Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Application ... · Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal . Application for Review No. P2079/2016 . in association with . Application

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Application for Review No. P2079/2016 in association with Application for Review No. P147/2017 26-56 QUEENS PARADE, FITZROY NORTH

PREPARED FOR GURNER 26-56 QUEENS PARADE PTY LTD INSTRUCTED BY PLANNING & PROPERTY PARTNERS SITE INSPECTION 15 AUGUST 2017 (MOST RECENT) PREPARED BY

John Patrick John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd August 2017

26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North Application for Review No. P2079/2016

JOHN PATRICK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PTY LTD | 17-0617 PAGE 1 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North - VCAT

1 NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE EXPERT 1.1 John William Patrick

324 Victoria Street Richmond Victoria 3121

2 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 2.1 M.Sc. Ecology (University of Durham).

2.2 M.Sc. Landscape Ecology, Design and Management (Wye College, University of London).

2.3 Associate Member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects.

2.4 John Patrick has worked in the discipline of Landscape Design since 1976. He established his practice in Australia in 1980 becoming full-time in 1988. From 1980-1988 he was Senior Lecturer in Amenity Horticulture at VCAH-Burnley.

2.5 In his practice John Patrick has undertaken an extended range of Landscape Architectural projects including:

studies of Old Parliament House and Government House, Canberra; studies of Fitzroy, Flagstaff, Treasury, Alexandra and Carlton Gardens, Melbourne; provision of Landscape Architectural services to hospitals, schools, residential sub-divisions, private

residences and parks etc; design services for the City of Sydney ‘Living Colour’ Committee including street design for the Olympic

and Paralympic Games 2000, and; heritage studies and conservation management plans for numerous sites including Government House,

Melbourne, The Domain, Eureka Stockade Parklands and Central Park, Caulfield.

2.6 He is a past presenter of Burke’s Backyard, a current presenter on ABC’s Gardening Australia, a past Board Member of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, the Garden State Advisory Committee and Parks Victoria Dandenong Gardens Advisory Board and has written or contributed to 11 books.

3 AREA OF EXPERTISE 3.1 John Patrick has experience in Landscape Architecture, Landscape Heritage and Landscape Horticulture.

4 EXPERTISE TO PREPARE THIS REPORT 4.1 John Patrick is regularly involved with the preparation of Landscape Architectural schemes for residential and

commercial developments and has provided expert evidence to the Tribunal’s Planning Division on many occasions.

5 INSTRUCTIONS THAT DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 5.1 This report has been prepared following written instruction from Planning & Property Partners. I have no business

or private relationship with the permit applicant or Planning & Property Partners other than being instructed to prepare this statement.



6 THE FACTS, MATTERS AND ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH THE REPORT PROCEEDS

6.1 The report assumes that the levels, dimensions and drawings provided by Jack Merlo, Design & Landscape are correct as these have been used as the basis for this report and associated plans.

7 DOCUMENTS VIEWED IN PREPARING THIS REPORT 7.1 In the preparation of this report I have viewed and reviewed the following items:

Koichi Takada Architects, Architectural plans for REAR 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, dated 21st July 2017, including;

o Site Plan and Roof Plan B010 o Survey Plan and Existing Plan B011 o Ground Floor Level B100 o Level 01 B101 o Level 02 B102 o Roof Plan B103 o Elevations B200 – B205 o Sections B300 – B302 o Shadow Diagrams B550 – B557

Cox Architects, Architectural plans for 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, dated 24th July, 2017,

including; o Interface Section Plans A-19-00-25 o DDO Overlay Plans A-22-00-09 o Architectural plans A-21-08 (Rev I) to

being all floor plans, elevations, sections, layouts A-11-09 (Rev I) and shadow diagrams

Jack Merlo, Design & Landscape, plans for 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, dated 10th August 2017, including;

o Ground Level, Public Domain & Central Garden Plan TP01 Rev H o Ground Level – Central Garden Plan TP02 Rev H o Ground Level Section AA, BB & CC TP03 Rev H o Ground Level Section DD, EE & FF TP04 Rev H o Level 03 Overall Plan TP05 Rev H o Level 03 Partial Plan (Communal Terraces)

and Sections AA to EE TP06 Rev H o Level 03 Partial Plan (Communal Terraces) o and Sections FF to HH TP07 Rev H o Level 09 Partial Terrace Plan and Sections AA to DD TP08 Rev H

John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, Preliminary Arboricultural Report and Arboricultural Impact

Assessment for 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, prepared by Simon Howe, May 2016.

