FUTURE MELBOURNE [INSERT PORTFOLIO] COMMITTEE …...Environmental sustainability . 8. Submitted with the application was a Sustainability Report commissioned by WSP which outlined

Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Locality Plan 3. Application Plans 4. Delegate Report

Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee Agenda item 6.4 Planning Permit Application: TP-2013-1054 120W-126W Toorak Road, South Yarra

1 September 2015

Presenter: Karen Snyders, Planning Coordinator

Purpose and background

1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Future Melbourne Committee of a Planning Application at 120W-126W Toorak Road, South Yarra (refer Attachment 2 – Locality Plan). The planning permit application was submitted on 24 December 2013. No formal amendments were made to the application throughout the process. The applicant is Urbis, the owner is Christ Church Grammar and the architect is Sally Draper Architects.

2. The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone and is affected by the Heritage Overlay Schedule 6, South Yarra Precinct (the existing building is an A graded building), Design and Development Overlay Schedule 15 Area 1 (mandatory 12 m height control), Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2, and is adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 (Toorak Road).

3. The application seeks approval for the use and development of the land for the purpose of a childcare (early learning) centre and an education centre (primary school), including partial demolition of the existing building, alterations and additions to the existing building, vegetation removal and to alter access to a road in Road Zone Category 1. The child care centre will include 3 year old child care (kindergarten) for 44 children, 4 year old child care (kindergarten) for 44 children, and a pre prep class for 11 students. 10.5 teaching staff are to be associated with the child care (early learning) centre component. The education centre (primary school) will include three classes of Year 5 with a total of 72 students. Four full time equivalent staff will be associated with the education centre (primary school).

4. The application was advertised and 104 objections were received. A consultation meeting was attended by 34 objectors, the applicant, Councillor Ken Ong and Council officers. Additional information including a pedestrian safety audit and traffic report was submitted by the applicant. Objectors were notified of the receipt of this information and provided with the opportunity to submit further comments.

Key issues

5. The key issues in relation to the application relate to the impact of the proposed buildings and works on the existing A graded building, the impact of the use and development on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the area, significant trees and traffic impacts.

6. The partial demolition of the rear buildings is acceptable as these are later additions. The proposed new additions to the rear are supported as the significant parts of the existing building are retained and having regard to the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay, and to the performance standards of Clause 22.05 for new buildings and works.

7. A child care centre (kindergarten) and education centre (primary school) is a land use which provides a net benefit to local residents and the local and wider community. The total number of parking spaces provided for the proposed development is 28 spaces which exceeds the Planning Scheme car parking requirement under Clause 52.06 Car Parking.

8. Revised traffic information relating to the creation of new parking spaces along Toorak Road and the removal of two of the three pedestrian entries along Leopold Street will help mitigate traffic impacts.

Recommendation from management

9. That the Future Melbourne Committee resolves that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to the conditions listed in the delegates report.

Page 1 of 61

1

Supporting Attachment

Legal

1. Division 1 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) sets out the requirements in relation to applications for permits pursuant to the relevant planning scheme.

2. As objections have been received, sections 64 and 65 of the Act provide that the responsible authority must give the applicant and each objector notice in the prescribed form of its decision to either grant a permit or refuse to grant a permit. The responsible authority must not issue a permit to the applicant until the end of the period in which an objector may apply to the VCAT for a review of the decision or, if an application for review is made, until the application is determined by the VCAT.

Finance

3. There are no direct financial issues arising from the recommendations contained in this report.

Conflict of interest

4. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.

Stakeholder consultation

5. Given the receipt of 104 objections a consultation meeting was held on 20 October 2014 and all objectors and Councillors were invited. The meeting was attended by 34 persons, including applicants, objectors and council staff.

6. Informal advertising on the 26 June 2015 of the additional traffic information submitted by the applicant in response to concerns with the impact of the development on the local traffic network.

Relation to Council policy

7. Relevant Council policies are discussed in the attached delegate report (refer Attachment 4).

Environmental sustainability

8. Submitted with the application was a Sustainability Report commissioned by WSP which outlined how the energy and water benchmarks, set by Clause 22.19 Energy Waste Water Efficiency, are achieved.

Attachment 1 Agenda item 6.4

Future Melbourne Committee 1 September 2015

Page 2 of 61

Locality Plan – 120W-126W Toorak Road, South Yarra

Attachment 2 Agenda item 6.4

Future Melbourne Committee 1 September 2015

Page 3 of 61

Legend

^ existing building to be demolished I I existing building to be retained

Ground Floor Demolition Plan

WEST CAMPUS CHRIST CHURCH GRAMMAR SCHOOL

•%>>

V V "

V- ' f /. T \

v \

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No.....I of...1.1 sheets

Sally Draper Architects

Scale: t:200@A3 Date: 16/12/2013 Drawing: 1082 WC TP EX 01 Job Number: 1082

m'P

Page 4 of 61

haneis

Text Box

Attachment 3 Agenda item 6.4 Future Melbourne Committee 1 September 2015

Site Context Plan


Scale- 1:3Q0@A3 Date: 16'1220!3 Drawing IG62 WC TPOl rev F Job Number 1082

Page 5 of 61

w 2 a

plan continued to right

D

D

D £>

/ ~:i 9

>r

v

.j

/

L. 1 ^ [^building protection zone

HEW FFL 22.604

L

C

c c

1M

he of miter c

1

LJ=J~L^S

) , f ) n — Q Q Q Q

V ©

7r?

300 3QQQ'

vehipl'e access

ir

2£00

© © ©

A

©

A

©

0_Q Q

©

2900

©

NEW FFL 23.171

© ©

3 00

,4

EX RL' 24.00

proposed crossover

tree > ( protection \

zone j

© © ©

/ X / tree \ ( protection l ̂ zone j

rr/ -

offdHePcfoc

4

/ Cjy 3ooo^''

vfehicle access

— 24:

j

5

3D

tree , protection \zone

3 3373

EX RL 24.66 proposed crossover

existing crossover

Toorak Road West existing crossover

Proposed Carpark Plan


\ Scale. 1 '200,®A3

Dais: 18/12/2013 Drafting: 1062 TP02 rev F Job Number 1082

plan continued to left

LEGEND

1 entry ramp 2 basement carpark 3 plant room 4 exit ramp 5 escape stairs 6 pedestrian ramp 7 lift 8 disabled carpark 9 existing basement 10 bike store © carpark number • existing building retained

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No. J sheets


f, v -..itrv

Page 6 of 61

LEGEND

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 w •

Q-

verandah office atelier / pre-prep room 1 - 3 year old program deck childrens wc room 2 - 3 year old program accessible shower & wc individual differences kitchen indoor gathering outdoor gathering room 3 - 4 year old program store room 4 - 4 year old program gallery & entry to Year 5 Center outdoor playspace window existing building to be retained existing tree to be retained

) existing tree to be demolished

1 storey residential



WEST CAMPUS CHRIST CHURCH GRAMMAR SCHOOL Scale- 1:200® A3 Dale: 16fl2O013 Drawing: 1032 TP03 rev F Job Number 1032

LEOPOLD STREET

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No.. ....* ofJfL... ..sheets - jcv.: A". V

Page 7 of 61




LEGEND

i gallery void entry

J studio 1 4 deck 5 studio 2 6 lockers 7 girls wc 8 boys wc 9 store 10 informal lounge 11 home room 2 12 home room 3 13 staff room 14 home room 1 15 music practice room 16 staff wc 17 disabled wc 18 verandah • existing building retained w window


Proposed First Floor Plan


t Scale 1:200,2 A3

Dele: 10/12/2013 Draning: 1062 TP04 rev C Job Numbs- 1062

J

\

LEOPOLD STREET

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No sheets


r -v

Page 8 of 61

LEGEND CR Grey cement Render EX Existing building retained GL Glass LV Louvred screen MC Metal cladding MS Steel framed screen with

cast aluminium panels MW Steel framed screen with mesh

detail panels

Proposed North Elevation

^7 NEW DECK FFL 35.00

•NEW YR5&GAUERYFCL 34.50

T7NEWYR 5 FFL 30.90

/XREWEtC FCE~3D.«T~

T7NEW&EXELCFFI 27.00 gfiAU£R£EEL 25.64

\

EjO.QfflEFi.FFt 40,67 tz

. EX TOWER FFL 37.14

Proposed South Elevation - Toorak Road West


.^RLEAST23.18 J

Scalo. 1:205®A3 Dote: 16/12/2013

Orav.ing. 1062 WCTP07 rev F JobNun-ber 1082

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No. £ of.../.ft.

.. >

Sally Draper Arcliilects

r » v ,-*rr

.sheets

Page 9 of 61


cast aluminium panels MW Steel framed screen with

detail panels

Proposed East Elevation

34.50

Hi

YRiLFFJ._a2.9to

NEW &EXELCFFL 27.0Cky— GAM FRY.FFL 23.645Z_

•EX GROUND FFL 27.00

proposed ground lino

ax natural ground lino

•RL WEST 24.00 ramo

TTRL EAST|23.18

\?EX TOWER FFL 40.67

Saily Draper Architects

M ASW aiw .xrr

NEW DECK FFL 3500

NEW YR5STGALLERYTCL~34~S0

Proposed West Elevation - Leopold Strepl


Scale 1:200@A3 Date: 16/12/2013 Drawing; 1082WCTP05revF

Job Number 1082

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No.. ...J of...13

_^E\TOWER_FFL 3.L14

^EX FIRST FCL 35.39 '

-SZEX£|fi§.T £EL_3tM_

Page 10 of 61

€


cast aluminium panels MW Steel framed screen with mesh

detail panels

Proposed Courtyard Section BB

Proposed Courtyard Section AA

WEST CAMPUS CHRIST CHURCH GRAMMAR SCHOOL Scale 1:200.® A3 Date: 16/12/2013 Drawing- 1062 WCTP06 rev F •lobNumber. 1062

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No..... £ of... J. fi sheets


r aw •> r uvr

Page 11 of 61

V

Shadow Diagrams - 22 September - 9am


Scale: i 200 @AI Dale: 12/12/2013 349.55 PM

Drawing: TPoa Job Number: 1002

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No >3. of \f) sheets


in assosiation with Mc I LOOtvi E • ' 1 'lh :• i

Shadow Diagram - Proposed - 9am

Page 12 of 61

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No....}<?. of... j.cl sheets


in assosialion with MCLLOOWIE NJ--: ,C .

Shadow Diagrams - 22 September - 12pm


Scale: 1 200 ®AI Dale: 12/12/2013 3:49.57 PM

Drawing: TPOS Job Number: toss

Page 13 of 61

V

Shadow Diagrams - 22 September - 3pm

WEST CAMPUS^ CHRIST CHURCH GRAMMAR SCHOOL

Scale: i zoo @ai Dale: 12/12/2013 3:50 00 pm

Drawing: tpio Jot Number: ios2

ADVERTISED PLAN

Sheet No.....1.'. of...(3 sheets


in assosiation with M c I L O O WI £ n P T

Page 14 of 61

Page 15 of 61

1

DELEGATED PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Application number: TP-2013-1054

Applicant: Christ Church Grammar School

Address: 120W-126W Toorak Road, SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141

Proposal: Use and development of the land for the purpose of a childcare centre (early learning centre) and primary school, including partial demolition of the existing building, alterations and additions to the existing building, vegetation removal and alter access to a road in Road Zone Category 1

Date of application: 24 December 2013

Responsible officer: Anne-Marie Edgley

1 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS Various inspections of the site and surrounding area was undertaken throughout the application process.

The subject site is addressed as 120W Toorak Road, South Yarra. The site is developed with an ‘A’ graded building and this section of Toorak Road is a level 1 streetscape grading.

The subject site contains a rectangular shaped portion of land, with a primary street frontage onto Toorak Road to the south, and a longer secondary frontage onto Leopold Street to the west. The land gently slopes downhill in a southerly direction. There are four existing crossovers allowing vehicle access to the subject site. Two crossovers to Toorak Road and two crossovers to Leopold Street.

