UPC4 3 New Street, Hawthorn - City of Boroondara · 3 New Street, Hawthorn be issued under the...

Urban Planning Special Committee Agenda 15/02/16

UPC4 3 New Street, Hawthorn Application no.: PP14/00372 (File 40/409/19173) Responsible director John Luppino

City Planning Authorised by: Simon Mitchell

Manager Statutory Planning Report officer: Joe Sevillano -

Senior Planner Statutory Planning

Abstract Proposal The proposal seeks the construction of eight (8) dwellings on a lot. Issues The following are key issues in respect of this application: Response to neighbourhood character; Potential amenity impact to adjoining properties; and Objections received. Officer's response Details of the proposal, discussion of all objections and assessment against relevant controls and policies are contained in the attachment to this report. The proposal seeks to construct eight, three-storey dwellings in an attached townhouse configuration above a communal basement car park. Access to the basement car park will be from the northern laneway which also services nine other existing dwellings. The proposal will be of a contemporary architectural style featuring a variety of materials, colours and finishes (including brickwork and rendered and metal cladding) with a flat roof. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with Council’s preferred neighbourhood character as the site is located within a ‘Contemporary Town House and General Inner Urban’ Precinct. The proposal has several minor non-compliances with the requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode) and the RDP. However, side and rear setbacks, north facing windows, site coverage, permeability and overshadowing comply with ResCode Standards. The potential impact on the neighbouring amenity is not considered to be significant. Council’s Traffic Engineers are satisfied with the movement of traffic to and from the development as well as the arrangement and provision for on-site car parking. It is also noted that the proposal includes a surplus of visitor parking (two spaces provided compared with one required). All objections have been considered and are discussed in the report.

City of Boroondara 3 New Street Page 1 of 51


Officers' recommendation That the Urban Planning Special Committee resolve that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. PP14/00372 to construct eight (8) dwellings on a lot at 3 New Street, Hawthorn be issued under the Boroondara Planning Scheme subject to the following conditions: Amended plans required 1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided. When the plans are endorsed they will then form part of the permit. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the advertised plans (incorporating the amendments dated 19 August 2015 and 30 October 2015) but modified to show:

(a) All screening measures (e.g. obscure glazing, fixed external screens etc.)

to be represented and notated on all elevations and all floor plans amended to clearly note the location of such screening measures to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(b) Details of the northern boundary fence including height, materiality, colour, transparency, etc. provided in an elevational view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(c) The provision of a physical samples board of proposed materials, colours and finishes and coloured, scaled elevations accurately depicting the proposed development, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(d) The site/ground floor plan amended to include a notation that the extent of laneway adjacent to the subject site will be resurfaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(e) The third floor of Dwelling 1 increased in setback by 1 metre from the front boundary without reducing any other setbacks;

(f) The front fence reduced to a maximum height of 1.5m; (g) Details regarding access to the basement for residents and visitors

including the proposed access measure and operation notated on the basement floor plan;

(h) Proposed traffic management measures (e.g. traffic lights or other measures) to regulate traffic at the site access to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(i) A plan notation that 18m of 300mm outfall drainage is required to connect the existing drain to the downstream pit;

(j) A plan notation that no permanent structures are permitted within the eastern drainage easement;

(k) Ramp gradients provided in accordance with Design Standard 3 of Clause 52.06-8;

(l) A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3; (m) A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 11; and (n) A Construction Management Plan in accordance with Condition 12.

Layout not to be altered 2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and

works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Boroondara Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.



Landscape plan 3. A landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies provided. When endorsed, the plan will form part of the permit.

The landscape plan must show: (a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing trees to be retained

and of those to be removed. The intended status of the trees shown on the landscape plan must be consistent with that depicted on the development layout plan;

(b) Details of the surface finish of all pathways, paved areas and accessways; (c) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity and the quantities of each plant;

(d) A minimum of two (2) canopy trees (minimum two metres tall when planted) in the following areas within the front setback;

(e) Planting of trees within drainage easements/adjacent to Council drains being limited to species with shallow root system (shrubs) which will not prejudice or damage the stormwater drain.

(f) Planting required by any other condition of this permit; and (g) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.

Completion of landscaping works 4. Landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be carried out

and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development.

Landscaping maintenance 5. All landscaping works shown on the endorsed landscape plan/s must be

maintained and any dead, diseased or damaged plants replaced, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Drainage 6. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Sediment laden run-off 7. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or

indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses during and after development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Use of car parking spaces 8. Car parking spaces shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any

purpose other than the parking of vehicles, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Visitor parking spaces 9. Visitor parking spaces within the development must be:

(a) Clearly identified by appropriate signage having an area no greater than 0.3m2;

(b) Line marked to indicate each car space; and (c) Available for visitor usage at all times.



Vehicle crossovers 10. Any new vehicle crossover or modification to an existing vehicle crossover must

be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Waste management plan 11. A waste management plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must

be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once satisfactory, such plan will be endorsed and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must provide the following details of a regular waste (including recyclables) collection service for the subject land including:

(a) The type/s and number of waste bins; (b) Type/size of trucks; (c) Frequency of waste collection; (d) A plan showing the layout of the bins at collection time including sufficient

clearances from all street services, features and infrastructure; (e) Delivery of bins to waste collection points and retrieval of bins once

collected or location of collection points within basement;

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Construction management plan 12. Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and

excavation, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. No works are permitted to occur until the Plan has been endorsed by the Responsible Authority. Once endorsed, the construction management plan will form part of the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be prepared in accordance with Council’s Construction Management Plan Template and provide details of the following:

(a) Hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of

this permit; (b) Measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff; (c) Measures relating to removal of hazardous or dangerous material from the

site, where applicable; (d) A plan showing the location of parking areas for construction and sub-

contractors' vehicles on and surrounding the site, to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises. Any basement car park on the land must be made available for use by sub-constructors/tradespersons upon completion of such areas, without delay;

(e) A Traffic Management Plan showing truck routes to and from the site; (f) Swept path analysis demonstrating the ability for trucks to enter and exit

the site in a safe manner for the largest anticipated truck associated with the construction;

(g) A plan showing the location and design of a vehicle wash-down bay for construction vehicles on the site;

(h) Measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the construction management plan;

(i) Contact details of key construction site staff; and (j) A site plan showing the location of any site sheds, on-site amenities,

building waste storage and the like, noting that Council does not support site sheds on Council road reserves.



