agenda of statutory planning committee - 15 october 201311).pdf · agenda - statutory planning...

AGENDA - STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING - 15 OCTOBER 2013

9

6.1 40 ST VINCENT STREET, ALBERT PARK

LOCATION/ADDRESS: 40 ST VINCENT STREET, ALBERT PARK

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER: GEORGE BORG, MANAGER CITY DEVELOPMENT

AUTHOR: DONNA D'ALESSANDRO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER & APPEALS ADVISOR

TRIM FILE NO.: P1310/2011

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Objector Map

2. Aerial Map

3. Full set of Plans

4. 2006 elevation plan

5. 2010 elevation plans

6. Photo Montage

WARD: Emerald Hill

TRIGGER FOR DETERMINATION BY COMMITTEE:

15 or more objections

APPLICATION NO: 130/2011

APPLICANT: Urban Edge Consultants Pty Ltd

EXISTING USE: Dwelling

ABUTTING USES: Dwellings

ZONING: Residential 1 Zone

OVERLAYS: Heritage Overlay (HO442)

Special Building Overlay (SBO1)

STATUTORY TIME REMAINING FOR DECISION AS AT DAY OF COUNCIL

Expired

PROPOSAL

Demolition of the rear garage (fronting Iffla Street), partial demolition of the rear of the existing dwelling, and to carry out buildings and works for the construction of a new double-storey dwelling (with basement level) to the rear of the existing dwelling (fronting Glover Street and Iffla Street) and a dispensation of the car parking requirements for the existing dwelling.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 The proposal represents the third attempt to redevelop a triangular section of the allotment at the intersection of Iffla Street and Glover Street, with the two previous applications being refused (under delegation) by Council in 2006 and 2010 and both decisions were upheld on appeal to VCAT.

1.2 The site and its layout is unique within the South Melbourne and Albert Park area and presents a number of challenges for its redevelopment.

1.3 The application involves the demolition of part of the rear of the existing house and the garage on Iffla Street, and the construction of a new, double-storey dwelling with a basement and a roof terrace.

1.4 The application was received on 28 December 2011 and was advertised on 25 January 2011. A total of 73 objections were received. The application was revised (pursuant to Section 57A of the Act) on 10 August 2012, and 13


10

objections were received (all from those who previously objected). The application was again revised on 10 May 2013 (pursuant to Section 57A of the Act), re-advertised on 16 May 2013 and 18 objections were received (all from those who previously objected).

1.5 Guidance for the assessment of the application is provided by State and Local planning policies, the statement of significance for the heritage precinct, the advice from Council’s Urban Design & Heritage Advisor and the two previous VCAT decisions. The proposal is considered appropriate when considering all of these matters, subject to a number of modifications to the design of the new dwelling which can be addressed through permit conditions.

1.6 Furthermore, the proposal is considered consistent with the standards and objectives at Clause 55 (ResCode) and, subject to conditions, would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on immediate adjoining properties.

1.7 It is therefore recommended that Council issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit subject to the conditions set out in Section 14.

KEY ISSUES

1. Whether the proposal has overcome the previous concerns of Council and the Tribunal.

2. New development within a heritage area.

3. Urban Design and Neighbourhood character.

4. Amenity considerations.

2. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

2.1 The following relevant applications have previously been considered for the subject site:

Application No. Proposal Decision Date of Decision

73/1998 Construct garage Delegate Approval 27-Mar-1998

166/2006 Part demolition and ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, and construction of 2nd dwelling to rear of the site facing Glover & Iffla Streets, to include basement, ground, first floor levels.

Delegate Refusal.

VCAT decision.

12-Dec-2006

968/2007 Partial demolition to the rear of the existing dwelling (retaining the existing chimney), and alterations and additions to the ground and first floor of the existing dwelling.

Delegate Approval. 07-May-2008

1124/2009 Partial demolition to the rear of the existing dwelling; construction of new double storey (plus basement) dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling facing Glover and Iffla Street.

Delegate Refusal.

VCAT decision.

14-Jun-2011

2.2 This is the third attempt at developing the rear section of the subject site for a second dwelling, with the other two attempts being refused under delegation. These refusals were upheld by VCAT (the Tribunal).


11

2.3 Refer to Section 9 of this report for a discussion about how the current proposal compares with the previous applications and overcomes the issues raised in the Tribunal decisions.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 The plans that are subject of this report are those plans received 13 May 2013 being the plans amended pursuant to Section 57A of the Act, numbered NSD01 (8 December 2011) DS02, TP01, TP02, TP03 and SD01 Revision A, dated 2 May 2013 and drawn by Nicholas Murray Architects.

3.2 It is proposed to demolish part of the rear of the existing two storey extension (ground floor rumpus room and first floor bedroom) to the existing dwelling and the garage on the western (Iffla Street) side of the site, and to construct a second dwelling on the land generally within the triangular shaped section of the site. All vegetation to the rear of the site would be removed.

3.3 The existing dwelling would be provided with two/three bedrooms with an open plan living, dining and kitchen area. Private open space would be in the form of the existing internal court yard and a courtyard accessed to the rear of the existing ground floor addition, adjacent to the Glover Street frontage. No off street parking would be provided. Therefore a dispensation from the car parking requirements from the planning scheme would be required, which is discussed later in this report.

3.4 The new dwelling would be located directly abutting the two storey addition of the existing dwelling. The new dwelling would be contained within the large triangular piece of land which has a frontage to both Iffla Street and Glover Street. It would be located approximately 30 metres from the front of the title boundary facing St Vincent Street.

3.5 The new dwelling would be two storeys. The existing garage would be replaced with a double garage utilizing the existing access from Iffla Street. A storage area would also be contained within the garage. To the rear of the garage is a courtyard, generally to be used for services (air conditioning units, hot water service and clothes line).

3.6 The basement level contains the lift/stair area, laundry, bathroom, storage and workshop. The basement is setback from the rear title boundary with 42 St Vincent Street by 1.762m, 800mm from Glover Street, 1.1m from Iffla Street and 10m from the triangle corner of the site. It has been substantially reduced in size from the previous two schemes and the revised plans.

3.7 At ground floor level three bedrooms (one with an ensuite), bathroom, study, staircase/lift and main entry off Glover Street are proposed with a dining area, kitchen, walk-in pantry, living area and separate playroom at second floor level. Balconies are located off all first floor living spaces facing both Iffla Street and Glover Street. A large deck area is contained within the central area of the roof space approximately 5m from the Glover Street frontage, 4.2m from the rear title boundary with 42 St Vincent Street and 1m from Iffla Street frontage.

3.8 The development, due to the unusual ‘arrow’ shaped allotment includes three sections to the dwelling – garage/playroom sited on the boundary along Iffla Street, a corner section at the triangle point of the site (intersection with Glover and Iffla Streets) which includes the ground level bedroom 2 and 3 and study (with first floor kitchen and dining room above). The third section (southern section) of the dwelling faces Glover Street abutting the existing two storey


12

dwelling and includes a master bedroom with WIR and ensuite with living room above.

