amendment c223 – attachment 1
TRANSCRIPT
NOTE:
Development on Cabrini Hospital owned land is not subject to the preferred maximum building heights.
Building heights on Wattletree Road are mandatory maximum building heights.
Amendment C223 – Attachment 1
Amendment C223 Submitter focus groups
City of Stonnington
Final Report, May 2017
REPORT
Privacy Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is committed to protecting privacy and personally identifiable information by meeting our responsibilities under the Victorian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles 2014 as well as relevant industry codes of ethics and conduct.
For the purpose of program delivery, and on behalf of our clients, we collect personal information from individuals, such as e-mail addresses, contact details, demographic data and program feedback to enable us to facilitate participation in consultation activities. We follow a strict procedure for the collection, use, disclosure, storage and destruction of personal information. Any information we collect is stored securely on our server for the duration of the program and only disclosed to our client or the program team. Written notes from consultation activities are manually transferred to our server and disposed of securely.
Comments recorded during any consultation activities are faithfully transcribed however not attributed to individuals. Diligence is taken to ensure that any comments or sensitive information does not become personally identifiable in our reporting, or at any stage of the program.
Capire operates an in-office server with security measures that include, but are not limited to, password protected access, restrictions to sensitive data and the encrypted transfer of data.
For more information about the way we collect information, how we use, store and disclose information as well as our complaints procedure, please see www.capire.com.au or telephone (03) 9285 9000.
Consultation Unless otherwise stated, all feedback documented by Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is written and/or recorded during our program/consultation activities.
Capire staff and associates take great care while transcribing participant feedback but unfortunately cannot guarantee the accuracy of all notes. We are however confident that we capture the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during our consultation activities.
Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in our work represent those of the participants and not necessarily those of our consultants or our clients.
© Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd. This document belongs to and will remain the property of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without express written consent of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
Authorisation can be obtained via email to [email protected] or in writing to: 96 Pelham Street Carlton VIC Australia 3053.
Privacy 2
Consultation 2
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 2
2.1 Purpose 2
2.2 Background information 2
2.2.1 Submitter focus groups 2
2.2.2 Rationale for Amendment C223 3
2.2.3 Amendment C223 – Proposed planning provisions 3
3 Approach 4
3.1 Engagement purpose and objectives 4
3.2 Opportunities and constraints 4
3.3 Focus group details 5
3.4 Limitations of engagement 7
4 Discussion summary 8
4.1 Policy context and background information 8
4.1.1 State planning context 8
4.1.2 Local context 9
4.1.3 Process 9
4.2 Key issues raised: within scope of Amendment C223 9
4.2.1 Overshadowing, overlooking and wind 9
4.2.2 Street character and heritage protection 10
4.2.3 Malvern Central 11
4.2.4 Discretion 12
4.2.5 Definition of setbacks 12
4.3 Key issues raised: outside scope of Amendment C223 13
4.3.1 Traffic and Parking 13
4.3.2 Infrastructure and service provision 13
4.3.3 Impact on local business 14
4.3.4 Other issues 14
5 Evaluation, observations and next steps 15
5.1 Participant evaluation 15
5.2 Facilitator observations 16
5.3 Next steps 16
6 Appendices 17
6.1 Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre – Preferred maximum
building heights 17
6.2 Planning Scheme Amendment Process 18
6.3 Frequently asked questions – Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity
Centre 19
6.4 Schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay 20
6.5 Schedule 19 to the Design and Development Overlay 24
6.6 Letter to submitter who attended a focus group 38
6.7 Letter to non-submitter who attended a focus group 39
6.8 Letter to submitter who did not attend a focus group 40
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
1 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
1 Executive Summary
The City of Stonnington (Council) has prepared Amendment C223 to the Stonnington Planning
Scheme to introduce new built form provisions for the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity
Centre.
Capire Consulting Group (Capire) was engaged to facilitate six focus groups with submitters
following a Stonnington Council decision to undertake additional consultation with submitters
about their concerns and issues relating to the amendment. Five focus groups were ultimately
held and facilitated by Capire.
The objectives of the focus groups were to:
Allow submitters to further identify and expand on submitter issues and concerns about
Amendment C223
capture additional feedback about Amendment C223
inform submitters about the Planning Scheme Amendment process and next stages.
A total of 90 participants attended the focus groups. A key objective of the focus groups was to
provide attendees with background information which was provided by Council officers and
determined by the participants in each group. Background information covered: State planning
context; local planning context and the process for Amendment C223.
The key issues, feedback, options, questions and ideas raised within the scope of Amendment
C223 related to the following key themes:
overshadowing, overlooking and wind
street character and heritage protection
Malvern Central
discretion
definition of setbacks.
The key issues, feedback, options, questions and ideas raised outside the scope of Amendment
C223 covered:
traffic and parking
infrastructure and service provision
impact on local business
other wider contextual issues and impacts.
Evaluation results suggest that overall, participants found the focus groups to be worthwhile and
informative. Participants welcomed the opportunity to raise concerns in a public forum.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
2
Participants were informed that they will receive a summary of the focus group discussions and
were advised of the next stages of the Amendment process.
2 Introduction
2.1 Purpose
The City of Stonnington has prepared Amendment C223 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme
which proposes to introduce new built form provisions for the Glenferrie Road and High Street
Activity Centre. The amendment supports the vision of Plan Melbourne and the Glenferrie Road
and High Street Structure Plan to allow a moderate level of change in the activity centre over
the next 30 years.
Following the formal exhibition of the amendment, Capire was engaged to facilitate five focus
groups with submitters to the amendment between 15 March and 29 March 2017. The purpose
of the focus groups was to enable submitters to fully express their concerns about the
amendment in detail, and learn more about the proposed planning provisions and amendment
process. A total of 90 people attended the focus groups including local residents, business
owners and operators, developers and consultants.
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the discussions conducted during the five
focus groups with submitters. The findings in this report will be considered by Council to further
inform Amendment C223. This report will also be made available to those who participated in
the submitter focus group consultations and to the general public.
2.2 Background information
2.2.1 Submitter focus groups
Formal exhibition of Amendment C223 occurred from 21 July to 22 August 2016. The local
community was invited to provide feedback on the amendment through written submissions.
Over 200 submissions were received by Council about the amendment.
Due to the high volume of submissions made, at a Council meeting on 5 December 2016
Stonnington Council resolved to carry out an additional stage of community consultation with
submitters to examine their views and concerns in more detail. Six focus groups were
scheduled, five of which were facilitated by Capire. The remaining focus group was not
facilitated by Capire due to low RSVPs, however it remained open for submitters to attend and
speak directly about the amendment with Council officers. Only one submitter attended the
focus group with Council officers on this date.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
3 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
The submitter focus groups for Amendment C223 were carried out in addition to the exhibition
stage of the planning scheme amendment process.
2.2.2 Rationale for Amendment C223
The City of Stonnington’s rationale for Amendment C223 is to provide policy guidance to the
development and the design of buildings in the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre
over the next 30 years. Melbourne is forecast to experience significant population growth in the
future and all councils in Metropolitan Melbourne are expected to allow for an increase in
housing stock and other land uses in their municipalities to accommodate future communities.
Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 is the State Government’s Plan for managing Melbourne’s
population growth. Plan Melbourne seeks to encourage density in activity centres including
inner city Major Activity Centres such as the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre.
Amendment C223 seeks to respond to Plan Melbourne by providing planning provisions that
enable a moderate level of change in the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre over
the next 30 years while providing a framework to influence preferred development outcomes.
The amendment also supports the implementation of the Glenferrie Road and High Street
Structure Plan which was adopted by Stonnington Council at a Council meeting on 30
November 2015.
2.2.3 Amendment C223 – Proposed planning provisions
The proposed planning provisions seek to manage future built form (heights and setbacks) in an
area where there are currently no specific built form provisions. The proposed provisions seek
to balance new development with the protection of heritage buildings and include:
Design and Development Overlay for the Activity Centre
Development Plan Overlay for Malvern Central and the adjoining railway land.
Identification of strategic development sites.
To view the proposed planning controls distributed at the Focus groups refer to Appendices
(Section 6).
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
4
3 Approach
3.1 Engagement purpose and objectives
The purpose of this engagement was to provide submitters with the opportunity to discuss the
content of their submission in detail with Council officers, and to ask questions about the
Amendment process. This was achieved through the delivery of five focus groups targeted at
submitters.
The objectives of the focus groups were to:
allow submitters to further identify and expand on submitter issues and concerns about
Amendment C223
capture additional feedback about Amendment C223
inform submitters about the Planning Scheme Amendment process and next stages.
3.2 Opportunities and constraints
It was critical that through the consultation process the purpose and intent of the focus groups
was clearly communicated to ensure that participant expectations were managed. Participants
were informed of the project opportunities and constraints (see Table 1) and were also advised
how their contribution during the focus groups will be forwarded to Council to assist them in
making a decision.
Table 1: Opportunities and constraints
Opportunities Constraints
Submitter views will be fully
considered where requests for
changes support the objectives of the
amendment, Council may make
changes.
In response to the direction in Plan
Melbourne for growth and change to be
directed to activity centres, Council's are
required to prepare Structure Plans and
planning controls to help manage this
anticipated change.
The proposed planning controls primarily
seek to manage built form (building heights
and setbacks). Strategies for addressing
traffic, car parking and other matters can be
discussed in the focus groups and will be
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
5 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
reported to Council, however they are
outside the scope of the amendment.
3.3 Focus group details
The focus groups provided Council and submitters an opportunity to discuss in detail the key
areas of concern. Submitter focus groups took place in meeting room 2.1/2.2, Council Civic
Offices, 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern. A total of 90 people participated in the submitter focus
groups as outlined in Table 2.
Table 2: Focus group overview
Session Date/Time Participants
1 Wednesday 15 March. 6-8pm 18
Thursday 16 March, 6-8pm* 1
2 Monday 20 March, 2pm-4pm 19
3 Tuesday 21 March, 6pm- 8pm 16
4 Friday 24 March, 10am-12pm 17
5 Wednesday 29 March, 6-8pm 20
*This focus group was not facilitated by Capire due to low numbers. One resident met in person
with Council staff.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
6
Each focus group had a two-hour duration and was guided by the agenda that is outlined in
Table 3. Timing and topics of discussion varied in each group to suit the needs of participants.
Table 3: Focus group agenda
Agenda
Welcome and introduction
Group consensus – How are we going to work together?
Introductions – Where are you from and what do you hope to get out of the session?
Background information
Information provided was determined by the participants
Topics for discussion
Topics were determined by the participants
Refreshment Break
Focused discussions
Summary and next steps
Close and evaluation
Focus group participants were recruited by Council via a targeted letter mail out to submitters.
Community members who did not make a submission but wished to attend were welcomed, and
made aware that the focus groups were not targeted to them. They were however invited to
make submissions if they wished to continue to be updated and provided with the opportunity to
be involved in the amendment process.
The focus groups were facilitated to ensure that all participants had a chance to express their
opinions and concerns.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
7 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
3.4 Limitations of engagement
This report details participant perceptions, concerns and ideas as expressed during the
submitter focus group consultation. In some cases, comments have been paraphrased and
quotes have been used to illustrate the community sentiment. The following limitations were
identified relating to the delivery and reporting of the consultation:
The information in this report is based on discussions during the five focus groups
facilitated by Capire, with people self-selecting to participate. It therefore does not
necessarily reflect the views of a representative sample of the community or of all
submitters.
Some information included in this report may be factually incorrect or unfeasible. The
information has not been validated as it is purely a summary of participants’ opinions,
ideas and feedback.
Some participants raised concerns that were outside the scope of the amendment.
These points have been noted, but may be out of scope for consideration by
Amendment C223.
The report presents the key points of discussion and includes a broad range of
feedback, concerns and ideas expressed by participants. It provides an overview of
participant sentiment but does not report on the sentiment of individual participants.
The report summarises participant feedback and questions, but it does not report on the
answers provided by Council. Council answered all questions to the best of their ability
during the focus groups and took questions that could not be answered on notice, with
answers to be provided to participants following the focus groups.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
8
4 Discussion summary
This section summarises the key issues, feedback, options, questions and ideas discussed
during the focus groups. The summary is divided into three sections:
policy context and background information
key issues raised: within scope of Amendment C223
key issues raised: outside scope of Amendment C223.
4.1 Policy context and background information
It was observed that the majority of participants in the focus groups were not fully informed
about the wider planning policy context and the scope of Amendment C223. This section
provides an outline of the background information that participants requested. Building
participants’ understanding and knowledge of the planning scheme amendment process was a
key objective of the consultation process. Council officers were present to provide background
information and to answer all queries to the best of their ability. Questions that were not able to
be answered were taken on notice. A summary of answers to the participant’s questions was
provided to participants in the form of a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document (Appendix
6.3).
4.1.1 State planning context
Key topics of discussion on the State planning context for Amendment C223 included:
the differing levels of power between state and local government
the need to balance local and state priorities and for local policies to be consistent with state
policies
Plan Melbourne, its intentions and how it is enforced
the role of VCAT
the role of other state government portfolios to plan and deliver infrastructure and services.
Participant sentiment expressed demonstrated concern that state government has far too much
power and does not take the local context and resident concerns into account when making
planning policy decisions.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
9 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
4.1.2 Local context
Key topics of discussion about the local planning policy context for Amendment C223 included:
current population projections for Stonnington and anticipated density increases
Council’s overall vision for Stonnington including the policy, research and thinking that
sits behind the amendment; many residents were unfamiliar with the Structure Plan or
its aim and scope
other built form provisions such as design guidelines for individual developments
the Development Plan Overlay for the Malvern Central site
the definition and application of a Heritage Overlay
wider planning and social planning tools to plan for infrastructure, open space and
services.
4.1.3 Process
Key topics of discussion about the process of Amendment C223 included:
an overview of focus groups including the negotiables and non-negotiables
previous consultation on the amendment and Structure Plan
decision making processes and timelines, including the determination of heights and
setbacks
other technical studies that were undertaken to inform Amendment C223.
4.2 Key issues raised: within scope of Amendment C223
Many participants believed that built form outcomes of the amendment would lead to
undesirable impacts in the Activity Centre and surrounding residential areas. The most often
discussed issues included concerns about reduced access to sunlight, loss of urban character
and loss of heritage value. The 12-storey preferred maximum height of Malvern Central was a
key concern for many participants. These discussions are described in more detail in the
following sections.
4.2.1 Overshadowing, overlooking and wind
The proposed amendment would lead to the overshadowing of properties. Key areas of
concern that were highlighted are High Street, Railway Avenue, Valentine Grove and
other residential areas surrounding Malvern Central, including shopping strips.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
10
The sun modelling that informed the amendment was deceptive, with some participants
requesting that more modelling be undertaken to show the impacts of overshadowing at
the winter solstice.
Everyone should have access to sunlight. For example, one resident stated, ‘the sun is
a shared resource; it must be shared by everyone’. Participants also raised the issue of
solar access to generate power, suggesting that heights proposed in the amendment
would limit residents’ opportunities to install solar panels.
There was specific concern about the use of the words ‘not unreasonable
overshadowing between the hours of 9-3.30’ in the proposed planning provisions. Some
participants suggested that hours outside these times should also be considered. One
participant suggested that the wording be changed to say ‘no overshadowing’ during
this period.
The preferred maximum heights proposed along major roads would increase wind, and
decrease access to sunlight making streets uncomfortable and uninviting for
pedestrians. For example, one participant said that ‘Station Street is already cold and
windy; five storeys would make it a wind tunnel’. Another participant felt that ‘these
proposed heights will put the café culture at risk, no one wants to sit in the shade’.
The proposed preferred maximum heights would lead to decreased privacy caused by
overlooking. This concern centred around developments overlooking the backyards of
existing residents.
4.2.2 Street character and heritage protection
The proposed preferred maximum heights will impact on the character of streetscapes
within the Activity Centre and surrounding residential areas. Participants suggested that
development above two storeys would have adverse impacts on street views, sunlight
in public spaces and pedestrian comfort.
Development will have a detrimental impact on historical streetscapes. These concerns
often focused on visual bulk, with participants suggesting future development would be
overbearing and imposing if the proposed preferred maximum heights are accepted.
Some participants felt that this would lead to ‘destruction’ of the charm and distinctive
character of the area. For example, one participant stated ‘all the buildings on Glenferrie
Road when the sun is setting are beautiful. It will kill this place’. Another said ‘Lego
blocks will destroy the character’. Areas of concern identified by participants included:
o Angel Hotel - to be surrounded by tall buildings in the Malvern Central area
o Village precinct - overshadowed by tall buildings
o Wattletree Rd - beautiful streetscape of old homes will disappear
o shopping strips - adverse visual impact of future development on top of shops
o building rooftops - undesirable aesthetic of lifts and services on top of buildings.
The views of multi-storey developments in commercial areas will impact the character of
nearby residential areas. Others were concerned about the transition between
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
11 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
residential and commercial areas, suggesting this needs to be considered more
carefully. For example, one participant stated ‘you can’t transition from five storeys to
two to three storeys’.
The relationship between heritage and non-heritage areas was also considered an
issue by some participants. For example, there was concern that out of scale buildings
in non-heritage areas will impact on the heritage of nearby areas. Another perspective
presented was that non-heritage areas were unfairly taking all the extra development,
changing the character of these areas unfavourably.
Change to street character is necessary to accommodate future growth. For example,
one participant stated that ‘trade-offs are needed to ensure good design outcomes’.
Overall there was a considerable concern that proposed preferred maximum heights
would have negative impacts on the streetscape and heritage character of Armadale
and Malvern.
4.2.3 Malvern Central
Many participants expressed concern over the 12-storey preferred maximum height
proposed for the Malvern Central site. Several participants queried the difference
between the proposed preferred maximum heights and those outlined in the Structure
Plan asking ‘What are the reasons for the difference? Why now? And why such a big
difference?’ Participants’ main concerns were overshadowing and the adverse impact
development of this scale will have on the character of surrounding areas.
Participants who lived near Malvern Central were very concerned about overshadowing.
For example, one participant said ‘on a personal note, it will take away my winter sun
and cause a loss of privacy’. Another resident mentioned concerns about
‘overshadowing of the eastern side of Glenferrie Road, the wind tunnel effects, and
overshadowing of my house’. Another stated that they ‘don’t want to face a monstrosity
and be overshadowed’.
The Malvern Central site is recognised as a gateway site, and will set the tone of the
surrounding suburbs and potentially lead to intense development in surrounding areas.
For example, one participant said ‘its design is pivotal and will inform what happens
elsewhere’. Another stated ‘it is a huge building, having something like that can change
the character of an entire area’. Many participants expressed concern that future 12-
storey developments would be an eyesore and dominate the skyline.
The difference in height between Malvern Central and the surrounding area was a key
issue. Participants were concerned that proposed heights were out of balance with the
surrounding area. For example, one participant stated that ‘there is too much difference
between the heights at Wattletree Road and Malvern Central. Another participant felt
that heights are ‘too much of a jump from the surrounding areas. More human scale
design is needed’.
In recognition that the areas must accommodate more growth, and density must
increase, participants suggested the amendment include preferred maximum heights for
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
12
the Malvern Central site of between six to eight storeys. There was also support for a
Development Plan Overlay for the site. For example, one participant said ‘an extra
stage where we can have a say in development decisions is important to us as
residents’.
Suggestions made for the use of the Malvern Central site include:
o open the southern edifice and include elements such as terraces, bike paths
and better lighting
o cover over the railway line to create pedestrian access and open space
o meet requirements of housing strategy/densification with six storeys mandatory
height across the whole site
o Malvern Central should be a flagship site, a demonstration site for good design
o it should have similar outcomes and a maximum height consistency at the
northern and southern end.
4.2.4 Discretion
The preferred maximum heights and setbacks should be discretionary rather than
mandatory. Reasons provided by participants included:
o Good design outcomes are not enabled by the amendment, such as allowances
for extra floor heights that can result in improved ESD outcomes.
o Ensure policy consistency: provisions in residential growth zones will be
changed from mandatory to discretionary; Design and Development Overlay 19
also allows for discretion.
o The context of specific sites must be considered.
The height provisions are not restrictive enough and developers can exceed proposed
height provisions.
4.2.5 Definition of setbacks
The definition of setbacks in the amendment needs to be revised and made clearer.
There was concern that setbacks on the side boundaries of new buildings did not
adequately protect neighbouring properties. For example, one participant noted that ‘on
Glenferrie Road four storey buildings are adjacent to single storey dwellings’. Other
participants queried the difference between setbacks in the Structure Plan and the
proposed amendment. These participants were concerned that the eight to ten metre
upper level setbacks proposed in the DDO were unreasonable compared to the three
metre upper level setbacks in the Structure Plan. It was also suggested that precinct
numbers in Table 2 of the amendment need revision.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
13 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
4.3 Key issues raised: outside scope of Amendment C223
Some concerns raised by participants were related to issues outside the scope of the
amendment. These issues were mostly associated with the increase in population and density.
Key issues included traffic and parking, infrastructure and service provision and impacts on
local businesses. These issues, although related to urban development, can be considered but
cannot be addressed as part of the amendment process. As such, limited time was given for
detailed discussion of these issues during the focus groups. However, information was provided
to participants about other planning mechanisms that are coordinated by Council as well as the
role that Council plays to advocate for matters outside of its control to State and Commonwealth
Governments.
Several participants wanted to make a recommendation to Council that the amendment should
address all impact issues including, traffic, parking, infrastructure and services.
4.3.1 Traffic and Parking
Increased development will add to current parking shortages. For example, one
participant said ‘this area is about to become more like a city, the Council needs to think
of it more like a city. We need the infrastructure for this - such as high rise parking’.
Another participant was ‘concerned that buildings are being constructed without any
parking’.
Key questions asked by participants on the issue of parking included: How will the
amendment influence parking? Is there a master parking plan that will be delivered
alongside this amendment? What is going to be done about parking?
Increased development and density would increase traffic congestion in the area.
Specific issues raised were traffic gridlock during peak hours, management of traffic
entering and exiting future multi-storey developments and pedestrian safety.
Participants asked to see traffic management strategies and projections of the number
of cars that will be on the road in the future. Major areas of concern identified by
participants included the Railway Avenue-Dandenong Road intersection and Wattletree
Road.
