Amendment C223 – Attachment 1

NOTE:

Development on Cabrini Hospital owned land is not subject to the preferred maximum building heights.

Building heights on Wattletree Road are mandatory maximum building heights.

Amendment C223 – Attachment 1

Amendment C223 Submitter focus groups

City of Stonnington

Final Report, May 2017

REPORT

phowkins

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2

Privacy Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is committed to protecting privacy and personally identifiable information by meeting our responsibilities under the Victorian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles 2014 as well as relevant industry codes of ethics and conduct.

For the purpose of program delivery, and on behalf of our clients, we collect personal information from individuals, such as e-mail addresses, contact details, demographic data and program feedback to enable us to facilitate participation in consultation activities. We follow a strict procedure for the collection, use, disclosure, storage and destruction of personal information. Any information we collect is stored securely on our server for the duration of the program and only disclosed to our client or the program team. Written notes from consultation activities are manually transferred to our server and disposed of securely.

Comments recorded during any consultation activities are faithfully transcribed however not attributed to individuals. Diligence is taken to ensure that any comments or sensitive information does not become personally identifiable in our reporting, or at any stage of the program.

Capire operates an in-office server with security measures that include, but are not limited to, password protected access, restrictions to sensitive data and the encrypted transfer of data.

For more information about the way we collect information, how we use, store and disclose information as well as our complaints procedure, please see www.capire.com.au or telephone (03) 9285 9000.

Consultation Unless otherwise stated, all feedback documented by Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is written and/or recorded during our program/consultation activities.

Capire staff and associates take great care while transcribing participant feedback but unfortunately cannot guarantee the accuracy of all notes. We are however confident that we capture the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during our consultation activities.

Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in our work represent those of the participants and not necessarily those of our consultants or our clients.

© Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd. This document belongs to and will remain the property of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without express written consent of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

Authorisation can be obtained via email to [email protected] or in writing to: 96 Pelham Street Carlton VIC Australia 3053.

Privacy 2

Consultation 2

1 Executive Summary 1

2 Introduction 2

2.1 Purpose 2

2.2 Background information 2

2.2.1 Submitter focus groups 2

2.2.2 Rationale for Amendment C223 3

2.2.3 Amendment C223 – Proposed planning provisions 3

3 Approach 4

3.1 Engagement purpose and objectives 4

3.2 Opportunities and constraints 4

3.3 Focus group details 5

3.4 Limitations of engagement 7

4 Discussion summary 8

4.1 Policy context and background information 8

4.1.1 State planning context 8

4.1.2 Local context 9

4.1.3 Process 9

4.2 Key issues raised: within scope of Amendment C223 9

4.2.1 Overshadowing, overlooking and wind 9

4.2.2 Street character and heritage protection 10

4.2.3 Malvern Central 11

4.2.4 Discretion 12

4.2.5 Definition of setbacks 12

4.3 Key issues raised: outside scope of Amendment C223 13

4.3.1 Traffic and Parking 13

4.3.2 Infrastructure and service provision 13

4.3.3 Impact on local business 14

4.3.4 Other issues 14

5 Evaluation, observations and next steps 15

5.1 Participant evaluation 15

5.2 Facilitator observations 16

5.3 Next steps 16

6 Appendices 17

6.1 Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre – Preferred maximum

building heights 17

6.2 Planning Scheme Amendment Process 18

6.3 Frequently asked questions – Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity

Centre 19

6.4 Schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay 20

6.5 Schedule 19 to the Design and Development Overlay 24

6.6 Letter to submitter who attended a focus group 38

6.7 Letter to non-submitter who attended a focus group 39

6.8 Letter to submitter who did not attend a focus group 40

AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, MAY 2017

1 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

1 Executive Summary

The City of Stonnington (Council) has prepared Amendment C223 to the Stonnington Planning

Scheme to introduce new built form provisions for the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity

Centre.

Capire Consulting Group (Capire) was engaged to facilitate six focus groups with submitters

following a Stonnington Council decision to undertake additional consultation with submitters

about their concerns and issues relating to the amendment. Five focus groups were ultimately

held and facilitated by Capire.

The objectives of the focus groups were to:

Allow submitters to further identify and expand on submitter issues and concerns about

Amendment C223

capture additional feedback about Amendment C223

inform submitters about the Planning Scheme Amendment process and next stages.

A total of 90 participants attended the focus groups. A key objective of the focus groups was to

provide attendees with background information which was provided by Council officers and

determined by the participants in each group. Background information covered: State planning

context; local planning context and the process for Amendment C223.

The key issues, feedback, options, questions and ideas raised within the scope of Amendment

C223 related to the following key themes:

overshadowing, overlooking and wind

street character and heritage protection

Malvern Central

discretion

definition of setbacks.

The key issues, feedback, options, questions and ideas raised outside the scope of Amendment

C223 covered:

traffic and parking

infrastructure and service provision

impact on local business

other wider contextual issues and impacts.

Evaluation results suggest that overall, participants found the focus groups to be worthwhile and

informative. Participants welcomed the opportunity to raise concerns in a public forum.

AMENDMENT C223, SUBMITTER FOCUS GROUPS, APRIL 2017

2

Participants were informed that they will receive a summary of the focus group discussions and

were advised of the next stages of the Amendment process.

2 Introduction

2.1 Purpose

The City of Stonnington has prepared Amendment C223 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme

which proposes to introduce new built form provisions for the Glenferrie Road and High Street

Activity Centre. The amendment supports the vision of Plan Melbourne and the Glenferrie Road

and High Street Structure Plan to allow a moderate level of change in the activity centre over

the next 30 years.

Following the formal exhibition of the amendment, Capire was engaged to facilitate five focus

groups with submitters to the amendment between 15 March and 29 March 2017. The purpose

of the focus groups was to enable submitters to fully express their concerns about the

amendment in detail, and learn more about the proposed planning provisions and amendment

process. A total of 90 people attended the focus groups including local residents, business

owners and operators, developers and consultants.

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the discussions conducted during the five

focus groups with submitters. The findings in this report will be considered by Council to further

inform Amendment C223. This report will also be made available to those who participated in

the submitter focus group consultations and to the general public.

2.2 Background information

2.2.1 Submitter focus groups

Formal exhibition of Amendment C223 occurred from 21 July to 22 August 2016. The local

community was invited to provide feedback on the amendment through written submissions.

Over 200 submissions were received by Council about the amendment.

Due to the high volume of submissions made, at a Council meeting on 5 December 2016

Stonnington Council resolved to carry out an additional stage of community consultation with

submitters to examine their views and concerns in more detail. Six focus groups were

scheduled, five of which were facilitated by Capire. The remaining focus group was not

facilitated by Capire due to low RSVPs, however it remained open for submitters to attend and

speak directly about the amendment with Council officers. Only one submitter attended the

focus group with Council officers on this date.


3 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

The submitter focus groups for Amendment C223 were carried out in addition to the exhibition

stage of the planning scheme amendment process.

2.2.2 Rationale for Amendment C223

The City of Stonnington’s rationale for Amendment C223 is to provide policy guidance to the

development and the design of buildings in the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre

over the next 30 years. Melbourne is forecast to experience significant population growth in the

future and all councils in Metropolitan Melbourne are expected to allow for an increase in

housing stock and other land uses in their municipalities to accommodate future communities.

Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 is the State Government’s Plan for managing Melbourne’s

population growth. Plan Melbourne seeks to encourage density in activity centres including

inner city Major Activity Centres such as the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre.

Amendment C223 seeks to respond to Plan Melbourne by providing planning provisions that

enable a moderate level of change in the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre over

the next 30 years while providing a framework to influence preferred development outcomes.

The amendment also supports the implementation of the Glenferrie Road and High Street

Structure Plan which was adopted by Stonnington Council at a Council meeting on 30

November 2015.

2.2.3 Amendment C223 – Proposed planning provisions

The proposed planning provisions seek to manage future built form (heights and setbacks) in an

area where there are currently no specific built form provisions. The proposed provisions seek

to balance new development with the protection of heritage buildings and include:

Design and Development Overlay for the Activity Centre

Development Plan Overlay for Malvern Central and the adjoining railway land.

Identification of strategic development sites.

To view the proposed planning controls distributed at the Focus groups refer to Appendices

(Section 6).


4

3 Approach

3.1 Engagement purpose and objectives

The purpose of this engagement was to provide submitters with the opportunity to discuss the

content of their submission in detail with Council officers, and to ask questions about the

Amendment process. This was achieved through the delivery of five focus groups targeted at

submitters.

The objectives of the focus groups were to:

allow submitters to further identify and expand on submitter issues and concerns about

Amendment C223

capture additional feedback about Amendment C223

inform submitters about the Planning Scheme Amendment process and next stages.

3.2 Opportunities and constraints

It was critical that through the consultation process the purpose and intent of the focus groups

was clearly communicated to ensure that participant expectations were managed. Participants

were informed of the project opportunities and constraints (see Table 1) and were also advised

how their contribution during the focus groups will be forwarded to Council to assist them in

making a decision.

Table 1: Opportunities and constraints

Opportunities Constraints

Submitter views will be fully

considered where requests for

changes support the objectives of the

amendment, Council may make

changes.

In response to the direction in Plan

Melbourne for growth and change to be

directed to activity centres, Council's are

required to prepare Structure Plans and

planning controls to help manage this

anticipated change.

The proposed planning controls primarily

seek to manage built form (building heights

and setbacks). Strategies for addressing

traffic, car parking and other matters can be

discussed in the focus groups and will be


5 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

reported to Council, however they are

outside the scope of the amendment.

3.3 Focus group details

The focus groups provided Council and submitters an opportunity to discuss in detail the key

areas of concern. Submitter focus groups took place in meeting room 2.1/2.2, Council Civic

Offices, 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern. A total of 90 people participated in the submitter focus

groups as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Focus group overview

Session Date/Time Participants

1 Wednesday 15 March. 6-8pm 18

Thursday 16 March, 6-8pm* 1

2 Monday 20 March, 2pm-4pm 19

3 Tuesday 21 March, 6pm- 8pm 16

4 Friday 24 March, 10am-12pm 17

5 Wednesday 29 March, 6-8pm 20

*This focus group was not facilitated by Capire due to low numbers. One resident met in person

with Council staff.


6

Each focus group had a two-hour duration and was guided by the agenda that is outlined in

Table 3. Timing and topics of discussion varied in each group to suit the needs of participants.

Table 3: Focus group agenda

Agenda

Welcome and introduction

Group consensus – How are we going to work together?

Introductions – Where are you from and what do you hope to get out of the session?

Background information

Information provided was determined by the participants

Topics for discussion

Topics were determined by the participants

Refreshment Break

Focused discussions

Summary and next steps

Close and evaluation

Focus group participants were recruited by Council via a targeted letter mail out to submitters.

Community members who did not make a submission but wished to attend were welcomed, and

made aware that the focus groups were not targeted to them. They were however invited to

make submissions if they wished to continue to be updated and provided with the opportunity to

be involved in the amendment process.

The focus groups were facilitated to ensure that all participants had a chance to express their

opinions and concerns.


7 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

3.4 Limitations of engagement

This report details participant perceptions, concerns and ideas as expressed during the

submitter focus group consultation. In some cases, comments have been paraphrased and

quotes have been used to illustrate the community sentiment. The following limitations were

identified relating to the delivery and reporting of the consultation:

The information in this report is based on discussions during the five focus groups

facilitated by Capire, with people self-selecting to participate. It therefore does not

necessarily reflect the views of a representative sample of the community or of all

submitters.

Some information included in this report may be factually incorrect or unfeasible. The

information has not been validated as it is purely a summary of participants’ opinions,

ideas and feedback.

Some participants raised concerns that were outside the scope of the amendment.

These points have been noted, but may be out of scope for consideration by

Amendment C223.

The report presents the key points of discussion and includes a broad range of

feedback, concerns and ideas expressed by participants. It provides an overview of

participant sentiment but does not report on the sentiment of individual participants.

The report summarises participant feedback and questions, but it does not report on the

answers provided by Council. Council answered all questions to the best of their ability

during the focus groups and took questions that could not be answered on notice, with

answers to be provided to participants following the focus groups.


8

4 Discussion summary

This section summarises the key issues, feedback, options, questions and ideas discussed

during the focus groups. The summary is divided into three sections:

policy context and background information

key issues raised: within scope of Amendment C223

key issues raised: outside scope of Amendment C223.

4.1 Policy context and background information

It was observed that the majority of participants in the focus groups were not fully informed

about the wider planning policy context and the scope of Amendment C223. This section

provides an outline of the background information that participants requested. Building

participants’ understanding and knowledge of the planning scheme amendment process was a

key objective of the consultation process. Council officers were present to provide background

information and to answer all queries to the best of their ability. Questions that were not able to

be answered were taken on notice. A summary of answers to the participant’s questions was

provided to participants in the form of a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document (Appendix

6.3).

4.1.1 State planning context

Key topics of discussion on the State planning context for Amendment C223 included:

the differing levels of power between state and local government

the need to balance local and state priorities and for local policies to be consistent with state

policies

Plan Melbourne, its intentions and how it is enforced

the role of VCAT

the role of other state government portfolios to plan and deliver infrastructure and services.

Participant sentiment expressed demonstrated concern that state government has far too much

power and does not take the local context and resident concerns into account when making

planning policy decisions.


9 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

4.1.2 Local context

Key topics of discussion about the local planning policy context for Amendment C223 included:

current population projections for Stonnington and anticipated density increases

Council’s overall vision for Stonnington including the policy, research and thinking that

sits behind the amendment; many residents were unfamiliar with the Structure Plan or

its aim and scope

other built form provisions such as design guidelines for individual developments

the Development Plan Overlay for the Malvern Central site

the definition and application of a Heritage Overlay

wider planning and social planning tools to plan for infrastructure, open space and

services.

4.1.3 Process

Key topics of discussion about the process of Amendment C223 included:

an overview of focus groups including the negotiables and non-negotiables

previous consultation on the amendment and Structure Plan

decision making processes and timelines, including the determination of heights and

setbacks

other technical studies that were undertaken to inform Amendment C223.

4.2 Key issues raised: within scope of Amendment C223

Many participants believed that built form outcomes of the amendment would lead to

undesirable impacts in the Activity Centre and surrounding residential areas. The most often

discussed issues included concerns about reduced access to sunlight, loss of urban character

and loss of heritage value. The 12-storey preferred maximum height of Malvern Central was a

key concern for many participants. These discussions are described in more detail in the

following sections.

4.2.1 Overshadowing, overlooking and wind

The proposed amendment would lead to the overshadowing of properties. Key areas of

concern that were highlighted are High Street, Railway Avenue, Valentine Grove and

other residential areas surrounding Malvern Central, including shopping strips.


10

The sun modelling that informed the amendment was deceptive, with some participants

requesting that more modelling be undertaken to show the impacts of overshadowing at

the winter solstice.

Everyone should have access to sunlight. For example, one resident stated, ‘the sun is

a shared resource; it must be shared by everyone’. Participants also raised the issue of

solar access to generate power, suggesting that heights proposed in the amendment

would limit residents’ opportunities to install solar panels.

There was specific concern about the use of the words ‘not unreasonable

overshadowing between the hours of 9-3.30’ in the proposed planning provisions. Some

participants suggested that hours outside these times should also be considered. One

participant suggested that the wording be changed to say ‘no overshadowing’ during

this period.

The preferred maximum heights proposed along major roads would increase wind, and

decrease access to sunlight making streets uncomfortable and uninviting for

pedestrians. For example, one participant said that ‘Station Street is already cold and

windy; five storeys would make it a wind tunnel’. Another participant felt that ‘these

proposed heights will put the café culture at risk, no one wants to sit in the shade’.

The proposed preferred maximum heights would lead to decreased privacy caused by

overlooking. This concern centred around developments overlooking the backyards of

existing residents.

4.2.2 Street character and heritage protection

The proposed preferred maximum heights will impact on the character of streetscapes

within the Activity Centre and surrounding residential areas. Participants suggested that

development above two storeys would have adverse impacts on street views, sunlight

in public spaces and pedestrian comfort.

Development will have a detrimental impact on historical streetscapes. These concerns

often focused on visual bulk, with participants suggesting future development would be

overbearing and imposing if the proposed preferred maximum heights are accepted.

Some participants felt that this would lead to ‘destruction’ of the charm and distinctive

character of the area. For example, one participant stated ‘all the buildings on Glenferrie

Road when the sun is setting are beautiful. It will kill this place’. Another said ‘Lego

blocks will destroy the character’. Areas of concern identified by participants included:

o Angel Hotel - to be surrounded by tall buildings in the Malvern Central area

o Village precinct - overshadowed by tall buildings

o Wattletree Rd - beautiful streetscape of old homes will disappear

o shopping strips - adverse visual impact of future development on top of shops

o building rooftops - undesirable aesthetic of lifts and services on top of buildings.

The views of multi-storey developments in commercial areas will impact the character of

nearby residential areas. Others were concerned about the transition between


11 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

residential and commercial areas, suggesting this needs to be considered more

carefully. For example, one participant stated ‘you can’t transition from five storeys to

two to three storeys’.

The relationship between heritage and non-heritage areas was also considered an

issue by some participants. For example, there was concern that out of scale buildings

in non-heritage areas will impact on the heritage of nearby areas. Another perspective

presented was that non-heritage areas were unfairly taking all the extra development,

changing the character of these areas unfavourably.

Change to street character is necessary to accommodate future growth. For example,

one participant stated that ‘trade-offs are needed to ensure good design outcomes’.

Overall there was a considerable concern that proposed preferred maximum heights

would have negative impacts on the streetscape and heritage character of Armadale

and Malvern.

4.2.3 Malvern Central

Many participants expressed concern over the 12-storey preferred maximum height

proposed for the Malvern Central site. Several participants queried the difference

between the proposed preferred maximum heights and those outlined in the Structure

Plan asking ‘What are the reasons for the difference? Why now? And why such a big

difference?’ Participants’ main concerns were overshadowing and the adverse impact

development of this scale will have on the character of surrounding areas.

Participants who lived near Malvern Central were very concerned about overshadowing.

For example, one participant said ‘on a personal note, it will take away my winter sun

and cause a loss of privacy’. Another resident mentioned concerns about

‘overshadowing of the eastern side of Glenferrie Road, the wind tunnel effects, and

overshadowing of my house’. Another stated that they ‘don’t want to face a monstrosity

and be overshadowed’.

The Malvern Central site is recognised as a gateway site, and will set the tone of the

surrounding suburbs and potentially lead to intense development in surrounding areas.

For example, one participant said ‘its design is pivotal and will inform what happens

elsewhere’. Another stated ‘it is a huge building, having something like that can change

the character of an entire area’. Many participants expressed concern that future 12-

storey developments would be an eyesore and dominate the skyline.

The difference in height between Malvern Central and the surrounding area was a key

issue. Participants were concerned that proposed heights were out of balance with the

surrounding area. For example, one participant stated that ‘there is too much difference

between the heights at Wattletree Road and Malvern Central. Another participant felt

that heights are ‘too much of a jump from the surrounding areas. More human scale

design is needed’.

In recognition that the areas must accommodate more growth, and density must

increase, participants suggested the amendment include preferred maximum heights for


12

the Malvern Central site of between six to eight storeys. There was also support for a

Development Plan Overlay for the site. For example, one participant said ‘an extra

stage where we can have a say in development decisions is important to us as

residents’.

Suggestions made for the use of the Malvern Central site include:

o open the southern edifice and include elements such as terraces, bike paths

and better lighting

o cover over the railway line to create pedestrian access and open space

o meet requirements of housing strategy/densification with six storeys mandatory

height across the whole site

o Malvern Central should be a flagship site, a demonstration site for good design

o it should have similar outcomes and a maximum height consistency at the

northern and southern end.

4.2.4 Discretion

The preferred maximum heights and setbacks should be discretionary rather than

mandatory. Reasons provided by participants included:

o Good design outcomes are not enabled by the amendment, such as allowances

for extra floor heights that can result in improved ESD outcomes.

o Ensure policy consistency: provisions in residential growth zones will be

changed from mandatory to discretionary; Design and Development Overlay 19

also allows for discretion.

o The context of specific sites must be considered.

The height provisions are not restrictive enough and developers can exceed proposed

height provisions.

4.2.5 Definition of setbacks

The definition of setbacks in the amendment needs to be revised and made clearer.

There was concern that setbacks on the side boundaries of new buildings did not

adequately protect neighbouring properties. For example, one participant noted that ‘on

Glenferrie Road four storey buildings are adjacent to single storey dwellings’. Other

participants queried the difference between setbacks in the Structure Plan and the

proposed amendment. These participants were concerned that the eight to ten metre

upper level setbacks proposed in the DDO were unreasonable compared to the three

metre upper level setbacks in the Structure Plan. It was also suggested that precinct

numbers in Table 2 of the amendment need revision.



4.3 Key issues raised: outside scope of Amendment C223

Some concerns raised by participants were related to issues outside the scope of the

amendment. These issues were mostly associated with the increase in population and density.

Key issues included traffic and parking, infrastructure and service provision and impacts on

local businesses. These issues, although related to urban development, can be considered but

cannot be addressed as part of the amendment process. As such, limited time was given for

detailed discussion of these issues during the focus groups. However, information was provided

to participants about other planning mechanisms that are coordinated by Council as well as the

role that Council plays to advocate for matters outside of its control to State and Commonwealth

Governments.

