landscape architect responsible for the landscape plan is confident in the species viability,
given that the landscape architect is suitably qualified, the proposed use of the European
Hornbeam’s is considered acceptable.
The proposed landscaping responds to landscape character of the area by providing
vegetation within open areas that will soften the development when viewed from the
adjoining properties and from the street frontage. In particular the line of trees fronting Burke
Road responds to the leafy streetscape character of the area.
Amenity Impacts
Side and Rear Setbacks
Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear
setbacks. Schedule 7 to the zone requires, in addition to the standard requirements, that for
a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building, the building (including
basement) is setback a minimum of 2 metres from one site and 1 metre from the other side
boundary at a ground floor level. The proposal meets the standard requirements by
providing a minimum setback of 2 metres to the northern side of the building, and a minimum
setback of 1.966 metres to the southern setback, in excess of 5 metres behind the front
facade of the building. The setbacks at a basement level comply with 2 metres to the north,
and 1.81 metres to the south, for a length of more than 5 metres from the front facade of the
building.
The east facing ground floor wall located on the boundary will be assessed against Standard
B18 below.
The tables below illustrate how the proposal compares to the Standard B17 requirements;
Ground Floor
Orientation
North
South
Setback
Proposed
2 metres
1.966 metres
East
6 metres
Wall Height
Proposed
6.105 metres
6 metres
(approximately)
7.71 (metres
approximately)
Setback
Required
1.7515 metres
1.72 metres
Compliance
Achieved?
Yes
Yes
2.8 metres
Yes
6.105 metres
6 metres
(approximately)
1.7515 metres
1.72 metres
Yes
Yes
First Floor
North
South
2 metres
1.966 metres
Page 20
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
East
6 metres
7.71 metres
(approximately)
2.8 metres
Yes
North
South
4.275 metres
4.742 metres
3.89 metres
3.49 metres
Yes
Yes
East
8.768 metres
8.8 metres
8.4 metres
(approximately)
10 metres
(approximately)
5.09 metres
Yes
Second Floor
The north, south, and eastern setbacks vary; the above calculations are taken at the shortest
setback. Where setbacks vary throughout the development the wall height remains
compliant.
The screening to the second floor north facing balcony encroaches within the B17 Standard
setback requirement. The height to the top of the screening varies due to the design of the
building and the slope of the land. The height ranges from 7.805 metres to approximately 8
metres.
A height of 7.805 metres requires a setback of 2.895 metres, a setback of approximately 2.6
metres is proposed. A variation of 0.295 metres is relatively minor and will not have any
unreasonable visual bulk impacts to the northern adjoining properties, particularly as the top
section of the screening is finished with a powered coated glass.
A height of 8 metres requires a setback of 3.09 metres, a setback of 2.6 metres is proposed,
a variation of 0.49 metres is required. This is, again, considered acceptable as the top
portion of the screening is finished with a powdered coated glass which will not result in
significant visual bulk impacts.
The setback of the second floor balcony to the southern boundary complies with the
requirements of Standard B17.
Walls on Boundaries
The schedule to the zone restricts the location of boundary walls to 5 metres behind the front
facade of a building. The proposal incorporates a ground floor east facing wall located on the
boundary for a length of approximately 4.8 metres, with a height of 4 metres. The height of
the wall is .8 metres higher than the standard 3.2 metre height however is considered
acceptable as the wall abuts a laneway and is setback 3.1 metres from the secluded private
open space of No. 2 Brunel Street (which is screened by the wall by an existing fence and
vegetation).
Daylight to Existing Windows/North facing windows
Setbacks to the existing south facing habitable room windows of No. 88 Burke Road, No. 2A
Brunel Street, No. 2B Brunel Street, and No. 2C Brunel Street achieve compliance with the
Standard requirements of Clause 55.04-3 (Daylight to existing windows objective). A setback
of 3.053 metres is required from the ground floor south facing windows of No. 88 Burke Road
and No. 2A Burke Road, the building is setback 4.734 metres from the windows which is in
excess of the standard requirements. The ground floor wall located opposite the ground floor
south facing windows of No. 2B Brunel Road does not exceed 3 metres. A setback of 1.9
metres is required to the south facing habitable room window of No. 2C Brunel Road due to
the 3.8 metre (approximate) wall height, a setback of 6.131 metres is achieved.
Page 21
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Where the existing window is above ground floor level, the wall height is measured from the
floor level of the room containing the window; however the first floor levels have not been
provided for the adjoining properties to the north. In any event it is anticipated that the
proposed building would meet the requirements as the more restrictive setbacks from the
ground floor windows are achieved.
The objective of Clause 55.04-4 (North facing windows) is to allow adequate solar access to
existing north-facing habitable room windows. If a north-facing habitable room window of an
existing dwelling is within 3 metres of a boundary, the proposed building should be setback
from the boundary, in accordance with the standard requirements, for a distance of 3 metres
from the edge of each side of the window.
Two ground floor north facing windows of the existing dwelling at No. 84 Burke Road are
located within 3 metres (2.731 metres) of the boundary, the first floor north facing window is
located over 3 metres from the boundary and does not require assessment against the
Standard.
The first floor wall height opposite the subject windows is 6 metres which requires a setback
of 2.44 metres, the first floor setback from the boundary is 1.98 metres to 2.844 metres. The
first existing north facing window is predominantly located opposite the 2.844 metre setback
(including 3 metres to the south of the window), however a small part of the window is
located opposite the 1.98 metre setback. The second existing north facing window is located
opposite the 2.844 metre setback however the reduced setbacks of 1.98 metres are located
within 3 metres either side of the window and therefore full compliance is not achieved.
Although full compliance is not achieved due to the parts of the southern building façade that
are located within 1.98 metres of the boundary, the building façade located predominantly
opposite the subject windows has been stepped in to address the sensitivity of the windows.
The second floor wall height opposite the subject windows at No. 84 Burke Road of
approximately 8.6 metres necessitates a setback of 4.7 metres from the boundary, a setback
of 5.176 metres is proposed and therefore compliance is achieved. When the wall height is
measured from natural ground level to the top of the balustrade at the second floor level the
height is 7.4 metres. The 7.4 metre height requires a setback of 3.48 metres from the
boundary; the balustrade is setback 2.845 metres from the boundary, which requires a
variation of .635 metres. This variation is considered acceptable as the top section of the
balustrade is powder coated glass which sunlight can penetrate. The balustrade when
measured to the top of the solid section has a height of approximately 6.9 metres, which
requires a setback of 2.98 metres and requires a variation of 0.135 metres. The extent of
non-compliance will not result in significant amenity impacts associated with access to
sunlight for the subject windows, as they will continue to access sunlight within the afternoon
periods.
Furthermore the roof section within this area is flat and again reduces the potential impact on
the north facing windows.
Planning Application 115/15, proposing a three storey apartment building, at No. 84 Burke
Road involves a number of north facing windows. The ground floor north facing windows and
second floor north facing windows are setback over 3 metres from the boundary and
therefore do not necessitate assessment. A number of first floor north facing habitable room
windows are located 3 metres from the boundary however are unlikely to be significantly
affected by the proposed development at No. 86 Burke Road due to the angle of shading.
Page 22
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Overshadowing
The proposed building will result in additional areas of overshadowing to the adjoining
properties to the south and east however the extent is not considered to be unreasonable
and will meet the Standard requirements and Objective of Clause 55.04-5 (Overshadowing
Open Space Objective), which aims to limit overshadowing of new buildings to existing
secluded private open space of adjoining properties.
The building will result in an additional area of additional overshadowing to the rear secluded
private open space area of No.84 Burke throughout the day, however the affected area is
located close to the fence line and the main area of existing secluded private open space is
not compromised. More than 40 square metres, with minimum dimension of 3 metres, of the
secluded private open space will receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am
and 3 pm on 22 September, meeting the requirements of Standard B21.
The building will result in a small area of overshadowing to the rear SPOS of No. 2 Brunel
Road at the 3pm timeframe. The affected area appears to contain an existing garden bed,
with the remaining area of lawn unaffected. Again, more than 40 square metres, with
minimum dimension of 3 metres, of the secluded private open space will receive a minimum
of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September, meeting the requirements
of Standard B21.
Should the development proposed under Planning Application 115/15 for No. 84 Burke Road
be approved it is acknowledged that the proposed development at the subject site will
overshadow the secluded private open spaces located at the ground floor of the
development. It is anticipated that the secluded private open space areas for the front and
rear apartments at No. 84 Burke Road will be less affected due to their positioning in relation
to the positioning of the building at No. 86 Burke Road. The two mid apartments will likely
receive overshadowing within the morning and early afternoon periods, and to a lesser extent
during the late afternoon. The proposed building at No. 86 Burke Road is adequately setback
from the southern site boundary, and includes variations to the setbacks, different roof forms,
and varied wall heights to address access to northern light for No. 84 Burk Road, and it is
therefore considered that the proposal does not borrow from the amenity of the adjoining lot.
To improve access to sunlight for the two middle ground floor secluded private open space
areas to the apartments of No. 84 Burke Road the design could be amended to increase the
secluded private open space areas.
Overlooking
The proposed ground floor plan includes a notation stating that the northern and southern
boundary fence will be increased to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor
of the apartments/terraces, in line with the standard requirements of Standard B22 of Clause
55.04-6 (Overlooking Objective). The finished floor levels of the building, when compared to
the levels at the northern property boundary, are no more than .13 metres to .79 metres
higher. The finished floor levels of the dwelling, when compared to the levels at the southern
property boundary, are lower for the first section of the building and then rise marginally (0.07
metres to 0.38 metres) from apartment G07 to the rear of the building. The elevations detail
the northern and southern boundary fencing with a minimum of 1.7 metres from the finished
floor levels of the apartments/terrace areas that complies with the requirements of Standard
B22.
The first floor southern and eastern habitable room windows are all treated to comply with
the standard requirements of Clause 55.04-6 through, either the provision of obscured
glazing from 1.7 metres from finished floor level, or the provision of 1.7 metre high privacy
screening to the balconies that also effectively screen the relevant habitable room windows.
Page 23
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Notations regarding the method of screening to the north facing first floor bedroom windows
of apartment 1.01 and apartment 1.02 are missing, a permit condition will be included
requesting demonstration of compliance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 for these
windows.
It is unclear if all sections of the privacy screening to the first floor and second floor balconies
complies with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6, as some sections do not include the
dimensions of the screens or the materials proposed to be utilised, and in the case of the
east facing terrace to apartment 1.05 does not include the level of permeability.
Demonstration of compliance for all northern, southern and eastern first floor and second
floor balconies with Standard B22 will be required via a permit condition. It is anticipated that
the second floor east facing habitable room windows and balcony will not require any privacy
screening under the standard requirements due to the setbacks to the rear boundary.
The first floor balconies to the west (apartment 1.01 and apartment 1.09) have not been
afforded privacy screens as they do not result in any overlooking to surrounding areas of
secluded private open space, given the positioning towards the front of the site.
The proposed building will not result in any unreasonably overlooking should the proposal at
No. 84 Burke Road be approved due to the extent of screening of the south facing habitable
room windows and balconies of the proposed building at No. 86 Burke Road.
Noise Impacts
Noises emanating from vehicles accessing the basement should not result in any
unreasonable amenity impacts. The basement ramp is not located close to the any habitable
room windows of the adjoining properties, although it is accepted that to the east of the
laneway, and opposite the basement ramp, lies the secluded private open space of No. 2
Brunel Street. Noise associated with the use of the ramp is not expected to be excessive
given the number of dwellings within the development and residential use of the land.
