wednesday 28 june 2017 - moreland city council · wednesday 28 june 2017 commencing 6.30 pm council...

D17/216388

URBAN PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 28 JUNE 2017

COMMENCING 6.30 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, MORELAND CIVIC CENTRE, 90 BELL STREET, COBURG

Urban Planning Committee Meeting 28 June 2017 2

1. WELCOME

2. APOLOGIES

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Urban Planning Committee Meeting held on 24 May 2017 be confirmed.

4. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

5. COMMITTEE REPORTS

CORPORATE SERVICES

DCS34/17 PROPOSED LAND SWAP - WATERLOO ROAD, GLENROY (D17/172811) 3

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DED51/17 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DECLARE A COMBINATION SPECIAL RATE AND CHARGE FOR THE COBURG SHOPPING PRECINCT (D17/197923) 9

DED52/17 44 PARKSTONE AVENUE, PASCOE VALE SOUTH, PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2017/1 (D17/161622) 86

DED53/17 1-7 COYNE STREET, FAWKNER PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/533 (D17/169692) 108

DED54/17 32 SUSSEX STREET, PASCOE VALE SOUTH - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2017/17 (D17/130443) 131

DED55/17 1 FRITH STREET, BRUNSWICK PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/929 (D17/176981) 147

DED56/17 144 - 146 UNION STREET, BRUNSWICK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/578 (D17/168098) 207

DED57/17 129-131 DALEY STREET, GLENROY - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2016/885 (D17/131629) 254

DED58/17 36 CLARKE STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/995 (D17/79304) 300

DED59/17 BUILDING 9 AND A DIVISION - PENTRIDGE COBURG - LOT S4 AND S6 CHAMP STREET COBURG - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2016/896 (D17/171012) 334


DCS34/17 PROPOSED LAND SWAP - WATERLOO ROAD, GLENROY (D17/172811)

Director Corporate Services

Property and Governance

Executive Summary

Lay Brothers own land at 358 Waterloo Road, Glenroy. Council has a fragmented car park abutting their site and a public toilet which is currently locked and not in operation as shown in Attachment 1. Lay Brothers also own a parcel of land in the middle of Council’s car park.

A land swap proposal has now been endorsed by Council to enable both parties to consolidate their fragmented land parcels. The proposed land swap of part of 358 and part of 366 Waterloo Road, Glenroy is a strategic result for Council and for Lay Brothers.

At the April 2017 Council meeting (DCS19/17), Council resolved that procedures be commenced for the sale of land pursuant to the provisions of section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989.

As part of the statutory procedures, public notice of the proposal was given and one submission has been received.

Council is now in a position to consider and hear the submission made as a result of the statutory process.

Recommendation

The Urban Planning Committee resolve:

1. To note that public notice was given in the Moreland Leader newspaper in the week commencing Monday 24 April 2017 and also on Council's website regarding Council's intention to sell the land 366 Waterloo Road, Glenroy.

2. To note that the giving of public notice is pursuant to sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and in accordance with Council resolution on 12 April 2017 (DCS19/17).

3. To receive the submission made in response to the advertised proposed sale of the land at 358 Waterloo Road, Glenroy.

4. That a report be prepared for Council's consideration regarding its intention whether or not to sell the land which includes details of the submission.

5. To notify the person who made a submission in writing once a decision has been made by Council.


REPORT

1. Policy Context

The Council Plan 2013-2017 articulates Council’s commitment to the careful stewardship of the City’s assets.

2. Background

Lay Brothers own land at 358 Waterloo Road, Glenroy. Council has a fragmented car park abutting their site and a public toilet which is currently locked and not in operation as shown in Attachment 1. Lay Brothers also own a parcel of land in the middle of Council’s car park.

A land swap proposal is recommended to enable both parties to consolidate their fragmented land parcels. The proposed land swap of part of 358 and part of 366 Waterloo Road, Glenroy is a strategic result for Council and for Lay Brothers.

On 12 April 2017 (DCS19/17) Council resolved that procedures be commenced for the sale of land pursuant to the provisions of section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989.

3. Issues

The site is currently under planning application MPS/2015/676. Planning requires the provision of 56 car parking spaces. Aldi prefers 100 car parks for its customers.

The planning application is seeking approval for:

the construction of a building associated with a new supermarket and shop;

repair and reconfiguration of the carpark;

two new public toilets;

display of business identification signage; and

a reduction in the loading bay requirements.

The carpark which surrounds the site is part Council owned land and part private land. The repair of the carpark in the planning application includes Council’s land (Attachment 1).

This land swap proposal was endorsed by Council to enable both parties to consolidate their fragmented land parcels and provide Lay Brothers with enough parking spaces for a proposed Aldi Store to be built on the site.

A public notice of the proposed sale was given in the Moreland Leader newspaper in the week commencing Monday 24 April 2017.

Adjoining property owners and occupiers were notified in writing of the proposal and a notice was also placed on Council’s website, with submissions to be received by 19 May 2017.

One submission was received at Attachment 2. The submitter did not request to be heard in support of his submission.

The submitter opposes the introduction of restricted car parking.

Human Rights Consideration

The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

4. Consultation

Council’s Transport Unit have been consulted regarding the submission. Officers advised that Council can assess the parking occupancy post development to determine if the correct mix of parking is provided.


5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest

Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

6. Financial and Resources Implications

Formal valuations have not been obtained as yet, however, as Council’s site is larger than Lay Brother’s site, Council will likely generate some income from the land swap.

7. Implementation

A further report will be presented to Council for a final decision to be made on the proposed sale of the land.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Plan - 358 Waterloo Road, Glenroy D16/310999 2⇩ Objection - Proposed Land Swap - Waterloo Road, Glenroy D17/176413


DED51/17 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DECLARE A COMBINATION SPECIAL RATE AND CHARGE FOR THE COBURG SHOPPING PRECINCT (D17/197923)

Director Planning and Economic Development

Economic Development

Executive Summary

Moreland City Council declared the current Special Rate and Charge Scheme (the scheme) on 9 May 2012 under section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989 for the purposes of defraying promotional, advertising, marketing and business development expenses as approved by Council; and agreed to between the Council and the Coburg Traders Association (CTA), all of which are associated with the encouragement of commerce, retail, professional activity and employment in the Coburg Shopping Precinct (Precinct). The current scheme includes 287 properties within a defined boundary for the 2016- 2017 rating period.

Council appointed the CTA to act on Council’s behalf in the spirit of mutual cooperation and partnership to expend the funds raised by the scheme for the purposes listed above and approved by Council in accordance with the funding agreement currently in place. The CTA are an Incorporated Association, managed by an elected Committee of Management.

The scheme was first introduced in 1997 and has been renewed every five years since. The current scheme commenced on 1 July 2012 and will conclude on 30 June 2017. At the conclusion of the current scheme, Council will have paid the CTA a total of $883,050 for the five year period.

On 20 June 2016, Council received a letter from the CTA, included in Attachment 1, requesting that Council begin the statutory process to renew the scheme for a further five years from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2022. However, with agreement from the CTA, the commencement of this scheme has been delayed and the proposed duration of this scheme will now be four years and nine months, if declared.

All rateable commercial properties within the scheme’s boundary, as defined in the Public Notice of Intention to Declare, shown in Attachment 2 are required to contribute to the scheme. The Special Charge will be assessed and levied on the basis of a rate in the dollar applied to the capital improved value (CIV) of each property included in the scheme. This contribution is in addition to the Commercial Rate and the Fire Services Property Levy.

Council considers that each rateable property and each business included in the scheme area liable or required to pay the charge will receive a special benefit because of the viability of the precinct as a commercial, retail and professional area will be enhanced through increased economic activity.

Any person may make a written submission to the Council under sections 163A and 223 of the Act. In addition, any person who will be required to pay the special charge to be imposed by the proposed declaration, whether an owner or an occupier of a property included in the scheme, has a right to object to the proposed declaration and may also make a written objection to Council under section 163B of the Act.

A total of eight submissions were received during the statutory exhibition period. It includes two objections, one submission seeking an exemption to the scheme and five letters in support of the proposed renewal of the scheme. Council is now required to consider and hear any submissions as a result of the statutory process and will be required to decide whether or not to proceed with the scheme at its meeting on 9 August 2017.


Recommendation


1. To note that ‘Notice of Intention to Declare a Combination Special Rate and Charge for the Coburg Shopping Precinct’ was published in the Moreland Leader newspaper on Monday 8 May 2017 and details included on Council’s website.

2. To note that the giving of public notice is pursuant to section 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and in accordance with Council’s resolution of 12 April 2017.

3. To receive the submissions, objections and letters of support in accordance with sections 163A, 163B and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.

4. That a report be prepared for Council’s consideration on 9 August 2017 regarding its intention whether or not to Declare a Combination Special Rate and Charge for the Coburg Shopping Precinct.

5. To notify the submitters in writing once a decision has been made by Council.


REPORT

1. Policy Context

In accordance with Council’s Special Rate and Charge Scheme Policy dated 14 October 2014, Council is committed to improving strip shopping centres in the municipality.

The Moreland City Council Plan 2013-2017 establishes the key strategic objectives for the municipality and recognises the importance of a vibrant economic development program that facilitates the development of the local economy and local employment opportunities.

Moreland’s Economic Development Strategy 2016-2021 recognises that it is important to ensure that activity centres are economically attractive. The strategy emphasises the importance of working with business associations to implement and oversee special rate schemes for marketing and promotion activity.

2. Background

On 20 June 2016, Council received a letter from the CTA, requesting the renewal of the Special Rate and Charge Scheme and is included in Attachment 1.

In declaring a scheme, Council must consider that:

The proposal relates to the performance of a function authorised under section 163(1) of the Act;

There will be a special benefit to those persons affected by and liable to pay; and

There is a reasonable and fair distribution of the charge amongst those persons liable to pay.

Council currently has two of these schemes in operation, including Sydney Road, Brunswick and the Coburg Shopping Precinct. Both these schemes incorporate the collection of compulsory funds from commercial properties within a defined geographic area, for the purpose of defraying promotional, advertising, marketing and business development expenses of the specified activity centre.

All rateable commercial properties within the scheme’s boundary are defined in the Public Notice of Intention to Declare and included in Attachment 2.

Council’s Revenue Services Branch collects the funds whilst compliance and reporting is managed by the Economic Development Branch. All funds collected are distributed to the relevant incorporated Business Association in accordance with a funding agreement.

Following agreement from the CTA to defer the commencement of the proposed scheme, its duration will be 4 years and 9 months, if declared. The proposed new scheme will commence on 1 October 2017 until 31 June 2022. The CTA has requested that the boundary for the proposed scheme remains effectively unchanged from the current scheme. A map of the proposed boundary is included in Attachment 3. A total of 287 properties are currently included within this area.

Properties exempt from paying the scheme include:

all residential properties within the proposed boundary;

Council owned properties;

properties on Crown Land; and

properties classified as being used for religious or community/not for profit purposes.


The CTA have proposed not to increase the amount to be collected by the scheme in the first year, however the amount to be collected will increase by 3% each following year for the life of the scheme.

The CTA have developed a Business Plan as shown in Attachment 4 to align with the proposed renewal of the scheme. Four goals form the framework will guide the actions of the CTA. They include:

Goal 1 - A collaborative approach by all key stakeholders to reach the vision for the Precinct.

Goal 2 - The businesses in the precinct will rebuild local resident loyalty and attract clientele from the broader community while celebrating the culture.

Goal 3 - The precinct will provide for customers to do all their shopping and business in one location.

Goal 4 - The precinct will fulfil the community and business operator’s aspirations of an attractive and inviting amenity.

3. Issues

During the exhibition period eight submissions were received. These are included in Attachment 5 and include two objections, one submission seeking an exception to the scheme and five letters in support of the proposed renewal of the scheme.

The following is a summary of the submissions received:

Objections and Submissions

Property address

Submitter type

Objection / submission

Summary of key issues Officer comments

Objections

1 330 Sydney Road, Coburg

Business Owner

Objection Business is going downhill and finds it difficult to pay outgoing costs

Lease requires tenant to pay levy

Council rates should be paid by landlord

Struggle to pay Council rates and extra charge

Quiet end of precinct with very little foot traffic.

Impossible for our customers to find parking when there is a function at the Vizzini Social Club on Sydney Road.

More vacant shops up for lease because of high rents and Council rates.

Council should consider reducing commercial property rate as businesses as struggling.

We want to remain in business and support our young family.

The revenue raised by the scheme for the Coburg Shopping Precinct is managed by the CTA to deliver precinct specific marketing, promotion and business development activities to benefit the properties within the defined area, specifically through enhanced visitation, trade amenity, vibrancy, market awareness and community engagement. Collectively, these benefits increase the desirability of the Coburg Shopping Precinct as a place to do business.

The objector is encouraged to connect with the CTA to discuss participation in the planning and selection of activities, joining the Committee and participating in determining the spending of the funds raised.



Property address

Submitter type



2.

338 Sydney Road, Coburg

Business Owner

Objection Business has been operating from current location since 2012

Challenge for business operation due to slow sales, increased overheads and feels that any additional costs will impact business

Would appreciate being well represented with the CTA’s through any print, social media, events and activities

Would like to know what other benefits are there for business?

The revenue raised by the scheme for the Coburg Shopping Precinct is managed by the CTA to deliver precinct specific marketing, promotion and business development activities to benefit the properties within the defined area, specifically through enhanced visitation, trade amenity, vibrancy, market awareness and community engagement. Collectively, these benefits increase the desirability of the Coburg Shopping Precinct as a place to do business.

The objector is encouraged to connect with the CTA to discuss participation in the planning and selection of activities, joining the Committee and participating in determining the spending of the funds raised.

The objector is encouraged to connect with the Economic Development Branch of Council to learn more about specific programs, training and initiatives to support the retail business.

Submissions seeking revision / exemption

3.


Club Committee

Submission / seeking exception

Registered ‘unprofitable organisation’ with no interest in the any promotional activities within the Coburg Shopping Precinct.

Our social activities are only for the exclusive benefit of club members

Seek exemption from special rate and charge levy.

This property currently pays Council rates and therefore would be required to pay the special charge levy. They will need to apply to Council through a separate process for the land to be non-rateable and therefore exempt from the levy.

Submissions of Support

4.

11 Munro Street, Coburg

Programs Coordinator

Submission of Support

The special rate has had a positive impact on our local businesses and been able to accomplish many positive results for the Centre.

Has allowed Committee to stimulate business and to make Coburg a better place for all to come and visit.

Organisation provides support and training to newly arrived and recently settled migrant communities, refugees and asylum seekers.

This was submitted in support of the renewal of the scheme.



Property address

Submitter type



Empowering local traders to become agents for change to help stimulate growth in their local precinct is not only critical but imperative.

The scheme and capacity for the CTA Committee to represent the interests of the local traders is a vital part of this process.

Fully support the proposed renewal and look forward to another five years of enjoying the benefits.

This property currently pays Council rates and therefore would be required to pay the special charge levy. However, they have informed Council that they are a registered charity (as of 3 December 2012) by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. They will need to apply to Council through a separate process for the land to be non-rateable and therefore exempt from the levy.

5.

Shop 24 / 471 Sydney Road, Coburg

Business owner


In business in Coburg for 31 years

Witnessed many changes and challenges.

In favour of continuance of special rate and charge.

Business needs to be involved in our destiny as a group rather than individual traders.

Traders association is the best body to advance business and as a result employment in the area by creating an environment conducive to customer activity.

Need this special rate or it would simply revert to being a hobby group with mixed results.


Initiatives for the Shopping Precinct are planned and coordinated through the CTA.

Funds collected by Council through the scheme are distributed to the CTA in quarterly instalments each year, in accordance with an approved Business Plan, annual Marketing Plan and funding agreement.

6.

2A Munro Street, Coburg

Business owner


Positive changes in Coburg over the last three years

Changes due to cooperation between Council and businesses in Coburg.

Many positive results have been accomplished.

Has allowed Committee to stimulate businesses and make Coburg a better place for all to come and visit, with bigger and better plans in the future.

Scheme has been instrumental in achieving great results for both business and larger community.

Fully support proposed renewal and look forward to another five years of enjoying the benefits.

This was submitted in support of the renewal of the Scheme.


Funds collected by Council through the scheme are distributed to the CTA in quarterly instalments each year, in accordance with an approved business plan, annual marketing plan and funding agreement.



Property address

Submitter type



7.


Business owner


In business in Coburg over the last three years and local residents.

Have seen many positive changes during that time.

Changes due to co-operation between Council and businesses in Coburg.

Committee has been able to stimulate businesses and to make Coburg a better place for all to come and visit. Scheme has been instrumental in achieving this.

Fully support renewal of scheme and look forward to another five years of enjoying the benefits.




8.

Unit 4 / 15 Munro Street, Coburg

Business owner


In business since 1996 and have seen many positive changes in the area.

Need to promote the area and rebuild retail presence of the shopping strip.

Scheme has accomplished many positive results for the Centre.

Allowed Committee to stimulate business and make Coburg a better place for all to come to and visit. The scheme has been instrumental in achieving this.

Fully support renewal of scheme and look forward to another five years of enjoying the benefits.





The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

4. Consultation

Council at its April 2017 meeting (DED27/17) resolved to commence the statutory process under the Local Government Act 1989 to renew a Special Rate and Charge Scheme for the Coburg Shopping Precinct.

A Public Notice of Intention to Declare a combination Special Rate and Charge for the Coburg Shopping Precinct was placed in the Moreland Leader newspaper on Monday 8 May 2017 and displayed in the Brunswick Town Hall and at the Coburg Council Offices. Information was placed on Council’s website.

Letters were sent to affected business owners and occupiers within the defined area and their estimated levy amounts.



Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.


As agreed with the CTA, it is proposed that the scheme will be in place for a period of 4 years, 9 months commencing 1 October 2017 and concluding on 30 June 2022.

During the period of the scheme, Council intends to levy the following amounts:

For the first nine months of the scheme (being for the period 1 October 2017 to 30 June 2018), a pro rata amount of $138,193.

For the second year of the scheme (being for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019), an amount of $190,308.

For the third year of the scheme (being for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020), an amount of $195,802 (being an amount which is based on a 3 percent increase on the amount levied in the immediate preceding year).

For the fourth year of the scheme (being for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021), an amount of $201,563 (being an amount based on a 3 percent increase on the amount levied in the immediate preceding year).

For the fifth year of the scheme (being for the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022), an amount of $207,450 (being an amount based on a 3 percent increase on the amount levied in the immediate preceding year).

For the total period of the scheme, a total amount of $933,316 will be levied.

Administration of the proposed scheme renewal takes place through Council collecting funds and then distributing them to the CTA in quarterly instalments each year to spend in accordance with an approved business plan, annual marketing plan and funding agreement.

The administration of the scheme requires dedicated Council Officer time and input from a number of internal Branches such as Revenue Services, Finance and Economic Development, and included in Economic Development’s base budget.

7. Implementation

A further report will be presented to Council at its meeting on 9 August 2017 for a final decision on the proposed Intention to Declare a Combination Special Rate and Charge for the Coburg Shopping Precinct. Letters will be sent to all affected property owners and occupiers of Council’s decision regarding the renewal of the scheme.

If declared, the scheme will commence on 1 October 2017.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Coburg Traders Association Letter D17/207814 2⇩ Public Notice of Intention to Declare a Special Rate and Charge for the

Coburg Shopping Precinct D17/207830

3⇩ Boundary Map - Proposed Scheme D17/207869 4⇩ Coburg Traders Association Business Plan D17/207882 5⇩ Submission letters D17/207887


DED52/17 44 PARKSTONE AVENUE, PASCOE VALE SOUTH, PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2017/1 (D17/161622)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks planning approval for the construction of four double storey dwellings. The application was advertised and 57 objections were received. The main issues raised in the objections relate to traffic, the demand for parking, neighbourhood character, overdevelopment, amenity impacts and the development creating a precedent.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 2 May 2017. No changes were made to the proposal following the meeting and the applicant has lodged an appeal with the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) against Council’s failure to determine the application within the 60 day statutory timeframe.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The key planning considerations are whether the design and extent of built form and open space is respectful of the existing neighbourhood character, in addition to whether any off-site amenity impacts are acceptable.

Subject to conditions in the recommendation, the building envelope will be respectful of the existing neighbourhood character and is responsive to its sensitive eastern interface through generous setbacks and provision of secluded private open space in this location. Furthermore, the dwellings are of a traditional design with pitched roofing, face brick and roof form at ground level to respond to the traditional dwelling styles of the neighbourhood.

The proposal raises no off-site amenity issues, achieving compliance with the relevant amenity standards and objectives of Rescode (Clause 55).

It is recommended that Council’s position at VCAT be that the application be supported subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation.

Recommendation


That Council’s position at VCAT be that application for Planning Permit No. MPS/2017/1 for the construction of four double storey dwellings at 44 Parkstone Avenue, Pascoe Vale South be supported subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development commences, 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised on 8 March 2017 but modified to show:

a) Reconfiguration of the northern half of the first floor of dwelling 2 to show the sitting room of dwelling 2 fronting Henley Street inclusive of a west facing window.

b) Reconfiguration of the southern half of the first floor of dwelling 3 to show the bedroom 3 fronting Henley Street inclusive of a west facing window.

c) The window form and location depicted on the layout plans to match the elevations.

d) Inclusion of a window/windows to the southern wall of dwelling 4’s bedroom 3.


e) The length of dwelling 1, 2 and 3 garages increased (or otherwise modified) to provide storage that is not over bonnet storage. There must be no decrease in the setback of the dwellings from the east boundary to achieve this.

f) The render at first floor replaced with horizontal timber weatherboards or weatherboard cladding.

g) A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours, including colour samples (3 copies in a form that can be endorsed and filed).

h) Sustainable design features including:

i. Alternative bicycle parking space per dwelling which is not mounted on the garage ceilings and in line with Bicycle Network’s Bicycle Parking Handbook and which are not located within the ‘clearance required’ areas in Diagram 1 of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.

ii. Any other modifications arising from the amended Sustainable Design Assessment (Condition 3).

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.

3. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction by the Responsible Authority. The amended SDA must be generally in accordance with the SDA received by Council on 3 January 2017 and include the following changes:

a) Consistency within the SDA so that the taps within the dwellings are 5 star WELS throughout the four dwellings.

b) An improved response to best practice energy performance objectives including an average NatHERS rating of 6.5 stars.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SDA and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in this condition, the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.

4. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment (SDA) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SDA may occur without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works must be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved and endorsed landscape drawing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Prior to the commencement of occupation or at a later date with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the owner must paid Council to remove and provide advanced replacement tree(s) in an appropriate location in a nature strip nearby in accordance with the Moreland Street Landscape Strategy for each street tree removed for the vehicle crossing, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan.

If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following:

a) For a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit for the development hereby approved; or

b) Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision.

When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.

8. Prior to the issuing of Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The garage doors to dwellings 1, 2 and 3 are not to be a single panel tilt door so that the tandem vehicles do not park further away, overhanging the public footpath contrary to Rule 197 of the Road Rules Victoria.

10. Prior to the occupation of the development the existing speed hump in Henley Street adjacent to the site is to be relocated approximately 2.0 metres to the south, at the applicant’s cost.

11. Prior to the occupation of the development, a vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

12. Prior to the occupation of the development, any existing vehicle crossing not to be used in this use or development must be removed and the kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

13. Prior to the occupation of the development, any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of a proposed vehicle crossing, including the 1 metre splays on the crossing, must be relocated or modified at the expense of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the relevant service authority.

14. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Note: Please contact Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

15. Prior to the commencement of the development, a legal point of discharge is to be obtained, and, where required, a stormwater drainage plan showing how the site will be drained from the property boundary to the stated point of discharge must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

16. The design of any structure to be sited within the front setback required to accommodate an electricity meter box must not be higher than 1.5 metres to minimise the visual impact on the streetscape and located to ensure there are no impacts on pedestrian safety and vehicle traffic to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


17. Prior to the occupation of the development, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Prior to the occupation of the development all telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land (including all existing and new buildings) must be underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

a) The development is not commenced within 2 years from the date of issue of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within 4 years from the date of issue of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or;

Within 6 months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date.

Within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.

Note 1: It may be necessary to obtain a building permit prior to the commencement of any demolition, building works or occupation of the building. It is strongly recommended that you consult with a registered building surveyor to advise on any requirements under the Building Act, the Building Regulations and any other subordinate legislation. Further information can be sought from the Victorian Building Authority, Phone 1300 815 127 or www.vba.vic.gov.au. Council's building services branch can also assist you in the provision of this service and can be contacted on 9240 1111 or http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/services/building-fr.htm.

Note 2: Further approvals are required from Council’s City Infrastructure Department who can be contacted on 8311 4300 for any works beyond the boundaries of the property. Planting and other vegetative works proposed on road reserves can be discussed with Council’s Open Space Unit on 8311 4300 (including payments in relation to tree removal and replacement).

Note 3: Council charges supervision (2.50%) and plan checking (0.75%) fees on the cost of constructing the drain along the easement or street as permitted by sections 5&6 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 2000.

Note 4: To arrange works to the speed hump, it will be necessary to contact Council’s Strategic Transport Department. Strategic Transport can be contacted on 9240 1155.

Note 5: Should Council impose car parking restrictions in this street, the owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council parking permits to allow for on street parking.

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

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/services/building-fr.htm


REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site is a corner site located on the north side of Parkstone Avenue and the east side of Henley Street. The site is a rectangular shaped lot with a splayed south-west corner, a frontage of 13.66 metres to Parkstone Avenue, a frontage of 36.57 metres to Henley Street and a total site area of 657.78 square metres. The site slopes down from the north-east to the south-west.

The site is currently occupied with a double storey dwelling constructed with bricks and a tiled hipped roof that is bordered by a brick fence with a varied height due to the slope of the land.

There are no restrictive covenants indicated on the Certificate of Title.

Surrounds

The site is located in a residential area predominately characterised by single detached dwellings that are either single or double storey in height. There a few sites in the vicinity that have been developed with multiple dwellings. These include 31, 33 and 35 The Boulevard.

To the north, 33 The Boulevard has been developed with a second single storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling. The rear dwelling has a direct interface with the subject site with the garage built to the shared boundary. Both dwellings are constructed with bricks (one with a rendered façade), tiled hipped roofs and include established landscaping and low front fencing.

To the east, the site is occupied with a single storey post war style dwelling constructed with bricks, hipped roofing and frontage that includes established landscaping bordered by a low brick fence

A location plan forms Attachment 1.

The proposal

The proposal is for the construction of four double storey dwellings, with one to front Parkstone Avenue and three to front Henley Street. Each dwelling includes the following:

Traditional living design with living spaces and recreational spaces at ground level;

Bedrooms on the first floor (dwellings 1 and 2 with two bedrooms, dwellings 3 and 4 with three bedrooms); and

Car parking for two cars for each dwelling, one within a single car garage and the other in tandem and that have direct access from either Parkstone Avenue or Henley Street.

The development plans form Attachment 2.


Statutory Controls – why is a planning permit required?

Control Permit requirement

Neighbourhood Residential Zone

A permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot. Pursuant to Clause 32.09-1 (NRZ) no permit is required to use land as a dwelling.

The following Particular Provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme are also relevant to the consideration of the proposal:

Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Plan Overlay

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

2. Internal/External Consultation

Public notification

Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land; and

By placing two signs on site, one along the site’s Parkstone Avenue frontage and the other along the site’s Henley Street frontage.

At the time of writing this report, Council has received 57 objections (6 proforma). A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1.

The key issues raised in objections are:

Overdevelopment, inappropriate density and site coverage

Not respectful of the neighbourhood character

Little contribution to low density green leafy landscape

Off-site amenity impacts (overlooking, noise, overshadowing and privacy)

Traffic, parking, access and safety impact

Insufficient on-site parking

Exceeds and creates precedent for the area

Devaluation of properties

Raise property prices so only developers can afford

Impact on infrastructure

Impacts during construction.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 2 May 2017 attended by Cr Martin, Council Planning Officers, the applicant and approximately 20 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond. Additional concerns raised at the meeting related to the impact on waste collection, the on-site car parking arrangements and the additional traffic resulting from the Morris Reserve redevelopment.

At the meeting the applicant was asked to consider reducing the number of dwellings, however they have not made any changes to the proposal following the meeting.


Internal/external referrals

No statutory referrals to external agencies were required. The proposal was referred to the following internal business units:

Internal Branch/Business Unit

Comments

Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch- Transport Department

No objections were offered to the proposal, subject to modifications, which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation, including modifications to the speed hump, garage doors, storage and bike parking.

City Strategy and Design -Environmental Sustainable Development Unit

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to increasing the NatHERS average rating and providing an alternative bicycle storage arrangement in line with Bicycle Victoria’s Bicycle Parking Handbook.

Open Space Design and Development Unit

No objections were offered to the proposal, including the removal of either street tree located along the Parkstone Avenue and Henley Street frontage. The support was subject to all costs, including the tree amenity value, to be paid by the applicant.

