Banyule City Council Special Meeting Agenda 21 December 2015

Special Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

21 December 2015 commencing at 7.00pm

AGENDA

Acknowledgement of the Traditional Owner, the Wurundjeri willam people "Our meeting is being held on the Traditional Land of the Wurundjeri willam people and, on behalf of Banyule City Council, I wish to acknowledge them as the Traditional Owners. I would also like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri Elders, past and present, and to the Elders of other Aboriginal peoples who may be here today.”

Apologies and Leave of Absence

1. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 Proposed multi-storey mixed use development up to 16 storeys in height at 37-63 Bell Street and 45 Linden Avenue, Ivanhoe .......................................................................................................... 3

Closure of Meeting

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

Special Meeting of Council - 21 December 2015 Page 3

4.1 PROPOSED MULTI-STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT UP TO 16 STOREYS IN HEIGHT AT 37-63 BELL STREET AND 45 LINDEN AVENUE, IVANHOE

Author: Nick Helliwell - Major Developments Planner, City Development

Ward: Olympia

File: P635/2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal seeks to construct a mixed use development up to 16 storeys above ground which will have a maximum height of 53.57 metres on land at 37-63 Bell Street and 45 Linden Avenue, Ivanhoe. The building would include a medical centre, aged care facility (151 beds), independent living units (89), apartment dwellings (224), child care centre (90 places), residential hotel (156 rooms) and bistro (100 seats) and a gymnasium. Five levels of basement car parking are also proposed to accommodate 542 car parking spaces, 190 bicycle spaces and associated building services. While 541 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided, this is 166 less than the standard Banyule Planning Scheme requirement. A key consideration for Council in determining this application is the extent to which it proposes an alternative response to the height and building form set out in both the Structure Plan for the Heidelberg Precinct 2007 and the Banyule Planning Scheme (Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5). The proposal before Council is a significant departure from these guidelines and controls which include guidelines indicating that the building should: • Be constructed to a maximum height of 16 metres. • Set back from the eastern, western and southern site boundaries. The proposal does not achieve a sufficient degree of compliance with the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development and in particular, there are concerns with the design detail proposed which is a critical consideration given the scale of the development and the size of the site. The distribution of short and long term car and bicycle parking spaces within the development and resultant potential demand for on street car parking in the surrounding residential area and risk to the safety of cyclists is also a significant concern. Prior to the Council Meeting on 14 December 2015 the applicant presented plans for discussion which showed opportunity to reduce the height and scale of components of the proposal which Council could consider incorporating into conditions as part of an approval. On the basis of the assessment undertaken it is considered that the proposal should not be supported. However, Council may consider whether the proposal can be supported subject to changes consistent with the amended plans presented for discussion purposes.

4.1


PROPOSED MULTI-STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT UP TO 16 STOREYS IN HEIGHT AT 37-63 BELL STREET AND 45 LINDEN AVENUE, IVANHOE cont’d


RECOMMENDATION

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit be issued in respect of Application No. P635/2015 for Buildings and works for Use and development of the land for residential aged care units, independent living units, dwellings, residential hotel, child care centre, medical centre, food and drink premises, restricted recreation facility (gymnasium) and associated buildings and works, removal of easements, removal of vegetation and car parking waiver at 37-63 Bell Street and 45 Linden Avenue, Ivanhoe on the following grounds:

Building Design and Scale

1. The height, mass and elevational treatment of the proposal, including elements of the architecture, materials and finishes, are harsh in appearance and add to the upper level visual bulk of the building. These characteristics are contrary to the objectives of the Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centre and would have an adverse visual impact on the streetscape and surrounding area, contrary to Clauses 15.01-1 – Urban Design, 21.04-1 – Housing, the Design Objectives of Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 5 of the Banyule Planning Scheme, and Elements 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Development.

2. The proposed building does not represent the high quality of architectural design and visual interest that is appropriate taking into account the site’s exposure to Bell Street and the surrounding area.

3. The proposed building height, design, elevational treatment and setbacks to the

south-eastern corner of the site at the street level interface with Linden Avenue would result in a built form that is visually intrusive and bulky and will have a detrimental impact upon the preferred character and appearance of the area contrary to Clauses 15.01-1 – Urban Design, 21.04-1 – Housing and 22.02 - Residential Neighbourhood Character of the Banyule Planning Scheme and Elements 1, 2 and 3 and 5 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Development.