4.3.2 Infrastructure and service provision
Current infrastructure and service provision in Stonnington will not be adequate to cope
with the increases in development.
Concern was raised about future provision of:
o water, sewerage and electrical infrastructure and services
o social infrastructure including schools and childcare
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
14
o open space
o waste removal services
o pedestrian and cycling paths.
Key questions asked by participants included: How will infrastructure cope with
development? Who will pay? Is there an infrastructure plan currently or is it something
Council is planning to introduce? Can you push back on State Government, saying
once we have the infrastructure we can undertake development?
4.3.3 Impact on local business
Several participants were concerned that future development would have adverse impacts on
existing local businesses. Key concerns raised by participants included:
development will change the economic make up of an already fragile area
night activity permits for businesses
the need to consider demand and supply; there are currently many empty shops in the
area, is development in commercial areas needed?
developers will increase rents, pushing local business out of the area
protection of shopping strips.
4.3.4 Other issues
Other issues discussed by participants included:
management of construction noise and other adverse impacts of the construction
process
increase in the number of Airbnb residents in Stonnington not truly reflecting population
numbers
impacts of change on property prices such as property devaluation
over development of station precincts
overcrowded public transport
street and landscape design of the whole area.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
15 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
5 Evaluation, observations and next steps
5.1 Participant evaluation
To evaluate the success of the focus groups, participants were asked to complete a short
evaluation form at the end of each session. Participants were asked to rate aspects of the focus
group as either: poor, fair, satisfactory, good or excellent. The aspects being evaluated were:
Quality of information: How well did we describe what we needed to? How well were
we in providing relevant information and answering your questions?
Use of time: How well did we use our time?
Participation: How well did we do on making sure everyone was involved?
Facilitation: How well was the workshop managed?
Organisation: How well was the workshop run?
Feedback from the participants is summarised in Figure 1 below. On average, participants rated
the focus groups as good.
Figure 1. Focus group evaluation form feedback
53
0 0 0
85
0
5 5
32
22
3027
24
49
62
43
51
59
58
27
16
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Quality Time Participation Facilitation Organisation
Part
icpant
Responses (
%)
Performance Indicator
Poor Fair Satisfactory Good Excellent
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
16
5.2 Facilitator observations
Overall, the focus groups achieved the purpose of providing submitters with the
opportunity to discuss the content of their submission with Council officers, and to ask
questions about the Amendment process.
Evaluation results suggest that overall, participants found the focus groups to be
worthwhile and informative. Participants welcomed the opportunity to raise concerns in
a public forum.
Participant knowledge of planning processes was generally low, so a lot of time during
the focus group discussions was spent on providing information about Local and State
Government planning context. Whilst this was important in informing submitters about
the Planning Scheme Amendment process, it meant that there was less time for
detailed discussion about some key issues.
Many of the participants welcomed the information provided that helped to build a
greater understanding of planning issues more broadly.
Some participants had hoped to receive more detailed information in the focus groups
and felt that the information provided to them was limited. There was also some
scepticism that the feedback provided to Council during the focus groups would be fully
considered.
It was difficult for many participants to separate issues within the scope of the
amendment from issues that cannot be addressed by the amendment. This may have
led to some participants feeling that their concerns were not given adequate
consideration in the process. It will be important to continue building community
capacity to understand planning processes and procedures.
There was acknowledgement from participants that in the absence of any planning
controls that there was little guidance and direction to manage future development.
5.3 Next steps
After the focus groups Council officers sent a thank you letter to all participants
involved. The letter included a written document containing responses to common
questions raised in the focus groups that required some further explanation. The letter
and question responses are provided in the Appendices (section 6).
Council will carefully review the issues raised by participants, and report the findings to
Council.
A report is scheduled to be considered by Council in mid-2017 detailing the outcomes of
the focus groups. The report will provide responses to all submissions, consider any
changes to the proposed planning provisions and propose a position on the planning
provisions for consideration by Panel.
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
17 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
6 Appendices
Documents provided to focus group participants are provided in this section.
6.1 Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre – Preferred maximum building heights
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
19 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
6.3 Frequently asked questions – Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
20
6.4 Schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
24
6.5 Schedule 19 to the Design and Development Overlay
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
38
6.6 Letter to submitter who attended a focus group
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017
39 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU
6.7 Letter to non-submitter who attended a focus group
AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017
40
6.8 Letter to submitter who did not attend a focus group
Amendment C223 – Map of Submitters
Attachment 3
1
2
3
8
39, 50, 56, 57, 68, 93, 104, 113
12
11
9
23
26
59
203
106 102
193
184
4
5 182
7
54
117
60, 201
129
46
35 63
77
111
38, 187
15
16
20
19
69
79, 80
207
32 22 45 (Malvern
Central)
27
24
25, 58, 66, 90, 92, 94a
28, 71, 85, 86, 191, 204, 208
41
194
37, 43, 44, 82, 84, 109
34, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168,
169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 196
36
95
40
107
47, 72, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125 133, 134,
135, 136, 137, 138, 139
210
48
209
217
218
49
197
83
70 51
52
62
105 67
64
88
200
65
216
73
75
78
81
101
87
181
89
164 185
91
112
178
76, 98, 116,176, 180, 186, 202, 206, 211, 213
99 103
114
115
122, 130, 131, 132, 179
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147
195
174
183
188
199
190
205
198
212
189
192
215
214
Submitters not mapped:
110 126 127 128 177 211 220
228
10 29 30 33 53 100 (PTV)
108
118
219
94
221
222
223
224
42
17
74
96
31
175
13
6
18, 21 14, 97
61
225
55 (VicTrack)
226, 230
227
229
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
1 42 Thanet Street,
Malvern
Proforma D 1. Request that the Wattletree Road/Coonil
Crescent car park be exempt from any zoning
changes. Local areas will be affected by potential
urban development, and existing covenants
covering land on Coonil Crescent should be
respected.
Urban
character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object The proposed controls seek to manage future
development in the precinct with the prociviosion for
increased rear setbacks with sensitive residential
interfaces. The existing zoning (Residential Growth Zone
Schecdule 2 - 4 storeys at 13.5m) is not proposed to be
changed. Any existing covenants on the land are not
proposed to be changed.
No change
2 14 Stuart Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Suggest that there should be a maximum height
limit of three storeys for all areas, so that scale is
sympathetic to heritage character.
2. Proposed heights are excessive and will result in
additional traffic, car parking issues, diminishment
of heritage buildings and overshadowing of
buildings and streetscapes, particularly in Glenferrie
Road and High Street.
Built form, urban
character/heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, Infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.5 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
3 1/17 Myamyn
Street, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The amendment fails to acknowledge inadequacy
of available car parking.
2. Development in the area will result in
overcrowding.
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.7 (Amenity impacts)
No change
4 12 Clarendon
Street, Armadale
Proforma B 1. Suggest that maximum building heights should be
limited to 3 storeys in Precinct B.
2. Any tall building in High Street would be a visual
intrusion on property at 12 Clarendon Street.
Built form Object Refer to:
1.5 (Built form)
1.3 (Built form)
No change
5 12 Clarendon
Street, Armadale
Proforma B 1. Suggest that maximum building heights should be
limited to 3 storeys in Precinct B including a
signficant setback from the rear boundary at the
top floor level.
2. Any tall building in High Street would be a visual
intrusion on property at 13 Clarendon Street,
including impacts on amenity, privacy and access to
sunlight in rear open living areas
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.5 (Built form)
1.6 (Built form)
1.3 (Built form)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
6 15 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed 12 storey building heights at Malvern
Central will cause overlooking/overshadowing at
certain times of the day/year.
2. Development at Malvern Central and Railway
Bridge on Glenferrie Road will diminish the value of
housing in the immediate area and negative impact
local amenity. It will negatively impact housing on
the adjoining railway line on Valentine Grove and
the lower part of Railway Avenue.
3. New development on Glenferrie Road will ruin
the village quality of the station neighbourhood and
existing amenities.
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Urban
Character/Heritage
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
6.1 (Other)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
No change
7 93 Wattletree Road
Malvern
Tract
Consultants
PTY LTD
On behalf of C 1. Support the exhibited DDO19 maximum
preferred building height of 5 storeys and street
wall height of 4 storeys for Precinct C.
2. Requests that all building height controls in RGZ3
and DDO19 in ‘storeys’ not metres. Concern that
expressing height controls in metres restricts the
capacity to be translated into a consistent, buildable
number of storeys. Expressing heights in metres
provides greater clarification and consistency. The
Panel report for Melbourne Planning Scheme
Amendment C190 (October 2015) addresses this
concern and recommends that the height controls
be expressed as storeys.
3. Correct inconsistencies between RGZ3 and
DDO19 by applying a discretionary maximum
preferred building height and removing the
mandatory building height standards set in RGZ3.
Submit that the use of discretionary controls are
more likely to facilitate appropriate built form
outcomes than mandatory controls by providing
more flexibility to accommodate contextual
variations and innovative design.
Built form Change 1. Noted.
2. The proposed DDO19 does not identify a building
height for Precinct C (Wattletree Road West) except for
the Malvern Central site. The maximum building height
is stated in the proposed RGZ3. To clarify the intended
height in metres it is proposed that the height be
articulated in storeys as well.
Consistent with Planning Practice Note 60 (Height and
setback controls for activity centres) the building heights
are expressed in metres and storeys. The context in
Stonnington is different from the context in Melbourne
City Council (Arden–Macaulay Structure Plan).
Stonnington is seeking to achieve a consistent built edge
for development along Wattletree Road.
3. The proposed height in Precinct C is mandatory and as
such the height must be expressed in metres. The RGZ3
allows for growth to transition from the more intensive
use and development anticipated in the Activity Centre
and Malvern Central site to the lower scale heritage
protected residential areas at the rear interface. A
mandatory building height will ensure this transition is
gradual.
No change
4. Revise maximum building heights to allow
architectural
4. Building height, as defined in the Planning Scheme, is
the vertical distance from natural ground level to the
roof or parapet at any point. Building services and
architectural features are not included when measuring
building height. Therefore building services and
architectural features may exceed the maximum
building height. No change is needed to the proposed
policy to exclude these items explicitly.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
8 15 Gaynor Court,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights will increase traffic
congestion/car parking.
2. The amendment should preserve the quality of
life of existing residents/rate-payers in Malvern
Traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to Standard Responses:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.3 (Other)
No change
9 3 Kelmscott Road,
Armadale
Written
submission
B 1. Development along High Street should be limited
to 3 storeys for small sites (from 4), 3-4 storeys for
medium sites (from 5) and 5 storeys for large sites
(no change). This reduction in height is requested in
the context of increased car parking demand and
overshadowing concerns. Medium sites are similar
to small sites.
2. Development will lead to significant car traffic
(and parking) midway along laneways creating
significant noise and disturbances.
3. Current GRZ overlay requires a maximum site
coverage of 60% which will clearly be breached in
nearly all developments. The amendment should
specify that building coverage should not increase
beyond any existing built form if already greater
than 60%.
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Traffic
congestion/ car
parking
Change 1. A three storey modern height limit is comparable to
the existing two storey parapet height of commercial
heritage buildings. Medium and Large sites are defined
by their frontage. This delineation acknowledges that
the lot width represents a potential increase in capacity
of these sites to accommodate additional height with a
reduced impact on the amenity (including
overshadowing) of adjoining lower scale residential
development.
2. Car parking access to new development is encouraged
from rear laneways. A function of the laneway is to
enable the movement of cars off the main roads.
Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1) outlines
restrictions with respect to noise and commercial
vehicle operations such as waste removal and delivery of
goods.
3. The site coverage requirement currently exists in the
General Residential Zone (GRZ). The Amendment C223
proposed planning provisions seek to direct the majority
of growth to areas in the Commercial Zone and
Residential Growth Zone where such site coverage
restrictions are not appropriate given the level of
growth supported.
No change
10 Not supplied Written
submission
E 1. Object to new high rise development on
Dandenong Road.
2. Poorly constructed and unattractive high
buildings will cause the suburb to be overrun with
people, ruining the landscape.
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Urban
Character/Heritage
Object Refer to:
1.5 (Built form)
3.7 (Amenity impacts)
No change
11 8/31 Claremont Av,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Negative information about the Amendment is
being distributed around Malvern.
2. Supportive of identification of strategic
development sites, allowing new development
while implementing adequate controls that respect
the form and scale of existing buildings.
Built form, urban
character/ heritage
Support Noted. No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
12 14 Chandlers Road,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights on Dandenong Road and
Railway Avenue are too high and will cause
overshadowing.
2. Proposed heights on Glenferrie Road will detract
from heritage buildings.
3. Development will negatively impact car parking
and cause noise, traffic disruptions.
Built form, Amenity
impacts, urban
character/Heritage,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
No change
13 23 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Support proposition to create
residential/commercial activity centre.
2. Twelve storey heights will negatively impact local
amenity (solar access/overshadowing/noise) and
neighbourhood character.
Built form, Amenity
impacts,
Character/Heritage
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
14 5/3 Railway
Avenue, Armadale
Written
submission
A2 1. Request that building heights in Precinct A2 be
reduced to 4 storeys.
2. Proposed heights in Precinct A2 are too high,
directly affecting Railway Avenue and causing
amenity impacts (solar
access/overshadowing/noise/dust)
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer to:
1.5 (Built form)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
No change
15 1/7-11 Mercer Rd,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Development will impact on-street car parking.
Developers ahould provide on-street car parking for
existing businesses/residences and deny to
newcomers.
2. Suggest that residential apartments must accord
with minimal size dimensions (ie. ceiling heights)
and design elements; have setbacks stepped back at
each level above the second floor, and include lifts
to service residential areas and storage rooms (not
cages).
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Traffic
congestion/ car
parking
Object Refer to:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.7 (Other)
No change
16 20 Edgerton Road
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Future development will cause overcrowding of
Glenferrie Road, Wattletree Road and High Street.
2. Twelve storey heights at Malvern Central will
negatively impact urban character
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Urban
Character/Heritage
Object Refer to:
3.7 (Amenity impacts)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
17 Not supplied Proforma D 1. Request that the Wattletree Road/Coonil
Crescent car park be exempt from any zoning
changes. Local areas will be affected by potential
urban development, and existing covenants
covering land on Coonil Crescent should be
respected.
Urban
character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object The proposed controls seek to manage future
development in the precinct with the prociviosion for
increased rear setbacks with sensitive residential
interfaces. The existing zoning (Residential Growth Zone
Schecdule 2 - 4 storeys at 13.5m) is not proposed to be
changed. Any existing covenants on the land are not
proposed to be changed.
No change
18 10 Railway Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central and Precinct
A2 are too high and will result in unsightly
development and amenity impacts.
2. Requests to know if Council intends to build over
the railway line so that Malvern Central joins
Railway Avenue.
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Urban
Character/Heritage
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
19 35 Soudan Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Future development in the activity centre will
negative impact urban character and amenity
(overlooking/overshadowing/visual bulk/increased
traffic congestion/car parking demand/noise/loss of
vegetation/demand on existing services)
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
5.4 (Infrastructure needs)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
20 16 Egerton Rd,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Public notification about the amendment was
inadequate.
2.Increased population will have negative impacts
on local amenity and car parking.
3.Infrastructure is insufficient for supporting higher
volumes of people.
Amenity impacts,
Infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
6.2 (Other)
3.7 (Amenity impacts)
5.4 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
21 16 Railway Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
Malvern
Central
1. Amendment presents a departure from the
Structure Plan including resident views about
heritage buildings, height controls and future of
Malvern Central.
2. Higher buildings will diminish heritage buildings
and cause overshadowing.
3. Requests the opinion of south ward Councillors in
relation to the amendment.
Built form, urban
character/heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
6.2 (Other)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
21a 16 Railway Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central and Precinct
A2 are excessive and there is a lack of transition to
minimise impacts on neighbouring communities.
Suggest that building heights at Malvern Central be
set to six storeys, with transition to four storeys on
the northern and southern boundaries.
2.New development will negatively impact amenity
(ie.overshadowing, wind) and heritage buildings.
3. Council's effort to engage the community in the
amendment has been insufficient and
documentation is confusing.
4. Suggest that measure of shadow at the equinox
fails to consider shadow at the winter solstice, and
that this should be considered as per Chapel Street
Revision.
5. There is a need for improved pedestrian and bike
paths near Malvern Central.
6.Any new roof decks at Malvern Central will be
cold, windy and shadowed.
Built form, urban
character/heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.4 (Built form)
1.5 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
6.2 (Other)
3.5 (Amenity impacts)
6.5 (Other)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
22 2 Derril Avenue,
Malvern
Proforma D 1. Request that the Wattletree Road/Coonil
Crescent car park be exempt from any zoning
changes. Local areas will be affected by potential
urban development, and existing covenants
covering land on Coonil Crescent should be
respected.
Urban
character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object The proposed controls seek to manage future
development in the precinct with the prociviosion for
increased rear setbacks with sensitive residential
interfaces. The existing zoning (Residential Growth Zone
Schecdule 2 - 4 storeys at 13.5m) is not proposed to be
changed. Any existing covenants on the land are not
proposed to be changed.
23 41 Thanet Street,
Malvern
Proforma D 1. Request that the Wattletree Road/Coonil
Crescent car park be exempt from any zoning
changes.
2. Suggest that the natural boundaries for area D in
the proposed amendment are Coonil Crescent and
Glendearg Grove.
3. Rear aspects should be included in specifications
to protect neighbouring residential dwellings
4. The amendment should have regard to
neighbourhood character and amenity impacts
Built form, urban
character/heritage
Object The proposed planning controls seek to introduce
additional provisions to help manage future
development. The existing zone (Res Growth Zone) and
existing height of 4 storeys (13.5m) is proposed to
remain.
Refer to Standard Responses:
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
1.7 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
23A 41 Thanet Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
D 1. Concern regarding overshadowing, traffic,
parking, lack of open space. Twelve storeys is too
excessive.
Built form, urban
character/heritage
Object Noted. No change
24 20 Evandale Road,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights (particularly at
Malvern Central, Wattletree Road, Glenferrie Road
and any potential building over the railway bridge)
are excessive and will cause overshadowing.
2. Suggests that a live planning application to
develop 30-32 Glenferrie Road will cause traffic
congestion and amenity impacts.
3. Suggests that new development at 30-32
Glenferrie Road should provide underground car
parking
Built form, Amenity
impacts, Traffic
congestion/ car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
25 10 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Supports Council's intent to protect heritage
areas.
2. Scale of change in the activity centre will have
negative impacts on infrastructure (sewerage,
electricity, rubbish collection, excess traffic on
Wattletree Road, parking for visitors/clients of all
proposed apartments/shops) and lead to
overshadowing, particularly on properties in
Valentine Grove and Railway Avenue
3. Some development is desirable but not to
completely change the area
4. Suggests that community engagement about the
amendment was inadequate/questionable
Built form, Amenity
impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
2.1 (Urban Character/Heritage)
5.3 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
1.3 (Built form)
6.2 (Other)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
26 38 Thanet Street,
Malvern
Proforma D 1. Request that the Wattletree Road/Coonil
Crescent car park be exempt from any zoning
changes. Local areas will be affected by potential
urban development, and existing covenants
covering land on Coonil Crescent should be
respected.
Urban
character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object The proposed controls seek to manage future
development in the precinct with the prociviosion for
increased rear setbacks with sensitive residential
interfaces. The existing zoning (Residential Growth Zone
Schecdule 2 - 4 storeys at 13.5m) is not proposed to be
changed. Any existing covenants on the land are not
proposed to be changed.
27 47 Wattletree
Road, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Requests further information in relation to
current height restrictions for new development in
Wattletree Road; existing provisions for increased
green space on Wattletree Road between the
Railway Road and the intersection of Wattletree
Road and Dandenong Road, the reduction of speed
limits between the Railway Bridge and Cabrini
Hospital to support pedestrian safety and
consideration of a multi-storey car park with a
bridge between Malvern Central and the current
Stonnington car park on Wattletree Road.
2. Suggests that building heights should be
relatively evenly graduated and in keeping with
existing urban character.
3. Suggests that there is an increasing need for
green space/ parklands in Stonnington to support
future populations.
Urban
character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, amenity
impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
6.5 (Other)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.4 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
6.5 (Other)
28 6/65 Station Street,
Malvern
Proforma A2 1. Concern regarding the amenity impacts of
development at 12-18 Claremont Avenue (A2 – 6
storeys) on the north facing apartments at 63-65
Station Street Armadale. Request for 12-18
Claremont Ave to be removed from Precinct A2.
2. Request for Council to purchase 12-18 Claremont
Ave for future public open space.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change 1. The concerns regarding the potential amenity impacts
of a 6 storey building on the rear apartments is
acknowledged. The sites at 12-18 Claremont Ave are fine
grain and in the Heritage Overlay. It is considered that a
6 storey building on these sites is not appropriate given
their context. It is recommended that these sites and
those in the Heritage Overlay to the west of 63-65
Station Street be reallocated to the more appropriate
precinct (A1) where 4 storey development is supported.
2. The building at 12-18 Claremont Ave is of local
heritage significance and protected in the Heritage
Overlay. Given the sites heritage significance it is not
appropriate to identify this site for public open space.
1. Amend the boundary of the
precincts in the map in DDO19.
Align Precinct A1 so it applies to
areas subject to the Heritage
Overlay.
Move the following addresses
from Precinct A2 (6 storeys) to
Precinct A1 (4 storeys):
• 2-18 Claremont Ave.
• 57 Station St.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
29 2/46a Caroline St,
South Yarra
Written
submission
A2 1. The proposed setbacks and preferred maximum
building heights of four and six storeys in the
Malvern Station precinct area are excessive and not
in keeping with Council’s heritage guidelines.
2.Visual bulk will negatively impact local area
amenity, urban character, traffic congestion and
demand for car parking
3.Suggest that preferred maximum heights for the
Malvern Station Precinct be reduced to 3-4 storeys
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
30 59 Northcote Road,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.New development will not respect the existing
period charm and character.
2.Increased density will reduce sunlight, create
wind tunnels, decrease the desirability of the
activity centre and cause traffic congestion.