Several participants wanted to make a recommendation to Council that the amendment should

address all impact issues including, traffic, parking, infrastructure and services.

4.3.1 Traffic and Parking

Increased development will add to current parking shortages. For example, one

participant said ‘this area is about to become more like a city, the Council needs to think

of it more like a city. We need the infrastructure for this - such as high rise parking’.

Another participant was ‘concerned that buildings are being constructed without any

parking’.

Key questions asked by participants on the issue of parking included: How will the

amendment influence parking? Is there a master parking plan that will be delivered

alongside this amendment? What is going to be done about parking?

Increased development and density would increase traffic congestion in the area.

Specific issues raised were traffic gridlock during peak hours, management of traffic

entering and exiting future multi-storey developments and pedestrian safety.

Participants asked to see traffic management strategies and projections of the number

of cars that will be on the road in the future. Major areas of concern identified by

participants included the Railway Avenue-Dandenong Road intersection and Wattletree

Road.

4.3.2 Infrastructure and service provision

Current infrastructure and service provision in Stonnington will not be adequate to cope

with the increases in development.

Concern was raised about future provision of:

o water, sewerage and electrical infrastructure and services

o social infrastructure including schools and childcare


14

o open space

o waste removal services

o pedestrian and cycling paths.

Key questions asked by participants included: How will infrastructure cope with

development? Who will pay? Is there an infrastructure plan currently or is it something

Council is planning to introduce? Can you push back on State Government, saying

once we have the infrastructure we can undertake development?

4.3.3 Impact on local business

Several participants were concerned that future development would have adverse impacts on

existing local businesses. Key concerns raised by participants included:

development will change the economic make up of an already fragile area

night activity permits for businesses

the need to consider demand and supply; there are currently many empty shops in the

area, is development in commercial areas needed?

developers will increase rents, pushing local business out of the area

protection of shopping strips.

4.3.4 Other issues

Other issues discussed by participants included:

management of construction noise and other adverse impacts of the construction

process

increase in the number of Airbnb residents in Stonnington not truly reflecting population

numbers

impacts of change on property prices such as property devaluation

over development of station precincts

overcrowded public transport

street and landscape design of the whole area.



5 Evaluation, observations and next steps

5.1 Participant evaluation

To evaluate the success of the focus groups, participants were asked to complete a short

evaluation form at the end of each session. Participants were asked to rate aspects of the focus

group as either: poor, fair, satisfactory, good or excellent. The aspects being evaluated were:

Quality of information: How well did we describe what we needed to? How well were

we in providing relevant information and answering your questions?

Use of time: How well did we use our time?

Participation: How well did we do on making sure everyone was involved?

Facilitation: How well was the workshop managed?

Organisation: How well was the workshop run?

Feedback from the participants is summarised in Figure 1 below. On average, participants rated

the focus groups as good.

Figure 1. Focus group evaluation form feedback

53

0 0 0

85

0

5 5

32

22

3027

24

49

62

43

51

59

58

27

16

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Quality Time Participation Facilitation Organisation

Part

icpant

Responses (

%)

Performance Indicator

Poor Fair Satisfactory Good Excellent


16

5.2 Facilitator observations

Overall, the focus groups achieved the purpose of providing submitters with the

opportunity to discuss the content of their submission with Council officers, and to ask

questions about the Amendment process.

Evaluation results suggest that overall, participants found the focus groups to be

worthwhile and informative. Participants welcomed the opportunity to raise concerns in

a public forum.

Participant knowledge of planning processes was generally low, so a lot of time during

the focus group discussions was spent on providing information about Local and State

Government planning context. Whilst this was important in informing submitters about

the Planning Scheme Amendment process, it meant that there was less time for

detailed discussion about some key issues.

Many of the participants welcomed the information provided that helped to build a

greater understanding of planning issues more broadly.

Some participants had hoped to receive more detailed information in the focus groups

and felt that the information provided to them was limited. There was also some

scepticism that the feedback provided to Council during the focus groups would be fully

considered.

It was difficult for many participants to separate issues within the scope of the

amendment from issues that cannot be addressed by the amendment. This may have

led to some participants feeling that their concerns were not given adequate

consideration in the process. It will be important to continue building community

capacity to understand planning processes and procedures.

There was acknowledgement from participants that in the absence of any planning

controls that there was little guidance and direction to manage future development.

5.3 Next steps

After the focus groups Council officers sent a thank you letter to all participants

involved. The letter included a written document containing responses to common

questions raised in the focus groups that required some further explanation. The letter

and question responses are provided in the Appendices (section 6).

Council will carefully review the issues raised by participants, and report the findings to

Council.

A report is scheduled to be considered by Council in mid-2017 detailing the outcomes of

the focus groups. The report will provide responses to all submissions, consider any

changes to the proposed planning provisions and propose a position on the planning

provisions for consideration by Panel.



6 Appendices

Documents provided to focus group participants are provided in this section.

6.1 Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre – Preferred maximum building heights


18

6.2 Planning Scheme Amendment Process



6.3 Frequently asked questions – Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre


20

6.4 Schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay




22




24

6.5 Schedule 19 to the Design and Development Overlay




26




28




30




32




34




36




38

6.6 Letter to submitter who attended a focus group



6.7 Letter to non-submitter who attended a focus group


40

6.8 Letter to submitter who did not attend a focus group

Amendment C223 – Map of Submitters

Attachment 3

1

2

3

8

39, 50, 56, 57, 68, 93, 104, 113

12

11

9

23

26

59

203

106 102

193

184

4

5 182

7

54

117

60, 201

129

46

35 63

77

111

38, 187

15

16

20

19

69

79, 80

207

32 22 45 (Malvern

Central)

27

24

25, 58, 66, 90, 92, 94a

28, 71, 85, 86, 191, 204, 208

41

194

37, 43, 44, 82, 84, 109

34, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168,

169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 196

36

95

40

107

47, 72, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125 133, 134,

135, 136, 137, 138, 139

210

48

209

217

218

49

197

83

70 51

52

62

105 67

64

88

200

65

216

73

75

78

81

101

87

181

89

164 185

91

112

178

76, 98, 116,176, 180, 186, 202, 206, 211, 213

99 103

114

115

122, 130, 131, 132, 179

140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147

195

174

183

188

199

190

205

198

212

189

192

215

214

Submitters not mapped:

110 126 127 128 177 211 220

228

10 29 30 33 53 100 (PTV)

108

118

219

94

221

222

223

224

42

17

74

96

31

175

13

6

18, 21 14, 97

61

225

55 (VicTrack)

226, 230

227

229

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type

Precinct Submission summary Themes Submissio

n position

Discussion Officer recommendation

1 42 Thanet Street,

Malvern

Proforma D 1. Request that the Wattletree Road/Coonil

Crescent car park be exempt from any zoning

changes. Local areas will be affected by potential

urban development, and existing covenants

covering land on Coonil Crescent should be

respected.

Urban

character/Heritage,

traffic congestion/car

parking

Object The proposed controls seek to manage future

development in the precinct with the prociviosion for

increased rear setbacks with sensitive residential

interfaces. The existing zoning (Residential Growth Zone

Schecdule 2 - 4 storeys at 13.5m) is not proposed to be

changed. Any existing covenants on the land are not

proposed to be changed.

No change

2 14 Stuart Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Suggest that there should be a maximum height

limit of three storeys for all areas, so that scale is

sympathetic to heritage character.

2. Proposed heights are excessive and will result in

additional traffic, car parking issues, diminishment

of heritage buildings and overshadowing of

buildings and streetscapes, particularly in Glenferrie

Road and High Street.

Built form, urban

character/heritage,

Amenity impacts,

Traffic congestion/car

parking, Infrastructure

needs

Object Refer to:

1.5 (Built form)

2.1 (Urban character/Heritage)

4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parking)


3.3 (Amenity impacts)


No change

3 1/17 Myamyn

Street, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The amendment fails to acknowledge inadequacy

of available car parking.

2. Development in the area will result in

overcrowding.


parking

Object Refer to:



No change

4 12 Clarendon

Street, Armadale

Proforma B 1. Suggest that maximum building heights should be

limited to 3 storeys in Precinct B.

2. Any tall building in High Street would be a visual

intrusion on property at 12 Clarendon Street.

Built form Object Refer to:

1.5 (Built form)

1.3 (Built form)

No change

5 12 Clarendon

Street, Armadale

Proforma B 1. Suggest that maximum building heights should be

limited to 3 storeys in Precinct B including a

signficant setback from the rear boundary at the

top floor level.

2. Any tall building in High Street would be a visual

intrusion on property at 13 Clarendon Street,

including impacts on amenity, privacy and access to

sunlight in rear open living areas

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.5 (Built form)

1.6 (Built form)

1.3 (Built form)




No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


6 15 Valentine Grove,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed 12 storey building heights at Malvern

Central will cause overlooking/overshadowing at

certain times of the day/year.

2. Development at Malvern Central and Railway

Bridge on Glenferrie Road will diminish the value of

housing in the immediate area and negative impact

local amenity. It will negatively impact housing on

the adjoining railway line on Valentine Grove and

the lower part of Railway Avenue.

3. New development on Glenferrie Road will ruin

the village quality of the station neighbourhood and

existing amenities.

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Urban

Character/Heritage

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)




6.1 (Other)



No change

7 93 Wattletree Road

Malvern

Tract

Consultants

PTY LTD

On behalf of C 1. Support the exhibited DDO19 maximum

preferred building height of 5 storeys and street

wall height of 4 storeys for Precinct C.

2. Requests that all building height controls in RGZ3

and DDO19 in ‘storeys’ not metres. Concern that

expressing height controls in metres restricts the

capacity to be translated into a consistent, buildable

number of storeys. Expressing heights in metres

provides greater clarification and consistency. The

Panel report for Melbourne Planning Scheme

Amendment C190 (October 2015) addresses this

concern and recommends that the height controls

be expressed as storeys.

3. Correct inconsistencies between RGZ3 and

DDO19 by applying a discretionary maximum

preferred building height and removing the

mandatory building height standards set in RGZ3.

Submit that the use of discretionary controls are

more likely to facilitate appropriate built form

outcomes than mandatory controls by providing

more flexibility to accommodate contextual

variations and innovative design.

Built form Change 1. Noted.

2. The proposed DDO19 does not identify a building

height for Precinct C (Wattletree Road West) except for

the Malvern Central site. The maximum building height

is stated in the proposed RGZ3. To clarify the intended

height in metres it is proposed that the height be

articulated in storeys as well.

Consistent with Planning Practice Note 60 (Height and

setback controls for activity centres) the building heights

are expressed in metres and storeys. The context in

Stonnington is different from the context in Melbourne

City Council (Arden–Macaulay Structure Plan).

Stonnington is seeking to achieve a consistent built edge

for development along Wattletree Road.

3. The proposed height in Precinct C is mandatory and as

such the height must be expressed in metres. The RGZ3

allows for growth to transition from the more intensive

use and development anticipated in the Activity Centre

and Malvern Central site to the lower scale heritage

protected residential areas at the rear interface. A

mandatory building height will ensure this transition is

gradual.

No change

4. Revise maximum building heights to allow

architectural

4. Building height, as defined in the Planning Scheme, is

the vertical distance from natural ground level to the

roof or parapet at any point. Building services and

architectural features are not included when measuring

building height. Therefore building services and

architectural features may exceed the maximum

building height. No change is needed to the proposed

policy to exclude these items explicitly.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


8 15 Gaynor Court,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights will increase traffic

congestion/car parking.

2. The amendment should preserve the quality of

life of existing residents/rate-payers in Malvern


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to Standard Responses:


6.3 (Other)

No change

9 3 Kelmscott Road,

Armadale

Written

submission

B 1. Development along High Street should be limited

to 3 storeys for small sites (from 4), 3-4 storeys for

medium sites (from 5) and 5 storeys for large sites

(no change). This reduction in height is requested in

the context of increased car parking demand and

overshadowing concerns. Medium sites are similar

to small sites.

2. Development will lead to significant car traffic

(and parking) midway along laneways creating

significant noise and disturbances.

3. Current GRZ overlay requires a maximum site

coverage of 60% which will clearly be breached in

nearly all developments. The amendment should

specify that building coverage should not increase

beyond any existing built form if already greater

than 60%.

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Traffic

congestion/ car

parking

Change 1. A three storey modern height limit is comparable to

the existing two storey parapet height of commercial

heritage buildings. Medium and Large sites are defined

by their frontage. This delineation acknowledges that

the lot width represents a potential increase in capacity

of these sites to accommodate additional height with a

reduced impact on the amenity (including

overshadowing) of adjoining lower scale residential

development.

2. Car parking access to new development is encouraged

from rear laneways. A function of the laneway is to

enable the movement of cars off the main roads.

Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1) outlines

restrictions with respect to noise and commercial

vehicle operations such as waste removal and delivery of

goods.

3. The site coverage requirement currently exists in the

General Residential Zone (GRZ). The Amendment C223

proposed planning provisions seek to direct the majority

of growth to areas in the Commercial Zone and

Residential Growth Zone where such site coverage

restrictions are not appropriate given the level of

growth supported.

No change

10 Not supplied Written

submission

E 1. Object to new high rise development on

Dandenong Road.

2. Poorly constructed and unattractive high

buildings will cause the suburb to be overrun with

people, ruining the landscape.

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Urban

Character/Heritage

Object Refer to:

1.5 (Built form)


No change

11 8/31 Claremont Av,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Negative information about the Amendment is

being distributed around Malvern.

2. Supportive of identification of strategic

development sites, allowing new development

while implementing adequate controls that respect

the form and scale of existing buildings.

Built form, urban

character/ heritage

Support Noted. No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


12 14 Chandlers Road,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights on Dandenong Road and

Railway Avenue are too high and will cause

overshadowing.

2. Proposed heights on Glenferrie Road will detract

from heritage buildings.

3. Development will negatively impact car parking

and cause noise, traffic disruptions.

Built form, Amenity

impacts, urban

character/Heritage,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)






No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Support proposition to create

residential/commercial activity centre.

2. Twelve storey heights will negatively impact local

amenity (solar access/overshadowing/noise) and

neighbourhood character.

Built form, Amenity

impacts,

Character/Heritage

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)




2.2 (Urban character/heritage)

No change

14 5/3 Railway

Avenue, Armadale

Written

submission

A2 1. Request that building heights in Precinct A2 be

reduced to 4 storeys.

2. Proposed heights in Precinct A2 are too high,

directly affecting Railway Avenue and causing

amenity impacts (solar

access/overshadowing/noise/dust)

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Change Refer to:

1.5 (Built form)





No change

15 1/7-11 Mercer Rd,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Development will impact on-street car parking.

Developers ahould provide on-street car parking for

existing businesses/residences and deny to

newcomers.

2. Suggest that residential apartments must accord

with minimal size dimensions (ie. ceiling heights)

and design elements; have setbacks stepped back at

each level above the second floor, and include lifts

to service residential areas and storage rooms (not

cages).

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Traffic

congestion/ car

parking

Object Refer to:


6.7 (Other)

No change

16 20 Edgerton Road

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Future development will cause overcrowding of

Glenferrie Road, Wattletree Road and High Street.

2. Twelve storey heights at Malvern Central will

negatively impact urban character

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Urban

Character/Heritage

Object Refer to:



No change

17 Not supplied Proforma D 1. Request that the Wattletree Road/Coonil





respected.

Urban

character/Heritage,


parking








No change

18 10 Railway Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central and Precinct

A2 are too high and will result in unsightly

development and amenity impacts.

2. Requests to know if Council intends to build over

the railway line so that Malvern Central joins

Railway Avenue.

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Urban

Character/Heritage

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)


No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


19 35 Soudan Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Future development in the activity centre will

negative impact urban character and amenity

(overlooking/overshadowing/visual bulk/increased

traffic congestion/car parking demand/noise/loss of

vegetation/demand on existing services)

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, infrastructure

needs

Object Refer to:








5.4 (Infrastructure needs)


No change

20 16 Egerton Rd,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Public notification about the amendment was

inadequate.

2.Increased population will have negative impacts

on local amenity and car parking.

3.Infrastructure is insufficient for supporting higher

volumes of people.

Amenity impacts,

Infrastructure needs

Object Refer to:

6.2 (Other)



No change


Armadale

Written

submission

Malvern

Central

1. Amendment presents a departure from the

Structure Plan including resident views about

heritage buildings, height controls and future of

Malvern Central.

2. Higher buildings will diminish heritage buildings

and cause overshadowing.

3. Requests the opinion of south ward Councillors in

relation to the amendment.

Built form, urban

character/heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

6.2 (Other)




No change

21a 16 Railway Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central and Precinct

A2 are excessive and there is a lack of transition to

minimise impacts on neighbouring communities.

Suggest that building heights at Malvern Central be

set to six storeys, with transition to four storeys on

the northern and southern boundaries.

2.New development will negatively impact amenity

(ie.overshadowing, wind) and heritage buildings.

3. Council's effort to engage the community in the

amendment has been insufficient and

documentation is confusing.

4. Suggest that measure of shadow at the equinox

fails to consider shadow at the winter solstice, and

that this should be considered as per Chapel Street

Revision.

5. There is a need for improved pedestrian and bike

paths near Malvern Central.

6.Any new roof decks at Malvern Central will be

cold, windy and shadowed.

Built form, urban

character/heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.4 (Built form)

1.5 (Built form)





6.2 (Other)


6.5 (Other)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


22 2 Derril Avenue,

Malvern






respected.

Urban

character/Heritage,


parking








23 41 Thanet Street,

Malvern



changes.

2. Suggest that the natural boundaries for area D in

the proposed amendment are Coonil Crescent and

Glendearg Grove.

3. Rear aspects should be included in specifications

to protect neighbouring residential dwellings

4. The amendment should have regard to

neighbourhood character and amenity impacts

Built form, urban

character/heritage

Object The proposed planning controls seek to introduce

additional provisions to help manage future

development. The existing zone (Res Growth Zone) and

existing height of 4 storeys (13.5m) is proposed to

remain.

Refer to Standard Responses:


1.7 (Built form)



23A 41 Thanet Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

D 1. Concern regarding overshadowing, traffic,

parking, lack of open space. Twelve storeys is too

excessive.

Built form, urban

character/heritage

Object Noted. No change

24 20 Evandale Road,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights (particularly at

Malvern Central, Wattletree Road, Glenferrie Road

and any potential building over the railway bridge)

are excessive and will cause overshadowing.

2. Suggests that a live planning application to

develop 30-32 Glenferrie Road will cause traffic

congestion and amenity impacts.

3. Suggests that new development at 30-32

Glenferrie Road should provide underground car

parking

Built form, Amenity

impacts, Traffic

congestion/ car

parking

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)






No change

25 10 Bailey Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Supports Council's intent to protect heritage

areas.

2. Scale of change in the activity centre will have

negative impacts on infrastructure (sewerage,

electricity, rubbish collection, excess traffic on

Wattletree Road, parking for visitors/clients of all

proposed apartments/shops) and lead to

overshadowing, particularly on properties in

Valentine Grove and Railway Avenue

3. Some development is desirable but not to

completely change the area

4. Suggests that community engagement about the

amendment was inadequate/questionable

Built form, Amenity

impacts,

infrastructure needs

Object Refer to:

2.1 (Urban Character/Heritage)




1.3 (Built form)

6.2 (Other)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern






respected.

Urban

character/Heritage,


parking








27 47 Wattletree

Road, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Requests further information in relation to

current height restrictions for new development in

Wattletree Road; existing provisions for increased

green space on Wattletree Road between the

Railway Road and the intersection of Wattletree

Road and Dandenong Road, the reduction of speed

limits between the Railway Bridge and Cabrini

Hospital to support pedestrian safety and

consideration of a multi-storey car park with a

bridge between Malvern Central and the current

Stonnington car park on Wattletree Road.

2. Suggests that building heights should be

relatively evenly graduated and in keeping with

existing urban character.

3. Suggests that there is an increasing need for

green space/ parklands in Stonnington to support

future populations.

Urban

character/Heritage,


parking, amenity

impacts,


Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)

6.5 (Other)



1.4 (Built form)


6.5 (Other)

28 6/65 Station Street,

Malvern

Proforma A2 1. Concern regarding the amenity impacts of

development at 12-18 Claremont Avenue (A2 – 6

storeys) on the north facing apartments at 63-65

Station Street Armadale. Request for 12-18

Claremont Ave to be removed from Precinct A2.

2. Request for Council to purchase 12-18 Claremont

Ave for future public open space.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Change 1. The concerns regarding the potential amenity impacts

of a 6 storey building on the rear apartments is

acknowledged. The sites at 12-18 Claremont Ave are fine

grain and in the Heritage Overlay. It is considered that a

6 storey building on these sites is not appropriate given

their context. It is recommended that these sites and

those in the Heritage Overlay to the west of 63-65

Station Street be reallocated to the more appropriate

precinct (A1) where 4 storey development is supported.

2. The building at 12-18 Claremont Ave is of local

heritage significance and protected in the Heritage

Overlay. Given the sites heritage significance it is not

appropriate to identify this site for public open space.

1. Amend the boundary of the

precincts in the map in DDO19.

Align Precinct A1 so it applies to

areas subject to the Heritage

Overlay.

Move the following addresses

from Precinct A2 (6 storeys) to

Precinct A1 (4 storeys):

• 2-18 Claremont Ave.

• 57 Station St.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


29 2/46a Caroline St,

South Yarra

Written

submission

A2 1. The proposed setbacks and preferred maximum

building heights of four and six storeys in the

Malvern Station precinct area are excessive and not

in keeping with Council’s heritage guidelines.