Landscaping 4. Inadequate consideration has been provided for the retention and protection of

existing trees on the site, provision of landscaping around the site periphery and the protection of vegetation on adjoining land to ensure that the development is adequately softened when viewed from the surrounding area and neighbouring trees are suitably protected contrary to Clauses 15.01-1 – Urban Design, 21.04-1 – Housing, 21.06 – Built Environment, 22.02 - Residential Neighbourhood Character and the Design Objectives of Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 5 of the Banyule Planning Scheme and Elements 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Development.

4.1




Car and bicycle parking/access

5. The proposal does not have a sufficient number of on-site car parking spaces to service the proposed use, and will lead to an unacceptable increase in on street car parking which cannot reasonably be accommodated within existing off street car parking facilities or within the surrounding road network, contrary to Clause 52.06 – Car Parking of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

6. The use of tandem car parking spaces, over bonnet and full height storage cages behind parking spaces will have an adverse impact on the use of the car park, particularly by visitors, and will lead to an unacceptable increase in on street car parking within the surrounding road network, contrary to Clause 52.06 – Car Parking of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

7. The distribution of car parking spaces for short and long term parking and the location of accessible spaces within the basement car park is not considered appropriate to service the various users of the building contrary to Clause 52.06 – Car Parking of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

8. The design of the bicycle parking spaces provided for residents and employees

and the proposed basement car park layout does not provide an appropriate level of accessibility to the parking spaces, contrary to Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

Neighbouring residential amenity 9. The proposal would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking of the

secluded rear private open space and habitable room window of 43 Linden Avenue contrary to Element 2 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Development.

Future residential amenity

10. The proposal fails to provide adequate amenity for future residents of a number

of dwellings, in that a number of dwellings are not provided with appropriate levels daylight to habitable rooms and balconies, contrary to Elements 5 and 6 of the Guidelines for Higher Density Development.

4.1




ADVERTISED PROPOSAL The proposal seeks to construct a mixed use development up to 16 storeys above ground with a maximum height of 53.57 metres (133 AHD). The proposal comprises the following: • GP Clinic and allied health suites (903 sqm) • Aged care (up to 151 beds and day respite areas) • Independent Living Units (89 units) • Child care (90 places) • Residential hotel (156 rooms) • Food and drink premises • Gymnasium (539 sqm) • Residential apartments (224 apartments) • Parking for 541 cars, 190 bicycles and 364 storage cages within five basement

levels.

Planning Permit Application: P635/2015

Development Planner: Nick Helliwell

Address: 37-63 Bell Street and 45 Linden Avenue, Ivanhoe

Proposal: Use and development of the land for residential aged care units, independent living units, dwellings, residential hotel, child care centre, medical centre, food and drink premises, restricted recreation facility (gymnasium) and associated buildings and works, removal of easements, removal of vegetation and car parking waiver.

Existing Use/Development: Former motor vehicle repairs/maintenance depot

Applicant: Blue Whale Property Group Pty Ltd

Zoning: Multiple land use zonings including Mixed Use, Residential Growth – Schedule 1 and General Residential – Schedule 1.

Overlays: All of the site except for 45 Linden Avenue is affected by Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 5 – Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centres.

The two residential zones are affected by Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 5

Notification (Advertising): Five signs on site, notices to surrounding property owners/occupiers and notice in the Heidelberg Leader newspaper

