WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 2015 - City of Moreland · 2015-06-18 · 72 dwellings, food and drink premises...

D15/177981

URBAN PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 2015

COMMENCING 6.30 PM

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

Urban Planning Committee Meeting 24 June 2015 2

1. WELCOME

2. APOLOGIES

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Urban Planning Committee Meeting held on 27 May 2015 be confirmed.

4. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

5. COMMITTEE REPORTS

DED51/15 350-364 MORELAND ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST, PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/946 (D15/166986)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

3

DED52/15 19 HENDERSON STREET, BRUNSWICK WEST PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/293 (D15/151754) 43

DED53/15 130 BARKLY STREET, BRUNSWICK - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2010/33/C (D15/146840) 69

DED54/15 7 MURPHY STREET, OAK PARK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/1115 (D15/142612) 94

DED55/15 32 WARBURTON STREET, BRUNSWICK, PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/577 (D15/59493) 117

DED56/15 70 LYGON STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/1176 (D15/144979) 135

DED57/15 54 WINIFRED STREET, OAK PARK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/839 (D15/147358) 171

DED58/15 86 TARANA AVENUE, GLENROY PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/519 (D15/151170) 184

‘


DED51/15 350-364 MORELAND ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST, PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/946 (D15/166986)

Director Planning and Economic Development City Development

At the Urban Planning Committee meeting held on 27 May 2015 Report DED36/15 350-364 Moreland Road, Brunswick West, Planning Permit Application MPS/2014/946 (D15/78708) was laid on the table.

Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the construction of a five storey building containing 72 dwellings, food and drink premises (cafe) and shop and waiver of the loading bay requirements. The application was advertised and 42 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections relate to change to the built form and existing character, car parking and increased traffic congestion, overlooking, overshadowing, increased residential/construction noise, location of proposal relative to public transport and facilities and impact on infrastructure.

A consultation meeting was held on 5 March 2015. Following the discussions at the consultation meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans for council’s consideration to address some of the concerns raised by objectors. The following changes were made:

Screening to the south facing balconies have been provided for the south facing dwellings.

Three extra car spaces have been provided within the basement car parking area

Landscaping is proposed to be provided along the facade adjacent the dwellings along Moreland Road and dwelling facing Cornwall Street.

A formal amendment to the application has not been made. These changes are instead referenced in the recommendation.

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

The key areas of planning policy requiring consideration are:

• Neighbourhood Character • Compliance with Clause 22.07 (Development of Four or More Storeys)

The proposal is in a Mixed Use Zone where Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.01) seeks incremental change towards a new character. Additionally, a high level of compliance with Clauses 22.07 (Development of four or more storeys) is achieved.

The Group Manager City Development is recommending the issue of a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for the proposal.

Recommendation The Urban Planning Committee resolve:

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2014/946 be issued for the construction of a five storey building containing 72 dwellings and a food and drink premises (cafe) and shop and waiver of the loading bay requirements at 350-364 Moreland Road, Brunswick West subject to the following conditions :

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised 4 December 2014 but modified to show:


a) The balconies of dwellings G.01-G.11 and 1.09-11 to have a minimum depth of 1.6 metres and an overall area of 8 square metres.

b) Screening measures of the ground and first floor south facing balconies as presented in plans dated 19 March 2015.

c) The verandah must not be not less than 750mm from the face of the kerb, with a minimum clearance of 3.0m above the level of the footpath in accordance with Clause 507 of the Building Regulations 2006 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) All parking spaces marked with the associated dwelling or shop number to facilitate management of the car park.

e) The slope of the accessway to the basement car park must be in accordance with the Australian Standard for Off-Street Parking (AS2890.1).

f) Three additional car spaces within the basement car park.

g) One bicycle parking facility be provided in front of the site in Moreland Road to Council’s standards in front of the shop or café.

h) The internal length of the disabled parking space at least 5.4 metres long, in accordance with AS 2890.6.

i) The dimensions of the bins, doorways and accessway to demonstrate that the commercial waste bins can be moved to Moreland Road for collection.

j) The location of any air-conditions units and other plan equipment, including any screening.

k) A new 1.8 metre high timber paling fence along the south and west boundaries of the site to enclose the landscaped areas at ground level.

l) A screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:50 which details the screens associated with dwellings on the ground and first floor that are south facing. This diagram must include:

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

ii) All side screens

iii) How compliance is achieved with the standard of Clause 55.04-05 (overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

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

n) Any substation required by the power company for this development.

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

p) The commercial tenancy nominated as a shop.

Secondary Consent 2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the

written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Landscape Plan 3. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority based on floor plans TPO4b (dated 19 March 2015). The landscape plan must provide the following:


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

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

c) The provision of canopy trees within the southern setback.

d) The provision of landscaping within the setback to Moreland Road and Cornwall Street adjacent the dwellings.

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

Environmental Audit 4. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works pursuant to this

permit, or any works associated with a sensitive use, or where no works are proposed, prior to the commencement of the permitted use, either:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Environmental Sustainable Development 6. Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Sustainability Management Plan prepared by

F2 Design dated October 2014 must be amended by a suitably qualified environmental engineer or equivalent to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to include the following:

a) Where effective ventilation is not provided naturally, ventilation to be mechanically assisted and designed to achieve adequate ventilation rates consistent with achieving 2 points under the IEQ -1 Ventilation Rates credit in the Green Star Office tool.

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

c) Preliminary building energy rating

d) Best practice urban ecology

e) Commitments to a building users guide and building tuning

f) Water metering

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

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the amended ESD Management Plan and associated notated plans, including but not limited to, openable windows, permeable areas, will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

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

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

9. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed plans of stormwater treatment devices shall be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Once approved the Stormwater Treatment Plan shall form part of the endorsed plans and measures must be incorporated into the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Acoustic Attenuation 10. Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this permit, a report

prepared by a qualified Acoustic Engineer must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority outlining specific noise attenuation measures to limit noise to the dwellings facing Moreland Road. Construction and maintenance of the buildings must be in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Accessibility 11. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the

author of the Access Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Access Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.

General 12. Any substation must be incorporated within the building (i.e. not free standing or pole

mounted in the street) to ensure minimal impact on the visual amenity of the public realm.

13. Prior to the occupation of the development the bicycle parking racks must be installed in a secure manner that accords with the specifications in Bicycle Victoria’s Bicycle Parking Handbook, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Prior to the occupation of the development, bicycle signage at least 300mm wide and 450mm high showing a white bicycle on a blue background must be erected directing cyclists to the location of the bicycle parking as required by Clause 52.34-5 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

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

16. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. Stormwater from the land must not be directed to the surface of the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. The surface of all balconies and terraces are to be sloped to collect the stormwater run-off into stormwater drainage pipes that connect into the underground drainage system of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. Prior to the occupation of the development, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. All visual screening and measures to minimise overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21. Prior to the occupation of the development, air-conditioning and other plant and generator equipment must be concealed from external views to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Public Transport Victoria 23. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus

operations is kept to a minimum during construction. Foreseen disruptions to bus operations must be communicated with mitigation measures to Public Transport Victoria and the bus operators fourteen (14) days prior.


Expiry 24. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit;

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

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

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

• within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.

NOTES: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this notice of decision or conditions of this notice of decision. Note 1: Contact needs to be made with CitiPower (Mr Grant Quinn – 9297 6442) to

determine whether CitiPower will require the power lines to be relocated away from the dwellings.

Note 2: A copy of the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit, including the complete Environmental Audit Report must be submitted to the Responsible Authority within 7 days of issue, in accordance with Section 53ZB of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Note 3: Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land a copy of that Statement must be provided to any person who proposes to become an occupier of the land, pursuant to Section 53ZE of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Note 4: The land owner and all its successors in title or transferees must, upon release for private sale of any part of the land, include in the Vendor’s Statement pursuant to Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962, a copy of the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit including a copy of any cover letter.

Note 5: Where a Statement of Environmental Audit issued for the land contains conditions that the Responsible Authority considers to be unreasonable in the circumstances, the Responsible Authority may seek cancellation or amendment of the planning permit in accordance with Section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Note 6: Council charges supervision (2.5%) and plan checking (o.75%) fees on the cost of construction the drain along the easement or street as permitted by Sections 5&6 of the subdivision (Permit and Certifications Fees) Regulations 2000.

Note 7: Should Council impose parking restrictions in this street, the owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council parking permits to allow for on street parking.


REPORT

1. Background Subject Site The subject site is located on the south-west corner of Moreland Road and Cornwall Street. The site is 55.1 metres wide and 40.5 metres deep with an area of 2082 square metres. The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling located at 350-354 Moreland Road close to the corner of Cornwall Street. A garage associated with the dwelling is located on the rear boundary. The remainder of the site is vacant. An accessway is located on the southern side of the site accessed from Cornwall Street. Existing vehicle crossings also exist to Moreland Road to the vacant part of the site. The site has a fall from north to south of 2.8 metres with the only easements on the site being for party walls for two attached buildings which have since been demolished.

There are restrictive covenants indicated on the Certificate of Title. The covenants require that the site not allow erection or construction for, or used as a petrol filling station, liquid fuel depot, motor garage and service station or station for the resale of petroleum products or oil company agency depot or convenience shop or any such business. Additionally any hoarding erected on the site cannot be used for advertising or any buildings on site cannot have been erected initially elsewhere.

The application as proposed does not breach the covenant. It is noted however that future uses and signage of the commercial tenancies will need to comply with the covenant.

Surrounds The surrounding area is characterised by commercial uses on Moreland Road to the west with retail uses and vehicle servicing operating within commercial type buildings, some with zero lot lines to the street. Within the wider area residential dwellings are the predominant building type. Dwellings are typically free-standing and single storey with some two storey development. To the west of the site is the intersection of Moreland/Melville Road where commercial uses are found and a tramline that provides access to the city running north to Bell Street. Dwellings to the south are a mixture of single and two storey free standing dwellings and single and two storey medium density development.

A location plan forms Attachment 1The Proposal

.

The proposal is summarised as follows:

• Construction of a five storey building containing 72 dwellings. There are 40 single bedroom dwellings and 32 two bedroom dwellings proposed.

• Two commercial tenancies are proposed at the ground floor located on the western side of the building. The plans note these as a commercial tenancy and a cafe. The application form submitted with the application indicates that the tenancies will be used for a shop and a cafe.

• Two levels of basement car parking are provided, accessed from the laneway at the rear of the site with 83 spaces proposed. The basement contains general storage and bin storage areas, water tanks and bike parking.