Hours for demolition and construction 13. All works including earthworks, demolition and construction activity associated

with the approved development must take place only during the following hours, except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:

Monday to Thursday: 7:00am to 6:30pm Friday: 7:00am to 5:00pm Saturday: 8:00am to 5:00pm Sunday & Public Holidays: No construction

Provision of letter boxes 14. Provision must be made on the site for letter boxes and receptacles for papers

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Maintenance of basement garage roller door 15. The roller door to the basement garage accessway must be regularly

serviced/maintained so as not to adversely impact the amenity of nearby residents through excessive noise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Construction of the northern laneway 16. Before the commencement of the development, engineering drawings for the

construction and drainage of all of that part of the lane located adjacent to the northern property boundary of 3 New Street, Hawthorn to a trafficable standard to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Responsible Authority. The plans must include the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) Materials, surface treatment and levels for the lane; (b) Suitable transitions to adjacent land; (c) Any necessary upgrades to underground infrastructure.

17. Before the development is occupied, the resurfaced and drained lane must be

constructed in accordance with the approved engineering drawings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Cost of public realm works 18. Prior to the commencement of the development, a schedule of costs for the

construction of the public realm works must be submitted to the Council. Fees prior to commencement of the public realm works 19. Prior to the commencement of the development, a supervision fee equal to

2.5% of the cost of construction of the public realm works must be paid to the Council.

20. Prior to the commencement of the development, an engineering plan checking fee representing 0.75% of the public realm works must be paid to the Council.

21. Prior to the occupation of the development, a maintenance deposit equal to

10% of the value of the public realm works must be lodged with the Council and retained thereafter for a minimum of 12 months.



Release of maintenance deposit monies 22. Before the release of the maintenance deposit for any public realm works, the

owner must submit to the Responsible Authority:

(a) Approved construction plans in a format to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(b) A schedule which provides specific information in relation to the assets created.

Permit to expire: 23. This permit will expire if:

(a) The development does not start within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit; or

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

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

i. within six (6) months afterwards if the development has not commenced;

or ii. (ii) within twelve (12) months afterwards if the development has not been

completed. Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal are unable to approve requests outside of the relevant time frame. Notes: General notes Headings are for ease of reference only and do not affect the interpretation of permit conditions. This is not a Building Permit. A Building Permit may be required prior to the commencement of any works associated with the proposed development. Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, the owner / developer must submit any new vehicular crossover or modification or alteration to an existing crossover proposal for assessment and approval by the Responsible Authority (Asset Management). An Asset Protection Permit is required prior to the commencement of site works in accordance with Council’s Protection of Council Assets and Control of Building Sites Local Law 2011. The full cost of reinstatement of any Council assets damaged as a result of demolition, building or construction works, must be met by the permit applicant or any other person responsible for such damage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Suitable design and construction plans (including drainage) for the construction of the right of way are required to be submitted to Council for approval. Any and all costs associated with the works are to be borne by the applicant.



Parking permits note Pursuant to Council's Residential Parking Permit Policy (2011), the owners and occupiers of dwellings approved in this development will not be eligible to obtain resident or visitor parking permits.

Drainage notes Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, the owner/developer must submit drainage plans for assessment and approval by the Responsible Authority (Asset Management).

Stormwater drainage runoff shall be collected in a complete and effective system of drains and connected to the Approved Point of Stormwater Discharge.

Prior consent from Council and any and all public authorities is required to be obtained for alteration or reinstatement of assets or services affected as a result of the development.

No groundwater or anything other than Stormwater is to be discharged into an open discharge system. (Kerb & channel, made surface of a right of way or similar surface drainage system)

A control pit is to be located in an appropriate location and a suitable path is to be designed for stormwater which surcharges from the pit once the design storm has been exceeded.

The proposed development is to provide adequate clearance for overland flow through the property.

Stormwater drains are to be connected to a legal point of discharge approved by Council. Drainage Connections within a road reserve, right-of-way, parkland, within an easement or to a Health Act drain must be to Council’s standards. A Council Supervision Permit is required for this work. All fees and charges associated with the connection are to be borne by the applicant.

Discharge to the approved point of discharge will be allowed subject to the flow being limited to a rate equivalent to 0.35 coefficient of runoff for 1 in 5 year rainfall event. Any additional discharge is to be temporary detained on site with a minimum storage volume for 1 in 20 year rainfall event, via an approved stormwater detention system.

An outfall drain is to be constructed to the nominated Council pit in accordance with the approved point of discharge.

Discharge to the legal point of discharge will be allowed subject to the flow being limited to a rate equivalent to pre-development levels or less. Any additional discharge and / or runoff above the pre-development level is to be detained on site, via an approved storm water detention system. This matter should be discussed with Council’s Asset Management Department.

Works over easement notes Prior to the issue of a building permit, the owner must obtain the consents of all relevant authorities for any buildings or works, including any paving, fences, land filling/excavation and landscaping, over any easement or underground services under the control of a public authority including sewers, drains, pipes, wires or cables.

The owner must accept all reinstatement costs in carrying out repairs to any buildings, works or landscaping over the easements should such buildings, works or landscaping be disturbed by any works undertaken by Council in the future.


Page 1 of 34

STATUTORY PLANNING OFFICERS REPORT Urban Planning Committee

Application Number PP14/00372Date Application Received 27/03/201460 Day Statutory Time Frame 1 January 2016 Planning Officer Joe Sevillano

Applicant Bowden Planning Owner Mrs A Fleming, Veretta Pty Ltd, Mr S

Fleming

Property Address 3 New Street, Hawthorn Proposal Construction of eight (8) dwellings on a lot. Ward Glenferrie

Zoning General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 Overlays NoneDrainage Area of Interest? No Aboriginal Heritage Layer No Trees Identified on the Significant Tree Register?

Nil

Advertised? Yes Number of Objections Received 11Recommendation Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

PLANS ASSESSED IN THIS REPORT Plans advertised in December 2014; Plans submitted on 19 August 2015 (which made amendments to Dwelling 3); Plans submitted on 30 October 2015 (which made amendments to the basement

level - corrections to drafting errors made to the elevations were submitted 1 February 2016).

Urban Planning Special Committee Agenda 15/02/16______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________City of Boroondara 3 New Street Page 8 of 51

Page 2 of 34

PROPOSALAppendix A - Plans

An application has been made to Council for the construction of eight (8) dwellings on a lot.

Details of the proposal are summarised as follows:

The proposed dwellings will be located in an attached row configuration from west to east.

Dwellings 1 - 6 will be three-storey and will each have 3 bedrooms, while Dwellings 7 & 8 will be two-storey and will each have 2 bedrooms (located at the rear - eastern portion of the site).

The style of the dwellings will be contemporary in design. The proposed dwellings will be constructed of a mix of face brickwork (blue-grey

colour), render and vertical corrugated metal cladding, horizontal timber screens and metal roofing.

The building will have angled wall sections at the second and third storey with a flat roof.