Furthermore, the plant equipment is enclosed at the roof level. It is considered that the
development will not generate noise over and above that expected with a normal residential
building.
Internal Amenity
The proposal provides for 20 apartments comprising of 3 x 3 bedroom dwellings, 7x 2
bedroom dwellings, and 10 x 1 bedroom dwellings, ranging from 47.6 square metres to 145.5
square metres with secluded private open spaces ranging from 8.1 square metre balconies
to 107 square metre terraces. The balcony to the first floor apartment of 1.04 requires a
variation to the standard requirements of Standard B28 of Clause 55.05-4 (Private Open
Space Objective) due to the width of 1.2 metres; the standard requirement prescribes a
required width of 1.6 metres. The 1.2 metre width has been proposed to lessen the visual
bulk impacts to No. 2 Brunel Street (by increasing the first floor setback), however to improve
the internal amenity afforded to apartment 1.04 the width will be required to be increased to
1.6 metres. The proposed front fence, in conjunction with the landscaped buffer, provides an
acceptable level of privacy to the secluded private open space areas of ground floor
apartments G01 and G08. All secluded private open spaces are well connected with living
room areas.
All dwelling are sufficient sized with all habitable room windows capable of receiving
adequate access to natural light.
Page 24
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Each apartment is easily accessible, the screening devices throughout the development,
subject to conditions, will limit internal views and individual storage areas are provided within
the basement that are easily accessible and provide future occupants with a reasonable level
of amenity. Heights of the internal screens at all levels will need to be detailed on the plans
with a minimum height of 1.7 metres, and screening to the balcony of 1.01 to limit internal
views, to apartment 1.09, will be applied to the southern length of the balcony to 1.01.
Having regard to the site services, the development provides letter boxes internally at the
ground floor level that are easily accessible. Sufficient space for the storage of waste
receptacles is detailed at the ground floor level and is easily accessible internally with the
provision of a roller door to the laneway; private collection is proposed for the development
via the rear laneway.
Car Parking and Traffic
Council’s Transport Department have raised concerns regarding the waiver of 5 visitor car
spaces. The proposal involves the re-instatement of two crossovers which will effectively
provide an increased availability of two on-street car parking spaces. Furthermore the
likelihood of visitors utilising the basement for parking is limited given the access is provided
via a rear laneway. As such the waiver of the visitor car spaces required pursuant to Clause
52.06 is considered acceptable. The number of resident spaces exceeds the standard
requirements by one car space.
The applicant has proposed a left in/left out arrangement for access to the basement car
park due to the narrow width of the laneway and poor pedestrian sight distances at Paxton
Street which is considered reasonable. No information has been provided on the plans to
demonstrate how this will be achieved, it is considered that signage within the basement and
some identification at the ground floor level/ramp would be sufficient given the number of
dwellings within the apartment building. The plans will need to be updated to include the
relevant information. It is appreciated that as this application will be decided on prior to the
applications at No. 84 and No. 82 Burke Road and will likely set the tone for traffic movement
within the rear laneway.
Although concerns have been raised in relation to pedestrian safety due to the location of the
stairwell and proximity to car spaces, it is anticipated that residents will become familiar with
the layout and it is likely that drivers will be manoeuvring/entering/exiting in a slow manner
given the residential use of the site. The location of the stairwell may impact the access to
parking spaces 07, 08 and 09, and access to the parking space 12 requires multiple
movements, they continue to be usable and residents will become familiar with the
manoeuvring requirements. Again given the nature of the basement use and number of
dwellings it services the layout is considered acceptable.
Council’s Transport Department have raised concerns with the proposed above bonnet
mounted bicycle spaces as they can restrict car parking. However should a resident have a
larger car where parking becomes restricted due to the storage of a bicycle at the above
bonnet space, it is likely that they will use one of the free standing spaces available instead.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State
Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
Page 25
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended
that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The proposal is well supported by State and Local Planning Policies.

There is strategic justification for the construction of additional dwellings at the subject
site.

The proposed scale of the development is considered acceptable given the location of
the site on a main road and within an incremental change area.

The proposal has been designed to minimise impacts on adjoining residential
properties and complies with the objectives outlined in Clause 55.

The development provides a good level of amenity for future occupants whilst allowing
for increased housing choice.

The proposal suitably responds to the neighbourhood and landscape character of the
area.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
PD - 0480-14 - 86 Burke Road Malvern East - 1 of 1
Plans
RECOMMENDATION
That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0480/14 for the land located
at 86 Burke Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for
the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, and a
reduction to the standard requirements of Clause 52.06 subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant must submit to the
Responsible Authority three copies of plans drawn to scale generally in
accordance with the plans prepared by Bruce Hernderson Architects (Council
date stamped 11 March 2015) but modified to show:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Demonstration of compliance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6
(Overlooking Objective) for all first floor and second floor north, south, and
east facing habitable room windows and balconies.
The width of the balcony to Apartment 1.04 increased to 1.6 metres.
The provision of a 1.7 metre high privacy screen for the length of the
southern facade of the balcony to Apartment 1.01.
The ground floor plan updated to detail the height, which must be a
minimum of 1.7 metres, and materials of all internal fences.
Signage within the basement and at a ground floor level/marked on the
basement ramp restricting entry and exit to left in/left out only.
A longitudinal section plan detailing headroom clearance, which meets
Australian Standards, throughout the carpark and at the entrance with the
door open.
An amended splay to the north side of the proposed access point which
meets the minimum requirements of the Planning Scheme.
An updated basement plan detailing the grades across the parking areas
for drainage purposes compliant with Australian Standards.
Daylight modelling for apartments 1.06, 1.07, and 1.08.
Page 26
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
Locations and details of all sustainability measures, including all operable
windows and external shading fixtures, referred to within the endorsed
SMP, as requested by Condition 9 of this permit.
The location of operable windows clearly identified on the elevations.
A revised landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.
A revised SMP in accordance with Condition 9 of this permit.
A revised WMP in accordance with Condition 11 of this permit.
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
2.
The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and
works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless
the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without
the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape
architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be
submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the
landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The
landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan
Prepared by Jack Merlo Design, Council date stamped 01 April 2015, drawn to
scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided detailing the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be
retained and/or removed
Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring
properties within three metres of the boundary
Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways
A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,
including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity,
and quantities of each plant
Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site
Planting of Carpinus betulus (European Hornbeam’s), or a suitable
alternative species, within the setback between the front fence and the front
title boundary
In situ planting clearly identified
Soil volumes for any in situ planting (directly related to their size at
maturity)
The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with
the landscape treatment of the site
Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or
decked areas
The location and specific details of the proposed rain water garden,
including details of the connections.
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Page 27
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
4.
Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on
the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction
of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged
plants are to be replaced.
5.
Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree
protection fence must be erected around the Tristaniopsis laurina (Kanooka)
street tree. Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970 to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.
No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within
the Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the Responsible
Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within
the Tree Protection Zone.
7.
Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film)
designed to limit overlooking as required B22 of Clause 55.04-6 in accordance
with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
thereafter for the life of the building.
8.
The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives
detailed in the endorsed site plan and stormwater management report to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9.
Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Management Plan
(SMP) Report must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the
development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the
SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SMP must be generally
in accordance with the SMP prepared by Environmental Solutions, Council date
stamped 17 December 2014, but modified to:
a) Sample energy ratings demonstrating that a 6.4 average star rating can be
achieved in accordance with the written response prepared by Environmental
Solutions Council Date Stamped 17 December 2015.
b) Calculations demonstrating that the solar photovoltaic panels provided will
not be subject to overshadowing in their current location in accordance with
the written response prepared by Environmental Solutions Council Date
Stamped 17 December 2015.
c) If required reflect the revised development detailed within the amended plans,
Council date stamped 12 March 2015.
All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability
Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations
to the Sustainability Management Plan may occur without written consent of the
Responsible Authority.
Page 28
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
10.
Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report
from the author of the Sustainable Management Plan, approved pursuant to this
permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the
Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainable
Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.
11.
Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be
submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste
Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the WMP prepared by
Leigh Design, Council date stamped 07 October 2014, but modified to:
a) Reflect the revised refuse storage area detailed within amended plans
Council date stamped 11 March 2015.
When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.
A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a
drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified
Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued.
The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.
13.
Existing levels of the rear of the right-of-way, including the edge, must not be
lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).
14.
The redundant vehicle crossing must be removed and the footpath, nature strip,
and kerb reinstated at the owners cost and to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
15.
All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this
permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority by completion of the development.
16.
All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or
screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and
adjoining properties and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of
unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the
Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
17.
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a
request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed
timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
Page 29
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
NOTES
a.
b.
c.
This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building
works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant
building permits are obtained.
The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not
eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.
At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment
Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the
periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following
timeframes:
i.
Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the
development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and
ii.
Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the
development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before
the permit expires.
Page 30
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
2
PLANNING PERMIT 0643/12 – 125 - 127 ALEXANDRA AVENUE, SOUTH YARRA –
SECTION 72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANS TO CONVERT THE ROOF AREA INTO A
TRAFFICABLE TERRACE AND ASSOCIATED BALUSTRADE/PRIVACY SCREENING FOR THE
PENTHOUSE ON LEVEL THREE.
Statutory Planning Manager: Alexandra Kastaniotis
General Manager Planning & Development: Stuart Draffin
PURPOSE
For Council to consider a planning application for a Section 72 Amendment to approved
plans to convert the roof area into a trafficable terrace and associated balustrade/ privacy
screening for the penthouse on level three at 125 - 127 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra.
Executive Summary
Applicant:
Ward:
Zone:
Overlay:
Date lodged:
Statutory days:
Trigger for referral to
Council:
Number of objections:
Consultative Meeting:
Officer Recommendation:
Christopher Megowan
North
General Residential Zone - Schedule 4
Heritage Overlay- Schedule 146
Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 3
Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 6
24 October 2014
46 days
Alterations and additions to a previously approved building
that is four storeys
One
No
Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Section 72 Amendment
to a Planning Permit
BACKGROUND
The Proposal
The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Christopher
Megowan Design and are known as File No. J010, Drawing No.s: A-1.000, A-1002, and A1.005 Council date stamped 24 October 2014. Drawing No.: A-4.001 Council dated stamped
15 April 2015 in addition to Drawing No.: A-9.201 and the Tree Management Plan Council
date stamped 19 March 2015.
The application is for an amendment to an existing Planning Permit. Under the provisions of
Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act, it is only those elements of the proposal
that represent a change from the approved development which are open for consideration
and assessment by the Responsible Authority. Key features of the amendments are as
follows:
 Convert the northeast unoccupied roof space on the third level into a 34 sq. metre
trafficable terrace/private open space.
Page 31
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
 Replace the sliding windows located on the north and east elevation (associated with the
living area) with sliding doors for access to the terrace.
 The terrace is to be screened with fixed opaque glazing on the eastern interface to 1700
mm above finished floor level and to 100mm above finished floor level on the northern
interface.
 The height of the balustrade / privacy screening is 11.35 metres above natural ground
level on the east elevation and 10.78 metres on the north elevation.
 The maximum overall height of the balustrade from the centre of the footpath is 12.3
metres.
The proposed amendments do not result in any alterations to the permit pre-amble or permit
conditions.
Site and Surrounds
The site is located on the south side of Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra between Chapel
Street and Williams Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:



The site is irregular in shape with an angled frontage of 17.98 metres, varied depth and
a site area of approximately 590 sq. metres.
