P635/2015: ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PLANNING CONTROLS

The following planning provisions are relevant to the assessment of application: Land use zoning The zoning map below shows the location of the three land use zones affecting the site.

MIXED USE ZONE Under Clause 32.04-1 planning approval is required for the use of land as a residential hotel. Under Clause 32.04-8, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE – SCHEDULE 1 No permit is required for the use of the land as a dwelling. Under Clause 32.07-4, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE – SCHEDULE 1 Under clause 32.08-1, a permit is required for the use of the land as a child care centre. Under Clause 32.08-6, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Under Schedule 1, landscape plans are required to provide at least 1 large tree in the front setback. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY – SCHEDULE 5 Under Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with any requirements in a schedule to this overlay (with the exception of 45 Linden Avenue). The site is affected by Schedule 5 - Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centres. Design Objectives of the Overlay at Clause 1 of the Schedule include: Built Form To promote new development that provides a positive contribution to the built form and public realm by:

• Respecting the preferred scale and character of the Heidelberg Activity Centre. • Incorporating a combination of articulation, materials and colours to create visual

interest. • Providing façade treatments that are sympathetic with nearby areas of parklands and

vegetation. • Providing building setbacks that create a sense of openness within the streetscape

environment and maintain the amenity of peripheral residential and other sensitive uses.

• Encouraging development to provide passive surveillance to the streetscape and other public areas.

• Maintaining sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of in accordance with clause 55.

• Locating living areas, windows and private open spaces to minimise the potential for overlooking in accordance with clause 55.

• Ensuring ground-level street frontages have activity and interest for pedestrians. • Ensuring car parking is appropriately screened by buildings and landscaping.

To promote design that enables environmentally sustainable development. To discourage the underdevelopment of land by not permitting buildings or entrenching uses that are inconsistent with the preferred scale and character, identified by the maximum building heights and setbacks detailed in this Schedule. Building height and setbacks Preferred building height and setbacks for the site are shown in the precinct plan below.

Subject site

Clause 9.0 Precinct Plan for Bell Street Peripheral retail Precinct

Building height The overlay specifies a maximum preferred height of 16 metres for the site (excluding 45 Linden Avenue). Setback Standards The overlay outlines that the following setbacks be provided to each of the street frontages. ▪ Buildings should be constructed to the property boundary, unless civic space is

integrated with the footpath. ▪ At the property boundary, the building can be constructed up to a maximum height of

10 metres. ▪ Buildings should be setback an additional 1.5 metres for every 3 metres of building

height above 10 metres. ▪ Buildings higher than 16 metres should provide an additional setback to:

• Provide 3 hours of winter sunlight to reach the first floor (4 metres above ground level) on the opposite side of the street; and

• Obscure additional levels when viewed from ground level on the opposite side of the street.

DIAGRAM 1 - SETBACK STANDARD: 1 In addition, at the interface with land to the south (including 45 Linden Avenue): ▪ Buildings should be setback 5 metres from the property boundary. ▪ Buildings should be setback an additional 3 metres for every 3 metres of building

height above 10 metres.

DIAGRAM 2 - SETBACK STANDARD: 7 POLICIES CONSIDERED STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The following policy is relevant to the assessment of the proposal and is outlined below and expanded on where considered appropriate: Settlement Clause 11.01- Activity Centre policy seeks to build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres. Policies on Metropolitan Melbourne also seek to encourage housing affordability and choice, job creation and liveable communities. Built Environment and Heritage Clause 15.01-2 seeks to achieve high quality urban design and architecture. In assessing the design and built form of residential development of four or more storeys development must be considered under the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004). Clause 15.01-5 seeks to recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place. Clause 15.02-1 seeks to encourage energy and resource efficiency. Housing Clause 16.01 sets out objectives in relation to integrated housing, location of residential development, strategic redevelopment sites, housing diversity and housing affordability. Relevant objectives include:

To promote a housing market that meets community needs.

To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.

To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan Melbourne.

To provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.

To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services. Clauses 16.02-3 and 4 in relation to Residential aged care facilities set out the Objectives under is to facilitate the timely development of residential aged care facilities to meet existing and future needs and to encourage well-designed and appropriately located residential aged care facilities.. Economic Development The objective under Clause 17.01-1 for commercial activity is to encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Municipal Strategic Statement Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement sets the direction for land use and development in Banyule by identifying key planning elements for consideration and nominating a series of objectives and strategies for each. The overarching vision of the Municipality is:

Banyule will be regarded as a city offering a range of quality lifestyles in an urban setting enhanced by the natural environment, and served by an efficient and committed Council.

The relevant objective encompasses Environmental Management. Housing Clause 21.04-1 seeks to encourage higher density housing close to activity centres and the Principal Public Transport Network and protect residential amenity and provide for the desired future neighbourhood character of residential areas. Built environment The objective in relation to Clause 21.06 is:

To ensure that development respects and contributes to the desired future character of residential neighbourhoods and the identity of Activity Centres, in a manner that supports varying degrees of housing change.

Strategies include but are not limited to:

• Promoting high quality design in all new residential development that makes a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character.

• Encourage the retention and planting of significant trees, substantial trees

and other vegetation to protect and improve the landscape character, streetscapes, habitat links and biodiversity of the area.

• Support residential development in accordance with the Residential Areas Framework which identifies varying degrees of housing change across the City’s residential neighbourhoods and Activity Centres.

In relation to sustainable design, strategies include:

Support the retention of significant trees and the planting of trees and other vegetation.

In relation to housing, strategies include:

• Encourage a substantial proportion of new housing to be located within or close to Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network particularly where there is high frequency and quality of public transport services in operation.

• Encourage a range of types and sizes of housing, particularly in areas located close to public transport, services and facilities.

• Encourage development to provide a wider range of household types particularly smaller sized dwellings, including those with only one bedroom.

Clause 21.06-2 - Residential Areas Framework identifies that the site is located within a Diversity area in the indicative map forming part of Clause 21.06 of the Housing Framework Map. These areas typically have the following characteristics:

• Within the business core of an Activity Centre.

• Some residential properties along streets that immediately surround the business core of an Activity Centre.

They will provide for shop-top and apartment living in higher density mixed use and residential developments. These areas include strategic redevelopment sites that provide for higher density housing.

Development will make a positive contribution to the identity of the Activity Centre and the desired future character of surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

In these areas people live close to train stations, transport interchanges, shops, services and nodes of employment. These areas include higher density and some medium housing opportunities.