The site contains a substantial double-storey rendered brick mansion originally known as ‘Goodrest’. The Toorak Road portion of the building is double-fronted, with a projecting bay window on each level on the east side, and a cast iron verandah with an upper level balcony on the west side, which extends around the corner along the Leopold Street elevation. A third-storey tower element is located at the centre of the building on the Toorak Road edge of the building. The property also includes a double-storey wing running northwards along the eastern property boundary. This wing is built of rendered brick with a slate roof and was a later addition constructed in the twentieth century. To the north-west corner of the house is a single storey room and further to the north is a double storey accommodation wing constructed in 1960s.

City of Melbourne’s i-heritage website details the following significance of the building:

Architectural Style - Italianate

Period - 1876-99 - Victorian

Source for Construction Date - Building permit & ratebooks

Page 16 of 61

haneis

Text Box

Attachment 4 Agenda item 6.4 Future Melbourne Committee 1 September 2015

2

Architect - Walter Buckhurst

Builder - William Parker Buckhurst

History

This grand "boom style" Italianate mansion stands on Crown Land Portion No. 18 which was bought by Melbourne pioneer merchant Henry Ward Mason at public auction on 14th March 1849 for the sum of 399 pounds. When Mason died, in 1883, the nine and a half acre estate was bought for 22,500 pounds by William P Buckhurst, a dynamic property speculator and estate agent of South Melbourne, who proceeded to subdivide the estate into 24 allotments, with frontages on the east side of Park Street and both sides of Leopold Street (created in 1884). He retained two acres on the south east side of Leopold Street and built a large elegant mansion from plans prepared by his architect son, Walter Buckhurst, with a garden stretching half way along the narrow street northwards. The garden has disappeared, covered by ten newer buildings including small flat blocks, but fortunately the house has survived and is currently (1984) used as a convention centre by the Catholic Church.

Description/Notable Features

Notable features include the verandah decoration, verandah roof and structure and an elaborate / high standard design of cement rendered surfaces. A large boom style Italianate mansion with tower and return verandah. Render decoration derives from several sources with check key pattern frieze, Byzantine arcading, Victorian vermiculation, rosettes and bunting and Serlian motif windows. A French mansarded roof with patterned slates & widows walk completes the tower.

Statement of Significance

The house is in great need of an appropriate fence (iron palisade) with large gate posts, and a garden developed around existing form and trees.

Recommended alterations

Cantilevered side bay window ( sympathetic - no recommendations) Landscaping, fence ( extremely inappropriate - reinstate sympathetic alternative)

Aerial Photo / Locality Plan

Page 17 of 61

3

Subject site – viewed from corner of Leopold Street and Toorak Road

Subject site – as viewed within Leopold Street showing the 1960s addition and existing crossovers

A number of trees are located within the subject site and are included in the City of Melbourne Exceptional Tree Register. These are identified in the submitted tree report produced by John Patrick and include the following:

Tree 4, Salix babylonica which is located to the front of the site, as shown below.

Trees 7 and 8, Phoenix canariensis which are both located to the front of the site, as shown below

Page 18 of 61

4

Tree 6, a row of Cupressus torulosa which is located to the eastern boundary, as shown below.

Image from Applicants submitted tree report

Tree 7

Tree 8

Tree 4

Page 19 of 61

5

The applicant describes each of these properties in more detail as follows:

To the north

A three storey residential apartment building at 22 Leopold Street is located to the north of the subject site. The southern boundary of 22 Leopold Street is currently treated with a timber paling fence, with low level planting provided along the boundary within the subject site.

Windows are located on the southern elevation of the apartment building, which have an outlook over the subject site.

To the East

A three level apartment building is located to the east, accessed via Toorak Road (129 Toorak Road West). The driveway for the apartment building is located along its western boundary, providing a buffer between the buildings. The boundary treatment is a timber paling fence, with a group of pine trees located along the eastern boundary of the 120W Toorak Road site.

To the north of 128W Toorak Road is a double storey dwelling, with a frontage to Marne Street. This property has an abuttal of approximately 15 metres with the eastern boundary of the subject site.

The extension built to the rear of 3 Marne Street was approved under TP-2012-873. The extension provides for an outdoor eating area wall setback 2.24m from the property boundary with a height of 4.31m, and a pool area, as shown the exerts from the approved plans below:

TP-2012-873 approval to the rear of 3 Marne Street

Page 20 of 61

6

To the south

Toorak Road is located directly south of the subject site, and provides for two lanes of traffic in each direction, together with a tram line. Short term car parking is provided along the northern side of Toorak Road, whilst long term parking is provided along the southern side.

On the southern side of Toorak Road is Fawkner Park, which is approximately 40 hectares in size. The park allows for passive and active recreation opportunities, with sporting fields and walking paths provided.

To the west

Leopold Street is located to the west of the subject site, and is a one-way road providing access from the north (Domain Road) to the south (Toorak Road). On the western side of Leopold Street are residential apartment buildings, generally 2 or 3 storeys.

2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 2.1 Pre-application discussions The application was the subject of pre-application discussions

2.2 Planning Application History The following approvals have been issued for the Christ Church Grammar School.

2.2.1 Campus at 621 Punt Road, South Yarra Planning Permit TP-2008-925 was issued on 12 January 2009 to use an existing residential building for an education centre and to construct a new path and fences in accordance with the endorsed plans at 621 Punt Road, South Yarra. This campus accommodates for 3 and 4 year old kindergarten and Year 1 children

2.2.2 Main Campus - 663-681 Punt Road, South Yarra Planning permit TPM-2009-46 was issued by the State Government to carry out development, including partial demolition and erection of new two storey building over basement of an existing school at 663-681 Punt Road, South Yarra

Planning Permit TP-2013-1064 was issued on 21 October 2014 for partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of building and works associated with the existing primary school.

2.2.3 Subject site – 120W Toorak Road, South Yarra Planning Permit CM-260 was issued on 16 November 1977 to make alterations to the excising two storey building and use it as a residential building and an educational establishment.

3 PROPOSAL The applicant informs Council that Christ Church Grammar school currently operates out of two campuses. The main campus is at 677 Punt Road, South Yarra and accommodates Year 2 to Year 6 and the secondary campus is at 19 Park Place South Yarra which accommodates a 3 and 4 year old early learning centre (land owned by the Presbyterian Church) and Prep to Year 1. See Section 2.2 above for permit history for these sites. The applicant indicates that the purchase of the land at 120W Toorak Road in 2012 has resulted in the opportunity to consolidate the

Page 21 of 61

7

operations of the school to occur on landholdings that are solely owned by the school.

The plans which have been considered in this planning assessment are dated 27 December 2013. The proposal includes the following:

Use Use of the land for the purposes of a child care centre (kindergarten) and education centre (Primary School).

Child care centre (kindergarten)

A 3 and 4 year old child care (kindergarten) is proposed to be located on the ground floor of the building and will be a total of 99 children. The breakdown of proposed classes is as follows:

3-year old early learning centre - 2 classes of 22 students

4-year old early learning centre - 2 classes of 22 students

Pre-Prep - 1 class of 11 students

10.5 full time teaching staff are proposed to be associated with the child care centre component. The hours of operation for the child care (kindergarten) are 8.15am - 3.00pm, with after school care offered until 6pm Monday to Friday.

Education centre (Primary School)

The Year 5 students of Christ Church are proposed to be located on the first floor of the building and will have a total of 72 students across 3 classes. As part of this use, 4 full time equivalent staff will be associated with the education centre (primary school).

The hours of operation for the education centre will be 8.15am - 3.45pm, with after school care offered until 6pm. Before school supervision will also be provided from 8am, with students taken to their classrooms at 8.15am Monday to Friday.

Demolition The proposal includes the demolition of the rear part of the existing built form. The area proposed to be demolished, shown in the image below, is a later addition wing aligned east-west at the rear of the site, and a nineteenth century wing aligned north-south and attached to the rear of the former mansion. The main part of the Mansion will be maintained.

Page 22 of 61

8

Image from applicant submission. Area proposed for demolition shaded. Buildings and works The proposed buildings and works have been described by the applicant as follows:

The proposed uses will be accommodated within the existing Goodrest mansion, as well as a new addition to the rear of the site.

The proposed development will comprise:

• Office and administration areas associated with the early learning centre at ground floor, within the existing Goodrest mansion.

• Early learning centre rooms at ground floor, within the existing mansion, as well as the new addition.

• Year 5 centre at first floor, incorporating classrooms and ancillary staff areas.

The new built form component will have an overall height of 10.4 metres, above existing natural ground level, which is similar in height to the existing predominant height of the Goodrest mansion.

The proposed new built form has the following setbacks from adjoining boundaries:

• To the north: between 1.9 and 3.0 metres at both ground and first floors.

• To the east: between 0 and 3.0 metres at ground floor, and 2.9 metres at first floor. The wall on boundary component ranges from 3.6 to 2.4m in height from natural ground level.

• To the west: a setback of 1.7 metres at both ground and first floors.

The built form is varied, and has been designed to provide a modern interpretation of the heritage features of the mansion, including the use of cast aluminium screens, which reference the cast iron detail of the original mansion. A range of materials will be used, including cement render, metal cladding and louvered screens.

The proposed layout of the built form aims to focus activity towards Leopold Street and Fawkner Park, away from the sensitive northern and eastern interfaces.

Furthermore the applicant proposes a new fence constructed of steel railings on rendered masonry plinths to surround the site on Toorak Road and Leopold Street. Plans also show four signs for the new school; however no elevations of content are detailed in the application.

Vehicular Parking and Pedestrian access The applicant proposes excavation of the land to the front and rear of the site to allow for basement car parking. The basement car park is proposed to be accessed via a ramp from the existing crossover to Toorak Road. Entrance and exit points have been separated using the two existing crossovers to Toorak Road.

The basement car park proposed to accommodate 28 car spaces. The applicant states the following in relation to the car parking arrangements:

The proposal includes the provision of 28 car spaces to be provided on the 120W Toorak Road site within two separate, albeit connected, basement car parks. This total includes 14 car spaces within the southernmost basement car park, which are expected to be used predominantly for parent pick-

Page 23 of 61

9

up/dropoff parking (particularly as it relates to the car parking for the ELC) and 14 car spaces, including 1 disabled car space, in the northernmost car park. The basement also provides for services, such as plant room, escape stairs and lift.

Vehicle access to the above car parking is proposed via two crossovers (generally in locations as per the existing arrangements for the site) to Toorak Road. These crossovers are proposed for car parking entry (westernmost access) and exit (easternmost access), and have been designed with appropriate pedestrian splays to ensure appropriate sight lines are provided for exiting vehicles.

The proposal includes alteration to the existing crossover. The eastern vehicular crossover will remain in the existing location and the western vehicular crossover will be slightly relocated 1 metre towards the east.

Pedestrian access to the site has been separated from the vehicular access and is proposed from Leopold Street, with pedestrian access to the early learning centre via the existing front door to the mansion and new addition to the rear of the mansion, and access to the Year 5 centre via the new addition from Leopold Street.

Trees The applicant proposes the following in relation to the Exceptional Tree Register Trees

The two Canary Island Date Palms, are proposed to be temporarily removed from the site during construction of the basement, and will be relocated to the front setback once the basement is complete. It is also proposed to retain the row of Bhutan Cypresses located along the eastern boundary, together with a Bay Laurel, located to the west of the Goodrest Mansion.

Additional information The applicant submitted the additional traffic information in response to concerns raised by ESG. ESG provided comment prior to the formal lodgement of the information.

The main matters address by the additional information related to the submission of Road Safety Audit and the provision of five on street car parking spaces located on the Southern side of Toorak Road, immediately west of Park Street. Three short term parking spaces are also provided along the frontage of the development on the north side of Toorak Road

4 STATUTORY CONTROLS The following clauses in the Melbourne Planning Scheme require a planning permit for this proposal:

Clause Permit Trigger

Clause 32.08

General Residential Zone

Pursuant to Clause 32.08, a permit is required to use the land for the purpose of a child care centre (kindergarten) and a primary school (education centre)

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.08-1.

Clause 43.01 Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a permit is required to:

Page 24 of 61

10

Heritage Overlay (Schedule 6, South Yarra Precinct)

Demolish or remove a building; and

Construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.02

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 15 Area 1

Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works, unless exempted by the schedule. Schedule 15: Does not exempt the buildings and works from requiring a

permit. Imposes a mandatory height limit of 12m. Buildings or works do not visually intrude upon vistas within

the Royal Botanic Gardens or cast shadows on the Gardens between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm on 22 March and 22 September.