3.9 The garage section of the building is lower in height than the main section of the dwelling, sitting hard edge along Iffla Street at both ground and first floor with a total maximum height of 6.5m. The middle section of the building has an orientation towards the triangle point with a hard edge along Iffla Street and a 2m setback from Glover Street. The third section of the building would be setback approximately 3-5m from Glover Street due to the angle of the site. This section of the dwelling is designed to align with the setback of the upper level above the existing ‘L’ shaped dwelling facing Glover Street.

3.10 Private open space is provided in the form of a courtyard within the front setback off Glover St, accessed from the master bedroom, (14m2), a courtyard within the centre of the site (adjacent to the garage – 14m2), and balconies facing the street accessed from the main living areas (18m2) and playroom (5.5m2) at first floor level and a large roof deck (36m2). The total area proposed for open space including the front setbacks would be approximately 112m2. The main secluded private open space would equate to approximately 68m2.

3.11 The overall height of the new dwelling is 8.9m to the top of the ridgeline of the gable roofs and the height of the side walls is between 6.9m to 7.2m. Floor to ceiling heights are 2.7m at basement and ground level and 3.9m at first floor level with an external roof pitch. The overall height of the garage building is 6.5m, with an average of 2.4m floor to ceiling heights at both levels.

3.12 The front fence includes part solid rendered fence (2.2m in height) to the front of the courtyard and 1250mm black steel picket fence for the rest of the Glover Street frontage. The height of the solid fence would be higher than the existing 1.8m high paling fence facing Glover St.

3.13 The materials and finishes proposed include brick, timber, metal roofing (colourbond monument), natural cement render, black louvres, glass balustrades and black steel picket and rendered fences.

4. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

4.1 The subject site is located on the north side of St Vincent Street, between Iffla Street to the west and Glover Street to the east. The site is an unusual “arrow” shaped lot with a frontage to St Vincent Street of 6.1m and a depth of 27.1m (abutting 42 St Vincent Street) and 24.1m (abutting 38 St Vincent Street) and then opens out as it extends eastwards and westwards to Glover and Iffla Street. It has a frontage to Iffla Street of 18.94m and 20.27m to Glover Street for a total land area of approximately 470m2.

4.2 The site is occupied by a single storey Victorian era weatherboard cottage that is graded ‘significant’ in accordance with the Port Phillip Heritage Review (v16, 2013). This building incorporates a two storey extension at the rear that is not highly visible from the principal street frontage, however, it is prominent along Glover and Iffla Streets to the rear. A single storey garage occupies the north west corner of the site and is accessed via Iffla Street. Extending along the front boundary is a picket fence and small front garden, typical for the area. A number of mature trees and vegetation are contained within the rear yard. A 1.8m high paling fence is located along the entire frontage to Glover Street and part of Iffla Street with the exception of the garage.


13

4.3 The immediate neighbourhood is characterised by Victorian and Edwardian style single and double storey dwellings. The dominant style of building is circa 1900’s constructed from either timber or face brickwork. The properties at No. 38-46 St Vincent Street form an intact row of Victorian single and double fronted cottages. No. 38 St Vincent Street is currently building a first floor addition (permit granted 9 October 2012) to the rear of the principal façade. The property at No. 36 St Vincent Street includes a two storey contemporary style dwelling. The property at No. 48 St Vincent Street includes a two storey reconstructed cottage and next door at no. 50 a two storey modern brick dwelling.

4.4 Both Glover and Iffla Streets abut the property at the rear and include a range of single and double storey dwellings. Immediately opposite the site is a single-fronted, single-storey brick dwelling with no front verandah at No. 18 Glover Street, single-storey, single-fronted weatherboard and rendered brick dwellings at No’s 14 and 16 Glover Street, a reconstructed dwelling with a side addition and carport at No. 10-12 Glover Street, a pair of attached brick dwellings with a shared verandah at No’s 6 and 8 Glover Street and a double-fronted weatherboard dwelling at No. 4 Glover Street.

4.5 On Iffla Street, there is a red brick house constructed on the corner and to both boundaries of Iffla and Glover Streets at No. 5-7 Glover Street, a 2 storey modern brick building at No. 92 Iffla Street and then a row of single storey weatherboard dwellings at No’s 94 to 100 Iffla Street (some with first floor additions). Directly to the north of the subject site at No. 20 Glover Street is a single-storey weatherboard dwelling with a double-storey extension, built on the boundary with Iffla St.

4.6 This section of Glover Street opposite the application site has a typical Victorian era streetscape with a consistent row of single storey single or double fronted cottages with a consistent front setback. They are all single storey with low front fences. The established trees on both sides of the Glover Street also add to the value of the heritage overlay and streetscape character. Whereas the section of Iffla Street adjacent to the application site are the rear sections of the properties facing St Vincent Street and include high paling fences or garages.

4.7 The site is located within the Albert Park Residential Precinct covered by Heritage Overlay (HO442) and with a citation and statement of significance in the Port Phillip Heritage Review (v16, 2013). The Statement of Significance for the Albert Park Residential Precinct (HO442) states:

“Aesthetically and architecturally, the precinct is significant for its fine collection of late Victorian dwellings. These demonstrate a range of typical housing types of the 1870s and ‘80s: modest single-storeyed cottages in both timber and brick (mostly concentrated in the south-east and south of the precinct) as well as grander villas, double-storeyed terraces and townhouses (mostly concentrated in the east of the precinct). Although these exist both as cohesive strips (e.g. single rows of terraces or cottages) and as more heterogeneous streetscapes (with a mixture of dwelling types), they are nevertheless unified by their closely comparable dates and by their frequently consistent scale, form, materials and detailing. Considered collectively, the late nineteenth century housing in the Albert Park Residential Precinct represents one of the finest, more extensive and most varied collections of 1870s and 1880s dwellings in the City of Port Phillip.”

5. PERMIT TRIGGERS

5.1 The following zone and overlay controls apply to the site, with planning permission required as described.


14

Zone or Overlay Why is a permit required?

Clause 32.01

Residential 1 Zone

A Permit is required to construct a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on the lot pursuant to Clause 32.01-4. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Clause 43.01

Heritage Overlay

(HO442)

A permit is required to demolish a building, outbuilding or fence, to construct a building, construct or carry out works, and to construct a fence.

Clause 44.05

Special Building Overlay

A permit is required to construct a building, construct or carry out works.

Clause 52.06

Car Parking

Prior to a new building being occupied, the required number of car spaces must be provided on the land pursuant to Clause 52.06-2. The rate in the table to Clause 52.02-5 for dwellings is 2 spaces for new, 3+ bedroom dwellings. Two spaces are provided within the proposed garage for the new dwelling.

6. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

6.1 State Planning Policy Frameworks (SPPF)

The following State Planning Policies are relevant to this application: Clause 13: Environmental Risks

Clause 13.01 Climate Change Impacts

Clause 13.02 Floodplains

Clause 15: Built Environment & Heritage

Clause 15.01 Urban Environment

Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development

Clause 15.03 Heritage

Clause 16: Housing

6.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The following clauses in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) are relevant to this application: Clause 21.03: Ecologically Sustainable Development

Clause 21.03-1 Environmentally Sustainable Land Use and Development

Clause 21.04: Land Use

Clause 21.04-1 Housing and Accommodation

Clause 21.05: Built Form

Clause 21.05-1 Heritage

Clause 21.05-2 Urban Structure and Character

Clause 21.05-3 Urban Design and the Public Realm

Clause 21.06: Neighbourhoods

Clause 21.06-2 Middle Park & Albert Park

The following local planning policies are relevant to this application: Clause 22.04: Heritage

6.3 Relevant Planning Scheme Amendment

Amendment C97

The amendment proposes to introduce a new Local Planning Policy (Environmentally Efficient Design) into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The Amendment was exhibited but has yet to be adopted by Council.


