· web viewto the south of the subject land is garden street, a two-lane street with a width of...

NOTICE PAPERMonday 23 April 2018 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Boonwurrung and Wurundjeri people and offer our respects to the elders past and present. We recognise and respect the cultural heritage of this land.

PRAYER

Almighty God, we humbly beseech you, to grant your blessing on this Council, direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of your glory, and the true welfare of the people of the City of Stonnington. Amen.

NOTESCouncil business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1). Some copies are available with the agenda or you can find a copy on Council’s website www.stonnington.vic.gov.au under local laws.

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 23 April 2018Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayerb) Apologies c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63

of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 9 APRIL 2018..........................................................

d) Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act1

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 424 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 1027/17- JAM FACTORY, 500 CHAPEL STREET, SOUTH YARRA – PARTIAL DEMOLITION, BUILDINGS AND WORKS, USE OF THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF OFFICE, FOOD AND DRINK PREMISES, RESTAURANT, CINEMA BASED ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY AND SHOP IN AN ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE, SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY, HERITAGE OVERLAY AND INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY, WITH ASSOCIATED REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT................................................................................................................................

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 246/17 - 90-96 MATHOURA ROAD TOORAK.............................................3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0925/17- 302-306 WAVERLEY ROAD, MALVERN EAST –

CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY MIXED USE BUILDING COMPRISING A SHOP AND APARTMENTS LOCATED BEHIND THE EXISTING HERITAGE BUILDING AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................................

4. PLANNING PERMIT 945/07 - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE, 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VICTORIA 3145 – AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR THE REPURPOSING OF EXISTING RETAIL (SHOP) FLOOR AREA OVER GROUND AND MEZZANINE LEVELS INTO 'FOOD & DRINK PREMISES' AND THE ADDITION OF A TOURIST LOUNGE.....................

5. PLANNING APPLICATION 0927/17- CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE - 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – CREATION OF A NEW OUTDOOR DINING AREA KNOWN AS WEST PIAZZA INCLUDING GENERAL LIQUOR LICENCES ASSOCIATED WITH FOOD AND DRINKS PREMISES AND A REDUCTION IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENT........................................................

6. MELBOURNE METRO RAIL PROJECT - SUBMISSION TO AMENDMENT GC96..................................7. DRAFT 2018/19 BUDGET............................................................................................................8. REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR CIVIC SUPPORT AND EXPENSES POLICY...............................................

1 Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.

9. MULTIPURPOSE SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY AT PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK - APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES TO STAKEHOLDER GROUP .................................................

10. SUTHERLAND ROAD, ARMADALE - PROPOSAL TO INSTALL 2-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION........11. MILLEWA AVENUE, MALVERN EAST - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION RESULTS................................12. HINTON LANE RECONSTRUCTION AND HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS.............................................13. STREET TREE PRUNING PROGRAM - RESIDENT NOTIFICATION........................................................14. GLOW WINTER ARTS FESTIVAL 2018......................................................................................

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. MULTIPURPOSE SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY AT PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK - APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES TO STAKEHOLDER GROUP, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION............................................................................................................................

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

23 APRIL 2018

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 9 April 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 7

GENERAL BUSINESS23 APRIL 2018

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 1027/17- JAM FACTORY, 500 CHAPEL STREET, SOUTH YARRA – PARTIAL DEMOLITION, BUILDINGS AND WORKS, USE OF THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF OFFICE, FOOD AND DRINK PREMISES, RESTAURANT, CINEMA BASED ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY AND SHOP IN AN ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE, SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY, HERITAGE OVERLAY AND INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY, WITH ASSOCIATED REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT

Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for partial demolition, buildings and works, use of the land for the purposes of office, food and drink premises, restaurant, cinema based entertainment facility and shop in an Activity Centre Zone, Special Building Overlay, Heritage Overlay and Incorporated Plan Overlay, with associated reduction in the car parking requirement at 500 Chapel Street, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Applicant: UrbisWard: NorthZone: Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1)Overlay: Heritage Overlay (Schedule 126)

Special Building OverlayIncorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 3)

Date lodged: 6 October 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

132 statutory days

Trigger for referral to Council:

Number of objections and building height

Number of objections: 35 objections (including 1 petition)Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 27 February 2018Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Bates Smart and are known as Drawing No.s: A01.000, A01.001 – 003, A02.100 – 115, A02.B01 – B04M, A07.000 – 006, A08.000 – 002, all Council date stamped 21 November 2017.

Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes: planning report prepared by Urbis; traffic impact assessment prepared by GTA Consultants; heritage impact statement prepared by Lovell Chen; sustainability management plan prepared by ADP

Page 9


Consulting; waste management plan prepared by Leigh Design; pedestrian wind environment statement prepared by Windtech; acoustic statement prepared by Acoustic Logic; public realm concept report prepared by Aspect Studios; and urban context report and architectural vision prepared by Bates Smart and Leonard Design Architects, all Council date stamped 21 November 2017. A pedestrian analysis prepared by Arup was submitted to Council on 22 February 2018. In addition, a detailed wind modelling report prepared by Windtech was submitted to Council on 27 February 2018.

As a response to the concerns raised by Council Officers and the objectors, the applicant has submitted the following plans for discussion purpose.

Proposed streetscape improvement & mitigation works prepared by GTA Consultant (Council date stamped 28 March 2018); and

Increased setbacks discussion plans (dated 6 April 2018), Council date stamped 6 April 2018.

Proposed amendments massing to Buildings T5 and T6 (dated 17 April 2018), Council date stamped 17 April 2018.

These plans are not lodged as amended plans and they are intended to illustrate possible changes to the built form. Should the proposed changes be accepted, they could be required by way of permit conditions.

The proposed development includes a series of buildings. Figure 1 below shows the location and numbering of the proposed buildings. The numbering of the buildings will be referred to throughout this report.

Figure 1: Location and identification of the proposed buildings

In summary, the application includes a total redevelopment of the Jam Factory site. The existing buildings will be demolished (with the exception of the heritage facades) and be replaced by a collection of buildings, consisting of basement car parking, offices, food and drink premises, restaurants, cinema and shops. Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition (refer to Figure 2 below that shows the extent of demolition)

Demolition of the existing buildings on site except the heritage facades along Chapel Street and part of Garden Street, which will be restored and reinstated to its original embellishments and fenestration details.

The existing chimney is to be dismantled and reconstructed to the same detail and form, in the same location.

Page 10


Figure 2: Demolition plan

New buildings

Construction of a series of buildings with a height ranging from 3 storeys (i.e. building T8 -19m) to 15 storeys (i.e. buildings T5 & T6 - 72m). These buildings are interconnected at the lower levels.

o As shown in Figure 3 below, the proposed retail podium extends from the ground floor to level 2, including various retail tenancies and food and drink premises. A multi-level cinema is positioned at the eastern end of the site and is accessed via the retail podium below. Commercial and workplace spaces commence on level 3.

o Ground floor: this level forms part of the retail podium. It includes a series of internal laneways/streets which have been informed conceptually by the 1885 subdivision plan of the Jam Factory site. In the centre of the ground floor lies a publicly accessible square identified as the “Jam Factory Square”. A porte-cochere is provided along the Garden Street frontage and is primarily associated with the office component of the proposal.

o Levels 1 & 2: these level also form part of the retail podium, accommodating various retail tenancies and food and beverage offerings.

o Level 3: Commercial and workplace spaces commence on this level. The multi-level cinema is positioned at the eastern end of the site on this level. A key feature of level 3 is an elevated garden terrace which will be publicly assessable (except the terraces above the Chapel Street and Garden Street streetwalls).

o Levels 4 - 13: these levels accommodate the office floor space and are contained within a series of buildings that vary in heights (i.e. Buildings T1, T2 & T4 – maximum 43m to the parapet; Building T3 – maximum 39m to the parapet; Buildings T5 & T6 – maximum 72m; Building T7 – maximum 53m to the parapet).

o Level 14: the tallest part of the proposed development is centrally located within the site. It includes a roof top restaurant.

o The new buildings present a contemporary architectural style. Materials and finishes include a combination of metallic bronze façade louvres, glass blocks, glass panels, bricks, vertical metal louvres, aluminium, concrete and cladding.

Page 11


Figure 3: Different use components of the proposed development

Construction of 6 levels of basement (including a mezzanine level, described as ‘B4M’ on the plans) that cover the entire site.

o Lower ground level: consisting of shops, supermarket and food and drink premises.

o Basement level 1: including car parking, bicycle parking and end of trip facilities (such as showers, bathrooms and change rooms). An internal drop-off area is provided on this level, which offers a sheltered and secure environment for taxis, Uber and potential for valet and other concierge services. The drop-off area is single directional with access from Garden Street and exit onto Palermo Street.

o Basement levels 2, 3 and 4M (i.e. the mezzanine level): comprising customer and commercial parking.

o Basement level 4: the lowest basement level which accommodates car parking, loading docks, waste areas, plant/services and storage facilities. All loading and unloading activities will be accommodated within this level.

o The basement levels accommodate a total of 1350 car parking spaces and 750 bicycle spaces.

o There will be two access points to the basements, one from Garden Street (at the south-eastern corner of the subject land) and the other from Palermo Street.

o Two truck lifts are located at the eastern end of the ground level, providing access to basement level 4. A waiting zone is provided in front of the truck lifts to avoid queuing along Garden Street. Vehicle access to the loading dock will be managed and controlled by an online dock management system.

No signage is proposed as part of this application.

Use

Page 12


The proposed development includes a range of land uses (i.e. supermarket, shops, food and drink premises, restaurants, cinema and offices), the floor area and/or seating numbers of which is outlined in Table 1 below.

Land Use Seating Floor Area (sqm – NLA)

Supermarket 0 3,500

Specialty Retail 0 15,084

Major Specialty shops 0 17,163

Sub total “Shop” 35,747

Food and Drink Premises 670 4,771

Restaurant 1,127 4,119

Sub Total Food & Bev 8,890

Total all retail 44,637

Cinema 2,300 7,293

Sub total Shop & F&B & Cinema 51,930

Office (NLA) 0 57,228

Total Developed area 4,097 109,158

Carparking 0 1350 spaces

Table 1: Breakdown of the proposed uses and the floor areas/seating numbers

The proposal does not include any residential use.

The proposed operating hours for the offices, food and drink premises, restaurants, shops and cinema are 24 hours, 7 days a week. This is intended to give future occupants flexibility.

This application does not include any liquor licence.

Public realm improvements

The proposal shows an activated network of internal streets and laneways on the ground floor level, including:

o The northern boundary of the site will be opened up, incorporating a north-facing dining terrace.

o A new laneway entry will be provided from Garden Street aligned with Bray Street to the south.

o Re-opening the existing original Garden Street façade to introduce a variety of smaller scaled retail and food and drink premises to activate Garden Street.

o Reinstate Turnbull Street/Lane and create a new open plaza on Chapel Street at the north-western corner of the subject land.

o The publicly accessible spaces, laneways and streets feature different widths, lengths and designs to create a series of different identities and characters.

Provision of a centrally located ‘Jam Factory Square’ which has a dimension of approximately 27.5m by 50m (i.e. around 1,400sqm in size). This space is adaptive to accommodating a range of events and functions.

Provision of an elevated garden terrace on level 3, which provides spaces for relaxation and small gatherings.

Removal of the redundant vehicle crossings and loading zones along Garden Street.

Page 13


Figure 4: Proposed public realm improvement works

SITE AND SURROUNDS

The Jam Factory site is framed by Chapel Street to the west, Garden Street to the south and the rail corridor to the north. It is one of the largest single land parcels in the inner south-east region of Metropolitan Melbourne and has the following key features:

It is irregular in shape with a frontage to Chapel Street of 119m, a secondary frontage to Garden Street of 229m, and an eastern abuttal of 40m. The overall land size is around 19,280sqm, the equivalent size of a half city block.

The subject land has a rich history established by light industrial and manufacturing land uses. It was occupied by brewery and maltings from the 1850s until 1906, and later used for jam manufacturing from the 1870s until 1969.

The site was converted into a retail, dining and entertainment centre in 1979. During the mid-1990s, the complex underwent substantial redevelopment to accommodate the Village Cinemas and a new food court. In 2013, further development was done to upgrade the retail elements and modernise the complex.

The current buildings house approximately 21,000sqm floor space over two levels, with 976 car spaces provided within a six-level above-ground car park at the eastern end of the land. Retail tenancies are located on the ground floor, with 15 cinema screens on the upper level and offices being split between the two levels.

o The Chapel Street frontage is activated by retail tenancies that occupy the ground level of the two-storey red brick streetwall. The majority of the former heritage fabric is located along the Chapel Street frontage, although it has been heavily modified to accommodate glazed shopfronts, advertising signage and the central pedestrian access entry. The northern end of the Chapel Street frontage was previously developed with a service station and therefore does not include any heritage fabric.

o The western section of the Garden Street frontage features a bluestone building and a red brick building. It does not provide any pedestrian access and is largely an inactive frontage.

Page 14


o The eastern half of the Garden Street frontage provides back of house facilities, including a loading bay and a multi-level car park and its associated entry/exit points.

As shown in Figure 5 below, the west and south-west sections of the subject land (i.e. approximately a depth of 20m east from Chapel Street and 13m north from Garden Street), and the existing chimney are included in a Heritage Overlay (HO126). These elements of the former Jam Factory are of local social, historical and aesthetic significance, and have a grading of A2.

The land is generally flat, with a fall of approximately 2m from the west to the east.

Figure 5: Extent of the Heritage Overlay that covers the subject land

The subject site forms part of the Prahran/South Yarra Major Activity Centre (according to Plan Melbourne 2017 – 2050) and has excellent access to services, facilities, infrastructure and public transport. Both South Yarra Station (to the west) and Hawksburn Railway Station (to the east) are approximately 400m to the north-west and south-east respectively. Tram Routes 8, 72 and 78 are all within easy walking distance.

To the north of the subject site is a deep cut in the land which houses the rail corridor. Further north of the rail corridor is a fine-grained residential neighbourhood; a 13-storey (42.9m to the lift overrun) apartment building at 1 – 3 Clara Street (located opposite the eastern end of the site) and the Surrey Road Park. Notably, there is a barricade along Palermo Street, east of its intersection with Forster Street, which blocks traffic to the residential area from Palermo Street. This barricade will not be affected by this application.

To the south of the subject land is Garden Street, a two-lane street with a width of approximately 12m. The southern side of Garden Street includes a number of warehouses and recently constructed mixed-use developments. These buildings have a height ranging from single-storey to 11-storey (e.g. 8 - 12A Garden Street & 60 Bray Street, with a maximum height of 34m to the parapet). Most of the mixed-use developments include habitable room windows and balconies facing the subject site. Vehicle access from Garden Street to Surrey Road is restricted by a gate (located at the north-eastern corner of the intersection of Garden Street and Palfreyman Street) between 9:30pm and 6:00am the following day, Monday to Sunday. This gate will not be affected by this application.

To the east of the subject site is 43 – 45 Garden Street, comprising a double-storey warehouse building with at grade parking in the front and rear setbacks. This site has a

Page 15


planning permit (Permit No. 703/16) for the construction of an 8-storey mixed-use development, including ground floor shop, offices at first, second and third floor levels and dwellings at the levels above. A 7.68m long and 3m deep lightwell is located along the shared boundary with the subject land, providing light to the offices and a number of balconies and bedrooms. Construction of the approved development is yet to commence.

To the west is Chapel Street, one of Melbourne’s best known shopping-strip activity centres. The western side of Chapel Street that is opposite the subject land is predominantly composed of single and double storey fine-grain period buildings, which are also included in HO126.

PREVIOUS PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The subject site has an extensive history of planning permit applications. A search of Council records reveals the following key planning applications:

Planning Permit No. 79/50 was amended on 21 November 2001 for buildings and works at No. 9 – 13 Wilson Street and 16 – 18 Garden Street for the purpose of car park associated with the Jam Factory site (for no less than 108 cars) and access lanes.

Planning Permit No. 76/143 was issued on 7 December 1976 for renovations and alterations to the existing building for use as a retail and entertainment complex.

Planning Permit No. 80/273 was issued on 1 June 1981 for buildings and works for the purposes of offices, restaurant and associated car parking.

Planning Permit No. 92/444 was issued on 25 June 1993 at the direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the use of the land as a place of assembly (cinema complex) and a restaurant (including a bar), buildings and works and the erection and display of signs. This permit was further amended on 21 November 2001. The amended permit allows for a maximum of 1347 seats for the cinema complex and 150 seats for the restaurant/bar. The approved operating hours of the cinema complex are between 10am and 1am the following day.

Planning Permit No. 95/460 was amended on 21 November 2001 for use of the land for the purpose of restaurant with a maximum seating capacity of 1264 seats (not including the cinema restaurant/bars), operating between 7am and 1am the following day.

Permit No. 21/96 was issued on 16 April 1996 for (amongst others) the addition of 1600 seats to the cinema (i.e. increased the total number of seats to 3,250). This permit requires no less than 970 car spaces to be provided on site. On 21 November 2001, this permit was amended to allow (amongst others) the cinema to operate between 10am and 1am the following day, Sundays to Wednesdays; and between 10am and 3am the following day, Thursdays to Saturdays.

Planning Permit No. 1389/98 was issued on 22 October 1999 by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for use and development of a two-storey building over railway reservation for retail/commercial purpose and realignment of existing accessway to Jam Factory premises, with a reduction in the car parking requirement.

THE TITLE

The land is described as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 432275Y and is contained in Title Volume 10579 Folio 645. The land is subject to a number of easements in favour of CitiPower. Furthermore, there is a section 173 Agreement registered on title (i.e. U785433U). The Agreement includes the following obligations:

Page 16


The additional use approved by Permit No. 21/96 must not commence until the Chapel Street by-pass (extending between Simmons Street and Garden Street) is completed and operational;

The owners contribute towards the cost of acquisition and design and construction of the Chapel Street by-pass;

The owners contribute towards the implementation of appropriate traffic management measures;

The owners will provide for and ensure the closure of Garden Street, east of the car park exit, between 9:30pm and 6:00am the following day, on every day the use is in operation;

No less than 970 car spaces must be provided on the site. No less than 74 additional car spaces must be provided on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority if for one hour on any 15 days of any consecutive period of 100 days between 1 March and 30 November in any year all on-site car spaces are full;

The owners must within 14 days from the end of each calendar month, supply to Council the parking arrival and departure patterns and the occupancy of the on-site carpark recorded over a 14 hour period from 10:00am to 12midnight each day;

The owners in conjunction with Council develop a signage strategy designed to provide appropriate identification of the car park;

The preparation and implementation of a management plan designed to reduce the loss of car parking spaces during the construction of the additional parking levels; and

The provision of paving and street lighting to Garden Street.

The proposed development will affect the easements and the s 173 Agreement. In Boroondara CC v Sixty-Fifth Eternity Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 298, the Victorian Supreme Court confirmed it is permissible to grant an approval subject to a permit condition requiring the approved development not to proceed until the inconsistency with the approved s 173 agreement has been resolved. Relying on this decision, any issues with the s 173 Agreement and the easements could be resolved at a later stage via appropriate permit conditions associated with this application.

The applicant has confirmed that separate applications will be lodged to modify/remove the easements and the s 173 Agreement at a later stage. Therefore, should the application be recommended for approval, a condition that requires the easements and s 173 agreement to be modified/removed before the commencement of any buildings and works will be included.

PLANNING CONTROLS

The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:

Zone

Clause 37.08 - Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1) (“ACZ1”)

Pursuant to Clause 37.08-2, a permit is required for any use in section 2 of the schedule to this zone. The permit requirements for use are located within the schedule to the zone. Schedule 1 to the ACZ lists the following relevant provisions:

Section 1 – Permit not required

Page 17


Use ConditionFood and drink premises (other than Hotel, Convenience restaurant and Tavern)

Must be located at ground or first floor

Office Must not be located at ground floor on land designed for Main Street Uses.

Any frontage at ground floor must not exceed 2 metres.

Must not be located on land with a frontage to Percy Street in Sub-Precinct Greville Village – 6 (GV-6).

Shop (other than Adult sex bookshop, Bottle shop and Restricted retail premises)

Must not be land with a frontage to Sub-Precinct Greville Village – 6 (GV-6).

Section 2 – Permit requiredCinema-based entertainment facility Must not be located within Sub-Precincts Princes

Gardens – 3 (PG-3), Windsor Village (VW-6).

Must not be located on land with a frontage to Bendigo Street within Sub-Precinct Princes Gardens – 2 (PG-2).

Must not be located on land with a frontage to Surrey Road within Sub-Precinct Princes Gardens – 6 (PG-6).

Office – if the Section 1 Condition is not met.

Shop – if the Section 1 condition is not met.

Pursuant to the schedule, a permit is required to:

use the land for the purposes of ‘office’ (as the frontage at ground floor exceeds 2m); use of the land for the purpose of ‘food and drink premises’ (as some of proposed food

and drink premises are located above the first floor); and use of the land for the purpose of ‘cinema-based entertainment facility’.

Pursuant to Clause 37.08-5, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works unless the schedule to this zone specifies otherwise. According to Schedule 1 to the Zone, no exemptions are relevant to this application. Therefore, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Pursuant to Clause 37.08-6, a schedule to this zone may include requirements relating to:

Building setbacks Building height Building materials Access Landscaping Public realm Any other requirements or guidelines relating to the design or built form of new

development

A permit may be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works which is not in accordance with any design and development requirement in the schedule to this zone unless the schedule to this zone specifies otherwise.

According to Schedule 1 to the ACZ, the site is within Precinct 2 – South Yarra, sub-precinct JF-1 and JF-2 (note: the first 20m from the Chapel Street frontage is within JF-1, corresponding with the boundary of the Heritage Overlay). The precinct map identifies the

Page 18


whole site for Main Street Uses. It also earmarks the site as a ‘Key Strategic Development Site’.

The following built form provisions apply to the subject site:

Sub-precinct JF-1 Sub-precinct JF-2Within the heritage

overlayThe north-western

corner that is outside the

heritage overlayPreferred maximum building

height18m (5 storeys) 18m (5 storeys) 40m

Preferred maximum street wall height

N/A - existing heritage façade to be retained

12m 25m

Preferred minimum setback above the street wall height

5m 4m 12m

* For sites in or adjoining a Heritage Overlay, the application of the Heritage Policy may require different heights, street wall heights and setbacks

Figure 6 below illustrates the built form articulated by the ACZ1 controls. It is important to note the built form provisions are not mandatory and the ACZ1 controls allow exercise of discretion to vary the provisions in appropriate circumstances.

Figure 6: Built form articulated by the ACZ1 controls for the subject land

The ACZ1 also provides the following precinct requirements and guidelines for the subject site:

Precinct requirements Redevelopment of the Key Strategic Development site at 500 Chapel Street (the Jam

Factory) to:

o Include a publicly accessible north facing village square which is open to the sky.

o Support a new pedestrian link from the Jam Factory to Surrey Road Park.

Precinct guidelines

Page 19


Redevelopment of the Key Strategic Development site at 500 Chapel Street (the Jam Factory) should:

o Ensure buildings are highly accessible by pedestrians from Chapel and Garden Streets.

o Provide separation between new buildings to provide a high standard of amenity and minimise overshadowing of the village square.

o Retain key view lines to the heritage-listed chimney.

o Promote the site as a key destination and meeting place in South Yarra.

o Provide a series of pedestrian laneways and other links through the Jam Factory site which are open to the sky.

o Use the heritage-listed chimney as a way finding marker to and within the site.

In summary, a planning permit is required under the ACZ1 to:

construct a building or construct or carry out works; use the land for the purposes of ‘office’ (as the frontage at ground floor exceeds 2m); use of the land for the purpose of ‘food and drink premises’ (as some of proposed food

and drink premises are located above the first floor); and use of the land for the purpose of ‘cinema-based entertainment facility’.

OverlayClause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1, a permit is required to demolish or remove a building, and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.03 - Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 3)

Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme. This does not apply if a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit may be granted before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.

Clause 1 of Schedule 3 to the IPO states the provisions of Schedule 3 only apply to the following application types:

To use land for the purpose of a licensed hotel, tavern or nightclub with a closing time after 12am.

To extend the licensed hours of trading of a hotel, tavern or nightclub beyond 12am. To increase the number of patrons for a licensed hotel, tavern or nightclub that is

operating after 12am.

It further states a permit may be granted for use or to subdivide land or to construct a building or to construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.

As the proposal does not include a liquor licence, the provisions of Schedule 3 are not applicable. A permit can be granted for use and to construct a building or to construct or carry out works.

Clause 44.05 - Special Building Overlay

Page 20


Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Pursuant to Clause 44.05-5, an application must be referred to the relevant floodplain management authority under section 55 of the Act unless in the opinion of the responsible authority, the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed to in writing between the responsible authority and the floodplain management authority.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land prior to the commencement of a new use. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by the table included in Clause 52.06-5.

According to Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5, the proposal generates the following statutory car parking demand:

Description of use Size Statutory parking rates Statutory requirement

Office 63,164sqm net floor area (NFA)

3.5 spaces per 100sqm of NFA

2,210

cinema-based entertainment facility

2,300 seats 0.3 spaces per patron permitted

690

Restaurant 1127 seats 0.4 spaces to each patron permitted

450

Food and drink premises

4,771sqm net leasable floor area (NLA)

4 to each 100sqm of NLA

190

Supermarket 3,500sqm NLA 5 to each 100sqm of NLA

175

Speciality retail Shop 15,084sqm NLA 4 to each 100sqm of NLA

603

Major speciality retail

Shop 17,163sqm NLA 4 to each 100sqm of NLA

686

Total 5,004 spaces

The application provides a total of 1350 car spaces within the basement levels. Therefore, a reduction in the statutory car parking requirement is needed.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.

According to Table 1 at Clause 52.34-3, the proposal generates the following statutory bicycle parking demand:

Page 21


Therefore, the proposal is required to provide 476 bicycle parking spaces (313 spaces for employees and 163 spaces for visitors). The application includes a total of 750 bicycle parking spaces and 40 change rooms/showers, exceeding the requirement of Clause 52.34.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

The following clauses of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, in addition to those listed above, are particularly relevant to this assessment:

Clause 9 Plan MelbourneClause 11.03 Activity CentresClause 11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 15.03 HeritageClause 17.01 CommercialClause 18.01 Integrated Transport Clause 18.02 Movement networksClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic Development Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.08 Infrastructure Clause 21.09 Reference DocumentsClause 22.04 Heritage PolicyClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Page 22


ADVERTISING

The application has been formally advertised pursuant to section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (note: 4455 letters) and by placing four (4) signs on the site (i.e. 2 facing Chapel Street and 2 facing Garden Street). Furthermore, the permit applicant was required to place a notice in the Stonnington Leader Newspaper for 2 consecutive editions. During the public notification period, two (2) information sessions were held jointly with the permit applicant to assist any interested parties in understanding the proposal. A total of 48 residents and business operators/owners attended the information sessions.

The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The site is located in North Ward and 35 objections (including 1 petition) have been received. The key grounds of objection are:

Built form and heritage Excessive building height and scale Built form along Garden Street Lack of tree planting Heritage impact Removal/dismantle of the chimney

Land uses Excessive hours

Amenity impacts Overshadowing Overlooking/loss of privacy Loss of daylight/sunlight Visual bulk Noise emission Wind tunnel effects Loss of view Devaluation in property Impacts during the construction period

Traffic and parking

Traffic and parking implications Traffic and parking impacts along Garden Street Location of loading docks More traffic to the residential hinterland to the east Safety concerns for pedestrians Removal of the barricade along Palermo Street

A Consultative Meeting was held on 27 February 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Koce, Chandler and Griffin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and three Council planning officers. The meeting did not result in any formal changes to the application. However, as discussed above, the permit applicant has submitted a number of discussion plans as a response to the concerns raised by objectors and Council Officers.

REFERRALS

Page 23


Melbourne Water As part of the subject site is affected by a Special Building Overlay, this application was referred to Melbourne Water under section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Melbourne Water confirmed that it does not object to the proposal, subject to the following conditions:

1. Floor levels must be set at least 300mm above the applicable 1% AEP flood level for the areas of the site reaching 11.92 metres to Australian Height Datum. This is to act as a bund to prevent flood waters moving from the east to the west.

2. The carpark entry and exit areas must be bunded to 12.22 metres to AHD and be shown to be fully tanked.

3. All other floor levels must be maintained as shown on the considered plans.

4. Internal pedestrian footpaths must not solely grade down from Chapel Street to Palfreyman Street as this will result in flood waters entering the site during a flood event.

5. Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the AHD, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water’s requirements.

Advice

Land and floor level information available at Melbourne Water indicates that the above property is subject to flooding from the Essex Main Drain (Dr4812). The applicable 1% AEP flood level is 11.92 metres to Australian Height Datum.

Planner response: Melbourne Water’s conditions and notes will be included in full should a permit be recommended.

Transport for Victoria Pursuant to Clause 66.02-11, an application that (amongst others) involves a new retail premises of 4000 or more square metres of leasable floor area or an office development of 10,000 or more square metres of leasable floor area must be referred to the Head of Transport for Victoria, which is a determining referral authority.

The application was referred to Transport for Victoria accordingly. The Head of Transport for Victoria does not object to the grant of a planning permit subject to the following conditions:

Before construction commences (Including Demolition)

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, without limiting the obligations of the permit holder under the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 (Vic), prior to construction commencing (including demolition), detailed construction/engineering plans and computations must be submitted to, and must be to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria, VicTrack and accredited Rail Transport Operator (RTO) for the protection of the railway land.

The Plans must detail all excavation design and controls of the site adjacent to the railway corridor and any impact on railway land. The Plans must ensure compliance regarding building clearances to aerial power lines as per the applicable Victorian Electrical Safety (Installations) Regulations and design loadings where within 20m of the nearest rail track in compliance with AS5100.2-2017 Design Loads.

Page 24


2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, before the commencement of works including demolition, a Construction Control and Indemnity Agreement must be in place with Public Transport Victoria and VicTrack, at the full cost of the permit holder.

3. Prior to the commencement of the works (including demolition) a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to Public Transport Victoria, VicTrack and RTO for approval. The Construction Management Plan must include details of (but not be limited to) management proposals to minimise impacts to VicTrack & PTV’s assets and the operation of all public transport services and infrastructure during construction, including:

a) Protocols and approval processes for access to the adjoining land, rail environment and designation of any areas to be used under license during the construction process;

b) Approvals and permits required from Public Transport Victoria, VicTrack and the RTO prior to works commencing and prior to accessing the rail environment;

c) Rail safety requirements that must be adhered to by the permit holder;d) Protection of all public transport infrastructure to ensure any infrastructure is not

damaged during demolition or construction;e) Minimising disruption to train & tram services; f) Management of drainage, effluent, material stockpiles, fencing, hoardings to

ensure the rail environment is not used for, or impacted on by these activities outside the development site;

g) Public safety, amenity and site security;h) Operating hours, noise and vibration controls; i) Air and dust management;j) A communication plan with the RTO’S (train and tram).

All construction works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan must be implemented at no cost to and to the satisfaction of VicTrack, Public Transport Victoria and the RTO’S.

4. Prior to the commencement of the works (including demolition), a Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Public Transport Victoria for endorsement, which outlines how traffic will be managed throughout the construction of the development and mitigate impacts to public transport including trains and trams to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria in consultation with Metro Trains Melbourne and Yarra Trams. All traffic management and mitigation costs must be at the full cost of the permit holder and in accordance with the approved Traffic Management Plan to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria. The Plan may interface with any plan requested by the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the commencement of the works (including demolition), the RTO (train and tram) must be contacted to obtain the RTO conditions and safety requirements for works on, over, under or adjacent to public transport land and/or easements and electrical infrastructure. The permit holder must conform to all RTO’s guidelines and instructions.

Prior to the commencement of the Main Works (after demolition)

Page 25


6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, prior to the commencement of the main works an Integrated Transport Plan must be submitted and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria in consultation with Vic Track, Vic Roads (as appropriate) and the Responsible Authority that includes, but is not limited to:

a) The expected demand for travel by people who will work or visit the site and target transport mode split to encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport.

b) Existing public transport and cycling routes, stops and infrastructure (e.g. shelters, signage, pedestrian crossings) within the site and surrounds

c) Bicycle parking rates and the location and layout of any bicycle parking areas including end of trip facilities.

d) Green Travel Plan initiatives, including an employee awareness and education program.

e) The means proposed to encourage the use of public transport to access the site and improve access and facilities appropriate to the scale of the development, including:

i) A plan / design of a level access tram stop on Chapel Street (north and south bound) abutting the development site and any tram stop rationalisation proposed. The plan / design must include any road safety audits required and a review of on street parking and how any reduction will be managed. The plan /design must be suitable for public consultation to occur;

ii) The provision of a network of safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access ways to and through the site connecting with public transport stops and the surrounding area to encourage the use of sustainable travel modes. This should include any future proofing required for pedestrian links to adjoining sites including over the railway corridor (if available). Pedestrian links to South Yarra and Hawksburn stations should also be explored where possible;

iii) The estimated costs of the improved public transport access and facilities proposed;

iv) Detail the consultation / approvals process for the level access stop and how the project / consultation will be managed; and

v) How and when the improved public transport access and facilities proposed will be funded and delivered (if approved) by the permit holder. The funding must include any costs incurred by Public Transport Victoria for document review or construction costs as appropriate.

f) The means proposed to address and mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by the development on the surrounding road network and any unreasonable delays to public transport services including:

i) The investigation of network improvements to improve traffic flows at key intersections to assist with public transport priority; and

ii) The estimated costs of the works, including how and when the works will be

delivered and funded by the permit holder.

Page 26


7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, prior to the occupation of the development, all works identified in the endorsed Integrated Transport Plan as required for improved public transport access and facilities and road mitigation works must be completed at the full cost of the permit holder and to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria, and its agencies as appropriate.

In the event the works identified in the endorsed Integrated Transport Plan cannot be completed prior to the occupation of the development, the owner must make arrangements to enter into an agreement between the Responsible Authority, Transport for Victoria and any other parties as required, pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the timing and delivery of the works in the approved Integrated Transport Plan.

Before occupation of the development, an application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to register the Section 173 Agreement on the title of the development. The permit holder must meet all costs associated with the preparation and execution of the Section 173 Agreement to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria.

8. As built drawings for the foundations to the ground floor level and retention system must be provided to Public Transport Victoria & VicTrack prior to the occupation of the development.

General Conditions

9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with VicTrack, permanent or temporary soil anchors must not be installed on railway land.

10. Any damage to public transport infrastructure as a consequence of the construction works must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria, at the full cost of the permit holder.

11. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruptions to train and tram operations are kept to a minimum during the construction of the development, and in compliance with the Rail and Tram Safety and Environmental requirements.

12. Building materials (including glass/window/ balcony treatments) likely to have an effect on train driver operations along the rail corridor must be non-reflective and avoid using red or green colour schemes, to the satisfaction of the RTO.

13. No lighting is to be erected that throws light onto the railway tracks or which interferes with the visibility of signals and the rail lines by train drivers, to the satisfaction of the RTO. No building or structure is to be erected that interferes with or restricts train driver lines of sight to train signals.

14. The permit holder must meet any RTO and PTV costs required for the development documentation review or construction works associated with the development, as required by the RTO and PTV.

15. No drainage, effluent, waste, soil or other materials must enter or be directed to railway land, or stored or deposited on railway land.

16. Any wall which may be permitted to be located on the railway land boundary must be cleaned and finished using a graffiti resistant finish, or alternative measures used to prevent or reduce the potential of graffiti, to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria,

Page 27


Vic Track and RTO. Any wall which may be permitted to be located on the railway land boundary must not have any fitting, window or doorway which upon opening intrudes into the railway land.

Notes for the Permit:

Works undertaken within railway land must consider all standards and work practices for work within the railway land and conform to all relevant Australian standards including Victorian Rail Industry Operator Group (VRIOG) standards for any interface works and installation of underground utility services, to the satisfaction of the RTO and Public Transport Victoria.

Entry onto railway land is at the discretion of the RTO and is subject to the RTO’s Site Access Procedures and conditions.

Prior to commencement of works, the RTO must be contacted through the email address [email protected] to obtain the RTO’s conditions and safety requirements for works on, over or adjacent to railway land.

Any RTO costs required to review documents or construction plan works within the rail environment must be met by the permit holder.

Planner response: the conditions proposed by Transport for Victoria will be included in full should a permit be recommended.

VicRoads The application was referred to VicRoads under section 52 of the Act. VicRoads has considered the application and has no objection to the proposal. The following comments were provided by VicRoads:

The Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) submitted with the application indicates a car parking reduction of approximately 70% from 4,972 spaces to 1,350 spaces by relying on a significant mode shift to alternative transport options. Given the inner city location with good access to public transport, cycling and walking, as well as a significant local housing base, VicRoads is supportive of this shift.

Also identified in the TIA are precinct opportunities; while it is unlikely that VicRoads can provide funding to assist with the works, it can confirm that it is supportive of tram stop rationalisation/improvement, and exploring possible signal phasing/turn movement/ parking ban modifications.

As Council is aware, VicRoads is also not supportive of signalising the Toorak Road/ Cromwell Road intersection. However, VicRoads is satisfied with the remodelled traffic impacts that divert an additional 10% of the development traffic to the Malvern Road/Surrey Road intersection.

As previously raised with Council, VicRoads considers it appropriate that it be included in any discussions regarding a future pedestrian/cycling connection to Toorak Road via the South Yarra Siding Reserve.

Approvals pending, construction is earmarked for 2019 – 2021, with similar timing and proximity to the Metro Tunnel Project. To help mitigate possible network impacts, VicRoads requests to be informed of any significant staging/transport matters that may affect its interests.

VicTrack

Page 28


The application was referred to VicTrack under section 52 of the Act. VicTrack does not object to the proposal.

Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA)As the proposed development is in close proximity to construction works associated with the Metro Tunnel Project, the application was referred to MMRA under section 52 of the Act. MMRA confirmed it does not object to the grant of a planning permit subject to the inclusion of the following conditions:

1. Before development starts, including demolition and bulk excavation, three (3) copies of a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority. The Construction Management Plan must include details of (but not be limited to) management proposals to minimise impacts to the construction of Melbourne Metro Infrastructure and must set out objectives and performance and monitoring requirements for:

a. The proposed demolition and construction program;b. Preferred arrangement for trucks delivering to the land, including delivery and

unloading and expected duration and frequency;c. An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions

to local services;d. Measures to ensure that all works on the land will be carried out in accordance with

the Construction Management Plans.

2. All demolition and construction works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan must be implemented at no cost to Melbourne Metro Rail Authority.

Planner response: the conditions recommended by MMRA will be included should a permit be recommended.

Urban DesignCouncil’s Urban Designer has reviewed the application material and provided the following comments:

Form, Scale and Streetscape Integration:

The scale and bulk of the building forms above the existing street wall on Chapel Street are excessive and dominate this heritage streetscape.

The scale, bulk and absence of setbacks of the building form at the east end of the site presents an excessively dominant impact on Garden Street.

Overall, the proposal substantially exceeds the ACZ height and setback provisions for this strategic site.

‘Public’ spaces

The ACZ identifies a high-quality ‘Village Square’ as a key requirement within any redevelopment of this site. It would appear that the level of sunlight access in the ‘central square’, throughout the year, is likely to be compromised by significant overshadowing from the adjoining office tower(s) and the elevated walkways along the Northern edge of the space.

Wind modelling

Given the number and configuration of ‘laneways’, and the scale of the buildings framing these spaces, a major issue will be controlling adverse wind effects. Wind

Page 29


tunnel testing will be necessary at this stage to obtain the required level of confidence regarding the extent of design changes required to mitigate wind effects.

Security

Given the extensive nature of the proposed ‘publicly accessible’ spaces at ground level and on upper-level terraces; public security will be an issue to be addressed at this early design stage.

A security strategy should be developed for the proposed range of ‘public’ spaces.

Crowd modelling

Considering the intended range of uses (office, retail, supermarket, cinemas etc.), and the varying patterns of activity that these uses will generate during the course of the day and evening, it will be necessary to model pedestrian behaviours to test the sufficiency of laneway egress points and the ‘overspill’ effects on limited-width footpaths along the Chapel Street and Garden Street frontages.

Planner response: the applicant submitted a detailed wind modelling report, a crowd modelling report and a high-level security strategy as a response to the issues raised by Council’s Urban Designer. The responses are generally considered to be acceptable. Should a permit be recommended, updated wind modelling and security management plan will be required to ensure the comfort and security of the public realm and publicly accessible open space.

With regard to the concerns regarding form, scale and streetscape integration, for reasons outlined later, modifications to the built form will be required via conditions. Council’s Urban Designer is supportive of the proposed built form changes.