The land is generally flat adjacent to the frontage and then slopes relatively steeply up
towards the southern boundary.
A pair of two storey attached dwellings exist on the site angled to the frontage with
substantial hard surfacing in the front setback and the adjoining road reserve.
Alexandra Avenue is a two way road with two lanes of traffic each way, a footpath on the
south side and lined with attractive street trees. The curved nature of the road alignment
together with the angled frontages result in varying extent of road reserve between the
footpath and property frontages, which in the case of the subject site is largely paved, used
for parking and vehicle turning and contains a small street tree. Opposite the site, on the
north side of Alexandra Avenue, is the Yarra River with a shared bicycle/walking path on the
south side, slightly below the road level, and the main Yarra Trail on the north side.
To the immediate east of the site is a concrete heritage listed walkway that extends between
Alexandra Avenue and Rockley Road to the south. The path is approximately 1.8m wide,
relatively flat towards Alexandra Avenue before rising steeply accommodated by a series of
steps. The walkway is predominantly enclosed by high fencing and walls along both sides
towards Alexandra Avenue, noting that some of the fencing on the west side encloses part of
the walkway reserve. Further south, as the walkway adjoins 51 and 56 Rockley Road, the
interface is defined by low retaining walls and open gardens. On the other side of the
walkway to the east is a two storey building containing two dwellings at 129 and 131
Alexandra Avenue with a contemporary four storey apartment building further east.
There is a three storey building containing two dwellings immediate west of the subject site
with two apartment buildings further west.
Previous Planning Application(s)
A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Permit No. 0643/12 was issued in accordance with the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision P292/2013 on the 6th of November 2013 for
the ‘demolition of existing buildings, construction of dwellings and alteration to access a
road in a Road Zone Category 1’.
Page 32
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015

Plans to satisfy permit conditions and an amendment by way of Secondary Consent
was approved and endorsed on the 22nd of September 2014 to form part of the permit.
The Title
The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 06470 Folio 860 / Lot 4 of Plan of
Subdivision 014396. No covenants affect the land. An Electricity Commission easement
transverses the eastern portion of the site.
Planning Controls
Section 73(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that Sections 47 to 62 apply
to an application to amend a permit as if the application were an application for a permit and
any reference to a permit were a reference to the amendment to the permit.
Therefore, the amendments to the permit and plans are to be assessed against the relevant
planning controls affecting the proposal.
The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:
Zone
Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone Schedule 4
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 a permit is required for the construction or extension of two or
more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55 (two or
more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings).
It is noted that the application was submitted on 24 October 2014, post the gazettal of the
new residential zones on 19 June 2014 therefore, the General Residential Zone Schedule 4
provisions apply.
Clause 32.08-7 states that the maximum height of a building used for the purpose of a
dwelling or residential building must not exceed the building height specified in a schedule to
this zone. Schedule 4 to the General Residential Zone specifies a maximum height of 12
metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres
of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building
must not exceed 13 metres. As the subject site has a fall of greater than 2.5 degrees the
maximum mandatory height is 13 metres.
Schedule 4 to the General Residential Zone also sets out variations to the requirements of
Clause 55 as detailed below:
Site
Coverage
Side and
Rear
Setbacks
Walls on
boundaries
Standard
B8
Requirement
Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
B17
For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of
the building fronting the street, setback new buildings
(including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least
one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side
boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.
B18
Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies.
Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance
of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the
street.
Page 33
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Overlays
Clause 43.01– Heritage Overlay Schedule 146
Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required to demolish or remove a building, to
construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Clause 43.02 – Design and development Overlay Schedule 3
Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry
out works. Schedule 3 to the overlay relates to the Yarra River Skyline Area.
Pursuant to Section 3.0 of the Schedule, before deciding on an application, the Responsible
Authority must consider whether the location, bulk, outline and appearance of the building or
works achieve the design objectives of this overlay.
Clause 43.02 – Design and development Overlay Schedule 6
Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is not required to construct a building or construct or
carry out works. Schedule 6 to the overlay relates to the City Link Exhaust Stack Environs.
Particular Provisions
Clause 55 -Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings.
Relevant Planning Policies
The following clauses of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, in addition to those listed above,
are particularly relevant to this assessment:
Clause 11
Clause 12
Clause 15
Clause 16
Clause 21.03
Clause 21.05
Clause 21.06
Clause 22.04
Clause 55
Clause 65
Settlement
Environmental and Landscape Values
Built Environment and Heritage
Housing
Vision
Housing
Built Environment and Heritage
Heritage Policy
Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings
Decision Guidelines
Amendment C175 – Neighbourhood Character Local Policy
Amendment C175 has been prepared to introduce a new Neighbourhood Character Policy
into the local section of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Neighbourhood Character
local planning policy includes the preferred character statements, design objectives and
design responses to be taken from the precinct profiles. This policy will clarify the preferred
neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal
respects and reinforces the preferred character.
Council received the Panel Report on 26 November 2014, which recommends that the
Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to minor modifications. As a result, Amendment
C175 has reached a stage that it can be considered as a seriously entertained planning
policy. Due consideration should be given to the proposed Neighbourhood Character Policy.
According to the Amendment, the subject site falls within the Garden River Precinct (‘GR’). A
detailed assessment against Amendment C175 will be discussed in the assessment section
of this report.
Page 34
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Advertising
The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment
Act 1987 by sending notices to all the previous objectors in addition to the owners and
occupiers of adjoining land and by placing one sign on the site. The public notification of the
application has been completed satisfactorily.
The site is located in North Ward and an objection from one property has been received. In
summary, the objection raised the following concerns:





The proposed balustrade will have a detrimental impact on the heritage listed walkway
adjacent to the site.
Implications of the new residential zones.
Previous amendments should not have been considered under Secondary Consent.
The introduction of a new condition in relation to tree pruning is at odds with the VCAT
order.
A gum tree has recently been removed from the walkway.
An assessment against the above concerns is discussed below.
Referrals
Parks
The application was referred to the Parks Unit to respond to part of the objection. The Parks
Unit reviewed the endorsed plans including the Tree Management Plan and conducted a site
inspection.
The Tree Management Plan (TMP) and Southern Fence Location and Detail Plan (drawing
A-9.201) have been revised in accordance with the request from Council’s Parks unit in order
to rectify inconsistencies and omissions. More specifically, these documents now include a
notation detailing that any new base plinth board must be above the existing soil grade, with
no excavation to install the plinth board. The tree protection fence diagram has been updated
to include further details of the tree protection fencing. Lastly, the TMP has been updated to
include the retention of the mature Fraxinus angustifolia (Desert Ash) tree in the south east
corner of the site in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
The Parks Unit reviewed the updated Tree Management Plan and the Southern Fence
Location and Detail Plan and deemed them suitable for approval. This information will form
part of the endorsed plans on any issue of amended permit.
Heritage
Councils Heritage Advisor reviewed the submitted documentation and provided the following
written comments:
 These modifications to the approved plans have no additional impact on the physical
structure of the walkway and the impact on the important landscaping will be no different
than what has been approved.
 It seems to me that the minor alterations to the approved scheme (conversion of the roof
area into a trafficable terrace) are just that and will not make any substantial further
impact on the significance of the precinct.
Page 35
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
 On this basis I have no further comment to make about the proposed amendments and it
appears that there are no heritage issues which would call for refusal of this request.
An assessment against the above is discussed below.
KEY ISSUES
Heritage
The Stonnington Planning Scheme (Clause 10.02, Clause 15.01-5, Clause 22.04, and
Clause 43.01) places considerable emphasis on conserving and enhancing heritage places
and ensuring that new development does not adversely affect the significance of a heritage
place. Local policy seeks to ensure that any works are sympathetic to the heritage area, an
outcome reinforced in the Stonnington Heritage Guidelines. The subject site is located within
the Rockley Precinct which is significant:
 For the manner in which it illustrates the processes of the transformation of the 1840s
estates along the river between Chapel Street and Williams Road into a prestigious
residential area;
 For the topography which inspired the paintings of Charles McCubbin;
 For the manner in which the 1937 Como Park Estate responded to Alexandra Avenue
and how Melbourne’s new attraction to the river created a new urban identity;
 For the unique subdivision design, especially the linking of Rockley Road with
Alexandra Avenue by means of a pedestrian walkway;
 For the landscaping of the walkway which adopts an approach to urban design
that has more in common with harbour-side Sydney suburbs of this era;
 For the contribution of the landscape of the escarpment to the character of the
walkway;
 For the high quality and diverse architectural character, principally examples of inter-war
and pre-First World War period which reflect the history of the development and
subdivision of Little Rockley, both through the consistent residential character dating from
the 1908 Howey Estate, and the more diverse character resulting from Como Park
Estate;
 For the contribution of noted designer and landscaper Eric Hammond, architect Verner
Fick, architect and developer Howard Lawson, and the influence of Edna Walling;
 For the informed patronage of Clara Strang and Henderson and the occupancy by noted
graphic designer Gert Seiheim;
 For the unusual residential character comprising detached houses, semi detached
houses and flats set on large garden allotments with mature landscaping, especially
those on the escarpment;
 For the enclosing avenue of Planes which links the Toorak Road parkland entry to the
significant portion at the northern end of Rockley Road; and
 For the overall scale and width of the street, and the position of the urban conservation
area on the crest of a hill.
The subject site is currently occupied by a C graded building however; the approved
Planning Permit (643/12) allows for the the replacement of a two storey envelope with a
sheer three to four storey envelope.
The proposed amendment seeks to convert a roof space on the 3rd level into a trafficable
terrace and the associated construction of a balustrade/ privacy screening around the
eastern and northern terrace perimeter. It is considered that the proposed amendments will
not raise any heritage concerns in regards to the approved host building as it is of no
heritage significance.
Page 36
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
An assessment must also be made in relation to the impact of the proposed amendments on
the adjoining land and characteristics of the heritage precinct at large. More specifically, the
subject site is adjacent to an A2 graded walkway. Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) of the
Stonnington Planning Scheme details that A2 afforded assets ‘are of regional or metropolitan
significance, and stand as important milestones in the architectural development of the
metropolis’. It is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact the heritage place (the
walkway in particular) for the following reasons:
 The balustrade will be constructed out of light weight partially transparent (no more than
25%) material and will be set in from the parapet, therefore limiting its visual impact when
viewed from the walkway.
 The balustrade ranges in height from 1 – 1.7 metres above finished floor level and has a
maximum height of 11.35 metres above natural ground level which is less than the
overall building height.
 The overall setback to the walkway is not being reduced.
 The proposed development does not change the unique subdivision design referred to in
the Statement of Significance. The walkway is a distinctive element of the subdivision
and is identified as a key component of the significant character of the Rockley Precinct.
 The balustrade will not be visible from the upper, more sensitive southern end of the
walkway or Rockley Road.
The lower, northern section of the walkway was contrasted to the upper section by the
Tribunal in Craig Rosetti Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2005] VCAT 1624
…we acknowledge the varied character of the walkway. On the lower sections there is
less sensitivity with respect to heritage issues. Despite the grading of the Alexandra
Avenue properties, we agree with Mr Milner that the northern section of the walkway is
very ordinary. It abuts the side and rear elements of buildings and shabby fences. The
higher sections, adjacent to the subject site and 51 Rockley Road, have a superior
quality. The tree canopy meets to create a tunnel effect. There is a low wall at 51
Rockley Road and the garden blends physically with the walkway, and actually extends
half way across the reserve shown on the subdivision…
The Tribunal Member in SA11 Property Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2013] VCAT 1819 agreed
with this description and detailed that the lower section appears a functional and pragmatic
joining space rather than a heritage space.