3.Requests protection for period homes including
against demolitions.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
31 24 Llaneast St,
Armadale
Written
submission
Malvern
Central
1.Proposed heights at Malvern Central are excessive
and existing roads, car parking and public transport
will not be able to cope with demand
2. The area will turn into a mini Chadstone
3.New development should respect the existing
aesthetics and available services
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.2 (Infrastructure needs)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
No change
32 6 Derril Avenue,
Malvern
Written
submission
D 1. Reject the continuation of the Strategic Site D
eastwards along Wattletree Road beyond Coonil
Crescent and beyond Glendearg Grove.
2.Allowing the expansion of development beyond
natural boundaries of roads east of Coonil
Cresecent will compromise heritage built form and
existing urban character including many properties
in the area covered by restrictive covenents.
Built form, Urban
character/heritage
Object Refer to:
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
33 Not supplied Written
submission
All precincts 1.Glenferrie Road and neighbouring streets cannot
withstand population growth or increases in traffic
congestion and car parking.
2. The activity centre is desirable for its current
urban character and charm.
3. Suggests that Stonnington Council address the
needs of current communities before planning for
future communities.
Infrastructure needs,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Urban
character/heritage
Object Refer to:
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
34 21 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Preferred heights in Precinct A1 and D are
excessive and will negatively impact heritage and
local amenity including increasing noise and traffic.
2.Suggests that Council adjust the boundaries of
Precinct A1 so that it ends one lot back from
Glenferrie Road instead of the full distance to
Drysdale Street. This would exclude taller
developments in the area that is currently the Coles
car park, Dan Murphy’s, the municipal car park and
smaller shops on Drysdale Street, creating a buffer
to the heritage zone. A similar buffer should be
provided on Isabella Street in Precinct D.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
35 43 Claremont
Avenue, Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights and setbacks are
inappropriate, including proposals for Malvern
Station, up to 10 storeys on Dandenong Road, up to
6 storeys immediately east of Railway Avenue,
heights along Glenferrie Road and High Street and
possible development over the railway bridge.
2. New development will compromise existing
heritage and have amenity impacts (loss of solar
access/overshadowing, loss of privacy due to
overlooking, and loss of quality of life)
3.Raises concerns about home extensions recently
approved in the local area
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
6.3 (Other)
No change
36 50 Kooyong Road,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. New development above 4 storeys is
inappropriate and will negatively impact urban
character.
2.Higher density living is catered for by other inner
city suburbs, and modern design standards are
generally poor causing loss of greenery
3.Increased high rise development will lead to
traffic congestion and overshadowing of
surrounding areas
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
6.5 (Other)
6.6 (Other)
6.7 (Other)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
37 26 Llaneast Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Reject rezoning of the south side of Wattletree
Road (158 to 198 Wattletree Road) from General
Residential Zone (Schedule 3) to a new General
Residential Zone (Schedule 15); rezoning of
Wattletree Road between the railway corridor and
Glenferrie Road (77 to 101Wattletree Road) from
Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 2) to a new
Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 3); inserting a
new Schedule 19 to Clause 43.02 Design and
Development Overlay which applies to land in the
Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre and
adjoining Wattletree Road area, and inserting a new
Schedule 3 to Clause 43.04 Development Plan
Overlay which applies to Malvern Central and
adjoining railway land in Armadale between
Wattletree Road and Glenferrie Road.
2.Preferred maximum building heights will
negatively impact urban character, local amenity
and existing infrastructure cannot accommodate
future growth.
3.New development is accommodated by other
suburbs and is unncecessary in Malvern.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
38 4/3 Railway
Avenue. Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed preferred heights including allowances
for A2 (6 storeys), E(10 storeys) and the Malvern
Central site (12 storeys)are excessive and will cause
traffic congestion and diminish urban character.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
39 29 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high
and will negatively impact urban character and
amenity (noise, traffic, atmosphere, overlooking,
quality of life).
2.Suggests that building heights should remain at
current levels.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
6.3 (Other)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
40 30-32 Glenferrie
Road, Malvern
Echelon
Planning
On behalf of A1 1. Support the inclusion of heights and setbacks.
2. The inclusion of a 14.5 metre preferred height
limit is sufficient in dealing with issues relating to
overall height in the streetscape. Request for height
in storeys to be deleted.
3. The mid-block setback will significantly impact on
the infill opportunities of sites. Request for the mid-
block setback to be deleted.
Built form Change 1. Noted.
2. Consistent with Planning Practice Note 60 (Height and
setback controls for activity centres) the building heights
are expressed in metres and storeys. The height in
storeys is used as a guide to indicate the equivalent
height in storeys.
3. The proposed controls include a provision for a mid-
block setback for the top level to mitigate visual bulk
from the rear of new development. There is no measure
against this rear mid-block setback requirement. In
addition, the visibility of the new built form at this level
is potentially negligible or non-existent. It is considered
that this provision should be removed as it is unlikely to
significantly assist with its objective to mitigate visual
bulk.
3. Delete mid-block setback
provision in DDO19.
41 17-23 Station
Street, Malvern
Dreamvale
Property
Group
On behalf of A1 1. Requests that the preferred height limit for
Precinct A1 be increased from 4 to 6 storeys. Given
the subject site is not of heritage significance and
has a number of different characteristics such as its
larger size that lend itself to more intensive
development.
2. Request for the proposed upper level setback of
8-10 metres to be deleted or reviewed.
3. Request for balconies or terraces not to be
included in the building envelope provisions. The
provision seems overly onerous.
4. Request for deletion of the provision for a 1.5m
rear ground and first level setback. There is little
benefit to the function of the laneway if only a
handful of properties incorporate the 1.5m setback.
Built form Change 1. Pecinct A1 (4 storeys) applies to Glenferrie Road and
Station Street where the Heritage Overlay also applies.
The proposed preferred maximum building height of 4
storeys is in consideration of the predominant
circumstance of a heritage significant building and the
objective to ensure that any new built form is
subservient to the heritage building. Despite the lack of
heritage significance of the subject site, any new
development must still have regard for its heritage
context and consistency with the objectives of Council’s
Heritage Policy.
2. The proposed upper level setback of 8-10 metres for
heritage buildings is consistent with Council’s adopted
heritage policy and Heritage Design Guidelines. The
upper level setback will ensure that new alterations and
additions are visually recessive and located behind the
primary building volume, ensuring a clear separation
between the heritage significant building and the new
additions.
3. Balconies and terraces are required to be included
within the building envelope to maintain the integrity of
building separation and minimise potential overlooking
of the adjoining residential areas.
4. A rear lane setback at ground level and first level is
required to better facilitate the ongoing function of the
laneway and improve access for cars and building
servicing.
5. Delete mid-block setback
provision in DDO19.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
5. Request for deletion of the rear mid-block
setback provision.
5. The proposed controls include a provision for a mid-
block setback for the top level to mitigate visual bulk
from the rear of new development. There is no measure
against this rear mid-block setback requirement. In
addition, the visibility of the new built form at this level
is potentially negligible or non-existent. It is considered
that this provision should be removed as it is unlikely to
significantly assist with its objective to mitigate visual
bulk.
42 Not supplied Glenferrie
Road Malvern
Business
Association
Written
submission
A1 1. Suggest to encourage shop top residential
development within the Glenferrie Road Precinct to
a level of 4 storeys including strict requirements to
provide car parking in all future development.
2.Request that Council develop a plan for increased
car parking in the Activity Centre over the next 5
years and suggest that existing VicTrack land be
considered for future car parking as well as for use
by pedestrians and cyclists
3.Support proposed heights at Malvern Central
provided sufficient car parking is provided and
suggest that the site provide improved pedetrian
access between the Malvern Central site and
Glenferrie Road.
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Change Car parking within future development may be
supported however given the existing traffic congestion
in the activity centre, more sustainable means of
transport is encouraged. Residents are encouraged to
use more sustainable means of transport such as
walking, train and tram where possible. A reduction in
the car parking requirements for new development may
be supported in order not to further exacerbate vehicle
traffic congestion on the roads.
Refer to:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
43 5 Llaneast Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.The proposed amendment does not respect the
local context (street pattern, heritage character,
scale of existing dwellings) and will negative impact
urban character, public safety, people’s right to
enjoy a quiet environmental and good quality of
life.
2.Dwellings along Llaneast Street (backing on to
Wattletree Road west) have a heritage overlay and
are typically single storey dwellings. The
amendment would allow dwellings of 5 storeys, just
metres from the rear boundary of properties along
Llaneast Street causing overlooking and adverse
effects on local amenity.
3. Proposed heights near Wattletree west will
negatively impact quality of life of residents.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
6.8 (Other)
6.3 (Other)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
44 25 Llaneast Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Amendment does not respect urban character
and will lead to amenity impacts (lack of solar
access, creation of wind tunnells, overlooking, noise
and traffic congestion)
2.Increasing heights at Wattletree Road west will
cause loss of privacy in adjacent residential areas.
3. Proposed heights are too big and concentrated.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.3 (Built form)
No change
45 110-122 Wattletree
Road, Malvern
(Malvern Central)
AMP Capital On behalf of Malvern
Central
1. Support for the broad ambitions for the site
including recognition as a strategic development
site and discretionary controls.
Requested DPO3 changes:
2. Allow the preparation and approval of separate
development plans for the Malvern Central site and
VicTrack land.
3. Allow permits to be granted prior to the approval
of a development plan.
4. Request for clarification and correction in
relation to the setbacks to side boundaries above
the street wall. No street wall identified.
5. Development plan requirements to be more
flexible.
6. ‘display of development plan’ requirements to be
‘for at least 14 days but no longer than 28 days’.
This convention is the same for the display of a
planning application, generally in accordance with a
incorporated plan, in Clause 22.1-3 (Chadstone
Commercial Centre Policy). For notice to be to
adjoining owners and occupiers only.
Requested DDO19 changes:
Built form Change 1. Noted.
2. The head provision in the DPO already allows for a
development plan to be prepared in stages. In order to
make this clear it is recommended that DPO3 be revised
to clarify that the land can be developed independently
and separate development plans can be prepared and
approved.
3. The DPO allows for advertising signs, demolition and
minor building and works to be granted a permit prior to
a development plan being prepared.
4. A street wall is identified for Wattletree Road. To
clarify the application of the upper level setback this
should be revised so that it applies above the street wall
and the building base on laneways.
5. Section 4.0 (Requirements for development plan)
outlines what a development plan must contain. The
requirements are not extensive and given the
substantial development potential of the strategic site
these requirements are considered necessary and
important.
6. Section 5.0 of the DPO3 requires the responsible
authority to display the development plan for public
comment for at least four weeks. This extent of time is
consistent with the extent of time for exhibition of an
amendment to the planning scheme. Given the
significance of any development on this site, this extent
of time is considered appropriate.
2. Revise the DPO to clarify that
separate development plans can
be prepared.
4. Amend text to clarify that the
upper level setback applies to the
street wall and the building base
on laneways.
7. Move design objectives and
design guidelines, applicable to
Malvern Central, from the DDO to
the DPO. Amend the Planning
Scheme maps to remove the DDO
from that part of the Malvern
Central site fronting Wattletree
Road.
8. Revise planning provisions to
clarify that for development on
the Malvern Central site, the
preferred minimum setback along
the common boundary, between
Malvern Central and VicTrack land,
is 0 metres.
7. Appears to be inconsistency between the street
wall height and other built form requirements in
the DPO and DDO. Overlap between the DPO and
DDO is confusing. Request that DPO3 remain the
overarching control.
8. Seeks clarification on whether the ‘Interface and
Setback Guidelines’ apply.
The potential impact of any development on this site will
be wide reaching so limiting notice to adjoining owners
and occupiers only is considered inappropriate.
7. Support moving all the relevant Malvern Central
controls into the one tool, being DPO3.
8. Revise planning provisions to clarify that, for
development on the Malvern Central site, the preferred
minimum setback along the common boundary,
between Malvern Central and VicTrack land, is 0 metres.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
46 3 Chandlers Road,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Proposed planning controls may not be restrictive
enough, allowing greater heights than preferred.
2.New development will negatively impact heritage,
neighbourhood character and cause loss of amenity
(overshadowing, overlooking, traffic congestion, car
parking demand)
3.There is insufficient infrastructure to support
population growth and change
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to Standard Responses:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
47 17B Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts
1. Amendment enables development that is too big
and concentrated and will result in loss of heritage,
urban character and amenity (loss of car parking
and open space, traffic congestion, overshadowing,
overlooking, visual bulk).
2. There will be increased commercial activity at
Malvern Central site, which is a relatively small site,
and local shops on Glenferrie Road and High Street
will be adversely affected, including streetscapes.
3. Chadstone provides the community with
shopping complex experience so need for a
shopping complex in the activity centre is
unjustified.
4. Request development that is low rise, improves
the heritage character of the area and that has
positive impacts on residents and visitors.
5. Over 95% of people in Malvern and Armadale are
opposed to the amendment.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
48 41 Dixon Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Existing car parking is insufficient to support new
development near the railway station.
2.Suggest that Council and the State Transport
Authority purchase land near the rail corridor to
convert into needed car parking facilities
3.Car parking provisions should be provided in any
proposed planning controls
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
49 23 Gordon Grove,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Proposed heights in Precinct D are excessive and
will lead to overlooking and overshadowing, and
should therefore remain unchanged.
2.Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high
and will negatively impact urban character. Suggest
that built form at Malvern Central should not
exceed 6 storeys.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Change Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
50 31 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights are excessive and will
negatively impact the urban character and
ambience of areas, particularly on Valentine Grove
and Bailey Avenue and in local shopping streets that
are popular with tourists.
2.New development will negatively impact local
amenity (overshadowing and overlooking) and
result in traffic and car parking issues
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
51 1269 High Street,
Malvern
Mecone Written
submission
Precinct 1. Recommend that site at 1269 High Street (east of
Precinct 1 : Civic) be included in the activity centre
area subject to site investigation, with a view to the
area being considered as a 'substantial change area'
including building heights of up to 5-6 storeys.
Built form Change 1. The boundaries of the activity centre were
determined through the preparation of the endorsed
Structure Plan. Planinng Practice Note 58 (Structure
Planning for Activity Centres) includes criteria for
determinig an activity centre boundary. The consultants
preparing the Structure Plan used this Practice Note to
inform the extent of the Glenferrie Road and High Street
Activity Centre boundary. The proposed planning
controls align with the activity centre boundary as
identified in the Structure Plan.
No change
52 14 Winter St,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Proposed amendment will negatively impact
heritage and urban character.
2.Proposed development of Coles supermarket car
park into a 4 storey development will have negative
impacts on amenity (noise, overshadowing,
overlooking, traffic congestion)
3.Suggests that Winter Street and Edsall Street be
made 'one way only' to facilitate improved access to
the supermarket car park.
4.Requests to know how ROW garages will be
impacted by new development.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.8 (Other)
No change
53 1/450 Chapel
Street, South Yarara
CS Town
Planning
Services
On behalf of All precincts 1. Suggest to make Malvern Central height limit 6
storeys, comparable with the clock tower at the
northern end of the Centre.
2. Suggest that the southern side of Malvern Central
site including height limits of up to 4 storeys
consistent with the maximum heights for
Wattletree road as this will provide a more
tempered approach to building heights that is
sensitive to the urban context.
3. Proposed building heights will have a detrimental
impact on solar access to the public realm,
particularly during winter.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
1.4 (Built form)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
54 183 Wattletree
Road, Malvern
Cabrini
Property
Association
On behalf of Precinct 1. Institutional uses are already addressed in other
policy including Clause 22.16 (Institutional Uses),
Clause 18.02-1 (Health facilities), clause 21.03
(Strategic Framework Plan) and Clause 21.08-5
(Community Infrastructure). Panel for C175
(Neighbourhood character policy) believed that
Council has already effectively planned for
institutional and large redevelopment sites.
2. DDO19 should not apply to 183, 185-189
Wattletree Road. The DDO19 fails to recognise that
institutional uses will differ from standard
residential development. Lack of recognition for the
net community benefit afforded by facilitating and
supporting the ongoing hospital and medical uses
that service both local and broader community
needs.
Built form, amenity
impacts, urban
character/ heritage,
site specific
Change 1. Cabrini Hospital is an important use close to the
Activity Centre. It’s presence and other complimentary
medical services on Wattletree Road support the
ongoing economic vitality of the Glenferrie Rd and High
St Activity Centre.
Existing policy for institutional uses in the Planning
Scheme are broad based and not specific to the Cabrini
Hospital Malvern site. It is important that development
on Cabrini owned land has regard to its specific context
within residential zoned land and its relationship with
the Glenferrie Road Activity Centre. The site(s) are
located in Precinct D (Wattletree Road East) in the
proposed DDO19. Precinct D contains provisions which
are not just relevant to residential development but also
seek to ensure that any development on the Cabrini land
responds to the objectives to enhance the garden
setting of new development and encourage a scale of
development that provides a transition.
2. Cabrini Hospital is located in the peripheral area of
the main Activity Centre boundary. It is acknowledged
that the under the provisions of the existing Residential
Growth Zone (RGZ2) the maximum building height of
13.5m does not apply to institutional uses. To date,
recent development on the Cabrini owned land has not
attempted to respond adequately to its surrounding
residential context.
No change.
The key objectives and design guidelines in the proposed
DDO19 are relevant provisions to manage the edges of
development on the Cabrini land. These provisions seek
to ensure a transition in scale and complementary
interface with the surrounding low scale residential
area.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
55 8/1010 La Trobe
Street, Docklands
VicTrack On behalf of Precinct 1. The Melbourne Metro Rail Authority has advised
that it requires most of the rail land adjacent
Malvern Central shopping centre for access, rail
sidings and a new substation to support the
Melbourne Metro Rail Project.
Requested DDO changes:
2. Request that a permit for buildings and works be
exempted for:
“Railway and railway infrastructure including signals
(and related control buildings), new tracks, track
work and realignment, overhead power lines,
gantries, stabling (excluding buildings) and any
other work required under the Disability
Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for
Accessible Public Transport 2002”.
As a railway station is a separately defined land use
term under clause 74, to avoid confusion, railway
station should also be included in the exemption.
3. Request for all VicTrack land to be removed from
the proposed DDO19.
Requested DPO changes:
4. Area indicated in green on enclosed plan is
required for transport purposes. For the short to
medium term, alternative development is unlikely.
Council may wish to remove the DPO from applying
to the green shaded section.
Built form, Site specific Change 1. Noted
2. It is considered appropriate to support permit
exemptions for those works that are required for the
operation of the rail and infrastructure in accordance
with the Public Zone (PUZ4 - Transport).
3. Support. Remove the DDO as it applies to the VicTrack
land on the southern side of the railway corridor west of
Glenferrie Rd. Remove the DDO as it applies to VicTrack
land east of Glenferrie Road. There are no relevant
provisions in the DDO so these areas can be removed
from the DDO map.
4. The VicTrack land to which the DPO applies does not
have railway tracks and currently a wood yard occupies
this land. This land could be developed upon, therefore
it is appropriate that planning controls apply to this land
to guide any potential future development.
2. Consider need to add to existing
permit exemptions.
3.Remove the DDO as it applies to
the VicTrack land on the southern
side of the railway corridor west of
Glenferrie Rd. Remove the DDO as
it applies to VicTrack land east of
Glenferrie Road.
5. Area indicated in orange on the enclosed plan is
available for development and is currently being
investigated by VicTrack. We support the inclusion
of this site within the DPO3.
6. Seeking to have the control worded to support
VicTrack bring able to lodge a separate
Development Plan from Malvern Central shopping
centre.
7. Concern about the design objective at Clause 2.0.
Request that it be removed and retained in the
Structure Plan only.
“to incorporate a landscaped shared pedestrian and
cyclist path along the northern edge of the railway
corridor between Malvern and Armadale Stations.”
5. Noted.
6. It is important that any redevelopment of VicTrack
land is compatible with development on the Malvern
Central site. The head provision in the DPO already
allows for a development plan to be prepared in stages.
In order to make this clear it is recommended that DPO3
be revised to clarify that the land can be developed
independently and separate development plans can be
prepared and approved.
7. The incorporation of a landscaped shared pedestrian
and cyclist path along the northern edge of the railway
corridor has been identified as an opportunity to better
connect Malvern and Armadale Station and any
development associated with these two railway stations.
It is proposed that this provision be retained in the DPO.
6. Revise the DPO to clarify that
separate development plans can
be prepared.
56 13 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Proposed heights will adversely impact residential
amenity (visual bulk, loss of solar access, traffic
congestion and car parking) including the
appearance of the High Street and Glenferrie Road
streetscapes.
2. Proposed heights at Malvern Central will cause
overshadowing and overlooking.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to Standard Responses:
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
1.1 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
56a 13 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
Malvern
Central
1. Attended focus groups with submitters but did
not feel that concerns were sufficiently heard by
Council staff.
2.The footprint of Malvern Central appears
signficantly larger than suggested in the Activity
Centre Structure Plan, impacting nearby residential
properties.
3.The proposed scale of the Malvern Central is out
of scape with existing development including the
town hall. This contradicts design guidelines which
require new development to complement
neighbourhood character and prevent intrusion and
overlooking.
4.The guidelines around overshadowing are
unreasonable and do not take consideration of
other times of the year.
5.Conditions and requirements for permits should
consider privacy and surveillance.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
6.2 (Other)
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.5 (Amenity impacts)
No change
57 25 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Disagree with proposed building heights (at
Malvern Central site and in Precincts E, F and A2, as
well as inclusion of land over the railway in the A1
Precinct with a height of 4 storeys) as this will
negatively impact amenity (overshadowing,
overlooking, loss of privacy)
2. Suggest a maximum height limit of 5 storeys in
Precincts A2, E, F and the Malvern Central site.
3. Suggest to rezone land over the railway as public
open space
4. Proposal contradicts Plan Melbourne's emphasis
on creating liveable suburbs
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.7 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
6.5 (Other)
No change
58 3 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Mavelrn Central (12 storeys)
and Precinct A2 (6 storeys) are too high and will
cause amenity impacts (increased traffic
congestion, reduced solar access)
2.Pedestrian path along the railway line between
Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road is
unnecessary, too narrow and could not provide a
safe path
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking
Object 2. The provision of a pedestrian path along the railway
line will be considered as part of any future
development plan for the Malvern Central and adjoining
railway land strategic development site.
Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
59 34 Thanet Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Reject inclusion of properties at 185, 187, 189,
and 191 Wattletree Road; 2 and 4 Coonil Crescent
and the property to the east of the corner of
Wattletree Road and Coonil Crescent, being
included in Precinct D, as this may cause Cabrini to
extend their facilities along Wattletree Road.
2.New development at Malvern Hill precinct will
negatively impact amenity (overlooking)
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
No change
60 5/92 Wattletree
Road, Aramadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Proposed heights (especially at Malvern Central)
are too high and will negative impact urban
character and amenity (traffic and car parking)
2. Proposed heights on Wattletree Road (west) will
negatively impact vistas and solar access to
residences
3.Suggest that all residences be built to the same
height as neighbours with strict setbacks.
4.Agree that the rail corridor between Malvern and
Armadale Stations would benefit from landscaped,
shared pedestrian/cyclist paths
5.Stonnington has Chadstone and therefore does
not need another shopping complex.
6. Community engagement about the amendment
has been insufficient.
7. Existing residents/ratepayers should be more
valued than future residents
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
6.5 (Other)
6.2 (Other)
No change
61 34 Railway Avenue,
Aramadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Concerned about amenity impacts of proposed
building heights (particulaly overshadowing of
resident backyards in Railway Avenue due to high
buildings, and noise disturbance caused by outdoor
cafes/bars)
2.The effect of overshadowing has only been
considered at the equinox, not during winter
months
3.Suggest that building heights be lowered to a
maximum of 4 storeys as a setback on the Malvern
Central site, and a maximum of 6 storeys on the
Wattletree Road side.
4.Given that the VicTrack land can be redeveloped,
this could provide an increase in commercial space
for the community
5.Suggest that Council could have done more to
engage CALD communities in the amendment.
Building heights,
Amenity impacts
Change Refer to:
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
3.5 (Amenity impacts)
6.2 (Other)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
62 10 Winter Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Reject proposed heights of 12 storeys at Malvern
Central and suggest they be lowered to 6 storeys
2. Reject connecting Malvern Central with Cabrini
hospital.
3. Raises concerns about overshadowing,
overlooking and visual bulk caused by 4 storey
height limits at Glenferrie Road
4. Request more information about what is
proposed for the Winter Street car park and
Drysdale car park
5. The Amendment should address the frequency of
trains as the Amendment will not be workable
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Change Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
5.2 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
63 99 Claremont
Avenue, Malvern
Written
submission
Malvern
Central
1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central site are too
high and will negatively impact urban character
Built form, Urban
character/heritage
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
No change
64 23 Inverness
Avenue, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high
and should be reduced to 8 storeys.
2.Council should take a gradual approach to
increasing heights
3.Increasing density and development may lead to
tree loss
4.Council should make allowances for site setbacks
and street facing vegetation
Building heights,
Amenity impacts
Change Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
1.4 (Built form)
6.5 (Other)
No change
65 7 McKinley Avenue,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Heritage areas should be protected, including
historic laneways which should be protected, not
widened.
2. Proposed height limits for Precincts A1 and A2 (4-
6 storeys) are too high and new development will
have amenity impacts (overlooking, overshadowing)
3. Mixed use developments near Malvern Station
should be controlled to reduce amenity impacts
(noise, car parking and vehicle access for deliveries)
6. Large scale developments in Precincts E & F to
the south side of Malvern Station will have negative
effects on vehicle access, car parking and traffic
congestion
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking, urban
character/heritage
Object Refer to:
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
1.2 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
66 13 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high
and will overshadow residences at Valentine Grove
and Railway Avenue.
2. The scale, bulk and density of new development
and the setbacks and site coverage will diminish
neighbourhood character and cause amenity
impacts (loss of open space, impacts on resident
wellbeing)
3. Existing infrastructure is insufficient for
accommodating population growth (including
roads, public transport, water, drainage, sewerage
and electricity)
4. Community engagement in the amendment has
been insufficient
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking, urban
character/heritage
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
1.2 (Built form)
6.4 (Other)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
6.3 (Other)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
5.2 (Infrastructure needs)
5.3 (Infrastructure needs)
6.2 (Other)
No change
67 38 Winter Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Support 4 storey height limits on Glenferrie Road
2.Reject proposal that Coles Supermarket be
included in Precinct A1. Suggest that a 4 storey
building covering the Coles Supermarket and car
park would irrevocably change the character of
Winter Street. Suggest that Coles car park should
have a maximum height limit of 2 storeys in keeping
with dwellings in Winter Street.
3.New development will impact local amenity
(overshadowing, overlooking) and building heights
should be increased gradually.
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking, urban
character/heritage
Object Refer to:
1.5 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
68 25 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights and density increases
are excessive and should be met with
commensurate increases in green spaces and
parklands.
2.New development will have amenity impacts
(overlooking)
3. Suggest that Council investigate providing more
sports ovals in the area
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
6.5 (Other)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
No change
69 19 Soudan Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. New develoipment will have negative impacts on
amenity (overshadowing, increased traffic
congestion), and heritage
2. Existing infrastructure is insufficient for
accommodating an increase in the population
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking, urban
character/heritage
Object Refer to:
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
70 304/1196-1200
High Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights in Precinct A1 should also be
applied to Precinct B
2. Future development should provide sufficient car
parking and vehicle access. Developments should
not proceed if this is not considered
3. Increase in population and new development will
result in loss of views and natural light in the centre,
and loss of scarce public space
Built form, Amenity
impacts, traffic
congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
71 4/65 Station Street,
Malvern
Proforma A2 Refer submission 28. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer submission 28 Change. Refer submission 28
72 14 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. All proposed height limits be reduced by one
storey to assist transition to surrounding areas
2. Proposed heights at Malvern Central should be
restricted to 6-8 storey height limits, and the term
'preferred' should be removed to stipulate a stricter
maximum height limit
Built form, Urban
character/heritage
Change Refer to:
1.4 (Built form)
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
73 Not supplied Proforma All precincts 1. Proposal is too big, too concentrated and will
have amenity impacts (overshadowing, visual
dominance, increased traffic congestion, car parking
problems, loss of public space, noise).
2. The heritage value of buildings will be diminished
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
74 19 Railway Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights of 6 storeys in Precinct A2 will
impact Railway Avenue properties through negative
impacts on amenity (overshadowing, loss of privacy,
loss of quiet enjoyment of properties) and height
restrictions should remain at current levels.
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
75 1-3 Como Street
Malvern
SJB Planning On behalf of A2 1. Building height should not be restricted to 6
storeys (mandatory or discretionary) as this height
underestimates the development potential. A
preferred maximum building height of 7 storeys
may be supported by allowing for a greater height
based on the size of the site. Sites with a frontage
greater than 19 metres.
2. Higher density development on this site
supported by VCAT (P1876/2015).
3. Generally supportive of the design objectives.
4. Concern regarding the potential ambiguity of the
application of Diagram 4. Suggest that it be made
clear that this is for residential interfaces only.
Built form, site specific Change 1. The height designated for Como Street is a
discretionary 6 storeys. Six (6) storeys recognises the
development potential of this land given the large lot
size and lack of heritage controls.
2. Noted.
3. Noted.
4. Acknowledge that there may be some ambiguity with
the application of the rear interface diagram. New
diagram required to show rear interface setbacks for
‘non-residential’ interfaces.
4. Insert new diagram for Precinct
A2 for rear ‘non-residential
interfaces’.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
76 16 Union Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
B 1. Proposed heights are too high, especially in High
Street and will diminish urban character and
heritage
2. Instead of a blanket height limit, different heights
should apply to different sections of the street. In
particular I would suggest lower heights in the
vicinity of the Kooyong Road intersection
3. Armadale Station should also be considered on a
standalone basis and is not appropriate for any
development, so should be removed from the
Amendment area.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
77 24B Claremont
Avenue, Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1.New development in the Activity Centre should
not diminish existing character and heritage of
established neighbourhoods and include adequate
and appropriate landscaping
2. Many large scale developments are
unsympathetic to the surrounding area and are
inappropriate in scale, suffocating their sites with
reduced space between buildings and no or vastly
reduced landscaping
3. Development at interface of commercial and
residential zones should be lower.
4. Development has potential for creating a range
of amenity impacts (ie.traffic and car parking. Use
of car lifts/stackers and permits for reduced car
parking requirements should be discouraged by
Council).
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
6.5 (Other)
1.4 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
78 42 Glendearg
Grove, Malvern
Written
submission
A2 1. It is unclear why some Station Street properties
are designated to Precinct A2 and not subject to
14.5 metre height restrictions.
2. The proposed 21.5 metre height limit in Precinct
A2 will cause overshadowing and visual
unsightliness and should be reduced to four storeys
similar to Precinct A1.
4. Proposed amendment threatens urban character
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Change Refer to :
1.3 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
79 1 Soudan Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
D 1.4 storey height limits for Wattleree Rd will cause
overshadowing, detract from the heritage areas
south of Wattletree Road, increase traffic and
change the unique character of the area
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
80 2/1 Soudan Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed height limits are too high, will diminish
urban character, and have negative impacts on
amenity (creation of wind tunnels, overshadowing,
loss of natural light, decrease in quality of life of
residents, traffic congestion, car parking demand,
pollution)
2. Submit that the 2nd storey facades on Glenferrie
Rd should be protected for their heritage value
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
6.3 (Other)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
81 559 Dandenong
Road, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central are out of
character with the neighbourhood and will have
negative amenity impacts
(overlooking,overshadowing of properties on
Railway Avenue, Valentine Grove and Bailey
Avenue).
2. Proposed built form in Precincts F&E will be out
of character with the adjoining neighbourhood and
may create wind tunnels
3. Population growth will have a negative impact on
public transport infrastructure and cause
overcrowding
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
5.2 (Infrastructure needs)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
82 20 Llaneast Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed planning controls will negatively impact
amenity (resident privacy, impacts on mental
health, increased traffic congestion)
2. There has been a lack of consultation about the
amendment, and lack of acknowledgement of
recent correspondence submitted to Council
regarding streetscape issues in Llaneast Street
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
6.3 (Other)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.2 (Other)
No change
83 1318 High Street,
Malvern (Peter
Houlihan)
De La Salle
College
Written
submission
B 1. Informs Council of College planning intentions,
including preparing a masterplan for its sites to the
north and south of High St, and planning for 4-5
storeys along High Street frontage to Dalny St.
2. Submit that 5 level height and zero setback
controls should be applied to the land on the south
side of High St between Glenferrie Rd and Dalny St
extending south a distance of 73.78m, which
coincides with north boundary of St Joseph's school.
Built form, traffic
congestion/car
parking
Change 1. The boundaries of the activity centre were
determined through the preparation of the endorsed
Structure Plan. Planinng Practice Note 58 (Structure
Planning for Activity Centres) includes criteria for
determinig an activity centre boundary. The consultants
preparing the Structure Plan used this Practice Note to
inform the extent of the Glenferrie Road and High Street
Activity Centre boundary. The proposed planning
provisions are consistent with the activity centre
boundary as identified in the Structure Plan.
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
84 17 Llaneast Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
C 1. Proposed buildings are out of scale and
proportion with surrounding dwellings and will
negatively impact heritage, local character and
amenity (privacy, and the right to enjoy a safe and
quiet environment, traffic congestion and car
parking demand)
2. Dwellings along Llaneast Street (backing on to
Wattletree Road west) have a heritage overlay.
Allowing dwellings of 5 storeys just metres from the
rear boundary of these properties is inappropriate
and may adversely impact rear access to these
properties.
3. Proposed building heights on Wattletree Rd west
(Precinct C) will have adverse impacts upon Llaneast
St properties including loss of privacy/ overlooking
and noise
4. Construction of new developments could
negatively impact the stability of properties
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.4 (Built form)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
No change
85 11/65 Station
Street, Malvern
Proforma A2 Refer submission 28. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer submission 28. Change Refer submission 28.
86 17/65 Station
Street, Malvern
Proforma A2 Refer submission 28. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer submission 28. Change. Refer submission 28.
87 20 Alleyne Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts I. The proposal will have a negative impact on the
atmosphere and appearance of High St and
Glenferrie Rd streetscapes, affecting enjoyment,
tourism and quality of shopping.
2. Increased population will increase traffic and
demand for car parking
3. The size and heights of buildings under the
proposal are inappropriate for the area
4. Council is being swayed by business and
developers.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.2 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
88 29 Inverness
Avenue, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Concerned about overdevelopment, in particular
the potential 12 storey building heights at Malvern
Central and the 5 storey heights in Precinct C
(Wattletree Road west) and Precincts B, and A1
around Armadale and Malvern Railway Stations.
Suggest that lower heights should be set.
2. Proposed heights at Malvern Central will cause
have amenity impacts (overlooking, overshadowing)
and diminish neighbourhood character
3. Proposed height limits in Precinct C (Wattletree
Road west) are eroding neighbourhood character
4. Areas around Malvern and Armadale Station have
significant heritage quality that is at risk
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
1.5 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
89 20 Gladstone
Avenue, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Community consultation on the amendment has
been insufficient.
2. The proposed Amendment will result in negative
impacts on amenity (overshadowing, loss of
sunlight, increased traffic and loss of car parking)
Built form, traffic
congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
6.2 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
90 5 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The proposed amendment will result in increased
demand for car parking and garbage collection
services.
2. Proposed 12 storey buildings at Malvern Central
will be unattractive and out of character with the
surrounding area
3. Proposed heights in Precinct B will impact on the
amenity of my property and neighbouring
properties (overlooking, overshadowing, traffic and
car parking, loss of solar access to my property and
neighbouring properties). This planning outcome is
inconsistent with the Planning Scheme provisions at
Clause 21.06.
4. Transitions between new development and
adjoining properties is insufficient. Design
guidelines are needed to manage interfaces
between new and existing building
5. there is insufficient road infrastructure in the
activity centre to handle increased road use.
Built form, traffic
congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.4 (Built form)
5.3 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
91 11 Willis Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
B 1. The proposed maximum height limit in Precinct B
will impact on the amenity of my property and
neighbouring properties (eroding liveability,
overlooking, overshadowing, reducing solar acces,
increased traffic and loss of car parking)
2. Submits that the amendment is inconsistent with
provisions in the Planning Scheme under Clause
21.06.
3. There are inadequate sensitive transitions with
adjoining properties, and a need for design
guidelines to manage interfaces between new and
existing buildings
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
6.3 (Other)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.4 (Built form)
No change
92 14 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights will result in visual
bulk, negatively impacting urban character and
hertage and amenity impacts (loss of solar access,
wind tunnelling, shadowing during the winter
months)
2. Higher density development is provided by
Prahran, South Yarra and Chadstone and is
unnecessary in Malvern.
4. New development will put increased pressure on
existing infrastructure and services. In particular,
roads, traffic and car parking, and garbage removal
services will be adversely impacted, and sewerage,
water and energy services will experience
increasing demand
5. Suggest that height limits on Wattletree Road
should be restricted to 4 storeys
6. Suggest to consider heights of 6 storeys in place
of proposals for 8-12 storeys
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Change Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
5.4 (Infrastructure needs)
5.3 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
93 11 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Submit that the proposed height limits at
Malvern Central are too high and will cause
overshadowing in winter, visual bulk to property on
Valentine street, visual dominance, loss of privacy
due to overlooking, and potential traffic and car
parking issues
2. Amendment will negatively impact the high
quality of social interaction and shopping
experience brought about the local area shopping
strips and abundant café life including: style and
type of shopping offered in Glenferrie Rd strip; loss
of community cohesion due to the transient nature
of high density residences, loss of outdoor seating in
the sunshine; loss of character and heritage value of
shops, potential loss of tourism, negative impacts
on traffic and car parking
3. The amendment will negative impact urban
character and heritage, particularly the unique
character of King’s Arcade
4. There has been a lack of sufficient consultation
and information about the amendment provided by
Council
5. Submits that there are inconsistencies within
Council’s documentation, in particular some parts of
the current Planning Scheme appear to contradict
what is being proposed by the Amendment
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.3 (Other)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
6.2 (Other)
6.9 (Other)
No change
6. Suggests that the stated vision of two of the
south ward Councillors is diametrically opposed to
this proposal. Namely, to preserve the amenity of
current residents, retain the city’s character and
prevent inappropriate development
7. Suggest that there has been a failure to take into
account the changing nature of commerce, in
particular the waning of commercial retail outlets in
the wake of the rise of e-commerce
8. Development represents over-commercialisation
of the area given proximity to Chadstone, Chapel St
and South Yarra.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
93a 11 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1.Council's consultation was inadequate. At the
focus groups Council officers were unprepared and
not in possession of detail needed for discussions.
2. The proposed provisions create lopsided bulk at
one end of the activity centre.
3.There are inappropriate transitions between
proposed heights, such as 5 storeys abutting 1
storey buildings between Wattletree Road and
Llaneast Street
4. Malvern Central is already intensively developed
and should not be developed further
5.Proposed controls will control lot consolidation to
achieve 5 storey developments
6. Proposed controls will destroy the streetscape of
Glenferrie Road and negatively impact urban
character and heritage
7.Transit oriented development is unnecessary
8. Design controls should be more visionary to
ensure the streetscape and heritage value of
Glenferrie Road is protected and to ensure
continuity and uniformity along the street
9.Commercial developments abbuting single storey
residences should be limited to 2 storeys
10. Height limits on Wattletree Road need to be
transitional so that they integrate with surrounding
residential areas
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
6.2 (Other)
1.2 (Built form)
1.4 (Built form)
1.1 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
94 24 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights are too high and will
lead to amenity impacts (overshadowing,
overlooking issues and lack of privacy, traffic issues
and reduced car parking)
2. Proposal is out of character and scale with the
surrounding heritage precinct, will be unnecessarily
bulky and not fit into the streetscape even if there
are setback restrictions
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
No change
94a 24 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
Malvern
Central
1. Proposed 12 storey heights are too high and will
dominate the landscape, negatively impacting local
character and amenity (overshadowing, reduced
privacy and obstruction of views, unsightly visual
bulk, traffic congestion and demand for car
parking).
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.2 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
95 43 Kooyong Road,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The amendment will adversely impact
neighbourhood character. Kings Arcade/Armadale
Station has a heritage character that is highly valued
for film shoots and enjoyed by pedestrians, and this
will be diminished as a result of the proposal
2. Heritage aesthetic will be lost to modern building
methods with excessive bulk and no cohesive
aesthetic
3. New development will negatively impact amenity
(reduction in the skyline, overshadowing,traffic
congestion, noise, loss of car parking and pedestrian
amenity)
4. Narrowing roads will make the pedestrian
shopping experience in Malvern/Armadale
unpleasant and damage valued leafy streetscapes
6. High Street, Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road
are not wide enough to cope with additional
buildings
7. Underground car parking should be provided for
any new development in Precinct E and A2 facing
Dandenong Road
8. Suggest that all existing ratepayers should be
compensated through significant rate reductions
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
6.1 (Other)
No change
96 73-75 Union Street,
Armadale
G2 Urban
Planning
On behalf of A1 1. Existing GRZ10 (9 metres) not appropriate for
subject site. Request for GRZ13 (Site Specific
Control Area) to be applied which would result in
the height being designated through the DDO
rather than the Schedule to the residential zone.
2. The Structure Plan defines preferred heights yet
the zone schedule is inconsistent with this
approach.
Built form, Site specific Change 1. It is proposed to change the zone of this site from
GRZ10 (9 metres) to GRZ15 (12 metres - 4 storeys).
GRZ15 will allow a residential building up to 12 metres
in height. This height is consistent with the newly
constructed building on this site. The height designated
in Glenferrie Road is different given the Commercial
zoning and the different type of development supported
with greater floor to floor heights on ground level.
2. The Structure Plan supports preferred maximum
building heights. It does not recommend whether these
heights are mandatory or discretionary.
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
97 Railway Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed height limits are too high and will
impact local amenity and character (towering effect
of new development will be an eyesore causing
wind tunnels, and overshadowing in the winter
months)
2. New development will negatively impact heritage
and the living standards of residents
3. New development will cause depression and
claustrophobic feelings of being ‘caged in’ by the
narrowing sky space seen from streets and windows
4. There will be a loss of suburb character and
openness, as has already occurred in South Yarra
due to overdevelopment
5. There will be increased pressure on local
infrastructure including traffic and car parking, and
more noise, congestion and pollution
7. Suggest that Council should listen to concerns of
residents.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to :
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
6.3 (Other)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
No change
98 35 Union Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The amendment will negatively impact local area
amenity (traffic congestion, demand for car parking,
increased population) and negatively impact
heritage buildings.
2. Heights of up to 12 storeys at Malvern Central are
inappropriate for the area.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
1.1 (Built form)
No change
99 21 Cheel Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
100 10/750 Collins
Street, Docklands
3008
Public
Transport
Victoria (PTV)
On behalf of All precincts 1. PTV generally supports the Amendment and
considers ‘that there is a need to promote
sustainable modes of transport within the Centre
and reduce dominance of motor vehicle use so that
the Centre will be able to accommodate growth’.
Requested changes to the DDO:
2. Add to General design guidelines: New
development where appropriate should utilise
laneways for vehicle access and minimise access
points to main roads in particular High Street,
Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road.
3. To General Design Objectives, add text to
encourage new development to improve pedestrian
accessibility and promote the use of sustainable
transport.
4. Add text to address noise and vibration issues to
improve the interface with the rail corridor.
Requested changes to DPO:
5. Requirement before a permit is granted (1.0):
railway and railway infrastructure including signals
should be exempt from requiring a planning permit.
6. Design Objectives (2.0): Additional dot point to
ensure that development will not compromise the
operation of the network.
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Change 1. Noted.
2. Clause 21.06-4-5.2 (Built form character - Activity
Centres) supports vehicle access from rear laneways. It
is considered that this strategy does not need to be
repeated in the specific DDO for Glenferrie Road and
High St Activity Centre.
3. MSS and local policy supports sustainable transport.
This strategy does not need to be repeated in the DDO.
4. Development adjacent to rail land will need to
address vibration and noise issues. This does not need to
be included in the proposed provisions. VicTrack are a
referral authority for any development adjacent to rail
land.
5. The proposed DPO includes an exemption for railway
and railway infrastructure including signals.
6. An additional objective has not been presented. It is
considered that an additional objective is not needed.
7. Update permit requirements for
a noise and vibration assessment.