3. Policy Implications

State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

The following State Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

Clause 9 Plan Melbourne

Clause 11.02 Urban Growth

Clause 11.06-2 Housing Choice

Clause 13 Environment

Clause 15.01 Urban Environment

Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development

Clause 16.01 Residential Development

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

Municipal Strategic Statement:

Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile

Clause 21.02 Vision

Clause 21.03-3 Housing

Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design

Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy)

Local Planning Policies:

Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character

Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access

Clause 22.08 Environmental Sustainable Development


The MSS envisages minimal housing growth in areas outside of Activity Centres within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), to ensure an ongoing supply of single dwellings and low density multi-dwelling developments. The proposal is considered to be consistent with State policy to provide housing in established urban areas. Subject to conditions included in the recommendation, the proposal is considered an acceptable outcome that respects the existing character and contributes to an open, landscaped character, consistent with local planning policy. This is discussed further in Section 4 of this report.

Planning scheme amendments

Planning scheme amendment VC110 was gazetted on 27 March 2017. This amendment implemented the State Government's response to the recommendations of the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee by amending Clause 72 to introduce a new general term, ‘garden area’ and amending the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, General Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Mixed Use Zone and Township Zone.

The amendment to the residential zones included the removal of the maximum dwelling numbers within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, applied new height requirements within the zones and included additional requirement relating to the amount of garden space required for residential developments in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and General Residential Zone. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone includes transitional provisions, which means that this application which was lodged before 27 March 2017 does not need to meet the height and garden area provisions of the zone. It is noted that the height does not exceed 9 metres and the amount of garden area is less than the required 35% of the lot at approximately 33%.


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

4. Issues

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, objections received and the merits of the application.

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area?

The proposal is an acceptable response to Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) of the Moreland Planning Scheme as follows:

The amount of secluded private open space for all dwellings is in excess of Clause 55 standards.

A detailed landscape plan identifies adequate space within the front setback and secluded private open spaces of each dwelling for meaningful landscaping, including canopy trees to contribute to a green landscape character.

The footprint of dwellings 2, 3 and 4 is similar to the footprint of the existing double storey dwelling on the subject site.

The double storey elements located adjacent to the rear yard of 42 Parkstone Avenue are articulated and orientated towards the centre of the site, with the open spaces positioned along the eastern interface to provide space for screen planting to minimise the dwellings bulk when viewed from the adjoining open space.


The addition of a crossover to the Parkstone Avenue frontage is consistent with the pattern of development and crossover character of Parkstone Avenue. There is no increase in the number of crossovers along the Henley Street frontage. The two crossovers are to be repositioned to provide vehicle access to dwellings 1, 2 and 3. Garages are setback from the facades of the dwellings.

The face brick, roof form at ground level and pitched roofing are design elements that directly respond to the traditional streetscape of the area. It is considered that the layout of the dwellings results in non-habitable room windows and blank walls to the streets. Conditions are included in the recommendation to improve this aspect of the design detail.

Has adequate car parking been provided?

The proposal includes two 2 bedroom dwellings and two 3 bedroom dwellings. However, due to the size and closed nature of dwelling 2’s ‘sitting room’, this room is considered a third bedroom. As such a total of 7 spaces are required for the dwellings. The development provides 8 on-site spaces, two for each dwelling. The proposed development satisfies the Moreland Planning Scheme with respect to the provision of car parking.

Concern was raised at the consultation meeting regarding the on-site car parking being provided in the form of the single garages and tandem car spaces. The planning scheme provides for this car parking format and the dimensions of the spaces meets Clause 52.06 (Car parking).

The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed by Council on the street. This is included as a note in the recommendation.

Vehicles, whether related to this or other developments in the street, can only park on the street in accordance with any parking regulations. The number of vehicles that can park on the street and at what time will be dictated by any parking restrictions and the availability of on-street car spaces. It is expected that the level of parking provided on site will cater for car ownership levels of the occupiers.

What impact does the proposal have on car congestion and traffic in the local area?

A traffic count survey conducted along Henley Street in 2016 identified traffic volumes and speed to be low, showing the average traffic volume as approximately 500 vehicles per day and average speeds less than 40km/hr. In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in 15 additional vehicle movements per day on Henley Street and/or Parkstone Avenue. This remains within both streets design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems.

What impact does the proposal have on cycling, bike paths and pedestrian safety, amenity and access in the surrounding area?

The proposal provides an acceptable response to Council’s Local Planning Policy Clause 22.03 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) as it:

Limits the number of vehicle crossings to one along the Parkstone Avenue frontage.

There is no increase to the number of vehicle crossings along Henley Street.

Whilst there is a loss in one on street car space along Henley Street, the proposal provides an additional on-site car space to dwelling 1.

Two bicycle spaces per dwelling is provided.


The useability of the garages of dwellings 1, 2 and 3 however are compromised with the inclusion of above bonnet storage and ceiling mounted bicycle storage devices. This design provides obstructions that hinder the ease of car parking and provides storage and bicycle storage arrangement that is not easily accessible. Modifications to the layout that uses wall mounted bike storage and relocates the storage to an alternative location within the buildings footprint will provide a more useable garage and storage arrangement. This change is consistent with advice received from both Council’s Transport Development and Environmental Sustainable Development Units and is included as conditions in the recommendation.

Does the proposal incorporate adequate Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) features?

ESD features of the development are considered to be adequate and include:

Double glazing to all living and bedroom windows.

3000L underground rainwater tank for stormwater harvesting for flushing and reduction to the potable water consumption by 29%.

Two secure bicycle spaces per dwelling.

Conditions included in the recommendation ensures Clause 22.08 of the Moreland Planning Scheme will be satisfied.

Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55?

A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives at Clause 55 has been undertaken. The proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

Front setback

The site to the east also fronts Parkstone Avenue and has a front setback of 7.34 metres. As such the proposed 6.26 metre front setback of dwelling 4 does not achieve the minimum front setback to comply with Standard B6. Nevertheless, the 6.26 metres front setback is similar to the front setback of the dwelling currently on the site and other dwellings on Parkstone Avenue which have setbacks of less than 7 metres. At first floor, with the exception of the bedroom 2 wall, the front setback requirement is met. This varied setback ensures the front setback of the dwelling from Parkstone Avenue is respectful of the existing neighbourhood character and makes efficient use of the site to achieve the objective of Clause 55.03-1.

Daylight to existing windows and secluded private open spaces.

The location of the proposed buildings and open spaces, and design of the upper storey elements ensures that the adjacent habitable room windows and secluded private open spaces continue to receive adequate daylight and sunlight access to ensure their useability and amenity is maintained. The relevant Rescode standards are met.

Privacy/overlooking

Clause 55 does not aim to eliminate all overlooking, but rather seeks to prevent unreasonable overlooking. All first floor east facing habitable room windows are either highlight windows or include obscure glazing to 1.7m above the finished floor height to limit views into the adjacent habitable spaces and achieve compliance with both the overlooking standard B22 and objective of Clause 55.04-6.


Design detail

The dwellings include a traditional form with pitched roofing and roof form at ground that is respectful of the area. However, modifications to the design detailing of the dwelling’s first floor will provide a better response to the existing character of the area. This includes replacing the render with weatherboard cladding, larger window forms within dwelling 2 and 3’s first floor façade and adding an additional window to dwelling 4’s façade. These changes are included as conditions in the recommendation.

5. Response to Objector Concerns

The following issues raised by objectors are addressed in Section 4 of this report:

Not respectful of the neighbourhood character

Little contribution to low density green leafy landscape

Off-site amenity impacts (overlooking, privacy and overshadowing)

Insufficient on-site parking.

Other issues raised by objectors are addressed below.

Noise associated with dwellings

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the dwellings after occupancy. The consideration of this planning application is confined only to the construction of the dwellings. The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in an urban setting. Any future issues of noise disturbance, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.

Overdevelopment

The proposal is highly compliant with Rescode, demonstrating that it is not an overdevelopment.

No demand for medium density in the area

The Victorian planning system does not enable Council to determine a planning permit application based on an assessment of demand. Whether or not a demand exists is not a relevant consideration on which Council can base a decision to either approve or refuse an application.


An objector concern was the impact of the dwellings on infrastructure, particularly increased pressure on the sewerage and drainage infrastructure. The site owner will be required to address infrastructure servicing demands of the additional dwellings as required by the various service agencies at the time of subdivision or connection of the development, including any service authorities requirements to contribute to the cost of upgrading trunk infrastructure.

Property values

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and its predecessors have generally found claims that a proposal will reduce property values are difficult, if not impossible, to gauge and of no assistance to the determination of a planning permit application. It is considered the impacts of a proposal are best assessed through an assessment of the amenity implications rather than any impact upon property values. This report provides a detailed assessment of the amenity impact of this proposal.


Precedent

Future planning permit applications on this site or neighbouring and nearby land will be assessed against relevant planning policy and site conditions, based on their own merits at the time of assessment.

The possibility of setting an undesirable precedent cannot be substantiated and is not a relevant planning consideration.

Construction issues

Noise and amenity impacts during the construction process are not generally a planning matter. The Environmental Protection Act 1970 (s.48A(3)), provides noise control guidelines for commercial construction sites which set working hours and noise management expectations. Council’s General Local Law 2007 also includes provisions regarding control of noise associated with commercial and industrial building work.

Concern has been raised in relation to potential closure of roads and footpaths during construction. Such closures are not a planning consideration. Closure or occupation of public spaces requires a Public Occupation Permit under Council’s General Local Law 2007. Council’s Environmental and Civic Assets Local Law 2006 requires an Asset Protection Permit to be obtained to ensure infrastructure assets within the road reserve are protected or repaired if damaged.

A range of other approvals are required from Council’s City Infrastructure Department related to construction impact on public space. Consideration of such closure and notice as required is undertaken through these processes.

Garbage collection accessibility

Objectors have raised concerns regarding difficulty for garbage trucks accessing the streets. The development will have no impact on the way in which garbage trucks use the surrounding streets. The development will not result in an excessive number of bins placed on the street for collection..

Morris Reserve re-development

Council resolved the West Coburg and Pascoe Vale South Precinct Needs Analysis (2011) that identified the need for master planning of Morris Reserve in conjunction with the West Coburg Sports Club and other stakeholders. A Draft Morris Reserve Master Plan endorsed by Council on 8 February 2017 (DSD3/17) is currently on public consultation. Part of the consideration of the Masterplan will be the likely traffic impacts on the surrounding street network and is a separate matter to this application.


Council officers involved in the preparation of this report do not have a conflict of interest in this matter.


Nil.


8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposal includes a building envelope that is respectful of the existing neighbourhood character through a design that includes the provision of generous eastern side setbacks, the inclusion of breaks in the upper levels and which locates the secluded private open spaces adjacent to the sensitive spaces located to the east. Furthermore, the dwellings are of a traditional design with pitched roofing, face brick and roof form at ground level to respond to the traditional dwelling styles of the neighbourhood.

The proposal raises no off site amenity issues, achieving compliance with the relevant amenity standards and objectives of Clause 55.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Council’s position at VCAT be that the application be supported subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Objector Location Map - 44 Parkstone Avenue, Pascoe Vale South D17/205247 2⇩ Plans - 44 Parkstone Avenue, Pascoe Vale South D17/174983


DED53/17 1-7 COYNE STREET, FAWKNER PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/533 (D17/169692)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for the construction of eight double storey dwellings and a reduction of the visitor car parking requirement (one space). The application was advertised and 28 objections were received from 21 individual properties. The main issues raised in objections are traffic and parking and neighbourhood character concerns, specifically which the development is contrary to the Madina Village Design Guidelines, which apply to the site and the estate it is located in.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 30 May 2017, and was attended by Cr Irfanli, 2 Council Planning Officers, the permit applicant and approximately nine objectors. No changes were made to the proposal following the meeting.


The key planning considerations are:

Neighbourhood character

Provision of adequate car parking

Appropriateness of the development having regard to the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The proposal has strong strategic support given its double storey form and location within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The proposal provides 16 onsite resident car parking spaces accessed from the rear laneway, which meets the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. A reduction of one visitor car parking space is considered acceptable, given parking availability in the immediate area.

The site is affected by the Environmental Significance Overlay, Schedule 1 (ESO1). ESO1 seeks to restore and revitalise the Merri Creek and adjoining parkland. The application was advertised to Melbourne Water and the Merri Creek Management Committee, neither of whom objected to the application.

The proposal has a high level of compliance with the standards and objectives as detailed in Clause 55 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal.

Recommendation


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2016/533 be issued for construction of 8 double storey dwellings and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement at 1-7 Coyne Street, Fawkner subject to the following conditions:

Amended plans

1. Before the development commences, 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 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 advertised (noted as 10 (rev. C), 11 (rev. C), 50 (rev. C), 51 (rev. B) and 60 (rev. B) received by Council on 16 March 2017 and prepared by desypher) but modified to show:


a) The front fence facing Coyne Street deleted.

b) A typical internal elevation of the side fences separating the front gardens of each dwelling, with the height and materials to be in accordance with the Restrictive Covenant PS614132K.

c) The side fencing around the perimeter of the site noted as being Colorbond ‘Summershade’ infill panels and Colorbond ‘Teatree’ Frames (or equivalent) in accordance with Restrictive Covenant PS614132K.

d) At least one bicycle parking space/device provided in each garage in accordance with Diagram 1 of Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

e) An internal elevation depicting the east elevation of dwelling 4 and the west elevation of dwelling 5.

f) In conjunction with Condition 1(e), the first floor east facing habitable room windows to dwelling 4, the first floor west facing windows to dwelling 5 and the first floor east facing habitable room windows to dwelling 8 shown as being highlight windows, with a sill height not less than 1.7 metres above finished floor level or with fixed and obscure glazing to any part of the window with a sill height less than 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

g) The storage sheds to dwellings 1, 5 and 8 to have a floor area of not less than 3.2 square metres, with an overall storage area not less than 6 cubic metres.

h) Any practical changes required by condition 4 of this permit (environmentally sustainable design).

i) The garage doors noted as being remotely controlled, as required by condition 7 of this permit.

j) Lighting along the sites’ western boundary, as required by condition 9 of this permit.

k) A waste bin storage area for each dwelling, either to the side of the dwelling or in the rear courtyard.

l) The location of all electricity, gas and water meters. All service meters must be integrated into the development, and must not be grouped or stacked in the front setback.

m) The location of any air-conditioning units and other plant equipment, including any screening. Any such units should not be visible from the street.

n) A screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:50 that details the louvre screening associated with all first floor balconies (north elevation). This diagram must:

i. Be drawn to scale and fully dimensioned.

ii. Clearly delineate any solid parts of the screen and any louvre or batten parts of the screen.

iii. Ensure a reasonable outlook for future residents by illustrating the width and thickness of each louvre or batten, the spacing between each louvre or batten and a section detail from behind the screen demonstrating that oblique (side) and downward views are precluded, while allowing outlook horizontally and upward from the balcony.

iv. Clearly show how compliance is achieved with Standard 22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55.04-6.

o) Improved shading provided to North facing habitable room windows, in accordance with the submitted BESS Report. Shading devices should be designed to block peak summer radiation. A diagram must be submitted, showing a typical shading device.

p) A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours, including colour samples (2 copies in a form that can be endorsed and filed).


Secondary consent


Landscaping

3. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works must be completed in accordance with the approved and endorsed landscape drawing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The areas designated as landscaped areas on the endorsed landscape plan must thereafter be maintained and used for that purpose.

Environmentally Sustainable Development

4. Prior to the endorsement of plans under condition 1 of this permit, an amended Sustainable Design Assessment (BESS and STORM reports) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The amended BESS report must pass all mandatory categories, demonstrate best practice environmentally sustainable design and address the following areas assessed to require amendment:

a) Water efficiency targets increased to 3/4/5 Star WELS for showers/toilets/taps respectively; and

b) The STORM report to include all impervious surfaces on site.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SDA and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

5. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Design Assessment report may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Development contributions

6. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Levy amount for the development is $1,139.77 per dwelling. In accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, these amounts will be indexed annually on 1 July.


For a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit for the development hereby approved; or:

a) Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision.

b) When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.


General

7. Prior to the occupation of the development, the garage doors must be automatic and remote controlled.


9. Before the occupation of the development, lighting no higher than 1.2 metres above ground level is to be installed and maintained on the land to automatically illuminate the rear laneway between dusk and dawn with no direct light emitted onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

11. Stormwater from the land must not be directed to the surface of the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Time limit

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



The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:



Notes: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this notice of decision/permit or conditions of this notice of decision/permit.



REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site consists of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20 on Plan of Subdivision PS614132K, and is commonly known as 1, 3, 5 and 7 Coyne Street, Fawkner. The site is located on the north side of Coyne Street, between Madina Street to the west and Sahara Way to the east. The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to Coyne Street of 51.77 metres and a depth of up to 31 metres, providing an overall site area of 1,585 square metres.

The site is currently vacant, with no built form or vegetation. There are four juvenile street trees along the Coyne Street boundary, and a further three semi-mature street trees along the Madina Street boundary.

Restrictive Covenant PS614132K, registered on 23 February 2009, includes a number of conditions for development. Further, the Titles have an agreement, pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, registered on 13 October 2008. Agreement AG137048H includes a number of conditions for development.

An assessment against the restrictions of the Restrictive Covenant and Section 173 Agreement can be found at Attachment 1.

Surrounds

The surrounding area is characterised by residential uses on lots ranging in size from 330 to 915 square metres. The surrounding area was subdivided in 2008, with the area informally known as the Madina Village. The Madina Village is characterised by mainly single and double storey dwellings, with various contemporary architectural styles.

Of the 50 lots within Madina Village, 42 have been developed with one dwelling, 3 have been developed with multiple dwellings while 5 lots (including the subject site) are vacant. A location plan forms Attachment 2.

The proposal

The proposal is summarised as follows:

Construction of eight double storey dwellings.

Each of the dwellings would have a study/home office, bathroom and open plan living/dining/kitchen area at ground floor, with three bedrooms and two bathrooms at first floor.

The dwellings would each have a double carport at the rear, accessed via a laneway.

The dwellings would have a height of 6.175 metres above natural ground level, with the roof form taking the overall height to 7.9 metres.

The dwellings would be finished using a variety of materials, including face brickwork and render at ground floor and timber cladding and render at first floor. The roof forms would be mainly flat, with a clerestory ‘pop-up’ window finished using colourbond roofing.


Planning Permit and site history

Planning Permit SP/2006/195 was issued on 23 November 2007, and allowed the subdivision of the land at 11-23 Lorne Street into 50 lots, creating Madina Street, Coyne Street and Sahara Way. The area has been progressively developed over the past nine years, with this application completing development on all but 1 lot within Madina Village.



Control Permit Requirement

Neighbourhood Residential Zone

A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot, pursuant to Clause 32.09-6.

Note: Dwelling is a Section 1 use in the zone, meaning that a permit is not required for the use.

Environmental Significance Overlay

A permit is required to construct a building greater than 6 metres in height, pursuant to part 3.0 of Schedule 1 to Clause 42.01 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Particular Provisions A permit is required to reduce the visitor car parking requirement (one visitor car parking space), pursuant to Clause 52.06-3 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The following is also relevant to the consideration of the proposal:

Clause 55 (2 or more dwellings on a lot and Residential buildings)

Clause 45.06 (Development Contribution Plan Overlay)

A condition is included in the recommendation which requires the payment of a Development Contribution Plan Levy prior to the issue of a Building Permit.

Aboriginal Heritage

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 provide for the protection of Aboriginal places, objects and human remains in Victoria.

The site is close to a waterway (Merri Creek), and is affected by one or more areas of cultural heritage sensitivity. Section 8A and 8B of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 exempt the construction of three or more dwellings from the requirement to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP), if the site is less than 0.11 hectares. As each individual lot is less than 0.11 hectares, and the site is not within 200 metres of either the coast or the Murray River, the applicant is not required to prepare a CHMP in this instance.


Public Notification


Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land (45 letters); and

By placing three signs on the site, one facing Coyne Street, one facing Madina Street and one facing the rear laneway.

Further, the Environmental Significance Overlay requires (as appropriate) that views be sought from the Merri Creek Management Committee and Melbourne Water. Neither the Merri Creek Management Committee nor Melbourne Water provided any comment on the proposal.

Council has received 28 objections from 21 individual properties. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 2.



Neighbourhood character;

Provision of adequate car parking, including the ability for the roadways in the village to cope with an increase in traffic;

Removal of vegetation;

Overlooking;

Overshadowing;

Contrary to the Madina Village Design Guidelines; and

Appropriateness of the development having regard to the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 30 May 2017, and was attended by Cr Ali Irfanli, 2 Council Planning Officers, the permit applicant and approximately nine objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.


The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal branches/business units:


Comments

Strategic Transport and Compliance

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation.

Further, advice sought confirmed support for reducing the visitor parking requirement, due to on-street parking being available in close proximity to the site.

Environmentally Sustainable Design Unit

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modification, which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation.




Clause 9: Plan Melbourne



Clause 12.04 Significant environments and landscapes



Clause 16.01 Residential development






Clause 21.02 Vision




Clause 21.03-6 Open Space Network




Clause 22.08 Environmentally Sustainable Design

Planning Scheme Amendments

Amendment VC110 – Amendment to the Residential Zones

Amendment VC110 was gazetted on 27 March 2017, in response to the recommendations of the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee. The Amendment changed the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and all planning schemes by amending the Mixed Use Zone, Township Zone, Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Specific to this application, the Amendment introduced a maximum mandatory height limit of 9 metres and 2 storeys in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, with transitional provisions applying for applications lodged prior to the gazette date of the Amendment. It is noted that the development proposes a maximum height of 2 storeys/7.9 metres, less than the maximum mandatory height limit specified.

The Amendment also introduced a minimum garden area requirement for lots over 400 square metres, with transitional provisions applying for applications lodged prior to the gazette date of the Amendment. The combined area of the site is 1585 square metres, meaning that if the new provisions applied, 35% of the site would need to be garden area. While the new provisions do not apply, it is noted that approximately 37% of the site is garden area, which exceeds the requirement of the new provision.




4. Issues


Does planning strategy support this development in this location?

The MSS envisages minimal housing growth in areas outside of Activity Centres within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), to ensure an ongoing supply of single dwellings and low density multi-dwelling developments. The purpose of the NRZ, as recently amended by VC110 is to:

manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

The proposal is considered to appropriately respect the existing character and contribute to an open, landscaped character, as detailed in Section 4 of this report.


The proposal is an acceptable response to Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The proposal responds positively to Council’s Neighbourhood Character policy by:

Proposing a maximum double storey form, generally consistent with the height of contemporary development in the immediate area.

Proposing a contemporary built form, which is consistent with the scale, siting and appearance of built form in the immediate area.

Providing a rear yard between the dwellings and their respective carport, ensuring a corridor of open space is maintained for the proposed dwellings and the adjacent dwellings along Coyne, Madina and Lorne Streets and Sahara Way.

Providing sufficient space in the front setback of each dwelling for a small sized canopy tree, and sufficient space in the secluded private open space of each dwelling for a small sized canopy tree, with the width of these areas exceeding the minimum width of 1.8 metres required by the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

Providing habitable room windows facing Coyne Street at both ground and first floors, which maximise opportunities for casual surveillance.

Locating all car parking to the rear of the site, with access from the laneway, ensuring that car parking is not a dominate feature within the streetscape. In addition, locating car parking at the rear allows for the retention of seven established street trees, which allows the development to integrate into the surrounding streetscape.

The proposal is considered an acceptable response to Council’s Neighbourhood Character policy.



The Moreland Planning Scheme requires a total of 16 spaces for the residents plus one visitor space. The development provides 16 on-site spaces for the residents, being two per dwelling.

The proposal seeks a reduction of one visitor parking space. This is acceptable, as there is unrestricted car parking available on the south side of Coyne Street, and unrestricted car parking available on surroundings streets, including Madina Street, Lorne Street and Sahara Way. Further, it is a requirement of the Restrictive Covenant that affects Madina Village that all dwellings provide at least two on site car parking spaces per dwelling, leaving on street car parking available for visitors.

Finally, the dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed by Council on the street. This is included as a note in the recommendation.


In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in 48 additional vehicle movements per day on Madina Street. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems.

In terms of the wider area, a traffic count was undertaken on Lorne Street in mid-2016, between Lesleigh Street and McBryde Street, which showed an average 1,247 vehicles per day. A similar count was undertaken on McBryde Street in late-2016, between Lorne Street and Argyle Street, which showed an average 738 vehicles per day. Traffic counts show both Lorne and McBryde Streets operating within their preferred maximum capacity – of 7,000 average daily vehicles.



Utilises the rear laneway for vehicle access to allow street frontages to prioritise pedestrian movement and safety and to create active frontages.

Does not propose any vehicle access from either Coyne Street or Madina Street, limiting the removal of on-street public parking spaces, removal of street trees and encroachment into landscaped front setbacks.

Provides one bicycle spaces per dwelling, providing alternative transport options for future occupants, including the Merri Creek Trail, directly adjacent the village, which links to the Capital City Trail to the south and the Western Ring Road Trail to the north.



water efficient appliances (showers, toilets and taps) for each dwelling;

shading for all north, east and west facing windows, to prevent peak summer cooling loads;

north facing living areas and areas for secluded private open space; and

bicycle parking for each dwelling, providing an alternative transport mode for future occupants.

Subject to conditions in the recommendation, the proposal will satisfy Council’s local ESD Policy (Clause 22.08).


Is the proposal accessible to people with limited mobility?

Objective 9 of Clause 21.03-3 (Housing) is to increase the supply of housing that is visitable and adaptable to meet the needs of different sectors of the community. While the development would be double storey, the main living area, kitchen and a room that could be used as a bedroom would be at ground floor, thus being accessible to people with limited mobility. The width of the staircases would also allow a stairlift to be retrofitted at a later stage, if required. Given the size of the development proposed, these initiatives are considered an acceptable response to Clause 21.03-3.


A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. The proposed development complies with the standards and objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

Overshadowing

Clause 55.04-5 (Overshadowing) of the Moreland Planning Scheme aims to ensure that new buildings do not significantly overshadow existing Secluded Private Open Space (SPOS). As the dwellings would be constructed with a north-south orientation, they would not cast any additional shadow on any adjacent areas of SPOS. As the dwellings would be set back from all boundaries, any new shadow cast would fall either on the road, on adjacent roof form or within existing shadows cast by fences.

Privacy/overlooking

Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme does not aim to eliminate all overlooking, but rather seeks to prevent unreasonable overlooking. Up to 9 metres is the standard accepted by state-wide provisions as being a reasonable distance where screening is required to minimise overlooking. There are ground floor habitable room windows along the western boundary of 9 Coyne Street, with the upper level windows of dwelling 8 having views into those windows. In addition, there would be views possible from the upper level bedrooms of each dwelling into the Secluded Private Open Space of neighbouring dwellings.

Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure full compliance with the relevant standards of Clause 55 to ensure there is no unreasonable overlooking.

Front fences

Clause 55.06-2 (Front fences) of the Moreland Planning Scheme encourages front fence designs that respect the existing neighbourhood character. The proposal is for a 1.2 metre high timber sleeper front fence. As Restrictive Covenant PS614132K states that ‘front fences are not permitted except for lots facing Lorne Street’, no other lot within the village has a front fence. A condition is included in the recommendation to require the deletion of the front fence.

Does the proposal result in excessive loss of trees and habitat?

The Landscaping Objective of Clause 55 requires consideration to be given to the retention of existing trees and protection of any predominant landscape features of the neighbourhood. The site is vacant, with no significant vegetation. A condition contained in the recommendation requires the submitted landscape plan to be endorsed as part of the planning permit, with landscaping to be thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.


Does the proposal adequately respond to the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO)?

One of the purposes of the ESO is:

to ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.

Schedule 1 to the ESO relates to the significance of the Merri Creek and its Environs, noting that:

the creek has a unique role to play in the preservation of threatened flora and fauna and the maintenance of vegetation communities that have almost been totally destroyed in other places.

ESO1 seeks to protect the natural system, waterway function, recreation use, landscape character and heritage of the Merri Creek. The construction of eight double storey dwellings would have no impact on these important aspects of the Merri Creek, given the dwellings would be located in the middle of an already developed residential area, which is void of any significant vegetation. The construction of dwellings would assist with improving the health of the creek, through the required water sensitive urban design features and through the planting of appropriate landscaping on vacant land.


The following issues raised by objectors are discussed in section 4 of this report:

Neighbourhood Character;

Removal of vegetation;

Overlooking; and

Overshadowing.


Car parking and ability for the roadways in the village to cope with an increase in traffic

Concerns have been raised regarding the provision of adequate car parking and if the roads in the Madina Village would be able to cope with an increase in traffic. As discussed at Section 4 of this report, the development would provide an appropriate number of onsite car parking spaces for the future needs of residents.