2.Visual bulk will negatively impact local area

amenity, urban character, traffic congestion and

demand for car parking

3.Suggest that preferred maximum heights for the

Malvern Station Precinct be reduced to 3-4 storeys

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)



1.5 (Built form)

No change

30 59 Northcote Road,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.New development will not respect the existing

period charm and character.

2.Increased density will reduce sunlight, create

wind tunnels, decrease the desirability of the

activity centre and cause traffic congestion.

3.Requests protection for period homes including

against demolitions.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:







No change

31 24 Llaneast St,

Armadale

Written

submission

Malvern

Central

1.Proposed heights at Malvern Central are excessive

and existing roads, car parking and public transport

will not be able to cope with demand

2. The area will turn into a mini Chadstone

3.New development should respect the existing

aesthetics and available services

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts,


Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)




No change

32 6 Derril Avenue,

Malvern

Written

submission

D 1. Reject the continuation of the Strategic Site D

eastwards along Wattletree Road beyond Coonil

Crescent and beyond Glendearg Grove.

2.Allowing the expansion of development beyond

natural boundaries of roads east of Coonil

Cresecent will compromise heritage built form and

existing urban character including many properties

in the area covered by restrictive covenents.

Built form, Urban

character/heritage

Object Refer to:



No change


submission

All precincts 1.Glenferrie Road and neighbouring streets cannot

withstand population growth or increases in traffic

congestion and car parking.

2. The activity centre is desirable for its current

urban character and charm.

3. Suggests that Stonnington Council address the

needs of current communities before planning for

future communities.

Infrastructure needs,


parking, Urban

character/heritage

Object Refer to:





No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


34 21 Edsall Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Preferred heights in Precinct A1 and D are

excessive and will negatively impact heritage and

local amenity including increasing noise and traffic.

2.Suggests that Council adjust the boundaries of

Precinct A1 so that it ends one lot back from

Glenferrie Road instead of the full distance to

Drysdale Street. This would exclude taller

developments in the area that is currently the Coles

car park, Dan Murphy’s, the municipal car park and

smaller shops on Drysdale Street, creating a buffer

to the heritage zone. A similar buffer should be

provided on Isabella Street in Precinct D.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Change Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)




No change

35 43 Claremont

Avenue, Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights and setbacks are

inappropriate, including proposals for Malvern

Station, up to 10 storeys on Dandenong Road, up to

6 storeys immediately east of Railway Avenue,

heights along Glenferrie Road and High Street and

possible development over the railway bridge.

2. New development will compromise existing

heritage and have amenity impacts (loss of solar

access/overshadowing, loss of privacy due to

overlooking, and loss of quality of life)

3.Raises concerns about home extensions recently

approved in the local area

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





6.3 (Other)

No change

36 50 Kooyong Road,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. New development above 4 storeys is

inappropriate and will negatively impact urban

character.

2.Higher density living is catered for by other inner

city suburbs, and modern design standards are

generally poor causing loss of greenery

3.Increased high rise development will lead to

traffic congestion and overshadowing of

surrounding areas

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)


6.5 (Other)

6.6 (Other)

6.7 (Other)




No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


37 26 Llaneast Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Reject rezoning of the south side of Wattletree

Road (158 to 198 Wattletree Road) from General

Residential Zone (Schedule 3) to a new General

Residential Zone (Schedule 15); rezoning of

Wattletree Road between the railway corridor and

Glenferrie Road (77 to 101Wattletree Road) from

Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 2) to a new

Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 3); inserting a

new Schedule 19 to Clause 43.02 Design and

Development Overlay which applies to land in the

Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre and

adjoining Wattletree Road area, and inserting a new

Schedule 3 to Clause 43.04 Development Plan

Overlay which applies to Malvern Central and

adjoining railway land in Armadale between

Wattletree Road and Glenferrie Road.

2.Preferred maximum building heights will

negatively impact urban character, local amenity

and existing infrastructure cannot accommodate

future growth.

3.New development is accommodated by other

suburbs and is unncecessary in Malvern.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)




No change

38 4/3 Railway

Avenue. Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed preferred heights including allowances

for A2 (6 storeys), E(10 storeys) and the Malvern

Central site (12 storeys)are excessive and will cause

traffic congestion and diminish urban character.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)



No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high

and will negatively impact urban character and

amenity (noise, traffic, atmosphere, overlooking,

quality of life).

2.Suggests that building heights should remain at

current levels.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)





6.3 (Other)

1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


40 30-32 Glenferrie

Road, Malvern

Echelon

Planning

On behalf of A1 1. Support the inclusion of heights and setbacks.

2. The inclusion of a 14.5 metre preferred height

limit is sufficient in dealing with issues relating to

overall height in the streetscape. Request for height

in storeys to be deleted.

3. The mid-block setback will significantly impact on

the infill opportunities of sites. Request for the mid-

block setback to be deleted.


2. Consistent with Planning Practice Note 60 (Height and

setback controls for activity centres) the building heights

are expressed in metres and storeys. The height in

storeys is used as a guide to indicate the equivalent

height in storeys.

3. The proposed controls include a provision for a mid-

block setback for the top level to mitigate visual bulk

from the rear of new development. There is no measure

against this rear mid-block setback requirement. In

addition, the visibility of the new built form at this level

is potentially negligible or non-existent. It is considered

that this provision should be removed as it is unlikely to

significantly assist with its objective to mitigate visual

bulk.

3. Delete mid-block setback

provision in DDO19.

41 17-23 Station

Street, Malvern

Dreamvale

Property

Group

On behalf of A1 1. Requests that the preferred height limit for

Precinct A1 be increased from 4 to 6 storeys. Given

the subject site is not of heritage significance and

has a number of different characteristics such as its

larger size that lend itself to more intensive

development.

2. Request for the proposed upper level setback of

8-10 metres to be deleted or reviewed.

3. Request for balconies or terraces not to be

included in the building envelope provisions. The

provision seems overly onerous.

4. Request for deletion of the provision for a 1.5m

rear ground and first level setback. There is little

benefit to the function of the laneway if only a

handful of properties incorporate the 1.5m setback.

Built form Change 1. Pecinct A1 (4 storeys) applies to Glenferrie Road and

Station Street where the Heritage Overlay also applies.

The proposed preferred maximum building height of 4

storeys is in consideration of the predominant

circumstance of a heritage significant building and the

objective to ensure that any new built form is

subservient to the heritage building. Despite the lack of

heritage significance of the subject site, any new

development must still have regard for its heritage

context and consistency with the objectives of Council’s

Heritage Policy.

2. The proposed upper level setback of 8-10 metres for

heritage buildings is consistent with Council’s adopted

heritage policy and Heritage Design Guidelines. The

upper level setback will ensure that new alterations and

additions are visually recessive and located behind the

primary building volume, ensuring a clear separation

between the heritage significant building and the new

additions.

3. Balconies and terraces are required to be included

within the building envelope to maintain the integrity of

building separation and minimise potential overlooking

of the adjoining residential areas.

4. A rear lane setback at ground level and first level is

required to better facilitate the ongoing function of the

laneway and improve access for cars and building

servicing.


provision in DDO19.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


5. Request for deletion of the rear mid-block

setback provision.









bulk.

42 Not supplied Glenferrie

Road Malvern

Business

Association

Written

submission

A1 1. Suggest to encourage shop top residential

development within the Glenferrie Road Precinct to

a level of 4 storeys including strict requirements to

provide car parking in all future development.

2.Request that Council develop a plan for increased

car parking in the Activity Centre over the next 5

years and suggest that existing VicTrack land be

considered for future car parking as well as for use

by pedestrians and cyclists

3.Support proposed heights at Malvern Central

provided sufficient car parking is provided and

suggest that the site provide improved pedetrian

access between the Malvern Central site and

Glenferrie Road.


parking

Change Car parking within future development may be

supported however given the existing traffic congestion

in the activity centre, more sustainable means of

transport is encouraged. Residents are encouraged to

use more sustainable means of transport such as

walking, train and tram where possible. A reduction in

the car parking requirements for new development may

be supported in order not to further exacerbate vehicle

traffic congestion on the roads.

Refer to:


No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.The proposed amendment does not respect the

local context (street pattern, heritage character,

scale of existing dwellings) and will negative impact

urban character, public safety, people’s right to

enjoy a quiet environmental and good quality of

life.

2.Dwellings along Llaneast Street (backing on to

Wattletree Road west) have a heritage overlay and

are typically single storey dwellings. The

amendment would allow dwellings of 5 storeys, just

metres from the rear boundary of properties along

Llaneast Street causing overlooking and adverse

effects on local amenity.

3. Proposed heights near Wattletree west will

negatively impact quality of life of residents.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:



6.8 (Other)

6.3 (Other)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Amendment does not respect urban character

and will lead to amenity impacts (lack of solar

access, creation of wind tunnells, overlooking, noise

and traffic congestion)

2.Increasing heights at Wattletree Road west will

cause loss of privacy in adjacent residential areas.

3. Proposed heights are too big and concentrated.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:








1.3 (Built form)

No change

45 110-122 Wattletree

Road, Malvern

(Malvern Central)

AMP Capital On behalf of Malvern

Central

1. Support for the broad ambitions for the site

including recognition as a strategic development

site and discretionary controls.

Requested DPO3 changes:

2. Allow the preparation and approval of separate

development plans for the Malvern Central site and

VicTrack land.

3. Allow permits to be granted prior to the approval

of a development plan.

4. Request for clarification and correction in

relation to the setbacks to side boundaries above

the street wall. No street wall identified.

5. Development plan requirements to be more

flexible.

6. ‘display of development plan’ requirements to be

‘for at least 14 days but no longer than 28 days’.

This convention is the same for the display of a

planning application, generally in accordance with a

incorporated plan, in Clause 22.1-3 (Chadstone

Commercial Centre Policy). For notice to be to

adjoining owners and occupiers only.

Requested DDO19 changes:


2. The head provision in the DPO already allows for a

development plan to be prepared in stages. In order to

make this clear it is recommended that DPO3 be revised

to clarify that the land can be developed independently

and separate development plans can be prepared and

approved.

3. The DPO allows for advertising signs, demolition and

minor building and works to be granted a permit prior to

a development plan being prepared.

4. A street wall is identified for Wattletree Road. To

clarify the application of the upper level setback this

should be revised so that it applies above the street wall

and the building base on laneways.

5. Section 4.0 (Requirements for development plan)

outlines what a development plan must contain. The

requirements are not extensive and given the

substantial development potential of the strategic site

these requirements are considered necessary and

important.

6. Section 5.0 of the DPO3 requires the responsible

authority to display the development plan for public

comment for at least four weeks. This extent of time is

consistent with the extent of time for exhibition of an

amendment to the planning scheme. Given the

significance of any development on this site, this extent

of time is considered appropriate.

2. Revise the DPO to clarify that

separate development plans can

be prepared.

4. Amend text to clarify that the

upper level setback applies to the

street wall and the building base

on laneways.

7. Move design objectives and

design guidelines, applicable to

Malvern Central, from the DDO to

the DPO. Amend the Planning

Scheme maps to remove the DDO

from that part of the Malvern

Central site fronting Wattletree

Road.

8. Revise planning provisions to

clarify that for development on

the Malvern Central site, the

preferred minimum setback along

the common boundary, between

Malvern Central and VicTrack land,

is 0 metres.

7. Appears to be inconsistency between the street

wall height and other built form requirements in

the DPO and DDO. Overlap between the DPO and

DDO is confusing. Request that DPO3 remain the

overarching control.

8. Seeks clarification on whether the ‘Interface and

Setback Guidelines’ apply.

The potential impact of any development on this site will

be wide reaching so limiting notice to adjoining owners

and occupiers only is considered inappropriate.

7. Support moving all the relevant Malvern Central

controls into the one tool, being DPO3.

8. Revise planning provisions to clarify that, for

development on the Malvern Central site, the preferred

minimum setback along the common boundary,

between Malvern Central and VicTrack land, is 0 metres.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


46 3 Chandlers Road,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Proposed planning controls may not be restrictive

enough, allowing greater heights than preferred.

2.New development will negatively impact heritage,

neighbourhood character and cause loss of amenity

(overshadowing, overlooking, traffic congestion, car

parking demand)

3.There is insufficient infrastructure to support

population growth and change

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking


1.2 (Built form)








No change

47 17B Pine Grove,

Malvern

Proforma All precincts

1. Amendment enables development that is too big

and concentrated and will result in loss of heritage,

urban character and amenity (loss of car parking

and open space, traffic congestion, overshadowing,

overlooking, visual bulk).

2. There will be increased commercial activity at

Malvern Central site, which is a relatively small site,

and local shops on Glenferrie Road and High Street

will be adversely affected, including streetscapes.

3. Chadstone provides the community with

shopping complex experience so need for a

shopping complex in the activity centre is

unjustified.

4. Request development that is low rise, improves

the heritage character of the area and that has

positive impacts on residents and visitors.

5. Over 95% of people in Malvern and Armadale are

opposed to the amendment.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

48 41 Dixon Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Existing car parking is insufficient to support new

development near the railway station.

2.Suggest that Council and the State Transport

Authority purchase land near the rail corridor to

convert into needed car parking facilities

3.Car parking provisions should be provided in any

proposed planning controls


parking

Object Refer to:


No change

49 23 Gordon Grove,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Proposed heights in Precinct D are excessive and

will lead to overlooking and overshadowing, and

should therefore remain unchanged.

2.Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high

and will negatively impact urban character. Suggest

that built form at Malvern Central should not

exceed 6 storeys.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Change Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)




1.5 (Built form)

1.1 (Built form)


No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights are excessive and will

negatively impact the urban character and

ambience of areas, particularly on Valentine Grove

and Bailey Avenue and in local shopping streets that

are popular with tourists.

2.New development will negatively impact local

amenity (overshadowing and overlooking) and

result in traffic and car parking issues

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)






No change

51 1269 High Street,

Malvern

Mecone Written

submission

Precinct 1. Recommend that site at 1269 High Street (east of

Precinct 1 : Civic) be included in the activity centre

area subject to site investigation, with a view to the

area being considered as a 'substantial change area'

including building heights of up to 5-6 storeys.

Built form Change 1. The boundaries of the activity centre were

determined through the preparation of the endorsed

Structure Plan. Planinng Practice Note 58 (Structure

Planning for Activity Centres) includes criteria for

determinig an activity centre boundary. The consultants

preparing the Structure Plan used this Practice Note to

inform the extent of the Glenferrie Road and High Street

Activity Centre boundary. The proposed planning

controls align with the activity centre boundary as

identified in the Structure Plan.

No change

52 14 Winter St,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Proposed amendment will negatively impact

heritage and urban character.

2.Proposed development of Coles supermarket car

park into a 4 storey development will have negative

impacts on amenity (noise, overshadowing,

overlooking, traffic congestion)

3.Suggests that Winter Street and Edsall Street be

made 'one way only' to facilitate improved access to

the supermarket car park.

4.Requests to know how ROW garages will be

impacted by new development.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:








6.8 (Other)

No change

53 1/450 Chapel

Street, South Yarara

CS Town

Planning

Services

On behalf of All precincts 1. Suggest to make Malvern Central height limit 6

storeys, comparable with the clock tower at the

northern end of the Centre.

2. Suggest that the southern side of Malvern Central

site including height limits of up to 4 storeys

consistent with the maximum heights for

Wattletree road as this will provide a more

tempered approach to building heights that is

sensitive to the urban context.

3. Proposed building heights will have a detrimental

impact on solar access to the public realm,

particularly during winter.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)

1.4 (Built form)


No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


54 183 Wattletree

Road, Malvern

Cabrini

Property

Association

On behalf of Precinct 1. Institutional uses are already addressed in other

policy including Clause 22.16 (Institutional Uses),

Clause 18.02-1 (Health facilities), clause 21.03

(Strategic Framework Plan) and Clause 21.08-5

(Community Infrastructure). Panel for C175

(Neighbourhood character policy) believed that

Council has already effectively planned for

institutional and large redevelopment sites.

2. DDO19 should not apply to 183, 185-189

Wattletree Road. The DDO19 fails to recognise that

institutional uses will differ from standard

residential development. Lack of recognition for the

net community benefit afforded by facilitating and

supporting the ongoing hospital and medical uses

that service both local and broader community

needs.

Built form, amenity

impacts, urban

character/ heritage,

site specific

Change 1. Cabrini Hospital is an important use close to the

Activity Centre. It’s presence and other complimentary

medical services on Wattletree Road support the

ongoing economic vitality of the Glenferrie Rd and High

St Activity Centre.

Existing policy for institutional uses in the Planning

Scheme are broad based and not specific to the Cabrini

Hospital Malvern site. It is important that development

on Cabrini owned land has regard to its specific context

within residential zoned land and its relationship with

the Glenferrie Road Activity Centre. The site(s) are

located in Precinct D (Wattletree Road East) in the

proposed DDO19. Precinct D contains provisions which

are not just relevant to residential development but also

seek to ensure that any development on the Cabrini land

responds to the objectives to enhance the garden

setting of new development and encourage a scale of

development that provides a transition.

2. Cabrini Hospital is located in the peripheral area of

the main Activity Centre boundary. It is acknowledged

that the under the provisions of the existing Residential

Growth Zone (RGZ2) the maximum building height of

13.5m does not apply to institutional uses. To date,

recent development on the Cabrini owned land has not

attempted to respond adequately to its surrounding

residential context.

No change.

The key objectives and design guidelines in the proposed

DDO19 are relevant provisions to manage the edges of

development on the Cabrini land. These provisions seek

to ensure a transition in scale and complementary

interface with the surrounding low scale residential

area.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


55 8/1010 La Trobe

Street, Docklands

VicTrack On behalf of Precinct 1. The Melbourne Metro Rail Authority has advised

that it requires most of the rail land adjacent

Malvern Central shopping centre for access, rail

sidings and a new substation to support the

Melbourne Metro Rail Project.

Requested DDO changes:

2. Request that a permit for buildings and works be

exempted for:

“Railway and railway infrastructure including signals

(and related control buildings), new tracks, track

work and realignment, overhead power lines,

gantries, stabling (excluding buildings) and any

other work required under the Disability

Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for

Accessible Public Transport 2002”.

As a railway station is a separately defined land use

term under clause 74, to avoid confusion, railway

station should also be included in the exemption.

3. Request for all VicTrack land to be removed from

the proposed DDO19.

Requested DPO changes:

4. Area indicated in green on enclosed plan is

required for transport purposes. For the short to

medium term, alternative development is unlikely.

Council may wish to remove the DPO from applying

to the green shaded section.

Built form, Site specific Change 1. Noted

2. It is considered appropriate to support permit

exemptions for those works that are required for the

operation of the rail and infrastructure in accordance

with the Public Zone (PUZ4 - Transport).

3. Support. Remove the DDO as it applies to the VicTrack

land on the southern side of the railway corridor west of

Glenferrie Rd. Remove the DDO as it applies to VicTrack

land east of Glenferrie Road. There are no relevant

provisions in the DDO so these areas can be removed

from the DDO map.

4. The VicTrack land to which the DPO applies does not

have railway tracks and currently a wood yard occupies

this land. This land could be developed upon, therefore

it is appropriate that planning controls apply to this land

to guide any potential future development.

2. Consider need to add to existing

permit exemptions.

3.Remove the DDO as it applies to

the VicTrack land on the southern

side of the railway corridor west of

Glenferrie Rd. Remove the DDO as

it applies to VicTrack land east of

Glenferrie Road.

5. Area indicated in orange on the enclosed plan is

available for development and is currently being

investigated by VicTrack. We support the inclusion

of this site within the DPO3.

6. Seeking to have the control worded to support

VicTrack bring able to lodge a separate

Development Plan from Malvern Central shopping

centre.

7. Concern about the design objective at Clause 2.0.

Request that it be removed and retained in the

Structure Plan only.

“to incorporate a landscaped shared pedestrian and

cyclist path along the northern edge of the railway

corridor between Malvern and Armadale Stations.”

5. Noted.

6. It is important that any redevelopment of VicTrack

land is compatible with development on the Malvern

Central site. The head provision in the DPO already

allows for a development plan to be prepared in stages.

In order to make this clear it is recommended that DPO3

be revised to clarify that the land can be developed

independently and separate development plans can be

prepared and approved.

7. The incorporation of a landscaped shared pedestrian

and cyclist path along the northern edge of the railway

corridor has been identified as an opportunity to better

connect Malvern and Armadale Station and any

development associated with these two railway stations.

It is proposed that this provision be retained in the DPO.

6. Revise the DPO to clarify that

separate development plans can

be prepared.


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Proposed heights will adversely impact residential

amenity (visual bulk, loss of solar access, traffic

congestion and car parking) including the

appearance of the High Street and Glenferrie Road

streetscapes.

2. Proposed heights at Malvern Central will cause

overshadowing and overlooking.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts


1.2 (Built form)





1.1 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


56a 13 Valentine Grove,

Armadale

Written

submission

Malvern

Central

1. Attended focus groups with submitters but did

not feel that concerns were sufficiently heard by

Council staff.

2.The footprint of Malvern Central appears

signficantly larger than suggested in the Activity

Centre Structure Plan, impacting nearby residential

properties.

3.The proposed scale of the Malvern Central is out

of scape with existing development including the

town hall. This contradicts design guidelines which

require new development to complement

neighbourhood character and prevent intrusion and

overlooking.