City of Yarra, Memo - Open Space Comments from Council for 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, 23rd September 2016.

City of Yarra, Delegate Reports for 26-56 and Rear 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North, 9th August 2017, including appendices 3-9 to PLN16/0434.

City of Yarra emails, 11th August 2017 as to Council IDAC positions.



Statement of Grounds, various authors and dates.

Yarra Planning Scheme including DD016 and local policy (especially Clauses 21.05, 21.08, 22.05, 22.07, 22.10, 22.12, 22.16 and 22.17).

8 IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO PREPARED THIS REPORT 8.1 The author of this report, John Patrick, has visited the site and has undertaken a visual assessment of the site

and reviewed the plans prepared by Cox Architecture and Koichi Takada Architects and the Landscape Plans prepared by Jack Merlo.

9 A SUMMARY OF THE OPINIONS OF THE EXPERT

The site 9.1 The subject site is located approximately 200 metres north-east of the junction of Queens Parade, Fitzroy with

Alexandra Parade. At this location there is a service road parallel with Queens Parade and this is separated from the subject site by a footpath and nature strip, the latter containing a row of mature Elms as street trees.

9.2 These trees were assessed by Simon Howe, an Arborist at that time in my office, and he prepared a Preliminary Arboricultural Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated May 2016. In this assessment he also reviewed vegetation located within the site.

9.3 Six trees were assessed on site. Each was an English Elm (Ulmus procera), each was in poor condition and each could, in his opinion, be removed; the trees were sucker growth from adjacent street trees.

9.4 Eight trees were assessed outside the site and these were street trees comprising a mix of English Elms and Scotch Elm (Ulmus glabra), the latter juvenile replacements for the English Elms that have been removed.

9.5 The construction of a new cross-over to provide access to the site will put at risk, Tree 8, one of the English Elm street trees. The incursion into the tree’s Tree Protection Zone has been calculated by Howe as being 20%, so great that it intrudes upon the tree’s Structural Root Zone. Analysis of the Arboricultural Assessment shows the tree to have been canyon pruned but to have Fair-Good health and Fair structure.

9.6 Council Officer’s Report responds to the need to remove Tree 8 by noting that “Its removal is supported. Council’s Open Space Unit …..would allow tree 8 (Ulmus) to be removed…..[and] includes complete tree and stump removal and reinstatement of 2 trees after development”. The other street trees should be appropriately protected throughout the proposed works and this would be best addressed by means of a Tree Management Plan which should include protection of the canopy of these trees from damage during construction.

9.7 My review of the boundary to the site suggested that works would not cause damage to any other trees around the site.

9.8 To the west the site is adjacent to a two storey nineteenth century dwelling at 24 Queens Parade. This is one of a row of four of this type of built form that extends to 16 Queens Parade, the first of a row of five single storey dwellings. The impact of the proposal will be most apparent to residents at 24 Queens Parade and to their rear garden space defined to the north by a garage onto the rear laneway.

9.9 This laneway extends from Brunswick Street to the rear of dwellings in Brunswick Street from 468-490. It also extends to the rear of 8-24 Queens Parade before turning northwards to provide the western boundary to an isolated piece of land that is subject to a separate application (Application for Review P147/2017). Four three level townhouses are proposed for this site.



9.10 A lane that appears to be currently fenced into the subject site extends in a north-east direction to the rear of 492 Brunswick Street. A rear garden at 494 Brunswick Street provides a short boundary length beyond the termination of the lane.

9.11 The most notable component of this north-west inter-face to the site is a six storey residential development, presenting as multi storey to Brunswick Street, located north-west of the site at 496-500 Brunswick Street. The built form of this building steps back from the common site boundary.

9.12 This western boundary to the site is angled south-west to north-east and the final length of this boundary is with two storey residential buildings in Grace Lane, a lane that extends from Brunswick Street through to Coleman Street, an east/west street of houses and which forms the northern site boundary.

9.13 Three double storey townhouses at 12-16 Coleman Street have rear gardens extending to a common boundary but for the remaining length of dwellings that back onto the site, from 18-24 Coleman Street, single storey nineteenth century dwellings, there is a bluestone laneway that offers separation between their rear garden spaces and the subject site.