Heritage Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments in relation to the proposed development:

Demolition

The proposal is for extensive demolition of the existing buildings resulting in the retention of Chapel Street and some Garden Street facades, along with limited return walls.

Of particular concern is the demolition of the chimney and the remnant early external walls (particularly along the former lane which acts as an eastern extension to Fitzgerald Street).

The chimney is a key symbol of the complex and as indicated above is one of the few elements to be identified as important to the heritage significance of the site. It would be preferable if it could be retained in its present form, but failing that a reconstruction as proposed will ensure that the symbolic nature of the chimney is sustained.

The remnant walls along the internal laneway have been dramatically altered over time and are now supported above ground floor level on a concrete beam and column structure. They are important archaeological remnants of the development of the site, both as an industrial and commercial complex and given that this lane is to be opened up as an access point into the complex it would seem appropriate that these remnants be retained.

Other remnant internal walls are so compromised that there seems little point in seeking their retention.

Page 30


Refurbishment works

They are generally positive and set out to provide a more appropriate presentation to both Chapel and Garden Streets. These are supportable.

New works

The proposed new buildings are extensive and for much of the site will have little impact on the heritage significance of the Jam Factory or the Chapel Street precinct.

However, the proposal to construct new levels above the Chapel Street and Garden Street facades with minimal setbacks is not appropriate.

The heritage guidelines are clear in their desire to achieve setbacks of 8-10m and in this instance the site is so large that this should be readily achievable.

Conclusion

The general thrust of the proposal can be supported in heritage terms.

The extent of demolition of early fabric is too extensive and efforts should be made to retain a greater amount of that fabric, particularly the former external walls along the Fitzgerald Street extension.

The new buildings have insufficient setbacks from the retained Chapel and Garden Street facades.

The demolition and reconstruction of the chimney is not overly desirable, but if done properly will maintain the symbolic value of the structure.

Overall the site provides plenty of room for new development and there is no reason to further diminish the evidence of the former industrial buildings on the site.

Planner response: the heritage issues will be discussed in detail in the assessment section of the report. The proposed changes to the built form will alleviate the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the building and place.

Transport and Parking Council’s Transport Engineers have reviewed the application and provided the following initial comments:

The Traffic Impact Assessment submitted in support of the development appears to be reliant on ambitious modal shift targets to justify a significant under-supply of car parking against the requirements of the Planning Scheme. This is appropriate from a strategic standpoint, however it is unclear what practical impact this would create on existing residents and traders.

The proposal includes 1,350 parking spaces, which represents a shortfall from the Planning Scheme requirement of 3,622 spaces.

The overall concept of reducing the private vehicle demand in favour of walking, cycling, and public transport is reasonable. However, the Transport and Parking Unit must consider what the actual impact of such a development would be in the area. While high-level strategic targets are ideal, it is a concern that a development of the scale proposed would simply swamp the surrounding area.

It appears that the traffic generation is optimistically low for a development of the scale proposed, and that even considering this low generation it is still likely to create significant operational issues.

At this early stage consideration of the specific parking layout would be premature, with the issues of overall provision and traffic generation of greater importance.

Page 31


In broad terms the loading arrangements described in the TIA appear appropriate, and can be considered satisfactory.

As with the car parking design, at this early stage consideration of the specific bicycle parking design would be premature.

The Transport and Parking Unit has a fundamental concern with the proposed change to the Cromwell Road/Toorak Road intersection, remote from the site, to benefit this development.

The Transport and Parking Unit is more likely to recommend the permanent closure of Garden Street near Cromwell Road (as an example) to mitigate the impact of east-west movement through the local road network.

The proposed tram super stop is outside the scope of the development, and is a matter for Council to consider with the appropriate authorities.

There is no in-principle objection to the proposed Garden Street porte cochere, but more information is required as to how this will be managed, and what impact this would have on Garden Street traffic.

Following receipt of the above comments, the permit applicant’s traffic consultants have provided additional information relating to the proposed mode shift, specific measures to achieve the target mode shift and potential impact if the desired mode shift is not achieved. The following further comments were made by Council’s Transport Engineers upon receipt of the additional information:

The Transport and Parking Unit is comfortable with a travel demand management approach for the development, and does not want any more car parking than is currently proposed;

The Transport and Parking Unit is reasonably comfortable that the opportunity for car parking beyond what is provided on site is limited, so those future workers/traders at the development who do not have car parking will be unlikely to find it in the surrounding road network. The measures proposed for the development to drive mode change are also considered reasonable. Whether this is sufficient to drive a high modal change for office employees to public transport is unknown, but driving is highly unlikely to be the back-up option.

The Transport and Parking Unit would like more clarity around the actual proposed pedestrian linkage improvements.

Planner response: for reasons outlined in the assessment section of the report, it is considered that the mode shift proposed by the applicant is achievable through the implementation of a number of measures. Given the constrained capacity of the existing road network, Council’s Transport Engineers have advised against the provision of more parking spaces within the basement levels. With regard to enhanced connections to public transport, the permit applicant has provided a plan that shows possible works towards an improved link to Hawksburn Railway Station. Specifics of the works can be required by way of permit conditions. The applicant has also agreed to contribute to an improved pedestrian link to South Yarra Railway Station, which will be discussed further in the report.

City Strategy The following referral comments were offered by Council’s City Strategy Unit:

Page 32


It is understood that certain built form components of the proposed development far exceed the preferred maximum building height and setbacks within ACZ1, and also will result in significant overshadowing of the southern footpath of Garden Street at the equinox.

The proposed development aligns with Council’s vertical zoning objectives to activate street frontages and facilitate employment-generating uses within the activity centre.

The proposed development is considered to comply with the building adaptability provisions, providing floor to floor heights ranging from 6 metres at lower level retail levels to 4 metres at upper level commercial levels.

The proposed development provides a highly permeable layout for pedestrians, connecting a number of internal plazas and open spaces across multiple levels.

The design incorporates the heritage-listed chimney into a key public plaza, allowing it to remain as a prominent feature within the built form.

The proposed development does not provide a new pedestrian link to Surrey Road Park as it is considered physically impossible to deliver due to site constraints.

The proposed development is considered to generally comply with the objectives of Chapel reVision, providing a high-quality retail/commercial redevelopment of this key site.

There is concern with the significant exceedances proposed to the preferred maximum building heights throughout the development.

InfrastructureThe application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Engineers, who provided the following comments: The applicable flood level in Chapel Street is 12.04m A.H.D.

The minimum ground floor level must be at least 12.24m A.H.D. (200mm above the flood level) meaning that the proposed ground floor level will need to be raised significantly.

The lower ground level may be possible as proposed however it must be protected from any possible flooding to a level of 12.24m A.H.D. All windows, doors, openings and vents etc. to the lower ground floor (and to all basement levels) must be at or above 12.24m A.H.D. Infrastructure will need to re-assess the application regarding this lower ground floor once the above ground floor levels are revised as above.

A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design. Please do not state drainage design to satisfaction of Council, that is the responsibility of the relevant building surveyor to check and approve in accordance with the report and ‘recommendations’ for the legal point of discharge.

The existing footpath levels of Garden Street must not be altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line.

Page 33


Planner response: in light of Melbourne Water’s comments, it is considered that the proposal will not be subject to unreasonable flooding risk. The conditions recommended by Council’ Infrastructure Engineer will be included in full, should a permit be recommended.

Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)Council’s ESD Officer provided the following initial comments on the application:

Given the scale of the development, the applicant should commit to Green Star certification, preferably at 6 star level.

Ensure that the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) and plans provide a response and meet all of Council’s mandatory Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) requirements such as appropriate shading to the extensive external glazing on northern, western and eastern facades.

Applicant to note that Council does not accept connection of trafficable terrace areas to rainwater tanks. A revised stormwater response is required as a minimum.

Planner response: should the application be recommended for approval, permit conditions will be included to address the issues raised by Council’s ESD Officer.

Parks Council’s Arborist has reviewed the application and offered the following comments:

The current footpath along Chapel Street is 2.5m wide. The proposal indicates new trees along the Chapel Street frontage of the property with pedestrians moving either side of the new trees. This would require the width of the current footpath to be extended to at least 3.5-4m to enable this type of pedestrian movement. The application indicates the potential for this to occur, but would obviously need support from Council’s Transport and Asset Management unit.

Any street tree planting along this frontage must utilise strata cell infrastructure.

More detail will need to be provided with regards to the proposed awning attached to the building along the Chapel Street frontage, and how this may affect the ability to establish mature tree canopies in the space provided.

All of the landscape elements within the site are above basement. Sufficient soil volume and irrigation will be paramount to ensure any landscape content (particularly trees at 6-8m in height) survives in this environment. Engineering storm water outlets to filter through landscaped areas could alleviate the irrigation requirements.

Planner response: should the application be recommended for approval, permit conditions will be included to address the issues raised by Council’s Arborist.

Waste Management The Waste Management Plan is generally satisfactory for this development as

proposed.

Swept path diagrams are required to confirm HRVs can access each of the waste compactors at the western end of the loading dock.

Documentation is required to confirm the truck lifts have a minimum SWL of 30 tonnes.

Any Planning Permit issued for this development should require the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan.

Planner response: an updated Waste Management Plan will be required to address the issues raised by Council’s Waste Management Unit.

Page 34


Corporate and Community Planning Overall, the proposed redevelopment delivers many socio-economic benefits to the

local area. However, the construction period (such as traffic movements, noise, dust, and loss of parking) could significantly impact local resident amenity and wider community.

A Construction Management Plan should be required, which must be consistent with EPA requirements and best practice site construction techniques to address community concerns.

It is recommended that the planning assessment (or via permit conditions) considers:

Community benefit outcome: Potentially contribute a serviced office for local social enterprise business/cooperatives/business incubator/start-ups etc; available for young people, disadvantaged people etc.

A pedestrian linkage from the Jam Factory site to the Surrey Road Park in accordance with Chapel reVision.

Increased landscaping along Garden Street.

Provide better visual/direction way finding to direct commuters to South Yarra Train station

Be explicit that the tram stop is an accessible tram stop.

Require installation and monitoring CCTV in internal spaces.

In the long-term, there is an opportunity for the state government and developers to investigate opportunity for a train station to be built. It is likely that a new station would attract significant patronage, especially with the redevelopment of the Jam Factory site (and its surroundings in the longer term as part of a revised Chapel reVision).

KEY ISSUES

Over the past century, the Jam Factory site has evolved from a site used for brewing and malting, to jam making, a shopping centre and an entertainment complex. Extensive buildings and works have been undertaken over the years and the site has expanded to the east absorbing the modest dwellings and eventually occupied much of the block bounded by Chapel Street, the railway line and Garden Street. The proposal at hand seeks to evolve the site to become ‘a new district, a breathing space, and a destination of shopping, eating and working’ (as described by the applicant). Due to the significant land size and single ownership, the Jam Factory site presents a rare major redevelopment opportunity within the Chapel Street Activity Centre. The proposal has many positive features and the potential to significantly change the vitality of the Activity Centre. However, whilst this rare opportunity should not be missed or approached in a timid manner, it does not create an ‘open slather’ situation. Many nearby residents are concerned that the proposal is an overdevelopment that will adversely impact on the character, heritage value and amenity of the area. They consider the proposal will worsen the traffic and parking problems and unreasonably impact on their amenity.

In deciding the application, Council has to consider the following key questions:

Is there policy justification for the proposed development? Are the proposed land uses acceptable? Is the design response acceptable? Would the proposal cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts? Will the proposal result in unacceptable traffic and parking impacts?

Page 35


Is the proposal exposed to unreasonable flooding risk?

IS THERE POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT?

There is no doubt that the proposal enjoys strong strategic support. Located in the heart of the Prahran/South Yarra Major Activity Centre, the Jam Factory site is of a rare large single-lot size in the inner south-east region. It is specifically nominated as one of five Key Strategic Development Sites within the Chapel Street Activity Centre.

The subject land is zoned Activity Centre (Schedule 1), which includes the following land use and development objectives (amongst others):

to provide a premier shopping, business, civic, cultural and entertainment destination in a local, metropolitan and national context;

to provide a range of uses that are accessible to all and complement the role of the Activity Centre;

to provide a diversity of retail, hospitality, entertainment, medical and community and cultural uses and a range of employment choices including corporate, boutique and incubator offices;

to facilitate the redevelopment and/or revitalisation of identified Key Strategic Development Sites and Response Sites consistent with the requirements of this Schedule; and

to avoid the underdevelopment of land in the Activity Centre.

The proposal is of strategic benefit to the Chapel Street Activity Centre as it offers a genuine mix of land uses (including office, retail, restaurant, food and drinks premises and cinema) at a substantial scale. It will make a significant contribution to the on-going vitality and diversity of the Activity Centre and strengthen its role as a premier shopping, business, civic, cultural and entertainment destination.

At the State policy level, the Planning Policy Framework encourages development to be located in or close to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport so as to make efficient use of existing infrastructure. The proposed development is consistent with the overarching themes of the State policies because:

the subject site is located within a Major Activity Centre where substantial change is encouraged. The proposal is in accordance with the objective and direction of Clause 11.03-2, which encourages ‘the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural development into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community’.

the proposal will create thousands of new employment opportunities, which is consistent with Clause 11.06-1 that seeks to ‘improve access to jobs across Melbourne and closer to where people live’ and direction 1.2 of Plan Melbourne 2017 - 2050.

the subject site is highly accessible to public transport, with South Yarra and Hawksburn Railway Stations located within walking distance and trams along Chapel Street, Commercial Road and Toorak Road. The proposal accords with the objective of Clause 15.02-1 that seeks to ‘promote consolidation of urban development and integration of land use and transport.’

At the Local policy level, Council’s policies promote the Prahran/South Yarra Activity Centre as a core area for retail and commercial expansions. Clause 21.04-1 designates this Activity Centre as a regional centre with both local and regional roles accommodating larger scale

Page 36


retail uses, complementary entertainment uses and goods and services to meet every day and specialty needs. The proposal is consistent with the designated role of the Chapel Street Activity Centre.

Over the years, there has been a trend of a relative reduction of commercial space compared with higher yield residential uses within the Chapel Street Activity Centre. Consequently, Chapel reVision introduced the concept of vertical zoning in order to strike a balance between the supply of space for employment and residential uses within the Activity Centre. The proposal has the potential to deliver approximately 5,000 additional jobs, around five times the total jobs created in Stonnington between 2011 and 2016. It will increase local employment activities and help to achieve one of the underlying objectives of Chapel reVision.

The above being said, the strong policy support does not mean anything goes. There are numerous references in the Stonnington Planning Scheme that call for design responses that are appropriate to the physical and strategic context, without unreasonable impacts on the amenity within the Activity Centre and surrounding residential neighbourhoods. A right balance must be struck between ‘seizing the development opportunity’ and responding to its location in terms of heritage and urban design.

ARE THE PROPOSED LAND USES ACCEPTABLE?

The proposal includes a range of land uses comprising office, shop, supermarket, food and drink premises, restaurant and cinema based entertainment facility. In general terms, the mix of land uses is supported and will contribute to the on-going vitality of the Chapel Street Activity Centre. However, some of the objectors are concerned with this aspect of the proposal, especially the proposed operating hours and associated amenity impacts such as noise emission and misbehaviour of patrons.

As the subject land is in an Activity Centre Zone, some of the proposed land uses are as-of-right uses and do not require planning permission. In order to assess the appropriateness of the proposed uses, it is necessary to firstly understand which use requires planning permission and then examine the impacts of each use that requires permission.

Office

‘Office’ is a key component of the proposal. It triggers the need for planning permission because the frontage at ground floor exceeds 2m.

Council’s Economic Development strategic theme at Clause 21.04 promotes the Chapel Street Activity Centre as the primary mixed use office employment precinct in Stonnington. A key land use objective of the ACZ1 is to provide a range of employment choices within the Activity Centre. The propose office use is consistent with the policy direction and will make a significant contribution to the diversity, vibrancy and employment function of the Activity Centre.

In regard to the proposed operating hours, the proposed office spaces are intended to operate in a similar manner to those found in the CBD or inner-city areas with the main amount of activity concentrated around standard business hours, but occasionally outside the normal hours. Given the nature of the office use (i.e. relatively low impact), the zoning of the subject land and its immediate surrounding area (i.e. Activity Centre Zone) and the necessity of allowing flexibility to the office tenants to operate, it is considered appropriate not to restrict the operating hours of the office use.

Cinema based entertainment facility

Page 37


The proposed development includes a 2,300 seats cinema. ‘Cinema-based entertainment facility’ is a section 2 use (i.e. permit required use) pursuant to Clause 3 of the ACZ1. Given the existing Jam Factory complex includes a cinema that has more than 3,000 seats, this aspect of the proposal is considered to be acceptable. The cinema component will complement the role of the Chapel Street Activity Centre as a designated destination for entertainment.

In order to minimise the amenity impacts associated with the cinema, it is considered necessary to restrict the operating hours to match that of the existing cinema (as per condition 3 of amended Permit No. 21/96) as follows:

10:00am to 1am the following day, Sunday to Wednesday; and 10:00am to 3:00am the following day, Thursday to Saturday.

In addition to the above hours, a maximum of ten movie marathons per annum may be held on a day before a declared public holiday and on such occasions the Cinema may operate until 10am the following day.

Shop / Supermarket

Pursuant to Clause 3 of the ACZ1, ‘shop’ (other than adult sex bookshop, bottle shop and restricted retail premises) is an as-of-right use provided it is not on land with a frontage to Sub-Precinct Greville Village-6 (GV-6). The subject land does not have a frontage to GV-6. Therefore, no permit is required to use the land for the purpose of ‘shop’.

According to the land use definitions at Clause 74, ‘shop’ has a broad definition and includes ‘supermarket’. As such, the proposed supermarket, speciality retail and major speciality shops do not require planning permit. Should the applicant wish to operate bottle shops and/or restricted retail premises (such as furniture stores and white goods stores), additional planning permission will be needed.

Food and drink premises / restaurants

Pursuant to Clause 3 of the ACZ1, ‘food and drink premises’ (other than hotel, convenience restaurant and tavern) is a section 1 use provided it is located at ground or first floor.

‘Food drink premises’ is a broad land use term. It includes ‘convenience restaurant’, ‘hotel’, ‘restaurant’, ‘take away food premises’ and ‘tavern’.

The proposed development includes food and drink premises on levels 2, 3, 7 and 14, which therefore triggers the need for planning permission. It is important to note the food and drink premises located on the ground and first floor levels do not require planning permission as long as they are not a hotel, convenience restaurant or tavern.

Given the scale and location of the proposed food and drink premises on levels 2, 3, 7 and 14, they are unlikely to cause unacceptable amenity impacts. Moreover, the tenants will be subject to the management of the permit applicant, who has a strong interest in ensuring and maintaining the safety, order and enjoyment of the complex. As a result, this aspect of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

With regard to the concern that the subject land may become a hub of bars, taverns and nightclubs and give rise to alcohol related problems, additional planning permission will be required should the permit applicant seek to operate such premises. Notably, this application does not include any liquor licence.

Page 38


In light of the above, the proposed land uses are consistent with the designated role of the Chapel Street Activity Centre and it is considered that they will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts subject to conditions.

IS THE DESIGN RESPONSE ACCEPTABLE?

This is one of the most critical issues of the assessment. As part of the subject land (including the chimney) is included in a Heritage Overlay, there is a threshold question as to whether the proposed extent of demolition is acceptable. If the answer is yes, it is then necessary to examine how the proposal responds to the heritage requirements and the site context.

Given the complexity of this proposal and the number of permit triggers, it is proposed to approach this issue through the exploration of following sub-questions:

a) Is the proposed extent of demolition (including the chimney) acceptable?b) How will the proposed buildings and works (especially Buildings T1, T2, T3 and T8)

impact on the heritage significance of the building and place?c) Is Building T4 acceptable to the site context?d) Are Buildings T5 and T6 responsive to the site context, especially given their height?e) Does Building T7 provide an acceptable response?f) Are the proposed public realm improvement works acceptable?g) How does the proposal respond to the ACZ1 requirements and guidelines?h) How does the proposal respond to the urban design principles at Clause 15.01-2?

Each of the above questions will be dealt with in turn.

Is the proposed extent of demolition (including the chimney) acceptable?

Part of the subject land is included in a Heritage Overlay and has a grading of A2. The proposal seeks to remove the existing buildings behind the heritage facades to Chapel and Garden Streets. The chimney is proposed to be dismantled and reconstructed in the same location.

According to the 2011 heritage citation for the Jam Factory, there are limited remains of the original nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings on the site. On Chapel Street, the facades of the original or early buildings have been extensively altered. The Chapel Street facades include a combination of original face brick and recent cement render, with regular bays defined by brick pilasters, and large simple glazed openings of square, rectilinear and arched forms. More original window openings are retained at first floor level at the southern end of the façade. On Garden Street, the frontage retains the brick return of the corner building to Chapel Street. The two-storey bluestone façade of the adjoining building is substantially intact. There are some original walls retained within the interior of the complex, which are of limited view from the public realm and are not subject to internal alteration controls.

In short, the existing Jam Factory buildings are not typical A2 graded buildings in terms of their intactness and integrity, or the degree to which they retain their original fabric and form. As stated in the heritage citation, the buildings are significant because:

they are a reminder of the former industrial character of the South Yarra area, and especially of the brewery and maltings.

Page 39


they are of historical significance as the headquarters of the Australian Jam Company (AJC) and Henry Jones IXL, major names in the history of the Victorian food industry.

they are of social significance as an illustration of an early phase of local manufacturing and as a major local employer through the twentieth century.

they are of local significance as a landmark and contributory element within the popular Chapel Street shopping entertainment strip.

Council’s Heritage Policy and Heritage Design Guidelines 2017 discourage demolition of significant buildings (including but not limited to significant building fabric, the primary building volume, original fences, outbuildings, gardens and other features identified in the statement of significance or heritage assessment) unless it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply:

The demolition is minor in scale.

The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

The replacement development is sympathetic to the scale, setback and significance of the heritage place.

The proposed extent of demolition is not minor in scale and goes beyond what is normally anticipated for A2 graded buildings. Notwithstanding this, it is considered to be acceptable and will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage building and place for the following reasons:

The existing Jam Factory buildings are significant largely because of historical and social reasons, rather than being a fine example of architectural design. The proposal will maintain its role as a landmark within the Chapel Street shopping entertainment strip.

Many of the fabrics that are proposed to be demolished are modern fabrics (such as the glazed rooftop additions associated with the existing cinema) or modified early fabric, which have no or limited heritage value.

The sections to be demolished are generally not visible from the street and do not involve the principal facades as expressed to Chapel and Garden Streets.

Although Council’s Heritage Advisor considers the remnant walls along the internal laneway to be important archaeological remnants of the development, there are no internal alteration controls to require the retention of the internal remnant walls.

Removal and reconstruction of the chimney is an undesirable but unavoidable outcome. As the proposal involves the construction of six levels of basement, it is not possible to retain the chimney for safety and structural reasons. The heritage impact of the demolition of the existing chimney is moderated by its reconstruction to the same overall form, appearance and detail in the same location. Council’s Heritage Advisor considers that if the reconstruction is properly done, the symbolic value of the chimney will be maintained.

The proposed demolition is justified in the context of the overall development proposal. As Warren CJ found in Boroondara CC v 1045 Burke Road [2015] VSCA 27, the question of whether the proposed extent of demolition is acceptable is part of an

Page 40


integrated decision making process and must not be considered in isolation without regard for the other triggered permit requirements and the overall proposal.

How will the proposed buildings and works (especially Buildings T1, T2, T3 and T8) impact on the heritage significance of the building and place?

The proposal seeks to refurbish and restore the Chapel Street and Garden Street facades. The more intact first floor facades and parapets to both street frontages will largely be retained, with repairs and restorations where necessary. On Chapel Street, the existing glass shopfronts and doors at the ground floor will be removed and replaced. A brick column will be reinstated at the southern end of the façade. On Garden Street, the existing glass shopfront will be removed and replaced as well. Another brick column will be reinstated to the return ground floor façade of the corner building. With regard to the brick façade to Garden Street, the ground floor panels between the pilasters will be removed and replaced by framework and glass. The height of these openings will be increased, with the plinths also removed.

The proposed refurbishment and restoration works are supported as they will contribute to the heritage value of the building. Notably, they are strongly supported by Council’s Heritage Advisor. In order to ensure the refurbishment and restoration works are appropriate, elevations of the Chapel Street and Garden Street heritage facades at a scale of 1:50 will be required via conditions. The elevations must detail all the refurbishment and restoration works.

As shown in Figure 1, Buildings T1, T2 and T3 are positioned behind the retained heritage facades and (partly) within HO126. Given their location and scale, they have the potential to significantly impact on the heritage value of the building and place. Therefore, they must be closely examined against the heritage policies/guidelines, and the built form controls within the ACZ1. Building T8 is located at the north-western concern of the subject land. Although it is outside the heritage overlay, due to its direct frontage along Chapel Street, its impact on the Chapel Street streetscape also warrants close examination.

The subject land has a frontage of 119m along Chapel Street, which is both a benefit and a constraint. In determining a major redevelopment proposal at 402 – 416 Chapel Street (Chapel Plaza Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2015] VCAT 1730), the Tribunal found the overwhelming character of the section of Chapel Street between Commercial Road to the south and the railway line to the north is one of two storey Victorian shopfronts. This finding is supported by the heritage precinct citation for the Chapel Street Precinct (HO126). Some key passages of relevance from the citation are as follows:

Chapel Street is a remarkably intact commercial strip comprised principally of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century shops (on page 1).

Streetscapes north of Commercial Road retain long sequences of shops and retail groups of ornate boom-era premises such as Conway’s buildings (Nos 411-25), 293-401 and the intact group to the east side of Chapel Street between Malvern Road and Grey Street, alongside important Edwardian premises such as the group at Nos 403-409 (2nd paragraph on page 2).

Elements which contribute to the significance of the precinct include the consistent two-storey height and modest scale of the built form north of Commercial Road and south of High Street … (4th paragraph on page 2).

Chapel Street is architecturally significant for its intact streetscape of nineteenth and early twentieth century commercial buildings, particularly its concentration of boom

Page 41


period shops and its large, early twentieth century shopping emporia usually more closely associated with the central city shopping area. These emporia are architecturally significant for the large range of styles used and their references to American rather than British antecedents. Whilst a number of remarkable buildings and urban environments survive around Chapel Street, it is the general level of intactness and the consistency of scale within each block that makes the whole street one of great importance (pages 2-3).

Chapel Street, South Yarra largely comprises substantially intact streetscapes of shops dating from the boom of the 1880s. These include Nos 411-25, 393-401 and many others. Some later buildings contribute to the character and significance of the streetscape, most notably the unusual Edwardian retail group (403 – 409A) and the Jam Factory group (No 500) which dominates the northern section of the Heritage Overlay Area. Some modern infill has been constructed locally. However, with the exception of 402-416 Chapel Street, this tends to reinforce the local scale and early character of the precinct (2nd paragraph on page 6).

The high level of sensitivity of this section of Chapel Street constitutes a significant constraint on how much new built form can be realistically accommodated. Council’s Heritage Policy requires that upper level additions and alterations in commercial areas:

are set back behind the primary building volume.

complement the height, scale and setbacks of any adjoining significant or contributory buildings.

result in storey heights to complement the alignment of the primary building volume.

are generally contained within an envelope created by projecting a sight line from 1.7 metres above ground level on the opposite side of the street.

present minimal bulk from oblique views.

do not obscure vistas and view lines to significant buildings.

Starting with Building T8 - it presents to Chapel Street as a three-storey building with a maximum height of 19m. Although its height generally complies with the preferred maximum height in the ACZ1 (i.e. 18m), it exceeds the 12m preferred maximum street wall height requirement and does not include a 4m setback for the upper levels. However, a variation to the requirements is considered to be acceptable and T8 will not significantly detract from the heritage value of the streetscape. As shown in Figure 7 below, the existing building that T8 seeks to replace has a height of 17.2m and does not include any upper level setback. T8 is of a comparable height, but with a significantly reduced breadth (i.e. 16m vs 26m). Furthermore, T8 has a vastly improved architectural quality. Therefore, T8 will not cause greater impact on the Chapel Street streetscape than the existing building does, if not an improvement.

Page 42


Figure 7: Existing building at the north-western corner

Turning to Building T3 - it occupies the central section of the Chapel Street frontage and sits behind the key section of the Chapel Street heritage façade. T3 has a breadth of approximately 50m and a maximum height of 39m. The upper levels are generally setback between 5.1m and 5.2m from the Chapel Street frontage, with the exception of level 3 (which includes the elevated garden terrace) and level 7 (which includes a restaurant) that is setback 9.09m and 14.84m from Chapel Street respectively. Notably, a 14.4m wide and 3.5m deep recess in provided along the central of the front (west) elevation of level 4 to level 6.

The ACZ1 controls set out a preferred maximum height of 18m, with a 5m setback above the street wall. Although T3 generally complies with the setback requirement, it exceeds the preferred maximum building height significantly. Figure 8 below is a section through T3. The area highlighted in yellow sits outside the ACZ1 envelope. The red line represents a sight line taken from 1.7 metres above ground level on the opposite side of Chapel Street.

Figure 8: Section through Building T3

Whilst the ‘mere visibility’ of new built form should not in itself be treated as a negative factor, Figure 8 highlights the significant building mass of T3 and its dominating effect on the identified one to two storey scale along this section of Chapel Street. At a height that is more than double the preferred building height, it is considered that T3 does not respond sympathetically to the overwhelming character of this section of Chapel Street. The proposed upper level setbacks (i.e. between 5.1m and 5.2m) are minimal and achieve little in reducing the visual bulk of the upper levels or retaining the primacy of the heritage facades.

Page 43


In response to this issue, the permit applicant has suggested setting back the upper levels (i.e. levels 4, 5 and 6) by another 5m to reduce their visual prominence. It is considered that the increased setback will temper the visual bulk of the upper levels to a generally acceptable level, subject to the following additional changes:

The recess in the central portion of level 4 to level 6 to be pushed back accordingly to ensure its minimum depth of 3.5m. The recess is important in breaking up the breadth of the upper levels and must not be lost as a result of the increased upper level setback.

Level 3 to be setback an additional 4m from the Chapel Street frontage. Level 3 is cantilevered by the levels above to appear as a separation between the facades and the levels above. It is designed to reinforce the primacy of the heritage facades and to “float” the upper levels. In order to ensure the role of level 3 is not diminished by the increased upper level setback, it must be setback accordingly from the Chapel Street frontage.

With regard to Building T1 - it is located at the corner of Chapel and Garden Streets. Building T1 has a maximum height of 43m (9 storeys). Due to its lantern shape, the upper levels (i.e. from level 4 upwards) are setback between 5.2m and 5.96m from the Chapel Street frontage, and between 5.7m and 6.38m from the Garden Street frontage.

According to the ACZ1, Building T1 should have a preferred maximum height of 18m, with the level above the existing street wall setback at least 5m from the Chapel Street façade. Building T1 as proposed does not meet the requirements as illustrated in Figure 9 below. The applicant submits that a prominent built form is justified as the corner of Chapel and Garden Streets needs to be ‘celebrated’. Furthermore, reference to the larger and monumental buildings observed throughout Chapel Street was made to justify the scale and setback of T1. In addition, it was argued that views of pedestrians moving along Chapel Street are typically confined to the retail podium at the lower levels.

Figure 9: section of Building T1 that is outside the ACZ1 envelope (highlighted in yellow)

It is true that corner sites, in certain contexts, might be capable of accommodating stronger built form because they bookend the street and form a transition point. It is considered that the corner of Chapel and Garden Streets, however, does not provide such a setting to justify the insertion of a significant built form. Both Chapel Street and the western end of Garden Street are included in a Heritage Overlay, featuring one to two storey building scale.

Page 44


Throughout the Stonnington Planning Scheme, there is no specific reference that calls for celebration of this corner. In contrast, the Scheme lends support for a design response that emphasises the corner of Chapel Street and Toorak Road, and the corner of Chapel Street and Dandenong Road. The ACZ1 envelope for the south-western corner of the subject land clearly indicates a tempered design response is needed to respect the identified heritage streetscape. Council’s Built Environment and Heritage Policy at Clause 21.06-4 also encourages development to be designed to address both street frontages on corner sites.

The reference to the large-scale emporium buildings further south and the high rise buildings further north is considered to be flawed. The emporia are located between Commercial Road and High Street. The Chapel Street heritage precinct stretches over 1.7 kilometres and includes different sections that contribute to the significance of the precinct in different ways. As stated in the heritage citation, the ‘consistent two-storey height and modest scale of the built form north of Commercial Road and south of High Street’ and the ‘pre-eminence of the Edwardian-era emporia between Commercial Road and High Street’ are two distinguishable elements that contribute to the significance of the precinct. The high rise buildings further north are outside the Heritage Overlay and form part of a designated area for high density development. In Chapel Plaza, the Tribunal emphasised that the section of Chapel Street between Commercial Road and the railway line is ‘more low-key and low rise’. It is this character that any development on the Jam Factory site needs to respond.

With regard to the argument that pedestrians moving along Chapel Street will have restricted views to the levels above the retail podium, no doubt the retail offer in Chapel Street will be attractive, but this does not mean built form behind the podium will go unnoticed. At a height of 43m, with a mere setback in the order of 5m – 6m, Building T1 will be visually dominating in short and more distant views.

In order to address the visual impact of T1 and its impact on the heritage streetscape, the following changes are recommended:

Firstly, deletion of level 8. This will bring down the height of Building T1 from 43m (9 storeys) to approximately 39m (8 storeys). Although it will be one storey taller than the modified Building T3, the reduction in height will contribute towards mitigating the visual impact of Building T1 and strikes a reasonable balance between the various competing objectives.

Secondly, increase the setback of level 4 to level 6 from Chapel Street by at least 3m. This will achieve a relatively consistent upper level setback with the modified Building T3.

Thirdly, level 3 to be setback from the Chapel Street to match level 3 of Building T3. The increased recess will reinforce the heritage facades below.

In relation to Building T2, it has a maximum height of 43m to the parapet (9 storeys). It includes a three-storey (i.e. 18.2m) street wall along Garden Street. The upper levels (i.e. levels 3 to 8) are setback between 6.24m and 6.39m from Garden Street. Building T2 is directly opposite a recently constructed 11-storey (i.e. 34m) development at 8-12A Garden Street & 60 Bray Street. This building is built to the Garden Street frontage, save for the eastern two thirds of the fifth to tenth floors, which include a setback of 2m from Garden Street.

The ACZ1 stipulates a preferred maximum height of 40m and a minimum of 12m setback above the street wall. Building T2 generally complies with the building height requirement, but not the upper level setback requirement.

Page 45


The western end of the Garden Street (east of 478 Chapel Street) features larger built form with relatively small setbacks from Garden Street. The proposed upper level setback of Building T2 is considered to be appropriate in this context. For reasons outlined below, Building T2 will not cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts.

Is Building T4 acceptable to the site context?

Building T4 is located to the east of Building T3. At a height of 9 storeys (i.e. 43m to the parapet), T4 is setback approximately 32m from Chapel Street, and between 17.3m and 18.9m from the northern boundary.

The height of Building T4 generally matches the preferred maximum building height (i.e. 40m). Due to its location and setbacks, it will have limited impact on the Chapel Street streetscape or the amenity of the residential area to the north. The design details of Building T4 are considered to be appropriate. Overall, it is considered that Building T4 provides an acceptable response to its site context.

Are Buildings T5 and T6 responsive to the site context, especially given their height?

Buildings T5 and T6 are the tallest elements (i.e. 72m - 15 storeys) of the proposal. They are purposely placed in the middle section of the subject land, against the northern boundary, so as to minimise their impacts on both Chapel and Garden Streets.

The height of Buildings T5 and T6 significantly exceeds the preferred maximum building height (i.e. 40m). However, for the following reasons, the proposed height and design response is considered to be acceptable within the site context:

The preferred maximum building height is not mandatory and the ACZ1 controls contemplate exceedance of the height provided there is a significant community benefit and the proposal continues to meet the objective, requirements and guidelines in relation to visual impact and overshadowing with increased upper level setbacks.

The proposal demonstrates a significant community benefit through the provision of publicly accessible open space, introduction of internal streets/laneways with reference to the historical subdivision pattern, and creation of significant employment opportunities.

Due to the significant setback from Garden Street (i.e. 32.9m), Buildings T5 and T6 will have limited impacts on Garden Street and the properties on the southern side of Garden Street through visual bulk or overshadowing.

Although Buildings T5 and T6 will be visible from Chapel Street in longer range views, their setback from Chapel Street (i.e. approximately 90m) ensures they will be clearly distinguishable from the heritage fabrics and will not overwhelm the heritage streetscape.

The railway line provides a generous separation between Buildings T5, T6 and the residential area further north. Notably, T5 and T6 have a combined breadth of approximately 55m, which accounts for approximately one fourth of the overall width of the subject land. The recess between Buildings T5 and T6 is significant (i.e. approximately 8.2m) and successfully breaks up the building mass.

The buildings have a simple, contemporary design which includes strong vertical and horizontal elements to break up the building mass. The sawtooth roof form and high quality industrially inspired construction materials are appropriate responses to the industrial history of the subject land.

Page 46


As will be discussed below, Buildings T5 and T6 will afford a reasonable amount of sunlight to the proposed Jam Factory Square which is placed to the west of Building T5.

The discussion plans submitted to Council on 17 April 2018 include modifications to the upper level of Buildings T5 and T6 and a refinement to the sawtooth roof design. The changes will result in an increase in the overall height of Buildings T5 and T6 by 2m. The additional height is considered to be inconsequential in light of the overall height of these buildings. Additional shadow diagrams have been provided to confirm the additional building height will not cause any material overshadowing impact over the existing residential properties to the south of the subject land.

Does Building T7 provide an acceptable response?

Building T7 is located at the eastern end of the subject land, where the existing multi-level car park stands. It has a maximum height of 53m and is built to the southern, eastern and northern boundaries, save for an indentation along the southern boundary, a lightcourt along the eastern boundary and a void along the northern boundary.

The ACZ1 controls stipulate a preferred maximum height of 40m, a maximum street wall height of 25m and a minimum setback of 12m above the street wall for this part of the subject land. Building T7 does not comply with any of these requirements.

The eastern section of Garden Street displays a finer grain than the western end. Although it is subject to a preferred maximum height of 27m, due to the small lot size, some of the properties along the eastern section of Garden Street may not have the capacity to reach that height. The residential hinterland further east is predominately characterised by single storey small cottages on confined lots. In light of this context, it is considered that the proposed Building T7 will overwhelm the eastern end of Garden Street and the residential neighbourhood further east. In order to reduce the bulk of Building T7 and its impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties, the applicant has submitted discussion plans which include the following key change to Building T7:

Reduction in the maximum building height to 42.5m.

Reduction in the height of the streetwall along Garden Street to 21.1m.

Increase in the setback of the levels above the Garden Street streetwall to a minimum of 12m from the Garden Street frontage. A lift core encroaches into this setback by 8.1m.

The levels above the streetwall are setback 5m from the eastern boundary.

These changes are considered to be positive and will generally bring Building T7 into compliance with the ACZ1 envelope. In order to further minimise the impacts of Building T7 on the surrounding properties and the streetscape, the following additional modifications will be required by way of conditions:

The provision of a lightcourt along the east elevation that mirrors the lightcourt of the development at 43 – 45 Garden Street approved under Permit No. 703/16.

The lift core that encroaches into the 12m setback must be architecturally treated to minimise its visual and amenity impacts.

Subject to the modifications outlined above, it is considered that Building T7 will provide an acceptable response.

Are the proposed public realm improvement works acceptable?

Page 47


The proposal includes a number of features that will contribute to the public realm, namely:

Provision of a publicly accessible square (described as the ‘Jam Factory Square’) at ground floor level. This public space has been designed and sized (i.e. around 1,400sqm) to accommodate a variety of events and functions. Part of the Jam Factory Square will be covered by glazed canopies, which will afford weather protection and help to mitigate wind-effects. In order to ensure the glazed canopies retain the open-air feel, a condition that requires details of the glazed canopies and the supporting structures will be included. In terms of access to sunlight, the shadow diagrams show the Jam Factory Square will be generally clear from shadows between 12pm and 2pm, which is considered to be reasonable.

Creation of a network of streets and laneways through the site that are connected to the surrounding streets. As shown in Figure 10 below, the Garden Street frontage will be activated through multiple access points, including a key visual and pedestrian continuation of Bray Street. There will be a new access point from Chapel Street by reinstating Turnbull Street, a key east-west street which formed the ‘spine’ of the 1885 site plan. Each laneway/street has been designed to create ‘individualized volumes and moments’ through varied physical dimensions and orientations. They will be covered by high-level glazed canopies for weather protection.