15

The policy requires applications for new buildings to be accompanied by relevant information to demonstrate of how best practice sustainable design can be achieved.

Amendment C78

The Amendment proposes to introduce a new local policy, Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) into the planning scheme. The Amendment was exhibited and subsequently adopted by Council. It is now with the Minister for Planning for final approval. The Amendment is now considered ‘seriously entertained’.

The policy requires applications for new buildings to be accompanied by a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response and requires Council to consider the impact that proposed developments have on stormwater quality.

7. REFERRALS

7.1 Internal referrals

The application was referred to the following areas of Council for comment.

Heritage & Urban Design

Sustainable Design

The comments are discussed in detail in Section 9.

7.2 External referrals

Referral Authority Response Conditions

Melbourne Water No objection subject to conditions.

Refer Condition 14.

8. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION / OBJECTIONS

8.1 It was determined that the proposal may result in material detriment therefore Council gave notice of the proposal by ordinary mail to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties (26 letters) and directed that the applicant give notice of the proposal by posting 3 notice(s) on the site for a 14 day period, in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

8.2 Two sets of amended plans have been lodged since the application was originally advertised on 10 August 2012 and 16 May 2013. The amended applications were readvertised to all owners and occupiers originally notified of the application and to all people who objected to the proposal, pursuant to Section 52 of the Act.

8.3 The application has received 73 objections, including 18 supplementary objections to the revised plans submitted 16 May 2013 and subject of this report. The key concerns raised are summarised below (officer comment will follow in italics where the concern will not be addressed in Section 9):

Overdevelopment of the site

The proposal is an increase of one dwelling on a lot that is approximately 470m² in size and contains one existing dwelling. Lot sizes in this area containing single dwellings range from 200m² to 300m². Indicators of overdevelopment are site coverage, permeability, significant variations from


16

ResCode and lack of open space. The proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site as the site coverage is approximately 68% and permeability is approximately 31%, both achieving the relevant objective contained within ResCode.

Proposed development unsympathetic to the neighbourhood character

A mix of materials is proposed for the new dwelling including red brick, timber, render, metal balustrade and metal roofing. The materials are considered to reflect the surrounding dwellings and the relevant heritage place. This is further discussed in Section 9 of this report.

Excessive amount of roof deck and resulting noise/ visual dominance of this structure on the streetscape.

Three separate balconies are located off living rooms and a roof deck. The balconies would face Iffla and Glover Street. The roof top deck proposed would be located central to the roof area, setback 5.2m from Glover Street, 1m from Iffla Street and 4m from the rear.

The roof deck has limited setback from Iffla Street and Glover Street and the total amount of the deck spaces is considered excessive. In addition roof decks are not common in this residential area.

The deck area may be screened from view from both the front and rear of the site by screening devices to 1.7m above finished floor level, however it would be located 4.2m from the rear boundary with 42 St Vincent Street. The stair case over-run would increase the height of the building by 1.5m. This is considered to be excessive and uncharacteristic of the surrounding area and would add to the overall building bulk. It is therefore recommended that should a permit be granted a condition is included to delete the entire roof deck including services (stair overrun and screening). This matter is discussed later in the report.

Noise from any balcony or roof deck area is generally considered to be incidental to any dwelling (eg noise from children playing, music and/or talking). Nevertheless, the deletion of the roof deck would overcome this objection.

Lack of landscaping

There would be a reduction in the amount of area set aside for landscaping but this would be the case for any development to the rear of the site. The amount of land available for landscaping is consistent with the surrounding allotments which typically have small front gardens and small rear courtyards with very few canopy trees. The landscape character of the area is formed by the expansive street trees, rather than landscaping (other than front gardens) on private land. The site coverage is highly consistent with that of properties within the immediate area and there are sufficient permeable surfaces to comply with ResCode Standard B9 (Permeability exceeds the standard of 20%).

Dangerous precedent for the area

All planning applications are assessed on their individual merit. The subject site is unique as are its constraints and opportunities. It is not considered that the approval of this application would create a precedent for development in this locality.

The dwelling could be split into multiple dwellings

The application must be assessed as proposed and not as it could potentially be changed in the future. An amendment or a new planning application would need to be submitted if it were proposed to split the new dwelling into a


17

number of dwellings. It is also important to note that the Residential 1 Zone does not control density, however any amendment or new planning application to further subdivide the new dwelling into more than one dwelling would require a thorough assessment against the Port Phillip Planning Scheme including local policy and ResCode.

Additional parking

The new dwelling would be provided with a double garage accessible from Iffla Street. The existing dwelling would rely on St Vincent Street or Glover Street for on-street parking and this is considered satisfactory as it is unlikely that the additional 1-2 vehicles from the existing dwelling would add parking pressure on to these streets. In the event that these streets are included in residential parking permits this property would not be eligible for parking permits.

Excessive height and bulk

Scale and massing out of character with the neighbourhood

Heritage issues

These comments are discussed latter in this report.

8.4 A consultation meeting was held on 11 April 2012 which was attended by 30 objectors, the applicants and the Ward Councillor. This related to the original first set of plans. No issues were resolved at that meeting.

9. OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT

9.1 Existing dwelling

The original dwelling would be retained and the alterations and additions are to the rear section of the land. The existing rear addition to this dwelling would be demolished (generally a rumpus room located at ground and a bedroom at first floor level). The demolition of the recent addition would not have an effect on the existing significant graded dwelling.

The new dwelling would be constructed side by side with the existing two storey addition of the existing dwelling. The garage would also be demolished and a new garage would be constructed for the new dwelling. Therefore a dispensation of one car park space would be required. This is discussed in section 9.6 of this report.

The existing dwelling would continue to be a family home consisting of potentially three bedrooms (or two bedrooms with two living rooms), internal courtyard and open plan living area to the rear. The private open space would be located off the L-shaped living area and fronting onto Glover Street. It would equate to approximately 25m2 plus the internal courtyards would be accessible from the living area and bedroom. It is considered that the changes to the existing dwelling are satisfactory and would continue to provide for family accommodation.

Comparison to previous proposals

The first planning application considered in 2006 (No: 166/2006) proposed a new double storey dwelling located to the rear of the existing dwelling and constructed to the front boundaries off Iffla Street and Glover Street with the exception of the northern corner of the site (junction with Iffla and Glover Streets) where the secluded private open space was proposed. The building was setback approximately 7.5m from this corner and included a large basement, ground and


18

first floor, with the first floor protruding over the ground floor (corner section of the site). A single garage was proposed on Glover Street for the existing dwelling. Two storey walls were proposed to be constructed less than 2m from the rear properties at 38, 42 and 44 St Vincent Street. The proposal was a flat roofed solid construction with a commercial appearance. Materials included black bricks, red face bricks, render, weatherboard, galvanised roofing materials and aluminium windows. The height of the dwelling was 8-8.5m. The concerns raised with this proposal predominantly related to urban design, heritage and residential amenity.