Include reference to Passenger
Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy
2013.
7. Design Objectives (2.0): Additional text that new
development should address noise and vibration
issues to improve the interface with the rail
corridor.
8. Requirements for development plan (4.0): A
traffic management plan should be prepared to the
satisfaction of VicRoads and Public Transport
Victoria and should address how development will
minimise negative impacts and delays to the public
transport network.
7. A requirement for a noise and vibration impact
assessment is supported.
8. The Development Plan Overlay already requires the
preparation of a Traffic Management Plan at Section 4.0.
101 7 Alleyne Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights are too high and will
negatively impact amenity (privacy, increased traffic
congestion, car parking demand)
2. Object to any development over 5 storeys as it
will appear unsightly and negatively impact urban
character, and heritage buildings
3. Request development that is sympathetic to the
local area (no more than 3 storeys) including more
off-street car parking
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Change Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban charactger/heritage)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
102 60 Stuart Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
B 1. The area immediately behind High Street
buildings will be negatively impacted
(overshadowing, loss of privacy, traffic congestion,
increased car parking demand)
2. The value of our recently purchased property will
be adversely affected
3. The character of the centre will be destroyed
including the quiet, unique shopping and café
experience
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
103 3 Orchard Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The amendment will negatively impact local area
amenity (traffic congestion, car parking demand,
increased population) and local heritage buildings
2. Heights of up to 12 storeys at Malvern Central are
inappropriate for the area
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.7 (Amenity impacts)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.1 (Built form)
No change
104 5 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Community consultation on the amendment was
insufficient
2. The proposal will severely impact the
neighbourhood skyline, landscape and streetscapes
and is not in keeping with neighbourhood character
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
6.2 (Other)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.3 (Built form)
No change
105 34 Winter
Street,Malvern
Written
submission
A1 1. Objection to the preferred heights and setbacks.
Proposed changes to height restrictions are too tall
and will and overwhelm Winter Street and the
neighbourhood residences which are mostly one-
storey Victorian residences.
2. Allowing 4 storey commercial and residential
units in or around Winter Street will have a direct
negative social impact on Winter Street and the
surrounding residential area.
Requested changes to DDO:
3. Height to be reduced from 14.5m (4 storeys) to
7.25m (2 storeys) in Precinct A1.
4. Height of development on the Coles carpark to be
7.25m (2 storeys) with a street level setback on
Winter Street to be ‘at least 8 to 10m at ground
level’.
5. Preferred maximum building height to include
rooftop plant and lift overrun.
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Change 1. Noted.
2. Noted.
3. Glenferrie Road is predominantly two storey Victorian
commercial shops. A three storey modern building can
be accommodated within the parapet height of these
heritage buildings. A reduction in height to two storeys
equates to no change and is not supported.
4. The Coles carpark is on land owned by Stonnington
City Council. It is considered that the provisions in the
proposed DDO give sufficient guidance for this site.
Stonnington City Council, as the land manager, needs
some level of flexibility given the site is in the Public Use
Zone.
5. Building height, as defined in the Planning Scheme, is
the vertical distance from natural ground level to the
roof or parapet at any point. It is considered that this
definition is appropriate and a variation for this precinct
is not necessary.
No change.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
106 53 Stuart Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The proposal is too big, too concentrated and will
negatively impact amenity (overshadowing, traffic
congestion, car parking demand, loss of public
space, diminished appearance of High
Street/Glenferrie Road streetscapes, thereby
affecting enjoyment, tourism and quality of
shopping)
2. There will be a negative impact on heritage sites
(including Armadale and Malvern Station), urban
character and leafy areas
3. 12 storey heights at Malvern Central and 5
storeys heights on High Street are inappropriate
4. There will be increased commercial activity on
relatively small sites – eg. Malvern Central and
impacts on Glenferrie Road and High Street due to
commercial concentration at Malvern Central
Refer submission 47.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
1.3 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
1.1 (Built form)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
107 5/329 Glenferrie
Road, Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights are excessive along
Glenferrie Road and High Street (5-6 storeys) and
will cause unattractive ‘wedding cake’ style
buildings and amenity impacts (overshadowing,
overlooking, wind, unsightliness of residents in low
density development looking up to new 5 storey
buildings)
2. Suggest that development be limited to 3 storeys,
however individual development proposals may be
considered for selected sites
3. The shadow line on roads should not exceed 1/3
of the road width in September so that sunny
aspect is maintained
4. Developers should provide increased car parking
and opens spaces in order to accommodate future
growth, particularly at the southern end of the
activity centre.
5. The current environment is comfortable and has
changed little in the past 75 years. Commercial
interests should not be the key drivers for change
over the next 75 years
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Change Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
1.4 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
108 7 Horsburgh Grove,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts 1. Proposed plans are too big, too concentrated and
will dominate the landscape, causing amenity
impacts (increased parking and traffic flow
problems, lack of open space) and destroy existing
heritage buildings and urban character
2. Concentration of commercial activity at Malvern
Central will have a negative impact on small traders
operating in Glenferrie Road and High Street
3. Liveability in Armadale will be reduced
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
1.3 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
6.3 (Other)
No change
109 7 Llaneast Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed increase in building heights across the
activity centre will destroy urban character, subject
to the heritage overlay
2. Proposed preferred heights of 5 storeys in
Precinct C (Wattletree Road west) will cause
amenity impacts (overlooking, over-development,
traffic congestion in laneways)
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to :
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
110 7 Horsburgh Grove,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts 1. Proposed plans are too big, too concentrated and
will dominate the landscape, causing amenity
impacts (increased parking and traffic flow
problems, lack of open space) and destroy existing
heritage buildings and urban character
2. Concentration of commercial activity at Malvern
Central will have a negative impact on small traders
operating in Glenferrie Road and High Street
3. Liveability in Armadale will be reduced
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
6.3 (Other)
No change
111 52 Claremont
Avenue, Malvern
Written
submission
A2 1. Building heights west of Glenferrie Road (around
Malvern Station) will destroy heritage homes and
urban character of areas around Claremont
Avenue/Malvern.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
112 3 Lambeth Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed plans (including allowable heights at
Malvern Central) are too big, too concentrated and
will have negative impacts on amenity
(overshadowing, visual dominance, traffic and
parking) and heritage charm and urban character of
High Street and Glenferrie Road.
2. Request moderate development that is
sympathetic to local environment
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
113 35 Valentine Grove,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed amendment will negatively impact
amenity (reduction in skyline, visual bulk, noise,
traffic congestion, car parking, loss of pedestrian
amenity and access, overshadowing of Valentine
Road and narrow narrow shopping streetspaces)
and urban character (heritage buildings)
2. High Street, Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road
and not wide enough to accommodate additional
buildings and Malvern Station cannot accommodate
additional traffic as
trains often express through this station to Caulfield
3. Growth could be accommodated in Precincts E
and A2 provided there is sufficient underground car
parking
4. Residential tax payers will suffer a loss in
property values.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to :
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
1.2 (Built form)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parkign)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
5.2 (Infrastructure needs)
6.6 (Other)
6.1 (Other)
No change
114 16 Coonil Crescent,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Submission relates to concern about
overshadowing of properties affected by future
development. Oversahdowing at the equinox does
not take into account overshadowing at other parts
of the year. Setbacks are inadequate for reducing
overshadowing impacts.
Built form, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.5 (Amenity impacts)
1.6 (Built form)
No change
115 Not supplied Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed 12 storey building heights at Malvern
Central should be limited to 8 storeys.
2. Building heights on Glenferrie Road should be
limited to 3 storeys.
3.Council should consider covering some of the
sunken railway track and developing that land. Eg.
Toorak Road, Chapel Street, Wattletree Road,
Glenferrie Road could be a mixture of parkland and
commercial development.
Built form Change Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
116 Not supplied Written
submission
All precincts 1. Caps on building heights should be further
restricted. Site survey work should be undertaken
for planning applications to ensure legal
requirements are met.
2. A shadow assessment is needed to protect
existing solar panels on Glenferrie Road from
overshadowing.
3. Preferred built form in Precinct A will attract
cheap, poorly built units and negative amenity
impacts
4. The proposed Amendment has no links with
State Government laws to ensure coordination of
stakeholders to manage development (utilities,
amenities etc.)
5. Future new development will threaten heritage
buildings
6. There should be an independent review of
Council/contractor roles in working with legislation
and regulations and more transparent governance
7. Council should provide better information to the
community and protect heritage areas by holding
developers to the conditions of their permits.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
117 4/31 Wattletree
Road, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed building heights will have negative
impacts on amenity (traffic/tram congestion; car
parking, noise, impacts on garbage collection
services, noise and litter caused by commercial/late
night activity) and heritage/urban character
2. Growth of Malvern central may cause smaller
retailers to lose business stability
3. Council is enabling rapid development to gain
more city taxes without consideration of existing
residents and impacts including quality of life, small
business, public safety and environmental impacts.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.2 (Infrastructure needs)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
5.3 (Infrastructure needs)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.1 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
118 12/120 Collins St,
Melbourne 3000
Urbis On behalf of All precincts 1. Support discretionary building heights.
2. Should the sites be amalgamated there is
significant urban renewal opportunities that can be
realised greater than that currently envisaged for
the sites.
Requested changes to DDO:
3. Increase in height and built form intensity if sites
can be amalgamated in part of whole (preferred).
4. Specific heights to be determined and justified
through a detailed urban context analysis study of
the sites and immediate area inclusive of a 3
dimensional analysis.
5. Supports retention of the heritage components of
the hotel.
Built form, Change 1. Noted.
2. Noted.
3. These sites are identified as a strategic development
site, thereby acknowledging their higher density
potential. The proposed planning provisions, including
the preferred maximum building heights, have been
designated in consideration of the context of the sites
and role as a gateway site. A departure from these
proposed provisions, in the instance sites are
amalgamated, is not supported.
4. The proposed planning controls are underpinned by
the investigation undertaken as part of the Structure
Plan. This investigation has included detailed context
analysis.
5. The Former Railway Hotel (current Angel Tavern) is a
place of local heritage significance and subject to
individual HO403. The statement of significance outlines
extent of building fabric that is original and significant
and should be protected. Amendment C223 does not
propose any change to the identification or significance
of this place.
No change
119 2 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
120 2 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
121 16 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
122 7 Isabella Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
123 19 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
124 7 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
125 6 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
126 18 White Street,
Glen Iris
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
127 9 Viva Street, Glen
Iris
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
128 8 Wilson Street,
Glen Iris
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
129 3/175 Wattletree
Road, Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
130 2/9 Isabella Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
130a 2/9 Isabella Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Enclose a newspaper report for consideration
from the Herald Sun: ‘Bad Planning means too
much high-rise and not enough family homes –
Boom’s busted’, 7 March 2016.
2. The proposed amendment targets a concentrated
area with excessively high 4,6,8,10 and 12 storey
buildings in a heritage area
3. Rail, road and parking services will struggle to
cope with growth
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Noted. No change
131 7A Isabella Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
132 3 Isabella Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
133 17A Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
134 15 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
135 12 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
136 8 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
137 5 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
138 4 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
139 1 Pine Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
140 15 Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
141 13 Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
142 11 Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
143 9 Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
144 7 Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
145 5 Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
146 1 Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
147 1A Nicholls Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
148 60 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to :
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
149 58 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
150 55 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
151 54 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
152 53 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
153 51 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
154 49 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
155 45 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
156 42 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
157 41 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
158 38 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
159 38A Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
160 36 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
161 35 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
162 34 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
163 33 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
164 26 Willis Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
165 32 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
166 29 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
167 27 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
168 26 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
169 22 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
170 20 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
171 19 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
172 18 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
173 16 Edsall Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
174 37 Cummins Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
175 12 Bailey Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The proposal including a building of 12 storeys is
out of scale/character and will negatively impact
amenity near our property at Bailey Avenue
(overlooking, overshadowing, noise, loss of privacy).
2. There is a lack of open space to accommodate
growth
3. The amendment will increase traffic congestion
and car parking demand
4. Community consultation on the amendment has
been insufficient.
5. Higher density development is more suited to
Forest Hill and South Yarra.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.1 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
5.5 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.2 (Other)
6.6 (Other)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
176 55A Union Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts 1.Amendment enables development that is too big
and concentrated and will result in loss of heritage,
urban character and amenity (loss of car parking,
open space and green leafy streets, increased traffic
congestion, loss of quality of shopping)
2. Support modest shop top development
3. Proposed heights/bulk are inappropriate
including 12 storeys at Malvern Central and 5
storeys along High Street
4.There will be increased commercial activity at
Malvern Central site, which is a relatively small site,
and local shops on Glenferrie Road and High Street
will be adversely affected, including streetscapes
5.Request development that is low rise, improves
the heritage character of the area and that has
positive impacts on residents and visitors.
6.The majority of people in Malvern and Armadale
are opposed to the amendment
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
177 10 Murray Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Existing infrastructure and traffic flows cannot
support growth.
2. Proposed heights will compromise amenity and
should be reconsidered
3. Support development that respects heritage.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Change Refer to:
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
178 34A Seymour
Avenue, Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
179 1 Isabella Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Glenferrie Road and Malvern
Central are too high and will negatively impact
heritage and amenity (inconvenience during
construction, traffic congestion, destruction of
heritage homes, overcrowding, pollution)
2. Existing infrastructure cannot accommodate
growth
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to :
1.2 (Built form)
1.1 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
180 69 Union Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
181 4 Alleyne Avenue Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
182 1 Clarendon Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The proposed amendment is unnecessary, too big
and concentrated and will have negative impacts on
heritage and amenity (overshadowing, noise, visual
dominance of high buildings)
2. Our property is on the south side of High Street
Armadale adjoining Precinct B (4-5 storeys) and a 5
storey building could abut our property with site
consolidation.
3. Residents north of Clarendon Street risk losing
winter sun to overshadowing, and increasing traffic
in laneways.
4. Proposed rear setbacks are insufficient for
reducing loss of amenity
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.6 (Built form)
No change
183 2 Fetherston Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Council will overdevelop the activity centre and
ruin its attractiveness
2. Stonnington should preserve and maintain its
heritage while supporting modern development
and vibrant environments like in European cities.
3. The ‘Coin Laundry’ on the corner of Fetherson
Street and Armadale Street, has ruined the heritage
area and created car parking chaos.
4. Stonnington’s never-ending amendments
facilitate inappropriate development (including the
now approved development between Orrong Park
and Toorak Rail Station).
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
184 8 Clarendon Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed Amendment C223 is too big and
concentrated and will negatively impact urban
character on High Street and Glenferrie Road, and
local area amenity (traffic congestion, car parking
demand)
2. Support more moderate development.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Change Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
185 22 Willis Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Future development should protect suburban
beauty.
2. The complex on the corner of Glenferrie Road
and High Street is an example of a building that was
developed too high and causes overshadowing.
3. 3 storeys is ample for apartments in the area and
to accommodate growth.
4. Five storeys and 12 storeys is too high and will
have amenity impacts (overshadowing, dominating
existing landmarks of the Malvern Town Hall and
Clocktower)
5. Council should stand up against greed and
shortsightedness.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Change Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.2 (Built form)
1.5 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
186 5 Union Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Did not receive any notification from Council
about the Amendment
2. The proposal will negatively impact heritage and
urban character, liveability and local amenity (visual
bulk, overshadowing, loss of sunlight to private
open spaces, car parking demand, traffic
congestion, higher crime rates and required police
resources)
3. Glenferrie Road and High Street will lose
desirability, on-street dining areas will be
overshadowed and visitors and business will be lost.
4. Proposed heights at Armadale Station, Kings
Arcade and near the small terraces on Kooyong
Road are inappropriate
5. Council should consider requests of majority of
residents rather than being driven by developers
interests and increased revenue through rates, land
tax and development taxes.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
6.2 (Other)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
6.3 (Other)
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.8 (Other)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
187 36 Railway Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Would welcome modest urban renewal and
improvements to south Glenferrie Road, Malvern
Central and the Malvern station environs, including
well lit and maintained pedestrian/bicycle links
2. The proposal is too big, bulky and will diminish
neighbourhood character, heritage buildings and
amenity (wind and overshadowing on major routes,
traffic congestion, noise)
3. Existing infrastructure cannot accommodate
growth
4. Commercial imperatives are taking precedence
over the community’s needs
5. The proposed amendment contradicts Section 4
of the Planning and Environment Act and Plan
Melbourne which refers to the activity centre as
one of ‘local significance’.
6. At Malvern Central, the proposed 12 storey
building with a setback of 8 metres; 10 storey
building, and 6 storey building are too high and will
overshadow my property. These heights are not
represented in the Structure Plan. The equinox is
also not an adequate measure for overshadowing.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Change Refer to :
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.1 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.6 (Amenity impacts)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
1.1 (Built form)
3.5 (Amenity impacts)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
7. General heights at Malvern Central should be no
more than 6 storeys rising to 8 storeys at the
highest point with graduated setbacks of two, four
and six storeys. Buildings should be elegant and
slender with distances in between to allow light
movement. The building east of Railway Avenue
through to Glenferrie Road should be no more than
four storeys and have a tiered setback on the
western line.
8. There are already some dreadful approvals by
Council (ie. Como Street).
9. Proposed heights of 10 storeys on Dandenong
Road and Glenferrie Road are too high and should
be reduced to eight storeys, with graduated
setbacks on the north side and pedestrian links.
10. The proposal to build over the heritage listed
railway bridge on Glenferrie Road would destroy
views from Malvern Station and exacerbate traffic
congestion. Future development on the railway
yards should not match the Malvern Central
parapet line of Malvern Central as this would block
light to Glenferrie Road and present a visual affront
to residents south of the railway line. A lower build
is preferred including open space
11. Five storey developments along Station Street
would destroy the heritage and character of the
street
12. Proposed higher densities south of Glenferrie
Road is impractical and unfair to local residents
13. There are contradictions in the documents with
regard to proposed bicycle and pedestrian paths
between Malvern Station and Wattletree Road.
14. Proposed heights in High Street, Wattletree
Road and Glenferrie Road are too tall and will have
amenity impacts (wind, shadow, overlooking) These
thoroughfares should have buildings of 4-5 storeys.
15. Suggest to retain on-street car parking on
Glenferrie Road, High Street and Wattletree Road;
build modestly scaled, well-lit multi-deck car parks
in larger sites, but protect residents from traffic
burdens
16. Consultation about the amendment has been
insufficient.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
187a 36 Railway Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
Malvern
Central
1. Suggest that Council defer Amendment C223
until a study is undertaken to ascertain the extent
of noise, health and safety impacts on residents
near Malvern Central/railway yards, as a result of
new development/railway activities.
2. It is a requirement that Planning Authorities have
regard to the State Government's Passenger Rail
Infrastructure Noise Policy
Built form, Amenity
impacts
other 1. Noted.
2. A requirement for a noise and vibration impact
assessment is supported.
2. Update permit requirements
for a noise and vibration
assessment. Include reference to
Passenger Rail Infrastructure Noise
Policy 2013 for development on
the Malvern Central site and
adjoining land.
188 7 Armadale Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
189 68 Sutherland
Road, Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
190 7A Armadale
Street, Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.1 (Built form)
1.5 (Built form)
191 18/65 Station
Street, Malvern
Proforma A2 Refer submission 28. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer submission 28. Change. Refer submission 28.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
192 61 Denbigh Road,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts 1. Proposed heights on High Street (5 storeys) and
Malvern Central (12 storeys) represent
overdevelopment and will damage urban/social
character in Armadale
2. Existing infrastructure cannot accommodate
growth
3. Development on High street will cause traffic
congestion
4. Request that Council reconsider amendment
C223
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
1.1 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
193 52 Stuart Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Amendment proposes intensive development in
Armadale and Malvern that will have amenity
impacts (overshadowing, car parking demand, lack
of solar access and reduced quality of life)
2. Request that Council listen to objections and
moderate development accordingly
Built form, traffic
congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.3 (Other)
No change
194 19 Northcote Road,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Not opposed to good development, but the
proposed amendment is too big, too concentrated
and will have negative impacts on heritage, amenity
(visual dominance, overshadowing) and access to
amenity.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
No change
195 39 Cummins Grove,
Malvern
Written
submission
Malvern
Central
1. Reject proposal for building heights 6 storeys and
above, and suggest that height restrictions at
Malvern Central be limited to 6 storeys.
built form Object Refer to :
1.1 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
196 PO Box 308
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Planning controls will facilitate rather than
control development.
2. Council is supposedly working for ratepayers but
would have proposals eclipsed by VCAT resulting in
high rise development.
3. Reject proposed high rise and development over
railway routes
4. Development leads to increased population and
increased traffic congestion
5. Stonnington should not emulate places like
London which developed green belts
Built form, traffic
congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
3.7 (Amenity impacts)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
197 1087-1095 High
Street, Armadale
Hightower PTY
LTD
On behalf of All precincts 1. High Street - A minimum setback behind the
street wall of 2m would be sufficient at the fourth
storey and then increasing to the prescribed 3m at
the fifth storey.
2. Laneway - An allowance to build into the rear
setback for site at the corner with a side street
should be included to be able to separate the
vehicular lane from the pedestrian circulation.
3. The proposed rear setback for the fourth and
fifth storeys is far too large for deep sites.
Built form Change 1. The proposed upper level setbacks for development in
the Heritage Overlay are supported by Council’s
Heritage policy and Guidelines. It is important that new
development have regard to this context to ensure
consistency in built form for this precinct.
2. A rear lane setback at ground level and first level is
required to better facilitate the ongoing function of the
laneway and improve access for cars and building
servicing.
3. The proposed controls include a provision for a mid-
block setback for the top level to mitigate visual bulk
from the rear of new development. There is no measure
against this rear mid-block setback requirement. In
addition, the visibility of the new built form at this level
is potentially negligible or non-existent. It is considered
that this provision should be removed as it is unlikely to
significantly assist with its objective to mitigate visual
bulk
3. Delete mid-block setback
provision in DDO19.
197a 1087-1095 High
Street, Armadale
Hightower PTY
LTD
On behalf of All precincts 4. Broadly supportive of the amendment as it seeks
to recognise the strategic context of the property as
part of an activity centre, provides clearer guidance,
and the discretionary nature of the controls.
5. Design guidelines – street wall height in Clause
5.2 refers to Precinct A1. This should be Precinct B.