Development is compatible with the scale and character of the South Yarra area.

Clause 42.01

Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2

Pursuant to Clause 42.01 a permit is required for the removal of vegetation and to construct a building or construct or carry out works associated with the use of a child care centre and an education centre.

Clause 52.29

Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1

Pursuant to Clause 52.29 a permit is required alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

Clause 74 Definitions Pursuant to Clause 74 the following definitions are provided:

Child Care centre is defined as “Land used to care for five or more children who are not permanently resident on the land.” Pursuant to Clause 75.03 ‘kindergarten’ is nested within Child Care Centre.

Education Centre is defined as “Land used for education.” Pursuant to 75.04 ‘primary school’ land use is nested within Education Centre.

Page 25 of 61

11

Clause 75 Nesting Diagrams

5 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 5.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) The relevant provisions of the SPPF are summarised as follows:

Clause 15.01-5 ‘Urban Design Principles’ seeks to achieve outcomes that ‘contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties’. Developments are considered against a range of design principles including: context; the public realm; landmarks, views and vistas; pedestrian spaces; heritage; consolidation of sites and empty sites; light and shade; energy resource efficiency; architectural quality; landscape architecture.

Clause 15.03-1 ‘Heritage Conservation’ seeks ‘to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance’. Specifically, the clause encourages the conservation of contributory elements and encourages appropriate development that respects places with identified heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future generations.

Clause 19.02-2 ‘Education Facilities’ seeks ‘to assist the integration of education facilities with local and regional communities.’ The location of education facilities are encouraged in locations where waking, cycling and public transport use can be maximised.

5.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) 5.2.1 Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) The relevant provisions of the MSS are summarised as follows:

Clause 21.08 Economic Development Clause 21.08 Economic Development details a series of strategies and objectives. Specific to Education the following applies:

Clause 21.08 – 5 Knowledge precincts

Objective 1 To support education, medical and research activities.

Page 26 of 61

12

Strategy 1.1 Support the operation, development and clustering of education research centres and associated uses whilst protecting the amenity of Residential and Mixed Use zoned areas.

Strategy 1.2 Support the increased integration of the tertiary education facilities into the public realm of the City through better access connections and the design of new development.

Strategy 1.3 Encourage research and development uses in appropriate zones throughout the City.

Clause 21.16 St Kilda Road and South Yarra

Clause 21.16 St Kilda Road and South Yarra details the following

In St Kilda Road and South Yarra, the educational, institutional and research facilities continue to be supported. As South Yarra is an area of stability with minimal potential for new development, residential amenity has been maintained and the area’s historic character and features have been preserved.

Built Environment and Heritage seeks to

Ensure development in South Yarra is sensitively designed so that it maintains the generally low scale nature of heritage streetscapes and buildings.

Ensure that development around Fawkner Park protects the visual amenity of the park and avoids overshadowing.

Infrastructure seeks to

Support the functioning and growth of education uses in St Kilda Road and South Yarra, consistent with the local amenity at the interface of Residential and Mixed Use zones.

Preserve and enhance the landscape qualities and recreational role of Fawkner Park.

5.2.2 Local Policies The relevant local policies are summarised as follows: Clause 22.02 ‘ Sunlight to Public Spaces’ Clause 22.02 ‘ Sunlight to Public Spaces’ seeks ‘to ensure that overshadowing from new buildings or works does not result in significant loss of sunlight and diminish the enjoyment of public spaces for pedestrians.’ As with Schedule 15 of the DDO, it is policy that development does not reduce the amenity of public spaces by casting any additional shadows on public parks and gardens between 11.00am and 2.00pm on 22 September. Clause 22.05 ‘Heritage Places Outside the Capital City Zone’ Clause 22.05 ‘Heritage Places Outside the Capital City Zone’ seeks to conserve all parts of buildings of historic interest and to ensure that new development makes a positive contribution to the built form and amenity of the area. A range of performance standards are given to guide assessment of planning applications for heritage places in heritage overlays. Clause 22.14 ‘Discretionary Uses in the Residential 1 Zone’ Clause 22.14 ‘Discretionary Uses in the Residential 1 Zone’ it is policy to:

Page 27 of 61

13

Discourage new non-residential uses in the Residential 1 zone unless there is a net benefit to local residents and the local community.

Ensure the intensity of non-residential uses are appropriate to a residential context.

Minimise the effects of non-residential uses on residential amenity (by controlling numbers of operators, practitioners, staff levels, hours of operation, traffic and parking movements, light, noise and air emissions).

Encourage non-residential uses to locate:

− In buildings that were purpose-built for predominantly non-residential purposes.

− On corner sites that have direct access to a road in a Road Zone.

− On sites that are located adjacent to the boundary of a non-residential zone.

Ensure that responsibility for management of operational impacts such as traffic, parking, odour, lightspill, signage and noise falls upon the agent of change to minimise impacts on the neighbourhood.

Clause 22.17 ‘Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone’

Clause 22.17 ‘Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone’ encourages development to complement the scale, massing and bulk of adjoining and nearby built form in the surrounding area. This clause provides specific policy with relation to (inter alia) scale, context, building height and bulk, street level frontages, fronts and backs of buildings, building tops, visible facades and blank walls, pedestrian connection, protection from wind and rain and access and safety in public spaces.

6 ZONE 6.1 General Residential Zone 1 The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone 1 which has the following purpose:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other nonresidential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

The Decision Guidelines for non-residential use and development within the zone are as follows:

Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.

Whether the use generally serves local community needs.

The scale and intensity of the use and development.

The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.

The proposed landscaping.

Page 28 of 61

14

The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.

Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.

The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.

7 OVERLAY(S) 7.1 Heritage Overlay The subject site is affected by the Heritage Overlay. The purposes include:

To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.

To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage

places.

To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.

7.2 Design and Development Overlay The site is also affected by Schedule 15 (A1) of the Design and Development Overlay which has the following Design Objectives:

To preserve the landscape qualities and amenity of the Royal Botanical Gardens and to foster vegetation growth in the Gardens.

To ensure that the enjoyment of the Royal Botanic Gardens is not diminished by overshadowing or visual intrusion from any new buildings or works.

To minimise detrimental wind impacts on the Royal Botanic Gardens.

To ensure that any new development or redevelopment is compatible with the existing scale and character of buildings in the area.

To protect the residential amenity of the area.

7.3 Environmental Significance Overlay The subject site is affected by Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 which has the following statement:

The City of Melbourne’s Exceptional Tree Register 2012 identifies trees that are of exceptional significance. The trees have been identified for a variety of reasons, including their horticultural, aesthetic or historical value, because they are rare, old, or in a particular location or context; because they are an outstanding size or are a curious growth form, because they have outstanding habitat value or micro-climate services or because of their Aboriginal association or social, cultural or spiritual value. Many of these trees are also included in the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Register of Significant Trees.

These trees contribute to the character and culture of local areas and collectively, to the valuable ecosystems of the City of Melbourne’s Urban Forest.

The objectives of the ESO are as follows

To protect and preserve the exceptional trees as listed in the Table to this schedule, for their intrinsic environmental, ecological, habitat, historical, cultural, landscape, aesthetic and scientific values.

Page 29 of 61

15

To minimise the adverse effects of development and works on the condition and health of the exceptional trees as listed in the Table to this schedule.

8 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 52.06 Car Parking seeks to ensure that the appropriate number of car spaces are provided having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality. The table at Clause 52.06-5 sets out the number of car spaces required for uses not covered by a parking precinct plan or another clause. The specific standards applicable for the subject application are: Primary school - 1 car space to each employee Child Care centre – 0.22 car spaces to each child Based on the proposal of 99 child care children and 4 staff member for the primary school, the car parking requirement of Clause 52.06 is a total of 26 car spaces (22 spaces for child care centre and 4 spaces for the primary school). The application proposed exceeds this car parking requirement and provides for 28 car spaces to be located within the basement car park. Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities specifies that a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. There are specific requirements for primary schools; however there are no specific requirements for a child care centre. A primary school generates a requirement for the following: 1 bicycle parking space per 20 employees and 1 student bicycle parking space

to each 5 pupils over Year 4 Based on the proposal the primary school component requires a total of 14 bicycle parking spaces for children. The plans do not identify any area for bicycle parking spaces.

9 GENERAL PROVISIONS The following general provision apply to the application:

• Clause 65, Decision Guidelines, which includes the matters set out in Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• Clause 66, Referral and Notice Provisions

10 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION It was determined that the proposal may result in material detriment. Notice of the proposal was given by ordinary mail to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties and by posting notices on the site for a 14 day period, in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Upon receipt of further information submitted by the applicant on 24 June 2015, the additional traffic information was circulated to all objectors for review and comment on the 26 June 2015.

11 OBJECTIONS The application received 104 objections raising the following concerns (as summarised by the applicant):

Page 30 of 61

16

• Traffic and Car Parking Implications

• Impact upon heritage

• Impact upon existing trees

• Setback of extension from Leopold Street

• Amenity

• Proposed location of pedestrian access points

• Construction Management

• Child safety

• Non-residential use within a residential zone

• Built form interfaces to the eastern properties (3 Marne Street and 128 Toorak Road)

• Basement car parking entrance points (RLs) not shown on the plans.

Following the informal advertising process associated with the submission of additional traffic information a number of further submission have been received. The submissions reiterated concerns as summarised above and generally concluded that the changes and justification as proposed by the additional traffic information were still not sufficient to alleviate the overall concern with the development. Heritage and tree concerns were also raised again.

12 CONSULTATION Given the receipt of the above objections, the following consultation was undertaken:

• A consultation meeting was held on 20 October 2014. The meeting was attended by 34 persons, including applicants, objectors and council staff. Issues were expressed by the objectors and the applicant had the opportunity to respond.

• Ongoing phone calls and correspondence with objectors and applicant.

13 REFERRALS 13.1 Internal The application was referred internally to the following internal departments

13.1.1 Engineering Services Comments dated 25 February 2014

The application was originally referred to Engineering Services on 25 February 2014. The following is a summary of the comments provided:

Engineering Services expressed a number of concerns in relation to the original planning application for the proposal, including: that the proposed relocation of the existing entry and exit points could impact various existing services; that there were numerous car park design issues that needed to be resolved; and the lack of student bicycle parking provided.

Comments dated 7 August 2014

Upon receipt of the comments of February 2014, the applicant submitted a letter prepared by Urbis dated 1 July 2014 and letter prepared by GTA Consultants dated 30 June 2014. These documents were referred to Engineering for comments and the following is a summary:

Page 31 of 61

17

Following a review of the additional information provided in August 2014 we continued to express concerns, including that there will be a shortage of parking associated with the site. In our August 2014 comments we also noted that we would have preferred to see amended plans, given the likelihood of design changes being required that would further restrict the amount of parking provided.

Comments dated 22 October 2014

Upon receipt of the comments of August 2014, the applicant submitted a letter prepared by Urbis dated 25 September 2014 and report prepared by GTA Consultants dated 25 September 2014. These documents were referred to Engineering for comments and the following is a summary:

Summery

Engineering Services' concerns with these earlier reports have been discussed in our earlier comments and still apply. It appears that the report has been prepared with no consideration of the behaviour and needs of young children in an ELC setting, and this has led to a range of impractical or unworkable recommendations being proposed. The report does not take into account the complications that can arise when parents set down or pick up early learning (3 and 4 year olds) and Grade 5 students (10 to 11 year olds) in busy peak periods. Driving and parking, is only part of the important task of ensuring students arrive safely.

Further, the report is strong on recommendations "to be considered by the school" but provides little reassurance that any measures will be implemented to minimise the on-going parking and traffic issues that will result from the school being developed as currently proposed. Should a permit be issued for the proposal Council will be left to resolve on-going traffic and parking issues that will occur.

It is noted that the school has provided no response to any of the recommendations (many of which are considered to be unworkable).

Details

GTA has maintained its assumption that the use of cars by both staff and parents can be reduced. However, ELC students will not be able to utilise a school bus service, nor is car pooling with ELC students a practical alternative in most cases (given the age of the children, need for specialised car seats, reliance on parents etc). It is noted that the subject site will house 99 ELC children and 72 Year 5 children. The ability to decrease current car parking demand (shown as being 78% of ELC children and 72% of Year 5 students) by any significant amount is questionable.