Dwelling 1 will be setback a minimum of 6 metres from New Street. Side and rear setbacks are as follows:

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksBasement

Proposed WallHeight (to

NGL)

Proposed Setback

North nilEast nilSouth nil

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksGround Floor (minimum setback relative to wallheight)


NGL)

Proposed Setback

North 4.5m 4.15mEast 3.7m 2.5mSouth 4m 2.03m



Page 3 of 34

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksFirst Floor (minimum setback relative to wall height)


NGL)

Proposed Setback

North 7.4m 4.35mEast 7m 2.425mSouth 6.6m 2.01m

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksSecond floor (minimum setback relative to wall height)


NGL)

Proposed Setback

North 9.4m 5.590mEast N/A two

storeys to theeast only

South 8.4m 3.49m

Other details are set out in the following table:

Number of Storeys 3Maximum Overall Height 10.5mNo of Bedrooms Dwellings 1 - 6 to have 3 bedrooms each, with Dwellings

7 & 8 to have 2 bedrooms each. Parking Type Communal basement garage accessed via the northern

laneway Total No. of Car Spaces Provided

16 car spaces (13 residential car spaces and 2 residential visitor car spaces within the basement, 1 car space at

ground level accessed via the existing crossover) Secluded Private open space

Courtyard/garden areas along the northern side of the building, with a minimum area of 22.20m2.

Other Details Site Coverage 75.80%Permeability 24.20%Front Fence Details 1.6m - 2.2m high stacked stone/opaque glass Crossover Dwelling 1 will utilise the existing crossover for access to

its ground level open-air car space. All other access will be via the basement car park, accessed via the northern laneway.



Page 4 of 34

THE SITE

Appendix B - Locality Plan

Site Location The subject site is located on the eastern side of New Street in Hawthorn. The site also abuts a laneway which runs along its northern boundary.

Width of Frontage 16.99mMaximum Depth of Site 54.25mTotal Site Area 921m2

Easements The site is encumbered by a 1.83 metre wide drainage easement, situated along the eastern boundary of the site.

Fall of the Land The site has a slight fall of approximately 1 metre from north to south.

Existing Front Fence Details

A 1.6 metre high timber picket fence is located along the frontage of the site.

The subject site is currently developed with a single storey dwelling with a hipped, tiled roof.

The existing dwelling is setback a minimum of 10.5 metres from New Street. An attached single-width carport to the north of the dwelling is set back 7.6 metres from New Street.

Vehicle access is via a crossover and driveway adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

A Tree Local Law permit (Tree14/00525) was issued on 3 June 2014 for the removal of a Monterey Cypress (at the rear of the existing dwelling) and a Black Locust (within the north-western corner of the site). These trees have subsequently been removed. Therefore, the subject site is devoid of significant vegetation.



Page 5 of 34

3 New Street Source: Google Streetview

THE SURROUNDING AREA

Aerial Image - Subject Site



Page 6 of 34

Ordinance Image - Subject Site.

The subject site directly abuts one property which ‘wraps around’ the site to the south and east (1 New Street). The property contains a large, two-storey brick building with a hipped, tiled roof which is currently used as an aged/respite care facility. The building is set back 0.6m from the southern site boundary and 2.6m from the eastern site boundary. Several units have their SPOS adjacent to the southern site boundary in a covered verandah area, while there is also POS (i.e. communal areas not for private passive recreation) adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries.

No. 1 New Street Source: Google Streetview



Page 7 of 34

The site abuts New Street to the west and a 2.9m wide laneway to the north. The laneway will be resurfaced as recommended by Council’s Infrastructure department (this will be made a condition of approval).

On the northern side of the laneway are several properties fronting Manningtree Road. These properties (46 - 54 Manningtree Road) are all located within Heritage Overlay 493 (Manningtree Road Precinct) and are of contributory Heritage Value.

Clause 22.05 (Heritage policy) defines HO493 as follows:

HO493 Manningtree Road Precinct, Hawthorn

Reference – Hawthorn Heritage Precincts Study (April 2012)

The Manningtree Road Precinct, Hawthorn, is of heritage significance for the following reasons:

Manningtree Road provides one of the best examples of the provision of housing for the rising numbers of the middle class in Hawthorn in the late nineteenth century. It was one of the earliest speculative housing subdivisions in the area, though like much of Melbourne was not filled until the Boom years of the 1880s. In the range of housing provision which Hawthorn provided in the nineteenth century, it sits between the wealthy homes of for instance, Hawthorn Grove and the smaller houses of the West Hawthorn Area.

Manningtree Road was a stepping stone into a gentleman’s residence and clearly shows the major theme in Hawthorn, of the development of the garden suburb especially forthe middle class, which was to become dominant throughout Melbourne in the twentieth century (RNE Criterion A.4)

Manningtree Road displays a high level of cohesiveness of scale, architectural style and period of development. While there are a number of houses demonstrating more flamboyant or original or architectural features, they read as more elaborate versions of the more numerous standard asymmetric Italianate houses which dominate the street. .

(RNE Criteria D.2, E.1)

Manningtree Road has associations with Henry Box who was an influential figure in municipal, political and civic affairs in Hawthorn. His house Manningtree at no.2 (now altered) was an early mansion and lent its name to the street. No.4 Manningtree Road, now called Boonoke, has associations with John Patterson, pastoralist and businessman.

(RNE Criterion H.1)



Page 8 of 34

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT/AGREEMENTS

No covenant or restriction has been registered on Title for this property.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

Is the site within an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity?

No

PERMIT/SITE HISTORY

A review of Council records indicates that there have been no previous planning applications at the subject site.

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

Pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, the application was advertised by:

Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land; and Placing 2 signs (one facing New Street and one facing the laneway) on the land

for a period of 14 days.

OBJECTIONS RECEIVED?

Eleven (11) objections have been received to the proposal. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Not in keeping with neighbourhood character; Excessive building height; Non-compliant front setback; Visual bulk; Insufficient parking and increased traffic in both the laneway and New Street, and

noise associated with that traffic; Noise impacts from the basement garage door; Loss of views; Waste collection; Impacts (including parking, noise, damage to adjoining property etc.) during the

construction period;



Page 9 of 34

Potential for damage to adjoining properties during the construction process; The proposed development setting a precedent for future development in the

area; Reduced access to natural light (1 New Street); Loss of privacy; and Impacts to the heritage significance of properties fronting Manningtree Road.

AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSAL

An amendment to the planning application was lodged with Council (after notification) on 19 August 2015. The proposed changes are as follows:

Dwelling 3’s second floor setback to the northern boundary increased to 6.6m minimum (increase of 1m - 1.5m);

Dwelling 3’s second floor northern balcony setback increased to 6.1m minimum (increase of 1.5m).

Deletion of the box planter from Dwelling 3’s northern second floor balcony; and Consequential changes to Dwelling 3’s roof.

It was considered that the proposed changes were minor in nature and did not warrant re-notification. However, the amended plans were circulated via letter to all objectors to the application for a 14 day period. No objections were withdrawn as a result of the amended plans.