Local Places Clause 21.08 seeks to provide guidance to the use and development of land within specified Activity Centres. Clause 21.08-2 provides specific guidance with respect to the Heidelberg Specialised and Major activity centre, of which the site forms part. The Clause identifies that:

The Activity Centre has several defining characteristics and attributes for a preferred identity. These are as follows:

…

• The centre can support change that enhances liveability and sustainability for social activity, the environment and local economic growth.

• Change in the centre needs to:

o Enable the precinct’s preferred identity and as appropriate, avoid new development and subdivision that inappropriately constrains the floor space growth potential that is provide by the Heidelberg Structure Plan

o Provide a public realm that supports prioritised modes of transport and encourages best practice environmental and urban design of buildings and spaces.

• The activity centre is set within an undulating and vegetated urban landscape with mature trees on ridgelines and in streets. As such, many building facades and roof tops are highly visible from public domains and streetscapes in the valley and from the surrounding ridgelines. Burgundy Street forms the valley floor with easterly views to the Yarra River parklands and the Dandenong Ranges in the distant backdrop. The valley is edged by mature-treed ridgelines and streetscapes that are punctured by the Austin/Mercy Hospital complex.

…

• Bulky goods retailing and a mix of other land uses cluster along the Bell Street arterial road, to the west of Upper Heidelberg Road.

Relevant objectives and strategies include:

Land use and economic development To facilitate and promote the continued vital, viable and economic development of Heidelberg.

Strategies

• Establish development that creates a diverse range of dwelling sizes and types, including opportunities for affordable housing and apartments in mixed-use buildings.

• Strengthen the wide range of health care, family support and other health related professional services by promoting/locating:

o Above ground floors in the Peripheral Retail Sales Precinct.

Built Form

Objective To provide new built form that makes a positive contribution to streetscapes and urban form.

Strategies

• Encourage development that provides an active frontage at the street level.

• Promote environmentally sustainable design.

• Establish high quality and distinctive built form outcomes.

• Encourage buildings to integrate vegetation within the built form, such as terrace gardens, rooftop gardens and vegetated facades.

• Work with land owners to develop master plans for key strategic redevelopment sites identified by the Heidelberg Structure Plan, to encourage redevelopment outcomes that respond appropriately to the attributes of each site and surrounding area.

Public Realm

Objective

To create attractive, safe and high amenity street, civic and open spaces that enhance and serve new levels of activity within a vibrant and interesting setting.

Strategies

Create an attractive, safe and highly amenable railway station and surrounding streets that enhances and serves new levels of activity within a vibrant and interesting setting.

Protect and enhance the wildlife corridor value of the Yarra River and its adjoining parkland environment.

Access and Connections

Objective

To improve, promote and encourage safe pedestrian access, cycling access and public transport use to and within the activity centre.

Strategies

Minimise the adverse impacts of through-traffic on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

Provide for high levels of access by walking, cycling and public transport.

Provide vehicle access and connectivity, including convenient access to commercial premises by service and delivery vehicles.

Provide and manage an appropriate provision of car parking.

Ensure that car parking provisions do not adversely impact upon the pedestrian environment.

Encourage regional traffic to travel around the precinct.

Identity

Objective

To ensure that development provides a positive contribution to the preferred identity of Heidelberg.

Strategies

Strengthen the identity of the activity centre through the use of building materials, built form, public interfaces, civic spaces and landscaping.

Ensure new development provides active frontages at the street level.

Capitalise on the environmental, artistic and cultural heritage of Heidelberg.

Realise the potential of key intersections to read as gateways.

Precinct 5 - Bell Street Peripheral Retail Vision

The Bell Street Peripheral Retail Precinct will continue to provide a range of small to medium sized peripheral sales retailing for the regional market, with redevelopment to provide residential and medical service uses above street level.

Objective

To support uses primarily for small and medium sized bulky goods retailing with opportunity for medical services and dwellings.

Strategies

...

Provide higher density residential developments that provide a diverse range of dwelling sizes and types, including opportunities for affordable housing and apartments in mixed-use buildings.

Provide opportunities for medical uses that service and support the function of the hospitals and Medical Precinct.

Objective

To encourage well designed mixed use buildings which respond appropriately to their site and context.

Strategies

Development should provide a built form that is respectful of adjoining residential areas and create visual interest along Bell Street.

Other than the entrance to the building, residential development should not be provided at street level.

Development at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road should provide the only dominant building that protrudes noticeably above the treed ridgeline to provide a landmark that makes a positive contribution to the identity of the activity centres.

Provide the area with a landscape identity, particularly one that fosters comfortable pedestrian movement.

Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy The Policy Objectives at Clause 22.02-1 are:

• To ensure that development complements and respects the preferred future character of the area.

• To integrate this policy with the Residential Areas Framework contained in clause 21.06 of this Scheme.

• To retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to the preferred future character of the area.

• To recognise the need for new or additional Design Objectives and Design Responses for areas within and around activity centres that are or will be subject to structure planning or design frameworks.

Safer Design Policy Clause 22.03 aims to create an attractive, useable, well maintained environment in which people feel safer to live, work and travel. Clause 52.06 – Car parking The Objectives for car parking provision are:

To ensure that car parking is provided in accordance with the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework.

To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces having regard to the demand likely to be generated, the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.

To support sustainable transport alternatives to the motor car.

To promote the efficient use of car parking spaces through the consolidation of car parking facilities.

To ensure that car parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

To ensure that the design and location of car parking is of a high standard, creates a safe environment for users and enables easy and efficient use.

REFERRAL COMMENTS VICROADS VicRoads has advised that: VicRoads notes while the proposed development is not without some merit, there are a number of deficiencies as follows:

A left turn auxiliary lane is required on Bell Street leading to Linden Avenue in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A

The right turn movements onto Bell Street out of Myrtle Street shall be restricted at all times for road safety reasons

Accordingly, VicRoads objects to the issue of a Planning Permit in its current form.

If Council regards the proposed development favourably, VicRoads would require that the following conditions be included in any Notice of Decision to issue a Planning Permit or Planning Permit:

1. Before the development starts, amended plans must be submitted to and

approved by the Roads Corporation. When approved by the Roads Corporation, the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority 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, dated stamped by Banyule City Council on 30/09/2015 and annotated as but modified to show:

Left turn deceleration lane on Bell Street leading to Linden Avenue in accordance with the Austroads Guidelines.