In relation to any school bus option, as well as being unsuitable for ELC students it is noted that students of the school reside equally in different directions around the school, and therefore the likelihood of being able to implement a viable school bus service is extremely low.

As per Section 2.2 of their report, GTA now accepts that the on-site car parking will not meet the likely parking demand associated with the development (i.e. "It is noted that this provision meets the statutory requirements of the proposed development but does not equal the likely peak parking demand").

The GTA report recommends that "investigations" be made of potential improvements, however it is considered that none of the issues investigated

Page 32 of 61

18

will prove viable, and that Council will be left to resolve on-going traffic and parking issues associated with the development of a school on the site.

The GTA recommendations in Section 3.2.1 are considered to be unworkable and unlikely to result in any change to current student drop-off, pick-up travel modes or staff travel mode choices.

The information provided in Section 3.2.2 of the GTA report confirms that there are definite peaks associated with drop-offs and pick-ups. Unfortunately the ELC afternoon peak seems to have occurred earlier than the start time of the survey data provided in Figure 3.2 so the data provided is incomplete.

GTA recommends that the school day be staggered for ELC and Year 5 students, and further, that after school activities be provided to reduce the intensity of the individual peaks. The report/applicant should provide more certainty in relation to the recommendations made in the GTA report.

The data provided by GTA in Section 3.2.3 in relation to duration of stay is considered shorter than will be the actual case based on surveys undertaken by our service provider. GTA has provided an average duration of stay figure, based on NSW child care data. The applicability of this data to the current ELC proposal is questioned. Generally afternoon durations of stay are significantly longer than morning drop-off durations, as parents, particularly of the ELC children, will arrive before the end of the school day to ensure they are there to collect their child on time.

The GTA recommendation that ELC children are signed in and out in the basement car park is problematic and ignores the reality that these young children have to be taken to the classroom, they cannot be farewelled in the basement to wander through a car park without a separate pedestrian path then up the stairs and to their classroom on their own. Additionally there is no room in the basement car park for this activity to occur safely and the suggestion is considered unworkable.

In relation to the traffic marshal recommendation it is noted that school staff are typically unwilling to be traffic marshals. Also, teachers often have other duties before and after the school day and do not have time to allocate to this task. This suggestion also does not take into account the needs of the ELC children who need to be accompanied into and out of the school room (meaning that parents need to park and that traffic marshals are of no assistance). Again, there is no feedback provided from the school about the workability of this proposal.

Section 3.3.1 of the GTA report comments on a proposed widening of the drop-off, pick-up spaces to 2.9 metres. This is appropriate, however the reduction in the number of spaces from 28 to 26 confirms Engineering Services concerns that changes required to the design will impact on the number of car parking spaces able to be provided. Engineering Services considers that amended plans of the development should be provided prior to any permit being issued.

The proposal to provide three on-street spaces along Toorak Road is inadequate to cater for likely parking demand. Additional short term parking will be required in Leopold Street, and this is unacceptable for existing residents who already experience shortage of parking.

The GTA statements in Section 3.3.2 and Section 3.4 that the Leopold Street street frontage has been designed to minimise the attractiveness of

Page 33 of 61

19

this street to parents is questionable given that the only pedestrian access to the site is via this frontage.

Any short term parking will require restrictions at least 10 minutes in length to provide the opportunity for parents to go into the school to pick up ELC children.

The GTA recommendation in Section 3.4 for a Road Safety Audit of the intersection of Toorak Road and Leopold Street is inappropriate given that Council would be unable to require any issues raised to be implemented by the school. Again, we have seen no feedback from the school in relation to this matter. If it is intended to undertake a Road Safety Audit then this should be done prior to the issue of a permit for the development, and a permit issued only after agreement has been reached with the applicant about any works required to be undertaken by the school.

While the proposal to reduce the existing speed limit in Toorak Road to 40km/h during school times in the vicinity of the school premises is supported in theory, this recommendation is questioned as there is no pedestrian access to the site from Toorak Road and the site would not meet VicRoads criteria for a School Zone speed limit.

Section 3.5.3 of the GTA report recommends an additional signalised pedestrian crossing. The total cost of providing this facility, should it be approved, should be borne by the applicant or possibly VicRoads. No costs would be borne by City of Melbourne.

Irrespective of the GTA report, it is clear that the proposed school will result in considerable on-going parking and traffic issues for local residents with Council continuously requested to improve the management of traffic and address the frustration of parents, the school and teachers.

It is also noted that the proximity of the 'entrance' crossover on Toorak Road is still of concern with little separation between it and the Leopold Street roadway, and inadequate pedestrian storage, particularly given the type of pedestrian activity that can be expected around a school, i.e. parents with children and/or prams.

Conclusion

Engineering Services considers that the proposal will result in on-going parking and traffic issues and that no permit should be issued at this time.

Comments dated 18 June 2015

In response to the concerns as raised above, the applicant undertook a further review of the development and submitted a pedestrian safety audit and a further assessment of the short term parking restrictions on Toorak Road requesting review by Engineering Services. The following is a summary of the comments provided by ESG:

Reference is made to the above planning application and recent information provided by GTA Consultants in support of this application. Engineering Services has reviewed the additional comments provided including, a letter from GTA to VicRoads dated 20 May 2015, including a Road Safety Audit dated 17 April 2015, A letter from VicRoads to GTA consultants dated 11 June, and the following comments are offered.

Background

Page 34 of 61

20

As part of the proposal to convert this property to an education centre, it is proposed to provide 28 off-street parking spaces to cater for staff parking and short term parent parking requirements. It is advised that due to heritage limitations, it is not possible to increase the number of parking spaces already proposed. Although the number of off-street parking spaces proposed exceeds the statutory requirement for this development, Engineering Services had previously raised concerns regarding the level of parking demand that will be generated and the potential to create congestion and/or illegal parking in nearby residential streets.

Following a number of meetings between Engineering Services and GTA consultants, a proposal was developed to provide three short term parking spaces along the frontage of the development on the north side of Toorak Road, and five short term parking spaces on the south side of Toorak Road, immediately west of Park Street to supplement the off street parking provision. The proposal to provide the five parking spaces on the south side of Toorak Road was however not initially supported by VicRoads and a request was made for a traffic impact assessment and road safety audit due to the increase in the volume of pedestrians using the intersection of Toorak Road and Park Street.

Proposal

GTA has undertaken the traffic impact assessment which has concluded that the provision of the five additional parking spaces on the south side of Toorak Road, immediately west of Park Street will not compromise the safety or efficiency of the surrounding road network for all uses. Engineering Services accepts the analysis provided by GTA which shows only marginal increases in the degree of saturation and pedestrian activity at the Park St/Toorak Road intersection.

Support is also given to the recommendations in the road safety audit, subject to the applicant funding the recommendations (except the footpath widening) and obtaining formal approval from VicRoads.

The letter from VicRoads dated 11 June 2015 also indicates that VicRoads generally accept the outcomes of the road safety audit undertaken by GTA and the suggested improvements to the intersection of Toorak Road and Park Street.

Further advice from GTA consultants in an e-mail to Engineering Services dated 11 June has indicated that the applicant proposes to allocate the 28 spaces as follows:

10 car spaces in the rear car park for staff parking,

4 car spaces in the rear car park for long-term parent parking, and

car spaces in the front car park for short-term parent parking

The above allocation and the three spaces that are proposed to be provided adjacent to the development, on the north side of Toorak Road and the five spaces on the south side of Toorak Road immediately west of Park Street gives a total of 36 spaces.

GTA has advised that the anticipated parking demand associated with the proposal, inclusive of both parents and staff parking is expected to be in the order of 30 and 40 car spaces during the morning and afternoon peak hours respectively, based on the proposed staggering of start and end classes.

Page 35 of 61

21

Based on the above parking demand and parking allocation, it is expected that 100% of the morning and 90% of the afternoon parking demand can be accommodated in these parking spaces.

Engineering Services therefore offers no further objection to this development subject to the provision of the above parking allocation, and the applicant undertaking the recommendations of the road safety audit (except the recommendation to widen the southern footpath of Toorak Road) at their cost.

13.1.2 Heritage The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided comment. The following is a summary of the comments provided

Existing Gradings

The building is afforded the highest grading in the Melbourne Planning Scheme, A, which, by definition, makes it a place of national or state heritage significance.

The streetscape grading is level 1 in Toorak Road and level 3 to the Leopold Street frontage.

I am satisfied that these gradings are appropriate, noting also that there have been substantial alterations made including later inappropriate additions to the rear, the loss of the bulk of the prominent landscape/garden to the Toorak Rd frontage and that to the rear, decorative changes to the interior and exterior, and a lack of cyclical maintenance leading to deterioration of some significant fabric.

In order to fully understand the important detail of this highly significant and complex site, a Conservation Management Plan should be prepared in accordance with the Heritage Victoria standard brief.

Demolition

The proposed extent of demolition is primarily of rear (northern) non original parts and 2 minor later elements to the west.

While the 1896 MMBW plan illustrates structures, including a fernery to the rear (north), based on a visual inspection of same it is apparent that, while partially of the same footprint, the extant buildings in this area are not original and are poorly conceived in terms of their relationship to the main building.

The extent of demolition of building fabric indicated on the drawings as proposed is acceptable.

Proposed New Works

The underground carpark, which will be mostly concealed except for its various appurtenances, such as the perimeter fences, the vehicle entry and exit points, the stairs and ramps and the exhaust vent,

The new landscaping to the retained open areas to the south and west

Assessing the proposal against the local heritage policy the following applies (comments in brackets follow):

Form

(The form of the rear extension, which will be mostly concealed from the level 1 streetscape at Toorak Road but very visible from the level 3

Page 36 of 61

22

streetscape at Leopold St., will follow a similar footprint to that of the later additions which are being removed. It is of a suitably simple, modern interpretation and neutral form and commensurate scale with a rear structure one would expect to find historically attached to the main body of such a mansion house.)

Façade Pattern and Colours,

(The components of the new additions which will be visible from Toorak Rd will be well set back and recessive to the retained heritage asset which will remain dominant. While of a modern composition, these visible components will appropriately remain a modest and non detrimental modern addition when viewed from Toorak Rd.

The visibility of the new works from Leopold Street will be more prominent and the additions will have a significant presence at this southern extremity of the Leopold St which is variable in its heritage sensitivity across its length but at the lower level at this southern end (level 3 to the east and level 2 to the west). The west elevation of the proposed rear extension will be a simple modern composition of glass and cement render with some sheet metal details. While the solid-to-void ratio of the new composition is at variance with the host heritage asset and the adjoining heritage assets as well, it is detailed in a satisfactorily neutral manner which is suitably interpretive.)

Materials

The prevailing expressed material to the external facades of the new addition will be cement render of a grey hue. This is appropriately respectful.

Details

The details of the proposed new building components will be contemporary and with very limited architectural affectation contrasting with the highly elaborate remnant host heritage building. The historic precedent for such rear wings to highly ornate boom style Victorian era mansions to be of a simpler detailing.

There will also be some visible elements in the open landscape areas associated with the basement carpark entries and ventilation. These appear to be of a modest nature and will be partially concealed by landscaping devices and so are acceptable.

Critical in regards to the landscape is that the original intended relationship of the main building to the ground plane is retained – that is, the basalt plinth must NOT be concealed by any of the new landscaping elements.

The detailing is acceptable in terms of its heritage impact

Concealment of higher rear Parts (including Additions)

Assessing conformance with this performance standard is complex.

The following matters must be considered:

The corner allotment which is not contemplated specifically with the performance standard,

The level 1 grading of Toorak Rd streetscape and the level 3 grading of the Leopold St streetscape

Page 37 of 61

23

The clear hierarchy of the celebrated frontage to Toorak Rd and the clearly lesser, rear, service wing frontage to Leopold St,

The proposed rear addition being in fact of mostly lower not higher height,

The substantial concealment of the rear addition from Toorak Rd

The lack of any concealment of the rear addition from Leopold St

It is my view that this performance standard cannot in fact be sensibly applied to this particular site and reference to general sound heritage management practice must be therefore referred to.

As an A grade building, this property may well have been included on the VHR. Sympathetic, visible additions to state listed heritage assets have long been deemed acceptable in the event that they do not diminish the heritage values attributed to the place.