Figure 10: Proposed internal streets/lanes and Jam Factory Square

Improvement to the northern boundary of the subject site with new open space and outdoor dining areas. The northern boundary of the subject site is currently dedicated to cars and truck access, with no pedestrian access.

Reduction in the number of crossovers and loading docks along Garden Street.

Provision of an elevated garden terrace on level 3, which provides spaces for relaxation and small gatherings.

The proposed works will enhance the public realm and provide additional open space in this dense part of the municipality.

The wind modelling report submitted by the permit applicant confirms parts of the development (such as the northern perimeter and the north-western corner of the elevated garden terrace on level 3) will be subject to adverse wind conditions and require treatments. It is vitally important to ensure the proposed publicly accessible open space and the surrounding public realm will not be subject to inappropriate wind conditions. Therefore, a condition that requires an updated wind modelling assessment be undertaken and

Page 48


implementation of all the recommendations of the updated wind modelling assessment will be included.

In order to ensure security of the proposed publicly accessibly open space, a security management plan will be required by conditions.

How does the proposal respond to the ACZ1 requirements and guidelines?

The ACZ1 includes specific requirements and guidelines for the Jam Factory site. The table below shows how the proposal responds to these requirements and guidelines.

Precinct Requirements ResponseInclude a publicly accessible north facing village square which is open to the sky.

The proposal includes a north-facing square that is of a suitable size. Part of the square will be covered by high-level glazed canopies, which are intended to afford weather protection and help to mitigate wind effects. Conditions will be included to ensure the glazed canopies retain an open-air feel.

Support a new pedestrian link from the Jam Factory to Surrey Road Park.

The proposed development does not provide a new pedestrian link to Surrey Road Park as it is physically impossible to deliver this due to site constraints. Surrey Road Park is located to the north-east of the Jam Factory site. The multi-level apartment building at 1 – 3 Clara Street and the associated high retaining wall limit opportunity to provide such a link. The difference in land level also adds to the difficulty in creating a link, if one were to be provided.

Precinct Guidelines ResponseEnsure buildings are highly accessible by pedestrians from Chapel and Garden Streets.

The proposed development includes a highly permeable layout. The proposed buildings are accessible by pedestrians from both Chapel and Garden Streets.

Provide separation between new buildings to provide a high standard of amenity and minimise overshadowing of the village square

The proposed internal laneways/streets and open space provide separation between the proposed buildings, and offer a high standard of amenity. As discussed above, the proposed Jam Factory Square will receive a reasonable amount of sunlight.

Retain key view lines to the heritage-listed chimney

Key views to the chimney, especially views from the north, will be maintained. The proposal will strip away elements in close proximity to the chimney, providing for free space and views of its height, form and materiality.

Promote the site as a key destination and meeting place in South Yarra

Given the scale of the proposed development, its genuine mix of land uses and the provision of extensive publicly accessible open space, the proposal seeks to promote the site as a key destination and meeting place in South Yarra.

Provide a series of pedestrian laneways and other links through the Jam Factory site which are open to the sky

The proposal includes a network of streets and laneways through the site that are connected to the surrounding streets. These laneways and streets are open to the sky, and are protected from weather conditions by high-level glazed canopies.

Use the heritage-listed chimney as a way finding marker to and within the site

The proposal incorporates the chimney as a key feature. It will be a prominent element that functions as a way finding marker to and within the site.

Page 49


How does the proposal respond to the urban design principles at Clause 15.01-2?

Context

The subject site forms part of the Chapel Street Activity Centre and is marked as a Key Strategic Development Site. As discussed, there is a tension of striking a balance between ‘seizing the development opportunity’ and responding to its location in terms of heritage and urban design. For reasons outlined above, subject to further modifications, the proposal strikes an acceptable balance.

The public realm

For reasons discussed above, the proposal will make a contribution to the public realm.

Safety

The proposed development will not adversely impact on the safety of the surrounding public environment and will provide appropriate security for future visitors/customers/employees/tenants.

Landmarks, views and vistas

The proposal will not adversely impact on any landmarks, view lines or vistas. As said above, views to the chimney will be maintained and enhanced.

Pedestrian spaces

The proposal includes a network of streets and laneways through the site that are connected to the surrounding streets. The design of the retail podium will activate the Chapel Street and Garden Street frontages and contribute to an improved pedestrian environment.

Heritage

For the foregoing reasons, it is considered that the proposal will not unreasonably impact on the heritage significance of building and place subject to modifications already discussed.

Consolidation of sites and empty sites

The subject site is one of the largest single land parcels in the region. The proposal seeks to manage the building mass through an ensemble of buildings rather than a single massive built form. The varied heights, setbacks and scales contribute to the complexity and diversity of the built environment.

Light and shade

For reasons discussed above, the proposal will not cause unreasonable overshadowing over the public realm subject to modifications. The proposed internal laneways/streets and publicly accessible open space achieve a balance of sunlight and shade. With regard to overshadowing over the properties along the southern side of Garden Street, it will be discussed in detail in the section below.

Energy and resource efficiency

Page 50


The proposal will include efficient use of resources and energy efficiency. A Sustainable Management Plan will be required by permit conditions to ensure the proposal achieves a high level of environmental performance.

Architectural quality

The proposed development exhibits design excellence. The form, scale and mass of the proposed development reflects the history of the subject site and is responsive to the site context subject to further modifications. In relation to the proposed materials, colours and finishes, the design incorporates a range of materials and elements within an interesting composition. The proposal is well conceived in the overall building articulation and will achieve an appropriate outcome.

Landscape architecture

The site is located within an area that features a hard edge character. As such, the proposal to fully develop the site with limited planting is not out of context. This being said, the proposal does seek to incorporate landscaping in the form of planter boxes on the ground level and level 3. A landscape plan will be required via permit conditions to show details of the proposed landscaping, such as species, soil volume and irrigation method. As suggested by Council’s Arborist, details of the proposed awnings along the Chapel Street frontage will be required to ensure they will not affect the ability to establish mature tree canopies along Chapel Street.

WOULD THE PROPOSAL CAUSE UNREASONABLE OFF-SITE AMENITY IMPACTS?

At the outset of the assessment, it is important to note land to the west, south and east of the subject land is also zoned Activity Centre and forms part of the Chapel Street Activity Centre. VCAT has long held that residents within a Major Activity Centre must have a lower expectation regarding amenity compared to residents within a residential hinterland (see, eg, Radraft Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2013] VCAT 668, Nelrup Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2010] VCAT 2036, Noordenne Construction Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2015] VCAT 1983). Bearing this in mind, the assessment will examine each interface of the subject land.

Eastern interface

The subject land benefits from its limited direct abuttal with adjoining properties. 43 – 45 Garden Street is the one of the two properties that share a boundary with the subject land. 43 – 45 Garden Street is currently occupied by a double-storey warehouse, which is built to the shared boundary. Based on the existing conditions, the proposed development will not adversely impact on its amenity.

As mentioned above, Planning Permit No. 703/16 was issued recently for the construction of an 8-storey mixed-use development at 43 – 45 Garden Street. The approved development includes a three-storey base that is built to the shared boundary with the subject land. A 7.68m long and 3m deep lightwell is located along the western boundary to provide light to the offices and a number of balconies and bedrooms on the upper levels.

The proposal includes a lightwell along the shared boundary that mirrors the lightwell at 43 – 45 Garden Street. Although the subject site is significantly larger in size and has the ability to provide a larger lightwell, given it is uncertain whether the approved development at 43 – 45 Garden Street will be constructed, the response is considered to be acceptable. The proposed changes to Building T7 will minimise the amenity impacts on the approved development at 43 – 45 Garden Street. It is noted that the owner of 43 – 45 Garden Street has not objected to the proposal.

Page 51


Northern interface

The north-western corner of the subject site abuts a two-storey commercial building at 512 – 516 Chapel Street. This building is built to the shared boundary. The proposal seeks to construct a three-storey building against the building at 512 – 516 Chapel Street. Given the commercial nature of the northern adjoining building and the lack of any sensitive feature along this interface (e.g. windows associated with shop-top dwellings), the proposal will not impact on the amenity of 512 – 516 Chapel Street.

The residential area to the north is separated from the subject land by the railway line, which is around 20m in width. Residents from the north have raised concerns in relation to overlooking, visual bulk and loss of view.

With regard to overlooking, the separation provided by the railway line is considered to be sufficient to restrict unreasonable overlooking. Although not strictly applicable, the overlooking standard in ResCode is concerned with overlooking within a distance of 9m. Since the proposed development is around 20m away from the nearest habitable room windows and/or private open space to the north, it will not cause unacceptable overlooking.

With regard to visual bulk, for the reasons outlined above, the proposed building height is considered to be generally acceptable. The height of Building T4 generally meets the preferred building height. Although Buildings T5 and T6 exceed the preferred maximum building height, they account for approximately one fourth of the overall width of the subject land. Furthermore, the design of T5 and T6 includes strong vertical elements to break up the building mass. In relation to Building T7, the proposed changes will reduce its height by approximately 12m, in turn its visual bulk.

The concern of potential loss of view is not within the planning consideration. There is no inherent legal right to views unless the planning scheme provides for it, which is not the case here. As VCAT remarked in Taraborrelli v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 1309, it will be contrary to the policy direction and the anticipated future form of the development within the Activity Centre to constrain the height of a development on the basis that it will block views presently enjoyed by existing development.

Western interface

The subject site is opposite a number of commercial properties on the western side of Chapel Street. Given the commercial natural of these buildings, the proposal will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on them.

The overshadowing requirements of the ACZ1 state other than in the Forrest Hill Sub-Precincts, buildings and works are not to cast shadows over footpaths along Chapel Street between 10am and 3pm on 22 September. As shown in Figure 11 below, the existing building overshadows the eastern footpath between 10am and 12noon. The proposed development, however, will overshadow both the western and eastern footpaths at 10am. From 11am to 12pm, only the eastern footpath will be in shadows. The proposed changes to the setbacks and height of Buildings T1 and T3 will help to reduce the overshadowing impact. Given the subject site is specifically identified as a Key Strategic Development Site and the existing buildings already overshadow the eastern footpath between 10am and 12noon, the additional shadows are considered to be acceptable and will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the public realm.

Page 52


Figure 11: Existing (above) and proposed (below) overshadowing over Chapel Street

According to the wind modelling results, the proposal will not cause unacceptable wind conditions along the Chapel Street footpaths.

Southern interface

The southern side of Garden Street includes a mix of low-scale commercial buildings and multi-storey mixed-use buildings. It is included in the JF-3 Sub-Precinct of the Activity Centre Zone. Since the ACZ1 nominates a preferred maximum height of 27m (8 storeys) to the JF-3 Sub-Precinct, it is fair to expect more higher-density development will take place along the southern side of Garden Street.

The proposal includes a series of buildings that interface with Garden Street. Starting with Building T1, it is directly opposite the commercial building at 478 Chapel Street, which includes a number of north-facing windows on the first floor. The rear half of 478 Chapel Street is occupied by an at-grade car park. The required changes to Building T1 (i.e. reduction in height and increase in setback from Chapel Street) will minimise the impacts on 478 Chapel Street.

Building T2 will be opposite the multi-level development at 8-12A Garden Street & 60 Bray Street (known as ‘Noir’). T2 has a maximum height of 43m and the upper levels above the street wall are setback over 20m from the nearest north-facing habitable room windows of Noir. Using the daylight to existing windows standard in ResCode as a guideline (noting it is not applicable), Building T2 is setback almost half of its height from these habitable room windows, generally complying with the standard. As stated in the outset, 8-12A Garden Street & 60 Bray Street is zoned Activity Centre and the Noir residents should not expect the same level of amenity protection as one would in a residential hinterland. Therefore, it is considered that Building T2 will not unreasonably impact on daylight access to Noir. With regard to overshadowing, T2 will overshadow the balconies on the lower levels at 8-12A Garden Street & 60 Bray Street. However, the overshadowing impact is not considered to be unreasonable in light of the site and strategic context. In relation the concern of visual bulk or loss of view, the subject site is marked as a Key Strategic Development Site and substantial redevelopment is expected. Building T2 has a height that generally accords with the ACZ1 requirement.

Page 53


Although the upper level setback is less than what is required, the separation between the upper levels of Building T2 and the north-facing habitable room windows and balconies of Noir is considered to be sufficient to mitigate unreasonable visual bulk.

The mid-rise section between Buildings T2 and T7 has a height of 23m and generally accords with the preferred maximum street wall height (i.e. 25m). The mid-rise section is well articulated and is broken up by a proposed lane in the middle section. Given the scale of the mid-rise section, it will not cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts. The highest buildings (i.e. Buildings T5 and T6) are positioned further north of the mid-rise section, with a minimum setback of 32.9m from the northern edge of Garden Street. The generous setback will minimise their bulk and overshadowing impacts on the Garden Street properties.

Building T7 is located at the eastern end, opposite almost half of the properties along the southern side of Garden Street. As discussed above, the scale of T7 is considered to be excessive and its minimal setback from Garden Street is not justified. A number of changes are recommended to Building T7, including a significant reduction in height and an increase in the setback from Garden Street. The proposed modifications will generally bring Building T7 to compliance with the ACZ1 envelope and reduce its off-site amenity impacts to an acceptable level.

WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN UNACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS?

The application generates a statutory parking demand of 5,004 spaces. A total of 1,350 car spaces will be provided within the basement levels, less than 30% of the required parking provision. The applicant seeks to justify the parking reduction through a mode shift to walking, cycling and public transport. It is proposed to encourage and achieve the mode shift through the implementation of:

Enhanced connections to public transport; Bicycle parking and end of trip facilities; Provision of pick up / drop off facilities; and Travel planning initiatives.

Before discussing whether the proposed mode shift is practical and appropriate, it is helpful to make the following observations at the outset.

The planning policies provide a clear strategic direction to reduce reliance on car parking in new developments, particularly in activity centres and/or near public transport, in the interests of less car-dependency in urban Melbourne (see, eg, Frydman v Port Phillip CC (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2012] VCAT 1838, Taras Nominees Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2010] VCAT 2031, Third Street Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2015] VCAT 1768).

A ‘centre-based approach’ should be adopted to address the issue of car parking provision in activity centres as a whole (see, eg, PAJ Consultants v Bayside CC [2012] VCAT 1449; Bjbac Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2011] VCAT 1994, Milton Toal v

Page 54


Manningham CC [2012] VCAT 1830). In Sansmark Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC 22 AATR 103, Justice Mandie said:

The basic approach in these decisions is that in important activity centres car parking consideration should not be determinative, instead the land use mix in a centre should arise from a combination of strategic planning and economic forces at work in the centre, car parking issues have a part to play in this but should not dominate. At the level of the individual site where there is a change of use or an extension to an existing building in most circumstances car parking shortfalls should be waived if it is consistent with the strategic plan for the centre, firstly because the most equitable solution is to deal with car parking on a centre wide basis, and secondly because even in saturated car parking conditions a balance will occur between the level of activity and the car parking supply.

This part of the Chapel Street Activity Centre already experiences congestion. Should the proposal provide the full amount of parking (i.e. 5,004 spaces), it is considered that it will have a significant detrimental impact on traffic activity in the area. Council’s Transport Engineers have advised that they do not want any more car parking than is currently proposed.

The proposed changes discussed earlier for Buildings T1, T3 and T7 will result in a reduction in the floor area / number of patrons, and in turn a reduced parking demand.

The subject site has excellent access to public transport facilities and is within a Major Activity Centre. It is ideally located to support a development with a reduced parking supply and encourage more shift options.

Enhanced connections to public transport

The subject site is located within close proximity of existing major public transport facilities. Both South Yarra and Hawksburn Railway Stations are within 6 - 8 minutes walking distance. The success of the targeted mode shift relies heavily on a significant proportion of the employees and customers using public transport (i.e. around 50% - 65%). It is understood that both South Yarra and Hawksburn Stations have the capacity to accommodate additional patronage. Based on the estimation prepared by GTA Consultants, the proposal will result in up to 27 and 17 additional persons per train and tram respectively during the morning peak hours; and up to 38 and 15 additional persons per train and tram during the afternoon peak hours. Whilst the increase is not insignificant, it will not result in unreasonable additional patronage on the services. For example, an additional 38 persons per train would represent an additional 6 persons per train carriage.

There has been suggestions that an interchange station should be incorporated within the development, which will not only address the traffic and parking issues but also strengthen the role of the Jam Factory site as the hub of the Prahran/South Yarra Precinct. Such a concept is not new. As far back as 1879, there was pressure for a railway station to be located near the site of the IXL Jam Factory. However, this suggestion never eventuated due to the short distance between South Yarra and Hawksburn railway station. Council Officers have explored this suggestion with the permit applicant and the relevant State agencies.

Unfortunately, it is not feasible to provide an interchange station at the Jam Factory site due to the following reasons:

Page 55


In order to accommodate an interchange station, the four tracks would have to be spread to make room for platforms. Consequently, reconstruction of the Chapel Street road bridge is likely to be necessary, which will cause significant operational impact on the tram and road network during construction period. Due to the location and scope of works, there is no viable alternative alignment for the tram route during construction. There will also be limited local access maintained during this period.

As the rail corridor under the Chapel Street road bridge needs to be widened on both the northern and southern sides, both abutments will be affected and land acquisition on both sides of the existing corridor will be required.

The extent of works would entail considerable costs, land and construction disruption. Cost estimates are not possible at this stage but it is expected that costs would be of a similar order (or greater) to those of establishing a South Yarra Melbourne Metro Station.

Although a new station at the Jam Factory site would cover more individual lots than a South Yarra Melbourne Metro Station, it would cover significantly fewer dwellings and shops. Furthermore, many of the places in the catchment would still be served by South Yarra station and (to a lesser extent) Hawksburn station. A new station at Jam Factory would not directly serve the Forrest Hill area as effectively as the South Yarra option.

Council has strongly advocated for the establishment of a Melbourne Metro Station at South Yarra. The provision of an interchange station at Jam Factory is likely to preclude the opportunity of establishing a South Yarra Melbourne Metro Station.

An interchange station at the Jam Factory site will be an additional stop between Hawksburn and South Yarra, halving what is already a very short distance between the stations (i.e. 1.2km). Such a short distance is likely to impact on the operation of the rail network.

According to the work done by Council’s consultant in response to the Melbourne Metro Rail Project, Council’s expert consultant considered that a new station at the Jam Factory site to be an inferior solution to providing platforms for Melbourne Metro trains at South Yarra. It involves similar or greater costs, land take and construction disruption, yet it does not provide the same level of service to existing and future development in the South Yarra precinct (especially Forrest Hill).

Alternative to providing a new station within the subject site is to improve connection to the existing stations. Currently, there is no designated route from the subject site to Hawksburn Railway Station. It is considered that the most direct and practical route is via Luxton Road, Wilson Street, Surrey Road and Garden Street, as shown in Figure 12 below.

Page 56


Figure 12: Possible route from the subject land to Hawksburn Railway Station

The applicant has prepared a preliminary plan that shows connection to Hawksburn Station can be improved through better street lighting and lane marking; installation of enhanced way finding signage; provision of raised zebra crossing and pruning of vegetation to name a few treatments. The proposed upgrade works are generally considered to be reasonable and practical. A condition that requires upgrade works to be done in consultation with Council and at the cost of the permit holder will be included on the recommendation. Connection to South Yarra Station is currently via Lovers Walk on the northern side of the railway line. It is proposed that this will be closed during the construction of the Melbourne Metro Rail Project near South Yarra Station. Council Officers are advocating for an alternative pedestrian link that runs along the southern side of the railway line connecting South Yarra Station, via the South Yarra Siding Reserve and Arthur Street, to Chapel Street. Regardless of whether the pedestrian link is provided on the northside (existing alignment) or southside (potential future alignment) of the railway reserve, a high quality and convenient connection must be provided between Chapel Street and South Yarra Station. As a key user of this pedestrian connection, the permit applicant has a role to play in enhancing the quality of the link. A condition that requires a contribution from the applicant towards a high-quality pedestrian link to South Yarra Station will be included. Bicycle parking and end of trip facilities

The proposal provides a total of 750 bicycle parking spaces and 40 change rooms/showers, approximate one and a half times more than the statutory requirement. It equates to a rate of 0.87 spaces per 100sqm. The bicycle parking and associated end of trip facilities are to be located on the upper most level of basement and adjacent to a lift accessing the office lobby. The quality of the bicycle parking is of a very high standard. The significant provision of bicycle parking, coupled with proposed improvements to connections, can be expected to increase the attractiveness of cycling as a mode of travel to and from the subject site. Council’s Transport Engineers consider the provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities to be appropriate for a development of this size.

Provision of pick up / drop off facilities

The proposal includes an on-site pick up / drop off area on the uppermost basement level and an on-street drop off area on Garden Street.

Page 57


The on-site facility will primarily cater for rideshare and taxi movements to and from the site and will be accessible for private vehicles picking up and dropping off passengers. The on-site facility will provide a safe, secure, enclosed and convenient environment for users accessing the development. Moreover, the facility will cater for employees and visitors arriving to the site via a vehicle but not necessarily requiring an on-site parking space.

Travel planning initiatives

In addition to the physical measures outlined above, the permit applicant proposes the following travel planning initiatives to encourage the mode shift:

Appointment of a Green Travel Plan Coordinator (possibly included as a function of the central management) to update and initiate recommendations outlined in any Green Travel Plan prepared for the site.

Offering transport planning advice for employees of the development.

Preparation of maps showing safe walking routes to and from the subject site to local facilities and transport stops.

Participation in the ‘Walk/Ride to Work Day’.

Provision of a bicycle share scheme.

Establishment of an internal bicycle user group to encourage cycling.

Installation of screens in lobbies which provide real time public transport timetables for nearby public transport routes.

As commented by Council’s Transport Engineers, the measures proposed by the applicant are generally considered to be reasonable. If the targeted mode shift is not achieved, employees/customers/visitors of the development may seek on-street parking in the surrounding area. The results of a parking survey indicate the existing long-term on-street parking is either located outside walking distance from the subject site or occupied before 8am. Due to existing parking restrictions in the area, there is very limited opportunity for any surplus employee parking to be accommodated in the surrounding on-street supply, which is anticipated to further motivate the achievement of the mode share shift.

Overall, it is considered that the measures proposed by the applicant, coupled with a reduction in the floor area supports the parking dispensation proposed.

Page 58


Traffic Generation and associated impacts

The table below shows the anticipated traffic generation.

Use

Number of occupied spaces

Traffic generation rates

Resultant movements

AM peak hour

PM peak hour

Sat peak hour

AM peak hour

PM peak hour

Sat peak hour

Office 577 577 0 0.5 movements per space

289 289 0

Retail/Cinema

773 773 1,245 0.2 movements per space (AM); 0.6 movements per space (PM); 0.4 movements per space (Sat)

155 464 498

Total444

vehicle per hour

(vph)

753 vph

498 vph

The proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 444, 753 and 498 vehicle movements during the weekday AM and PM and Saturday lunchtime peak hours respectively. Based on the current usage of the existing car park, the proposed development may generate a net traffic volume increase of approximately 230, 520 and 390 vehicle movements during the weekday AM and PM and Saturday lunchtime peak hours. Should the existing car park operate at a full capacity (i.e. 976 spaces) rather than the current occupancy (i.e. around 560 spaces), the level of additional traffic will be reduced to 80, 350 and 310 vehicle movements during the weekday AM and PM and Saturday lunchtime peak hours respectively. The increased traffic generation can be accommodated by the surrounding road network.

Car park layout

The layout of the car park is generally satisfactory subject to modifications to ensure adequate turning, ramp grades and slight lines, which can be addressed by conditions.

Loading and unloading

At present, loading and unloading for the existing site is provided via a number of at-grade loading bays accessed from Palermo Street and Garden Street. The proposal seeks to provide a consolidated underground loading facility, which will minimise amenity impacts to surrounding properties. Access to the loading area is via a dedicated vehicle access from Garden Street. The provision of a separate vehicle access for loading vehicles and customer / employee vehicles is considered to be appropriate as it improves safety and ensures all vehicles will be able to enter and exit in a forward direction. In order to ensure efficiency of loading to and from the site, conditions that require specification/dimensions of the truck hoist system, details of the online dock management system and internal dynamic signage will be included.

Some objectors raised concerns with the location of the vehicle access point along Garden Street. The proposed access point at the eastern end of the subject site is considered to be logical and appropriate. Council’s Transport Engineers did not raise any concern with the location of the access point.

Page 59


In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal will not cause unreasonable traffic and parking impacts.

IS THE PROPOSAL EXPOSED TO UNREASONABLE FLOODING RISK?

The subject site is within a Special Building Overlay and consequently the application was referred to Melbourne Water for comments. Melbourne Water did not object to the application and commented that the proposal will not be subject to unreasonable flood risk subject to conditions. The conditions of Melbourne Water will be included in full.

Other matters

As discussed in the referral section of the report, conditions regarding waste management plan, sustainable management plan, and infrastructure-related issues will be included to address the issues raised by Council’s Waste Management Unit, ESD Officer and Infrastructure Engineers.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Devaluation in property: this is not within the planning consideration.

Impacts during the construction period: this is not within the planning consideration. It will be regulated by the building and local law regulations.

Removal of the barricade along Palermo Street: the barricade along Palermo Street will not be removed as a result of this proposal. The barricade was not shown on the application drawings due to a drafting error. A condition that requires the plans to be updated to show retention of the barricade will be included.

Human Rights Consideration

This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported subject to changes for the following reasons:

There is strong policy justification for the proposed development. The proposed land uses are acceptable. The design response is acceptable subject to modifications. The proposal will not cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts subject to

conditions. The proposal will not result in unacceptable traffic and parking impacts subject to

conditions. The proposal will not be exposed to unreasonable flooding risk.

ATTACHMENTS

Page 60


1. PA1 - 1027-17 - Jam Factory - 500 Chapel Street South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 1

Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1027/17 for the land located at 500 Chapel Street, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for partial demolition, buildings and works, use of the land for the purposes of office, food and drink premises (other than hotel, convenience restaurant and tavern), restaurant, cinema based entertainment facility and shop (other than adult sex bookshop, bottle shop and restricted retail premises) in an Activity Centre Zone, Special Building Overlay, Heritage Overlay and Incorporated Plan Overlay, with associated reduction in the car parking requirement subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the use and development starts, one (1) electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Bates Smart (Drawings No. A01.000, A01.001 – 003, A02.100 – 115, A02.B01 – B04M, A07.000 – 006, A08.000 – 002, all Council date stamped 21 November 2017) advertised in November 2017, but modified to show:

a) Details of the online dock management system and internal dynamic signage.

b) Dimensions and specifications of the truck hoist system. c) Layout of the basement car park to generally accord with the requirements

of Clause 52.06.d) Provision of directional signage within the basement car park.e) Provision of an electronic signs for the visitor/customer car parking

showing the number of car parking spaces available in the car park.f) Detailed layout plans of internal traffic and car parking arrangements

including internal intersections, truck loading areas and shopping trolley storage.

g) Details of the canopy glazing and supporting structures above the internal laneways/streets and the Jam Factory Square.

h) Elevations of the Chapel Street and Garden Street heritage facades at a scale of 1:50, detailing all the refurbishment and restoration works.

i) Modifications to Building T3 generally in accordance with the discussion plan prepared by Bates Smart (Council date stamped 6 April 2018) as follows:

(i) Levels 4, 5 and 6 are setback further from the Chapel Street frontage by at least 5m. The indentation in the central portion must be setback accordingly to ensure a minimum depth of 3.5m.

(ii) Level 3 is setback further from the Chapel Street frontage by at least 4m.

Page 61


j) Modifications to Building T1 as follows:(i) Deletion of level 8.(ii) Levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 are setback further from the Chapel Street frontage

by at least 3m.(iii) Level 3 is setback the same distance of level 3 of Building T3 as

required in condition 1(i)(ii).k) Modifications to Buildings T5 and T6 generally in accordance with the

discussion plan prepared by Bates Smart (dated 17 April 2018) involving a change to the upper level of the buildings and a refinement to the saw tooth roof design.

l) Modifications to Building T7 generally in accordance with the discussion plan prepared by Bates Smart (Council date stamped 6 April 2018), and with the following additional changes:

(i) The lift core that encroaches into the setback above the Garden Street streetwall is architecturally treated to minimise its visual impact to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(ii) Inclusion of a lightcourt along the east elevation that mirrors the western lightcourt of the development at 43 – 45 Garden Street as approved by Permit No. 703/16.

m) A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours. A coloured elevation clearly identifying all materials proposed as listed in the materials and colour schedule must also be provided. All external glazing must be of a type that does not reflect more than 20% of visible light when measured at an angle of incidence to the glass surface.

n) Retention of the barricade along Palermo Street.o) Details of the changing places located on the ground floor level.p) Any modifications as required by conditions 8 (WMP), 9 (SMP), 12 (wind

modelling), 14 (landscape plan) and 32 (CMP).all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority which must not be unreasonably withheld, Bates Smart must be retained to complete and provide architectural oversight during construction of the detailed design as shown in the endorsed plans and endorsed schedule of materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to the commencement of development (excluding demolition, excavation and associated early works), any necessary approvals must be obtained to remove, modify or build over any easements in favour of service authorities including CitiPower to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 62


5. The development and use authorised by this permit must not commence until the permit holder has entered into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for and ensure the closure of Garden Street, east of the existing carpark exit, between the hours of 9:30pm and 6:00am the following day, on every day the use is in operation, at the cost of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this agreement must be registered with the Registrar of Titles and must run with the land.

6. Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the cinema must operate only between the following hours:

10:00am to 1am the following day, Sunday to Wednesday; and 10:00am to 3:00am the following day, Thursday to Saturday.

In addition to the above hours a maximum of ten movie marathons per annum may be held on a day before a declared public holiday and on such occasions the Cinema may operate until 10am the following day.

7. Prior to the occupation of the development or otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the permit holder must:

a) Pay for the works to improve the pedestrian connection to Hawksburn Railway Station generally in accordance with the discussion plan prepared by GTA Consultant (Council date stamped 28 March 2018), up to a maximum cost of $350,000, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) Make a contribution towards an improved pedestrian link to South Yarra Railway Station in consultation with the Responsible Authority and the relevant State agencies. The cost of all works associated with the improved pedestrian link is to be shared by the permit holder, the Responsible Authority and the relevant State agencies. The contribution from the permit holder is up to a maximum of $1.5 million in total.

c) Make an additional contribution to works with a direct nexus to the Jam Factory specifically, such as wayfinding, line marking, environmental graphics and signage, culture or historic interpretation elements and enhanced pedestrian treatments (‘additional pedestrian link enhancement works’) to be included within the improved pedestrian link to South Yarra Railway Station as referenced in condition 7(b). The final cost of the additional pedestrian link enhancement works will be determined by a suitably qualified QS on a scope to be agreed between the parties. The additional contribution will not exceed a total of $500,000.

Page 63


In the event the works identified cannot be completed prior to the occupation of the development or at the time agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the permit holder must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘Agreement’) to provide for the timing, funding, scope, permit holders design review and delivery of the works, and an appropriate sunset clause in respect of the works not commencing within 7 years of the date of the Agreement . The Agreement must be registered with the Registrar of Titles and must run with the land. The owner of the land under this permit must pay the Responsible Authority’s legal costs and be responsible for the cost associated with the preparation and registration of the said agreement.

8. Concurrent within the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The WMP must be generally in accordance with the WMP prepared by Leigh Design (dated 20 November 2017), but modify to:

a) Reflect the changes as required by condition 1.b) Include swept path diagrams to confirm HRVs can access each of the

waste compactors at the western end of the loading dock.c) Confirm the truck lifts have a minimum safe working load of 30 tonnes.

When approved, the WMP will be endorsed and form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the WMP, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval, the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SMP must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a) Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed.

b) Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards.

c) Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved.

d) Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.

e) Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time.

f) Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) initiatives to comply with the best practice performance objective set out in the Urban Stormwater Best Practice. Environmental Management Guidelines, Victoria Stormwater Committee 1999.

g) A STORM or MUSIC model report demonstrating Best Practice stormwater management to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) Complete Green Star self-assessment demonstrating the initiatives selected

Page 64


to achieve 5 star.i) Show details of shading device to the buildings.

All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SMP may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

10. Prior to the occupation of the building, a report from the author of the Sustainable Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainable Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

11. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed plans and/or stormwater management report.

12. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a suitably qualified person must undertake a comprehensive wind tunnel test of the entire development and a Wind Climate Assessment Report must be provided for the written endorsement of the Responsible Authority. Any modifications required to the development in order to ensure acceptable wind conditions must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority as part of the plans for endorsement. The design details of any wind mitigation works must receive the endorsement of the owner/applicant's wind climate experts, referencing the use of architectural features and planting to resolve any issued identified.

13. Prior to the occupation of the development, a report from the author of the Wind Climate Assessment Report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Wind Climate Assessment Report have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.

14. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and one (1) electronic copy must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape concept plans prepared by Aspect Studios (dated 14 November 2017) but modified to show:

a) changes to the building footprint and layout as per condition 1.b) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, quantities of each plant, and soil volume detail of any planter box.

c) species for the elevated garden terrace that are suitable in an exposed and wind-swept position.

d) irrigation methods.

e) details of the proposed awnings along the Chapel Street frontage to

Page 65


ensure they will not affect the ability to establish mature tree canopies along Chapel Street.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. Prior to the occupation of the building, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

16. Prior to the occupation of the building, a Car Parking Allocation Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Car Parking Allocation Plan must specify how the car spaces will be allocated within the basement car park hereby approved and any fees and/or charges payable, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Car Parking Allocation Plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit.

17. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the permit holder must submit an updated digital 3D massing model of the development hereby approved in accordance with the specifications of Council’s GIS Unit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Prior to the commencement of any demolition work, an updated demolition plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, confirming the extent of the heritage fabrics (including but not limited to the facades, return walls and roof) that will be retained and/or restored. An archival quality photographic record of the existing buildings (including internal walls) that are located within the Heritage Overlay and are to be removed must be undertaken by a professional photographer in accordance with the directions provided on the Heritage Victoria website, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once produced, the record must be deposited with the Stonnington History Centre.

19. Prior to the occupation of the development, the walls on the boundary must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. Noise emanating from the subject land must not exceed the permissible noise levels when determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policies, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from the (plant and equipment area and loading bay or specify other as relevant) are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21. Any projection over the street must have a minimum vertical clearance above the footpath level of 2.7 metres and a minimum horizontal clearance of 750 millimetres from the street kerb unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

22. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

Page 66


23. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

24. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) must be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and must be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Ventilation systems must be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

25. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

26. The level of the footpaths at the property line must not be lowered or altered to facilitate access to the site, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

27. Prior to occupation of the building, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

28. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

29. Prior to occupation of the development, a Security Management Plan for the management of the publicly accessible areas must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Security Management Plan must include, but not be limited to:

a) Details of appropriate surveillance equipment.

b) Hours of operation of surveillance and security services.

c) Proposed response capacities to inappropriate incidents.All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

30. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must at all times be conducted entirely within the site and in a manner that limits interference with other vehicular traffic to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

31. Ground floor commercial uses fronting Chapel and Garden Streets are not to be provided with obscure glazing or signage which prevents surveillance of the streetscapes without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Page 67


32. Before the development commences, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the CMP will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The CMP must provide for:

(a) A pre-conditions survey (dilapidation report) of the land and all adjacent Council roads frontages and nearby road infrastructure;

(b) Works necessary to protect road and other infrastructure;(c) Remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure;(d) Containment of dust, dirt and mud within the land and method and

frequency of clean up procedures to prevent the accumulation of dust, dirt and mud outside the land;

(e) Facilities for vehicle washing, which must be located on the land;(f) The location of loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes and

crane/hoisting zones, gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street;

(g) Site security;(h) Management of any environmental hazards including, but not limited to:

i. Contaminated soil and ground water,ii. Materials and waste,iii. Dust,iv. Stormwater contamination from run-off and wash-waters,v. Sediment from the land on roads,vi. Washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery, and vii. Spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery;

(i) The construction program;(j) Preferred arrangements for trucks delivering to the land, including delivery

and unloading points and expected duration and frequency;(k) Parking facilities for construction workers;(l) An outline of requests to Council / Public authorities to occupy public

footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services;(m) An emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents

and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;

(n) The provision of a traffic management plan to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices – Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads;

Page 68


(o) A noise and vibration management plan showing methods to minimise noise and vibration on nearby properties and to demonstrate compliance with Noise Control Guideline 12 for Construction (Publication 1254) as issued by the Environment Protection Authority in October 2008. The Noise and Vibration Management Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In preparing the Noise and Vibration Management Plan, consideration must be given to:

i. Using lower noise work practice and equipment;ii. The suitability of the land for the use of an electric crane;iii. Silencing all mechanical plant by the best practical means using

current technology;iv. Fitting pneumatic tools with an effective silencer;v. Other relevant considerations; and vi. Any site-specific requirement.

During construction

(p) Any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system must be in compliance with Environmental Protection Authority guidelines;

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

(r) Vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the land;(s) The cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on the land and

not on adjacent footpaths or roads; and (t) All litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic

strapping) must be disposed of responsibly.If required, the CMP may be approved in stages. Construction of each stage must not commence until a CMP has been endorsed for that stage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

33. The provisions, recommendations and requirement of the endorsed Construction Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

34. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, demolition or construction works must be carried out in accordance with EPA regulations and Council’s General Laws.

Melbourne Water’s conditions

35. Floor levels must be set at least 300mm above the applicable 1% AEP flood level for the areas of the site reaching 11.92 metres to Australian Height Datum. This is to act as a bund to prevent flood waters moving from the east to the west.

36. The carpark entry and exit areas must be bunded to 12.22 metres to AHD and be shown to be fully tanked.

37. All other floor levels must be maintained as shown on the considered plans.

Page 69


38. Internal pedestrian footpaths must not solely grade down from Chapel Street to Palfreyman Street as this will result in flood waters entering the site during a flood event.

39. Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the AHD, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water’s requirements.

End of Melbourne Water’s conditions

Transport for Victoria’s conditions

Before construction commences (Including Demolition)

40. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, without limiting the obligations of the permit holder under the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 (Vic), prior to construction commencing (including demolition), detailed construction/engineering plans and computations must be submitted to, and must be to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria, VicTrack and accredited Rail Transport Operator (RTO) for the protection of the railway land.

The Plans must detail all excavation design and controls of the site adjacent to the railway corridor and any impact on railway land. The Plans must ensure compliance regarding building clearances to aerial power lines as per the applicable Victorian Electrical Safety (Installations) Regulations and design loadings where within 20m of the nearest rail track in compliance with AS5100.2-2017 Design Loads.

41. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, before the commencement of works including demolition, a Construction Control and Indemnity Agreement must be in place with Public Transport Victoria and VicTrack, at the full cost of the permit holder.

42. Prior to the commencement of the works (including demolition) a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to Public Transport Victoria, VicTrack and RTO for approval. The Construction Management Plan must include details of (but not be limited to) management proposals to minimise impacts to VicTrack & PTV’s assets and the operation of all public transport services and infrastructure during construction, including:

a) Protocols and approval processes for access to the adjoining land, rail environment and designation of any areas to be used under license during the construction process;

b) Approvals and permits required from Public Transport Victoria, VicTrack and the RTO prior to works commencing and prior to accessing the rail environment;

c) Rail safety requirements that must be adhered to by the permit holder;d) Protection of all public transport infrastructure to ensure any infrastructure

is not damaged during demolition or construction;e) Minimising disruption to train & tram services;

Page 70


f) Management of drainage, effluent, material stockpiles, fencing, hoardings to ensure the rail environment is not used for, or impacted on by these activities outside the development site;

g) Public safety, amenity and site security;h) Operating hours, noise and vibration controls; i) Air and dust management;j) A communication plan with the RTO’S (train and tram).

All construction works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan must be implemented at no cost to and to the satisfaction of VicTrack, Public Transport Victoria and the RTO’S.

43. Prior to the commencement of the works (including demolition), a Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Public Transport Victoria for endorsement, which outlines how traffic will be managed throughout the construction of the development and mitigate impacts to public transport including trains and trams to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria in consultation with Metro Trains Melbourne and Yarra Trams. All traffic management and mitigation costs must be at the full cost of the permit holder and in accordance with the approved Traffic Management Plan to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria. The Plan may interface with any plan requested by the Responsible Authority.

44. Prior to the commencement of the works (including demolition), the RTO (train and tram) must be contacted to obtain the RTO conditions and safety requirements for works on, over, under or adjacent to public transport land and/or easements and electrical infrastructure. The permit holder must conform to all RTO’s guidelines and instructions.