In light of the above, the proposed works are considered to be acceptable and will not detract
from the heritage value of the heritage place.
Clause 55
Detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the
applicable ResCode Objectives and Standards as discussed below.
Neighbourhood Character/ Design Detail
The proposal retains the approved built form and architectural composition. The only
difference when viewed from the streetscape and adjoining land will be a 1 metre high
balustrade/ privacy screening on the northern elevation and a 1.7 metre high balustrade/
privacy screening on the eastern elevation. The balustrade/ privacy screening is to be set in
from the parapet in order to reduce the visual impact when viewed from below.
Page 37
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The proposed terrace has been designed to be complementary to the character and
appearance of other terraces on the host building and other developments on the southern
side of Alexandra Avenue. The 1 metre high balustrade/ privacy screening on the northern
elevation allows for increased opportunity for passive surveillance to Alexandra Avenue, the
Yarra Trail and, the entry to the walkway which abuts the subject site to the east.
It is considered that the visual impact of the proposed amendments on the streetscape, on
adjacent properties and on the neighbourhood at large will be unchanged and provide a
suitable outcome in the site context.
Council has undertaken neighbourhood character studies across the municipality’s
residential areas and is in the process of introducing a new neighbourhood character policy
into the local planning policies. According to the exhibited documents and Panel Report of
Amendment C175, the subject site falls within the Garden River Precinct (‘GR’).
The Garden River character precinct comprises buildings that contribute to the Yarra River
and its landscaped setting, with innovative architectural styles set among Victorian,
Edwardian and Interwar dwellings and well‐planted, spacious gardens. New buildings of
varying styles and scales are designed to complement and respect the river environs.
Consistent front and side setbacks allow for substantial planting that contributes to the tree
canopy, and softens the appearance of built form. Where adjoining or visible from the Yarra,
buildings address both the street and the River. Low or permeable front fences provide views
of building facades and front gardens.
There is no change proposed to the current approved bulk, orientation, or architectural
character of the development. It is therefore considered that the proposed amendments
represent a design response that will complement the Garden River setting of Alexandra
Avenue in accordance with the proposed neighbourhood character policy.
Building Height
It is evident that if a fresh application was applied for now, which exceeds the mandatory 13
metre building height it would be prohibited and therefore refused. The application before
Council is not an application for a permit; it is to amend an existing permit. This is an
important distinction as only those elements of the proposal that represent a change from the
approved development are open for consideration.
The Tribunal has on a number of occasions amended permits for the development of land
which become prohibited after the grant of the permit. The approach adopted by Tribunals
when considering the amendment of permits, whether under section 87A or Section 72, has
focused on the proposed changes, rather than reopening debate about the whole proposal.
The approved permit authorises a building height of 14.5 metres. The amendment
application does not seek to increase this height nor does it seek to alter the building
envelope above 13 metres. It is therefore considered that the amendment is not prohibited.
The amendment proposes to construct a balustrade/ privacy screening to a maximum height
of 11.35 metres above natural ground level on the eastern elevation. The balustrade/ privacy
screening on the northern elevation is lower and is therefore 10.78 metres above natural
ground level. The maximum overall height of the balustrade from the centre of the footpath is
12.3 metres. It is considered that the new built form is of a non intrusive nature and will
blend in with the approved development.
Page 38
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Overlooking
The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the overlooking objective,
including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines
unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must
be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly. Overlooking from the
proposed roof terrace is assessed below:
 North Elevation
Views towards the north overlook Alexandra Avenue and will not give rise to any
unreasonable overlooking issue. As a result, it is acceptable to leave the northern elevation
unscreened.
 East Elevation
The eastern elevation of the terrace has fixed glazing with a maximum transparency of 25%.
The screening also acts as a balustrade with a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level
for the majority of its length then tapering down to a height of 1 metres above finished floor
level. The views from the portion of the terrace which has a height of less than 1.7 metres do
not raise any amenity concerns as it overlooks the public walkway, a portion of the front yard
associated with 131 Alexandra Avenue, and the common driveway associated with 129 &
131 Alexandra Avenue.
Internal Amenity
It is considered that the proposal provides an increased level of amenity to the penthouse
dwelling by creating a highly accessible terrace which is of a substantial size and benefiting
from good northern orientation. The total private open space for the dwelling will be
increased from 11 sq. metres to 45 sq. metres which exceeds the requirements of Standard
B28 (private open space).
Yarra River Skyline Area
The proposal will result in an indistinguishable difference in when viewed from the Yarra
River environs compared to the approved development.
Objections
In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following
comments are made:
 Previous amendments should not have been considered under Secondary Consent.
A summary of the changes include:
o
o
o
o
o
ESD measures noted on plans;
Minor alterations to material/colour schedule;
The lift/stair core has been slightly reconfigured and increased. This has resulted in
minor changes to setbacks to the south. The elevator opens to the north previously to
the west;
Roof skylights and solar panels have been added to third level (the skylights and
solar panels are under the parapet height ); and
Alteration to the dimensions of the light court.
Page 39
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
A more detailed list of approved changes is provided as an attachment.
The tests for deciding whether a development may be altered under a secondary consent
provision are set down in Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd v Moreland CC (Red Dot) [2005]
VCAT 1049 and recently updated in Oz Property Group (Flemington) Pty Ltd v Moonee
Valley CC (Red Dot) [2014] VCAT 397 where it was held that the following tests must be
met:
o
o
o
o
Do not result in a transformation of the proposal.
Do not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the planning
scheme.
Is of no consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control under
which the permit was granted.
Is not contrary to a specific requirement as distinct from an authorisation within the
permit, which itself cannot be altered by consent.
The permit allows for the demolition of an existing building, construction of dwellings and
alterations to a road zone category 1. The changes are consistent with what the permit
allows, and inconsequential, having regard to the purpose of the planning controls.
Furthermore, the application did not authorise something that required primary consent
nor did it allow for something contrary to a specific requirement within the permit. Overall,
it was considered acceptable to approve the application under Secondary Consent.
 The introduction of a new condition in relation to tree pruning is at odds with the VCAT
order.
No additional conditions were included on the planning permit as a result of the
Secondary Consent approval. It is noted that condition 4 of the permit requires a Tree
Management Plan detailing a number of measures including a ‘detailed pruning plan for
the 3 trees located in 51 Rockley Rd’ (refer to condition 5 dot point 4 in the attached
Planning Permit 643/12 as issued under the direction of VCAT). This condition and
associated conditions remain unchanged.
 A gum tree has recently been removed from the walkway.
A site inspection was conducted by Council’s Arborist who verified that a small gum tree
was removed from a Council owned garden bed along the walkway. It is unknown who
removed the tree. The tree was within a protected area of assorted natives (identified in
location 6 on the approved TMP). This matter is being investigated.
Human Rights Consideration
This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State
Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
CONCLUSION
Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended
that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:
 The changes will not adversely impact on the heritage value of the building and place.
Page 40
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
 The changes do not result in any impact to the neighbouring landowners materially
different to that authorised under the original approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
PD - 0643-12 - 125-127 Alexandra Avenue South Yarra - 1 of 1
Plans
RECOMMENDATION
That a Notice of Decision to Amend a Planning Permit No: 0643/12 for the land located
at 125 - 127 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning
Scheme for a Section 72 Amendment to approved plans comprising of the following
changes:
 Convert the northeast unoccupied roof space on the third level into a 34 sq. metre
trafficable terrace/private open space.
 Replace the sliding windows located on the north and east elevation (associated
with the living area) with sliding doors for access to the terrace.
 The terrace is to be screened with fixed opaque glazing on the eastern interface to
1700 mm above finished floor level and to 100mm above finished floor level on the
northern interface.
 The Tree Management Plan (TMP) and Southern Fence Location and Detail Plan
(drawing A-9.201) have been updated to include a notation detailing that any new
base plinth board must be above the existing soil grade, with no excavation to
install the plinth board.
 The tree protection fence diagram has been updated to include further details of
the tree protection fencing.
 The TMP has been updated to include the retention of the mature Fraxinus
angustifolia (Desert Ash) tree in the south east corner of the site.
Page 41
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
3.
PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C204 - HERITAGE OVERLAY FOR 21 WILLIAM
STREET, SOUTH YARRA
Manager City Strategy: Susan Price
General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Planning
Panel on Amendment C204 – Permanent Heritage Overlay 21 William Street, South Yarra
and decide whether to adopt the amendment with or without changes.
BACKGROUND
Heritage Strategy
Council adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan in December 2006. The Action Plan
followed the preparation of Council’s Thematic Environmental History 2006 (adopted 2006
with Update 1 prepared in 2009). It was designed to provide Council with a sound framework
for a comprehensive and coordinated review of existing heritage places and the assessment
of new places.
The current stage of Council’s Heritage Strategy addresses the issue of individual buildings
not currently under the Heritage Overlay. Council intends to ultimately seek heritage controls
for all A1 graded buildings in the municipality and those A2 graded buildings meeting or
exceeding the threshold of local significance.
In implementing this part of its Heritage Strategy, Council has grouped individual buildings
thematically, linking to themes contained in the Thematic Environmental History. Since 2012
the thematic groups Hotels (6 places), Churches and Halls (16 places), Stables and Dairies
(7 places), Chimneys (2 Places), Shops (17 places) and Residential Flats (24 places) have
been protected under the Heritage Overlay.
Council has commenced an initial investigation of the Victorian thematic group; however
Council is not yet in a position to progress an amendment to the planning scheme for the
whole group. The place at 21 William Street, South Yarra falls within this thematic group.
Context
The place at 21 William Street, South Yarra is a double-storey Victorian Italianate style villa,
previously identified as an A2 graded building in the Prahran Character and Conservation
Study 1992. The place is not currently protected under the Heritage Overlay.
On 24 June 2014, Council received a request under section 29A of the Building Act 1993 for
Report and Consent on Proposed Demolition for 21 William Street, South Yarra. The
application proposed partial demolition to the front and rear of the building to allow for
alterations and additions.
Under section 29B of the Building Act 1993, Council can suspend an application for a
building permit for demolition if, during the prescribed time (15 days from receipt of the
demolition application) a request is made to the Minister for Planning to prepare an
amendment to a planning scheme. The time is also suspended if Council makes an
application under section 20(1) of the Act.
Page 43
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Council’s heritage advisor provided preliminary advice in regards to the place at 21 William
Street, South Yarra. He considered that the villa presented a strong case for an individual
heritage control and that further investigation was warranted.
Based on the initial heritage advice, on 11 July 2014 (within the prescribed time) Council
under delegation, requested:
 The Minister for Planning, in accordance with 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act
1987, to prepare Amendment C203 to provide interim heritage protection for 21 William
Street, South Yarra, and
 The Minister for Planning authorised the preparation of Amendment C204 to apply
permanent heritage protection to 21 William Street, South Yarra (seeking exemption of
notice under 20(1)).
A letter suspending consideration of the building application was sent to the registered
building surveyor on 15 July 2014.
On 22 September 2014, Council was advised that the Department for Environment, Land
Water and Planning (DELWP), under delegation, had refused Amendment C203 to provide
interim heritage controls for the place at 21 William Street, South Yarra. Council was also
advised that the Department for Planning, Transport and Local Infrastructure (under
delegation) had refused Council’s request for an exemption from notice under Section 20 (1)
of the Act for Amendment C204.
