WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2015 - City of Moreland › globalassets › key-docs › ... · 11/25/2015 · DED96/15 151 MELBOURNE AVENUE, GLENROY - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/526

D15/369296

URBAN PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2015

COMMENCING 6.30 PM

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

Urban Planning Committee Meeting 25 November 2015 2

1. WELCOME

2. APOLOGIES

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Urban Planning Committee Meeting held on 21 October 2015 be confirmed.

4. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

5. COMMITTEE REPORTS

CORPORATE SERVICES

DCS94/15 SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED ROAD DISCONTINUANCE ADJOINING 91 SOUTH STREET, HADFIELD (D15/311585) 3

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DED95/15 CITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2015 (D15/316085) 16

DED96/15 151 MELBOURNE AVENUE, GLENROY - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/526 (D15/331264) 47

DED97/15 JEWELL RAILWAY RESERVE - 27 WILSON AVENUE, 325 BARKLY STREET, 331 BARKLY STREET AND 15A UNION STREET, BRUNSWICK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/503 (D15/337329) 56

DED98/15 1A PLYMOUTH AVENUE, PASCOE VALE - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/197 (D15/334142) 119

DED99/15 223 MELVILLE ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/1987/1/A (D15/306986) 160

DED100/15 501-503 BRUNSWICK ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/716 (D15/70044) 173

6. URGENT BUSINESS REPORTS


DCS94/15 SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED ROAD DISCONTINUANCE ADJOINING 91 SOUTH STREET, HADFIELD (D15/311585)

Director Corporate Services Property

Executive Summary On 30 December 2014, the owner of 91 South Street, Hadfield, contacted Council expressing an interest in acquiring the unused ROW adjoining his property. The owner has expressed an interest in demolishing the existing buildings on his property and using the property for a residential development which is consistent with the zoning of the land.

The subject road is divided into two sections. The northern part of the road adjoining South Street is open, constructed in concrete and used to access the rear of the property. Approximately 14.5 meters down the road, the constructed road ends and a wire mesh gate has been erected across the road. The remaining 22m of unconstructed road is enclosed within 91 South Street, Hadfield.

The road was created in 1963 on Plan of Subdivision LP58440 expressly for the purpose of providing carriageway access to the 2 lots on the subdivision for 91 South Street, Hadfield. The road is unused and does not provide vehicle access to any other properties.

The proposed discontinuance will remove the road status from the land and allow the land to be developed in conjunction with the property at 91 South Street, Hadfield. The applicant has signed a conditional agreement to purchase the land for its market value pending a formal Council decision.

On 9 September 2015 (DCS77/15), Council resolved to commence the procedures to discontinue the section of right of way and sell the land in accordance with section 206 and clause 3 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989.

As part of the statutory process, public notice of the proposal was given and two written submissions were received. Council is now in a position to hear and receive the submissions made as a result of the statutory process.

Recommendation The Urban Planning Committee resolve: 1. To note that public notice was given in the Moreland Leader newspaper in the week

commencing 21 September 2015 regarding Council’s intention to discontinue and sell the section of road.

2. To note that the giving of public notice is pursuant to sections 207A and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and in accordance with Council resolution on 9 September 2015 (DCS77/15).

3. To receive the submissions made in response to the advertised proposal to discontinue and sell the road adjoining 91 South Street, Hadfield.

4. That a report on the submissions be prepared for Council’s consideration regarding its intention to either discontinue or not to discontinue and sell the section of road.

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


REPORT

1. Policy Context The Council Plan 2013–2017 articulates Council’s commitment to the careful stewardship of the City’s assets. Council’s Rights of Way Associated Policies and Rights of Way Strategy has been used in assessing this proposal.

2. Background On 30 December 2014 the owner of 91 South Street, Hadfield, contacted Council expressing an interest in acquiring the unused ROW adjoining his property. The proposed road discontinuance is shown hatched in the plan in Attachment 1.

The road was created in 1963 on Plan of Subdivision LP58440 (Attachment 2) expressly for the purpose of providing carriageway access to the 2 lots on the subdivision for 91 South Street, Hadfield. The road is unused and does not provide vehicle access to any other properties.

3. Issues Public notice of the proposed discontinuance was given in the Moreland Leader newspaper in the week commencing 21 September 2015. Adjoining property owners were notified in writing of the proposal, with submissions to be received within 28 days of the date of notice.

Council received two written submissions regarding the proposal.

First submission The first submission is shown in Attachment 3. The submitter contends that:

• the valuation provided is incorrect and the land should be valued in the order of $438 to $1,081 per square meter;

• the owner of 91 South Street has blocked the road with a fence exercising a right of adverse possession;

• questions what actions did Council’s By Laws Officers take to maintain access to the road;

• recommends that Council pursue it rights to monetary compensation; • Council does not have jurisdiction to prevent 1A Virginia Street using the road;

and • Council should respect 1A Virginia Street’s objection to the proposed

discontinuance.

Further points to the first submission The submitter subsequently emailed further questions and photos in support of the earlier submission. In this email (Attachment 4) the submitter:

• questions if Council issued permits for the vehicle crossing, the concrete driveway and the fence;

• believes that the aged care facility at 1A Virginia Street could benefit from evacuation and pedestrian access via the subject road;

• states that Council’s Environmental and Civic Local Law would appear to be relevant; and

• suggests that the road be named in honour of the traditional owners.


Second submission Council received a second submission from Spiire Consultants on behalf of the owner of 1A Virginia Street, Hadfield Virginia Residential Pty Ltd (Attachment 5). The author of the submission acts on behalf of the residential age care facility adjoining the partly occupied right of way. Its client maintains its earlier objection to the proposed road discontinuance. It states that the right of way is required for potential access from the aged care facility to South Street. Furthermore it states that its client is considering a future extension on the vacant land adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject right of way.

The author of the submission requests that Council takes a far-sighted approach to this matter and maintain access to the right of way in order that reasonably anticipated forward planning for all properties adjoining the right of way can occur. Finally, the author of the submission states that its client will seek the intervention of the Supreme Court by way of an injunction if the matter is not abandoned. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

4. Consultation The following internal Council units and personnel have been consulted:

• Engineering Services; • Transport Development Engineer; • City Development; • Urban Design; • Building Services; • Street Cleansing; • Open Space Design and Development; and • Open Space Maintenance.

No objections have been received from these units. However, Council’s Engineering Services Unit has advised that there is a large drain installed in an easement in the adjoining property at 93 South Street which may have to be upgraded in the future. In order to allow for such an upgrade, an easement for drainage purposes in favour of Council is to be created over the land.

The relevant service authorities have been consulted and no objections have been received. There are no service authority assets in the road.

Public notice of Council’s intention to discontinue the section of right of way, appeared in the Moreland Leader newspaper in the week commencing 21 September 2015. The proposal was made available on Councils website and the adjoining owners were notified in writing.

5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter.


6. Financial and Resources Implications In accordance with Council’s Right of Way Policy, the road is to be sold for market value. The land is considered encumbered and has been valued by an Independent Valuer at $181 per square metre.

The proposed sale of the road to the owner of 91 South Street will provide net income of $20,091 to Council. In addition the owner has agreed to meet all of Council’s reasonable costs associated with discontinuing the road, estimated at $8,000.

The applicant has signed a conditional agreement to purchase the land pending a formal Council decision.

Once discontinued and sold the land would become rateable.

7. Implementation The receiving and hearing of the submissions at this meeting will complete the statutory process. A further report will be put to Council for a final decision to be made on the proposed road discontinuance.

Attachment/s 1 Plan and photo D15/189634 2 Plan of subdivision D15/189630 3 First submission D15/339400 4 Further information to first submission D15/339402 5 Second submission D15/339649


DED95/15 CITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2015 (D15/316085)

Director Planning and Economic Development City Development

Executive Summary A 28% increase in application numbers in the September quarter has put even more demands the planning services area. This combined with the high numbers of outstanding applications already in the planning system has meant performance in the Branch has suffered and staff are under significant pressure.

Despite the high number of applications decision making remained very high with a 17% increase in decisions made this quarter. This has been largely due to overtime by staff and is not sustainable in the long term but has lead to a slight reduction in the backlog which dropped by 7% this quarter. The backlog remains at 627 and this is high but significantly lower than the peak of 735 in July 2014.

As a result of the large workload, timeframes were again affected this quarter with the overall statutory time to determine applications increasing to 70 days. In addition the Branch goal of sending out further information requests in an average of 21 days was unable to be met.

VCAT activity remained steady over the quarter. In terms of the win loss ratio this also remained steady at 69% of cases being won.

Subdivision activity increased during the September quarter up 12% and this trend is expected to continue due to the huge increase in medium and high density applications in the last 12 months. This places significant pressure on a small subdivision team and has resulted in an increase in the backlog of subdivision applications that will need to be monitored.

Enforcement activity has also significantly increased this quarter with a 29% jump in the number of cases being lodged. A number of complex and time consuming enforcement cases including the McBryde Street Taskforce and the John Fawkner Hospital complaints are reducing the teams ability to resolve other cases.

The increase in application numbers over 2014 and 2015 were thought to be short term increases due to new zones, and new fees but further increases this quarter indicate that higher numbers of planning applications are continuing for Moreland. This will continue to be carefully monitored.

Recommendation The Urban Planning Committee resolve to note the City Development Activity Report – September Quarter 2015.


REPORT

1. Policy Context The City Development Branch administers Council’s town planning, environmental health and building decision making and compliance responsibilities. The objective of the Urban Planning functions is to provide a responsive development assessment system to improve the City’s built form and infrastructure.

2. Background The content of this report is an indicator of planning activity within the municipality and the operation of the urban planning functions of the City Development Branch.

3. Issues The report at Attachment 1 details:

• analysis of applications received and determined; • analysis of decision making; • VCAT analysis; and • planning enforcement analysis.

An analysis of the key findings of the above data is discussed below.

Planning Permit activity A total of 535 planning applications were received for the September quarter compared to 419 planning applications for the June quarter which is a 28% increase. This is compared with 418 for the March quarter and 439 for the December quarter.

A total of 540 planning applications were decided in the September quarter compared to 461 for the June quarter which is a 17% increase.

The backlog remains at 627 applications awaiting determination a slight reduction of 7% from 672 at the end of July 2015. The backlog peaked at 735 in July 2014 so the current backlog while very high is significantly lower than the peak.

During the development of the City Development Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) the planners set a stretch goal to reduce the time to request further information down to 21 days rather than the statutory requirement of 28 days. During the September quarter this was not achieved. The average time was 24 days slightly in excess of the 21 day KPI. This is directly attributable to the increase in applications throughout the remainder of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015.

The average overall statutory time to determine applications also increased in the September quarter from 68 in the June quarter to 70. This was predicted to occur due to the huge increase of additional applications through 2014 and 2015 and is reflective of the significant backlog within the Branch at the current time. The reduced performance timeframes results from increased application volumes, is witnessed in figures 5 and 6.

The data showing the percentage of applications determined within statutory timeframes for all inner metropolitan Councils was unavailable in the September quarter due to a new system being introduced at the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Figure 19 highlights the complexity of planning applications lodged which is reflected in the number of applications that were lodged for over a million dollars worth of works. This remained steady in the September quarter with 32 applications lodged.


Notably from 1 July 2015 any application with a development cost exceeding $1 million dollars now attracts the Metropolitan Planning Levy of $1300 for every million dollars of the development cost paid directly to the State Government. In comparison the planning fee paid to Council for development with a cost of $1-7 million is a set fee of $1153 that has not been increased by the State Government in over 14 years.

Contact with objectors One of the customer service initiatives identified in the 2012-2013 City Development Service Unit Plan was to have a greater level of contact between Planning Officers and objectors in the planning process.

In September quarter Planning Officers made contact with objectors to try and resolve issues in 52% of applications with objections compared to 70% in the June quarter. This is significantly lower and is again reflective of the large workload and the need to resolve decisions quickly. In reviewing this data it is important to remember that in some cases the issues raised cannot be resolved by the planning process and in some cases the applications are refused, with no necessity to contact objectors. VicSmart applications The fast track system has been replaced by the new State Government VicSmart system which commenced on 19 September 2014. The VicSmart system is different to Council’s previous fast track system in applying to specific subdivision and planning application categories which are exempt from public notice. The system requires decisions to be made within 10 business days and any missing information must be requested within 5 business days.

During the September quarter 65 VicSmart applications were determined and 40 or 62% were determined within 10 business days.

Commercial priority applications During the September quarter 10 commercial priority applications were determined compared to 9 in the June quarter. The average statutory time to determine these applications was 50 days which was significantly lower than the average statutory time of 70 days for normal applications. In times of significant increases in application numbers the benefits of the commercial priority system become more apparent as timelines tend to increase for most applications. The commercial priority system also provides specialist advice to business owners and provides guidance and support throughout the planning process.

Council’s performance at VCAT In the September quarter 36 applications for review were lodged at VCAT, which was similar the June quarter in which 39 were lodged.

Of the appeals lodged against decisions (as opposed to appeals to amend a permit or extend the timeframe of a permit), 9 of the 31 appeals lodged were by objectors. 22 appeals were lodged by applicants against decisions with most (14) being appeals against refusal decisions. The appeal rate for the quarter represented 7% of total decisions, which is consistent with Councils long term benchmark of no more than 10%.

As discussed in the last activity report VCAT cases lodged against decisions had been falling influenced by increased VCAT lodgement fees and increased Planning Officer consultation resulting in reduced objector appeals. However in the past 12 months appeal cases have risen as a consequence of the sheer influx of application numbers. The VCAT increase further adds to officer workloads with each VCAT case accounting for approximately 3 days of officer time in preparation and presentation for a typical single day hearing.


In the September quarter Council won 69% of cases compared to 68% in the June quarter (figure 10 Attachment 1).

The losses consisted of 8 applicant appeals against refusals, 1 applicant appeal against conditions, and 1 objector appeal against a Notice of Decision To Grant a Permit.

Urban Planning Committee decisions and VCAT outcomes Of the 32 cases determined by VCAT in the September quarter 3 were originally determined by the UPC. In 2 of these cases the decision of the Urban Planning Committee was overturned by VCAT, and in one case the decision was upheld.

The VCAT report for the September quarter forms Attachment 2 to this report.

Subdivision activity In the September quarter 90 planning permit applications for subdivision were received compared to 80 in the June quarter which is a significant increase.

In terms of decisions 77 permit applications for subdivision were determined this quarter compared to 87 in the June quarter. The increased application numbers has put pressure on the team causing decreased decision making. This has caused the backlog of applications to rise to 67 from 53 in the June quarter which is a 26% increase.

The average time for a subdivision decision was 59 days during the September quarter. This increased slightly from an average of 58 days in the June quarter. These timeframes are expected to rise further given the current high workload and the fact that the increase in medium and high density applications in the last 12 months, will no doubt result in a dramatic increase in subdivision applications over the coming years as these development approvals commence construction and seek subdivision and separate titles.

Planning enforcement In the September quarter 89 new reactive planning enforcement cases were lodged compared to 69 in the June quarter a 29% increase.

Only 47 reactive cases were completed in the September quarter compared to 84 in the June quarter which is a significant decrease. This has been due to a small number of very complex enforcement cases which are taking significant officer time to deal with and try and resolve. An example of one of these cases is the McBryde Street case which has taken significant officer time over a long period of time which reduces the ability of the resources available in the enforcement area to devote as much time to other cases.

As a result the backlog of reactive cases that remain open has increased from 147 to 190 over the quarter. The goal for the Branch is to get the case load of reactive cases below 100 outstanding at any one time. At present and with increased numbers of planning applications in the system being determined, which creates even more applications that may be subject to enforcement, this goal is looking increasingly unattainable with current resources. Opportunities for further efficiencies continue to be investigated and actioned (figure 18 at Attachment 1).

During 2012-2013, a new proactive enforcement system was developed which identifies planning permits that were issued by UPC and also decisions that have been overturned by VCAT targeting these for proactive enforcement. So far 188 applications have been identified for proactive enforcement using this new system and will be investigated upon the issue of a building permit which signals each projects commencement.


The proactive system has been developed in addition to the existing proactive enforcement program of quarterly inspections and follow up on all planning permits with outstanding environmental audits and Section 173 agreement requirements. 1 environmental audit inspection was undertaken in the September quarter.