Prior to the commencement of the Main Works (after demolition)

45. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, prior to the commencement of the main works an Integrated Transport Plan must be submitted and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria in consultation with Vic Track, Vic Roads (as appropriate) and the Responsible Authority that includes, but is not limited to:

a) The expected demand for travel by people who will work or visit the site and target transport mode split to encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport.

b) Existing public transport and cycling routes, stops and infrastructure (e.g. shelters, signage, pedestrian crossings) within the site and surrounds

c) Bicycle parking rates and the location and layout of any bicycle parking areas including end of trip facilities.

d) Green Travel Plan initiatives, including an employee awareness and education program.

Page 71


e) The means proposed to encourage the use of public transport to access the site and improve access and facilities appropriate to the scale of the development, including:

i) A plan / design of a level access tram stop on Chapel Street (north and south bound) abutting the development site and any tram stop rationalisation proposed. The plan / design must include any road safety audits required and a review of on street parking and how any reduction will be managed. The plan /design must be suitable for public consultation to occur;

ii) The provision of a network of safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access ways to and through the site connecting with public transport stops and the surrounding area to encourage the use of sustainable travel modes. This should include any future proofing required for pedestrian links to adjoining sites including over the railway corridor (if available). Pedestrian links to South Yarra and Hawksburn stations should also be explored where possible;

iii) The estimated costs of the improved public transport access and facilities proposed;

iv) Detail the consultation / approvals process for the level access stop and how the project / consultation will be managed; and

v) How and when the improved public transport access and facilities proposed will be funded and delivered (if approved) by the permit holder. The funding must include any costs incurred by Public Transport Victoria for document review or construction costs as appropriate.

f) The means proposed to address and mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by the development on the surrounding road network and any unreasonable delays to public transport services including:

i) The investigation of network improvements to improve traffic flows at key intersections to assist with public transport priority; and

ii) The estimated costs of the works, including how and when the works

will be delivered and funded by the permit holder.

46. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Head, Transport for Victoria, prior to the occupation of the development, all works identified in the endorsed Integrated Transport Plan as required for improved public transport access and facilities and road mitigation works must be completed at the full cost of the permit holder and to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria, and its agencies as appropriate.

In the event the works identified in the endorsed Integrated Transport Plan cannot be completed prior to the occupation of the development, the owner must make arrangements to enter into an agreement between the Responsible Authority, Transport for Victoria and any other parties as required, pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the timing and delivery of the works in the approved Integrated Transport Plan.

Page 72


Before occupation of the development, an application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to register the Section 173 Agreement on the title of the development. The permit holder must meet all costs associated with the preparation and execution of the Section 173 Agreement to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria.

47. As built drawings for the foundations to the ground floor level and retention system must be provided to Public Transport Victoria & VicTrack prior to the occupation of the development.

General Conditions

48. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with VicTrack, permanent or temporary soil anchors must not be installed on railway land.

49. Any damage to public transport infrastructure as a consequence of the construction works must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria, at the full cost of the permit holder.

50. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruptions to train and tram operations are kept to a minimum during the construction of the development, and in compliance with the Rail and Tram Safety and Environmental requirements.

51. Building materials (including glass/window/ balcony treatments) likely to have an effect on train driver operations along the rail corridor must be non-reflective and avoid using red or green colour schemes, to the satisfaction of the RTO.

52. No lighting is to be erected that throws light onto the railway tracks or which interferes with the visibility of signals and the rail lines by train drivers, to the satisfaction of the RTO. No building or structure is to be erected that interferes with or restricts train driver lines of sight to train signals.

53. The permit holder must meet any RTO and PTV costs required for the development documentation review or construction works associated with the development, as required by the RTO and PTV.

54. No drainage, effluent, waste, soil or other materials must enter or be directed to railway land, or stored or deposited on railway land.

55. Any wall which may be permitted to be located on the railway land boundary must be cleaned and finished using a graffiti resistant finish, or alternative measures used to prevent or reduce the potential of graffiti, to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria, Vic Track and RTO. Any wall which may be permitted to be located on the railway land boundary must not have any fitting, window or doorway which upon opening intrudes into the railway land.

Page 73


End of Transport for Victoria’s conditions

Melbourne Metro Rail Authority’s conditions

56. Before development starts, including demolition and bulk excavation, three (3) copies of a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority. The Construction Management Plan must include details of (but not be limited to) management proposals to minimise impacts to the construction of Melbourne Metro Infrastructure and must set out objectives and performance and monitoring requirements for:

a. The proposed demolition and construction program;b. Preferred arrangement for trucks delivering to the land, including delivery

and unloading and expected duration and frequency;c. An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated

disruptions to local services;d. Measures to ensure that all works on the land will be carried out in

accordance with the Construction Management Plans.

57. All demolition and construction works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan must be implemented at no cost to Melbourne Metro Rail Authority.

End of Melbourne Metro Rail Authority’s conditions

58. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within four years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within seven years of the date of this permit.

c) The use is not commenced within two years of the completion of the development.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

i. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

ii. This property is located in a Heritage Overlay and planning permission may be required to demolish or otherwise externally alter any existing structures. External alterations include paint removal and any other form of decoration and works, but does not include re-painting an already painted surface.

Page 74


iii. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

1) Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

2) Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

iv. Background music level, in relation to premises, means a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voices to a substantial level.

v. It is intended that the Agreement required by condition 5 will replace the Agreement registered in Instrument No. U785433U which will end upon registration of the replacement agreement.

Melbourne Water Note

vi. Land and floor level information available at Melbourne Water indicates that the above property is subject to flooding from the Essex Main Drain (Dr4812). The applicable 1% AEP flood level is 11.92 metres to Australian Height Datum.

Transport for Victoria Notes

vii. Works undertaken within railway land must consider all standards and work practices for work within the railway land and conform to all relevant Australian standards including Victorian Rail Industry Operator Group (VRIOG) standards for any interface works and installation of underground utility services, to the satisfaction of the RTO and Public Transport Victoria.

viii. Entry onto railway land is at the discretion of the RTO and is subject to the RTO’s Site Access Procedures and conditions.

ix. Prior to commencement of works, the RTO must be contacted through the email address [email protected] to obtain the RTO’s conditions and safety requirements for works on, over or adjacent to railway land.

x. Any RTO costs required to review documents or construction plan works within the rail environment must be met by the permit holder.

Page 75


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 246/17 - 90-96 MATHOURA ROAD TOORAK


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a four-storey apartment building comprising nine dwellings in a General Residential Zone and on common property at 90-96 Mathoura Road, Toorak.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Bruce Henderson Architects Pty LtdWard: NorthZone: General Residential Zone Schedule 10Overlay: NilNeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 1Date lodged: 24 March 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date) 273Trigger for referral to Council: Objections (11 properties)Number of objections: 15 (11 properties)Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 12 September 2017Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration are known as follows:

Advertised Plans

Prepared by Bruce Henderson Architects including TP1.00-TP1.07 and TP2.06 (Council date stamped 24 March 2017), TP1.08-TP1.10, TP2.01, TP4.01 and TP6.01 (Council date stamped 16 June 2017), TP2.02-TP2.05, TP3.01-TP3.02, TP5.01-TP5.08 (Council date stamped 19 June 2017).

Discussion Plans

Prepared by Bruce Henderson Architects including TP2.01-TP2.06, TP3.01-TP3.02, TP4.01, TP5.01-TP5.08 (Council date stamped 19 December 2017 ‘without prejudice’).

Key features of the proposal are: A four-storey apartment building comprising nine dwellings (8x3 bedroom, 1x4

bedroom) 19 car spaces in a basement car park for residents, no visitor parking provision. Maximum proposed building height of 14.5 metres. Sandstone coloured rendered finish, with charcoal paint and stone cladding detail,

charcoal powder-coated steel window frames and fins, sandstone pavers, charcoal non-reflective roof finish and selected glazing throughout.

Page 77


Changes made within discussion plans submitted 19 December 2017 seek to address objections and referral comments (discussed in depth within this report) and are detailed as follows: Increase the number of parking spaces in the basement from 19 to 20, including the

provision of one visitor car parking space; Adjustments made to the basement lobby/bin storage area to ensure doors do not

open into the basement as per the recommendations of Council's Traffic Engineers; Four (4) bicycle spaces provided in the north-west corner of the site; Basement footprint reduced, with insets provided in the north-east and north-west

corners to improve landscaping at the ground floor level; Site coverage reduced from 64.1% to 63.5%; Ground Floor northern setback, increased to 3.0 metres (previously 2.75 metres) from

the Sitting room and two Bedrooms associated with Apartment GF02 and the Kitchen of GF03;

First Floor northern setbacks of Bedrooms to Apartment 102 and Study/balcony of Apartment 103 increased to 3.0 metres;

Balcony to Apartment 103 decreased in area from 15.1 square metres to 13.9 square metres, with a 1.7 metre high screen provided on the eastern side of the balcony;

The number of First Floor, east-facing windows reduced and the two remaining windows show sill heights of 1.7 metres;

Second Floor northern setback increased from 4.3 metres to a minimum of 4.5 metres; Second Floor north-facing balcony to Apartment 202 increased northern setback to 3.0

metres (previously 2.75 metres); Street setback of Apartment 201 increased (in part) from 7.42 metres to 8.8 metres and

the primary useable balcony space for this apartment relocated from the north to the west;

Second Floor eastern setbacks increased from 1.68 metres to 4.5 metres (to walls); The balcony associated with Apartment 202 relocated from the north to the east; The southern balcony associated with Apartment 202 remains as advertised, however

its south-east corner has an increased southern setback of 5.6 metres (previously 3.98 metres);

All Third Floor northern setbacks are a minimum of 5.5 metres (previously 6.3 metres). The extent of balcony on the northern side of this level reduced and has a minimum setback of 4.5 metres;

Third Floor eastern setbacks increased from 1.77 metres to 4.5 metres and reduction to one (secondary) habitable room window facing east;

Third Floor southern setback to the walk-in robe increased from 9.54 metres to 11.04 metres;

Internal reconfiguration of rooms and relocation of windows to accommodate the changes to the setbacks and layout; and

Elevations updated to reflect the abovementioned changes.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Mathoura Road, approximately 30 metres south of the intersection of Mathoura and Toorak Roads. The site has the following significant characteristics: The site has an area of approximately 983 square metres. The site currently comprises four allotments and common property. Each allotment

accommodates a semi-detached brick dwelling with a pitched, tiled roof. Vehicular access to the site is gained via a single crossover to the centre of the site

frontage to Mathoura Road, connecting to a shared accessway providing on-site car parking at the rear.

Page 78


The residential character of Mathoura Road is comprised of a combination of single and multi-dwelling developments, including both larger lot sizes and fine grain subdivision patterns.

A number of lots within close proximity of the subject site have been developed with multi-level apartment buildings. Dwellings and residential buildings in Mathoura Road are constructed with a mixture of brick, concrete and rendered finishes, with a combination of flat and pitched tiled roof forms. It is noted that minimal recession of levels above ground is a common design element found in the area.

Front fences of 1.8 metres and above with solid finishes are a common feature within the streetscape.

The subject site includes minimal vegetation within the frontage, with an approximately 1.8 metre high hedge along the front title boundary and grassed area forward of the dwelling facades. Each area of private open space to the rear accommodates a tree. Two street trees are located within the nature strip to Mathoura Road, either side of the crossover.

The site has the following relevant interfaces: North: Land adjoining the subject site to the north is known as 98 Mathoura Road. It is

zoned Commercial 1 and is developed with a two-storey building currently utilised as a multi-service medical centre. Land further north (428 Toorak Road) has a frontage to Toorak Road and is built to the title boundary along both Toorak and Mathoura Roads. It is noted that the rear of 432 and 434 Toorak Road abuts the north/north-east boundaries of the subject land. Both lots are within the Commercial 1 Zone and are used and developed for commercial purposes. The land abutting the subject site within the Commercial 1 Zone is located within the Toorak Village precinct.

South: Land to the south of the subject site is known as 88 Mathoura Road and is located within a General Residential Zone. The land area is approximately 1314 square metres and has been developed with a four storey, multi-dwelling apartment building with basement car parking, approved by the Tribunal (774/11). The building has been sited and designed to make efficient use of its northern orientation. Vehicle access is provided via Mathoura Road to the south of the frontage.

East: Land adjoining the subject site to the east is located within the Commercial 1 Zone and is currently utilised and developed as a Council carpark comprising approximately 42 parking spaces.

West: Land to the west of the site on the opposite site of Mathoura Road is a combination of commercially zoned (109 Mathoura Road) and residentially zoned (107 Mathoura Road) properties. 109 Mathoura Road is developed with a two storey building utilised as an office, with onsite car parking provided to the south. The building has a minimal front setback, with some projecting elements hard to the street edge, and deep reveals around the windows to articulate the façade. 107 Mathoura Road is developed with a two storey, ‘L-shaped’ brick building comprising four dwellings, on a lot of approximately 1485 square metres. 426a Toorak Road is located at the south-west corner of Toorak and Mathoura Roads and contains a 2-3 storey brick building with no setback to Mathoura Road.

Planning History

A search of Council’s records indicates no relevant past planning permit history on the subject sites.

Prior to lodgement of the current application, an application was made to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Ref: P1511/2016) for a declaration pursuant to Section 149A(2)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, seeking clarification on the maximum allowable development height on the land. This is discussed at length further in this report.

Page 79


The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 09192 Folio 596, 597, 598 and 599 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone 10

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-10 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

It is important to note that the application was submitted to Council 23 March 2017, prior to the gazettal of Amendment VC110 (27 March 2017) however the Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL) Certificate was submitted 11 April 2017. Sections 47 (1A) and (1B) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 specify that if an MPL certificate is required, it must be submitted with the application in order for the application to be considered complete. Therefore as the complete application was made after gazettal of Amendment VC110, the mandatory Garden Area requirement is applicable to the application.

The submitted discussion plans demonstrate a minimum Garden Area of approximately 33.8%. The shortfall from the mandatory provision of 35% is minimal and will not require a major redesign in order for it to be achieved. As such, a condition of any approval issued will require the minimum Garden Area of 35% be provided.

Clause 32.08 provides the following guidance on mandatory building height:A building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed 9 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres. This does not apply to:

An extension of an existing building or the construction of a new building that exceeds the specified building height which does not exceed the height of immediately adjacent buildings facing the same street.

The Applicant seeks to apply the above height control exemption to the proposed development. The ability to apply this exemption has been confirmed via a declaration from the Tribunal, pursuant to Section 149A(2)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Order was issued 6 February 2017, prior to the submission of the current application to Council.

Point 2 of Order (VCAT Ref) No. P1511/2016 states the following:

Pursuant to section 149A(2)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, I declare that:

Clause 3.0 of the General Residential Zone (Schedule 10) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme enables a permit to be granted for a building or an extension to a building on the land at 90-96 Mathoura Road, Toorak that is no higher than the immediately adjacent Building/s which is/are facing the same street in the same zone, being the building/s at 86A-88 Mathoura Road, Toorak.

Page 80


It is considered that the proposed maximum overall building height of 14.5 metres is compliant with the above exemption. The adjoining development at 86A-88 Mathoura Road has a maximum overall height of 15.0 metres from natural ground (AHD 41.06) which is the same height as the proposed maximum height of 14.5 metres (AHD 41.06) due to the topography of the land.

In addition to the above, Amendment VC136 was gazetted 13 April 2017 and introduced provisions into the Planning Scheme with regard to Apartment Developments. The relevant provisions are found at Clause 55.07 (Apartment Developments) of the Scheme. As the application, including MPL Certificate, was submitted prior to this date, the provisions of Clause 55.07 are not applicable to the current proposal and have not been included in this report.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11.06 – Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15 – Built Environment and HeritageClause 16.01 – Residential DevelopmentClause 21.05 – HousingClause 21.06 – Built Environment and HeritageClause 22.05 – Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 – Stormwater ManagementClause 22.23 – Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 32.08 – General Residential ZoneClause 52.06 – Car ParkingClause 52.34 – Bicycle FacilitiesClause 55 – Two or more Dwellings on a Lot (ResCode)Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application was advertised in July 2017 pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing a sign on the site frontage. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and objections from 11 different properties have been received with issues raised summarised into themes as follows:

Built form Overdevelopment of the site/excessive visual bulk; Proposed building should be no higher than the development at 88 Mathoura Road; Site coverage/basement coverage is excessive; Insufficient front setbacks to Mathoura Road (west), north and south; The upper level should be removed or setback in line with 88 Mathoura Road, with

adequate screening provided; and Lack of housing diversity (9x3 bedroom apartments).

Neighbourhood Character The proposal does not respond to the existing or emerging scale of development in the

area; and Colours and materials should provide a stronger response to neighbourhood character.

Page 81


Amenity Loss of amenity and overshadowing to adjoining north-facing courtyards of 88

Mathoura Road; and Loss of north-facing views.

Landscaping Insufficient landscaping opportunities.

Traffic/parking Inadequate parking provision (residents and visitors); Congestion of Mathoura Road; and Insufficient bicycle parking provision.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 12 September 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillor(s) Griffin and Koce, representatives of the Applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

The meeting resulted in changes to the plans, however it is important to note that revised plans have been submitted on 19 December 2017 on a ‘without prejudice’ basis and do not formally replace the advertised plans. It is noted that revised plans have not been readvertised as they have not been formally submitted pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The changes proposed within these plans are listed in detail earlier.

Referrals

The advertised plans were referred to the following internal departments for comment:

Infrastructure Transport and Parking Urban Design Local Laws – Crossover Waste Management Parks

A summary of the comments received from each of the above is listed below:

Infrastructure:

The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line.

There will be significant additional stormwater runoff generated by the development and there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 2,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

The above comments are noted and will form conditions of any approval granted.

Page 82


Transport and Parking:

The proposal generates a statutory parking provision requirement of 18 onsite parking spaces for the residential component. With all 19 onsite parking spaces allocated to the residents, the proposal exceeds the minimum statutory requirements for residential parking.

The proposal generates a statutory parking provision requirement of 1 onsite parking space for residential visitors to the development. No visitor parking spaces are proposed, and a dispensation is sought.

The Traffic Engineering Assessment states that there is sufficient parking in the area to accommodate the shortfall associated with residential visitors. Council’s Transport and Parking Unit does not agree with this, and the residential parking demands should be accommodated onsite. The proposal already includes a surplus in onsite parking, and there is no reason why visitor parking could not be provided onsite.

The Traffic Engineering Assessment adopts a traffic generation rate of 6.5 daily vehicle trips per dwelling (0.65 movements per dwelling during the peak hour) which can be accepted in this instance.

The width of the access is shown at 3m, with 300mm kerbs on either side. This meets the minimum requirements, and is considered satisfactory.

The headroom clearance available along the ramp is shown at the minimum of 2.2m, which is considered satisfactory.

The plans show sight distance triangles on either side of the access point at the property, including an annotation stating the splays will be in accordance with the Planning Scheme. This is generally accepted, however it must be ensured that any vegetation within the splays does not exceed the height of 900mm.

Typical parking spaces are 4.9m long, 2.8m wide, accessed via a 6.2m wide parking aisle. 2 spaces are 2.6m wide, accessed via a 6.4m wide aisle. This is generally satisfactory.

The plans show the parking aisle has been extended past end parking bays by 1m, as required by the Australian Standards. This is considered satisfactory.

The plans show the location and set-back of the columns in accordance with the Planning Scheme requirements, and this is considered satisfactory.

Sight distance between vehicles on the ramp and vehicles in the parking area is limited, and it is recommended this be treated to avoid issues when opposing movements occur. Vehicles are not to be forced to reverse out of the property or along the ramp due to lack of sight distance.

The pedestrian access point to the stairwell within the car parking area is directly from the trafficable area of the parking aisle, and given the solid walls on either side, sight distance will be limited, which could result in conflict between pedestrians and circulating vehicles. It is recommended the sight distance be improved by providing openings in the wall or similar.

The proposed storage units near parking spaces 1 to 4 include doors that open into parking spaces, which is not appropriate. It is noted that future tenants can manage this if the storage units are allocated to the same dwelling as the abutting parking space, however a parked vehicle will need to be moved every time access to the storage unit is required. This is not a practicable arrangement, and should be reviewed.

The longitudinal section submitted as part of the application material shows the ramp graded in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme, and this is considered satisfactory.

With 4 bicycle parking spaces provided onsite, the proposal meets the minimum statutory requirements.

Page 83


It is noted that the discussion plans submitted 19 December 2017 included changes to address concerns raised by the Traffic and Parking Department. Proposed changes include the provision of one visitor car parking space within the basement (complies with Clause 52.06 - Car Parking) and alteration of doors obstructing minimum dimensions. Outstanding matters will be addressed via conditions of any approval granted.

Urban Design:

Subject to the following suggested variations (below), the overall form of the building together with the finely-scaled design character, presents well in the Mathoura Road streetscape. The sheer 4-storey interface to the east, however, does not provide for an equitable development outcome for the adjoining Council-owned property in the Commercial Zone.

In its current form, the building footprint (including the basement) crowds the site and does not provide adequate space for a meaningful in-ground landscape setting as required by the design objectives of the ‘Garden Suburban’ Neighbourhood Character Precinct and Council’s Landscape Policy.

The following side and rear setbacks are recommended, in line with those required in the VCAT-approved development adjoining the subject site at 88 Mathoura Road:

o Increase the basement side setbacks to a minimum of 1.5m.o Ground and First Floor setbacks to be a minimum of 3m.o Rear setbacks above the First Floor to be a minimum of 4.5m.o External faces of balconies/terraces to be a minimum of 4.5m from shared

boundaries.

It is noted that the submitted discussion plans sought to address concerns regarding setbacks raised by Council’s Urban Designer. The submitted discussion plans demonstrate insets at the north-east and north-west corners of the basement in lieu of 1.5 metre setbacks along both sides. At the Ground and First floors, setbacks have been increased to incorporate insets of a minimum 3.0 metres. Setbacks at the west have been increased to be a minimum of 4.5 metres at Level 02 and 03. Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the discussion plans and has indicated that whilst the submitted plans do not match the setbacks suggested in previous comments exactly, the setbacks provided seek to respond to Council’s comments as well as the context of the surrounding area and are acceptable. No further concerns with the proposal were raised.

Parks:

The Applicant’s justification to remove a healthy street tree is based on the fact that the roots of the tree are impacting on the Council footpath. If Council removed every street tree within the municipality which was impacting on the adjacent concrete footpath then Stonnington Council would lose almost every established avenue of mature street trees throughout Toorak, South Yarra, Malvern, Malvern East and Prahran. The street tree removal is not supported.

The basement location may have been altered slightly, but it still occupies 75% of the site. The built form appears to be the same. Landscape content is still limited for this site.

It is considered that the location of the street tree is a design constraint, as locating the proposed accessway for the basement to the centre of the site will result in a poor design outcome. If it was contemplated to redesign the proposal to accommodate the location of the tree in question (Golden Ash), the result would be a dominant entry point to the basement level in the centre of the site frontage, creating a ‘hole’ in the building façade. Comments provided by Council’s Urban Designer advise that the relocation of the crossover and

Page 84


basement accessway to the centre of the site in order to retain the tree, will result in an undesirable built form outcome and should be avoided.

The relocation of the accessway to the centre of the site would result in a loss of car parking spaces within the basement, resulting in a non-compliance with Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. This is due to the altered basement layout requiring additional area for turning circles and vehicle access to parking spaces with the introduction of a central entrance.

In addition, the redesign would require major reconfiguration of each subsequent level due to relocation of lift shafts and stairwells. The reconfiguration of each level is likely to result in a reduction in setbacks to the residential building to the south at 88 Mathoura Road, which would potentially result in increased detriment and a further loss of amenity to this residential interface.

The current proposed location of the basement entry affords the site additional and valuable built form setbacks from the southern boundary and acts to achieve compliance with the modified provisions of Standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks) as directed by the General Residential Zone Schedule 10 at Clause 32.08. This is discussed in detail in later sections of this report.

In the context of the existing development, the location of the existing crossover to the centre of the site results in a ‘side setback’ appearance between the dwellings, as the accessway extends the length of the site providing parking to the rear. This is opposed to an opening to an underground basement level in the centre of the development, which would be the result of redesigning the proposed development to accommodate central access and retention of the Golden Ash.

Moreover, as there is a larger established street tree to the north of the street frontage, there is no ability to mirror the basement layout and to provide the crossover to the north of the site without impacting on or removing the tree.

It is important to note that each Planning application must be assessed on its merits. Council’s Urban Forest Strategy, which forms the basis of comments provided by Parks, is an important document which provides a mechanism for Council to minimise the loss of valuable vegetation, including street trees. However, when considering the impacts of each option on balance, in this instance it is considered that the negative cumulative impact of increased building bulk, loss of car parking, increased hard surface and potential loss of landscaping opportunities on site to retain the street tree, is a more detrimental outcome than the loss of one street tree. In an effort to compensate for the loss of the street tree in this circumstance, replacement planting within the nature strip will be required, as well as the planting of additional trees within the front setback of Dwellings GF01 and GF02. This will be achieved via conditions of any approval granted.

On this basis, it is considered reasonable that the Golden Ash to the south of the nature reserve be removed and the existing crossover reinstated to kerb and nature strip, with replacement planting of two trees to the north of the proposed crossover. Replacement planting will form a condition of any approval granted and will require that the replacement trees must have a total amenity value of a minimum of $3900 and be of a species, size and in a location to Council’s satisfaction. It is noted that the above amenity value has been provided by Councils Parks Department, being the equivalent value of the existing tree proposed for removal.

Local Laws – Crossover:

Page 85


The proposed crossover is a width of 3.0 metres which is acceptable. Redundant crossing is to be reinstated. The proposal seeks to remove a Council street tree, which is not supported in line with

Councils’ Urban Forest Strategy. The location of the proposed crossover will result in a net loss of 1 on street car parking

space. The proposed crossover is not supported.

As discussed above, the removal of the street tree is considered to be acceptable in this instance and should not disallow a more suitable overall design response. As such, the proposed location of the crossover should be accepted.

Waste Management:

Table 1 on page 6 (of the submitted Waste Management Report) cites waste generation rates for one and two bedroom apartments that differ from the Stonnington standard allocation as found in the ‘City of Stonnington Residential Waste Management Guidelines’ – 120L per tenement per week.

The Waste Management Plan proposes the use of a private waste collector. The Waste Management Plan must provide the flexibility for future ratepayers to opt for Council waste collections.

Justification is required for the use of 4-wheeled waste bins in such a modest sized development without a waste chute in-lieu of the more common, easier managed, and more economical 240-litre mobile garbage bins.

If 4-wheeled waste bins are utilised, clarification on whether they are to be emptied from within the basement or presented at the kerbside for emptying.

Any proposal that suggests a waste collection vehicle enter a basement to conduct collections must be supported by a swept path diagram verifying access and turning circles while all car spaces are occupied are available to a waste collection vehicle.

A fully laden 1100 litre waste bin can weigh more than 100kg making it unwieldy to manoeuvre and very difficult, potentially dangerous to manage on a slope. If 4-wheeled bins are utilised, and collections occur at the kerbside, the Waste Management Plan must detail how bins will be safely transported between the basement level and ground.

Any Planning Permit issued for this development must include a condition specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan. Once a Planning Permit has been issued for the development, a Waste Management Plan (similar to that previewed here but amended to address the issues raised above) should be submitted for approval.

The above comments are noted and will form conditions of any approval granted.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and Local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres, where it is close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

Page 86


In accordance with Clause 21.03-2 (Strategic Vision), the subject site is situated beside an activity centre and is within close proximity of a main road (Toorak Road) which is serviced by public transport. On this basis, it is considered that the subject site is an appropriate location to direct higher-density residential development.In addition, the subject land is not affected by any overlay provisions and has a site area of 983 square metres which is considered to be capable of accommodating increased density in line with the policy.

In principle, the redevelopment of this land to provide additional housing opportunities in a well-serviced location is supported. Specific elements of the proposal are examined in detail below.

Neighbourhood Character

As described in the site and surrounds section, this neighbourhood generally displays a varied built form character with regard to scale and architectural style. There are examples of single detached dwellings with pitched tiled roof forms, combined with higher density, modern developments which are an emerging character within the immediate context. There are numerous VCAT decisions which support the proposition that contemporary architecture should not be rejected simply because it does not reflect the architecture of the past. Respecting neighbourhood character does not require replication of existing building stock or stop change. Instead, it means designing the development to respond to the features and characteristics of the neighbourhood. This neighbourhood includes examples of departure from the conventionally styled dwellings. Although the proposal is more akin to the newer development, this design approach is acceptable in principle.

The proposal seeks to develop the subject site with a four-storey apartment style building, comprising nine dwellings, with an overall building height of 14.5 metres.

The proposed building height is compatible with the approved development to the south at 88 Mathoura Road, which is constructed to an overall height of 15.0 metres from natural ground level. It is contemplated that the proposed development will not result in a built form that significantly deviates from the height or form of surrounding properties.

The building is setback 5.8 metres from the street frontage on the ground floor, which does not comply with Standard B6 (the Standard requires a setback of 6.3 metres). It is noted that this section of Mathoura Road does not display a consistent pattern of front setback. In addition, the proposed development incorporates front setbacks of 5.8 metres at first floor level, 5.8-7.4 metres at second floor level and 10.3 metres at the top level (taken from the external wall). The increasing front setbacks of the upper levels ensure that the proposal will not present to Mathoura Road as an overly bulky element. In addition, landscaping will be provided within the front setback to soften the impact of hard surface. When comparing the site plan to the corresponding elevations, the minimum front setback is depicted as 5.62 metres (South Elevation) and 5.75 metres (North Elevation). A condition of approval will require that a minimum setback of 5.8 metres is achieved and shown on all relevant elevations at Ground Floor, Level 01 and Level 02, in accordance with the site plans dated 19 December 2017.

It is noted that the proposed 2.0 metre high front fence is compatible with the existing character of high front fences within the street.

As the proposal shares interfaces to the north and east with commercially zoned land, the consideration of backyard character is limited to assessment to the south. As previously mentioned, the land to the south (88 Mathoura Road) is developed with a four-storey, multi-dwelling apartment building with basement parking. The building is constructed to the

Page 87


boundary at the Ground and First Floor levels to the east (rear) where the property is adjacent to the adjoining Council carpark. It is noted that the proposed development seeks to incorporate setbacks from the east of between 1.6-1.8 metres at both Ground and First Floor. As such, there is no distinct backyard character within the immediate area which should be adhered to.

Along the Mathoura Road frontage, the proposed development presents to the street as a three-storey building with a recessed fourth level. When viewed from the street, the Ground Floor is setback from the southern boundary between 1.8-5.3 metres from the title boundary, due to the basement entry. The First and Second floors incorporate an increased setback from the southern boundary of 3.3 metres and the top floor setback is 8.9 metres from the boundary. This is considered to provide adequate visual relief and articulation. It is noted that screening for balconies protrudes into these setbacks, however are necessary elements of the building as they address overlooking. The screens are 1.7 metres in height from finished floor level and are constructed of solid rendered wall (to match the exterior of the building) to a height of 1.0 metres and glass for the remaining 0.7 metres. The use of glass assists to minimise the impact of the screen in terms of visual bulk, whilst still providing adequate screening.

When considering the northern portion of the building as viewed from the street, the Ground Floor, Level 1 and Level 2 are all setback 1.9 metres from the northern boundary. The top floor is proposed to be setback between 5.5-6.3 metres from the northern boundary. The section of wall to be setback 1.95 metres from the boundary has a length of approximately 9.1 metres and incorporates windows, doors and balconies at each level for articulation. It is noted that the remaining length of the building to the north is setback between 3.0-4.9 metres from the northern boundary. In terms of neighbourhood character, as the land adjoining to the north is commercially zoned and is utilised for commercial purposes, it is considered that a transition to more intensive built form can be acceptable. Further commentary on side and rear setbacks is included in the (ResCode) assessment in this report.

When assessing the proposed built form, Council’s Urban Designer has indicated that ‘the overall form of the building together with the finely-scaled design character, presents well in the Mathoura Road streetscape’. There are examples of other large scale multi-dwelling apartment buildings within Mathoura Road, which demonstrate a similar intensity of development. These examples (all within approximately 80 metres of the subject site) include: 105 Mathoura Rd - three storeys 103 Mathoura Rd - three storeys 88 Mathoura Road - four storeys 84-86 Mathoura Rd - four storeys 82 Mathoura Rd - three storeys

Colours and materials proposed are reflective of those found within the immediate area and include neutral tones of render, paint, cladding and steel. In order to ensure a high quality finish after construction, a condition of any approval granted will require the use of either stone or rendered masonry to the exterior of the building, where render is shown on the submitted colours and finishes schedule (T6.01).

Careful consideration has been made to the adjoining interfaces, equitable development and landscaping opportunities onsite, to provide for a building which integrates successfully into the streetscape.

Page 88


In accordance with Clause 22.23, the subject site falls within the Garden Suburban 1 (‘GS1’) Precinct, which has the following preferred future character:

The Garden Suburban 1 (GS1) precinct comprises leafy streetscapes with a range of Victorian, Edwardian or Interwar era and contemporary buildings set in established garden surrounds. In typical streets regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for small, well designed garden areas that contribute to the landscape quality of the street. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of form, general one-two storey scale and design detail of the older buildings. Low, visually permeable front fences retain views to gardens and dwellings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

The table below outlines how the application performs against the Neighbourhood Character Policy:

Design Objectives

Design responses Response of the proposal

To encourage the retention of intact, older dwellings that contribute to the character of the area.

Attempt to retain Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar era buildings that are intact and in good conditions, where possible.

The application seeks to demolish the existing dwellings, which is not prohibited under current/proposed planning controls.

Clause 22.23 does not introduce demolition controls for the subject site. Given the absence of heritage controls, a planning permit is not required for demolition.

Page 89


To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape.

For sites within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area, any upper levels should be designed to minimise impact on any adjoining residential property.

For sites in other areas, buildings should reflect the predominant 1-2 storey scale of the streetscape.

The proposed development will present to Mathoura Road as a three-storey building with a recessed fourth-level.

This outcome is consistent with recent approvals in this section of Mathoura Road and will avoid an unreasonably prominent presentation to the street.

To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the details of buildings in the area.

New buildings should respond to the streetscape character in an innovative and contemporary manner.

Articulate the facades of buildings with the use of recesses, verandahs, balconies, window openings and variations in materials and colours.

Roof forms should incorporate eaves.

The proposed development presents a contemporary architectural style, which is considered acceptable given the mixed built form in this neighbourhood and the lack of design-specific controls.

The proposed development is well articulated through the use of setbacks, materiality, balconies and openings.

The selected finishes and materials are common in this site context.

To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings.

Provide adequate space between and around buildings to accommodate vegetation.

The proposed development is setback generally in accordance with Standard B17, which maintains the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings.

The proposed setbacks will also allow for landscaping around the perimeter of the building, with opportunity for canopy tree planting.

To maintain and strengthen the garden setting of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.

Include canopy trees and shrubs in landscape plans.

For small garden spaces, ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to contribute to the landscape quality of the streetscape.

Retain established or mature trees where possible and provide for the planting of new canopy trees.

Set back basements from all property boundaries to allow for in-ground planting.

The proposed development includes the planting of two canopy trees in the front setback, as well as one tree each in the north-east and south-east corners of the site. This will help to soften the appearance of the proposed development when viewed from the public realm and adjoining properties.

Planter boxes will be used at upper levels to provide additional opportunities for greenery throughout the development.

Page 90


To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures.

Car parking structures should be located behind the front façade of the dwelling fronting the street.

Hard paving for car parking should be minimised and permeable surfaces used as an alternative to impermeable hard surfacing.

The proposed parking spaces are located within a basement, which is appropriate. The proposed landscaping in the front setback will soften the appearance of the basement ramp.

To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the street and retain views to the dwellings and gardens.

Provide either no front fence or a low, open style front fence constructed of materials appropriate to the dwelling style and era.

On main roads higher front fences may be constructed where they provide approximately 20% permeability and recesses for landscaping.

The proposal includes the construction of a 2.0 metre high timber picket front fence. This is considered to be an appropriate response within the streetscape, as Mathoura Road includes many examples of high, front fences. It is noted that many examples of fencing in Mathoura Road are solid walls. As the proposed front fence includes visual permeability, views to landscaping as well as the building behind and increased connectivity with the street are an advantage.

For the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposed development makes an appropriate response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.

Clause 55 – Two or More Dwellings on a Lot (ResCode)

The application has been assessed against the Objectives and Standards of Clause 55 - Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode), with the exception of Clause 55.07 (Residential Development). The development is generally compliant with the policy, the following relevant Standards are highlighted and discussed:

Building Height

As previously discussed, the proposal seeks to take benefit from an exemption within Clause 3.0 of Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone which states:

An extension of an existing building or the construction of a new building that exceeds the specified building height which does not exceed the height of immediately adjacent buildings facing the same street.

It is proposed to construct to a maximum building height of 14.5 metres (AHD 41.06), which is consistent with the overall height of the adjoining dwelling at 88 Mathoura Road, which has a height of 15.0 metres (AHD 41.06) from ground level.

It is acknowledged that constructing a building to the maximum allowable building height may not guarantee an outcome which will be contextually appropriate. However, when

Page 91


considering the form of the existing apartment building to the south which gives guidance on the proposed height as discussed above, as well as the commercial interface to the north and carpark to the east, the proposed mass is an appropriate response to the context of the site. As such, the proposal is consistent with Standard B7 (Building Height) as the proposed building height is reflective of the existing neighbourhood character.

Site Coverage

Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone applies a modification to Standard B8 (Site Coverage Objective) which requires than no more than 75% of the site area can be accommodated by a basement level. It is noted that the proposal complies with this, as the basement is proposed to occupy 75% of the site area. The discussion plans submitted 19 December 2017 seek to reduce the area of the basement further with a proposed coverage of 74.8% of the site area.

At ground level, the proposal seeks a minor variation to the Standard as it seeks to occupy a total of 64.1% of the site area, where ResCode directs that building site coverage should not exceed 60% of the site. The discussion plans submitted 19 December 2017 seek to reduce site coverage at ground floor to 63.5%. It is considered that whilst the proposal falls short of the Standard by 3.5%, the Objective has been met as the proposal demonstrates a site coverage which is consistent with high site coverage found within developments in this section of Mathoura Road.In addition, the proposed site coverage allows for landscaping around the perimeter of the site in accordance with neighbourhood character objectives.

Permeability

Standard B9 (Permeability Objectives) seeks to achieve a minimum of 20% permeable surface to the site. The proposal seeks to achieve the specified Standard, with proposed permeable surface equating to 20.3% of the site area.

Landscaping

In addition to the standard requirements of B13 (Landscaping), Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone 10 applies a modification which requires the planting of one canopy tree, in addition to the requirements of the Standard.

The proposal seeks to plant two canopy trees within the site frontage, with opportunity for two additional smaller trees at the rear. The submitted discussion plans provided greater insets at the north-east and north-west corners of the site to enhance planting opportunities at the rear. It is considered that the proposal exceeds the specified minimum requirement of the standard and seeks to provide landscaping in accordance with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.

Side and Rear Setbacks

Page 92


Standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks) provides guidance on how to calculate appropriate building setbacks from boundaries, when considering associated wall heights. It is noted that Schedule to the General Residential Zone applies a modification to the Standard, which requires that for a distance of at least 5.0 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2.0 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1.0 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.

Within a distance of 5.0 metres behind the dwelling facade, the proposal seeks to construct the southern elevation 5.3 metres from the southern boundary. At first and second floor levels the setback is 3.3 metres and the top floor is proposed to be setback 8.9 metres. Setbacks on the northern side are a minimum of 1.0 metres, which is compliant with the ResCode minimum requirement of 1.0 metre. This setback confirms compliance with the modification to the Standard as required by the Schedule to the Zone.

The remainder of the building as demonstrated on the advertised plans has been assessed against the provisions of Standard B17 as follows:

Ground Proposed wall height Proposed setback ResCode requirement CompliesN 3.2m 1.9m 1.0m S 3.3m 1.8m 1.0m E (rear) 3.2m 1.6-1.8m 1.0m

Level 01 Proposed wall height Proposed setback ResCode requirement CompliesN 6.5m 1.9m 1.8m S 4.8m

7.2m1.8m (balcony wall)3.3m (wall)

1.3m2.2m

E (rear) 6.6m 1.6-1.8m 1.9m

Level 02 Proposed wall height Proposed setback ResCode requirement CompliesN 9.9m

7.6m1.9-3.0m (balcony wall)2.7m (wall)

4.9m2.6m

S 8.2m10.4m

3.3m (balcony wall)6.7m (wall)

3.2m5.4m

E (rear) 11.1m 1.6-1.8m (wall) 6.1m

Level 03 Proposed wall height Proposed setback ResCode requirement CompliesN 11.0m

13.9m4.4m (balcony wall)6.3m (wall)

6.0m8.9m

S 11.6m14.5m

6.7m (balcony wall)8.9m (wall)

6.6m9.5m

E (rear) 13.9m 1.7m 8.9m It is noted that as the basement does not protrude more than 1.2 metres above ground level, it is not considered to be a storey and is not subject to assessment against Standard B17. The proposal demonstrates full compliance with Standard B17 at Ground Floor level.