On 9 October 2014, Council issued the section 29B response to the Registered Building
Surveyor. This response advised the prescribed time in which the relevant building surveyor
must decide the building permit application has recommenced.
At present, it is understood only the verandah has been removed from the building’s façade.
Council’s heritage consultant has advised that “the extent of alteration is not fatal as the
verandah can be reinstated.”
Amendment C214
On 30 January 2015 Council was advised of a building permit application that required report
and consent under the Building Regulations 2006. The proposal included substantial
modifications to the place at 21 William Street, South Yarra, including rear ground and first
floor additions. The application also proposed a third floor addition, visible from the street.
It is considered that the prominent and substantial modifications proposed will adversely
affect the heritage value of the heritage building in a significant way. Council’s heritage
consultant has indicated that the proposed works have the potential to permanently reduce
the integrity and significance of the place.
On 12 February 2015 Council, under delegation, requested that the Minister for Planning
prepare an Amendment to the Stonnington Planning Scheme (Amendment C214) to
introduce a Heritage Overlay to provide interim heritage protection for the site until its
heritage significance is fully and publicly assessed as part of the amendment process for
permanent controls (C204).
On 27 February 2014, a letter from Council was sent to the owners of 21 Williams Street,
advising that Council had refused consent of the building permit application.
It is noted that the owners of 21 William Street, South Yarra have recently made an
application to appeal the matter to the Building Appeals Board. If the Building Appeals Board
sets the previous decision of Stonnington aside, the proposal will be allowed to proceed
unless a permit is triggered under the Heritage Overlay.
Amendment C216
On 2 March 2015 Council received a new request under section 29A of the Building Act 1993
for report and consent for proposed demolition at 21 William, Street South Yarra. The
application proposes partial demolition to the front fence.
Page 44
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The proposed works will facilitate a prominent double car garage in the front setback of the
property.
Council’s heritage consultant has advised Council that:
“I believe that further changes beyond those already undertaken, and in particular the
proposed construction of a garage or ‘car pavilion' to the immediate front of the house,
would have a detrimental impact upon the significance of the place, such that it might no
longer warrant consideration for heritage overlay protection as a place of local
significance.”
On 20 March 2015, within the prescribed time Council (under delegation) again made a
request to the Minister for Planning to introduce interim heritage protection for the place at 21
William Street, South Yarra (via Amendment C216). Council, also formally withdrew
Amendment C214. Amendment C216 better reflects current circumstances and also
suspends consideration of the new section 29A application.
A letter suspending consideration of the building application was sent to the registered
building surveyor on 23 March 2015.
Council’s request for interim controls (Amendment C216) is still under consideration by the
Minister.
Heritage Assessments
Officers commissioned heritage consultants, Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd to prepare an individual
citation for the place at 21 William Street, South Yarra. It is noted that the citation was
updated (24 November 2014) to reflect the modifications to the building’s façade. The citation
identifies the place at 21 William Street as being of local architectural and historical
significance to the City of Stonnington (attachment 2).
At the request of Councillors, Officers also commissioned heritage consultant Robyn
Riddett from Anthemion Consultancies to undertake further investigation for the property
at 21 William Street, South Yarra. The heritage assessment also draws the conclusion that
the place at No. 21 William Street, South Yarra, is of local aesthetic and historical
significance to the City of Stonnington. This assessment was undertaken in August before
modifications were made to the verandah.
Both documents recommend that the place at 21 William Street be added to the Schedule of
the Heritage Overlay under the City of Stonnington Planning Scheme and the original
grading of A2 is substantiated and warranted.
The heritage citation prepared by Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd is a supporting document to the
amendment and proposed to be included as a reference document to the planning scheme
under the broader reference ‘City of Stonnington – Heritage Citations, various dates’.
Exhibition
Amendment C204 was placed on public exhibition from 9 October 2014. The closing date for
submissions on the Amendment was 10 November 2014, although Council officers advised
the owner of the land that Council had extended the time to receive submissions by one
week, to 17 November 2014.
Full copies of the proposed Amendment and supporting documentation were available for
viewing at the Prahran Town Hall and on Council’s and DELWP’s websites.
A notice of preparation of Amendment C204 was placed in the Stonnington Leader and the
Government Gazette on 7 and 9 October 2014 respectively. Notice was also sent to the
owner and prescribed authorities on 8 October 2014.
Page 45
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Consideration of Submission
As a result of exhibition, one (1) submission was received which generally objected to the
Amendment. The submission attached a preliminary heritage appraisal by a heritage
consultant, John Briggs Architects Pty Ltd in support of the submission.
The main issue raised in the heritage appraisal was that the threshold of ‘local significance’
applied to the place at 21 William Street, South Yarra by Council’s Heritage Consultant, was
not substantiated by rigorous comparative analysis.
Council considered the submission to Amendment C204 on 15 December 2014. Council
resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to consider the submission
and proposed amendment.
Panel Hearing
The Panel Hearing was held on 25 and 26 March 2015 at Malvern Town Hall. The Panel
member was Peter McEwan (Chair), and the one submitter appeared at the Hearing along
with Council.
The Panel Report was received by Council on 23 April 2015 (Attachment 1). Council has 28
days after receiving the report to make it available to the public. An email was sent to the
submitter with a copy of the Panel report on the 24 April 2015, advising them of the Panel
report.
DISCUSSION
The Panel Report recommends that the amendment is adopted as exhibited.
In summary, the Panel is supportive of Amendment C204 and considers that the place at 21
William Street, South Yarra is of local significance as it embodies valued aesthetic
characteristics. The Panel also accepts that the place is of sufficient importance that its
cultural values should be recognised in the Stonnington Planning Scheme and taken into
account in decision making.
In response to the issues raised by the submitter’s advocate, the Panel Report notes that:
“The citation prepared by Mr Raworth (Council’s Heritage Consultant) provides an
adequate comparative analysis. It sets out how the subject building meets the
threshold of significance for a Heritage Overlay control by comparing it to other large
Victorian house which have been found to be worthy of Heritage Overlay controls.”
In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can
choose to adopt the amendment without changes, adopt the amendment with changes or
abandon the amendment.
If Council adopts the Amendment in a form contrary to the Panel recommendation, Council
must give its reasons. Ultimately, it is the Minister for Planning who will approve the
Amendment. Council needs to provide strong strategic justification for any variations from the
Panel’s recommendations.
It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C204 as exhibited (refer attachments 3
and 4).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed Amendment C204 is consistent with the following Council Plan (2013-2017)
strategy:
‘Preserve Stonington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with
complementary and sustainable development.
Page 46
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06 of the
Stonnington Planning Scheme which seeks to:
‘protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values
of the City of Stonnington.'
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
Costs for the protection of heritage places within the municipality have been included in the
budget of Council's Strategic Planning Unit for 2014/2015.
Amendment C204 timeline:
July 2014
October/November
2014
March 2015
May 2015
June/July
2015
Authorisation
Exhibition
Panel
Adoption
Approval
LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS
All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment
C204.
CONCLUSION
The place at 21 William Street, South Yarra is currently under threat from proposed buildings
and works that would irrevocably reduce the heritage significant of the place.
Amendment C204 seeks to introduce a permanent heritage control, HO148, to land at 21
William Street, South Yarra to protect its significance. The heritage citation identifies the
place at 21 William Street, South Yarra as being of local architectural and historical
significance to the City of Stonnington.
The Panel Report on Amendment C204 supports the protection of the place and
recommends that the Amendment should be adopted as exhibited.
It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C204 as exhibited.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
SF- Planning Scheme Amendment C204 - Permanent Heritage Overlay for
21 William Street, South Yarra - 1 of 4
Excluded
2.
SF- Planning Scheme Amendment C204 - Permanent Heritage Overlay for
21 William Street, South Yarra - 2 of 4
Excluded
3.
SF - Planning Scheme Amendment C204 - Permanent Heritage Overlay for
21 William Street, South Yarra - 3 of 4
Excluded
4.
SF - Planning Scheme Amendment C204 - Permanent Heritage Overlay for
21 William Street, South Yarra - 4 of 4
Excluded
Page 47
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel to the public on Amendment
C204 – Permanent Heritage Overlay 21 William Street, South Yarra.
2. On considering the Panel Report, adopts Amendment C204 to the Stonnington
Planning Scheme as exhibited.
3. Adopts the heritage citation in Attachment 2 as reference document.
4. Submits the adopted Amendment C204 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in
accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
5. Advises the submitter of Council’s decision in relation to Amendment C204.
Page 48
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
4.
HAWKSBURN VILLAGE STRUCTURE PLAN - OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Manager City Strategy: Susan Price
General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the current stage of the Hawksburn Village
Structure Plan and note the key opportunities and constraints for the next stage of
consultation.
BACKGROUND
Hawksburn Village is identified in the Stonnington Planning Scheme activity centre’s
hierarchy (Attachment 1) as a large Neighbourhood Activity Centre, catering for everyday
needs and wider speciality retail, office and service markets. State policy recognises that
neighbourhood centres such as Hawksburn Village play an important role in serving local
communities and that the attributes of these centres vary across the metropolitan area. As
such, local communities lead the planning of these centres. State Policy also directs
development to commercial areas.
In August 2012 a ‘Structure Planning Options Paper’ was considered at Council. It identified
that ‘a Structure Plan for Hawksburn Village would support and strengthen the economy of
this centre and enhance its built form environment. Council’s car park supports the existing
supermarket and to some degree the retail activities around the supermarket, future planning
of this site also needs to be further considered’.
The need to plan for delivering Structure Plans over the next 5 years was also identified in
this report in order to ensure Structure Plans which are a priority for Council are brought
forward. At its meeting on 4 February 2013, a Structure Plan for Hawksburn Village was
identified as a Council priority.
A Structure Plan for the area will set out a 10-20 year strategic framework for future
development within the activity centre. It will guide the current and future form and function
of the activity centre in accordance with a shared vision and as appropriate to the role and
position of the centre. It will provide a framework for the integration of Council’s services and
programs, existing policies and strategies and will consider the role of the centre in the
context of the broader municipality. A number of key outputs are required from this project
including:
 Stage 1 Consultation Findings
 Background Reports – Economics, Transport, Urban Design
 Identification of Opportunities and Constraints
 Stage 2 Consultation Findings
 Draft Structure Plan
 Stage 3 Consultation Findings
 Final Structure Plan (including an implementation program)
Page 49
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The following key steps in the Structure Plan process have been undertaken:
Key step
Timeframe
David Lock Associates appointed with sub
consultants Charter Keck Cramer (economics)
and One Mile Grid (transport) to prepare the
Structure Plan
Stage 1 consultation (information gathering)
undertaken
Technical Background Analysis undertaken
(economic, transport, urban design)
Opportunities and constraints established
November 2014
November/December 2014
December/January 2015
February 2015
These steps are explained below.
Stage 1 Consultation – Information Gathering
The purpose of Stage 1 Consultation was to gather information about the centre from those
who visit, work and live in and around the area. The community and key stakeholders were
able to provide information through a number of forums including focus groups, stakeholder
interviews, ‘tear and post’ postcards, on-line survey, email and phone.
Notice of the first stage of consultation was sent via letter to traders and distribution of a flyer
to residents within the surrounding area (approximately 4000). Council’s website had a
designated webpage and notice was put in the Stonnington Leader and InStonnington. A
range of feedback was received via the postcards (over 100 were completed during this
time), however the focus groups were not well attended.
The comments made through the surveys, interviews, postcards and focus group
discussions are summarised in the attached Executive Summary (Attachment 2).