4.The guidelines around overshadowing are

unreasonable and do not take consideration of

other times of the year.

5.Conditions and requirements for permits should

consider privacy and surveillance.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

6.2 (Other)

1.1 (Built form)





No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Disagree with proposed building heights (at

Malvern Central site and in Precincts E, F and A2, as

well as inclusion of land over the railway in the A1

Precinct with a height of 4 storeys) as this will

negatively impact amenity (overshadowing,

overlooking, loss of privacy)

2. Suggest a maximum height limit of 5 storeys in

Precincts A2, E, F and the Malvern Central site.

3. Suggest to rezone land over the railway as public

open space

4. Proposal contradicts Plan Melbourne's emphasis

on creating liveable suburbs

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Change Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)





1.5 (Built form)

6.5 (Other)

No change

58 3 Bailey Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Mavelrn Central (12 storeys)

and Precinct A2 (6 storeys) are too high and will

cause amenity impacts (increased traffic

congestion, reduced solar access)

2.Pedestrian path along the railway line between

Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road is

unnecessary, too narrow and could not provide a

safe path

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car

parking

Object 2. The provision of a pedestrian path along the railway

line will be considered as part of any future

development plan for the Malvern Central and adjoining

railway land strategic development site.

Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)




No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Reject inclusion of properties at 185, 187, 189,

and 191 Wattletree Road; 2 and 4 Coonil Crescent

and the property to the east of the corner of

Wattletree Road and Coonil Crescent, being

included in Precinct D, as this may cause Cabrini to

extend their facilities along Wattletree Road.

2.New development at Malvern Hill precinct will

negatively impact amenity (overlooking)

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)


No change

60 5/92 Wattletree

Road, Aramadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Proposed heights (especially at Malvern Central)

are too high and will negative impact urban

character and amenity (traffic and car parking)

2. Proposed heights on Wattletree Road (west) will

negatively impact vistas and solar access to

residences

3.Suggest that all residences be built to the same

height as neighbours with strict setbacks.

4.Agree that the rail corridor between Malvern and

Armadale Stations would benefit from landscaped,

shared pedestrian/cyclist paths

5.Stonnington has Chadstone and therefore does

not need another shopping complex.

6. Community engagement about the amendment

has been insufficient.

7. Existing residents/ratepayers should be more

valued than future residents

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car

parking

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)





1.5 (Built form)

6.5 (Other)

6.2 (Other)

No change


Aramadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Concerned about amenity impacts of proposed

building heights (particulaly overshadowing of

resident backyards in Railway Avenue due to high

buildings, and noise disturbance caused by outdoor

cafes/bars)

2.The effect of overshadowing has only been

considered at the equinox, not during winter

months

3.Suggest that building heights be lowered to a

maximum of 4 storeys as a setback on the Malvern

Central site, and a maximum of 6 storeys on the

Wattletree Road side.

4.Given that the VicTrack land can be redeveloped,

this could provide an increase in commercial space

for the community

5.Suggest that Council could have done more to

engage CALD communities in the amendment.

Building heights,

Amenity impacts

Change Refer to:




6.2 (Other)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


62 10 Winter Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Reject proposed heights of 12 storeys at Malvern

Central and suggest they be lowered to 6 storeys

2. Reject connecting Malvern Central with Cabrini

hospital.

3. Raises concerns about overshadowing,

overlooking and visual bulk caused by 4 storey

height limits at Glenferrie Road

4. Request more information about what is

proposed for the Winter Street car park and

Drysdale car park

5. The Amendment should address the frequency of

trains as the Amendment will not be workable

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car


needs

Change Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)





No change

63 99 Claremont

Avenue, Malvern

Written

submission

Malvern

Central

1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central site are too

high and will negatively impact urban character

Built form, Urban

character/heritage

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)


No change

64 23 Inverness

Avenue, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high

and should be reduced to 8 storeys.

2.Council should take a gradual approach to

increasing heights

3.Increasing density and development may lead to

tree loss

4.Council should make allowances for site setbacks

and street facing vegetation

Building heights,

Amenity impacts

Change Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)


1.4 (Built form)

6.5 (Other)

No change

65 7 McKinley Avenue,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Heritage areas should be protected, including

historic laneways which should be protected, not

widened.

2. Proposed height limits for Precincts A1 and A2 (4-

6 storeys) are too high and new development will

have amenity impacts (overlooking, overshadowing)

3. Mixed use developments near Malvern Station

should be controlled to reduce amenity impacts

(noise, car parking and vehicle access for deliveries)

6. Large scale developments in Precincts E & F to

the south side of Malvern Station will have negative

effects on vehicle access, car parking and traffic

congestion

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car

parking, urban

character/heritage

Object Refer to:


1.2 (Built form)






No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central are too high

and will overshadow residences at Valentine Grove

and Railway Avenue.

2. The scale, bulk and density of new development

and the setbacks and site coverage will diminish

neighbourhood character and cause amenity

impacts (loss of open space, impacts on resident

wellbeing)

3. Existing infrastructure is insufficient for

accommodating population growth (including

roads, public transport, water, drainage, sewerage

and electricity)

4. Community engagement in the amendment has

been insufficient

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car

parking, urban

character/heritage

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)


1.2 (Built form)

6.4 (Other)



6.3 (Other)




6.2 (Other)

No change

67 38 Winter Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Support 4 storey height limits on Glenferrie Road

2.Reject proposal that Coles Supermarket be

included in Precinct A1. Suggest that a 4 storey

building covering the Coles Supermarket and car

park would irrevocably change the character of

Winter Street. Suggest that Coles car park should

have a maximum height limit of 2 storeys in keeping

with dwellings in Winter Street.

3.New development will impact local amenity

(overshadowing, overlooking) and building heights

should be increased gradually.

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car

parking, urban

character/heritage

Object Refer to:

1.5 (Built form)




No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights and density increases

are excessive and should be met with

commensurate increases in green spaces and

parklands.

2.New development will have amenity impacts

(overlooking)

3. Suggest that Council investigate providing more

sports ovals in the area

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

6.5 (Other)


No change


Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. New develoipment will have negative impacts on

amenity (overshadowing, increased traffic

congestion), and heritage

2. Existing infrastructure is insufficient for

accommodating an increase in the population

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car

parking, urban

character/heritage

Object Refer to:






No change

70 304/1196-1200

High Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights in Precinct A1 should also be

applied to Precinct B

2. Future development should provide sufficient car

parking and vehicle access. Developments should

not proceed if this is not considered

3. Increase in population and new development will

result in loss of views and natural light in the centre,

and loss of scarce public space

Built form, Amenity

impacts, traffic

congestion/car

parking

Object Refer to:






No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


71 4/65 Station Street,

Malvern

Proforma A2 Refer submission 28. Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Change Refer submission 28 Change. Refer submission 28

72 14 Pine Grove,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. All proposed height limits be reduced by one

storey to assist transition to surrounding areas

2. Proposed heights at Malvern Central should be

restricted to 6-8 storey height limits, and the term

'preferred' should be removed to stipulate a stricter

maximum height limit

Built form, Urban

character/heritage

Change Refer to:

1.4 (Built form)

1.1 (Built form)


1.5 (Built form)

No change

73 Not supplied Proforma All precincts 1. Proposal is too big, too concentrated and will

have amenity impacts (overshadowing, visual

dominance, increased traffic congestion, car parking

problems, loss of public space, noise).

2. The heritage value of buildings will be diminished

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)







No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights of 6 storeys in Precinct A2 will

impact Railway Avenue properties through negative

impacts on amenity (overshadowing, loss of privacy,

loss of quiet enjoyment of properties) and height

restrictions should remain at current levels.

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:




1.5 (Built form)

No change

75 1-3 Como Street

Malvern

SJB Planning On behalf of A2 1. Building height should not be restricted to 6

storeys (mandatory or discretionary) as this height

underestimates the development potential. A

preferred maximum building height of 7 storeys

may be supported by allowing for a greater height

based on the size of the site. Sites with a frontage

greater than 19 metres.

2. Higher density development on this site

supported by VCAT (P1876/2015).

3. Generally supportive of the design objectives.

4. Concern regarding the potential ambiguity of the

application of Diagram 4. Suggest that it be made

clear that this is for residential interfaces only.

Built form, site specific Change 1. The height designated for Como Street is a

discretionary 6 storeys. Six (6) storeys recognises the

development potential of this land given the large lot

size and lack of heritage controls.

2. Noted.

3. Noted.

4. Acknowledge that there may be some ambiguity with

the application of the rear interface diagram. New

diagram required to show rear interface setbacks for

‘non-residential’ interfaces.

4. Insert new diagram for Precinct

A2 for rear ‘non-residential

interfaces’.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


76 16 Union Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

B 1. Proposed heights are too high, especially in High

Street and will diminish urban character and

heritage

2. Instead of a blanket height limit, different heights

should apply to different sections of the street. In

particular I would suggest lower heights in the

vicinity of the Kooyong Road intersection

3. Armadale Station should also be considered on a

standalone basis and is not appropriate for any

development, so should be removed from the

Amendment area.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)



No change

77 24B Claremont

Avenue, Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1.New development in the Activity Centre should

not diminish existing character and heritage of

established neighbourhoods and include adequate

and appropriate landscaping

2. Many large scale developments are

unsympathetic to the surrounding area and are

inappropriate in scale, suffocating their sites with

reduced space between buildings and no or vastly

reduced landscaping

3. Development at interface of commercial and

residential zones should be lower.

4. Development has potential for creating a range

of amenity impacts (ie.traffic and car parking. Use

of car lifts/stackers and permits for reduced car

parking requirements should be discouraged by

Council).

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:



6.5 (Other)

1.4 (Built form)


No change

78 42 Glendearg

Grove, Malvern

Written

submission

A2 1. It is unclear why some Station Street properties

are designated to Precinct A2 and not subject to

14.5 metre height restrictions.

2. The proposed 21.5 metre height limit in Precinct

A2 will cause overshadowing and visual

unsightliness and should be reduced to four storeys

similar to Precinct A1.

4. Proposed amendment threatens urban character

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Change Refer to :

1.3 (Built form)




No change

79 1 Soudan Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

D 1.4 storey height limits for Wattleree Rd will cause

overshadowing, detract from the heritage areas

south of Wattletree Road, increase traffic and

change the unique character of the area

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:






No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


80 2/1 Soudan Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed height limits are too high, will diminish

urban character, and have negative impacts on

amenity (creation of wind tunnels, overshadowing,

loss of natural light, decrease in quality of life of

residents, traffic congestion, car parking demand,

pollution)

2. Submit that the 2nd storey facades on Glenferrie

Rd should be protected for their heritage value

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





6.3 (Other)



No change

81 559 Dandenong

Road, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Malvern Central are out of

character with the neighbourhood and will have

negative amenity impacts

(overlooking,overshadowing of properties on

Railway Avenue, Valentine Grove and Bailey

Avenue).

2. Proposed built form in Precincts F&E will be out

of character with the adjoining neighbourhood and

may create wind tunnels

3. Population growth will have a negative impact on

public transport infrastructure and cause

overcrowding

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)







No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed planning controls will negatively impact

amenity (resident privacy, impacts on mental

health, increased traffic congestion)

2. There has been a lack of consultation about the

amendment, and lack of acknowledgement of

recent correspondence submitted to Council

regarding streetscape issues in Llaneast Street

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:


6.3 (Other)


6.2 (Other)

No change

83 1318 High Street,

Malvern (Peter

Houlihan)

De La Salle

College

Written

submission

B 1. Informs Council of College planning intentions,

including preparing a masterplan for its sites to the

north and south of High St, and planning for 4-5

storeys along High Street frontage to Dalny St.

2. Submit that 5 level height and zero setback

controls should be applied to the land on the south

side of High St between Glenferrie Rd and Dalny St

extending south a distance of 73.78m, which

coincides with north boundary of St Joseph's school.

Built form, traffic

congestion/car

parking

Change 1. The boundaries of the activity centre were

determined through the preparation of the endorsed

Structure Plan. Planinng Practice Note 58 (Structure

Planning for Activity Centres) includes criteria for

determinig an activity centre boundary. The consultants

preparing the Structure Plan used this Practice Note to

inform the extent of the Glenferrie Road and High Street

Activity Centre boundary. The proposed planning

provisions are consistent with the activity centre

boundary as identified in the Structure Plan.

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

C 1. Proposed buildings are out of scale and

proportion with surrounding dwellings and will

negatively impact heritage, local character and

amenity (privacy, and the right to enjoy a safe and

quiet environment, traffic congestion and car

parking demand)

2. Dwellings along Llaneast Street (backing on to

Wattletree Road west) have a heritage overlay.

Allowing dwellings of 5 storeys just metres from the

rear boundary of these properties is inappropriate

and may adversely impact rear access to these

properties.

3. Proposed building heights on Wattletree Rd west

(Precinct C) will have adverse impacts upon Llaneast

St properties including loss of privacy/ overlooking

and noise

4. Construction of new developments could

negatively impact the stability of properties

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)






1.4 (Built form)


No change

85 11/65 Station

Street, Malvern


Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Change Refer submission 28. Change Refer submission 28.

86 17/65 Station

Street, Malvern


Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Change Refer submission 28. Change. Refer submission 28.

87 20 Alleyne Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts I. The proposal will have a negative impact on the

atmosphere and appearance of High St and

Glenferrie Rd streetscapes, affecting enjoyment,

tourism and quality of shopping.

2. Increased population will increase traffic and

demand for car parking

3. The size and heights of buildings under the

proposal are inappropriate for the area

4. Council is being swayed by business and

developers.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:



1.2 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


88 29 Inverness

Avenue, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Concerned about overdevelopment, in particular

the potential 12 storey building heights at Malvern

Central and the 5 storey heights in Precinct C

(Wattletree Road west) and Precincts B, and A1

around Armadale and Malvern Railway Stations.

Suggest that lower heights should be set.

2. Proposed heights at Malvern Central will cause

have amenity impacts (overlooking, overshadowing)

and diminish neighbourhood character

3. Proposed height limits in Precinct C (Wattletree

Road west) are eroding neighbourhood character

4. Areas around Malvern and Armadale Station have

significant heritage quality that is at risk

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)

1.5 (Built form)






No change

89 20 Gladstone

Avenue, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Community consultation on the amendment has

been insufficient.

2. The proposed Amendment will result in negative

impacts on amenity (overshadowing, loss of

sunlight, increased traffic and loss of car parking)

Built form, traffic

congestion/car

parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

6.2 (Other)




No change

90 5 Bailey Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The proposed amendment will result in increased

demand for car parking and garbage collection

services.

2. Proposed 12 storey buildings at Malvern Central

will be unattractive and out of character with the

surrounding area

3. Proposed heights in Precinct B will impact on the

amenity of my property and neighbouring

properties (overlooking, overshadowing, traffic and

car parking, loss of solar access to my property and

neighbouring properties). This planning outcome is

inconsistent with the Planning Scheme provisions at

Clause 21.06.

4. Transitions between new development and

adjoining properties is insufficient. Design

guidelines are needed to manage interfaces

between new and existing building

5. there is insufficient road infrastructure in the

activity centre to handle increased road use.

Built form, traffic

congestion/car

parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:


1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)




1.4 (Built form)


No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


91 11 Willis Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

B 1. The proposed maximum height limit in Precinct B

will impact on the amenity of my property and

neighbouring properties (eroding liveability,

overlooking, overshadowing, reducing solar acces,

increased traffic and loss of car parking)

2. Submits that the amendment is inconsistent with

provisions in the Planning Scheme under Clause

21.06.

3. There are inadequate sensitive transitions with

adjoining properties, and a need for design

guidelines to manage interfaces between new and

existing buildings

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :

6.3 (Other)




1.4 (Built form)

No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights will result in visual

bulk, negatively impacting urban character and

hertage and amenity impacts (loss of solar access,

wind tunnelling, shadowing during the winter

months)

2. Higher density development is provided by

Prahran, South Yarra and Chadstone and is

unnecessary in Malvern.

4. New development will put increased pressure on

existing infrastructure and services. In particular,

roads, traffic and car parking, and garbage removal

services will be adversely impacted, and sewerage,

water and energy services will experience

increasing demand

5. Suggest that height limits on Wattletree Road

should be restricted to 4 storeys

6. Suggest to consider heights of 6 storeys in place

of proposals for 8-12 storeys

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Change Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)








1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Submit that the proposed height limits at

Malvern Central are too high and will cause

overshadowing in winter, visual bulk to property on

Valentine street, visual dominance, loss of privacy

due to overlooking, and potential traffic and car

parking issues

2. Amendment will negatively impact the high

quality of social interaction and shopping

experience brought about the local area shopping

strips and abundant café life including: style and

type of shopping offered in Glenferrie Rd strip; loss

of community cohesion due to the transient nature

of high density residences, loss of outdoor seating in

the sunshine; loss of character and heritage value of

shops, potential loss of tourism, negative impacts

on traffic and car parking

3. The amendment will negative impact urban

character and heritage, particularly the unique

character of King’s Arcade

4. There has been a lack of sufficient consultation

and information about the amendment provided by

Council

5. Submits that there are inconsistencies within

Council’s documentation, in particular some parts of

the current Planning Scheme appear to contradict

what is being proposed by the Amendment

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)




6.3 (Other)



6.2 (Other)

6.9 (Other)

No change

6. Suggests that the stated vision of two of the

south ward Councillors is diametrically opposed to

this proposal. Namely, to preserve the amenity of

current residents, retain the city’s character and

prevent inappropriate development

7. Suggest that there has been a failure to take into

account the changing nature of commerce, in

particular the waning of commercial retail outlets in

the wake of the rise of e-commerce

8. Development represents over-commercialisation

of the area given proximity to Chadstone, Chapel St

and South Yarra.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


93a 11 Valentine Grove,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1.Council's consultation was inadequate. At the

focus groups Council officers were unprepared and

not in possession of detail needed for discussions.

2. The proposed provisions create lopsided bulk at

one end of the activity centre.

3.There are inappropriate transitions between

proposed heights, such as 5 storeys abutting 1

storey buildings between Wattletree Road and

Llaneast Street

4. Malvern Central is already intensively developed

and should not be developed further

5.Proposed controls will control lot consolidation to

achieve 5 storey developments

6. Proposed controls will destroy the streetscape of

Glenferrie Road and negatively impact urban

character and heritage

7.Transit oriented development is unnecessary

8. Design controls should be more visionary to

ensure the streetscape and heritage value of

Glenferrie Road is protected and to ensure

continuity and uniformity along the street

9.Commercial developments abbuting single storey

residences should be limited to 2 storeys

10. Height limits on Wattletree Road need to be

transitional so that they integrate with surrounding

residential areas

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

6.2 (Other)

1.2 (Built form)

1.4 (Built form)

1.1 (Built form)



No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights are too high and will

lead to amenity impacts (overshadowing,

overlooking issues and lack of privacy, traffic issues

and reduced car parking)

2. Proposal is out of character and scale with the

surrounding heritage precinct, will be unnecessarily

bulky and not fit into the streetscape even if there

are setback restrictions

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





No change

94a 24 Bailey Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

Malvern

Central

1. Proposed 12 storey heights are too high and will

dominate the landscape, negatively impacting local

character and amenity (overshadowing, reduced

privacy and obstruction of views, unsightly visual

bulk, traffic congestion and demand for car

parking).

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :

1.1 (Built form)





1.2 (Built form)


No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


95 43 Kooyong Road,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The amendment will adversely impact

neighbourhood character. Kings Arcade/Armadale

Station has a heritage character that is highly valued

for film shoots and enjoyed by pedestrians, and this

will be diminished as a result of the proposal

2. Heritage aesthetic will be lost to modern building

methods with excessive bulk and no cohesive

aesthetic

3. New development will negatively impact amenity

(reduction in the skyline, overshadowing,traffic

congestion, noise, loss of car parking and pedestrian

amenity)

4. Narrowing roads will make the pedestrian

shopping experience in Malvern/Armadale

unpleasant and damage valued leafy streetscapes

6. High Street, Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road

are not wide enough to cope with additional

buildings

7. Underground car parking should be provided for

any new development in Precinct E and A2 facing

Dandenong Road

8. Suggest that all existing ratepayers should be

compensated through significant rate reductions

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:








6.1 (Other)

No change

96 73-75 Union Street,

Armadale

G2 Urban

Planning

On behalf of A1 1. Existing GRZ10 (9 metres) not appropriate for

subject site. Request for GRZ13 (Site Specific

Control Area) to be applied which would result in

the height being designated through the DDO

rather than the Schedule to the residential zone.

2. The Structure Plan defines preferred heights yet

the zone schedule is inconsistent with this

approach.

Built form, Site specific Change 1. It is proposed to change the zone of this site from

GRZ10 (9 metres) to GRZ15 (12 metres - 4 storeys).

GRZ15 will allow a residential building up to 12 metres

in height. This height is consistent with the newly

constructed building on this site. The height designated

in Glenferrie Road is different given the Commercial

zoning and the different type of development supported

with greater floor to floor heights on ground level.

2. The Structure Plan supports preferred maximum

building heights. It does not recommend whether these

heights are mandatory or discretionary.