6. The proposed upper level setback of 8-10 metres
behind the street wall is at odds with the guidelines
outlined within the structure plan. The Structure
Plan identifies a 3 metre setback.
7. Laneway – 1.5m provision is not appropriate for
provide additional widening of a laneway.
8. Mid-block separation is considered inappropriate.
A lesser level of amenity should be expected at an
interface with a business zone. Sites which have a
longer length will be more impacted than those
which are shorter in length.
Built form Change 4. Noted.
5. Acknowledged that this is an error.
6. The Structure Plan identifies that greater upper level
setbacks may be required for new development in the
Heritage Overlay. The proposed upper level setbacks for
development in the Heritage Overlay are supported by
Council’s Heritage policy and Guidelines.
Consistent with the Structure Plan, a reduced upper
level setback may be supported for new development
not in the Heritage Overlay in Precinct B (High Street).
Amend planning provisions to allow for a 3m upper level
setback for new development not in the Heritage
Overlay.
7. A rear lane setback at ground level and first level is
required to better facilitate the ongoing function of the
laneway and improve access for cars and building
servicing.
8. The proposed controls include a provision for a mid-
block setback for the top level to mitigate visual bulk
from the rear of new development. There is no measure
against this rear mid-block setback requirement. In
addition, the visibility of the new built form at this level
is potentially negligible or non-existent. It is considered
that this provision should be removed as it is unlikely to
significantly assist with its objective to mitigate visual
bulk
5. Fix reference to Precinct B not
A1.
8. Delete mid-block setback
provision in DDO19.
10. Add additional interface
diagram(s) to guide a 5 storey
building scenario.
11.Amend DDO to clarify the
requirement for new development
on corner sites to address both
street frontages.
12. Add text in the DDO for new
development to address both
street frontages.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
9. Request greater flexibility where abutting
residential properties are to the north of the
commercial properties, and will not therefore be
impacted by shadows.
10. New diagram needed to show a 5 storey
building.
11. Corner sites - Apartments with primary access to
side boundaries are to be avoided. Corner sites
should be excepted from this requirement.
12. Corner sites - Request for ‘preferred minimum
setback above street wall’ does not apply to side
boundaries associated with a corner site.
13. Transitional provisions - Request for transitional
provisions to be introduced and apply to
applications lodged prior to the approval of the
Design and Development Overlay.
9. The proposed rear interface setbacks seek to manage
a range of amenity impacts including overlooking, visual
bulk and overshadowing. Greater flexibility is not
supported.
10. To provide greater clarity, an additional interface
diagram showing a 5 storey building, is supported.
11. Development on corner sites should be designed to
address both street frontages. Amend DDO to clarify the
requirement for new development on corner sites to
address both street frontages.
12. A zero setback above the side street wall is not
supported. Upper level setbacks at side boundaries
should be enabled.
Greater clarity required in the DDO for new
development to address both street frontages.
13. Transitional provisions are not supported. The
proposed planning controls are discretionary, not
mandatory, therefore there is no need to introduce
transitional provisions.
198 58 Armadale Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Not opposed to appropriate development, but
proposal is too big, too concentrated and will have
negative impacts on heritage and amenity (visual
dominance, overshadowing, traffic, car parking)
2. Request moderate development that is
sympathetic to the environment, and that Council
reconsider the amendment.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
199 23 Armadale Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts,
infrastructure needs
Object Refer to:
Refer to Standard Responses:
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/ heritage)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
200 26 St Georges
Road, Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights of 5 storeys on Glenferrie and
Wattletree Road, 6 storeys east of Railway Avenue,
10 storeys along Dandenong Road is too big, too
concentrated and will overshadow my property and
other residential and community areas.
2. The proposal will negatively impact urban
character and heritage.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,A
menity impacts
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
201 11/92 Wattletree
Road Malvern,
12/92 Wattletree
Road Malvern, and
4/92 Wattletree
Road, Malvern
Written
submission
C 1. Body corporate committee members for Building
92 Wattletree Road object to inclusion of this site in
Precinct C with preferred heights of 5 storeys.
2. Proposed heights of 12 storeys at Malvern
Central will have negative amenity impacts
(overlooking, overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual
dominance, unsightliness, damage to natural
landscapes) and the intended mixed use of this
building has been poorly communicated to the
community and is objectionable.
3. Over development may result from the
amendment, devaluing properties in the area.
4. 12 storey heights will affect the zoning in Precinct
C with impetus towards future commercial zoning,
and heights may be extended in future.
5. Existing transport/car parking infrastructure
cannot accommodate growth
6. Suggest that Council balance mixed use in
Precinct C by ranging heights from 2-4 storeys;
ensure that future development is in keeping with
existing designs featuring tiered heights set back
from the road; purchase suitable site to create a
‘pop up park’, and extend Precinct C across the
length of the road towards Dandenong
Road/Princes Highway to create a fairer system for
potential development in the area.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Change Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
1.1 (Built form)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
6.1 (Other)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
No change
202 6 Union Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
203 32 Thanet Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
204 21/65 Station
Street, Malvern
Proforma A2 Refer submission 28. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer submission 28. Change. Refer submission 28.
205 36 Armadale Street,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Support appropriate development that enhances
are acceptable but proposed amendment includes
inappropriate heights.
2. It is a money grab for those involved including
the Council rate gain. This does not suit the
residents that the Council are supposed to
represent.
Built form Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
No change
206 76 Union Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
207 20 Soudan Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Amendment C223 will destroy the urban
character and amenity of the area. My home will be
dominated by tall buildings proposed in Station
Street, Glenferrie Road, Malvern Central and those
adjacent to Malvern Station
2. 3-4 storey buildings and setbacks in Glenferrie
Road will ruin the heritage streetscape
3. Glenferrie Road shops may be adversely affected
due to commercial concentration of Malvern
Central
4. 12 storeys at Malvern Central will have amenity
impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, wind,
car parking demand, traffic congestion)
5. Request that building heights in the centre be no
more than 3 storeys.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Change Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.2 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
1.1 (Built form)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
208 38/65 Station
Street, Malvern
Proforma A2 Refer submission 28. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
traffic congestion/car
parking, Amenity
impacts
Change Refer submission 28. Change. Refer submission 28.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
209 49 Dixon Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
210 16 Dixon Street,
Malvern
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights are excessive and will detract
from existing amenity and urban
character/appearance, and contribute to traffic
congestion and car parking demand.
2. Existing infrastructure cannot accommodated
growth
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.1 (Infrastructure needs)
No change
211 rfm.brown@outloo
k.com
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Do not want another shock development like
Toorak Station.
2. Glenferrie Road is gridlocked often and trains full
3. We need moderate development only
4. Request that the Council act sensibly and not be
influenced by developers
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
5.2 (infrastructure needs)
No change
212 5 Sutherland Road,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
213 29 Union Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
214 32 Hampden Road,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Proposed heights in all areas should be limited to
three storeys, except in Precincts E, F and Malvern
Central (up to 5 storeys)
2. Council must ensure that density does not impact
the current quality of the environment on which the
high property values in the area are based.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.5 (Built form)
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
No change
215 4 Denbigh Road,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts 1.Amendment enables development that is too big
and concentrated and will result in loss of heritage,
urban character and amenity (loss of car parking
and open space, loss of green leafy streets, traffic
congestion, overshadowing, overlooking, visual
bulk, visual dominance)
2. Proposed heights/bulk are inappropriate
including 12 storeys at Malvern Central and 5
storeys along High Street
3.There will be increased commercial activity at
Malvern Central site, which is a relatively small site,
and local shops on Glenferrie Road and High Street
will be adversely affected, including streetscapes
and vistas.
4. Heritage sites of Malvern and Armadale Stations
will be negatively impacted
5.Request development that is low rise, improves
the heritage character of the area and that has
positive impacts on residents and visitors.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
216 46 Barkly Avenue,
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. The amendment will irrevocably change the
character and enjoyment of the area
2. The scale of proposals is unrealistic. Governments
are avoiding infrastructure improvements by,
instead, expanding residential accommodation
around transport hubs and existing amenities
3. It is a short sighted and irresponsible approach by
Council
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
1.2 (Built form)
No change
217 44 Dixon Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
218 53 Dixon Street,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
219 2 Canberra Grove,
Malvern
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
220 Not supplied Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
221 69 Sutherland
Road, Aramadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
222 55 Armadale Street,
Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
223 46A Armadale
Street, Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
224 21 Clarendon
Street, Armadale
Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking, infrastructure
needs
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)
2.2 (Urban character/Heritage)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
6.5 (Other)
3.3 (Amenity impacts)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
3.2 (Amenity impacts)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
225 969-975 High
Street, Armadale
Fulcrum
Urban
Planning
On behalf of B 1. The Structure Plan, has failed to appropriately
recognise and link the housing needs of the
municipality with the development outcomes
sought for the activity centre. The amendment
favours heritage and character over housing needs
of the municipality.
2. There is no logical basis for the specific height
and setback controls.
3. The proposed controls are ambiguous. Hayball
have prepared a massing study demonstrating how
the controls are problematic.
4. Proposed controls impose lower height controls
within the activity centre than are otherwise
allowed outside the activity centre.
5. Object to concept and implementation of
controls being determined by street frontage. None
of the height controls contained in the DDO
distinguish between M and L sites.
Change 1. The proposed planning controls seek to balance the
objective to protect heritage buildings while providing
for increased development complementary to the
population projections for the area. Strategic
development sites without heritage restrictions will be
able to accommodate buildings of a relatively higher
density.
2. Noted.
3. The massing diagram provided presents the subject
site and an approved development next door only. The
proposed planning controls are in consideration of the
predominant built form circumstance. The policy cannot
account for individual site contexts.
4. The proposed planning controls allow for a moderate
degree of change (4-5 storeys) given that the centre is
predominantly covered by a Heritage Overlay. Areas on
the periphery of the activity centre, which are not
subject to the Heritage Overlay, allow for a greater
height and density.
5. Medium and Large sites are defined by their frontage.
This delineation acknowledges that the lot width
represents a potential increase in capacity of these sites
to accommodate additional height with a reduced
impact on amenity (including overshadowing) of
adjoining lower scale residential development. The
definition is of particular relevance to Precinct B (High
Street).
7. Delete mid-block setback
provision in DDO19.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
6. No basis for nominated upper level setbacks.
7. Object to mid block setback. Meaning unclear.
8. Interface Diagram 3 - fails to account for localised
conditions.
9. Object to the proposed Structure Plan as a
reference document. It has no regard to the activity
centre’s role in meeting projected population
growth.
6. The proposed upper level setback of 8-10 metres for
heritage buildings is consistent with Council’s heritage
policy and Heritage Design Guidelines. The discretionary
upper level setback will ensure that new alterations and
additions are visually recessive and located behind the
primary building volume, ensuring a clear separation
between the heritage significant building and the new
additions.
7. The proposed controls include a provision for a mid-
block setback for the top level to mitigate visual bulk
from the rear of new development. There is no measure
against this rear mid-block setback requirement. In
addition, the visibility of the new built form at this level
is potentially negligible or non-existent. It is considered
that this provision should be removed as it is unlikely to
significantly assist with its objective to mitigate visual
bulk
8. The proposed planning controls are in consideration
of the predominant built form circumstance. The policy
cannot account for individual site contexts.
9. The Structure Plan is the background document from
which the planning controls have been translated. The
Structure Plan has considered the role of the centre
including the projected population and built form
outcomes. It is important that this document be
referenced.
226 39-43 Glenferrie
Road Malvern
Written
submission
A1 1. Request that property at 39-43 Glenferrie Road in
Precinct A1 (preferred maximum height of 4
storeys) have increased heights on site. This will
allow for a more appropriate transition in building
height from the proposed 12 storey height at
Malvern Central and consistency with the taller
proposed heights in Precincts A2, E and F in
proximity of the subject site.
Building heights, site
specific
Change The subject property is located in Precinct A (Glenferrie
Road) and is located in the Heritage Overlay. It is
important that this site is responsive to the Glenferrie
Road and heritage context.
No change.
C223 Attachment 4
Sub Property
address
Consultan
t/authorit
y/
stakehold
er
Submissio
n type
Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio
n position
Discussion Officer recommendation
227 196 Wattletree
Road Malvern
Written
submission
D 1. Height limits are excessive and will destroy urban
character and amenity (traffic and car parking)
2. In Precinct D proposed height limits of 3 storeys
are consistent with existing development in the
area, but should be mandated/controlled by
heritage overlays
3. Council should extend Precinct D eastwards along
Wattletree Road to Thanet Street/Cummins Grove
to preclude any future expansion of Cabrini. Other
extensions of the Precinct around the current
boundaries of the hospital property might also be
considered
4. Our property at 196 Wattletree Road should not
be included in Precinct D as it is covered by a
heritage overlay and a building of up to 3 storeys
would not be permitted.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Change Refer to:
1.2 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/heritage)
3.8 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)
2.1 (Urban character/heritage)
1.5 (Built form)
No change
228 18 Derby Street
Armadale
Written
submission
All precincts 1. Concern for impact on amenity including visual
bulk, parking, traffic, neighbourhood character and
sunlight access.
Built form, Urban
Character, Amenity
Impacts, Traffic
congestion/car
parking
Object Refer to:
1.3 (Built form)
2.2 (Urban character/ heritage)
3.4 (Amenity impacts)
4.1 (Traffic congestion / car parking)
No change
229 38 Llaneast Street Written
submission
All precincts 1. Concur with concerns acknoweldged in Capire's
consultation report relating to overshadowing,
overlooking, wind, street character, heritage
protection, Malvern Central, Discretion and
definition of setbacks, traffic and parking and other
issues.
Built form, Urban
Character/Heritage,
Amenity impacts,
Traffic congestion/car
parking
Object Noted. No change
230 39-43 Glenferrie
Road Malvern
Fredman
Malina
Planning
On behalf of A 1. Concern regarding proposed 14.5 (4 storey)
height.
2. As the subject property is located adjacent to
Malvern Central site a taller maximum building
height should be applicable to enable a transition in
height from Malvern Central.
Built form, Height,
Malvern Central.
Object The subject property is located in Precinct A (Glenferrie
Road) and is located in the Heritage Overlay. It is
important that this site is responsive to the Glenferrie
Road and heritage context.
No change
Amendment C223 – Attachment 5 Responses to common submissions
1. Built form (heights/setbacks) 1.1 Proposed preferred heights at Malvern Central are too high.
1.1 Concern is noted. The proposed controls include a height of 12 storeys on the Malvern Central site, located to the northern end of the site. The proposed provisions seek to ensure that the residential areas to the south of the railway corridor are not unreasonably overshadowed at the equinox (22 September, between 9am and 3pm).
1.2 Proposed preferred Heights are too high and setbacks are too small/ Makes general enquiries/raises general concerns about proposed built form and/or the potential for increased development/visual bulk/unsightly development.
1.2 Concern is noted.
1.3 New development and visual bulk will be excessive, too concentrated and will dominate the landscape.
1.3 Concern is noted.
1.4 The proposed amendment does not allow sufficient transitions between building heights. The differences in proposed heights are too extreme.
1.4 Concern is noted.
1.5 Suggest that the amendment should support lower density or minimal/ no change .
1.5 Suggestion for low, or minimal/no change is not in keeping with the role of a Major Activity Centre
1.6 Proposed setbacks should be made greater. 1.6 Concern/suggestion is noted. 1.7 Rear aspects should be included in specifications to manage overlooking.
1.7 The proposed planning controls include specified rear upper level setbacks (6.0 Interface and setback guidelines) to address amenity impacts including overlooking.
2. Urban character/heritage 2.1 New development will diminish heritage buildings 2.1 Noted. The proposed planning controls require new development to
respect and enhance the existing heritage built form and fabric. 2.2 New development will negatively impact urban character 2.2 Noted. The proposed planning controls require that new
development respond to the existing built form typology and maintain the prominence of the heritage built form and fabric when viewed from the street
3. Amenity impacts 3.1 New development will cause wind tunnels 3.1 Noted. Council’s MSS (Clause 21.06) includes an objective and
strategies to ensure wind tunnelling effects are addressed. 3.2 New development will cause overlooking/loss of view-lines and vistas
3.2 The proposed planning controls include specified rear and front upper level setbacks (6.0 Interface and setback guidelines) to address amenity impacts including overlooking.
3.3 New development will cause overshadowing/ loss of solar access to nearby residences (including loss of light to solar panels).
3.3 Noted. New development, within the preferred maximum building heights, will not unreasonably overshadow/cause loss of solar access to nearby residences at the equinox in accordance with (ResCode) Clause 54.04-5.
3.4 New development will cause overshadowing and loss of solar access to streetscapes (including loss of light to solar panels).
3.4 Noted. New development, within the preferred maximum building heights and setbacks, will not unreasonably overshadow/cause loss of solar access to streetscapes.
3.5 It is not acceptable that the only measure of shadow is at the equinox.
3.5 The equinox is the standard planning measuring convention for acceptable overshadowing. Overshadowing at the winter/summer solstice is not the convention.
3.6 New development will result in substantial noise impacts 3.6 Noted. Noise is not a relevant consideration to this planning scheme amendment process. Unreasonable noise is an issue that can be addressed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the City of Stonnington’s Local Laws.
3.7 New development will result in an increased population , overcrowding of shops/services and overall loss of amenity
3.7 Concern is noted. Increased density and population is directed to activity centres in accordance with Plan Melbourne. Council seeks to better manage this growth by implementing additional planning provisions.
3.8 New development will result in negative impacts on local area amenity generally
3.8 Concern is noted.
4. Traffic congestion/car parking 4.1 New development will result in increased traffic congestion and demand for car parking.
4.1 Traffic congestion and car parking are not relevant to this planning scheme amendment process. An assessment of the traffic generated and private vehicle movement will be considered through the planning permit application process for individual developments.
5. Infrastructure needs 5.1 Existing infrastructure/services cannot accommodate population growth/ may cause overcrowding
5.1 Concern is noted. Increase in population and demand on infrastructure is expected to increase. Council will monitor the need for greater capacity of infrastructure across the whole municipality commensurate with growth.
5.2 Existing public transport infrastructure cannot accommodate population growth
5.2 Concern is noted. Council frequently advocates to State Government for improvements to infrastructure such as transport in areas where increased density is anticipated.
5.3 Existing infrastructure cannot accommodate new development (roads, drainage, sewerage, utilities and other services )
5.3 Concern is noted. Increase in population and demand on infrastructure such as the sewerage and drainage system is expected to increase. Council will monitor the need for greater capacity of infrastructure across the whole municipality commensurate with
growth. A severe increase in residential dwellings in the area may necessitate Council’s Infrastructure Management and Maintenance plan to be reviewed.
5.4 New development will place demand on existing services, infrastructure
5.4 Concern is noted. Increase in population and demand on infrastructure is expected to increase. Council will monitor the need for greater capacity of infrastructure across the whole municipality commensurate with growth.
5.5 New development will cause a loss of soft infrastructure (eg. Vegetation/green space)
5.5 Concern is noted.
6. Other 6.1 Financial implications/loss of property value/Request compensation or rate reductions
6.1 Private financial costs and related matters are outside the scope of this amendment.
6.2 There has been a lack of consultation about the amendment/ The Amendment presents a departure from previous consultation
6.2 Council has used additional methods of notice and consultation to the minimal requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Concern is noted.
6.3 The Amendment will negatively impact the quality of life of existing residents/ wellbeing/ liveability/ mental health
6.3 Personal wellbeing, quality of life and mental health matters are outside the scope of this amendment.
6.4 Suggestions/concerns raised in relation to site coverage requirements
6.4 Suggestion is noted.
6.5 Suggestions/concerns raised in relation to public space/green space/trees/Sports ovals
6.5 Suggestion is noted. Public space/green space is outside the scope of this amendment. Council’s strategies such as Strategies for Creating Open Space Strategy include actions relating to open space and services given the increase in population density.
6.6 Suggestions raised regarding areas where new development should be encouraged/accommodated
6.6 Suggestion is noted.
6.7 Suggestions raised in relation to design standards for buildings.
6.7 Suggestion is noted. Other Strategies and planning controls outlnie the design standards for higher density development. These include the Better Apartments Standards (Clause 58) as an example.
6.8 Concerns/suggestions raised in relation to vehicle speeds/pedestrian safety/public safety/access ways.
6.8 Concerns/suggestions noted. Vehicle speeds/pedestrian safety/public safety and access matters are outside the scope of this amendment.