Background Analysis
Following the Stage 1 Consultation in November/December 2014, the consultants reviewed
these findings and undertook technical background analysis to establish the existing urban
design, transport and economic conditions of the centre. This analysis has been used to
identify the constraints within the centre and inform the potential opportunities that will be
tested by the community and then refined for the draft Structure Plan.
DISCUSSION
Stage 2 Consultation - Opportunities and Constraints
Following consideration of the Stage 1 consultation findings and initial analysis, the draft
Activity Centre boundary, existing constraints and the potential opportunities for the Activity
Centre have been identified. The proposed Stage 2 consultation is an opportunity to ‘report
back’ to the community on the Stage 1 consultation and to seek their feedback on these
opportunities as well as the criteria that will be used to refine them for the draft Structure
Plan. This stage is anticipated to be fairly high level, focused on key ideas and not requiring
drop-in sessions or workshops.
The following are some of the key opportunities and constraints identified to be tested as part
of Stage 2 Consultation:
Draft Activity Centre Boundary
An Activity Centre boundary has been defined for the purpose of informing the Structure
Plan. Identification of the Activity Centre boundary has considered the State Government
criteria outlined in Practice Note 58 ‘Structure Planning for Activity Centres’.
Page 50
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The boundary is reflective of existing land use patterns, urban form and the potential to
facilitate the future evolution of existing land use and built form elements. In drafting the
boundary for the Hawksburn Village activity centre, the following has been considered:
 Inclusion of sufficient land to provide for the commercial activities needed over a 15 to
20 year timeframe
 Inclusion of residential areas that are integrated into the activity centre or surrounded by
other uses that have a strong functional relationship with the activity centre even where
limited development opportunities exist
 Key public land uses that have or are intended to have a strong functional relationship
with the activity centre even where there are no or limited redevelopment opportunities
 Inclusion of public open space areas that have or are intended to have a strong
relationship with the activity centre
Residential land encumbered by significant constraints (such as a Heritage Overlay) located
at the edge of the activity centre is generally excluded.
Refer Attachment 3 for the draft Activity Centre boundary for consultation.
Draft Vision for Hawksburn Village
Based on the feedback received during Stage 1 consultation, a draft vision for the centre has
been prepared. Feedback on the draft vision will be useful to guide the broad direction of the
Structure Plan:
‘Hawksburn Village will continue to thrive as a welcoming and vibrant centre, be known for its
distinctive charm and village feel, and safe, green, and walkable street network.’
Woolworths supermarket site and Council car park
The significant size of this site when compared to other commercial properties along Malvern
Road has been highlighted together with the need to improve the entry/exit points to the car
park. The potential of this area can be explored through this process.
Western and Eastern precincts of Williams Road
The unique characteristics of each precinct have been highlighted. It is proposed that the
design and function of each precinct is considered during Stage 2 consultation. It is also
suggested that these two precincts can be better connected.
Accommodating population growth
It is suggested that the western precinct could have more capacity to support future
population growth given there are larger sites than within the eastern precinct. The eastern
precinct has smaller lots and is partly subject to the Heritage Overlay. Where population
growth is located in the centre will be explored further.
Connection between Hawksburn Station and Malvern Road
It is suggested that there is an opportunity to enhance the pedestrian connection between
the station and the western precinct.
Future public open space
It is proposed to investigate opportunities for open space in the Activity Centre and improved
public realm. The parameters around the type of space the community envisages will be
explored.
Page 51
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Stage 2 Consultation - format
Stage 2 consultation for Hawksburn Village will be focused around a draft vision, a draft
activity centre boundary and the potential opportunities will allow early consideration to
inform the more detailed draft Structure Plan. The consultation may include street stalls and
interviews.
Strategic Planning Advisory Committee
At each stage in the process and through the development of the Structure Plan process,
issues and detail have been discussed at Strategic Planning Advisory Committee meetings.
Next steps
The overall project timeline anticipates the draft Hawksburn Village Structure Plan to be
completed in October 2015 with the final Structure Plan ready in late 2015/early 2016.
Following Stage 2 consultation, the feedback will be used to inform preparation of the draft
Structure Plan. This document will identify the parameters for new built form including
proposed heights and setbacks.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Council Plan (2013-2017) includes the following relevant objectives and strategies:
Prosperity – A prosperous community, recognised as a creative city, a premier visitor and
retail destination.
 Develop long-term plans to ensure the sustainability of Stonnington’s activity centres.
 Advocate for access to increased public transport infrastructure to major activity
centres to enhance economic growth.
 Promote Stonnington as a premier retail and visitor destination.
 Improve the quality of Stonnington’s retail precincts to match the aspirations of being
a premier retail and visitor destination.
 Support the continued viability of the retail sector and other businesses to adapt to
changing macro-economic trends.
Liveability – Stonnington will be the most desirable place to work, live and visit.
 Balance the competing demands of maintaining residential amenity and population
growth through appropriate planning.
Plan Melbourne and the residential zone provisions (which include mandatory height
controls) need to be considered in the structure planning process.
Council’s MSS identified future structure planning work to guide future use and development
for this activity centre.
 Clause 21.04-1 Activity Centres – Developing and implementing Structure Plans for
principal, major and large neighbourhood activity centres and other selected centres
to guide future use and development of these centres.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
A provision of $300,000 has been allocated in the 2014/15 Capital Budget for prioritising
Structure Planning for Activity Centres. A further $350,000 has been identified in the
2015/16 Capital Budget. The expenditure for the Hawksburn Village Structure Plan is
accommodated within this.
Page 52
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
CONCLUSION
The Hawksburn Village Structure Plan will guide the current and future form and function of
the activity centre in accordance with a shared vision. The existing constraints, draft activity
centre boundary, draft vision and potential opportunities have been identified for the activity
centre which, following consultation, inform the preparation of a draft Structure Plan. Stage 2
consultation is an opportunity to gain feedback from the community regarding the key
directions for the future draft Structure Plan. This consultation is proposed to take place in
late May/June 2015.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
SF - Hawksburn Village Structure Plan - Opportunities and Constraints Attachment 1 of 3 - Activity Centres Hierarchy
Excluded
2.
SF - Hawksburn Village Structure Plan - Opportunities and Constraints Attachment 2 of 3
Excluded
3.
SF - Hawksburn Village Structure Plan - Opportunities and Constraints Attachment 3 of 3 - Draft AC Boundary
Excluded
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Note the existing constraints and proposed opportunities identified for the
Hawksburn Village Activity Centre.
2. Authorise officers to use the draft activity centre boundary, draft vision and
proposed opportunities to form the basis of Stage 2 consultation.
Page 53
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
5.
AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S REPORT FOR 2014
General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram
Chief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts
PURPOSE
To submit to Council the 2014 annual report of the Chair of the Audit Committee.
DISCUSSION
The Audit Committee comprises two Council appointed external independent members who
occupy the positions of Chair and Deputy Chair. The Chair is Mr. Stuart Newey and the
Deputy Chair is Mr. Bruce Potgieter. The Council appointed Council representatives for
2014 were Crs. John McMorrow and Adrian Stubbs.
Audit Committee Terms of Reference
This report has been prepared in accordance with the Audit Committee’s Terms of
Reference, the relevant sections of which are:
 Objectives
 Reporting to Council
These two sections are reproduced below:
Objectives
The primary objective of the Committee is to assist Council in its responsibilities relating to
organisational risk management practices, accounting and reporting to the City. In doing so
the Committee will:
 Monitor Council’s exposure to risk and management of risk.
 Maintain open lines of communication among the Councillors, internal auditors, external
auditors and officers enabling an exchange of views and information.
 Determine through regular review of audit activity, the adequacy and effectiveness of the
City’s administrative, operating and accounting controls.
 Assist in establishing and maintaining appropriate corporate conduct and good
governance.
 Oversee and appraise the quality of the audits conducted by the City’s internal and
external auditors.
 Review the annual financial statements of the Council.
 Provide advice in determining Council’s risk control audit programs and risk minimisation
measures.
Page 55
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Reporting to Council
The Minutes of all Audit Committee meetings shall be circulated to members of Council. The
Chair shall through the Chief Executive Officer submit an Annual Report to the Council
summarising the Committee’s activities through the year and related significant results and
findings.
The purpose of the Committee’s reports to Council will be for advice and information, not for
authorisation.
Audit Committee Report
The report from the Chair of the Audit Committee for the period 1 January to 31 December
2014 is attached.
The Committee met on four occasions during 2014 namely:
 13 February
 15 May
 19 August
 18 November
Both External and Internal Auditors are invited to attend all meetings. Council Officers attend
as required.
The External Auditor is the Auditor-General Victoria and the Internal Auditor was Oakton
Services Pty Ltd until 30 June 2014 and Pitcher Partners Consulting from 1 July 2014.
2014 Report Presentation
The Chair of the Audit Committee Mr. Stuart Newey, in the company of the Deputy Chair
Mr. Bruce Potgieter, presented the Chair’s report at the Councillor Briefing on 27 April 2015.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Audit Committee Chair's Report 2014
Excluded
RECOMMENDATION
That Council notes the 2014 annual report from the Chair of the Audit Committee.
Page 56
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
6.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE REPORTING FRAMEWORK
Manager Communications & Community Planning: Matt Clear
General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the Local Government
Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) and the outcome of the Quarter 1 Trial 20142015.
BACKGROUND
The Victorian Government has introduced a Local Government Performance Reporting
Framework (LGPRF) to ensure that all councils are measuring and reporting on their
performance in a consistent way. The objective is to provide comprehensive performance
information for use by councils, communities and other levels of government.
Implementation of the framework is mandatory from the 2014-15 financial year and outcomes
reported in the Annual Report.
During 2013-14 Council participated in the Local Government Victoria trial to test data
collection and to inform refinement of the indicators. Relevant business units from across the
organisation provided feedback on the proposed indicators and participated in the data
collection trials. Following the trials Local Government Victoria (LGV) further refined the
indicators and clarified some of the measures.
The LGPRF is comprised of four indicator sets – Service Performance, Financial
Performance, Sustainable Capacity and Governance and Management. These comprise of:
 53 Service Performance measures (1 optional) providing information about the
effectiveness and efficiency of 11 Council services;
 12 Financial Performance indicators providing information about the effectiveness of
Council’s financial management;
 6 Sustainability indicators providing information about Council’s capacity to meet agreed
service and infrastructure needs of the community and absorb foreseeable changes and
unexpected shocks into the future; and
 24 Governance and Management measures (See Attachment 1).
Legislation introduced in 2014 set up the requirement for Councils to report on their
performance through the annual report to their community. The reporting format for the
indicators and measures is prescribed by the Local Government Act 1989 and the Local
Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014.
The accountability framework requires Council to prepare the following documents:
 A council plan, within the period of six months after each general election or by 30 June,
whichever is later;
 A strategic resource plan for a period of at least four years and include it in the council
plan;
 A budget for each financial year; and
 An annual report for each financial year.
Page 57
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
The performance statement will be subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor General’s Office
(VAGO).
DISCUSSION
LGPRF Quarter 1 Trial
Council was invited to participate in an LGV reporting trial for Quarter 1 2014-15 (July –
September) to enable Council to become more familiar with the new reporting requirements,
prepare for the introduction of mandatory reporting and to obtain feedback on data collection
and validity. Sixty six of the 79 councils participated in the trial.
Feedback from LGV indicated that overall, Stonnington has a strong capacity to report with
data returned for 100% of the required measures. A small number of measures results were
outside the permissible range. In some instances this was due to workbook error, the
reporting period being shorter than 12 months, interpretation error or the specific
characteristics of the service being delivered. For example the cost of Stonnington’s animal
management service (defined as the direct cost of Council of the animal management
service per registrable animal) is $69.81, above the ‘permissible’ range ($10 - $60).