A splitter island on Myrtle Street to prohibit traffic from turning

right out of Myrtle Street onto Bell Street.

2. Before the use approved by this permit commences, the following roadworks on Bell Street must be completed at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the Roads Corporation:

a. Left Turn Deceleration Lane

b. Splitter Island, signage and linemarking and associated works to restrict right turn movements from Myrtle Street onto Bell Street

Notes to be included in Permit:

• Separate consent for works within the road reserve and the specifications of these works is required under the Road Management Act. For the purposes of this application the works will include provision of:

• Left turn deceleration lane

• Splitter island and associated signage and pavement marking

PUBLIC TRANSPORT VICTORIA Public Transport Victoria raise no objection to the proposal.

URBAN DESIGN Council’s Urban design adviser has provided the following assessment to Council. Site and context

The subject site is located to the west of the intersection of Bell Street and Upper Heidelberg Road, forming part of the western inclined approach to Heidelberg Major Activity Centre. The site is a large consolidated allotment, generally rectangular in shape, with a staggered southern boundary to residential allotments accessed from Linden Avenue and Myrtle Streets.

The site effectively occupies an entire ‘urban block’ within its Bell Street context bounded by Myrtle Street to the west and Linden Avenue to the east, with a total area of close to 9000sqm. Secondary frontages exist to both Myrtle Street and Linden Avenue which have been closed immediately in front of the site to prevent through-traffic to Bell Street. The allotment is currently occupied by a 1-2 storey commercial building utilised as part of a car dealership with rear surface parking and limited perimeter vegetation.

Subject site location shown in the context of Heidelberg Major Activity Centre The site rises considerably from east to west with a low point of 79.8m at its western Myrtle St interface rising to an 87.5m datum to its eastern Linden Avenue interface. This results from its position on the western slope of a regional topographical high point which falls consistently to the west down toward Darebin Creek. The slope rises from the site up to the apex datum of 97m at the water tank 100m to the south-east. The site’s location to the north-west of this ‘summit’ permits sweeping vistas to the west and south-west encompassing the city and northern suburbs. Its location is somewhat removed from the Austin Hospital Complex which is positioned within the silhouette of the ridgeline further to the east. The site experiences a rapid transition in urban condition between the abrupt highway-like, interface to Bell Street and the low-rise residential environments experienced along Myrtle Street and Linden Avenue. South of the road closures to these streets, open gardens and low intensity built form predominates, with limited through traffic resulting from the barrier to Bell Street.

Built form along Bell Street comprises highway-oriented commercial, marking the western peripheral entry condition to the Heidelberg Activity Centre. The divergence of Bell Street and Burgundy Street is marked by the prominent Austin Hospital Complex set within a dominant freeway-like roadside environment. This network of roadways defines the triangular residual allotment of 443 Upper Heidelberg Road, which is anticipated to accommodate a 14-storey tower form in light of recent planning approval at the Tribunal. Further west along Bell Street and in either direction along Upper Heidelberg Road there is an abrupt interface with post-war residential areas.

View from Bell Street approaching the site from the west Planning provisions The site has a diverse zoning across its extents with the majority of the site addressing Bell Street located within the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ), a thin band along the southern boundary located within the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 1 (RGZ1) and 45 Linden Avenue comprising the south-eastern portion of the site, located within the General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1).

The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 (DDO5) applies to the majority of the site however excludes 45 Linden Avenue. The DD05 implements the 2010 Heidelberg Structure Plan (updated October 2015) and includes both general and site specific design parameters for the development of the subject site which seek the following:

A preferred maximum building height 16m. Construction up to a maximum height of 10m at the street edge. Built form higher than 10m setback 1.5m for every 3m up to 16m. Provision of increased setbacks above 16.0m to prevent visibility from

opposite side of the street. Provision of a 5.0m landscaped setback to the southern interface. Development above 10.0m in height to comply with Rescode setbacks at

residential interfaces.

The Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 5 (VPO5) also applies to 45 Linden

Avenue. The following State and Local planning policies are considered relevant Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.02 Vision & Strategic Framework Clause 21.06 Built Environment Clause 21.08 Local Places Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy

The following reference documents are further highlighted as relevant: Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE, 2004) Urban Design Charter of Victoria (DPCD, 2010) Structure Plan for the Heidelberg Precinct (Updated 2010) Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (2005)

The current Heidelberg Structure Plan (2010) supersedes earlier strategic work, and provides discretionary built form guidance. The policy context encourages high intensity redevelopment of the site and surrounding area as an ‘arm’ of development running along Bell Street to the west forming the principal western approach and entry condition to the Heidelberg Activity Centre. A hierarchy is

established within this precinct through the designation of the nearby 443 Upper Heidelberg Road site and Burgundy Street link as primary gateway locations within the precinct. A clear policy direction is established for the mounding of a ‘common order’ of low-rise built form to respond to the natural topography, whilst 443 Upper Heidelberg Road is specifically identified as an opportunity to project above this landform with a more ambitious profile. No such specific policy support applies to the subject site. Proposal The proposed development seeks the demolition of existing structures on site, and construction of a complex of four inter-related forms over a split level network of basement parking. The proposal comprises the following attributes:

A diverse mix of uses encompassing hotel, private apartments, independent living units and aged care integrated with community based facilities including medical centre, gymnasium and child care centre.

5.0m landscaped setback along the entirety of the southern boundary reducing to between 3-5m to the north, west and east boundaries.

Separate pedestrian access provided to each major function with apartments, gym and aged care facilities accessed via central courtyard off Linden Avenue. Hotel and independent living units occupy corner locations whilst the upper level child care centre shares its vertical circulation with the aged care facility.

Basement parking access is provided via both Myrtle Street and Linden Avenue with Myrtle Street predominantly for residential and hotel parking whilst Linden Avenue access is predominantly for aged care and child care services.

A consistent podium profile is established to Bell Street to 20m high (5-6 storey). Two rising forms project sheer above the podium at the north west and

north east corners to an overall building height of 50.7m (16 storey and 14 storeys respectively) establishing a uniform building datum across the frontage of 133.0m.

A sleeve of hotel apartments, independent living units and aged care rooms oriented to the north and turning the north-west corner accessed via a separate lift core to the north-west corner of the site.

Separate 6-storey residential apartment building to the south-western corner within the RGZ transitioning to 3 storeys towards the southern interface within the GRZ.

6-storey mixed used form to Linden Avenue comprising the aged care and child care facilities straddling the Mixed Use and General Residential Zones transitioning to 3- storeys along the southern boundary.