Objections Received: 58

Ward: Olympia

4.1




The built form of the proposal comprises a perimeter block design with communal open space in the centre of the site and on roof top areas. Building height increases from three storeys in the southern part of the site up to a maximum of sixteen storeys on the northern part of the site abutting Bell Street. The northern part of the building splits into two towers at Level 6, whilst construction in the south-western corner presents as a separate building above ground level. Due to the slope of the land across the site, the western tower will be the highest part of the building. The basement car park would be accessed from three locations; one entry from the northern end of Linden Avenue serviced by Bell Street and to the north of the existing Linden Avenue road closure, one entry from Linden Avenue just to the south of the road closure and one entry from Myrtle Street, to the north of the Myrtle Street road closure. The architecture of the building is contemporary and comprises a variety of materials including face brick, smooth finish and painted precast concrete, timber look battens and panelised metal cladding. On site landscaping is proposed around the site perimeter, within the ground level central communal courtyard, medical suite and aged care courtyards, podium level 5 residents garden and child care centre roof top garden and play area. Off-site landscaping is also proposed within the Linden Avenue and Myrtle Street road reserves. A copy of the architectural plans and shadow diagrams form Attachment 1 to this report. MODIFIED PROPOSAL (DISCUSSION PLANS) At the Council meeting of 14 December 2015, Council deferred the item to a Special Council Meeting to be held at 7pm on Monday 21 December 2015. This was to enable residents to review and provide comment in relation to modified discussion plans which the applicant provided to Council on 14 December 2015. Council also hosted two opportunities for residents to review the plans and seek further information on Wednesday 16 December 2015 and Monday 21 December 2015. Emails were sent and letters were hand delivered on Tuesday 15 December advising of the information sessions and the Special Council Meeting. The modified discussion plans provided to Council on 14 December 2015 included the following key changes: (i) Reduction to the height of the western building (Apartments - Building 1)

including:

Deletion of levels 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Deletion of the two apartments from the south west of the southwestern wing of the building from levels 6, 7, 8, and 9 (8 apartments in total).

Deletion of the four apartments from the southwest of the south east wing of the building the from levels 8 and 9 (8 apartments in total). Stairwell to remain.

(ii) Reduction to the height of the eastern building (ILU Building) including the deletion of levels 12 and 13.

4.1




(iii) Removal of vehicle access to Linden Avenue (to southern side of barrier/road closure).

(iv) Deletion of Ground Floor of the hotel including bistro. This has been replaced with Cafe, Residential lobby, Extension of Gym (and/or back of house), and apartments (4 apartments in total)

(v) Deletion of Hotel rooms to levels Mezzanine, Upper Ground, Level 1 & Level 2 Replaced with apartments (62 apartments total).

The discussion plans do not represent a formal amendment of the application and are circulated to allow residents and Council the opportunity to determine if any of the compromises offered will result in an improved outcome which is sufficient for support. The deferral of this item to a Special meeting will allow a further opportunity for residents to address Council directly in relation to the changes. Whilst the plans have been available for review and comment by the public to help inform the Council, there is no formal assessment of the amended proposal. The assessment and recommendation contained in this report is based on the advertised plans. Whilst Council must make a decision on the plans which were on public notification and have received objections, it is open to Council to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit which may include conditions that require amendments to the proposal so that it reflects the changes shown on the informal plans presented to Council on 14 December. Additional standard conditions or any other conditions that are considered appropriate to Council can also be included. At the meeting of 16 December 2015 which was attended by residents, the applicant, Ward Councillor and Planning staff, the following items were discussed:

Whether greater upper level setbacks could be provided to the upper levels at Linden Ave.

Whether an additional two storeys could be removed from the eastern building (ILU Building).

Safety in relation to vehicles exiting on to Bell St from Linden Ave.

Potential for a Green Travel Plan.

Size and treatment of the roof plant. Further comments have also been received from a resident at the time of writing of this report which raised concern in relation to the short notice provided for the information sessions and Special Council meeting.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

There is no planning history that is relevant to the current proposal.

4.1




SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The site is located on the southern side of Bell Street between Linden Avenue to the east and Myrtle Street to the west. The site has an abuttal to each of these roads. The site is a rectangular shaped land holding comprising six parcels of land with a combined area of 8,924 square metres.

Figure 1 – Aerial view of site

The site has a boundary of 117.73 metres to Bell Street, 59.7 metres to Myrtle Street and 66.39 metres to Linden Avenue. The site has an area of approximately 8,924 sqm. The site is currently developed with workshop buildings with a three storey scale, associated open air car parking and a single storey dwelling. There are several exotic and indigenous trees on the site, including a 10 metre high Pin Oak located towards the south-western corner of the site (Tree 8). There is a fall across the site from east to west of approximately 8.36 metres. The site occupies a visually prominent position on Bell Street. The Bell Street entry ramp from Upper Heidelberg Road extends in front of the site for approximately half the length of the site frontage before it creates a third lane on Bell Street. The site sits below the Heidelberg - Eaglemont ridgeline which extends for a distance of some 6km from Heidelberg Heights to the north of the site to Ivanhoe to the south. To the east of the site are a number of single storey dwellings in Linden Avenue, to the rear of which is a decommissioned Yarra Valley Water Reservoir comprising a storage tank approximately 65 metres in diameter and approximately 8 metres above ground level. To the south of the site are a number of single and double storey detached dwellings and units whilst to the east on the opposite side of Myrtle Street is the Courtney and Patterson Ford dealership.