It is my view that, while quite visible, the proposed additions, which are carefully resolved, allow a comfortable and deferential connection to the existing heritage asset, allow for the ongoing economically sustainable use of the place, do not unacceptably diminish the heritage values attributed to the place and so, are acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the permit be granted with the following qualifications:

Commission the preparation a Conservation Management Plan by a recognised conservation architect and ensure all current and future works conform with the policies therein

A detailed program of dedicated conservation works should be prepared by and implemented under the auspices of a recognised conservation architect

Any modifications to the exterior of the building such as colour changes and BCA driven modifications to balustrades etc. should be subject to further scrutiny before being approved

Detailing of the proposed new landscape design, including the new ground plane interface with the retained main building, and the new fences and other modern elements should be submitted for further assessment and approval before proceeding

13.1.3 Urban Design The application was referred to Council’s Urban Design Department who provided comment. The following is a summary of the comments provided

In general terms, we support the decision to remove the existing on-grade level car parking fronting Toorak Road, and note the proposed new basement layout to consolidate parking. We would encourage the Applicant to consider introducing areas of deep soil zones within the basement car park to allow for shade and sun landscaping protection for building users whilst increasing the potential for a more established green landscape at this location.

We are supportive of the demolition of the existing building fronting Leopold Street and consider the newly proposed building has the potential to positively contribute to the public realm. We note that the success of the

Page 38 of 61

24

proposed facade will be reliant on the resolution of high quality architectural details to ensure an optimal presentation to the street.

We suggest that where the new building meets the existing building , some simple linear element be introduced to clearly articulate architecturally make distinct the points where the two building forms meet. The purpose of this is to ensure the three dimensional views and juxtaposition of new and old are well considered and resolved when viewed in the round.

In summary, we are broadly supportive of this proposal subject to compliance with the recommendations above.

13.1.4 Tree Planting The application was referred to Council’s Tree Planting Department who provided comment. The following is a summary of the comments provided

No Council tree assets are located on or adjacent to the site; therefore the following comments apply only to the trees listed on City of Melbourne's Exceptional Tree Register.

The tree identified as Tree 4 in the John Patrick Pty Ltd Tree Assessment Report (the Report) is Exceptional Tree Register (ETR) ID 134 Salix babylonica. The Report recommends the removal of the tree due to its low retention value, limited SULE and the extent of disturbance proposed within the Tree Protection Zone. Given the condition of ETR ID 134, Tree Planning supports the physical removal of the tree and will remove the tree from the Exceptional Tree Register.

Specifically for the trees identified as Tree 6, 7 and 8 in the Report (ETR IDs 133, 131 and 132) a Tree Protection Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist and submitted to the City of Melbourne - Tree Planning prior to the commencement of the development (including any demolition, bulk excavation, construction or carrying out of works). The Tree Protection Plan must include recommendations to ensure the viability of the trees during and after construction to the satisfaction of Council. In addition to standard tree protection measures, the

Tree Protection Plan should address:

Correct transplanting and storage of the palms to maintain good health.

Reinstatement of the palms and provision of adequate soil volume for the palms once the basement carpark has been constructed.

Works do not encroach on more than 10% of the TPZ for Tree 6 (ETR ID 133 - Bhutan cypress row) or non-destructive root exploration indicates that no major woody roots are present in the area of encroachment.

13.1.5 Infrastructure The application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Department who provided a series of conditions to be placed on any permit issued. They also commented on the following:

Pursuant to the Road Management Act 2004 any works within the road reserve of Toorak Road, an Arterial Road, requires the written consent of VicRoads, the Coordinating Road Authority. Footpaths and nature strips of such roads fall under the City of Melbourne's control although the Act specifically states that the Coordinating Road Authority gives conditions for

Page 39 of 61

25

works on these roads and the "road" is the reserve from building line to building line. Subsequently our conditions for non-road works on footpaths and nature strips of Arterial Roads are provided.

13.2 External The application was referred externally to the following areas:

13.2.1 VicRoads The application was referred to VicRoads who provided the following comment:

The application seeks to use and develop the land for the purpose of an education centre and early learning centre, including partial demolition of the existing building, alterations and additions to the existing building, vegetation removal and alter access to a road in road zone category 1.

It is noted that vehicular access will be provided to a basement car park from Toorak Road which is classified under Smart Roads as a tram, bicycle and traffic priority route. There are currently two vehicular accesses provided from Toorak Road located at the eastern and western extremities of the subject site. The buildings and works associated with the construction of a basement car park within the foreground of the existing heritage building necessitates the relocation of the existing crossovers to achieve the required spays and sight lines, particularly given the existing western access proximity to Leopold Street.

VicRoads has considered the application and has no objection provided the following note is included:

Separate Consent shall be required from VicRoads under the Road Management Act 2004 for all buildings and works undertaken outside the title boundary within a Road Zone Category 1.

If the option of creating a drop off zone along Toorak Road is being considered as part of this application, VicRoads request that Council investigate the potential to relocate a drop off zone away from Toorak Road to minimise disruption to trams and traffic along this route.

Please forward a copy of the Planning Permit, Notice of Decision to Grant or Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit to this office as required under Section 65 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

13.2.2 Public Transport Victoria The application was referred to Public Transport Victoria who provided the following comment:

Thank you for referring the above application to the Director of Public Transport (now

Pubiic Transport Victoria) pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The correspondence was received on 17 January 2014

Public Transport Victoria, pursuant to Section 56(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, does not object to the grant of a planning permit.

14 ASSESSMENT The application seeks to use and develop the land for the purpose of a childcare centre (early learning centre) and primary school, including partial demolition of the existing building, alterations and additions to the existing building, vegetation removal

Page 40 of 61

26

and relocation and alter access to a road in Road Zone Category 1 at 120W Toorak Road, South Yarra.

The key issues for consideration in the assessment of this application are heritage impacts, built form amenity impacts, use within the residential zone, exceptional trees, traffic and parking.

14.1 Heritage Impacts The existing building at 120W Toorak Road has been identified as an “A” graded building, in Council’s ‘Heritage Places Inventory July 2008 an Incorporated Document of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Toorak Road is afforded a streetscape grading of Level 1 in Leopold Street is a level 3.

14.1.1 Demolition The application proposes to demolish the later addition rear elements of the building in order to construct new double storey building to the rear of the existing A graded building.

Local Policy ‘Heritage Places Outside the Capital City Zone’ generally discourages the demolition of any fabric of A graded buildings, the policy being:

‘Demolishing or removing original parts of buildings, as well as complete buildings, will not normally be permitted in the case of ‘A’ and ‘B’, the front part of ‘C’ and many ‘D’ graded buildings.’ [emphasis added].

Before deciding on an application for demolition of a graded building, it is policy that the following be considered:

The degree of its significance. The character and appearance of the building or works and its

contribution to the architectural, social or historic character and appearance of the streetscape and the area.

Whether the demolition or removal of any part of the building contributes to the long term conservation of the significant fabric of that building.

Whether the demolition or removal is justified for the development of land or the alteration of, or addition to, a building.

The applicants have commission a report by Bryce Raworth, conservation consultant, who notes:

It is proposed to demolish the two storey rear wing near the east boundary and a series of later additions on the north side of Goodrest. The surviving original and relatively fabric of the house will be retained in its entirety. This demolition is acceptable given it involves later additions which do not add to the significance of the original mansion and fabric which is of secondary or minimal importance.

As discussed above, the rear, eastern wing is not an original element. It is of secondary importance also in terms of its plain, undecorated character, and location at the rear/east side of the site. It is not visible from the principal Toorak Road frontage, and is a secondary element when viewed directly from the west from Leopold Street due to its setback and relatively low scale compared to the main house. It is entirely screened from views from the north by the c. 1960s double-storey residential addition. It has not been specifically identified as a significant element in any heritage studies or in the i-Heritage Database citation.

The other additions date from later phases of development, and are not considered to be of any significance or architectural note.

Page 41 of 61

27

The report concludes that, the demolition of the rear eastern wing and later additions is acceptable on account of the former's secondary significance, and the latter's lack of architectural note.

While partial demolition of a highly graded building is not normally supported under Clause 22.05, this is a guideline only and there will be instances where partial demolition can be supported, particularly where it can be justified for the redevelopment of the land, or where demolition does not include the removal of significant or original building fabric. It is considered that this is one such instance for the following reasons as detailed by Council’s Heritage Advisor:

The proposed extent of demolition is primarily of rear (northern) non original parts and 2 minor later elements to the west.

While the 1896 MMBW plan illustrates structures, including a fernery to the rear (north), based on a visual inspection of same it is apparent that, while partially of the same footprint, the extant buildings in this area are not original and are poorly conceived in terms of their relationship to the main building.

The extent of demolition of building fabric indicated on the drawings as proposed is acceptable.

It is considered that the partial demolition of the rear buildings is acceptable and a minor heritage loss which has been justified for the wider development of the school and the facilities it seeks to provide future students.

14.1.2 New works Local Policy ‘Heritage Places Outside the Capital City Zone’ provides for the following performance standards for assessing planning applications. In particular, it is policy:

Form The external shape of a new building, and of an addition to an existing building, should be respectful in a Level 1 or 2 streetscape, or interpretive in a Level 3 streetscape.

Toorak Road is a level 1 streetscape which requires respectful form and Leopold Street is a level 3 streetscape which calls for an interpretive form. The bulk of the new form is proposed to be located to the rear of the mansion, as a double storey extension. This results in new additions which will be mostly concealed from the level 1 streetscape at Toorak Road will be very visible from the level 3 streetscape at Leopold St. The proposed rear location of the new form will follow a similar footprint to that of the later additions which are being removed. City of Melbourne’s Heritage Advisor has detailed that the form of the new works ‘is of a suitably simple, modern interpretation and neutral form and commensurate scale with a rear structure one would expect to find historically attached to the main body of such a mansion house.’

Facade Pattern and Colours The facade pattern and colours of a new building, and of an addition or alteration to an existing building, should be respectful where visible in a Level 1 streetscape, and interpretive elsewhere.

From Toorak Road (level 1 streetscape) the bulk of the additions will be located to the rear of the building. City of Melbourne’s Heritage Advisor supports the additions ‘which will be visible from Toorak Rd will be well set back and recessive to the retained heritage asset which will remain dominant. While of a modern composition, these visible components will appropriately remain a modest and non detrimental modern addition when viewed from Toorak Rd.’

Page 42 of 61

28

From Leopold Street (Level 3 streetscape) the additions will be more visible from the streetscape. Cuncil’s Heritage Advisor supports the façade pattern and colours and details ‘The west elevation of the proposed rear extension will be a simple modern composition of glass and cement render with some sheet metal details. While the solid-to-void ratio of the new composition is at variance with the host heritage asset and the adjoining heritage assets as well, it is detailed in a satisfactorily neutral manner which is suitably interpretive’.

Materials The surface materials of a new building, and of an addition or alteration to an existing building, should always be respectful.

The proposed materials to use on the external facades of the new addition will be cement render of a grey hue. This is considered to be appropriately respectful of the heritage building and the wider heritage precinct.

Details The details (including verandahs, ornaments, windows and doors, fences, shopfronts and advertisements) of a new building, and of an addition or alteration to an existing building, should preferably be interpretive, that is, a simplified modern interpretation of the historic form rather than a direct reproduction.

The proposed details of the new addition are minimal and limited to simplified contemporary window and door openings with minor canopies. The details of the addition are not a direct reproduction of heritage elements, as discouraged by policy and clearly differentiates as ‘new’.

Concern was raised by an objector about the car park entry openings and the impacy to the graded building. The applicant’s Heritage Advisor has described the openings as

“An underground car park will be constructed on the south side of the site beneath the existing car park area. This will be accessed via separate entry and exit ramps from Toorak Road, with stairwell access provided at the north-west corner from Leopold Street. The deck above will be landscaped, with a new traditional style steel rail perimeter fence set on a masonry base, which will represent a considerable improvement on the existing street presentation. In effect, the deck above the carpark will reinstate a landscaped garden cult play area of considered and sympathetic design, albeit appropriate for the new use to which the site is being adapted, with the perimeter fence obscuring the edge of the car park.”