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

4. Consultation Councillor Davidson, as the Councillor Responsible for Urban Planning and Chair of the Urban Planning Committee has been consulted on the content of this report.

5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

6. Financial and Resources Implications Council spent $28,015 on VCAT advocates and expert witnesses over the September quarter. In addition Council spent $32,221 in legal expenses for VCAT hearings in the September quarter.

Council’s expenditure in City Development operations in the September quarter was $1,086,749 compared to $469,283 received in fees and charges.

Council collected $3,489,200 in Public Open Space contributions in the September quarter as a result of subdivision activity following multi-unit residential medium and high density development.

7. Implementation An Activity Report will be presented to the Urban Planning Committee Meeting next quarter.

Attachment/s 1 City Development Activity Report - September Quarter 2015 D15/327566 2 VCAT Report - September Quarter 2015 D15/369165


DED96/15 151 MELBOURNE AVENUE, GLENROY - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/526 (D15/331264)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the demolition of an existing building, outbuilding and a front fence in a Heritage Overlay. The application was advertised and ten objections were received. The main issues raised in objections are the heritage value of the dwelling and the impact of its demolition on the heritage significance of the site.

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

The key planning consideration is whether the proposed demolition will adversely affect the heritage significance of the site.

The proposal will remove all heritage fabric from the site and is contrary to the heritage objectives of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

It is recommended that a Notice of Refusal be issued for the proposal.

Recommendation The Urban Planning Committee resolve:

That a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2015/526 be issued for the demolition of an existing building, outbuilding and fence in a Heritage Overlay at 151 Melbourne Avenue, Glenroy subject to the following grounds of refusal:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, which requires that demolition not adversely impact the significance of a heritage place.

2. The proposal does not satisfy the policy objective of Clause 22.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme (Heritage Policy) to protect Moreland’s heritage places from inappropriate demolition. In particular the proposal does not satisfy the policies at Clause 22.06-3.2 (Demolition) that discourages total demolition of a contributory or significant heritage place.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the south side of Melbourne Avenue, approximately 100 metres east of Blenheim Street. The site has a frontage to Melbourne Avenue of 24.4 metres and a depth of 74.27 metres, with a total site area of 1879 square metres. The site has a gentle slope, falling two metres from the front (north) boundary to the rear (south) boundary.

The site is developed with a detached single storey dwelling, set approximately 25 metres from the street, with outbuildings in the rear yard. A low wire and timber fence is located along the front property boundary (see photo below).

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

The statement of significance for the site is as follows:

Of aesthetic significance for its unusual single-ridged form and bold detailing and for its reasonably intact exterior. The fence and entry gate is an early form of fencing and if not original, then near contemporary with the house. It is also of note as an unusual and early surviving example of a pre World War One bungalow residence in an outlying area of Melbourne which would not see substantial development until after World War Two. At the time of its construction this house was on a pocket of farmland and was surrounded by just a scattering of houses from the Victorian period.

The subject site viewed from Melbourne Avenue. Source: K MacLaren 17 August 2015.


Surrounds The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of detached single storey dwellings and multi-unit developments of between four and ten dwellings. Development in the area is of a later period than the subject dwelling and is set closer to the street. No nearby properties are within a Heritage Overlay. Single storey detached dwellings directly abut the subject site to the east and west, and opposite the site to the north. To the south is Murrell Street Kindergarten, which is located within the Glenroy Activity Centre. A location plan forms Attachment 1.

The proposal The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwelling, outbuildings and front fence. The demolition plan forms Attachment 2.

Planning Permit and Site History MPS/2011/622, allowing demolition of outbuildings, alterations and additions to the existing dwelling to convert the dwelling into two dwellings, and the construction of six additional two storey dwellings to the rear of the site, was issued on 6 March 2013.

This application included the retention of the existing dwelling and front fence, but allowed the demolition of the shedding at the rear of the dwelling. Statutory Controls – why is a planning permit required?

Control Permit requirement General Residential Zone

A permit is not required for the demolition or removal of a building or works.

Overlays Clause 43-01-1 (Heritage) - a permit is required to demolish or remove a building, including a front fence.

Clause 45.06 (Development Contributions Overlay) is also relevant to the proposal.

2. Internal/External Consultation Public Notification Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land; and • By placing a sign on the Melbourne Avenue frontage of the site.

(It is noted that, pursuant to Clause 43.01-3 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, demolition of an outbuilding and a fence are exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1) (a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.)

Council has received ten objections to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1. The key issues raised in objections are:

• The proposal will be inconsistent with the Heritage Overlay on the site. • The dwelling is of heritage value. • Previous owners were told the dwelling could not be demolished. • The property is in a neglected state. • The amenity impacts of possible future development of the site. • Safety concerns regarding possible access to Murrell Street Kindergarten through

the subject site.


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

Internal Branch/Business Unit Comments Heritage Advisor Objected to the proposal as the poor

condition of the building is not sufficient justification for total demolition and there is no proposal for a replacement development.

3. Policy Implications State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) The following State Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.02 Urban Growth • Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01 Urban Environment • Clause 15.03 Heritage • Clause 16.01 Residential development Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

Municipal Strategic Statement:

• Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile • Clause 21.02 Vision • Clause 21.03-3 Housing • Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design

Clause 22.06 (Heritage) is the most relevant Local Planning Policy.

The objectives of Council’s Heritage Policy include:

• To encourage the conservation and enhancement of all heritage places. • To protect Moreland’s heritage places from inappropriate demolition,

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

4. Issues In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, objections received and the merits of the application. Will the proposal adversely impact the heritage significance of the site? The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01-4 direct that the impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage place be considered when deciding on an application under the Heritage Overlay.

Council’s Heritage Policy states that it is policy to consider the Statement of Significance for a heritage place or precinct as contained in the Victorian Heritage Database when assessing any application in a heritage place.


The statement of significance for the subject site notes that the dwelling is of:

aesthetic significance for its unusual single-ridged form and bold detailing and for its reasonably intact exterior, and as an unusual and early surviving example of a pre-World War One bungalow residence in an outlying area of Melbourne which would not see substantial development until after World War Two.

The statement also notes the front fence and gate are of significance as an early form of fencing and if not original, then near contemporary with the house.

Total demolition of the dwelling and front fence will remove all the significant heritage fabric, as described in the statement of significance, from the site. The impact on the heritage significance of the site will obviously be adversely impacted by the proposal.

Does the proposal comply with Council’s Heritage Policy? In relation to demolition, relevant policy includes:

It is policy to:

• Encourage retention of contributory or significant heritage fabric required to maintain the original streetscape appearance.

• Discourage total demolition of a contributory or significant heritage place unless it can be demonstrated that:

− The building is structurally unsound and that the contributory or significant heritage fabric has deteriorated beyond reasonable repair and would require reconstruction of the whole; and

− Any proposed replacement building makes a positive contribution to the heritage significance of the heritage place.

• Not accept poor condition or low integrity of a heritage place as sufficient justification for total demolition.

The proposal does not meet any of the above tests for acceptable demolition. As the entire dwelling will be demolished, the streetscape appearance of the site will be completely removed. The dwelling is not considered to have deteriorated beyond reasonable repair (as discussed in detail below), and no replacement building has been proposed.

Does the condition of the fabric proposed for demolition justify its demolition? Submitted with the application was a letter from Perrett Simpson Stantin, Structural and Civil Consulting Engineers, who concluded that:

The existing timber framed residence is in a very poor condition. We do not believe that it is economically viable to repair and remediate the existing house.

It would be far more expensive to repair the existing structure than to construct a new residence of similar size and style.

The amount of fabric and structure that requires to be stripped back or demolished and then replaced with new will leave the house in large part a replica of what once existed.

The long term performance of the residence, even if repaired and re-shaped throughout, could not be guaranteed.

Council’s Building Surveyors reviewed the report and concurred with its findings that the repair of the dwelling was possible but would cost more than constructing a new residence. It is not considered that it has been established the dwelling is beyond ‘reasonable repair’, rather only that its repair is not the most economically viable option for the site. This is not the planning scheme test to allow demolition of significant heritage fabric.


The question of the amount of original fabric which would need to be replaced to repair the dwelling was raised with Council’s Heritage Advisor. She noted that the significance of the site derives from its architectural style and for what it reveals about the early history of Glenroy. She maintained that the replacement of elements such as weatherboards and roofing iron would not eliminate the site’s heritage significance. She noted the site was included in a Heritage Overlay in 2011, when the dwelling was in a similar condition to now, and was subject to ‘extensive investigation and physical inspection’ by various parties prior to its inclusion in the Overlay.

5. Response to Objector Concerns The following issues raised by objectors are addressed in Section 4 of this report:

• The proposal will be inconsistent with the Heritage Overlay on the site. • The dwelling is of heritage value.

Other issues raised by objectors are addressed below.

Previous owners were told the dwelling could not be demolished. Planning Permit MPS/2011/622 proposed demolition of outbuildings and alterations to the existing dwelling, but not its full demolition. As noted above, the demolition of the dwelling is not supported.

The property is in a neglected state. The owner of the property cannot be compelled via the planning permit process to maintain the site. The matter has been referred to Council’s Urban Safety Branch for investigation under the Moreland City Council General Local Law 2007 which includes possible penalties for dilapidated buildings. Councils Building Services Unit can also compel an owner to undertake works to a dwelling where there is a risk to the health and safety of persons (i.e. serious structural failure with potential for risk to persons). Amenity impacts of future development of the site. Given this application is for demolition only, the assessment cannot include possible amenity impacts from any future development of the site.

Safety concerns regarding possible access to Murrell Street Kindergarten through the subject site. A concern has been raised that the subject site could be used to gain access to Murrell Street Kindergarten, the adjoining site to the south, given the poor condition of fencing on the southern boundary. This matter is not one which can be addressed as part of a planning permit application. Maintenance of boundary fencing is a civil matter between two land owners which either party can seek to address outside of the planning process.

6. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report do not have a Conflict of Interest in this matter.

7. Financial and Resources Implications Nil.


8. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed demolition will adversely affect the heritage significance of the site, and that adequate justification for the proposed demolition has not been provided. The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives and policy statements of Council’s Heritage Policy or the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that application No. MPS/2015/526 should be refused on the grounds included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s 1 Location Plan - 151 Melbourne Avenue, Glenroy D15/333804 2 Demolition Plan - 151 Melbourne Avenue, Glenroy D15/333855


DED97/15 JEWELL RAILWAY RESERVE - 27 WILSON AVENUE, 325 BARKLY STREET, 331 BARKLY STREET AND 15A UNION STREET, BRUNSWICK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/503 (D15/337329)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing buildings, use and development of the land for two eight storey, mixed use buildings with a reduction of the car parking requirement, a waiver of the loading and unloading requirement and the removal of native vegetation. The application was advertised and 29 objections were received, including seven proforma objections. The main issues raised in objections are impacts upon car parking and traffic access, design matters relating to the station and shared path, the building height and design and impacts upon amenity.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 28 October 2015 and was attended by Councillor Ratnam and 11 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns and for the applicant to respond. No amendments were made to the plans following the meeting.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The key considerations are off site amenity impacts, overall height, front, side and rear setbacks, car parking and traffic movements.

There is high level strategic support which seeks to channel higher density development into Activity Centres to take advantage of the excellent access to public transport and other services. The site is located immediately adjacent to the train line and within proximity to Sydney Road’s tram line as well as retail, entertainment and convenience land uses.

The proposed buildings and works provide for increased density and an enhanced built environment that achieves the new mid-rise built form character within the Upfield Corridor between Sydney Road and the railway line. The proposed development is generally consistent with the height and setback guidance proposed within Amendment C134 and proposed Design and Development Overlay 18.

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


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2015/503 be issued for the demolition of the existing buildings, use and development of the land for two eight storey, mixed use buildings; with a reduction of the car parking requirement, a waiver of the loading and unloading requirement and the removal of native vegetation at 27 Wilson Avenue, 325 Barkly Street, 331 Barkly Street and 15A Union Street Brunswick, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Neometro, BKK Architects and MA Architects dated June 2015, but modified to show:


a) The ‘MFB booster’ cupboard on the northern facade of the North Building to Union Street minimised in height with the toilet in the food and drink premises relocated to ensure the area behind and above the MFB booster provides a glazed and active interface to Union Street.

b) An artistic treatment detail for the facade in front of the MFB booster (up to 1 metre) and gas meter in the North Building.

c) The floor plans showing the food and drink premises in both buildings occupied with 75% tables and chairs.

d) Further detail regarding the hoods and shade sails proposed for the each building. These features must be functional, weather durable and integrated into the overall design of the building.

e) One car parking space allocated to each food and drink premises and shop in the north and south buildings and four car parking spaces allocated to the office in the south building.

f) Dimensioned bicycle store rooms with the bicycle spaces a minimum of 1.2m long and each access aisle a minimum of 1.5m wide in accordance with the dimensions in Bicycle Victoria’s Bicycle Parking Handbook.

g) Provision of at least one accessible car parking space in each building dimensioned as an accessible car parking space.

h) The columns in the northern and southern building car parks are to be placed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Off-Street Parking (AS2890.1), which includes:

i. No portion of the column to be inside the car parking space which would block pedestrian access to that side of the car;

ii. (No portion of the column located closer than 750mm to the access aisle so as not to interfere with cars turning into the parking space; and

iii. No portion of the column located further from the access-way than 1.75 metres from the aisle so that the rear car doors can open.

i) Storage provision of at least 4m3 for every one-bedroom dwelling and 6m3 for every two bedroom dwelling and 8m3 for every three bedroom dwelling.

j) The operable internal bedroom doors of dwellings 112 on the 1st floor, 211 on the 2nd floor, 311 on the 3rd floor, 411 on the 4th floor, 511 on the 5th floor, 611 on the 6th floor and 711 on the 7th floor of the south building at least 25% of the bedroom area.

k) Any modifications to the plans arising from the Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.

l) Any modifications arising from the amended Sustainable Management Plans for each building (SMP) in accordance conditions 8 and 9 of this permit, including:

i. Rainwater tank(s) and rain garden(s) which correspond with the SMP and STORM report.

ii. Detailed plans of the rain garden function and design.

iii. Openable windows.

iv. A tap on the roof for irrigation of the roof top garden.

v. External shading details for the northern building designed to achieve cooling loads of a maximum 30MJ/m2 within all dwellings.

m) Any modifications to the plans arising from the Wind Effects Statement in accordance with Condition 12 of this permit.


n) A schedule of all proposed exterior decorations, materials, finishes and colours, including colour samples (3 copies in a form that can be endorsed and filed). A coloured elevation clearly identifying all materials proposed as listed in the materials and colour schedule must also be provided.

Secondary consent 2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or

modified unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping 3. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan must be submitted to and

approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

a) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. The adoption of porous/permeable paving, rain gardens (in the light courts) and other water sensitive urban design features is encouraged.

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

4. Tree 10 removal must be carried out with minimal damage to the surrounding trees in accordance with the recommendations of the Arborist report dated 19/06/2015 (Jewell Station, Retention of Tree 20 – Galbraith & Associates – Tree Consultants and Contractors).

5. The tree protection works and measures in relation to Tree 20 are to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Arborist report dated 19/06/2015 to ensure the tree is not damaged during construction (Jewell Station, Retention of Tree 20 – Galbraith & Associates – Tree Consultants and Contractors, 19/06/2015).

6. For the remaining trees at all times during the development of the land, the trees identified for retention on the endorsed plans of this permit must be protected by the use of temporary fencing that extends out to the drip line of the trees. The fences will serve to increase contractor awareness, whilst maintaining the safety and integrity of the existing vegetation and preventing the parking of vehicles or stockpiling of soil or materials under the canopy of the trees.

Waste management plan 7. The Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated June 2015

must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Waste Management Plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) 8. Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Sustainability Management Plan (South

Building) prepared by Urban Digestor dated 29 June 2015, Revision ‘TP Issue – V2’, must be amended by a suitably qualified environmental engineer or equivalent to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to include the following:

a) Demonstration that stormwater detention volume requirements are in addition to stormwater retention and that the tank is not directly topped up by mains water.

b) Commercial areas addressed, including glazing and fit out as applicable.

c) Clear commitments in the report body to credits selected in the Green Star self assessment, demonstrating compliance with the Green Star requirements.

d) Provide details of the centralised hot water system in the report body.


Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in condition 1, the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.

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

9. Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Sustainability Management Plan (North Building) prepared by Urban Digestor dated 29 June 2015, Revision ‘TP Issue – V2’, must be amended by a suitably qualified environmental engineer or equivalent to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to include the following:

a) Demonstration that stormwater detention volume requirements are in addition to stormwater retention and that the tank is not directly topped up by mains water.

b) Commercial areas addressed, including glazing and fit out as applicable.

c) Clear commitments in the report body to credits selected in the Green Star self assessment, demonstrating compliance with the Green Star requirements.

d) Provide details of the centralised hot water system in the report body.

e) Cooling loads.

f) External shading along facades to improve thermal comfort in dwellings.

g) Demonstration that external shading is effective through cooling loads of a maximum 30MJ/m2 within each dwelling.

Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in condition 8 and 9, the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.

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

10. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

11. Prior to the commencement of occupation or the issue of Statement of Compliance whichever comes first of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.

Wind Assessment 12. Prior to the commencement of the development (excluding any demolition, bulk

excavation, construction or carrying out of works), a wind effects statement must be submitted to and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Modifications must be made to the design of the development to reduce any adverse wind conditions to the pedestrian realm and shared path. Conditions must be suitable for walking at a minimum. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The recommendations of the report must be implemented at no cost to the Responsible Authority and must not include reliance on street trees.


Noise attenuation 13. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Acoustic Engineers

Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Acoustic Engineers Report may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

14. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Acoustic Report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the report have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

Accessibility 15. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Accessibility Report to

the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Accessibility Report may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

16. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Accessibility Report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Accessibility Report have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.

Public Works Plan 17. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Public Works Plan must be prepared, developed

and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. It must cover the area generally shown east of the railway line on the plan titled ‘Public Realm Layout’ Drawing No. L100 Rev J dated 23.06.2015 and detail all works, including hard paved areas, landscaping, tree planting, public furniture, infrastructure and lighting. When approved, such plan will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.

18. Prior to the occupation of the North or South Building, all public works associated with the proposal must be completed in accordance with the endorsed Public Works Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The cost of all works associated with the endorsed plan must be borne by the developer/owner of the land.

Easements 19. Prior to the commencement of development, the owner must obtain the consent of all

relevant servicing authorities for any buildings and works over any easements or underground services under the control of a public authority including sewers, drains, pipes, wires or cables and carriageway to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Stormwater 20. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use,

must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

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

General 22. Prior to the occupation of the development, any existing vehicle crossing not to be

used in this use or development must be removed and the kerb and channel and footpath reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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


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

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

26. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views. This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater down pipes.

27. A letterbox must be provided for each of the premises within the lobbies. The dimensions, placement and numbering must comply with the Australia Post – Letterbox Security and Specification as published on its website to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

28. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy amount for the development is $895.29 per 100 square metres of leasable floor space and the Development and Community Infrastructure Levy amount for the development is $602.51 per dwelling. In accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, these amounts will be indexed annually on 1 July.

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

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

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

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

Environmental Audit 29. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works, or any works

associated with a sensitive use (associated with the North Building), either:

a) A Certificate of Environmental Audit for the land must be issued in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and provided to the Responsible Authority; or

b) An Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a Statement in accordance with Section 53Z of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use and development that are the subject of this permit and that statement must be provided to the Responsible Authority.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, the buildings and works and the use(s) of the land that are the subject of this permit must comply with all directions and conditions contained within the Statement.


Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, prior to the commencement of the use, and prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, and prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit under the Building Act 1993, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the Statement have been satisfied.

Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, and any condition of that Statement requires any maintenance or monitoring of an ongoing nature, the Owner(s) must enter into an Agreement with Council pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required, the Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of the permitted use, and prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988. All expenses involved in the drafting, negotiating, lodging, registering and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority, must be met by the Owner(s).

30. Prior to any remediation works being undertaken in association with the Environmental Audit, a ‘remediation works’ plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must detail all excavation works as well as any proposed structures such as retaining walls required to facilitate the remediation works. Only those works detailed in the approved remediation works plan are permitted to be carried out prior to the issue of a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit.

Seating numbers 31. The maximum number of seats for patrons of the food and drink premises must not

exceed 60 patrons for the north building and 90 internal patrons and 40 external patrons for the south building.

Hours of deliveries 32. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, deliveries to and

from the site (including waste collection) must only take place between:

• 8:00am to 8:00pm on Monday to Saturday. • 9:00am to 8:00pm on Sunday and Public Holidays

Public Transport Victoria Conditions 33. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority and Public Transport Victoria must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and Public Transport Victoria. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the drawings submitted to the Responsible Authority for assessment but modified to show:

a) Locations of all utility (telecommunications, water, energy, gas and other) and rail signal cabling, pits, junctions and associated infrastructure.

b) Measures to ensure that objects cannot fall freely from balconies and rooftop areas onto the pedestrian movement area below or onto the rail area.

c) Details of the interface with Union Street frontage and any impacts to the level crossing.

d) A staging plan for the redevelopment site.


34. Before the development starts, including demolition and bulk excavation, detailed construction/engineering plans and computations must be submitted to Public Transport Victoria. These plans must be to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria. The plans must provide:

a) The means for the protection of the railway lines and corridor proximate to the hereby-approved building.

b) Lines-of-sight for train drivers to demonstrate what glare, if any, from the buildings will affect drivers’ vision.

c) Details of colours, materials and finishes which are selected and applied so as to not create any glare, or limit the visibility of rail signals or be so coloured as to cause rail signals to not be clearly and constantly obvious for train drivers. Such colours, materials and finishes must be maintained and never changed to be different without the written consent of Public Transport Victoria, VicTrack and all rail operators.

d) Details all excavation of the site, engineering methods and means to support the building and impacts on all public transport and associated infrastructure; and any other transport infrastructure proximate to the approved building.

e) A Demolition Management Plan for the proposed development outlining the staging of the demolition and impacts on the public transport corridor.

35. Before the development starts, including demolition and bulk excavation, a Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Public Transport Victoria and must be to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria, which outlines how traffic will be managed throughout the construction of the development and mitigate impacts to public transport to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria. All traffic management and mitigation costs will be at the full cost of the permit holder and must be implemented to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.

36. Prior to the commencement of works in public transport areas, the public transport operator(s) (train, tram and bus) must be contacted to obtain the public transport operator’s conditions and safety requirements for works on, over, under or adjacent to public transport land and/or easements and electrical infrastructure. Access to the public transport areas during construction must conform to all of the necessary public transport operator/s guidelines and instructions.

37. No lighting is to be installed or used which spills light onto railway tracks or which interferes with the visibility for train drivers of signals and the rail lines.

38. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Public Transport Victoria and Vic Track, prior to the commencement of the development, the permit applicant must:

a) Identify a suitably qualified engineer whose appointment and terms of reference are to be approved by Public Transport Victoria to advise on the structural integrity of the proposed development so as not to prejudice the railway line located adjacent to the Subject Land.

b) Obtain a report from the Engineer, subject to the approval of Public Transport Victoria, which demonstrates in writing that:

i. Confirming that all and any retaining walls and load-bearing pillars for the subject proposal on the boundary of the rail corridor;

ii. Can be installed wholly within the applicant’s land;

iii. Can be installed in such a way that development of the rail corridor (which may require excavation within the railway corridor, up to the boundary of the subject land), will not be prejudiced; and

iv. Can be constructed so that they will remain self-supporting when development of rail infrastructure within the rail corridor occurs.


39. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Public Transport Victoria all necessary construction control agreements and indemnity agreements must be completed and fully executed and in-force prior to demolition commencing.

40. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Public Transport Victoria prior to the commencement of demolition, a construction management plan must be prepared and endorsed by Public Transport Victoria.

41. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Public Transport Victoria prior to the commencement of demolition, an agreement must be entered into with the Department of Transport, VicTrack and the Rail Operator for construction, maintenance and disturbance of land abutting the railway reserve.

42. Works undertaken within public transport areas should consider and apply all relevant standards and work practices for work within or under public transport areas and conform to all relevant Australian standards and Victorian Rail Industry Operator Group (VRIOG) standards for any interface works and installation of underground utility services within those areas. This must be to the satisfaction of PTV and VicTrack.

43. No drainage, effluent, waste, soil or other materials must enter or be directed from the site to rail land, easements or licences areas in favour of Public Transport Victoria and/or VicTrack or stored or deposited on or in or over or across public transport areas.

44. Permanent soil anchors must not be installed on railway land. Temporary soil anchors may be acceptable at the discretion of Public Transport Victoria, in consultation with rail service operators. Such temporary anchors must be designed fully and approved by Public Transport Victoria in writing.

45. The permit holder must ensure that all public transport infrastructure (including overhead power and supporting infrastructure for both trains and trams) and public transport areas are not damaged during the construction period. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria and VicTrack at the full cost of the permit holder.

46. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to any public transport service operating proximate to the site kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to operations during construction and mitigation measures must be communicated to Public Transport Victoria and service operators a minimum of fourteen days (14) prior to occurrence.

47. During occupation and normal use of the development, no lighting is to be installed or used which spills light onto railway tracks or which interferes with the visibility for train drivers of signals and the rail lines. Normal use of the building includes residential and commercial occupation, security devices and advertising used for sales promotion.

Environmental Management Plan (South Building) 48. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works for the south building

pursuant to this permit, or any works associated with a sensitive use for the south building, an Environment Management Plan (EMP) for land contained within Lot 8 must be provided to the Responsible Authority. The EMP must be prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The EMP must:

• Outline the nature of contamination of the land at Lot 8 • Outline any management measures required to appropriately manage the

contamination, taking into account the proposed nature of development and use approved under this permit.

The buildings and works and the use(s) of the land that are the subject of this permit must comply with all directions and conditions contained within the EMP.


Prior to the occupation of any part of the development of the south building approved pursuant to this permit, the author of the EMP, or a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must verify in writing that the directions and conditions contained within the EMP have been satisfied.

Permit expiry 49. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not commenced within three (3) years from the date of issue of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within five (5) years from the date of issue of this permit.

c) The use is not commenced within five (5) years from the date of issue of this permit.

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

• Within six months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date. • Within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the

development if the development has lawfully commenced. NOTES: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this

Permit. Note 1: The owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council

parking permits to allow for on street parking. Note 2: Council charges supervision (2.50%) and plan checking (0.75%) fees on the cost

of constructing the drain along the easement or street as permitted by Sections 5 and 6 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 2000.

Note 3: The applicant is notified of the following matters relating to the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit required for the North Building at condition 29:

a) A copy of the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit, including the complete Environmental Audit Report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority within 7 days of issue, in accordance with Section 53ZB of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

b) Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land a copy of that Statement must be provided to any person who proposes to become an occupier of the land, pursuant to Section 53ZE of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

c) The land owner and all its successors in title or transferees must, upon release for private sale of any part of the land, include in the Vendor’s Statement pursuant to Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962, a copy of the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit including a copy of any cover letter.

d) Where a Statement of Environmental Audit issued for the land contains conditions that the Responsible Authority considers to be unreasonable in the circumstances, the Responsible Authority may seek cancellation or amendment of the planning permit in accordance with Section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

e) The owner must ensure that no mud, dirt or dust is transferred from the site onto adjoining public roads to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In the event that roads are affected, the owner must upon the direction of the Responsible Authority, take the necessary remedial action, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Note 4: The development is located adjacent to an operating railway corridor, where train services may operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, therefore the permit applicant may wish to construct windows and built form that incorporates noise attenuation materials (i.e. double glazing and appropriate wall attenuation materials) to reduce amenity impacts. The final detail design and interface with the Railway Land should have regard to the following:

a) The location for emergency vehicles to park close to the Railway Station.

b) Dedicated parking spaces for rail operator staff and Protective Service Officers, determined in agreement with those two bodies.

c) A passenger drop-off area, located in a safe and convenient place.

d) Location of dedicated disabled parking spaces or suitable arrangements to ensure equal access.

e) Any fencing treatment along the rail corridor.

Note 5: In the conditions, the term ‘public transport areas’ means any area and space and infrastructure necessary for the safe and efficient operation and provision of public transport services of any kind.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located at 27 Wilson Avenue, 325 Barkly Street, 331 Barkly Street and 15A Union Street, Brunswick on the eastern side of the Jewell Railway Reserve between Union Street (north) and Barkly Street (south). The subject site comprises of a northern allotment of 579m2 and a southern allotment of 1273m2.

The northern allotment is occupied by a single storey industrial building with an open rear yard that abuts the public realm of the station and the western end of Little Gold Street. The southern allotment is partly vacant but comprises two storey industrial buildings at the northern end that fronts Wilson Avenue. The southern end is currently used for car parking and fronts Barkly Street. The southern allotment can also be accessed via a right of way (ROW) from Black Street.

The subject site also includes the Jewell railway station buildings and pedestrian entry from Wilson Street, the Upfield Shared Path, commuter car parking areas, a portion of Wilson Street and the landscaped areas including mature trees.

There are no restrictive covenants indicated on the Certificate of Title. Surrounds The sites are located within the Brunswick Activity Centre. They abut the Jewell Railway Reserve 150 metres from Sydney Road.

The area east of the subject sites contain a mix of apartment buildings of up to five storeys, industrial warehouse buildings and single storey dwellings.

The Upfield shared path abuts the subject site to the west. To the west of the railway reserve is a local park owned by Vic Track and maintained by Council under a lease. A location plan forms Attachment 1.

The proposal The proposal is summarised as follows:

North Building The North Building comprises of 8-storeys, 44 dwellings, 26 car park spaces in 3 levels of basement accessed from Little Gold Street, 46 bicycle parking spaces and two ground floor retail spaces.

Features include:

• The top of the eighth floor is 25.4 metres, with the overall building height (including roof shade frame and lift overrun is 29.9 metres) and a street-wall height of 10.4 metres

• The building rakes back to a setback of 4.2 metres for the levels above the street-wall.

• Two ground floor shops face Union Street and the Upfield shared path. • Residential entrance accessed from the Upfield shared path. • Each dwelling has a balcony ranging in area from 7.7sqm to 31sqm. • The roof includes a communal garden with recreation areas and clothes drying

facilities.


South Building

• The South Building comprises of 8 storeys, 78 dwellings, 3 levels of basement, 74 car parking spaces, 176 bicycle parking spaces, two retail spaces and a food and drink premises.

Features include:

• The top of the eight floor is 25.5 metres with an overall building height of 30 metres (including lift overrun and shading structure) and a street wall height of 10.7 metres.

• A podium setback of 5 metres to Barkly Street. • Three levels of basement accessed via a laneway that runs off Black Street and

utilises a car lift. • Ground floor retail space facing Barkly Street and the Upfield shared path and a

food and drink premises fronting the Upfield shared path. • Residential entrances from Wilson and Barkly Streets. • Each dwelling has a balcony ranging from 8sqm to 65sqm.

Public Realm

• A series of works and upgrades are proposed to the public realm. These include the station forecourt, parking and seating area, shared path changes and community garden. Most of these works do not require planning approval and do not form part of this application. However they are described and shown in this application as they are integral to a successful resolution of the development of the land.

• The works require the removal of a river red gum tree (marked as Tree 10) located north of the intersection with Wilson and Little Gold Streets.

• The commuter parking area north of the station building will be removed. The development plans form Attachment 2.

The 3D perspective images and materials schedule Attachment 3.

Statutory Controls – why is a planning permit required?

Control Permit requirement Public Use Zone (PUZ4 – Transport)

Clause 36.01-1 a permit is required to use the land as dwellings, an office and food and drink premises. Clause 36.01-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for any use in Section 2 of Clause 36.01-1.

Heritage Overlay (HO180 – Precinct Upfield Railway Line Precinct. The heritage place is the Jewell, Brunswick, Moreland and Coburg Railway Stations, and other registered buildings, structures, gates and signals.)

Clause 43.01-2: • No permit is required under this overlay:

− To develop a heritage place which is included on the Victorian Heritage Register.

The Victorian Heritage Registration includes all of the land except the area between the north and south extents of the platforms and Union and Barkly Streets respectively. A planning permit is required from Council for the buildings and works in these north and south locations.