• At its highest point, at the eastern end of the property the building has a total height of 15.5 metres taking account of the site’s natural fall.

• Cladding materials include rendered paint finishes, aluminium panels and precast concrete.

The development plans form Attachment 2.


Statutory Controls – why is a planning permit required?

Control Permit Requirement Mixed Use Zone A permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on

a lot. It is noted that pursuant to clause 32.04-2 (MUZ) no permit is required to use land as a dwelling. As both commercial spaces are less than 150 square metres in area a permit is not required for their use for both a shop and food and drink premises.

Particular Provisions A permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement from 95 spaces to 83 spaces. A permit is required to waive the loading bay requirement.

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

• Clause 52.35: Urban context report and design response for residential development of four or more storeys

• Clause 52.36: Integrated public transport planning

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

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land. • By placing a sign on each of the Moreland Road, Cornwall Street and laneway

frontages of the site

Council has received 42 objections with no pro forma objections to date. The key issues raised in objections are:

• Change to built form and the existing character • Car parking / traffic / increased congestion in Cornwall Street • Amenity impacts:

− Overlooking / overshadowing − Increase in noise − Construction noise

• Location of proposal relative to public transport and facilities • Impact on infrastructure

A consultation meeting was held on 5 March 2015 and attended by Council Planning Officers, the applicant and approximately 14 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

Following the discussions at the consultation meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans for council’s consideration to address some of the concerns raised by objectors. The following changes were made:

• Screening to the south facing balconies have been provided for the south facing dwellings.

• Three extra car spaces have been provided within the basement car parking area • Landscaping is proposed to be provided along the facade adjacent the dwellings

along Moreland Road and dwelling facing Cornwall Street.

A formal amendment to the application has not been made. These changes are instead referenced in the recommendation.


Internal/External Referrals The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal departments:

External Agency Objection/No objection Director of Public Transport

No objection subject to conditions included in the recommendation in respect to disruptions to bus operations.

Internal Department Comments Urban Design Unit No objections were offered to the proposal with no

changes required. Strategic Transport and Urban Safety

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions of approval detailed in the recommendation. These modifications relate to marking of vehicle spaces, confirming vehicle gradients on site, car parking allocation, waste removal and provision of public bicycle parking.

ESD Unit No objections were offered to the proposal subject to conditions requiring further information to be provided to confirm the commitment to industry best practice. These requirements are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation.

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

• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.01: Activity Centres • Clause 11.02: Urban Growth • Clause 11.05: Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 13.01: Climate Change Impacts • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 16.01: Residential development • Clause 17.01: Commercial

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

Municipal Strategic Statement:

• Clause 21.02: Vision • Clause 21.03-3: Housing • Clause 21.03-4: Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design • Clause 21.03-5: Environmentally Sustainable Design

Local Planning Policies:

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


The SPPF encourages the location of new housing in activity centres with good access to transport and services. Clauses 21.02-3 – MSS Strategic Directions, 21.03-1 Activity Centres, and 21.03-3 – Housing, provide guidance as to how that directive is to be achieved in Moreland.

In assessing the suitability of medium density housing, Clause 22.01 – Neighbourhood Character is of particular importance.

Further detailed guidelines for buildings of this type are found in Clause 22.07 – Development of Four or More Storeys.

These policies are discussed in more detail in Section 4 of this report.

Planning Scheme Amendments Amendment C142 – Moreland Higher Density Design Code Amendment C142 seeks to introduce the Moreland Higher Density Design Code 2012 (MHDDC).

The MHDDC has recently been revised in response to submissions and as retitled as the Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC). An independent panel was conducted in March and Council is currently awaiting the report from the panel before it further considers the amendment.

Amendment C71 - Environmentally Efficient Design policy Amendment C71 seeks to introduce a new local policy Clause 22.14 ‘Environmentally Efficient Design’. The Environmentally Efficient Design (EED) Local Policy provides objectives and application requirements for residential, mixed use and non-residential development. The policy recognises the importance of considering environmentally sustainable design at the time of planning approval for new development so as to maximise sustainable design outcomes and minimise costs associated with retrofit and poor design.

At its June 2014 meeting Council resolved to adopt and submit the amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval (DED43/14). Approval of the amendment is still pending.

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

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

Does planning strategy support this development in this location? The subject land is located in an established urban area with excellent access to a range of infrastructure and services. A mixed use development including commercial uses at ground level and residential above as proposed is consistent with the general strategies outlined in the SPPF that encourage urban consolidation and employment generating uses in such locations, where full advantage can be taken of existing settlement patterns and significant investment in transport, communication, water, sewerage and social facilities that already exist.


Council through its MSS, seeks to channel higher density housing into Activity Centres. The site is being located within the boundaries of a Local Activity Centre for Growth (Melville/Moreland LAC) as identified in Clause 21.02-3, to take advantage of the excellent access to public transport and other services within these locations. The proposal meets the objectives and strategies of the LPPF by incorporating a range of uses including increased housing and active spaces at ground level to create and reinforce an active and pedestrian friendly street environment. The proximity of the site to a tram and bus services and the provision of bicycle facilities on the site encourages less reliance on cars as a means of travel.

The subject site is appropriately located for an increase in residential density and a change in built form. The proposal enjoys strong strategic policy support.

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? The proposal is consistent with Clauses 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The site is identified as being in a Substantial Change Area (Neighbourhood and Local Activity Centres for Growth). The policy objectives for these areas are:

To support incremental change towards a new character to accommodate buildings of up to and including four storeys in Commercial Zones, having regard to interfaces with adjoining zones.

To facilitate an increase in housing density at a lesser intensity to the larger centres of Coburg, Brunswick and Glenroy.

The development is located within a Mixed Use Zone. The purpose of the mixed use zone is:

To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function of the locality.

To provide for housing at higher densities.

To encourage development that responds to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of the area.

The proposal provides for housing at a higher density in a building that contributes to a new character for the Local Activity Centre. Although it is not located in a Commercial Zone, it is located on an Arterial road, with a proportion of the site having previously been used for commercial purposes. The site has an abuttal to a commercial zone to the west and a residential zone to the east and south. It is noted that land to the south is located in Residential Growth Zone 1 where development of up to 13.5 metres (3-4 storeys) is anticipated.

The building steps back to varying degrees from the south, west and east boundaries. Most importantly the building has setbacks from the rear laneway of 4 metres at upper ground and first floor, increasing to 8.7 metres at second floor and 11.6 metres at the third (top) floor. It is also noted that the laneway to the south provides a further buffer of 3.8 metres to the properties to the south.

To the western boundary the proposed commercial tenancy abuts the boundary on the ground floor, with proposed dwellings setback a minimum of 3.01 metres from this boundary. A minimum setback is provided on the first and second floor of 1.9 metres to the western boundary this increasing to 6.0 metres on the third floor. A minimum setback of 2.0 metres is provided to both the Moreland Road and Cornwall Street frontages, with this increased to 2.9 metres to Moreland Road on the third floor and 6.1 metres to Cornwall Street. At ground level to the south a landscape buffer is also being provided of up to 6.0 metres width within which landscaping is to be provided.

It is therefore considered that the development has been designed with regard to adjoining interfaces with appropriate transitions provided.


Has adequate car / bicycle parking / loading space been provided? Based on Council policy, it is considered reasonable to reduce the car parking requirement. The Local Planning Policy Framework at Objective 4 of Clause 21.05-9 (Integrated Transport Systems) states:

• To reduce reliance on car travel and increase use of public transport, bicycle and pedestrian transport networks

An identified strategy to achieve the above objective is:

• Reduce car parking requirements where access to public transport is within easy walking distance and readily available and supported.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06 a total of 95 car parking spaces are required to be provided for the development. This is made up of 72 for the dwellings, 15 for visitors and 8 for the commercial tenancies. This requirement reduces to 80 if the car parking requirement for dwellings at Clause 22.07 (Development of four or more storeys) is applied, which doesn’t include a requirement for visitor parking. Consequently the car parking requirements of the Moreland Planning Scheme are met.

Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch is satisfied with the 83 car parking provided for the development. A parking survey was undertaken by the applicant, which demonstrated during the survey period that consistent levels of on street parking occupancy of between 33-42% occurred within 200 metres of the site. This changed to 24-52% occupancy when reduced to 100 metres of the site. It is considered that this demonstrates an availability of an adequate supply of on-street car parking. The site is also well located so that residents and visitors can take advantage of public transport and bicycle paths. In addition from the consultation meeting revised plans have been provided that provide three additional car parking spaces so the Moreland Planning Scheme requirements would be exceeded by 6 spaces.

Additionally, 42 bicycle spaces have been provided within the basements which exceeds the 22 bicycle spaces required by clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities). A condition is included in the recommendation requiring a bicycle hoop within the footpath at the front of the site. The site is well located so that residents and visitors can take advantage of public transport and bicycle paths.

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

Residents of the dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed on the street. This will be noted on the permit.

A loading bay is not provided on the site. Deliveries made to the site can use parking available at the front of the site. The tenancies are not of a size where large amounts of goods or bulky goods would be sold from the site. This means that deliveries are likely to be made by small commercial vans that can utilise on street parking and commercial car parking spaces on site. Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch is satisfied with this arrangement.

Will the proposal create an excessive traffic impact on the road network? About 372 additional vehicles per day will be generated from this site than was generated from the site previously and will travel along either Cornwall Street or Moreland Road. The most up to date traffic count for Cornwall Street, Brunswick West (2011) showed that the average weekday volume was 1,604 vehicles. Given the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy identifies that local roads have a recommended upper limit of 3000 vehicles per day, the additional vehicles will not result in this street exceeding the maximum volumes permitted under the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy.


Does the proposal incorporate adequate Environmental Sustainable Design features? Council’s Environmental Sustainable Design Department have reviewed the application. Support was provided for the development with changes to the submitted ESD report required before construction commences. Conditions are in the recommendation to address this.

Is the proposal accessible to people with limited mobility? There are eight adaptable dwellings being provided within the development which provides a ratio of 11% of dwellings within the development. The applicant has submitted an accessibility report which confirms all adaptable dwellings provide the required access and layout. This is considered acceptable and a condition is included in the recommendation to ensure that the recommendations of the accessibility report are implemented.

Is the site potentially contaminated? The site has previously been used as a petrol station. The applicant has submitted an environmental site assessment detailing the extent of site contamination and confirming that the site would be appropriate for the intended uses subject to the completion of an Environmental Audit. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring an Environmental Audit to be undertaken before the development commences. This will ensure that the site is remediated to an appropriate standard to ensure the land is safe for future residents.