However, the cost is legitimately higher due to the scope and level of the service delivered in
Stonnington.
Thirteen measures were exempt from the Quarter 1 trial, some due to data currently being
unavailable, one being optional and several are not applicable until 1 July 2015.
Some anomalies will be addressed by LGV through amendments to the data collection
template and the remaining will be reviewed and addressed in subsequent reporting periods.
State Government Website – MyCouncil
Whilst LGV notes that no two Councils are the same, the framework will provide the
opportunity to compare the performance of ‘like’ councils. An interactive website ‘MyCouncil’
is currently being developed by LGV to enable the community, councils and the government
to benchmark and compare similar councils. The website will be launched to coincide with
the first mandatory reporting cycle for the Framework in late 2015. Contextual information
including a municipal profile (size, population and demographics) will support the results.
Data will be uploaded annually and over time will provide an opportunity to compare
Council’s own performance with previous years.
The LGPRF allows for the inclusion of comments to explain or support performance results.
Whilst the website will not include the ‘permissible’ (expected) range for each of the
measures, it will publish the comments. It will be essential that Council uses the comments
to clearly explain its results to ensure that they are interpreted correctly, especially for
comparison to ‘like’ Councils. Council will use the ‘permissible’ range internally to refine the
comments.
As noted earlier, results may fall outside the ‘permissible’ range due to our service standard
being higher than required or due to factors outside Council’s control. For example
Stonnington has a higher number of registered businesses, which may skew the measure for
participation in business development activities, a factor outside Council’s control. This will
enable Council to provide an overview of the reporting, its implementation and management
and explain any factors unique to the municipality.
Page 58
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Procedures
Procedures are currently being developed to manage the implementation of the LGPRF
internally and future reporting. This will provide an overview of the reporting requirements,
how they fit with existing planning and reporting cycles, identify responsibility for provision of
data for each of the measures, data collection timelines, data review and approval
processes. The procedures will be guided by key reference documents issued by LGV
including the Performance Reporting Framework Indictor Workbook, providing an overview of
the reporting requirements and detailed information about each of the performance
measures and calculations; and the Local Government Better Practice Guide (Performance
Statement).
The data will also be subject to annual audit by Council’s auditors and the Victorian AuditorGeneral’s Office (VAGO). Preliminary information has been provided to assist with this
process.
The implementation of the LGPRF whilst aimed at standardising performance reporting has
duplicated reporting for some business units and added to reporting burden. This feedback
was provided to LGV during the indicator development phase.
LGV recommends that the LGPRF data be collected quarterly. This means that some
business units will now be reporting service data to various State Government departments
as part of funding and service agreements as well as undertaking internal reporting via
Quarterly Budget Activity reports and Interplan reports. Implementation of the LGPRF
provides an opportunity to review internal reporting to assess whether existing measures can
be modified to meet the new requirements and help manage reporting burden.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Legislation was introduced in early 2014 setting up the requirement for Council to report on
performance through the Annual Report. The reporting format for the indicators and
measures in the Annual Report is prescribed by the Local Government Act 1989 and the
Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
Currently Council has been using the template provided by LGV to collect the data required
for the LGPRF reporting which has resulted in no additional costs for data management. The
template has recently been modified and further testing is required to determine whether this
will meet Council’s needs into the future.
Other reporting options and models are available which could incorporate LGPRF reporting
with internal performance reporting. A budget has been allocated in the 2015-16 financial
year to further investigate these models.
CONCLUSION
The LGPRF aims to ensure that all Councils are reporting consistently and to make this
information available to the community, other councils and government. The framework
comes into effect from the 2014-15 annual reporting cycle and will enable comparison
between like Councils through the MyCouncil website, currently being developed by LGV.
Stonnington has participated in the indicator development trial and the data collection trial for
Quarter 1 (2014-15). The Quarter 1 trial revealed that Stonnington has a strong capacity to
report although there were some minor errors which will be rectified in subsequent reports.
Page 59
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Procedures are currently being prepared to guide the collection and analysis of data,
approval process and timelines for future reporting.
An opportunity exists to further review existing reporting requirements and the LGPRF to
assess whether modifications can be made to reduce reporting burden.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
SF - Local Government Performance Reporting Framework - Attachment 1
of 1
Excluded
RECOMMENDATION
That Council notes the update on the Local Government Performance Reporting
Framework and findings of the Quarter 1 report.
Page 60
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
7.
TOORAK ROAD/ELIZABETH STREET INTERSECTION, MALVERN - TRAFFIC
INVESTIGATION PROGRESS REPORT
Traffic and Parking Coordinator: Peter Kyrkylis
Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan
General Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas
PURPOSE
To advise Council of the of survey work being undertaken to assist with consideration of
traffic issues at the Toorak Road/Elizabeth Street intersection, Malvern
BACKGROUND
At the Council Meeting held 2 March 2015, Cr John Chandler tabled correspondence dated
16 February 2015 from a resident of Elizabeth Street, Malvern, highlighting traffic problems in
the street which is frequently used by non-residential traffic driving between Toorak and
Malvern Roads, and waiting to turn into Toorak Road. The traffic causes safety issues for
local vehicles and pedestrians. The resident asks Council to install a ‘No Right Hand Turn’
sign in Elizabeth Street.
Subsequent to this, during Questions to Council Officers from Councillors at the same
meeting, Cr Matthew Koce noted that he had been approached by residents expressing
concern about traffic exiting Elizabeth Street into Toorak Road. The intersection where the
M1 exits onto Toorak Road is also very dangerous. He asked if there was any opportunity for
Council to liaise with VicRoads about traffic lights that could potentially be synchronised.
Cr John Chandler also added that Elizabeth Street was a cut through between Malvern and
Toorak Roads. It was very narrow and full of traffic devices, but very highly used. Motorists
wanting to turn right into Toorak Road blocked Elizabeth Street for a long way back. Cr
Chandler requested that the correspondence which was tabled above be considered in the
report which was coming back to Council.
Further to this, a petition from 28 residents of Elizabeth Street, Malvern, was tabled at
Council meeting held 23 March 2015 drawing attention that Elizabeth Street is frequently
used by non-residential traffic which posed a danger for residents exiting driveways, and
children and parents leaving Sir Robert Menzies Reserve and also queues along Elizabeth
Street, leading to a range of problems. The petitioners ask Council to install a ‘No RightHand Turn’ sign in Elizabeth Street and to consider the matter in conjunction with the
proposed development at 67 Elizabeth Street.
The intersection is located in the area bounded by Malvern Road, Glenferrie Road, Toorak
Road and the Glen Waverley railway line. This area formed part of a Local Area Traffic
Management study which was completed around 2000. The study was fairly extensive and
the results indicated that Elizabeth Street formed a major through route at the time.
On the basis of the study (including the community consultation) the following conclusions
were drawn:
•
There was much evidence that residents of the study area were concerned about traffic
related issues and these issues centred on traffic safety and residential amenity;
•
The results indicated that there were large volumes of through traffic however the
majority of vehicles entering the area had destinations within it; and,
Page 61
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
•
The difficulty to alter their (residents) routine traffic patterns meant it was difficult to
implement some of the recommendations. Basically, the residents didn’t want
something that restricted them.
Given the outcome of the previous study, the nature of the local road network and continuous
concerns expressed by the community a survey consultant has been engaged to conduct a
local area Origin-Destination Survey (O-D Survey) in the area surrounding Elizabeth Street,
Malvern (Refer to Attachment A).
It should be noted that the pending Origin-Destination Survey (O-D Survey) is not a local
area traffic study in that it is not requesting recommendations to address problems.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the O-D Survey is to determine the nature and magnitude of through traffic in
the local area, in terms of the percentage of traffic, and also the distribution in the local
network.
The attached plan identifies eight (8) “gate” locations where entering and exiting traffic is to
be captured. In addition, two of the gate locations at either end of Elizabeth Street have been
highlighted. At these locations, information regarding the movements for entry and exit (ie,
right turn in, left turn in, right turn out, left turn out), and where those trips originate/terminate.
The surveys will completed on a midweek day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) in a
week unaffected by public or school holidays between 7am and 10am, and again between
3pm and 7pm.
This survey is expected to be completed in May. A report will be presented to Council on the
matter shortly after.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The work will inform Council officers and if further traffic management is warranted will assist
with the development a proposal that will augment road safety. This will comply with
Council’s Road Safety Policy.
CONCLUSION
An item was raised at two (2) Council Meetings held 2 March 2015 and 23 March 2015 by
both Cr Chandler and Cr Koce requesting further investigation and report back to Council of
traffic issues at the Toorak Road/Elizabeth Street intersection, Malvern.
Council staff has developed an Origin-Destination Survey to inform an understanding of
traffic issues at the intersection.
This survey is expected to be completed in May with a report advising of the survey outcome
to be submitted to Council on the matter in late May.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Attachment A - Elizabeth Area Map and O-D Stations
Page 62
Excluded
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
RECOMMENDATION
That
1.
The report be noted
2. A further report be prepared for Council consideration once the Origin-Destination
Survey results have been received and analysed.
Page 63
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
8.
MURPHY STREET, SOUTH YARRA - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Traffic and Parking Coordinator: Peter Kyrkylis
Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlan
General Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas
PURPOSE
To respond to a request for an update on the traffic investigation in Murphy Street, South
Yarra, and to advise of the proposed installation of 40kph speed limits in the Darling/Domain
precinct (including Murphy Street).
BACKGROUND
At the Council Meeting held 16 February 2015, during Other General Business, Cr John
Chandler requested an update regarding the traffic investigation in Murphy Street, South
Yarra.
This matter was previously raised by Cr Chandler at the Council Meeting held 18 November
2013 where he requested further traffic surveys in the street be undertaken in response to a
resident request raising concerns about ‘speeding motorists on Murphy Street’.
Murphy Street is located in one of the nine local traffic areas (LTAs) in the precinct bounded
by Williams Road, Dandenong Road, Punt Road and Alexandra Avenue in which Council
sought approval from VicRoads for the introduction of 40 km/h area speed limit in 2012.
VicRoads subsequently approved a 40 km/h area speed limit in seven of the nine LTAs
however approval was not forthcoming for the Darling / Domain precinct (which includes
Murphy Street) at that time on the basis that limited traffic management had occurred in this
area and the road environment was not conducive to a lower speed limit.
However, following further representations from Council staff, VicRoads have more recently
approved the 40km/h area speed limits for the Darling/Domain precinct.
DISCUSSION
As part of the process of resubmitting to VicRoads on the 40km/h speed limit proposal, two
(2) traffic surveys were undertaken in Murphy Street in August 2012.
The first traffic survey was conducted outside property number 23 and confirmed that the
majority (85%) of motorists were travelling at or below 47 km/h. The traffic survey also
indicated that the volume of traffic was approximately 1,759 vehicles per day. The second
traffic survey also was conducted outside property number 53 and confirmed that the
majority of motorists (85%) were travelling at or below 49 km/h. The traffic survey also
indicated that the volume of traffic was approximately 1,715 vehicles per day.
The surveys indicated that very few vehicles were travelling above the 50km/h speed limit
compared to the total vehicles using the street. It should be noted that the August 2012
speeds and volumes results were lower than the earlier 2010 surveys results.
There have been no casualty crashes recorded in the last five (5) years along Murphy Street
that have required police or emergency service attendance.