A further amendment to the planning application was lodged with Council (after notification) on 30 October 2015. The amendment revised the basement plan to remove the basement from the eastern drainage easement (resulting in the deletion of one visitor car parking space), as well as make subsequent minor modifications to the ground level (reduction in width of Dwelling 8’s eastern courtyard planter box and deletion of access stairs within the easement). The proposed development provides one (1) additional visitor car space.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

The application was referred to the following:

Urban Design

The subject site falls in the General Residential Zone Schedule 2, which covers areas described as contemporary townhouse and general inner urban precincts. The purpose



Page 10 of 34

of the GRZ is to encourage a development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area and provides a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations with good access to services and transport.

The proposal seeks support for eight, triple-storey townhouses arranged along the length of the site, facing north. Overall, the proposal has improved considerably in response to the issues raised in the original urban design advice. The changes to the front setback including the removal of the stairs, private and communal spaces have all cleared up the front setback zone and introduced new areas for landscaping.

The addition of the pathway, gate and pedestrian entry to the front unit should add some interaction and improve the interface with New Street. Individual entries to the units from the laneway would have been ideal, but may be impractical and realistically unachievable owing to the difference in level between the finished ground floor and the laneway level. The presence of the balconies on the first and second levels should provide a degree of casual surveillance and help enhance security in the laneway.

The high solid fencing along the lane edge appears to have been reduced in height but little detail is provided in the elevations. Details of the fence’s height, materiality, colour, transparency, etc., should be provided for assessment. The additional material should demonstrate the high quality of the finishes to ensure a reasonable level of visual interest for this interface.

The revised set of plans and elevations reveals some changes to the finishes palette but this cannot be verified without a coloured set of elevations and a physical sample board. A consistent palette of finishes should be used in the facades and fence design to achieve a visually coherent development. Overall, the quality of the documentation submitted is less than adequate. A physical sample board and a coloured set of elevations, showing all materials, colours and textures as close as possible to the finished product, should be submitted for assessment and final approval.

The presentation of the rising built form along the laneway was another urban design issue highlighted for attention with recommendations for this elevation to provide a stronger sense of verticality and some visual relief. The revised elevations indicate changes to the second floor to break up the continuous façade alignment at this level, which should assist in interrupting the constant and repetitive façade treatment and soften its appearance within the laneway.



Page 11 of 34

All of the above matters are relatively minor and can be addressed in conditions attached to the permit.

Officer Comment

The recommendations of the Urban Designer can be required via conditions as part of the recommendation for approval.

Traffic & Transport Department - Traffic Engineers

I refer to the current planning application at 3 New Street, Hawthorn (PP14/00372) to demolish the existing dwelling and to construct a three storey building containing 8 dwellings on the site, comprising 6 x three-bedroom and 2 x two-bedroom townhouses. A total of 17 on-site car spaces are proposed; one above-ground space and a basement level car park, comprising 13 resident spaces and 3 visitor spaces. Access is proposed via a single width two-way ramped accessway to the adjacent ROW off New Street, located at the north-eastern corner of the site.

On review of the submitted plans dated 17 February 2015 and associated development information, I provide the following provide the following feedback:

It should be noted that under Council’s Residential Parking Permit Policy (2011), residents of the new development may not be eligible for residential parking permits. The proposed on-site parking provision exceeds the statutory requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme. The parking spaces within the basement car park level are generally proposed to be a minimum 4.9m long by 2.6m wide, accessed off a 6.4m wide aisle, in accordance with Clause 52.06-8 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme. It is recommended that the parking space allocations be relocated such that the proposed visitor parking spaces be grouped together and be centrally located within the basement car park. The columns within the car park are located in accordance with the requirements of Diagram 1 of Clause 52.06-8 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.A 1m blind aisle extension has been included to enable egress from end-aisle spaces in accordance with AS2890.1-2004.Vehicles may ingress and egress the site in a forwards direction. The proposed ramp grades to the basement car park generally satisfy the requirements of Clause 52.06 and AS2890.1-2004. Ramp grades for the proposed accessway must be designed in accordance with Clause 52.06. Accordingly, these should be accurately indicated on the plans, noting



Page 12 of 34

that the maximum grade for the curved section is to be measured on the inside radius. Review the stated ramp grades to confirm or modify in accordance with Clause 52.06. The minimum clear headroom at the entry to and within the proposed basement car park satisfies a minimum of 2.1m in accordance with Clause 52.06-8. Pedestrian sight triangles of 2.5m (measured along the driveway edge) by 2.0m (measured along the site boundary) have been provided on both sides of the site access point to provide adequate sight lines to any pedestrians or vehicles exiting adjacent properties in accordance with Clause 52.06. There is potential for conflict between entering and exiting vehicles to/from the development within the ROW. Traffic management measures should be introduced (traffic light or other measure) and indicated on revised plans to regulate traffic at the site access and ensure that these conflicts are prevented.No details have been provided regarding access for residents and visitors to the basement car park via the roller door. Further detail should be provided regarding the proposed access measure and operation and this be indicated on revised plans. No details have been provided regarding waste collection for the development. Accordingly, a waste management plan should be prepared outlining proposed waste collection arrangements.The construction of a new crossover to the ROW will need to be approved and constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and utility service providers (such as Telstra).Based on previous historical traffic generation rates it is likely that each dwelling would generate approximately 6 vehicle movements per dwelling per day. Application of this rate to the 8 proposed dwellings would equate to 48 vehicle movements per day and up to 5 movements per peak hour within the ROW and New Street. A review of the adjacent ROW indicates it is unlikely that this would be utilised by non-resident traffic in preference to New Street. Whilst the construction of the new development would noticeably increase traffic in the ROW for existing residents, it is considered likely that the additional site-generated traffic may be accommodated within the design threshold for a road of this order.

In summary, Traffic & Transport have no further concerns with the proposed development. Notwithstanding, the above items should also be satisfactorily addressed.

Officer Comment



Page 13 of 34

The above recommendations can be included as conditions or notes on any permit issued.

Infrastructure

The laneway condition from New Street is showing cracking and deterioration particularly in the vicinity of a large tree within the property. This appears to have caused damage to the concrete pavement with a large amount of cracking.

Based on the above it is unlikely that the laneway will cope with additional traffic into the future. On this basis the laneway should be reconstructed in the vicinity of the development.

Officer Comment

The tree referred to in the above advice has subsequently been removed from the site (Tree removal permit Tree14/00525).

Discussions with the Infrastructure department confirm that the section of laneway adjacent to the subject site (i.e. for the full length of the northern boundary) is required to be replaced in order to accommodate traffic associated with the proposal.

Conditions of any permit issued will require this.

Drainage

Drainage

The existing Council drain appears to terminate in the lane. This drain will need to be extended to the nearest drainage pit in order to support the development.