In terms of the roadways, in September 2016 Council received a request from several residents of Coyne Street for ‘No Standing’ parking restrictions to be introduced on one side of Coyne Street. As per Council policy, surrounding residents were surveyed, with the majority in support of the proposed parking restrictions. ‘No Standing’ parking restrictions have since been installed on the north side of Coyne Street, between Madina Street and Sahara Way. This enables vehicles to park on the south side of Coyne Street, with adequate space for vehicles to travel in both directions, as well as adequate room for Council’s waste collection vehicles to navigate the road.


Madina Village Design Guidelines

Several objectors raised non-compliance with the Madina Village Design Guidelines. Restrictive Covenant PS614132K states:

that no construction is to be commenced on a lot without obtaining prior written design approval based on Madina Village Design Guidelines from Kingit Pty Ltd or its appointed agent for this purpose.

Council has been forwarded a copy of a letter from the Director of Kingit Pty Ltd, who states that

I am supportive of the design style as being consistent with that proposed for the Madina Village project” and “the dwellings proposed are in my view high quality in design and only contribute to the diversity of housing styles and types in Madina Village precinct.

Council officers are therefore satisfied that this aspect of the Restrictive Covenant has been complied with. It is noted that the Madina Village Design Guidelines are not referenced in any part of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

An assessment against the restrictions of the Restrictive Covenant and Section 173 Agreement can be found at Attachment 1.

Appropriateness of the development having regard to the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

The purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is:

to recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development and to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

The proposed development is double storey, in an area of predominately single and double storey development. The development employs relatively contemporary architecture, which is not uncommon within Madina Village. The development is considered appropriate, having regard to the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.




Nil.

8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed construction of eight double storey dwellings and a reduction of one visitor car parking spaces is considered acceptable.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2016/533 should be issued for construction of 8 double storey dwellings and a reduction in the visitor car parking requirement subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Assessment against Guidelines Restrictive Covenant PS614132K - MPS/2016/533

D17/173328

2⇩ Objector Map - 1-7 Coyne Street, Fawkner - MPS/2016/533 D17/173330 3⇩ Advertised Plans - 1-7 Coyne Street, Fawkner - MPS/2016/533 D17/173331


DED54/17 32 SUSSEX STREET, PASCOE VALE SOUTH - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2017/17 (D17/130443)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for the use and development of the land for a restaurant; a reduction of the standard car parking and loading bay requirements and the display of signage. The application was advertised and 19 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections relate to traffic and car parking, operating hours, the impacts to the local community from patron behaviour, and the general use of the premises as a restaurant.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on Monday 18 April 2017. All objectors were invited to attend this meeting. No changes have been made to the proposal following the meeting although the applicant advised that they would accept conditions regarding rubbish collection times in response to concerns raised by objectors.


The key planning considerations are the appropriateness of the use of the land for a restaurant and the reduction in car parking requirements.

Subject to conditions which restrict patron numbers and the hours of operation for the restaurant, it is considered that the proposal will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.


Recommendation


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2017/17 be issued for the use and development of the land for a restaurant and a reduction to the standard car parking and loading requirements and the display of signage at 32 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale South, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the use and development commences, 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (advertised 7 February 2017) but modified to show:

a) External outdoor lights outdoor lights deleted from the proposed Francis Street (southern) elevation of the building.

b) One bicycle parking device provided in front of the site on Sussex Street to Council’s standards.

c) The bin storage area located inside the building.

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.01, 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.

3. The maximum number of patrons permitted on the premises must not exceed 20.


4. Prior to the commencement of the use one bicycle parking device capable of accommodating two bicycles must be provided in front of the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Waste collection from the site must only occur between 6 am and 8 pm Monday to Saturday.

6. The use allowed by this permit must operate only between the hours of:

Tuesday to Wednesday 5 pm to 9 pm

Thursday to Saturday 12 pm to 10 pm

7. Noise levels associated with the use must at all times comply with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of noise from commerce, industry and trade) No. N-1. Should the Responsible Authority deem it necessary, the owner and/or occupier of the land must submit an Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority which demonstrates compliance, or which outlines any measures considered necessary to achieve compliance. The recommendations of the Acoustic Report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The endorsed plans must be amended to accord with the recommendations contained in the Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The restaurant must not be used for live music and no music other than of a type and volume appropriate to background music may be emitted from external speakers in the courtyard. Background music is defined as any music played at a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voice to a substantial degree. It is not background music if it is played at a level which requires patrons to shout, or use a stage voice such as that used by an actor in the theatre, in order to carry out a conversation at such a distance.

9. The location, dimensions, shape and associated structures of every sign must accord with the endorsed plans and must not be altered, unless with the consent of the Responsible Authority.

10. Every sign on the land must be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. The sign(s) approved by this permit must not be animated or contain any flashing light.

12. No part of the sign(s) approved by this permit must be internally or externally illuminated.

13. The approval for signage under this permit expires 15 years from the date of issue, at which time the sign and all supporting structures must be removed and the site made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.




c) The use is not commenced within 4 years from the date of issue of this permit.





Note 1: It may be necessary to obtain a building permit prior to the commencement of any demolition, building works or occupation of the building. It is strongly recommended that you consult with a registered building surveyor to advise on any requirements under the Building Act 1993, the Building Regulations and any other subordinate legislation. Further information can be sought from the Victorian Building Authority, Phone 1300 815 127 or www.vba.vic.gov.au. Council's building services branch can also assist you in the provision of this service and can be contacted on 9240 1111 or http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/services/building-fr.htm.

Note 2: 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 in writing from the Responsible Authority.

Note 3: The permit holder must contact Council’s Transport Projects Officer (7240 1294) to organise the installation of the bike parking facility.

Note 4: The applicable flood level for this property that has a probability of occurrence of 1% in any one year is 61.01 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

Note 5: If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s requirements contact the Customer and Planning Services team on 9697 7517 quoting Melbourne Water’s Reference MWA-1012999.




REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site is located on the north-east corner of Sussex and Francis Streets. The site has a frontage width of 13.3 metres, a depth of 23.88 metres and a site area of 291 square metres. Existing buildings on the site include two shop tenancies facing Sussex Street and a single storey attached weatherboard dwelling to the rear facing Francis Street. The dwelling is the only building on the site that has on site car parking with vehicle access for one car space along the northern boundary of the site. The proposed building to be used for the restaurant has a floor area of approximately 84 square metres.


Surrounds

The subject site and surrounding land is located within a General Residential Zone. The site is surrounded by residential development characterised by predominantly single storey residential dwellings.

The ‘Coburg Village’ shopping centre is located approximately 600 metres to the north of the site and Bell Street is located approximately 400 metres to the south of the site.


The proposal


The proposed restaurant will comprise a maximum of 20 seats. The internal layout of the premises includes a kitchen along the eastern wall of the premises, with the proposed seating in the remainder of the building.

Proposed hours of operation are:

Tuesday to Thursday: 5 pm – 10 pm

Friday, Saturday and Sunday: 12 pm – 10 pm.

Up to 4 staff will work at any one time.

Only background music is proposed to be played within the premises.

Minor buildings and works are proposed for the existing premises which includes:

A new window along the southern wall.

An area for waste bins behind the restaurant near its north-east corner.

Two new entry doors facing Sussex Street.

A business identification sign is proposed on the southern wall of the building.

No car parking is provided on site.


Planning permit and site history

Planning permit MPS/2001/0713 was issued for an attic style dwelling at the rear of an existing dwelling.

The permit was issued on 6 December 2001. This dwelling has been constructed and subdivided from the subject site.

Over a long period of time the frontage of the site has been used for various office and retail functions. Most recently the site has been used as an office but is currently vacant.




General Residential Zone

Clause 32.08-2. A planning permit is required to use the land for the purpose of a restaurant.

Clause 32.08-8. A planning permit is required for buildings and works in association with a Section 2 Use

Overlays Clause 44.05-1 The site is affected by the Special Building Overlay. Buildings and works require a permit under the overlay. The applicant provided a letter from Melbourne Water which outlines that they do not object to the application subject to notes being included on any permit issued.

Particular Provisions Clause 52.05-9. A planning permit is required to display business identification signage. Pursuant to Clause 32.08-11 the site is subject to Category 3-high amenity areas (medium limitation).

Clause 52.06. A permit is required to waive the car parking requirement of 8 spaces given that no car parking can be provided on site.

Clause 52.07. A permit is required to waive the loading bay requirement.

Other relevant provisions

Clause 45.06 - Development Contributions Plan Overlay. As there is no increase in the leasable floor area, a DCP levy will not be required to be paid.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities.


Public notification


Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land by placing two signs on the site, one facing Sussex Street and the other facing Francis Street.

Council has received 19 objections to date. A map identifying the location of objectors is included as Attachment 3.


Use is not appropriate in a residential zone.

Additional parking and traffic problems will result in the area.

Operating hours of concern to the amenity of the area with possible noise issues associated with music and anti-social behaviour.

Concern about onsite rubbish management.

Concern about deliveries to the site without a loading bay.

Concern about light spill from the premises in the evening.


A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 18 April 2017 and attended by two Council Planning Officers, the applicant and 11 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application and for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns. Additional concerns raised at the meeting included:

No smoking area for patrons.

Site will be used for take-away food.

At the meeting the applicant advised that they would accept a condition with respect to waste collection times occurring during normal business hours.


The proposal was referred to the following internal branches/business units


Comments

Strategic Transport and Compliance - Transport Development

No objections were offered to the proposal including the reduction of car parking, subject to modifications which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation.




Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 17 Economic Development




Clause 21.02-2 Sustainable Neighbourhoods.



Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character.

Clause 22.02 Discretionary Uses in Residential Zones.

Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access.

Clause 22.04 Advertising Signs.

While not located within an activity centre, the subject land is located on a main road and in a building previously used for non-residential purposes. The proposed use responds well to Council’s discretionary uses policy and the non-provision of car parking is considered appropriate given the scale of the use. The proposal is consistent with the relevant State and Local planning policy. This is discussed in more detail in section 4 of the report.

Planning scheme amendments

There are no current amendments that are relevant to this application.




4. Issues


Restaurant in a General Residential Zone

The subject site is located within a General Residential Zone. The purpose of the zone seeks to:

Encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

Allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

In response to the above zone purposes it is considered that the proposed buildings and works are respectful to the existing fabric of the building and will not significantly change its appearance.

By virtue of its small scale and hours of operation, it is reasonable to conclude that the use will primarily serve the local community. Council’s Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy (Clause 22.02) has also been considered in respect to the location of the proposed use.

The proposed use meets the preferred location as it is located on a site that was previously used for non-residential purposes. In addition the site is located on a local arterial road, consistent with policy to locate non-residential uses on main roads. Other decision guidelines in respect to noise and hours of operation are manageable through conditions of permit. Car parking and traffic generation are considered acceptable given the small scale of the use. These matters are considered in more detail below. The site is an appropriate location with respect to the purpose of the zone and the requirements of Clause 22.02.

Impact on residential amenity

Concern has been expressed by the objectors in respect to the proposed hours of operation, noise and light spill. It is noted that the use as proposed will not operate beyond 10 pm, which means that the use will not operate during the sensitive ‘night period’ (as defined by the EPA). However given the largely residential context it is considered appropriate to limit the hours of operation on Tuesday and Wednesday to 9 pm.

It is not anticipated that the use will result in anti–social behaviour. The sale and consumption of liquor is not proposed and the small scale of the use will mean that large numbers of patrons will not be congregating on nearby streets. The restaurant is limited to 20 patrons and only background music is proposed. It is noted that noises relating to plant and equipment generated by the proposed use are controlled by State Environmental Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No.N-1 (SEPP N-1). Conditions are included in the recommendation to limit the operation of the use in these ways to ensure off-site amenity impacts are minimised.

Although a new window is proposed on the Francis Street elevation of the building, it is not expected that excessively bright lighting will be used in the restaurant. There are streetlights at the intersection and the use will cease at 9 pm Tuesday and Wednesday and 10 pm Thursday to Sunday. All of these factors mean that it is unlikely that light spill will cause any off-site amenity impacts.


Has adequate car and bicycle parking been provided?

A total of 8 car parking spaces are required for the restaurant use. In this instance the site does not have the capacity for any onsite car parking.

A Traffic Impact Assessment that has been submitted with the application. Car parking surveys were carried out as part of the report. In summary, the surveys taken on Wednesday 14 December, 2016 between 6pm and 9pm and Saturday 17 December between 12 pm and 9 pm showed that from a supply of 140 spaces within approximately 200 metres from the site, there was always at least 58 spaces unoccupied.

Council’s Development Advisor (Engineer) has reviewed the report and has not raised any concerns with the conclusions of the report.

The decision guidelines of Clause 52.06-6 have also been considered with respect to reduced car parking requirements. The above evidence suggests that there is adequate on street parking available for the proposed use. On this basis it is considered that a reduction of car parking spaces (to zero) is appropriate in this instance.

In respect to Clause 52.34 the proposed use generates a requirement for two bicycle parks. A condition is included on the recommendation requiring a bicycle hoop on the Sussex Street footpath in front of the site.

As outlined earlier in this report the small scale of the restaurant means that it will mostly serve the local community who are more likely to walk or cycle to the premises. Combined with an adequate supply of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site, the car parking reduction is considered appropriate.

Are adequate loading/unloading facilities provided?

The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 52.07 (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The applicant has indicated supplies will only be delivered to the site once a week by a small commercial vehicle. In this instance it is considered appropriate to waive the requirement for a loading bay as deliveries can occur from the street.


In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the use will remain within the design capacity of surrounding streets and is not expected to cause traffic problems. Objectors raised concerns regarding existing issues with vehicle movements along narrow side streets.

Particular concern was expressed about cars parking in Francis Street and the problems that it creates given the width of Francis Street. The main problems relate to the damage of vehicle and safety concerns of families in the street.

Information from the traffic report submitted with the application suggests that during the evening peak the proposed use will generate a maximum of 5 trips to and 5 trips from the site. This level of traffic activity is anticipated to have little, if any impact on the safety and operation of Sussex Street or the surrounding network.

Council will also be undertaking line-marking of on-street car parking in front of 38 Sussex Street to address a resident’s concern about car parking over driveways.

There are currently no parking restrictions on Sussex Street or the side streets. At this stage it is not proposed to include any parking restrictions in the area, however if the local residents thinks that it is appropriate there is a process within Council for the consideration of such a request.


Is the proposed signage appropriate?

A planning permit is required for the proposed business identification signage under Clause 52.05 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The proposed sign with an area of 1.95 square metres is located on the Francis Street elevation and will be illuminated externally.

The proposed sign has been considered against the decision guidelines of Clause 52.05 and the local policy for Advertising Signs at Clause 22.04 of the Scheme.

With respect to signs in Residential Areas it is policy to:

Ensure that signs are modest in scale and are sensitive to the residential character and amenity of the area.

Discourage promotion, above-verandah, sky, high wall, reflective, pole and illuminated signs.

Limit signs for non-residential uses to one business identification sign per premises.

Given the size of the proposed sign it is considered appropriate for the location. It complies with policy for a sign in a residential area. A condition is included in the recommendation to require the external illumination to be removed.



The proposed use is not appropriate in a residential zone.

Additional parking and traffic problems will result in the area.

Proposed operating hours of concern to the amenity of the area with possible noise associated music and anti-social behaviour.

Concern about deliveries to the site without a loading bay.

Concern about light spill.


Concern about onsite rubbish management

A rubbish store is proposed to the rear of the building behind a gate accessed from Francis Street. Further discussion has occurred with the applicant about relocating the rubbish bin facilities within the building. This will avoid noise impacts after the restaurant closes when rubbish is put into bins at the end of the day. In addition, a condition is included in the recommendation to require the times for collection of rubbish to be consistent with Council’s General Local Law.

Concern about light spill from the premises in the evening

A condition is included in the recommendation to require the removal of the outdoor lights proposed to be attached the southern wall of the building.

Smoking

The business will be required to operate in accordance with Tobacco Act 1987. Given the small scale of the restaurant, the restricted hours and the location on a main road, patrons leaving the premises to smoke is not expected to cause unreasonable amenity impacts.

Take-away food

The definition of a restaurant does not provide for the preparation of food for consumption off the premises. The restaurant could undertake some takeaway sales as an ancillary component of the restaurant without requiring further planning approval.





Nil.

8. Conclusion

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2017/17 should be issued for use and development of the land for a restaurant and a reduction to the standard car parking and loading requirements and the display of signage subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Location Plan - 32 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale South D17/193395 2⇩ Advertised Plans - 32 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale South D17/206518 3⇩ Objector Map - 32 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale South D17/193397


DED55/17 1 FRITH STREET, BRUNSWICK PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/929 (D17/176981)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for the Brunswick Yard Food Truck Park – being the development (including partial demolition) and use of the site as part convenience restaurant and part tavern (food truck park), the sale and consumption of liquor (on-premises consumption only), a reduction of car parking, a reduction of the loading bay requirement and construction and display of signage. The application was advertised and 15 objections were received from 12 individual properties. The main issues raised in objections are patron/music noise and traffic and parking concerns.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 2 May 2017 and attended by two Council Planning Officers, the applicant and approximately five objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond. Following this meeting, the applicant agreed to a number of changes, by way of permit condition, should a permit be granted. These changes include additional acoustic screening along the north, south and west boundary and a reduction in patron numbers after 10 pm.



Appropriateness of the use, having regard to the Mixed Use Zone and the objectives contained in the Brunswick Structure Plan;

Whether the adverse amenity impacts can be appropriately mitigated, having regard to the surrounding context, including the inclusion of the site in the Brunswick Major Activity Centre; and

Whether a reduction in the standard car parking requirement is acceptable.

The proposal would activate an underutilised site within an activity centre, and would provide a form of entertainment not seen anywhere else in the City of Moreland. The use would provide a variety of food options, and would provide space for smaller start-ups to test their product with few overheads.

While a licensed venue in an area which already suffers from the adverse impacts of the sale and consumption of liquor, the proposed use would primarily be the sale of food, with liquor a secondary function. A food venue of this size would provide an alternative option to socialising at a venue which primarily serves liquor.

Subject to appropriate acoustic mitigation and patron management measures, to protect the amenity of surrounding residents, the use is considered an acceptable outcome for the site and wider activity centre.



Recommendation


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2016/929 be issued for the development (including partial demolition) and use of the site as part convenience restaurant and part tavern (food truck park), the sale and consumption of liquor (on-premises consumption only), a reduction of car parking, a reduction of the loading bay requirement and construction and display of signage at 1 Frith Street, Brunswick, subject to the following conditions:

Amended plans required

1. Before the use and/or development commences, 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised (referred to as TP1.01, TP1.02, TP1.03, TP2.01, TP2.02, TP2.03, TP2.04 and TP3.01 prepared by Siren Design (Plot Date 8 December 2016) and received by Council on 13 February 2017) but modified to show:

a) The accessible car parking space to have total dimensions of 5.4m x 4.8m as required by AS/NZS 2890.6.

b) at least 20% of the bicycle parking devices designed to park bicycles horizontally (ie 1.7m long) in accordance with the Australian Standard for Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3).

c) A ‘queueing area’ on the subject site, with provision for at least 50 patrons to queue within the title boundary.

d) A community garden within the front setback, with a note on all relevant plans that the community garden is to be accessible by members of the public during operating hours.

e) Any modifications arising from the amended Patron Management Plan (Condition 3) of this permit.

f) Any modifications arising from the amended Sustainable Design Assessment (Condition 4) of this permit.

g) Any modifications arising from the required Landscape Plan (Condition 6) of this permit.

h) Any modifications arising from the amended Waste Management Plan (Condition 13) of this permit.

i) Any modifications arising from the amended Litter Management Plan (Condition 14) of this permit.

j) Any additional acoustic measures recommended by the amended acoustic report (Condition 22) of this permit.

k) The location and specifications of lighting, as required by Condition 27 of this permit.

l) A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours, including colour samples (2 copies in a form that can be endorsed and filed).

Compliance with endorsed plans

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.01, 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.


Revised patron management plan

3. Before the endorsement of plans, a revised Patron Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority which must provide for the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) Revised operating hours, as per conditions 17, 18 and 19 of this permit.

b) On Friday and Saturday nights, and on the day before a public holiday, from 5 pm until closing:

i. An attendant or doorman responsible for monitoring the number of patrons on the premises;

ii. The keeping of a register recording the number of patrons on the premises each hour; and

iii. A commitment to providing registered crowd controllers licensed under the Private Security Act 2004 at a ratio of 2 crowd controllers for the first 100 patrons and 1 crowd controller for each 100 additional patrons or part thereof.

c) On Friday and Saturday nights, and on the day before a public holiday, from 10 pm until closing:

i. The Frith Street entrance is to be closed (except for emergency purposes), with the rear laneway used for access and egress;

ii. A crowd controller is to be stationed at the Frith Street entrance, directing those wanting to leave or enter the premises to the rear entrance;

iii. At least two licensed crowd controllers are to be permanently stationed in the rear laneway. These crowd controllers are to be responsible for directing patrons to/from Sydney Road via the laneway in between 418 and 420 Sydney Road, providing directions to public transport, taxi ranks, and nearby public car parks; and

iv. At least one of the crowd controllers required by Condition 3(c)(iii) is to be stationed at the rear entrance/exit and at least one crowd controller required by Condition 3(c)(iii) is to be responsible for patrolling the laneway, between the rear entrance/exit and to a point where a visual connection to Sydney Road is made.

d) Signage is to be installed in a prominent location (minimum A3 size) on both the Frith Street and rear laneway entrance/exit, directing patrons using both text and a map, in accordance with the requirements of condition 3(c) above.

e) Except for between 10:00 pm and closing on Friday and Saturday nights, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the entrance/exit to the rear laneway is not to be used (except for emergency purposes) by any patron.

f) CCTV cameras:

i. to be fitted and recording for a minimum of 30 minutes before and 60 minutes after an attendant or doorman is on the premises;

ii. to specify their locations within the venue, with all public areas (excluding toilets) and the rear laneway to be captured by cameras and recording;

iii. that all footage is to be stored and viewable by authorised persons for a minimum of 1 month; and

iv. to conform with any requirement of Part 3 of the Liquor Control Reform Regulations 2009.


g) The measures to be taken by management and staff to ensure that patrons queuing to enter the premises in an orderly manner and confirm that no queuing is to take place on the footpath and how this is to be managed.

h) The measures to be taken by management and staff to ensure patrons depart the premises and the surrounding area in an orderly manner.

i) The measures to be taken by management and staff to ensure that patrons do not cause nuisance or annoyance to persons beyond the land.

j) A telephone number provided to surrounding residents to contact the premises and linked to the complaints register.

k) The maintenance of a complaints register/book, which must, on reasonable request, be made available for inspection by the Responsible Authority, Victoria Police, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) and other similar authorities.

Once submitted and approved, the Patron Management Plan must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Amended Sustainability Management Plan

4. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction by the Responsible Authority. The amended SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP dated December 2016 prepared by ‘Hip v. Hype’ and include the following changes:

a) A STORM report/MUSIC model which demonstrates on site best practice stormwater management, including:

i. Pervious and impervious areas which are consistent with pervious and impervious areas identified on the development plans.

ii. All pervious and impervious areas are accounted for.

iii. Credited stormwater treatments which can be realistically achieved as per the development plans, including rainwater tank sizes based on the roof areas and location of the rain water tanks, and raingardens to be approximately 2% of their catchment area.

iv. Rainwater harvesting tanks are explored as the first stormwater treatment option.

v. Any raingarden included has a minimum total area of 1.0sqm.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SMP and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.


Implementation of Sustainable Design Assessment

5. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment (SDA) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SDA may occur without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.


Landscape plan required

6. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

a) Identification of any existing tree(s) and vegetation on site proposed to be removed and retained, including the tree protection zone(s).

b) A schedule of all proposed trees (including indicative locations of trees in pots), shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland Landscape Guidelines 2009.

c) The provision of a vine/creeper, designed to soften the appearance of the canopy structure.

Landscaping: general maintenance

7. Prior to the commencement of the use, all landscaping works must be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved and endorsed landscape drawing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Protection of trees during construction

8. Prior to development commencing (including any demolition, excavations, tree removal, delivery of building/construction materials and/or temporary buildings), the trees within the front setback marked on the endorsed plans as being retained must have a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fencing associated with this TPZ must meet the following requirements:

a) Extent - the tree protection fencing (TPF) is to be provided to the extent of the TPZ, calculated as being a radius of 12 x Diameter at Breast Height (DBH – measured at 1.4 metres above ground level as defined by the Australian Standard AS 4970.2009). If works are shown on any endorsed plan of this permit within the confines of the calculated TPZ, then the TPF must be taken in to only the minimum amount necessary to allow the works to be completed.

b) Fencing - the TPF must be erected to form a visual and physical barrier, be a minimum height of 1.5 metres above ground level and of chain mesh or similar material. A top line of high visibility plastic tape must be erected around the perimeter of the fence.

c) Signage - fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TPF clearly stating ‘Tree Protection Zone – No Entry’, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The area within the TPZ and TPF must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1cm of trunk girth measured at the soil/trunk interface on a weekly basis.

10. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, all services (including water, electricity, gas and telephone) must be installed underground, and located outside of any TPZ, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Should temporary access be necessary within the Tree Protection Zone during the period of construction, a qualified Arborist (or similar) must be informed prior to relocating the fence, with any measures recommended by the Arborist to maintain the health of the trees implemented. A written record of measures must be kept and made available to the Responsible Authority upon request.


Development contributions

12. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy is charged per 100 square metres of leasable floor space.


A maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit; or

Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision.


Waste management plan

13. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must include, but not limited to the following:

a) A description of ease of disposal for patrons that does not disadvantage recycling;

b) Confirmation that educational material will be displayed in prominent locations explaining what material can be recycled;

c) Calculations showing the amount of garbage and recycling expected to be generated;

d) The size of bins, frequency of collection and hours of collection, noting that collection must take place in accordance with the hours specified in the Moreland City Council Local Law 2007;

e) Include a plan showing the location of the bin storage area on the site and details of screening from public view;

f) Include a dimensioned plan showing the storage area is sufficient to store the required number of bins in a manner that allows easy access to every bin;

g) Detail the ease of taking the fully loaded waste bins to the point of waste collection;

h) State where and when the bins will be placed for waste collection;

i) Confirm that the bins will be removed from the street promptly after collection; and

j) Include a plan showing where the waste trucks will stop to service the waste bins and state whether No Parking restrictions will be required for the waste trucks to access that space (eg 6 am-midday, Wednesday).

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Waste Management Plan and associated notated plans will form part of this permit.


Litter management plan

14. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Litter Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plan must show:

a) Signage within the premise and adjacent to both the front and rear entry/exit reminding patrons that littering is an offence and all rubbish should be disposed of thoughtfully.

b) The conduct of a litter patrol to be undertaken at least twice a day, once at the start of operating and once within one hour of closing. The litter patrol must collect all litter emanating from the site at the following locations.

i. Both sides of Frith Street, between Lobb and Albert Streets;

ii. Both sides of McIver Street;

iii. Both sides of Albert Street, between Sydney Road and Eva Buhlert Close;

iv. The laneway, which runs along the sites southern boundary; and

v. The laneway, which runs along the sites western boundary and connects with Sydney Road to the north-east.

c) The Litter Management Plan must be displayed in a prominent staff only location, such as the staff amenities area and/or the bar back of house area.

Compliance with waste and litter management plan

15. The Waste and Litter Management Plans approved under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

Remediation works plan

16. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Remediation Works Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Remediation Works Plan is to be prepared having regarding to the preliminary site investigation report (referred to as that report prepared by Environmental Earth Sciences, report number 216100V1 dated November 2016). The Remediation Works Plans is to recommend measures to identify and dispose of any contaminated soil and/or material to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and in accordance with any legislative requirements. The owner/operator must comply with the Remediation Works Plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Hours of operation - patrons

17. The use allowed by this permit must operate only between the following hours:

Front bicycle store

Monday to Sunday 7.30 am to 6 pm

Internal trading area

Monday and Tuesday Closed

Wednesday and Thursday 5 pm to 10 pm

Friday 5 pm to 12 am

Saturday 12 pm to 12 am

Sunday 12 pm to 10 pm

Public holidays 12 pm to 10 pm

Day before public holidays 12 pm to 12 am

External trading area

Monday and Tuesday Closed

Wednesday and Thursday 12 pm to 9.30 pm

Friday and Saturday 12 pm to 10 pm

Sunday 12 pm to 9.30 pm

Public holidays 12 pm to 9.30 pm

Day before Public Holidays 12 pm to 10 pm

Hours of operation - employees

18. In conjunction with those hours specified at condition 17 (excluding the hours specified for the Bicycle Store), employees, including food truck and food stall operators, may occupy the site 2 hours prior and 1 hour after the times specified to allow for cleaning, set up and re-stocking.

19. Except for emergency purposes or where the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority has been obtained, employees must not be on site at any other times except for those times specified in conditions 17 and 18.

Patron numbers

20. The maximum number of patrons permitted on the premises must not exceed;

a) 12 pm to 10 pm - 450.

b) 10 pm to close – 180.