4.1




A retail and commercial strip exists on the northern side of Bell Street opposite the site which includes Ivanhoe Cycles, beyond which lie residential properties to the north. A four storey apartment building is located close by on the northern side of the Bell Street off ramp, with the site of the recently approved 14 storey mixed use building at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road located approximately 70 metres to the east of the review site. The maximum height of the approved tower at No. 443 is 56.8 metres with an Australian Height Datum (AHD) of 149 metres at the highest point. The Heidelberg Central Shopping strip commences some 800 metres east of the site in Burgundy Street and the Heidelberg Railway Station is approximately 600 metres south east of the site, however both are physically separated from the site by the road configuration and the topography.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification of the application was undertaken by way of direct mail to nearby property owners and occupiers, signs erected on site and a notice placed in the public notices section of the Heidelberg Leader newspaper. The formal public notice period ended on Tuesday 1 December 2015. At the time this report was finalised, a total of 60 objections have been received although additional objections are expected and can be received up until a decision is made on the application by Council. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows: Height, bulk and design

Overdevelopment of the site;

Detrimental visual impact and amenity due to excessive height;

The style and size is inconsistent with the surrounding area;

Does not address all the requirements of DDO5; Traffic and parking

Increased traffic in surrounding local streets;

Increased parking problems in surrounding streets;

Parking near impossible in the area;

Access through Linden Avenue will increase traffic congestion;

Inadequate provision of on-site car parking;

Decreased safety for nearby residents due to increased traffic; Nearby amenity and neighbourhood impacts

Development of the site will adversely impact on neighbouring properties as well as the broader area;

Overshadowing of nearby properties and associated loss of light;

Loss of character for suburb and surrounding area;

Overlooking and loss of privacy to surrounding properties;

Loss of nearby property value;

Increased noise from the use of development;

Lack of access to open space;

4.1




Anti-social behaviour arising from the associated hotel; Other

Contradicts Banyule’s City Plan Key Direction 1.3 to “Develop and promote safety and resilience in our community”;

An information session was held on 18 November 2015. The session provided an opportunity for the community to raise questions of both the permit applicant and Council staff in relation to the proposal and for a general discussion about the proposal. The Mayor, as Ward Councillor and neighbouring Ward Councillors were also in attendance. A further opportunity was provided for the applicant and objectors to make individual presentations in support of their submissions to Councillors and Council officers on 10 December 2015.

REFERRAL COMMENTS

Advice has been sought from VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria as well as Environmentally Sustainable Design, Urban and Landscape Design consultants, Council’s Developments Engineering and Environmental Health Sections and Development Planning Arborist. Additional details on external and internal referrals are contained in Attachment 2, however key advice is summarised as follows: VicRoads VicRoads have advised that it raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring construction of a deceleration lane on Bell Street leading to Linden Avenue, a splitter island, signage and line marking on Myrtle Street to prohibit traffic from turning right out of Myrtle Street onto Bell Street at the cost of the applicant. Public Transport Victoria Public Transport Victoria raise no objection to the proposal. Urban Designer Key advice from the Urban Design consultant is summarised as follows:

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.

4.1




Any revised proposal should include:

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.

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 General Residential Zone.

Environmentally Sustainable Design Key advice from the Environmentally Sustainable Design consultant is summarised as follows: Overall the proposed project Environmentally Sustainable Design response satisfies all of Council’s best practice ESD standards outlined within Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Design guidelines. 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 Environmentally Sustainable Design initiatives. Landscape Consultant Landscape architectural advice has identified the difficulty in providing landscaping on site as part of the proposal. Transport and Development Engineering Services Council’s Transport Section have raised concern with the shortfall of empirical on site car parking provision of 96 spaces. It is noted that this shortfall could be addressed by altering the intensity of some of the land uses within the development. The adequacy of the mix of short and long term car parking spaces and resultant potential demand for on street car parking in the surrounding residential as a result of this is also a concern. The use of tandem car parking spaces, over bonnet and full height storage cages behind parking spaces and the associated impact on the useability of parking spaces is also an issue with further potential for an increase in on street car parking within the surrounding road network.