A contemporary, robust architectural palette of interlocking brick panels, subtracted balcony voids, glazing and precast panelling.

Rendered perspective view of the proposal Urban design assessment Prior to embarking on a specific analysis of the design proposal it is critical to note the significance of the site in contributing to an enhanced arrival condition to Heidelberg Activity Centre. Whilst at present there is a marked transition both topographically and in terms of urban morphology at this western approach, it is important that the next generation of more intensive built form complements and reinforces this experience. The question of primacy and urban hierarchy are critical considerations at the subject site, given the inflated scale expectations which have resulted from the approval of a 14 storey form at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road. The resultant relationship between these two sites warrants careful review in strategic design and townscape terms. In general terms we support the concept of a form greater than the 16m anticipated within the DDO5 and more specifically commend the ‘urban village’ approach of hybrid building functions in a key Activity Centre location proximate to a medical precinct of metropolitan significance. However the proposal’s 16 storey profile significantly exceeds envisaged building heights under the DDO5 and conflicts with the intended urban hierarchy of the area between a dominant landmark form and common order milieu. Further we have a number of concerns relating to site planning, interface management and internal overshadowing which are fundamental to any case for a ‘bonus’ in scale and intensity. The following review outlines these matters in further detail: Strategic Context The DDO5 unambiguously directs the significant intensification of the subject

site. The preferred maximum building height designation of 16m is consistent with surrounding properties to either side of Bell Street resulting in a consistent corridor of future co- ordinated growth. Sited axially within an island allotment within this corridor experience, the site at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road is the marked exception, encouraged through site specific design guidelines to realise a singular, distinguishing landmark form above this intensifying ‘common order’ urban mileu.

It is pertinent to note the site also incorporates land within the GRZ and outside the mandate of the DDO5 and Heidelberg Structure Plan requiring a particularly tailored response to development within this portion of the site. Whilst the composite consolidation of the allotment undoubtedly warrants integrated consideration, the relationship of the GRZ parcel to the intimate suburban hinterland is noteworthy.

The approval of a 14-storey development at nearby 443 Upper Heidelberg Road elevates development expectations within the DDO5 given its projection above the preferred building height. Whilst this warrants the re-evaluation of preferred maximum building heights as they apply to other sites within the DDO5 we consider the underlying integrity of the urban hierarchy sought by the DDO5 and the Heidelberg Structure Plan remains sound in strategic urban design terms.

Whilst inconsistent with the preferred datum, the approved 14-storey form is entirely

consistent with the explicit policy direction for a singular dominant form within the precinct. Indeed in our earlier advice, we were comfortable to support a slender, elegant tower form which might have been closer to 20 levels in height, in acknowledgement of the unique condition of this specific island allotment.

The site is a large consolidated site, with three street frontages, effectively occupying an entire ‘urban block’ to Bell Street within this precinct. These qualities will inevitably result in a development of significant presence within the wider context of the precinct. Further, the proportions and breadth of the site allow for the opportunity for development to contain off-site amenity impacts within its own boundaries.

The subject site’s consolidation and subsequent capacity is significant and warrants consideration of some projection above 16m. The site however lacks the strategic policy direction enjoyed by 443 Upper Heidelberg Road in justifying a form of equivalent or similar visual prominence. Consequently the adoption of a 16 storey scale, greater than that approved at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road is not supported.

Further, the transition to low-rise residential areas to the south poses a challenging condition for the site. This transition between a hostile highway oriented environment and low intensity residential area necessitates a varied massing strategy transitioning in scale to the south.

The proposed development will attain an equivalent height and wider tower element when compared to the approved 14-storey landmark form at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road Townscape Profile • A key urban design principle underpinning the desired legibility and urban form

hierarchy of this precinct is the visual primacy of 443 Upper Heidelberg Road as a singular projection above the ridgeline, tree canopy and the surrounding form. This relationship between landmark and surrounding urban forms has been the subject of debate at the Tribunal on a number of developments, most pertinently in relation to the Aerial development at Camberwell Junction and upheld. The applicant’s proposition for a cluster of equivalent landmark forms as part of the arrival sequence represents a significant departure from this established policy direction. Such a strategy would best be raised through amendments to the Structure Plan or DDO5. It is not appropriate for an individual application to re-write the established trajectory for the precinct on this basis.

• The Structure Plan and DDO5 clearly articulate the preferred relationship of this singular dominating townscape element (at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road) with the ‘common order’ of flanking built form, intended to sit at or near to the height of the tree canopy. In this sense, sites along Bell Street to the west of Upper Heidelberg Road are anticipated to take on a supporting secondary role, in providing a foreground or generic condition of intensive low to mid-rise built form. Given the acceptance that this generic condition has now been inflated by the 14 storey approval at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road, it is important to ensure that any inflated datum can be consistently applied, to avoid ad hoc or opportunistic projections which are at odds with this strategic design direction.

Landmark form at 443 Upper Heidelberg, puncturing the ridgeline profile with less prominent supporting form (pg 73) • We consider the adoption of a scale proportionate to the 443 Upper Heidelberg Road

projection, whilst maintaining reference to an indigenous tree canopy height of 15-25m to be critical in preserving the morphological integrity of a single unchallenged projection. Noting the approved 14 storey scale at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road will equate to a projection of approximately 75% above the preferred maximum building height of the DDO5, we consider a similar extrapolation would equate to an 8-9 storey form on the subject site. Such a height would approximate 25-30m in height, which is not inconsistent with the diagram above relative to predominant canopy height. This projection is not however ‘as of right’ and is contingent on the achievement of design excellence.

Site Planning and Building Placement • The proposal’s incorporation of a distinctly diverse ‘urban village’ of programme

spanning medical, community, aged care and residential uses is entirely consistent with the policies of the DDO5 and Heidelberg Structure and demonstrates a legitimate mix of uses far beyond what would typically be expected in this context. Further, the specific dynamic of the use mix represents an exciting opportunity for a synergetic relationship with the nearby Hospital and medical precinct.

The development proposes an impressive range of horizontal and vertical programming We are in-principle supportive of the proposal’s positioning of a larger form to Bell Street

with a transition in scale towards the sensitive southern interface. However, in light of our consideration of the strategic context and desired township profile, the inherent logic of a tower form along the north of the site conflict with the expectation for a lower rise street- oriented building form.