The Tribunal in Stanish v Port Phillip CC [2006] VCAT 2598 determined to uphold Council’s decision to refuse the application and provided the following comments (paragraphs 38 -39 and 44 ):

We have substantial misgivings about approving the proposed development which fronts on to Glover Street and Iffla Street. We consider it will have a substantial visual impact on the streetscape and the general character of this neighbourhood.

In examining this development we consider there are both heritage issues and more general urban design issues which have not been properly addressed in this application and in themselves are fatal flaws to the approval.

We consider that the applicant has not responded adequately to Clause 22.04 or the more general Clause 19.03. We agree with Mr Jewell’s summation that this proposal warrants a very skilled design if it is to avoid compromising the values of the area. We consider the relatively large unbroken wall mass which has limited articulation will pose a threat to the character of the area and neighbouring properties. Whilst these features might be appropriate at various hard edged areas within a higher built up area in South Melbourne they are not necessarily appropriate in a finer grain compact lower scaled neighbourhood such as Iffla and Glover Streets. Essentially the building does not sit comfortably with its neighbours, nor does it harmoniously integrate within the streetscape.

We are not satisfied that Mr Stanish has responded to this particular neighbourhood character elements which draw strongly on heritage and the verdant canopy coverage in surrounding streets and on some private properties. Instead he has proposed an assertive monolithic structure on two street frontages which is substantially out of proportion and character with abutting and surrounding built forms. We consider that the proposed two storey structure would have resulted in substantial building bulk and massing on both street frontages and we are not satisfied that the elements are sufficiently sympathetic to this particular neighbourhood.

Whilst Mr Stanish referred to a number of corner sites in the nearby neighbourhood, including the nearby building at 36 St Vincent as a design reference, we consider the proposed rear building has a different site context that distinguish it from 36 St Vincent Street and some of the other finer grained corner sites found throughout Albert Park. In addition local heritage policy discourages design reference to non contributory buildings which do not contribute to the Statement of Significance.

Heritage issues were addressed from paragraphs 47. Particularly at paragraph 57 the Tribunal noted:


19

The proposed two storey dwelling to be constructed to the rear of the site is on a triangular piece of land with frontages to both Iffla and Glover Street with a pedestrian entrance off Glover Street. These frontage increase the impact of the building’s design on heritage and neighbourhood character. It is a large property on a highly visible location.

The building is bulky with an electric mix of styles. Boundary walls are built up along the entire length of both street frontages and there is no interaction between building and street. Materials and finishes are not reflective of surrounding development in the HO. The proposed dwelling will be noticeable larger, and bulkier than any building found in the immediate neighbourhood. It will introduce a foreign, almost brutal architectural form, dominated by high concrete structural elements.

The second application (No.1124/2009) responded (in part) to the specific comments set out by the Tribunal in the above decision by providing setbacks from both streets and breaking up the building bulk through creating staggered setbacks along Glover Street. It also provided greater setbacks from the rear of the site and responded to previous amenity concerns. The proposal still included a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling a basement, ground and first floor. There was no additional garage facing Glover Street for the existing dwelling. A double garage was proposed facing Iffla Street. The total height of the building was 6.95m and materials included red face brick, white render, ‘Apolic’ aluminium panels and windows and zincalume roofing materials. However, Council formed the view that the design had not substantially changed and the proposed massing was still a significant concern and determined to also refuse this application.

The Tribunal again upheld Council’s decision to refuse the application (in Stanish v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1112) and provided the following pertinent comments (at paragraphs 21-24):

The proposed building does offer a higher level of articulation than the previous scheme. However, the ground and first floor address almost the entire frontage to Glover Street with little visual relief to the street. The extent of the first floor is at odds with the character of the area. Whilst there are two storey dwellings evident in the area, the massing of the first floor is uncharacteristic and does not respond to the heritage precinct.

Whilst I accept the view of Mr Raworth that the site is separated from the heritage streetscapes of Iffla and Glover Streets, the design response cannot ignore the characteristics of the precinct being fine grain with low scale homogenous Victorian character. The site remains part of the heritage precinct and due to its corner location, is in a highly visible location.

The materials proposed include red brickwork, render finish, alpolic composite panels, aluminium windows and zincalume roofing. These are contemporary materials which may be appropriate given the right design. However, in this case, given the design and the way in which they are used, the proposed development will read more akin to a commercial building rather than a well designed contemporary dwelling. The materials used are at odds with the character of the area.”

I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Islip that ‘the overall massing provides limited relief in the streetscape and would be overtly complicated in terms of junction detailing and the excessive façade articulation’. The proposed new dwelling would be visually dominating, has not addressed


20

the previous Tribunal concerns and fails to respond to the objectives of clauses 22.04 and 43.01.

Paragraph 11 of the Tribunal decision (Stanish v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1112), identifies the development constrains of this site:

This is a very challenging site to develop, It is located in a precinct that is characterised by Victorian houses, single storey forms as well as limited two storey Victorian dwellings, extensions to Victorian houses, established street trees, timber weatherboards, on-street parking, a mix of gable and hipped roofs and limited contemporary infill development.

Additionally, the site’s unusual ‘arrow’ shaped block and high visibility as a consequence of its three street frontages requires a considered, skilled and sensitive design response. Due to the shape of the lot, the proposed dwelling, located to the rear of the existing dwelling would not be highly visible from its principal street frontage of St Vincent Street. It is therefore considered that the new works to the rear of the existing dwelling would not affect the setting of the heritage streetscape character when viewed directly from the opposite side of St Vincent Street.

The challenge for this development is how the proposed new dwelling addresses the setting of the surrounding Heritage Overlay particularly when viewed from Glover Street and Iffla Street, and the oblique views from St Vincent Street/Glover Street.

The Tribunal has previously stated that any proposal on this land warrants a very skilled design to avoid compromising the value of the area. Previously the Tribunal had been critical of the owner designing the building. This was a criticism in both decisions where the owner drafted and designed the building which was not considered to appropriately address heritage and urban design issues. The owner has now engaged local Architect, Nicolas Murray Architects.

This proposal has made significant changes to the previous two schemes to address Council’s concerns and the Tribunal decisions. Whilst the volume is consistent, with the two previous schemes, the building bulk and massing has been reduced significantly. The new dwelling includes three sections and a substantial void between the two sections of the dwelling facing Glover Street. The void extends between 2- 4m separation between the two sections of the dwelling. This separation, in addition to the use of materials reflective of the surrounding area ensures that the building would not present as a monolithic structure.

The proposed design does not appear as one continuous wall along both street frontages, which was a criticism of the design in the previous Tribunal decisions. The building would generally be setback from Glover Street by 2m (both ground and first floor level) but extends to 5-6m at the entrance, void and the north-east section of the dwelling (adjoining the existing dwelling). It is noted that the setback and landscaping would not be as deep as the properties on the opposite side of Glover Street and along St Vincent Street where dwellings are generally setback 3m from the front boundary. However, this setback is sufficient to provide landscaping and would not detract from the surrounding landscaped environment, largely derived from the mature canopy street trees along Glover and St Vincent Streets. The high rendered fence at 2.2m high would enclose this section of the development and would not be consistent with low picket fences opposite. Should this application be supported, it is considered appropriate to reduce the height of this section of fence to match the proposed 1.2m high metal


21

pickets along Glover St. A further condition can also be included to reduce the height of the entire fence to 1.2m and to be metal pickets (refer condition 1e).