Background music outdoors only

21. The courtyard/outdoor area must not be used for live music and no music other than of a type and volume appropriate to background music may be emitted from external speakers in the courtyard. Background music is defined as any music played at a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voice to a substantial degree. It is not background music if it is played at a level which requires patrons to shout, or use a stage voice such as that used by an actor in the theatre, in order to carry out a conversation at such a distance.


Acoustic report - pre commencement

22. Before the endorsement of plans, an amended Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the report will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The report must be generally in accordance with the report advertised (referred to as that report prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists (ref 30U-16-0170-DRP-485005-6) dated 9 February 2017 and received by Council on 13 February 2017) but modified to provide recommendations regarding:

a) Acoustic treatment to the southern side of the canopy and to the gap between the southern edge of the canopy and the food stalls to minimise noise travelling into the rear yards of 247, 249, 251, 253, 255, 257 and 259 Albert Street, Brunswick.

b) Any additional measures deemed appropriate to acoustically treat the existing building, to minimise noise travelling beyond the site boundaries.

c) The appropriate maximum height and setback of the acoustic wall along the sites southern boundary, including any landscaping buffer, to minimise noise travelling into the rear yards of 247, 249, 251, 253, 255, 257 and 259 Albert Street, Brunswick.

d) The appropriate maximum height of the acoustic wall along the sites northern boundary, to minimise noise travelling north and east.

e) The appropriate way to acoustically treat the front portico/setback area, to limit noise travelling from the site into the habitable rooms of those dwellings at 2, 4, 6 and 8 Frith Street.

Acoustic report - post commencement

23. Within 3 months of the use commencing, acoustic testing is to be carried out to ascertain whether the use complies with the maximum noise levels prescribed by SEPP N-1 and N-2. The testing is to be carried out by an independent acoustician who is not affiliated with the author of the original acoustic report submitted with the application. If the testing reveals that the use does not meet the specified maximum noise levels the buildings and works must be modified to make the use compliant with those levels. After any modifications have been made further acoustic testing must be carried out to ascertain whether the use complies with the prescribed noise levels. All acoustic testing is to be carried out during a busy period. The results of testing are to be provided to the Responsible Authority and made available to the public. For the purpose of this condition ‘busy period’ means when the premises (including the outdoor areas) are at 80% capacity (or greater). All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Implementation of acoustic report

24. Construction and maintenance of the buildings must be in accordance with the recommendations contained within the approved Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Acoustic Report endorsed under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

SEPP N-1

25. Noise levels associated with the use must at all times comply with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of noise from commerce, industry and trade) No. N-1. Should the Responsible Authority deem it necessary, the owner and/or occupier of the land must submit an Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority which demonstrates compliance, or which outlines any measures considered necessary to achieve compliance. The recommendations of the Acoustic Report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The endorsed plans must be amended to accord with the recommendations contained


in the Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

SEPP N-2

26. Noise levels associated with the use must at all times comply with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2. Should the Responsible Authority deem it necessary, the owner and/or occupier of the land must submit an Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to demonstrate compliance, or which outlines any measures considered necessary to achieve compliance. The recommendations of the Acoustic Report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The endorsed plans must be amended to accord with the recommendations contained in the Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Lighting

27. Before the occupation of the development, lighting must be installed on the subject site, designed to illuminate the rear laneway between the rear of 398 and 418 Sydney Road. The lighting must be designed so that no direct light is emitted onto any adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The lighting must:

a) Have a timer switch fitted so that it automatically turns on at sunset and off 30 minutes after closing.

b) At all times, have a switch located at the rear entry/exit of the site which, for the purposes of staff leaving the site, illuminates the laneway for a period of not less than 5 minutes and not more than 10 minutes.

Loading bay

28. The area marked as a loading bay on the endorsed plan must not be used for any other purpose.

Boundary walls

29. Prior to the occupation of the development, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Bottle disposal

30. Bottles must be bagged during operation times and must not be emptied into the refuse bins after 9 pm or before 9 am Monday to Sunday, except with further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Quiet and orderly exit of patrons

31. Before the use commences, signs must be erected near the entrance/exit and in the toilets requesting that patrons leave the site in a quiet and orderly manner so as not to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighbourhood to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Collection of stormwater


Discharge of stormwater

33. Stormwater from the land must not be directed to the surface of the right-of-way. The stormwater run-off from the accessway must not flow out of the property over the public footpath to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Conditions relating to signage

34. The location, dimensions, shape and associated structures of every sign must accord with the endorsed plans and must not be altered, unless with the consent of the Responsible Authority.

35. Every sign on the land must be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

36. The signs approved by this permit must not be animated or contain any flashing light.

37. The signs approved by this permit must only be illuminated from sunset to 10 pm, and must not be illuminated at all unless the business is operating.

38. Approval for the signs is granted only in conjunction with the use of the land as part Convenience Restaurant and part Tavern. Should that use cease for a period of more than 60 continuous days, the signs and all supporting structures must be removed and the site made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

39. The portion of this permit relating to signage expires 15 years from the date of issue, at which time the signs and all supporting structures must be removed and the site made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Time limit - use and development




c) The use is not commenced within 4 years from the date of issue of this permit.




Notes: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this notice of decision/permit or conditions of this notice of decision/permit.

Building Permit Required

It may be necessary to obtain a building permit prior to the commencement of any demolition, building works or occupation of the building. It is strongly recommended that you consult with a registered building surveyor to advise on any requirements under the Building Act, the Building Regulations and any other subordinate legislation. Further information can be sought from the Victorian Building Authority, Phone 1300 815 127 or www.vba.vic.gov.au. Council's building services branch can also assist you in the provision of this service and can be contacted on 9240 1111 or http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/services/building-fr.htm.

Health/food registration required

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 in writing from the Responsible Authority.

No signs

Unless no permit is required under the Moreland Planning Scheme, no sign, other than those shown on the endorsed plan(s), must be constructed or displayed on the land without first obtaining a planning permit.




Parking permit

Should Council impose car parking restrictions in this street, the owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council parking permits to allow for on street parking.

Building over easements

This permit for the development of the land includes the construction of buildings and works over or in close proximity of an easement. It is the responsibility of the owner, through the services of the relevant building surveyor, to determine any necessary consent(s) from all those parties who may have a legal right over the easement and from any other appropriate authority to whom the easement may be vested in.

The provisions of Regulation 310 of the Building Regulations 2006 states that the consent and report of a service authority is required to construct a building over an easement vested in that service authority.

Reference is drawn to the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Subdivision Act 1988. This section states that person(s) entitled to use the easement are not required to repair damage to buildings or works constructed or located within the easement that may be altered or removed for the execution of the works so as to interfere with the exercising of the rights conferred by the easement if reasonable care is taken in gaining access to and using the easement.

This planning permit does not provide the consent from Council, service authorities or other persons or bodies for the construction of the building and works over the easement within the property.

Tobacco Act

This planning permit does not imply consent of Council for any requirements not complying with Tobacco (Amendment) Act 2005.

DCP note

This permit contains a condition requiring payment of Development Contributions. The applicable development contribution levies are indexed annually. To calculate the approximate once off levy amount, please visit http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/ and click on ‘Moreland Development Contributions Plan (DCP)’. Alternatively, please contact Moreland City Council on 9240 1111 and ask to speak to the DCP Officer.

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/


http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/moreland-development-contributions-plan-dcp/


REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site, being Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 339360D is located at 1 Frith Street, Brunswick. The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to Frith Street of 32.81 metres and a depth of 65.82 metres, providing an overall site area of 2,160 square metres. The site contains a corrugated iron building, which occupies approximately 370 square metres (17% of the site), with the majority of the site paved with concrete and used informally for storage and car parking. There are a number of smaller outbuildings located to the rear and side of the site.

The site has a chain mesh fence with barbed wire on top, approximately 2.5 metres in height, along all four boundaries. The site has access to Frith Street to the east, with secondary access to a laneway which runs along the sites western and southern boundary. The laneway connects the site with Sydney Road, with the laneway running in a north-south direction, before performing a ‘dog-leg’ 10 metres north of the site, then continuing in an east-west direction, running in between the NAB Branch (418 Sydney Road) and The Penny Black (420 Sydney Road).


Surrounds

The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses.

To the north of the site is the Brunswick Telstra Telephone Exchange, a double storey brick building built partially to the front property boundary and partially with a setback providing car parking. That site was constructed in the late 19th Century, and has heritage protection through a Heritage Overlay.

To the east of the site are four lots, three of which are occupied with single storey Victorian-era cottages, with the remaining lot being vacant.

To the south of the site are the rear of seven lots which face Albert Street. Four of those lots are developed with single storey Victorian-era cottages, with the remaining three lots developed with double storey buildings used for commercial purposes, including the Pallaconian Brotherhood.

To the west of the site are several lots which front Sydney Road, with the majority of those lots developed with single or double storey buildings of the Victorian or early Edwardian-era. Uses fronting Sydney Road are predominately commercial, including NAB Brunswick Branch, Gurkhas Brunswick and the Brunswick Mess Hall.

In the wider area, there are a number of light industrial uses on Frith Street, Lobb Street and McIver Street, commercial uses dominate Sydney Road, while residential uses are most common south of Albert Street.

An aerial image/location plan forms Attachment 1.


The proposal


Demolition

Partial demolition of the existing building onsite, including demolition of all outbuilding at the rear of the site and partial demolition of the front and side chain mesh fence.

Buildings and works

Construction of a 3 metre high wire front fence with a minimum 50% transparency.

Construction of a shipping container and associated deck and canopy to the south of the existing building. The Shipping Container would measure approximately 5 metres in width by 12 metres long, with a maximum height of 3 metres above ground level. The shipping container would be used as a Good Cycles Bicycle Service Centre, which is proposed to promote cycling to/from the site and would be ancillary to the primary use of the site.

Construction of an amenities block to the south of the existing building. The amenities block would measure 10.6 metres (L) x 12.5 metres (W) x 4.28m (H).

Construction of a fixed food stall building abutting the sites southern boundary. Food stall building would measure 24.42 metres (L) x 4.6 metres (W) x 3 metres (H).

Construction of a canopy over an outdoor seating area at the rear of the existing building. The canopy would measure approximately 22 metres (L) x 17.3 metres (W) with a height ranging between 4.59-6.64 metres, with a fall from the centre of the canopy to the edges accounting for the difference in height. The canopy would be constructed from steel with a part glass and part timber roof.

Construction of a storage area, garden area and waste storage area abutting the sites western (rear) boundary.

Construction of a bicycle parking sculpture along the sites southern boundary and within the front setback. The bicycle parking sculpture would provide parking for 76 bicycles, with a further six staff bicycle parking spaces located in the amenities area.

Use

Use of the site as a part convenience restaurant and part tavern (Food Truck Park).

Use of the land for the sale and consumption of liquor (on-premises consumption only).

The standard hours of operation would be:

Area Proposed Opening Hours

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Front bicycle store

7. 30 am to 5 pm

7. 30 am to 5 pm

7. 30 am to 5 pm

7. 30 am to 5 pm

7. 30 am to 5 pm

8 am to 5 pm

8 am to 5 pm


Closed Closed 5 pm to 11 pm

5 pm to 11 pm

5 pm to 12 am

12 pm to 12 am

12 pm to 11 pm

External trading hours

Closed Closed 12 pm to 9. 30 pm

12 pm to 9. 30 pm

12 pm to 10 pm

12 pm to 10 pm

12 pm to 10 pm


Car Parking

Reduction of the standard car parking requirement (156 spaces).

Signage

Construction and display of business identification signage.

Sign 1 would front Frith Street, would be non-illuminated, display the content ‘Good Cycles’ and have a diameter of approximately 1.2 metres.

Sign 2 would front Frith Street, would be internally illuminated, with the content to be determined. The sign would measure 1.5 metres (H) x 0.4 metres (W).




Mixed Use Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.04-2, ‘Food and Drink Premises’, of which ‘Convenience Restaurant’ and ‘Tavern’ are sub-uses, is a Section 1 use in the zone, provided the leasable floor area does not exceed 150 square metres. As the leasable floor area would exceed 150 square metres, a permit is required for the use of the site.

Pursuant to Clause 32.04-8, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Heritage Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a permit is required to demolish or remove a building, construct a building or construct or carry out works, including demolition and/or construction of a fence and to construct and/or display a sign.

Design and Development Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular Provisions Pursuant to Clause 52.05-6, a permit is required to display business identification and internally illuminated signage of any size.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement.

Pursuant to Clause 52.07, a permit is required to reduce the loading bay requirement.

Pursuant to Clause 52.27, a permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor.


Clause 45.03 Environment Audit Overlay

Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Play Overlay



Public notification


Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land (61 letters); and

By placing three signs on the site, one facing each laneway and one facing Frith Street.

Council has received 15 objections from 12 individual properties to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 2.


Patron capacity;

Traffic and parking;

Inappropriate for residential/mixed use area;

Cumulative impacts of an additional licensed venue;

Music noise;

Patron noise;

Queuing along Frith Street;

Impact on wildlife;

Food smells; and

Security and safety for adjacent streets/laneways.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 2 May 2017 and attended by two Council Planning Officers, the applicant and approximately five objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

Following the discussions at the Planning and Information Discussion meeting, it was resolved by the applicant to informally amend the plans to address some of the concerns raised by objectors. The applicant agreed to make the following changes, and agreed to permit conditions to implement these conditions in the event that a permit is issued:

Acoustically treat the southern side of the roof canopy;

Increase the height and improve the acoustic treatment of the southern boundary fence;

Setback the Frith Street entry and provide a portico entry to better contain noise and patron access;

Provide an acoustic treatment along part of the northern boundary, between the front of the building line and the front boundary (abutting Telstra Exchange);

Alter the car parking space and bicycle parking to allow for queuing inside the site if necessary;

Provide additional acoustic treatment to the façade of the building;

Provide a community garden within the landscaped front setback;

Create a secondary access point in the northwest corner of the site, to allow direct access to Sydney Road through the laneway;

Provide lighting to the laneway;

Reduce external hours for Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday (except when immediately before/after a public holiday;

Reduce internal patron capacity indoors from 10 pm to 12 am; and

Commitment to employing a number of social enterprises onsite.



Victoria Police was informally consulted during the application process. Victoria Police did not object to the application or the use of the rear laneway for access, provided it was well lit and had security personnel stationed at the rear when the rear entrance/exit was in use. Victoria Police further commented that they have had dealings with the future operators of the site, and have confidence that they would be able to appropriately manage a venue such as that proposed.

The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal branches/business units:

Internal branch/business unit

Comments

Strategic Transport and Compliance

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation. Council’s Development Advice Engineer did not object to the lighting of the laneway, provided lighting was located on the site and was owned and maintained by the owner/operator of the land.

ESD Unit Council’s ESD Officer commented that the proposal was an excellent response to Council’s ESD Policy (Clause 22.08). No objections were offered to the proposal subject to minor modification, which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation.





Clause 11.03 Activity Centres

Clause 11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne

Clause 13.03 Soil Degradation

Clause 13.04 Noise and Air



Clause 15.03 Heritage

Clause 17.01 Commercial





Clause 21.02 Vision

Clause 21.02-3 MSS Strategic Directions

Clause 21.03-1 Activity Centres


Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design




Clause 22.04 Advertising Signs

Clause 22.06 Heritage

Clause 22.09 Entertainment Venues and Licensed Premises



4. Issues


Does the proposal have strategic support?

The Brunswick Major Activity Centre (BMAC) is one of three larger activity centres within the municipality, with policy encouraging these larger centres to accommodate a broad mix of housing, commercial and employment uses.

Specifically, Clause 21.03-1 seeks to:

encourage a mix of retail, office, commercial, entertainment and community uses to be located within activity centres.

Within the three large activity centre, it is policy to:

ensure residential uses do not undermine the viability of businesses operating in activity centres. Residential amenity expectations should be consistent with activity centres’ role to accommodate a mix of uses with day and night time activity.

The site is also zoned Mixed Use, with the purpose of the zone

to provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function of the locality.

While it is acknowledged that an additional purpose of the zone is:

to provide for housing at higher densities,

this needs to be read in conjunction with the first stated purpose. As previously stated, Council policy prioritises commercial operations within activity centres.

The proposal enjoys strong strategic support at both State and Local level.


The site is affected by Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 18 (DDO18), which seeks to:

encourage a new mid-rise built form character with buildings generally ranging from 4-10 storeys with lower built form at the interfaces with the adjoining low rise residential areas.

As only minor buildings and works are proposed as part of this application, the built form guidelines stated in DDO18 are considered to be of limited relevance in this instance.

The proposal would largely adapt the existing building, with limited permanent structures proposed for this site. The limited buildings and works required for the proposed use would not preclude a development application from being proposed in the future, given the limited investment required for the proposed use to operate.


Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to the objectives of the Heritage Overlay?

The site is affected by Heritage Overlay, Schedule 149 (HO149), titled Sydney Road Precinct, Brunswick. The Statement of Significance for HO149 relates largely to Sydney Road, with limited emphasis placed on other streets. The site is one back from Sydney Road, with the buildings and works proposed lower in height than the double storey buildings which front Sydney Road. Thus, any new elements would not be visible from Sydney Road, and would have no impact on this important heritage streetscape. The demolition is contained to outbuildings and fencing, and would not have a detrimental impact on the heritage place.

Are the proposed signs acceptable?

The site is in a Mixed Use Zone, which is a Category 3 signage area. Clause 52.05-9 of the Moreland Planning Scheme lists Category 3 areas as being ‘high amenity areas’, with all business identification sigs requiring a permit.

Two signs are proposed, as described at section 1 above. Sign 1 would not be illuminated, and would be fixed to the proposed front fence. The sign would identify the ‘Good Cycles’ pop-up shop, located in the sites south-east corner. Sign 2 would be illuminated, would be fixed to the main entry, and identifies the use of the site as the Brunswick Yard. These signs would identify the businesses which operate from the site, and not any third party services/products. The signs would be relatively modest in size, and would occupy only a small portion of the fence.

To ensure that the illuminated sign does not detract from the amenity of the area, and to protect the amenity of the adjacent residents. A condition on permit would require this sign to be switched off at 10pm, which is the latest time that the front entrance would be used. This constitutes a balance between ensuring the business can be easily identified, and protecting the amenity of the area.

Does the proposal provide an acceptable amenity outcome for surrounding residents?

The amenity of surrounding dwellings must be considered. However, it is Council policy to ensure residential uses do not undermine the viability of businesses operating in activity centres. Residential amenity expectations should be consistent with activity centres’ role to accommodate a mix of uses with day and night time activity.

Several measures have been proposed by the applicant, which would limit adverse amenity impacts on surrounding dwellings. These measures include;

A maximum 10 pm closing time external, and midnight internal;

Acoustic fencing along the southern and western boundary;

Locating the food stall building along the southern boundary, which provides a further acoustic barrier for those dwellings along Albert Street; and

Utilising the rear laneway with direct access to Sydney Road for access after 10 pm, ensuring that pedestrian traffic and noise is limited in the sensitive night time period.

While these measures would assist with protecting the amenity of surrounding dwellings, the closing time is of concern. While it is positive that a staggered closing time is proposed, with the external areas to close earlier than the internal areas, the closure of the external areas would then restrict food offering, transforming the internal area to a tavern, with only liquor on offer.


To address this, it is recommended that the opening hours be reduced as follows:

Area Proposed Opening Hours (as bolded)

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

Front bicycle store

7.30 am to 5 pm

7.30 am to 5 pm

7.30 am to 5 pm

7.30 am to 5 pm

7.30 am to 5 pm

8 am to 5 pm

8 am to 5 pm


Closed Closed 5 pm to 10 pm

5 pm to 10 pm

5 pm to midnight

12 pm to midnight

12 pm to 10 pm

External trading hours

Closed Closed 12 pm to 9.30 pm

12 pm to 9.30 pm

12 pm to 10 pm

12 pm to 10 pm

12 pm to 9.30 pm

While only a minor change of hours, between 30-60 minutes earlier than what is proposed by the applicant, it would mean that the use would cease weekdays by 9.30 pm outside (10 pm inside) and weekends by 10 pm outside (midnight inside). The rationale for reduced operating hours is derived from State Environment Protection Policy No. 1 (SEPP N-1), which defines the ‘night period’ as being from between 10pm to 7am. This is the time in which amenity expectations should be greatest, as it is the time in which many people would be asleep.

On Friday and Saturday nights, a slightly longer trading period is acceptable, given that many people in the adjoining vicinity would be either socialising or may not necessarily need to work the following day. The staggered closing time has been maintained, with the internal area closing half an hour later than the external area. This would allow patrons to finish their meals and/or drinks inside, before leaving the venue altogether. A 9:30pm closing time outside also allows time for the food trucks/stalls to clean and pack up prior to the 10:00 pm ‘night period’.

Reduced operating hours is a condition as outlined in the recommendation section.

To further protect the amenity of surrounding uses, after 10 pm on Friday and Saturday nights, when only the internal area is open, the front entrance to Frith Street should be closed, with the only access point (except for emergency purposes) being from the rear laneway through to Sydney Road. This would limit the ability for patrons from disturbing occupants of the dwellings along Frith and Albert Streets. Further, closing the front entrance would allow security personnel to be concentrated to the rear, with a permanent presence providing safety for patrons/employees utilising the laneway. The laneway is not currently well lit, particularly where it abuts the rear boundary of the site. To ensure that safety of patrons leaving the venue, the applicant has agreed to install lighting and CCTV cameras at the rear of their site. These measures, in conjunction with the security presence, would enhance the safety of the laneway for patrons and nearby residents.

These measures are outlined as a condition in the recommendation section.


Is the proposed patron capacity acceptable?

The venue would have a capacity of 450 patrons. While 450 patrons is a large number, this should be read in the context of the size of the site, which is 2,160 square metres. This equates to one patron per 4.8 square metres, which is at a much lower density than the maximum allowable by the Victorian Commission for Liquor and Gambling Reform of one patron per 0.75 square metres.

A 450 patron capacity is acceptable, as the site is large enough to accommodate enough circulation and open space to dissipate this number of patrons over the site. Much of the outside area is occupied by seating, which provides a natural limit for the number of patrons which can be accommodated outside.

The applicant has also agreed to decrease the patron limit after 10 pm Friday and Saturday nights, to no more than 180. This number of patrons could easily be accommodated in the internal area, which is approximately 370 square metres. A reduced patron capacity is a condition as outlined in the recommendation section.

Is the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the surrounding area acceptable?

There are several late night and on premise liquor licences in the surrounding area, including:

Brunswick Mess Hall – 1 am closing, 375 patrons

Duke of Edinburgh Hotel – 1 am closing (courtyard), 3 am closing (inside), 500 patrons

The Penny Black – 1 am closing, 677 patrons

Albert and Sydney – 10 pm closing (courtyard), 1 am closing (inside), 199 patrons

Brunswick Flour Mill – 11 pm closing, 86 patrons

The Brunswick Green – 1 am closing, 300 patrons

Basco Brunswick – 1 am closing, 278 patrons

A concentration of this scale is considered a cluster, according to Planning Practice Note 61 – Licensed Premises: Assessing cumulative impact. There is naturally going to be a concentration of licences premises in the immediate area. To mitigate the cumulative impact of an additional premise, the applicant has;

Proposed an earlier closing time compared too other venues in the area, which limits the number of patrons that would be ejected onto the street at any given time.

Would provide a substantial food offering, which limits the likelihood of patrons visiting the primarily to consume liquor.

Limited patron capacity to what can be reasonably be accommodated on the site, considering its size.

Proposed only background music outside, with any amplified music played inside to be controlled using sound limiters.

Proposed 82 bicycle parking spaces and is located in close proximity to tram routes and the Brunswick Train Station, ensuring that patrons can disperse from the site quickly and easily.

Proposed to utilise the rear laneway for access on Friday and Saturday nights, when the closing time is latest, limiting the impact on the dwellings fronting Frith and Albert Streets.


An additional licensed premises would also have positive impacts on the surrounding area, including assisting with the creation of a local identify as an entertainment destination, by providing users of the activity centre a choice in food offerings, providing added security for the area - with the applicant agreeing to install lighting in the rear laneway and having security personnel stationed at the rear when the laneway exit is in use.

The cumulative impact of an additional licensed premise in this area are considered reasonable and acceptable in this instance.


A total of 157 spaces are required for the use, being 0.35 spaces per patron. This rate has been adopted using the average of 0.3 spaces per patron for ‘convenience restaurant’ and 0.4 spaces for the ‘tavern use’. The development would provide one accessible parking space on the land, which would be utilised by employees only and not available to the public.

Based on Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.03-3 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) it is considered reasonable to reduce the car parking requirements. Clause 22.03-3 states that it is policy to:

Support reduced car parking rates in developments within and in close proximity to activity centres, with excellent access to a range of public transport options and with increased provision of bicycle parking above the rates specified in clause 52.34.

The proposal is located within the Brunswick Activity Centre and has excellent access to public transport including the Route 19 Tram along Sydney Road and Brunswick Train Station. The use and provides 76 bicycle parking spaces for patrons and an additional six spaces for employees, which is above the 52 specified in Clause 52.34 (based on 1300 square metres of floor space available to the public).

Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch is satisfied that car parking requirement can be reduced for this application. A parking survey was undertaken by the applicant, which demonstrates adequate car parking is available within a reasonable walking distance of the site – approximately 400 metres. Specifically, on a Saturday between 12 noon and 10:00 pm when the use is expected to be the busiest, between 320 and 357 parking spaces were available in the immediate area.

In addition, the applicant has undertaken an empirical assessment of the travelling patterns of a similar venue – Welcome to Thornbury on High Street, Northcote. The results of the patron survey, conducted on Tuesday 31 January 2017, revealed the following;

Travel mode Count Percentage

Car (as driver) 24 18%

Car (as passenger) 36 27%

Walk 20 15%

Bike 29 22%

Motorbike/Scooter 3 2%

Public Transport 11 8%

Taxi/Uber 10 8%

Total 133 100%


Welcome to Thornbury has a similar context to Brunswick Yard, located within the High Street, Thornbury Activity Centre and in close proximity to Croxton Train Station. Notably, Brunswick Yard is in close proximity to Sydney Road Trams, whereas Welcome to Thornbury is some 700 metres from trams along St Georges Road. This provides better connectivity for patrons of the Brunswick Yard, when compared to Welcome to Thornbury.

Based on the collected data, the parking demand is likely to be lower than the statutory rate of 0.35 spaces per patron, with a rate of 0.2 spaces per patron more likely. This would equate to a maximum parking demand of 90 car parking spaces, which could easily be accommodated in the immediate area, as demonstrated above.

In addition, the Brunswick Integrated Transport Strategy notes that transport modelling has indicated that:

The transport network in Brunswick is generally operating at, or close to, capacity at present.

Significant changes to the transport network and associated mode shifts are necessary to accommodate the future land use and development proposed within the centre.

Mode shift incentives as well as demand measures (including car parking limitations) are recommended.

Thus, it is reasonable that new developments not be subject to the same parking requirements as has historically been the case, as the transport network in Brunswick cannot cope with the additional traffic generated by providing more car parking.

Those patrons choosing to drive can only park on the street in accordance with any parking regulations. The number of vehicles that can park on the street and at what time will be dictated by the parking restrictions and the availability of on-street car spaces.

Are adequate loading/unloading facilities provided?

The proposed development satisfies Clause 52.07 (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles) of the Moreland Planning Scheme. While the size of the loading bay would not accommodate a large truck, it is of sufficient size to accommodate a car or van. Given that the majority of goods sold on site would be sold directly from a food truck, which would have all goods in the truck itself, the use would have reduced loading requirements.


In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the use will result in a maximum 610 additional vehicle movements per day on Frith Street, Albert Street and/or Victoria Street. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems. This figure is based on the average for Restaurants/Cafes as specified in the Brunswick Integrated Transport Strategy, and does not take into account the amount of bicycle parking provided, the proximity to public transport and the parking restrictions that currently exist on nearby streets, which would all contribute to reduced vehicle movements.



Limits additional traffic movements by providing minimal on site car parking, in an area well serviced by public transport; and

Provides 82 bicycle spaces, with convenient access to the Upfield Shared Path for north-south trips and to the Glenlyon Road Path for east-west trips.



ESD features of the development are considered to be exceptional and include:

Bicycle parking in excess of the statutory rate, with end of trip (shower) facilities also provided.

A Good Cycles pop-up bicycle service area, which encourages cycling to the venue.

A 20kW north facing solar PV system, which will assist with offsetting a large portion of the daily energy usage, including the cool room.

A 10,000L water tank, with water used for irrigation and toilet flushing.

Reuse of the existing building, leading to reduced construction and demolition waste and reduced use of new materials.

A site-wide ‘kill switch’, which will allow all power to be turned off on the site when the site is closed (unnecessary appliances will not be left running).

Water efficient fixtures and appliances (3 star WELS showers; 4 star WELS toilets and 5 star WELS taps) – this is consistent with best practice requirements.

A commitment to recycle 80% of construction and demolition waste.