The scale and breadth of these substantial rising forms skew the notion of

‘transition’ between higher and lower form, most pertinently in relation to the segment of development within the GRZ. Whilst significantly reduced in comparison to the tower forms, the 3-6 storey forms remain problematic, with a massing equivalent to the upper limits anticipated by the DDO5. A more sensitive transition is required at this important edge.

The positioning of tower forms to the north has resulted in significant internal

overshadowing that compromises some of the key benefits of the proposed development. The overshadowing of the communal courtyard is extensive and compromises its utility and ability to accommodate viable landscaping due to limited sunshine. More concerningly, the scale of the northern tower form also results in extensive overshadowing of north-facing apartments of the southern apartment building with shadows stretching to the roof at midday on the equinox. These issues have been highlighted as a concern within the urban design and architectural report provided by Deutscher & Associates (pg.13). The resolution of these internal conflict is fundamental to support of a revised design.

Severe overshadowing at equinox (12pm) fundamentally compromises the proposal’s open space offerings as well as amenity impacts to north-facing apartments further south Massing and Composition Whilst we do not support the notion of a ‘tower’ typology built form at the

subject site, it is notable that the proportional resolution of the proposal is challenging. The broad width of the proposed 14 and 16 storey floor plates undermine the verticality of their adopted tower typologies resulting in continuous ‘slab-like’ profiles to Bell Street. These forms present in full to the residential hinterland to the north and south exacerbating their visual impact as a merged singular mass. In refining these slab forms to a reduced scale the adoption of a clear rebate through the midsection will assist in establishing a language of robust lower base and lighter upper.

We are generally supportive of the development’s adoption of the full

breadth of the northern frontage, presenting a continuous band of development to Bell Street. The reflection of this massing at a lower scale along the southern boundary is more problematic however given its sensitive interface to the south. The puncturing of this southern perimeter more substantially with integral landscaping is considered important in managing spatial separation and visual bulk concerns to the south.

The staggered ‘wedding-cake’ forms to the south represent a literal response

to the provision of the DDO5 and ResCode rather than a tailored and contextual outcome. This direct interpolation is further problematic given the south-eastern corner of the site is located within GRZ where the scale of the interface maintains scales anticipated within the DDO5. In this sense the proposal fails to comply with ResCode in relation to Standard B17 (presenting 10.0m high sheer walls) and potentially in regards to Standard B21 (in overshadowing the POS of 43 Linden Avenue).

Diagram illustrating the exceeding of the DDO5 sightlines and resulting awkward building envelopes, suggesting a more designed approach to building visibility is warranted Whilst we consider the present proposal to require refinement to a reduced scale, we do consider that the DDO5 street setback presents a problematic template to guide a massing response. We are unconcerned with the inevitable visibility of the upper reaches of a form of 8-9 levels, and would instead place greater emphasis to a well-composed development which is ‘designed to be viewed’ rather than adopting a more apologetic staggered form. Steps in height should be limited where possible to between rather than within buildings to give order and rhythm to the broader development, whilst addressing rear setbacks to residential neighbours. Public Realm & Interface Resolution Given the hostility of the street level experience at the divergence of Bell and Burgundy

Streets, it is imperative than any new development carefully considers its ground level and public realm interface. Further, the development’s

interfaces to suburban side streets and residential hinterland to the south poses a distinct constraint necessitating a tailored response.

The provision of a layered street setback to Bell Street comprising

landscape setback and stepped plinth to ground floor functions provides an effective visual break to Bell Street which secures a positive edge condition to the ground floor environment buffered from the roadway. We consider this arrangement to be a desirable alternative to the street wall allowed for under the DDO5.

The positioning of main building entries to the hotel and ILU’s at the site

corners rather than directly facing Bell Street is effective in securing a more intimate, safe and pedestrian friendly entry environment. The provision of glazing along the Bell Street frontage to communal living areas and hotel bistro retains a visually permeable and active frontage which balances activation / animation with a barrier to vehicle noise.

The puncturing of the western boundary to Myrtle Street by the communal

courtyard is positive helping achieve a level of spatial separation between hotel tower and the lower scale residential apartment.

We are supportive of the proposal’s interface to the south at the south-

western corner. The southern elevation of the apartment building presents as a compositionally strong interface to the residential properties to the south. Provided deep root planting can effectively be provided within the southern setback we support the development’s response to this interface.

The interface to the south at the south-eastern corner is more problematic.

Located within the GRZ and outside the DDO5 we are concerned that the development presents as unreasonably bulky with walls rising sheer to three storeys (10.0m) and further setbacks to in excess of 16.0m. We do not consider this arrangement appropriately responds to the GRZ given it effectively adopts a scale in excess of that envisaged by the DDO5 within the Activity Centre. We recommend the significant refinement of this interface to better reflect the emphasis on neighbourhood character and adopt an interface more complementary to lower-scale townhouse typologies likely within the adjacent GRZ hinterland.

The extent of hardstand and use of drop-off point and basement car park

driveway within the GRZ is problematic, which is not reflective of a domestic streetscape interface condition. Further resolution of this entry condition is required to address conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements in accessing the main entry to the aged and child care. Increased landscaping opportunities should be sought, and any driveway surfaces should be treated with appropriately softened material effects.

Architectural Quality and Landscape The architectural language of interlocking brick patterning is successful as applied to

the tower form at the north-east due to is proportional qualities however is more concerning as applied to the large slab-like profile of the north-western tower where the scaleless repetition of the pattern exaggerates its breadth as a monotonous ‘skyline wall’.

We consider that the materiality of robust brick elements contrasting with

glass and subtracted balconies should be retained and adapted to a language consistent to the site’s prominent infill location. In this regard we encourage a language emphasising a robust lower ‘base’ contrasting to a lightweight floating upper as a more suitable strategy over the existing

scaleless pattern more appropriate to vertical tower typologies. We are confident in the design team’s ability to realise this modification, from past experience with projects in Box Hill and other similar middle suburban locations.

Some level of refinement is considered necessary to the architectural

expression of the eastern elevation fronting Linden Avenue, where the development straddles the MUZ and GRZ. The present architectural language emphasises the staggered wedding cake profile and should be refined to a more simplified relationship of base and lower upper, with a rhythmic vertical treatment preferenced for the residential street interface.

The development’s north-western corner is defined by a visually prominent

blind side wall. We recommend the refinement of this important corner through the adaptation of hotel rooms to provide a ‘superior’ room at this edge to take advantage of its western orientation and vistas available, in order to resolve the external presentation with a more open and positive corner treatment.