4.1




The distribution of car parking spaces for short and long term parking and the location of accessible spaces within the basement car park is not considered appropriate to service the various users of the building. The design of the bicycle parking spaces provided for residents and employees and the proposed basement car park layout is also not considered to provide an appropriate level of accessibility and safety for cyclists. In terms of drainage, an on site detention system for the basement car park would be required to be provided separately from the ground level gravity discharge detention system for the property. No part of the development would be permitted to encroach over the proposed new 5 metre wide easement extending along the southern boundary of the site with no alteration to existing topography within the existing stormwater drainage easement or stormwater overland flow path. Existing easements in favour of Banyule City Council would be required to be expunged at the cost of the developer. Development Planning Arborist Council’s arborist raises concern that whilst a number of medium and high retention value trees have been identified on the site and adjoining land by the applicant’s consultant arborist, that these trees have not been shown on the development plans. Also, no attempt has been made in the design to retain and protect these trees and the Tree Protection Zones for these trees have not been shown on plan. Health Council’s Health Department raise no objection to the proposal. A number of recommendations are provided concerning trade waste, nuisance and noise.

PLANNING CONTROLS

The planning controls applicable to the site are outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1: Applicable Planning Controls

Control Clause Permit Triggered

Mixed Use Zone 32.04 Yes

Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 32.07 Yes

General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 32.08 Yes

Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 5 (VPO5) 42.02 Yes

Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 5 (DDO5)

43.02 Yes

Car Parking 52.05 Yes

It is noted that tree controls only affect the residential zoned parts of the land holding. Four trees are proposed to be removed from the residentially zoned land with one tree, a 13 metre high Kentia Palm, requiring planning permission for removal. It is also noted that the aged care use does not require planning permission within the General residential Zone.

4.1




POLICIES CONSIDERED Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in Table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy

Planning controls are detailed in Attachment 2 to this report.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

In assessing the proposal, the following specific considerations require discussion:

Suitability of the Land Use for the Site

Height and Form of the Building

Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment (Clause 22.02)

Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

External amenity considerations

Traffic and Parking

Tree removal SUITABILITY OF THE LAND USE FOR THE SITE The size of the site presents an appropriate opportunity to provide a range of land uses on what is an underutilised parcel of land in a Major Activity Centre. The proposed range of uses responds to a number of key elements of the Municipal Strategic Statement including objectives relating to commercial and residential development. The uses proposed are considered appropriate for the site, subject to suitable built form, car parking and traffic provision. HEIGHT AND FORM OF THE BUILDING It is considered that the proposal does not adequately respond to the setting of the site, and the policies and planning scheme provisions which apply to it, with respect to both the height and form of the building.

Policy Clause

SPPF

Settlement 11

Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) 15

Housing (including sub clauses) 16

Economic Development 17

LPPF

Land Use 21.04

Built Environment (Part Accessible area and part Diversity area) 21.06

Local Places 21.08

Safer Design Policy 22.03

4.1




The proposal incorporates an overall height that is just under 53.6m, or approximately 11 to 12 storeys higher than anticipated by the site-specific Design and Development Overlay provisions which apply to the property. By way of comparison, the top of the proposed building would present as 12 storeys above the ground level at the intersection of Upper Heidelberg Road and the Bell Banksia Link. Whilst the provisions of the Scheme in relation to height and building setbacks are not mandatory and there is a strong case to allow a proposal which varies from the guidelines, there are a range of concerns that do not support the variations being sought:

The additional height does not provide a positive contribution to the form of the building, in that its form is considered to be inappropriate in envelope and detailing as proposed;

The resultant building does not respect the scale of surrounding development and the topography of the surrounding land;

The scale and built form of the development challenges the primacy and urban hierarchy of the 14 storey building approved for the landmark site at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road;

The built form does not respond appropriately to the residential interface to the south in terms of visual bulk and scale or building typology, particularly to the south-eastern corner of the site.

The additional floor area created is not considered to be required in order to provide for an appropriate mix or intensity of land uses (in that a lower building could also provide the same range of uses), whilst the intensity of land use combined with the car park design put forward directly contributes to concerns with respect to off-site car parking.