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


97 Railway Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed height limits are too high and will

impact local amenity and character (towering effect

of new development will be an eyesore causing

wind tunnels, and overshadowing in the winter

months)

2. New development will negatively impact heritage

and the living standards of residents

3. New development will cause depression and

claustrophobic feelings of being ‘caged in’ by the

narrowing sky space seen from streets and windows

4. There will be a loss of suburb character and

openness, as has already occurred in South Yarra

due to overdevelopment

5. There will be increased pressure on local

infrastructure including traffic and car parking, and

more noise, congestion and pollution

7. Suggest that Council should listen to concerns of

residents.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to :

1.2 (Built form)







6.3 (Other)




No change

98 35 Union Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The amendment will negatively impact local area

amenity (traffic congestion, demand for car parking,

increased population) and negatively impact

heritage buildings.

2. Heights of up to 12 storeys at Malvern Central are

inappropriate for the area.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :




1.1 (Built form)

No change

99 21 Cheel Street,

Armadale

Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47. Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


100 10/750 Collins

Street, Docklands

3008

Public

Transport

Victoria (PTV)

On behalf of All precincts 1. PTV generally supports the Amendment and

considers ‘that there is a need to promote

sustainable modes of transport within the Centre

and reduce dominance of motor vehicle use so that

the Centre will be able to accommodate growth’.

Requested changes to the DDO:

2. Add to General design guidelines: New

development where appropriate should utilise

laneways for vehicle access and minimise access

points to main roads in particular High Street,

Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road.

3. To General Design Objectives, add text to

encourage new development to improve pedestrian

accessibility and promote the use of sustainable

transport.

4. Add text to address noise and vibration issues to

improve the interface with the rail corridor.

Requested changes to DPO:

5. Requirement before a permit is granted (1.0):

railway and railway infrastructure including signals

should be exempt from requiring a planning permit.

6. Design Objectives (2.0): Additional dot point to

ensure that development will not compromise the

operation of the network.

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Change 1. Noted.

2. Clause 21.06-4-5.2 (Built form character - Activity

Centres) supports vehicle access from rear laneways. It

is considered that this strategy does not need to be

repeated in the specific DDO for Glenferrie Road and

High St Activity Centre.

3. MSS and local policy supports sustainable transport.

This strategy does not need to be repeated in the DDO.

4. Development adjacent to rail land will need to

address vibration and noise issues. This does not need to

be included in the proposed provisions. VicTrack are a

referral authority for any development adjacent to rail

land.

5. The proposed DPO includes an exemption for railway

and railway infrastructure including signals.

6. An additional objective has not been presented. It is

considered that an additional objective is not needed.

7. Update permit requirements for

a noise and vibration assessment.

Include reference to Passenger

Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy

2013.

7. Design Objectives (2.0): Additional text that new

development should address noise and vibration

issues to improve the interface with the rail

corridor.

8. Requirements for development plan (4.0): A

traffic management plan should be prepared to the

satisfaction of VicRoads and Public Transport

Victoria and should address how development will

minimise negative impacts and delays to the public

transport network.

7. A requirement for a noise and vibration impact

assessment is supported.

8. The Development Plan Overlay already requires the

preparation of a Traffic Management Plan at Section 4.0.

101 7 Alleyne Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights are too high and will

negatively impact amenity (privacy, increased traffic

congestion, car parking demand)

2. Object to any development over 5 storeys as it

will appear unsightly and negatively impact urban

character, and heritage buildings

3. Request development that is sympathetic to the

local area (no more than 3 storeys) including more

off-street car parking

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Change Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





2.1 (Urban charactger/heritage)

1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


102 60 Stuart Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

B 1. The area immediately behind High Street

buildings will be negatively impacted

(overshadowing, loss of privacy, traffic congestion,

increased car parking demand)

2. The value of our recently purchased property will

be adversely affected

3. The character of the centre will be destroyed

including the quiet, unique shopping and café

experience

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:




No change

103 3 Orchard Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The amendment will negatively impact local area

amenity (traffic congestion, car parking demand,

increased population) and local heritage buildings

2. Heights of up to 12 storeys at Malvern Central are

inappropriate for the area

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :




1.1 (Built form)

No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Community consultation on the amendment was

insufficient

2. The proposal will severely impact the

neighbourhood skyline, landscape and streetscapes

and is not in keeping with neighbourhood character

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

6.2 (Other)


1.3 (Built form)

No change

105 34 Winter

Street,Malvern

Written

submission

A1 1. Objection to the preferred heights and setbacks.

Proposed changes to height restrictions are too tall

and will and overwhelm Winter Street and the

neighbourhood residences which are mostly one-

storey Victorian residences.

2. Allowing 4 storey commercial and residential

units in or around Winter Street will have a direct

negative social impact on Winter Street and the

surrounding residential area.

Requested changes to DDO:

3. Height to be reduced from 14.5m (4 storeys) to

7.25m (2 storeys) in Precinct A1.

4. Height of development on the Coles carpark to be

7.25m (2 storeys) with a street level setback on

Winter Street to be ‘at least 8 to 10m at ground

level’.

5. Preferred maximum building height to include

rooftop plant and lift overrun.

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Change 1. Noted.

2. Noted.

3. Glenferrie Road is predominantly two storey Victorian

commercial shops. A three storey modern building can

be accommodated within the parapet height of these

heritage buildings. A reduction in height to two storeys

equates to no change and is not supported.

4. The Coles carpark is on land owned by Stonnington

City Council. It is considered that the provisions in the

proposed DDO give sufficient guidance for this site.

Stonnington City Council, as the land manager, needs

some level of flexibility given the site is in the Public Use

Zone.

5. Building height, as defined in the Planning Scheme, is

the vertical distance from natural ground level to the

roof or parapet at any point. It is considered that this

definition is appropriate and a variation for this precinct

is not necessary.

No change.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The proposal is too big, too concentrated and will

negatively impact amenity (overshadowing, traffic

congestion, car parking demand, loss of public

space, diminished appearance of High

Street/Glenferrie Road streetscapes, thereby

affecting enjoyment, tourism and quality of

shopping)

2. There will be a negative impact on heritage sites

(including Armadale and Malvern Station), urban

character and leafy areas

3. 12 storey heights at Malvern Central and 5

storeys heights on High Street are inappropriate

4. There will be increased commercial activity on

relatively small sites – eg. Malvern Central and

impacts on Glenferrie Road and High Street due to

commercial concentration at Malvern Central

Refer submission 47.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :

1.3 (Built form)






1.1 (Built form)

1.5 (Built form)

No change

107 5/329 Glenferrie

Road, Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights are excessive along

Glenferrie Road and High Street (5-6 storeys) and

will cause unattractive ‘wedding cake’ style

buildings and amenity impacts (overshadowing,

overlooking, wind, unsightliness of residents in low

density development looking up to new 5 storey

buildings)

2. Suggest that development be limited to 3 storeys,

however individual development proposals may be

considered for selected sites

3. The shadow line on roads should not exceed 1/3

of the road width in September so that sunny

aspect is maintained

4. Developers should provide increased car parking

and opens spaces in order to accommodate future

growth, particularly at the southern end of the

activity centre.

5. The current environment is comfortable and has

changed little in the past 75 years. Commercial

interests should not be the key drivers for change

over the next 75 years

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Change Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)




1.4 (Built form)


6.5 (Other)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


108 7 Horsburgh Grove,

Armadale

Proforma All precincts 1. Proposed plans are too big, too concentrated and

will dominate the landscape, causing amenity

impacts (increased parking and traffic flow

problems, lack of open space) and destroy existing

heritage buildings and urban character

2. Concentration of commercial activity at Malvern

Central will have a negative impact on small traders

operating in Glenferrie Road and High Street

3. Liveability in Armadale will be reduced

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :

1.3 (Built form)





6.3 (Other)

No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed increase in building heights across the

activity centre will destroy urban character, subject

to the heritage overlay

2. Proposed preferred heights of 5 storeys in

Precinct C (Wattletree Road west) will cause

amenity impacts (overlooking, over-development,

traffic congestion in laneways)

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to :

1.2 (Built form)





No change

110 7 Horsburgh Grove,

Armadale

Proforma All precincts 1. Proposed plans are too big, too concentrated and

will dominate the landscape, causing amenity

impacts (increased parking and traffic flow

problems, lack of open space) and destroy existing

heritage buildings and urban character

2. Concentration of commercial activity at Malvern

Central will have a negative impact on small traders

operating in Glenferrie Road and High Street

3. Liveability in Armadale will be reduced

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)





6.3 (Other)

No change

111 52 Claremont

Avenue, Malvern

Written

submission

A2 1. Building heights west of Glenferrie Road (around

Malvern Station) will destroy heritage homes and

urban character of areas around Claremont

Avenue/Malvern.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:



No change

112 3 Lambeth Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed plans (including allowable heights at

Malvern Central) are too big, too concentrated and

will have negative impacts on amenity

(overshadowing, visual dominance, traffic and

parking) and heritage charm and urban character of

High Street and Glenferrie Road.

2. Request moderate development that is

sympathetic to local environment

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed amendment will negatively impact

amenity (reduction in skyline, visual bulk, noise,

traffic congestion, car parking, loss of pedestrian

amenity and access, overshadowing of Valentine

Road and narrow narrow shopping streetspaces)

and urban character (heritage buildings)

2. High Street, Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road

and not wide enough to accommodate additional

buildings and Malvern Station cannot accommodate

additional traffic as

trains often express through this station to Caulfield

3. Growth could be accommodated in Precincts E

and A2 provided there is sufficient underground car

parking

4. Residential tax payers will suffer a loss in

property values.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to :


1.2 (Built form)


4.1 (Traffic congestion/car parkign)





6.6 (Other)

6.1 (Other)

No change

114 16 Coonil Crescent,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Submission relates to concern about

overshadowing of properties affected by future

development. Oversahdowing at the equinox does

not take into account overshadowing at other parts

of the year. Setbacks are inadequate for reducing

overshadowing impacts.

Built form, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:



1.6 (Built form)

No change


submission

All precincts 1. Proposed 12 storey building heights at Malvern

Central should be limited to 8 storeys.

2. Building heights on Glenferrie Road should be

limited to 3 storeys.

3.Council should consider covering some of the

sunken railway track and developing that land. Eg.

Toorak Road, Chapel Street, Wattletree Road,

Glenferrie Road could be a mixture of parkland and

commercial development.

Built form Change Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



submission

All precincts 1. Caps on building heights should be further

restricted. Site survey work should be undertaken

for planning applications to ensure legal

requirements are met.

2. A shadow assessment is needed to protect

existing solar panels on Glenferrie Road from

overshadowing.

3. Preferred built form in Precinct A will attract

cheap, poorly built units and negative amenity

impacts

4. The proposed Amendment has no links with

State Government laws to ensure coordination of

stakeholders to manage development (utilities,

amenities etc.)

5. Future new development will threaten heritage

buildings

6. There should be an independent review of

Council/contractor roles in working with legislation

and regulations and more transparent governance

7. Council should provide better information to the

community and protect heritage areas by holding

developers to the conditions of their permits.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:



No change

117 4/31 Wattletree

Road, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed building heights will have negative

impacts on amenity (traffic/tram congestion; car

parking, noise, impacts on garbage collection

services, noise and litter caused by commercial/late

night activity) and heritage/urban character

2. Growth of Malvern central may cause smaller

retailers to lose business stability

3. Council is enabling rapid development to gain

more city taxes without consideration of existing

residents and impacts including quality of life, small

business, public safety and environmental impacts.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:








1.1 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


118 12/120 Collins St,

Melbourne 3000

Urbis On behalf of All precincts 1. Support discretionary building heights.

2. Should the sites be amalgamated there is

significant urban renewal opportunities that can be

realised greater than that currently envisaged for

the sites.

Requested changes to DDO:

3. Increase in height and built form intensity if sites

can be amalgamated in part of whole (preferred).

4. Specific heights to be determined and justified

through a detailed urban context analysis study of

the sites and immediate area inclusive of a 3

dimensional analysis.

5. Supports retention of the heritage components of

the hotel.

Built form, Change 1. Noted.

2. Noted.

3. These sites are identified as a strategic development

site, thereby acknowledging their higher density

potential. The proposed planning provisions, including

the preferred maximum building heights, have been

designated in consideration of the context of the sites

and role as a gateway site. A departure from these

proposed provisions, in the instance sites are

amalgamated, is not supported.

4. The proposed planning controls are underpinned by

the investigation undertaken as part of the Structure

Plan. This investigation has included detailed context

analysis.

5. The Former Railway Hotel (current Angel Tavern) is a

place of local heritage significance and subject to

individual HO403. The statement of significance outlines

extent of building fabric that is original and significant

and should be protected. Amendment C223 does not

propose any change to the identification or significance

of this place.

No change

119 2 Pine Grove,

Malvern

Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

120 2 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


121 16 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

122 7 Isabella Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

123 19 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

124 7 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


125 6 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

126 18 White Street,

Glen Iris


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

127 9 Viva Street, Glen

Iris


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

128 8 Wilson Street,

Glen Iris


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

129 3/175 Wattletree

Road, Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


130 2/9 Isabella Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

130a 2/9 Isabella Street,

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Enclose a newspaper report for consideration

from the Herald Sun: ‘Bad Planning means too

much high-rise and not enough family homes –

Boom’s busted’, 7 March 2016.

2. The proposed amendment targets a concentrated

area with excessively high 4,6,8,10 and 12 storey

buildings in a heritage area

3. Rail, road and parking services will struggle to

cope with growth

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs


131 7A Isabella Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


133 17A Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

134 15 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

135 12 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

136 8 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


137 5 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

138 4 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

139 1 Pine Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

140 15 Nicholls Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


147 1A Nicholls Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to :

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

159 38A Edsall Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

174 37 Cummins Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The proposal including a building of 12 storeys is

out of scale/character and will negatively impact

amenity near our property at Bailey Avenue

(overlooking, overshadowing, noise, loss of privacy).

2. There is a lack of open space to accommodate

growth

3. The amendment will increase traffic congestion

and car parking demand

4. Community consultation on the amendment has

been insufficient.

5. Higher density development is more suited to

Forest Hill and South Yarra.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.1 (Built form)






6.2 (Other)

6.6 (Other)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


176 55A Union Street,

Armadale

Proforma All precincts 1.Amendment enables development that is too big


urban character and amenity (loss of car parking,

open space and green leafy streets, increased traffic

congestion, loss of quality of shopping)

2. Support modest shop top development

3. Proposed heights/bulk are inappropriate

including 12 storeys at Malvern Central and 5

storeys along High Street

4.There will be increased commercial activity at



will be adversely affected, including streetscapes

5.Request development that is low rise, improves



6.The majority of people in Malvern and Armadale

are opposed to the amendment

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

177 10 Murray Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Existing infrastructure and traffic flows cannot

support growth.

2. Proposed heights will compromise amenity and

should be reconsidered

3. Support development that respects heritage.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Change Refer to:



1.2 (Built form)


No change

178 34A Seymour

Avenue, Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights at Glenferrie Road and Malvern

Central are too high and will negatively impact

heritage and amenity (inconvenience during

construction, traffic congestion, destruction of

heritage homes, overcrowding, pollution)

2. Existing infrastructure cannot accommodate

growth

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to :

1.2 (Built form)

1.1 (Built form)




No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


180 69 Union Street,

Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

181 4 Alleyne Avenue Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)


No change

182 1 Clarendon Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The proposed amendment is unnecessary, too big

and concentrated and will have negative impacts on

heritage and amenity (overshadowing, noise, visual

dominance of high buildings)

2. Our property is on the south side of High Street

Armadale adjoining Precinct B (4-5 storeys) and a 5

storey building could abut our property with site

consolidation.

3. Residents north of Clarendon Street risk losing

winter sun to overshadowing, and increasing traffic

in laneways.

4. Proposed rear setbacks are insufficient for

reducing loss of amenity

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to

1.2 (Built form)





1.6 (Built form)

No change

183 2 Fetherston Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Council will overdevelop the activity centre and

ruin its attractiveness

2. Stonnington should preserve and maintain its

heritage while supporting modern development

and vibrant environments like in European cities.

3. The ‘Coin Laundry’ on the corner of Fetherson

Street and Armadale Street, has ruined the heritage

area and created car parking chaos.

4. Stonnington’s never-ending amendments

facilitate inappropriate development (including the

now approved development between Orrong Park

and Toorak Rail Station).

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)


No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


184 8 Clarendon Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed Amendment C223 is too big and

concentrated and will negatively impact urban

character on High Street and Glenferrie Road, and

local area amenity (traffic congestion, car parking

demand)

2. Support more moderate development.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Change Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)



1.5 (Built form)

No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Future development should protect suburban

beauty.

2. The complex on the corner of Glenferrie Road

and High Street is an example of a building that was

developed too high and causes overshadowing.

3. 3 storeys is ample for apartments in the area and

to accommodate growth.

4. Five storeys and 12 storeys is too high and will

have amenity impacts (overshadowing, dominating

existing landmarks of the Malvern Town Hall and

Clocktower)

5. Council should stand up against greed and

shortsightedness.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Change Refer to:


1.2 (Built form)

1.5 (Built form)




No change

186 5 Union Street,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Did not receive any notification from Council

about the Amendment

2. The proposal will negatively impact heritage and

urban character, liveability and local amenity (visual

bulk, overshadowing, loss of sunlight to private

open spaces, car parking demand, traffic

congestion, higher crime rates and required police

resources)

3. Glenferrie Road and High Street will lose

desirability, on-street dining areas will be

overshadowed and visitors and business will be lost.

4. Proposed heights at Armadale Station, Kings

Arcade and near the small terraces on Kooyong

Road are inappropriate

5. Council should consider requests of majority of

residents rather than being driven by developers

interests and increased revenue through rates, land

tax and development taxes.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Object Refer to:

6.2 (Other)



6.3 (Other)

1.2 (Built form)




6.8 (Other)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Would welcome modest urban renewal and

improvements to south Glenferrie Road, Malvern

Central and the Malvern station environs, including

well lit and maintained pedestrian/bicycle links

2. The proposal is too big, bulky and will diminish

neighbourhood character, heritage buildings and

amenity (wind and overshadowing on major routes,

traffic congestion, noise)


growth

4. Commercial imperatives are taking precedence

over the community’s needs

5. The proposed amendment contradicts Section 4

of the Planning and Environment Act and Plan

Melbourne which refers to the activity centre as

one of ‘local significance’.

6. At Malvern Central, the proposed 12 storey

building with a setback of 8 metres; 10 storey

building, and 6 storey building are too high and will

overshadow my property. These heights are not

represented in the Structure Plan. The equinox is

also not an adequate measure for overshadowing.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Change Refer to :

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)








1.1 (Built form)


No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


7. General heights at Malvern Central should be no

more than 6 storeys rising to 8 storeys at the

highest point with graduated setbacks of two, four

and six storeys. Buildings should be elegant and

slender with distances in between to allow light

movement. The building east of Railway Avenue

through to Glenferrie Road should be no more than

four storeys and have a tiered setback on the

western line.

8. There are already some dreadful approvals by

Council (ie. Como Street).

9. Proposed heights of 10 storeys on Dandenong

Road and Glenferrie Road are too high and should

be reduced to eight storeys, with graduated

setbacks on the north side and pedestrian links.

10. The proposal to build over the heritage listed

railway bridge on Glenferrie Road would destroy

views from Malvern Station and exacerbate traffic

congestion. Future development on the railway

yards should not match the Malvern Central

parapet line of Malvern Central as this would block

light to Glenferrie Road and present a visual affront

to residents south of the railway line. A lower build

is preferred including open space

11. Five storey developments along Station Street

would destroy the heritage and character of the

street

12. Proposed higher densities south of Glenferrie

Road is impractical and unfair to local residents

13. There are contradictions in the documents with

regard to proposed bicycle and pedestrian paths

between Malvern Station and Wattletree Road.

14. Proposed heights in High Street, Wattletree

Road and Glenferrie Road are too tall and will have

amenity impacts (wind, shadow, overlooking) These

thoroughfares should have buildings of 4-5 storeys.

15. Suggest to retain on-street car parking on

Glenferrie Road, High Street and Wattletree Road;

build modestly scaled, well-lit multi-deck car parks

in larger sites, but protect residents from traffic

burdens

16. Consultation about the amendment has been

insufficient.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


187a 36 Railway Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

Malvern

Central

1. Suggest that Council defer Amendment C223

until a study is undertaken to ascertain the extent

of noise, health and safety impacts on residents

near Malvern Central/railway yards, as a result of

new development/railway activities.

2. It is a requirement that Planning Authorities have

regard to the State Government's Passenger Rail

Infrastructure Noise Policy

Built form, Amenity

impacts

other 1. Noted.

2. A requirement for a noise and vibration impact

assessment is supported.

2. Update permit requirements

for a noise and vibration

assessment. Include reference to

Passenger Rail Infrastructure Noise

Policy 2013 for development on

the Malvern Central site and

adjoining land.

188 7 Armadale Street,

Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

189 68 Sutherland

Road, Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

190 7A Armadale

Street, Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.1 (Built form)

1.5 (Built form)

191 18/65 Station

Street, Malvern


Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts


C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


192 61 Denbigh Road,

Armadale

Proforma All precincts 1. Proposed heights on High Street (5 storeys) and

Malvern Central (12 storeys) represent

overdevelopment and will damage urban/social

character in Armadale


growth

3. Development on High street will cause traffic

congestion

4. Request that Council reconsider amendment

C223

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts,


Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)

1.1 (Built form)




No change


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Amendment proposes intensive development in

Armadale and Malvern that will have amenity

impacts (overshadowing, car parking demand, lack

of solar access and reduced quality of life)

2. Request that Council listen to objections and

moderate development accordingly

Built form, traffic

congestion/car

parking, Amenity

impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)




6.3 (Other)

No change

194 19 Northcote Road,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Not opposed to good development, but the

proposed amendment is too big, too concentrated

and will have negative impacts on heritage, amenity

(visual dominance, overshadowing) and access to

amenity.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)




No change

195 39 Cummins Grove,

Malvern

Written

submission

Malvern

Central

1. Reject proposal for building heights 6 storeys and

above, and suggest that height restrictions at

Malvern Central be limited to 6 storeys.

built form Object Refer to :

1.1 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)

1.5 (Built form)

No change

196 PO Box 308

Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Planning controls will facilitate rather than

control development.