The provision of a large communal courtyard directly accessible from Myrtle

Street is a positive gesture creating a legible network of access. Whilst compromised by internal overshadowing we support its retention in any future design and encourage the potential for a through-link from the west to the east. This should be complemented by a high quality landscape architectural

The landscape strategy is generally appropriate along the north, west and

east boundaries providing opportunities for deep root planting which are fundamental to the integration of a larger development mass. The presence of a sewer easement compromises the ability for significant vegetation along the southern boundary however which is critical in providing appropriate buffers to sensitive southern interfaces. The development should demonstrate the capacity to provide for meaningful large canopy tree planting along this sensitive interface.

Further, given the size and breadth of the site and the effective

transformation of this portion of the streetscape by the development, an incorporated street tree planting strategy should be included in the development to complement the positive on-site landscape shown. This should seek to complement the landscaped berm at the opposite edge of the Bell-Banksia Link to achieve a boulevard effect.

Conclusion The adoption of an intensive development format and programmatically diverse ‘urban village’ comprised of a series of buildings on the site is broadly consistent with the objectives of the DDO5 and the Heidelberg Structure Plan. Policy direction within the DDO5 and the Heidelberg Structure Plan is unambiguous in distinguishing between appropriate locations for landmark forms and the surrounding mileu. Whilst we acknowledge the site exhibits qualities that warrant some additional height we consider the proposal to be at odds with what in our view would represent an appropriate ‘fit’ within the setting. The quantum of scale that has been applied to the site, assumes an equivalence in primacy to the strategic redevelopment site at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road which is not supported within strategic policy and undermines Council’s preferred urban hierarchy as entrenched in policy. We encourage the applicant reconsider the establishment of tower typologies in favour of a more robust street oriented

mid-rise configuration, recognising the site’s status as one of a series of ‘common order’ urban blocks within the primary western approach to the Activity Centre. We recommend the following modifications;

Refinement of the architectural massing including a reduction in scale to a height of 8-9 storeys to respond to the clear urban hierarchy established by the DDO5 and the Heidelberg Structure Plan and the primacy of the 14-storey scale of 443 Upper Heidelberg Road within this quantum.

Resolution of internal amenity impacts, particularly in relation to internal overshadowing of dwellings and communal space.

Provide for deep-root planting along the southern boundary.

Refinement of the architectural and material language to express a more appropriate balance of robust lower levels and lightweight upper level treatment.

Further resolution of the southern interface, in acknowledgement of the effect of the GRZ.

ENGINEERING Flooding Flooding Unlikely Point of Discharge Discharge the stormwater by gravity in the north-west corner of the property in the

Council junction pit located in Bell Street. Detention system required (C=0.35)

An on site detention system for storm events up to the 1% AEP event to be retained on site for the basement carpark. The detention system for the basement is to be separated from the detention system for the property, which is to be at ground level and discharge by gravity.

Clause 52.06: No. of spaces

The proposed development consists of 224 dwellings, 89 independent living units, 151 aged care beds, 156 (residential) hotel rooms, a restaurant, a medical centre, a childcare centre and a gym.

The proposed uses fall under the provisions of Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. Table 52.06-5 requires the following: Dwellings: 1 space for each one or two bedroom dwelling, 2 spaces for each

three or more bedroom dwelling, and 0.2 visitor spaces per dwelling. Independent living units (Residential Village): 1 space per unit for residents, 0.2

spaces per unit for visitors Aged care beds (Residential Aged Care Facility): 0.3 spaces per bed (lodging

room) Residential Hotel (Motel): 1 space per room Restaurant: 0.4 spaces per patron Medical Centre: 5 spaces for the first person providing health services, plus 3 to

every other person providing health services Childcare Centre: 0.22 spaces per children

It is understood that the gym will be available for the use of the residents/employees of the proposed development. Therefore the provision of car parking spaces for this use is not necessary. The calculations for the number of parking spaces required for the childcare centre have been done based on the information provided in the Traffic Engineering Assessment (90 children). The calculations for the number of patrons at the restaurant have been done based on the information provided in the Traffic Engineering Assessment (100 seats).

Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06 the mixed use development would

require a total of 707 parking spaces: 250 for the residents at the dwellings 44 for visitors to the dwellings 89 for the residents of the independent living units 17 for the visitors to the independent living units 156 for the residential hotel 40 for the restaurant 47 for the medical centre 19 for the childcare centre

The plans indicate that a total of 541 parking spaces have been provided onsite. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a reduction of 166 parking spaces from the statutory rate.

When considering a proposal to reduce the parking requirement, Council can consider a number of factors, including: The variation of parking demand over time; Short-stay and long stay demand; Proximity to public transport; Provision of bicycle facilities and end of trip facilities, and the convenience of

these facilities.

In consideration of the traffic report provided for the assessment of the previous proposal and empirical data collected, the following parking rates can be considered: A rate of 0.73 parking spaces per one- bedroom dwelling, and 0.87 spaces per

two- bedroom dwelling, based on ABS vehicle ownership data for the Ivanhoe area.

The empirical residential visitor parking rate for high density development is lower than the parking rate specified in the planning scheme. Collated data suggests a rate of 0.12 visitor spaces would be appropriate.

Based on the above information, the weekday, weeknight, and weekend empirical rates for this development would be:

USE LONG TERM RATES SHORT TERM RATES

Residential (per unit) W'day W'night W'end W'day W'night W'end

1-bed 0.73 0.73 0.73 0 0.12 0.12

2-bed 0.87 0.87 0.87 0 0.12 0.12

3-bed 2 2 2 0 0.12 0.12

Aged Care Beds 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12

Independent Living Units 1 1 1 0.12 0.12 0.12

Residential Hotel 1 1 1 0 0 0

Restaurant (space/seat) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25

Medical Centre (15 Practitioners) 2 0 2 1.1 0 1.1

Childcare Centre 0.15 0.15 0 0.07 0.07 0

These rates would generate a maximum empirical parking demand of 637 spaces (542 long-term and 95 short-term). These calculations are shown below.