The architectural form of the building is also considered to be inappropriate to the setting. The visual prominence of the site to Bell Street and the manner in which the upper levels of the building present to the street in a continuous slab like profile with solid walls, rather than a lightweight structure floating above a solid podium, increases the visual impact of the building within the streetscape but also in broader views from the residential areas to the north and south of the site. In addition, the Design Objective of DDO5 specifies that development such as this provide a positive contribution to the built form and public realm. As such, it is appropriate that any building constructed be of high architectural integrity. It is considered that the rectangular form of the tower elements, relatively flat nature of the facades and weight presentation of the upper level built form result in a building which does not fulfil this requirement. These concerns are supported by the Urban Design advice which Council has received in regard to the proposal.

4.1




Whilst this site is prominent and presents as an excellent opportunity for a substantial infill development, it is not considered to be a ‘landmark’ site. As Council’s Urban Design consultant has commented, a more mid-rise building configuration, recognising the site’s status as one of a series of ‘common order’ urban blocks within the primary western approach to the Heidelberg Activity Centre, would be more appropriate. Whilst there may be merit in a building exceeding the height outlined in the DDO5, a significant departure without a full process to amend the guidelines and subsequently the Planning Scheme with community input would undermine the process to include the Guidelines in the Scheme as part of the Heidelberg Structure Plan. Further, the architectural quality and features of the building do not warrant such a significant departure from the Planning Scheme controls and guidelines. Council’s Urban Designer has advised that the following refinements are required to the proposal to address these concerns:

Treatment 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.

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

Provide for deep-rooted 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 General Residential Zone.

These matters would be required to be addressed in any revised proposal. GUIDELINES FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In assessing the acceptability of the more detailed design elements of the proposal, Council is required to consider the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. A detailed assessment against the Guidelines is included as Attachment 3. The proposal is not considered to meet the following components of the Guidelines:

Objective 1.1 – Neighbourhood character and strategic context

Objective 1.2 - Design Response

Objectives 2.1 and 2.2 – Height and massing

Objective 2.4 – Street setbacks

Objective 2.5 and 2.7 – Relationship to adjoining buildings

Objective 2.9 – Views to and from residential units

Objective 2.11 – Roof forms

Objective 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 – Street pattern and street edge integration

Objective 3.5 – Building entries

Objectives 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 – Parking layout

4.1




Objective 5.4 – Building layout

Objective 5.6 – Design detail

Objective 6.5 – Private and communal open space The internal amenity of the residential apartments is on the whole considered to be acceptable except for the lack of access to northern light for south facing apartments and apartments overshadowed by the twin towers within the development. EXTERNAL AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS As detailed in Attachment 3, it is not considered that the proposal meets the requirements of the Guidelines in relation to overlooking of 43 Linden Avenue but meets the requirement for overshadowing of surrounding properties, including the residential properties to the south of the site. Overshadowing and overlooking of front gardens that are open to view from the street is not a basis for withholding planning permission. Overlooking The site is bordered immediately to the south by residential land. The relevant provisions of the planning scheme (Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6) seek to restrict overlooking within 9 metres of a proposed window or balcony. A number of aged care facility windows on a number of levels would be within 9 metres of the rear garden of 43 Linden Avenue. As such, overlooking from the proposal is considered to be excessive.

Overshadowing Whilst it is noted that there is some additional shadow cast to surrounding properties in the early morning on the equinox as a result of the proposal, this shadow is relatively fast-moving due to the height of the building and its separation from the residences. As a result, from 1pm onwards the development will not cast any shadow on the rear yard areas of the neighbouring properties to the south. It is acknowledged that the building will cast a much greater shadow extending through to some residential properties to the south in the morning period during the winter months, with some loss of direct sunlight for these properties. Although some overshadowing of these properties may be unavoidable in the morning, the extent of shadowing could be reduced with a decreased height and improved articulation of the proposed building. As compliance with Clause 55.04-5 is achieved, including for 43 Linden Avenue, it is not possible to conclude that the development will unacceptably overshadow adjoining properties. The impact of shadowing could however be further reduced through modifications to the design. A copy of the detailed assessment of the proposal against the Guidelines is annexed at Attachment 3 to this report.