Basement or sub-surface Drainage Subsurface drains associated with basement levels are not permitted to discharge directly into the adjacent laneway. Therefore construction of approximately 18m of 300mm outfall drainage is required to connect existing drain to downstream pit.

EasementsA 1.8m drainage easement is located along the eastern boundary of the property. This easement contains a 225mm Council stormwater drain.



Page 14 of 34

The proposed structure must be removed from the easement and the location of the council drain must be determined on site before any works adjacent to the easement can be approved.

No permanent works or excavation over the easement can be approved.

Officer Comment

The amended plans submitted on 30 October 2015 removed the proposed building from the easement. Conditions of permit can ensure that the other drainage requirements are met.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

None required.

GOVERNANCE ISSUES

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

The officers responsible for this report have no direct or indirect interests requiring disclosure.

CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing this application, consideration has been given to the following:-

The objectives of planning in Victoria as detailed in Section 4 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987;

Section 60 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; The relevant provisions and decision guidelines of the Boroondara Planning

Scheme including the decision guidelines of Clause 65; and Any objections received.

This proposal does not raise any significant adverse social or economic impacts. General social and economic impacts are addressed by the planning policy assessment below.

BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME



Page 15 of 34

ZONING & OVERLAYS

Appendix C - Zoning Map

General Residential Zone (GRZ)

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is required to:

Construct a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on the lot; Construct two or more dwellings on a lot; Extend a dwelling if there are two or more dwellings on the lot; Construct or extend a dwelling if it is on common property; Construct or extend a residential building.

A permit is required to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of the street if:-

The fence is associated with 2 or more dwellings on a lot or a residential building; and

The fence height must not exceed the maximum height specified in Clause 55.06-2.

A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement.

Maximum Building Height

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-7 (Maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building), the maximum height of a building used for the purpose of a dwelling or residential building must not exceed the building height specified in a schedule to this zone.

Maximum Building Height for the Schedule to the General Residential Zone GRZ2 A building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed

a height of 10.5 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case it must not exceed a height of 11.5 metres.



Page 16 of 34

This does not apply to:

An extension of an existing building that exceeds the specified building height provided that the extension does not exceed the existing building height.

A building which exceeds the specified building height for which a valid building permit was in effect prior to the introduction of this provision.

Officer Comment

The proposal complies with Clause 32.08-7. The development will have an overall maximum building height of 10.5m which is within the maximum height permitted under this clause.

PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

Clause 55 - Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Buildings

Clause 55 (ResCode) is applicable to the assessment of this application.

Clause 52.06 - Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied or the floor or site area of an existing use being increased or the number of patrons, seats or practitioners at an existing use being increased, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, unless a schedule to the Parking Overlay or the schedule to Clause 52.06-1 specifies otherwise, a permit is required to :

Reduce (including reduce to zero) the requirement to provide the number of car parking spaces required under this clause,

Allow some or all of the required number of car parking spaces to be provided on another site,

Provide more than a maximum parking provision specified in a schedule to the Parking Overlay.



Page 17 of 34

The Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5, sets out the number of car parking spaces required for a use.

Extract of Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5 Use "Column A" Car

Parking Rate "Column C" Car Parking

MeasureDwelling 1 To each one or two bedroom

dwelling, plus 2 To each three or more bedroom

dwelling (with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as a bedrooms) plus

1 For visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings

Officer Comment

The proposal complies with the relevant parking rate in the Planning Scheme. No reduction in car parking is being sought.

OFFICER ASSESSMENT

STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The following State policies are relevant to the assessment of the current application:-

Clause 9 - Plan Melbourne Clause 11 - Settlement Clause 15- Built Environment & Heritage Clause 15.01-1 - Urban Design Clause 16 - Housing Clause 18 - Transport

Plan Melbourne is a long-term plan to accommodate Melbourne’s future growth in population and employment. It seeks to integrate long-term land use, infrastructure and transport planning to meet the population, housing and employment needs for the future and to build a vibrant central city core.



Page 18 of 34

Plan Melbourne provides communities with clear direction about the future of their neighbourhoods, identifies areas that can accommodate future growth, seeks to ensure that any new development will make a positive contribution to local areas whilst simultaneously acting to protect the majority of our existing suburban areas from inappropriate development.

The subject site has convenient access to community facilities as follows:

West Hawthorn Activity Centre (200m north); Tram services along Glenferrie Road (330m east); Glenferrie Railway Station (515m north-east); Glenferrie Oval and Hawthorn Aquatic and Leisure Centre (450m north-east); Hawthorn Public Library (350m east); Swinburne University (550m north-east); Glenferrie Primary School (180m east); Several secondary schools accessed via Barkers Road (1.1km north); Parkland adjacent to the Yarra River (600m south); Central Gardens reserve (830m north-east).

The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the broad urban consolidation, energy efficiency and medium density housing objectives outlined in the relevant Clauses of the State Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore, the proposal is considered to respect the character of the surrounding area and contributes positively to the streetscape and public realm.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The following Local policies are relevant to the assessment of the current application:

Clause 22.07 - Neighbourhood Character Policy

Clause 22.07 - Neighbourhood Character Policy

Council's Neighbourhood Character Policy seeks to "encourage design solutions which enhance and respond positively to the existing neighbourhood character of residential areas in the City". The following table identifies the relevant neighbourhood character statement.



Page 19 of 34

Precinct Number 39 (Extract from the Neighbourhood Character Precinct Statement)

Description

Precinct 39 consists of two pockets of land in Hawthorn; one located west of Glenferrie Road containing Manningtree Road, Wattle Road and Lisson Grove, and the other located east of Auburn Road, containing part of Auburn Road, Robinson Road and Illawarra Road. The majority of Manningtree Road and Lisson Grove are located in a heritage overlay due to the concentration of historic dwellings in these streets, mainly from the Victorian era.

The precinct is generally characterised by 1 and 2 storey dwellings, including many Victorian, Edwardian and interwar dwellings. The area around Illawarra Road contains more post-war and contemporary dwellings.

Lot frontages and front setbacks vary throughout the precinct, however frontages of 10m and front setbacks of approximately 5m are common. A number of 1 and 2 storey multi-unit villas are been constructed in some streets such as Robinson Road and Wattle Road. These developments often extend for the length of the block, yet generally present as single dwellings to the street. A small number of 2 and 3 storey walk up flats are also scattered throughout.

Roof forms vary from pitched roofs in the historic dwellings, to flat roofs which are common on the more contemporary houses and walk up flats.

While dwellings are generally detached, they are often located close to each other, sometimes with one wall set on or close to the boundary. Rear gardens vary in size and degree of landscaping. Front fence heights are of a medium to high height.

As a whole this precinct has an eclectic, yet gentle inner urban feel, due to the historic building styles, limited side setbacks and narrow footpaths. The urban character of the area is softened by blocks with wider frontages, such as in Lisson Grove which has a slightly different feel, and the presence of dense landscaping within small to medium sized front gardens elsewhere. These gardens form a significant feature of the streetscape, despite the absence of street trees and nature strips in some areas.