Does the proposal comply with Clause 22.07 (Development of Four or More Storeys) / Moreland Apartment Design Code? The development is considered to respond appropriately to the requirements of the above policies. The following issues are also discussed where full compliance has not been achieved.

Public private interface Public safety and security The development includes landscaping to the south and west of the building. The revised plans submitted following the consultation meeting indicate a timber paling fence enclosing these areas. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the plans to be endorsed to show this fencing.

Building appearance and legibility The building does not incorporate the tall, distinctive corner element that Clause 22.07-3.5 seeks. This is considered acceptable given that the building has been designed to make the upper levels more recessive as it turns the corner into a residential street.

Off site impacts Outdoor Space Dwellings G.05-G.11 and 1.09-1.11 do not provide the required minimum of 8.0 square metres of secluded private open space on these balconies with 5.0 square metres provided. It will be required that these balconies are increased in size to provide these minimum requirements and also ensure the development meets clause 22.07-3.14 for Outdoor Space.


Overlooking The balconies of Dwellings G12-G15 at upper ground floor are within 9 metres of the rear of properties at 2 Irvine Crescent. However the rear of these properties are made up of car parking areas and outbuildings. All other balconies and windows are in excess of 9 metres from the adjoining private open space and habitable room windows (including the bedroom of G.08 at 9.2 metres). Following the consultation meeting the applicant submitted amended plans showing horizontal screens to balconies on the upper ground and first floors. This is in excess of the requirements of Clause 22.07-3.7. A requirement for this screening is included in the recommendation.

Noise and air quality A condition is included in the recommendation requiring that the dwellings facing Moreland Road be noise attenuated to limit the impact of noise on occupants. An acoustic report will be required to be completed with recommendations to be included and annotated on the plans to ensure the development is constructed to limit the arterial noise on the end users.

Movement and Access Vehicle access and parking Due to the removal of two existing vehicle crossings to Moreland Road increased vehicle parking will be provided to Moreland Road. This will provide increased parking for the commercial tenancies for patrons and visitors to the site.

Internal planning and design Landscaping Landscaping is provided to the south of the building and as a result of the consultation meeting landscaping will be provided within the setback to Moreland Road and in front of dwelling G1-3 and G4 to Cornwall Street. The landscaping to the rear will assist in reducing views of the building to the south when at full maturity. A landscape plan will be required as a condition in the recommendation.

5. Response to Objector Concerns The following issues raised by objectors are addressed in the consideration under Section 4:

• Car parking / traffic / increased congestion especially in Cornwall Street • Location of proposal relative to public transport and facilities • Change to built form and existing character

Overshadowing The applicant has submitted shadow drawings showing the impact of overshadowing on adjoining properties at the equinox for every hour from 9am-3pm. The shadow drawings submitted indicate that the shadow cast does not go further than the accessway to the south. This means at the equinox there are no shadows cast on the properties to the south of the site. The shadows cast to the west fall across commercial properties. No residential open space is affected.

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


Construction issues Noise and amenity impacts during the construction process are not generally a planning matter. However, pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1987 v(s.48A(3)), the Environmental Protection Authority provides noise control guidelines for commercial construction sites which set working hours and noise management expectations. Council’s General Local Law 2007 also includes provisions regarding control of noise associated with commercial and industrial building work.

Impact on infrastructure A concern in a number of objections was the impact of the dwellings on infrastructure, particularly decreased gas and water pressure, and increased pressure on sewerage and drainage infrastructure. The site owner will be required to address infrastructure servicing demands of the additional dwellings as required by the various service agencies at the time of subdivision or connection of the development, including any service authorities requirements to contribute to the cost of upgrading trunk infrastructure.

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

7. Financial and Resources Implications Nil.

8. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed development can be supported subject to conditions to ensure an acceptable level of internal and external amenity.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2014/946 should be issued for the construction of a five storey building containing 72 dwellings, food and drink premises (cafe) and shop and waiver of the loading bay requirements subject to the recommended conditions.

Attachment/s 1 350 Moreland Road Brunswick West, Location of objectors MPS 2014

946 D15/128008

2 ADV- 350 Moreland Road Brunswick West - Advertised Plans D15/123631 3 Revised Drawings 350 Moreland Road, Brunswick West D15/123668 4 350-364 Moreland Road, Brunswick West - Artists impression

MPS/2014/946 D15/132608

350 Moreland Road Brunswick West, Location of objectors MPS 2014 946

Attachment 1


ADV- 350 Moreland Road Brunswick West - Advertised Plans Attachment 2




























Revised Drawings 350 Moreland Road, Brunswick West Attachment 3


















350-364 Moreland Road, Brunswick West - Artists impression MPS/2014/946

Attachment 4



DED52/15 19 HENDERSON STREET, BRUNSWICK WEST PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/293 (D15/151754)


Executive Summary This report considers the substitution of plans in an application before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for the development of land for four double storey dwellings with a reduction of the standard car parking requirement.

The application is before the UPC as it is proposed to change Council’s position on the application.

The original application received 19 objections. The applicant lodged a review of the decision to issue a Notice of Refusal with VCAT on 3 December 2014 and 12 objectors have lodged statements of grounds with the Tribunal. The hearing is scheduled for two days on the 29th and 30th June 2015.

The applicant circulated amended plans on 12 May 2015 in which they intend to rely upon in the hearing. This report details the assessment of the plans against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. It is considered that the key refusal grounds have been addressed including that the proposal satisfactorily achieves the objectives and standards of Clause 55, the car parking requirement is met and the proposal provides an acceptable response to neighbourhood character.

The proposal is also considered to address the substantive purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), and that despite transitional provisions applying, the dwelling yield and heights fit within that allowed by the NRZ.

Following a review of the amended plans the Group Manager City Development is recommending that Council’s submission to VCAT be changed to support for the application, generally in accordance with the substituted plans circulated on 12 May 2015 and subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation.


That Council’s submission to VCAT in the matter of MPS/2014/293 be one of support for the development of land for four double storey dwellings at 19 Henderson Street, Brunswick West subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (dated 14 May 2015) but modified to show:

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

b) The roof materials and associated guttering, piping etc to be a non-reflective, non-shiny finish.

c) The concrete slab associated with the wall on boundary of 2 Harry Street not to be visible from the neighbouring property.

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

e) The first floor render to consist of only one colour.

f) An updated materials and finishes schedule.


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

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

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

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

c) The provision of one canopy tree within each front setback to assist in the integration of the development within the existing streetscape.

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

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

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

6. Prior to the occupation of the development, a vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).


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

9. The garage doors are not to be single panel tilt so that tandem vehicles do not park further away, overhanging the public footpath contrary to Rule 197 of the Road Rules Victoria.

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

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

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


13. A new 225 millimetre diameter sewer quality PVC drain is to be constructed along the easement from 21 Henderson Street to Harry Street to plans approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

15. The crossing for Dwelling 2 on Harry Street is to be hand dug under supervision of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, Arborist) to protect the street tree. All costs are to be borne by the permit holder.

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

17. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:



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

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

development if the development has lawfully commenced.

NOTES: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this notice of decision or conditions of this notice of decision. Note 1: Further approvals are required from Council’s City Infrastructure Department

who can be contacted on 9240 1143 for any works beyond the boundaries of the property. Planting and other vegetative works proposed on road reserves can be discussed with Council’s Open Space Unit on 8311 4300

Note 2: Should Council impose car parking restrictions in this street, the owners and/or occupiers of the land would not be eligible for any Council parking permits to allow for on street parking.

Note 3: The City of Moreland is committed to creating an environmentally sustainable city. A critical component in achieving this commitment is to encourage new residential development to meet appropriate environmental standards. Applicants are encouraged to use STEPS or SDS– Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance Strategy.

Using STEPS/SDS involves entering data about the proposed design into the STEPS assessment tool found at www.sustainablesteps.com.au. A score for the environmental performance is calculated and summarised. This allows applicants to design more environmentally sustainable developments and use sustainable building materials.

The use of STEPS will aid in achieving a 6 star energy rating at the building permit stage. For more information or help on ESD or STEPS please contact Council’s Sustainable Development Department on: 9240 1138.


Note 4: Council charges supervision (2.50%) and plan checking (0.75%) fees on the cost of constructing the drain along the easement or street as permitted by Sections 5&6 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 2000.

Note 5: This planning permit shows a garage over the easement, but does not alter the fact that Section 12(5) of the Subdivision Act 1988 states that person entitled to use the easement are not required to repair damage to buildings or works constructed or located so as to interfere with the exercise of rights conferred by the easement if reasonable care is taken in gaining access to and using the easement. The dwelling must be designed so that the first floor will remain standing if the portion of the garage over the easement is demolished.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the north-west corner of Henderson Street and Harry Street, Brunswick West. The site has a width of 20.12 metres and a depth of 33.17 metres resulting in a total site area of 666.7 square metres. The site is currently occupied by a single storey rendered dwelling with pitched roof and vehicle access leading to a garage along the northern boundary. The existing dwelling has a 2.5 metre front setback from Henderson Street. The site has a fall towards the west of approximately 2.5 metres. There is a 1.22 metre wide east-west running easement at the rear of the site. The site does not contain any significant vegetation.

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

Surrounds The surrounding area is generally characterised by detached residential inter-war and Californian bungalow style development with some newer multi-unit dwellings emerging as well as some older unit developments interspersed. The Moonee Ponds Creek is within 100 metres west of the site and the Route 55 Melville Road tram is 400 metres east of the site.

Dwellings are typically constructed from brick and weatherboard with tiled roofs. Low front fences are common and front setbacks typically range between 5 and 7 metres. The immediate area is characterised by open rear yards.

Land directly abutting the subject site and opposite is described as follows:

The property to the north of the subject site is occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling with a pitched tiled roof and associated outbuildings. The dwelling has a 5.9 metre setback to Henderson Street. To the north of this site is the rear of 213 Hope Street which has a 1.6 metre rendered side wall for part of its side to Henderson Street.

To the east of the site are several residences fronting Henderson Street including 1/22 Henderson Street containing a single storey weatherboard dwelling and 2/22 Henderson Street containing a single storey brick dwelling to the rear. 20 Henderson Street contains a double storey brick dwelling and 18 Henderson Street a single storey weatherboard dwelling.

The property to the south of the subject site on the south-west corner of Harry and Henderson Street comprises a single storey brick veneer dwelling.

The property to the west of the subject site contains a single storey brick dwelling with a pitched tiled roof.