Low VOC materials.


The site is at grade, with limited use of stairs to access different parts of the site. DDA compliant bathrooms would be installed, with movable seating allowing those with limited mobility to be easily accommodated on site. A dedicated drop off/pick up Taxi/Uber zone at the front of the site provides an appropriate area for those requiring assistance to access the site.

Has the potential for contaminated land been appropriately managed?

As the application does not propose a sensitive use, (such as residential, child care, school) the provisions of the Environmental Audit Overlay do not apply.

However, the applicant has provided a Preliminary Site Investigation Report, prepared by Environmental Earth Sciences, which concludes that the site was found to have a low to moderate risk of contamination, based on historical and current site uses.

The report concludes that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) be prepared, to manage the risks associated with the proposed works, particularly with regard to the removal of asbestos and debris around the triple interceptor trap and wash bay. This plan would form a permit condition, as outlined in the recommendation section.




Patron capacity;

Traffic and parking;

Inappropriate for residential/mixed use area;

Cumulative impacts of an additional licensed venue; and

Patron noise.


Music noise

It is proposed to play background music outside, and amplified music inside. There is no live music proposed. Background music is defined as music that allows patrons to talk in a normal voice at a distance of 600 millimetres without needing to raise their voice. With the acoustic mitigation measures implemented, this level of noise is considered acceptable, given the sites context in an activity centre.

In terms of music noise inside, the building itself would be suitably treated to ensure that the noise levels comply with SEPP N-2, which is the metropolitan wide measure used to determine appropriate noise levels in urban environments. A number of conditions on permit, as detailed in the recommendation section, would ensure that noise levels associated with music are appropriately controlled and managed. A further permit condition would require the owner/operator to submit a further acoustic report and undertake any further mitigation measures deemed appropriate, should noise levels be an issue in the future.

Queuing along Frith Street

Several objectors commented that the Frith Street footpath is quite narrow, and that there would be insufficient room for patrons to queue should the venue reach capacity. To address this, the applicant has agreed to increase the setback from Frith Street and to provide a portico entry to better contain noise and patron access. This would allow space approximately 10 metres of queuing space, with further space available within the driveway if needed. These measures would form part of an amended Patron Management Plan, as outlined in the recommendation section.

Food smells

The potential for cooking smells and other odours to impact on resident amenity is a valid concern. The food and drink premises will be required to comply with Australian Standards or the equivalent level regarding the discharge and emission of odour from the premises. The open nature of the premises would go some way in quickly dispersing food smells, when compared to a conventional restaurant where food smells would be concentrated and discharged in a flue.

Security and safety for adjacent streets/laneways

The security of patrons is paramount, with the applicant acknowledging the need to provide a safe environment for both patrons of this venue and for surrounding residents.

The rear laneway is not currently lit, with properties fronting Sydney Road using it primarily for storage and/or parking. The proposed use would improve the safety of the laneway, given the applicant would be required to pay for the laneway to be illuminated to Council’s satisfaction. The laneway would only be used for access on Friday and Saturday night’s after 10:00 pm, and will be patrolled by security personnel at all times. This will benefit not only patrons of the proposed use, but also surrounding residents. These measures would form part of an amended Patron Management Plan, as outlined in the recommendation section.


Impact on wildlife

One of the objectors was concerned that the use would disrupt the birds which occupy the trees in the front setback along Frith Street. The trees would remain as part of this application, with the use concentrated to the rear of the site. The potential impact on birds in the context of an urban setting and Major Activity Centre is not considered sufficient grounds for the modification or refusal of the application.




Nil.

8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed use of the site as Food Truck Park is consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use Zone and consistent with Council’s Strategic Framework Plan, at Clause 21.03 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The use would activate a vacant block of land, and would provide a form of entertainment to the local and wider community.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2016/929 should be issued for development (including partial demolition) and the use of the site as part convenience restaurant and part tavern (food truck park), the sale and consumption of liquor (on-premises consumption only), a reduction of car parking, a reduction of the loading bay requirement and construction and display of signage, subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Location Map - Brunswick Yard - MPS/2016/929 D17/186347 2⇩ Objector Map - Brunswick Yard - MPS/2016/929 D17/186349 3⇩ Advertised Plans - Brunswick Yard - MPS/2016/929 D17/186351


DED56/17 144 - 146 UNION STREET, BRUNSWICK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/578 (D17/168098)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for the construction of 34 dwellings and a reduction of the standard car parking requirement. The application was advertised and 36 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections are overdevelopment, neighbourhood character, car parking, traffic and amenity impacts.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 6 April 2017 and attended by Cr Ratnam, two Council Planning Officers, the applicant and 14 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond. Following the meeting, the applicant has revised the vehicle access point, to align the ramp with the 90 degree bend in the laneway.



Whether or not the proposal adequately responds to Amendment C159, the Draft Neighbourhood Centres Strategy.

Whether the proposal results in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts.

Whether the laneway vehicle access is appropriate.

Whether the proposal provides for sufficient landscaping opportunities.

While there is strategic support for an increase in housing density due to the zoning of the land and location within the Grantham/Union Neighbourhood Activity Centre, it is considered that the proposal does not adequately respond to the preferred future character for the area sought by Amendment C159.

It is therefore recommended that a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal.

Recommendation


That a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2016/578 be issued for the construction of 34 dwellings and a reduction of the standard car parking requirement at 144-146 Union Street, Brunswick, subject to the following grounds of refusal:

1. The proposed development fails to meet the following standards and objectives of the proposed Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 24 and Schedule 2 to the Residential Growth Zone, that form part of Amendment C159 to the Moreland Planning Scheme, adopted by Council:

a) A setback is not provided from the rear (north boundary), thereby failing to provide room for a planting buffer that would enhance the landscape character.

b) The basement fails to allow for sufficient soil volumes to allow for the successful growth of trees in side setbacks, thereby failing to enhance the landscape character and soften the impact of the built form.

c) The proposed site coverage exceeds the 80% preferred maximum, further limiting opportunities for landscaping.

d) Pedestrian entries of dwellings 6 – 34 are not clearly visible or identifiable from the public realm.


e) The proposal has a high reliance on screening to windows that adversely impacts on the quality of the outlook for future occupants.

f) The separation of buildings within the site fails to comply with the building separation distances in the Moreland Apartment Design Code, resulting in reduced internal amenity.

2. The proposal fails to adequately mitigate impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties, demonstrated by a failure to comply with Standards B19 (daylight to windows) and B21 (overshadowing) of Clause 55 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

3. The entries of dwellings 6 – 34 are not clearly visible or identifiable from the street and the pedestrian accessway adjacent to dwellings 1 – 5 lacks passive surveillance, contrary to Standard B12 (safety) and B24 (dwelling entry) of Clause 55 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.


REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The site is located on the north side of Union Street between Barry Street and Hennessy Street in Brunswick. The site consists of two land parcels, each containing a single storey detached dwelling. 146 Union Street has a very large rear yard that contains very little vegetation and two small outbuildings.

The combined site has a frontage width of approximately 30 metres and a depth of 88 metres, resulting in a total area of 2,644 square metres.

Each lot currently has a single vehicle crossover to Union Street. The land is bound by laneways to the north and east, which provide access to Barry Street, Collier Crescent and Hennessy Street.

There are no restrictive covenants or easements indicated on the Certificate of Title.

Surrounds

The surrounding area is mixed in character, being located within the Grantham/Union Neighbourhood Activity Centre. Grantham Street, approximately 220 metres west of the site, is a commercial hub that contains a strip of shops and mixed use buildings up to three storeys in scale.

Union Street is predominantly characterised by single storey detached dwellings, although both double storey forms and unit development are present. East of Barry Street, on the north side of Union there is a row of double storey Victorian-era shops and a more recent three storey apartment complex.

The immediate interfaces with the subject site comprise:

West: Detached dwellings fronting Hennessy Street, each with landscaped open rear yards and some outbuildings.

North: Two storey walk-up-flats, with concreted rear setbacks typically used for car parking, separated from the subject site by a laneway.

East: Four dwellings fronting Barry Street, separated by a laneway. Both 1 and 7 Barry Street have garages at the rear of the site. Units 2 and 3 of 3 Barry Street include small areas of open space abutting the rear boundaries. 142 Union also adjoins the subject site’s eastern boundary. Windows face the subject site and there is secluded private open space to the rear of the dwelling.



The proposal


Construction of 34 dwellings, arranged in four clusters, with a central pedestrian accessway, comprising:

Cluster 1: 5 x three storey dwellings with fourth storey roof decks. Dwellings front Union Street and each contain three bedrooms, first floor living and balconies facing Union Street.

Cluster 2: 15 x three storey dwellings adjacent to the west boundary, with ground floor living and west facing private open space. Each dwelling contains 3 – 4 bedrooms, plus rumpus rooms.

Cluster 3: 5 x three storey dwellings with fourth storey roof decks adjacent to 142 Union Street. Each contains a total of three bedrooms and has second floor living spaces.

Cluster 4: 9 x three storey dwellings with fourth storey roof decks located adjacent to the laneway on the eastern site boundary. Each contains three bedrooms and a rumpus room and has second floor living spaces.

Vehicle access is via the laneway on the eastern site boundary. A ramp provides access to a basement, which contains garages for each dwelling.

Car parking is provided via:

29 x garages that provide two car spaces in a tandem arrangement

2 x garages that provide two car spaces in a side-by-side arrangement

3 x single width garages that provide one car space

The buildings are contemporary in design, with flat roof forms and a mix of render, vertical cladding, timber and brick materials.

Site coverage is approximately 82% and permeability is approximately 16%.

Building height is up to 12.2 metres, to the parapet of the rooftop stairwells.




Residential Growth Zone

Clause 32.07-5: A permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot. No permit is required to use land as a dwelling.

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06: A permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement from 68 spaces to 65 spaces.


Clause 45.06: Development Contributions Plan Overlay

Clause 45.09: Parking Overlay

Clause 55: Two or more dwellings on a Lot and Residential Buildings



Public Notification


Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land; and

Placing signs on the Union Street and laneway frontages of the site.

Council has received 36 objections to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1.


Overdevelopment

Neighbourhood character issues, including:

Height

Design

Insufficient garden space

Front setback

Car parking and traffic issues, including:

Inadequate car parking

Traffic in laneway

Safety/sightlines from cars exiting basement into laneway

Ability for emergency services to access site

Tandem parking design

Traffic noise

Amenity impacts, including:

Overshadowing

Loss of daylight

Overlooking

Visual bulk

Impacts on existing vegetation

Inadequate side setbacks

Noise from rooftops

Impact on services, including:

Waste collection

Impacts on infrastructure

Impacts on public transport capacity

Internal amenity issues, including:

Insufficient private open space

Poor internal amenity

Poor orientation

Lack of bicycle parking

Living spaces too small

Contrary to purpose of zone

Contrary to rezoning request

Construction matters

Property values


A Planning Information and Discussion (PID) meeting was held on 6 April 2017 and attended by Cr Ratnam, Council Planning Officers, the applicant and 14 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

Following the meeting, the applicant supplied an amended set of plans that revised the vehicle access point, by flipping the ramp with dwelling 25, to align the ramp with the 90 degree bend in the laneway. This draft plan and a revised traffic report was circulated to those objectors who attended the PID. No objections have been withdrawn as a result of this information.

The draft amended plans form Attachment 3.


There were no statutory referral authorities to this application. The proposal was referred to the following internal branches/business units:


Comments

Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch – Transport Development

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which could be addressed by conditions if a permit were to issue.

City Strategy and Design Branch – ESD Unit

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which could be addressed by conditions if a permit were to issue.

City Strategy and Design Branch – Urban Design Unit

Height, street setback, internal building separation and exterior appearance were all generally supported by the Urban Design Unit. The key issue raised by Urban Design is in relation to the setback from the rear (north boundary). This is assessed in Section 7 of this report.

Open Space Design and Development Unit

It was advised that the tree species shown on the landscape plan will not grow to their mature heights, based on the soil volumes provided. Recommendations were made regarding protection of trees on adjoining sites and appropriate selection of trees for available soil volumes.







Clause 11.06-5 Neighbourhoods

Clause 11.06-6 Sustainability and Resilience








Clause 21.02 Vision








Clause 22.08 Environmentally Sustainable Development


Amendment C159 – Draft Neighbourhood Centres Strategy

Amendment C159 seeks to implement the Draft Neighbourhood Centres Strategy 2015 into the Moreland Planning Scheme. Amendment C159 was exhibited in March 2016, with 122 submissions received.

Post-exhibition, Council sought to include rezoning of the land in Union Street (including the subject site) from Residential Growth Zone to Neighbourhood Residential Zone as part of Amendment C159.

Amendment C159 was considered by Panel in August/September 2016, with the Panel releasing their report in November 2016. The Panel was generally supportive of the front, side and rear setback standards, but found insufficient justification had been provided for mandatory height controls. Furthermore, the Panel concluded that the post‐exhibition residential zone changes are not founded on necessary strategic justification, would transform the Amendment beyond its intended purpose and should not be included in the Amendment.

On 8 March 2017 Council considered the recommendations of the Panel and resolved to adopt the amendment. The decisions to seek mandatory height controls and rezone the land in Union Street were maintained. The Amendment was submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval on 20 April 2017, however no decision has been made to date.

With the exception of those aspects of the Amendment that were not supported by the Panel, Amendment C159 is now considered to be a seriously entertained planning policy and is given significant weight in the assessment of this proposal.


Amendment C142 – Moreland Apartment Design Code

Amendment C142 originally sought to introduce the Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC) as a local policy to the Moreland Planning Scheme.

An independent panel report, publicly released in June 2015, was supportive of the amendment.

Council resolved on 8 February 2017 to seek a variation to Amendment C142 to only insert MADC's requirements on light wells and building separation standards into Clause 22.07 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The purpose of seeking these variations is to supplement standards that were deleted from the final version of the Better Apartments Design Standards (BADS), which were gazetted on 13 April 2017.

The building separation standards from MADC are referenced in DDO24, which forms part of Amendment C159.



4. Issues


Does planning strategy support this development in this location?

Council, through its MSS, seeks increased residential densities within its Activity Centres to take advantage of access to public transport and other services within these locations. The subject site is located within the Grantham/Union Street Neighbourhood Activity Centre. In this centre, change towards a new character to accommodate buildings up to and including four storeys is supported. The site therefore enjoys strong strategic policy support for intensification. However, the preferred built form in these areas is guided by Amendment C159. A detailed assessment of the proposal against C159 is provided below. On balance, it was found that the proposal does not meet the objectives of C159.


Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) of the Moreland Planning Scheme provides guidance on the preferred built form outcomes within Neighbourhood Activity Centres including supporting buildings up to four storeys, providing a transition in height at interfaces with adjoining zones and encouraging contemporary architecture.

However, the proposed Design and Development Overlay (DDO24) and Schedule to the Residential Growth Zone, which form part of Amendment C159, provide additional built form guidance. This is considered to be the most up to date policy position on the preferred future character for these areas. The key provisions of DDO24 and the Schedule to the Residential Growth Zone are therefore assessed in turn below.


Building height

The proposal has a maximum height of 12.2 metres, to the parapet of the rooftop stairwells, with the main building bulk being 9.7 metres in height. This sits well within the 13.5 metre building height specified in both Amendment C159 and the current Residential Growth Zone provisions. However, Amendment C159, in its final form as adopted by Council, seeks to rezone the land to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. If implemented, this would limit the permitted height to 9 metres and two storeys.

Front setback

The proposal has a front setback of 3.7 metres. This exceeds the preferred front setback of 3 metres sought under DDO24. To comply with current Clause 55 provisions, the required front setback would be 4.3 metres. Setbacks in this section of Union Street are varied and include a number of buildings with setbacks of less than 4 metres. The proposed setback of 3.7 metres therefore balances the existing conditions with the preferred future character sought by DDO24. If the Neighbourhood Residential Zone were to be implemented, greater emphasis would be placed on respecting the existing character of front setbacks.

Side and rear setbacks

The table below sets out the preferred and proposed side and rear setbacks:

DDO24 Requirement Requirement Proposed Variation

West side setback: primary outlook 4.5 m 4.68 m Complies

West side setback: secondary outlook

2.0 m 3.53 – 5.23 m Complies

East side setback: secondary outlook

2.0 m 1.17 – 2.66 m 0 - 0.88 m

Rear setback: Up to 4 metres 3.0 m 0 m 3 m

Rear setback: 4 – 10.5 metres 6.0 m 0 m 6 m

Rear setback: Above 10.5 metres 8.6 m 3 m 5.6 m

Compliance is achieved to the west. To the east, compliance is achieved adjacent to 142 Union Street but a 0.88 metre variation to the standard is sought adjacent to the laneway interface. This variation is supportable on the basis that DDO24 does not contemplate having a laneway as a side interface. As such, the laneway provides the necessary additional building separation distance.

To the north (rear) the proposal is located on the boundary. This does not meet DDO24, which would require a 3 metre setback at ground floor, a 6 metre setback to the first and second floors and an 8.6 metre setback to the rooftop stairwell. Achieving compliance would necessitate the deletion of dwellings 20 and 34.

Council’s Urban Design Unit have recommended that compliance be achieved, particularly because the interface to the north is a Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The non-compliance in this location means that landscaping cannot be provided along this interface. Furthermore, it is considered to be a poor design response that does not take advantage of this northern orientation.


Landscaping

The overarching landscaping objective of DDO24 is to ensure setbacks in residential areas provide sufficient room for planting buffers to enhance the landscape character and contribute to privacy. This can be achieved by providing landscaping within the side and rear setbacks sought under DDO24.

Council’s Open Space Unit have reviewed the landscape plan and have advised that the tree species selected are unlikely to grow to the mature heights specified, due to the limited soil volumes available over the basement.

The lack of ability to provide meaningful landscaping to soften the built form is a key issue of this proposal.

Site coverage

The Schedule to the Residential Growth Zone that forms part of Amendment C159 proposes to override the 60% site coverage sought by Standard B8 in Clause 55 with a preferred maximum site coverage of 80% for sites over 2,000 square metres.

The subject site is 2,644 square metres in area and has a site coverage of 82%. While this is only a minor departure from the preferred maximum, this indicates that the site does not achieve the desired landscaping objectives, as detailed above.

Building frontage

Dwellings 1 – 5 front Union Street. These dwellings have a clear sense of identity and provide an active frontage to Union Street, as sought by DDO24. The design detail and materials proposed suit the residential character of the street and the massing of the façade adequately responds to the rhythm of the street.

Council’s Urban Design Unit have recommended that the proposed 1.2 metre fence height be reduced to match the adjoining dwellings. This is not considered necessary, given that Clause 55 would permit a 1.5 metre high fence and there are a mix of fencing styles in the street.

Does the proposal result in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?

The amenity expectations of residents within this area must be tempered against the strategic direction for increased residential density and substantial change, sought by the Residential Growth Zone.

Notably, an objective of DDO24 which forms part of amendment C159 is:

To ensure development does not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjoining sites by incorporating appropriate side and rear setbacks.

This indicates that meeting the side and rear setbacks standards set out in DDO24 (as assessed above) sets the bar for an acceptable level of off-site amenity impacts. The relevant Clause 55 off-site amenity impacts standards detailed below are assessed in light of this.


Daylight to windows

Standard B19 from Clause 55.04-6 states that:

Walls…opposite an existing habitable room window should be set back from the window at least 50 per cent of the height of the new wall

The walls of dwellings 5 and 21 do not comply with this standard, with respect to the habitable room windows at 142 Union Street, as detailed in the table below.

Height of wall

Proposed setback from windows

Setback required to comply with standard

Variation

Dwelling 5 9.5 m 3.53 m 4.75 m 1.22 m

Dwelling 21 9.4 m 4.57 m 4.7 m 0.13 m

Compliance with this standard would require Bedroom 2 of dwelling 5 to be setback a further 1.22 metres from the boundary and the kitchen of dwelling 21 to be setback 130 mm. Given the size of the subject site, compliance with the standard would be easily achievable. While amenity expectations in this zone must be tempered, a site responsive design on a large site such as this should be able to mitigate off-site impacts.

Overshadowing

Standard B21 from Clause 55.04-6 states that:

at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.

If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space…is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.

The existing sunlight to the secluded private open spaces of 4 Hennessy, 2/3 Barry Street and 3/3 Barry Street and 142 Union Street would already be less than the requirements of the standard.

The proposal increases the overshadowing to these properties as follows:

Property 9 am 10 am 11 am 12 pm 1pm 2pm 3pm

4 Hennessy 23.39 sqm

2.16 sqm

- - - - -

2/3 Barry - - - - - - 10 sqm

3/3 Barry - - - - - - 11 sqm

142 Union - - - - - 6.4 sqm 21 sqm

The proposal causes a significant amount of additional overshadowing to adjoining properties at 9 am and 3 pm. This is a factor of the site orientation, in relation to the abutting lots.

Achieving compliance with this standard would likely render the site undevelopable at a height of three to four storeys.

Some departure from the standard would be acceptable in light of the strategic direction for increased residential densities in this location, noting that all impacted properties are also in the Residential Growth Zone. However, the current extent of overshadowing is considered excessive and is not a site responsive design.


Overlooking

The objective of Clause 55.04-6 is to limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows.

Windows at the first and second floor are typically shown as having obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above finished floor level, because they have a view within 9 metres of secluded open space on adjoining lots. Council’s Urban Design Unit consider this to be a poor internal amenity outcome and that windows should be clear glazed. However, the separation distance is not enough to negate the need for screening. Obscure glazing to a secondary outlook such as bedrooms is considered to be an acceptable outcome, if there is outlook provided in other directions. This is assessed in the internal amenity section below.

In relation to the roof top terraces, the plans and elevations appear to provide conflicting information as to whether 1.7 metre screening is proposed. Screening would not be considered necessary because the roofs of the buildings would limit the ability to look downwards, within the 9 metre distance specified under Clause 55. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that a number of residents have raised concerns about overlooking. Conditions of any permit that may issue could address this by requiring the eastern balustrade of the roof-top terraces of dwellings 5 and 21 – 35 and the western balustrade of the roof-top terrace of dwelling 1 be screened to a height of 1.7 metres.

Will the internal amenity for future occupants be acceptable?

All dwellings are well sized, have good access to natural light and opportunities for cross ventilation. The key considerations in relation internal amenity are assessed below.

Building separation

DDO24 that forms part of Amendment C159 states that:

Separation of buildings within sites should have regard to the building separation distances in the Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC), September 2015.

An assessment of the proposal against MADC reveals that the building separation distances are not met, as shown in the table below.

MADC distance Proposed distance Variation

Bedroom outlook to blank wall

3m (Dwellings 1 – 5) 2 – 2.3m 0.7 – 1m

Bedroom to bedroom outlook

6m 3.2m (ground floor)

4.2 – 6.5m (first floor)

2.8 – 1.8m

Bedroom outlook to living room outlook

9m 6m 3m

In addition to this non-compliance, windows on the internal east and west elevations are all screened to 1.7 metres with obscure glazing. This is a poor outcome for future occupants.

Council’s Urban Design Unit have also advised that the ground floor bedrooms of dwellings 1 – 5 will have poor internal amenity resulting from the proximity of their windows to the communal pathway.

The reliance on screening to windows and limited internal building separation is a key issue for this proposal.


Dwelling entries

Clause 55 standards seek to ensure that dwelling entries have a sense of identity, are visible from streets and other public areas and are not obscured or isolated.

The proposed 2 – 2.5 metre wide pedestrian walkways that wrap around dwellings 1 – 5 and provide access to the remaining dwellings at the rear of the site are considered to be contrary to these standards. There is no clear identification of rear dwelling entries and there is a lack of passive surveillance along these walkways. A direct pathway with clear sightlines should be provided on a site of this size.

Orientation

Standard B10 from Clause 55.03-5 states that living areas and private open space should be located on the north side of the development, if practicable.

The proposal does not provide north facing living spaces. This is a factor of the orientation and shape of the land, however a more site responsive design would have been able to incorporate additional northern solar access.

Private open space

Standard B28 from Clause 55.05-4 permits private open space to be provided in one of the following ways, to achieve compliance:

An area of 40 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25 square metres, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room, or

A balcony of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.6 metres and convenient access from a living room, or

A roof-top area of 10 square metres with a minimum width of 2 metres and convenient access from a living room.

The Schedule to the Residential Growth Zone that forms part of Amendment C159 further specifies that:

Where a balcony is the only secluded private open space, it must consist of a minimum area of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 2 metres and convenient access from a living room.

Dwellings 1 – 5 provide balconies of 11 square metres with a minimum depth of 2.2 metres, thereby meeting this requirement.

Dwellings 6 – 20 provide 24 square metre ground floor courtyards. While this does not meet the 40 square metres sought under Standard B28, the site is within a Residential Growth Zone, where higher densities are supported. The reasonable recreation needs of residents would be met equally by this space as by an 8 square metre balcony, which would comply with the standard.

Dwellings 21 – 34 all provide 21 – 23 square metre roof-top terraces, accessed by one flight of stairs from the living room. This is considered to be convenient access for the purposes of complying with this standard.

It is acknowledged that Amendment C159, as adopted by Council, seeks to rezone the land to Neighbourhood Residential. If implemented, Council’s current local policy would place greater emphasis on providing ground level secluded private open space, in excess of Clause 55 minimum standards.


Are the site facilities adequate and functional?

The objective of Clause 55.06-4 is to ensure that site facilities are accessible, adequate and attractive.

Conditions could be included on any permit that issues requiring the location of any services, to ensure these are appropriately designed to integrate with the development.

Private waste collection has been proposed, with all waste bins to be stored within garages and waste to be collected within the basement. This is supported by Council’s Development Advice Engineer.


Clause 52.06 states that 68 car spaces should be provided for dwellings. No visitor car parking is required, because the subject site is located within a Parking Overlay.

The development provides 65 on-site spaces, seeking a reduction of three spaces.

Clause 22.03-3 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) states that it is policy to:

Support reduced car parking rates in developments within and in close proximity to activity centres, with excellent access to a range of public transport options and with increased provision of bicycle parking above the rates specified in Clause 52.34.

The proposal is located within the Grantham/Union Neighbourhood Centre and has excellent access to public transport including the tram line which is located 200 metres west on Grantham Street.

A condition of any permit that issues should require the provision of at least one bicycle space in the garage of each dwelling, to meet the policy.

The dwellings would not be eligible for parking permits in the event that a permit issues and parking restrictions are imposed by Council on the street.

Objectors have raised concerns about the practicalities of the tandem car parking design used for 29 dwellings. A tandem car parking arrangement is permitted under the design standards in Clause 52.06 (car parking). However, if a permit were to issue, the spaces should be increased to 11 metres in length, which is the minimum length that is commonly accepted for tandem car spaces.


Traffic impacts were a key issue for objectors, particularly in relation to the use of the laneway for vehicle access.

The use of laneways for vehicle access is actively supported by local planning policy. The traffic report supplied by the applicant estimates that 221 vehicles per day will be generated from the site. Council’s Development Advice Engineer has reviewed this information and has not raised any concerns with traffic volumes.

Nevertheless, concerns have been raised regarding safety issues from cars exiting the basement into laneway.

Following the Planning Information and Discussion Meeting, the applicant revised the vehicle access point, to align the ramp with the 90 degree bend in the laneway. This improves sightlines at the basement/laneway intersection. An updated traffic report was also supplied, providing further details regarding traffic generation in the laneway and the likelihood of vehicle conflicts.

Council’s Development Advice Engineer has reviewed this advice and supports the relocated basement entry. However, due to the slope of the basement ramp, it will be difficult for cars entering or exiting the basement to see another vehicle approaching in the laneway. A condition of permit could require that traffic signals be installed.


Objectors have also raised concerns regarding traffic noise and access by emergency services. Traffic noise is not considered to be unreasonable, particularly having regard to the immediate interfaces (being high, solid brick fences and brick walls) within the laneway. Emergency services can access the site by parking in Union Street, it would not be necessary to enter via the laneway.



Utilises the rear laneway for vehicle access to prioritise pedestrian movement and safety in Union Street and to create a landscaped and active frontage; and

Increases on-street public parking, by removing two vehicle crossings to Union Street.


ESD features of the development are considered to be acceptable, subject to conditions of the recommendation, and include:

6.6 star average energy rating;

Double glazing to windows;

Solar hot water; and

34,000 litres of rainwater harvesting.

While only 16% site permeability is proposed, in lieu of the preferred minimum of 20% sought by Standard B9 from Clause 55.03-4 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, this is off-set by the proposed stormwater management response. A STORM score of 117% is achieved, which exceeds the best practice result of 100%.


Objective 9 of Clause 23.03-3 (Housing) is to increase the supply of housing that is visitable and adaptable to meet the needs of different sectors of the community.

The proposal includes three dwellings which can be adapted to be lived in by a person with limited mobility, by including a bedroom and accessible bathroom at ground level. Conditions would be required as part of any permit that is issued, to ensure that the report is implemented.