9.14 Finally, a length of the eastern boundary is with new development in Napier Street where at 497 there has been a recent three storey development, while on the corner of Napier Street and Queens Parade there is a more recent five storey development that is the eastern neighbour to the proposed development’s presentation to Queens Parade.

Proposal 9.15 Architectural plans for the subject site have been prepared by Cox Architecture and Koichi Takada Architects and

propose a built form extending to 10 levels above two levels of basement car parks together with townhouses in a separate site to the west of the main site area.

9.16 The built form of the main site at 26-56 Queens Parade is not consistently of 9-10 storeys but offers a layered and stepped back built form responsive to its urban context; the built form of the townhouses is three-storey.

9.17 At 26-56 Queens Parade, at ground level, there is vehicular access to the basements to the south-east corner (generally) off Queens Parade and two broad, inviting pedestrian entries into communal green spaces with a terrace for yoga, a spa and dining area, lawns and a sunken dining area. Terraces for ground level apartments open onto this area as well as occupying areas around the site periphery. Significant numbers of trees are proposed within the ground level communal area in raised planters or integrated into areas of paving. There is a rear entry to the west of the site, providing access to the townhouses at REAR 26-56 Queens Parade.

9.18 To the site periphery at ground level there is boundary planting designed to offer both internal amenity for future residents and separation from adjacent properties.

9.19 Moving through the levels, the proposed built form bridges elements of the ground floor landscape, so creating areas where use of shade tolerant planting at ground level will be essential.

9.20 The ground level, first and second floors provide a podium for four tower elements that emerge to greater height pulling away from sensitive site boundaries. Called “cores” they form discrete elements across the site.

9.21 Core 1 occupies the south-west of the site and extends through eight levels of residential accommodation with a roof level including a communal terrace and recreational space.

9.22 Core 2 is located centrally on the Queens Road frontage and is linked at Level 3 to Core 4 built to its north-west. It extends through nine residential levels and maintains its form throughout its full height.

9.23 Core 3 occupies the north-east portion of the site, extends to nine storeys of residential accommodation and progressively reduces in size through its height, from 8 apartments at Level 3 to two apartments at Level 9.



9.24 Core 4 to the north-west (northern) portion of the site extends to 8 residential levels and it too decreases in size through its height with five apartments and a private dining suite at Level 3 reducing to two apartments at level 8.

9.25 There are areas of landscape at levels other than the ground floor. At Level 3 there is a communal terrace space with spas, barbecues, outdoor dining facilities and a swimming pool. Additionally, townhouses to the north-west corner of the site have roof terraces with quite extensive planting and there are also planters on a number of residential terraces.

9.26 At Level 9 of Core 1, there is a roof terrace that offers communal recreational space including a swimming pool, spas and outdoor dining area.

9.27 The Landscape Architectural plans for the site have been prepared by Jack Merlo, Design and Landscape. I have been asked to peer review these Landscape plans and in doing so I will recommend changes to ensure an appropriate response to the built form and the site’s context.

9.28 Additionally, I have attempted to address issues relating to landscape raised by the Officers of the City of Yarra in response to the project. In doing this I have reviewed the Architectural and Landscape plans listed in 7.1 of this statement.

9.29 In my review of the Landscape Architectural plans for the Queens Parade development I have responded primarily to concerns raised by Council and third party statements of grounds, notably the adequacy of planter volumes for proposed planting above the podium and on upper floor terraces, and the appropriate maintenance of these roof gardens.

9.30 In addition I have reviewed issues that are always among my concerns when urban apartment development is being proposed, namely the adequacy and appropriateness of soils, the suitability of plant selection, the appropriateness of irrigation, the practicality of the garden spaces and terraces for future residents, and the maintenance demands that are being placed upon future occupants in the provision of an attractive, mature and sustainable landscape outcome. In addition, I consider the appropriateness of the scheme in the context of the Planning Scheme, especially considerations of neighbourhood character and urban landscape.

9.31 The abovementioned plans prepared by Jack Merlo Design and Landscape integrate preliminary and recent advice and opinions I have provided in a review of the overall scheme, so forming the Landscape Design plans as put forward at the VCAT Hearing.