USE QTY

LONG TERM DEMAND SHORT TERM DEMAND

Residential W'day W'night W'end W'day W'night W'end 1-bed 84 61 61 61 0 10 10

2-bed 114 99 99 99 0 13 13

3-bed 26 52 52 52 0 3 3 Aged Care Beds 151 27 27 27 18 18 18 Independent Living Units 89 89 89 89 10 10 10

Motel 156 156 156 156 0 0 0

Restaurant (space/seat) 100 15 15 15 25 25 25

Medical Centre 15 30 0 30 16 0 16

Childcare Centre 90 13 13 0 6 6 0

TOTAL 542 512 529 75 85 95

The on-site parking supply can effectively accommodate 85% of the demand for parking generated by the proposed development.

At least 96 additional parking spaces must be added to the proposal in order to provide sufficient parking for the empirical demand generated by the development.

Alternatively, the generation of trips by vehicle (and therefore demand for parking spaces) can be reduced by altering the intensity of some land uses at the development. For example:

• Reduce to four the number of three-bedroom apartments • Increase to 136 the number of two-bedroom apartments • Reduce to 100 the number of residential hotel rooms • Reduce to 10, the number of practitioners at the medical centre

A proposal with the above, would require 541 parking spaces (451 long-term and 90 short-term),

The use of tandem spaces, overhead storage cages, and full-height storage cages behind parking spaces will have an impact on the use of the car park, especially for visitors (short term parking users).

The plans indicate a distribution of 541 spaces in five basement levels as per the table below.

Basement Level

Standard spaces (Including accessible)

Long-term designed spaces

TOTAL Adjacent to storage cages

Tandem

Blocking Blocked

1 23 24 0 0 47

2 36 47 1 1 85

3 44 52 1 1 98

4 and 4A 152 39 1 1 193

5 88 20 5 5 118

TOTAL 343 198 541

The mix of spaces that cater for short-term (those that are not in a tandem arrangement or adjacent to storage cages) and long-term parking spaces within the four levels is not considered appropriate.

The location of the accessible spaces at Basement 4 (and a 4A) is not considered appropriate.

As short-term parking availability in the area is low, it is preferred that all short-term parking spaces be allocated within the same levels (Basement 1 and Basement 2), and that a controlled entry point is provided for long-term users (Basement 3 to 5). Short term parking spaces must be timed restricted to prevent long-term users from accessing them.

The application in its current form is unlikely to be supported. Clause 52.06: Design

Car parking dimensions, turning circles, and ramp gradients to be assessed Safety In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, Pedestrian access to car parking areas from the street should be convenient, with pedestrian routes through car parking areas to be clearly marked and separated from traffic in high activity parking areas.

Clause 52.34: Bicycle Parking & Access

Based on the requirements of Clause 52.34, the proposal requires 138 bicycle spaces to be provided as per the table below.

USE Long Term Bicycle Parking

Short Term Bicycle Parking TOTAL

Residential 45 23 68

Aged Care Beds 22 3 25

Independent Living Units 18 9 27

Residential Hotel 4 0 4

Restaurant 4 4 8

Medical Centre 2 4 6

TOTAL 95 43 138

The provision of end of trip facilities for the residential use is considered unnecessary. However, 5 showers and change rooms need to be provided for other potential bicycle users. The proposed development does not consider the provision of end of trip facilities for employees and this is not considered acceptable.

206 bicycle spaces are proposed for the development, exceeding the requirement as per the Banyule Planning Scheme. The distribution of the bicycle spaces per level are as per the table below.

Level Bicycle Parking

TOTAL Enclosed Open

Ground floor 0 32 32

Basement 1 0 0 0

Basement 2 14 0 14

Basement 3 0 18 18

Basement 4 and 4A 142 0 142

Basement 5 0 0 0

TOTAL 156 50 206

The design of the bicycle spaces for the use of employees and/or residents is contrary to the design of bicycle spaces of Clause 52.34-4 of the Banyule Planning Scheme, as they require negotiating ramps and significant interaction/potential conflict with moving vehicles and cars parking.

To ensure the bicycle spaces are well utilised, they should be relocated within 70m of the main entrance point into the car park.

The provision of bicycle parking should include as a minimum:

• Provision of at least 50 secure bicycle parking spaces for the use of employees: o On Basement 1, or within 70m of the entrance point to the car park; o With safe and convenient access to at least five showers and changing

rooms

• Provision of at least 45 secure bicycle parking spaces for the use of residents: o Within 70m of the entrance point to the car park; o With safe and convenient access to residential lifts, or main pedestrian

access

• Provision of at least 50 bicycle parking spaces (25 bicycle rails) for the use of visitors to the building:

o On well-lit public areas; o Where passive surveillance is available

Vehicle Crossings New (or altered) crossings to comply with the Relevant Road Authority’s standards

and specifications Easements There are several easement located within the site

There is an existing Council drain along the north-west boundary and it is suspected that a Council drain exists across the site where the proposed basement is located. This drain would service the properties in Linden Avenue and is to be relocated. → The bedroom encroaching over the 5m wide easement along the southern

boundary is to be relocated away from the easement. → No alteration to existing topography within the existing stormwater drainage

easement or stormwater overland flow path is permitted.

→ The existing easements in favour of Banyule City Council located in the middle of the site are to be expunged as no living area would be accepted within a Council easement.

ARBORIST • The arborist’s assessment report details a large number of trees on adjoining property

and has been prepared to inform the preliminary design. It is not an arboricultural impact assessment.

• The arborist report identifies several high and medium-retention value trees, and makes recommendations in for their retention to be accommodated and considered respectively. This does not appear to have demonstrated.

• Thereafter, the arborist report recommends that tree protection zones are be shown on design plans, that design plans be modified where necessary to ensure encroachments are within the limits detailed in AS4970-2009 (Protection of trees on development sites), and that all tree protection measures (including fencing) are plotted on design plans. This has not been included in the application plans.

• Trees to be removed or retained are not shown numbered on any design plans. As such, the loss of vegetation and the development impacts on vegetation to be retained cannot be assessed.

• Given the scale of the proposal, an arboricultural impact assessment should have been provided as part of the application’s submission.

Once an arboricultural impact assessment has been prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority suggested conditions can be provided for inclusion into approved permit or draft conditions.

LANDSCAPE The landscape development plan for the aged care independent living units and apartments, medical care centre and childcare centre at 37-63 Bell Street, Ivanhoe and 43 Linden Avenue Ivanhoe, received by Banyule City Council on 30th September 2015, cannot be approved by Council for the following reasons:

The interface areas left for planting of tree and shrubs to the Bell Street frontage is too narrow ranging from 0.5 metres to 4.2 metres. The setback between the title line/Bell Street footpath and the basement needs to be at least 8 metres to allow the long term survival of trees.