A location plan forms Attachment 1The proposal

.

The application proposed in the ‘substituted plans’ is summarised as follows:

• Dwellings 1 and 2 are attached double-storey dwellings and front Harry Street. These dwellings have a north-south orientation, two bedrooms, a study, a garage and tandem car space and 40 and 39.10 square metres of secluded private open space at the rear respectively.

• Dwellings 3 and 4 are attached double-storey dwellings fronting Henderson Street. These dwellings have an east-west orientation, two bedrooms, a study with a garage and tandem car space and 25 and 26.4 square metres of secluded private open space at the rear respectively.


• A mixture of brick at ground floor and render at first floor is proposed. All dwellings will have sheet metal hipped roofs.

• An overall site coverage of 47.8 per cent and permeable area of 22.8 per cent.

The development plans form Attachment 2Planning Permit and site history

.

Planning Application MPS/2014/293 was lodged on 1 May 2014 for the construction of land for four double storey dwellings with a reduction of the standard car parking requirement.

Following the receipt of further information and revised plans the application was advertised in September 2014 attracting 19 objections. A Notice of Refusal was issued on 10 November 2014 under delegated authority of Council. The key issues with the original proposal were non-compliances with Clause 55 including street setback, building height, landscaping and detailed design. Additionally, the proposal did not have the required car parking and the proposal did not satisfactorily address Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy.

The original plans are included as

The applicant lodged a review of the decision at VCAT in December 2014 and 12 of the objectors to the application have lodged statements of grounds with VCAT to become parties to the appeal.

Attachment 3.

Following concerns raised by VCAT, a practice day hearing was held on 20 February 2015 to consider the requirement for a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP), where it was confirmed that a CHMP was not required.

On 12 May 2015 the applicant lodged substituted plans with VCAT. VCAT required the applicant to give notice of the amended plans to all parties to the VCAT proceeding and all objectors to the application and all persons originally notified of the application. The amended plans detail development of the land for four double storey dwellings. Following review of the substituted plans against the Notice of Refusal, the Group Manager City Development is now in a position to support the application subject to conditions.

A merits hearing is scheduled for two days on the 29 and 30 June 2015.

The site is subject to two other planning applications including another current planning application MPS/2015/260 for development of the land for four double storey dwellings. Council is currently waiting for further information from the applicant. A permit has also recently been issued for MPS/2014/1183 for the development of the land for three double storey dwellings which received four objections. The applicant is the same for all three applications.


Control Permit Requirement Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1

A permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot. It is noted that pursuant to clause 32.09-4 (NRZ1) no permit is required to use land as a dwelling. The proposed number of dwellings on the lot complies with the requirements of Clause 32.09-3 (no more than 4 dwellings) and the maximum height of the development complies with the requirements of Clause 32.09-8 (8 metre maximum height).

Clause 55 (Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings) and Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) are relevant Particular Provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.


Relevant Legislation The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 provide for the protection of Aboriginal places, objects and human remains in Victoria.

While the site is close to a waterway (Moonee Ponds Creek), the permit applicant has supplied evidence that the land has been subject to significant ground disturbance and is therefore not an area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity. No cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) was therefore required.

VCAT have confirmed that a CHMP is not required following a Practice Day hearing on 20 February 2015.

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

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

Council received 19 objections. The key issues raised in objections are:

• Overdevelopment • Neighbourhood Character • Failure with several technical standards of Clause 55 • Proposed zoning changes • Visual dominance – including proposed roof design • Traffic and Parking including loss of on-street parking and increased number of

crossovers • Size of garages • Loss of view to Moonee Ponds Creek • Reduction in car parking • Lack of landscaping • Street setbacks • Easement concerns • Water tanks / storm water runoff • Building height • Site coverage • Private Open Space • Solar Access Dwelling 3 • Pedestrian Safety

Twelve objectors lodged a Statement of Grounds with VCAT prior to circulation of substituted plans.

The permit applicant has provided notice of these plans as required by Section 140 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998. One objector has sent through a revised Statement of Grounds outlining that they will be supportive of the proposal subject to several changes including:

• The garage roof forms of dwellings 1 and 2 are flat; • The roof forms and guttering are non-reflective; • The concrete slab associated with the wall on boundary of 2 Harry Street is not

visible from the neighbouring property; and • The street tree measures and drainage considerations are consistent with the

previous approval for the site.

Aside from the request to incorporate flat roofs, which is considered unnecessary from a neighbourhood character perspective, the remaining requests can be met and are included as conditions in the recommendation. The applicant has been agreed to these conditions.


No further Statements of Grounds (objections) have been received. The Statements of Grounds do not raise any additional concerns.

Internal Referrals The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal departments:

Internal Department Comments Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch

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

City Infrastructure Branch

No objections to the proposal provided the vehicle crossing for Dwelling 2 on Harry Street is hand dug under supervision of Council’s Arborist to protect the existing street tree.


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.02: Urban Growth • Clause 11.04: Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 16.01: Residential Development • Clause 18.01: Integrated Transport • Clause 18.02: Movement Networks



• Clause 21.02 Vision • Clause 21.02-3 MSS Strategic Directions • Clause 21.03-1 Activity Centres • Clause 21.03-2 Land for Industry and Economic Regeneration • Clause 21.03-3 Housing • Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design • Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy)


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


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




Does planning strategy support development in this location? The Moreland Planning Scheme was amended on 30 April 2015 to rezone residential land to one of three residential zones. As part of this amendment, the subject site was rezoned from a General Residential Zone to a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). Council’s local planning policy framework was also amended to facilitate a range of different housing types in different locations.

Within the NRZ, Council’s MSS envisages minimal housing growth that is designed to create an enhanced low density, open and landscaped character. The schedule to the NRZ permits a maximum of four dwellings on lots in the NRZ.

The purpose of the NRZ is to limit opportunities for increased residential development as well as to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics. It is considered that, subject to conditions contained within the recommendation, the proposal represents housing growth that is sufficiently respectful of neighbourhood character and provides adequate landscaping. This is discussed in detail in the assessment below.

Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55? Clause 55 sets out a number of standards and objectives for residential development that relate to neighbourhood character, site layout, offsite amenity impacts, onsite amenity and facilities, and design detail.

A detailed assessment of the proposal against this Clause has been undertaken. The substituted plans achieve a high level of compliance with the standards and objectives of Clause 55.

The following key aspects are highlighted that are:

• The proposal complies with all off-site amenity impact standards from Clause 55, including overshadowing, overlooking and daylight to windows.

• The built form site coverage (47.8%) is well below the maximum of 60% required to meet Standard B8 and the permeability (22.8%) exceeds the minimum of 20% required to meet Standard B9 from Clause 55.

• Internal amenity is acceptable and generally meets the standard requirements within Clause 55. In particular, the private open space for each dwelling exceeds the minimum requirements.

Does the proposal respond to Council’s original grounds of refusal? Council issued a Notice of Refusal of the application on 10 November 2014. The grounds of refusal are listed as follows.

1. The proposed development fails to satisfy the objectives of Clause 55 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. In particular:

a) Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood character. The proposal fails to adequately respond to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.


b) Clause 55.03-1 Street setback. The proposal fails to provide an adequate setback to Henderson Street and the prevailing front setbacks, resulting in an unacceptable visual impact and built form mass.

c) Clause 55.03-2 Building Height. The overall building height results in an unacceptable building mass that does not respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

d) Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping. The design response fails to provide appropriate landscaping opportunities that respect the existing landscape character of the neighbourhood.

e) Clause 55.06-1 Detailed Design. The design elements including roof form and heavy use of render in the proposed development presents unacceptable visual bulk within the neighbourhood character setting.

2. The proposal fails to provide sufficient car parking as required by Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

3. The extent of built form to the rear of the site, including the double storey mass, does not satisfactorily address Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.10 in providing reduced building site coverage consistent with existing surrounding character of rear yards and garden outlooks.

In terms of neighbourhood character and detailed design, the gable roof form was a key issue with the original proposal and the substituted plans now show a conventional hipped roof of sheet metal. This has meant that the height of the proposal has decreased and is now compliant with Clause 55.03-2 (building height).

The proposal continues to use render however this finish becomes less dominant with the altered roof form. Two colours of render are proposed at first floor and a dark brick is proposed at ground floor. To further simplify the appearance, a condition requiring only one colour of render at first floor is included in the recommendation. The surrounding streetscape has various finishes and materials including render, brick and weatherboard and so the materials and finishes are considered to be in keeping with the streetscape.

The bulk attributable to the double storey mass has been reduced primarily through reducing the first floor area of dwellings 3 and 4. This has created a significant break in built form between dwellings 1 and 2 and dwellings 3 and 4. By virtue of the changes to dwellings 3 and 4, as the site is on a corner and as the built form of dwellings 1 and 2 is in keeping with 2 Harry Street, it is considered an appropriate response to Clause 22.01.

Other changes addressing the refusal grounds include:

• The proposed height does not exceed the 8 metre height permitted by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and built form dominance is minimised through the recessed first floor setback.

• Street setbacks comply with the requirements of Clause 55.03-1, addressing the previous non-compliances.

• Reduced site coverage has now ensured adequate opportunity for landscaping in the front, side and rear setbacks of each dwelling, with a landscape plan required by way of a condition contained within the recommendation.

• Car parking now meets Clause 52.06-5 (see discussion below).


Has adequate car parking been provided? Clause 52.06-5 contains the following car parking requirement for dwellings:

• 1 space to each one or two bedroom dwelling, plus • 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies or studios that are

separate rooms counted as a bedroom).

The proposed development meets the requirements of this Clause. Dwellings 1 and 2 have two bedrooms plus study (counted as a bedroom) and therefore require two car spaces. These are provided in a tandem arrangement. Dwelling 4 has two bedrooms requiring only one car space however has provided two car spaces in a tandem arrangement. Dwelling 3 has been reduced from three to two bedrooms and provides a single car space in a carport to now comply with car parking requirements.

Will the proposal create an excessive traffic impact on the road network? Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in 13 additional vehicle movements per day. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the development will generate some additional vehicle movements on the local road network, it is not considered that such additional movements would necessarily be concentrated or conflict substantially with existing traffic. Furthermore some residents may choose to walk, cycle or use public transport which is available within a short walking distance of the site.

The proposal will result in the loss of on-street parking along Harry Street through the additional crossovers. Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access allows more than one crossover for corner sites and states:

Ensure vehicle crossing provision limits the removal of on street public parking spaces, removal of street trees, and encroachment into landscaped front setbacks, and maximises pedestrian safety and sight lines.