Non-compliances identified above are assessed as follows:

East

The proposal seeks to vary the Standard on the eastern (rear) elevation at Levels 01, 02 and 03. At Level 01 the proposal seeks a variation of 0.2 metres. The discussion plans submitted 19 December 2017 seek to provide an increased setback of 4.5 metres to Levels 02 and 03, which reduces the non-compliance for each level from 4.3 metres to 1.6 metres at Level 02 and from 7.2 metres to 4.4 metres at Level 03.

Page 93


It is important to acknowledge that the eastern interface is an adjoining Council carpark and is therefore not considered to be as sensitive as a potential residential interface. Nevertheless, consideration should be made to potential use and development of the land and how the proposal allows for this. It is noted that the eastern elevation of Level 02 includes the provision of a balcony within the 4.5 metre setback. In order to maintain the true 4.5 metre setback to this elevation, as well as equitable development opportunities to the east, a condition of any approval granted will require the removal of the east facing balcony at the second floor.

North

The proposal seeks to vary the Standard on the northern elevation at Levels 02 and 03. At Level 02 the proposal seeks a variation of 3.0 metres at the balcony wall, and at Level 03 a variation of 1.6 metres at the balcony wall and 4.2 metres to the wall. The submitted discussion plans dated 19 December 2017 seek to reduce these variations to 0.2 metres at Level 02 and 2.5-3.3 metres at Level 03.

It is considered that the proposed variations are acceptable as the land adjoining the subject site is commercially zoned and is utilised for commercial purposes (medical centre). It is noted that the proposed setbacks provide for adequate articulation and visual relief along the northern elevation. In addition, the proposed built form orientation and setbacks allow for equitable development opportunities to both the north and east.

South

The proposal demonstrates compliance with B17 at all levels on the southern elevation, with the exception of Level 03 (top level) where a variation of between 0.3-0.6 metres is sought. The non-compliant wall has a length of 22.5 metres and is adjacent to the fourth-storey of the adjoining residential building at 88 Mathoura Road. The proposed wall is setback 8.9 metres from the southern property boundary and recessed a further 2.2 metres from Level 02 below. Furthermore, the separation distance between the upper levels of the proposed development and the adjoining development at No. 88 is approximately 15.5 metres.

The proposed variation is minor in nature and provides adequate articulation of the southern elevation. It is considered that the proposed setback of Level 03 is consistent with the Objective of B17 in that it generally reflects existing neighbourhood character and limits impacts on the amenity of existing dwellings.

Walls on Boundaries

In addition to the standard requirements of B18 (Walls on Boundaries), Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone 10 applies a modification which directs that walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5.0 metres behind the front façade of the building facing the street.

The proposal demonstrates full compliance with this provision as no walls on any of the property boundaries are proposed.

North-facing Windows

Standard B20 provides guidance on required setbacks in order to achieve the objective of enabling adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows. The proposal is assessed against the provisions of B20 as follows:

Page 94


Advertised plans

Level Proposed wall height Proposed setback

ResCode requirement

Complies

Ground 3.3m 1.8m 1.0m Level 01 4.8m (balcony)

7.2m (wall)1.8m3.3m

1.7m3.2m

Level 02 7.6m (balcony) 9.8m (wall)

3.3m 6.7m

3.6m5.8m

Level 03 11.0m (balcony)14.0m (wall)

6.7m 8.9m

7.0m10.0m

As demonstrated, the Level 02 and 03 setback to the south falls short of the minimum ResCode required setback by 0.3 metres at the Level 02 and Level 03 balconies and 1.1 metres at the Level 03 wall.

It is considered that as the shortfall is minor and compliance can be reasonably achieved without a major redesign, a condition of any approval granted will require that the proposal is amended to demonstrate compliance with Standard B20.

Overshadowing

The proposal has been assessed against Standard B21 (Overshadowing Open Space Objective) and is considered to be an acceptable response. The majority of the proposed shadow falls within areas of existing shadow, or they fall outside private property boundaries to either the street (west) or the car park to the rear (east).

It is acknowledged that a small portion of additional shadow is cast within the ground floor terrace to the south at 88 Mathoura Road to the south, between the hours of 9am and 12pm (midday). However a minimum of 75% of the area has access to sunlight for a minimum of five hours between 9am and 3pm (at equinox) in accordance with the Standard.

Overlooking

The key assessment tool in determining overlooking potential is Standard B22 (Overlooking). The Standard provides a 9 metre, 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.

Full compliance has been achieved with this Standard, provided a condition of approval confirms that all screens to windows/balconies/terraces are notated as being ‘fixed’, in addition to existing notations that clarify minimum heights of 1.7 metres from finished floor level and maximum transparency of 25%.

Opportunities for overlooking from the Level 03 balconies to the adjoining development to the south have been identified. As such, a condition of any approval granted will require that the Level 03 balcony is screened in accordance with Standard B22 (Overlooking).

Internal Views

Opportunities for internal overlooking from the Level 03 balconies to balconies within the development below have been identified on all elevations. As such, a condition of any approval granted will require that the Level 03 balcony is screened in accordance with Standard B23 (Internal Views).

Page 95


Car Parking and Traffic

The application has a car parking requirement of 19 spaces (18 residential and 1 visitor). The submitted discussion plans propose to provide 20 spaces, with one allocated visitor parking space. As such, the proposal is compliant with on-site car parking provision.

Council's Transport and Parking Department have reviewed the provision of parking and the layout and access arrangements of the basement, and are supportive of the proposal. They have noted that the traffic generation from the proposal is considered satisfactory and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the surrounding road network.

Clause 22.05 – Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD):

The Applicant has submitted a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) in response to the application requirements of Clause 22.05-4. The SDA uses the BESS tool to demonstrate that the objectives of Clause 22.05 have been addressed.

The BESS score achieved for the development is 56%, with a minimum of 50% scored within four required categories of water (50%), energy (61%), stormwater (100%) and IEQ (81%). This score meets best practice and demonstrates the proposal adequately responds to the ESD objectives of Clause 22.05.

Clause 22.18 - Stormwater Management:

The submitted Sustainable Design Assessment submitted with the application included a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response as well as a STORM Rating Report. The submitted STORM Report achieved a rating of 100%. This meets the minimum requirement to satisfy Clause 22.18.

Objections


Lack of housing diversity (9x3 bedroom apartments)

Standard B3 (Dwelling Diversity) of Clause 55 (ResCode) is applicable to a development of 10 or more dwellings. As the proposal is for nine dwellings, the Standard cannot strictly be applied, however it is considered that apartment style dwellings (as opposed to single dwellings) comprising three bedrooms are not typically available within the municipality and therefore contribute to dwelling diversity.

Loss of north-facing views

Whilst it is recognised that views may form part of residential amenity, there are no specific controls within the Stonnington Planning Scheme that protects residents’ rights to a view. It is not considered that the extent of views lost or the significance of the view would warrant refusal or modification of the application.

It is noted that north-facing solar access has been assessed within this report and is considered to be acceptable.



Page 96


CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The application is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy that seeks to provide

for well-designed medium-density residential development that respects neighbourhood character in established urban areas.

The proposal provides for a satisfactory landscape response that will contribute to the landscape character of the area.

The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with ResCode (Clause 55) Objectives.

The proposal satisfies Council's Environmental Sustainable Development and Stormwater Management policies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 246-17 - 90-96 Mathoura Road Toorak - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATIONThat a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 246/17 for the land located at 90-96 Mathoura Road, Toorak be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a multi-storey residential development subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans but modified to show:

a. Alterations to plans TP2.01, TP2.02, TP2.03, TP2.04, TP2.05, TP2.06, TP3.01, TP3.02, TP4.01, TP5.01, TP5.02, TP5.03, TP5.04, TP5.05, TP5.06, TP5.07, TP5.08, in accordance with Discussion Plans submitted 19 December 2017, but further modified to show:

b. A plan demonstrating a minimum Garden Area provision of 35% in accordance with Clause 32.08 (General Residential Zone) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

c. Deletion of the east facing balcony at Level 02 to achieve a 4.5 metre setback free of built form from the eastern boundary;

d. The north and south elevations updated to reflect a minimum front setback of 5.8 metres in accordance with the site plan;

e. The proposal is to comply with Standard B20 (North Facing Windows) of Clause 55.04-4 (ResCode) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

f. A notation on all relevant site and elevation plans, which confirms that all screening measures to windows/balconies/terraces subject to comply with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55.04-6 (ResCode) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are fixed to a minimum height of 1.7 metres from finished floor level;

g. A notation on all relevant site and elevation plans, which confirms that Level 03 balconies are screened in in accordance with Standards B22 (Overlooking) Clause 55.04-6 and B23 (Internal Views) Clause 55.04-7 (ResCode) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

Page 97


h. A convex mirror is required to be provided in the basement at an appropriate location to improve visibility for pedestrians/vehicles within the basement to the ramp to avoid potential conflict between vehicles entering/exiting the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

i. An opening within the solid wall to the stairwell within the basement must be provided to improve visibility between pedestrian and vehicles within the basement;

j. A notation on the site and landscaping plans to confirm no visual obstructions greater than 0.9 meters in height (including planting) within the 2.0 x 2.5 metre sightline triangle at the entrance to the accessway;

k. The Colours and Finishes schedule (TP6.01) updated to demonstrate the use of either stone or rendered masonry to the exterior of the building, where render is shown;

l. A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3;m. Replacement street tree planting in accordance with the requirements

of Condition 3;n. A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 5; ando. A Sustainable Design Assessment in accordance with Condition 6.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and one electronic copy must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the preliminary landscape plan prepared by Jack Marlo Design and Landscape dated 26 June 2017, updated in accordance with the development discussion plans dated 19 December 2017, but modified to show:

a. A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;

b. Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary;

c. Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;d. A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;

e. Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;f. The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the site; g. Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways,

patio or decked areas; h. Removal of the existing crossover and reinstatement to kerb and

nature strip;

Page 98


i. Two additional street trees, to the north of the proposed crossover. Replacement trees are to be of a species, size and planted in a location to Council’s satisfaction. Replacement trees must have a total combined amenity value of a minimum of $3900.00; and

j. The garden beds within the ground floor open space areas of both Dwellings GF01 and GF02, adjacent to each side of the pedestrian entry path are to be increased in size to enable the planting of a small tree capable of reaching a height of 4.0 metres at maturity.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsibility Authority

4. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan should be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted to Council, prepared by Sustainable Design Consultants, Council date stamped 19 June 2017, but amended to show:

a. Number and size of bins in accordance with the City of Stonnington Residential Waste Management Guidelines.

b. Confirmation that the Owners Corporation or its nominated agent will transfer the bins from the communal bin storage area to Mathoura Road for municipal collection.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) report must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA report will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SDA must be generally in accordance with the one prepared by Sustainable Development Consultants and Council date stamped 16 June 2017, updated in accordance with the development discussion plans dated 19 December 2017 but modified to:

a. Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed.

b. Demonstrates how the policy objectives of Clause 22.18 are achieved, including details on plans of how each impervious area is treated, and that all toilets and the irrigation system are connected to the water tank.

Page 99


All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SDA report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Design Assessment report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Design Assessment may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

8. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

9. Before the development starts, areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance

with the plans.c. Surfaced with an all-weather sea/coat.d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority.e. Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

10. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped.

11. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp).

12. The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerb reinstated at the owner's cost to the satisfaction of Council.

13. The owner/applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone detention system, the owner/applicant may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 2,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

Page 100


14. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the owner/applicant and subject to the relevant authority's consent


16. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:a. The development is not started within two years of the date of this

permit.b. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this

permit.


NOTES:A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works

or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

C. "Significant tree" means a tree:a. with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its

base; orb. with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5

metres above its base; orc. listed on the Significant Tree Register.Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

D. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

E. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive "Resident Parking Permits".

Page 101


F. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 102


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0925/17- 302-306 WAVERLEY ROAD, MALVERN EAST – CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY MIXED USE BUILDING COMPRISING A SHOP AND APARTMENTS LOCATED BEHIND THE EXISTING HERITAGE BUILDING AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for partial demolition, building and works in a Commercial 1 Zone, Heritage Overlay and Special Building Overlay, with associated reduction in the car parking requirement at 302 – 306 Waverley Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: SICC Pty Ltd C/- G2 Urban PlanningWard: EastZone: Commercial 1 ZoneOverlay: Heritage Overlay (HO354)

Special Building Overlay Date lodged: 7 September 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

143


Building of four storeys and more than 6 objections

Number of objections: Nine (9)Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 13 February 2018Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Viola Architecture and are known as Drawings No: A1.01 - A1.03, A2.01 – A2.06, A3.01 – A3.04, A4.01 – A4.10, A5.01 – A5.03, and A6.01 – A6.03, Council date stamped 28 November 2017.

Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes: planning report prepared by G2 Urban Planning; traffic impact report and waste management plan prepared by Onemilegrid; and sustainable design assessment prepared by JBA Consulting Engineers, all Council date stamped 28 November 2017.

The 28 November 2017 plans (the advertised plans) were formally submitted to Council as revised plans under Section 50 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and they supersede the plans submitted to Council on 7 September 2017. The revised plans include the following main changes as a response to the issues raised in the referral comments:

Raise in the finished floor levels of the ground level. Increase the setback of the car stackers from the rear boundary. Reconfiguration of the layout of the ground floor, including the location of the storage

facilities, bin areas, and bicycle parking facilities.

Page 103


Provision of planter boxes within the terraces. Addition of external openable louvres. Reduction in the size of the canopy above the lobby entry.

The application seeks to redevelop the rear section of 302 – 306 Waverley Road with a four-storey building, comprising a shop at ground level and 7 dwellings (6 x 2-bedroom and 1 x 1-bedroom) on the upper levels. Key features of the application are:

Retention of the existing heritage building at the front. The existing building will continue to be used as an office building.

Removal of the outbuildings in the rear setback and the existing fences along Fisher Street and Terminus Lane.

Construction of a four-storey mixed-use development at the rear part of the subject site.

- Ground floor includes a shop, storages, service facilities, lobby area and car stackers.

- First floor includes 3 dwellings (3 x 2-bedroom). The first floor will be constructed to the side and rear boundaries, with the exception of a lightwell along the eastern boundary (1.61m by 7.63m).

- Second floor includes 3 dwellings (1 x 1-bedroom and 2 x 2-bedroom). The second floor will be constructed to the side boundaries, with the exception of the lightwell along the eastern boundary. A 2.4m rear setback is provided.

- Level 3 accommodates one 2-bedroom dwelling. It will be setback from the western, southern and eastern boundaries by 3.8m, 6.17m and 1.61m respectively.

The proposed development has a maximum building height of 14.18m (taken from west elevation).

The building presents a contemporary architectural style, with various features and materials, including a combination of brickwork, render, metal cladding and glazing.

A total of 11 car spaces will be provided (7 for the residents, 1 for the shop and 3 for the existing office building in the front) in car stackers, with access from Terminus Lane.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Waverley Road, at the south-eastern corner of its intersection with Fisher Street. The site has the following characteristics:

A rectangular shaped lot with a frontage along Waverley Road of 12.6m, a frontage along Fisher Street of 45.7m, and a total area of approximately 581sqm.

The subject site is improved by a double-storey interwar building, which was built originally as a bank and subsequently used for a range of office activities. The existing building on site is of local heritage significance and has a grading of B.

The land is relatively flat, with a 0.5m slope in the land from the front (north) towards the back (south).

The rear section of the subject site is currently vacant. It was used for storage and parking purposes. There is an existing crossover onto Fisher Street that provides vehicle access to the subject site.

The subject site abuts Terminus Lane to the immediate south. The 3.1m wide lane provides vehicle access between Fisher Street and Darling Road. It also serves as rear access to the commercial properties fronting Waverley Road as well as a number of residential developments on the southern side of Terminus Lane.

The subject site forms part of the East Malvern Terminus Neighbourhood Activity Centre, which includes a range of commercial uses, such as shops, offices and food and drinks

Page 104


premises. Most of the existing buildings within the Activity Centre are single and double storey in height. However, the more recent infill developments/approvals tend to have a more robust built form. For example, the constructed mixed-use development at 253 Waverley Road is up to 4-storeys in height. No. 280 Waverley Road has received permission for a four-storey mixed-use development under Planning Permit 460/16. This development has an overall building height of 13.7m.

The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

To the north, across Waverley Road, are Beech Street and the double-storey commercial building at 289 Waverley Road.

To the immediate east of the subject site, is 310 Waverley Road, comprising a double-storey commercial building. The rear section of this neighbouring property (which is opposite the proposed development) is used for storage and parking purposes.

To the south, on the opposite side of Terminus Lane is No. 74 Fisher Street, which is improved by a double-storey townhouse. The secluded private open space of 74 Fisher Street is located along its northern boundary. There are also north facing windows that serve the principal dining and living areas at the ground floor level of this dwelling.

To the west, on the western side of Fisher Street, is 300 Waverley Road which is occupied by a double-storey office building fronting Waverley Road. A single storey building is constructed on the southern portion of this land, and at grade parking is provided abutting the rear lane (Terminus Lane).

Previous Planning Applications

A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Permit No. 1206/16 was issued on 3 May 2017 for variation of restrictive covenant contained in instrument of transfer 1076784 concerning lot 8 on plan of subdivision 6201 by removing the following words “… shall not at any time hereafter erect or permit or allow to be erected on the said lot eight or any part there of more than one dwelling house and also that the roof of any dwelling house erected on the said lot or any part thereof shall not be of iron and that such building shall not be used for the business of a licensed victualler.”

Planning Permit No. 927/16 was issued on 19 January 2017 for the installation and display of business identification signage in a Heritage Overlay.

Planning Permit No. 486/01 was issued by Council on 8 April 2002 for the storage of portable buildings and a reduction in the car parking requirement.

The Title

The land is described as Lot 8 on Plan of Subdivision 006201 and is contained in Title Volume 04642 Folio 240. There is a restrictive covenant (No. 1076784) recorded on the title. The wording of the covenant has been recently modified by Planning Permit 1206/16 (see above) issued by Council on 3 May 2017. The variations were registered with the Registrar of Titles on 7 February 2018. Consequently, the proposal will not breach the covenant in its modified manner.

Planning Controls


Page 105


Zone

Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1, a permit is not required to use the land as a shop (other than Adult sex product shop).

‘Dwelling’ is also a section 1 (no permit required) use in a Commercial 1 Zone provided any frontage at ground level does not exceed 2m. The entry to the proposed dwellings has a width of 1.8m. Therefore, no permission is required for use of the land for ‘dwellings’.

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. An apartment development must meet the requirements of Clause 58.

Overlay

Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a permit is required to demolish or remove a building, and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1, a permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land prior to the commencement of a new use. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by the table included in Clause 52.06-5.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a dwelling requires: 1 car space to each one or two bedroom dwelling; 2 car spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling; and 1 car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of five or more dwellings.

A shop is required to provide 4 spaces for each 100sqm of leasable floor area.

An office is required to provide 3.5 spaces to each 100sq of net floor area.

The proposed development includes 1 shop (92sqm) and 7 dwellings (6 x 2-bedroom and 1 x 1-bedroom). Therefore, it triggers a statutory parking demand of 12 spaces (4 spaces for the shop, 7 spaces for the residents and 1 space for the visitor). The proposal provides 1 space for the shop and 7 spaces for the residents in the form of car stackers. Therefore, permission is required to reduce the parking requirement.

The existing office in the front section has a floor area of approximately 371sqm. Based on the rates at Clause 52.06-5, it generates a statutory parking demand of 13 spaces. However, as this office has been in existence of a long period of time, without any specific requirement on the provision of on-site parking, the requirements at Clause 52.06 are not applicable to the existing office. Regardless, the proposal includes 3 spaces for the existing office.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle FacilitiesPursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3, a dwelling requires 1 space to each 5 dwellings and 1 space for visitor to each 10 dwellings.

Page 106


A shop requires bicycle parking only if the net floor area exceeds 1000sqm, which in this case it does not.

The proposal triggers a need to provide 2 bicycle spaces (i.e. 1 space for residents and 1 space for visitors). The plans show the provision of 2 spaces, complying with the requirement.

Clause 58 – Apartment DevelopmentsThis clause applies to an application to construct or extend an apartment development in a Commercial 1 Zone.

A development: Must meet all of the objectives of this clause. Should meet all of the standards of this clause.

If a zone or a schedule to a zone, or a schedule to an overlay specifies a requirement different from a requirement of a standard set out in Clause 58 (excluding Clause 58.04-1), the requirement in Clause 58 applies.


The following clauses of the Stonnington Planning Scheme (the Scheme), in addition to those listed above, are particularly relevant to this assessment:

Clause 9 Plan MelbourneClause 11.03 Activity CentresClause 11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 15.03 HeritageClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 18.01 Integrated Transport Clause 18.02 Movement networksClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic Development Clause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.08 Infrastructure Clause 21.09 Reference DocumentsClause 22.05 Environmental Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 58 Apartment Developments Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing three (3) signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and nine (9) objections have been received. The key grounds of objection are:

Page 107


Visual bulk, height and mass Inconsistency with the existing character Heritage impact Amenity impacts (visual bulk, loss of daylight, overshadowing, noise emission) Traffic and parking impacts Loss of vegetation Construction disruptions

A Consultative Meeting was held on 13 February 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Atwell and Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any change to the plans.

Referrals

Melbourne Water The application was referred to Melbourne Water pursuant to section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Melbourne Water confirmed in writing that it does not object to the proposal.

Urban Design (Comments are based on 7 September 2017 plans)The proposal was referred to Council’s Urban Designer, who made the following comments: Subject to the following refinements to materials and colour scheme, the proposal

addresses the comments provided in the pre-application response:- The proposed ‘dark charcoal’ colour for the face brickwork should be revised

to a colour selection that is more compatible with the colour of the brickwork on the heritage building.

- The proposed use of ‘Fibre-cement sheet’ with a ‘clear sealer’ applied finish for the cladding of the upper floor is not supported. This material should be replaced with a suitable metal cladding that will retain its appearance over the longer-term and require less on-going maintenance.

The elevations indicate a visually heavy projecting canopy to the building entry. This canopy should be redesigned to be a more finely-scaled element.

The applicant should provide samples of the proposed alternative colours and materials for approval.

Planner Response: The 28 November 2017 plans (the advertised plans) show a more finely-scaled canopy over the building entry. However, they do not include changes to the materials and colours as recommended by Council’s Urban Designer. Should the application be recommended for approval, a condition that requires refinements to the materials and colours will be included. Council’s Urban Designer is now satisfied with the projecting canopy.

Heritage (Comments are based on 7 September 2017 plans)Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: The proposal provides for a distinctly modern and new four-storey building on the land

to the rear of the former bank building. Whilst it is taller than the existing building, it will be largely concealed from views directly opposite.

It will be clearly seen from the intersection of Waverley Road and Fisher Street and the most significant heritage concern will be the appearance of the new building in the precinct.

The surface materials are face masonry with glazed window panels and is a relatively simple approach. It will not be an offensive intervention into the streetscape.

The proposal can be supported in its current form.

Page 108


Transport (Comments are based on 7 September 2017 plans and traffic assessment report)Council’s Traffic Engineers reviewed the application and provided the following comments: The proposal may exacerbate the deficiency in on-site parking. The traffic generation is considered to be acceptable and will not have any significant

effect on the adjoining road network. Complying sight distances at the lane boundary should be provided. The spaces within the stacker should comply with the Planning Scheme requirement of

at least 6 metres long and 3.5 metres wide. The specified access gradient of 1:20 to the stacker complies with the Planning

scheme (and the submitted combilift mechanical parking gradient specification. Internal dimensions of the car stackers must comply with the requirements of the

requirements of the Planning Scheme. Dimension of the bicycle parking facilities should comply with the requirements of the

Planning Scheme. The proposed development should have a minimum distance from any garage /

internal parking door to a road boundary of 5.4 metres.

Planner response: The 28 November 2017 plans (the advertised plans) confirm that the car stackers are setback approximately 6m from the rear boundary, which address the issue of sight distance and potential queueing along Terminus Lane. Other issues such as dimensions of the car stackers and bicycle parking facilities will be addressed by permit conditions, should a permit issue.

Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) (Comments are based on 7 September 2017 plans)The main areas of concern have been summarised below: The BESS assessment must be a finalised report, not a draft as submitted. The SDA must refer to initiatives that are clear commitments incorporated into the

project to demonstrate best practice in environmentally sustainable development. No response has been provided under the Urban Ecology section of the BESS tool.

There are opportunities to incorporate planting within proposed balconies and terraces to improve project outcomes.

There are concerns with the level of daylighting proposed to bedrooms located adjacent to the small eastern light well. Whilst submitted daylight modelling indicates that the daylight amenity of the development as a whole will meet daylighting objective requirements, both bedroom 2 of dwelling one and bedroom 1 of dwelling three are shown to fail.

Several aspects need to be clarified in relation to the daylight model and outcomes: o Internal elevations must be provided for north and south facing façade of

the light well to confirm window sizes and treatments as modelled in the tool.

o Confirm size and treatment of window in bedroom 2 of dwelling three utilised in the daylight model. Elevations indicate the window has an opaque treatment which would further limit light ingress on the southern facade.

o Confirm measures that will be taken to improve daylight to poor performing rooms facing the light-well. E.g. light-shelves etc.

The majority of units have extensive west facing glazing, particularly to living areas which have not been shaded. User operable shading is required for this façade to manage heat gain and to meet Council’s best practice.

Applicant has targeted minimum industry compliance of 6 star NatHERS rating. Council’s best practice requirement is for a 10% improvement or 6.5 stars.

Credits have been claimed for items that are not considered to be ‘innovative’ rather standard practice in the industry, are not firm commitments, or do not extend beyond BESS tool requirements. This should be modified.

Page 109


Planner’s Response: It is noted that the advertised Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) dated 28 November 2017 has addressed some of the above concerns including submitting a finalised BESS Report and seeking a 6.5 stars NatHERS rating and confirming the size of window in bedroom 2 of dwelling 3. The above will be addressed via conditions to ensure compliance with Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy (Clause 22.05). Infrastructure (Comments are based on 7 September 2017 plans)The application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Engineer, who made the following comments: The flood level associated with the SBO affecting the property is 44.03m AHD. All associated areas including the storage areas must be at or above 44.23m AHD. The

entry and lobby may be ramped as necessary to achieve this level to avoid the necessity of steps.

All floor coverings within the area below the required floor level of 44.23m should be such that they can be easily swept of flood water and least impacted by the flood water.

The level of the car stackers must also be at or above 44.23m A.H.D, which is not possible due to the extreme ramps that would be required. It appears the stackers will need to be avoided.

A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

The existing footpath levels and right-of-way levels must not be raised or altered in any way at the property line to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular access.

All redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.

Planner’s Response: The revised plans stamped 28 November 2017 (the advertised plans) were re-referred to Council’s Infrastructure Engineer for comments. Council’s Infrastructure Engineer is now satisfied with the proposed levels (including the car stackers). The other conditions recommended by Council’s Infrastructure Engineer will be included on any permit that issues.

Waste

There are no waste related concerns. Should the application be recommended for approval, a condition that requires the submission of a Waste Management Plan.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Context

The purpose of the Commercial 1 Zone seeks to create vibrant mixed use commercial centres that provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre and in line with State and local planning policies. The East Malvern Terminus Activity Centre is defined as a small neighbourhood centre at Clause of 21.03 (Vision) of the Scheme. The strategic vision for new development in activity centres is to contribute to the vibrancy, activity and passive surveillance of streets and public spaces, while respecting the heritage values, human scale and the unique character of different centres.

The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around activity centres and close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed

Page 110


development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

The proposal seeks to construct a new four storey mixed use building at the rear of an existing heritage building. The development will introduce seven (7) apartments to the site and a small shop at the ground floor level, while retaining in full the existing heritage building that fronts Waverley Road. These uses are well located to benefit from existing infrastructure and the surrounding activity centre amenities, including easy access to public transport on Waverley Road.

A medium density mixed use development in this location is consistent with the policy for housing as set out at Clauses 16 (Housing) and Clause 21.05 (Housing). Specifically, the activity centre location is consistent with the objective of Clause 21.05-2 to "direct the majority of new housing development to locations with the highest level of accessibility to both an Activity Centre and the Principal Public Transport network, and away from the residential hinterland'. Accordingly, the subject site fronts Waverley Road (although the development will have an address to Fisher Street), and therefore falls within a "substantial change area" pursuant to this clause. Moreover, the lot is capable of supporting higher density development in accordance with Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) as will be discussed below.

The proposal is consistent with the strategic vision for the activity centre context and the introduction of residential apartments is in accordance with the housing objectives of State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement. In this regard the development meets the requirements of Standard D1 (Urban context objectives) and D2 (Residential policy objectives) of Clause 58 (Apartment Developments). The development will also provide a diversity of housing options in the form of one and two bedroom dwellings in compliance with Standard D3 (Dwelling diversity) and will not overload the capacity of existing infrastructure as per Standard D4 (Infrastructure objectives) of Clause 58.

Assessment of the built form, heritage, amenity and traffic impacts is provided below along with further assessment of the development against the Better Apartment Design Standards (Clause 58).

Heritage

The proposed new building on the subject site is to be located behind the existing heritage office building on the subject site. No original fabric is proposed to be removed with only minor demolition proposed to rear outbuildings and fencing. This conforms to Council’s Heritage Policy as it relates to demolition.

In terms of the new works in commercial areas, Council’s Heritage Policy (Clause 22.04) seeks to:

Ensure that all upper level additions and alterations: Are set back behind the primary building volume. Complement the height, scale and setbacks of any adjoining significant or

contributory buildings. Result in storey heights to complement the alignment of the primary building

volume.

Page 111


Are generally contained within an envelope created by projecting a sight line from 1.7 metres above ground level on the opposite side of the street.

Present minimal bulk from oblique views. Do not obscure vistas and view lines to significant buildings.

The new building has been physically separated from the original heritage building via a 2.83m setback. As the new building does not touch the original building, the heritage fabric remains the dominant focus of this site when viewed from Waverley Road. On oblique views down Fisher Street the new mixed use building will be visible and will present as a three storey form abutting the footpath. The street wall is to be broken up and articulated through the use of balcony recesses and a variation in materials. At the fourth level, Apartment 7 has been setback from Fisher Street a distance of 3.8m (with a planter box associated with the west facing balcony situated 2.39m from the street).

Council’s Heritage Advisor has acknowledged that the new built form will be clearly seen from the intersection of Waverley Road and Fisher Street and the most significant heritage concern will be the appearance of the new building in the precinct. The fact that the new building will be visible is not in itself a fundamental concern. The site is on a corner and any new development will be visible from the public realm. The important aspect of the design is ensuring that the detail and materials are complementary to the heritage precinct whilst not mimicking original elements. A contemporary development will provide a point of contrast to the heritage precinct which will be clearly distinguishable as a recent addition.

As proposed the surface materials are face masonry with glazed window panels. In principle these elements are not an offensive intervention into the streetscape. However, Council’s Urban Designer has raised some concerns with the colour of the masonry and the upper level cladding that will be addressed through conditions should a permit issue. The changes that will be sought to the materials will result in a more complementary response to the surrounding heritage fabric.

Overall, the proposal will not dominate the heritage place and will be concealed on views from directly opposite the site on Waverley Road. Subject to changes to the colour and use of materials, the proposal can be supported in its current form from a heritage perspective.

Built Form

As the new development will be located to the rear of the existing double storey heritage building the main pedestrian access to the new development will be via a new lobby on Fisher Street, with vehicle access via the laneway to the rear. This design response meets Standard D5 (Integration with the street objective) of Clause 58 which seeks for development to be oriented to front existing streets. The orientation of the main pedestrian entrance to Fisher Street also satisfies the Safety objectives of Standard D9 of Clause 58 by providing a safe and clearly defined entrance to the new dwellings.

As a result of the new mixed use development being physically separated from the heritage building by a distance of 2.38m, the setback provides for opportunities for north-facing windows to the new apartments on the northern side of the building (Apartments 1, 4 and 7). The apartments that do not have north facing windows are provided an outlook to the west and a light court is also located on the eastern side of the building. South facing windows are evident on the rear apartments, which is a secondary aspect for these dwellings (Apartments 3, 6 and 7). There are aspects of the proposal that fail to meet Councils’ Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy at Clause 22.05 and these concerns have been detailed in the ESD Officer’s referral comments above. Shading of the west facing apartments is considered to be an important aspect of indoor environmental comfort that must be addressed by this proposal. User operable shading will form a condition of any approval

Page 112


issued, to manage heat gain and to meet Council’s best practice. It is also considered that a new development of this scale should meet Council’s best practice 6.5 star rating to achieve the sustainability targets set by both State and local planning policies. The advertised Sustainable Design Assessment dated 28 November 2017 has been updated to reflect this aspiration of a 6.5 star NatHERS rating.

Concerns were raised by Council’s ESD Officer regarding the daylight access to the east facing bedrooms within the proposed light court. While not ideal, the light court is setback 1.6m from the boundary line and there are only four bedrooms that rely on this light court for daylight. As these rooms are predominantly used in the evening and are appropriately sized (no less than 3m by 3m) to provide a comfortable internal area, this arrangement can be accepted.

Overall the apartments have been designed and oriented to make appropriate use of solar energy and subject to conditions, will be in accordance with Standard D6 (Energy efficiency objectives) and Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy (Clause 22.05).

Due to the number of apartments proposed by this development (7 in total), there is no requirement to provide communal open space in accordance with Standards D7 (Communal open space objective) and D8 (Solar access to communal outdoor open space objective) of Clause 58.

As the subject site is within a Commercial Zone there is no distinct garden character to be conserved. That being said, Standard D10 (Landscaping objectives) seeks to provide appropriate landscaping, and the development has incorporated planter boxes to each of the terraces of the apartments to allow for opportunities for some landscaped element in the design. This is considered positive.

The existing vehicle crossover to Fisher Street is proposed to be removed and the footpath, kerb and channel reinstated. As the new vehicle access for the new building is to be via the lane at the rear, no crossover is required. This achieves Standard D11 (Access objective) of Clause 58 by ensuring that the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the urban context.

The car parking onsite is provided via a car stacker system with a pedestrian walkway along the eastern boundary of the site that provides access to the stairs and lobby. This satisfies Standard D12 (Parking location objectives) of Clause 58 as it is conveniently located.

Standard D13 (Integrated water and stormwater management objectives) recommends that buildings be designed to collect rainwater for non-drinking purposes such as flushing toilets, laundry appliances and garden use. This is also sought by Council’s own Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy at Clause 22.18 of the Scheme. The Applicant has submitted a STORM rating report that confirms a STORM rating of 101% with the use of 3,500L rainwater tanks connected to toilets. The architectural plans note a 2,500L underground tank within the rear car parking bays. To meet Council’s Policy the plans will need to be updated to show the correct tank capacity and must include additional details on the collection areas and must confirm connections to toilets for flushing. This will be addressed via a condition if a permit issues.

Amenity Impacts

Standard D14 (Building setback objectives) is predominantly focused on providing sufficient distance between buildings (and towers) to ensure the internal amenity and liveability of new apartment buildings. While relevant to this application, the proposed building is located on a corner site and abuts a residential zone to the south. The new apartments are deemed to be

Page 113


sufficiently setback from adjoining buildings within the commercial zone to allow for adequate daylight access when adjoining sites redevelop in the future. The orientation of dwellings to Fisher Street also avoids the use of extensive overlooking screens which is supported.

Although compliant with Standard D14, a more stringent amenity test is required given that the proposed development abuts a residential zone to the south. The residential interface is one that requires careful consideration as there must be a balance struck between the expected growth in the Commercial 1 Zone and a reasonable level of amenity protection to adjacent residential properties. The decision guidelines of the Commercial 1 Zone require the consideration of the overlooking and overshadowing as a result of building or works affecting adjoining land in a General Residential Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone or Township Zone.

The application material shows the proposed development as falling largely within the prescribed setbacks under Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks) of Clause 55 (two or more dwellings) when taken from the southern edge of the laneway. While this may be a reasonable measure of visual bulk and building separation, the more pressing tests are overshadowing and overlooking. Overshadowing

Directly to the south of the subject site is Terminus Lane and beyond this is No. 74 Fisher Street, a double storey dwelling within a General Residential Zone (Schedule 10) with a mandatory maximum building height of 9m and 3 storeys. A north facing area of secluded private open space and north facing glazing to the primary living and dining area currently exist at the ground floor level. At present, the existing boundary fence casts shadows to approximately 50% of the secluded private open on the Equinox between 9am and 3pm. The north facing windows are currently not affected by any shadows during this time.

As a result of the proposed development the secluded private open will be entirely overshadowed between 12pm and 3pm on the Equinox. The shadows will also impact the north facing windows for this same time period. While it may be argued that this residential property cannot expect the same amenity protection as a residential property that does not sit on the edge of an activity centre; the proposed extent of overshadowing is severe and unreasonable. A reasonable outcome is one where the new building is setback from the lane so that the shadows cast to the south fall no further than the existing shadows cast by the fence between 12pm and 2pm on the Equinox. This timeframe is derived from the Overshadowing Standard in ResCode which determines that a reasonable outcome is one where there should be no additional impact beyond the existing conditions for a period of 5 hours (between 9am and 2pm on the Equinox)

There is no dispute that a large mixed use building, such as the one proposed, is an appropriate outcome for the subject site. However, this does not mean that the interface to the residential neighbour can be ignored. For this reason, a condition of approval will require that the southern setbacks be increased as necessary to ensure that no additional shadows are cast to the secluded private open space beyond the existing shadows on the Equinox between 12pm and 2pm. The condition will also allow for any consequential changes to the internal layouts of apartments to accommodate the increased setbacks. Overlooking

The only opportunities for overlooking are to the south. Using ResCode (Clause 54 and 55) as a guide, direct views within 9m into a habitable room window or area of secluded private open space are deemed to be unreasonable. The southern elevation includes a number of

Page 114


habitable room windows at all levels and a terrace at the uppermost level. The uppermost level windows and terrace are setback 9.2m from the residential property to the south and therefore do not require screening.

At the first and second floor levels there are south-facing windows within 9m of the adjacent secluded private open space. It is unclear from the elevations what materials will be used, if any, to screen the south-facing habitable room windows. The south facing habitable room windows on Level 1 and 2 will be required to be screened to limit unreasonable views and this will form a condition of any approval issued.

In accordance with Standard D15 (Internal views objective), the majority of apartments have been designed so that windows and balconies do not overlook the lower levels within the same development. The screening treatments between the terraces of Apartments 2 and 3, and 5 and 6 have not been shown on plans. This is to be required via a condition, with solid floor to ceiling walls preferred.

Based on the details provided of the internal elevation of the light court, the bedrooms at Level 2 within Apartments 4 and 6 may overlook each other with a separation distance of 7.6m. Therefore, a condition of approval will require that the internal elevations for north and south facing façade of the light well to be updated to include screening to address internal views between habitable rooms.

With regard to the Noise impacts objectives at Standard D16, the development has not highlighted any acoustic measures to be implemented to the rear car stackers to reduce noise transmission to the apartments on the levels above. Furthermore, the location of plant equipment has not been shown on the plans. It is unclear whether there development has appropriately protected future residents from noise. Details of plant locations and acoustic measures to deal with the car stacker will be required via conditions of any approval issued to ensure an acceptable outcome is achieved.

Internal Amenity

Positively, the majority of apartments within this development have been designed with accessible bathrooms for the needs of people with limited mobility. However, the dimensions on plans confirm that many of these apartments do not provide a clear path with a minimum width of 1.2 metres that connects the dwelling entrance to the main bedroom and accessible bathroom. Apartments 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have a clear path width of 1.0m, rather than 1.2m, which does not comply with Standard D17 (Accessibility objective). If a permit issues, a condition of approval will require that the clear paths be increased to 1.2m in width in at least 50% of the apartments.

The proposal meets Standard D18 (Building entry and circulation objectives) by providing a clearly identifiable building entrance to the apartments above ground level. A steel canopy is proposed above the entry on Fisher Street to provide shelter from the weather. The communal lobbies on each of the floor levels (Levels, 1, 2 and 3) have been provided a window for natural light in accordance with Standard D18. However, good design for healthy living environments also allows for natural ventilation. The elevations do not confirm if the windows are fixed or operable; therefore a condition will require that the windows are to be noted as operable to allow for natural ventilation.

In accordance with Standard D19 (Private open space objective), all proposed apartments are provided in excess of 8 square metres of private open space in the form of terraces with minimum dimensions that exceed 2.0m.