City of Melbourne’s Heritage Advisor supports the openings as proposed and details that “there will also be some visible elements in the open landscape areas associated with the basement carpark entries and ventilation. These appear to be of a modest nature and will be partially concealed by landscaping devices and so are acceptable.” This matter could be resolved by condition requiring the submission of an elevation at 1:50 to show the car parking entrance points be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Council’s Heritage Advisor raised concern in regard to the historical importance of the basalt plinth. He notes “critical in regards to the landscape is that the original intended relationship of the main building to the ground plane is retained – that is, the basalt plinth must NOT be concealed by any of the new landscaping elements”. This matter could be resolved by condition requiring the submission of a revised

Page 43 of 61

29

landscaping plan to show the basalt plinth unobscured by the landscaping be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Overall the detailing of the proposal is acceptable in terms of its heritage impact. Concealment of Higher Rear Parts (Including Additions) Higher rear parts of a new building, and of an addition to an existing graded building, should be concealed in a Level 1 streetscape, and partly concealed in a Level 2 and 3 streetscape. Also, additions to outstanding buildings (‘A’ and ‘B’ graded buildings anywhere in the municipality) should always be concealed. In most instances, setting back a second-storey addition to a single-storey building, at least 8 metres behind the front facade will achieve concealment.

The site is located on a corner allotment, with dual street frontage to levels 1 and 3, substantial concealment of the additions from level 1 streetscape and lack of any concealment from the level 3 streetscape. It is concluded that ‘it is my view that this performance standard cannot in fact be sensibly applied to this particular site and reference to general sound heritage management practice must be therefore be referred to.’

Overall the additions are carefully resolved and ‘allow a comfortable and deferential connection to the existing heritage asset, allow for the ongoing economically sustainable use of the place, do not unacceptably diminish the heritage values attributed to the place and so, are acceptable.’

The proposed new building is also supported, having regard to the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay, and to the performance standards of Clause 22.05 for new buildings and works, as detailed above.

A series of permit conditions have been recommended by the City of Melbourne’s Heritage Advisor requiring the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan by a recognised conservation architect to ensure all current and future works conform with the policies; a detailed program of dedicated conservation works should be prepared by and implemented under the auspices of a recognised conservation architect; any modifications to the exterior of the building such as colour changes and BCA driven modifications to balustrades.

14.2 Built Form amenity impacts The MSS and Clause 22.17 ‘Urban Design Outside the Capital City Zone’ generally encourage new development that positively adds to the character of the area, through appropriate scale, building bulk and height. The MSS further identifies that the Royal Botanic Gardens are of State importance and that it is important that development around them does not detract from the experience of the Gardens. Schedule 15 of the Design and Development Overlay reinforces this by imposing a discretionary height limit of 12 metres for the area.

The MSS identifies that significant educational facilities continue to be supported in the municipality, and in South Yarra, however it is recognised that many of these facilities have a sensitive interface with residential zones. Redevelopment of their built form interface therefore needs to be sensitively managed to ensure that neighbouring properties are not adversely affected by the scale and bulk of development, overlooking or overshadowing.

14.2.1 Scale and Bulk of the Development The proposed addition provides for an overall building height of 10.4 metres above natural ground level. The building has the following setbacks:

Page 44 of 61

30

West: a setback of 1.7 metres at both ground and first floors for a height of 9.5 metres.

North - ranging between 1.9m to 3m with a double storey wall height of 9.5 metres from natural ground level

East – ranging between 0 and 3.0 metres at ground floor with a wall height ranging between 3.9m and 2.4 metres, and a first floor setback of 2.9 metres and wall height of 9.5 metres from natural ground level.

Front setback (west) The immediate area in Leopold Street has a wide range of setbacks of buildings to the street. To the north of the subject site is 14-24 Leopold Street which is an apartment building setback 3 metres from the front boundary to Leopold Street. Further north 44-46, 35, 37, 39, and 41 all have setbacks of approximately 1 metre from the street. Directly opposite the subject site at 11-17, 21 and 23 Leopold Street are buildings which have zero setback from Leopold Street.

The existing addition to the rear (proposed to be demolished) currently has an approximate setback of 2 metres from the Leopold Street title boundary. The proposal intends to encroach on this existing setback by 0.3 metres. The proposed 1.7 metre setback of the new addition from Leopold Street is considered to be acceptable as the prevailing neighbourhood character of the area includes dwellings with minimal setbacks to the street.

North To the north is 14-24 Leopold Street which is an apartment building which has a blank double storey wall on the boundary shared with the subject site for approximately 9 metres in length. The wall is then setback and windows are located on the southern elevation of the apartment building, which have an outlook over the subject site (see image below).

The smallest setback of the proposed building of 1.9 metres is located opposite the blank wall and is not considered to have an adverse amenity or bulk impacts to 14-24 Leopold Street. The new building on the subject site is setback 3 metres for a double storey height of 9.5 metres opposite the windows of 14-24 Leopold Street. This setback is considered to be appropriate by providing a visual separation between the subject sites built form and the built form of 14-24 Leopold Street.

Page 45 of 61

31

Areal view of 14-24 Leopold Street

East To the east is two lots. 128W Toorak Road is developed with a three storey apartment building. Vehicular access is on the western boundary which leads to a garage located to the rear of the boundary, see image below. 3 Marne Street also abuts the subject site and has a recent rear extension approved under planning permit TP-2013-873. The extension provides for an outdoor eating area wall setback 2.24m from the property boundary with a height of 4.31m, and a pool area see image below.

Extension to the rear of 3 Marne Street approved under TP-2013-873

Garage built on the boundary of 128 Toorak Road

Page 46 of 61

32

Areal View of 128W Toorak Road and 3 Marne Street

In relation to 128W Toorak Road, the proposal includes a wall on boundary of 4.2 metres in length for a height of 3.6 metres to facilitate a toilet block. The body corporate of 128W Toorak Road raised an amenity concern in regard to this wall on boundary. The applicant informs Council officers that the following was undertaken:

“A meeting was held on site on 29 May 2014 to discuss possible amendments to the plans to address the issues raised. At the meeting, it was resolved that modifications would be made to the plans to offset this wall from the boundary to address the concerns raised. In this regard, we attach a plan prepared by Sally Draper Architects titled 'Proposed East Elevation Amendments' which details 'Option 2' which shows the new amenities wall setback 1 metre from the eastern boundary and reduced in height to have a maximum RL of 29.75. We would be happy to accept a condition of approval requiring this change.”

The proposed 1 metre setback from title boundary is considered to be appropriate. This matter could be dealt with by a planning permit condition.

Applicants submission of the additional 1 metre setback of the toilet block

In relation to 3 Marne Street, the proposal includes a ground floor wall on boundary for 9.5 metres in length for a height of 2.4 metres above natural ground level at the fence line. The natural ground level on the subject site is lower than the natural ground level of 3 Marne Street. The first floor is then setback 2.9 metres from the boundary. The proposed wall on boundary and it’s height of 2.4 metres is considered to be acceptable and the first floor is appropriately setback to reduce the building bulk. Double storey developments are not uncommon in a residential context.

Concern was also raised from the owner about the impact to existing trees at 3 Marne Street and the visual bulk resulting from the proposal. The trees located at 3 Marne Street are not located on the Exceptional Tree Register. However the applicant endeavoured to investigate how the proposal will impact upon these trees. The applicant informs Council officers of the following:

“Christ Church Grammar commissioned the services of an Arborist to investigate this further. The Arborist recommended that the raised garden bed should be retained to at least a distance of 2.5 metres south of the centre of the southernmost pear tree. The Arborist also advised that building over the top of the raised garden bed would be acceptable provided no excavation was to take place within the bed (e.g. use of a cantilever slab).

Page 47 of 61

33

Sally Draper Architects has prepared a plan (titled 'proposed ground floor plan detail north east corner amendments') which details the recommendations made by the Arborist. The existing garden bed will be retained and the building will be cantilevered over the garden bed ensuring that there will be no impact on the existing trees. A condition could be placed on any permit issued requiring the amendments as detailed in this plan.”

This matter could be dealt with by permit condition.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed addition has been sympathetically designed to ensure that the neighbouring residential properties to the north and east are not adversely affected by the scale and bulk of the development, overlooking or unreasonable reduction in sunlight. The development therefore complies with Clause 21.05.

14.2.2 Overlooking The plans submitted with the application and advertised to adjoining properties demonstrated that all locations with potential overlooking opportunities have been appropriately screened. At ground floor boundary fences will prevent overlooking from the windows at ground floor and at first floor all windows on the north and east elevations have a sill height of 2.1 metres from finished floor level. The windows facing Leopold Street are not required to be screened for overlooking and are appropriately located to provide passive surveillance for both Leopold Street and Toorak Road. The development therefore complies with Clause 21.05 in relation to overlooking.

14.3.3 Overshadowing The new building footprint and its additional height would result in a reduced level of overshadowing to Leopold Street at 9am and 12pm. However slightly more overshadowing at 3pm to the east over the parking area of the apartment building at128W Toorak Road, and the rear private open space at 3 Marne Street. While not strictly applicable, Clause 54.04-5 provides guidance for what would be acceptable overshadowing of these properties. The shadow study diagrams prepared by the architects demonstrate that the building would not unreasonably overshadow the secluded private open space at 3 Marne Street, with the maintenance of 40 square metres of space continuing to receive sunlight. This is consistent with what would be allowed under Clause 54.04-5 Overshadowing.

14.3 Use within the residential zone It is not considered that use of the development will have any unreasonable impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential amenity by way of fundamental land use of a child care centre (kindergarten) and education centre (primary) notably noise or hours of operation.

Clause 22.14 provides for guidance when assessing applications which are discretionary uses within the residential 1 zone. This policy applies to all applications to use land for Section 2 (discretionary) uses in the Residential 1 Zone. The proposed land use of a child care centre (kindergarten) and education centre (primary) is a Section 2 land use. The objectives of the policy seek to retain existing residential uses, to facilitate non-residential uses in residential areas only where they are compatible with the residential character and amenity and serve the needs of the local community and to discourage new non-residential uses that have a negative impact on residential amenity or would be more appropriately located within Mixed Use or Business Zones. The policy is as follows:

Discourage new non-residential uses in the Residential 1 zone unless there is a net benefit to local residents and the local community

Page 48 of 61

34

Concern was raised in the objections and at the consultation meeting in relation to the proposal being a private school. It is considered that a child care centre (kindergarten) and education centre (primary school) is a land use which provides a net benefit to local residents and the local community, regardless of whether it is a government school or a private school. The provision of an education facility provides for long term education for the immediate area and will add to the Knowledge City as sort after in the SPPF.

Ensure the intensity of non-residential uses are appropriate to a residential context.

Minimise the effects of non-residential uses on residential amenity (by controlling numbers of operators, practitioners, staff levels, hours of operation, traffic and parking movements, light, noise and air emissions).

The child care portion will include two 3 year old child care (kindergarten) classes containing a total of 44 children, two 4 year old child care (kindergarten) classes containing a total of 44 children, and one pre prep class containing 11 students As part of this use, 10.5 full time teaching staff are proposed to be associated with the child care centre component. The education (primary) portion will include three classes of Year 5 program with a total of 72 students. As part of this use, 4 full time equivalent staff will be associated with the education centre (primary school).

The noise emanating from the proposed use is anticipated to be child noise during playlunch and lunch times where the children will be outside the building playing in the playground. The noise from the proposed use is anticipated to be heard during the day time, which provides in relief from noise at the sensitive night times. The primary play area is located to the front of the site towards the Toorak Road frontage. The location of the main play area towards the main road (and within fences and gates for safety) will assist with protecting the residential amenity of the dwellings to the north and east.

The proposed intensity of the centre is not considered to be an unacceptable level.

Encourage non-residential uses to locate:

In buildings that were purpose-built for predominantly non-residential purposes.

On corner sites that have direct access to a road in a Road Zone.

On sites that are located adjacent to the boundary of a non-residential zone.

The proposal entails the construction of a new addition and internal layout configuration for the purpose of providing a building that is purpose-built for the proposed predominantly non-residential purpose. The subject site is appropriately located on a corner site and conveniently has direct access off a Road Zone Category 1 – Toorak Road. Opposite the subject site to the south is Fawkner Park which is appropriately located within a non-residential zone being the Public Park and Recreation Zone.