The zero setback or hard edge building line along Iffla Street is also consistent with the neighbourhood character. A number of objectors are concerned that the hard edge building mass along Iffla Street will overwhelm the streetscape character. The Tribunal has however previously noted that walls on boundaries are not a foreign element in the surrounding area (Stanish v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1112). This is evident in the immediate area especially on corner sites such as 5/7 Iffla Street, 18 and 20 Glover Street, 34 and 50 St Vincent Street. In addition, this immediate section of Iffla Street includes the rear properties of 40 to 50 St Vincent Street, which present as high paling fences and gates and a back of house appearance. It is therefore not out of character for the proposed dwelling to have a hard edge built form along Iffla Street including the ground floor being constructed of red face bricks, consistent with the existing dwellings opposite. Red face brick is a common material found in the area. The applicants were encouraged to change the originally proposed bluestone material to red face brick as it is reflective of surrounding development within the Heritage Overlay.

The two storey wall constructed on the Iffla Street boundary is not alien in this neighbourhood. North of the site and opposite at 20 Glover Street (corner with Iffla Street) a two storey weatherboard extension is built on the Iffla Street frontage. This expression presents as a back of house character with the original dwelling being retained to the front of the site. The existing dwelling presents to Glover Street with the two storey extension constructed to the rear and along the Iffla Street boundary. Therefore the proposed new dwelling built at two storeys on the boundary with Iffla Street is not considered to be foreign within this streetscape and neighbourhood character. It would present as a back of house development, given the single storey dwelling would be retained with the proposed two storey dwelling significantly setback from the principal façade. It is considered that the new dwelling would have little impact on the heritage value of St Vincent Street, it would present as a contemporary new dwelling along Glover Street and Iffla Street, it would not detract from the heritage value of the area (this is further discussed at section 9.4 of this report) and would sit comfortably within the heritage setting (subject to conditions on permit).

9.2 Local Policy

The subject site is located within a ‘minimal residential growth area’, where medium density development is minimised in order to protect the heritage and neighbourhood character values of the precinct. Whilst the proposal represents a net increase of one dwelling, this is considered appropriate for the following reasons;

The total site area of approximately 470m2 and can accommodate an additional dwelling;

The site configuration allows the new dwelling to address the secondary streets, i.e. Iffla and Glover Streets;

The height and scale of the development (subject to conditions on any permit granted) is respectful of the prevailing neighbourhood character which mainly includes single storey cottages and terraces some with two storey extensions;


22

The proposed roof form (subject to conditions on permit) and materials are characteristic in the area.

The purpose of Residential 1 Zone encourages a variety of densities.

9.3 Heritage

The application was referred to Council’s Urban Design & Heritage Advisor, who provided the following comments regarding building bulk, massing and neighbourhood character:

Building Bulk

The previous Tribunal decision (Stanish v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1112) states that the “overall aesthetic needs to be pared back to create greater uniformity in terms of streetscape presentation and almost brutal architectural and commercial form dominated by high concrete elements”.

This has been addressed by removing the dominant ‘commercial like’ form and breaking up the bulk by introducing two smaller scale, finer grain domestic in character with gable end/ pitched roof forms. The design response has been to shift the mass towards Iffla Street in order to sit comfortably on the awkward shape site.

By breaking up the bulk with pitched roof forms the proposal seeks to conserve and enhance the heritage place and streetscape. Also, by its proposed siting, scale and massing which responds to the existing character of Victorian houses, both single and double frontages with pitched roofs. The proposal is also now better orientated to the streetscapes of Iffla and Glover Streets. It is appropriate to mass to the corner of Iffla Street and address the Glover Street frontage.

Massing

At paragraph 20 (Stanish v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1112) the Tribunal states that “there is a mass of development for almost the length of both street frontages, with a stepped front setback to Glover Street attempting to break up what was previously considered a large unbroken wall mass with little visual relief to the street with first floor massing considered uncharacteristic and does not respond to the heritage precinct.”

This has been addressed by removing the continuous massing to both streets and by introducing the separate forms that mass towards Iffla Street corner with a much greater setback to Glover Street. It is appropriate and contextual to site the building in this way. By doing this it addresses good urban design principles of massing to the corner and in my view addresses the heritage context of a built form edge to Iffla Street with a more contextual setback to Glover Street which subject to conditions on permit could be increased slightly.

The proposal seeks to ensure that the new development respects and enhances the scale and form of nearby heritage buildings by removing the continuous mass with the two gable end forms and greater setbacks to Glover Street. I consider this is respectful of the streetscape character, however I do believe there is scope to reduce the upper level setback further to Glover Street given the building is built to the boundary on Iffla Street (this will be discussed further in the report).

Neighbourhood Character


23

The Tribunal further concluded that the selection of materials, staggered layout and high level of articulation created an overworked design with an inconsistent roof form.

The proposed pitched gable end roof forms respond to the heritage streetscape character of the precinct and I believe has also addressed the overall height to reflect the prevailing streetscape scale and character.

The other significant characteristics to be considered are materials, layout and articulation of the proposal. These architectural elements have been addressed and changed compared to the previous ‘overworked’ and ‘fussy’ selection and design.

The palette of materials has been reduced to include finishes that are complimentary and appropriate to enhance the heritage precinct. This site is not an infill site and therefore introduces architectural detailing in a skilled manner without being overly complicated.

The proposal is respectful and harmoniously integrates with the surrounding character, as it seeks to promote design excellence (in terms of articulation and materials). The roofs respond to the streetscape character which comprises of hip and gable ends. Door and window openings are proportioned well and complimentary to the prevailing streetscape character, with visible wall elevations being articulated well, and materials, textures, colours and finishes are acceptable. The boundary treatments are acceptable of appropriate style and height responding to the street satisfactorily. Glover Street will be improved significantly replacing the existing tall paling fence.

This proposal does demonstrate this approach and is supported.”

Demolition

In relation to demolition, it is policy to allow the demolition of part of a significant heritage place if it will not affect the significance of the heritage place. The extent of demolition is limited to a later rear extension and a garage (as discussed in section 9.1 of this report). In both Tribunal decisions the proposed demolition was considered to be acceptable.

The extent of demolition proposed is considered acceptable and appropriate given it is a latter addition to the existing dwelling.

New Development

Despite the size of the new dwelling, it will not be visible behind the existing dwelling fronting St Vincent Street as it would be set back approximately 30m from the front of the site. It is considered that there will be limited impact on the significance of the existing, significant graded building on the subject site or the other graded buildings fronting St Vincent Street, however, the heritage precinct (HO442) covers a wider area and includes the properties opposite the subject site on Glover and Iffla Streets. Any additions in this locality would need to take into account the heritage significance of the precinct and be sympathetic to the scale, form and materiality of the heritage place.

The Heritage Policy also sets out criteria that should be met for new development within Heritage Overlay areas.