Car Parking A permit is required pursuant to Clause 52.06 to reduce the car parking requirement from 133 spaces to 100 car spaces.

Loading and Unloading A permit is required pursuant to Clause 52.07 to waive the loading bay requirements associated with the retail uses.


Control Permit requirement Native Vegetation A permit is required pursuant to Clause 52.17-2 to

remove a River Red Gum tree located north of the intersection of Wilson and Little Gold Streets.

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

• Clause 45.03 Environment Audit Overlay • Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities • Clause 52.35: Urban context report and design response for residential

development of four or more storeys • Clause 52.36: Integrated public transport planning • Clause 62.02 – Uses Buildings, Works, Subdivisions and Demolition Not

Requiring a Permit • Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines.

2. Internal/External Consultation Public notification Notification of the application has been undertaken in excess of the requirements of Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land. In total 610 notices were sent.

• By placing nine signs on the site facing each street frontage and the shared path.

Council has received 29 objections including seven proforma objections to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1. The key issues raised in objections are:

• Lack of car parking • Too much car parking • Increase in traffic • Use of the lanes to access the buildings • Lack of provision for bus connections • Pedestrian and cyclist conflict unresolved • Pedestrian safety compromised • Excessive building height • Overdevelopment • Inconsistent with heritage character • Loss of a tree • Increased demand upon services and infrastructure • Overshadowing and overlooking • Lack of surveillance • Noise • Bin collection issues • The retail and forecourt are unnecessary • Disturbance during construction

A Planning Information Night was held on 14 September 2015 and was attended by Cr Ratnam, Cr Davidson, Cr Hopper and several Council Planning Officers. The applicant, including several experts was available to answer questions and discuss the proposal with residents. Approximately 25 residents attended.


A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 28 October 2015 and attended by Cr. Ratnam, Council’s Planning Officers, the applicant and approximately 11 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

No changes to the plans were proposed by the applicant as a result of this meeting.

Internal/external referrals

External Agency Objection/No objection Public Transport Victoria No objection subject to conditions included in the

recommendation.

Internal Branch/Business Unit

Comments

City Strategy and Design Branch

Supportive of the proposal, subject to modifications to the built form (discussed in Section 4 of this report).

Open Space Design and Development Unit

Supportive of the proposal, subject to modifications to the built form (discussed in Section 4 of this report).

Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch

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

ESD Unit Supportive of the proposal subject to modifications. Heritage Advisor No objections were offered to the proposal however

the advisor noted that the proposal will impact upon the perception of the terrace dwellings fronting Barkly Street.


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.01- Activity Centres • Clause 11.02 Urban Growth • Clause 11.03 Open Space • Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01 Urban Environment • Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development • Clause 15.03 Heritage • Clause 16.01 Residential development • Clause 16.02 Housing Form


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


• Clause 21.03-1 Activity Centres • Clause 21.03-3 Housing • Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design • Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy)

Local Planning Policies:

• Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character • Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access • Clause 22.06 Heritage • Clause 22.07 Development of Four or More Storeys

The proposal has strong strategic policy support. Council, through its MSS, seeks to channel higher density housing in Activity Centres to take advantage of the excellent access to public transport and other services within these locations. The site is located immediate abutting Jewell Railway Station and within 100 metres of the Sydney Road tram line and commercial sites. It is therefore suitable to accommodate an increased residential density. More specifically, Council’s adopted Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 18) seeks a mid-rise development of 25 metres in this location. Furthermore, Jewell Station is specifically identified within Plan Melbourne as an ‘urban renewal opportunity’. Planning Scheme Amendments Planning Scheme Amendment C71 – Environmentally Efficient Design Amendment C71 seeks to introduce a new local policy for environmentally efficient design. This amendment is pending Ministerial approval.

Planning Scheme Amendment C134 – Brunswick Activity Centre Amendment C134 seeks to implement the recommendations of the Brunswick Structure Plan (2010) and the Addendum to the Brunswick Structure Plan (2012) as planning controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme. Amendment C134 includes the inclusion of Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 18) (DDO18) ‘Brunswick Major Activity Centre – Sydney Road/Upfield Corridor which will apply to the site. The draft DDO identifies a mandatory overall building height for the subject site of 25 metres. The Council adopted amendment is awaiting Ministerial approval.

Planning Scheme Amendment C142 – Moreland Apartment Design Code Amendment C142 seeks to introduce the Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC) as a local policy to the Moreland Planning Scheme. In September 2015, Council submitted the amendment documentation to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning for consideration. Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Moreland Planning Scheme) reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.


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

Built form The proposed Design and Development Overlay Schedule 18 (DDO18) applies to the Sydney Road and Upfield Corridor. DDO18 includes Design Objectives, the most relevant include:

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

• To establish a new built form character within the Upfield Corridor between the rear (west) of lots on Sydney Road and the Upfield Rail Line.

• To ensure new development around the Jewel, Brunswick and Anstey Railway Stations includes the provision of well designed public spaces that integrate with the Upfield Shared Path and improve visibility of and access to the railway station buildings.

Height and Setbacks The design response addresses the intent identified in the Design Outcomes by providing a new mid rise character of 8 storeys. It provides for an enhanced public realm around the Upfield Shared Path and the Jewell station environs.

Proposed heights, setbacks and comparisons to DDO requirements are contained below:

Built-form consideration

DDO requirement

Proposed north building

Proposed south building

Compliance

Overall height 25 metres 25.4 metres 25.5 metres Variation sought

Union Street street-wall height

5 to 8 metres 10.4 metres N/A Variation sought

Wilson Avenue street-wall height

15 to 18 metres

N/A 11.8 metres Variation sought

Barkly Street – street- wall height

5 to 8 metres N/A 7.9 metres Complies

Upper level setback from the street-wall

3 to 5 metres 4.2 metres 5 metres Complies

The overall heights are almost met with 0.4 metres and 0.5 metres encroachments. These minor variations will not have an appreciable impact upon how the buildings are perceived. The additional height of the North Building above the 25 metres is a result of ramping the proposed vehicle access to enable retention of a significant Yellow Gum (Tree 20).

With regard to roof plant and equipment the DDO seeks that it not exceed 3.6 metres and be located in a position to minimise additional overshadowing to neighbouring properties and public spaces. The central location of the roof equipment achieves this. The lift overrun for the north building has a maximum height of 4.16 metres which exceeds the preferred height for services by 0.75 metres. The overrun for the south building also exceeds the preferred maximum height for services by 1.9 metres. This is acceptable given the central location of the overruns. The remaining structures including the fire stair, balustrade and framing do not exceed 3.6 metres.


The proposal achieves compliance with the DDO by ensuring that:

• No more than 50% of the roof area is occupied by equipment other than solar panels.

• The equipment is located in a position on the rooves that minimises additional overshadowing on neighbouring properties and public spaces.

• The equipment and screening is integrated into the overall design of the buildings.

The DDO requires that any part of the building above the street wall should be:

• Set back at least 3 metres from the street boundary. The main bulk of the building should be setback at least 5 metres.

• Balconies and other architectural features may protrude into the setback by a maximum of 2 metres.

• From ground level not exceed the horizontal distance from the opposite street boundary.

The upper level setbacks (excluding the framing) range from 4.2 metres to 5 metres. Barkly and Union Streets are both 20 metres in width and Wilson Avenue is 18 metres. Therefore the height of the buildings exceed the horizontal distance from the opposite street boundaries by approximately 5 to 7 metres. The variation is considered acceptable given the site is a corner location adjacent to the station where a more prominent built form height is acceptable.

Street-wall heights are discretionary in the DDO as adopted by Council and the variations sought are minor. At the Union Street frontage a variation to the street-wall height of 2.4 metres is sought. The additional street-wall height allows for generous floor to ceiling heights at ground floor and is in keeping with the height of the eastern adjoining property providing a consistent street wall height edge to Union Street.

At the Wilson Avenue frontage a higher street-wall is sought by the DDO (15 metres). The proposed lower height of 11.8 metres is in keeping with the height of the existing and surrounding buildings including the historic station building. Given the narrow width of the street the street-wall height proposed is appropriate.

It is acknowledged the proposal will be highly visible in the interim as it is the first development of this scale within the area. The resolution of the eastern wall of the south building is particularly pertinent as it is unlikely that a permit would be issued for a tall building on the neighbouring sites as they are small allotments with a Heritage Overlay applicable. This has been addressed through the provision of a large light court providing depth, varying screen colours and patterned or textured concrete.

The proposal meets the DDO built form outcomes through the following measures:

Active street frontages:

• Both buildings provide for active frontages to the streets and to the Upfield shared path through ground floor commercial and lobby spaces with appropriate floor to ceiling heights. The ground floor is adequately setback from the path.

• The private open space of the dwellings has been provided in the form of balconies that provide for surveillance over the Upfield shared path and streets.

• Awnings are provided over Barkly and Union Streets. • Council’s City Strategy and Design Branch raised concern regarding the design

detail, specifically the hoods and shade sails. These elements are supported from an ESD perspective. A condition will require further detail to ensure they are functional, durable and aesthetically designed to complement the overall design of the building.


• The DDO states that services cabinets should be located at the rear of buildings wherever possible or the side of corner buildings away from the front façade where rear access is not available. Where they can only be located in the front façade, the DDO notes that the size of services cabinets should be minimised and integrated with the overall façade design.

The ground floor facade of the north building (to Union Street) is occupied with 6 metres of service infrastructure. The applicant advises that service authorities will not support the location of the services elsewhere. A condition is included in the recommendation that will require the area and size of the service cupboard be reduced in height to enable a more active frontage to Union Street.

Vehicle access

• There are no areas of blank wall adjoining the Upfield shared path, with the car parking interface of the south building facing the Upfield shared path provided with planter boxes.

• Car parking access from Barkly, Wilson and Union Streets is avoided by providing access off Little Gold and the ROW. This provides for active ground floor uses and a pedestrian friendly environment. Car access and traffic implications are explained in more detail further in this report.

Public realm

• The proposal facilitates public realm works which will improve and enhance the station environs and access to and from the station. This is consistent with the DDO which seeks that development adjacent to Jewell, Brunswick and Anstey Railway Stations should maintain or enhance the visibility of and access to railway station buildings. A condition is included in the recommendation that requires submission of a detailed public works plan.

• The DDO states that development should not overshadow the opposite footpath of identified key pedestrian streets between 10.00am and 2.00pm at the equinox. The DDO identifies Wilson Avenue as a key pedestrian route. The proposal does not cast shadow upon Wilson Avenue between 10am and 2pm. It also does not unreasonably shadow the parkland west of the station.

• The DDO requires the ground floor of development abutting the Upfield Shared Path should be set back a minimum of 1 metre. Most of the south building is setback 1 metre from the path with landscaping. The north building ground floor is setback between 1 and 3 metres with the building support columns projecting into this space. The area is clearly defined through the provision of the floors projecting above, the columns marking the divide between the two areas and the change in surface materials (as above).

Heritage character The majority of the site is covered by the Victorian Heritage Register. A permit has been issued by Heritage Victoria for the works associated with the proposal.

However the southern building interface to Barkly Street and the heritage dwellings to the east is a matter for consideration in this application. The adjacent Victorian era dwellings are contained within a Heritage Overlay. The proposal responds to this sensitive interface through the inclusion of a double storey (7.9 metre) street wall with a 5 metre setback to the upper levels. At this interface the building is also setback 8 metres for a width of 5 metres at first and second floor. Council’s Heritage Advisor noted that whilst any tall building would impact the single storey heritage dwellings the proposal including the setback adjoining the dwelling was an improved scheme.


Tree removal The works require the removal of 16 of the 24 trees. 14 of the trees to be removed are in poor condition and 2 are of medium value. 8 are to be retained, including the majority of the large River Red Gum trees. One River Red Gum tree (Tree 10) is proposed to be removed which requires a planning permit for its removal. The tree’s removal is required to facilitate the installation of the stair to Wilson Avenue from the train station to improve DDA access. Whilst loss of the tree is unfortunate its removal is acceptable on balance given the resulting improved access, retention of all the other major native trees and increase in planting that will be provided as part of the overall proposal. An aborist report has been provided with the application demonstrating that the remaining trees will be adequately protected during construction works.

What impact does the proposal have on cycling, bike paths and pedestrian safety, amenity and access in the surrounding area? The proposal provides an acceptable response to Council’s Local Planning Policy Clause 22.03 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) as it:

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

• Provides no vehicle crossings to Union and Barkly Streets (as key pedestrian routes) and removes the vehicle crossing from Barkly Street.

• Provides 222 bicycle spaces. • Integrates appropriately with the Upfield Shared Path bike path by enhancing and

repairing the path, and providing improved access and visibility for pedestrians and cyclists. Details of works to the path will be required as part of the recommended permit condition relating to public realm works.

Internal amenity The proposed Clause 22.07 Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC) seeks to improve the quality of higher density mixed use and residential development. Key aspects of internal amenity for future occupants are discussed below.

Natural Light and Ventilation All habitable rooms within the development have direct access to natural light and ventilation with the exception of 7 north facing rooms in the southern building.

These 7 rooms have a borrowed light bedroom arrangement and are located on each floor on the northern facade. These bedrooms have an internal sliding wall adjoining the north-facing living area.

The MADC discourages borrowed light. It recommends borrow light bedrooms be confined to one bedroom dwellings. The development complies with this as these bedrooms are all one-bedroom dwellings. The MADC recommends that the operable internal door should be more than 25% of the bedroom area. Subject to a condition contained in the recommendation to ensure the width of the door is in accordance with the above MADC guidelines, light to these north facing rooms will be acceptable.


Battle-axe-style bedrooms With regard to battle-axe rooms the MADC standard requires that the space providing access to daylight should have a maximum length of twice its width.

The south building contains two bedroom dwellings which contain a bedroom with a battle-axe arrangement. 61% (48 of 78) of the dwellings in the south building have this arrangement. The north building also contains battle-axe layouts to 32% (14 of 44) dwellings. The width of the handle in the battleaxe bedrooms is not specified on the plans. Whilst some dwellings meet the MADC standard some dwellings have greater ‘handle’ depths than width.

These bedrooms have additional light sources through the provision of glass sliding doors adjoining the living area. The provision of large west facing floor to ceiling windows and generous 3.1 metre floor to ceiling heights which are in excess of 2.7 metre requirement ensures that these rooms will receive adequate daylight.

Light Courts The design of the north building relies on two light courts for light to bedrooms along the eastern boundary. Two dwellings along the eastern side boundary of each floor have natural light provided via light courts. The southern light court is approximately 17sqm in size (5.7m x 3.0m). The northern light court is 16sqm (6.16m x 2.35m-3.0m). Whilst the MADC notes “the use of light wells for daylight should be minimised”, the proposal is consistent with the recommendation that light wells be provided only for bedrooms (not living areas or kitchens).

The dimensions of the southern light court providing light to Dwellings 101, 201, 301 and 401 on the first four floors of residential exceed the MADC recommended dimensions of 9 sqm. However, the light court further extends above to provide light for Dwellings 501, 601 and 701 (5th – 7th floors). MADC requires light courts to increase in size to 29 sqm with a minimum width of 4.5 m for the 5th to 7th floors. The southern light court does not increase in size at these higher levels. Whilst not complying with the MADC standard the light courts are acceptable because they only serve one bedroom per level and the affected bedrooms have full width windows. In varying this MADC standard consideration has also been given to the length of time the application has been under consideration, long before MADC was a seriously entertained proposal.

The northern light court also does not accord with the MADC at level 5 and above. This light court has an area of approximately 16sqm and a minimum width of 2.35m (in lieu of 29 sqm and minimum 3.0m width). This light court provides light to bedrooms and bathrooms of dwellings on 1st - 7th floors. Whilst an increase in size would be preferable the light courts are acceptable for the reasons outlined in the above paragraph.

Overlooking Given the orientation of the buildings the main outlook is to the shared path or the streets providing for excellent surveillance. The corridor of the south building faces east towards Barkly Street. To avoid a direct view to the open space of the Barkly Street dwellings a shelf has been provided to restrict the view downward.