Page 115


The Storage objective at Standard D20 sets out the minimum requirements for storage (including kitchen, bathroom and bedroom storage). 1 bedroom apartments are to have 10 cubic metres with a minimum of 6 cubic metres within the dwelling, while 2 bedroom apartments are to have 14 cubic metres with a minimum of 9 cubic metres within the dwelling. The plans confirm each dwelling will be provided external storage of 6 cubic metres at the ground level. However, no details of the internal storage have been provided. A schedule will be required as a condition that details each apartment and the internal storage provision provided to each apartment ensuring that it meets the minimum requirements as outlined at Table D6 to this Standard.

The proposal clearly delineates public, communal and private areas in accordance with Standard D21 (Common property objectives).

The design of the ground floor has integrated services and mailboxes to Fisher Street making them easily accessible to service providers as required by with Standard D22 (Site services objectives).

The proposed building has been designed to ensure that waste facilities and storage are accessible, adequate and concealed from public view as per Standard D23 (Waste and recycling objectives). Additionally, Council’s Waste Department have reviewed the detailed Waste Management Plan (WMP) prepared for this development and are satisfied that the waste management is acceptable for a development of this scale.

Internal Amenity

The apartment bedrooms comply with the minimum bedroom widths and depths as required by Standard D24 (Functional layout objective) with all bedrooms having no less than 3m by 3m dimensions. In terms of the living rooms, the minimum 10sqm (1 bedroom) and 12sqm (2 bedroom) living room areas have been provided, with no apartment provided less than 3.3m in width.

The new dwellings have been designed with 2.7 metres floor to ceiling heights and the single aspect habitable rooms do not exceed a room depth of 2.5 times the ceiling height. This meets the recommendations of Standard D25 (Room depth objective) and will allow adequate daylight into single aspect habitable rooms.

All habitable rooms have a window in an external wall of the building and meets Standard D26 (Windows objective). Positively, no habitable room relies on borrowed daylight.

The design and layout of dwellings needs to demonstrate that openable windows, doors or other ventilation devices in external walls of the building provide effective cross ventilation in accordance with Standard D27 (Natural ventilation objectives). However, the plans do not make reference to natural ventilation or demonstrate how the building is to be naturally-ventilated with breeze path diagrams. This will be addressed via a condition if a permit issues. Based on the orientation and multiple aspects, it is anticipated that the development will comply without the need for any significant modifications.


The development proposes 11 car spaces within the car stacker system accessed via the rear lane. The car parking will be allocated as 7 residential spaces, 1 shop staff space and 3 spaces for the existing office staff. Importantly, the full statutory rate of parking is provided to the dwellings. A reduction is being sought for the 1 visitor space and the 3 parking spaces for

Page 116


the shop. A reduction of this nature is not uncommon for developments in an activity centre that is serviced by public transport (buses and trams on Waverley Road).

The long term parking demands to be generated by the shop and office will be catered for with 4 designated spaces for these uses. This is critical as long term parking demands can be more difficult to achieve than the short term time restricted parking for customers of the shops and office.

In developments where it is possible, visitor parking is encouraged. However in this instance, a car stacker is proposed, making it highly impractical to provide visitor parking within the development for obvious security and safety reasons.

Given that the full statutory rate of parking is being provided to the apartments (1 to each dwelling) and the shop and office are located within an activity centre where there is a supply of time-restricted short term parking with a high turnover; the car parking proposed is deemed to be acceptable and will not result in spill-over into the surrounding residential streets.

The traffic generation is considered to be acceptable and will not have any significant effect on the adjoining road network, as confirmed by Council’s Transport and Parking Department.

While there is no in-principle concern with the use of car stackers, the details on plans are not sufficient and further dimensions must be confirmed. The details must include the internal dimensions of the car stackers showing that they comply with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

It is also noted that the plans do not show the stackers in section or in east or west elevation with head clearance and pits noted. This will be required via conditions with correlating dimension information on the plans that matches the car stacker specifications.

As mentioned earlier in this report, the development provides 2 bicycle spaces to meet the requirements of Clause 52.34. However, the dimensions of the bicycle parking facilities must be notated on plans to comply with the requirements of the Planning Scheme. This will be dealt with via a condition.

Objections


Construction Impacts

Construction activity and disruptions cannot be considered as part of this planning application. Construction impacts, in the event that a permit issues, will be dealt with under the building regulations and / or local laws.



CONCLUSION

Page 117


Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The subject site is within an activity centre and a “substantial change area” where higher density development is to be directed as per Council’s Vision at Clause 21.03 of the Scheme.

Subject to conditions, the new apartments will provide adequate internal amenity and meet the Better Apartment Design Standards (Clause 58).

Subject to conditions, the development will not adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties, particularly the residential properties to the south.

The car parking provision is reasonable for a mixed use development that is well served by public transport and each new dwelling is to be allocated a car parking space in accordance with the statutory requirements at Clause 52.06-5 of the Scheme.

The development will not dominate or detract from the original heritage building on the subject site that is to be retained.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA1 925-17 - 302-306 Waverley Road Malvern East - Attachment 1.PDF Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 925/17 for the land located at 302 – 306 Waverley Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for partial demolition, building and works in a Commercial 1 Zone, Heritage Overlay and Special Building Overlay, with associated reduction in the car parking requirement subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans Drawings No: A1.01 - A1.03, A2.01 – A2.06, A3.01 – A3.04, A4.01 – A4.10, A5.01 – A5.03, and A6.01 – A6.03, Council date stamped 28 November 2017 but modified to show:

a) The southern setbacks increased as necessary to ensure that no additional shadows are cast beyond the existing shadows to the north-facing secluded private open space of No. 74 Fisher Street on the Equinox between 12pm and 2pm. The plans may show any consequential changes to the internal layouts of apartments to accommodate the increased setbacks to the southern boundary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any changes to the internal layouts must comply with Clause 58.

b) The south facing habitable room windows on Level 1 and 2 are to be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level with no more than 25% transparency, to limit views to the dwelling to the south at No. 74 Fisher Street.

c) The location of all proposed mechanical plant and lift overrun. If the plant is proposed on the roof it must be centrally located, acoustically screened

Page 118


and concealed when viewed from the street to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) Details of the acoustic measures to be implemented to reduce noise impacts from the car stacker on the apartments above and the existing dwelling to the south. The measures are to be supported by a statement from a suitably qualified acoustics expert that confirms that the measures will adequately protect the amenity of future residents and the adjoining property from unreasonable noise emissions.

e) The privacy screening treatments between the terraces of Apartments 2 and 3, and 5 and 6 to be shown on plans. Solid floor to ceiling walls are preferred.

f) Internal elevations for north and south facing façade of the light well to confirm window sizes and glazing types including screening to address internal views between habitable rooms.

g) A materials and finishes schedule including samples. The materials and finishes must correspond with fully labeled elevations with the following changes shown:

i. The proposed ‘dark charcoal’ colour for the face brickwork to be revised to a colour selection that is more compatible with the colour of the brickwork on the heritage building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and

ii. The ‘Fibre-cement sheet’ with a ‘clear sealer’ applied finish for the cladding of the upper floor must be replaced with a suitable metal cladding that will retain its appearance over the longer-term and require less on-going maintenance.

h) User operable shading shown to the west façade to manage heat gain and to meet Council’s best practice or a suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

i) Plans to be amended to reflect rainwater tank capacity and collection areas connected to the rainwater tank as per STORM tool and Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) and to confirm the connection of rainwater tank to 15 toilets as per STORM tool.

j) Dimensions of door openings and the clear path that connects the dwelling entrance to the main bedroom and an adaptable bathroom widened to a minimum width of 1.2 metres in at least 50% of the apartments to meet Standard D17 (Accessibility objective).

k) The east facing windows within the lobby areas on Levels 1, 2 and 3 to be notated as being operable for natural ventilation.

Page 119


l) A schedule that details the internal storage provision to each apartment ensuring that it meets the minimum requirements as outlined at Table D6 Standard D20 (Storage objective).

m) Notations on plans to confirm the car parking allocation as 1 car space to each dwelling, 1 space to the shop and 3 spaces to the office.

n) Demonstrate how the building is to naturally-ventilated with breeze path diagrams in compliance with Standard D27 (Natural ventilation objectives).

o) Internal dimensions of the car stackers shown to comply with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

p) Stackers to be shown in section or in east or west elevation with head clearance and pits notated.

q) Plans and elevations to be annotated with correlating dimension information that matches the car stacker specifications.

r) Dimensions of the bicycle parking facilities notated to comply with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

s) Any changes to meet Conditions 3 (Sustainable Design Assessment), Condition 18 (Waste Management Plan), and Condition 20 (Water Sensitive Urban Design).

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the SDA prepared by JBA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd and Council date stamped 28 November 2017, but modified to address the following:

a) The SDA must refer to initiatives that are clear commitments incorporated into the project to demonstrate best practice in environmentally sustainable development.

b) Response to the Urban Ecology section of the BESS tool noting opportunities to incorporate planting within proposed balconies and terraces to improve project outcomes.

c) Whilst a commitment is made to adhere to Total Volatile Organic Compound (TVOC) limits outlined in the Green Star Multi-residential tool, a summary of requirements must be appended to the SDA for clarity.

d) Specific commitments must be made for types and energy efficiencies of

Page 120


heating and cooling systems, hot water systems and lighting type and performance. Terminology such as ‘should be provided’ do not constitute commitments and are insufficient to claim credits for these items in BESS.

e) Commitment for gas metering to be provided.f) Washing machine efficiency has been scoped out of the BESS

assessment despite provision of these on plans. This aspect to be amended. If the applicant is not intending to provide these, the lowest efficiency units can be assumed for the BESS tool to provide a conservative assessment of performance.

g) If BESS credits are to be claimed for provision of a Building User Guide, a specific commitment must be made to produce one.

h) Response to Urban Ecology section of the BESS tool. There are opportunities to incorporate planting within proposed balconies and terraces to improve project outcomes.

i) Credits have been claimed for items that are not considered to be ‘innovative’ rather standard practice in the industry, are not firm commitments, or do not extend beyond BESS tool requirements. This is to be modified.

j) Consistency with plans as required by Condition 1.

All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainability Design Assessment may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA), approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the SDA have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

5. The flood level associated with the SBO affecting the property is 44.03m AHD.

6. All associated areas including the storage areas must be at or above 44.23m AHD. The entry and lobby may be ramped as necessary to achieve this level to avoid the necessity of steps.

7. All floor coverings within the area below the required floor level of 44.23m should be such that they can be easily swept of flood water and least impacted by the flood water.

8. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

9. The existing footpath levels and right-of-way levels must not be raised or altered in any way at the property line to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular

Page 121


access.

10. All redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.

11. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Condition 1 and in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

13. Prior to the occupation of the building / commencement of use, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.


16. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.

17. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Local Laws.

18. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan dated 27 November 2017 prepared by OneMileGrid and Council date stamped 28/11/2017 but modified to comply with any requirements at Condition 1.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 122


20. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans.

21. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.


a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

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


NOTES:

A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B. This property is located in a Heritage Overlay and planning permission may be required to demolish or otherwise externally alter any existing structures. External alterations include paint removal and any other form of decoration and works, but does not include re-painting an already painted surface.

C. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

D. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

E. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

a. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the

Page 123


development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

b. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 124


4. PLANNING PERMIT 945/07 - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE, 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VICTORIA 3145 – AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR THE REPURPOSING OF EXISTING RETAIL (SHOP) FLOOR AREA OVER GROUND AND MEZZANINE LEVELS INTO 'FOOD & DRINK PREMISES' AND THE ADDITION OF A TOURIST LOUNGE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a secondary consent amendment to allow for the repurposing of existing retail (shop) floor area over Ground and Mezzanine levels into 'Food & Drink Premises', with a new tourist lounge provided on the Ground level at Chadstone Shopping Centre, 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis Pty LtdWard: EastZone: Commercial Zone 1 - Clause 34.01Overlay: Special Building Overlay - CL44.05, Incorporated Plan

Overlay (Schedule 2) - CL43.03 - Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan, August 2012

Neighbourhood Precinct: Not applicableDate lodged: 11 September 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

161


Application of Council interest

Cultural Heritage Plan No

Number of objections: Not applicable, no notice undertakenConsultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: That Council supports the amendments to the plans under

secondary consent

BACKGROUND

This amendment application is being considered concurrent with a new application for the West Mall (PL927/17) to allow for a new outdoor dining area and general liquor licences associated with the food and drinks premises. The change of use of the internal floor area and construction of the mezzanine balcony associated with the new food and drinks premises will be created by this amendment application. Planning Permit No 945/07 was issued was Council on 4 January 2008. The permit allowed for the expansion of the Chadstone Shopping Centre and specifically the construction of the West Mall. The works allowed by the Permit have been completed and the new West Mall has been operating since November 2009.

This is the 11th amendment to the permit.

Condition 2 of the permit states:

Page 125


"The development allowed by this permit, as shown on the drawings and / or schedules endorsed to accompany the permit, shall not be amended without the consent of the Responsible Authority".

This application is an amendment to the endorsed plans under the secondary consent mechanism provided by Condition 2.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by The Buchan Group and are known as Drawing No.s: ATP-10001 Rev 00, ATP-10008 Rev 00, ATP-10002 Rev 01, ATP-10003 Rev 01, ATP-10009 Rev 00, ATP-10004 Rev 00, ATP-10006 Rev 00, ATP-10006 Rev 00, ATP-10007 Rev 00 and Council date stamped 8 September and 13 November 2017.

Key features of the proposal are:

Create a new food and drink precinct adjacent to the primary West Mall entry. New food and drink tenancies to the Ground and Mezzanine levels. A new west facing balcony with an area of 102 sq. m within the Mezzanine floor food

and drinks tenancy. Creation of a 'tourist lounge' on the Ground Floor catering to pre-arranged tour groups. The creation of two bus parking bays provided along the frontage of the Ground Floor

tourist lounge.

In summary, the proposed changes to the endorsed West Mall plans include:

Repurposing the shop floor space to food and drinks premises (a reduction of 2129sq. m of shop floor area and the addition of 1091 sq. m of food and drinks premises).

Creation of a new first floor balcony within the extent of the current building envelope, below the existing roof canopy.

Conversion of the external shopfront glazing at the ground floor level to glazed bi-fold doors for the new restaurant tenants.

New tourist lounge entrance door (glazing to remain). Relocate the ground level fire escape door further east. Creation of a dedicated bus zone in front of the new tourist lounge including changes to

the kerbing in this location. Landscaping/planters reduced to accommodate the bus zone. Creation of a new lobby entrance to provide stair and lift access to the upper floor

restaurant tenancy.

Importantly, there is no change to the height of the building.

It is noted that this application does not authorise any external seating at the Ground Floor level. A separate application has been lodged (PL927/17) which seeks permission to create a new external dining area associated with the food and drinks premises in conjunction with new liquor licences for the ground and mezzanine floor levels. PL927/17 is not exempt from third party notice and appeal rights and is being considered by Council concurrent with this application.

Site and Surrounds

Page 126


Chadstone Shopping Centre (the Centre) is located on the northern side of Dandenong Road (Princes Highway) in Malvern East. The site is irregular in shape and has a total area of approximately 27 hectares. The site is dominated by one building positioned diagonally across the land and is generally surrounded by open air car parks and multi-level car parking decks. An internal ring road extends around the boundary of the land, allowing for vehicles to circulate within the site and enter and exit from the east, west or south. A recently constructed office tower (10 storeys in height) sits between the Eastern Access Road (east) and Central Access Road (west) along the southern boundary of the Shopping Centre site, directly interfacing with Dandenong Road.

Broadly, on the opposite (south) side of Dandenong Road, east of Poath Road, is the City of Monash. West of Poath Road is the City of Glen Eira. Lots on the southern side of Dandenong Road are zoned General Residential and are accessed via a service lane. The properties fronting Dandenong Road are located approximately 60 metres from the southern boundary of the subject site.

This application relates specifically to the west mall on the north side of the Centre, approximately 200m to the east of the Chadstone Road entrance. The subject area was previously the GAP tenancy and is located opposite the food and drinks premises known as Capital Kitchen.

This section of the building currently has no notable external access along the internal ring road. Access to the retail tenancies is from within the Shopping Centre. Directly to the north and north-west of the subject area is the internal ring road and a roundabout. Beyond this is an established landscape buffer including screening trees to the rear of the residential properties that extend along the common boundary with the Centre. The nearest residential property (20 Rangeview Avenue) is located 26.7m from the subject area.

Previous Planning Application(s)

There is an extensive planning permit history for this site.

Recent applications of relevance to this application include:

Planning Permit 956/17 issued on 8 February 2018 by Council for buildings and works within the Commercial 1 Zone; a waiver of the car parking requirements; and a waiver of the loading bay requirements of Clause 52.07. The works specifically allowed for modifications to the existing shop and food and drink tenancies within the east mall and the “Atrium” space to increase the leasable floor area by 1,148 square metres for shops and food and drinks tenancies. The application generated a statutory requirement for 75 car parking spaces and a full reduction in the car parking was approved.

Planning Permit 1336/17 issued on 22 March 2018 by Council and allows for buildings and works to expand the existing Coles car park on the eastern side of the Centre. This application provides 42 additional spaces with no increase in floor area.

Permit Application No. 927/17 is also being considered at this Council meeting and relates to the same subject area outside of the West Mall. This application is referred to as the ‘West Piazza’ and seeks a permit for buildings and works in a Commercial 1 Zone and a use not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan; general liquor licences associated with food and drinks premises (speciality restaurant) and reduction in the car parking requirements.

Page 127


The above application seeks to allow for a new outdoor dining area including general liquor licences. The ground floor tenancy (known as G41) will cater for 290 patrons (180 inside and 110 external), while the mezzanine tenancy (known as G41B) will cater for 370 patrons (300 internal and 70 external on the balcony). The proposed hours for both liquor licences will be 10am to 10pm Sunday through to Thursday, and 10am to 1am Friday and Saturday. This application generates a statutory requirement for 15 car parking spaces. A recommendation for this application is before Council.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 950949 Volume 11395, Folio 272, and there are numerous restrictions which affect the land including Covenant A718781 relating to the purchase price of the land.

It is considered that this application will not breach the restrictions on the title.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 a permit is not required to use the land for shops and retail premises (including food and drinks premises). Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Overlay(s)Clause 43.03 - Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2)Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.

A permit granted must:

Be generally in accordance with the incorporated plan, unless a schedule to this overlay specifies otherwise.

Include any conditions or requirements specified in a schedule to this overlay.

The relevant Incorporated Plan for Chadstone Shopping Centre is known as Incorporated Plan (August 2012). The Incorporated Plan outlines the building envelope for the Centre, specifies building heights and setbacks from boundaries, landscaping buffers and includes details of locations for allowable uses.

The proposed works to alter the internal floor area, construct a new balcony and make minor external modifications to the building are contained within the building envelope as specified by the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012). The works are generally in accordance with the incorporated plan.

Conditions and Requirements for Permits at Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay stipulates the following:

Page 128


3.6 Car parking rates for shops and food and drinks premises must be provided at the following rates unless otherwise permitted by the Responsible Authority:

6.5 spaces per 100 square metres of leasable floor area (same rate for food and drinks premises and shops)

Clause 44.05 - Special Building OverlayNo permit is required under this Overlay as the location of buildings or works are not proposed within the area designated as being within the Special Building Overlay.


Clause 11.03 Activity CentresClause 17 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 22.11 Chadstone Commercial Centre PolicyClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has not been advertised. This amendment has been lodged under the secondary consent provisions provided by Condition 2 of the permit. There is no ability to advertise under this assessment mechanism.

Had the application been lodged under Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the application would have been exempt from public notification pursuant to Clause 43.03-2 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme as the works are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan.

Referrals

Transport and Parking

Council’s Traffic Engineers provided the following comment on the proposed amendment:

The proposed change to the road to include a bus bay appears to create a short lane on the approach to the roundabout, and a pinch point near the access to the underground loading area. Further, there appears to be an unusual alignment created for vehicles exiting the car park via the curved road as they reach the main circulating road where the buses are proposed. It appears that the Traffic Consultant report contemplates an alteration to the linemarking, but this appears to add to the confusion for vehicles using the curved car park road. The applicant should undertake a turning movement assessment for the design vehicles to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed design.

Planner Response: The Applicant submitted further information prepared by GTA Traffic Consultants on 21 March 2018 in response to the comments above. This was re-referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Department who advised that the response addressed the above concerns and no further modifications to the design are required.

KEY ISSUES

Page 129


The applicant has sought secondary consent approval for the changes. The tests for deciding whether a development may be altered under a secondary consent provision are set down in Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd v Moreland CC (Red Dot) [2005] VCAT 1049 and recently updated in Oz Property Group (Flemington) Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC (Red Dot) [2014] VCAT 397 where it was held that the following tests must be met:

Do not result in a transformation of the proposal Do not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the

planning scheme Is of no consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control under

which the permit was granted Is not contrary to a specific requirement as distinct from an authorisation within the

permit, which itself cannot be altered by consent.

Is it a transformation?

No. The proposed amendments do not constitute a transformation of the proposal.

Does it authorise something that requires primary consent?

No. The permit preamble is not required to be altered to facilitate the proposed changes. The permit preamble currently allows buildings and works to expand the shopping centre to increase retail and non-retail floor space with associated car park and internal road works.

Will it have a consequential impact? (in regard to the purpose of the planning control under which the permit was granted)

The proposed amendments largely seek to repurpose the internal floor areas of the ground and mezzanine level within this section of the West Mall to convert retail space into food and drinks tenancies and a new tourist lounge. The works are predominantly contained within the interior of the Shopping Centre with only minor works to occur externally. The works are deemed to be inconsequential and in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) as will be discussed below under Planning Merits.

Is it contrary to a specific requirement within the permit?

No, the works are consistent with the permit preamble and conditions included within the permit.

Planning Merits

The proposed amendments are considered acceptable with regard to the provisions of the Commercial 1 Zone and the Incorporated Plan Overlay, including the relevant polices and particular provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

This amendment seeks to reconfigure the current floor areas within this section of the West Mall. The internal reconfiguration will remove 2129sq. m of shop floor area and introduce 1091sq. m of food and drinks premises. The internal repurposing will also convert shop floor area into a new tourist lounge at ground level and storage areas at the mezzanine level.

The extent of external works will include varying the glazing on the northern elevation to bi-fold doors, the construction of a new balcony on the first floor level beneath the existing roof canopy, creating a new entrance to the tourist lounge, and variations to the kerbing and

Page 130


landscaping between the northern glazing and the internal ring road to allow for two bus bays to serve the tourist lounge within the confines of the existing internal road.

Change of Uses

The change of use from shops to food and drinks premises is of no consequence as the uses are as of right (no permit required) within the Commercial 1 Zone.

The use of the land for a tourist lounge is not deemed to trigger a permit in its own right as the lounge is to be used by visitors to the Centre as a whole and cannot be classified exclusively as a “transport terminal”. On this basis the lounge is deemed to be ancillary to the overall Centre and does not trigger a permit for its use. It is anticipated that the lounge will encourage tourists to access the Centre via bus.

Buildings and Works

Turning now to the buildings and works, the most notable changes relate to the new balcony and the northern bi-fold doors.

The proposed balcony has been designed to sit under the existing roof canopy and has been well integrated into the overall design. The balcony is within the building envelope as shown on the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and is therefore in accordance with the Incorporated Plan and exempt from third party notice.

The balcony is located 26.6m from the nearest residential property at 20 Rangeview Avenue (to the north). The distance increases to 43.37m from No. 18 Rangeview Avenue and up 57.49m to No. 16 Rangeview Avenue. The boundary between the subject site and the residential properties along Rangeview Avenue is fenced and densely landscaped with a variety of screening trees that obscure views of the Centre from within the rear of the residential properties. At a minimum distance of 26.6m, views to the north from the first floor balcony will be limited due to the considerable distance and the extent of screening vegetation. Importantly, where the proposed balcony is to be located there are currently windows along the northern façade with an outlook towards the residential properties. Therefore, the extent of visibility will not be increased from the current glazing that exists at the mezzanine level.

As mentioned above, the existing façade is currently glazed and the amendment seeks to alter this treatment to allow for bi-fold doors with clear glazing. The bi-fold doors are an appropriate design response to the change of use for a food and drinks premises and are necessary for the integration with the proposed ground floor outdoor dining area (subject of another application 927/17 currently before Council).

In terms of potential noise impacts, the applicant has provided an acoustic report prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics to support this application which recommends restrictions on music levels, a 1.4m high balustrade to the balcony, and the closing of bi-fold doors at 10pm to ensure that noise limits are acceptable to the surrounding residential properties. These recommendations have been included as notes on the plans that confirm all bi-fold doors on the ground and mezzanine level will be closed at 10pm each night. The doors may be used for access only if they are fitted with automatic closing mechanisms.

The balcony which forms part of the mezzanine level food and drinks premises, has been shown to have a 1.4m high balustrade as per the recommendations of the acoustic report.

As the use of the land for a food and drinks premises is as of right (no permit required), there is no ability to control the hours of the use. However, the applicant has confirmed via

Page 131


notations on the plans that the music levels within the internal and external dining areas will be limited to background music at all times.

As the works are contained within the existing building envelope (below the existing roof canopy) and have been appropriately treated in terms of acoustics, the impact of the new balcony and bi-fold doors will not unreasonably impact on the residential properties to the north.

The variations to the kerbing and landscaping are considered to be minor variations and will facilitate two new bus bays to serve the tourist lounge. The Centre has seen a significant increase in tourist trade in recent years and this facility will seek to benefit the entire Centre by providing additional incentive to access the site as a group rather than by individual car trips. The landscaping is discussed in greater detail under Planning Permit Application 927/17 for the outdoor dining area, also before Council.

The change to the location of the fire exit further east of the new tourist lounge entry is a negligible variation and is needed for safety.


The car parking rates for a shop and food and drinks premises as per Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay are both attributed 6.5 spaces for every 100sq. m of leasable floor area. As the floor area of these uses is being reduced by 1038sq. m, a surplus of car parking spaces will result. A reduction of 1038sq. m of shop floor area equates to a surplus of 67 car parking spaces on the subject site. This is positive and will not impact adversely on the surrounding area.

Importantly, the surplus car parking provided by this application was anticipated by the approval for ‘the Atrium’ development under Planning Permit 956/17 issued by Council on 8 February 2018. ‘The Atrium’ permit allows for an increase in the leasable floor area by 1,148 square metres for shops and food and drinks tenancies. The application generated a statutory requirement for 75 car parking spaces, but sought a full reduction in the parking rate on the basis that this secondary consent amendment (subject application) will create a surplus of parking spaces, as would the extension to the Coles car park (PL1336/17).

Planning Permit 1336/17 was issued by Council on 22 March 2018 for the expansion of the existing Coles car park on the east side of the Centre. The permit approves 42 new car parking spaces with no increase in floor area.

The ‘West Piazza’ application that is being considered concurrent with this application seeks a reduction in the car parking requirements by 15 spaces for the new outdoor dining area. This secondary consent (subject application) compensates for this reduction also.

To date a reduction of 75 spaces has been granted and a reduction in 15 spaces is currently before Council (West Piazza). However, there is a surplus of 67 spaces generated by this subject amendment and 42 new spaces within the approved Coles car park extension. The end result of these applications in terms of the overall car parking at Centre is a surplus of 19 spaces. As parking at the Chadstone centre effectively operates holistically, the net result of the two applications currently before Council will be a surplus of parking and this is supported.


Page 132



CONCLUSION


The works are in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and meet the requirements at Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay;

The new works are minor in nature and will not increase detriment to an adjoining property;

The reconfiguration of the floor area will reduce the leasable shop floor area and create a surplus of 67 car parking spaces.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA3 945-07 - Chadstone Shopping Centre - 1341 Dandenong Road Malvern East - Attachment 1.PDF

Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That Council supports the amendments to the approved plans for Planning Permit 945/07 to allow the following changes to the plans under Secondary Consent:

Repurposing the shop floor space to food and drinks premises (a reduction of 2129sq. m of shop floor area and the addition of 1091 sq. m of food and drinks premises).

Creation of a new first floor balcony within the extent of the current building envelope, below the existing roof canopy.

Conversion of the external shopfront glazing to glazed bi-fold doors for the new restaurant tenants.

New tourist lounge entrance door (glazing to remain). Relocate the ground level fire escape door further east. Creation of a dedicated bus zone in front of the new tourist lounge including

changes to the kerbing in this location. Landscaping/planters reduced to accommodate the bus zone. Creation of a new lobby entrance to provide stair and lift access to the upper

floor restaurant tenancy.

Page 133


5. PLANNING APPLICATION 0927/17- CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE - 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – CREATION OF A NEW OUTDOOR DINING AREA KNOWN AS WEST PIAZZA INCLUDING GENERAL LIQUOR LICENCES ASSOCIATED WITH FOOD AND DRINKS PREMISES AND A REDUCTION IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENT


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for buildings and works in a Commercial 1 Zone and a use not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan; general liquor licences associated with food and drinks premises (speciality restaurant); and reduction in the car parking requirements at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis Pty LtdWard: EastZone: Commercial Zone 1 - Clause 34.01Overlay: Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2) - CL43.03 -

Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan, August 2012Special Building Overlay – CL44.05

Date lodged: 18 September 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

123


Application of interest to Council

Patron Numbers: 660Cultural Heritage Plan NoNumber of objections: One (1)Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

This application is being considered concurrent with an amendment application for the west mall, Planning Permit No. 945/07. The amendment application seeks to convert existing shop floor area into two food and drinks premises tenancies along with modifications to the external glazing to bi-fold doors and the construction of an external balcony at the mezzanine level. This application creates a surplus of 67 car parking spaces.

The subject application seeks to allow for works to construct an external ground floor dining area associated with the ground floor food and drinks premises and liquor licences for the ground and mezzanine level tenancies, including the new external dining areas.

The Proposal

Page 135


The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by The Buchan Group and are known as Drawing No’s: ATP-10011 Rev 00, ATP-10012 Rev 00, ATP-10013 Rev 01, ATP-10014 Rev 00, ATP-10016 Rev 01, ATP-10017 Rev 00, ATP-10020 Rev 00, ATP-10021 Rev 00, ATP-10024 Rev 00, ATP-10025 Rev 00, ASK-080 Rev 00, TP01 Rev D, TP02 Rev D, Plant Species Poster and Hard Landscape Elements, Council date stamped 8 September and 8 December 2017.

Key features of the proposal are:

Buildings and works to allow for a new outdoor dining area directly to the north of the West Mall.

The outdoor dining area is to be located between the northern façade of the Centre and the internal ring road, to the east of the primary entrance to the West Mall.

The new external seating area will be covered with a metal framed pergola that will be 2.8m in height above the footpath.

2.1m high glazed wind screens will be provided around the northern and western ends of the outdoor seating area on the ground floor.

A solid roof with heating units will be provided to part of the outdoor area on the ground floor.

Existing planters and landscaping in this location to be modified and extended to the east.

New landscaping (trees, hedges and climbers) are proposed around and above the new outdoor dining area.

The outdoor dining area will have an area of 241sq. m which generates a requirement for 15 car parking spaces. This application seeks a reduction in the parking rate to zero.

The application also includes two general liquor licences associated with the food and drink premises at the ground and first floor levels. Although general licenses are being sought, the two tenancies are to offer restaurant dining with a small retail component providing a curated experience for the sale of local wines and sake for off-site consumption. The retail component will be no more than 100sq. m of the overall tenancy floor area. The Applicant has agreed that the standard café/restaurant conditions can be placed on the permit to ensure that the predominant activity is the preparation and serving of meals on-site and that seating will be provided for 75% of the patrons.

A food and drinks premises is defined as, land used to prepare and sell food and drink for immediate consumption on, or off, the premises. As there is a component of sale of liquor for off-site consumption, the definition of the use is to be food and drinks premises (speciality restaurant).

The two food and drinks premises tenancies are known as tenancy G41 (ground floor) and G41B (mezzanine level). The proposed number of patrons is as follows:

G41 will cater for 290 patrons (180 inside and 110 in the external dining area) G41B will cater for 370 patrons (300 internal and 70 external on balcony). A total of 660 patrons are proposed within these tenancies at any one time.

The proposed hours for both liquor licences will be:

10am to 10pm Sunday through to Thursday, and 10am to 1am Friday and Saturday.

Music will be limited to background noise levels only.

Page 136


Site and Surrounds

Chadstone Shopping Centre (the Centre) is located on the northern side of Dandenong Road (Princes Highway) in Malvern East. The site is irregular in shape and has a total area of approximately 27 hectares. The site is dominated by one building positioned diagonally across the land and is generally surrounded by open air car parks and multi-level car parking decks. An internal ring road extends around the boundary of the land, allowing for vehicles to circulate within the site and enter and exit from the east, west or south. A recently constructed office tower (10 storeys in height) sits between the Eastern Access Road (east) and Central Access Road (west) along the southern boundary of the Shopping Centre site, directly interfacing with Dandenong Road.

Broadly, on the opposite (south) side of Dandenong Road, east of Poath Road, is the City of Monash. West of Poath Road is the City of Glen Eira. Lots on the southern side of Dandenong Road are zoned General Residential and are accessed via a service lane. The properties fronting Dandenong Road are located approximately 60 metres from the southern boundary of the subject site.

This application relates specifically to the West Mall on the north side of the Centre, approximately 200m to the east of the Chadstone Road entrance. The subject area was previously the GAP tenancy and is located opposite the food and drinks premises known as Capital Kitchen.

Directly to the north and north-west of the subject area is the internal ring road catering to two-way traffic and a roundabout. Beyond this is an established landscape buffer including screening trees to the rear of the residential properties that extend along the common boundary with the Centre. The rear boundaries of the nearest residential properties (20 and 22 Rangeview Avenue) are located approximately 19m from the new outdoor dining area. The outdoor dining is located a minimum distance of 29.2m from the rear wall of the nearest dwelling.

Previous Planning Application(s)

There is an extensive planning permit history for this site. Recent applications of relevance to this application include:

Amendment to Planning Permit 945/07 is being considered concurrent with this subject application. The amendment seeks to allow for the repurposing of existing retail (shop) floor area over Ground and Mezzanine levels into 'Food & Drink Premises', with a new tourist lounge provided on the Ground level within the West Mall and minor buildings and works. This amendment produces a surplus of 67 car parking spaces.

Planning Permit 956/17 issued on 8 February 2018 by Council for buildings and works within the Commercial 1 Zone; a waiver of the car parking requirements; and a waiver of the loading bay requirements of Clause 52.07. The works specifically allowed for modifications to the existing shop and food and drink tenancies within the east mall and the “Atrium” space to increase the leasable floor area by 1,148 square metres for shops and food and drinks tenancies. The application generated a statutory requirement for 75 car parking spaces and a full reduction in the car parking has been approved.

Planning Permit 1336/17 issued on 22 March 2018 and allowed for buildings and works to expand the existing Coles car park on the eastern side of the Centre. This application provides 42 additional spaces with no increase in floor area.

Page 137


The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 950949 Volume 11395, Folio 272, and there are numerous restrictions which affect the land including Covenant A718781 relating to the purchase price of the land.

It is considered that this application will not breach the restrictions on the title.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 a permit is not required to use the land for a food and drinks premises. The concurrent amendment application (945/07) deals with the change of the use for the internal floor areas.Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.03 - Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2)Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.

The relevant Incorporated Plan is known as Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012). The Incorporated Plan outlines the building envelope for the Centre, specifies building heights and setbacks from boundaries and includes details of locations for allowable uses.

A permit granted must:

Be generally in accordance with the incorporated plan, unless a schedule to this overlay specifies otherwise.

Include any conditions or requirements specified in a schedule to this overlay.

The proposed outdoor dining area at the ground floor level is outside of the area designated for shops and other allowable uses as shown on the approved Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and is therefore not in accordance with the Incorporated Plan.

Section 2.0 of Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay states that a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works that is not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan. A permit is therefore triggered for the outdoor dining area as it is not in accordance with the Incorporated Plan.

Additionally, a permit which results in an increase in floor space must contain the following condition:

"The Chadstone Road entrance is to be closed between midnight and 6.00am, except on ten (10) days every year. The operation of the entrance is to allow for efficient

Page 138


access during extended trading over the Christmas period and for special trading events. It is a requirement that the specific dates and times when the entrance is to be left open are advised to the occupiers of properties in Chadstone Road, at least one month prior to the first of these special trading days, in each year."

Conditions and Requirements for Permits at Schedule 2 also stipulate the following rates for parking:

3.6 Car parking rates for a food and drinks premises must be provided at the following rates unless otherwise permitted by the Responsible Authority:

6.5 spaces per 100 square metres of leasable floor area

Schedule 2 does not stipulate any specific conditions relating to applications for a liquor licence.

Clause 44.05 - Special Building OverlayNo permit is required under the Special Building Overlay as no buildings or works are proposed as part of this application.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.27 - Licensed Premises

Pursuant to Clause 52.27 a permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor. This application seeks a permit for general liquor licences associated with food and drinks premises at ground and mezzanine floor level.


Clause 11.03 Activity CentresClause 15 Built Environment and HeritageClause 17 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 22.10 Licensed Premises PolicyClause 22.11 Chadstone Commercial Centre PolicyClause 52.27 Licensed PremisesClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing two signs on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and an objection from one (1) property has been received. The concerns are summarized as:

Sale of alcohol for off-site consumption may result in people drinking in Percy Treyvaud Park or adjacent to 20 Chapman Street.

Anti-social behaviour.

Page 139


Object to 1am closing time due to sleep disturbances. Hours of construction activity.

No Consultative Meeting was held.

Referrals

Council’s Urban Designer

The location of this proposal adjoins the Western entry to the Centre, adjacent to the existing perimeter road and roundabout. The nearest residential properties are located on Rangeview Avenue. The rear of these properties are screened by fencing and substantive landscaping from the impacts of the adjacent existing perimeter roadway.

Subject to the normal provisions covering noise (from patrons and music) and light spill, there are no urban design issues arising from the proposed works.

Transport and Parking

There is no in-principle concern with the reduction in car parking for the 15 car spaces due to the other applications that are creating surplus car parking. It is considered that parking at the Chadstone centre effectively operates holistically.

Planner Note: The reduction in shop floor area proposed by the secondary consent amendment for the West Mall permit 945/07 (also being considered by Council at this meeting), will provide in excess of the 15 car spaces required by this application. If both applications before Council are approved the net result will be a surplus of 19 car spaces at the Centre. This will be discussed in greater detail below.

Council’s Arborist

It is unclear if there is sufficient soil volume contained in the proposed planters to sustain the plantings proposed.

The following is to be requested:

Details of the soil volume / planter dimensions in the vicinity of the row of Hill’s Figs. Details of the soil volume / planter dimensions in the vicinity of the 2 St Mary Magnolia. A planting schedule that includes the size of plants at the time of planting.

Planner Note: The Applicant submitted additional information on 21 March 2018 to address the above comments. The plans include a number of changes detailed as follows:

Tree locations have moved above location of existing tree pits and the tree quantity has reduced to three in total as a result

Tree species have changed from the larger-growing Ficus microcarpa 'Hillii' (Evergreen Fig) to the more compact Lagerstremia indica x fauriei 'Acoma' (Compact White Crepe Myrtle)

Landscape area has extended slightly to north and south, comprising low planters / bench seating with a combination of low evergreen shrubs

Pergola roof structure / extents have shifted marginally Planting schedule has been updated accordingly

The plans showing the above changes have not been formally revised and as such, these amendments will be required via a condition of any approval issued. However, Council’s

Page 140


Arborist has reviewed and advised that the changes are acceptable and have addressed the previous comments.

Infrastructure

The Infrastructure Department have requested the following condition be placed on permit that issues:

A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued.

Advocacy, Performance and Improvement

Advocacy, Performance and Improvement have recommended that the applicant be required to: Undertake a social impact assessment (SIA) to consider the potential impacts of the

proposed licensed venue, in accordance with clause 21.08-6; and Provide a comprehensive Management Plan.

Planner Note: Although the application is for general liquor licences the applicant has confirmed that the food and drinks premises will operate as speciality restaurants with a small retail component selling local wine and sake to patrons for off-site consumption. The Applicant has agreed to the standard restaurant and cafe liquor licence conditions requiring the predominant activity on the site to be the preparation and serving of meals and that tables and chairs must be made available for at least 75% of the patrons at any one time. In addition, internal and external music must be limited to background levels. For these reasons, the use is more akin to a restaurant and does not warrant a social impact assessment. Conditions of any permit that issues will require a comprehensive Noise and Amenity Action Plan (management plan) to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the commencement of the use.

KEY ISSUES

Context

Chadstone Shopping Centre (the Centre) is a large stand alone activity centre that offers an extensive and diverse range of services to the local and wider community. The Centre sits directly to the north of Dandenong Road and is largely surrounded by at-grade, basement and multi deck car parks. This arrangement means that commercial activities are usually located a considerable distance from the residential properties that surround the site.