Page 65
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
A response was provided to the request of 2013, based on the traffic surveys undertaken in
2012, which concluded that given the speeds and volumes of traffic in Murphy Street ‘traffic
management works were not warranted at this stage’ i.e. in the context of the prevailing
residential speed limits of 50 kph.
Since that time further representations have been made to VicRoads, seeking approval for
implementation of the 40kph limits in the precinct. The proposal has finally come to fruition
with VicRoads recently approving the 40kph area speed limit. Given the recent approval, it is
proposed that signage new limits be installed as soon as practicable, and that further surveys
be conducted in the precinct after 6-12months so as to assess the impact of the new limits.
Depending on the survey results further consideration could be given at that time to traffic
management devices in the context of the lower 40kph limits.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This will comply with Council’s Road Safety Policy. The future survey work will inform Council
officers if further traffic management is warranted and will assist with the development a
proposal that will augment road safety.
CONCLUSION
An item was raised at Council Meeting held 16 February 2015 by Cr Chandler requesting an
update on traffic situation in Murphy Street.
Council has now received approval from VicRoads for a 40 km/h speed in the Darling /
Domain precinct which includes Murphy Street.
It is anticipated that the installation of the 40 km/h speed limit will occur in May/June 2015.
It is proposed that further traffic survey work be conducted after 6-12 months to assess the
impact of the new limits and whether further traffic management is warranted.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
RECOMMENDATION
That
1. On the basis that VicRoads have recently approved the installation of 40kph
limits in the Williams Road, Dandenong Road, Punt Road and Alexandra
Avenue precinct (including Murphy Street), the signage be installed as soon as
practicable.
2. Further traffic surveys be conducted after 6-12 months to assess the impact of
the new limits and whether further traffic management is warranted.
3. That interested residents in Murphy Street be advised accordingly.
Page 66
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
9.
CATO STREET CAR PARK REDEVELOPMENT
General Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas
Chief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts
PURPOSE
The purpose of the report is to consider the status of the Cato Street Car Park
Redevelopment project, and to establish a Project Steering Group with Councillor
representation to progress the project.
BACKGROUND
Council has prepared a long term plan to address the important community issue of creating
open space in Stonnington, which has the second lowest amount of public open space per
capita of all Victorian councils.
The Public Realm Strategy 2010, and Strategies for Creating Open Space 2013 explore a
range of options, including, for example, undergrounding car parks and providing open space
and parkland on top, promoting and encouraging green roofs and walls, extending existing
green spaces and exploring developments of new urban and green spaces.
The Cato Street car park site covers an area of approximately 9,000m2 and is bounded by
Cato Street, Izett Street, Wattle Street and Chatham Street. The site is situated in a
strategically significant location in close proximity to Chapel Street and Commercial Road
retail precincts and convenient walking distance to the Prahran Train Station, and provides a
strategic link between Grattan Gardens and Princes Gardens.
Consistent with the above, the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment project involves
removing the existing 432 car parking spaces from ground level to provide a new open
space, and replacing the existing car parking over two underground levels. Based on the
feasibility work to date it is proposed to add a third underground level of car parking to
provide for parking demand into the future.
Council has considered numerous briefings on the above at Councillor Briefing meetings and
at Councillor Workshops (August 2011, April 2013, May 2014, January 2015).
More recently Council has received a number of technical reports which confirm the
feasibility of the project;
i)
‘Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment Project Feasibility design Report’ June
2014, prepared by consultants GHD.
ii)
‘Feasibility Appraisal, Cato Street Car Park, Prahran Redevelopment’ August
2014, prepared by Sweett Group Pty Ltd.
iii)
‘Access & Traffic Management Study Cato Street car Park Redevelopment’
December 2014, prepared by O’Brien Traffic.
The above technical reports assess the feasibility of the project from a technical perspective,
(geotechnical, structural, traffic, construction staging etc.) and from a cost perspective.
Based on the advice received Council has included funding for the project in its Strategic
Resource Plan 2015/16 – 2018/19.
Page 67
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
DISCUSSION
a) Broad Timeframe
Initial work has been undertaken around the delivery program for the project. The Cato Street
Car Park Redevelopment Project is proposed to be planned, designed and constructed over
the next 4 years period. The broad timeframe for the project is:
Year
Stage
2014/15
Project planning
2015/16
Scoping, design, documentation and field testing
2016/17
Construction
2017/18
Construction
It is anticipated that construction stage would cover a period of 18 months, running from early
2017 to mid to late 2018.
b) Staged Construction
The existing Cato Street Car Park currently provides a large number of high value car
parking spaces that directly support surrounding retail and commercial businesses, nearby
Chapel Street and Commercial Road retail strips, the Prahran Market and other community
facilities.
In an effort to minimise impacts on community and local businesses, it is proposed to
undertake construction of the car park in two stages over an 18-month period. Staging
construction will enable approximately half of the existing parking to be retained and
available whilst the first stage of the underground car park is constructed. Once parking is
available in the first underground section of the development, the second stage of
construction will commence.
c) Governance Model
This is a sensitive and challenging project and will require a governance structure with clearly
defined roles and responsibilities to manage critical issues as they emerge.
It is proposed that Council oversee the delivery of the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment
Project through the following governance structure.
Page 68
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
Council
The Stonnington City Council will provide the highest level of project oversight for the Cato
Street Car Park Redevelopment Project.
Council will receive regular updates on project progress, upcoming developments and
emerging issues.
Project Steering Group (PSG)
It is proposed to establish a Project Steering Group (PSG) to provide strategic oversight and
direction for the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment Project.
It is proposed that the Project Steering Group comprise the following staff from the City of
Stonnington, including:
 Councillors x 3
 Chief Executive Officer
 General Manager City Works
 General Manager (to be nominated)
 Manager Public Spaces and Capital Works
 Manager Media & Communications
It is expected that the Project Working Group will meet on a regular basis as necessary
during the currency of the project.
Project Working Group (PWG)
It is proposed to establish a Project Working Group (PWG) to provide operational oversight
and day-to-day direction for the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment Project.
The Project Working Group will co-ordinate input from the key stakeholders, the consultants
and all necessary secondary and specialist consultants on all of the issues necessary to
achieve the successful delivery of the project.
It is expected that the Project Working Group will meet on a regular basis as necessary
during the currency of the project, and report to the Project Steering Group as necessary.
d) Legal
It is propose to appoint an external legal firm to provide legal advice throughout the Project
as necessary.
Page 69
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
e) Media & Communications
A key focus for the project will be managing community engagement and communication
throughout the project. It is proposed to appoint an external media and communications team
to the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment Project.
f) Quantity Surveyor
Cost control will be a key consideration for the project, it is proposed to appoint an external
quantity surveyor to undertake ‘value management’ throughout the project.
g) Further Resourcing - Project Manager
This is a large, complex project which will require dedicated management throughout the
various stages from inception to delivery. It is proposed to support the delivery of the project
with a dedicated Project Manager. It is envisaged that one of the first tasks for the PSG will
be to recruit a Project Manager (individual or company) to provide the required expertise and
experience to ensure the successful delivery of the project on time, on budget, and to the
agreed standard while minimising disruption to the surrounding commercial precinct
activities.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Public Realm Strategy 2010, and the Strategies for Creating Open Space 2013 are part
of a broader, long-term plan that addresses the significant need for creating more open
space within the municipality.
The proposed scope and nature of the proposed Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment
Project also aligns with and supports the Chapel ReVision Structure Plan.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
Based on the feasibility investigations to-date the Stonnington City Council has allocated a
total budget of $40m for the Cato Street Car Park Development Project within its Strategic
Resource Plan as follows:
Year
Budget
2015/16
$3.0m
2016/17
$18.5m
2017/18
$18.5m
Total
$40.0m
LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS
It is proposed that as part of the Governance Structure, legal services will be secured to
provide advice as and when necessary during the project.
Page 70
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
CONCLUSION
Council has received technical advice from specialist consultants regarding the feasibility of
the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment Project. Based on that advice Council has
incorporated a provision of $40m over 3 years in its forward Strategic Resource Plan to fund
the project.
It is proposed that Council establish a Project Steering Group with Councillor
representatives, the CEO, and other senior staff to provide strategic oversight and direction
for the project.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act 2006.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1.
Note the proposed governance structure, scope and broad parameters for the
delivery of the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment Project,
2.
Establish a Project Steering Group with the following membership to provide
strategic oversight for the Cato Street Car Park Redevelopment Project;
 Cr Melina Sehr (Mayor)
 Cr John Chandler
 Cr Matthew Koce
 Chief Executive Officer
 General Manager City Works
 General Manager (to be nominated)
 Manager Public Spaces and Capital Works
 Project Manager
Page 71
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
10. COUNCIL DELEGATE TO PRAHRAN MISSION
Manager Governance and Corporate Support: Fabienne Thewlis
General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek a Council Delegate for the Prahran Mission Board for
the remainder of the current term which will expire in February 2016.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of Council of 16 February 2015 Cr Klisaris was re-appointed as Council’s
delegate to the Prahran Mission Board. She has held this position since December 2012.
The CEO Warren Roberts was advised that Cr Klisaris had resigned from the Board effective
in the week of 13 April 2015 due to her University commitments this year.
DISCUSSION
Prahran Mission is an agency of the Uniting Church. Its vision is that every person with a
mental illness or living with extreme economic and social disadvantage has the right to a decent
life.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
No impact on Council.
CONCLUSION
Council has had a delegate on the Prahran Mission since pre-amalgamation. A nomination
for this delegate position is now being sought from Council.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation has been considered and meets the obligations of the Victorian
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
RECOMMENDATION
That Councillor (to be nominated) be appointed as Council’s Delegate to the Prahran
Mission Board for the remaining term of 2015/16.
Page 73
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
11. CONSIDERATION OF DONATION TO BAIRO PITE CLINIC
Manager Governance and Corporate Support: Fabienne Thewlis
General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to consider a donation to the Bairo Pite Clinic in Timor-Leste.
BACKGROUND
Councillors recently attended a fund raising and information function for the Bairo Pite Clinic
which outlined the need for support for their 55 in-patient beds and nurses.
DISCUSSION
Bairo Pite Clinic sees the support of in-patient beds and nurses as the first of priorities
amongst many. The in-patient bed support includes the medication, medical supplies,
medical staff, pathology, utilities, food and laundry. The nurses work 12 hour shifts and are
often the sole source of income for their family.
Apart from the in-patient clinic there is an extensive out-patient consulting service which sees
between 200 and 300 people each day, a busy ante-natal care unit, a labour ward where
over 100 babies are delivered each month, an out-patient supervised TB clinic, HIV
diagnosis, counselling and treatment, daily mobile clinics to outlying communities, a dental
clinic and the training of community birth attendants and village health workers.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Council has been a long-term supporter of Timor-Leste. The Friends of Baguia group makes
application every year for support via the Community Grants process. Applications for
2015/16 have just closed and will be referred to Council in due course.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
Any donation would be an unbudgeted item in this financial year.
CONCLUSION
While the Council has not made allowance in this year’s budget for such a donation, it may
still consider this a worthwhile cause to support with either a one-off payment or alternatively
make a one-off commitment for a donation every year for three years.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION
This recommendation has been considered and meets the obligations of the Victorian
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Page 75
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
RECOMMENDATION
That Council make a one-off donation of $5,000 to the Bairo Pite Clinic.
Page 76
GENERAL BUSINESS
4 M AY 2015
o)
Confidential
1.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2014/15
General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram
Confidential report circulated separately.
Page 77