Overshadowing The orientation of the sites means that the majority of shadow is cast upon the rooves of adjoining sites, the street and for a short period of time the station and shared path area. The shadow diagrams indicate that the rear yards of heritage dwellings adjoining the southern building along Barkly Street will be overshadowed from 1pm to 3pm. However, they will be unaffected in the mornings allowing for 4 uninterrupted hours of sunlight access. The impact is, on balance appropriate, given the amenity expectations in a Commercial 1 Zone and in a Major Activity Centre are not the same as those in the residential hinterland.


Car Parking The proposed development includes the provision of 100 car parking spaces. The table below shows the car parking reductions sought by the proposal against Clause 52.06 (Car Parking), the Brunswick Integrated Transport Strategy (BITS) and Clause 22.07 (Developments of Five or More Storeys)

Statutory Req’t

BITS Req’t

Clause 22.07

Proposal Statutory reduction sought

BITS reduction sought

22.07 reduction sought

North Building – Dwellings

44 29 44 24 20 5 22

North Building – Food and Drink Premises

2 5 2 1 1 4 1

North Building – Shop

1 0 1 1 1 -1 1

South Building – Dwellings

78 58 78 69 9 -11 9

South Building - Offices

4 2 4 4 0 -2 0

South Building – Food and Drink Premises

4 11 4 1 3 7 0

Visitor car parking

0 12 0 0 0 12

0

Total 133 117 133 100 34 14 33 Total car parking reduction sought Statutory reduction – 34 spaces

BITS reduction – 14 Clause 22.07 reduction - 33

The BITS proposes a reduced range of statutory car parking rates for sites within the Brunswick Major Activity Centre. BITS seeks to propose a rate that reflects the balance between the long term modal shift sort within the area and the short term requirements. BITS requires a provision of 117 on site car parking spaces which further reduces the proposed shortfall to 14 spaces.

Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.03-3 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) states that it is policy to:

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


The site is well serviced, highly accessible and the following ameliorating circumstances apply that support a reduction in car parking:

• Proximity of Jewell railway station • Walking distance to Sydney Road, trams, car share and bus stops • Proximity to bicycle routes and bicycle parking provision that significantly exceeds

(by 183 spaces) the rates specified in Clause 52.34.

Councils Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch support the car parking reduction proposed.

The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed by Council on the street. This is included as a note on the planning permit in the recommendation. Bicycle parking The proposed development includes a provision of 46 bicycle parking spaces in the north building and 176 in the south building (222 in total).

At least one bicycle parking rack is being provided for each dwelling and business in the northern building and at least two racks for each dwelling and business in the southern building.

This provision is 183 spaces in excess of the planning scheme requirement of 39 as identified at Clause 52.34 and 12 in excess of the MADC requirement of 210. The bicycle provision is a positive aspect of the proposal and supported.

Vehicle access and traffic Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch noted that residents of the northern building will generate about 13 vehicular movements during each peak hour via Little Gold Street. The southern building will generate about 35 vehicular movements in each peak hour via Black Street. The additional vehicles will not result in either of these two streets exceeding the maximum volumes permitted under the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.

The use of car lifts to access the basement car parks achieves efficiency of space (removes long ramps) at the expense of time (drivers waiting for the lift to be available and lower/raise it to the required level to access it). No objection is offered to using a lift because the waiting times will be reasonable, and will not cause queuing in the road as adequate waiting bays have been provided.

Cars can both enter and egress the road travelling in a forwards direction.

Access to both buildings via the existing ROW was supported by Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch. In relation to access to the southern building, it was noted the ROW is 85 metres long and vehicles will take 30 seconds to traverse its length. Usually in 3m wide laneways, a car can wait at one end whilst the other finishes egressing the lane. This laneway is wide 3.7 metres wide and able to accommodate the additional 35 movements per peak hour.

Loading and unloading Clause 52.07 of the Moreland Planning Scheme requires provision for loading. The application seeks a waiver of this requirement. Each business will have a car parking space on-site. For this reason, Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch advised that a dispensation can be granted from providing a formal loading bay.


Waste management A waste management plan has been submitted with the application. It identifies a private contractor is to collect waste from the site whilst parked in Little Gold Street for the north building and Barkly Street for the south building. Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have not raised concerns regarding the waste storage and collection arrangements.

Is the site potentially contaminated? The north building site is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay. The applicant has submitted an environmental site assessment report detailing the extent of site contamination and confirming that the site would be appropriate for the intended uses subject to the completion of an Environmental Audit. A site assessment report was also submitted for the South Building that confirmed that an Environmental Audit is not necessary for the south site and that there is no known overriding contamination risk that cannot be managed to ensure the site is appropriate for the intended land uses.

Conditions are therefore contained in the recommendation requiring an Environmental Audit to be undertaken for the north site and an Environmental Management Plan be undertaken for the south site before the developments commence. This will ensure that the sites are remediated to an appropriate standard to ensure the land is safe for future residents. Does the proposal incorporate adequate Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) features? The following are positive features of the proposal:

• 7.6 star average energy rating for the dwellings for the south building and 6.6 of the north building.

• Use of low VOC paints in the dwellings. • Bicycle parking for each dwelling and for visitors. • Good natural cross ventilation throughout dwellings and the open walkway. • A 10kW solar system on the roof top and water efficient appliances. • Inclusion of a roof top garden and communal resident recreational space.

The ESD deficiencies identified by Council’s ESD Engineer can be addressed via a revised Sustainability Management Plan and amendments to the plans. These include notating a rain garden for the south building, operable windows, details of a rainwater harvesting system and a revised Green Star assessment.

Is the proposal accessible to people with limited mobility? Objective 9 of Clause 23.03-3 (Housing) is to increase the supply of housing that is visitable and adaptable to meet the needs of different sectors of the community. The DDO also seeks to:

create accessible, adaptable and visitable housing within the activity centre to ensure housing caters for all residents’ needs.

An Accessibility Report has been prepared in association with proposed plans (dated June 2015). The development has been designed to provide appropriate accessibility to common areas and visitable to all dwellings. The development provides a total of 26 dwellings that are adaptable, this equates to 20% of the overall development.

Furthermore, the proposal includes works to the station and the provision of a ramp that will provide for improved accessibility to the station platform.

An accessible car parking space within each building has been agreed to by the permit applicant and forms a recommended permit condition.



• Lack of car parking • Increase in traffic • Use of the lane to access the south building & Little Gold Street to access the

north building • Pedestrian and cyclist conflict unresolved • Pedestrian safety compromised • Excessive building height • Inconsistent with heritage character • Loss of a tree • Overshadowing • Overlooking • Lack of surveillance

Matters not addressed above are discussed below: Noise associated with dwellings The consideration of this planning application is confined only to the construction of the dwellings. The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in an urban setting. Any future issues of noise disturbance, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.

Noise from car lifts and generators (during power outages) was also raised. The applicant has advised that the stacker machinery is fully enclosed within the building and appropriately baffled to ensure any noise does not exceed the EPA requirements. In case of a power outage the stackers, car lifts and door will be powered by a generator enabling the building to continue to function. The generator will also be required to comply with the EPA noise requirements.

Overdevelopment The proposal is generally in keeping with the proposed DDO that seeks midrise 4 to 10 storey development in this area. State Government Policy, particularly Plan Melbourne and Council’s Local Planning Policies support higher densities in areas that are within areas with good access to public transport and other services.

Given the sites location in an Activity Centre and its proximity to public transport the level of development proposed is appropriate and consistent with State and Local planning policy frameworks.

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


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

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

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

Too much car parking The proposal includes 100 on site car parking spaces. The proposal seeks a reduction of the car parking requirement of both BITS and Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. Whilst the location advantages of the site mean that a further car park reduction may be appropriate, the proposed car parking is considered acceptable.

Lack of bus connections An objector concern was raised regarding the lack of bus connections between the train services and the buses in the area. This matter falls beyond those confined within the planning scheme.



8. Conclusion The proposal provides a new mid rise character as envisaged by the proposed Design and Development Overlay. The proposed development is located within an area that is marked for change as identified in Plan Melbourne and the DDO.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2015/503 should be issued.

Attachment/s 1 Locality Plan D15/355450 2 Proposed Plans D15/366617 3 Perspective Images D15/355006


DED98/15 1A PLYMOUTH AVENUE, PASCOE VALE - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/197 (D15/334142)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the development of 11 double storey dwellings. The application was advertised and 16 objections were received, including 15 individual objections and 1 proforma objection. The main issues raised in objections relate to neighbourhood character, site services, increases to traffic, loss of on-street car parking and amenity impacts.

A meeting was held with the adjoining resident from 1 Plymouth Avenue on 17 September 2015 after which the applicant has provided plans for consideration which reduce the development to nine dwellings and relocates vehicle access to the southern side of the site. The assessment of the application is based upon these recently submitted plans.

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

The key planning considerations are whether the development appropriately addresses Neighbourhood Character. Subject to conditions which require the development to be amended consistent with the recently submitted plans, it is considered that the development will be consistent with the NRZ and achieve the outcomes sought through Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy. The development will provide ground floor secluded private open space and a setback to the street within which landscaping and trees can be provided. The development will also be well articulated to reduce visual bulk and will be highly compliant with Clause 55.

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


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2015/197 be issued for the development of nine double storey dwellings at 1A Plymouth Avenue, Pascoe Vale, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised on 12 May 2015 but modified to show:

a) The amendments show on plans TP.01-03 No. B, dated 12.10.2015 which include:

i. The reduction in the number of dwellings to 9.

ii. Relocation of the accessway to the southern side of the site.

iii. Provision of ground floor secluded private open spaces for dwellings 4-9.

b) The entry of dwelling 9 setback a further 0.5 metres from the accessway.

c) The balconies of dwelling 2 and 3 screened to a height of 1.7 metres above the FFL.


d) The first floor south facing bedroom, study and living room windows of all dwellings to be unopenable and obscurely glazed to 1.7 metres above FFL.

e) An annotation indicating boundary fencing adjacent 1 Plymouth Avenue to be acoustic timber fence with the following specifications:

i. 1.8 metres high

ii. vertical timber palings

iii. 125mm-150mm planks butted together vertically

iv. 75mm-100mm cover strapping over each vertical join

v. no gap between the fence and the ground.

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

g) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.

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

3. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

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

b) Identification of any existing tree(s) and vegetation proposed to be removed and retained. Vegetation retainment must include strategies for the retainment (i.e. barriers and signage during the construction process).

c) The provision of at least one tree within the front setback(s) to assist in the integration of the development within the existing streetscape, with the tree species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

d) The provision of at least one tree within the secluded private open space of Dwellings 4-9, with tree species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

e) Plantings along the southern fenceline to be deciduous if above fence height.

f) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Extensive hard surfaces are not supported. The adoption of porous/permeable paving, rain gardens and other water sensitive urban design features is encouraged.

4. Following completion of the development the areas designated as garden areas on the endorsed landscape plan must be maintained and used as garden areas.

5. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Levy amount for the development is $1463.00 per dwelling. In accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan, these amounts will be indexed annually on 1 July.


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

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

• Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision;

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

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

7. Any existing or proposed vehicle crossing to be used by this development must match the location and width of the accessway at the property boundary.

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

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

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

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

12. Unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views. This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater down pipes.

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

14. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of

this permit;

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

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

• within six months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date. • within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the

development if the development has lawfully commenced.


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

Note 1: The City of Moreland is committed to creating an environmentally sustainable city. A critical component in achieving this commitment is to encourage new development to meet appropriate environmental standards. Applicants are encouraged to include environmentally sustainable design principles within new developments via the online BESS tool.

The BESS tool is a sustainability assessment tool designed for planning assessments of all development types and sizes. Using the BESS tool involves entering data about the proposed design into the BESS assessment tool found at http://www.bess.net.au. BESS will produce a report for submission to Council and is free for applicants to use. This allows applicants to design more environmentally sustainable developments.

For more information or help on ESD or BESS please contact Council’s Sustainable Development Department on 9240 1188.

Note 2: Council charges supervision (2.50%) and plan checking (0.75%) fees on the cost of constructing the drain along the easement or street as permitted by Sections 5 and 6 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 2000.

Note 3: Should Council impose car parking restrictions in this street, the owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council parking permits to allow for on street parking.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the western side of Plymouth Avenue, 60.9 metres north of Warwick Road. The site is 73.9 metres deep, 21.3 metres wide with an area of 1574 square metres. The site slopes from the rear to the Plymouth Avenue frontage by 0.3 metres.

The site is currently developed with a single storey dwelling with an outbuilding located at the rear of the site. Vehicle access to the site is currently provided by a single width crossover located on the southern side of the Plymouth Avenue frontage.

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

Surrounds The surrounding residential lots are largely developed with medium density developments. Cumberland Road is located one street to the west with Cole Reserve on the western side of Cumberland Road. A combination of single and double storey dwellings, as well as multi-unit developments, are present within the broader context. A location plan forms Attachment 1.

The proposal The application as originally lodged proposed eleven dwellings in a reverse living arrangement with a single crossover and driveway along the northern side of the site. Following gazettal of the new residential zones and public notice of the application, Council officers negotiated changes to the proposal with the applicant so that the application better responded to the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The applicant submitted plans for officers to consider when determining whether the application could be conditioned to be a suitable outcome.

The plans submitted for consideration show the following changes:

• Reduction in the number of dwellings from eleven to nine, with three having a reverse living layout and six having a ‘traditional’ layout.

• There are four, three bedroom and five, two bedroom dwellings • Dwellings 1-3 have balconies as open space and dwellings 4-9 have ground level

secluded private open space on the northern side of the dwellings. • Car parking is provided for 13 cars in garages for the dwellings and an open air

visitor space at the rear of the site.

The original development plans as advertised form Attachment 2.

The plans submitted for consideration form Attachment 3.

Planning permit and site history Planning permit MPS/2013/25 for the construction of thirteen dwellings and a basement carpark was issued at the direction of VCAT on 12 June 2014. This permit remains valid.



Control Permit Requirement Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1

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

The application was lodged prior to 30 April 2015 so it benefits from the transitional provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone at Clause 32.09-3 which allows the development to exceed the 4 dwellings maximum.


• Clause 45.06: The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 1). A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the payment of the DCP levy prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the development.

• The provisions of Clause 55 (two or more dwellings on a lot) are of relevance to this application.

• The requirements of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) are of relevance to this application.

2. Internal/External Consultation Public notification Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land. • By placing a sign on the Plymouth Avenue frontage of the site.

Council has received 16 objections, including 1 proforma objection to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1.

The key issues raised in objections are:

• Neighbourhood character, visual bulk and design, including insufficient breaks in upper storey built form; does not satisfy paragraph 21 of VCAT decision in terms of scale and bulk

• Insufficient storage provided • New crossover will affect existing street tree • Vehicles from dwelling 11 would not be able to exit in forward direction; all vehicle

movements would be difficult • Side elevations are incorrect • Garage entrances not dimensioned • Garaging should not be strong visual element in street • Poor passive surveillance of the walkway • Reliance on permeable pads in the driveway to achieve permeability standard • Overdevelopment • Lack of dwelling diversity(all living areas are accessible by stairs only) • Does not address garbage collection • Parking and traffic, including existing issues in street and loss of on-street parking • Noise • Loss of trees and impacts on birds • Loss of privacy/overlooking • Too much development in the street


A meeting was held with the resident of 1 Plymouth Avenue on 17 October 2015 and attended by two Council Planning Officers and the applicant. The meeting provided an opportunity for the applicant to explain the changes they were proposing, for the objector to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

A set of plans showing changes which could be addressed via conditions of approval were then submitted to Council and the resident of 1 Plymouth Avenue. The resident advised that they had a subsequent meeting with the land owner and the owner agreed to the following:

• Relocate bin store away from open space of 1 Plymouth Street, screened from view and covered.

• Landscaping on south boundary to be deciduous if plant species chosen will grow above fenceline.

• Provide acoustic fence along south boundary adjacent 1 Plymouth Avenue.

These matters are either already shown on the revised plans or included as conditions in the recommendation.

Phone conversations with the owner of 5/3 Plymouth Avenue indicated that they had been supplied a copy of the recent plans though would still maintain their objection to the application. Other objectors who directly abut the site either did not provide a contact number or did not return phone calls.