See discussion at Section 14.5.

Non-residential uses should not subject neighbouring residential properties to unreasonable levels of noise or vibration (associated with the operation of

Page 49 of 61

35

the use, the hours of operation, music and entertainment, air conditioning and other plant equipment).

The noise source of children playing is not an uncommon sound in residential areas. The outdoor areas will be used for recreation by children during play times, and this use of the outdoor areas will not cause unreasonable disturbance to residential properties. Furthermore the overall use of the site will cease at 6pm and the sensitive night-time period will be free from children noise.

Provision should be made on site for appropriate waste storage and collection facilities, including provision for specialised wastes. Waste facilities should be screened from neighbouring properties, streets and laneways.

Rubbish and waste collection, particularly the collection of bottles and other recyclable materials, should not disturb residential amenity.

A bin storage room is to be located in the basement car park. This allows for lift access to other levels, and direct access to the Toorak Road frontage for placement of bins. The bins will be collected by private contractors from the Toorak Road frontage. The use of private contractors for waste collection will ensure that pick-up times can be controlled by the School to ensure the amenity of the surrounding residential areas.

A waste management plan was submitted with the application and was reviewed by Councils Waste Management Team who have requested some changes to the submitted waste management plan. Should a permit issue it is recommended that a permit condition be included to require a revised waste management plan to the satisfaction of responsible authority.

14.4 Exceptional Trees A number of trees are located within the subject site and are included in the City of Melbourne Exceptional Tree Register. These are identified in the submitted tree report produced by John Patrick and include the following:

Tree 4, Salix babylonica which is located to the front of the site;

Tree 6, a row of Cupressus torulosa which is located to the eastern boundary; and

Trees 7 and 8, Phoenix canariensis which are both located to the front of the site.

Pursuant to Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 a planning permit is required to remove, destroy or lop trees or to remove vegetation.

The applicant has commissioned an Arborist report to determine how the proposal will impact on the significant trees. The following are the findings of that report:

A ramped entry to the basement car park is proposed along the alignment of the existing western site entry. This will involve excavation within the TPZ of Tree 1 however the proposed area for the ramp is currently covered in concrete. This is likely to have modified the root system of the tree, reducing the likelihood of roots in this area. A non-invasive root exploration along the alignment of the proposed ramp should be performed to confirm if this is so.

The front of the basement carpark has been set back 5m from the site's southern boundary. This results in a slight encroachment into the northern part of the TPZ of Tree 'I however this is less than 10% which is defined as a minor encroachment under AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

Page 50 of 61

36

It does however result in a 16.6% encroachment into the TPZ of Tree 4. This tree has been assessed as having a low retention value due to its history of limb shed and limited SULE. It is however on the City of Melbourne exceptional tree register and therefore will require a permit for its removal.

The proposed basement is outside the TPZ of all other trees along this alignment.

The eastern alignment of the front basement encroaches into the TPZ of Tree 6, the row of Bhutan Cypress, with this encroachment averaging approximately 14%. A concrete driveway however currently passes close to the base of a number of the trees on the southern end of the row and this may have modified the root system of these trees. A non-destructive root exploration along the alignment of the proposed basement should be carried out to determine the extent of roots in this area. If major woody roots are encountered, redesign of this area of the basement may be required to reduce the encroachment.

The proposed basement is located under both Tree 7 and 8, the Canary Island Date Palms, with the eastern ramp passing through the current location of Tree 7. It is proposed to lift these palms and relocate them in the front set-back once the basement has been constructed. This is a viable option for this taxon.

The Aborist report was referred internally to Council’s Tree Planting Department who confirmed the following

The tree identified as Tree 4 in the John Patrick Pty Ltd Tree Assessment Report (the Report) is Exceptional Tree Register (ETR) ID 134 Salix babylonica. The Report recommends the removal of the tree due to its low retention value, limited SULE and the extent of disturbance proposed within the Tree Protection Zone. Given the condition of ETR ID 134, Tree Planning supports the physical removal of the tree and will remove the tree from the Exceptional Tree Register.

Specifically for the trees identified as Tree 6, 7 and 8 in the Report (ETR IDs 133, 131 and 132) a Tree Protection Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist and submitted to the City of Melbourne - Tree Planning prior to the commencement of the development (including any demolition, bulk excavation, construction or carrying out of works). The Tree Protection Plan must include recommendations to ensure the viability of the trees during and after construction to the satisfaction of Council. In addition to standard tree protection measures, the

Tree Protection Plan should address:

Correct transplanting and storage of the palms to maintain good health.

Reinstatement of the palms and provision of adequate soil volume for the palms once the basement carpark has been constructed.

Works do not encroach on more than 10% of the TPZ for Tree 6 (ETR ID 133 - Bhutan cypress row) or non-destructive root exploration indicates that no major woody roots are present in the area of encroachment.

Overall the proposed landscaping is considered to be appropriate and the proposed relocation of trees is appropriate. Should a planning permit issue it is recommended that a planning permit condition be included requiring a detailed Tree Protection Plan

Page 51 of 61

37

with all the requirements stated above to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14.5 Traffic and Parking Bicycle Parking The plans show an undefined number of bicycle parking spaces in the basement car park.

Under Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme, there is no parking requirement for provision of bicycle facilities for a Child Care Centre, however a Primary School requires 1 employee bicycle parking space to each 20 employees and 1 student bicycle parking space to each 5 pupils over Year 4.

Based on the above rates, the Primary School use requires a total of 14 bicycle parking spaces for children.

Engineering Services has requested that these spaces should be provided on the ground floor and not in the basement car park areas. This matter can be addressed though permit condition.

Car parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06 Car Parking 0.22 car spaces are required per child within a child care centre giving a requirement for 22 spaces.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06 Car Parking 1 car space per employee within an Education Centres (Primary School) giving a requirement for 4 spaces.

Therefore the application has an overall car parking requirement of 26 car spaces.

The total number of parking spaces provided for the proposed development is 28 spaces which exceeds the Planning Scheme car parking requirement. Accordingly, a planning permit is not required under Clause 52.06 Car Parking.

Pedestrian The applicant proposes to maintain safe pedestrian movement for the children who will attend the school and for the parents dropping the children off. The proposal seeks to separate vehicle and pedestrian movements, with vehicle movements restricted to Toorak Road utilising the existing crossovers, while pedestrian movements into and out of the site are proposed from Leopold Street.

Concern has been raised in most objections from residents about the location of these pedestrian gates onto the one-way Leopold Street, and the resultant increase of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Leopold Street as a result of the proposal.

The applicant has indicated that of the three pedestrian entries from Leopold Street, two can be removed with the entry closest to the corner of Leopold Street and Toorak Road West retained to provide disability access. .

A traffic report (Traffix Group 25 November 2014) raised concern with the potential for drop offs in Leopold Street and for pedestrian access to be provided from Leopold Street.

The removal of two of the three pedestrian access points is considered reasonable and will help reduce the desire to use Leopold Street as a drop of point with primary access from either Toorak Road frontage or from the basement. Although there would be still a single pedestrian access point from Leopold Street its close proximity to Toorak Road and use for disability access strikes the appropriate balance and is supported. This can be dealt with by condition of any permit to issue requiring the

Page 52 of 61

38

submission of amended plans showing the deletion of the two northern most pedestrian access points.

Traffic flow The application was referred to both Vic Roads and Public Transport Victoria who raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions being placed on the planning permit, which must be included should a permit be issued. Vic Roads suggested that it might not be appropriate to change the on street parking restrictions to create a drop off area at Toorak Road, by saying ‘if the option of creating a drop off zone along Toorak Road is being considered as part of this application, VicRoads request that Council investigate the potential to relocate a drop off zone away from Toorak Road to minimise disruption to trams and traffic along this route.’ However City of Melbourne’s Engineering Services did not support changes to the current car parking restrictions.

The original application was referred to Council’s Engineering Department who indicated a variety of basement parking layout issues and traffic flow issues expected by the proposal by stating ‘In relation to Leopold Street, parents using this street to drop-off or pick-up students will have to drive in the order of 400 metres south from Domain Road along Leopold Street as it is a one-way north to south road. This may be an issue for residents of the street.’

The initial documentation submitted by the applicant, proposed to amend parking restrictions in Leopold Street and Toorak Road. However ‘Engineering Services does not support the alteration of parking restrictions in Leopold Street as parking pressures are high for residents of the street and removal of any resident priority/exempted spaces would exacerbate this. Engineering Services requested the submission of parking surveys demonstrating demands and occupancies in the nearby area.’

In response to the issues the applicant’s consultant and Traffic Engineer submitted a response letter which was referred to Engineering Services. The comments indicated that preferably a pedestrian access into the site from Toorak Road should be provided. Engineering Services also continued to raise the issue of traffic congestion resulting from the proposal:

Further, it is noted that GTA has relied on the fact that the proposal meets the statutory car parking provision to claim that there will be minor use of Leopold Street for drop-offs and pick-ups. In fact, the statutory parking requirement for a primary school has no allowance for parent drop-off and pick-up activities, and given that there are proposed to be 72 students a considerable parent parking demand would be expected, not all of which will be provided for in the on-site parking area. Consequently Leopold Street could potentially become extremely congested as parents will use this street to facilitate direct student access to the school away from the arterial road resulting in double parking in the street. This will create access and amenity issues for the local residents.

In response to the issues raised by Engineering Services the applicants Traffic Engineer submitted a Car Parking and Traffic Management Plan which provided a series of recommendations including, but not limited to, the following:

The school investigate a privately-operated School mini-bus service to cater for both the main and proposed campuses

Introduction of a walking bus to School, to be led by a parent or staff member, from surrounding residential areas.

Page 53 of 61

39

Introduce sessions within classes which focus on the environmental benefits of non-motorised forms of transport in an effort to inform and incentivise students to seek alternate modes of travel.

Stagger the arrival/departures of students to spread overall car parking demands during the morning and afternoon peak periods. In particular, this staggering should be pursued in the morning peak hour, as such staggering is occurring at present in the afternoon peak hour.

Introducing traffic marshals

allowing parents to sign-in and/or sign-out students within the basement car park

The restriction of the car parking spaces along the site's frontage to Toorak Road be amended to facilitate three (3) short-term parking spaces during the school peak hours only (e.g. approximately 7:30am to 9:00am and 2:30pm to 4:00pm).

In the event that illegal car parking is experienced on Leopold Street (e.g. parent double parking and blocking through traffic), it would be recommended that a change to the restriction of these car spaces is pursued at that time to create an additional 7 short-term parking spaces (including 2 newly created car spaces across redundant crossovers to the site) during the school peak hours.

An independent Road Safety Audit be completed at the Toorak Road/ Leopold Street intersection to identify the need for any modifications, including (but not limited to) changes to on-street car parking, to address the safety of the intersection.

Appropriate wayfinding signage be provided at the pedestrian gates and along the site's frontages to inform parents that whilst pedestrian access is provided from Leopold Street, car parking should not occur in Leopold Street

The provision of an additional signalised pedestrian crossing across Toorak Road be investigated in collaboration with VicRoads, Council and Public Transport Victoria

This plan was referred to Engineering Services which reviewed the document and concludes the following:

It appears that the report has been prepared with no consideration of the behaviour and needs of young children in an ELC setting, and this has led to a range of impractical or unworkable recommendations being proposed. The report does not take into account the complications that can arise when parents set down or pick up early learning (3 and 4 year olds) and Grade 5 students (10 to 11 year olds) in busy peak periods. Driving and parking, is only part of the important task of ensuring students arrive safely.

Further, the report is strong on recommendations "to be considered by the school" but provides little reassurance that any measures will be implemented to minimise the on-going parking and traffic issues that will result from the school being developed as currently proposed. Should a permit be issued for the proposal Council will be left to resolve on-going traffic and parking issues that will occur.

In response to the above concerns the applicant under took a traffic impact assessment which seeks for the provision of 5 additional parking spaces on the south

Page 54 of 61

40

side of Toorak Road, immediately west of Park Street. The proposed arrangement was also considered in consultation with VicRoads.

The development now proposes a total of 36 spaces for school with 28 of the spaces allocated with the site, three spaces provided adjacent to the development, on the north side of Toorak Road and the five spaces on the south side of Toorak Road immediately west of Park Street.