Neighbourhood character issues

Car Parking and traffic issues

Amenity impacts

Internal amenity issues

Contrary to purpose of zone



Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the rooftops of the dwellings after occupancy. The consideration of this planning application is confined only to the construction of the dwellings. The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in an urban setting. Any future issues of noise disturbance, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.


Overdevelopment

The subject site is located in a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, where local policy actively supports increased densities. An assessment of relevant local planning policies is provided in Section 7 of this report. The failure to adequately respond to the objectives of DDO24 from Amendment C159 and the Clause 55 standards discussed previously indicate that the proposal in its current form is arguably an overdevelopment and inappropriate for this site.


An objector concern was the impact of the dwellings on infrastructure. The site owner will be required to address infrastructure servicing demands of the additional dwellings as required by the various service agencies at the time of subdivision or connection of the development, including any requirement to contribute to the cost of upgrading trunk infrastructure.

Impacts on public transport capacity

State Planning Policy supports an increase in development and land use activity in proximity to transport corridors and activity centres. The availability and frequency of public transport is delivered by the State Government.

Contrary to Rezoning Request

A number of objectors have stated that the application should not be allowed to proceed while the request to rezone the land that forms part of Amendment C159 is being considered by the Minister for Planning.

Council does not have the ability to place applications on hold for his reason. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 obliges Council to make a decision on an application. The decision must be based on the zone and planning policies in place at the time the decision is made along with a weighted consideration of any proposed planning scheme amendments.

Construction matters

Objectors have raised concerns that the rodents and snakes in the current car yard at the rear of the property will impact on nearby properties when they relocate when construction commences. This is not a matter that can be taken into consideration as part of the planning process.

Property values

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and its predecessors have generally found claims that a proposal will reduce property values are difficult, if not impossible, to gauge and of no assistance to the determination of a planning permit application. It is considered the impacts of a proposal are best assessed through an assessment of the amenity implications rather than any impact upon property values. This report provides a detailed assessment of the amenity impact of this proposal.




Nil.


8. Conclusion

While an increase in housing density is supported in the Residential Growth Zone, it is not considered that the proposed design response satisfies the relevant planning policies. In particular, the limited ability to provide landscaping to soften the built form is contrary to the objectives of DDO24, which forms part of Amendment C159 which is a seriously entertained planning policy. In addition, the proposal is not considered to provide adequate internal amenity or a clear sense of dwelling identification and results in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts.

It is therefore considered that Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2016/578 should be issued for the construction of 34 dwellings and a reduction of the standard car parking requirement, subject to the grounds of refusal included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Location Plan - 144 - 146 Union Street, Brunswick D17/182504 2⇩ Development Plans - 144-146 Union Street, Brunswick D17/182476 3⇩ Draft Amended Plans - 144-146 Union Street, Brunswick D17/182505


DED57/17 129-131 DALEY STREET, GLENROY - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2016/885 (D17/131629)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for the construction of a three-storey building (over basement car park) comprising 21 apartments and a reduction in car parking.

The application was advertised and 12 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections are the unsuitability of the site (located in the General Residential Zone) to accommodate a three-storey apartment building, its lack of compliance with the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.01 and amenity impacts on adjoining lots.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 4 April 2017. No amendments have been made to the plans following the meeting.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. This is the second application for a three storey building at the site, with the previous application determined by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT determined that the application should not be supported. This report therefore also considers the previous decision of VCAT.

The key planning considerations are whether the design addresses 3 key issues identified in the VCAT Order. The VCAT Order states that a three-storey scale apartment development is appropriate for this site. It is submitted that the proposal adequately addresses the 3 key issues in the VCAT Order by:

Increasing the front setback.

Ensuring no overshadowing to the properties to the south.

Increasing setbacks from the east to lessen visual bulk impacts to the neighboring dwellings.

It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal subject to conditions contained within the recommendation.

Recommendation


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2016/885 be issued for the construction of three-storey building (over basement car park) comprising 21 apartments and a reduction in car parking at 129 – 131 Daley Street, Glenroy, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development commences, 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (dated 30 November 2016) but modified to show:

a) Deletion of the east-facing balcony of apartment 105 at first-floor.

b) The front fence of the secluded private open space of apartment 01, to be a maximum height of 1.5m and be semi-transparent.


c) Apartment 08 to be modified as follows:

i. Removal of the front (northern) secluded private open space, its associated terrace and fencing.

ii. Internal reconfiguration of the apartment so that there is direct access to the side (eastern) terrace from a living room, with no change to the building envelope other than the reconfiguration of windows and doors.

d) Any modifications arising from the amended Sustainability Management Plan (Condition 6 of this permit), including:

i. One secure, easily accessible bicycle parking space per dwelling.

ii. Plans to specify that the 15,000 litre rainwater harvesting tank capacity will not be used for any on-site detention requirements (i.e. detention requirements will be in addition to the 15,000L).

iii. A 5kW photovoltaic (or greater) solar system.

iv. Solar panels (not part of the 5kW system as per condition 1d)iii above) for the gas boosted solar hot water system(s).

v. External shading for the following windows:

i. North-facing shading for the ground, 1st floor and 2nd floor dining/kitchen/living and bedroom windows of dwellings 1, 8, 101, 108, 201 and 205.

ii. Adjustable/removable east-facing shading for the ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor dining/kitchen/living and bedroom windows of Dwellings 5 – 8, 105-108 and 205 and 205.

iii. Adjustable/removal west-facing shading for the ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor dining/kitchen/living and bedroom windows of Dwellings 1-4, 101-104 and 201 – 203.

iv. The details of shading devices including dimensions, locations and materials must be shown on the relevant elevation plans.

vi. The 1st and 2nd floor north-facing corridor windows shown to be openable rather than fixed.

vii. Any other initiatives that arise out of the amendments to the reports required by Condition 6 of this permit.

e) Minimum setback of 5m from the street frontage (northern boundary) of Apartment 01 at ground-floor and apartment 101 at first-floor.

f) All obscured awning window openings to be restricted to a maximum opening of 100mm.

g) All screening to balconies to demonstrate (with cross-sections) compliance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

h) Notations regarding any acoustic measures required for the car stackers outlined in the acoustic report required by condition 3 of this permit.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clause 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, unless specifically noted as a permit condition.


3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the landowner must commission and submit to Council for approval, a report from a suitably qualified acoustic engineer to verify that the car stackers will operate in accordance with the Environment Protection Act 1970 (the Act) and the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 (Regulations). In the event that it is considered that the Act and Regulations would be breached, the acoustic report must recommend further noise attenuation measures to ensure compliance with the Act and these additional measures must be implemented at the owner’s cost and to Council’s satisfaction prior to the occupation of the development.

Landscaping

4. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

a) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland Landscape Guidelines 2009.

b) Identification of any existing tree(s) and vegetation proposed to be removed and retained. Vegetation retainment must include strategies for the retainment (i.e. barriers and signage during the construction process).

c) The provision of a minimum of 6 trees within the front setback(s) to assist in the integration of the development within the existing streetscape, with the tree species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

d) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Extensive hard surfaces are not supported. The adoption of porous/permeable paving, rain gardens and other water sensitive urban design features is encouraged.

5. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works must be completed in accordance with the approved and endorsed landscape drawing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The areas designated as landscaped areas on the endorsed landscape plan must thereafter be maintained and used for that purpose.

ESD

6. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) and accompanying BESS report must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction by the Responsible Authority. The amended SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by ‘Efficient Energy Choices’ dated 29 November 2016, and include the following changes:

a) Additional preliminary energy modelling for Dwellings 1; 102/103; 104/105; 201; and 203/204, which demonstrates the specified glazing and insulation is capable of achieving the committed 7.6 star NatHERS average. If additional glazing, insulation, etc., is required, this will need to be detailed.

b) A 5kW (or greater) solar photovoltaic system to help offset common services.

c) The ESD report to refer to the commitment of an average NatHERS rating of 7.6 stars (or higher) for the dwellings throughout.




7. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the ESD Management Plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

8. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan 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 Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.

Screening


Development Contribution

10. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. In accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, these amounts will be indexed annually on 1 July.


For a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit for the development hereby approved; or

Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision.


Vehicle crossing

11. Prior to the occupation of the development, a vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).



Storm water/drainage

13. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

14. Prior to the commencement of the development, a legal point of discharge is to be obtained, and where required, a stormwater drainage plan showing how the site will be drained from the property boundary to the stated point of discharge, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

General

15. The design of any structure to be sited within the front setback required to accommodate an electricity meter box must not be higher than 1.5 metres to minimise the visual impact on the streetscape and located to ensure there are no impacts on pedestrian safety and vehicle traffic to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. Unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views. This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater down pipes.


18. Prior to the occupation of the development, any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of a proposed vehicle crossing, including the 1 metre splays on the crossing, must be relocated or modified at the expense of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the relevant service authority.

Time limit







Notes: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this notice of decision or conditions of this notice of decision.


Note 2: This permit contains a condition requiring payment of Development Contributions. The applicable development contribution levies are indexed annually. To calculate the approximate once off levy amount, please visit http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/ and click on ‘Moreland Development Contributions Plan (DCP)’. Alternatively, please contact Moreland City Council on 9240 1111 and ask to speak to the DCP Officer.

Note 3: Council charges supervision (2.50%) and plan checking (0.75%) fees on the cost of constructing the drain along the easement or street as permitted by Sections 5&6 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 2000.





REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site is located on the south side of Daley Street, west of the intersection with Widford Street in Glenroy. The subject site comprises two lots with a total frontage of 33.52 metres, depth of between 35.67 and 38.96 metres and an area of 1251 square metres. The site is irregular in shape with the eastern boundary 3.29 metres longer than the western boundary.

The site contains two detached dwellings which are both single-storey with brick walls and pitched tile roofs with variable street setbacks. There is a vehicle crossover to each site. Both dwellings have vegetated front setbacks with large shrubs. The rear yards have lawns and several trees in each.

There are no covenants on the title of either lot. There is a 1.83 metre wide drainage and sewage easement along the southern boundary.

Surrounds

The surrounding area is characterised by predominantly single-storey detached dwellings with front gardens and backyards. Dwellings in Daley Street have a variety of setbacks ranging between approximately 4 metres to 10 metres.

Glenroy Bowls Club is located directly west of the site with three bowling greens, a club house and large open car park. Further to the west is the ATC Cook Reserve, containing sporting facilities and parklands. These are located within a Public Park and Recreation Zone.

To the south of the site are two medium density unit developments. Units 2 and ¾ Ash Court have their north-facing secluded private open space facing the subject site. Unit 3/6 Ash Court has its secluded private open space also facing the subject site.

Abutting the site to the east, 127 Daley Street contains a single-storey brick dwelling. The dwelling is at an angle to the street frontage with a setback of between 7.64 metres and 8.78 metres from its front boundary and is setback a minimum of 1.27 metres from the western boundary. At the rear of the dwelling is a single-storey bungalow and two sheds adjacent to the western boundary. The dwelling has an area of open rear yard to the south-east of the site.

A shopping strip currently comprising 5 tenancies is located 20 metres east of the site, separated by a 6 metre wide laneway to the residential properties. This commercial area is zoned Commercial 1 Zone, and is a designated Local Activity Centre (Widford/Daley LAC) within Clause 21.02-3 (MSS Strategic Direction) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Jacana Railway Station is located approximately 700 metres north-west of the site and Glenroy Station is located approximately 960m to the south-west. There is a bus route along Daley Street and Widford Street (Bus Route 536 Gowrie – Glenroy), with a bus stop located 30 metres from the subject site, linking to Glenroy Train Station.



The proposal


A three-storey building over basement car park with a maximum height of 9.78 metres.

21 apartments including:

6 x one-bedroom,

1 x one-bedroom plus study,

11 x two-bedroom,

1 x two-bedroom plus study,

2 x three-bedroom.

A basement car park which includes 23 car parking spaces (14 of the 23 car spaces are contained within stackers), 14 bicycle spaces, waste bin and general storage area. The basement is to be accessed via a single cross-over at the western end of the site.

Central pedestrian entry and foyer facing Daley Street.

Private open space is provided in the form of ground level courtyards or balconies at first and second floor

Landscaped setback to southern and eastern interfaces.

Site coverage of 53.6% with 32.1% of site as permeable area.

Materials include brick at lower level with timber, render and textured wall panels on upper levels.



This application is the second attempt at an approval.

MPS/2014/586 was lodged with Council in June 2014 and sought approval for a three-storey building with 21 dwellings over a basement carpark.

The application was reviewed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), following Council’s failure to determine the application within the 60 day timeframe prescribed in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Council’s position at the VCAT Hearing was that the application should be refused.

VCAT determined to refuse the application in October 2015 (Param v Moreland CC [2015] VCAT 1631) on the basis that some aspects of the proposal were insufficiently resolved and were unable to be adequately addressed via permit conditions. These issues related to:

The response to the neighbourhood character in regards to the front setbacks:

The impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties regarding shadowing to the south and side setbacks to the east (and associated visual bulk); and

Internal amenity issues with apartments 103, 104, 03 and 04 – reliance on light wells.

In arriving at its decision, VCAT Member Carew concluded at paragraph 63:

I find that a proposal for a three-storey apartment development on the review site is acceptable. However, there are some aspects of the proposal that have not been sufficiently resolved. In combination, I find these aspects cannot be addressed through planning permit conditions. They include the front setback of the ground and first floors to Daley Street, the overshadowing to the units fronting Ash Court and the extent of visual bulk to the neighbour to the east.

A copy of the VCAT decision is contained at Attachment 3.




General Residential Zone

Clause 32.08-2:

The use of the land for dwellings is a Section 1 use in the zone, meaning that a permit is not required for the use.

A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot pursuant to Clause 32.08-5 (GRZ)

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 Car Parking

A permit is required to reduce the car parking requirements. 24 residential and 4 visitor car spaces are required (28 in total). 23 spaces are provided and a reduction of 1 residential and 4 visitor car spaces is required.

The following is also relevant to the consideration of the proposal:

Clause 45.06 (Development Contribution Plan Overlay) – A condition is included in the recommendation which requires the payment of a levy prior to the issue of a building permit.


Public notification


Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land.

By placing two signs on the Daley Street frontages of the site (one to 129 and one to 131 Daley Street).



Overdevelopment – Three-storey is not appropriate for the zone and is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character.

Lack of car parking provided and increase in traffic;

Overlooking and loss of privacy;

Lack of setbacks and resulting overshadowing;

Lack of landscaping; and

Noise from car stackers and plant. A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 4 April 2017 and attended by the Mayor, Cr Davison, Council Planning Officers, the applicant, 3 property owners of the subject site and 2 objectors.

The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond. The objectors made it clear that they did not seek minor alterations to the proposal but rather were opposed to the apartment typology and scale in a General Residential Zone. No changes were made to the proposal following the meeting.



The proposal was referred to the following internal branches/business units


Comments

Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to minor modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation.

ESD Unit No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modification, which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation.





Clause 11.01- Activity Centres










Clause 21.02 Vision







Clause 22.02 Discretionary Uses in Residential Zones



Amendment VC110 – Amendment to the Residential Zones

Amendment VC110 was gazetted on 27 March 2017, in response to the recommendations of the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee. The Amendment changed the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and all planning schemes by amending the Mixed Use Zone, Township Zone, Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Specific to this application, the Amendment introduced a maximum mandatory height limit of 11 metres and 3 storeys in the General Residential Zone, with transitional provisions applying for applications lodged prior to the gazette date of the Amendment.

It is noted that the development proposes a maximum height of 3 storeys/9.78 metres, less than the maximum mandatory height limit specified.


The Amendment also introduced a minimum garden area requirement for lots over 400 square metres, with transitional provisions applying for applications lodged prior to the gazette date of the Amendment.

The combined area of the site is 1251 square metres, meaning that if the new provisions applied, 35% of the site would need to be garden area. While the new provisions do not apply, it is noted that approximately 37% of the site is garden area, which exceeds the requirement of the new provision.



4. Issues

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, objections received, the merits of the application and the VCAT Order of October 2015.

Does the proposal enjoy policy support?

While not located within an Activity Centre, the subject land is located in an established urban area with good access to a range of infrastructure and services. In these areas, the MSS envisages incremental change to accommodate a mix of single dwellings and infill multi-dwelling developments. In areas outside of Activity Centres, it is Council’s policy objective that any proposal respects the existing character of the area.

In its decision on the previous application, the Tribunal concluded that the area is one that will continue to see change given the ageing housing stock and that there is broad policy support for medium density housing in the locality.

The Tribunal weighed up the policy context against the site’s physical context and concluded that the physical context could support a three-storey development. Specifically the Tribunal Member noted that:

I find that an apartment style development may be acceptable in the specific context of this site, provided that the building mass and scale sits comfortably in its context. This is because of the particular location of this site between the local activity centre and the bowls club, the fact that the proposal achieves a consolidation of the lots and because the remaining property to the east will not be prevented from redevelopment due to its access from the laneway. However, any apartment proposal must provide a sensitive response to the streetscape, the dwelling to the east and the properties fronting Ash Court to the south.

The proposal’s response to its surrounding context is discussed in further detail below.




Clause 22.01 identifies the site as being in an incremental change area with the following objectives:

To support incremental change to accommodate a mix of single dwellings and infill multi dwelling developments.

To ensure that the scale and siting of new development respects existing neighbourhood character.

To ensure that the design and landscaping of new development contributes to an enhanced ‘green, leafy’ landscape character.

Clause 22.01-3 contemplates development exceeding 2 storeys in the General Residential Zone, where:

The site is large enough to allow the off-site impacts of the development to be mitigated through the design response, In such cases, the building height at the interface with adjoining properties should be no more than two storeys.

The previous VCAT decision concluded a three-storey apartment development on the site is acceptable and that the location of the building entry, single cross-over and materials palette were all reflective of a streetscape that has a range of dwelling types. It is also noted that the setback of the upper level provides for a two-storey interface to Daley Street. In addition, the front setback has been increased in response to the VCAT Order.

Side setback

The side and rear setbacks have been increased from the previous application, with upper level balcony form being integrated into the building envelope. The side setbacks to the east will be between 3.58m and 4.5m at first-floor and between 6.86m and 8.28m at second-floor. This has been increased from a minimum of 2.47m at first-floor in the previous proposal and is unchanged at second-floor.

Rear setback

The rear setback to the south will be between 4.05m and 5.67m at first-floor and between 6.94m and 8.2m at second-floor. This has increased from a minimum of between 3.06m and 3.26m at first-floor and between 6.68m and 7.85m at second floor in the previous proposal.

These increased setbacks reduce the shadowing and visual bulk, ensure off-site impacts are mitigated and provide for the two-storey interface with the adjoining properties that Clause 22.01 seeks.


Eastern setbacks

At paragraph 32 and 33, the Tribunal Member concluded:

32…The proposal has a good ground level setback to the eastern interface (4-4.5m), with a good basement setback to provide for in-ground planting opportunities. The elevation is reasonably well articulated and the third level is well setback from this interface.

33…However, I find that this setback is eroded by the provision of balconies at first floor which are setback a minimum of 2.47m from the common boundary. These balconies for Apartment 106 and 107 are adjacent to the main private open space of the neighbour. I consider that these balconies should be setback within the form of the building. The setback of the balconies will also improve opportunities for equitable development if the adjoining property is redeveloped in the future.

At first-floor, the proposed balconies at apartment 106 and 107 have been internalised and now have setbacks of 4m and 3.6m respectively. This is an increase in setback of between 0.9m and 1.2m. However, a new balcony has been proposed on the east side of Apartment 105 that has only a 2.58m to 2.93m setback.

Whilst this is adjacent to sheds on the adjoining eastern lot, the setbacks do not accord with the VCAT recommendation due to a concern about equitable development opportunities. Therefore, a condition within the recommendation will require the eastern balcony of apartment 105 to be deleted.

The deletion of this balcony will not unreasonably reduce the amenity of this apartment given the primary balcony accessible from the living room will remain as proposed.

Landscaping

With generous setbacks to all boundaries, there are ample opportunities for landscaping and tree planting. A submitted landscape plan confirms that there is adequate space to the sides of the proposed basement for deep soil planting, with permeability being 32.1%.


A total of 24 spaces are required for the dwellings plus 4 visitor spaces. The development provides 23 on-site spaces. The proposed development has a shortfall of 5 car spaces. None of the 4 visitor car spaces are proposed to be provided and one of the three-bedroom dwellings is only provided with one space. However there are 93 off-street angled car spaces on the southern side of Daley Street within 300m of the subject site. With the two existing cross-overs being removed and only one new cross-over being proposed, there will be four car spaces available at street frontage. It is therefore considered that the available street parking can adequately absorb visitor parking (a position also taken by Member Carew in the VCAT Order). Council’s Traffic Engineer has no objections to the 5 car space reduction.

The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed by Council on the street. This is included as a note in the recommendation.

In regard to bicycle parking, the requirements of Clause 52.34 of the Scheme do not apply. The proposal will provide 6 visitor bicycle parking spaces at ground-floor and 8 bicycle spaces within the basement for residential use. Council’s ESD Officer has assessed the submitted ESD Report, and recommends that a minimum provision of 1 bicycle space to each apartment be provided in line with Best Practice requirements at Clause 22.08 Environmentally Sustainable Design of the Moreland Planning Scheme. This is addressed via a condition in the recommendation.



In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in 108 additional vehicle movements per day on Daley Street. The additional vehicles will not result in this street exceeding the maximum volumes permitted under the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.

It is also noted that the applicant called a Traffic Engineer as an expert witness at the VCAT hearing and the Tribunal Member concluded that the road network can accommodate additional traffic generated by the proposal.


The proposal provides an acceptable response to Council’s Local Planning Policy Clause 22.03 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) as it limits the number of vehicle crossings to one.


Positive ESD initiatives include:

Commitment to a 7.6 star energy rating for the dwellings with indicative modelling for some dwellings.

Many dwellings provided with cross ventilation due to two facades with window openings (6/8 dwellings on the ground and 1st floor and 5/5 dwellings on the 2nd floor).

Commitment to recycling 80% of construction and demolition waste.

Low toxicity paints and other materials to be used within the dwellings.

Landscaping around the site to partially mitigate the Urban Heat Island Effect and provide localised greening to the proposed dwellings (and potentially adjoining properties).

Water efficient appliances and a 15,000L rainwater harvesting tank for reuse within toilets.

An average NatHERS rating of 7.6 stars.

The ESD officer has identified areas within the Sustainability report that will require updating, window screening to ensure lower heat-loading and PV Solar to reduce energy consumption and an increase in the provision of bicycle parking. These are contained within conditions of the recommendation.


Objective 9 of Clause 21.03-3 (Housing) is to increase the supply of housing that is visitable and adaptable to meet the needs of different sectors of the community. With ground-floor access to the lobby with a ramp, and a lift to each floor all apartments are accessible from the street and are therefore visitable by people of limited mobility.

At ground-floor, apartments 01, 02, 03, 06 and 08 have bathrooms that have door and corridor access widths that meet the requirements of Strategy 9.1 of this clause, with the remaining apartments meeting the requirements of Strategy 9.2 of this clause, by having an accessible path from the street and car park, and an internal layout that can efficiently be adapted.



A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. The proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below, and also address issues raised by objectors and contained within the VCAT Order.

Clause 55.03-1: Standard B6 – Street setback objective

To comply with Standard B6, a setback of 7.6 metres would be required, to be commensurate with the dwelling to the east of the subject site.

In the VCAT Order, the Tribunal Member stated:

I find that the front setback at the ground and first floor should be increased for the following reasons:

To assist in the integration of this large, different form of development into the context of more traditional housing stock; and

To provide greater room for landscaping within the front setback taking into account the encroachment of the balconies and private open space areas.

A minimum setback in the order of 5m with some transition maintained to the eastern would be required to address my concerns.

The proposal will have the following front setbacks:

Ground-floor: 4.96m to the western unit and between 5.52m and 5.96m to the eastern unit.

First-floor: 4.96m to the western unit and between 5.96m and 6.13m to the eastern unit.

Second-floor: between 8.46m and 9.49m.

A condition within the recommendation requires that the minimum setback be 5m to the western unit in accordance with the VCAT decision. The stepped setback up to 5.96 metre is considered to be an acceptable response to the 7.6 metre setback of the eastern dwelling.

However, the location of secluded private open space (SPOS) within the front setback with high fencing is not considered an acceptable outcome. This is because the predominant character of the area is one of no or low front fencing. This openness connects the private realm to the public street in a transparent manner.

In regard to apartment 01, whilst no fencing would be a preferable outcome, a 1.5 metre high semi-transparent fence is acceptable given this side of the site is closest to the high fencing already in place at the bowls club. A condition is included within the recommendation requiring the detail of the fencing shown on elevations to ensure its height, materials and transparency is appropriate.

In regard to apartment 08, this has a residential interface to the east and the location of the SPOS within the front setback adjacent to No.127 Daley Street is not considered a good design outcome as the street interface will be a high fence. Therefore, with a large terrace to the east of the apartment, it is considered that the SPOS within the front setback should be removed. As a result, the apartment will need to be reconfigured internally to allow for living areas to access this SPOS. A condition within the recommendation addresses this.


Clause 55.03-2: Standard B7 – Building Height objective

The discretionary height standard of the General Residential Zone was 9 metres at the time of the application submission. With a proposed height of 9.78 metres, the building is 0.78 metres in excess of that Standard.

The VCAT decision considered the overall building height and the Tribunal Member concluded that (at paragraph 24 of the Order):

the large setback to the upper level will ensure that this component will not dominate.

A variation of 0.78m is considered acceptable as it will not result in any off-site amenity impacts.

It is also noted that the height limit in the General Residential Zone has been increased to 11 metres and 3 storeys via amendment VC110.

Clause 55.04-5: Standard B21 – Overshadowing objective

The original design resulted in adverse shadow impacts on the southern adjoining dwellings. Member Carew states at paragraph 41 of the VCAT Order:

I do not find it acceptable for this development to cause additional shadow over these small private open spaces. The proposal would require redesign to comply with the Standard B21 to these properties.

The setbacks of the ground-floor, first and second-floor from the southern boundary have been increased by between 0.29 metres to 2.4 metres. As a result, all shadowing from the proposal now falls into an area that is already in shadow from existing fences. The proposal is in compliance with Standard B21.

Clause 55.04-6: Standard B22 – Overlooking objective

There are balconies and habitable room windows on the eastern and southern facades at first and second-floor that have the potential to overlook the adjoining eastern and southern lots. However, all will have either 1.7 metre high screens or obscure glazing. Some windows are noted as being obscure and having awning opening. A condition in the recommendation will require the awning openings to be restricted to 100mm and the screening to provide cross-sections to demonstrate compliance with this standard.

Clause 55.04-8: Standard B24 – Noise Objective

Concern was raised by objectors regarding noise from plant and car stackers.

Air-conditioning units

The applicant has confirmed that the air-conditioning condenser units will be located within terraces at ground-floor and on balconies at first and second-floor. It is noted that the majority of the air-conditioning units are located in courtyards or on balconies which face the bowls club or Daley Street. Those apartments which have courtyards or balconies facing dwellings to the east and south have sufficient setbacks to ensure that air-conditioning units are not located close to adjoining dwellings and any bedrooms which may face the subject site.

In addition, the air-conditioning units will be required to be operated in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines relating to noise.


Car stackers

The proposed car stackers will be located within the basement, 2.34 metres from the southern boundary and between 21.7 metres and 23.7 metres from the eastern boundary. The issue of car stacker noise was considered at the VCAT hearing and the Member (at paragraph 59 of the Order), stated in regard to noise:

I am satisfied that this will be acceptable because the car stackers are located in the basement.

In addition, and in accordance with Council’s resolution at its June Meeting (DED48/17), conditions are included in the recommendation to require that an acoustic report be prepared to demonstrate that the car stackers will operate in accordance with the Environment Protection Act 1970 and the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008.

Clause 55.05-3: Standard B27 – Daylight to new windows objective

Member Carew raised concerns regarding the internal amenity of 4 apartments stating at paragraph 45 of the VCAT Order:

A number of units (see for example 103, 104, 03 and 04) rely on a light well for light access to bedrooms, other bedrooms (see for example Unit 106) also have compromised daylight access. Although on balance, I may have found these arrangements acceptable, they could be given greater consideration in any redesign.

There have been minor redesigns and altered layouts that improve their internal amenity by:

increasing the size and area of the terraces and light courts (previously between 3.2sqm and 8sqm, and now between 4.4sqm and 8.1sqm); and

reducing the number of bedrooms relying on light courts (apartment 03 now has only 1 bedroom, not 2 relying on the light court).

Council’s ESD Officer had no concern regarding their layout other than ensuring that there was adequate shading to windows to alleviate summer heat gains. Therefore, Standard B27 is also met.


The issues raised by objectors are addressed in Section 4 and 5 of this report.




Nil.