A review of the landscape elements of the design proposal requires an assessment of the horticultural response including plant selection, the appropriateness of the technical aspects of the scheme including soil volumes, irrigation and growing medium, a review of the appropriateness of spaces provided to future residents and their amenity contribution, and a review of the response to the planning character and landscape issues relating to the site.

9.32 The orientation of the site and the proposed development height creates a series of complex micro-climates reflected in the Shadow Diagrams for the site that reveal a complex pattern of exposure and shading. To this should be added issues relating to areas beneath the spanning buildings which will be further shaded. The axis of the two main ground floor open areas, basically following a north/south axis, will result in brief periods of full sun balanced by extended periods of shade, whereas upper terraces and roof gardens will be exposed to full sun and desiccating winds. This is a project of contrasting ecologies.

Plant Selection 9.33 At ground level, where contrasts in solar access will be marked, it will be preferable to use plant taxa capable of

tolerating shade with occasional high intensity sun periods, rather than sun loving plants that are subjected to prolonged periods of shade. Weeping Lilly Pilly (Syzygium floribundum) and Quandong (Elaeocarpus eumundi) are ideal selections. Weeping Lilly Pilly has been selected for use as a street tree in Flinders Lane for its ability to tolerate prolonged periods of shade with occasional periods of full sun, conditions that are replicated on this site.



9.34 Plants now proposed include Aussie Southern Lilly Pilly (Syzygium australe ‘Aussie Southern’) within this area and while it will grow appropriately I am of the opinion that the larger growing, looser foliaged Weeping Lilly Pilly remains a preferable option. Native Frangipani (Hymenosporum flavum) is proposed within areas where occasional direct northern sun will be obtained and this is a species able to tolerate extended periods of shade.

9.35 Shade issues for shrub and ground cover plantings are compounded because they experience the shade from over canopy trees as well as the shade from built form. There is, however, a greater palette of suitable plants available because this is not an uncommon natural scenario.

9.36 The palette selected for the ground floor courtyards is entirely appropriate. Species such as Indian Hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis intermedia ‘Spring Pearl’) and Sweetbox (Sarcococca confusa) are ideal for this context and are additionally modest in their water and maintenance demands. Ground-covers such as Tall Mondo Grass (Ophiopogon jaburan) and Broad Leaf Clivia (Clivia miniata ‘Belgian Hybrid’) are prime choices for this context.

9.37 Areas along the bridged walkways will experience prolonged shade. I note that Tall Mondo Grass and Xanadu Philodendron (Philodendron ‘Xanadu’) are proposed here. Consideration should be given to inclusion of Japanese Aralia (Fatsia japonica), its inter-generic hybrid Aralia (x Fatshedera lizei), Peace Lily (Spathiphyllum wallisii) and Aspidistra (Aspidistra elatior) in the plant palette. This location will have many of the qualities of indoor conditions and a palette of “indoor” plants will be appropriate.

9.38 I find the proposal to use climbing plants, Madagascar Jasmine (Stephanotis floribunda) and White Pandorea (Pandorea jasminoides ‘Alba’) in areas of considerable shade, challenging. The ecology of climbing plants is to grow from shade into sun where they flower but this often leaves woody basal growth as the only evidence of their presence within shady areas. Madagascar Jasmine especially benefits from a hot, sunny location in Melbourne and the deep shad of this setting will be a difficult environment for it to tolerate.

9.39 Consideration should therefore be given to use of plants like Kangaroo Vine (Cissus antarctica), a climbing plant that does appear to have some shade tolerance because it often occurs as a low level component of rainforest habitat which is naturally shaded.

9.40 Selections to the site boundaries are more straightforward. The use of clipped Aussie Southern Lilly Pilly as a hedge is an excellent boundary screening selection. I note that on occasion, single plants are proposed with small planter volumes. The aggregation of these planters so that they are located in a single larger volume will bring benefits of economy of soil volumes. Where natural soil volumes become available Chanticleer Pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Chanticleer’) is entirely reliable in Melbourne’s climate.

9.41 I do note from Section F-F on Ground Level sections that these Clianticlear Pears are proposed to be grown between a retaining wall located at the site boundary and the basement car park. It would offer a greater soil volume to these trees if they were planted at natural ground level with no boundary retaining wall so that they could explore broader volumes beneath adjacent gardens and laneways rather than being limited to the 3 metres between the boundary and the basement structure.