Design Guidelines



Page 20 of 34

The following “Design Response” contained within the Design Guidelines provide direction for new buildings which ensures future development assists in achieving the area’s preferred character.

Building Height & FormDesign Response

Ensure buildings are composed of facades that are no more than two storeys high to the street.

Ensure third levels are setback and appear as a recessive element. Ensure upper level additions to historic buildings are setback to minimise their

visibility. Ensure visible roof forms integrate with the pitched roofs in the streetscape.

Officer Comment

The area surrounding the site contains an eclectic mix of building types, including predominantly 1 and 2 storey heritage dwellings immediately north of the site, high density multi-storey development to the north, east and west (Burwood Road and Glenferrie Road precincts and a large, 3-storey apartment complex at 31-37 Wattle Road) and a mix of single dwellings and unit developments to the south.

Within this context the proposal, although three storeys in height, is considered to sit appropriately within the streetscape. The front parapet of the third storey (relative level of 36.85) sits below the level of ridge height of the adjoining property to the south (38.9 - noting that this property contains a two-storey building).



Page 21 of 34

Comparison of Ridge height of the proposed development and 1 New Street

The Precinct Statement states that the precinct is “predominantly characterised by 1 and 2 storey dwellings”; however notes that third storeys are clearly contemplated,provided that they are recessed.

On this basis, it is considered reasonable to require the third storey to be recessed by 1 metre from the first floor to ensure that the 6m setback only applies to the first two levels and a more generous setback is applied to the third storey. This will help to recess the third storey as viewed from the street. As part of this recommendation, a condition of approval will require this increased setback.

The proposal incorporates a flat roof, however this is consistent with contemporary architecture and will significantly reduce the building height compared to a pitched roof. It is also noted that the site is within the ‘Contemporary Town House and General Inner Urban’ Precinct where contemporary architecture is encouraged and expected.

It is also noted that while the older dwellings in the area (including the heritage dwellings to the north) have pitched roofing, more recent additions and particularly multi-storey developments (such as the large, three-storey apartment complex at 31-37 Wattle Road) have flat roofing and are of a contemporary architectural style.

On this basis, it is considered that the contemporary architectural style featuring a flat roof is acceptable.

Ridge height of the adjoiningproperty at 1 New Street

Ridge height of the third storeyparapet of the proposeddevelopment facing New Street



Page 22 of 34

SitingDesign Response

Ensure buildings are setback no less than the average distance of the front setback of the adjoining properties on either side or 9m, whichever is less.

Ensure buildings in the heritage overlay are setback in line with or behind the adjoining heritage buildings in accordance with Council’s Heritage Policy.

Ensure side setbacks reflect the prevailing streetscape spacing. Provide a secluded private open space area with a minimum dimension of 4m

to enable the planting and retention of large trees. Ensure new development on a corner site is adequately set back to provide a

transition between the adjoining buildings.

Officer Comment

The proposed front setback is non-compliant with ResCode. However, in this instance it is considered to be appropriate to reduce the required front setback of the proposed development based on the prevailing front setbacks in the street and the setback of the existing dwelling on the site. This will be discussed in greater detail in the ResCode - front setback section of this report.

The proposed building will be set back from both side boundaries (2.03m from the southern boundary and 4.12m from the northern boundary) in accordance with the prevailing side setbacks within the street.

The courtyards to each dwelling will have a minimum dimension of 4.4 metres; however will not be able to support deep soil planting due to the basement being constructed adjacent to the northern boundary.

Instead, planter boxes (with a maximum width of 1m) will be provided along the northern boundary of each courtyard area which will allow for shrubbery and small trees. Opportunities for deep soil planting exist within the front setback which will be able to accommodate large canopy tree planting. Peripheral landscaping (mainly shrubbery) can be accommodated along the southern and eastern boundaries.

This is considered to be a reasonable response to the preferred character of the area. A landscape plan will be required as part of this recommendation.

Building Materials & Design Details



Page 23 of 34

Design Response Break buildings into separate elements and use different colours and

materials that integrate with surrounding buildings and enhance the streetscape character.

Ensure new dwellings and visible additions complement the historic buildings in the precinct.

Ensure rooflines of new buildings, extensions and additions in heritage overlay areas incorporate sloping roofs with greater than 10 degrees roof slope and reflect the existing character of surrounding dwellings.

Officer Comment

The proposal utilises a variety of materials, colours and finishes to provide an interesting and articulated presentation. The proposed contemporary architectural style optimises the use of varied materials. Council’s Urban Designer has requested the submission of coloured elevation plans and a material samples board which will form a recommended condition of approval.

The site is not within a Heritage Overlay. On this basis, a flat roof form is not discouraged under the Precinct Statement. As discussed earlier in the report (in response to the Building Height and Form design guidelines of the Precinct Statement), the proposed flat roof is considered to be appropriate given the use of contemporary architecture, the site’s location within a ‘Contemporary Town House and General Inner Urban’ precinct and other examples of flat roofing on newer buildings within the precinct.

Front Boundary TreatmentDesign Response

Ensure front fences are no more than 1.5m or the average fence height in the street (whichever is less).

Ensure the retention of original front fences where heritage overlays apply.

Officer Comment

The proposed front fence will be set back 1m from the front boundary and will be up to 2.2m in height (given the slope of the land). The proposed front fence will be solid, with a stone cladding base and bluestone finish above. Dwellings fronting New Street generally have low-medium height front fencing in a semi-transparent style such as



Page 24 of 34

timber pickets. However, several properties have their ‘sideage’ to New Street but face another street and have high, solid fencing along New Street. In this context it is considered reasonable to have a solid fence; however the proposed fence height of up to 2.2m is considered excessive as it will result in poor street presentation and integration. A condition of approval will require that the front fence have a height of no more than 1.5m, which is generally reflective of fencing within the street and compliant with this design guideline.

Car Parking StructuresDesign Response

Ensure car parking structures, including entrances to basements, are setback at least 1m behind the dwelling facade and are designed to minimise their prominence.

Ensure basements project no more than 0.5m above natural ground level, unless the finished floor level of abutting properties is greater than 0.5m.

Ensure basement garages are accessed from side or rear lane ways where possible.

Ensure basement entrances are setback at least 5m from the primary street frontage and 1m behind the front wall of the building.

Officer Comment

The basement entry will be from the northern laneway, ensuring that car parking facilities do not affect the presentation of the site to New Street. The basement will project up to 1.4m above NGL; however this will only be perceivable from the northern laneway and the eastern boundary due to the slope of the land. The basement level will not be perceivable when viewed from the west (front) or south. This is considered to be acceptable as the basement will not negatively affect the presentation of the site to the street.