2. Council is supposedly working for ratepayers but

would have proposals eclipsed by VCAT resulting in

high rise development.

3. Reject proposed high rise and development over

railway routes

4. Development leads to increased population and

increased traffic congestion

5. Stonnington should not emulate places like

London which developed green belts

Built form, traffic

congestion/car

parking, Amenity

impacts,


Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)



No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


197 1087-1095 High

Street, Armadale

Hightower PTY

LTD

On behalf of All precincts 1. High Street - A minimum setback behind the

street wall of 2m would be sufficient at the fourth

storey and then increasing to the prescribed 3m at

the fifth storey.

2. Laneway - An allowance to build into the rear

setback for site at the corner with a side street

should be included to be able to separate the

vehicular lane from the pedestrian circulation.

3. The proposed rear setback for the fourth and

fifth storeys is far too large for deep sites.

Built form Change 1. The proposed upper level setbacks for development in

the Heritage Overlay are supported by Council’s

Heritage policy and Guidelines. It is important that new

development have regard to this context to ensure

consistency in built form for this precinct.




servicing.









bulk


provision in DDO19.

197a 1087-1095 High

Street, Armadale

Hightower PTY

LTD

On behalf of All precincts 4. Broadly supportive of the amendment as it seeks

to recognise the strategic context of the property as

part of an activity centre, provides clearer guidance,

and the discretionary nature of the controls.

5. Design guidelines – street wall height in Clause

5.2 refers to Precinct A1. This should be Precinct B.

6. The proposed upper level setback of 8-10 metres

behind the street wall is at odds with the guidelines

outlined within the structure plan. The Structure

Plan identifies a 3 metre setback.

7. Laneway – 1.5m provision is not appropriate for

provide additional widening of a laneway.

8. Mid-block separation is considered inappropriate.

A lesser level of amenity should be expected at an

interface with a business zone. Sites which have a

longer length will be more impacted than those

which are shorter in length.


5. Acknowledged that this is an error.

6. The Structure Plan identifies that greater upper level

setbacks may be required for new development in the

Heritage Overlay. The proposed upper level setbacks for

development in the Heritage Overlay are supported by

Council’s Heritage policy and Guidelines.

Consistent with the Structure Plan, a reduced upper

level setback may be supported for new development

not in the Heritage Overlay in Precinct B (High Street).

Amend planning provisions to allow for a 3m upper level

setback for new development not in the Heritage

Overlay.




servicing.









bulk

5. Fix reference to Precinct B not

A1.


provision in DDO19.

10. Add additional interface

diagram(s) to guide a 5 storey

building scenario.

11.Amend DDO to clarify the

requirement for new development

on corner sites to address both

street frontages.

12. Add text in the DDO for new

development to address both

street frontages.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


9. Request greater flexibility where abutting

residential properties are to the north of the

commercial properties, and will not therefore be

impacted by shadows.

10. New diagram needed to show a 5 storey

building.

11. Corner sites - Apartments with primary access to

side boundaries are to be avoided. Corner sites

should be excepted from this requirement.

12. Corner sites - Request for ‘preferred minimum

setback above street wall’ does not apply to side

boundaries associated with a corner site.

13. Transitional provisions - Request for transitional

provisions to be introduced and apply to

applications lodged prior to the approval of the

Design and Development Overlay.

9. The proposed rear interface setbacks seek to manage

a range of amenity impacts including overlooking, visual

bulk and overshadowing. Greater flexibility is not

supported.

10. To provide greater clarity, an additional interface

diagram showing a 5 storey building, is supported.

11. Development on corner sites should be designed to

address both street frontages. Amend DDO to clarify the

requirement for new development on corner sites to

address both street frontages.

12. A zero setback above the side street wall is not

supported. Upper level setbacks at side boundaries

should be enabled.

Greater clarity required in the DDO for new

development to address both street frontages.

13. Transitional provisions are not supported. The

proposed planning controls are discretionary, not

mandatory, therefore there is no need to introduce

transitional provisions.


Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Not opposed to appropriate development, but

proposal is too big, too concentrated and will have

negative impacts on heritage and amenity (visual

dominance, overshadowing, traffic, car parking)

2. Request moderate development that is

sympathetic to the environment, and that Council

reconsider the amendment.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts,


Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)






No change


Armadale


Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts,


Object Refer to:

Refer to Standard Responses:





1.2 (Built form)

2.2 (Urban character/ heritage)

1.5 (Built form)

No change

200 26 St Georges

Road, Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights of 5 storeys on Glenferrie and

Wattletree Road, 6 storeys east of Railway Avenue,

10 storeys along Dandenong Road is too big, too

concentrated and will overshadow my property and

other residential and community areas.

2. The proposal will negatively impact urban

character and heritage.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,A

menity impacts

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


201 11/92 Wattletree

Road Malvern,

12/92 Wattletree

Road Malvern, and

4/92 Wattletree

Road, Malvern

Written

submission

C 1. Body corporate committee members for Building

92 Wattletree Road object to inclusion of this site in

Precinct C with preferred heights of 5 storeys.

2. Proposed heights of 12 storeys at Malvern

Central will have negative amenity impacts

(overlooking, overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual

dominance, unsightliness, damage to natural

landscapes) and the intended mixed use of this

building has been poorly communicated to the

community and is objectionable.

3. Over development may result from the

amendment, devaluing properties in the area.

4. 12 storey heights will affect the zoning in Precinct

C with impetus towards future commercial zoning,

and heights may be extended in future.

5. Existing transport/car parking infrastructure

cannot accommodate growth

6. Suggest that Council balance mixed use in

Precinct C by ranging heights from 2-4 storeys;

ensure that future development is in keeping with

existing designs featuring tiered heights set back

from the road; purchase suitable site to create a

‘pop up park’, and extend Precinct C across the

length of the road towards Dandenong

Road/Princes Highway to create a fairer system for

potential development in the area.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Change Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)

1.1 (Built form)




6.1 (Other)



No change

202 6 Union Street,

Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


204 21/65 Station

Street, Malvern


Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts



Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Support appropriate development that enhances

are acceptable but proposed amendment includes

inappropriate heights.

2. It is a money grab for those involved including

the Council rate gain. This does not suit the

residents that the Council are supposed to

represent.

Built form Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)

No change


Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Amendment C223 will destroy the urban

character and amenity of the area. My home will be

dominated by tall buildings proposed in Station

Street, Glenferrie Road, Malvern Central and those

adjacent to Malvern Station

2. 3-4 storey buildings and setbacks in Glenferrie

Road will ruin the heritage streetscape

3. Glenferrie Road shops may be adversely affected

due to commercial concentration of Malvern

Central

4. 12 storeys at Malvern Central will have amenity

impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, wind,

car parking demand, traffic congestion)

5. Request that building heights in the centre be no

more than 3 storeys.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Change Refer to:


1.2 (Built form)


1.1 (Built form)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

208 38/65 Station

Street, Malvern


Character/Heritage,


parking, Amenity

impacts


C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


209 49 Dixon Street,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Malvern

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights are excessive and will detract

from existing amenity and urban

character/appearance, and contribute to traffic

congestion and car parking demand.

2. Existing infrastructure cannot accommodated

growth

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





No change

211 rfm.brown@outloo

k.com

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Do not want another shock development like

Toorak Station.

2. Glenferrie Road is gridlocked often and trains full

3. We need moderate development only

4. Request that the Council act sensibly and not be

influenced by developers

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:


5.2 (infrastructure needs)

No change

212 5 Sutherland Road,

Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


214 32 Hampden Road,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Proposed heights in all areas should be limited to

three storeys, except in Precincts E, F and Malvern

Central (up to 5 storeys)

2. Council must ensure that density does not impact

the current quality of the environment on which the

high property values in the area are based.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.5 (Built form)

1.2 (Built form)


No change

215 4 Denbigh Road,

Armadale

Proforma All precincts 1.Amendment enables development that is too big


urban character and amenity (loss of car parking

and open space, loss of green leafy streets, traffic

congestion, overshadowing, overlooking, visual

bulk, visual dominance)

2. Proposed heights/bulk are inappropriate

including 12 storeys at Malvern Central and 5

storeys along High Street

3.There will be increased commercial activity at



will be adversely affected, including streetscapes

and vistas.

4. Heritage sites of Malvern and Armadale Stations

will be negatively impacted

5.Request development that is low rise, improves



Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

216 46 Barkly Avenue,

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. The amendment will irrevocably change the

character and enjoyment of the area

2. The scale of proposals is unrealistic. Governments

are avoiding infrastructure improvements by,

instead, expanding residential accommodation

around transport hubs and existing amenities

3. It is a short sighted and irresponsible approach by

Council

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:


1.2 (Built form)

No change


Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position



Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

219 2 Canberra Grove,

Malvern


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

220 Not supplied Proforma All precincts Refer submission 47 and/or submission 106. Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

221 69 Sutherland

Road, Aramadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change


Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


223 46A Armadale

Street, Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

224 21 Clarendon

Street, Armadale


Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,



needs

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)




6.5 (Other)




1.5 (Built form)

No change

225 969-975 High

Street, Armadale

Fulcrum

Urban

Planning

On behalf of B 1. The Structure Plan, has failed to appropriately

recognise and link the housing needs of the

municipality with the development outcomes

sought for the activity centre. The amendment

favours heritage and character over housing needs

of the municipality.

2. There is no logical basis for the specific height

and setback controls.

3. The proposed controls are ambiguous. Hayball

have prepared a massing study demonstrating how

the controls are problematic.

4. Proposed controls impose lower height controls

within the activity centre than are otherwise

allowed outside the activity centre.

5. Object to concept and implementation of

controls being determined by street frontage. None

of the height controls contained in the DDO

distinguish between M and L sites.

Change 1. The proposed planning controls seek to balance the

objective to protect heritage buildings while providing

for increased development complementary to the

population projections for the area. Strategic

development sites without heritage restrictions will be

able to accommodate buildings of a relatively higher

density.

2. Noted.

3. The massing diagram provided presents the subject

site and an approved development next door only. The

proposed planning controls are in consideration of the

predominant built form circumstance. The policy cannot

account for individual site contexts.

4. The proposed planning controls allow for a moderate

degree of change (4-5 storeys) given that the centre is

predominantly covered by a Heritage Overlay. Areas on

the periphery of the activity centre, which are not

subject to the Heritage Overlay, allow for a greater

height and density.

5. Medium and Large sites are defined by their frontage.

This delineation acknowledges that the lot width

represents a potential increase in capacity of these sites

to accommodate additional height with a reduced

impact on amenity (including overshadowing) of

adjoining lower scale residential development. The

definition is of particular relevance to Precinct B (High

Street).


provision in DDO19.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


6. No basis for nominated upper level setbacks.

7. Object to mid block setback. Meaning unclear.

8. Interface Diagram 3 - fails to account for localised

conditions.

9. Object to the proposed Structure Plan as a

reference document. It has no regard to the activity

centre’s role in meeting projected population

growth.

6. The proposed upper level setback of 8-10 metres for

heritage buildings is consistent with Council’s heritage

policy and Heritage Design Guidelines. The discretionary

upper level setback will ensure that new alterations and

additions are visually recessive and located behind the

primary building volume, ensuring a clear separation

between the heritage significant building and the new

additions.









bulk

8. The proposed planning controls are in consideration

of the predominant built form circumstance. The policy

cannot account for individual site contexts.

9. The Structure Plan is the background document from

which the planning controls have been translated. The

Structure Plan has considered the role of the centre

including the projected population and built form

outcomes. It is important that this document be

referenced.

226 39-43 Glenferrie

Road Malvern

Written

submission

A1 1. Request that property at 39-43 Glenferrie Road in

Precinct A1 (preferred maximum height of 4

storeys) have increased heights on site. This will

allow for a more appropriate transition in building

height from the proposed 12 storey height at

Malvern Central and consistency with the taller

proposed heights in Precincts A2, E and F in

proximity of the subject site.

Building heights, site

specific

Change The subject property is located in Precinct A (Glenferrie

Road) and is located in the Heritage Overlay. It is

important that this site is responsive to the Glenferrie

Road and heritage context.

No change.

C223 Attachment 4

Sub Property

address

Consultan

t/authorit

y/

stakehold

er

Submissio

n type


n position


227 196 Wattletree

Road Malvern

Written

submission

D 1. Height limits are excessive and will destroy urban

character and amenity (traffic and car parking)

2. In Precinct D proposed height limits of 3 storeys

are consistent with existing development in the

area, but should be mandated/controlled by

heritage overlays

3. Council should extend Precinct D eastwards along

Wattletree Road to Thanet Street/Cummins Grove

to preclude any future expansion of Cabrini. Other

extensions of the Precinct around the current

boundaries of the hospital property might also be

considered

4. Our property at 196 Wattletree Road should not

be included in Precinct D as it is covered by a

heritage overlay and a building of up to 3 storeys

would not be permitted.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking

Change Refer to:

1.2 (Built form)





1.5 (Built form)

No change

228 18 Derby Street

Armadale

Written

submission

All precincts 1. Concern for impact on amenity including visual

bulk, parking, traffic, neighbourhood character and

sunlight access.

Built form, Urban

Character, Amenity

Impacts, Traffic

congestion/car

parking

Object Refer to:

1.3 (Built form)

2.2 (Urban character/ heritage)


4.1 (Traffic congestion / car parking)

No change

229 38 Llaneast Street Written

submission

All precincts 1. Concur with concerns acknoweldged in Capire's

consultation report relating to overshadowing,

overlooking, wind, street character, heritage

protection, Malvern Central, Discretion and

definition of setbacks, traffic and parking and other

issues.

Built form, Urban

Character/Heritage,

Amenity impacts,


parking


230 39-43 Glenferrie

Road Malvern

Fredman

Malina

Planning

On behalf of A 1. Concern regarding proposed 14.5 (4 storey)

height.

2. As the subject property is located adjacent to

Malvern Central site a taller maximum building

height should be applicable to enable a transition in

height from Malvern Central.

Built form, Height,

Malvern Central.

Object The subject property is located in Precinct A (Glenferrie

Road) and is located in the Heritage Overlay. It is

important that this site is responsive to the Glenferrie

Road and heritage context.

No change

Amendment C223 – Attachment 5 Responses to common submissions

1. Built form (heights/setbacks) 1.1 Proposed preferred heights at Malvern Central are too high.

1.1 Concern is noted. The proposed controls include a height of 12 storeys on the Malvern Central site, located to the northern end of the site. The proposed provisions seek to ensure that the residential areas to the south of the railway corridor are not unreasonably overshadowed at the equinox (22 September, between 9am and 3pm).

1.2 Proposed preferred Heights are too high and setbacks are too small/ Makes general enquiries/raises general concerns about proposed built form and/or the potential for increased development/visual bulk/unsightly development.

1.2 Concern is noted.

1.3 New development and visual bulk will be excessive, too concentrated and will dominate the landscape.


1.4 The proposed amendment does not allow sufficient transitions between building heights. The differences in proposed heights are too extreme.


1.5 Suggest that the amendment should support lower density or minimal/ no change .

1.5 Suggestion for low, or minimal/no change is not in keeping with the role of a Major Activity Centre

1.6 Proposed setbacks should be made greater. 1.6 Concern/suggestion is noted. 1.7 Rear aspects should be included in specifications to manage overlooking.

1.7 The proposed planning controls include specified rear upper level setbacks (6.0 Interface and setback guidelines) to address amenity impacts including overlooking.

2. Urban character/heritage 2.1 New development will diminish heritage buildings 2.1 Noted. The proposed planning controls require new development to

respect and enhance the existing heritage built form and fabric. 2.2 New development will negatively impact urban character 2.2 Noted. The proposed planning controls require that new

development respond to the existing built form typology and maintain the prominence of the heritage built form and fabric when viewed from the street

3. Amenity impacts 3.1 New development will cause wind tunnels 3.1 Noted. Council’s MSS (Clause 21.06) includes an objective and

strategies to ensure wind tunnelling effects are addressed. 3.2 New development will cause overlooking/loss of view-lines and vistas

3.2 The proposed planning controls include specified rear and front upper level setbacks (6.0 Interface and setback guidelines) to address amenity impacts including overlooking.

3.3 New development will cause overshadowing/ loss of solar access to nearby residences (including loss of light to solar panels).

3.3 Noted. New development, within the preferred maximum building heights, will not unreasonably overshadow/cause loss of solar access to nearby residences at the equinox in accordance with (ResCode) Clause 54.04-5.

3.4 New development will cause overshadowing and loss of solar access to streetscapes (including loss of light to solar panels).

3.4 Noted. New development, within the preferred maximum building heights and setbacks, will not unreasonably overshadow/cause loss of solar access to streetscapes.

3.5 It is not acceptable that the only measure of shadow is at the equinox.

3.5 The equinox is the standard planning measuring convention for acceptable overshadowing. Overshadowing at the winter/summer solstice is not the convention.

3.6 New development will result in substantial noise impacts 3.6 Noted. Noise is not a relevant consideration to this planning scheme amendment process. Unreasonable noise is an issue that can be addressed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the City of Stonnington’s Local Laws.

3.7 New development will result in an increased population , overcrowding of shops/services and overall loss of amenity

3.7 Concern is noted. Increased density and population is directed to activity centres in accordance with Plan Melbourne. Council seeks to better manage this growth by implementing additional planning provisions.

3.8 New development will result in negative impacts on local area amenity generally


4. Traffic congestion/car parking 4.1 New development will result in increased traffic congestion and demand for car parking.

4.1 Traffic congestion and car parking are not relevant to this planning scheme amendment process. An assessment of the traffic generated and private vehicle movement will be considered through the planning permit application process for individual developments.

5. Infrastructure needs 5.1 Existing infrastructure/services cannot accommodate population growth/ may cause overcrowding

5.1 Concern is noted. Increase in population and demand on infrastructure is expected to increase. Council will monitor the need for greater capacity of infrastructure across the whole municipality commensurate with growth.

5.2 Existing public transport infrastructure cannot accommodate population growth

5.2 Concern is noted. Council frequently advocates to State Government for improvements to infrastructure such as transport in areas where increased density is anticipated.

5.3 Existing infrastructure cannot accommodate new development (roads, drainage, sewerage, utilities and other services )

5.3 Concern is noted. Increase in population and demand on infrastructure such as the sewerage and drainage system is expected to increase. Council will monitor the need for greater capacity of infrastructure across the whole municipality commensurate with

growth. A severe increase in residential dwellings in the area may necessitate Council’s Infrastructure Management and Maintenance plan to be reviewed.

5.4 New development will place demand on existing services, infrastructure

5.4 Concern is noted. Increase in population and demand on infrastructure is expected to increase. Council will monitor the need for greater capacity of infrastructure across the whole municipality commensurate with growth.

5.5 New development will cause a loss of soft infrastructure (eg. Vegetation/green space)


6. Other 6.1 Financial implications/loss of property value/Request compensation or rate reductions

6.1 Private financial costs and related matters are outside the scope of this amendment.

6.2 There has been a lack of consultation about the amendment/ The Amendment presents a departure from previous consultation

6.2 Council has used additional methods of notice and consultation to the minimal requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Concern is noted.

6.3 The Amendment will negatively impact the quality of life of existing residents/ wellbeing/ liveability/ mental health

6.3 Personal wellbeing, quality of life and mental health matters are outside the scope of this amendment.

6.4 Suggestions/concerns raised in relation to site coverage requirements

6.4 Suggestion is noted.

6.5 Suggestions/concerns raised in relation to public space/green space/trees/Sports ovals

6.5 Suggestion is noted. Public space/green space is outside the scope of this amendment. Council’s strategies such as Strategies for Creating Open Space Strategy include actions relating to open space and services given the increase in population density.

6.6 Suggestions raised regarding areas where new development should be encouraged/accommodated

6.6 Suggestion is noted.

6.7 Suggestions raised in relation to design standards for buildings.

6.7 Suggestion is noted. Other Strategies and planning controls outlnie the design standards for higher density development. These include the Better Apartments Standards (Clause 58) as an example.

6.8 Concerns/suggestions raised in relation to vehicle speeds/pedestrian safety/public safety/access ways.

6.8 Concerns/suggestions noted. Vehicle speeds/pedestrian safety/public safety and access matters are outside the scope of this amendment.