8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed construction of three storey building (over basement car park) comprising 21 apartments and a reduction in parking spaces has adequately responded to the issues identified in the VCAT decision for the previous application. Importantly, changes to the proposal provide for a better relationship to the street and reduce amenity and visual bulk impacts to the sensitive interfaces.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme, objections received, and consideration of the previous VCAT Order, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2016/885 should be issued for 129-131 Daley Street, Glenroy subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.


Attachment/s

1⇩ Location Map - 129 Daley Street, Glenroy D17/195327 2⇩ Advertised Plans - 129-131 Daley Street, Glenroy D16/439793 3⇩ VCAT Order P186/2015 - 129 Daley Street, Glenroy D17/195330 4⇩ Objector location map - 129 Daley Street, Glenroy - MPS/2016/885 D17/195352


DED58/17 36 CLARKE STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2016/995 (D17/79304)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing warehouse to allow for the construction of four triple storey dwellings with roof terraces. The application was advertised and 13 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections include building height, density, car parking, neighbourhood character, clause 55 requirements, noise resulting from use, and general construction issues.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 23 March 2017. Following the meeting, changes were proposed by the applicant including the addition of a dedicated visitor car parking space within the basement, additional landscaping, additional screening measures including obscured glass and planter boxes, and alteration to the existing wall on the southern boundary to reduce existing shadowing impact to 34 Clarke Street.


The key planning considerations are whether the proposal is an appropriate response within the Mixed Use Zone and whether any off-site amenity impacts are acceptable.

Subject to conditions of the recommendation, it is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal.

Recommendation


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2016/995 be issued for alterations and additions to the existing building to allow for the construction of four triple storey dwellings with roof terraces at 36 Clarke Street, Brunswick East, subject to the following conditions:

Amended Plans

1. Before the development commences, 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised 13 February 2017 but modified to show:

a) The ground floor south facing windows shown as obscured to at least 1.7 metres above finished floor level using a louvre style screen.

b) Privacy screen to the north of the Dwelling 4 second floor terrace to a height of at least 1.7 metres above finished floor level using a louvre style screen.

c) Screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:50 detailing screening associated with the ground floor south facing windows and Dwelling 4 second floor terrace including:

i. All dimensions, including the width of slats and the gap between slats if louvers are proposed.

ii. All side screens.

iii. How compliance is achieved with the standard of Clause 55.04-6 (overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.


d) Location of planter boxes to prevent downward overlooking of secluded private open space or habitable room windows from the roof terraces, including a diagram at a scale of 1:50 which details:

i. The height and depth of the planter boxes;

ii. How compliance is achieved with the standard of Clause 55.04-6 (overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

e) The height of the existing or proposed southern boundary fence.

f) The height of the existing external southern wall reduced by a minimum of 0.9 metres as shown on the draft plan received 4 April 2017.

g) Each car parking space clearly dimensioned as 3 metres wide.

h) Each car parking space marked with the associated dwelling number including the dedicated visitor car parking space.

i) The existing vehicle crossing modified to match the location and width of the approximately 3.5 metres wide accessway.

j) The proposed basement ramp amended to show:

i. Slopes no greater than 1 in 4;

ii. Slopes within 5 metres of the street boundary no greater than 1 in 10;

iii. Changes of grade of more than 1 in 8 for a summit change or more than 1 in 6.7 for a sag grade change provided with a transition of at least 2 metres to prevent vehicles from scraping or bottoming.

k) An area for storage of garbage and recycling bins within the basement and ventilation details.

l) Initiatives committed to within the BESS and STORM reports, including:

i. Improved operable shading to level 1 north and west facing glazing.

ii. Double glazing annotated on elevations as per BESS report.

iii. Additional landscaping on roof terraces to meet Clause 22.08 Urban Ecology requirements such as planter boxes.

iv. Annotate Solar PV capacity on plans.

v. Amended rainwater tank capacity as per updated STORM report.

m) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 5 of this permit.

n) A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours, including colour samples (3 copies in a form that can be endorsed and filed).

Secondary Consent



Environmentally Sustainable Development

3. Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Sustainable Design Assessment titled Sustainable Design Assessment and BESS report prepared by JOH Architects and dated 6 February 2017 must be amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to include the following:

a) Water efficiency targets increased to 5 Star WELS for taps.

b) BESS Energy Solar PV system size input amended to 4kW.

c) STORM report amended to reduce the raingarden size to 7m2 and increase the rainwater tank size to 12000L.

Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in Condition 3, the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the amended Sustainable Design Assessment and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

Compliance with endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment


Landscaping

5. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

a) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland Landscape Guidelines 2009.

b) Subject to there being no restrictions as a consequence of the Statement of Environmental Audit required by Condition 8, the provision of at least one tree within the Clarke Street setback to assist with improving the green character of the existing streetscape, with the tree species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

c) Details of the proposed raingarden including confirmation that it is of a ‘lined’ design to avoid impact to adjoining properties.

d) The provision of landscaping along the southern boundary of the front setback.

e) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Extensive hard surfaces are not supported. The adoption of porous/permeable paving, rain gardens and other water sensitive urban design features is encouraged.

6. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works must be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved and endorsed landscape drawing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Development Contributions Plan Levy

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Levy amount for the development is $347.26 per dwelling. In accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, these amounts will be indexed annually on 1 July.





Environmental Assessment and Auditing Requirements

8. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works pursuant to this permit either:

a) A Certificate of Environmental Audit for the land must be issued in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and provided to the Responsible Authority; or

b) An Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a Statement in accordance with Section 53Z of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use and development that are the subject of this permit and that statement must be provided to the Responsible Authority.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, the buildings and works and the use(s) of the land that are the subject of this permit must comply with all directions and conditions contained within the Statement.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, prior to the commencement of the use, and prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, and prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit under the Building Act 1993, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the Statement have been satisfied.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, and any condition of that Statement requires any maintenance or monitoring of an ongoing nature, the Owner(s) must enter into an Agreement with Council pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required, the Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of the permitted use, and prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988. All expenses involved in the drafting, negotiating, lodging, registering and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority, must be met by the Owner(s).


Prior to any remediation works being undertaken in association with an Environmental Audit, a Remediation Works Plan, prepared in consultation with the appointed Environmental Auditor, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must detail only those remediation works, excavation works as well as any proposed structures such as retaining walls, necessary to facilitate the completion of the environment audit. Only the works detailed in the Remediation Works Plan, approved by the Responsible Authority, are permitted to be carried out prior to the issue of a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit.

General




12. Prior to the commencement of the development, a legal point of discharge is to be obtained, and, where required, a stormwater drainage plan showing how the site will be drained from the property boundary to the stated point of discharge must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.


Expiry


a) The development is not commenced within two years from the date of issue of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within four years from the date of issue of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or;



NOTES: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of the conditions of this permit.

Note 1: Further approvals are required from Council’s City Infrastructure Department who can be contacted on 8311 4300 for any works beyond the boundaries of the property. Planting and other vegetative works proposed on road reserves can be discussed with Council’s Open Space Unit on 8311 4300.



Note 3: Council charges supervision (2.50%) and plan checking (0.75%) fees on the cost of constructing the drain along the easement or street as permitted by sections 5 and 6 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 2000.

Note 4: Council may not issue individual bins to new Owners Corporation developments. In the event that shared bins are provided for this development, an amendment to the plans may be required to show the location of a storage area for the shared bins on common land. Please contact Council's City Infrastructure Department on 9240 1111 for more information.


REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site is located on the south-eastern corner of Clarke and Jenkin Streets in Brunswick East, approximately 260 metres east of Lygon Street. The site is rectangular, with a 12.4 metre frontage to Clarke Street, 35.3 metre depth, and total site area of approximately 436 square metres.

Existing on the land is a vacant two storey warehouse. The site contains vehicle access to Clarke Street and is completely impervious, with the warehouse and concreted front setback covering the entire site.


Surrounds

The surrounding area is characterised by mixed development styles, including older style detached dwellings and large warehouses. The surrounds also include a number of more recently constructed multi dwelling developments, including a number of 2 and 3 storey townhouse developments.

To the south are two single storey, single fronted dwellings with gable roof forms, with a more recent double storey development further to the south at 30 Clarke Street. Immediately abutting the site at 34 Clarke Street is a single storey dwelling with ground level north facing habitable room windows and approximately 40 square metres of secluded private open space to the rear of the site.

To the north and east of the site at 202-204 are 12 double storey dwellings that appear to have been constructed in the early to mid-1990’s. These dwellings predominantly front Jenkin Street, with three dwellings fronting Glenlyon Road to the north.

Immediately abutting the site to the east is the rear open car parking area associated with an existing development containing 8 triple storey dwellings at 33 Linden Street, constructed in 2001.

Immediately to the west of the site across Clarke Street is an existing development containing 2 double storey dwellings constructed in 2002, with the rear dwelling fronting Jenkin Street. The western side of Clarke Street also contains examples of older detached single storey dwellings alongside two storey dwellings and warehouses.


The proposal

It is proposed to retain the existing brick building, constructing four 3 storey dwellings with roof terrace areas within the existing structure. Features of each dwelling include:

A partial basement car park containing one parking space for each dwelling including bicycle storage;

Living areas and two bedrooms at the ground floor of each dwelling;

Kitchen/additional living area at first floor;

Roof terraces; and

ESD initiatives including a rain garden within the front setback and an electric vehicle charge station within each car parking space.



Statutory controls – why is a planning permit required?


Mixed Use Zone A permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot. Pursuant to Clause 32.04-2 no permit is required to use land in a Mixed Use Zone as a dwelling.

The following Overlays and Particular Provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme are also relevant to the consideration of the proposal:

Clause 45.03 Environmental Audit Overlay

Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Plan Overlay

Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Parking


Public notification


Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land;

By placing two signs on the frontages of the site (one sign facing Clarke Street and the other facing Jenkin Street).



Building Height

Density proposed

Car Parking

Entry from Jenkin Street

Neighbourhood character and abuttal to Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Rescode Requirements (including site coverage, overlooking, overshadowing, walls on boundary, side and rear setbacks, and daylight to existing windows)

Potential for living areas to be used as additional bedrooms

Noise resulting from use

Impacting on existing plumbing system

Construction issues (dust, vehicles, noise).

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 23 March 2017 and attended by a Council Planning Officer, the applicant and three objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.


Following the discussions at the Planning and Information Discussion meeting, the applicant has agreed to make alterations to the design, which have been included in the recommendation, with references to draft plans provided following the meeting. The following changes were agreed to:

Addition of a dedicated visitor car parking space within the basement in addition to the car parking requirements of the planning scheme.

Introduction of additional landscaping to the south side of the driveway to provide additional screening to the existing dwelling at 34 Clarke Street.

Additional screening to the existing south facing windows of the warehouse.

Removal of bricks from the existing wall on the southern boundary to reduce the height of the external warehouse wall by approximately 900mm to improve existing shadowing impacts on the secluded private open space of 34 Clarke Street.

Inclusion of planter boxes on the roof terraces to restrict opportunities for downward views of adjoining secluded private open space or habitable room windows.

Additional plans provided by the applicant following discussions at the Planning and Information Discussion meeting form Attachment 3. A copy of these plans have been provided to the objector from 34 Clarke Street, as it was considered that this property was most impacted by the proposed alterations.

Conditions have been included within the recommendation requiring these items to be addressed through submission of amended plans should a permit be issued.


No statutory referrals to external agencies were required. The proposal was referred to the following internal Council business units:


Comments

Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation. Feedback has been provided that the basement car park can accommodate one additional car parking space.

ESD Unit No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modification, which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation, including reducing the size of the raingarden and increasing the tank size, to ensure that the raingarden is not inundated due to the size of the proposed stormwater catchment area.




Clause 9 Plan Melbourne

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 13 Environmental Risks



Clause 16 Housing






Clause 21.02 Vision



Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design





Human rights consideration


4. Issues


Is there strategic support for the proposal?

The subject site is located within the Mixed Use Zone. An objective of the Mixed Use Zone is to provide for housing at higher densities. However, the site is not identified within an Activity Centre, Neighbourhood or Local Centre for Growth. Therefore, Council’s local neighbourhood character policy does not specifically direct growth to occur within this location.

However, giving consideration to the purpose of the Mixed Use Zone which includes providing for housing at higher densities, existing built form in the immediate context and proximity of the site to Lygon Street services and public transport, the proposal is consistent with Council strategy implemented through the MSS for the location of increased density. It is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable level of change that is respectful of neighbourhood character. Furthermore, the proposal provides for the reconfiguration of an existing building already forming part of the streetscape character.

Is the built form appropriate?

The subject site is located within a Mixed Use Zone, which provides guidance that developments should meet the requirements of Clause 55. However, in this case the proposal utilises the existing built form on the site. Therefore, while a number of Clause 55 requirements are not satisfied, this is predominantly due to the existing built form on the site. The proposal has been designed to ensure that the setbacks of the proposed additional built form falls within the building envelope requirements of Clause 55, and that off-site amenity impacts resulting from the additional built form are minimised.




The surrounding area has been developed with a number of multi storey townhouse developments. The site is also well serviced by public transport and is located within walking distance of services.

The proposal is located within a Mixed Use Zone area, and does not exceed three storeys, with a maximum overall height of 8.65 metres.

The proposal provides improved opportunities for casual surveillance through balconies overlooking Jenkin Street.

The proposal relies on a single vehicle crossing, with parking for all dwellings located within a partial basement.

The existing concreted front setback will be replaced with landscaping including a rain garden.

The proposed basement is of a sufficient size to include bin storage facilities for all dwellings.

While a number of objectors have raised concerns regarding the proposed density, it is considered that a development of four dwellings within the Mixed Use Zone is well within the expected level of growth within this location, and is not inconsistent with the number of dwellings allowed by the adjoining Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

With an overall height of 8.65 metres and four dwelling density, the proposal provides an appropriate transition between the Mixed Use Zone to the south where higher density is encouraged, and Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the north, where minimal change is anticipated.


A total of four car parking spaces are required for the dwellings. The development provides four on-site spaces. The proposed development satisfies the Moreland Planning Scheme with respect to the provision of car parking. Additionally, the applicant has offered to provide an additional dedicated visitor car parking space within the basement in response to concerns raised by objectors regarding availability of parking in the area.

The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed by Council on the street. This is included as a note on the planning permit in the recommendation.

Concerns were raised by objectors regarding the potential for living areas to be used as additional bedrooms. The proposed first floor living areas are open to the stairs, and form a lounge area in conjunction with the second floor kitchen and meals space. Due to the size of these spaces and size of the openings from the common areas, it is not considered that these spaces could easily be converted to additional bedrooms.



In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in approximately six additional vehicle movements per day on Clarke Street. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems.

A number of objectors raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on existing parking along Jenkin Street. The proposal includes vehicle access via Clarke Street, with pedestrian access via the existing public footpath along Jenkin Street. There is no intention as part of this proposal to alter the existing parking opportunities on Jenkin Street.



Limits the number of vehicle crossings to one per site frontage.

Limits the removal of on-street public parking spaces, removal of street trees, and encroachment into landscaped front setbacks.

Provides four bicycle spaces.



reducing construction waste through repurposing an existing building;

electric car charge points for each dwelling located within the basement;

replacement of the existing hard surface area within the front setback with a landscaped area;

stormwater treated and retained through collection and reuse through water tanks within the basement and the provision of a raingarden within the front setback;

all dwellings cross-ventilated with a north-south orientation including north facing living areas;

6.5 NatHERS Star Rating for heating and cooling energy use;

secure bicycle parking spaces within the basement for each dwelling;

communal north facing solar panels providing power to all dwellings via a hybrid system with the grid;

double glazing of all living areas and bedrooms; and

external shading to east, west and north facing windows.



A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives at Clause 55 has been undertaken. The proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 55.

Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

The proposal utilises the existing building on site, with a new structure constructed within the existing walls allowing for increased height. Due to the existing conditions on site, the proposal does not achieve compliance with a number of Clause 55 requirements including permeability, walls on boundaries, side and rear setbacks, daylight to existing windows, and overshadowing. However, the proposed additional built form has been designed to minimise any additional non-compliances with the relevant standards and objectives of Clause 55. In particular:

Site Coverage and Permeability

Clause 55.03-3 (Site Coverage) of the Moreland Planning Scheme attempts to ensure that the site coverage of a development respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. The mixed character of Clarke Street includes a number of warehouses, with a strong character of hard surfaces within the front setback.

Clause 55.03-4 (Permeability) of the Moreland Planning Scheme attempts to reduce stormwater run-off from a site through increasing the amount of available permeable surface. Due to the existing warehouse covering much of the site, there is limited opportunity to increase the permeability or landscaping of the site.

However, the applicant has proposed to remove the existing concrete from the front setback and install a garden area, with the addition of a raingarden to assist with the treatment of stormwater and improve the environmental sustainability of the site. It is notable that Council’s ESD Unit has recommended that the proposed raingarden size be reduced in size from 34 square metres to 7 square metres to ensure that the raingarden receives sufficient water based on the catchment size, and therefore does not require additional irrigation to survive. Following a reduction of the raingarden size, it is considered that a canopy tree can also be incorporated within this landscape area, further improving the green character of Clarke Street.

Landscaping

Clause 55.03-8 of the Moreland Planning Scheme includes objectives to encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood and include provision of appropriate landscaping. The proposal involves the removal of the existing hard surface within the front setback and replacement with a 35 square metre landscaped area including a raingarden. The recommendation includes conditions for provision of a landscape plan detailing the species selection and construction details for the proposed raingarden to ensure it is of a ‘lined’ design to avoid impact to adjoining properties. It is considered this proposed landscaping would significantly improve the predominantly hard surfaces of the Clarke Street streetscape. Following discussions with objectors, the applicant has also suggested the inclusion of additional landscaping to the south of the accessway.

Building height

Clause 55.03-2 (Building Height) of the Moreland Planning Scheme aims to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. The proposal includes an overall height of 8.65 metres. As there is no height specified within a Schedule to the Mixed Use Zone and the site is not identified within an activity centre, the 9 metre height limit required by Standard B7 applies. The proposed 8.65 metre overall height achieves compliance with this requirement.


Overshadowing

Clause 55.04-5 (Overshadowing) of the Moreland Planning Scheme attempts to address overshadowing impacts by ensuring that buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. The planning scheme limits the assessment of shadowing impacts to the equinox on September 22.

Due to the existing double storey warehouse and orientation of the site, existing conditions result in overshadowing of the existing dwelling to the south of the site at 34 Clarke Street. This is an existing condition that is not altered by the proposal.

The proposed alterations to the building have been designed with setbacks to ensure that the proposal does not result in any additional overshadowing. Shadowing resulting from the additional height falls within the existing shadow cast by the warehouse. Therefore, the proposal does not result in any alteration to the existing shadowing conditions on adjoining sites. However, following concerns raised by objectors, the applicant has offered to make alterations to a section of the existing wall along the southern boundary. This will reduce the amount of shadowing cast and improve the existing conditions.

Walls on boundaries and side and rear setbacks

Clauses 55.04-1 (Side and Rear Setbacks) and 55.04-2 (Walls on Boundaries) of the Moreland Planning Scheme attempt to ensure that the height and setbacks of a building respect the surrounding character, while allowing adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows.

As with the site coverage and overshadowing impacts, the site is currently non-compliant due to the siting of the existing warehouse. However, the proposed additions including the second level and roof terrace have been designed to achieve compliance with setback requirements. The proposed 7 metre height at the second level requires a setback from the southern boundary of 2.18 metres. The proposed setback of 3.2 metres exceeds this requirement.

With an overall height of 8.65 metres, the overall height of the development including the proposed roof terraces requires a setback of 3.83 metres. The proposed setback of 5.1 metres exceeds this requirement.

No additional walls on boundary have been proposed, and no changes are proposed to the height or location of the existing warehouse walls.

Daylight to existing windows and north facing windows

The applicant is proposing to retain the existing windows of the warehouse, with window panes replaced and double glazing installed to improve the environmental sustainability of the site.

Due to existing conditions on the site, variations are required to standards relating to daylight to existing windows and north facing windows, due to the siting of the existing warehouse in relation to habitable room windows at 34 Clarke Street. The north facing habitable room windows at 34 Clarke Street are located within 3 metres of the boundary.

As the proposed new second level has a height of approximately 7 metres at the southern boundary, Standard B20 (north facing windows) requires a setback of 3.08 metres. The proposed extension to the existing building achieves these setbacks. Additionally, the proposed alterations at second floor achieve the 3.5 metre setback required from the existing windows at 34 Clarke Street to achieve compliance with Standard B19 and the objective to allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows.


The proposed roof terraces are setback approximately 5.1 metres from the southern boundary. The overall height of the development is 8.65 metres, requiring a 4.75 metre setback from habitable room windows to achieve compliance with both Standard B20 (north facing windows) and B27 (daylight to existing windows). The proposed 5.1 metre setback from the southern boundary exceeds these requirements.

Privacy/overlooking

The proposal utilises the existing warehouse windows. Due to the floor level increase resulting from the partial basement carpark, screening is required to the ground floor south windows to address potential overlooking of habitable room windows at 34 Clarke Street. The recommendation includes a requirement for amended plans to include details that these windows will be obscured to 1.7 metres above floor level. The proposal includes skylight windows that will ensure the bedrooms of each dwelling are provided with sufficient natural light.

The proposal also results in potential overlooking from the Dwelling 4 second floor terrace and dining area to the habitable room windows of 12/202-204 Glenlyon Road. To address this, the recommendation includes a requirement for amended plans to include a privacy screen to the north of the Dwelling 4 second floor terrace, including provision of a screening diagram.

The proposal includes roof terraces, and a number of objectors raised concerns regarding potential overlooking. To address this, the applicant has suggested the inclusion of planter boxes to restrict downward views from these terraces. A condition has been included in the recommendation requiring submission of amended plans including planter boxes, with a diagram to demonstrate how the planter boxes will achieve compliance with the overlooking standard.

Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme does not aim to eliminate all overlooking, but rather seeks to prevent unreasonable overlooking. Up to 9 metres is the standard accepted by state-wide provisions as being a reasonable distance where screening is required to minimise overlooking. It is considered that the proposed conditions will achieve the desired outcome to prevent unreasonable overlooking while ensuring internal amenity is preserved for future residents.

Is the site potentially contaminated?

The site is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay. The applicant has submitted an environmental site assessment report detailing the extent of site contamination and confirming that the site would likely be appropriate for the intended uses subject to the completion of an Environmental Audit. It is noted that the environmental site assessment has been prepared based on an earlier design prior to the inclusion of landscaping within the front setback. Were the completion of an Environmental Audit to conclude that soil planting is inappropriate, it is considered that this would not impede use of the site as a sensitive use and could be addressed through alternative landscaping measures such as above-ground planting.

A condition is contained in the recommendation requiring an Environmental Audit to be undertaken before the development commences. This will ensure that the site is remediated to an appropriate standard to ensure the land is safe for future residents.




Car Parking including impact on Jenkin Street

Potential for living areas to be used as additional bedrooms

Building Height

Density

Neighbourhood character and abuttal to Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Rescode (Clause 55) Requirements (including site coverage, overlooking, overshadowing, walls on boundary, side and rear setbacks, and daylight to existing windows).



Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the dwellings after occupancy. The consideration of this planning application is confined only to the construction of the dwellings. The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in an urban setting. Any future issues of noise disturbance, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.


An objector concern was the impact of the dwellings on infrastructure, particularly the impact on plumbing due to current shared arrangements. The site owner will be required to address infrastructure servicing demands of the additional dwellings as required by the various service agencies at the time of subdivision or connection of the development, including any service authority’s requirements to contribute to the cost of upgrading trunk infrastructure.

Construction issues

Noise and amenity impacts during the construction process are not generally a planning matter. The Environmental Protection Act 1970 (s.48A(3)), provides noise control guidelines for commercial construction sites which set working hours and noise management expectations. Council’s General Local Law 2007 also includes provisions regarding control of noise associated with commercial and industrial building work.

Concern has been raised in relation to potential closure of roads and footpaths during construction. Such closures are not a planning consideration. Closure or occupation of public spaces requires a Public Occupation Permit under Council’s General Local Law 2007. Council’s Environmental and Civic Assets Local Law 2006 requires an Asset Protection Permit to be obtained to ensure infrastructure assets within the road reserve are protected or repaired if damaged.

A range of other approvals are required from Council’s City Infrastructure Department related to construction impact on public space. Consideration of such closure and notice as required is undertaken through these processes.


Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report do not have a Conflict of Interest in this matter.


Nil.


8. Conclusion

The proposal meets all the standards and objectives of Clause 55 and the provisions of Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2016/995 should be issued for alterations and additions to the existing building to allow for the construction of four triple storey dwellings with roof terraces, subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Objector Map - 36 Clarke Street, Brunswick East D17/130862 2⇩ Advertised Plans - 36 Clarke Street, Brunswick East D17/130865 3⇩ Additional Plans provided following Planning Information Discussion

Meeting - 36 Clarke Street, Brunswick East D17/132520


DED59/17 BUILDING 9 AND A DIVISION - PENTRIDGE COBURG - LOT S4 AND S6 CHAMP STREET COBURG - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2016/896 (D17/171012)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for the development of a commercial building, ranging in height from 2-4 storeys above basement car parking. The two commercial levels will include a supermarket, cinema, shops and food and drink premises’. The proposal also includes the adaptive reuse of the historic Division A building including a performance theatre in the west wing, a number of small offices/studios in the north and south wings and heritage interpretation in the east wing. The application was not advertised as it is exempt from public notice under the Activity Centre Zone and Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

This application is being reported to the Urban Planning Committee at the direction of the Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. In assessing the application against the relevant planning policy, the key considerations relate to:

Consistency with the Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014 (the Masterplan) and the Activity Centre Zone.

The activation, landscaping and quality of the public realm

Adaptive reuse of A Division Building.

The amenity impacts to surrounding properties;

The extent of parking provision provided for the proposed use and future uses throughout the site.

The proposal is considered to respond appropriately to the above considerations as the development is generally in accordance with the Masterplan and subject to conditions included in the recommendation, provides options for the reuse of A Division and proposes an appropriate public realm outcome.

Amenity impacts to surrounding properties can also be appropriately managed and the extent of car parking proposed is sufficient for the proposed use while providing excess parking for future uses across the site.

It is recommended that a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal.

Recommendation


That a Planning Permit No. MPS/2016/896 be issued for buildings and works in association with the construction of a four level commercial building (Building 9) and adaptive reuse of A Division and reduction in the parking requirement at Lot S4 and S6 Champ Street, Coburg, subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of development, 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans and reports dated 13 April 2017 but modified to show:


a) Inclusion of a commercial tenancy on the north or west elevation or the north-west corner of basement level 2 to provide activation to this corner of the building.

b) The size of the bin storage areas consistent with the recommendations within the waste management plan prepared by RB Waste Consulting Services dated 18 November 2016.

c) Initiatives contained within the Sustainable Management Plan, including preliminary location of electric vehicle charging stations as per the Sustainable Management Plan. Final location can be confirmed at detailed design stage but provision on plans is to be made for planning permit.

d) 5 change rooms/showers plus lockers for employees using cycling to work as stated in the Transport Impact Assessment prepared by GTA consultants dated February 2017.

e) All parking spaces with a wall adjacent to one side of the parking space be at least 0.3m wider, to allow for opening car doors in accordance with Clause 2.4 of the Australian Standard for Off-Street Parking (AS2890.1).

f) Corner splays at the egress points on Basement Level 1 and 2 extending at least 2 metres along the frontage road from the edge of an exit lane and 2.5 metres along the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the Road in accordance with the requirement in the Transport Impact Assessment by GTA Consultants dated February 2017.

g) All parking spaces are to be marked with the associated shop, business or unit number to facilitate management of the car park to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) A signage and linemarking plan showing the permitted direction of traffic in accordance with Figure 4.1 in the Transport Impact Assessment by GTA Consultants dated February 2017.

i) Relocate the columns within the car parks in accordance with the dimensions shown in Figure 4.2 of the Transport Impact Assessment by GTA Consultants dated February 2017.

j) Changes required by any permit issued by Heritage Victoria to ensure the plans endorsed under this permit are consistent with any such permit.

k) All changes recommended in the Disability Access Report prepared by Equal Access dated 9 November 2016.

l) An amended landscape plan in accordance with condition 3.

2. The use and development of the land as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered unless with the further written approval of the responsible authority.

Landscaping

3. Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Landscape Plan prepared by Aspect Studios dated 13 April 2017, must be modified to include:

a) A schedule of plants selected from the Moreland Landscape guidelines including height and width at maturity and pot size.

b) A detailed landscape plan for the Piazza, Road D and the public realm north and west of the northern wing of A Division (Division A Forecourt, Courtyard A, Courtyard B and the North Forecourt), consistent with the Pentridge Coburg masterplan 2014 including water features, furniture and a schedule of plants selected from the Moreland Landscape guidelines including height and width at maturity and pot size.


When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Landscape Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit. No alterations to the plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works, including installation of automatic irrigation, must be completed in accordance with the approved and endorsed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The areas designated as landscaped areas on the endorsed Landscape Plan must thereafter be maintained and used for that purpose.