The basement entry door will be hidden from view from the street in accordance with this design guideline.

VegetationDesign Response

Ensure front gardens incorporate soft landscaping that complements the streetscape.

Ensure the retention of large trees.



Page 25 of 34

Officer Comment

The front setback will be unencumbered by basement and will therefore be able to accommodate soft landscaping including canopy trees. As part of this recommendation, a condition of approval will require the submission of a landscaping plan including soft landscaping within the front setback, including canopy trees.

Clause 55 (ResCode) & Residential Design Policy (RDP)

Pursuant to Clause 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a development must meet all of the objectives of this clause and should meet all of the standards of this clause.

The amended Residential Design Policy (RDP) was adopted by Council on 12 December 2011. Given that the RDP is not included in the planning scheme, in practice, VCAT does not give the policy any statutory weight. The purpose of the policy is to assist planners in their discussions with applicants in achieving outcomes that are considered appropriate from a neighbourhood character or amenity point of view. It should be noted that each application needs to be assessed in respect to the particular characteristics of its locality and that provisions contained within the RDP should be used as a guide where relevant.

Overall, the proposal generally complies with the provisions of the zone and/or Schedule, Clause 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, Clause 52.06 and Council's Residential Design Policy (refer to "Assessment Table") with the exception to the following:

Standard B6 - Street Setback

Dwelling 1Proposed Front

SetbackResCode

RequirementComplies? RDP Front Setback

RequirementComplies?

Front 6m 9m N/A only oneother property

fronting the streeton the eastern

side of New Street

N/A

Dwellings Facing The Side StreetProposed Side Street

SetbackResCode Requirement Complies?

Side 4m 2m



Page 26 of 34

Officer Comment

Survey plan showing front setbacks of properties with abuttal to New Street

The only adjoining property facing New Street is 1 New Street which is set back in excess of 20 metres from the frontage. Accordingly, the required front setback is 9m. The proposal will be set back 6m from New Street at all levels which does not comply with the 9m minimum setback required under this standard.

It is noted that New Street is a small street with a limited number of dwellings facing it and acts as more of a thoroughfare for vehicles seeking to travel between Manningtree Road and Wattle Road. Of the five properties fronting New Street, 1 and 3 New Street are set back in excess of 20m and 10.5m from the frontage respectively and 2A, 4 and 6 New Street are set back 2m, 5.6m and 4.6m respectively. It is also noted that the carport to the existing dwelling on the site is set back 7.6m from the front boundary.

All other properties that abut New Street do not face the street, and properties typically have carports, garages and other outbuildings in close proximity to New Street.

It is considered that unlike a typical suburban street, there is no uniform front setback of dwellings fronting onto New Street, and there are also several examples of buildings constructed on or in close proximity to New Street. In this context, it is considered that the proposed 6m setback is reasonable.

Front setbacks of 6 (4.6m) and 4(5.6m) New Street 2m setback of carport at 2A New

Street

Outbuildings located on theboundary with New Street

Carports located on theboundary with New Street

Dwelling at 45 WattleRoad set back 1.9m fromNew Street

Carport of the existing dwellingset back 7.6m from New Street



Page 27 of 34

Standard B8 - Site Coverage

Proposed SiteCoverage

ResCodeRequirements

Complies? RDP Requirement Complies?

59% 60% 50%

Officer Comment

The proposed site coverage exceeds the requirements of ResCode but does not comply with Council’s RDP. It is considered that the proposed site coverage is acceptable as there will be opportunities for landscaping, including deep soil planting, within the front setback. Lower level landscaping will also be provided along site boundaries via the use of raised garden beds and planter boxes.

Standard B9 - Permeability

Proposed HardSurface Coverage

ResCodeRequirements

Complies? RDP Requirement Complies?

78% 80% 65%

Officer Comment

The proposed site permeability complies with the requirements of ResCode but does not comply with Council’s RDP. It is considered that the proposed permeability is acceptable as the basement level (which has resulted in the extent of site covered by hard surfacing) cannot be reduced in size without potentially impacting on the provision of car parking, and sufficient areas remain on site for stormwater absorption. It is also noted that Council drainage engineers have not raised an issue with the permeability of the site, noting that drainage plans must be submitted to them for approval in the event that a permit is issued for the proposal. It is noted that the site is not in a ‘drainage area of interest’ or flooding overlay and therefore, there are no concerns with potential flooding of the site.

On-site stormwater detention will be required as part of a drainage system on the site which will ensure that Council drains will not receive excessive stormwater runoff from the site (noting that outfall drainage will be required to be constructed so that the site does not drain directly into the laneway).



Page 28 of 34

Standard B17 - Side and Rear Setbacks

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksBasement


NGL)

ProposedSetback

ResCodeRequirement

Complies? RDPRequirement

Complies?

East nil nil nilSouth nil nil nil

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksGround Floor (minimum setback relative to wall height)


NGL)

ProposedSetback

ResCodeRequirement


Complies?

East 3.7m 2.5m 1.03m N/A does notabut SPOS

N/A

South 4m 2.03m 1.33m 2.24m

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksFirst Floor (minimum setback relative to wall height)


NGL)

ProposedSetback

ResCodeRequirement


Complies?

East 7m 2.43m 2m N/A does notabut SPOS

N/A

South 6.6m 2.01m 1.9m 3.8m

Side & Rear Boundary SetbacksSecond floor (minimum setback relative to wall height)


NGL)

ProposedSetback

ResCodeRequirement


Complies?

East N/A twostoreys to theeast only

South 8.4m 3.49m 3.49m 4.88m

Officer Comment

The proposal is fully compliant with ResCode for setbacks to the east and south, noting that the site abuts New Street to the west and the laneway to the north.

The proposal does not comply with the RDP in relation to the southern side setbacks. However, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this instance as it utilises a



Page 29 of 34

variety of materials, colours and finishes and staggered setbacks to create visual interest and articulation. The design is considered to acceptably reduce the visual impact of the elevation, noting that the southern elevation fully complies with Standard B17 of Clause 55. The proposal also fully complies with Standard B20 (Daylight to north-facing windows) and therefore, will ensure that the adjoining properties will continue to receive good access to daylight.

Standard B28 - Private Open Space

Private Open SpaceProposed

Secluded POSProposedTotal POS

ResCodeRequirement

(Secluded/TotalPOS)

Complies? RDP Requirement(Secluded POS)

Complies?

Dwelling 1 26.88m2 26.88m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Dwelling 2 26.88m2 26.88m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Dwelling 3 26.88m2 26.88m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Dwelling 4 26.88m2 26.88m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Dwelling 5 26.88m2 26.88m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Dwelling 6 26.88m2 26.88m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Dwelling 7 23.77m2 23.77m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Dwelling 8 24m2 24m2 25m2 40m2 60m2

Officer Comment

The proposal is inconsistent with Standard B28 regarding the provision of SPOS for Dwellings 7 and 8, as well as POS for all of the dwellings.