9.42 To the edge of the laneway, adjacent to the proposed townhouse development to the west, Chanticleer Pears are proposed in a raised planter associated with Apartments C1GF12-C1GF14. My review of the levels here is that by constructing only a retaining wall within the site soil volumes can be pulled into the site contiguous with those beneath the adjacent laneway to provide excellent planting volumes.

9.43 The extent of shade in this project is considerable and broadly speaking the environment will be similar to narrow streetscapes with a reasonable degree of ambient light especially for tree canopies as they grow. I do not consider it likely that there will be appropriate light available for healthy turf growth within the northern, central and south-western portions of the site. I question too, the appropriateness of a vegetable garden located in its current position though my analysis of Shadow Diagrams suggests it will get sun from midday and this may prove sufficient.



9.44 If ground level areas are largely shaded, by contrast upper floors experience a series of micro-climates based around solar exposure and increased wind speeds. In general, plant selections for these areas on Level 03 are appropriate. Pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) has outstanding wind tolerance and is used on roof gardens elsewhere in Melbourne with success. Spring Pearl Indian Hawthorn, Moon Bay Nandina (Nandina domestica ‘Moon Bay’), Orange Jessamine (Murraya paniculata), Blue Lagoon Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Blue Lagoon’) and Japanese Box (Buxus microphylla ‘Japonica’) are all appropriate selections for this context.

9.45 The use of Acoma Crepe Myrtle (Lagerstroemia x indica ‘Acoma’) as a canopy tree on the apartment terraces is a good choice. The provision of canopy cover on terraces is important and this selection will balance shade provision with ornamental flower, bark and foliage. A Crepe Myrtle with a larger canopy might be appropriate where planter volumes allow to maximise shade cover.

9.46 A similar palette is proposed for the Level 09 Terrace and with the exception of Xanadu Philodendron (Philodendron ‘Xanadu’), more suited to its proposed use in shade areas at ground level, this palette is appropriate. I note the introduction of Creeping Juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) as a ground cover mass planted around many balcony edges and I am of the opinion that this will work effectively though slower in growth when shaded compared to its performance when exposed to full sun.

Landscape Intent 9.47 In any proposal to plant in raised planters the most critical issue is the provision of adequate soil volumes to carry

sustainable plant growth. Research in this topic has been undertaken by Professor Nina Bassuk at Cornell University, New York. Her work indicates that a "soil" volume of 0.6 cubic metres will sustainably carry 1 square metre of tree canopy. I agree.

9.48 The grouping of trees within a single planter results in a slightly lower volume requirement, in other words there are cumulative benefits from growing multiple trees in a single planter volume. Miller, Hanes and Werner suggest that where multiple trees are grown their requirement is 66% of that for a single tree. On that basis approximately 0.4 cubic metres of soil will support a square metre of canopy.

9.49 The introduction of shrubs and ground-covers to planters adds an increased demand suggesting planters should be a little larger, or in other words a modestly greater soil volume should be provided to support both trees and associated planting.

9.50 To my knowledge no specific research has been completed for the carrying capacity of appropriate "soil" mixes to carry climbing plants, though in the USA a rate of 1 cubic metre of "soil" to 10 square metres of climbing plant is a widely accepted ratio. I am comfortable with and indeed support these various propositions.

9.51 In each of these cases, with this proposal, it is presumed that the planter can be adequately irrigated to support the growth of the relevant planting.

9.52 In my review of and input into the plans for proposed landscape works at the subject site I have sought the provision of soil volume at the rate of 0.8 cubic metres of "soil" per square metre of canopy where single trees are proposed and 0.6 metres where multiple trees are planted, allowing therefore for the cultivation of ground-covers beneath tree planting. It will also allow for the increased temperatures and climatic stresses plants will experience in this location. This is a particularly apposite approach in the case of the Merlo plans since plants are proposed to be clipped to pre-determined sizes so the mature canopy size is easily determined.

Ground Level 9.53 The Ground Level planting proposal is included in Drg. No’s. TP01 and TP02, Rev H, dated 10th August 2017.

9.54 Soil volumes indicated on plans have a depth ranging from 1 metre at its deepest to 800mm in areas that extend beneath the paved courtyards. These soil depths are perfectly adequate for the proposed tree growth identified.