Development contribution

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy amount for the development is $4239.26 per 100 square metres of floor space. In accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, these amounts will be indexed annually on 1 July.





Deliveries and waste management

6. The loading and unloading of goods and materials and all deliveries must not occur between:

a) Monday to Saturday: 10 pm to 7 am

b) Sunday and public holidays: 10 pm to 9 am

7. The collection of waste from the premises approved by this permit must not occur between:

a) Monday to Saturday: 8 pm to 7 am

b) Sunday and public holidays: 8 pm to 9 am

Environmental Assessment and Auditing Requirements

8. The buildings and works and the use(s) of the land that are the subject of this permit must comply with all directions and conditions contained within the Statement of Environmental Audit dated 15 June 2015 issued by David Lam of Coffey Environments Australia Pty. Ltd. issued for the land.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, prior to the commencement of the use, and prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, and prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit under the Building Act 1993, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the Statement have been satisfied.


Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, and any condition of that Statement requires any maintenance or monitoring of an ongoing nature, the Owner(s) must enter into an Agreement with Council pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required, the Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of the permitted use, and prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988. All expenses involved in the drafting, negotiating, lodging, registering and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority, must be met by the Owner(s).

Environmentally Sustainable Design

9. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an amended Sustainable Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The amended report must address the following areas:

a) Update preliminary Green Star Design and As Built scorecard to target a minimum score of 50 to allow a 10% buffer from the minimum 45 points required for a 4 star rating.

b) Include full Green Star Scorecard in the Sustainable Management Plan Appendix 1 (currently missing IEQ section).



11. Prior to the commencement of occupation or issue of a Statement of Compliance, whichever comes first, a report from the author of the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) 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 SMP have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

For the Green Star Design and As Built equivalent rating used as the basis of the SMP, supporting documentation must include appropriate modelling reports, specification extracts, as-built documentation, and contractor confirmation of compliance with GBCA requirements in accordance with the SMP and Green Star Design and As Built scorecard targets.

Waste management

12. The recommendations of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Waste Management Plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.


Car parking

13. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Car Parking Management Plan (CMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must detail:

a) The number and location of car parking spaces to be allocated to staff associated with each of the tenancies within Building 9, noting that those car parking spaces will be allocated as a part lot to their respective tenancies in any future subdivision.

b) The number and location of any staff car parking to be allocated to other sites within the precinct that are intended to be used for commercial tenancies where car parking cannot be accommodated on that site.

c) The number and location of car parking spaces to be allocated to customers, noting that these spaces will remain in common property and outlining how they will be available to the public (security access, time limits etc) and how their use by residents or visitors of any residents within the precinct will be prevented.

When approved the CMP will be endorsed and will form part of the planning permit. No changes may be made to the CMP without the written consent of the responsible authority.

Accessibility

14. The recommendations of the Accessibility Plan prepared by Equal Access dated 9 November 2016 must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development. No alterations to the plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

General

15. All goods must only be stored within the areas nominated within the building as identified on the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. Prior to the occupation of the development all telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


18. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views. This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater down pipes.

19. Should Council impose car parking restrictions in this street, the owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council parking permits to allow for on street parking.


Expiry


a) The development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit;

b) The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of issue of this permit.




Notes: This note is for information only and do not constitute part of this permit or conditions of this permit.

Note 1: 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 in writing from the Responsible Authority.


REPORT

1. Background

The report presented to the February 2016 Council meeting (DED6/16) provides general information on the history of Pentridge.

In 2009 the Minister for Planning amended the Moreland Planning Scheme to modify the Comprehensive Development Zone which applied to the land at the time and incorporate the Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, August 2009 (Masterplan) into the planning scheme. The approval of this Amendment followed a Priority Development Panel process which considered the Masterplans for both precincts of the Pentridge redevelopment site. The Planning Scheme was amended again in 2014 to incorporate the February 2014 Masterplan. The Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) precincts which apply to the Pentridge site are a policy neutral translation of the former Comprehensive Development Zone. The ACZ identifies a building height of up to 4 storeys in this location.

The Urban Planning Committee resolved at its January 2016 meeting to write to the Minister for Planning requesting that the State Government’s Office of the Victorian Government Architect appoint a Design Review Panel to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan (February 2014) and the proposed Coburg Quarter, Coburg Masterplan (2015) (DED1/16). The Minister wrote to Council on 23 March 2016 and advised that he would not be initiating a review of the Masterplans.

Council resolved at its August 2016 meeting to initiate a review of the Masterplans (DED61/16). At its March 2017 meeting (DED20/17), Council resolved to seek the services of suitably qualified experts to provide a critique of the Masterplans, followed by a submission to the Minister for Planning seeking his confirmation that he will authorise an amendment to the Planning Scheme to amend the Pentridge Masterplans. This work is currently underway.

This process cannot reasonably have a bearing on the current planning permit application. A decision must be made on the Masterplan and ACZ provisions as they currently apply to the land.

Subject site

The subject site is legally known as lots S4 and S6 at Champ Street, Coburg and is part of the ‘Pentridge Coburg’ estate. More specifically, the land to be developed is located between A Division to the north, Industry Lane to the east and the ‘QM’ building to the south.

This building is identified as ‘Building 9’ in the Masterplan and is nominated for a commercial development to be located on the former site of C Division (demolished in 1974).


The Certificate of Title is affected by a number of covenants and agreements that relate to obligations for the wider estate. These estate-wide obligations include the creation of roads and car parking. The covenants and agreements relating specifically to this site include:

Care for the heritage fabric in accordance with the Heritage Act.

The protection of bluestone walls from demolition, damage or excavation without a permit issued by the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.

The creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible open space network through the site.

The covenant relating to the care and protection of heritage fabric is not considered to be breached. A concurrent permit application has been lodged with Heritage Victoria. The Agreement relating to publically accessible open space network is discussed at section 4 of this report.

Surrounds

With respect to the site’s immediate interfaces, to the east is the development known as ‘Industry Lane’ which converted former industrial buildings into a residential development. To the south is the six storey QM building containing commercial premises and dwellings. To the north east is a recently completed apartment building on the corner of Moonering Drive and Stockade Avenue.


The proposal


The construction of a commercial building which, due to the slope of the land, ranges in height from 2 to 4 storeys. The new commercial building will extend a maximum height of two levels from grade level of the Piazza (the former parade ground located to the south-west of the proposed Building 9). Due to the slope of the land, two of the three basement levels will extend above ground which results in part of the building being four storeys.

The commercial building will contain a large format tenancy for future supermarket with a number of smaller tenancies within the southern part of the building. A cinema and food and drink premises’ is proposed to occupy the first floor with the largest cinema extending above this level.

All vehicle access and loading to the commercial building will be by basement accessed via a new road (‘Road A’) which runs north-south adjacent to the east of the new building.

‘Road D’ will be a shared road creating vehicle and pedestrian access from Whatmore Drive to the south-east and then extending to the west, past the Piazza and providing access to Champ Street.

The new commercial building footprint is setback approximately 6 metres from the eastern wing of A Division at ground and first floor. The building is setback approximately 10 metres from the southern wing of A Division at ground and first floor with planter boxes, ramps and the entry of the building extending partly into this space.


Demolition (subject to approval by Heritage Victoria) including:

The bluestone wall that extends south from the eastern end of A Division.

The curved dwarf wall that extends into the south-eastern yard from the door into the central crossing.

Internal walls to enlarge cells contained within the northern, southern and western wings of A Division.

Stairs and the partition wall at first floor within the western wing.

The timber surveillance block step and mesh wall to the admin wing with the prison gate retained.

An opening in the eastern wing for access to the heritage interpretation facility located inside.

Modifications to A Division consisting of:

Creation of a pedestrian through-link in the eastern wing.

Skylights located in the northern and southern wing.

The eastern wing to be utilised for heritage interpretation.

The north and southern wings to be used for multipurpose shared spaces noting that no tenants are currently confirmed.

The western wing to be used for community or arts uses including a performance theatre at first floor.

It is noted that demolition does not require a planning permit as there is no planning permit trigger under the Heritage Overlay.

The cast iron palisade fence set on a bluestone plinth which borders the western side of south east former exercise yard will be retained.

Observation Post 6 containing the only remaining guard tower with its original crenelated parapet will be retained.

A section of bluestone wall located to the west of Observation Post 6 (Guard Tower) will be retained.

Heritage Interpretation is proposed with:

A perforated finish depicting an image of the history of the Pentridge site on the eastern façade of the new building.

That the new commercial building reference the footings of the former C Division building previously located on this site.

The northern car park wall adjacent to the southern wing of A Division and the eastern car park wall will include interpretive displays with a timeline and photographic representations of the prison.

Key development plans of A Division and proposed Building 9 form Attachment 2.



In November 2016, Heritage Victoria notified Council of an application it had received for a Heritage Permit. This application is for the proposal as described above. At its February 2017 meeting, Council resolved to write to Heritage Victoria with respect to the application, raising 6 key concerns from a heritage point of view (DED7/17):

c) Staging

The Masterplan outlines the staging of development across the site. Building 9 is depicted as part of Stage B, concurrently with A Division, Building 8 and land surrounding Building 8. Council has concern that the obligations arising from the section 173 agreement (AD750703G) which is a legal encumbrance on the title, does not anticipate the development of both Buildings 8 as identified in the Masterplan. This land is nominated as publicly accessible open space in the Masterplan. Council submits that the resolution of the public realm and development of building 8 must be resolved as part of this application along with the inconsistencies between the Masterplan and the section 173 agreement.

d) Adaptive reuse and link through A Division

The following aspects of the adaptive re-use of A Division have not been resolved through this application:

i. With the creation of a through link there is concern how access to the remainder of the A Division building will be protected from occupants.

ii. The need to remove cell walls as part of this application when there are no prospective tenants of this building. This could be considered as part of a subsequent application once the need for larger cells is demonstrated.

e) Building height and interface to A Division and E Division

Whilst the proposal accords with the Masterplan direction being up to four storeys, the proposal does not identify its compliance with the decision guideline that scale is comparable to the roof lantern of A Division and that the south-west corner complements E Division so that the heritage buildings are respected.

f) Interface to the Observation Tower (Post 6) and bluestone wall

Council has concern that the ground and first floor level of the commercial building is too close to the Observation Tower. The Masterplan identifies a greater buffer distance to both the east and south of the tower.

The commercial building should further setback from the Observation Tower at both the east and south interfaces to ensure that this heritage element and the remnants of the bluestone wall can be appreciated when in proximity to it.

g) Land use

The proposal provides a mix of land uses which generally accords with the Masterplan direction to incorporate a ‘diversity of uses such as office and cinemas’ within Building 9 and community uses within A Division.

h) Heritage interpretation

The Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Bryce Raworth accompanying the application anticipates the preparation of a detailed scope of conservation works that can be required by a condition of permit requiring a specific schedule of works. Council submits that should a permit issue, a condition requires a schedule of conservation works to retain and restore original elements as set out in both the 1996 and 2016 Conservation Management Plans.

Heritage Victoria is yet to determine the application.




Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1

Supermarket, cinema based entertainment facility, shop, food drink premises and place of assembly (performance theatre) are each section 1 uses in the zone when they are located within Precinct 9 of the ACZ, meaning that a planning permit is not required for their use.

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

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 (Car parking) A permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement from 590 spaces to 489 spaces.

Clause 52.07 (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles) A permit is not required under this clause as the proposal satisfies the minimum dimensions specified.

Clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities) A permit is not required under this clause as the proposal satisfies the minimum requirements


Clause 43.01-1 Heritage Overlay - Pursuant to Clause 43.01-2, a planning permit is not required to develop a heritage place which is included on the Victorian Heritage Register.

Clause 45.03 Environment Audit Overlay

Clause 52.36: Integrated public transport planning. The application was required to be referred to Public Transport Victoria.

Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO1) – A condition is included in the recommendation regarding the payment of the DCP levy.

Aboriginal Heritage

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 provide for the protection of Aboriginal places, objects and human remains in Victoria.

While the site is close to a waterway, the permit applicant has supplied evidence that the land has been subject to significant ground disturbance and is therefore not an area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity. No cultural heritage management plan was therefore required.



Public Notification

Section 7 of Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone specifies that a proposal for buildings and works in precinct 9 is exempt from the notice requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 if:

it is generally in accordance with the objectives in Clause 2.0 or requirements at Clause 5.0 of this Schedule and… the Pentridge Coburg Masterplan (February 2014)

The proposed development has been assessed against the Activity Centre Zone and the Masterplan and is considered to be generally in accordance with these documents. In particular, it is noted that the footprint and height of the building is consistent with that depicted in the plan and incorporates the types of commercial uses envisaged including retail activating the ground level and a cinema at the upper level.

Clause 52.06-4 specifies that that an application for a reduction in car parking is exempt from the notice requirements of the Planning and Environment Act if that is the only permit requirement or if the application is also for a permit under another provision of the planning scheme and in respect of all other permissions sought, the application is exempt from the notice requirements.


The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal branches/business units

External Agency Objection/No objection

Director of Public Transport

No objection.



Comments

Urban Design No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation.

The key concern raised relates to the pedestrian footpath linking the north east end to the eastern entry, which lacks activation. This has been addressed through a condition in the recommendation.

Development Advice Engineer

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation.

The submitted Transport Impact Assessment concludes that 489 parking spaces provided within the development exceeds the expected number of vehicles based on the Empirical parking rates. This is accepted.

ESD Unit No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modification, which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation.

It was noted that the application provides a generally excellent response with very good supporting documentation appropriate to demonstrate compliance with Clause 22.08 best practice requirements using Green Star Design and As Built as a benchmark.

Features include a 112.5 kW solar PV system and high levels of rainwater capture and reuse.






Clause 11.04 Open Space

Clause 11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne

Clause 13.04 Noise and Air



Clause 17.01 Commercial

Clause 17.02 Industry

Clause 17.03 Tourism

Clause 18.02 Movement Networks

Clause 19.02 Community Infrastructure






Clause 21.02 Vision




Clause 21.03-6 Open Space Network





Council through its MSS, seeks to create sustainable neighbourhoods where people can walk to shops and services. A mix of retail, commercial and entertainment uses are encouraged within the Coburg Activity Centre as well as employment opportunities that are well serviced by public transport. Council also seeks to achieve best practice environmentally sustainable development and to promote a fine grain urban structure while ensuring the conservation and enhancement of heritage places.

The proposal meets the objectives and strategies of the LPPF by proposing a mix of retail, commercial and entertainment uses in the Coburg Activity Centre as well as generating employment and tourism opportunities within the former Pentridge site. The proximity of the site to a variety of public transport options and the provision of an excess of bicycle facilities on the site encourages less reliance on cars as a means of travel. The proposal enjoys strong strategic support at both State and Local level.




4. Issues

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, and the merits of the application.

Is the proposal consistent with the relevant planning policy including the Pentridge Coburg Masterplan?

The proposal seeks to establish a boutique shopping centre which will provide a mix of retail and entertainment facilities within Precinct 9 (Pentridge Coburg) of the Coburg Activity Centre. Of most relevance in assessing the appropriateness of the proposal is the schedule to the Activity Centre Zone and the incorporated Masterplan.

The proposal is found to be generally consistent with the Activity Centre Zone for the following reasons:

The location of the building and the mix of uses supports the consolidation of retail and entertainment uses within the activity centre and compliments the core retail functions of precincts 1-4;

With the exception of the north and part of the west elevations, the development activates the public realm through the use of glazing for tenancies at ground level;

Pedestrian movement through the site is enhanced by providing connectivity to the existing street network including facilitating movement through to Coburg Lake Reserve;

Subject to the approval of Heritage Victoria, the development has been generally designed to be respectful of the significance of the heritage place through the scale of development and selection of appropriate materials;

The proposal incorporates the former Division A prison building and seeks to activate it through its adaptive reuse and heritage interpretation;

Appropriate ESD measures have been proposed; and

Appropriate artwork, incorporated into the design of the built form is proposed which will enhance the identity of the site. This can be complimented by an appropriate landscaping response to enhance the public realm surrounding the building however, conditions will require a more detailed landscape plan of the public realm to ensure this.

The proposal is found to be consistent with the Masterplan for the following reasons:

The development acknowledges and respects the height of the former bluestone prison buildings and walls with the scale of the building being comparable to the roof lantern of the Division A building.

The proposal includes the use of a cinema at the first floor.

The car parking spaces are to be available for wider Pentridge visitors and the loading facilities are integrated into the building envelope to minimise impacts on surrounding residents.


With regards to the form of development, the Masterplan notes that the retail component is intended to compliment the balance of the Coburg Activity Centre and to this end the layout of the retail building should be an open pedestrian style environment. While the building is not strictly open, the proposal has responded positively to the intention of the Masterplan by:

Maximising natural light opportunities into the building through the use of glazing in the roof.

Creating an atrium appearance through the central arcade to give the appearance of being open.

Providing visual interest in the layout of the walkways to replicate a ‘laneway’ experience.

While the proposal achieves high level compliance with the Activity Centre Zone and the Masterplan a more in depth discussion of some of the specific considerations follows.

Landscaping/public realm

The application includes a landscape plan for the immediate surrounds of building 9. The Masterplan envisages a pedestrian oriented approach to building 9 with landscaping connecting each of the public realm spaces through the precinct. The landscape concept indicates the use of kerb-less road treatments and contrasting paving to define and prioritise pedestrian movement on the shared Road D, which is consistent with the intention of the Masterplan.

While road works through the site have largely been completed, construction and landscaping of the Piazza has not yet commenced. The first stage of development as outlined within the Masterplan includes public realm works, roads and the Piazza to be completed by 2014. No detailed plans for landscaping of the Piazza and other public realm spaces has been submitted to date. It is considered important to resolve this detail now to ensure the best possible outcome for the adaptive reuse of A Division building and ensuring these spaces are enhanced. It is therefore considered appropriate to request the submission of a comprehensive landscape plan for the Piazza and public realm to the west of A Division (Courtyard A and B). This is included as a condition in the recommendation.

In relation to the main western entry and the west facing tenancies, it is noted that the applicant was asked to explore opportunities to provide better integration of this side of the building with the changing levels across the site. The application plans have now been updated to more evenly grade Road D so as to provide for better activation of this interface particularly as it relates to Tennancy 12 and 15. Additional steps have been introduced to improve the pedestrian experience. This will assist in providing a more welcoming entry to the building on the approach from Champ Street to the west.

In relation to the interface between A Division and the proposed building, it is noted that the building is generally sited as depicted in the Masterplan. However, officers including Council’s Urban Design team raised concern about the northern elevation of the proposed building and the lack of activation and passive surveillance of this pedestrian space. While pedestrian access is possible through this corridor, the building proposes little activation on this elevation. Furthermore, the applicant proposes gates at each end of this space to be closed after dark, restricting pedestrian movement. While the plans depict some heritage interpretation on the northern wall of the new building, it is not considered sufficient to activate the pedestrian accessway.


To attempt to address the concern raised, the applicant provided a concept plan, demonstrating that it was possible to include a small tenancy on the northern elevation at the expense of 5 car parking spaces. They have not sought to amend the application plans to include this. Ideally activation would be achieved by providing a tenancy on the north-west corner of the building, adjacent to the proposed entry to A Division building although a set of stairs is located here. Despite this, opportunities exist to provide a small tenancy on the west elevation and therefore a condition has been included in the recommendation which requires the inclusion of a small retail or commercial tenancy on the north or west elevation or in the corner of the building if it is possible to relocate the stairs.

Section 173 agreement - publically accessible open space

Section 2.4 of Section 173 agreement AD750703G requires that the publically accessible open space network is ‘constructed, maintained, managed operated and kept accessible to the public’

This agreement refers to figure 9 of the 2003 ‘Master Plan’ which depicts the location of the publically accessible open space however, this Master Plan has now been superseded by the Pentrdige Coburg Masterplan dated 2014. Despite the differences between the two Masterplans, legal advice sought by Council and separately by the applicant, both confirm that the current Masterplan (2014) is generally in accordance with the previous Masterplan (2003) and that the agreement allows for variations to the publically accessible open space network to be permitted. There is therefore no need to amend the Section 173 agreement to allow for the development to proceed.

It is also noted that the agreement, in referring to the earlier Masterplan, requires the provision of publicly accessible open space in the location earmarked for building 8 in the new Masterplan. Furthermore the new Masterplan anticipates that building 8 will be developed as part of the same stage as building 9 although no application is before Council for the construction of this building. The applicant submits that further work needs to be undertaken to determine the best course of action for the area in dispute which is located on the north eastern side of the A Division building. It is considered reasonable to allow the owner more time to consider this and proceed to approve the current application.

The remaining Section 173 Agreements do not have a direct bearing on the current application and relate to:

The provision of documents including a whole of site road design framework (which makes provision for Pentridge Boulevard), a whole of site drainage strategy and a whole of site heritage interpretation strategy,

The provision of 19 car parking spaces and temporary bin storage on the Sentinel Precinct land,

Provision of 65 car parking spaces for residential lots on the stage 3 plan.

Care for the heritage fabric,

Requirement to pay a special charge scheme including an administrative fee.

Heritage considerations

The subject site is located within Heritage Overlay schedule 47 – H.M. Prison Pentridge. As noted above, a planning permit is not required for the proposed development under this overlay as the site is included on the Victorian Heritage Register. It is also noted above, in the Background section, that Council made a submission to Heritage Victoria highlighting concerns relating to the proposed development from a heritage perspective. These relate to the adaptive reuse of and link through A Division Building, building height and interface to A Division and E Division buildings, Interface to the observation tower, land use and heritage interpretation.

As a planning permit is not required under the Heritage overlay, these heritage considerations must be assessed by Heritage Victoria in granting a Heritage Permit.


Amenity impacts to surrounding properties

Due to the central location of the proposed building, external amenity impacts are considered to be minimal. Setbacks to Pentridge Boulevard, Murray Road and Champ Street are such that impacts are likely to be negligible. The nearest residential abuttals are the dwellings located in Industry Lane to the east and the newly completed apartments at Moonering Drive, which gain access from Stockade Avenue. These dwellings will be located as close as 11 metres from the eastern wall of the proposed development on the opposite side of Road A. It is noted that the loading dock for the building is located on the eastern side of the building along with two separate entrance/exits to the basement car park. These features will result in a level of disturbance to these dwellings as a result of vehicles visiting the site, deliveries and waste collection.

However, the likely impacts are considered to be acceptable on the basis that the proposed development is consistent with the Masterplan and the site has been earmarked for the type and scale of commercial development proposed since at least 2014 when the Masterplan was approved. Furthermore, it is noted that there is an existing high bluestone wall located along much of the eastern boundary that will buffer much of the noise and light associated with the loading dock. Despite these factors it is considered reasonable to restrict the hours for loading and unloading to the site. The submitted waste management plan outlines that waste will be collected by a private contractor during the hours of 7 am-8 pm Monday to Friday and 9 am-6 pm Saturday and public holidays. These hours are considered acceptable.

The height and scale of the proposed building will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing or visual bulk due to its setback from the eastern boundary and the location of the high bluestone wall on this boundary.


The Parking Overlay applies to the subject site, reducing the standard car parking rates for office, food and drink premises and shop by activating column B of Clause 52.06. A total of 590 spaces are required for the mix of proposed uses including the uses proposed for A Division. The proposal includes 489 on-site spaces. A reduction of 101 spaces is therefore sought with respect to the provision of on-site car parking.

Based on Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.03-3 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) it is considered reasonable to reduce the car parking requirements. Clause 22.03-3 states that it is policy to:

Support reduced car parking rates in developments within and in close proximity to activity centres, with excellent access to a range of public transport options and with increased provision of bicycle parking above the rates specified in clause 52.34.

The proposal is located within the Coburg Activity Centre and has excellent access to public transport including Batman Railway Station within 600 metres and tram and bus routes 530 and 534 within 300 metres. Furthermore, the proposal provides 120 bicycle parking spaces which is well in excess of the 35 specified in Clause 52.34. However, it is noted that the plans must be updated to show the location of end of trip facilities in accordance with the planning scheme requirements.

The submitted Transport Impact Assessment calculates an empirical total car parking demand of 463 spaces, based on surveys of existing similar facilities. However, the peak demand is expected to be 361 spaces which will occur in the evening when the cinema is generating more demand and when the retail and supermarket uses are creating less demand. There is therefore a surplus of 128 spaces based on the empirical demand (361) and the provision of on-site parking (489). The Transport Impact Assessment concludes that these spaces will be available to be used for future developments within the Pentridge precinct.


Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch is satisfied that car parking requirement can be reduced for this application.


As noted above, the peak period for traffic generation is likely to be in the evening, largely as a result of the cinema. Given the site’s excellent access via arterial Roads such as Pentridge Boulevard, Murray Road and Sydney Road, there is likely to be little noticeable impact of increased traffic in the local street network. The main vehicle access point to the site is likely to be from Murray Road to the north, given its proximity to the basement carpark entrance. For vehicles entering from the south of the site, they can enter from Pentrdige Boulevard along Whatmore Drive. While it will be possible for vehicles to enter from Champ Street Along Road D, this will not be as practical given the circuitous layout of the road and the treatment proposed to this road which will prioritise pedestrians.

The increase in traffic is therefore likely to impact mostly on the residents in the QM building to the south and the apartment building on the corner of Moonering Drive and Stockade Avenue to the north. The impact to these buildings is considered acceptable on the basis that:

The ground level of the QM building is either commercial/office space or car parking and therefore not sensitive.

The ground level walls of the apartment building to the north east of the site have been designed to minimise amenity impacts with no windows or doors except for the entry to the building.

Inevitably the increased traffic will result in some amenity impacts however, as noted above, the Masterplan clearly anticipates this scale of development with uses as proposed. The zone also facilitates these uses which do not require a permit in their own right. For these reasons the increased amenity impact is considered acceptable.

The ‘Pentridge Coburg Car Parking Management Plan’ (21 December 2016) prepared by GTA consultants provides a summary of the anticipated parking demand for each of the buildings and uses across the Pentridge Coburg site, using an empirical rate derived from similar developments that exist and operate elsewhere.

The plan acknowledges that not all of the buildings will be able to accommodate car parking and that a precinct wide approach to parking is required. It also acknowledges that many of the short term spaces provided for visitors can be shared between uses that generate peak demand at different times of the day. In summary, the report concludes that Building 9 will provide sufficient surplus car parking to accommodate the long term (staff and office workers) and short term (visitor) parking demand across the site including for buildings that cannot provide parking.

However, these calculations assume that there will be no visitor parking demand generated by residential buildings that have not yet been granted planning permits. This may be the case if each of these buildings accommodate residential visitor parking within each of these buildings. But given this cannot be considered until individual planning permit applications are lodged with Council, to ensure short term car parking is managed appropriately, it is considered reasonable to require the preparation of a car parking management plan that will demonstrate how the short term spaces are managed to provide for the various uses across the site. A condition is included in the recommendation.




Utilises Road A at the rear of the building for vehicle access to allow the interface with the public realm to prioritise pedestrian movement and safety and to create active frontages.

Proposes Road D as kerbless and to have pedestrian priority.

Introduces further connections through the site to the existing surrounding street network.

Provides 120 bicycle spaces, well in excess of the planning scheme requirement.


Council’s ESD officer has reviewed the proposal and found the proposal to make an excellent ESD response. Some of the features of the development include a 112.5 kW solar PV system, high levels of rainwater capture and reuse for flushing toilets, external shading to restrict solar heat gains in summer, all timber to be Forest Stewardship Council or similar and 50% of the concrete to have recycled water and recycled sand content.

The proposal has been assessed as achieving a 4 star Green Star rating which is considered to be best practice.


An accessibility report has been prepared in support of the application. The report outlines measures required to bring it into compliance with the relevant access standards.

Is the site potentially contaminated?

The site is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay. The applicant has submitted a Statement of Environmental Audit confirming that the site would be appropriate for the intended uses subject to specific conditions. A condition is therefore contained in the recommendation requiring the conditions contained in the Statement of Environmental Audit to be undertaken before the development commences. This will ensure that the site is remediated to an appropriate standard to ensure the land is safe for patrons of the centre.


There are no objectors to this application.




Nil.


8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed development is an acceptable response when considered against the purpose of the Masterplan and the Activity Centre Zone and will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts to any nearby residential properties. While a reduction to the statutory car parking rate is proposed, it is expected that sufficient car parking is provided to meet the onsite demand as well as providing a surplus for future uses more broadly across the Pentridge site.

A condition in the recommendation requires improved activation of the northern and western wall of the building and to provide detailed landscaping plans for the Piazza and broader public realm landscaping.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and the Pentridge Coburg Masterplan, it is considered that Planning Permit No MPS/2016/896 should be issued for buildings and works in association with the construction of a four level commercial building (Building 9) and adaptive reuse of A Division and reduction in the parking requirement subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Locality Plan D17/212078 2⇩ Development Plans D17/62299

wednesday 28 june 2017 - moreland city council · wednesday 28 june 2017 commencing 6.30 pm council...

Documents