These changes are discussed in further detail in part 4 of this report. The application has not been formally amended and so no further public notice of the application has been undertaken. Conditioning an approval based on the plans submitted for consideration is considered acceptable because the development provides improved consistency with the requirements of the Moreland Planning Scheme and reduce off-site amenity impacts through a reduce number of dwellings and built form. Internal/external referrals The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal branches/business units:

Internal branch/business unit

Comments

Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch

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


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.02 Urban Growth • Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01 Urban Environment • Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development • Clause 16.01 Residential development




• Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile • Clause 21.02 Vision • Clause 21.03-3 Housing • Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design


• Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character • Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access

The MSS envisages minimal housing growth in areas outside of Activity Centres within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), to ensure an ongoing supply of single dwellings and low density multi-dwelling developments. Whilst the NRZ aims to limit opportunities for increased residential development, subject to conditions of approval, the proposal is considered to appropriately respect the existing character and contribute to an open, landscaped character, as detailed in Section 4 of this report.

Planning Scheme Amendments Amendment C71 seeks to introduce a new local policy, ‘Environmentally Efficient Design’. The Amendment is pending Ministerial approval.

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

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

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? The original application for 11 dwellings does not provide an appropriate response to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which places a heavy emphasis on meeting Councils Neighbourhood Character Policy. As a result of the reversed living layout proposed, limited ground floor open spaces were provided. An attached form was also proposed with a break in the built form at ground and first floor only provided between dwelling 6 and 7. This limited the opportunity for significant landscaping on-site, created a built form that is not consistent with that of the surrounding context and could not be supported.

The revised proposal makes considerable changes that address the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Ground floor open spaces of 40.0 square metres are provided on the northern side of dwellings 4-9. This provides increased permeability on-site and space for significant landscaping, including trees within these spaces ensuring the development contributes to a lower density, open and landscaped character.


The first floors provide breaks in the built form between dwellings 3 and 4, 5 and 6 and 7 and 8. The separation between the first floors varies from 1.0 metre to 4.6 metres between dwelling 5 and 6. The separations are considered to offer sufficient building breaks. This limits building bulk while also achieving a similar built form to address the previous concerns raised in paragraph 21 of the previous VCAT proceeding P2376/2013, where only 2.3 metre breaks were provided between the upper floors.

Setbacks of the first floor from the northern boundary have also increased from 4.7 metres to 6.2 metres and the southern boundary from 4.0 metres to 6.6 metres. The reduced first floor envelopes provide acceptable articulation. Horizontal cladding is also proposed that would additionally assist in presenting a light-weight building form to neighbouring sites.

The changes made make significant improvements to the proposal providing greater consistency with the Neighbourhood Character requirements of the zone and Council’s local policy.

Has adequate car parking been provided? If the proposal is reduced to 9 dwellings, with five two bedroom dwellings and four 3 bedroom dwellings, a total of 14 spaces are required to be provided. The proposed development satisfies the Moreland Planning Scheme with respect to the provision of car parking. It is also noted that each dwelling provides bicycle parking although is not required by Clause 52.34 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed by Council on the street. This is included as a note in the recommendation. What impact does the proposal have on car congestion and traffic in the local area? In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in 45 additional vehicle movements per day on Plymouth Avenue. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems. What impact does the proposal have on cycling, bike paths and pedestrian safety, amenity and access in the surrounding area? If amended through conditions of approval, the proposal provides an acceptable response to Council’s Local Planning Policy Clause 22.03 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) as it:

• Limits the number of vehicle crossings to one per site frontage. • Limits the removal of on-street public parking spaces, removal of street trees, and

encroachment into landscaped front setbacks. • Provides nine bicycle spaces. Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55? A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. The proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

Landscaping The floor plans indicate that the front setback, secluded private open space areas and the accessway provide opportunities for landscaping that can contribute to the streetscape and soften views of the development from surrounding properties. Whilst concept landscaping has been noted on the floor plans submitted, a condition requiring the submission of a Landscape Plan demonstrating planting specification within the development forms part of this recommendation.


Overlooking The plans submitted for consideration do not provide any screening to south facing first floor habitable room windows. A condition is included in the recommendation to address this. The balconies of the first floors of dwellings 2 and 3 provide outlook to the common accessway of 3 Plymouth Avenue with habitable room windows beyond 9.0 metres in distance from the balconies. In response to an objection from the neighbour, the applicant has agreed to screen the balconies and this is included as a condition in the recommendation.

Does the proposal result in excessive loss of trees and habitat? The Landscaping Objective of Clause 55 requires consideration to be given to the retention of existing trees and protection of any predominant landscape features of the neighbourhood. However, the land is zoned for residential purposes and there are no specific vegetation protection overlays applicable to the site. Trees proposed to be removed are located within the front setback to Plymouth Street and at the rear of the site. The trees are not considered of such importance to warrant significant redesign to enable their retention. A condition contained in the recommendation requires a landscape plan to be submitted and endorsed as part of the planning permit. This will require the planting of appropriate replacement vegetation.


• Loss of privacy/overlooking • Loss of trees and impacts on birds.


New crossover will affect existing street tree The proposed crossover is to be located on the southern side of the site relocated a further 2.8 metres to the south of the existing accessway. This is an increased distance from the existing tree and is considered an appropriate outcome.

Insufficient storage provided The plans submitted for consideration indicate that storage space of 6 cubic metres can be provided either in secluded private open spaces or within garages which meets the storage requirements of Clause 55 Standard B30 (Storage objective).

Vehicles from dwelling 11 would not be able to exit in a forwards direction; all vehicle movements would be difficult The revised proposal removes dwelling 11 with Council’s Development Advisor having reviewed the revised proposal and indicated that vehicle access is achievable with a splay or further setback of dwelling 9 entrance from the accessway to provide an efficient turning movement.

Side elevations are incorrect A review of the originally advertised plans indicated that building breaks have been correctly shown and there were no major discrepancies between the floor and elevation plans submitted. A further review of the plans for consideration has indicated there are also no major discrepancies. Garage entrances not dimensioned The plans submitted for consideration indicate that garage doors are either 3.2 metres (single garage) or 5 metres (double garage) in width. These dimensions are acceptable.


Garaging should not be strong visual element in street Dwelling 1 fronts the street, with all garages located behind this dwelling. The revised plans replicate this positive aspect of the proposal resulting in car parking and access not being a dominant feature of the development. The garages will not be a prominent element in the streetscape as they face south and are not facing toward Plymouth Avenue.

Poor passive surveillance of the walkway In the original proposal all entries were provided on the southern side of the site accessed via pedestrian walkway with bedrooms also at ground floor also providing an outlook to the walkway.

In the plans submitted for consideration, dwellings 4-9 have a wide entry of 2.2 metres internally with dwellings 5 and 6 also providing a study that has an outlook to the accessway. Dwelling 2 and 3 have bedrooms at ground floor level that provide outlooks to the pedestrian accessway on the northern side of the site. It is considered that reasonable passive surveillance of common areas of the development will be provided.

Reliance on permeable pads in the driveway to achieve permeability standard In the revised proposal, dwellings 4-9 have now been provided ground floor secluded private open spaces and landscaping is provided along the accessway. Permeability of 24% is achieved in compliance with Clause 55. Overdevelopment The proposal as amended satisfies the requirements of Clause 55 in respect to site coverage, setbacks, permeability, car parking, and open space provision and therefore the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. Lack of dwelling diversity (all living areas are accessible by stairs only) To improve this aspect of the application the revised proposal shows dwellings 4-9 with living spaces on the ground floor which also connect to ground floor secluded private open space.

Does not address garbage collection The revised proposal provides communal space for six bins on the southern side of the site. This location is not within the front setback and has been confirmed by Council’s Development Advisor as sufficient in provision for the proposed development.

Parking and traffic, including existing issues in street and loss of on-street parking The development provides the required car parking on-site for occupants and visitors with car parking maintained also at the front of the site with only one-crossover proposed. Council’s Development Advisor has also confirmed that additional vehicle movements created by the development are well within allowable maximum vehicle volumes for this street.


Too much development in the street The introduction of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone will mean that applications lodged after 30 April 2015 can only have 4 dwellings. The assessment of this application does not allow for the consideration of whether there is already saturation of multi-unit developments in the street. Conditioning the development to a maximum of 9 dwellings is considered to be a more appropriate response to the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Both Plan Melbourne and Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement acknowledge that average household sizes are declining and that new housing must cater for this change. The housing that is provided in this development is responsive to this demographic trend.

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



8. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed development of 9 two storey dwellings achieves a high level of compliance with Clause 55 standards and objectives, it respects the existing character of the area and will contribute to a preferred landscaped character.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2015/197 should be issued for development of 9 two storey dwellings subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s 1 Objector Location Map - 1A Plymouth Avenue, Pascoe Vale D15/360695 2 Advertised stamped plans - 1A Plymouth Avenue, Pascoe Vale D15/346581 3 Review Plans - 1a Plymouth Avenue, Pascoe Vale D15/346583


DED99/15 223 MELVILLE ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/1987/1/A (D15/306986)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval to extend the operating hours and increase the number of medical practitioners of an existing medical centre by amending condition 5 and 6 of planning permit MPS/1987/1. The application was advertised and 28 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections are car parking, traffic, waste and the increase of operating hours.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 27 August 2015, where the applicant offered to reduce the number of practitioners from 8 to 6. The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The key planning considerations are:

• The appropriateness of the increased hours of operation. • The appropriateness of the car parking reduction sought associated with the increased

number of practitioners.

The proposal complies with Council’s Discretionary Uses policy, as the additional hours are modest and medical centres do not generate significant external impact such as noise. The parking reduction is considered to meet the State-wide provision, provided the practitioner numbers are reduced to 5, due to the availability of on street parking and public transport access.

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


That a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit No. MPS/1987/1A (changes highlighted) be issued for the purpose of using the existing building as a medical centre and constructing associated car parking at 223 Melville Road, Brunswick West, subject to the following highlighted changes to the permit conditions:

1. Without the further consent of the Responsible Authority in writing this permit shall lapse and have no force or effect unless the use or development hereby permitted is commenced within a period of twelve months from the date hereof. Any development authorised by the permit shall, after it is commenced is continued to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The use and development of the land as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

3. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes shown on the endorsed plan must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: a) Be completed prior to the commencement of 5 practitioners operating from

the site. b) Be maintained. c) Be properly formed to such levels that it can be used according to the

endorsed plan.


d) Be drained and surfaced. e) Have the boundaries of all vehicle parking spaces clearly marked on the

ground to accord with the endorsed plan. f) Not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

4. Provision shall be made on site for the parking of the following number of vehicles-5 No.

5. After the completion of the car parking a maximum of five practitioners may work/consult on the premise at any one time.

6. After the completion of the car parking, the use hereby permitted shall operate only between the hours of: a) Monday to Saturday: 8:00am – 8:00pm b) Sunday: Closed

7. Within 2 months from the date of the amendment, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (advertised 4 June 2015) but modified to show: a) A waste management plan in accordance with condition 8 of this permit. b) The existing parking arrangement with 5 car parking spaces or provides an

alternative minimum 5 car space car park which includes: i. Car space and driveway dimensions that accords with Clause 52.06-8

(Design standards for car parking); ii. Any screening or fencing to minimise the view of the car park; iii. Any lighting or signage; and iv. Any landscaping and water sensitive urban design treatments.

c) A minimum of 10 spaces for a bicycle of minimum dimensions of 1.7 metres in length, 1.2 metres in height and 0.7 metres in width at the handlebars.

8. Within 2 month from the date of the amendment, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must include, but not limited to the following: a) The size and location for the storage of general waste and recyclables on

the ground/basement floor and details of screening from view. b) The size and location for the storage of recyclables on each floor. c) Details of ventilation if garbage bins are in enclosed areas. d) The consideration of the ease of taking the fully laden bins to the collection

point(s). e) Private contractor options, if applicable, detailing the methods of collection

with regard to site and road network constraints and the potential requirement to manoeuvre garbage trucks, including a collection plan approved by the proposed collection agencies that meets Council’s Waste Management Plan.

f) Confirmation of the hours and frequency of pick-up for general and recyclable waste are limited to the permitted hours of the medical centre.


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

9. The car parking and bicycle spaces must be constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans within 4 months of the amendment date.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The site is located on the west side of Melville Road, Brunswick West on the corner of Melville Road and Bakers Parade. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 14.02 metres, a depth of 34.86 metres which yields a total site area of 488.73 square metres.

The site is developed with a double storey brick veneer building, which is currently used as a medical centre. To the rear up to five car parking spaces are provided on site in the form of a carport and a garage. The building is setback 7.50 metres from Melville Road and 1.22 metres from Bakers Parade. There is an existing vehicle crossover on Bakers Parade that provides access to the property. Immediately to the south of the site is single storey dwelling that also faces Melville Road and is setback 7.50 metres from the street. Located to the north of the subject site is double storey commercial building that has a zero lot line and fronts Melville Road and Bakers Parade on the opposite corner.

Opposite the subject site is the Council owned Campbell Turnbull Library.

There is a restrictive covenant indicated on the Certificate of Title which prevents quarrying from occurring on the land except for the purposes of laying a foundation of a building. This proposal would not breach this covenant. Surrounds The area is proximate to an established shopping strip with commercial activity predominantly located around the intersection of Melville Road and Moreland Road. This shopping strip contains a number of businesses such as a convenience store, a post office, a pharmacy and a newsagent. There are also a number of restaurants and take away restaurants within the area including a Red Rooster which is located 50 metres north of the site.

The surrounding residential area consists of single and two storey 1920-1940s era dwellings with a growing number of medium density developments. Small industrial and commercial buildings are also found along sections of Melville Road.

A location plan forms Attachment 1.

The proposal The proposal is to amend Conditions 5 and 6 of Planning Permit MPS/1987/1.

Condition 5 relates to the number of practitioners that can operate from the subject site. Under the existing permit, a maximum of two medical practitioners can operate from the subject site. This amendment is seeking to increase the maximum number of medical practitioners to eight.

Condition 6 relates to operating hours. The existing operating hours are as follows:

• Monday to Friday: 9:00am – 7:00pm • Saturdays: 9:00am – 12:00pm • Sunday: Closed

The applicant is seeking to amend the operating hours to:

• Monday to Saturday: 8:00am – 8:00pm • Sunday: Closed

The development plans form Attachment 2.


Planning Permit and site history Planning Permit MPS/1987/1 was issued on 2 February 1987 for the purpose of using an existing building as 2 practitioner Health Centre.

There was also a planning enforcement investigation, which has been recently been closed, in relation to number of practitioners operating from the site. No evidence of non-compliance with the planning permit was found.


Control Permit requirement General Residential Zone

‘Medical Centre’ is a Section 2 use in the zone, meaning that a permit is required for the use.

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06

A permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement

2. Internal/External Consultation Public notification Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land. • By placing a sign on the Melville Road and Bakers Parade frontage of the site.

Council has received 28 objections to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1.

The key issues raised in objections are:

• Car parking • Traffic • Waste • Increase in operating hours.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 27 August 2015 and attended by two Council Planning Officers, the applicant and approximately five objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond. At the end of the meeting, the applicant offered to reduce the number of practitioners sought to six. No formal amendment was submitted following this meeting but an understanding was reached that the applicant was willing to agree to six practitioners. There was no discussion of the operating hours at this meeting.

Internal/external referrals The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal business units

Internal branch/business unit

Comments

Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch – Development Advice Engineer

They objected to the proposal and indicated they would support a car parking reduction for no more than five medical practitioners on site. A waste management plan was also requested.



• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01 Urban Environment • Clause 17.01 Commercial Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:


• Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile • Clause 21.02 Vision • Clause 21.03-1 Activity Centres


• Clause 22.02 Discretionary Uses in Residential Zones • Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Moreland Planning Scheme) reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

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

Car parking and traffic The provision of on-site parking does not meet the suggested State-wide parking rates described by Clause 52.06 (car parking). In calculating the reduction, it is noted that the existing 2 practitioners have already been approved and therefore not included in calculating the statutory rate of 3 spaces per practitioner. The table below calculates the reduction, based on the original application, the applicants offer and the Development Advice Engineers recommendation.