Engineering Services have made the following comments on 18 June 2015:

Support is also given to the recommendations in the road safety audit, subject to the applicant funding the recommendations (except the footpath widening) and obtaining formal approval from VicRoads.

Engineering Services accepts the analysis provided by GTA which shows only marginal increases in the degree of saturation and pedestrian activity at the Park St/Toorak Road intersection.

GTA has advised that the anticipated parking demand associated with the proposal, inclusive of both parents and staff parking is expected to be in the order of 30 and 40 car spaces during the morning and afternoon peak hours respectively, based on the proposed staggering of start and end classes. Based on the above parking demand and parking allocation, it is expected that 100% of the morning and 90% of the afternoon parking demand can be accommodated in these parking spaces.

Engineering Services therefore offers no further objection to this development subject to the provision of the above parking allocation, and the applicant undertaking the recommendations of the road safety audit (except the recommendation to widen the southern footpath of Toorak Road) at their cost.

It is also noted that VicRoads generally accept the outcomes of the road safety audit undertaken by GTA and the suggested improvements to the intersection of Toorak Road and Park Street. They have also noted that the signalised pedestrian crosswalks are currently provided at the intersection of Toorak Road and Park Street that would facilitate the movement of parents and children of the propose early learning centre while the walk between the proposed centre and these five on street parking spaces.

The provision of 5 additional spaces along with the deletion of two of the three pedestrian entries is considered to address the concerns of Engineering and the outstanding concerns the application. The location of the five spaces, whilst further west of the subject site are appropriately located and do not encourage unsafe road behaviour which may have occurred if the spaces were located opposite the subject site (on the southern side of Toorak Road West). In order to manage and educate users of these spaces as well as the onsite car parking, a management plan will be required as condition of permit.

Clause 22.14 Discretionary Use within a Residential 1 Zone provides guidance on assessing land uses which are Section 2 uses within the zone. In relation to traffic impacts the policy seeks to:


It is policy that proposals are assessed against the following criteria:

Non-residential uses should have a clear and workable management plan for their operation.

Page 55 of 61

41

Non-residential uses should not result in significant changes to traffic conditions in local streets or significantly increase demand for on-street car parking.

Given the proposed changes to parking arrangements and reduction to pedestrian access points from Leopold Street, it is considered that a workable management plan is possible and reasonable to request to mitigate impact to nearby residents.

The management plan will help reinforce and incentivise access to the site via Toorak Road West rather than Leopold Street making travel and drop offs/pickups on Leopold Street less attractive. Consequently the potential for negative traffic flow impacts upon Leopold Street is not unacceptable and is supported given more attractive options will be available. It is noted that the application already exceeds the car parking requirement (26 spaces) for the use as required by the Melbourne Planning Scheme by proposing 28 onsite car spaces.

14.6 Conclusion It is considered that the proposal of a new school on the subject site would be a positive built form addition for the Leopold Street and Toorak Road streetscapes, without having significant amenity impacts upon its residential neighbours arising from the built form and historical setting. The relocation of the exceptional trees is also considered acceptable. The revised traffic information relates to the creation of new parking spaces along Toorak Road West and the removal of two of the three pedestrian entries along Leopold Street will help mitigate traffic impacts to the local traffic network.

Overall it is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the relevant policy directions and decision guidelines of Melbourne Planning Scheme subject to appropriate conditions of permit.

15 RECOMMENDATION That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of any demolition bulk excavation, construction or carrying out of works on the land, the applicant must submit to the Responsible Authority two copies of plans drawn to scale generally in accordance with the plans accompanying the application but amended to show:

a. Removal the two most northern pedestrian entries to the subject site from Leopold Street.

b. Setback new amenities wall setback 1 metre from the eastern boundary and reduced in height to have a maximum RL of 29.75 as shown as option 2 on Proposed East Elevation Amendments prepared by Sally Draper Architects.

c. Relocation of bicycle spaces from basement level to ground level.

d. Details of the signage content, dimensions and levels of illumination (if applicable).

e. An elevation at 1:50 to show the car parking entrance points.

f. Any changes as required by the recommendations of the conservation management plan.

These amended plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall be the endorsed plans of this permit.

Page 56 of 61

42

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Amended landscape plan

3. Prior to commencement of development an amended landscaping plan drawn to scale generally in accordance with the landscaping plans accompanying the application but amended to show:

a. The landscaping plan to show the basalt plinth unobscured by the landscaping.

The landscape plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall form a part of the endorsed plans of this permit.

4. The site must be landscaped within 3 month(s) of the completion of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the area(s) concerned must be subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

On street pick up/set down parking spaces 5. Prior to the commencement of the use, a minimum of 5 on street spaces

located on the south side of Toorak Road, immediately west of Park Street as detailed in Attachment A: GTA assessment of short term parking restrictions on Toorak Road of the letter dated 22 June 2015 prepared by GTA consultants must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority- Engineering Services and VicRoads.

Road Safety Audit 6. Prior to the commencement of the use the recommendations contained

within the Pedestrian Safety Audit prepared by GTA Consultants dated 17 April 2015 must be implemented at no cost to the City of Melbourne, with the exception of finding 2.1.1 Footpath Width, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Staff and student numbers 7. The number of children associated with the Early Learning Centre

accommodated on the site must at no time exceed 99, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

8. The number of students associated with the Primary School accommodated on the site must at no time exceed 72, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

9. The number of teaching staff associated with the Early Learning Centre to be accommodated on the site must at no time exceed 11, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

10. The number of teaching staff associated with the Primary School to be accommodated on the site must at no time exceed 4, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Management Plan 11. Prior to the commencement of the use, the applicant must submit a

management plan describing:

a. The details as to means in which onsite and offsite parking will be managed in order to mitigate off site impacts and discourage the use of smaller residential streets such as Leopold Street.

Page 57 of 61

43

b. Communication methods to inform staff, parents and students of the approved parking arrangements for drop off and pickups and any other methods to ensure that the impact to the immediate surround is mitigated.

c. Provision of alternative modes of transport and car pooling systems.

d. A complaint handling process to be put in place to effectively manage complaints received from neighbouring and nearby properties.

e. The ways in which staff are made aware of the conditions as relevant to the operation of approved use this permit.

The management plan must be to the satisfaction of, and be approved by, the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the management plan will form a part of the endorsed documents under this permit. The operation of the use must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed operational management plan unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Heritage 12. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition, a

Conservation Management Plan (CMP) prepared by an independent recognised Heritage Consultant must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The CMP must be prepared in accordance with the Heritage Victoria standard brief for the preparation of CMP’s and The Conservation Plan by J Semple Kerr . When approved, the CMP will form part of the permit. Works to the building approved under this permit must be undertaken in accordance with the CMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition, a detailed schedule of the dedicated conservation works prepared by an independent recognised Heritage Consultant must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the schedule will form part of the permit. Works to the building approved under this permit must be undertaken in accordance with the schedule to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition, a report prepared by a suitably qualified Structural Engineer, or equivalent, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority, demonstrating the means by which the retained portions of building will be supported during demolition and construction works to ensure their retention, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The recommendations contained within this report must be implemented at no cost to City of Melbourne and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. Prior to demolition, the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that substantial progress has been made towards obtaining the necessary building permits for the development of the land generally in accordance with the development of the land proposed under this permit and that the permit holder has entered into a bona fide contract for the construction of the development.

16. Prior to the commencement of any external demolition works, a bank guarantee or bond, to the value of $250,000 must be deposited with the Responsible Authority to ensure that the deconstruction and reconstruction works are completed in accordance with the endorsed plans and

Page 58 of 61

44

specifications. The bank guarantee or bond will be returned when the works are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Materials and Finishes 17. A schedule and samples of all external materials, colours and finishes must

be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the development, excluding demolition. The schedule must show the materials, colours and finishes of all external walls, roof, fascias, window frames, glazing types, doors, balustrades, fences and paving, (including car park surfacing), outbuildings and structures. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. All finishes and surfaces of all external buildings and works, including materials and colours, must be in conformity with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Trees 18. Prior to commencement of the development (including any demolition, bulk

excavation, construction or carrying out of works), a Tree Protection Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist and submitted to the City of Melbourne. The Tree Protection Plan must include recommendations to ensure the viability of the trees during and after construction to the satisfaction of Council. In addition to standard tree protection measures, the Tree Protection Plan should address:

a. Correct transplanting and storage of the palms to maintain good health.

b. Reinstatement of the palms and provision of adequate soil volume for the palms once the basement carpark has been constructed.

c. Works do not encroach on more than 10% of the TPZ for Tree 6 (ETR ID 133 - Bhutan cypress row) or non-destructive root exploration indicates that no major woody roots are present in the area of encroachment.

When approved, the report will form part of the permit. Works to the building approved under this permit must be undertaken in accordance with the report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. The trees on the site shown to be retained must be protected by barriers, to prevent damage or soil compaction in the root zone during building operations, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

ESD 20. The performance outcomes specified in the Environmentally Sustainable

Design (ESD) Statement prepared by WSP Built Ecology and dated 6 November 2013 for the development must be implemented prior to occupancy at no cost to the City of Melbourne and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Any change during detailed design, which affects the approach of the endorsed ESD Statement, must be assessed by an accredited professional. The revised statement must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of construction.

Waste Management 21. Prior to the commencement of the development, a revised Waste

Management Plan (WMP) generally in accordance with the plan prepared by

Page 59 of 61

45

Sally Draper (McIldowie Partners) dated December 2013 shall be submitted to the City of Melbourne - Engineering Services specifically addressing the number of bins types, size colour. The WMP should detail waste storage and collection arrangements and be prepared with reference to the City of Melbourne Guidelines for Preparing a Waste Management Plan. Waste storage and collection arrangements must not be altered without prior consent of the City of Melbourne - Engineering Services.

Construction Management Plan 22. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition or bulk

excavation, a detailed Construction and Demolition Management Plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority - Construction Management Group. This construction management plan is to be prepared in accordance with the City of Melbourne - Construction Management Plan Guidelines and is to consider the following:

a. public safety, amenity and site security;

b. operating hours, noise and vibration controls;

c. air and dust management;

d. stormwater and sediment control;

e. waste and materials reuse; and

f. traffic management.

Engineering 23. Prior to the commencement of the development, a stormwater drainage

system incorporating integrated water management design principles must be submitted to, and approved, by the Responsible Authority - Engineering Services. This system must be constructed prior to the occupation of the development and provision made to connect this system to the City of Melbourne's stormwater drainage system.

24. All pedestrian paths and access lanes shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority - Engineering Services.

25. Prior to the commencement of the development, all necessary vehicle crossings must be constructed and all unnecessary vehicle crossings must be demolished and the footpath, kerb and channel reconstructed, in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority – Engineering Services.

26. The footpaths adjoining the site along Toorak Road and Leopold Street must be reconstructed in accordance with plans and specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority – Engineering Services.

27. Vehicular ingress and egress must not be modified from that shown on the endorsed plans without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority - Engineering Services.

28. Existing street levels Toorak Road and Leopold Street must not be altered for the purpose of constructing new vehicle crossings or pedestrian entrances without first obtaining approval from the Responsible Authority – Engineering Services

Advertising signs

Page 60 of 61

46

29. No advertising signs shall be erected, painted or displayed on the land without the permission of the Responsible Authority unless in accordance with the exemption provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Time Expiry 30. This permit will expire if one or more of the following circumstances apply:

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

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

c. The use is not started within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months afterwards. The Responsible Authority may extend the time for completion of the permit if a request is made in writing within 12 months after the permit expires and the development started lawfully before the permit expired.

NOTES

Existing public street lighting must not be altered without first obtaining the written approval of the Responsible Authority – Engineering Services.

All necessary approvals and permits are to be first obtained from the City of Melbourne and the works performed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority – Manager Engineering Services Branch.

Separate consent shall be required from VicRoads under the Road Management Act 2004 for all buildings an works undertaken outside the title boundary with the Road Zone Category 1.

16 DECISION The Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor and Councillors were notified of the above recommendation on 12 August 2015

Page 61 of 61

Documents

FUTURE MELBOURNE [INSERT PORTFOLIO] COMMITTEE …...Environmental sustainability . 8. Submitted with the application was a Sustainability Report commissioned by WSP which outlined