It is considered that the treatment to Harry Street is acceptable as there will be no impact to street trees, all dwellings and garages are setback at least 3 metres from the street to allow for landscaping and to maintain sight lines and there will still be two on-street spaces in front of the site.

The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed on the street. This will be noted on the permit.


• Neighbourhood Character • Failure with several technical standards of Clause 55 • Proposed zoning changes • Visual dominance – including proposed roof design • Reduction in car parking • Lack of landscaping • Street setbacks • Site coverage • Building Height • Private Open Space • New Residential Zones


Overdevelopment The proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 55 in respect to site coverage, setbacks, permeability, and open space provision and therefore the proposal is not considered to be an over development of the site.

Size of garages and visual dominance of the garages The dimension of the garages complies with those set out in Clause 52.06 Car Parking. The garages for dwellings 1, 2 and 4 will be setback at least 5.5 metres from the street to allow for a tandem car space.

Loss of views While the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recognised that views can be a relevant amenity consideration, it has also held that there is no right to a view and that the weight to be given to the amenity impact of loss of views is diminished where no planning control applies encouraging retention or sharing of views. There is no specific policy, provision or local policy control regarding views within the Moreland Planning Scheme. In this context, it is not considered that the extent of loss of view in this case is unreasonable.

Poor design response for this site The proposal as amended has adequately addressed neighbourhood character and amenity issues, as outlined in section 4 of this report. The substituted plans therefore provide an acceptable design response for this site.

Easement concerns The proposal shows a garage built over the easement at the rear of the site. Section 12(5) of the Subdivision Act 1988 states that persons entitled to use the easement (ie. Utility authorities) are not required to repair damage to buildings or works constructed or located so as to interfere with the exercise of rights conferred by the easement. Council’s City Infrastructure Department have recommended the installation of a new 225 millimetre PVC sewer quality drainage pipe in the easement from the north fence to Harry Street and this is included as a condition in the recommendation.

Water tanks/storm water runoff The applicant has advised that each dwelling will have a 2100L to 2500L water tank. Condition 10 of the recommendation requires the submission of an approved drainage plan prior to the commencement of works.

Pedestrian Safety There will be additional vehicle movements to the site due to this development however, the location of crossovers and layout of accessways meets the requirements of Clause 22.03 and 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Solar Access to Dwelling 3 Dwelling 3 is located on the south side of dwelling 4 and given this orientation will receive less solar access than the other dwellings. The substituted plans improve the solar access to this dwelling with the family room windows on the western elevation designed to maximise the amount of solar access this dwelling can achieve. Other ESD measures have been incorporated into the development such as solar panels on the roof to improve energy efficiency.




8. Conclusion On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme, it is considered that the substituted plans address Council’s original grounds for refusal of the application. As a result the proposal now suitably responds to the existing neighbourhood character and the Clause 55 (ResCode) provisions. Council’s position to VCAT can now be one of support.

Attachment/s 1 19 Henderson Street, Brunswick West Objector and Location Map D15/176106 2 Substituted plans - 19 Henderson Street, Brunswick West D15/156521 3 Original plans - 19 Henderson Street, Brunswick West D15/152660

19 Henderson Street, Brunswick West Objector and Location Map Attachment 1


Substituted plans - 19 Henderson Street, Brunswick West Attachment 2












Original plans - 19 Henderson Street, Brunswick West Attachment 3













DED53/15 130 BARKLY STREET, BRUNSWICK - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2010/33/C (D15/146840)


Executive Summary The application seeks to amend the existing planning permit (MPS/2010/33/A), which allows the use of the land as an industry (microbrewery) and a reduction in the standard car parking requirements. The amendment includes the use of the land as a tavern, the sale and consumption of liquor (wine and beer producers’ licence), an additional reduction in car parking and amendment of the endorsed plans. The application also seeks retrospective approval for replacement fencing that has already been constructed within the Special Building Overlay.

The application was advertised and 14 objections were received (from 11 properties, and including two pro-forma objections). The main issues raised in objections are car parking, impacts on nearby residential properties including noise and the number of existing licensed premises nearby.

A planning information and discussion meeting was held on 3 June 2015. The applicant has not made any changes to the proposal as a result of the meeting.


The key areas of planning policy requiring consideration are:

• The appropriateness of the proposed tavern use. • Car parking provision. • Cumulative impact of licensed premises. • Amenity impacts on nearby residential properties.

The Group Manager City Development is recommending the issue of a Notice of Decision to Amend a Planning Permit for the proposal.


That a Notice of Decision to Amend a Planning Permit No. MPS/2010/33/C be issued for 130 Barkly Street, Brunswick, subject to the following amendments and conditions:

WHAT AMENDMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE PERMIT? The changes proposed to be made to the permit are as follows:

• Allow the use of the land as a tavern. • Allow the sale and consumption of liquor (wine and beer producers’ licence). • An additional reduction in car parking. • The construction of replacement fencing in the Special Building Overlay. • Amendment of the endorsed plans. TO WHAT CONDITIONS IS THE AMENDMENT SUBJECT? 1. Prior to the commencement of use of either the tavern or the sale and consumption of

liquor, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised on1 April 2015 but modified to show:


a) An amended Noise and Amenity Action Plan that provides for:

i. either a formal security or other staff member responsible for monitoring patrons entering and leaving the site during the hours of operation of the tavern, including measures to prevent patrons congregating in front of the venue on Barkly Street.

ii. The details of how patrons will be encouraged to use alternative means of transport to and from the venue.

b) The provision of at least 19 bicycle spaces with the main building in a manner that accords with the specifications in Bicycle Victoria’s Bicycle Parking Handbook.

c) Annotation of the smoking area on the bluestone cottage verandah.

4. The loading and unloading of goods and materials and all deliveries must not occur between:

• Monday to Friday 7:00pm to 6:00am

• Saturday and Sunday 7:00pm to 8:00am

And must not occur while the land is operating as a tavern.

(amended and renumbered) 7. Prior to the commencement of the use of the land as a tavern the bicycle parking

spaces required by condition 1b of this amended permit must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(amended and renumbered) 10. The endorsed Noise and Amenity Action Plan forms part of this permit and must be

complied with at all times. Any modifications to the management plan must be approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

11. The use of the land as a tavern, including the sale and consumption of liquor, must only occur between the hours of:

Indoor Premise:

• Friday: 2.00pm to 11.00pm

• Saturday: 12.00pm to 11.00pm

• Sunday: 12.00pm to 10.00pm

Outdoor area:

• Friday: 2.00pm to 10.00pm

• Saturday: 12.00pm to 10.00pm

• Sunday: 12.00pm to 10.00pm

12. The maximum number of patrons permitted on the premises while operating as a tavern must not exceed 130. The number of patrons within the outdoor courtyard at any one time must not exceed 30.

13. No amplified live entertainment and no amplified music shall be permitted on site. Solo acoustic performances are permitted, however all music must be limited to background music. Background music is defined as any music played at a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voice to a substantial degree. It is not background music if it is played at a level which requires patrons to shout, or use a stage voice such as that used by an actor in the theatre, in order to carry out a conversation at such a distance.

14. Music must not be played outside of the premises or within the outdoor courtyard area.


15. The licensee shall ensure that the level of noise emitted from the premises (including the food van) must not exceed:

a) The permissible noise level from mechanical equipment as specified in the State Environment Protection Policy N-1 (Control of Noise from Commercial, Industrial or Trade Premises); and

b) The permissible noise levels for entertainment noise as specified in the State Environmental Protection Policy N-2 (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises).

16. The owner/operator shall ensure than an appropriate notice be provided on all menus and drinks lists requesting that patrons leaving the premises be respectful of the neighbouring residential amenity.

17. All goods must be stored within one of the existing buildings (including storage of any temporary seating outside of operating hours) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and from the premises must at all times be conducted entirely within the boundaries of the land, except whilst in a specified loading area, and in a manner that limits interference with other vehicular traffic to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. Any food sold on the land must be consumed on the land. Signage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be displayed within the subject site (that is not visible from the street) advising patrons that all food and unpackaged alcohol must not be consumed off-site.

20. The food van may only be located onsite between 12pm Friday and 9am Monday. It must be removed from the site at all other times.

21. The endorsed Waste Management Plan must be complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Melbourne Water Condition 22 22. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into

Melbourne Water’s drains or waterways.

24. The use approved by the amendment to this permit will expire if the use is not commenced within two years from the date of issue of the amended permit.

The responsible authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the amended permit expires or within six months after the amended permit expires.

Previously numbered condition 8 has been deleted. A copy of how an amended permit would issue forms –

Attachment 1.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site and surrounds The subject site is located on the southern side of Barkly Street in Brunswick, approximately 37 metres west of Lygon Street. The site is an irregular rectangle, with a frontage to Barkly Street of 18.9 metres and a varied depth of 46.18 metres along the western boundary and 55.38 metres along the eastern boundary. The site has an area of 1,009 square metres. There are no restrictive covenants on the Certificate of Title.

The site is generally flat, with only a negligible fall from north to south. There are two existing buildings on the site; a bluestone cottage fronting Barkly Street (which is included on the Victorian Heritage Register) and a larger industrial building situated behind the cottage which occupies the majority of the site. There is an existing vehicle crossing located in the north-west corner of the land, and a sealed area adjacent to the cottage. A bluestone laneway runs along the eastern boundary of the site, separating the land from the properties to the east, which front Lygon Street. The site is currently used as an industry (micro-brewery).

The site is located within a small pocket of industrial land, with a mixture of uses nearby. The land to the east (across the laneway) is occupied by a mixed use (retail and residential) development and other commercial and residential developments front Lygon Street.

To the north of the site, on the northern side of Barkly Street, are commercial uses fronting Lygon Street, and residential development. To the immediate west is a Brotherhood of St Laurence collection centre, which extends south to Brunswick Road. Further west is largely residential land. To the immediate south of the site is a commercial development which fronts Brunswick Road.

A location plan forms Attachment 2Planning Permit and site history

.

• Planning permit MPS/2010/33 was issued on 7 July 2010 and allows the use of the land as an industry (micro brewery) and a reduction in the standard car parking requirements.

• The permit was amended on 10 September 2010 by amending conditions 3 and 4 (to vary staff numbers allowed on-site and hours that staff may access the site).

• The micro brewery has commenced operation. • An application (MPS/2010/33/B) to amend the permit again to include the use of

the land as a tavern and function centre, the sale and consumption of liquor and a waiver of the requirements for car parking and loading and unloading of vehicles was lodged in December 2010.