6.9 Concerns/suggestions raised in relation to economics 6.9 Concerns/suggestions noted.
0 150
metres
006
| Planning Mapping Services |
| Planning Information Services |
| Planning |
S T O N N I N G T O N P L A N N I N G S C H E M E
AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5DPO & 6DPOLEGEND
WATTLETREE RD
GL
EN
FE
RR
IE
SO
UD
AN
S
T
EVANDALE RDR
AIL
WA
Y
A
V
VA
LE
NT
INE
RD
GORDON GV
RD
DR
YS
DA
LE
ST
NIC
HO
LLS
S
T
CR
Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 3
BA
ILE
Y
A
V
GLA
DS
TO
NE
A
V
EG
ER
TO
N
R
D
VALE
NTIN
E G
V
STA
TION S
T
V
LL ST
PL
RNSIDE
AV
ST
AV
RAILWAY
COMO
DANDENONG
ST
ST
UNION
BARKLY
AV
LLANEAST
WATTLETREE
ST
WILLIS
COLDBLO
STANHOPE
ST
GORDON
ST
STATION
M a
l v e r n S t a t i o n
EVANDALE
GLENFERRIE
RD
WINTER
EDSALL
STANHOPE
ST.JOSEPHS R.C. SCHOOL
DRYSDALE
McKINLEY
RD
CLAREMONT
GV
ST
SOUDAN
CHANDLERS
RD
C i t y o f G l e n E i r a
PINE
NICHOLLS
AV
ST
COLLEGE
DE LA SALLE
XAVIER CABRINI
ISABELLA
GR
GV
COONIL
ST FRANCES
HOSPITAL
GLENDEARG
RUSHMEAD
HUNTER
ST
ST
RALEIGHD
ANDENONG
WHEATLAND
STANILAND
CUMMINS
JOHNSTONE
FINLAYSON
RD
DANDENONG F
INLAYSON
ST
AV
DERRILAV
THANET
GV
HUNTER
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
AV
HIGH
MYAMYN
CHURCH
ST
CROSS
MALVERN
STONNINGTON
HOPETOUN
ST
ADELAIDE
GLENFERRIE
BELLST
KILDARA R.C. GIRLS SCHOOL
RD
VALETTA
RD
PL
SOMERS
WOODMASON
ST
ST
ST
HAVERBRACK
EMBLING BRI DE
ST
SORRETT
AV
I RVI NG
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
PLANT
ST
AV
STONNINGTONSOMERS
STATE COLLEGE OF VICTORIA
WILKS
COLLEGE
NORTHBROOK
CHILCOTE AV
AV
DE LA SALLE
MALVERN CRICKET GROUND
ST
DALNY
HARVEY
SPRI NG
ST
ST
ST
ROBINSON
PL
MOUNTVIEW
PARKSIDE
OXFORD
GRACE
ST
CR
ST
CANBERRA
RD
RD
AV
ACRE
AV
GLENVI EW
ELIZABETH
ASCOT
ASCOT
ST
ST
FRASER
PARK
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
AV
SILVER
WALNUT
BEAVEN
ST
RAY
GVST
LEDBURY
LEDBURY
CT
RUSSELL
WHERNSIDE AV CTRD
MY
BENSON
HOPETOUN
AV
HAMILTON
SQ
GLENFERRIE
MOOR
RD
AKYNE
HENDERSON
RD
HENDERSON
WILKS
BEAMSLEYAV
AV
AV
RD
LAWNHILLMARY
ELIZAB
ST
STST
MILTON
ST
PDE
ST
ST
VICTORIA
EWART
GIRLS
MALVERN
VICTORIA
RD
AV
DIXON
JORDAN
GAYNOR
CT
RD
RD
TOORONGA
HORACE
RD
ST
CHILDERS KERFERDST
FINDON
AV
RD
RD
LYSTERVILLE
CENTRAL PARK
DEVONSHIRE
ROYSTON
GILLMAN
ST
COPPIN
TOORONGA
BEAVER
RD
YOUNG
WHITE
WILSON
VIVA
LEOPOLD
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
DEAKIN
ST
WATTLETREE
ANDERSON
WESTGARTH
AV
VINCENT
ST
ST
WHITE
ST
HILLSIDE
ST
FINCH
ST
HEATON
ST
STST
EDGAR
AINTREE
ST
ST
ELLIS
AV
AV
MARTIN CR
GEORGE
ST
KINGSTON
NOTT
ST
RD
BELSON
GEORGE
CENTRAL PARK
ST
ST
RD
ERICA ST
IRYMPLE
AV
AV
RD
ANTHONY
STAV
BELMONT
ST
CLYDE
LOUIS
HOPE
ST
ERICA
NETHERLEE
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
GRANT
RD
RD
LINK
ICTORIA
EWART
RD
C i t y o
HIGH
SCHOOL
ST
ST
ST
BURKE
BONVIEW
ST
SHAFTESBURY
ST
ST
EAST
McARTHUR
ST
ST
ALICEEVA
ST
McARTHUR
EUSTON
McARTHURFREDERICK ST
ASHLEYGR
STASHLEY
GR
WARNERST
MEREDITH
PARSLOW
ETHEL
HORNSBY
WILLOW
ST
ST
LARA
AV
RD
ST
TOORONGA
AVRD
ST
CRESSY
MALVERN
RD
CAWKWELL
HIGH
MAITLAND
CAWKWELL
ST
ST
CAWKWELL
ST
ST
ST
PDE
T o o r o n g a
S t a t i o n
ST
ST
ST
WEIR
CARROLL
RD
RD
ST
CRESWICK
ST
ST
EDGAR
ST
MILTON
(MONASH
AV
NORTH FW
Y)
C r e e k
G a r d i n e r sCITY
C i t y o f B o r o o n d a r a
CL
OSBORNE
AV
ST BELMONTKENT
PDE
OSBORNE
AV
NTH
ST
NASH
BELMONT AV
AV
RD
GV
MALVER
RD
GV
KENILWORTH
CR
CARROLL
ST EDMONDS
GLENTILT
ST
CLARKE
AV
ALLAVILLE
ALLAVILLE
GV
LINK
ST
FINCH
KAR
BRUNE
BURKE
ST
PAXTON
BEAVER ST
HILARY
SCOTT
HIGH
CENTRAL
PARK
N
RD
WATTLETREE
S
AV
IRYMPLE
HOPE
PAYNE
NETHERLEE
CLYDE
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except
in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act. State of Victoria.
This map should be read in conjunction with additional Planning Overlay
Maps (if applicable) as indicated on the INDEX TO MAPS.
MAP No 6DDOD E S I G N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O V E R L A Y MAP No 6DDO
22/6/2017Printed:
P R E P A R E D B Y : P l a n n i n g M a p p i n g S e r v i c e s
AUSTRALIAN MAP GRID ZONE 55
SCHEME MAPS
M u n i c i p a l B o u n d a r y( I f s h o w n )
INDEX TO ADJOINING
AMENDMENT C223
Scale: 1:5,010
200 0 200 mOverlaysDesign And Development Overlay -Schedule 19
DDO19
1
10
2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9
PL
ST
ER
RO
LS
T
ER
RO
L
ST
ST
RD MAY
BAYVIEW
TC
PRIDHAM
ST
WRIGHTS
TC
ST
WE
ST
BO
UR
NE
SPRING
LO
RN
E
MALVERN
RD
ST
RD
RD
RD
ME
LL
MA
TH
OU
RA
ST
TON
RD
ST
ST
ST
ST
PACKINGTONST
AV
PL
ST
BID
EY
PA
CK
ING
TO
N
AV
ST
ST
LA
BA
NO
LE
ST
RD
CLO
SE
BU
RN
DANDENONG
CH
OM
LE
Y
ST
RD
HIGH
ABERDEENST
KENT
JO
YC
E
AV
PICKFORD
WILLIS ST
AV
ST
HIG
HB
UR
Y
CH
AT
SW
OR
TH
ST
PA
RK
ST
C i t y o f P o r t P h i l l i p
IRV
ING
RD
VELINAEVELINA
EDWARD
MA
TH
OU
RA
RD
ST
FA
IRB
AIR
N
RUABON
RD
OR
RO
NG
BA
XT
ER
MILLICENT AV
ST
RD
WYNNNSTAY
GR
HARVEY
GR
AN
DV
IEW
CT
GV
GV
AV
KELVIN
HOSPITALWINDERMERE
KELVIN
FLORENCE
ST
SYDNEY
OUR LADY
OF
LOURDESR C SCHOOL
A'B
EC
KE
TT
WO
OD
FU
LL
CR
LALBERT
ST
BARNATO
KE
LV
IN
LARNOOK
VAIL
AIR
LIE
GV
MOLESWORTH
STPRAHRAN HIGH SCHOOL
BEATTY
ST
RD
ST
ST
FULTON
RD
ST
OR
RO
NG
HIGH
GV
HA
MP
DE
N
AU
BU
RN
RD
AV
ELG
IN
GR
AS
HL
EIG
H
AU
BR
EY
RD
AV
NEW
ST
ST
POTTER
AS
HL
EIG
H
ST
RD
RD
T o o r a k S t a t i o n
ROSE
WATSON ST
GV
OSMENT
ELM
AV
MOUNT PLEASANT
ST
CLE
ND
ON
ST
RD
TU
RN
ER
EIL
EE
N
FETHERSTONST
RD
ST
AVONDALE
MUNRO
DE
NS
HA
M
GV
NO
RT
HC
OT
E
NO
RTH
CO
TE
ST
GR
LE
XT
ON
ST
AW
ELL
ST
ST
KARBAROOK
AVALON
AV
OR
RO
NG
RD
HA
MP
DE
N
RE
DC
OU
RT
RD
CAMBRIDGE
SU
TH
ER
LA
ND
SUTHERLAND PL
WATTLETREE
DANDENONG
DE
NB
IGH
ST. GEORGES
AR
MA
DA
LE
ST
INVERNESS
ST. JAMES
KO
OY
ON
G
KO
OY
ON
GR
D
CA
NT
ER
BU
RY
RD
ST
CU
LS
HA
W
RD
ST
LAMBERT
RD
MANDEVILLE
CR
MALVERN
TOORAK
BOWLING
CLUB
CR
MA
ND
EV
ILLE
MILLICENT AV
RD
LORETO CONVENT
IONA
RD SARGOOD
ST
GRANT
CLE
ND
ON
MAPLE
LIS
BU
OY
CT
NO
LAC
T
AV
CTGLEN
GV
RD
RD
DEVORGILLA
CT
St. JAMESPL
KENT
OT
TA
W
AV
HUNTINGFIELD
IRV
IN
RD
BELLAIRE
NAREEB
RD
CT
AV
KE
NL
EY
RD
KO
OY
ON
G
CT
CT
BROMLEY
NA
RE
EB
CT
AV
PL
RUSSELL ST
PL
WHERNSIDE
STONNINGTON
RD
ST
RD
CH
EEL
RD
AR
MAD
ALE
BO
WLIN
G
CLU
B
RD
RD
IRV
ING
ST
KING DAVID SCHOOL
GLASSFORD
ST
RO
YA
L
A r m a d a l e S t a t i o n
ST
MO
REY
ST
KING
SWAY R
D
KO
OY
ON
G
MA
RA
TH
ON
ST
DERBYST
SP
AS
TIC
CE
NT
RE
RD
BA
LD
WIN
CR
MO
OR
HO
US
E
ST
KO
OY
ON
G
ST
WIL
LIA
M
HUME
CLARENDON
UN
ION
ST
GARDEN
ST OR
CH
AR
D
ST
FLETE
HORSBURGH
AV
ST
HU
NT
ING
TO
WE
R
ALB
AN
Y
ST
ST
CA
RM
YL
EA
V
ST
CT
MINDANAO
RD
KELMSCOTT
CT
TOWER
ST
GV
MU
RR
AY
ER
SK
INE
LAURISTON GIRLS SCHOOL
GLA
DS
TO
NE
BA
ILE
Y
EG
ER
TO
N
C i t y o f G l e n E i r a
ALL
EY
NE
BARKLY
RD
INVER
NESS
AV
AV
RD
UNION
TH
E
AVR
D
TE
RR
AC
E
ST
HUMEST
ME
RY
L
ST
AV
AV
BA
ILE
Y
VALE
NTIN
E
GV
WE
ST
ST
AV
AV
LLANEAST
DU
NC
RA
IG
AV
ST
RD
LA
MB
ET
H
ST
UA
RT
ST
SE
YM
OU
R
ST
UA
RT
ST
AV
VA
LE
NT
INE
GV
RA
ILW
AY
RD
COMO
DANDENONG
UNION
BARKLY
LLANEAST
WATTLETRE
WILLIS
COLDBLO
STANHOPE
RD
DE
NH
AM
CHURCHST
RD
RD
ME
RC
ER
AV
AV
ST
HIGH
MYAMYN
CHURCH
STONNINGTO
HO
PE
TO
UN
AVWHERNSIDE
RUSSELL
WHERNSIDE
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process exceptin accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act. State of Victoria.
This map should be read in conjunction with additional Planning OverlayMaps (if applicable) as indicated on the INDEX TO MAPS.
AUSTRALIAN MAP GRID ZONE 55
INDEX TO ADJOININGMETRIC SERIES MAP
26/5/2016Printed: AMENDMENT C223
D E S I G N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O V E R L A Y MAP No 5DDO
P R E P A R E D B Y : P l a n n i n g M a p p i n g S e r v i c e s
Scale: 1:5,010
200 0 200 400 mOverlaysDesign And Development Overlay -Schedule 19
DDO19
1
10
2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9
0 100
metres
003
| Planning Mapping Services |
| Planning Information Services |
| Planning |
S T O N N I N G T O N P L A N N I N G S C H E M E
AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5 & 6
Commercial 1 ZoneLEGEND
HIGH ST
WIL
LIA
M
S
T
ST
UA
RT
S
T
SE
YM
OU
R
AV
LA
MB
ET
H
A
V
STANHOPE ST
WILLIS ST
HUME ST
RIC
HA
RD
S
T
HU
NT
ING
TO
WE
R
RD
ME
RC
ER
RD
MO
OR
HO
US
E
STMYAMAN
ST
HUME ST
CLARENDON ST
0 150
metres
004
| Planning Mapping Services |
| Planning Information Services |
| Planning |
S T O N N I N G T O N P L A N N I N G S C H E M E
AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5 & 6
Residential Growth Zone - Schedule 3
LEGEND
WATTLETREE RD
DU
NC
RA
IG A
V
GL
EN
FE
RR
IE
SE
YM
OU
R
AV
SO
UD
AN
A
V
EDSALL ST
EVANDALE RD
RA
ILW
AY
A
V
VA
LE
NT
INE
R
D
ISA
BE
LL
A
S
T
MYAMAN
GORDON GV
RD
DR
YS
DA
LE
ST
NIC
HO
LLS
S
T
MC
KIN
LE
Y A
V
GLE
ND
EA
RG
G
V
LLANEAST
ST
CO
ON
IL
CR
General Residential Zone - Schedule 15 Commercial 1 Zone
005
| Planning Mapping Services |
| Planning Information Services |
| Planning |
50
metres
0
LEGENDGeneral Residential Zone - Schedule 15
Part of Planning Scheme Map 6
AMENDMENT C223
S T O N N I N G T O N P L A N N I N G S C H E M E
COLDBLO RD
UNION ST
GL
EN
FE
RR
IE R
D
BARKLY AV
WINTER ST
VALETTA ST
0 150
metres
006
| Planning Mapping Services |
| Planning Information Services |
| Planning |
S T O N N I N G T O N P L A N N I N G S C H E M E
AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5DPO & 6DPOLEGEND
WATTLETREE RD
GL
EN
FE
RR
IE
SO
UD
AN
S
T
EVANDALE RDR
AIL
WA
Y
A
V
VA
LE
NT
INE
RD
GORDON GV
RD
DR
YS
DA
LE
ST
NIC
HO
LLS
S
T
CR
Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 3
BA
ILE
Y
A
V
GLA
DS
TO
NE
A
V
EG
ER
TO
N
R
D
VALE
NTIN
E G
V
STA
TION S
T
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 2
SCHEDULE 15 TO CLAUSE 32.08 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE
Shown on the planning scheme map as GRZ15.
GLENFERRIE ROAD AND HIGH STREET ACTIVITY CENTRE ANDWATTLETREE ROAD EAST
1.0 Permit requirement for the construction or extension of one dwelling on a lot
Is a permit required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of between 300square metres and 500 square metres?
Yes
2.0 Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55
Standard Requirement
Minimum streetsetback
A3 and B6 None specified
Site coverage A5 and B8 None specified
Permeability A6 and B9 None specified
Landscaping B13 None specified
Side and rearsetbacks
A10 and B17 None specified
Walls onboundaries
A11 and B18 None specified
Private openspace
A17 None specified
B28 None specified
Front fenceheight
A20 and B32 None specified
3.0 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building
A building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed 12 metres unlessthe slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site ofthe building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must notexceed 13 metres. This does not apply to:
An extension of an existing building or the construction of a new building that exceedsthe specified building height which does not exceed the height of immediately adjacentbuildings facing the same street.
The rebuilding of a lawful building or works which have been damaged or destroyed.
A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no morethan 1.2 metres.
In areas subject to the Special Building Overlay or the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay,the maximum building height may be exceeded by no more than the minimum additionalbuilding height required by the overlay provisions.
-/-/2016C223
-/-/2016C223
-/-/2016C223
-/-/2016C223
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 2
4.0 Application requirements
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under clause32.08, in addition to those specified in clause 32.08 and elsewhere in the scheme:
Plans showing existing vegetation and any trees proposed to be removed.
Plans showing proposed landscaping works and planting including tree species andmature height.
5.0 Decision guidelines
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under clause 32.08,in addition to those specified in clause 32.08 and elsewhere in the scheme:
Whether the development provides for an appropriate visual transition to residentialproperties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
Whether the proposal meets the preferred neighbourhood character statement anddesign objectives for the Precinct.
-/-/2016C223
-/-/2016C223
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 2
SCHEDULE 3 TO CLAUSE 32.07 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE
Shown on the planning scheme map as RGZ3.
WATTLETREE ROAD WEST
1.0 Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55
Standard Requirement
Minimum streetsetback
A3 and B6 None specified
Site coverage A5 and B8 None specified
Permeability A6 and B9 None specified
Landscaping B13 None specified
Side and rearsetbacks
A10 and B17 None specified
Walls onboundaries
A11 and B18 None specified
Private openspace
A17 None specified
B28 None specified
Front fenceheight
A20 and B32 None specified
2.0 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building
A building used as a dwelling or residential building must not exceed a height of 16 metres,unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of thesite of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must notexceed 17 metres. This does not apply to:
An extension of an existing building or the construction of a new building that exceedsthe specified building height which does not exceed the height of immediately adjacentbuildings facing the same street.
The rebuilding of a lawful building or works which have been damaged or destroyed.
A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no morethan 1.2 metres.
In areas subject to the Special Building Overlay or the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay,the maximum building height may be exceeded by no more than the minimum additionalbuilding height required by the overlay provisions.
3.0 Application requirements
The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under clause32.07, in addition to those specified in clause 32.07 and elsewhere in the scheme:
Plans showing existing vegetation and any trees proposed to be removed.
Plans showing proposed landscaping works and planting including tree species andmature height.
-/-/2016C223
-/-/2016C223
-/-/2016C223
-/-/2016C223
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 2
4.0 Decision guidelines
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under clause 32.07,in addition to those specified in clause 32.07 and elsewhere in the scheme:
Whether the development provides for an appropriate visual transition to residentialproperties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.
-/-/2016C223
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 4
SCHEDULE 3 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO3.
MALVERN CENTRAL AND RAILWAY LAND, ARMADALE
This schedule applies to Malvern Central and the adjoining railway land in Armadale between Wattletree Road and Glenferrie Road.
1.0 Requirement before a permit is granted
A planning permit may be granted before a development plan has been approved for the following:
� Advertising signs.
� Demolition of an existing building or contruction of a new building on Wattletree Road, provided the buildings and works are in accordance with the Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 19 (DDO19).
� Minor buildings or works, provided the buildings or works do not prejudice the preparation and approval of a Development Plan, to the satisfaction of the Resposible Authority.
� Railway and railway infrastructure including signals (and related control buildings), new tracks, track work and realignment, overhead power lines, gantries, stabling (excluding buildings) and any other work required under the Disability Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.
Before granting a permit the responsible authority must be satisfied that the permit is consistent with the design objectives and will not prejudice the future integrated use and development of the site.
An application must be accompanied by a report which demonstrates that the proposal will not prejudice the development plan requirements specified in this schedule.
2.0 Design objectives
The development must be consistent with the following design objectives for the site:
� To facilitate an integrated mixed use strategic development incorporating retail, office, residential and entertainment uses.
� To facilitate a high quality architectural design.
� To respond to the built form typology (building height, pattern and aspects) within Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road.
� To mitigate visual bulk by varying building heights across the site.
� To maintain the prominence of the heritage built form when viewed from Glenferrie Road by siting taller built form away from Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road.
� To respond to the potential impact of new development on immediate and longer range views of the site from public vantage points, including: north-east corner of the junction of Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road, western end of Wattletree Road, the footpath on the eastern side of Glenferrie Road and Railway Avenue looking north.
� To incorporate a frontage façade treatment along the southern elevation.
� To integrate signage where appropriate.
--/--/2016 C223
--/--/2016 C223
--/--/2016 C223
REVISION A
Commented [SCC1]: Delete given the provisions for this portion of the land have been moved from the DDO to the DPO.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 4
� To provide passive surveillance of the public realm from the upper levels on the southern interface.
� To improve access and integration with the surrounding area.
� To provide a pedestrian connection from Glenferrie Road to Malvern Central.
� To facilitate safer pedestrian and vehicle movement into Malvern Central.
� To enhance the ground floor retail and pedestrian space on the Wattletree Road frontage.
� To incorporate a landscaped shared pedestrian and cyclist path along the northern edge of the railway corridor between Malvern and Armadale Stations.
3.0 Conditions and requirements for permits
An application to develop the land must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:
� Any subdivision plans as appropriate.
� A noise and vibration assessment to address Passenger Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy 2013.
All permits should must be in accordance with the following requirements as appropriatedesign guidelines:
� Provide a four storey street wall or building base to present a strong street edge profile along the Wattletree Road frontage.
� Ensure that residential areas to the south side of the railway corridor and the footpath on the eastern side of Glenferrie Road are not unreasonably overshadowed at the equinox (22 September, between 9am and 3pm).
� Provide roof decks on lower built form to provide communal gathering space, urban landscaping and high quality outlook from upper levels of commercial or residential development.
� Incorporate sufficient building separation from adjacent sites to the north and east to maximise daylight access and manage outlooks and privacy.
4.0 Requirements for development plan
A development plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. A development plan may, with the consent of the Resposible Authority, be prepared in stages or for a single or part of a site, provided that it can be demonstrated that the development shown can be integrated with the remaining land within this overlay and provided that this does not prejudice achieving the objectives of this schedule.
The Development Plan must show, include and be accompanied by the information below.
The responsible authority may determine that a requirement can be waived.
General
� The site’s urban context, including its physical surrounds and a strategic assessment of the area within which the site is located.
� Contours and levels, including levels of adjoining sites.
� An existing conditions plan and statement including the size and dimensions of the site.
--/--/2016 C223
--/--/2016 C223
Commented [SCC2]: Change in response to submission 100.
Commented [SCC3]: Revised wording to accurately reflect a provision which is a requirement.
Commented [SCC4]: Clarification in response to submission 45.
Commented [SCC5]: Change in response to submission 45 and 55.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 3 OF 4
Use & Development
� The proposed use and development of each building and section of the land, including demolition where proposed.
� Development staging, including an indicative time frame for development.
� Future building envelopes and three dimensional massing, including the scale of the development, design elements and treatment of interfaces.
� Cross sections showing level changes across the site and adjoining sites.
� A stormwater management plan incorporating water sensitive urban design principles and a preliminary drainage and servicing assessment addressing all relevant drainage, flooding and water quality issues.
� A Waste Management Concept Plan indicating waster collection, storage and removal facilities and areas.