6.9 Concerns/suggestions raised in relation to economics 6.9 Concerns/suggestions noted.

0 150

metres

006

| Planning Mapping Services |

| Planning Information Services |

| Planning |

S T O N N I N G T O N P L A N N I N G S C H E M E

AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5DPO & 6DPOLEGEND

WATTLETREE RD

GL

EN

FE

RR

IE

SO

UD

AN

S

T

EVANDALE RDR

AIL

WA

Y

A

V

VA

LE

NT

INE

RD

GORDON GV

RD

DR

YS

DA

LE

ST

NIC

HO

LLS

S

T

CR

Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 3

BA

ILE

Y

A

V

GLA

DS

TO

NE

A

V

EG

ER

TO

N

R

D

VALE

NTIN

E G

V

STA

TION S

T

phowkins

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 6

Amendment C223 – Attachment 7 Map contained in VicTrack submission

V

LL ST

PL

RNSIDE

AV

ST

AV

RAILWAY

COMO

DANDENONG

ST

ST

UNION

BARKLY

AV

LLANEAST

WATTLETREE

ST

WILLIS

COLDBLO

STANHOPE

ST

GORDON

ST

STATION

M a

l v e r n S t a t i o n

EVANDALE

GLENFERRIE

RD

WINTER

EDSALL

STANHOPE

ST.JOSEPHS R.C. SCHOOL

DRYSDALE

McKINLEY

RD

CLAREMONT

GV

ST

SOUDAN

CHANDLERS

RD

C i t y o f G l e n E i r a

PINE

NICHOLLS

AV

ST

COLLEGE

DE LA SALLE

XAVIER CABRINI

ISABELLA

GR

GV

COONIL

ST FRANCES

HOSPITAL

GLENDEARG

RUSHMEAD

HUNTER

ST

ST

RALEIGHD

ANDENONG

WHEATLAND

STANILAND

CUMMINS

JOHNSTONE

FINLAYSON

RD

DANDENONG F

INLAYSON

ST

AV

DERRILAV

THANET

GV

HUNTER

ST

ST

ST

ST

RD

AV

HIGH

MYAMYN

CHURCH

ST

CROSS

MALVERN

STONNINGTON

HOPETOUN

ST

ADELAIDE

GLENFERRIE

BELLST

KILDARA R.C. GIRLS SCHOOL

RD

VALETTA

RD

PL

SOMERS

WOODMASON

ST

ST

ST

HAVERBRACK

EMBLING BRI DE

ST

SORRETT

AV

I RVI NG

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

PLANT

ST

AV

STONNINGTONSOMERS

STATE COLLEGE OF VICTORIA

WILKS

COLLEGE

NORTHBROOK

CHILCOTE AV

AV

DE LA SALLE

MALVERN CRICKET GROUND

ST

DALNY

HARVEY

SPRI NG

ST

ST

ST

ROBINSON

PL

MOUNTVIEW

PARKSIDE

OXFORD

GRACE

ST

CR

ST

CANBERRA

RD

RD

AV

ACRE

AV

GLENVI EW

ELIZABETH

ASCOT

ASCOT

ST

ST

FRASER

PARK

ST

ST

ST

ST

RD

AV

SILVER

WALNUT

BEAVEN

ST

RAY

GVST

LEDBURY

LEDBURY

CT

RUSSELL

WHERNSIDE AV CTRD

MY

BENSON

HOPETOUN

AV

HAMILTON

SQ

GLENFERRIE

MOOR

RD

AKYNE

HENDERSON

RD

HENDERSON

WILKS

BEAMSLEYAV

AV

AV

RD

LAWNHILLMARY

ELIZAB

ST

STST

MILTON

ST

PDE

ST

ST

VICTORIA

EWART

GIRLS

MALVERN

VICTORIA

RD

AV

DIXON

JORDAN

GAYNOR

CT

RD

RD

TOORONGA

HORACE

RD

ST

CHILDERS KERFERDST

FINDON

AV

RD

RD

LYSTERVILLE

CENTRAL PARK

DEVONSHIRE

ROYSTON

GILLMAN

ST

COPPIN

TOORONGA

BEAVER

RD

YOUNG

WHITE

WILSON

VIVA

LEOPOLD

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

DEAKIN

ST

WATTLETREE

ANDERSON

WESTGARTH

AV

VINCENT

ST

ST

WHITE

ST

HILLSIDE

ST

FINCH

ST

HEATON

ST

STST

EDGAR

AINTREE

ST

ST

ELLIS

AV

AV

MARTIN CR

GEORGE

ST

KINGSTON

NOTT

ST

RD

BELSON

GEORGE

CENTRAL PARK

ST

ST

RD

ERICA ST

IRYMPLE

AV

AV

RD

ANTHONY

STAV

BELMONT

ST

CLYDE

LOUIS

HOPE

ST

ERICA

NETHERLEE

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

RD

GRANT

RD

RD

LINK

ICTORIA

EWART

RD

C i t y o

HIGH

SCHOOL

ST

ST

ST

BURKE

BONVIEW

ST

SHAFTESBURY

ST

ST

EAST

McARTHUR

ST

ST

ALICEEVA

ST

McARTHUR

EUSTON

McARTHURFREDERICK ST

ASHLEYGR

STASHLEY

GR

WARNERST

MEREDITH

PARSLOW

ETHEL

HORNSBY

WILLOW

ST

ST

LARA

AV

RD

ST

TOORONGA

AVRD

ST

CRESSY

MALVERN

RD

CAWKWELL

HIGH

MAITLAND

CAWKWELL

ST

ST

CAWKWELL

ST

ST

ST

PDE

T o o r o n g a

S t a t i o n

ST

ST

ST

WEIR

CARROLL

RD

RD

ST

CRESWICK

ST

ST

EDGAR

ST

MILTON

(MONASH

AV

NORTH FW

Y)

C r e e k

G a r d i n e r sCITY

C i t y o f B o r o o n d a r a

CL

OSBORNE

AV

ST BELMONTKENT

PDE

OSBORNE

AV

NTH

ST

NASH

BELMONT AV

AV

RD

GV

MALVER

RD

GV

KENILWORTH

CR

CARROLL

ST EDMONDS

GLENTILT

ST

CLARKE

AV

ALLAVILLE

ALLAVILLE

GV

LINK

ST

FINCH

KAR

BRUNE

BURKE

ST

PAXTON

BEAVER ST

HILARY

SCOTT

HIGH

CENTRAL

PARK

N

RD

WATTLETREE

S

AV

IRYMPLE

HOPE

PAYNE

NETHERLEE

CLYDE

This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except

in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act. State of Victoria.

This map should be read in conjunction with additional Planning Overlay

Maps (if applicable) as indicated on the INDEX TO MAPS.

MAP No 6DDOD E S I G N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O V E R L A Y MAP No 6DDO

22/6/2017Printed:

P R E P A R E D B Y : P l a n n i n g M a p p i n g S e r v i c e s

AUSTRALIAN MAP GRID ZONE 55

SCHEME MAPS

M u n i c i p a l B o u n d a r y( I f s h o w n )

INDEX TO ADJOINING

AMENDMENT C223

Scale: 1:5,010

200 0 200 mOverlaysDesign And Development Overlay -Schedule 19

DDO19

1

10

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9

pdingli

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 8

pdingli

Typewritten Text

pdingli

Typewritten Text

pdingli

Typewritten Text

pdingli

Typewritten Text

PL

ST

ER

RO

LS

T

ER

RO

L

ST

ST

RD MAY

BAYVIEW

TC

PRIDHAM

ST

WRIGHTS

TC

ST

WE

ST

BO

UR

NE

SPRING

LO

RN

E

MALVERN

RD

ST

RD

RD

RD

ME

LL

MA

TH

OU

RA

ST

TON

RD

ST

ST

ST

ST

PACKINGTONST

AV

PL

ST

BID

EY

PA

CK

ING

TO

N

AV

ST

ST

LA

BA

NO

LE

ST

RD

CLO

SE

BU

RN

DANDENONG

CH

OM

LE

Y

ST

RD

HIGH

ABERDEENST

KENT

JO

YC

E

AV

PICKFORD

WILLIS ST

AV

ST

HIG

HB

UR

Y

CH

AT

SW

OR

TH

ST

PA

RK

ST

C i t y o f P o r t P h i l l i p

IRV

ING

RD

VELINAEVELINA

EDWARD

MA

TH

OU

RA

RD

ST

FA

IRB

AIR

N

RUABON

RD

OR

RO

NG

BA

XT

ER

MILLICENT AV

ST

RD

WYNNNSTAY

GR

HARVEY

GR

AN

DV

IEW

CT

GV

GV

AV

KELVIN

HOSPITALWINDERMERE

KELVIN

FLORENCE

ST

SYDNEY

OUR LADY

OF

LOURDESR C SCHOOL

A'B

EC

KE

TT

WO

OD

FU

LL

CR

LALBERT

ST

BARNATO

KE

LV

IN

LARNOOK

VAIL

AIR

LIE

GV

MOLESWORTH

STPRAHRAN HIGH SCHOOL

BEATTY

ST

RD

ST

ST

FULTON

RD

ST

OR

RO

NG

HIGH

GV

HA

MP

DE

N

AU

BU

RN

RD

AV

ELG

IN

GR

AS

HL

EIG

H

AU

BR

EY

RD

AV

NEW

ST

ST

POTTER

AS

HL

EIG

H

ST

RD

RD

T o o r a k S t a t i o n

ROSE

WATSON ST

GV

OSMENT

ELM

AV

MOUNT PLEASANT

ST

CLE

ND

ON

ST

RD

TU

RN

ER

EIL

EE

N

FETHERSTONST

RD

ST

AVONDALE

MUNRO

DE

NS

HA

M

GV

NO

RT

HC

OT

E

NO

RTH

CO

TE

ST

GR

LE

XT

ON

ST

AW

ELL

ST

ST

KARBAROOK

AVALON

AV

OR

RO

NG

RD

HA

MP

DE

N

RE

DC

OU

RT

RD

CAMBRIDGE

SU

TH

ER

LA

ND

SUTHERLAND PL

WATTLETREE

DANDENONG

DE

NB

IGH

ST. GEORGES

AR

MA

DA

LE

ST

INVERNESS

ST. JAMES

KO

OY

ON

G

KO

OY

ON

GR

D

CA

NT

ER

BU

RY

RD

ST

CU

LS

HA

W

RD

ST

LAMBERT

RD

MANDEVILLE

CR

MALVERN

TOORAK

BOWLING

CLUB

CR

MA

ND

EV

ILLE

MILLICENT AV

RD

LORETO CONVENT

IONA

RD SARGOOD

ST

GRANT

CLE

ND

ON

MAPLE

LIS

BU

OY

CT

NO

LAC

T

AV

CTGLEN

GV

RD

RD

DEVORGILLA

CT

St. JAMESPL

KENT

OT

TA

W

AV

HUNTINGFIELD

IRV

IN

RD

BELLAIRE

NAREEB

RD

CT

AV

KE

NL

EY

RD

KO

OY

ON

G

CT

CT

BROMLEY

NA

RE

EB

CT

AV

PL

RUSSELL ST

PL

WHERNSIDE

STONNINGTON

RD

ST

RD

CH

EEL

RD

AR

MAD

ALE

BO

WLIN

G

CLU

B

RD

RD

IRV

ING

ST

KING DAVID SCHOOL

GLASSFORD

ST

RO

YA

L

A r m a d a l e S t a t i o n

ST

MO

REY

ST

KING

SWAY R

D

KO

OY

ON

G

MA

RA

TH

ON

ST

DERBYST

SP

AS

TIC

CE

NT

RE

RD

BA

LD

WIN

CR

MO

OR

HO

US

E

ST

KO

OY

ON

G

ST

WIL

LIA

M

HUME

CLARENDON

UN

ION

ST

GARDEN

ST OR

CH

AR

D

ST

FLETE

HORSBURGH

AV

ST

HU

NT

ING

TO

WE

R

ALB

AN

Y

ST

ST

CA

RM

YL

EA

V

ST

CT

MINDANAO

RD

KELMSCOTT

CT

TOWER

ST

GV

MU

RR

AY

ER

SK

INE

LAURISTON GIRLS SCHOOL

GLA

DS

TO

NE

BA

ILE

Y

EG

ER

TO

N

C i t y o f G l e n E i r a

ALL

EY

NE

BARKLY

RD

INVER

NESS

AV

AV

RD

UNION

TH

E

AVR

D

TE

RR

AC

E

ST

HUMEST

ME

RY

L

ST

AV

AV

BA

ILE

Y

VALE

NTIN

E

GV

WE

ST

ST

AV

AV

LLANEAST

DU

NC

RA

IG

AV

ST

RD

LA

MB

ET

H

ST

UA

RT

ST

SE

YM

OU

R

ST

UA

RT

ST

AV

VA

LE

NT

INE

GV

RA

ILW

AY

RD

COMO

DANDENONG

UNION

BARKLY

LLANEAST

WATTLETRE

WILLIS

COLDBLO

STANHOPE

RD

DE

NH

AM

CHURCHST

RD

RD

ME

RC

ER

AV

AV

ST

HIGH

MYAMYN

CHURCH

STONNINGTO

HO

PE

TO

UN

AVWHERNSIDE

RUSSELL

WHERNSIDE

This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process exceptin accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act. State of Victoria.

This map should be read in conjunction with additional Planning OverlayMaps (if applicable) as indicated on the INDEX TO MAPS.

AUSTRALIAN MAP GRID ZONE 55

INDEX TO ADJOININGMETRIC SERIES MAP

26/5/2016Printed: AMENDMENT C223

D E S I G N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O V E R L A Y MAP No 5DDO

P R E P A R E D B Y : P l a n n i n g M a p p i n g S e r v i c e s

Scale: 1:5,010

200 0 200 400 mOverlaysDesign And Development Overlay -Schedule 19

DDO19

1

10

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9

0 100

metres

003



| Planning |


AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5 & 6

Commercial 1 ZoneLEGEND

HIGH ST

WIL

LIA

M

S

T

ST

UA

RT

S

T

SE

YM

OU

R

AV

LA

MB

ET

H

A

V

STANHOPE ST

WILLIS ST

HUME ST

RIC

HA

RD

S

T

HU

NT

ING

TO

WE

R

RD

ME

RC

ER

RD

MO

OR

HO

US

E

STMYAMAN

ST

HUME ST

CLARENDON ST

0 150

metres

004



| Planning |


AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5 & 6

Residential Growth Zone - Schedule 3

LEGEND

WATTLETREE RD

DU

NC

RA

IG A

V

GL

EN

FE

RR

IE

SE

YM

OU

R

AV

SO

UD

AN

A

V

EDSALL ST

EVANDALE RD

RA

ILW

AY

A

V

VA

LE

NT

INE

R

D

ISA

BE

LL

A

S

T

MYAMAN

GORDON GV

RD

DR

YS

DA

LE

ST

NIC

HO

LLS

S

T

MC

KIN

LE

Y A

V

GLE

ND

EA

RG

G

V

LLANEAST

ST

CO

ON

IL

CR

General Residential Zone - Schedule 15 Commercial 1 Zone

005



| Planning |

50

metres

0

LEGENDGeneral Residential Zone - Schedule 15

Part of Planning Scheme Map 6

AMENDMENT C223


COLDBLO RD

UNION ST

GL

EN

FE

RR

IE R

D

BARKLY AV

WINTER ST

VALETTA ST

0 150

metres

006



| Planning |


AMENDMENT C223Part of Planning Scheme Maps 5DPO & 6DPOLEGEND

WATTLETREE RD

GL

EN

FE

RR

IE

SO

UD

AN

S

T

EVANDALE RDR

AIL

WA

Y

A

V

VA

LE

NT

INE

RD

GORDON GV

RD

DR

YS

DA

LE

ST

NIC

HO

LLS

S

T

CR

Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 3

BA

ILE

Y

A

V

GLA

DS

TO

NE

A

V

EG

ER

TO

N

R

D

VALE

NTIN

E G

V

STA

TION S

T

STONNINGTON PLANNING SCHEME

GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 2

SCHEDULE 15 TO CLAUSE 32.08 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE

Shown on the planning scheme map as GRZ15.

GLENFERRIE ROAD AND HIGH STREET ACTIVITY CENTRE ANDWATTLETREE ROAD EAST

1.0 Permit requirement for the construction or extension of one dwelling on a lot

Is a permit required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of between 300square metres and 500 square metres?

Yes

2.0 Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55

Standard Requirement

Minimum streetsetback

A3 and B6 None specified

Site coverage A5 and B8 None specified

Permeability A6 and B9 None specified

Landscaping B13 None specified

Side and rearsetbacks


Walls onboundaries


Private openspace

A17 None specified

B28 None specified

Front fenceheight


3.0 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building

A building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed 12 metres unlessthe slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site ofthe building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must notexceed 13 metres. This does not apply to:

An extension of an existing building or the construction of a new building that exceedsthe specified building height which does not exceed the height of immediately adjacentbuildings facing the same street.

The rebuilding of a lawful building or works which have been damaged or destroyed.

A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no morethan 1.2 metres.

In areas subject to the Special Building Overlay or the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay,the maximum building height may be exceeded by no more than the minimum additionalbuilding height required by the overlay provisions.

-/-/2016C223

-/-/2016C223

-/-/2016C223

-/-/2016C223


GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 2

4.0 Application requirements

The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under clause32.08, in addition to those specified in clause 32.08 and elsewhere in the scheme:

Plans showing existing vegetation and any trees proposed to be removed.

Plans showing proposed landscaping works and planting including tree species andmature height.

5.0 Decision guidelines

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under clause 32.08,in addition to those specified in clause 32.08 and elsewhere in the scheme:

Whether the development provides for an appropriate visual transition to residentialproperties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Whether the proposal meets the preferred neighbourhood character statement anddesign objectives for the Precinct.

-/-/2016C223

-/-/2016C223


RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 2

SCHEDULE 3 TO CLAUSE 32.07 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE

Shown on the planning scheme map as RGZ3.

WATTLETREE ROAD WEST

1.0 Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55

Standard Requirement

Minimum streetsetback


Site coverage A5 and B8 None specified

Permeability A6 and B9 None specified

Landscaping B13 None specified

Side and rearsetbacks


Walls onboundaries


Private openspace

A17 None specified

B28 None specified

Front fenceheight


2.0 Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building

A building used as a dwelling or residential building must not exceed a height of 16 metres,unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of thesite of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must notexceed 17 metres. This does not apply to:

An extension of an existing building or the construction of a new building that exceedsthe specified building height which does not exceed the height of immediately adjacentbuildings facing the same street.

The rebuilding of a lawful building or works which have been damaged or destroyed.

A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no morethan 1.2 metres.

In areas subject to the Special Building Overlay or the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay,the maximum building height may be exceeded by no more than the minimum additionalbuilding height required by the overlay provisions.


The following application requirements apply to an application for a permit under clause32.07, in addition to those specified in clause 32.07 and elsewhere in the scheme:

Plans showing existing vegetation and any trees proposed to be removed.

Plans showing proposed landscaping works and planting including tree species andmature height.

-/-/2016C223

-/-/2016C223

-/-/2016C223

-/-/2016C223


RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONE – SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 2 OF 2

4.0 Decision guidelines

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under clause 32.07,in addition to those specified in clause 32.07 and elsewhere in the scheme:

Whether the development provides for an appropriate visual transition to residentialproperties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

-/-/2016C223


DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 3 PAGE 1 OF 4

SCHEDULE 3 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO3.

MALVERN CENTRAL AND RAILWAY LAND, ARMADALE

This schedule applies to Malvern Central and the adjoining railway land in Armadale between Wattletree Road and Glenferrie Road.

1.0 Requirement before a permit is granted

A planning permit may be granted before a development plan has been approved for the following:

� Advertising signs.

� Demolition of an existing building or contruction of a new building on Wattletree Road, provided the buildings and works are in accordance with the Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 19 (DDO19).

� Minor buildings or works, provided the buildings or works do not prejudice the preparation and approval of a Development Plan, to the satisfaction of the Resposible Authority.

� Railway and railway infrastructure including signals (and related control buildings), new tracks, track work and realignment, overhead power lines, gantries, stabling (excluding buildings) and any other work required under the Disability Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.

Before granting a permit the responsible authority must be satisfied that the permit is consistent with the design objectives and will not prejudice the future integrated use and development of the site.

An application must be accompanied by a report which demonstrates that the proposal will not prejudice the development plan requirements specified in this schedule.

2.0 Design objectives

The development must be consistent with the following design objectives for the site:

� To facilitate an integrated mixed use strategic development incorporating retail, office, residential and entertainment uses.

� To facilitate a high quality architectural design.

� To respond to the built form typology (building height, pattern and aspects) within Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road.

� To mitigate visual bulk by varying building heights across the site.

� To maintain the prominence of the heritage built form when viewed from Glenferrie Road by siting taller built form away from Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road.

� To respond to the potential impact of new development on immediate and longer range views of the site from public vantage points, including: north-east corner of the junction of Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road, western end of Wattletree Road, the footpath on the eastern side of Glenferrie Road and Railway Avenue looking north.

� To incorporate a frontage façade treatment along the southern elevation.

� To integrate signage where appropriate.

--/--/2016 C223

--/--/2016 C223

--/--/2016 C223

REVISION A

Commented [SCC1]: Delete given the provisions for this portion of the land have been moved from the DDO to the DPO.



� To provide passive surveillance of the public realm from the upper levels on the southern interface.

� To improve access and integration with the surrounding area.

� To provide a pedestrian connection from Glenferrie Road to Malvern Central.

� To facilitate safer pedestrian and vehicle movement into Malvern Central.

� To enhance the ground floor retail and pedestrian space on the Wattletree Road frontage.

� To incorporate a landscaped shared pedestrian and cyclist path along the northern edge of the railway corridor between Malvern and Armadale Stations.

3.0 Conditions and requirements for permits

An application to develop the land must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:

� Any subdivision plans as appropriate.

� A noise and vibration assessment to address Passenger Rail Infrastructure Noise Policy 2013.

All permits should must be in accordance with the following requirements as appropriatedesign guidelines:

� Provide a four storey street wall or building base to present a strong street edge profile along the Wattletree Road frontage.