• The applicant lodged an application for review at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) of Council’s failure to grant a permit with the prescribed time. The Urban Planning Committee resolved at its meeting in July 2011 that Council’s position at VCAT would be that it did not support the application.

• The Urban Planning Committee considered another recommendation at its meeting in July 2012 on the basis of a revised proposal submitted by the applicant. Council again did not support the proposal.

• The applicant ultimately withdrew the application for review in August 2012 following VCAT’s refusal of a request for an adjournment.


The proposal The proposal is summarised as follows:

• To allow the use of the land as a tavern with a maximum of 130 patrons. The tavern is proposed to operate Fridays from 2.00pm to 11.00pm, Saturdays from 12.00pm to 11.00pm and Sundays from 12.00pm to 10.00pm. The outdoor courtyard area is proposed to close by 10.00pm on Fridays and Saturdays.

• To allow the sale and consumption of liquor (wine and beer producers’ licence). • A temporary food van is proposed to operate from the outdoor courtyard area

until 10.00pm (brought to the site Fridays and removed on Mondays). • Background music is proposed, only within the existing industrial building. • The existing industry (micro-brewery) will not actively operate while the tavern is

operating. • An additional reduction in car parking associated with the tavern. • Retrospective approval is sought for replacement fencing that has already been

constructed within the Special Building Overlay. • Amendment to the endorsed plans to reflect the above changes.

The development plans form Attachment 3Statutory Controls – why is a planning permit required?

.

Control Permit Requirement Industrial 3 Zone “Tavern” is a Section 2 use in the zone, meaning that a

permit is required for the use. A permit is not required to construct replacement fencing in the zone due to an exemption at Clause 62.02-2 of the scheme.

Special Building Overlay

Clause 44.05-1 - A permit is required to construct replacement fencing as the materials are different to the former fencing.

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06-3 - A permit is required to reduce the car parking requirement associated with the tavern from 52 spaces to zero. Clause 52.27 - A permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor.


• Clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities): The provisions of this Clause are met.


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

Council has received 14 objections from 11 different properties, including 2 pro forma objections to date. The key issues raised in objections are:

• Car Parking, including cars blocking nearby driveways. • Increased traffic. • Amenity impacts on residential properties, including noise. • Intoxicated patrons leaving the premises. • Smokers congregating on the street. • Proposed security/crowd control measures will invite trouble.


• The number of existing licensed premises already along Lygon Street. • Security staff and patrons on the footpath will restrict pedestrian access. • A tavern is not appropriate in a residential street. • Increased rubbish in the street.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 3 June 2015 and attended by Cr Rob Thompson, Council Planning Officers, the applicant and seven objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

At the consultation meeting the applicant offered to take responsibility for encouraging patrons to use alternative means of transport to access the venue and to take appropriate action if patrons were found to be parking illegally. These matters are either addressed in the conditions included in the recommendation or are already included in the Noise and Amenity Action Plan.

The applicant has not made any changes to the proposal following the meeting.

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

External agency Objection/No objection Melbourne Water No objection subject to a condition included in the

recommendation in respect to the construction of replacement fencing in the Special Building Overlay (retrospective approval sought).

Internal department Comments Strategic Transport and Property Branch

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


• Clause 11.01: Activity Centres • Clause 11.02: Urban Growth • Clause 11.04: Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 17.01: Commercial • Clause 17.02: Industry • Clause 18.02: Movement Networks



• Clause 21.02-3: MSS Strategic Directions • Clause 21.03-1: Activity Centres • Clause 21.03-2: Land for Industry and Economic Regeneration


• Clause 22.03: Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access


There is a focus at Clause 11 on building up activity within activity centres and maximising choice in services, employment and social interaction in areas well connected by public transport. The subject site is located within a major activity centre and is highly accessible. The proposed commercial use of the site will be complementary to the approved industrial use, and allow for additional local employment opportunities.

The Brunswick Structure Plan (August 2010) discusses the Lygon Street area as a lively urban space, sought after by new residents and small businesses, due to its good public transport connections, great local services and its place at the forefront of Melbourne’s cultural scene. The proposed uses are considered an appropriate addition within a Major Activity Centre and well suited to the existing character of the precinct.


Planning Scheme Amendments Amendment C134 – Brunswick Structure Plan Amendment C134 seeks to implement the recommendations of the Brunswick Structure Plan (2010) and the Addendum to the Brunswick Structure Plan (2012) as permanent planning controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme.

A Panel Hearing considering the amendment and submissions was held in February 2015. A panel report has been received and Council will consider the recommendations of the Independent Planning Panel at its meeting on 8 July 2015.



Does planning strategy support this use in this location? The proposed use of the land as a tavern has a clear relationship with the existing operation of the micro-brewery. The site’s location within a Major Activity Centre where commercial activity is encouraged lends support to the proposal.

The site is well located within the Brunswick Activity Centre (Precinct 2A – Lygon Street South Gateway). The proposed use will allow for the expansion and diversification of the existing business, allowing a viable employment generating use in a readily accessible location with an established mixed use character.

Of relevance to this application, is that the purpose of the Industrial 3 Zone includes to ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive land. In this instance there are nearby residential properties whose amenity must be considered.

These impacts can be best assessed under the provisions of Clause 52.27 (Licensed Premises) and are discussed below.

Is the sale and consumption of liquor appropriate in this location? The application is seeking to licence part of the industrial building (including part of the existing mezzanine), the outdoor courtyard and part of the bluestone cottage.


A wine and beer producers’ licence is being sought, which allows for the supply of alcohol both on and off the premises. Clause 52.27 includes the following decision guidelines which must be considered, as appropriate:

• The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area.

• The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area. • The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area. • The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed

licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.

According to The Department of Planning and Community Development’s Practice Note 61, Licensed premises: Assessing cumulative impact (March 2011) a cluster of licensed premises occurs where there are three or more licensed premises (including the proposed premises) within a radius of 100 metres from the subject land, or 15 or more licensed premises (including the proposed premises) within a radius of 500 metres from the subject land.

The applicant has submitted a cumulative impact assessment, which indicates that there are at least 35 existing licensed premises within 500 metres of the site. This is clearly a cluster.

Most of these existing licenses are restaurant and café licenses, associated with the restaurant precinct along Lygon Street. These types of venues are focused on the serving of food, which generally reduces the likelihood of excessive alcohol consumption.

There are 12 on-premises and general licences, including two late night licences, where the focus may be more on the provision of alcohol and entertainment.

It is considered that although there is a cluster of licensed premises in this location there is an appropriate mix of licences, with a focus on dining and entertainment, not solely drinking alcohol. It is also noted that these licenses are spread along Lygon Street.

Despite the nearby residential uses, the proposed hours of operation and patron numbers are considered reasonable provided that noise and patrons are managed appropriately, which may be achieved via permit conditions.

A noise and amenity action plan has been submitted by the applicant which details staffing, security and patron management arrangements. This includes outlining measures to deal with any complaints received by the public, training for staff in the responsible service of alcohol, lighting and music. Conditions within the recommendation require compliance with this plan at all times.

The applicant has also submitted an acoustic report which concludes that the proposed operation is expected to comply with State Environment Protection Policy requirements in relation to noise impacts on residential properties.

Off-site amenity impacts The subject site is located approximately 20 metres from the nearest residential zoned property, immediately opposite on Barkly Street. While it is considered that the amenity expectations of residential properties in close proximity to industrial and business zones is different to that of residential properties in wholly residential neighbourhoods, careful consideration of the likely off-site amenity impacts must be given.


It is acknowledged that antisocial behaviour may occur outside premises that are open late at night. It is also acknowledged that such incidents may be increased in terms of severity and frequency when alcohol is served at the premises. Such behaviour (i.e. noisy patrons, litter etc.) has the potential to increase the impact upon the amenity of nearby residents. The question to be considered in deciding whether to support the application is whether the amenity impacts would be unreasonable in the context of a major activity centre, not whether they exist at all.

Noise from patrons within the outdoor area adjoining Barkly Street must be managed appropriately, and as such the hours of operation of this area will be limited. Noise can also be emitted from the premises via amplified music, patrons leaving the premises at night, the collection and disposal of rubbish and the delivery of goods. Recommended conditions require that the uses comply with the relevant State Environment Protection Policy related to noise from commerce and industry. In addition, no music will be permitted to be played in the outdoor area.

The Noise and Amenity Action Plan details that emptying of bottles or cans into bins will not occur after 10.00pm or before 7.00am on any day, to limit noise impacts of this activity on nearby residential properties.

Therefore the proposed uses can be supported for the reasons detailed above, and subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions which are contained within the recommendation.

Has adequate car parking been provided? A tavern requires the provision of 0.4 spaces to each patron permitted. Based on a maximum of 130 patrons, 52 car spaces are required during the operation of the tavern (noting that a reduction of car parking associated with the existing industrial use has already been granted, and this use will not operate concurrently with the tavern).

Based on Council policy, it is considered reasonable to reduce the car parking requirement. It is policy at Clause 22.03-3 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) to:

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

It is acknowledged that the proposal will increase car parking demand in an area that already has high demand due to its location off Lygon Street (and close to the restaurant precinct) and the limited number of nearby dwellings with off-street parking.

However the site does have good access to public transport, with the numbers 1 and 8 tram routes running along Lygon Street and stops located approximately 130 metres from the site (at the intersection of Brunswick Road). The site is approximately 830 metres from Sydney Road, which provides other public transport options. The Capital City Bicycle Trail runs nearby to the south of the site.

The Brunswick Structure Plan identifies parking pressure as an issue in this precinct (Precinct 2A – Lygon Street South Gateway), with demand expected to increase further as development pressure continues in the area. Strategies outlined to address this issue include requiring new developments to provide on-site solutions to their car parking needs.

The current proposal is associated with an existing use and development, and the applicant is therefore constrained by the existing site conditions. The provision of on-site car parking is not possible without significant development works.


While the provision of no car parking associated with the tavern will have some impact on the availability of on-street parking in the area, on the basis of the current proposal, including the economic benefits and employment opportunities it will generate, and having regard to the existing site conditions, availability of public transport and the site’s location within an activity centre, a reduction of the additional car parking requirement is considered acceptable.

It is noted that the endorsed plans that forms part of Planning Permit MPS/2010/33/A showing the provision of three on-site car spaces associated with the industry (micro-brewery) will continue to be in effect while the industry is operating. There will be some overlap during brewery operating hours where the food van will be located on-site restricting the car parking availability, as it is proposed to bring the van to the site on Fridays and remove it on Mondays. Conditions are included in the recommendation requiring that the van not be placed onsite before 12pm on a Friday and that it must be removed by 9am on a Monday. This will limit the conflict and is considered an acceptable outcome.