Practitioner numbers

Parking rate Provided car parking

Reduction

2 (existing) 5 per practitioner 5 5 8 (original application request)

3 per practitioner 0 18 (3 spaces x 6 practitioners)

6 (applicant offer to further reduce)


5 (Development Advice Engineer recommendation)


Total: 5 (existing) 9


In determining which rate to consider the parking reduction against, it is noted that Clause 52.06 directs consideration of the short-stay and long-stay car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use. Council’s Development Advice Engineer is suggesting that practitioners are likely to require long-stay car parking which is better provided on site, a condition will be included to limit the practitioners to 5. To justify a 9 car space reduction Clause 52.06, directs consideration of a number of matters such as, policy support, availability of on street parking, practicability of providing car parking on the site, future growth and development of any nearby activity centres and access to alternative transport modes. Consideration of these matters is provided below:

• Clause 22.03-3 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) provides policy support to “reduced car parking rates in developments within and in close proximity to activity centres, with excellent access to a range of public transport options”. It is noted that the site is proximate to Melville/Moreland Roads, West Brunswick Local Activity Centre, which is where increased density housing encouraged.

• It is not physically possible to provide a further 9 spaces on site given the site constraints. Further the applicant advised they had researched ways to accommodate more car parking spaces on site but the maximum that could be achieved on site is 5.

• A traffic report provided by the applicant, noted that there are in excess of 50 on street car parking spaces available at all times within walking distance of the site. Council’s Development Advice Engineer also noted the low parking occupancy in the vicinity of the site.

• The proposal includes 10 bicycles spaces, which will facilitate an alternative transport mode.

• The site is proximate to tram service 55 which operates along Melville Road.

Council’s Development Advice Engineer has estimated that the use will generate approximately 198 additional vehicle movements per day based on 3 additional practitioners. Melville Road is an arterial road operated by VicRoads. As such the additional vehicle movements will not exceed the maximum volumes permitted in the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.

The current planning permit requires that 5 on site car parking spaces must be provided. Unfortunately due to the age of the permit, there are no endorsed plans which show functionally how 5 car parking spaces are to be provided. It is noted existing at the rear of the site, is a two space garage and three space carport which potentially provides the required 5 car spaces. A review of this rear parking area, notes vehicle movements may not be functional. To address this concern, a planning permit condition is recommended that shows for the existing parking arrangement works or to provide an alternative arrangement which is functional and accords with modern parking standards.


Increase in operating hours and expansion of Medical Centre All Victorian Planning Scheme allow for a limited range of non-residential uses to serve local community needs in the General Residential Zone. A Medical Centre is one such use that may be granted a planning permit. Clause 22.02 (Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas) provides guidance on the establishment or expansion of non-residential uses in a residential zone. Relevant policy guidance is detailed below:

• Facilitate discretionary uses that serve the needs of the local community. • Encourage location of discretionary uses on main roads to reduce

generation of extra traffic on the local street network. • Discourage 24 hour operations. • Encourage the retention of existing housing stock. • Encourage car parking spaces to be screened from view and provided in a

basement or at the rear or side of the site. • Locate discretionary uses where the use will have a minimal impact on the

residential amenity of the local area. • Ensure that residential amenity is protected from:

− Significant changes to traffic conditions in local streets including an increase in car parking demand;

− Noise, light, odours emitted from the site; and − Disturbance associated with the hours of operation or site facilities.

Further the specific guidance for a medical centre is for them to be located with a frontage to a Road zone and have on site car parking at the rear of the site. The existing car parking is screened from view due to the existing paling fences and as previously noted that increase traffic is within the streets capacity noting Melville Road is within a Road Zone. Recommended conditions include details on any lighting needed for the rear car park area.

The existing medical centre occupiers a former house, which minimises any character impact.

The expanding medical centre is also seeking to extend its operating hours by an additional 19 hours a week. This is comprised of an additional two hours a day during the week and an additional nine hours on a Saturday. The medical centre will not be opened on Sundays. When considering the amenity impact of these additional hours, it is relevant to note that a medical centre does not generate any adverse noise or odours. The most notable impact will be traffic and parking impacts, which have been considered above and considered reasonable subject to a reduction in the number of practitioners to 5.

Other permit conditions In addition to the request amendments to the planning permit conditions, it is also recommended that conditions 2 and 3 be updated to include the wording that aligns with the current Moreland Planning Scheme.



• Car parking and traffic • Operating hours

Other issues that have not been addressed in Section 4 will be discussed below: Waste It is considered that the increase in the number of medical practitioners will increase the amount of waste generated on site. Therefore, a condition has been placed in the recommendation that requires a waste management plan to be submitted to Council before the additional practitioners can commence operating from the subject site. This will ensure that waste will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.



8. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed amendment of conditions 5 and 6 of planning permit MPS/1987/1 to increase the operating hours and medical practitioners on site in line with the discussion in section 4 of this report is appropriate and acceptable. This assessment has struck a balance between the needs of the applicant and the amenity requirements of surrounding residential properties.

Therefore, on the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit No. MPS/1987/1/A should be issued for the purpose of using the existing building as a Health centre subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s 1 Objector Location Map - 223 Melville Road, Brunswick West D15/310757 2 Floor Plans Medical Centre - 223 Melville Road, Brunswick West D15/310770


DED100/15 501-503 BRUNSWICK ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/716 (D15/70044)


Executive Summary This application seeks approval for the construction of a triple storey building containing nine dwellings and alterations to the access to a road in a Road Zone - Category 1 at 501-503 Brunswick Road, in Brunswick West. The application was advertised and 22 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections are overdevelopment, bulk and scale, heritage impacts, lack of landscaping and off-site amenity impacts. A community consultation meeting was held on 1 July 2015 which resulted in a number of changes to the proposal to address residents’ concerns. The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The key areas of planning policy requiring consideration are:

• The impact on the neighbourhood character and the heritage streetscape. • Objectives and Standards of Clause 55. • The provision of car parking.

It is considered that, subject to conditions requiring changes to the front facade and terrace treatments, as well as compliance with overlooking and storage requirements, and vehicle access, the proposal adequately responds to the existing neighbourhood character and heritage streetscape, provides sufficient car parking and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to grant a planning permit be issued for the proposal.


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit MPS/2014/716 be issued for the construction of a triple storey building containing nine dwellings and alterations to the access to a road in a Road Zone - Category 1 at 501-503 Brunswick Road, Brunswick West, subject to the following conditions: Amended plans 1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (dated September 2015) but modified to show:

a) Any changes, including bin storage area(s), recommended in the waste management plan required by condition 13 of this planning permit.

b) Any changes recommended in the acoustic report required by condition 3 of this planning permit.

c) A landscape plan in accordance with condition 4 of this planning permit.

d) An additional 300mm of lattice or similar material attached to the existing fence along the western boundary opposite the proposed ground floor terrace of Dwelling 1.

e) The crossover matching the location and width of the proposed driveway.


f) The vehicle crossover with 1 metre straight splays on both sides commencing where the footpath meets the nature strip and finishing at the kerb in accordance with Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossing design.

g) The dimensions of the visitor car parking space increased to a minimum of 3.5 metres wide by 6 metres long.

h) The external appearance of the kitchen in Dwelling 9 matching the appearance of the rest of the dwelling.

i) Architectural variation between the facade treatment of Dwellings 1 and 9 through minimising the use of obviously matching features, such as projecting gables.

j) The terraced treatment to the front setbacks of Dwellings 1 and 9 varied to reinforce the subtle variations of adjacent front setbacks.

k) A minimum of 6 cubic metres of storage space for each three bedroom dwelling.

l) A minimum of 4 cubic metres of storage space for each two bedroom dwelling.

m) A bicycle parking rack/space provided to each dwelling in a manner that accords with the specifications in Bicycle Victoria’s Bicycle Parking Handbook.

n) The location of any air-conditioning units and other plant equipment, including any screening.

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

p) 1.7 metre high screens or similar on each balcony.

q) A screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:50 which details the screens associated with first floor windows. This diagram must include:

i. All dimensions, including the width of slats and the gap between slats.

ii. All side screens.

iii. How compliance is achieved with the standard of Clause 55.04-6 (overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

r) The slopes of the accessway complying with Clause 52.06-8 of the Moreland Planning Scheme with:

i. Slopes no greater than 1 in 4.

ii. Slopes within 5 metres of the street boundary to be no greater than 1 in 10.

iii. Changes of grade of more than 1 in 8 for a summit grade change or more than 1 in 6.7 for a sag grade change, to be provided with a transition of at least 2 metres to prevent vehicles scraping or bottoming.

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

Acoustic Report 3. Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this planning permit, a

report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority outlining specific noise attenuation measures to ensure the internal amenity of the dwellings are not adversely affected by external noise sources. Construction and maintenance of the buildings must be in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Landscaping 4. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

a) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones 2014.

b) A minimum of two (2) canopy trees within the front setback of each dwelling facing the street and a minimum of two (2) canopy trees within each rear setback of Dwelling 4 and 5, to assist in the integration of the development within the existing streetscape, with the trees species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

c) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Extensive hard surfaces are not supported. The adoption of porous/permeable paving, rain gardens and other water sensitive urban design features is encouraged.

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

Erosion Management 6. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and/or works, including the removal,

destruction or lopping of any vegetation, and/or the certification of any plan of subdivision:

a) The impact of the final design of the buildings and/or works, removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation and/or subdivision on slope stability must be assessed and certified by a chartered geotechnical practitioner with experience in slope stability.

b) Certification by way of a completed “Geotechnical Declaration and Certification” for generally in accordance with the Geotechnical Declaration and Certification Form, Moreland City Council, November 2012, must be lodged with the responsible authority.

c) Any changes to the final design/plan which are recommended by the chartered geotechnical practitioner must be shown on amended plans submitted to, and approved by, the responsible authority.

7. The buildings and/or works, including removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation, and/or subdivision must be undertaken in accordance with any requirements of a chartered geotechnical practitioner.

8. If the certification by the chartered geotechnical practitioner includes any recommendations or requirement for ongoing maintenance of the buildings and/or works, prior to the commencement of building and/or works the owner must enter into an agreement with Council pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which is to be registered on the title to the land. The agreement will set out a regime for the recommended or required maintenance and the obligation of the owner to comply with such recommendations and/or requirements. The owner is to pay all reasonable costs of Council in the preparation and execution of the agreement.


Car Parking and Access 9. Prior to the occupation of the development, the vehicle crossing must be constructed

as shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

10. Prior to the occupation of the development, any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of the modified vehicle crossing must be relocated to a point in front of the site or modified at the expense of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the relevant service authority.

11. Prior to the occupation of the development, the garage roller door(s) must be automatic and remote controlled.

12. Prior to the occupation of the development, an automatic light must be installed and maintained in the driveway and car parking area so that the light operates automatically when a vehicle enters or leaves the land between dusk and dawn and no direct light is emitted onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Waste Management 13. A waste management plan must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of

the Responsible Authority. The plan should include, but not limited to the following:

a) Calculations showing that all occupiers will be sufficiently catered for with the proposed number of garbage and recycling bins.

b) The size and location for the storage of general waste and recyclables on the ground/basement floor and details of screening from view.

c) A plan showing that the storage area is sufficient to cater for the number of bins, which must include the option of the Body Corporate opting for Council collection.

d) Details of ventilation if garbage bins are in enclosed areas.

e) The consideration of the ease of taking the fully laden bins to the collection point(s).

f) Private contractor options, if applicable, detailing the methods of collection with regard to site and road network constraints and the potential requirement to manoeuvre garbage trucks, including a collection plan approved by the proposed collection agencies that meets Council’s waste management plan.

g) Confirmation of the hours and frequency of pick-up for general and recyclable waste, with regard to potential noise impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood.

14. The waste management plan approved under this planning permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

General 15. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use,

must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

16. The stormwater run-off from the accessway must not flow out of the property over the public footpath to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, any plumbing pipe, ducting and plant equipment must be concealed from external views. This does not include external guttering or associated rainwater down pipes.


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

19. Prior to the occupation of the development, a letterbox must be provided for each of the premises at the street frontage. The dimensions, placement and numbering must comply with the Australia Post – Letterbox Security and Specification as published on its website to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

VicRoads Conditions 22. Any security boom, barrier, gate or similar device controlling vehicular access to the

premises must be located a minimum of 6 metres inside the property to allow vehicles to store clear of the Brunswick Road pavement and footpath.

23. A visual splay must be provided, it must be 50% clear of visual obstructions extending at least 2 metres along the Brunswick Road frontage, from the edge of an exit lane, and extending 2.5 metres along the length of the driveway from the site frontage, to provide clear view of pedestrians. The area clear of visual obstructions may include adjacent landscape areas, provided the landscaping in those areas is less than 900mm in height.

24. The driveway and accessway is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to the Roads Corporation prior to the occupation of the works hereby approved.

25. Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved, the access lanes and driveways, and associated works must be provided and available for use and be:

a) Formed to such levels and drained so that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

Permit Expiry 26. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

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

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

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

• Within six months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date. • Within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the

development if the development has lawfully commenced.


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

Note 1: Further approvals are required from Council’s City Infrastructure Department who can be contacted on 9240 1143 for any works beyond the boundaries of the property.

Note 2: The permit holder is advised to contact Council's Property Unit on 9240 2208 for allocation of street numbers associated with the development.

Note 3: Should Council impose car parking restrictions in this street, the owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council parking permits to allow for on street parking.

Note 4: The City of Moreland is committed to creating an environmentally sustainable city. A critical component in achieving this commitment is to encourage new development to meet appropriate environmental standards. Applicants are encouraged to include environmentally sustainable design principles within new developments via the online BESS tool.

The BESS tool is a sustainability assessment tool designed for planning assessments of all development types and sizes. Using the BESS tool involves entering data about the proposed design into the BESS assessment tool found at http://www.bess.net.au. BESS will produce a report for submission to Council and is free for applicants to use. This allows applicants to design more environmentally sustainable developments.

For more information or help on ESD or BESS please contact Council’s Sustainable Development Department on 9240 1188.

Note 5: This permit does not authorise the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree. Further written consent must be obtained from Council’s Open Space Unit. The Open Space Unit can be contacted on 8311 4300.

Note 6: Council will issue four 240 litre mobile garbage bins and four 240 litre mobile recycling bins for the eleven dwellings to share. Therefore, an area needs to be provided on common land for four shared 240 litre garbage bins and four shared 240 litre recycling bins, screened from view from the street. The Body Corporate may choose to purchase a greenwaste bin, for which Council provides a service.

http://www.bess.net.au/�


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is rectangular in shape and located on the northern side of Brunswick Road, in Brunswick West. The site has a frontage to Brunswick Road of 28 metres, a depth of 40.2 metres and an overall site area of 1,128 square metres. The site falls 7.5 metres from the rear boundary to the frontage.

The subject site is currently vacant with a considerable amount of excavation work undertaken. 501 Brunswick Road was previously occupied by a single storey rendered house. The dwelling had a 3.7 metre setback from Brunswick Road, with a driveway located along the western side of the dwelling and a 1 metre high bluestone fence/retaining wall located across the frontage.

503 Brunswick Road was previously occupied by a single storey brick veneer dwelling setback 16 metres from the frontage, with a brick garage located in the south eastern corner of the site, at the Brunswick Road property boundary, and a 1.2 metre high brick fence/retaining wall located across the frontage.

Vehicle access to both 501 and 503 Brunswick Road was via a shared double width crossover located centrally on the Brunswick Road frontage. The subject site is located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1 and is affected by the Heritage Overlay (Schedule 33) and the Erosion Management Overlay.

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

Surrounds The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of residential development. To the immediate north of the subject sites are parts of the southern side boundaries of two properties, with one facing Cohuna Street to the east and one facing Manica Street to the west. 1 Cohuna Street contains two double storey flat buildings. A common driveway and vehicle access point for these dwellings is along the southern boundary of that site. 2 Manica Street contains three dwellings on the site. The front dwelling is double storey and the rear dwellings are both single storey. A common driveway provides vehicle access to these dwellings along the northern boundary of that site.

Directly to the east of the subject site at 499 Brunswick Road is a double storey rendered dwelling setback 4.4 metres from Brunswick Road and a double storey rendered dwelling facing Cohuna Street to the rear. Vehicle access to both dwellings is from Cohuna Street. To the west of the subject site, at 505 Brunswick Road is a single storey weatherboard dwelling setback 13 metres from the frontage. A garage is located in the south eastern corner of the site on the Brunswick Road frontage.