The dwellings have each been provided with a courtyard of similar dimensions and area, and are generally 5m x 5m in dimension and 25m2 in area (varying slightly between 23.77m2 and 26.88m2). This is considered to be reasonable in a townhouse design of this kind as it will provide a suitable area for passive recreation and the placement of outdoor furniture, while providing sufficient room for a suitable planting bed/planter box to allow for landscaping for both internal amenity and aesthetic purposes.

The provision of POS is considered to be acceptable given the expected building typology (i.e. inner urban townhouse precinct) and the periphery of the site allowing for landscaping, noting that excluding the building footprints and courtyard areas, the rest of the site is likely to be managed by an Owners’ Corporation (and therefore not part of an individual lot).



Page 30 of 34

On this basis, the proposed provision of SPOS and POS is considered acceptable.

Standard B32 - Front fences

Clause 55.06 Detailed Design (VC100)Objective Standard Officer CommentB32 Clause 55.06-2 Front Fences

To encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

The design of front fences should complement thedesign of the dwelling or residential building and anyfront fences on adjoining properties.

Complies

A front fence within 3 metres of a street should not exceed:

The maximum height specified in a schedule to the zone, or

If no maximum height is specified in a schedule to the zone:

2m if abutting a Road Zone Category 1; or 1.5m in any other streets.

Non compliance

As provided in the assessment above against the ‘Front Boundary Treatment’ criteria of the Precinct Statement, it is considered that the proposed front fence (solid, up to 2.2m in height) is unreasonably high and will result in poor street presentation. A condition requiring a reduction in the fence height to 1.5m will be made part of the officers’ recommendation.

OBJECTION RESPONSE

Those matters not already addressed in the foregoing report are discussed below:

Total Number of Objections Received: 11Summary of Objection Officer Comment Not in keeping with existing and preferred neighbourhood character and inconsistent with the purpose of the zone.

As discussed earlier in this report, it is considered that the proposal responds well to the existing and preferred character of the area (as identified by the relevant Neighbourhood Character Study Precinct Statement). It is noted that the zone purpose includes “To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing



Page 31 of 34

growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.”

It is considered that the proposal achieves this while meeting the other purposes of the zone.

Excessive building height It is alleged that the maximum building height of the development exceeds the requirements of ResCode. This is incorrect as the maximum building height within the General Residential Zone overrides the ResCode-mandated height within Standard B7.

The proposed maximum height of 10.5m is within the allowable height limit under the zone.

Non-compliant front setback. As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed front setback is considered to be acceptable in the context of the limited number of dwellings in the street and their varied setbacks to New Street.

Visual bulk. It is considered that the proposal, which includes a distinct ‘break’ in the design for Apartment 3 at the third storey, reduces visual bulk for the proposal to an acceptable level through the use of a varied materials and finishes palette. It is also noted that the proposal is well set back from the southern and northern boundaries, fully complying with Standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks) of ResCode.

The development is set back at least 4.12m from the northern boundary and is separated from the Manningtree Road properties by the northern laneway, resulting in setbacks in excess of 7m from the rear boundary of these properties.



Page 32 of 34

The proposal is non-compliant with RDP in relation to the southern side setback, however (as discussed earlier) this is considered to be acceptable.

Insufficient parking and increased traffic in both the laneway and New Street, and noise associated with that traffic.

The proposed development satisfies Clause 52.06 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme in respect to the provision of car parking. The development provides for appropriate on-site car parking relative to the number of bedrooms in the proposed dwellings.

It is also noted that the development provides a surplus of visitor parking (2 spaces provided compared to 1 required).

Council’s Traffic and Transport Department have assessed the application and has raised no concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the surrounding traffic network. The increased traffic movement associated with seven additional dwellings on the site can be readily accommodated in the surrounding street network.

Council’s Infrastructure department has also reviewed the application and subject to part of the laneway being resurfaced adjacent to the subject site, it has raised no objection to the application. A condition of the recommendation will require this.

Noise impacts from the basement garage door.

The garage door will be located at the start of the basement ramp, underneath the ground floor of the development and well away from any nearby adjoining properties. This is considered to be sufficient to address any potential concerns associated with the noise it may produce, noting that it would be subject to regular maintenance by the Owners’



Page 33 of 34

Corporation.

A condition of approval will require that regular maintenance is performed on the garage door in order to minimize noise impacts to nearby properties.

Loss of views Whilst it is recognised that views may form part of residential amenity, there are no specific controls within the Boroondara Planning Scheme that protects residents’ rights to a view. It is not considered that the extent of views lost or the significance of the view would warrant refusal or modification of the application.

It is not considered that the proposal will result in an unreasonable loss of outlook. The proposed development will utilize a range of materials, colours and finishes to achieve a visually interesting and articulated appearance to offset the visual bulk created by the building.

Waste collection. Given the location of the basement entry from the laneway, it is unlikely that Council waste collection services will be available to the development. Council’s traffic engineers have recommended that a Waste Management Plan be prepared for the proposal which can be included in any permit issued.

Impacts (including parking, noise, damage to adjoining property etc.) during the construction period.

Given the site’s location adjacent to a narrow laneway, it is considered appropriate to require the provision of a Construction Management Plan in order to ensure that the amenity of surrounding properties is not unreasonably affected by construction associated with the development.

Potential for damage to adjoining properties during the construction process.

This is not a planning consideration. It is the responsibility of the relevant builder/Building Surveyor to ensure that



Page 34 of 34

earthworks/construction activity does not cause damage to adjoining properties.

The proposed development setting a precedent for future development in the area.

The planning scheme controls affecting a site dictate its development potential and any subsequent application will be assessed on its own individual merits.

Reduced access to natural light (1 New Street).

The proposal fully complies with Standard B20 (North-facing windows) of ResCode. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal will not result in an unreasonable reduction in daylight access to the north-facing windows of 1 New Street.

Loss of privacy. These concerns are generally raised from the residents of properties fronting Manningtree Road and backing onto the northern laneway.

Screening measures have been provided to habitable room windows and balconies which are capable of overlooking in accordance with Standard B17 of Clause 55. It is appreciated that the elevations do not represent this and therefore a condition will be included for the plans to clearly represent the type and extent of screening provided to all relevant windows/balconies.

Impacts on the heritage significance of properties fronting Manningtree Road.

Given that these properties are of contributory heritage value, it is primarily their streetscape presentation that provides their heritage significance.

As the subject site is separated from the rear of these properties by a laneway, it is considered that the proposal will not have any impact on the heritage significance of these dwellings.























Date post:	01-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

UPC4 3 New Street, Hawthorn - City of Boroondara · 3 New Street, Hawthorn be issued under the...

Documents