In this case, the proposed external dining area will be located approximately 19m from the rear of the residential properties that front Rangeview Avenue. Between the north boundary of the Centre and the outdoor dining area is the internal ring road (catering for two-way traffic) and a landscape buffer including large screening trees.

To the west of the proposed outdoor dining area, adjacent to the main west mall entry is a licensed restaurant known as Capital Kitchen. This tenancy operates with an outdoor dining component, albeit it is located further from the residential interface. Capital Kitchen was issued a permit for an on-premises liquor licence associated with a restaurant in November 2009 (PL632/09). The permit allows for 210 patrons to consume alcohol on-site between 8am to 11pm Sunday to Wednesday and between 8am to 12midnight Thursday to Saturday, with the service of liquor within the outdoor area to only occur between 8am and 11pm on any day.

Page 141


Built Form

The new landscaped outdoor dining area is proposed to be constructed within an area that is currently used as a wide pedestrian walkway with planters along the northern edge, adjacent to the internal ring road. The proposal does not seek to alter the internal ring road from its current location. The existing planters are to be removed to make way for a new landscape buffer abutting the internal ring road that will include hedging, new trees and a 2.1m high glass wind screen. A pergola is proposed above the dining area and is to have trellis for climbers and metal lanterns. A section closest to the building will be covered with a solid roof and heaters.

The height of the pergola structure at 2.8m will not be visually imposing to the surrounding area and will be covered in most parts with climbing vegetation. Council’s Arborist reviewed the advertised landscape concept plans and raised concerns with the soil volumes for the 13 trees proposed. The Applicant subsequently submitted discussion plans to address the Arborist’s concerns. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of trees proposed around the outdoor dining area to 3. The discussion plans have been reviewed by the Arborist and they are satisfied that the design provides adequate soil volumes to cater for the trees and plantings now proposed. The use of a combination of hedging, shrubs, trees and climbers will ensure that the outdoor structure will be sufficiently softened with greenery. The vegetation may also assist in providing a buffer to noise and light emissions. That being said, a lighting management plan will be required via a condition of approval to demonstrate that lighting within the new outdoor dining area will be appropriately located and baffled to avoid having an adverse effect on the adjoining residential properties.

The proposed works will ensure that a pedestrian walkway of 2.1m in width is maintained along the northern façade at ground level to continue to facilitate access around the site. The works will also improve safety and provide a better connection between the outdoor and indoor environments to enable people to engage and interact in the public spaces around the building.

An area to the north of the new tourist lounge and to the east of the outdoor dining area has been designated as a smokers’ area with glazed screening. This area is located 19m from the nearest residential property. Having a designated area for smoking is considered a positive design response to encourage patrons to utilise this area away from the outdoor dining areas.

The proposed works are deemed to be of a high quality and will create a vibrant and attractive external public environment that increases the extent of active frontages to the building and opportunities for outdoor eating and drinking in accordance with the public realm design guidelines of the Incorporated Plan Overlay, Schedule 2.

As parts of the outdoor dining area sit outside of the building envelope set by the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012), consideration must be given to the appropriateness of the use of this space and the impacts on the adjoining properties. For the reasons that will be discussed throughout this report, it is considered that the use of the outdoor area is acceptable, subject to a restriction on the hours of use of this space up until 11pm on a Friday and Saturday night (and up until 10pm on Sunday through to Thursday). A number of conditions will also deal with light spill and further acoustic testing as will be discussed below.

Liquor Licences

Page 142


This application seeks a permit for general liquor licences to serve liquor both on the site and for a limited service of alcohol for off-site consumption. As previously mentioned, the two tenancies will predominantly offer seated dining with a small retail component providing a curated experience for the sale of local wines and sake for off-site consumption. The retail component will be no more than 100sq. m of the overall tenancy floor area and the Applicant has agreed to standard café/restaurant conditions being placed on the permit to ensure that the predominant activity on the site is the serving of meals and that tables and chairs will be provided for at least 75% of the patrons at any one time.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) recognises the importance of licensed premises in contributing to the vibrancy and economic strength of the municipality. Consideration of new liquor licence applications is guided by Council's local policy Clause 22.10 which seeks to:

To identify appropriate locations, trading hours and patron numbers for licensed premises.

To effectively manage the amenity conflicts between licensed premises and other uses. To manage the impacts of licensed premises on the diversity of uses and economic

viability of activity centres. To establish an appropriate mix of licensed premises relative to other commercial,

retail and residential uses within activity centres. To encourage daytime uses and active frontages within activity centres. To provide reasonable commercial opportunities for the trading of licensed premises. To strongly encourage good venue design of licensed premises based on the Design

Guidelines for Licensed Venues (Department of Justice).

Specifically, it is policy that the operation of licensed premises should have no unreasonable impact on the amenity and safety of surrounding uses, in relation to noise, hours of operation and car parking demand, amongst other things. An assessment of these factors is undertaken below:

Hours and patron numbers

The application seeks approval for general liquor licences for the sale and consumption of liquor both on and off the premises between the hours of 10am to 10pm Sunday through to Thursday, and 10am to 1am Friday and Saturday. These hours are proposed for both the internal and external licensed areas. The two tenancies are both large in size with G41 (ground floor) having an internal area of 470 sq. m and an outdoor area of 241sq. m. While G41B at the mezzanine level will have an internal area of 621sq. m and a balcony of 102 sq. m. The proposed number of patrons (G41 - 290 patrons and G41B - 370 patrons) can be easily accommodated within these large floor areas based on the standard calculation of 0.75sq.m per patron. The 0.75sq. m calculation is based on seated dining and this is considered the relevant test as the Applicant has confirmed that the predominant activity carried out will be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the premises.

In terms of the licensed hours, Council’s Licensed Premises Policy (Clause 22.10) discourages trading after 11:00pm adjacent to a residential zone unless the responsible authority is satisfied that the use will not adversely affect the amenity of the area. It is preferred that any trading after 11:00pm occur in a Principal or Major Activity Centre.

The licensed hours as proposed are:

10am to 10pm Sunday through to Thursday, and

Page 143


10am to 1am Friday and Saturday.

While the application complies with Council’s local policy requirements Sunday through to Thursday, the hours on Friday and Saturday are deemed to be problematic as they relate to the outdoor dining areas.

The consumption of liquor up until 1am within the building itself is supported. As will be discussed below under “Noise”, the external bi-fold doors must be closed at 10pm each night and internal and external music must be limited to background music at all times. With the doors to the north closed, it is not expected that there would be unreasonable amenity impacts on the residential properties to the north.

It is considered that the outdoor areas (ground and mezzanine level) are likely to result in adverse amenity impacts given the proximity to the residential properties operating until 1am on a Friday and Saturday night. The Applicant has referred to the approved licensed outdoor dining areas associated with the redeveloped northern mall (PL579/13) in their justification for the proposed outdoor hours up until 1am. While there are four external tenancies that interface with the roof deck of the multi-level car park adjacent to the cinemas and Legoland that have been approved to operate until 1am on certain days of the week; there are distinct differences between those applications and this subject application.

The outdoor tenancies on the car parking deck of the northern mall are located between 50 and 60 metres from the nearest residential properties and are elevated substantially above ground level. These tenancies are also within the building envelope of the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) that allows for shops. Unlike the subject application which is located in a quieter part of the Centre, the restaurant and café licenses form part of the entertainment precinct, which caters to convenience restaurants and the Hoyts cinemas.

The subject application proposes outdoor dining only 19m from the nearest residential property and is located at ground and mezzanine level with no multi level car park deck to buffer the potential amenity impacts of noise and light spill. Although there is a separation distance of 19m across the internal ring road and landscaping to the boundary, the works will increase night time activity considerably from what currently exists in this location. The combined outdoor dining area and the external balcony seeks to allow for a total of 180 patrons to consume alcohol until 1am on a Friday and Saturday night. This is not considered reasonable. While outdoor dining up until 11pm is considered acceptable for an activity centre, there is potential for unreasonable off-site impacts past 11pm within the external areas. Therefore, the hours of the external dining areas will be restricted via a condition to 11pm on a Friday and Saturday night, on any permit that issues.

Subject to the abovementioned conditions, the hours and patrons numbers as proposed are deemed to be acceptable and will not result in adverse amenity impacts on the surrounding residential properties.

Noise

Impacts of noise have been touched on above, however it is important to note that the Applicant has submitted an acoustic report undertaken by Marshall Day Acoustics which addresses music and patron noise from the new licensed areas. The report finds that noise impacts will be acceptable based on the current design subject to:

Restricting internal and external music to background noise levels

Page 144


Closing all bi-fold doors on both the ground and first floor during the night-time period i.e. after 22:00 hours.

These above restrictions will form a condition of approval.

As the acoustic report provides only predictions of the noise levels, the permit will also include a condition that requires noise monitoring within 3 months of the commencement of the outdoor dining areas to assess background, patron and music noise emissions from the outdoor dining areas on at least two separate occasions (at least one being just prior to 11pm on a weekend). The report must demonstrate compliance with the noise limits set by any relevant State Environment Protection Policy, including the sleep disturbance criteria to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If any exceedance is detected, the report must include remedial recommendations for approval by the Responsible Authority. The measurements must be conducted near the closest residential receivers at 20 and 22 Rangeview Avenue.

Amenity and Safety

Subject to conditions, it is not anticipated that the new licensed tenancies will adversely affect the surrounding area in terms of amenity and safety as the majority of the activity from the new tenancies will be confined to the internal floor area within the building. It is more likely that the new outdoor dining area will activate the West Mall frontage and create greater opportunities for surveillance, thereby improving safety around the building.

A Noise and Amenity Action Plan (NAAP) has not been provided and it is considered that this is necessary for general liquor licences. A NAAP will be required via a condition on any permit that issues and must include (but is not limited to): details on all noise sources, measures to be undertaken to address all noise sources identified, the location of lighting, details of any measures to work with neighbours or other residents in the immediate area to address complaints and general operational issues, location and operation of air-conditioning, exhaust fan systems and security alarms. This will further assist in reducing adverse amenity impacts on the residences to the north.

As the Centre is predominantly accessed by vehicles it is not expected that patrons will purchase takeaway alcohol to consume around the periphery of the site. Anti-social impacts are generally more evident in strip shopping centres in venues predominantly focused on vertical drinking (i.e. bars / taverns). The Centre currently manages its own security personnel and systems which endeavour to ensure the safety of customers. Based on the current security arrangements, the Centre may be better placed than other licensed venues in the municipality to be able to effectively manage patrons and deter anti-social behaviour and off-site amenity impacts.

Although there are several licences at the Centre, the proposed licences are not considered to result in a saturation of licensed venues. Rather the introduction of the licensed speciality restaurants will complement the existing offer of services within the activity centre.

Car Parking

As previously mentioned, this application seeks a permit for a reduction in the car parking rate associated with the increased floor area for the outdoor dining area. The Incorporated Plan Overlay specifies a rate of 6.5 spaces to each 100sq. m of leasable floor area for a food and drinks premises. Based on the proposed 241sq. m of floor area, a total of 15 spaces is required. The subject application will not provide any new car parking.

Page 145


Importantly, the amendment application also before Council (945/07) will create a surplus of 67 spaces as a result of the change in use from shops to food and drinks premises. This surplus car parking along with the Coles car park extension (+42 spaces) creates additional parking to off-set the proposed reduction.

Based on the surplus car parking provided by the secondary consent amendment (945/07) and Coles car park extension (1336/17), the demand for car parking associated with this subject application can be easily met. The remaining car parking after the abovementioned approvals have been issued will continue to be a surplus of at least 19 spaces.

Car parking at the Centre operates holistically and patrons generally access multiple services within the Shopping-Centre in one visit. For these reasons, the introduction of the new licensed tenancies forming this application are not expected to result in parking spill-over into the residential streets.

Objections


Anti-social behaviour / patrons drinking in public areas

Although the application is for a general liquor licence, the proposed use is to operate in a similar manner to a restaurant. The small retail component for the sale of local wine and sake will be less than 100sq. m in floor area and will cater for a restaurant-to-retail concept. It is considered unlikely that this permit, with the conditions as imposed, will contribute to public drinking or anti-social behaviour.

Hours of construction activity

Unlike the other more substantial developments at the Centre, it is considered that this application does not warrant a Construction Management Plan. Nonetheless, all construction activity must accord with Council’s Local Laws.



CONCLUSION


The proposed landscaped outdoor dining area will create a vibrant and attractive external public environment that increases the extent of active frontages to the building and opportunities for outdoor eating and drinking.

Page 146


The majority of the licensed area is contained within the building itself, with a maximum of 110 patrons permitted to consume liquor within the external ground floor dining area and a maximum of 70 patrons on the mezzanine balcony.

Subject to conditions restricting the hours of the outdoor dining areas to 11pm on a Friday and Saturday night, there is sufficient separation between the outdoor dining areas and the residential properties to limit unreasonable amenity impacts.

Only background music will be permitted at all times and a further acoustic assessment will be required once the uses commence to ensure that noise emissions are in accordance with the relevant standards contained in the appropriate State Environment Protection Policy or Policies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA2 927-17 - Chadstone Shopping Centre - 1341 Dandenong Road Malvern East - Attachment 1.PDF

Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 927/17 for the land located at Chadstone Shopping Centre, 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East, be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for buildings and works in a Commercial 1 Zone and a use not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan; general liquor licences associated with food and drinks premises (speciality restaurant); and reduction in the car parking requirements subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the use / development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans known as ATP-10011 Rev 00, ATP-10012 Rev 00, ATP-10013 Rev 01, ATP-10014 Rev 00, ATP-10016 Rev 01, ATP-10017 Rev 00, ATP-10020 Rev 00, ATP-10021 Rev 00, ATP-10024 Rev 00, ATP-10025 Rev 00, ASK-080 Rev 00 and Council date stamped 8 September and 8 December 2017 but modified to show:

a. Plans updated to reflect the minor variations to the outdoor dining area as a result of the changes to the landscape response as per the plans submitted to Council on 21 March 2018 which show:

i. Landscape area extended slightly to north and south, comprising low planters / bench seating;

ii. Dining area reduced in size to 193sq. m; and iii. Pergola roof structure shifted marginally;

b. Any changes as required by Condition 3 (Landscape Plan) and Condition 22 (Lighting Management Plan);

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 2. The plans endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended without

the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans as required by Condition 1, a landscape plan is to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed

Page 147


and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the advertised landscape concept plans known as TP01 Rev D, TP02 Rev D, Plant Species Poster and Hard Landscape Elements prepared by Jack Merlo and Council date stamped 8 September 2017 but modified to show:

a) Changes to the landscape response as per the plans submitted to Council on 21 March 2018 which show:

i. Tree locations moved above location of existing tree pits and the tree quantity reduced to three in total;

ii. Tree species changed from the larger-growing Ficus microcarpa 'Hillii' (Evergreen Fig) to the more compact Lagerstremia indica x fauriei 'Acoma' (Compact White Crepe Myrtle);

iii. Landscape area extended slightly to north and south, comprising low planters / bench seating with a combination of low evergreen shrubs;

iv. Pergola roof structure / extents shifted marginally;v. Planting schedule has been updated accordingly;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.4. Before the use starts / occupation of the development, the landscaping works

as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. A maximum number of 110 patrons may be housed within the ground floor outdoor dining area at any one time to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. The ground floor outdoor dining area must only operate until 10pm Sunday through to Thursday and up to 11pm on Friday and Saturday.

7. Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the sale and consumption of liquor shall only occur within the licensed area between the hours of:

Internal Areas:

10am to 10pm Sunday through to Thursday, and 10am to 1am Friday and Saturday.

Outdoor Areas (including the mezzanine balcony):

10am to 10pm Sunday through to Thursday 10am and 11pm Friday and Saturday.

8. The following maximum number of patrons are to be housed within these tenancies at any one time:

Ground Floor G41: 290 patrons (180 inside and 110 in the external dining area)

Page 148


Mezzanine Floor G41B: 370 patrons (300 inside and 70 external on balcony).

9. The predominant activity carried out at all times on the licensed premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the licensed premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Tables and chairs must be placed in position on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending the premises at any one time, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, all acoustic measures proposed in the acoustic report must be incorporated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Within three (3) months of the commencement of the outdoor dining areas, an acoustic report is to be provided to the Responsible Authority to assess background, patron and music noise emissions from the outdoor dining area on at least two separate occasions (at least one being just prior to 11pm on a weekend). The report must demonstrate compliance with the noise limits set by any relevant State Environment Protection Policy, including the sleep disturbance criteria to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If any exceedance is detected, the report must include remedial recommendations for approval by the Responsible Authority. All approved remedial action must be undertaken on site within 3 months of the submission of the acoustic report to Council. The measurements must be conducted near the closest and most affected residential receivers being 20 and 22 Rangeview Avenue to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. The emission of noise or any other emission to the environment derived from activities on the site must conform to standards contained in the appropriate State Environment Protection Policy or Policies at all times.

14. The provision of music and entertainment both internal and external to the premises must be limited to background music at all times unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

15. All external bi-fold or sliding doors on both the ground and mezzanine level must be closed at 10pm each night. These doors may be used for access provided that they are fitted with automatic closing mechanisms.

16. Prior to the commencement of the use, a Noise and Amenity Action Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority containing the following information for each tenancy:

a. The identification of all noise sources associated with the licensed premises (including, but not limited to, music noise, external areas allocated for smokers, queuing lines, entries and exits to the premises and courtyards).

b. Hours of operation for all parts of the premises.c. Details of the provision of music including the frequency and hours of

entertainment provided by live bands and DJs.d. The identification of noise sensitive areas including residential uses and

Page 149


accommodation in close proximity to the licensed premises.e. Measures to be undertaken to address all noise sources identified,

including on and off-site noise attenuation measures.f. Details of staffing arrangements including numbers and working hours of

all security staff.g. Standard procedures to be undertaken by staff in the event of a

complaint by a member of the public, the Victoria Police, an authorised officer of the responsible authority or an officer of the liquor licensing authority.

h. Location of lighting within the boundaries of the site, security lighting outside the licensed premises and any overspill of lighting.

i. Details of waste management plan including storage and hours of collection for general rubbish and bottles, and delivery times associated with the licensed premises.

j. Details of any measures to work with neighbours or other residents in the immediate area to address complaints and general operational issues.

k. Any other measures to be undertaken to ensure minimal impacts from the licensed premises.

l. Location and operation of air-conditioning, exhaust fan systems and security alarms.

The approved Noise and Amenity Action Plan will form part of the permit and the use must operate in accordance with it to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. No glass bottles are to be placed outside of the building for collection between the hours of 11:00pm and 7:00am the following day.

18. The retail component for liquor sales for off-site consumption must be limited to a maximum of 100 square metres of the tenancy floor area.

19. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.

20. The Chadstone Road entrance is to be closed between midnight and 6.00am, except on ten (10) days every year. The operation of the entrance is to allow for efficient access during extended trading over the Christmas period and for special trading events. It is a requirement that the specific dates and times when the entrance is to be left open are advised to the occupiers of properties in Chadstone Road, at least one month prior to the first of these special trading days, in each year

21. Prior to the commencement of use / occupation of the building, the applicant must display a sign at the exit of the premises advising patrons to respect the amenity of adjacent residential areas and to leave in a quiet and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans as required by Condition 1, a lighting management plan is to be provided to demonstrate that the lighting proposed within the external outdoor dining area will not have an adverse effect on the adjoining residential land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 150


23. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued.


a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

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

c) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit.d) The use is discontinued for a period of two years or more.In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

A. This permit is for the use of the land and/or buildings and does not constitute any authority to conduct a business requiring Health Act/Food Act registration without prior approval from the Council’s Health Services.

B. Background music level, in relation to premises, means a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voices to a substantial level.

C. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 151


6. MELBOURNE METRO RAIL PROJECT - SUBMISSION TO AMENDMENT GC96

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

Brief Council on the implications of the State Government’s proposed planning scheme amendment GC96, and associated draft incorporated document; and

Endorse a submission to the proposed amendment.

BACKGROUND

The Victorian Government is currently undertaking works for the Metro Tunnel Project to connect the Cranbourne/Pakenham Line to the Sunbury Line through the construction of new twin nine-kilometre rail tunnels and five new underground stations.

On 2 March 2018, the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA) wrote to Council advising of a number of works associated with the wider project scope including upgrade works to the existing overland parts of the rail corridor, which includes land within the City of Stonnington. Planning scheme amendment GC96 has been prepared to facilitate a streamlined process for the works.

The proposed project includes:

New high capacity signalling system and combined services route (cabling containment structure) along the section of the Cranbourne/Pakenham rail corridor that passes through the municipality

Track works and platform extension at Hawksburn Station

Maintenance access at Malvern Station

Fibre optic installation between South Yarra and Windsor Stations

Potential electrical substation upgrades

The proposed amendment covers land across 13 municipalities along the Sunbury, Pakenham/Cranbourne, Frankston and Sandringham rail corridors. Specifically in the City of Stonnington, it applies along the full length of the Pakenham/Cranbourne and Frankston Corridors in the municipality and to the Sandringham line from the Yarra River down to (and including) Windsor Station. Notably, the amendment excludes the Eastern Portal project area land near South Yarra Station and Toorak Road. Works associated with the “Eastern Portal” of the project are controlled by a separate incorporated document in the planning scheme.

Most of the land identified as within the project area is within the Public Use Zone 4 (Transport) where a permit would not normally be required for the proposed works. However, in some locations, the Heritage Overlay and Special Building Overlay provisions apply, meaning a permit would normally be required. The draft amendment consists of an incorporated document that will provide exemptions to the planning permit requirements in these controls.

Council received notice of the amendment on 16 March 2018 and was given a deadline to provide comment to the MMRA by 21 April 2018. Council has requested an extension to this

Page 153


timeframe until Tuesday, 24 April 2018 to allow consideration of the proposed controls at a Council meeting.

A copy of the proposed incorporated document is included as Attachment 1.

DISCUSSION

Council officers are advised that the proposed upgrade works described relate to relatively minor changes to existing rail infrastructure and result in significant benefits to the overall operation of the metropolitan rail network. In this context, Council officers do not oppose the proposed amendment in principle.

The MMRA have drafted a single document to apply over 13 separate municipalities for a breadth of different upgrade works and different local conditions. Key issues regarding the proposed control are set out below:

Minister becomes Responsible Authority for rail corridor land

The Minister for Planning assumes responsibility for the works proposed and facilitated by this incorporated document. This removes Council as the decision maker in relation to any of the proposed works.

No opportunity for community input

The incorporated document removes third party appeal rights and does not propose any process for the involvement of the community. It is considered that at least some community consultation should be allowed for in the incorporated document.

Definition of Upgrade Works

It is considered that there should be clarity as to the scope of the Upgrade Works, and that a better definition be included in the incorporated document.

Overlay controls overridden

The Special Building Overlay and Heritage Overlay controls which currently exist in the Stonnington Planning Scheme in discrete areas along the rail corridor, are overridden by this amendment. While the incorporated document has a requirement to prepare a Heritage Management Plan, it is noted that Council will have no control over the outcomes that may be pursued in the name of upgrade works to the Melbourne Metropolitan rail network. It is considered that the heritage issues (in particular, at Hawksburn Station, but at other stations too) are significant, and Council should have an opportunity to provide input.

Specific controls

The amendment proposes a single incorporated document across all 13 municipalities, resulting in a number of sections which are not directly relevant to the City of Stonnington. Given the differing levels of works proposed across the municipalities and the difference in planning policy, context and controls, it is considered that the incorporated document would be better split into separate documents that apply more specific controls to the different local government areas.

Extent of authorisation

Page 154


While the uses and development authorised by the incorporated document are relatively broad, it is not an unlimited authorisation. Decisions made by the Minister as the Responsible Authority would need to be made under the ‘umbrella’ of the incorporated document, having regard to the totality of the incorporated document and its purpose. If the Minister was to approve development with no or very little relationship to “upgrades to the Metropolitan rail network”, they potentially open themselves up to judicial challenge. It is considered that this provides some surety in relation to the overall amendment.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Legal advice has been sought and informs the above discussion by Council officers.

CONCLUSION

The proposed upgrades to existing rail infrastructure is generally supported. However, a review of the proposed incorporated document raises concern in its breadth and ability to exempt permit requirements which should be elaborated further in a submission to the MMRA. It is considered some changes to the Incorporated Document could address these issues.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 of 1 - Draft Incorporated Document Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes that Amendment GC96 is proposed to apply in parts of Stonnington to

facilitate works related to the Metro Tunnel Project.2. Endorses the preparation of a submission to GC96 generally in accordance with

this Council report

Page 155


7. DRAFT 2018/19 BUDGET

Manager Finance: Jon Gorst General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

To receive the Draft 2018/19 Budget and Strategic Resource Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22). Under the Local Government Act 1989, Council is required to give public notice that the budget is available for inspection and to consider submissions received in respect of the budget prior to its adoption.

(Please note the budget and strategic resource plan documents are not released into the public domain until the full budget papers have been accepted by Council for advertising.)

BACKGROUND

Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) requires Council to prepare and adopt an annual budget. Section 126 of the Local Government Act 1989 requires Council to review the four year Strategic Resource Plan annually.

Council’s high level Long Term Financial Plan (incorporating the Strategic Resource Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22) has been reviewed to assist Council in adopting a budget within a financially responsible longer term framework. The key objective of the Financial Plan is to maintain financial sustainability and stability in the long term, while achieving Council’s strategic objectives outlined in the Council Plan.

DISCUSSION

The Draft 2018/19 Budget has been developed through a comprehensive process of review including the Councillor strategic workshop and briefings of Councillors. Council undertook an extensive review of expenditure throughout the development of this budget. The draft budget is financially responsible, enables the achievement of the Annual Plan objectives and funds the strategies in the adopted Council Plan 2017-2021.

The budget proposes a financially sustainable operating surplus for 2018/19 which is based on an average general rate increase of 2.25%. This is in accordance with the average rate cap determined by the Minister for Local Government in December 2017.

The budget proposes a $92.0 million capital works program for 2018/19. The program includes a number of major projects, including: the Cato Street redevelopment incorporating a public plaza / park, strategic land acquisitions to create open space for the community, the Prahran Town Hall community and civic facilities redevelopment, the Harold Holt Swim Centre upgrade, the Gardiner Park redevelopment, the Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment, the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park Indoor Sport Facility, the Yarra River Bio-Diversity Project, Library air-conditioning replacement in Toorak/South Yarra, the Toorak Park Masterplan implementation, Shared paths, Bicycle paths and cycling strategy works, the Princess Gardens Masterplan implementation and the Forrest Hill Masterplan implementation.

The capital works program also continues to maintain, renew and develop the City’s critical road, drainage, footpath and recreational infrastructure consistent with Council’s established strategies.

While the City’s overall financial position is strong, a number of internal and external influences impact Council's finances.

Page 157


The budget provides for considerable cost pressures as a result of the impact of unavoidable increased waste collection and processing costs of recyclable materials, increasing State Government EPA Landfill and Fire Services Property levies, increased borrowing costs and increasing utilities charges above the rate of inflation.

Council is also impacted by elements of governmental cost shifting whereby the provision of government grant funding to Council does not keep up with the increasing cost of service delivery. This relates to services such as libraries, aged care, childcare immunisation, maternal and child health, community safety transport, and recreation access disability services provided to the community by Council on behalf of the State and Federal Government.

Council has also had imposed upon it additional charges for the management of recycling material collection as a result of the recent decision by the Chinese Government to restrict the importation of recycling material from Australia. This will have a $1.0 million impact on Council’s budget. To offset this significant cost increase Council is required to increase the average garbage waste service charge.

User fees have been reviewed in line with market rates, with any increases budgeted at manageable and sustainable levels to maintain cost recovery and to ensure potential usage will not be affected. The Draft 2018/19 Budget maintains and improves the current levels of service to our community and also provides funding for new initiatives to deliver on our Council Plan 2017-2021.

The Draft 2018/19 Budget and Strategic Resource Plan are framed around ensuring that there is sufficient cash and investments to cover Council’s cash reserves (such as the open space reserve), trust funds and deposits. Council’s future fund reserve will continue to grow over the life of the Strategic Resource Plan to sustainably provide Council with continued financial capacity to respond to strategic property acquisition and strategic development opportunities from its own cash reserves as much as possible.

MAJOR FEATURES

All existing services are maintained.

A comprehensive capital works program of $92.0 million. New borrowings of $20.0 million will assist in funding major projects in 2018/19.

The $92.0 million capital works program includes:o Cato Street multi-functional urban parkland development $39.0 Mo Road, footpath & drainage works $ 9.2 Mo Open space strategic land acquisition $ 5.0 Mo Prahran Town Hall community and civic facilities redevelopment $ 4.6 Mo Harold Holt Swim Centre upgrade $ 3.2 M o Gardiner Park redevelopment $ 2.6 Mo Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $ 2.6 Mo Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park Indoor Sport Facility $ 2.0 Mo Yarra River Bio-Diversity Project $ 1.4Mo Library air-conditioning replacement – Toorak/South Yarra $ 1.0Mo Toorak Park Masterplan implementation $ 1.0 Mo Shared paths, Bicycle paths and cycling strategy works $ 0.9 Mo Princess Gardens Masterplan implementation $ 0.9Mo Forrest Hill Masterplan implementation – Streetscapes, lighting $ 0.7M

A financially sustainable operating surplus which will be used to partly fund the $92.0 million capital works program.

Page 158


Average general rates will increase by 2.25% as determined by the Minister for Local Government under the Fair Go Rates System. This equates to an average increase of approximately $31 per annum (or 60 cents per week).

Council’s average garbage waste service charge will increase by 7.2% as a result of a significant increase in costs to Council for recycling collection and processing. This equates to an average increase of $17.40 per annum (or 33 cents per week).

The Draft 2018/19 Budget is financially responsible and provides for a comprehensive range of services for the community, funds a $92.0 million capital works program and is in line with the State Government rate cap of 2.25%.


The Draft 2018/19 Budget and Draft Strategic Resource Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22 have been reviewed and meet the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. receives the Draft 2018/19 Budget and Draft Strategic Resource Plan 2018/19 to

2021/22;

2. gives public notice in accordance with Section 129 of the Local Government Act 1989 that Council has prepared a proposed budget for the 2018/19 year and of its intention to adopt the budget at its meeting to be held on Monday 4 June 2018;

3. invites submissions on the proposed budget in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 by 5.00pm Wednesday 23 May 2018;

4. appoints a Committee of all Councillors to consider and hear any submissions on Monday 28 May 2018 at 6.00pm; and

5. directs the Committee to report its findings and recommendations to Council at its meeting on Monday 4 June 2018.

Page 159


8. REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR CIVIC SUPPORT AND EXPENSES POLICY

Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to note and adopt changes to the Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy.

BACKGROUND

Section 75 of the Local Government Act 1989 provides for the reimbursement of expenses of Councillors incurred while performing their duties as Councillors. The November 2008 Information Guide – Mayor and Councillor Entitlements: reimbursement of expenses and provision of resources and facilities support for Victorian Mayors and Councillors further outlines the mandatory resources and facilities and reimbursements which is covered under section 75C.

Section 75B requires a Council to adopt and maintain a policy in relation to the reimbursement of expenses. The current Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy was originally adopted in 2001 and last reviewed by Council in February 2017.

DISCUSSION

Council is required to provide a summary of Councillor Expenses for the financial year in the Annual Report for the period July to June and which may be audited by the External Auditors from VAGO.

Further, Council is committed to an annual internal audit of Councillors Expenses at the completion of the Mayoral year. Section 2 of the Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy states “In accordance with Council’s commitment to transparent accountability, an annual review of Councillors expenses will be conducted by the internal auditor, the outcome of which, together with a summary of expenses, to be presented to an ordinary meeting of Council.”

Following the audit of the 2016-17 year three points, all Low impact - were raised as follows:

1. Update the policy to reflect the reimbursement of vehicle travelling expenses in accordance with Victorian Local Authorities Award as reflected in the Council’s Enterprise Agreement effective at the date of claim.

Section 7.3 of the policy in now adjusted to appropriately reflect this and have now incorporated other minor wording changes in this clause

2. Some Councillors claiming travel expenses have been using the expense claim form instead of the travel claim form – it was acknowledged that all the required details were still provided for the claims.

As suggested the claim forms are proposed to be consolidated into one form. This will also require the re-wording of Clause 7.3 Domestic and Country Travel – Private Vehicle Usage and 10.1 Expense Reimbursement Claims

Councillors may claim mileage for the use of their private vehicle on Council business by completing the travel expenses details on the Councillor Expenses Reimbursement Claim Form One.

3. Filing cabinets were claimed separately as they are no longer provided as standard issue – deleted at last review of the Policy as the majority of Councillors did not require

Page 161


one however the policy does not adequately comment on the provision of office furniture or equipment.

Some Councillors prefer to separate their Council business from their professional/personal business with separate filing systems and the Policy at Clause 4.1 Home/Workplace Equipment Facilities has been re-worded to make provision for such purchases.

In conjunction with the above changes the following changes are also proposed:

Clause 4.8 Stationery and Publications

The Christmas card clause amended noting use of E-Cards..

Clause 4.7 Mail and Couriers

Wording changes also for changes in the Christmas cards.

Change Clause 5 from Child Care Expenses to Care Expenses

Changes proposed under the new Local Government include this clause. Given this, it is proposed to amend the wording accordingly.

Insert new 4.13 Memberships

Councillors may become members of organisations outside the Council membership – this includes such organisations as Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA), Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) which Council will meet the costs of as they provide benefits for Councillors in their role.

Insert new clause 8.7- Other Professional Development

Governance training is important for Councillors and the Australian Institute of Company Directors Course (AICD) is a nationally recognised qualification as a Graduate of the AICD.

Council, at the meeting held on 8 April 2013 resolved to fund the cost of Councillors undertaking, during the first three years of each four year Council term, the Australian Institute of Company Directors Course (AICD). This cost is to be over and above the annual amount available to Councillors for training under the Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy and provision made separately outside the regular training budget.

Other minor changes proposed are at:

Clause 4.1 Home/Workplace Equipment Facilities –wording updated to note need to update IT equipment after two years and mobile phones as required

Clause 4.4 Mayoral vehicle – expanded to include responsibility for cleaning of vehicle and reimbursement of the reasonable cost of doing so.

Office Accommodation – included sentence on Councillors room in both the Malvern Town Hall and the Stonnington City Centre.

Changes in wording for the provision of business cards, and name badges.

Support for Mayor expanded and includes office support for Councillors.

Clause 6.4 Media - Minor wording changes in respect to media instead of publicity throughout this clause

Attachment Two inserted with extract from Election Period Policy and Procedures to reference back to clause 4.12 and some other minor points.

Table of allowances updated with annual adjustment factor.

Appendix One amended to note changes above.

Page 162


Form Three now Form Two

A marked up copy of the current Policy with the proposed changes tracked is Attachment One.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The annual internal audit process provides an opportunity for improvement in policy and processes.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The minor changes to the policy will have minimal financial impact to the budget.

CONCLUSION

The changes to the Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy are required and reflect a dynamic document that will addresses the issues brought forward through the internal audit while clarifying and providing support for Councillors in the performance of their duties.


This report has given consideration to the greater needs of a Councillor today and proposes changes that are reflective of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment One - marked up Copy of proposed changes to Policy Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Adopts the changes to the Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy; and

2. Places the updated policy on the Council website.

Page 163


9. MULTIPURPOSE SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY AT PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK - APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES TO STAKEHOLDER GROUP

Manager Urban & Infrastructure Projects: Rick Kwasek General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement from Council to appoint members to the Stakeholder Group for the development of a masterplan for the Multipurpose Sport and Recreation Facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

BACKGROUND

On 5 February 2018, Council resolved that the Governance structure and draft Terms of Reference relating to the development of the masterplan for the delivery of the multipurpose sport and recreation facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park be endorsed, and that a Stakeholder Group be established comprising:

One Councillor as chair of the group (Councillor Atwell)

General Manager Assets & Services – Simon Thomas

Manager Urban & Infrastructure Projects – Rick Kwasek

Manager Advocacy Performance & Improvement – Tracey Limpens

Project Support

Council Officers as necessary

Representatives from each of the Stakeholder Groups (1 representative, 1 alternate)

Chadstone Civic and Recreation Club (CRCC)

Bowls Club

Tennis Club

Lacrosse Club

Cricket Club

Prahran Netball Association

Basketball Victoria

Traders from Chadstone Road strip shops

Three residents to be appointed through an Expression of Interest process to be agreed by the Steering Committee.

DISCUSSION

Following the Council resolution on 5 February 2018, the Steering Committee met and determined the format and timing of the process for appointing members to the Stakeholder Group. This included:

Appointing a selection panel consisting of the 3 Councillor members of the Steering Committee, to review the applications assessing them against the eligibility criterion

Page 165


Writing to the community and sporting organisations (Chadstone Civic and Recreation Club, Chadstone Bowls Club, Chadstone Tennis Club, Chadstone Lacrosse Club, East Malvern Tooronga Cricket Club, Prahran Netball Association, and Basketball Victoria) and inviting them to nominate 1 representative and 1 alternate from their organisation to participate in the Stakeholder Group

Conducting an expression of interest process inviting local residents to nominate to be a member of the Stakeholder Group

Conducting an expression of interest process inviting interested traders from the Chadstone Road strip shops to nominate to be a member of the Stakeholder Group

Opening nominations on Monday 26 February and closing them on Monday 19 March 2018.

To make residents aware of the expression of interest process, a letter was delivered to an estimated 2,700 homes in close proximity to Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park. To make traders aware of the expression of interest process, a letter was delivered to all of the shops in the Chadstone Road strip shops.

More detailed information about the expression of interest and the application form was made available on the Connect Stonnington website. Residents and traders wishing to nominate to be a member of the Stakeholder Group were required to complete an application form and could submit it by email, in person to the Stonnington Council Service Centres at Malvern or Prahran, or by mail.

Eligibility Requirements

The eligibility requirements to be a member of the Stakeholder Group are as follows:

Sporting and Community Organisations Representatives must:

Be a member of the organisation they will represent;

Be formally nominated in writing by their organisation;

Not have a financial interest in or as a consequence of the organisation they represent; and

Not work for the City of Stonnington.

Local Residents Representatives must:

Be a resident of the City of Stonnington (owner and / or occupier);

Live in or own property in close proximity to Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park;

Be active and well regarded in the local community;

Be willing and able to attend meetings of the Stakeholder Group;

Have experience working with committees and achieving positive outcomes;

Can demonstrate they represent a group of local residents in close proximity to Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park, or can demonstrate they have or are willing to establish a communications network to help keep local residents informed about the project. Networks might include school, childcare or kindergarten communities, local dog walking groups, community groups etc.;

Not have a financial interest in the development (this does not include where residents own a property in close proximity to Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park); and

Page 166



Local Trader Representatives must:

Own and / or operate a business in the Chadstone Road strip shops;

Be willing and able to attend meetings of the Stakeholder Group;

Have experience working with committees and achieving positive outcomes;

Can demonstrate they have an established communications network or are willing to establish a communications network to help keep other traders from the Chadstone Road strip shops informed about the project;

Not have a direct financial interest in the proposed development; and


Assessment Process and Recommended Appointments

Nominations were received from all 7 of the community and sporting organisations who were invited to nominate a representative and alternative, and applications were received from:

14 local residents, and

1 trader from the Chadstone Road strip shops.

One application from a local resident was received late and was therefore ineligible. All remaining applications from local residents and local traders, and nominations from the community and sporting organisations were assessed by the selection panel against the eligibility criterion and considered to be eligible, although additional information was obtained to confirm the address details of local resident applicants who did not provide evidence of their address. See Confidential Attachment 1 for an assessment of the eligibility of resident and trader applicants.

The selection panel met on 29 March 2018 to consider the applications and assess the applications against the eligibility criterion. See Confidential Attachment 1 for a copy of the information provided by applicants. After careful consideration of the nominations and the information provided by applicants, the selection panel prepared a recommended list of individuals to be appointed to the Stakeholder Group. As the Steering Committee was not scheduled to meet before this report is considered by Council, the list of the individuals recommended for appointment was circulated to the Steering Committee for consideration. The Steering Committee unanimously agreed to put forward the list of individuals recommended by the selection panel for Council consideration.

The list of individuals recommended for appointment by the selection panel to the Stakeholder Group are:

Page 167


Organisation Representative 1 Alternate Representative

Sporting and Community OrganisationsChadstone Civic and Recreation Club Alan Jolly Denise Wallish

Chadstone Bowls Club Nigel Maxwell Janine Hills

Chadstone Tennis Club Natalie Menchikova Joshua Fisher

Chadstone Lacrosse Club Scott Filliponi Erin Mullner

East Malvern Tooronga Cricket Club Noel Fidock Roland Burt

Prahran Netball Association Linda Rowland Kate Campbell

Basketball Victoria Wayne Bird Mark Hubbard

Local ResidentsResident Representative A Bill Grey N/A

Resident Representative B Joseph Gianfriddo N/A

Resident Representative C Julie Elliott N/A

Local TradersLocal Trader Representative A Dimitrios Tsinis No nominations received

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Appointing a Stakeholder Group for the Multipurpose Sport and Recreation Facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park is consistent with Council’s Engagement Policy which outlines Council’s commitment to best practice engagement as an essential part of good governance, and acknowledges the role of stakeholders in achieving the City of Stonnington’s vision for the city.