24

New development should reflect the prevailing streetscape scale and should not dominate the streetscape or public realm. This is generally achieved by meeting Performance Measure 3 in the heritage policy, which is as follows:

Buildings and works may meet the above policy for building scale if the following measures, as appropriate, are achieved:

If located in a street which has a consistent building scale and adjacent to a significant or contributory heritage place, the height of the building is no higher than the roof ridgeline of the highest adjacent heritage place when viewed from the street, but may include a higher component to the rear; or

If located in a street with a diverse building scale, and adjacent to a significant or contributory heritage place, the height of the new building is of a scale and mass that respects both the adjacent heritage place and the prevailing scale of the area.

The subject site is located adjacent to significant graded, single-storey and single-fronted weatherboard dwellings. However, the new dwelling is proposed to the rear of these dwellings, would not be highly visible from St Vincent Street and subject to the deletion of the roof terrace and associated screening/stair over-run and reduction of the overall height of the dwelling could meet the performance measure by constituting a “higher component to the rear”. It is also considered to be of a scale and massing that reflects the single-fronted width (southern section) and double-fronted width (northern section) of nearby dwellings on Glover and Iffla Streets.

The overall height whilst negated by its island site location can be reduced to a maximum of 7.8m, should a permit be granted (refer to Condition 1c) and will be discussed later in this report. Not only can the overall floor to ceiling heights be reduced, but the roof terrace and associated screening and stair over-run should be deleted from the new dwelling. This would not only reduce the overall height of the building but would also remove a foreign design element that is not characteristic in this area.

The front and side setbacks should respond to those of adjacent buildings and the streetscape. This is achieved through aligning the southern section with the setback of the upper level of the existing dwelling from Glover Street, responding to the 2-4m setbacks of the dwellings opposite the subject site on Glover Street and construction along the boundary to Iffla Street to reflect the back-of-house / side-of-house character along this section of the street. The southern section of the dwelling would also sit more comfortably within this setting if the first floor was setback from the ground floor level (subject to condition 1f). Moreover, such a provision would provide a staggered setback when viewed collectively with the existing dwelling and 36 St Vincent Street from an oblique view along Iffla and Glover Streets (this is further discussed in section 9.4 of this report).

The predominant roof form within the surrounding streetscape is hipped however, the visible extensions (including to the existing dwelling on the subject site) within the triangular section of land mostly have gable ends. It is not uncommon for heritage areas, including this precinct, to contain a mix of gable and hipped roof forms even within the same row of houses. This is most notable further to the north along Iffla Street (e.g. No’s 67 to 71 Iffla Street), and there is a highly visible extension to No. 71 Iffla Street (immediately opposite the northern corner of the subject site) that contains a gable end to a transverse ridgeline that faces Iffla Street. It is considered that gable end roofs to the proposed dwelling would be


25

appropriate in the context of the immediate area subject to a condition requiring a flat gable end which would sit more comfortably within the site (refer Condition 1b).

The door and window openings are principally vertical along Glover Street which is consistent with Victorian era dwelling. Window proportions along Iffla Street are horizontal and break up the elevations and reduce building mass whilst providing daylight into the dwelling. What is considered to be at odds with nearby buildings is the glass balustrade inserts which effectively increase the height of vertical windows to the northern section of the dwelling. The balustrade inserts should be removed and the balustrade constructed entirely of timber vertical slats (refer to Condition 1d). Overall the window and door proportions are considered appropriate and complement the architecture of the building. The proportion of openings to solid wall complements the proportions found within the Victorian era and other buildings in the immediate area.

Given the uniqueness of the site, it’s high visibility and the proposed architectural response, it is important that the architects are retained to ensure that the integrity of the design is not diminished through the building process. Therefore a condition on any permit issued would require the ongoing involvement of Nicholas Murray Architects. (Refer to Condition 10).

9.4 Neighbourhood character

The subject site is unique and its visibility presents challenges in attempting to design an appropriate new dwelling. There are no buildings within the triangular section of land that a new building could respond to because these orientate to St Vincent Street. The dwellings opposite along Glover Street are predominantly single-storey Victorian cottages with small front gardens. The dwellings opposite the subject site (north of Lt Glover Street) either have solid high fencing or are orientated to face a different street and are modern era buildings. There are Victorian cottages to the south of Lt Glover Street and north of Glover Street on Iffla Street.

In Stanish v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 1112, the Tribunal determined that a suitable response to the site would be retaining a back of house character to Iffla Street and providing a sense of address and small front setback and garden to Glover Street.

The subdivision pattern would be hard to replicate on the triangular shaped section of the allotment. The design of the three sections would be a sympathetic response to the surrounding subdivision pattern, complimenting the narrow width of the houses opposite and it adjoins the existing part ground part first floor addition of the existing dwelling. Notwithstanding, to further reduce the bulk of this section and enhance the fine grain pattern of the area, it is recommended that the first floor wall including the balcony (north-eastern wall) setback 1.2m from ground floor level (the balcony area would no longer overhang the ground floor). This modification would also reduce the exaggerated eave overhang given the gable end is not flat and result in an improved design response.

The two-storey height is appropriate in the context of a site where rear, upper level additions are visible, particularly in St Vincent and Iffla Streets. Moreover, it is also appropriate in its context as it is not within a row of single-storey cottages but instead is located behind and would be only one storey higher than the existing predominant built form. It is considered that the height of the main section of the dwelling (northern and southern sections and not the garage) can be reduced given the total height ranges from 8.7m – 8.9m with the ground floor having a floor to ceiling height of 2.7m and 3.7-3.9m at first floor. The total height


26

of the building is comparable to the original scheme refused in 2006 and higher than the 2010 scheme. The height is considered to be excessive given the first floor wall is between 3.7m - 3.9m and out of proportion with the ground floor. To ensure that the dwelling sits comfortably within its context, it is recommended, should a permit be granted, that the external first floor wall be reduced to 3m and the overall height of the building reduced to a maximum of 7.8m (refer to Condition 1c), including the deletion of the roof terrace (refer condition 1a).

9.5 Sustainable Design

The application was referred to Council’s Sustainable Design Officer, who provided the following comments:

“In the context of this design and application, I am satisfied it meets Councils expectations for environmentally sustainable design. In its entirety, the Sustainable Design Assessment should be endorsed as part of this permit and conditioned as per the below recommendations, with this being conditional on the following:

The selection of a gas boosted solar hot water system should be included in the STEPS report (currently specifies gas instantaneous).

The STEPS assessment specifies a roof area catchment of 130m2, while the STORM assessment indicates a catchment area of 319m2. Please ensure these two documents align. The 319m2 catchment should be committed to as a means of ensuring a score above the 100% benchmark.

The materials section of the STEPS tool indicates an excellent performing building due to the reuse of existing materials. Reuse of existing materials refers to reuse of relevant aspects of the building in the construction of the new building. There appears to be a claim of re-use of existing materials throughout all constructed areas of the building, however this is not evident anywhere on the drawings or supporting documentation. The materials section should be recompleted to reflect the actual construction materials.

The position of the rainwater tank should be made clear on the architectural drawings.”

These comments were in relation to the revised STEPS assessment and Sustainable Design Statement submitted in May 2012. The revised plans submitted 13 May 2013 show solar hot water panels on the roof to the southern section of the dwelling. The rainwater tank has not been shown on the plans. Conditions on any permit issued would require a revised Sustainable Design Statement to be submitted to satisfy each of the concerns raised above (refer to Condition 6).