Siting and Design
� Proposed building heights and setbacks complying with the heights and setbacks in Table 1:
Table 1: Preferred Built Form Malvern Central
Preferred maximum building height*
Preferred maximum building height for development fronting Wattletree Road*
Preferred maximum street wall height Wattletree Rd
Preferred minimum setback above street wall on Wattletree Rd
42.5 metres
(12 storeys)
16 metres
(5 storeys)
14.5 metres
(4 storeys)
12 metres
Preferred minimum setback along common boundary/ southern interface with VicTrack land
Preferred minimum setback above street wall, or building base on laneways
Preferred minimum separation between taller building forms
Preferred maximum width of any tower forms
0 metres 5 metres 10 metres 25 metres
* Preferred maximum building height is whichever is lesser (metres or storeys) and excludes rooftop plant and lift overruns provided they are well set back from the edge of the roof.
� Siting and orientation of new structures or extensions and alterations to exisiting buildings.
� The impact of overshadowing on the residential area to the south of the railway corridor and the footpath on the eastern side of Glenferrie Road, at the equinox (22 September, between 9am and 3pm.
� A high standard of internal amenity managed within the site.
Commented [SCC6]: Table 1 moved to Section 4.0.
Commented [SCC7]: Provisions (Preferred maximum building height for development fronting Wattletree Road) moved from DDO.
Commented [SCC8]: Change in response to submission 45. Clar ification that for development on the Malvern Central site, the preferred minimum setback along the common boundary, between Malvern Central and VicTrack land, is 0 metres.
Commented [SCC9]: Existing provisions reformatted to move table privisions on to two lines
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 4 OF 4
� Sufficient building separation to manage outlooks, privacy, visual bulk and daylight access on adjoining sites.
� Impact of development on immediate and longer range views of the site from public vantage points, including Glenferrie Road, Wattletree Road and the rail corridor.
� Design measures to achieve Environmentally Sustainable Design.
� Treatment of ancillary structures and service/plant and fixtures.
Traffic Management Plan
A Traffic Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified professional(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Vic Roads providing details relating to:
� Traffic management, traffic control works and road works considered necessary on the site, including the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian requirements necessary for the use of the site.
� The location of vehicle access points to the site.
� Bicycle and pedestrian access plan for the site and proposed cycle parking.
� Existing and proposed car parking generation and adequacy of supply.
� Loading bays and routes.
� Proposed measures to support sustainable transport over private vehicle travel for staff and visitors.
� Proposed circulation and access systems for both vehicles and pedestrians.
5.0 Display of development plan
Before approving or amending a development plan, the responsible authority should display the plan for public comment for at least four weeks. The responsible authority may consider any comments received in response to the display of the development plan.
6.0 Reference Documents
Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan, Hansen Partnership, 2015.
--/--/2016 C223
--/--/2016 C223
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 1 OF 18
SCHEDULE 19 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO19
GLENFERRIE ROAD AND HIGH STREET ACTIVITY CENTRE AN D WATTLETREE ROAD AREA
1.0 General Design objectives
� To protect and enhance the existing heritage built form and fabric.
� To encourage a modest scale of development in High Street and Glenferrie Road, which complements the existing heritage fabric.
� To encourage higher density development on land south of the railway corridor and on strategic development sites.
� To facilitate the redevelopment and/or revitalisation of identified strategic development sites consistent with the requirements of this Schedule.
� To increase activation of laneways.
� To improve the appearance of public spaces including streetscapes, public car parks and laneways.
2.0 Definitions
Small sites (S) are sites which have less than a 7m street frontage (width).
Medium sites (M) are sites which have between a 7m-19m street frontage (width).
Large sites (L) are sites which have street frontage (width) greater than 19m.
3.0 General Requirements
3.1 Permit requirements
Buildings and works
A planning permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for:
� Installation of an automatic teller machine.
� An alteration to an existing building façade provided:
⋅ The alteration does not include the installation of an external roller shutter.
⋅ At least 80 per cent of the building façade at ground floor level is maintained as an entry or window with clear glazing.
� An awning that projects over the road if it is authorized by the relevant public land manager.
� Construct or carry out works normal to a dwelling.
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
DD/MM/YYYY Proposed C223
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
REVISION A
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 2 OF 18
� Construct or extend an out-building (other than a garage or carport) on a lot provided the gross floor area of the out-building does not exceed 10 square metres and the maximum building height is not more than 3 metres above ground level.
� Railway and railway infrastructure including signals (and related control buildings), new tracks, track work and realignment, overhead power lines, gantries, stabling (excluding buildings) and any other work required under the Disability Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.
4.0 General Design GuidelinesRequirements
Development in all precincts shouldmust:
� Be of high quality urban design and architecture that contributes positively to local character.
� Include active frontages along High Street, Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road, except where this conflicts with the original heritage form.
� Be substantially setback behind the street parapet to maintain the prominence of the heritage form when viewed from the public realm.
� Integrate signage where appropriate.
� Achieve an exemplary standard of internal amenity, including access to natural daylight and natural ventilation.
� Provide weather protection in the form of canopies on High Street and Glenferrie Road, except where this is contrary to the original heritage fabric.
� Incorporate passive surveillance of the public realm including rear laneways.
� Orientate onto rear car parks to provide surveillance from upper levels and an improved presentation to the public realm.
� Address overlooking through the use of building separation in preference to screening.
� Avoid apartments with primary aspect to side boundaries.
� Incorporate low level vegetation and lighting in laneways to facilitate a more attractive and safer walking environment.
� Enhance existing pedestrian and cyclist connections parallel to the rail line.
DD/MM/YYYY Proposed C223
Commented [SCC1]: Expressed as requirements, consistent with the DDO template.
Commented [SCC2]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 3 OF 18
5.0 Precinct Design GuidelinesRequirements
This Clause includes specific objectives, guidelines requirements and preferred built form outcomes shown on Map 1 Built Form Precincts and Map 2 Interfaces which forms part of this Schedule.
5.1 Precinct A - Glenferrie Road
Design Objectives
� To retain the consistent two storey built form of significant heritage places with pronounced parapets.
� To ensure new buildings retain the visual prominence of significant places in the street and views to significant places.
� To ensure new buildings complement the heritage scale and vertical fine grain rhythm of built form.
� To recognise and maintain the prominence of the Malvern Town Hall and clock tower and the Anglican Church on Dandenong Road as municipal landmarks.
� To facilitate higher density built form south of the railway corridor to enhance the image and sense of arrival into the Activity Centre.
� To retain and improve the appearance and safe function of the pedestrian arcade between Glenferrie Road and the rear car parks.
� To provide a pedestrian link from Glenferrie Road to Malvern Central.
� To improve pedestrian access to and through Malvern Railway Station.
� To improve the function of the Coldblo Road and Glenferrie Road intersection and its role in facilitating safe tram movement.
Design GuidelinesRequirements
Development shouldmust:
� Not exceed the preferred height and setbacks specified in Table 1 and the Interface and Setback Guidelines Requirements specified in Clause 6.0.
� Incorporate a street wall height for new development in Precinct A1 to respond to the predominant street wall of existing heritage places.
� Provide active ground floor uses along the southern railway interface (Glenferrie Rd to Malvern Railway Station) in Precinct A2.
� In Precinct A2, locate higher density built form along the Dandenong Road frontage with a transition of scale of lower forms closer to the railway corridor.
DD/MM/YYYY Proposed C223
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
Commented [SCC3]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template
Commented [SCC4]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 4 OF 18
Table 1: Preferred Built Form Precinct A
Precinct No.
Preferred maximum building height*
Preferred maximum street wall height
Preferred street level setback
Preferred minimum setback above street wall
A1 14.5 metres
(4 storeys)***
N/A** 0 metres 8-10 metres
A2 21.5 metres
(6 storeys)
14.5 metres
(4 storeys)
0 metres 3-5 metres
* Preferred maximum building height is whichever is lesser (metres or storeys) and excludes rooftop plant and lift overruns provided they are well set back from the edge of the roof.
** Preferred maximum street wall height to be determined by the retention of the heritage building or guided by the provisions of Council's Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04.
*** Maximum building height of 12m for 73-75 Union Street, 1 and 1a Gordon Street and Gordon Grove carpark (138-146 Wattletree Road) is identified in the General Residential Zone at Clause 32.08 Schedule 15.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 5 OF 18
5.2 Precinct B - High Street
Design Objectives
� To retain the consistent two storey built form of significant heritage places with pronounced parapets.
� To enhance streetscape diversity with slightly taller street walls for development not subject to a Heritage Overlay.
� To maintain an openness to the sky when viewing new development from street level.
� To recognise and maintain the prominence of the Malvern Town Hall and clock tower as a municipal landmark and gateway.
� To maintain a modest scale of infill development within High Street and Glenferrie Road, which complements the existing heritage fabric.
� To retain and improve the appearance and safe function of the pedestrian arcade between High Street and Armadale Railway Station.
Design GuidelinesRequirements
Development shouldmust:
� Not exceed the preferred height and setbacks specified in Table 2 and the Interface and Setback Guidelines Requirements specified in Clause 6.0.
� Incorporate a street wall height for new development in Precinct A1 B to respond to the predominant street wall of heritage fabric.
Table 2: Preferred Built Form Precinct B
Preferred maximum building height*
(S sites)
Preferred maximum building height*
(M/L sites)
Preferred maximum street wall height
Preferred street level setback
Preferred minimum setback above street wall
14.5 metres
(4 storeys)
18 metres
(5 storeys)
NA** 0 metres 8-10 metres
* Preferred maximum building height is whichever is lesser (metres or storeys) and excludes rooftop plant and lift overruns provided they are well set back from the edge of the roof.
** Preferred maximum street wall height to be determined by the retention of the heritage building or guided by the provisions of the Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04.
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
Commented [SCC5]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template
Commented [SCC6]: Correction. Response to submission 197A
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 6 OF 18
5.3 Precinct C - Wattletree Road West
Design Objectives
� To provide for increased density development.
� To enhance the garden setting of new development and strengthen the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.
� To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between new higher density development on Wattletree Road and existing lower density residential development to the rear.
Design GuidelinesRequirements
Development shouldmust:
� Not exceed the preferred height and setbacks specified in Table 3 and the Interface and Setback Guidelines Requirements specified in Clause 6.0.
� Be setback a minimum 3 metres from the front property boundary to accommodate shrubs and canopy trees.
� Incorporate a recessed fifth level above the street wall distinguished in materiality.
� Provide passive surveillance from upper levels of the Wattletree Road environs.
� Allow for front vehicle access to one side boundary, from the front of the site, for Large sites, to improve legibility for vehicle access to medical facilities.
� Provide weather protection in the form of canopies at ground level on Wattletree Road.
Table 3: Preferred Built Form Precinct C
Preferred maximum building height*
(110-122 Wattletree Rd – Malvern Central)
Preferred maximum street wall height
Preferred street level setback
Preferred minimum setback above street wall
16 metres
(5 storeys)
13.5 metres
(4 storeys)
3 metres 3-5 metres
* Preferred maximum building height is whichever is lesser (metres or storeys) and excludes rooftop plant and lift overruns provided they are well set back from the edge of the roof.
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
Commented [SCC7]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template
Commented [SCC8]: Revised words to clarify intent.
Commented [SCC9]: Maximum building height for development on the Malvern Central site, fronting Wattletree Road, moved to the proposed DPO3 in line with the DDO no longer applying to the Malvern Central site.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 7 OF 18
5.4 Precinct D - Wattletree Road East
Objectives
� To enhance the garden setting of new development and strengthen the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.
� To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between new higher density development on Wattletree Road and existing lower density residential development to the rear.
Design GuidelinesRequirements
Development shouldmust:
� Not exceed the preferred height and setbacks specified in Table 4 and the Interface and Setback Guidelines Requirements specified in Clause 6.0.
� Contribute to the landscape setting by siting new development off at least one side boundary by 2.5 metres, for landscaping.
� Provide for adaptable ground levels which can accommodate either medical or office facilities, or home occupation components of maisonette dwellings.
� Be setback a minimum 3 metres from the front property boundary to accommodate shrubs and canopy trees.
� Incorporate a recessed fourth level above the street wall distinguished in materiality.
� Be setback from the rear boundary to enable planting of at least one canopy tree.
� Allow front vehicle access to one side boundary, from the front of the site, for Large sites, to improve legibility for vehicle access to for medical facilities.
Table 4: Preferred Built Form Precinct D
Preferred maximum street wall height
Preferred street level setback
Preferred minimum setback above street wall
11 metres
(3 storeys)
3 metres 3-5 metres
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
Commented [SCC10]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template
Commented [SCC11]: Revised words to clarify intent.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 8 OF 18
5.5 Precinct E - Dandenong Road Strategic Developme nt Site
Design Objectives
� To accommodate higher density residential development.
� To establish a clearly defined gateway into the centre through built form presentation.
� To establish a strong sense of arrival into the Activity Centre from Dandenong Road.
Design GuidelinesRequirements
Development shouldmust:
� Provide active ground floor uses along the railway interface integrated with pedestrian access to Malvern Station and Glenferrie Road.
� Incorporate a frontage façade treatment along the northern elevation.
� Respond to the built form typology (building height, pattern and aspects) within Dandenong Road and Glenferrie Road.
� Respond to the potential impact on views of the site from public vantage points, including Glenferrie Road and Station Street.
� Incorporate sufficient building separation from adjacent sites to maximise daylight access and manage outlooks and privacy.
� Provide passive surveillance of the public realm from upper levels on the northern interface.
� Provide a 3m ground level setback from northern and southern boundaries to facilitate a ground level pedestrian space.
� Site the tallest built form away from the Dandenong Road and Glenferrie Road frontages and the Former Railway Hotel (HO403) to maintain the its visual prominence of the Railway Hotel (HO403).
Table 5: Preferred Built Form Precinct E
Preferred maximum building height*
Preferred maximum street wall height Dandenong Rd
Preferred minimum setback above street wall / podium from the north and south boundaries
Preferred minimum separation between any taller building forms
Preferred ground level setback (north and south)
35.5 metres
(10 storeys)
28.5 metres
(8 storeys)
5 metres
10 metres 3 metres
* Preferred maximum building height is whichever is lesser (metres or storeys) and excludes rooftop plant and lift overruns provided they are well set back from the edge of the roof.
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
Commented [SCC12]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template
Commented [SCC13]: ‘Former’ inserted for clarification.
Commented [SCC14]: Reworded to ensure buildings are sited away from the street frontages and the heritage significant building.
Commented [SCC15]: Clarification.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 9 OF 18
5.6 Precinct F - Glenferrie Road Strategic Developm ent Site
Design Objectives
� To accommodate higher density residential development.
� To establish a clearly defined gateway into the centre through built form presentation.
� To establish a strong sense of arrival into the Activity Centre from Dandenong Road.
Design GuidelinesRequirements
Development shouldmust:
� Provide active ground floor uses along the railway interface integrated with pedestrian access to Malvern Station and Glenferrie Road.
� Incorporate a frontage façade treatment along the northern elevation.
� Respond to the built form typology (building height, pattern and aspects) within Dandenong Road and Glenferrie Road.
� Respond to the potential impact on views of the site from public vantage points, including Glenferrie Road and Station Street.
� Incorporate sufficient building separation from adjacent sites to maximise daylight access and manage outlooks and privacy.
� Provide passive surveillance of the public realm from upper levels on the northern interface.
Table 6: Preferred Built Form Precinct F
Preferred maximum building height*
Preferred maximum street wall height
Preferred minimum setback above street wall / podium to the north and west
Preferred minimum setback above street wall / podium to the south and east
Preferred minimum separation between any taller building forms
28.5 metres
(8 storeys)
14.5 metres
(4 storeys)
3 - 5 metres 5 metres 10 metres
* Preferred maximum building height is whichever is lesser (metres or storeys) and excludes rooftop plant and lift overruns provided they are well set back from the edge of the roof.
6.0 Interface and Setback GuidelinesRequirements
This Clause includes specific guidelines requirements and preferred built form outcomes shown on Map 2 Interfaces which forms part of this Schedule.
� For corner sites, buildings should be designed to address both street frontages.
� For corner sites, active frontages should extend along the Local Street Interface to create a sense of address with clear glazing and allow for side entry where appropriate.
� Street wall height should be located along the extended extent of the along the Local Street Interface as indicated on Map 2.
� Balconies, terraces and decks should be contained within the building envelope to maintain building separation and minimise overlooking.
� Development should provide adequate separation to provide for equitable development opportunities and privacy of habitable rooms and balconies.
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
DD/MM/YYYY Proposed C223
Commented [SCC16]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template
Commented [SCC17]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template.
Commented [SCC18]: Clarification in response to Submission 197A.
Commented [SCC19]: Clarification.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 10 OF 18
� Development should avoid unreasonable visual bulk when viewed from the private and public realm by ensuring appropriate scale, form and articulation.
� Development should incorporate sufficient setbacks at the rear interface to achieve separation between building lines and primary outlooks.
� Include a minimum 1.5 metre rear lane offset at ground level and first levelfloors, from the rear property boundary, to facilitate the ongoing function of the laneway with all vehicle access from the rear lane. The width of rear laneways should be sufficiently wide to accommodate building servicing and car park access.
� Development with a rear interface to residential zoned land (Interface Diagram 2 and 3 and 4) should incorporate a mid block setback for the top levels to mitigate visual bulk.
The diagrams in Table 7 represent the building envelope, and should be read in conjunction with Maps 1 and 2 of this schedule to determine the preferred interface and setbacks to be applied.
Table 7: Interface and Setbacks
Interface and Setback Provision
Rear Laneway Interface
Diagram 1 Development with a Rear Laneway Interface to non residential zoned land should provide rear upper level setbacks, above the second levelfirst floor, of 3m from the rear property boundary.
A potential 5th storey is shown for Precinct B (M/L) and Precinct C only.
Commented [SCC20]: The convention of level labels changed to align the diagrams and the text in the policy.
Commented [SCC21]: Mid-block provision removed in response to a number of submissions.
Commented [SCC22]: Text to clarify how to locate the relevant interface and setback provisions.
Commented [SCC23]: Diagram 1 replaced with a new diagram with the following changes: - 5th storey shown with a dashed line. - The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.
Commented [SCC24]: Clarification regarding the applicability of the 5th storey now shown on the diagram.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 11 OF 18
Diagram 2
Development with a Rear Laneway Interface to residential zoned land should provide rear upper level setbacks, above the second levelfirst floor, 4.5m from the rear property boundary.
A potential 5th storey is shown for Precinct B (M/L) and Precinct C only.
Commented [SCC25]: Diagram 2 replaced with a new diagram with the following changes: - Mid-block setback removed. - 5th storey shown with a dashed line. The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.
Commented [SCC26]: Text updated to align with the diagram.
Commented [SCC27]: Clarification regarding the applicability of the 5th storey now shown on the diagram.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 12 OF 18
Rear No Laneway Interface
Diagram 3
Development with a Rear No Laneway Interface should provide: − 4.5m setback from the property boundary up to the second levelfirst
floor. − 7.5m setback from the property boundary up to the third/ fourth
levelfloor.
A potential 5th storey is shown for Precinct B (M/L) and Precinct C only.
Commented [SCC28]: Diagram 3 replaced with a new diagram with the following changes: - Mid-block setback removed. - 5th storey shown with a dashed line. - The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.
Commented [SCC29]: Text updated to align with the diagram.
Commented [SCC30]: Text updated to align with the diagram.
Commented [SCC31]: Clarification regarding the applicability of the 5th storey now shown on the diagram.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 13 OF 18
Rear Interface in Precinct A2
Diagram 4
Development in Precinct A2 should provide a rear setback at ground level of 3m to incorporate landscaping.
Development in Precinct A2 should provide a 7.5m rear upper level setback, above the third levelsecond floor, from the rear property boundary.
Diagram 5 Development in Precinct A2 should provide a 4.5m rear upper level setback above the second floor, from the rear property boundary.
The diagrams in Table 7 represent the building envelope.
Commented [SCC32]: Diagram 4 replaced with a new diagrwith the following changes: - Mid-block setback removed. - The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.
Commented [SCC33]: Text updated to align with the diagram.
Commented [SCC34]: Insert a new diagram for Precinct A2 for rear non-residential interfaces.
STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 14 OF 18
7.0 Decision Guidelines
Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 43.02-5 and Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider:
� Whether the relevant objectives and guidelines requirements of this schedule are satisfied.
� The Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan, Hansen Partnership, 2015.
8.0 Application requirements
An application should be accompanied by the following information (as appropriate):
� A digital 3D model of the development to Council’s specifications if the building is 4 storeys or more.
� A site analysis, urban context report, shadow assessment which demonstrates how the proposed development achieves: The the relevant objectives and guidelines requirements of this schedule.
9.0 Reference Documents
Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan, Hansen Partnership, 2015.
--/--/20-- C--
DD/MM/YYYY Proposed C223
DD/MM/YYY Proposed C223
DD/MM/YY Proposed C223
STO
NN
ING
TO
N P
LAN
NIN
G S
CH
EM
E D
ES
IGN
AN
D D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T O
VE
RLA
Y -
SC
HE
DU
LE 1
9
PA
GE
15
OF
18
Map
1: B
uilt
For
m P
reci
ncts
Commented [SCC35]: M
ap 1
rep
lace
d. B
ound
ary
of P
rere
vise
d to
mov
e pr
oper
ties
on C
lare
mon
t St f
rom
Pre
cin
ct A
2 to
A1
In r
esp
onse
to s
ever
al s
ubm
issi
ons.
STO
NN
ING
TO
N P
LAN
NIN
G S
CH
EM
E D
ES
IGN
AN
D D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T O
VE
RLA
Y -
SC
HE
DU
LE 1
9
PA
GE
16
OF
18
STO
NN
ING
TO
N P
LAN
NIN
G S
CH
EM
E D
ES
IGN
AN
D D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
T O
VE
RLA
Y -
SC
HE
DU
LE 1
9
PA
GE
17
OF
18
Map
2: I
nter
face
s
Commented [SCC36]: M
ap 2
rep
lace
d to
sh
ow in
terf
ace
and
se
tbac
ks p
rovi
sion
s to
app
ly to
the
rear
of p
rop
ert
ies
on th
eof
Wat
tletr
ee
Ro
ad.