� Ensure that residential areas to the south side of the railway corridor and the footpath on the eastern side of Glenferrie Road are not unreasonably overshadowed at the equinox (22 September, between 9am and 3pm).

� Provide roof decks on lower built form to provide communal gathering space, urban landscaping and high quality outlook from upper levels of commercial or residential development.

� Incorporate sufficient building separation from adjacent sites to the north and east to maximise daylight access and manage outlooks and privacy.

4.0 Requirements for development plan

A development plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. A development plan may, with the consent of the Resposible Authority, be prepared in stages or for a single or part of a site, provided that it can be demonstrated that the development shown can be integrated with the remaining land within this overlay and provided that this does not prejudice achieving the objectives of this schedule.

The Development Plan must show, include and be accompanied by the information below.

The responsible authority may determine that a requirement can be waived.

General

� The site’s urban context, including its physical surrounds and a strategic assessment of the area within which the site is located.

� Contours and levels, including levels of adjoining sites.

� An existing conditions plan and statement including the size and dimensions of the site.

--/--/2016 C223

--/--/2016 C223

Commented [SCC2]: Change in response to submission 100.

Commented [SCC3]: Revised wording to accurately reflect a provision which is a requirement.

Commented [SCC4]: Clarification in response to submission 45.

Commented [SCC5]: Change in response to submission 45 and 55.



Use & Development

� The proposed use and development of each building and section of the land, including demolition where proposed.

� Development staging, including an indicative time frame for development.

� Future building envelopes and three dimensional massing, including the scale of the development, design elements and treatment of interfaces.

� Cross sections showing level changes across the site and adjoining sites.

� A stormwater management plan incorporating water sensitive urban design principles and a preliminary drainage and servicing assessment addressing all relevant drainage, flooding and water quality issues.

� A Waste Management Concept Plan indicating waster collection, storage and removal facilities and areas.

Siting and Design

� Proposed building heights and setbacks complying with the heights and setbacks in Table 1:

Table 1: Preferred Built Form Malvern Central

Preferred maximum building height*

Preferred maximum building height for development fronting Wattletree Road*

Preferred maximum street wall height Wattletree Rd

Preferred minimum setback above street wall on Wattletree Rd

42.5 metres

(12 storeys)

16 metres

(5 storeys)

14.5 metres

(4 storeys)

12 metres

Preferred minimum setback along common boundary/ southern interface with VicTrack land

Preferred minimum setback above street wall, or building base on laneways

Preferred minimum separation between taller building forms

Preferred maximum width of any tower forms

0 metres 5 metres 10 metres 25 metres

* Preferred maximum building height is whichever is lesser (metres or storeys) and excludes rooftop plant and lift overruns provided they are well set back from the edge of the roof.

� Siting and orientation of new structures or extensions and alterations to exisiting buildings.

� The impact of overshadowing on the residential area to the south of the railway corridor and the footpath on the eastern side of Glenferrie Road, at the equinox (22 September, between 9am and 3pm.

� A high standard of internal amenity managed within the site.

Commented [SCC6]: Table 1 moved to Section 4.0.

Commented [SCC7]: Provisions (Preferred maximum building height for development fronting Wattletree Road) moved from DDO.

Commented [SCC8]: Change in response to submission 45. Clar ification that for development on the Malvern Central site, the preferred minimum setback along the common boundary, between Malvern Central and VicTrack land, is 0 metres.

Commented [SCC9]: Existing provisions reformatted to move table privisions on to two lines



� Sufficient building separation to manage outlooks, privacy, visual bulk and daylight access on adjoining sites.

� Impact of development on immediate and longer range views of the site from public vantage points, including Glenferrie Road, Wattletree Road and the rail corridor.

� Design measures to achieve Environmentally Sustainable Design.

� Treatment of ancillary structures and service/plant and fixtures.

Traffic Management Plan

A Traffic Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified professional(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Vic Roads providing details relating to:

� Traffic management, traffic control works and road works considered necessary on the site, including the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian requirements necessary for the use of the site.

� The location of vehicle access points to the site.

� Bicycle and pedestrian access plan for the site and proposed cycle parking.

� Existing and proposed car parking generation and adequacy of supply.

� Loading bays and routes.

� Proposed measures to support sustainable transport over private vehicle travel for staff and visitors.

� Proposed circulation and access systems for both vehicles and pedestrians.

5.0 Display of development plan

Before approving or amending a development plan, the responsible authority should display the plan for public comment for at least four weeks. The responsible authority may consider any comments received in response to the display of the development plan.

6.0 Reference Documents

Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan, Hansen Partnership, 2015.

--/--/2016 C223

--/--/2016 C223


DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19 PAGE 1 OF 18

SCHEDULE 19 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO19

GLENFERRIE ROAD AND HIGH STREET ACTIVITY CENTRE AN D WATTLETREE ROAD AREA

1.0 General Design objectives

� To protect and enhance the existing heritage built form and fabric.

� To encourage a modest scale of development in High Street and Glenferrie Road, which complements the existing heritage fabric.

� To encourage higher density development on land south of the railway corridor and on strategic development sites.

� To facilitate the redevelopment and/or revitalisation of identified strategic development sites consistent with the requirements of this Schedule.

� To increase activation of laneways.

� To improve the appearance of public spaces including streetscapes, public car parks and laneways.

2.0 Definitions

Small sites (S) are sites which have less than a 7m street frontage (width).

Medium sites (M) are sites which have between a 7m-19m street frontage (width).

Large sites (L) are sites which have street frontage (width) greater than 19m.

3.0 General Requirements

3.1 Permit requirements

Buildings and works

A planning permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for:

� Installation of an automatic teller machine.

� An alteration to an existing building façade provided:

⋅ The alteration does not include the installation of an external roller shutter.

⋅ At least 80 per cent of the building façade at ground floor level is maintained as an entry or window with clear glazing.

� An awning that projects over the road if it is authorized by the relevant public land manager.

� Construct or carry out works normal to a dwelling.

DD/MM/YY Proposed C223

DD/MM/YYYY Proposed C223



REVISION A



� Construct or extend an out-building (other than a garage or carport) on a lot provided the gross floor area of the out-building does not exceed 10 square metres and the maximum building height is not more than 3 metres above ground level.

� Railway and railway infrastructure including signals (and related control buildings), new tracks, track work and realignment, overhead power lines, gantries, stabling (excluding buildings) and any other work required under the Disability Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.

4.0 General Design GuidelinesRequirements

Development in all precincts shouldmust:

� Be of high quality urban design and architecture that contributes positively to local character.

� Include active frontages along High Street, Glenferrie Road and Wattletree Road, except where this conflicts with the original heritage form.

� Be substantially setback behind the street parapet to maintain the prominence of the heritage form when viewed from the public realm.

� Integrate signage where appropriate.

� Achieve an exemplary standard of internal amenity, including access to natural daylight and natural ventilation.

� Provide weather protection in the form of canopies on High Street and Glenferrie Road, except where this is contrary to the original heritage fabric.

� Incorporate passive surveillance of the public realm including rear laneways.

� Orientate onto rear car parks to provide surveillance from upper levels and an improved presentation to the public realm.

� Address overlooking through the use of building separation in preference to screening.

� Avoid apartments with primary aspect to side boundaries.

� Incorporate low level vegetation and lighting in laneways to facilitate a more attractive and safer walking environment.

� Enhance existing pedestrian and cyclist connections parallel to the rail line.


Commented [SCC1]: Expressed as requirements, consistent with the DDO template.

Commented [SCC2]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template.



5.0 Precinct Design GuidelinesRequirements

This Clause includes specific objectives, guidelines requirements and preferred built form outcomes shown on Map 1 Built Form Precincts and Map 2 Interfaces which forms part of this Schedule.

5.1 Precinct A - Glenferrie Road

Design Objectives

� To retain the consistent two storey built form of significant heritage places with pronounced parapets.

� To ensure new buildings retain the visual prominence of significant places in the street and views to significant places.

� To ensure new buildings complement the heritage scale and vertical fine grain rhythm of built form.

� To recognise and maintain the prominence of the Malvern Town Hall and clock tower and the Anglican Church on Dandenong Road as municipal landmarks.

� To facilitate higher density built form south of the railway corridor to enhance the image and sense of arrival into the Activity Centre.

� To retain and improve the appearance and safe function of the pedestrian arcade between Glenferrie Road and the rear car parks.

� To provide a pedestrian link from Glenferrie Road to Malvern Central.

� To improve pedestrian access to and through Malvern Railway Station.

� To improve the function of the Coldblo Road and Glenferrie Road intersection and its role in facilitating safe tram movement.

Design GuidelinesRequirements

Development shouldmust:

� Not exceed the preferred height and setbacks specified in Table 1 and the Interface and Setback Guidelines Requirements specified in Clause 6.0.

� Incorporate a street wall height for new development in Precinct A1 to respond to the predominant street wall of existing heritage places.

� Provide active ground floor uses along the southern railway interface (Glenferrie Rd to Malvern Railway Station) in Precinct A2.

� In Precinct A2, locate higher density built form along the Dandenong Road frontage with a transition of scale of lower forms closer to the railway corridor.



Commented [SCC3]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template




Table 1: Preferred Built Form Precinct A

Precinct No.


Preferred maximum street wall height

Preferred street level setback

Preferred minimum setback above street wall

A1 14.5 metres

(4 storeys)***

N/A** 0 metres 8-10 metres

A2 21.5 metres

(6 storeys)

14.5 metres

(4 storeys)

0 metres 3-5 metres


** Preferred maximum street wall height to be determined by the retention of the heritage building or guided by the provisions of Council's Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04.

*** Maximum building height of 12m for 73-75 Union Street, 1 and 1a Gordon Street and Gordon Grove carpark (138-146 Wattletree Road) is identified in the General Residential Zone at Clause 32.08 Schedule 15.



5.2 Precinct B - High Street

Design Objectives

� To retain the consistent two storey built form of significant heritage places with pronounced parapets.

� To enhance streetscape diversity with slightly taller street walls for development not subject to a Heritage Overlay.

� To maintain an openness to the sky when viewing new development from street level.

� To recognise and maintain the prominence of the Malvern Town Hall and clock tower as a municipal landmark and gateway.

� To maintain a modest scale of infill development within High Street and Glenferrie Road, which complements the existing heritage fabric.

� To retain and improve the appearance and safe function of the pedestrian arcade between High Street and Armadale Railway Station.




� Incorporate a street wall height for new development in Precinct A1 B to respond to the predominant street wall of heritage fabric.

Table 2: Preferred Built Form Precinct B


(S sites)


(M/L sites)




14.5 metres

(4 storeys)

18 metres

(5 storeys)

NA** 0 metres 8-10 metres


** Preferred maximum street wall height to be determined by the retention of the heritage building or guided by the provisions of the Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04.



Commented [SCC6]: Correction. Response to submission 197A



5.3 Precinct C - Wattletree Road West

Design Objectives

� To provide for increased density development.

� To enhance the garden setting of new development and strengthen the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.

� To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between new higher density development on Wattletree Road and existing lower density residential development to the rear.




� Be setback a minimum 3 metres from the front property boundary to accommodate shrubs and canopy trees.

� Incorporate a recessed fifth level above the street wall distinguished in materiality.

� Provide passive surveillance from upper levels of the Wattletree Road environs.

� Allow for front vehicle access to one side boundary, from the front of the site, for Large sites, to improve legibility for vehicle access to medical facilities.

� Provide weather protection in the form of canopies at ground level on Wattletree Road.

Table 3: Preferred Built Form Precinct C


(110-122 Wattletree Rd – Malvern Central)




16 metres

(5 storeys)

13.5 metres

(4 storeys)

3 metres 3-5 metres




Commented [SCC8]: Revised words to clarify intent.

Commented [SCC9]: Maximum building height for development on the Malvern Central site, fronting Wattletree Road, moved to the proposed DPO3 in line with the DDO no longer applying to the Malvern Central site.



5.4 Precinct D - Wattletree Road East

Objectives

� To enhance the garden setting of new development and strengthen the tree canopy of the neighbourhood.

� To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between new higher density development on Wattletree Road and existing lower density residential development to the rear.




� Contribute to the landscape setting by siting new development off at least one side boundary by 2.5 metres, for landscaping.

� Provide for adaptable ground levels which can accommodate either medical or office facilities, or home occupation components of maisonette dwellings.

� Be setback a minimum 3 metres from the front property boundary to accommodate shrubs and canopy trees.

� Incorporate a recessed fourth level above the street wall distinguished in materiality.

� Be setback from the rear boundary to enable planting of at least one canopy tree.

� Allow front vehicle access to one side boundary, from the front of the site, for Large sites, to improve legibility for vehicle access to for medical facilities.

Table 4: Preferred Built Form Precinct D




11 metres

(3 storeys)

3 metres 3-5 metres



Commented [SCC11]: Revised words to clarify intent.



5.5 Precinct E - Dandenong Road Strategic Developme nt Site

Design Objectives

� To accommodate higher density residential development.

� To establish a clearly defined gateway into the centre through built form presentation.

� To establish a strong sense of arrival into the Activity Centre from Dandenong Road.



� Provide active ground floor uses along the railway interface integrated with pedestrian access to Malvern Station and Glenferrie Road.

� Incorporate a frontage façade treatment along the northern elevation.

� Respond to the built form typology (building height, pattern and aspects) within Dandenong Road and Glenferrie Road.

� Respond to the potential impact on views of the site from public vantage points, including Glenferrie Road and Station Street.

� Incorporate sufficient building separation from adjacent sites to maximise daylight access and manage outlooks and privacy.

� Provide passive surveillance of the public realm from upper levels on the northern interface.

� Provide a 3m ground level setback from northern and southern boundaries to facilitate a ground level pedestrian space.

� Site the tallest built form away from the Dandenong Road and Glenferrie Road frontages and the Former Railway Hotel (HO403) to maintain the its visual prominence of the Railway Hotel (HO403).

Table 5: Preferred Built Form Precinct E


Preferred maximum street wall height Dandenong Rd

Preferred minimum setback above street wall / podium from the north and south boundaries

Preferred minimum separation between any taller building forms

Preferred ground level setback (north and south)

35.5 metres

(10 storeys)

28.5 metres

(8 storeys)

5 metres

10 metres 3 metres




Commented [SCC13]: ‘Former’ inserted for clarification.

Commented [SCC14]: Reworded to ensure buildings are sited away from the street frontages and the heritage significant building.

Commented [SCC15]: Clarification.



5.6 Precinct F - Glenferrie Road Strategic Developm ent Site

Design Objectives

� To accommodate higher density residential development.

� To establish a clearly defined gateway into the centre through built form presentation.

� To establish a strong sense of arrival into the Activity Centre from Dandenong Road.



� Provide active ground floor uses along the railway interface integrated with pedestrian access to Malvern Station and Glenferrie Road.

� Incorporate a frontage façade treatment along the northern elevation.

� Respond to the built form typology (building height, pattern and aspects) within Dandenong Road and Glenferrie Road.

� Respond to the potential impact on views of the site from public vantage points, including Glenferrie Road and Station Street.

� Incorporate sufficient building separation from adjacent sites to maximise daylight access and manage outlooks and privacy.

� Provide passive surveillance of the public realm from upper levels on the northern interface.

Table 6: Preferred Built Form Precinct F



Preferred minimum setback above street wall / podium to the north and west

Preferred minimum setback above street wall / podium to the south and east

Preferred minimum separation between any taller building forms

28.5 metres

(8 storeys)

14.5 metres

(4 storeys)

3 - 5 metres 5 metres 10 metres


6.0 Interface and Setback GuidelinesRequirements

This Clause includes specific guidelines requirements and preferred built form outcomes shown on Map 2 Interfaces which forms part of this Schedule.

� For corner sites, buildings should be designed to address both street frontages.

� For corner sites, active frontages should extend along the Local Street Interface to create a sense of address with clear glazing and allow for side entry where appropriate.

� Street wall height should be located along the extended extent of the along the Local Street Interface as indicated on Map 2.

� Balconies, terraces and decks should be contained within the building envelope to maintain building separation and minimise overlooking.

� Development should provide adequate separation to provide for equitable development opportunities and privacy of habitable rooms and balconies.




Commented [SCC17]: Revised wording consistent with the DDO template.

Commented [SCC18]: Clarification in response to Submission 197A.

Commented [SCC19]: Clarification.



� Development should avoid unreasonable visual bulk when viewed from the private and public realm by ensuring appropriate scale, form and articulation.

� Development should incorporate sufficient setbacks at the rear interface to achieve separation between building lines and primary outlooks.

� Include a minimum 1.5 metre rear lane offset at ground level and first levelfloors, from the rear property boundary, to facilitate the ongoing function of the laneway with all vehicle access from the rear lane. The width of rear laneways should be sufficiently wide to accommodate building servicing and car park access.

� Development with a rear interface to residential zoned land (Interface Diagram 2 and 3 and 4) should incorporate a mid block setback for the top levels to mitigate visual bulk.

The diagrams in Table 7 represent the building envelope, and should be read in conjunction with Maps 1 and 2 of this schedule to determine the preferred interface and setbacks to be applied.

Table 7: Interface and Setbacks

Interface and Setback Provision

Rear Laneway Interface

Diagram 1 Development with a Rear Laneway Interface to non residential zoned land should provide rear upper level setbacks, above the second levelfirst floor, of 3m from the rear property boundary.

A potential 5th storey is shown for Precinct B (M/L) and Precinct C only.

Commented [SCC20]: The convention of level labels changed to align the diagrams and the text in the policy.

Commented [SCC21]: Mid-block provision removed in response to a number of submissions.

Commented [SCC22]: Text to clarify how to locate the relevant interface and setback provisions.

Commented [SCC23]: Diagram 1 replaced with a new diagram with the following changes: - 5th storey shown with a dashed line. - The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.

Commented [SCC24]: Clarification regarding the applicability of the 5th storey now shown on the diagram.



Diagram 2

Development with a Rear Laneway Interface to residential zoned land should provide rear upper level setbacks, above the second levelfirst floor, 4.5m from the rear property boundary.


Commented [SCC25]: Diagram 2 replaced with a new diagram with the following changes: - Mid-block setback removed. - 5th storey shown with a dashed line. The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.

Commented [SCC26]: Text updated to align with the diagram.




Rear No Laneway Interface

Diagram 3

Development with a Rear No Laneway Interface should provide: − 4.5m setback from the property boundary up to the second levelfirst

floor. − 7.5m setback from the property boundary up to the third/ fourth

levelfloor.


Commented [SCC28]: Diagram 3 replaced with a new diagram with the following changes: - Mid-block setback removed. - 5th storey shown with a dashed line. - The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.






Rear Interface in Precinct A2

Diagram 4

Development in Precinct A2 should provide a rear setback at ground level of 3m to incorporate landscaping.

Development in Precinct A2 should provide a 7.5m rear upper level setback, above the third levelsecond floor, from the rear property boundary.

Diagram 5 Development in Precinct A2 should provide a 4.5m rear upper level setback above the second floor, from the rear property boundary.

The diagrams in Table 7 represent the building envelope.

Commented [SCC32]: Diagram 4 replaced with a new diagrwith the following changes: - Mid-block setback removed. - The convention of the level labels are changed to better align with the text in the policy.


Commented [SCC34]: Insert a new diagram for Precinct A2 for rear non-residential interfaces.



7.0 Decision Guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 43.02-5 and Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider:

� Whether the relevant objectives and guidelines requirements of this schedule are satisfied.

� The Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan, Hansen Partnership, 2015.


An application should be accompanied by the following information (as appropriate):

� A digital 3D model of the development to Council’s specifications if the building is 4 storeys or more.

� A site analysis, urban context report, shadow assessment which demonstrates how the proposed development achieves: The the relevant objectives and guidelines requirements of this schedule.

9.0 Reference Documents

Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan, Hansen Partnership, 2015.

--/--/20-- C--


DD/MM/YYY Proposed C223


STO

NN

ING

TO

N P

LAN

NIN

G S

CH

EM

E D

ES

IGN

AN

D D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T O

VE

RLA

Y -

SC

HE

DU

LE 1

9

PA

GE

15

OF

18

Map

1: B

uilt

For

m P

reci

ncts

Commented [SCC35]: M

ap 1

rep

lace

d. B

ound

ary

of P

rere

vise

d to

mov

e pr

oper

ties

on C

lare

mon

t St f

rom

Pre

cin

ct A

2 to

A1

In r

esp

onse

to s

ever

al s

ubm

issi

ons.

STO

NN

ING

TO

N P

LAN

NIN

G S

CH

EM

E D

ES

IGN

AN

D D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T O

VE

RLA

Y -

SC

HE

DU

LE 1

9

PA

GE

16

OF

18

STO

NN

ING

TO

N P

LAN

NIN

G S

CH

EM

E D

ES

IGN

AN

D D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T O

VE

RLA

Y -

SC

HE

DU

LE 1

9

PA

GE

17

OF

18

Map

2: I

nter

face

s

Commented [SCC36]: M

ap 2

rep

lace

d to

sh

ow in

terf

ace

and

se

tbac

ks p

rovi

sion

s to

app

ly to

the

rear

of p

rop

ert

ies

on th

eof

Wat

tletr

ee

Ro

ad.

STO

NN

ING

TO

N P

LAN

NIN

G S

CH

EM

E D

ES

IGN

AN

D D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T O

VE

RLA

Y -

SC

HE

DU

LE 1

9

PA

GE

18

OF

18

Date post:	07-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times