The City of Stonnington is committed to protecting an individual's right to privacy. Accordingly, Council is committed to full compliance with its obligations under the Information Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. In particular, the City of Stonnington will comply with the Information Privacy Principles contained in the Act. Council will take steps to advise the person of the need to disclose their personal information prior to the disclosure of such information.


There are no additional financial and resource implications from appointing members to the Stakeholder Group for the Multipurpose Sport and Recreation Facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

CONCLUSION

Council has resolved to establish a Stakeholder Group to advise the Steering Committee on the development of a masterplan for the new Multipurpose Sport and Recreation Facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park. Nominations have been sought from community and sporting organisations through direct nomination, and from local residents and local traders

Page 168


through an expression of interest process. Refer Confidential Attachments 1 – 4 to Multipurpose Sport and Recreation Facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park – Appointment of Representatives to Stakeholder Group, Supplementary Information listed in the confidential section of this Council Meeting agenda.

After careful consideration of the nominations and applications received, the selection panel recommends the appointment of representatives as outlined earlier in this report.



RECOMMENDATION That;

1. Representatives from the community and sporting organisations, local residents and local traders as outlined below be appointed to the Stakeholder Group for the development of a masterplan for the Multipurpose Sport and Recreation Facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

Organisation Representative 1 Alternate Representative

Sporting and Community OrganisationsChadstone Civic and Recreation Club Alan Jolly Denise Wallish

Chadstone Bowls Club Nigel Maxwell Janine Hills

Chadstone Tennis Club Natalie Menchikova Joshua Fisher

Chadstone Lacrosse Club Scott Filliponi Erin Mullner

East Malvern Tooronga Cricket Club Noel Fidock Roland Burt

Prahran Netball Association Linda Rowland Kate Campbell

Basketball Victoria Wayne Bird Mark Hubbard

Local ResidentsResident Representative A Bill Grey N/A

Resident Representative B Joseph Gianfriddo N/A

Resident Representative C Julie Elliott N/A

Local TradersLocal Trader Representative A Dimitrios Tsinis No nominations received

2. Arrangements be made to hold the first meeting of the Stakeholder Group as appropriate.

Page 169


Page 170


10. SUTHERLAND ROAD, ARMADALE - PROPOSAL TO INSTALL 2-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION

Traffic Engineer: David Ventura Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanActing General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Holloway

Council at its meeting on 09 April 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 23 April 2018.

PURPOSE

To consider the decision to abandon the proposal to install 2-HOUR parking restrictions, operating between 9am and 6pm, Monday to Friday on the west side of Sutherland Road between Wattletree Road and Cambridge Street, as per Attachment A.

BACKGROUND

At the Council Meeting on 19 February 2018, an email from a resident sent to Cr Judy Hindle (dated 15 February 2018) was tabled asking for a decision to install 2hr restrictions to be reviewed. Cr Hindle requested that a report be submitted to Council for further consideration on this matter.

Sutherland Road is a local street, running from Wattletree Road in the south to High Street in the north.

Sutherland Road currently has unrestricted parking on both sides of the street between Wattletree Road and Cambridge Street. A petition was received signed by 10 residents representing 6 properties, requesting parking restrictions be installed as a result of parking intrusion due to commuters. Other sections of Sutherland Road already have parking restrictions installed. The petition sought improved access to the limited parking spaces available in the street for residents during the day on weekdays. The petition also sought parking restrictions be installed on both sides on the street.

Hourly parking surveys were conducted on Tuesday 13 June 2017 from 7am to 9pm between Wattletree Road and Cambridge Street. In addition to this, some spot surveys were conducted on a Tuesday and Thursday to gain further observations of the existing parking conditions in the street in the same section.

The hourly parking surveys demonstrated the subject section of the street was regularly occupied, with an average occupancy of 83% on the west side of the street and 75% on the east side. The highest occupancy recorded during these surveys was 95% at 10am, when 38 of the 40 available parking spaces were occupied. The below graph demonstrates the total occupancy for each hour of the parking survey. As no parking restrictions are currently installed in this section of Sutherland Road, it was difficult to determine exactly which parked vehicles belonged to residents. For the purposes of the graph, vehicles parked at 7am were counted as resident vehicles.

Page 171


Figure 1: Parking occupancy in the subject section of Sutherland Road

The petition raised concerns with commuters parking in their section of the street as this section of Sutherland Road is unrestricted (other sections are restricted). Figure 1 indicates that as the residents leave the street, these spaces are taken up and occupied through the day. It is assumed that this is non-resident parking, taking advantage of the lack of restriction. As such, a 2-HOUR parking limit was considered appropriate to assist with providing residents with parking opportunities during the day.

As seen in Figure 1, the parking occupancy was typically lower in the late afternoon (after 4pm). From this time the parking occupancy dropped to an average 63% (25 out of 40 spaces occupied) with a majority of those vehicles parked belonging to residents (based on our assumptions).

This demonstrated that although the parking occupancy in the street was high during the day, further restricting the street at night seemed excessive as parking opportunities were available later in the day.

It was also observed during the spot surveys that a few properties were undergoing renovations. Although these were small residential constructions, it is expected that some of the vehicles parked in the street may have been attending to these properties completing works and left the street at the end of the working day. This was evident as the parking occupancy decreased later in the afternoon as discussed above.

As the parking opportunities for residents were limited, a proposal was developed for consultation with residents. The petition requested parking restrictions be installed on both sides of the street, however this is not standard on-street parking management practice. Parking restrictions are initially installed only on one side in the first instance, as this provides a balance for residents between restricted and unrestricted parking. It was deemed that this would provide sufficient parking opportunities for residents through the day, by encouraging turnover and removing all-day parking by non-residents. This was relayed back to the head petitioner, who in a response back to Council on 28 July 2017 stated that this was a good plan to start with one side of the street only.

Page 172


The circular was distributed to residents in Sutherland Road (between Wattletree Road and #31 Sutherland Road) on 1 August 2017 with a proposal to:

Install 2-HOUR parking restrictions, operating between 9am and 6pm, Monday to Friday on the west side of Sutherland Road, as per Attachment A.

The west side of the street was chosen in this instance as there are more parking opportunities available and the parking signs can be readily installed on the existing utility poles.

A total of 127 properties were distributed the circular with 30 replies received, equating to a 24% response rate. The responses received are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Community OpinionProposal Agree Disagree Not Stated Total

Install ‘2-HOUR’ Restrictions

16(53%)

14(47%)

0(0%)

30 of 127(24%)

The above results demonstrated that the residents in Sutherland Road were split on the proposal for 2-HOUR restrictions. Respondents in favour provided supportive comments, citing that this would improve the parking turnover in the street, allowing for parking opportunities for residents.

Respondents opposed cited a range of concerns, however the majority of those opposed were of the opinion that although parking can be difficult at times, this is able to be managed appropriately by residents and the installation of parking restrictions in the street is excessive. Other concerns cited included the lack of permits available as per the Resident Parking Permit Scheme and that the east side was also not included in conjunction with the proposal. Only one respondent to the proposal was concerned that the proposal itself did not extend further north of Cambridge Street and hence opposed the proposal on those grounds.

Of those in opposition, the majority objected because they did not want restrictions, and were happy with current conditions.

As such, the response was split between those supportive of the proposal, and those who did not want the conditions to change in the street as this would impact on their current amenity.

It was also useful to note that although there is a split response, 8 of the supportive responses came from the same multi-residential development. When taking this into account, half of the support to the proposal was located at one property. Those opposed to the proposal had a larger spread throughout the consultation area.

Based on the mixed response, it was decided that the proposal be abandoned, and residents were notified accordingly.

The letter tabled at the Council meeting on 19 February 2018 expressed disappointment at the decision made, and requested that it be reversed.

DISCUSSION

The letter tabled cited some concerns with parking availability, but also raised concerns with potential misunderstanding of the consultation letter, the parking study undertaken, possible low response rate from multi-unit development residents, and safety.

Page 173


Misunderstanding of Consultation Letter

The tabled letter raises concerns that some respondents may have misunderstood that residents would be exempt from the 2-HOUR restrictions (thinking that they were not), or that restrictions would be installed on both sides. The tabled letter posits that this may have contributed to a number of objections.

However, as outlined above, many of those objecting to the proposal did so on the basis that they wanted current conditions to remain in place. This suggests that misunderstanding the letter was not a contributing factor to objecting responses. Further, the consultation letter clearly explained that restrictions were proposed on only one side (and included an image showing this), and the rules regarding permit exemption.

Parking Study

The tabled letter draws attention to the parking study undertaken which lead to the proposal being circulated. The tabled letter states that as the study revealed parking is a problem, therefore restrictions should be installed.

As outlined above, the parking study revealed that occupancy was sufficiently high to warrant consideration of parking restrictions. Restrictions are not required, but instead may be installed if there is resident support. These restrictions in residential streets are not imposed if community support is not provided. In this case, the subject section of Sutherland Road was a candidate for restriction, but response to the proposal was mixed, and where this occurs the status quo is generally maintained.

Low Response from Multi-Unit

The tabled letter expressed concerns that the tenants of the multi-unit developments may have failed to adequately respond to the proposal. Out of the 30 responses received, 15 were from multi-unit developments (more than 4 properties on a lot).

Of the 127 properties that received the circular, 95 properties are part of multi-unit developments (more than 4 properties on a lot). This equates to a 16% response rate for multi-unit developments (15 out of 95). The remaining 15 responses were from low density units which equates to a 47% response rate (15 out of 32).

This type of response profile is broadly typical, as residents of multi-unit developments generally have lower response rates to circulars regarding parking or traffic management proposals.

Although the response from the multi-unit developments was lower than the low density units, these property occupiers had the opportunity to respond, and in this case elected not to do so. In any case, the overall response can be considered representative of street. Those who choose not to respond are assumed to have no opinion on the matter.

Safety

The tabled letter raised concerns with safety of the author’s daughter walking back to their property after parking some distance (150m) away in the evening.

While it may not be ideal for people to park further away from their property than they would like, a distance of 150m in parking terms is not considered excessive, and there is no way to guarantee on-street parking closer to a particular property for a resident. In this case, residents were offered parking restrictions, but the response received from the affected community was mixed.

Summary

The issues raised in the letter tabled at the Council meeting are noted, but based on the consultation undertaken, it is considered appropriate that the proposal to install 2-HOUR restrictions on Sutherland Road was abandoned.

Page 174


CONCLUSION

In order to address concerns raised by the residents of Sutherland Road between Wattletree Road and Cambridge Street, a proposal to install 2-HOUR parking restrictions on the west side of Sutherland Road between Wattletree Road and Cambridge Street was distributed to 127 properties. The response received was mixed, with those opposed to the proposal raising concerns that this would impact on the current amenity of the street and is not required. As the response was mixed, it was considered appropriate that the proposal be abandoned.



RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. The decision to abandon the proposal to install 2-HOUR parking restrictions

operating between 9am to 6pm, Monday to Friday on the west side of Sutherland Road between Wattletree Road and Cambridge Street be upheld;

2. The submitter of the letter tabled at Council on 19 February 2018 be notified accordingly.

Page 175


11. MILLEWA AVENUE, MALVERN EAST - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION RESULTS

Senior Transport Engineer: Jordan Allan Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To report to Council the results of the first stage of consultation with residents abutting Millewa Avenue, Malvern East, and to seek approval to move on to detailed consultation.

BACKGROUND

At the meeting of Council on 21 August 2017, a report was considered which outlined the history of resident concerns and actions taken by Council in Millewa Avenue, Malvern East. The following was resolved at the meeting:

1. Council consult all property occupiers of Millewa Avenue on the proposal to undertake maintenance and improvement works as outlined below, subject to accepting the implementation of ‘No Stopping’ restrictions (either on one side or staggered along the street);

a. Retain the existing concrete pavement, undertake repairs as necessary,b. Profiling (grinding down) the concrete surface to reshape the road,c. Construction of a new drainage under existing kerbing from Alvie Street to

76/78 Millewa Avenue (including an outfall drain in Alvie Street)d. Repair/reinstatement kerbing for the entire length of Millewa Avenue (includes

kerb and Channel on 1 side of Alvie Street along new drainage alignment).e. Reinstatement of vehicle crossings as required (to nearest joint).f. Resurface existing the concrete road with asphalt.

2. As part of the consultation residents be advised that the timing for implementation of the proposal would be subject to the provision of funding in the preparation of future capital budgets for the estimated cost of works being $1.5m.

3. A further report be prepared for Council consideration following the community consultation process.

In accordance with the resolution, a letter was sent to residents on 7 February 2018 (see Attachment 1). The letter outlined the proposal in broad terms, cited a similar concrete street which had been upgraded (Camira Avenue, Malvern East), and invited resident feedback.

The letter asked residents to provide their views regarding the proposal to introduce NO STOPPING restrictions as part of a broader suite of works. This letter did not include a specific layout of the NO STOPPING restrictions.

The letter concluded that following the consultation an evaluation report would be prepared for Council consideration, after which residents would be advised of the outcomes and next steps (which includes the detail of the NO STOPPING restriction).

The specific question asked in the consultation was:

Are you supportive of the proposal to introducing 'No Stopping' restrictions as part of a more comprehensive proposal to upgrade the road including;

renewal of the kerb and channel resurfacing of the street in asphalt at its current width associated drainage.

Page 177


Note; If residents are supportive of the proposal, Council will develop further options for resident consideration regarding options for installation of the restrictions.

DISCUSSION

Letters were delivered by hand to 94 properties abutting Millewa Avenue. A total of 52 responses were received, which represents a 55% response rate. However, it must be noted that the feedback form did not request any personal details from the submitter, so there is a possibility that multiple responses could be received from a particular property or person.

A summary of the responses received is shown in the below table.

“Yes” “No” Response not Stated

45(87%)

7(13%)

0(0%)

As such, there was a strong indication of support expressed through the feedback form via the tick boxes.

The majority of respondents took the opportunity to provide comments, whether generally in support or not in support of the proposal.

The response received was varied, and in some cases respondents provided lengthy submissions. The below table summarises those comments provided by people who ticked “yes” on the form. The table indicates how often the comment appeared, in general terms.

Comment Provided – “Yes” Responses #

Do this quickly please / well overdue 13

I would like to hear more about the works, including timelines 5

The road is appalling. More drainage needed. 4

Will assist emergency access 4

Indicated support for the proposal, but not for the NO STOPPING 2

Millewa Avenue is used as a thoroughfare, where Camira Street is not 1Support parking restrictions which are staggered to allow individual driveway access 1

Support NO STOPPING on the western side of Millewa Avenue, as this would be safer for access to Alvie Street. 1

Would prefer cut into the nature strip by 0.5-0.7m each side 1

Make sure any new developments have 2 off-street spaces 1

The road is 80 years old, time for an upgrade, make sure it happens 1I would prefer a solution that maximises parking, the upgrade should happen regardless of parking 1

Millewa Avenue is in poor condition compared to nearby Alvie Street or Bowen Street 1

Page 178


Restrictions are also needed in Alvie Street 1

Only support if all items are completed 1

The surface works and drainage must be done before the NO STOPPING 1

Upgrade all driveways to the current wider style 1

Some respondents who ticked “yes” indicated in their comments that they did not support the parking restriction (despite this being the question asked). The majority of comments received did not refer to parking, but were instead more general comments about the condition of Millewa Avenue.

Those opposed to the proposal provided a range of comments, some in opposition to the proposed parking restrictions, some happy with the current conditions in Millewa Avenue, and some raising more general queries.

Comment Provided – “No” Responses #If you are going to do the works, then do it all. Otherwise do nothing. The survey form was blank so could be copied. 1

This is a half-hearted approach that will fix nothing, except allowing cars to travel faster. My driveway is narrow, and if cars park nearby I can’t get my trailer into my driveway.

1

I think the staggered parking arrangement currently in place is working. The surface is fine except for the section which dips near Waverley Road. I’ve lived here since 1985, attempts to fix drainage haven’t worked, so don’t bother.

1

Support the NO STOPPING, but prefer the current concrete to asphalt proposed 1Given the increase in development, if NO STOPPING is applied there won’t be enough parking spaces 1

We want nice matching trees like other streets. We pay high rates. Clean up our street. I want a massive improvement of the visual presentation of Millewa Avenue. The street is a disgrace most of the time. Mismatching trees, dead trees, bitumen patches everywhere. Homes don’t mow their lawns, grass up to 1m high is dangerous. Bill residents for lack of naturestrip care- why should I have to negotiate jungles? Snakes could live in there. The issue with the pavement is the massive amount of dwellings. Stop allowing multiple dwellings on one block. Don’t want ugly NO STOPPING signs. Don’t want the inconvenience of one-sided parking. I want the concrete repaired properly. I want one house per block. I want matching trees please. I want neat naturestrips. I want residents to be penalised for lack of naturestrip care. Some homes look like semi-factory sites.

1

As with the respondents who ticked “yes”, many of the “no” responses were not specific to the parking issue, but instead were more general.

On the basis of the feedback, and particularly that 87% of respondents ticked “yes” it is reasonable to proceed with the development of a concept for the NO STOPPING restrictions on Millewa Avenue, which can be consulted to the residents. It is noted that while there was a strong majority in favour based on those who ticked “yes” on the form, given the comments provided there is a possibility of a greater degree of opposition when the actual concept is developed and circulated.

CONCLUSION

Page 179


Residents of properties abutting Millewa Avenue were distributed a circular seeking their feedback on a proposal to implement NO STOPPING restrictions on one side of Millewa Avenue, Malvern East, as part of a more comprehensive proposal for street improvements. Based on the response, with 87% of respondents indicating support and 13% indicating opposition.

The next step is to proceed with developing a detailed concept for the NO STOPPING proposal in consultation with the residents. There are essentially 2 options, for installation of the restrictions, e.g. one side only, or staggered along the street so as to maximise parking. It is proposed to develop these options and undertake further consultation with residents. A further report will then be prepared for Council consideration following the community consultation process.

It is also proposed that as part of the consultation letter residents be advised of the results of the above survey, and other background information regarding the scope and implementation of the proposal including both the restrictions and the improvement works.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Letter to Residents Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. Council note the level of support from the residents of Millewa Avenue for the

proposed improvement works, including the implementation of NO STOPPING restrictions.

2. Residents be advised of the outcome of the consultation, and that further consultation be undertaken on options for installation of the NO STOPPING restrictions.

3. A report be prepared for Council consideration following the further community consultation process outlining the proposed configuration for the NO STOPPING restrictions, and outlining the scope and implementation program for the project.

Page 180


12. HINTON LANE RECONSTRUCTION AND HERITAGE CONSIDERATIONS

Infrastructure Works Engineer: James EdmondManager Urban & Infrastructure Projects: Rick Kwasek General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

Councillor Briefing at its meeting on 12 February 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 26 February 2018.

PURPOSE

To advise Council of the proposed options for the reconstruction of Hinton Lane in Prahran, in light of recent development.

BACKGROUND

Many of the laneways in the Stonnington municipality were constructed in the late 1800’s, and were traditionally built to accommodate sewerage night carts. Underground sewerage was installed from the 1950’s and the laneways were left unused for a number of years. From the 1990’s, the laneways were increasingly used for rear access to properties. This resulted in the installation of garages with roller doors that backed onto the laneway used for alternate access.

Today, with the increase in medium to high density housing, it is evident that the laneways are increasingly experiencing higher pedestrian use and in some instances being the primary access to residences. Consideration needs to be given on how to adapt and provide suitable access into properties.

Hinton Lane, Prahran, is an example of a laneway that experiences high pedestrian use. Hinton Lane comprises of a 140m north-south branch that intersects with a 34m east west branch that intersects with Grattan Street on the eastern end. Grattan Street serves as the only access point into Hinton Lane.

Over recent years, construction of multi storey apartments in the laneway has significantly increased the population density of the lane with the laneway providing the primary access for a number of residences.

In 2015, a Traffic Study was conducted at Hinton Lane to determine the number of vehicles and pedestrians using the lane. The counts include traffic in both directions. The 7 day vehicle count resulted in an average of 98 vehicles per day. A pedestrian count resulted in an average of 116 pedestrians per day using the lane. The results indicate that there are 15% more pedestrians than vehicles using the laneway.

Hinton Lane is made up of a bluestone pitcher pavement with central invert, which is typical pavement construction for laneways in the municipality. Over the last four years with an increasing number of pedestrians now use the laneway for property access, Council has received continual complaints from residents regarding the condition and safety of the laneway.

The condition of the bluestone pitchers in Hinton Lane is considered acceptable under Council’s Road Management Plan and the current criteria, and does not require corrective action by Council. The criteria is based on the assumption that the laneway’s primary function is to provide an access way for vehicles.

DISCUSSION

Page 181


Council has received various complaints from residents within Hinton Lane over the last 4 years regarding the condition of the Lane. The concerns predominantly relate to the perceived lack of pedestrian safety due to poor pavement condition, inadequate lighting and inadequate drainage. Residents from 5 properties (8 dwellings) use the laneway as their only access. For these properties, their pedestrian access requires walking along the length of the laneway and sharing it with vehicles. Council has also received complaints regarding difficulty with the use of prams, wheelchairs and trolleys on the existing bluestone pitcher pavement.

Having regard to the access requirements and in response to the complaints, it is proposed to reconstruct Hinton Lane with a surface that meets disability access requirements and as part of the works to improve the drainage and lighting. This report examines the suitability of alternate pavement materials.

In 2015, a questionnaire was send to the residents and owners of Hinton Lane, providing them with an option to reconstruct the laneway in asphalt with a bluestone central invert, or to retain the current bluestone pitchers (full width). A response rate of 29% indicated that, 77% of participants chose to retain the bluestone pitchers.

Although retaining the bluestone pitchers keeps in harmony with the heritage nature of the area and is generally the practice for laneway reconstruction, it does not present a favourable solution for pedestrians, in particular for the use of prams, wheelchairs and trolleys.

The following options have been considered for the treatment of pavement at Hinton Lane.

Pavement Description Pros Cons

Option 1 Sawn bluestone pitchers (full width)

Accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames

Maintains a somewhat classic appearance

Aesthetic will differ slightly from traditional bluestone pitchers

Additional 10% added to the project cost

Does not encourage vehicles to reduce speed

Option 2 Traditional bluestone pitchers with 900 wide sawn bluestone pitcher central channel invert

Accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames

Uneven surface encourages vehicles to reduce speed

Aesthetic will differ slightly from traditional bluestone pitchers

Additional 10% added to the project cost

Forces pedestrians to walk in the central channel invert, which is not ideal during rain events

Option 3 Traditional bluestone pitchers (full width)

Traditional aesthetic Uneven surface

encourages vehicles to reduce speed

Not easily accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames

Not ideal for elderly pedestrians

Option 4 Asphalt treatment with Concrete spoon drain

Accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking

Aesthetic will differ from traditional bluestone pitchers

Page 182


frames Low initial cost

Option (see lifecycle costs)

Shorter useful life than both concrete and Bluestones

Does not encourage vehicles to reduce speed

Option 5 Concrete Laneway Accessible by prams, wheelchairs, trolleys, walking frames

Aesthetic will differ significantly from traditional bluestone pitchers

Construction issues Does not encourage

vehicles to reduce speed

Sawn bluestone pitchers, as described in Option 1 and 2, refer to the bluestone pitchers being sawn lengthways to create a stone with one smooth surface. The bluestone would be installed with the smooth surface facing up.

The treatment described as Option 3 reflects the uneven pavement surface as demonstrated by existing bluestone laneways throughout the municipality.

Option 1, sawn bluestone pitchers, is considered to be the most desirable as it provides a smooth surface to accommodate the needs of pedestrians, and the use of prams, wheelchairs and trolleys. This option allows pedestrians to use the full width of the laneway.

Although sawn bluestone pitchers differ aesthetically from traditional bluestone pitchers, the resulting smooth surface is closer to the traditional aesthetic and heritage nature of the area as opposed to alternate materials such as concrete or asphalt.

The table below summarises the costs of the various options.

Option 1Sawn

Bluestone

Option 2Combination Bluestone

Option 3Bluestone

Option 4Asphalt

Option 5Concrete

Initial Construction Cost $ 250,000 $220,000 $ 200,000 $120,000 $180,000

Assumptions:

prices are based on the pavement only for a laneway that is 200 m long and 3 m wide (no underground drainage)

good condition bluestones are recycled from existing site, poor ones are exchanged with additional stones from the compound

sawn bluestones are cut from recycled bluestones from previous jobs or cut on-site

sawn bluestones have an additional initial construction costs for cutting of the bluestones.

Page 183


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The treatment of Hinton Lane may set a precedent for other laneways that experience a high level of pedestrian activity. For laneways where vehicle access is the primary purpose, traditional bluestone is suitable. However laneways with high pedestrian use will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis as to whether they warrant the treatment of something other than the traditional bluestone pitchers. The selection and programming of laneways for reconstruction will continue to be based on the condition of the laneway in terms of pavement lifecycle and drainage.


An amount of $300,000 has been allocated for the reconstruction of Hinton Lane in FY 2017/18. The Hinton Lane works have been programmed for the second half of the financial year, in order to tie in with the adjacent Cato Street, Greville Street and Grattan Street reconstruction projects.


Legal advice has been sought in relation to seeking contributions from developers for such upgrade works particularly when the development relies on the laneway as its primary access. The advice was that Council could not require a developer contribution to the work, as the laneway is constructed.

As an alternative Council could implement a special charge scheme under the Local Government Act, so as to defray the costs amongst the abutting owners. This process has been used successfully in the past for construction of unmade laneways. However in this case given that the laneway is fully constructed, as such it is considered that implementation of a special charge for the improvement works would be open to challenge and would not be likely to succeed.

CONCLUSION

Option 1 is recommended as the preferred treatment for Hinton Lane (full width sawn bluestone pitchers), this will retain the heritage nature of the laneway and provide suitable compliant access for pedestrians with prams, wheelchairs and trolleys in an area where primary access is required for a number of properties.

Generally, for laneways where vehicle access is the primary purpose, traditional bluestone is considered to be a satisfactory surface treatment. However laneways with high pedestrian use will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis as to whether they warrant the treatment of something other than the traditional bluestone pitchers. The selection and programming of laneways for reconstruction will continue to be based on the condition of the laneway in terms of pavement lifecycle and drainage.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Sawn and Traditional Bluestone Pitcher Pavement Detail Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. The proposal to reconstruct Hinton Lane using a sawn bluestone pitcher

Page 184


pavement treatment (full width) be endorsed.2. Traditional bluestone laneways continue to be reconstructed/reinstated

using/reusing traditional bluestone pitchers, being sympathetic to the heritage nature of laneways in the municipality, and that sawn bluestone be used as the surface treatment alternative for those laneways assessed as having high pedestrian use and/or specific access requirements.

Page 185


13. STREET TREE PRUNING PROGRAM - RESIDENT NOTIFICATION

Manager Parks & Environment : Simon Holloway General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update councillors on Council’s current street tree pruning program, including resident notifications, and present an overview of options and cost of notifying residents via letter box drop.

This report follows a query from Cr Atwell at the 5 February 2108 Council Meeting as to whether Council could consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning works.

BACKGROUND

Street tree pruning program

The City of Stonnington manages approximately 55,000 trees in the public realm including street trees, park trees, trees in Council-managed facilities and trees in the Malvern Valley Golf Course.

Of these, there are approximately 32,500 street trees in total, comprised of: 7,200 on designated streets 25,300 on non-designated streets

Designated streets are typically major arterials and streets containing high-voltage power lines. Designated streets are inspected and pruned on an annual basis.

Non-designated streets include all other streets in Stonnington, and are typically local streets. Non-designated streets are inspected and pruned on a biennial basis.

Given this inspection and pruning regime, approximately 20,000 street trees are pruned each year in the City of Stonnington, representing 61% of all street trees.

Pruning of Council’s street trees is undertaken by two contractors, one that manages trees in designated streets and one that manages trees in non-designated streets.

Tree pruning is undertaken in accordance with Council’s contract specifications, Australian Standards and where relevant, the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Code of Practice.

The Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 specify mandatory clearance requirements from electric lines of various voltage. Compliance with these clearance distances is a legislative obligation and is routinely audited by power distribution businesses and enforced by Energy Safe Victoria. Pruning in accordance with these regulations can have a dramatic impact on the structure, amenity and shade value of street trees located under power lines.

Pruning schedule

All street trees in the City of Stonnington are pruned to a specific schedule, which is published on Council’s website.

For non-designated streets, the municipality is divided into 48 tree maintenance zones. Each calendar month in the two year pruning cycle has one, two or three tree maintenance zones allocated for completion in that month. See Attachment 1.

Page 187


For designated streets, there are 61 streets pruned each year. Each month of the calendar year has between 2 and 14 streets allocated for completion in that month. See Attachment 2.

In addition to the scheduled maintenance program, Council has a reactive tree maintenance program to address any out of cycle pruning needs, action community requests and respond to emergency situations.

Resident notifications

The City of Stonnington currently notifies residents of upcoming street tree pruning in accordance with its obligations under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

In addition to the information provided on its website, Council publishes a written notice in the Stonnington Leader newspaper each month advising residents of the programmed street tree pruning to occur in the month following. See Attachment 3 for an example notification.

The notice advises residents of pruning that will occur in a particular area bound by certain streets (non-designated streets) and pruning that will occur in particular streets (designated streets) in the following calendar month. The notice does not specify a day or week that the pruning will be undertaken. This provides Council’s contractor with the flexibility required to manage variable pruning rates (depending on extent of cutting required) and variable site access.

The regulations require that the pruning of street trees must not occur earlier than 14 days from the date of the notice or later than 60 days from the date of the notice. If works do not occur within the timeframes specified, Council is obliged to renotify residents via public notice.

Each public notice costs Council $542 + GST.

Resident complaints

Council typically receives very few resident complaints regarding its street tree pruning program, totalling in the order of 5-10 per year.

Almost all of these relate to the extent of pruning undertaken and the impact on streetscape amenity, with very few relating to the notification provided by Council or other issues, such as saw dust or debris.

DISCUSSION

Councillor request

Following the tabling of a resident complaint relating to inadequate notification of street tree pruning, Cr Atwell raised a question as to whether Council could consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning. Specifically, it was noted that doing a letterbox drop closer to the date of the pruning would enable people to move cars and take any other actions they need to do for the equipment in the street.

Letter box drop option

The following summarises how Council could notify residents via a letterbox drop and the associated costs.

Page 188


The assumed model would involve placing a notification card in each letterbox of properties in streets where pruning is to occur at an agreed timeframe before works, for example one week. To minimise costs and labour, it is assumed that this would be a generic notification card (no customised information) that indicates the street tree pruning will occur in the following week and other information about Council’s management of trees and obligations.

The City of Stonnington has 63,311 rateable properties. On the basis that 61% of Council’s street trees are pruned each year, this translates to approximately 38,700 resident notifications that would require delivery each year.

The most practical option would be for Council’s two tree management contractors to print and deliver the resident notifications in the week prior to their crews working in specific streets.

Cost estimates have been obtained to deliver this activity, which is outside of current contract requirements.

Cost estimate

The estimated cost of this option include:

Contract area #1 – designated streetso Printing of notification cards - $3,467 + GST (via Council contractor)o Delivery of notifications - $11,520 + GST

Contract area #2 – non designated streetso Printing of notification cards - $1,800 + GSTo Delivery of notifications - $9,679 + GST

The total estimated cost would be $26,466 + GST.

It should be noted that Council would still be obliged to publish a written notice in the local newspaper, at an annual cost of $6,500 + GST, in accordance with its obligations under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

Implications of letter box drop option

Key implications of a letter box drop resident notification include:

CostThis notification option would cost Council in the order of an additional $26k per annum, over and above existing spending on advertising.

Staff resourcingThis option, depending on how delivered, may require additional allocation of Council staff resources to assist with the planning and management of notifications to correct streets. This would be significantly reduced if able to be implemented seamlessly by existing tree pruning contractors.

Heightened expectation on timing of worksCurrently, Council’s tree management contractors have one month to schedule and complete the programmed pruning works. This provides the flexibility required to manage variable pruning rates (depending on extent of

Page 189


vegetation growth discovered and associated cutting required) and variable site access.

Council’s contractors frequently need to return to a site multiple times in order to secure adequate access and need to adjust their program depending on conditions at the time.

The exact timing that contractors will be in specific streets is not currently known and to achieve this may require additional pre-pruning inspections, planning, programming and site securing on their part, which may not be covered under the existing contract.

Notifying residents that pruning will occur in the following week is likely to increase expectations that it will definitively occur in that time window and may increase the likelihood of expectations not being met due to the variability of this service delivery.

Having the tree pruning contractors manage the resident notifications would largely avoid this implication, as they could better regulate notifications around their actual pruning program

Alternative options to improve resident notifications

Other than delivering resident notification cards, there are a number of other, lower cost options for Council to notify residents of upcoming programmed street tree pruning. These include:

Digital / social media platform – approximately $3,800 + GST per annum In Stonnington – Free Connect Stonnington – Free

Other municipalities’ approach to resident notification

A brief survey of seven inner metro municipalities and their approach to resident notifications for programmed street tree pruning reveals the following:

All include information of the pruning schedule on their web site One issues resident notification cards 7-28 days prior to pruning works Two include information in a monthly resident newsletter

Pros and cons of notifying residents via letterbox drop

The following summarises the pros and cons of introducing a direct resident notification system for informing the community of programmed street tree pruning one week before works commence:

Pros

Improved community notification Improved community awareness of street tree pruning requirements Increased opportunity to communicate with residents about Council’s tree

management program Potential to reduce community concern about lack of advanced warning

Cons

Page 190


Cost – it is expected to cost Council an additional $26k plus per annum Potential additional staff resource allocation to assist with coordinating letter drops Increased expectation that service occurs in narrow window Risk of not meeting community expectations due to service timing variability Increased demand on contractor to schedule works in narrower window –

potential impact on future contract pricing

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The pruning and management of street trees in the City of Stonnginton is undertaken in accordance with Council’s contract specifications, Australian Standards and where relevant, the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Code of Practice.

Street tree management is an important function in delivering on Council’s Urban Forest Strategy.


Introducing a system of notifying residents via letter box drop one week prior to street tree pruning works is expected to result in an additional expenditure in the order of $26,000 + GST per annum.

Increasing the planning, pre-inspection, programming and site access activities by contractors to deliver the tree pruning service within narrower time window (one week compared to one month) may result in increased contract costs.


Council currently meets its statutory obligations for resident notification of street tree pruning works under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

CONCLUSION

Council currently manages a total tree population of 55,000 trees, of which 32,500 are street trees. Street trees are pruned on either an annual or biennial basis, with approximately 20,000 pruned each year.

In accordance with its obligations works under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015, Council currently notifies residents of programmed street tree pruning works via its website and a monthly public notice in the Stonnington Leader newspaper.

Following the tabling of a resident complaint relating to inadequate notification of street tree pruning, it has been queried whether Council could consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning works. Specifically, it was noted that doing a letterbox drop closer to the date of the pruning would enable people to move cars and take any other actions they need to do for the equipment in the street.

This report outlines how such a letter box drop option would work and estimates that it would result in an additional cost to Council in the order of $26,000 per annum.

Based on the historic low level of complaints, the additional cost, other impacts and limited benefits, it is recommended that Council not introduce a direct resident notification system for its street tree pruning program.

Page 191




ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Pruning schedule non-designated streets Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Pruning schedule designated streets Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - Example of public notice Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Note the option, cost, benefits and impacts of introducing a direct resident

notification system (letter box drop) for its street tree pruning program as outlined in this report.

2. Maintain its current approach to resident notification via Council’s website and monthly public notice in the local newspaper.

3. Not introduce an additional resident notification system.4. Explore alternative, low cost options, such as digital media, to further inform

residents of upcoming street tree pruning works.

Page 192


14. GLOW WINTER ARTS FESTIVAL 2018

Coordinator Arts & Culture : Nicole Warren Acting General Manager Community & Culture: Cath Harrod

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider two proposed festival models, for the Glow Winter Arts Festival for 2018, to be delivered over four nights within the municipality.

BACKGROUND

Glow Winter Arts Festival is a multi-disciplinary festival aimed at engaging audiences and increasing visitation and activation within the municipality during winter. The inaugural Glow Winter Arts Festival was held in 2014. The festival model implemented for 2017 featured six new commissioned illuminated installations and artworks not previously displayed in Victoria, along with projections on iconic buildings. The festival program provided 8 free outdoor experiences in Stonnington parks and gardens and one ticketed performance at Chapel Off Chapel.

Attendee survey results indicate that this event is an important winter arts offering in Melbourne and the festival received a high satisfaction rating of 86%. The 2017 festival attracted record numbers of over 25,000 attendees engaging and participating in the diverse program, with an estimated economic impact of $432,000.

DISCUSSION

A proposed program for 2018 was taken to Council Briefing on 27 November 2017 and Council requested an additional proposal be developed to include a permanent lighting treatment on one of Stonnington’s iconic buildings and permanent lighting installations in trees across nominated sites in the municipality.

Investigation into architectural lighting has found that the costs for scoping and implementing a permanent lighting feature are significant and will require 90% of the revised budget allocation for Glow Winter Arts Festival. Melbourne based award-winning lighting design specialists Electrolight were approached to provide a quote for an initial scope and indicative costs for creating a permanent specialist lighting concept for the Malvern Town Hall. The scope of work quoted included a Lighting Concept Report and order of probable costs for planning purposes.

The following two options are proposed for Glow Winter Arts Festival 2018, within the revised allocation of $300,000:

Page 193


Proposal A Proposal B $300,000 $300,000

Multi-disciplinary program to be presented based on the successful festival model implemented for 2017.

Free outdoor offerings: Illuminated installations and artworks

in Central Park gardens (See Attachment A)

Permanent architectural lighting on Malvern Town Hall.

Temporary and permanent up-lighting/installations of trees and gardens in selected Stonnington Parks(See Attachment A)

4 day winter arts festival

Scoping and design for permanent architectural lighting on the façade of Malvern Town Hall.

Indicative costs of $250,000 - $280,000 have been provided.

Specialist lighting to showcase the façade of Malvern Town Hall on both Glenferrie Rd and High Street, including the clock tower.

Consult with Council to confirm scope, programme and project brief.

Design concepts to be developed in conjunction with Councillors.

Research and propose suitable luminaires that satisfy the performance requirements of the project

Identify probable costs for the nominated lighting fixtures

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Glow Winter Arts Festivals sits within the strategic objectives of Community, Liveability, Environment and Economy within the Council Plan: A City that will grow its premier status as a vibrant, innovative and creative business

community.o Promoting Stonnington’s premier vibrant precincts, employment clusters and

cultural assets as hubs for shopping, hospitality, entertainment and culture. An inclusive City that enhances the health and wellbeing of all residents, where people

can feel safe, socially connected and engaged. o Implement community safety initiatives and fair compliance processes to address

community safety issues. The most desirable place to live, work and visit.

o Strategically invest in open spaces, sporting fields and community facilities, and optimise use according to community needs.

Glow Winter Arts Festival aligns with Council’s Arts and Culture Strategy: Arts and Culture to be valued and promoted. Arts and Culture surprises, delights and engages the community and beyond. Creative talents are encouraged and supported through sustainable links and

partnerships.


Page 194


A total budget allocation of $300,000, is proposed to fund the 2018 Glow Winter Arts Festival.


A total budget allocation of $300,000, is proposed to fund the 2018 Glow Winter Arts Festival.


Festivals and Events work closely with Risk, Safety and Assurance to ensure compliance and best practice in the engagement and selection of artists, contractors and the planning and delivery of events and festivals.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council endorse Proposal A - a four day Glow Winter Arts Festival with a budget allocation of $300,000. Proposal A offers the community a diverse festival offering within the revised budget allocation for 2018. Presenting a four day festival maximises the reduced resources available while building on the successes from 2017. This festival offering can be a platform for determining opportunities for permanent elements in future years with a revised budget.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONThis recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment A Proposal A B - Example Images Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Approve the inclusion of Glow Winter Arts Festival in the 2018 festivals and

events program.2. Approve Proposal A for Glow Winter Arts Festival programming and model for

2018.

Page 195

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS23 APRIL 2018

o) Confidential

1. MULTIPURPOSE SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY AT PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK - APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES TO STAKEHOLDER GROUP, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Manager Urban & Infrastructure Projects: Rick KwasekConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 197