4.1




Anti-social behaviour arising from the associated hotel Concern has been expressed by objectors regarding the potential behaviour of patrons of the hotel. It is important to note that the proposed hotel is a residential hotel with a bistro. It is not a tavern. It is therefore anticipated that this use is unlikely to result in negative off site impacts from patrons. TRAFFIC AND PARKING It is considered that:

Inadequate on site car parking is proposed to service the development. The proposed parking layout is also considered to be inappropriate, in that the use of tandem car parking spaces, over bonnet and full height storage cages behind parking spaces would have an adverse impact on the use of the car park, particularly by visitors, and will lead to an unacceptable increase in on street car parking within the surrounding road network.

The distribution of car parking spaces for short and long term parking and the location of accessible spaces within the basement car park would not be convenient or appropriate to service the various users of the building.

The design of the bicycle parking spaces provided for residents and employees and the proposed basement car park layout would not provide an appropriate level of accessibility to the parking spaces or safety.

The southern part of Linden Avenue ie. south of the cul-de-sac, would be used to access the site for 70% of the traffic associated with the aged care use of the land ie. the Independent Living Units and Residential Aged Care facility. The remaining 30% of the traffic associated with these uses would utilise the northern part of Linden Avenue ie. accessed from Bell Street. The northern part of Linden Avenue would provide access for 70% of the childcare centre traffic (on the basis that primary childcare centre car parking areas would be located in the eastern parking areas) with 30% of childcare centre traffic also obtaining access from Myrtle Street. No other uses associated with the development will obtain vehicle access to the site from Linden Avenue. In terms of anticipated vehicle movements at the am/pm peak, these are expected to result in a maximum of 24 vehicles per hour along the southern stretch of Linden Avenue. This level of traffic is equivalent to the traffic associated with approximately 24 standard dwellings which typically generate one vehicle movement per hour during the am/pm peak. This equates to an average of one vehicle movement every two minutes. These generation rates are considered to be reasonable and the additional traffic can be easily absorbed along Linden Avenue and the local road network to the south. However, alternate options for access could be explored with the applicant.

As detailed by VicRoads, it is considered that access to the site is acceptable subject to design modifications in Bell Street being required as a condition of permit and undertaken at the permit applicant’s expense.

Details of comments from Council’s Developments Engineers and VicRoads advice is attached at Appendix 2 to this report.

4.1




TREE REMOVAL The minimisation of potential off site impacts on neighbouring trees has not been fully considered in the submitted documentation and is considered unacceptable. However, the removal of trees to enable a substantial redevelopment of the site is considered reasonable in this location. Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment (Clause 22.02) As part of the site located at 45 Linden Avenue is located within a General Residential zone, Clause 22.02 applies to the assessment of any part of the development located on this land. This therefore applies to part of the aged and child care facilities. The proposal fails to meet the objectives of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy. This section of the site should be developed in a manner that responds more appropriately to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character objectives for the area. This would involve presenting a more transitional built form scale and built form setback to the street at this corner of the site and a less institutional ground level presentation to Linden Avenue. A detailed assessment against the Policy is included at Attachment 4 to this report. OBJECTORS’ CONCERNS

The objectors’ concerns have been addressed above and in the attachments to this report, including the assessment of the proposal against the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the site provides a good opportunity for a large scale mixed use development incorporating commercial and residential land uses, but the proposal does not adequately address the particular characteristics of the site, and the Planning Scheme requirements. In particular:

The proposal does not meet the existing preferred height and setback controls specified under the Scheme and a number of the design objectives for the site and does not provide a sufficiently high architectural quality to warrant such a significant departure from the controls;

The proposal is also not considered to achieve a sufficient degree of compliance with the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development;

The proposed car parking layout and distribution of short/long term car and bicycle parking is considered to be unacceptable and would be likely to result in increased parking in the surrounding road network and increased hazard for bicycle users.

Inadequate consideration has been given to the retention of existing vegetation on the site and the protection of vegetation on neighbouring land.

For these reasons it is considered that the proposal could not be supported.

4.1




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Advertised plans

2 Additional Background Information

3 Assessment against Higher Density Design Guidelines

4 Neighbourhood Character Assessment

5 Modified Application (Discussions plans submitted 14 December 2015)

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Advertised plans


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 2: Additional Background Information


Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Design Guidelines


Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 4: Neighbourhood Character Assessment


Att

ach

men

t 4

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 5: Modified Application (Discussions plans submitted 14 December 2015)


Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.1



Documents

Banyule City Council Special Meeting Agenda 21 December 2015