It would appear not possible to establish trees close to Linden Street corner on Bell Street due to the below ground basement. The basement extending to the Linden Street footpath precludes any site planting of even shrubs to the entire Linden Street frontage.

The choice of Waterhousia floribunda is queried as the visualisation indicates windows to the Bell Street frontage. A row of Waterhousia as a hedge would preclude north light and lead to the likelihood of removal of trees in several years. A greater setback and mix of deciduous i.e. Acer freemanii ‘Autumn Blaze’ Acer

rubrum- forms, Fraxinus pennsylvanica ‘Urbanite’, Pyrus calleryana ‘Red Spire’ and tall evergreen trees i.e. Eucalyptus melliodora, Eucalyptus scoparia, Corymbia citriodora ‘Dwarf Pink’ would be suitable trees with an 8 metre setback between the footpath and subground basement

The frontage to Myrtle Street has only 2-2.5 metre setback from the footpath (title boundary to the basement), this is not adequate space for establishment of Tristaniopsis laurina and Waterhousia floribunda. These are both heavy water demand species of sub tropical requirements and not trees to be squeezed into narrow spaces in the hope they develop.

More detail is required on the internal space of pedestrian and communal space “Ground Floor Plaza” in terms of depth of planter box treatments and tree development for Waterhousia, Tristaniopsis and Melia.

While it is acknowledged as a concept plan, landscape development plans submitted

to Banyule City Council need to document species and plant quantities.

Environmentally Sustainable Design Report Overall the proposed project ESD response satisfies all of Council’s best practice ESD standards outlined within Council’s ESD guidelines available online. In particular the development considers performance beyond current building standards in regards to energy efficiency and transport. Items identified within the non-certified Green Star assessment, proposed to achieve 4 stars, have been clearly outlined in detail in the relevant sections of the Sustainability Management Plan, including responsibilities at different project phases. In addition the development will involve a Green Star Accredited Professional and includes the provision of a post implementation report for all ESD initiatives. Whilst Council’s ESD adviser considers that the layout of the building complex, incorporating an inside open area, provides good daylight access to all areas as well as a good breakout area for all building users, Council officer do not accept this view for the reasons contained in the officer report. The combination of aged care, childcare as well as apartments and hotel rooms provides a genuine social environment that will enhance the quality within the property as well as support nearby facilities and residents. Some items that Council may wish to raise with the applicant have been highlighted below. Major ESD Aspects: The following list of ESD aspects have been highlighted including any notes that Council may wish to clarify with the applicant (bold): ESD Aspect Detail Notes 4 Star Green Star Non-certified rating used for

benchmarking Provided a copy of the non certified rating (Excel tool)

7 star FirstRate rating

Anticipated average for all apartments

Applicant should provide a list of all individual apartment ratings to ensure that this rating can be achieved (only included some).

20% improvement on BCA Section J

Energy Efficiency Noted

>50 kW PV To be installed on northern tower roofs

PV systems are shown on the plans

Minimum 2*50kL Rainwater collection tanks

Preferred 2*100kL used for toilets, commercial cleaning and irrigation

Unable to locate the tanks or notation of end use on the plans provided. Two tanks should be shown, one in the northern and one in the and southern complex

Building users guide Including a maintenance and operation guide

Noted

Double glazing Combined with appropriate shading and insulation to achieve energy efficiency goals

Noted

Bicycle spaces Planned to be double the number of spaces as required

Confirm spaces with Council guidelines. Reports provided differ in numbers (150, 172 or 190)

90% demolition waste to landfill

Noted

Bi retention system 50m2 of raingarden to treat 1,000m2 of pavement

The gradient of the pavement is not identified on the plans. This should be shown to ensure that drainage of all areas into the raingarden can be achieved. Verify any potential raingarden overflow issues and connection requirements with Council’s drainage engineers

Submission of an implementation report

Post completion Noted

Daylight modelling Good light levels have been achieved on levels modelled.

Note of recommendations made as part of the daylight report provided. These may result in design changes.

100% Green Power Commitment for contractual arrangement to supply all buildings

Noted

Natural Ventilation Proposed to be 50% above standards with direct outside venting of kitchen stoves and car park

Noted

Responsible Material sourcing

For steel and timber. Also considering recycled and eco certified materials

Noted

Improved ecology Plantings and raingarden Noted Other Items Noted Council may wish to clarify the following items with the applicant:

1. The inside courtyard may be subject to high winds and the accumulation of noise. The choice of plants and other features to reduce wind and noise should be considered with this in mind.

2. Given the versatile use, consideration should be given to incorporating car sharing facilities Electric vehicle charging stations or connection points may also be considered

3. The Sustainability Report refers to the stormwater quality assessment being derived from using MUSIC stormwater assessment tool. A copy of the report should be provided with the application.

4. Council may wish to obtain the details of the Green Star Accredited Professional that will be involved in the project

HEALTH Food Premises Registration It is envisaged that food preparation shall take place within kitchens servicing the aged care facilities and child care centre. Therefore prior to the commencement of the use permitted by this permit, the food premises proprietor shall apply and obtain from Council, approval to operate under the Food Act 1984. Council recommends that prior to the commencement of the development two (2) copies of plans, that includes plans of the interior layout of the premises, and specifications be submitted to Council’s Health Services for endorsement. Council publication “Guidelines for Food Premises Design and Equipment” may be used to assist with the design of the food premises. For more information please refer to Council’s website Banyule.vic.gov.au or by contacting Council’s Health Unit on 9457 9965.

Trade Waste (food premises) With respect to food premises registration, a bin storage and/or bin wash area may be required and of a size sufficient for the hygienic storage of all bins, waste oil and recyclable materials. Tobacco Act Requirements Prior to construction of the premises, management shall review their obligations under the Tobacco Act 1987, and comply with all relevant requirements of the Act. Accommodation Registration Given that proposal nominates the inclusion of hotel accommodation, such accommodation is deemed to be ‘prescribed accommodation’ under the Public Health & Wellbeing Regulations 2009. The proprietor of such accommodation shall obtain registration prior to commencing trade. Health Nuisance The operations conducted at this premises must not cause a Nuisance (as defined under the Public Health &Wellbeing Act 2008). A Nuisance may include issues such as noise, odour or any other thing deemed to be a Nuisance under the Act. Noise from commercial and industrial premises (café’s, factories, non-residential premises) Noise emanating from the operation of the business must satisfy the requirements of State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.