9.6 Car parking Assessment

Clause 52.06 (Car Parking Requirements) requires 2 car parking spaces to each 3 or more bedroom dwellings. Due to the site constraints and design response the existing dwelling would not retain the existing car space on site and the new dwelling would benefit from a new double garage. Therefore a dispensation of 2 car park spaces would be required.

It could be possible to provide a new garage adjacent to the existing dwelling along Glover Street however this would alter the amount of the secluded private


27

open space. A new garage or cross-over along Glover Street would not however be encouraged because it is likely to impact on the large plane tree which was a criticism in the 2006 Tribunal decision (paragraph 41 and 42). It would also create a poor urban design and heritage outcome. The dispensation is supported for the following reasons:

Access from the front of the site is not possible and not characteristic of St Vincent Street.

On-site parking on Glover Street by a new garage/car port was discouraged by Council and the Tribunal in the 2006 decision.

There is sufficient unrestricted on-street parking immediately opposite the site in St Vincent Street and also abutting the site in Glover Street.

The new dwelling would be provided with 2 car spaces contained within the new double garage. The garage would replace the existing garage with an extended cross-over to allow for the double garage. The design of the garage has been assessed against Clause 52.06 – 08 (Design Standards for Car Parking) and is satisfactory.

9.7 Amenity – Clause 55 (ResCode)

The proposed development satisfies ResCode Standards B1 (Neighbourhood Character), B2 (Residential Policy), B3 (Dwelling Diversity), B4 (Infrastructure), B5 (Integration with the Street), B7 (Building Height), B9 (Permeability), B10 (Energy Efficiency), B11 (Open Space), B12 (Safety), B13 (Landscaping), B14 (Access), B15 (Parking Location), B19 (Daylight to Existing Windows), B20 (North Facing Windows), B21 (Overshadowing Open Space), B23 (Internal Views), B24 (Noise Impacts), B27 (Daylight to New Windows), B28 (Private Open Space), B29 (Solar Access to Open Space), B30 (Storage), B31 (Design Detail) and B33 (Common Property). Variations have been sought in relation to Standard B6 (Street Setback), B8 (Site Coverage) and Standard B22 (Overlooking) which are not met, however variations are supported for the following reasons:

Standard B6. There are no adjacent properties with dwellings orientated to front Glover or Iffla Streets, so Standard B6 requires a default 4m front setback. The front setbacks of the dwellings opposite the subject site vary between 2m and 4m. In consideration of the width of the setback and the amount of front garden that can be achieved on this section of land, 2m is considered acceptable and a variation justified as the objectives of respecting the existing neighbourhood character and making efficient use of the site are met.

Standard B8. The proposal is not considered to meet Standard B8 as the site coverage exceeds 60% of the total site. The site coverage of all the properties within the triangular section of the land is between 62% - 85%, with the average amount being approximately 71%. The proposed site coverage is approximately 68% and this is considered to be consistent with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.

Standard B22. The proposal is not considered to meet Standard B22 (overlooking) as there is some potential for overlooking from the upper level balcony to the southern section of the new dwelling and the secluded private open space of the existing dwelling and part of the secluded private open


28

space to the rear of No. 38 St Vincent Street. Conditions on any permit would require overlooking diagrams to be provided and the balcony screened or redesigned on the southern interface to limit overlooking (Refer to Condition 1g). In addition, the setting back of the first floor of the southern section would help to reduce oblique views to the adjacent courtyards given it would be setback from the wall of the existing dwelling.

10. COVENANTS

The applicant has completed a restrictive covenant declaration form declaring that there is no restrictive covenant on the titles for the subject site known as Plan of Consolidation 107596 [Parent Titles Volume 2945 Folio 975, Volume 6915 Folio 959 and Volume 7306 Folio 167].

11. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

11.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest in the matter.

12. OPTIONS

12.1 Approve as recommended

12.2 Approve with changed or additional conditions

12.3 Refuse - on key issues

13. CONCLUSION

13.1 The proposal achieves a successful (third attempt) design response for this unique site.

13.2 The immediate area around the north of the subject site contains a collection of intact single-storey single-fronted and double-fronted Victorian era houses constructed of timber weatherboards or bricks. It is also worth noting that both Iffla and Glover Streets are wide, with a sizeable distance between the Victorian houses and the subject site (30-50m). There are also large, deciduous street trees along both sides of Glover Street and some less mature street trees along both sides of Iffla Street. To ensure that the design response is respectful of its heritage context and the character of Glover and Iffla Streets, the following modifications are requested to the proposal:

deletion of the roof deck and the 1.5m high stair over-run and associated screening;

replacement of the 2.2m high rendered wall with 1.2m high steel picket fence along the entire Glover Street frontage including the return wall within the site;

the glass inserts to the first floor balcony replaced with timber vertical slats to match the rest of the balustrade;

flat gable ends to each section of the dwellings;

first floor north-eastern section of the dwelling including the balcony overhang setback 1.2m from the ground floor level and 3-7m from the front title boundary;

reduction in the overall height of the main sections of the dwelling (northern and southern sections) from 8.9m to 7.8m, an overall reduction of 1.1m (excludes roof deck);


29

13.3 The design of the new dwelling, incorporating the suggested modifications addresses both Council’s and VCAT previous concerns in that:

There are no longer boundary walls built up along the entire length of both street frontages (Iffla Street and Glover Street). There is an interaction between the building and the street.

Window proportions at ground floor level facing Glover Street are consistent with a Victorian era dwelling.

The high level windows along Iffla Street provide a contemporary appearance and would break up the facade.

The built form along Iffla Street is consistent with that part of the neighbourhood character.

The deletion of the roof deck and revised height of the main sections of the dwelling would reduce any negative visual impact on the streetscape character.

The minor modification to the access of the garage would not impact on the large plane trees in Glover Street.

The setback of the building would not disrupt the setting of Glover Street where the large plane trees have an important position within this unique heritage streetscape.

The proposed contemporary design constructed from materials found within the area (timber, steel pickets, brick, render) would not introduce a foreign, brutal or commercial architectural form.

The proposal is consistent with state and local planning policies, is supported by Council’s Urban Design & Heritage Advisor and responds to the specific guidance given by the Tribunal in relation to the two previous schemes.

The proposal with some modifications satisfies the standards and ResCode and would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

13.4 It is therefore recommended that Council issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit subject to the conditions set out in the next section.

14. RECOMMENDATION - NOTICE OF DECISION

14.1 That the Responsible Authority, having caused the application to be advertised and having received and noted the objections, issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit.

14.2 That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued for the demolition of the rear garage (fronting Iffla Street), partial demolition of the rear of the existing dwelling, and to carry out building and works for the construction of a new double-storey dwelling (with basement level) to the rear of the existing dwelling (fronting Glover Street and Iffla Street) and a dispensation of the car parking requirements for the existing dwelling at 40 St Vincent Street, Albert Park.