To the south of the subject site, on the southern side of Brunswick Road, are double storey brick dwellings, setback an average of about 4 metres from the frontage. These dwellings sit lower than the dwellings on the northern side of the street due to the slope of the land.

The subject site is not located within an activity centre. The Tullamarine Freeway (City Link) is located approximately 250 metres to the west. The tram line running along Grantham Street is located approximately 800 metres to the east. A location plan forms Attachment 1.


The proposal The proposal includes the construction of a triple storey building containing nine dwellings and alterations to the access to a road in a Road Zone - Category 1, including:

• A basement level containing garages, storage and laundries for each dwelling and one visitor car parking space, with vehicle access provided from the existing centrally located crossover onto Brunswick Road. A total of 11 car parking spaces are provided in the basement.

• One three-bedroom dwelling and eight two-bedroom dwellings. • A minimum front setback of 10 metres increasing to 11.1 metres. • A maximum building height of approximately 7.9 metres. • Materials including horizontal cladding/weatherboard, render finish and terracotta

roof tiles.

The applicant submitted revised plans on 16 October 2015 after the public notification process to address concerns with the appearance of the proposed development, including a rationalisation of materials and finishes, reducing the number of dwellings from eleven to nine, and providing one on-site visitor car parking space. While these plans were not formally substituted, they are the plans considered as part of this assessment.

The development plans form Attachment 2.

Planning Permit and site history Planning permit application MPS/2009/58 sought approval for the demolition of the existing dwellings on site and buildings and works to construct nine dwellings within a four level apartment building and alterations to a Road Zone - Category 1. This planning permit was approved on 20 October 2009. The development has commenced as the existing dwellings on the site have been demolished. A request for an extension of time was lodged on 20 April 2015 and subsequently approved on 29 April 2015 allowing the development to be completed by the 20 October 2017. The approved development plans form Attachment 3.


Control Permit requirement Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, a planning permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot. It is noted that pursuant to Clause 32.09-1, no planning permit is required to use the land for a dwelling. Transitional provisions apply which remove the maximum four dwelling restriction and 8 metre height limit as the application was lodged prior to the gazettal of the Neighbourhood Residential 1 Zone.

Heritage Overlay (Schedule 33)

Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Erosion Management Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 44.01-1, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1

A planning permit is required to create/alter access to a Road in a Road Zone Category 1.


• Clause 52.06: Car Parking • Clause 55: Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings


2. Internal/External Consultation Public Notification Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land. • By placing two signs on the frontage of the site.

Council has received 22 objections to date. The key issues raised in the objections are:

• Overdevelopment • Bulk and scale • Front setback • Not in keeping with the heritage streetscape • Internal amenity • Permeability • Lack of landscaping • Minimal private open space areas • Overlooking • Overshadowing • Increase in noise • Loss of views • Vehicle access to the site • Traffic congestion • Car parking • Collection of rubbish • Accessibility • Impact on adjoining properties • Current state of the site is dangerous • Precedent • Loss of property values.

A community consultation meeting was held on 1 July 2015 and attended by Council planning officers, the applicant and approximately four objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

The discussion between residents and the applicant continued after the consultation meeting with the following changes occurring as a result of the suggestions from residents:

• Additional lattice a minimum of 300mm above the existing fence height opposite the terrace of Dwelling 1 provided to ensure no unreasonable overlooking occurs into the front yard and windows of the adjoining dwelling.

• A landscape plan that requires a minimum of two canopy trees within the front setback of each dwelling facing Brunswick Road.

• Measures to minimize overlooking from the first floor windows and balconies on the east, west and north elevations to be incorporated into the design.

Residents were made aware of the changes. While the changes addressed some of the issues raised by residents, there remains some concern with the proposed development.


Internal/external referrals The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal departments of Council:

External Agency Objection/No objection

VicRoads No objection subject to conditions included in the recommendation in respect to the setback of the roller door from the street and visual splays.

Internal Department Comments Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications to the plans included in the conditions of recommendation.

Heritage Advisor No objections were offered subject to conditions referred to in Section 4 of this report and contained within the recommendation.


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.03: Urban Growth • Clause 11.04: Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 15.03: Heritage • Clause 16.01: Residential development • Clause 16.02: Housing Form • Clause 18: Transport



• Clause 21.02-1: Council Vision • Clause 21.02-2: MSS Vision – Sustainable Neighbourhoods • Clause 21.02-3: MSS Strategic Directions • Clause 21.03-3: Housing • Clause 21.03-4: Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design • Clause 21.03-5: Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy)


• Clause 22.01: Neighbourhood Character • Clause 22.03: Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access • Clause 22.06: Heritage Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Moreland Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.


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

Does planning strategy support this development in this location? While not located within an activity centre, the subject land is located in an established urban area with good access to a range of infrastructure and services including the tram line along Grantham Street and the Grantham/Union Street, Brunswick West, local activity centre. Medium density residential development, as proposed, is consistent with the general thrust of the SPPF, LPPF and Council’s MSS that encourage urban consolidation in such locations.

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? The proposal is consistent with Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The design response respects the prevailing built form scale, siting and appearance of the surrounding context, particularly with regard to front and side setbacks of surrounding buildings. The revised plans have been clearly detailed to appear as two separate buildings with a break in the built form provided between them. Combined with the side setbacks and the transitioned nature of the front setback between the two adjoining dwellings, these result in a development that sits comfortably within the streetscape.

Built form in the traditional rear yard presents as single storey as a result of the significant slope of the land. Specifically, the ground floor level of Dwellings 4 and 5 located towards the rear of the site are both substantially below the natural ground level, as seen on the east and west elevation plans. Additionally, the revised plans provide a setback to the rear boundary of 5 metres and in excess of 140 square metres of private open space to the rear of the site, allowing opportunities for canopy tree planting.

Furthermore, the open rear yard character in the surrounding context has also largely been eroded. This is evidenced by the two double storey dwellings to the immediate east, the two flat buildings to the rear at 1 Cohuna Street and the three dwellings at 2 Manica Street.

It is also noted that planning permit MPS/2009/58 remains valid and the land could be developed in accordance with that permit. The built form of the approved development is similar in scale to that proposed under this planning permit, including front, side and rear setbacks. However, the overall height of the proposed development is 2 metres less than that previously approved.

Does the proposal adequately address heritage issues? The site is located within the Heritage Overlay (Schedule 33) which relates to the Brunswick Road West precinct, in Brunswick West. The Brunswick Road West precinct is of local architectural significance as a residential precinct containing a group of largely intact substantial dwellings, which display a range of styles popular in the Inter-War and immediate Post-War period.

Their elevated sites are distinctive and their terraced gardens provide a clear view of these dwellings from the main road. The dwellings are generally single-storey, with some garages below.


Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and supported the revised plans subject to minor alternations to the facade to ensure the development presents as two separate buildings and avoids the use of obviously matching features, such as projecting gables. While not supportive of the initial scheme, which proposed a modern design response, the revised plans have largely addressed the concerns raised by Council’s Heritage Advisor, subject to conditions contained in the recommendation relating to more variation between the east and west sides of the development to maintain the prevailing street pattern of individual dwellings on separate allotments.

Has adequate car and bicycle parking been provided? The proposed development satisfies the Moreland Planning Scheme in respect to the provision of car parking. The development provides eleven on-site spaces. The development provides for the requisite on-site car parking relative to the number of bedrooms in the proposed dwellings in accordance with Clause 52.06. The revised plans also provide the required visitor car parking space within the basement car parking area.

Vehicles, whether related to this or other developments in the street, can only park on the street in accordance with any parking regulations. The number of vehicles that can park on the street and at what time will be dictated by the parking restrictions and the availability of on street car spaces.

Additionally, the dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed on the street. This will be noted on any planning permit that issues.

Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have also recommended that each dwelling be provided with a bicycle parking rack on the end wall of each garage to encourage alternative forms of transport. A condition contained within the recommendation requires that these bicycle spaces be provided. Will the proposal create an excessive traffic impact on the road network? Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in 57 additional vehicle movements per day on Brunswick Road. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems.

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

Building height Standard B7 aims to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Specifically, the maximum building height should not exceed 9 metres. The proposed development has a maximum building height of approximately 7.8 metres, meeting the standard.

Site coverage Standard B8 aims to ensure that the site coverage respects the existing neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. The site area covered by buildings should not exceed 60 per cent. The proposed development meets this requirement, proposing a site coverage of 56 per cent. Site permeability is also compliant at 31 per cent.


Landscaping With generous front and rear setbacks, the opportunity exists to provide a landscape character that contributes to and improves the prevailing landscape character. A landscape plan will be required to be submitted and include provision for canopy trees within the front setback of the front dwellings and within the rear setback.

Overshadowing Clause 55.04-5 aims to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. Specifically, if existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.

The existing shadow cast by boundary fences and other buildings means that the secluded private open space of the dwelling to the east does not receive access to sunlight in accordance with the requirements of the standard. In order for the proposed development to comply with the standard, no additional overshadowing can be caused. The shadow diagrams submitted indicate that there will be minor additional overshadowing caused at 2:00pm and therefore the standard is not met.

The shadow diagrams provided with the application show that the proposed development, while slightly increasing the amount of shadow to the secluded private open space of the dwelling to the east, still allows sufficient sunlight to reach this area, meeting the objective.

Overlooking Clause 55.04-6 aims to limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows. The revised plans show adequate measures to address overlooking, including obscured glazing, 1.7 metre high sill heights and horizontal screening. A condition of any planning permit that issues will require a screen diagram which details the screens with specific details provided.

Noise The subject site is located on Brunswick Road and therefore certain measures are required to ensure the future occupants of the dwellings are protected from any excessive noise. As such, a condition of any planning permit that issues will require a report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer to be submitted outlining specific noise attenuation measures to ensure noise impacts from the main road are minimised.

Accessibility Standard B25 aims to encourage the consideration of the needs of people with limited mobility in the design of developments. Specifically, the dwelling entries of the ground floor of dwellings and residential buildings should be accessible or able to be easily made accessible to people with limited mobility.

Due to the slope of the land, which falls approximately 7.5 metres from the rear boundary to the frontage of the site, the proposal is not accessible or able to be easily made accessible to people with limited mobility.

Storage Standard B30 requires each dwelling to be provided with convenient access to at least 6 cubic metres of externally accessible, secure storage space. The proposal incorporates storage for most dwellings within the basement garages. However, no dimensions have been provided. A condition contained within the recommendation will require a minimum of 6 cubic metres of storage space for each three bedroom dwelling and a minimum of 4 cubic metres of storage space for each two bedroom dwelling.


Can the proposal address the requirements of the Erosion Management Overlay? The subject site is affected by the Erosion Management Overlay (EMO). The EMO covers land where the risk of erosion, landslip or other degradation processes has been identified.

This overlay requires a geotechnical assessment and landslide risk assessment to identify landslide hazards (if any), assess risk and advise on the structural design and siting of the proposed development to protect against erosion, landslip or other land degradation processes which may be caused or affected by the proposed building works.

In order to allow the development to commence, the report must conclude that the landslide risk is acceptable. Conditions contained within the recommendation of this report aim to satisfy the requirements of the Erosion Management Overlay.

Does the proposal incorporate adequate Environmental Sustainable Design features? Planning Scheme Amendment C71 sought to introduce a new local policy for environmentally efficient design into the Moreland Planning Scheme. The amendment recently gained Ministerial approval and was subsequently gazetted. Transitional provisions included in the environmentally efficient design policy apply to this development under Clause 22.14.

5. Response to Objector Concerns The following issues raised by objectors are addressed in the consideration under Section 4:

• Bulk and scale • Not in keeping with the heritage streetscape • Permeability • Lack of landscaping • Overlooking • Overshadowing • Traffic congestion • Car parking • Accessibility.


Overdevelopment Overdevelopment is a commonly used expression to dismiss development proposals which seek to remove existing buildings and to introduce significant new built form into particular neighbourhoods. An assessment against State and local planning policies and the provisions of Clause 55 can often demonstrate that a proposal is not an overdevelopment despite being more intensive than what existed before.

Despite a slight non-compliance with the overshadowing provisions, the design response achieves compliance with street setback, building height, side and rear setbacks, site coverage, permeability and overlooking (by way of condition) objectives, which demonstrate the proposal is not an overdevelopment of the site. Front setback Standard B6 requires the front setback to be the average distance of the setbacks of the front walls of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments facing the front street. The front setbacks of the adjoining dwellings are 4.2 metres and 13 metres respectively, requiring a minimum front setback of 8.6 metres. The proposal incorporates a minimum front setback of 10 metres, meeting the standard.


Internal amenity The proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 55 in respect to daylight to new windows, private open space, storage and solar access to open space. Additionally, conditions contained within the recommendation aim to ensure the internal amenity of the dwellings are not unreasonably impacted upon by noise from the adjoining arterial road, as required by Standard B24 relating to noise impacts.

Minimal private open space areas Standard B28 requires a dwelling to be provided with private open space consisting of a balcony of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.6 metres and convenient access from a living room. Each dwelling is provided with a balcony that meets those requirements, except Dwellings 4 and 5 which are provided with private open space at ground level exceeding 40 square metres with an area of secluded private open space exceeding 25 square metres and a minimum dimension of 5 metres, meeting the Clause 55 requirements. Increase in noise Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the dwellings after occupancy. The consideration of this planning application is confined only to the construction of the dwellings; the residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in an urban setting. Any future issues of noise disturbance, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.

Loss of views While the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recognised that views can be a relevant amenity consideration, it has also held that there is no right to a view and that the weight to be given to the amenity impact of loss of views is diminished where no planning control applies encouraging retention or sharing of views. There is no specific policy, provision or local policy control regarding views within the Moreland Planning Scheme. In this context, it is not considered that the extent of loss of view in this case is unreasonable.

Vehicle access to the site Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and raised no concerns with the proposed vehicle access to the site. Additionally, VicRoads have reviewed the proposal and have no objection to the access arrangements subject to conditions included in the recommendation in respect to the setback of the roller door from the street and visual splays.

Collection of rubbish Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and noted that Council will issue four garbage bins and four recycling bins for the eleven dwellings to share. A condition contained within the recommendation requires an area be provided on common land for the shared bins or a waste management plan to be submitted for a private waste collection. Impact on adjoining properties Concern has been raised in relation to damage of the adjoining dwellings and public property during construction. Protection of adjoining properties during construction is not a matter that can be addressed through the planning permit process. However, the developer has obligations under the Building Act 1993 to protect adjoining property from potential damage. It is the responsibility of the relevant building surveyor to require protection work as appropriate.

Council’s Environmental and Civic Assets Local Law 2006 requires an asset protection permit to be obtained to ensure infrastructure assets within the road reserve are protected or repaired if damaged.

http://author.moreland.vic.gov.au/animals-and-local-laws/local-laws/moreland-local-laws.html�


Current state of the site is dangerous It is noted that the subject site has undergone considerable excavation in preparation for the development of the site and the site has been in this state for some time. While this raises issues regarding the stability of the land and residents have raised concerns regarding the impact on adjoining properties, this is not a planning consideration. It is the relevant building surveyor’s responsibility to ensure the site is safe and poses no risk to adjoining properties. Precedent Future planning permit applications on this site or neighbouring and nearby land will be assessed against relevant planning policy and site conditions, based on their own merits at the time of assessment. The possibility of setting an undesirable precedent cannot be substantiated.

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

6. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter.


8. Conclusion The proposed development adequately responds to its site context and respects the valued streetscape characteristics. The site is well located in terms of proximity to public transport and other services and provides sufficient on-site car and bicycle parking to accommodate the future residents.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for MPS/2014/716 should be issued for the construction of a triple storey building containing nine dwellings and alterations to the access to a road in a Road Zone - Category 1 at 501-503 Brunswick Road, Brunswick West subject to the indicated conditions.

Attachment/s 1 Objector Location Map - 501-503 Brunswick Road, Brunswick West -

MPS/2014/716 D15/216570

2 Revised Development Plans - 501-503 Brunswick Road, Brunswick West - MPS/2014/716

D15/331450

3 Endorsed Plans - 501-503 Brunswick Road, Brunswick West - MPS/2009/58

D15/236739

Documents

WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2015 - City of Moreland › globalassets › key-docs › ... · 11/25/2015 · DED96/15 151 MELBOURNE AVENUE, GLENROY - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2015/526