9.55 My estimate of soil volumes available to plants within the Ground Level above podium planters is that they range from about 40.0 cubic metres adjacent to the Deli to the south-east of the site (where a single tree is proposed) to in the order of 1000 cubic metres of continuous soil in the central portion of the site where 34 trees are proposed. There are volumes in between these extremes. By any measure these are very generous and will certainly support not only the trees proposed but also the shrubs, ground covers and climbing plants.

9.56 According to the Planting Schedule many of the proposed trees are to be maintained at sizes below their potential mature size. Even allowing for the presence of mass shrub planting and ground-covers these containers can carry larger trees and my view is, given the scale of the development that the Weeping Lilly Pillys, for example, should be allowed to grow larger to soften the built form and provide a more verdant experience. Whatever decision is made with respect to their ultimate size there is no question about the adequacy of these soil volumes.

Level 3

9.57 The Level 3 Terraces and Roof Gardens are shown on Drg No.TP05, Rev H and it illustrates provision of raised planters for trees, shrubs, bamboos and ground-covers. Planters 1.6 metres wide are certainly adequate for the combination of shrubs and ground-covers given that planter depths for these shrubs range from 500mm to 800mm.

9.58 My review of the planters at this level has not identified any especially shallow planters but in my opinion no planter carrying shrubs should be less than 600mm deep.

9.59 As usual it is the suitability of raised planters for proposed trees that is most likely to be inadequate. Planters need to be sufficiently large to carry future canopy growth as well as providing for tree stability.

9.60 These garden areas are likely to experience extended periods of solar exposure and drying northern winds. Soil volumes should be slightly greater than the minimum to ensure suitable moisture is available during these periods of climatic stress.

9.61 Acoma Crepe Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica x L. fauriei 'Acoma') is proposed to be located on many of the private terraces on Level 3, for example on the link between Core 2 and Core 4, on terrace space associated with Apartments C10305 and C20304 etc. These are exposed locations likely to face desiccating winds funnelled between built forms.

9.62 Currently these trees are proposed to be planted in confined cylindrical metal planters. It is likely that these will become hot and this may place greater stress upon the root system of the trees and may even scorch healthy root growth; such an outcome has been recorded on black plastic pots exposed in nursery rows, an analogous situation.

9.63 Where practically possible these trees should be in soil volumes incorporated into larger garden areas to secure improved root exploration and growth. This may require a modest increase in depth of these planter areas from 500mm to 800mm but it will provide improved growing conditions.

9.64 As it is, my review of the planter volumes provided to these trees indicates they are generally completely inadequate for sustainable growth. Planter volumes of 1.4 and 2.0 cubic metres will not support the mature growth of these trees with their associated ground covers. I do not believe these trees should be excluded from the proposal since they do offer shade on these terraces, but the soil volumes should be amended by making the planters larger and constructing them out of masonry.

9.65 For a tree with a 3 metre canopy spread I recommend the provision of a planter with minimum soil volume of 5.5 cubic metres where shrubs and ground-covers are also proposed in the planter or 4.5 cubic metres for the tree alone. There would be benefits in larger trees to provide improved climate modification; a tree with a 4 metre canopy would require 10 and 7.5 cubic metres of soil in similar situations.



Level 9

9.66 The Residents' Terraces (Drg. No. TP08, Rev H) are located at the upper most level of Core 1 and the proposal reflects a similar approach to that used on resident areas on Level 3. I note that the proposed tree planting in four locations is integrated with other shrub planting and in general this is a preferred outcome.

9.67 However, as it is with these trees and those proposed within the paved areas, are proposed to be cultivated within metal planters with the concern of root scorch because of heat absorption when temperatures are high. Additionally, planters are restricted in size for the proposed tree planting and volumes as low as 1.4 cubic metres are unlikely to carry the proposed trees with their associated ground covers.

9.68 I recommend larger planters should be used and they should be constructed out of masonry.

9.69 On this level there is a note that planters proposed to carry massed shrub plantings are 360mm deep. It is my opinion that these are too shallow for sustained plant growth. As I suggested previously, I would recommend planters with a minimum depth of 600mm for the shrub planting proposed, should be utilised though this may demand a modification to the interface between planters and glass balustrades to ensure appropriate enclosure.

9.70 At the site perimeter the use of Trailing Juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) in raised planters to the periphery of terraces is a good plant choice but planters proposed at 400mm width and 600mm depth seems to be at the smaller end of suitable planter size.