The applicant’s traffic report does not demonstrate that there is any additional capacity between 5.00pm and 11.00pm during the proposed operating times, and Council’s traffic engineer acknowledges that there is already intense competition for parking from residents, customers of nearby restaurants and public transport users.

Despite the above, Council’s Strategic Transport and Property Branch is satisfied that the car parking requirement can be reduced for this application. The Brunswick Major Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy (2013) recommends a lower rate for the proposed use than the State-wide provisions of Clause 52.06. The Strategy recommends eleven onsite car spaces for the proposed use (0.09 spaces per patron).

Residents of Barkly Street are able to purchase parking permits to exempt them (and their visitors) from the timed parking restrictions on Barkly Street between Lygon and Ewing Streets. As such, steps have been implemented to prioritise resident car parking. There is also a new public, paid off-street car park (privately owned) within the former Tip Top site on Weston Street. Council’s Strategic Transport and Property Branch is satisfied that the 11 spaces recommended in the Brunswick Major Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy (2013) can be waived on the basis of this additional off-street car parking availability (which is not considered in the applicant’s traffic report), and that residents of Barkly Street have been prioritised over customers through parking restrictions.

In addition, the Brunswick Integrated Transport Strategy encourages a modal shift away from car use. Walking, cycling and public transport use are encouraged. Provision of reduced car parking encourages a mode shift provided the site provides appropriately for alternatives. Council’s Strategic Transport and Property Branch has recommended that a minimum of 19 secure bicycle spaces be provided on-site to encourage greater bicycle use to the site. A condition in the recommendation requires provision of 19 bicycle spaces within the industrial building, due to the Heritage Overlay affecting the front of the site, and to minimise conflict with the vehicle accessway. This has been agreed to by the applicant, despite their indication that it was preferred to provide bicycle parking on the footpath in front of the site. This would conflict with objector concerns regarding blocking of the footpath in front of the site.

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


Are the proposed buildings and works acceptable? The proposed replacement fencing within the Special Building Overlay is a minor component of the proposal, and is acceptable. It is noted that Melbourne Water has no objection to the works.


• Car Parking, including cars blocking nearby driveways. • Increased traffic. • Amenity impacts on residential properties, including noise. • Intoxicated patrons leaving the premises. • The number of existing licensed premises already along Lygon Street. • A tavern is not appropriate in a residential street.

Other issues raised by objectors are addressed below:

Increased rubbish in the street. The planning regulatory system is not directly responsible for the control of litter, and the behaviour and actions of patrons outside of the site boundaries cannot always be controlled.

At the consultation meeting, the permit applicant advised that no drinks will be served in bottles. Drinks will either be poured from kegs into glasses, or directly from bottles into glasses. Customers will therefore not be able to leave the site with any bottles. Conditions in the recommendation also require any food purchased onsite to the consumed onsite, reducing the likelihood of any food packaging resulting in litter.

These initiatives will aid in reducing litter on private and public land surrounding the venue from patrons of the venue.

Smokers congregating on the street. The applicant has indicated that it will encourage a smoke free site. However a smoking area will be provided on the verandah of the bluestone cottage and patrons will not be able to access Barkly Street or the laneway to the east of the site directly from this area.

Proposed security/crowd control measures will invite trouble. The Noise and Amenity Action Plan outlines that a formal security staff member will be on site on an as-needs basis, or a staff member will be responsible for security. This will be a requirement of the granting of a liquor licence by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. It is considered that the hours of operation, numbers of patrons and other patron management measures mean that the venue will not be one where security staff are required to manage large numbers of heavily intoxicated patrons. Conditions are included in the recommendation requiring either formal security or a member of staff to monitor patron movements entering and leaving the venue at all times during the operation of the tavern.

Security staff and patrons on the footpath will restrict pedestrian access. The applicant has advised that any security staff will not be located on the footpath, and will be within the boundaries of the site. It is not anticipated that there would be a significant number of patrons congregating on the footpath for any length of time that would be a significant disruption. The condition outlined above will assist in ensuring patrons do not congregate at the front of the site.




8. Conclusion It is considered that the proposed amendment to include the use of the land for a tavern and for the sale and consumption of liquor can be supported on the basis of the assessment above and the inclusion of conditions detailed in the recommendation.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that the site is suitably located for the proposed uses, the sale and consumption of liquor, a reduction in car parking requirements and the construction of replacement fencing in the Special Building Overlay subject to conditions.

Attachment/s 1 130 Barkly Street, Draft Amended Planning Permit D15/175747 2 130 Barkly Street, Brunswick - Objector Map D15/166174 3 130 Barkly Street, Brunswick - Advertised Plans D15/166150

130 Barkly Street, Draft Amended Planning Permit Attachment 1




















130 Barkly Street, Brunswick - Objector Map Attachment 2


130 Barkly Street, Brunswick - Advertised Plans Attachment 3


130 Barkly Street, Brunswick - Advertised Plans Attachment 3



DED54/15 7 MURPHY STREET, OAK PARK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/1115 (D15/142612)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the construction of four double storey dwellings. The application was advertised and 11 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections are neighbourhood character, overdevelopment and traffic impacts. A planning consultation meeting was not held, however the objectors of both immediately adjoining properties have been contacted to discuss their concerns.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The key issue is whether the proposal adequately responds to neighbourhood character. Subject to modifications in accordance with a sketch plan that shows increased secluded private open space and modifications to Dwelling 4 to provide an improved transition in building scale, it is considered that the proposal will sufficiently respect neighbourhood character.



That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2014/1115 be issued for the construction of four double storey dwellings at 7 Murphy Street Oak Park, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised 2 March 2015 but modified to show:

a) Changes in accordance with the sketch plan received by Council on 26 May 2015, including but not limited to:

i. Modified secluded private open space to Dwellings 2 – 4 to comply with Standard B29 (solar access to secluded private open space) from Clause 55 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

ii. Deletion of one bedroom to Dwelling 4.

iii. Accessway gradients in Xavier Street of no greater than 1:10.

iv. Weatherboard to all first floor external walls.

b) The height of boundary fences dimensioned as being at least 1.8 metres adjacent to the secluded private open space of Dwellings 2 – 4.

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

d) Any modifications to the retaining wall, including openings for each crossover and pedestrian path, in accordance with the recommendations of the engineer report required by Condition 5 of this permit.

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


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


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

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

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

c) The provision of at least one tree within the front setback of each dwelling, with the species selected with the tree species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

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

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


5. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a report must be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Responsible Authority. The report must specifically confirm that the structural integrity of the retaining wall will not be compromised by the number of proposed openings for vehicle and pedestrian access. The report must identify specific measures that would be required to achieve this. The retaining wall must be constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained within the approved report, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Prior to the occupation of the development, the Bluestone retaining wall must be modified to Council’s standards using construction plans approved by Council and the works supervised by Council.


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



10. Prior to the occupation of the development, the owner must provide replacement vegetation within the retaining wall and an advanced replacement tree in Murphy Street if the existing street tree requires removal for the vehicle crossing. Replacement landscaping must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Prior to the occupation of the development, the garage roller doors must be automatic and remote controlled to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.







a) the development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit; or






who can be contacted on 9240 1143 for any works beyond the boundaries of the property. Planting and other vegetative works proposed on road reserves, including street tree removal, can be discussed with Council’s Open Space Unit on 8311 4300.



Note 3: Council charges supervision (2.50%) and plan checking (0.75%) fees on the cost of constructing the retaining wall as permitted by Sections 5&6 of the Subdivision (Permit and Certification Fees) Regulations 2000.

Note 4: The City of Moreland is committed to creating an environmentally sustainable city. A critical component in achieving this commitment is to encourage new residential development to meet appropriate environmental standards. Applicants are encouraged to use STEPS or SDS– Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance Strategy.

Using STEPS/SDS involves entering data about the proposed design into the STEPS assessment tool found at www.sustainablesteps.com.au. A score for the environmental performance is calculated and summarised. This allows applicants to design more environmentally sustainable developments and use sustainable building materials.

The use of STEPS will aid in achieving a 6 star energy rating at the building permit stage. For more information or help on ESD or STEPS please contact Council’s Sustainable Development Department on: 9240 1138

http://www.sustainablesteps.com.au/�


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the south-west corner of Murphy Street and Xavier Street in Oak Park, approximately 100 metres west of Pascoe Vale Road. The lot is slightly irregular in shape, has a frontage to Murphy Street of 12.34 metres, a maximum depth of 46.66 metres and an overall site area of approximately 700 square metres. The land slopes upwards by approximately 1.5 metres towards the west boundary of the site.

The site is currently occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling with a hipped tiled roof. There are two existing crossovers both located on the Xavier Street frontage.

The Certificate of Title is encumbered by a restrictive convent, which restricts quarrying of the site. However excavating for the foundations of any building is exempted, as such, the development as proposed does not breach the restrictive covenant.

Surrounds The surrounding area is characterised by single storey brick and weatherboard detached dwellings of varied style. Rear yards are generally large, moderately landscaped and frequently contain outbuildings. There are examples of double storey dwellings and some emergence of two, three and four dwelling developments in the surrounding area.


.

The proposal to construct four double storey dwellings is summarised as follows:

• Dwelling 1:

− Fronts Murphy Street. − Contains ground floor living with 27 square metres of north-east facing

secluded private open space and a 100 square metre front yard. − Contains three first floor bedrooms. − Provides a single car garage and tandem car space accessed from Murphy

Street.

• Dwellings 2 and 3:

− Front Xavier Street. − Each contain ground floor living and north-west facing secluded open space

(30 and 40 square metres respectively). − Each contain two first floor bedrooms. − Each has one single width garage.

• Dwelling 4:

− Fronts Xavier Street. − Contains ground floor living and south-west facing secluded open space (47

square metres in total and 25 square metres with a minimum depth of 3 metres).

− Includes three bedrooms at first floor. − Provides one single car garage and a tandem car space.


• One new crossover is proposed on Murphy Street. The existing double and single width crossovers on Xavier Street are proposed to be relocated.

• The design incorporates pitched and parapet roof forms and a mix of materials, including brick, render and Alucobond cladding.

• 48.6% site coverage and 39.2% site permeability is proposed. • The maximum building height is 7.21 metres.


.