14.3 That the decision be issued as follows:

1 Amended Plans Required

Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will


30

then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans received by Council on 13 May 2013, numbered NSD01 (8 December 2011) DS01, DS02, TP02, TP03 and SD01 Revision A, dated 2 May 2013 and drawn by Nicholas Murray Architect but modified to show:

a) Deletion of the entire roof deck (deck 2) including the stair over-run and screening.

b) Removal of the exaggerated gable ends and replacement with flat gable ends with an eave overhang of 400mm to the main sections of the dwelling.

c) First floor levels [floor-to-ceiling height] reduced to a maximum of 3 metres and the overall height of the building reduced to a maximum height of 7.8m above NGL [excluding the garage/playroom portion of the dwelling].

d) Removal of the glass inserts along deck 1 and replacement with timber to match the remainder of the balustrade.

e) The proposed rendered fence and return wall reduced to a maximum of 1.2m in height and replaced with black steel pickets to match the proposed fence along Glover St.

f) The north eastern wall and balcony to the first floor living room setback a minimum of 1.2m from the north eastern wall of the ground floor.

g) Overlooking diagram(s) confirming that overlooking is satisfactorily limited between balcony 1 [off the first floor living room] to the existing courtyard on the subject site and the rear courtyard to No. 36 St Vincent Street as per Condition 2.

h) Changes required as a consequence of the Melbourne Water conditions (Condition 14(a) to (f)).

i) All plant, equipment and domestic services (including air conditioning, heating units, hot water systems, etc) which are to be externally located.

j) Updated roof plan as a result of condition 1a).

2 Privacy Screen – cross section required

Before the development starts, cross section elevation drawings of the first floor balcony off the living room must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The drawings must:

a) Be drawn to scale and fully dimensioned;

b) Clearly delineate any solid parts of the screen and any louvre or batten parts of the screen;

c) Overlooking diagrams as per Condition 1g.

d) Show the exact width and thickness of each louvre or batten, the exact spacing between each louvre or batten and a section detail from behind the screen demonstrating that direct views of adjacent private open space are precluded, while allowing outlook horizontally and upward from the balcony and/or window.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3 Demolition Method Statement


31

Before the development starts, including any demolition works, a fully detailed ‘demolition method statement’ must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the statement will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The ‘demolition method statement’ must:

Fully describe and clearly demonstrate the methods of dismantling of the heritage fabric, restoration and repair and the subsequent reconstruction of the building.

Include reference to the staging of demolition and reconstruction works on the site.

Detail the necessary protection works required during the demolition works to protect those parts of the building to be retained.

Once approved by the Responsible Authority, all buildings and works must be in accordance with the demolition method statement.

4 No Alterations

The development of the site and the dimensions, levels, design and location of buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered for any reason (unless the Port Phillip Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

5 No change to external finishes

All external materials, finishes and colours as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.

6 Sustainable Design Assessment

Before the development starts (other than demolition or works to remediate contaminated land) a revised Sustainable Design Assessment, generally in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment submitted 28 May 2012 but modified to show:

Nomination of gas boosted solar hot water system

Updated STORM assessment with the correct catchment area.

Clarification about the re-use of materials on site.

The location and capacity of the rainwater tank.

The revised Sustainable Design Assessment must be submitted to, be to the satisfaction of and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Assessment will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit and the project must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives listed.

7 Landscape Plan

Before the development starts (other than demolition or works to remediate contaminated land), a detailed Landscape Plan must be submitted to, approved by and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will become an endorsed plan forming part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must incorporate:

a) A survey plan, including botanical names, of all existing vegetation/trees to be retained;

b) Buildings and vegetation (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within 3m of the boundary;

c) Significant trees greater than 1.5m in circumference, 1m above


32

ground; d) All street trees and/or other trees on Council land; e) A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation including botanical

names; common names; pot sizes; sizes at maturity; quantities of each plant; and details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;

f) Landscaping and planting within all open space areas of the site; and g) Water sensitive urban design.

All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8 Walls on or facing the boundary

Before the occupation of the development allowed by this permit, all new or extended walls on or facing the boundary of adjoining properties and/or a laneway must be cleaned and finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Unpainted or unrendered masonry walls must have all excess mortar removed from the joints and face and all joints must be tooled or pointed also to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Painted or rendered or bagged walls must be finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9 No equipment or services

No plant, equipment or domestic services (including any associated screening devices) or architectural features, other than those shown on the endorsed plan are permitted, except where they would not be visible from the primary street frontage (other than a lane) or public park without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

10 Ongoing Involvement of the Architect

The applicant must retain Nicholas Murray Architects to complete the design and provide architectural oversight of the delivery of the detailed design as shown in the endorsed plans and endorsed schedule of materials and finishes during construction except with the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.

11 Privacy Screens Must be Installed

Privacy screens as required in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed prior to occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12 Vehicle Crossings

Before the occupation of the development allowed by this permit, the vehicle crossing must be extended in accordance with Council’s current Vehicle Crossing Guidelines and standard drawings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13 Applicant to Pay for Alterations

Before the occupation of the development allowed by this permit, the applicant/owner must do the following things to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) Pay the costs of all alterations of Council and Public Authority assets necessary and required by such Authorities for the development.

b) Obtain the prior written approval of the Council or other relevant Authority for such alterations/reinstatement.

c) Comply with conditions (if any) required by the Council or other relevant Authorities in respect of alterations/reinstatement.


33

14 Melbourne Water conditions

a) No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.

b) Finished dwelling floor levels (excluding the basement) must be a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

c) Finished garage floor levels must be a minimum of 150mm above the applicable flood level.

d) All doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement must be flood proofed to a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

e) Any drainage system to the basement must be designed such that stormwater is unable to penetrate the basement.

f) All electrical installations must meet the applicable standards of the relevant authority for areas subject to flooding.

15 Time for Starting and Completion

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

a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within two (2) years of the date of commencement of works.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Permit Notes:

Building Approval Required

This permit does not authorise the commencement of any building construction works. Before any such development may commence, the applicant must apply for and obtain the appropriate building permit under the Building Regulations.

Building Works to Accord with Planning Permit

The applicant/owner will provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with this planning permit.

Drainage Point and Method of Discharge

The legal point of stormwater discharge for the proposal must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Engineering construction plans for the satisfactory drainage and discharge of stormwater from the site must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any buildings or works.

Due Care

The developer must show due care in the development of the proposed extensions so as to ensure that no damage is incurred to any adjoining building and property.

Days and Hours of Construction Works

Developers

Except in the case of an emergency a builder must not carry out building works outside of construction hours:-

- Monday to Friday: 7.00am to 6.00pm; or - Saturdays: 9.00am to 3.00pm.

An Out of Hours permit cannot be obtained for an appointed public holiday under the Public Holidays Act, 1993.

Owner Builders

An owner builder must not carry out building works outside of construction hours:-


34

- Monday to Friday: 7.00am to 8.00pm; or - Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays: 9.00am to 6.00pm.

An Out of Hours permit may be considered pursuant to Community Local Law No. 3, Clause 24. For further information, contact Council’s City Permits unit on Ph: (03) 9209 6216.

No Resident or Visitor Parking Permits

The owners and occupiers of the development allowed by this permit will not be eligible for Council resident or visitor parking permits.

agenda of statutory planning committee - 15 october 201311).pdf · agenda - statutory planning...

Documents