9.71 My greatest concern is in locations facing north-east, through north to west where summer solar exposure is likely to cause high temperatures on the metal planters causing scorch of the roots of the Junipers. In general, planters would be better constructed of masonry as an integral part of the development rather than of metal especially in locations experiencing increased solar exposure.

Irrigation & Maintenance

9.72 I note that a drip irrigation system is proposed throughout the planted areas. This has the benefit of delivering water directly to the medium with no wastage through drift. Water will be applied directly to root zones. However for a development of this type, where nearly all the planting will be entirely dependent upon artificial water delivery, it is important that programmed maintenance is in place including flushing of the irrigation system, checking the system’s integrity and monitoring of sensors which will require calibration and adjustment.

9.73 Given the importance of irrigation in a project of this type I consider that a professional Irrigation Management Plan that responds to differential demands of the vegetation within the site should be prepared as a condition of any Permit that issues for the project.

9.74 A number of alternative proprietary growing media are available for use in planters. So long as a growing medium designed for podium planting is used then I am confident plant growth will be successful. Any specified growing medium should be based upon a high sand component to maintain long term structure rather than an organic mix that is subject to change in porosity over time as the mix breaks down.

9.75 My review of the plans of the project suggests that the terraces and open spaces associated with the development are appropriate. The majority obtain good direct sunlight (though as in any development of this type, a small number face south but community recreational space helps compensate for this), and they offer good space for future users.

9.76 In developments of this type it is important that Landscape Architectural schemes are within the maintenance skills of the basic gardener. The more complex a planting scheme the greater the challenge its maintenance becomes. The greater part of the landscape on this site will be within the Body Corporate, the common ground floor garden, the Level 9 gardens, the entertaining terraces, but the planters to balconies will be part of individual property ownership. It is my opinion that the plants selected will be able to grow satisfactorily with very modest levels of maintenance in-put and that it would be difficult to identify a more appropriate range of plants than those put forward.



9.77 In my review of the Landscape plans I do note the presence of planters external to terrace boundary screens. This is particularly noticeable in the use of Trailing Junipers external to the boundary of terraces on Level 9 of Core 1. Appropriate safety devices will need to be in place and external landscape will need to be under the control of the Body Corporate.

Conclusion

9.78 Landscape Architectural plans have been prepared by Jack Merlo for a proposed multi-storey development at 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North. I support his “design intent”.

9.79 I have reviewed earlier plans and sought minor changes which are reflected in the plans now before the Tribunal.

9.80 In general I believe the plans presented offer an acceptable and attractive landscape outcome for the site though I have expressed concerns about a few relatively minor issues.

9.81 In general, plant selection is appropriate; a predominantly sun-loving Mediterranean palette is proposed for upper floors and shade tolerant ‘rainforest’ palette for lower shaded levels.

9.82 Given the dependency of the planting throughout the project on drip irrigation systems I have recommended the preparation of a detailed Irrigation Maintenance Plan for both communal and private garden areas.

9.83 It is my view that planting where present at the edge of terraces contributes to reducing downward views and improves visual presentation of the proposed development.

9.84 I am satisfied that appropriately trained Horticultural staff will be able to undertake necessary maintenance to ensure the landscape vision for the site comes to fruition.

9.85 In general, I consider the Landscape Architectural scheme proposed to be an effective proposal for the site though I have made suggestions for minor refinements most especially in the volumes of planters, their mode of construction and the need to secure appropriate irrigation. Plant selection is generally sound and appropriate soil mixes can easily be specified.

9.86 In light of these observations it is my opinion that a Permit should not be withheld from this project on the basis of Landscape.

10 PROVISIONAL OPINIONS. 10.1 None.



11 INACCURACIES AND ADDITIONAL MATTERS. 11.1 To my knowledge, there are no inaccuracies in this report or matters related to landscape assessment and design

which fall outside my expertise.

11.2 I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance, which I regard as relevant, have to my knowledge been withheld from the Tribunal.

John Patrick John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd

APPENDIX – Jack Merlo Design & Landscape

Landscape Masterplan and Plans for Proposed Development 26- 56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North (8 sheets as referred)

Documents

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Application ... · Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal . Application for Review No. P2079/2016 . in association with . Application