Control Permit Requirement Neighbourhood Residential Zone

A permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot. Pursuant to Clause 32.09-1 (NRZ) no permit is required to use land as a dwelling. The proposed number of dwellings on the lot complies with the requirements of Clause 32.09-3 (no more than 4 dwellings) and the maximum height of the development complies with the requirements of Clause 32.09-8 (8 metre maximum).


• Clause 52.06: Car parking • Clause 55: Two or more dwellings on a lot


• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land; and • Placing signs on the Murphy Street and Xavier Street frontages of the site

Council has received 11 objections to date. The key issues raised in objections are:

• Neighbourhood character • Overdevelopment • Removal of trees and reduction of green space • Car parking • Traffic issues, including:

− Increased volumes − Safety concerns − Pollution

• Loss of views • Overlooking • Overshadowing • Plan inaccuracies • Excessive rubbish bins • Property devaluation • Noise • Construction issues, including traffic impacts and asbestos removal • Loss of sunlight to solar panels at 59 Xavier • Poor environmental response to remove existing building • Signs not displayed on site for the entire notification period


A consultation meeting has not been held, however the objectors of both immediately adjoining properties have been contacted to discuss their key concerns.

Internal/external referrals No statutory referrals to external agencies were required. The proposal was referred to the following internal departments:


No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions of approval detailed in the recommendation. Specifically, it was requested that a report assessing the structural integrity of the retaining wall be required, which forms part of the recommendation.

Open Space The proposal will require the removal of one street tree on Murphy Street and some vegetation within the retaining wall. This was referred to Council’s Arborist, who did not object to the removal. The replacement of a street tree and vegetation in the retaining wall forms a condition of the recommendation.


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.03: Urban Growth • Clause 11.05: Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 16.01: Residential Development • Clause 16.02: Housing Form






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




Does planning strategy support development in this location? The Moreland Planning Scheme was amended on 30 April 2015 to rezone residential land to one of three residential zones. As part of this amendment, the subject site was rezoned from a General Residential Zone to a Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Council’s local planning policy framework was also amended to facilitate a range of different housing types in different locations.

Within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), Council’s MSS envisages minimal housing growth that is designed to create an enhanced low density, open and landscaped character. The schedule to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone permits up to four dwellings, as proposed.

It is considered that, subject to conditions of the recommendation, the proposal represents housing growth that is respectful of neighbourhood character and provides adequate landscaping. This is discussed in detail in the assessment below.

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? Neighbourhood character outcomes are informed by both Clause 22.01 (Council’s Neighbourhood Character local policy) and Clause 55.02 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The objectives of Clause 55.02 are to ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site and surrounds. Clause 22.01 sets out policy with regard to building height, setbacks and landscaping. These key considerations are discussed in turn below.

Height The proposed development is two storeys in height and the maximum height does not exceed the 8 metres permitted under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Clause 22.01 also states that development in rear yards should be single storey. However as the subject site is located on a corner, it can accommodate a greater extent of double storey form as it acts as a ‘book-end’ to the streetscape and anchors the corner. Nevertheless, the location of built form responds to the adjoining secluded private open space, which is the most sensitive interface. Dwellings 2 and 3, in particular, are designed with the secluded private open space abutting the shared boundary and with upper level setbacks of approximately 5 – 6.5 metres to limit the impact of the built form from the adjoining open rear yard. While part of the upper level of Dwelling 4 is located only 1.8 metres from the boundary, this complies with the setback requirements of Clause 55 and is only a small proportion of the total upper floor form.

Setbacks Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy seeks to ensure new development is designed to respect the prevailing built form scale, siting and appearance of the surrounding context.


Within Murphy Street, the large front setback and articulated upper floor form ensure that the scale of built form sufficiently respects the existing character of detached dwellings.

Within Xavier Street, the well articulated upper floor forms are a positive aspect of the design. However, it is considered that the proposal should create a better transition to the single storey scale of dwellings to the south-east. On this issue, the applicant has submitted a sketch plan, which forms Attachment 3

Landscaping

to this report. This plan reduces the size of Dwelling 4 from three bedrooms to two bedrooms. This has the benefit of increasing setbacks from the south-east boundary, reducing the width of the upper floor form and increasing the first floor separation from Dwelling 3. This design provides an improved transition to the adjoining single storey dwelling and is supported. A condition of the recommendation requires the plans for endorsement to reflect the changes shown on the sketch plans.

Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy seeks to ensure that the design and landscaping of new development contributes the ‘green, leafy’ landscape character.

Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone also states that a minimum of 1 tree should be located within both the front setback and the secluded private open space of each dwelling, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

The amended sketch plan increases private open space areas compared to the advertised plans. This will ensure that there is open space in excess of Clause 55 requirements that allows for reasonable landscaping opportunities. Conditions of the recommendation require a landscape plan to be submitted showing trees in the front setbacks and secluded private open spaces.

Design Detail Measures to integrate the development within the existing streetscape include the use of hipped roof forms at first floor and the use of brick on the ground floor. In addition, the sketch plan submitted to Council shows weatherboard, rather than render, at first floor and additional hipped roof forms at ground floor.

The design also incorporates porches and is well articulated at the first floor to ensure that the built form does not dominate the streetscape.

Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55? Clause 55 sets out a number of standards and objectives for residential development that relate to neighbourhood character, site layout, offsite amenity impacts, onsite amenity and facilities, and design detail.

A detailed assessment of the proposal against this Clause has been undertaken. Overall, the proposed development achieves a high level of compliance with both the standards and objectives.

The following key aspects are highlighted:

• The proposal complies with all off-site amenity impact standards from Clause 55, including overshadowing, overlooking and daylight to windows.

• The height and side setbacks comply with all requirements set out in Clause 55. • The built form site coverage (48.6%) is well below the maximum of 60% required

to meet Standard B8 and the permeability (39.2%) exceeds the minimum of 20% required to meet Standard B9 from Clause 55.

• Internal amenity is acceptable and generally meets the standard requirements within Clause 55. In particular, the private open space for each dwelling exceeds the minimum requirements.

Standards from Clause 55 that have not been met or that have been raised as concerns by objectors are discussed below.


Overshadowing Concern has been raised by an objector about the extent of overshadowing on 9 Murphy Street. Standard B21 from Clause 55 of the Moreland Planning Scheme sets out limits for overshadowing, to ensure that the sunlight to adjoining secluded private open space is not unreasonably reduced. The requirements of this standard have been met. While there is some overshadowing over 9 Murphy Street, this occurs during the morning and the secluded private open space will still receive a reasonable amount of sunlight, in excess of the minimum requirements outlined at Standard B21.

Overlooking Standard B22 states that habitable room windows should be treated to reduce overlooking when secluded private open space and habitable room windows are located within a 9 metre radius. Concerns have been raised from an objector at 5 Murphy Street (located on the opposite side of Xavier Street) regarding overlooking. However, there is no requirement to limit views from windows facing the street because this property is located further than 9 metres away. The objective of the Clause is to prevent unreasonable overlooking, not restrict all overlooking. The provision of clear-glazed windows fronting a street is a common feature in residential areas.

First floor habitable room windows have been provided with fixed obscure glass to 1.7 metres above finished floor level. The windows comply with Standard B22 and this is considered sufficient to limit unreasonable overlooking, as per the objective of this Clause.

From ground floor windows and open space, a 1.8 metre high fence is deemed sufficient to limit overlooking. The fence heights have not been indicated on the plans. As such, this forms a condition of the recommendation.

Solar Access All dwellings provide private open space in excess of the requirements of Standard B28 (private open space objective) of the Moreland Planning Scheme. However, the secluded private open space of Dwellings 2 – 4 fails to meet Standard B29 (solar access objective).

The sketch plan submitted to Council includes modifications to the size of private open spaces and the setbacks of walls to ensure that this standard is met.

Has adequate car parking been provided? Clause 52.06-5 contains the following car parking requirement for dwellings:

• 1 space to each one or two bedroom dwelling, plus • 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies or studios that are

separate rooms counted as a bedroom), plus • 1 space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

The proposed development meets the requirements of this Clause.

Dwellings 1 and 4 contain three bedrooms and therefore require two car spaces. These can be provided in a tandem arrangement (i.e. one car space within the garage and one space in front of the garage). However, the sketch plan received by Council deletes one bedroom from Dwelling 4. As such, this dwelling will only require one car space. Dwellings 2 and 3 each contain two bedrooms and one car space.


Concern has been raised by objectors about vehicles parking on-street. Vehicles, whether related to this or other developments in the street, can only park on the street in accordance with any parking regulations. The number of vehicles that can park on the street and at what time will be dictated by the parking restrictions and the availability of on street car spaces. The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that parking restrictions are imposed on the street. The recommendation includes a permit note to this effect.

In addition, the number of vehicle crossovers proposed is acceptable having regard to the site’s corner location and that the number and width of crossovers in Xavier Street is not being increased.

Will the proposal result in unreasonable traffic impacts? Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in approximately 15 additional vehicle movements per day on Murphy Street and Xavier Street. This remains within the design capacity of these streets and is not expected to cause traffic problems or result in excessive additional pollution.

Furthermore, no concerns have been raised regarding traffic safety. Safety will be improved due to the vehicle access being moved further away from the intersection of Xavier Street and Murphy Street as compared to the current site conditions.


• Neighbourhood character • Removal of trees and reduction of green space • Car parking • Traffic impacts • Overlooking • Overshadowing

Other issues raised by objectors are addressed below.

Excessive rubbish bins Concerns have been raised about the number of bins required for the proposed development.

The proposal will require a total of 8 bins, 6 of which will be put out for collection on Xavier Street and 2 of which will be located on Murphy Street. Given the width of the respective frontages, this is not considered to be unreasonable or excessive.

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


Overdevelopment A number of objectors have described the proposal as an overdevelopment of the land and state that there should be a maximum of two dwellings.

The proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 55 in respect to site coverage, setbacks, permeability, car parking, and open space provision and therefore the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

While the purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is to limit opportunities for growth, the Schedule to the Zone permits up to four dwellings on a lot.

Loss of views While the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recognised that views can be a relevant amenity consideration, it has also held that there is no right to a view and that the weight to be given to the amenity impact of loss of views is diminished where no planning control applies encouraging retention or sharing of views. There is no specific policy, provision or local policy control regarding views within the Moreland Planning Scheme. In this context, it is not considered that the extent of loss of view in this case is unreasonable.

Property values The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal have generally found claims that a proposal will reduce property values are difficult, if not impossible, to gauge and of no assistance to the determination of a planning permit application. It is considered the impacts of a proposal are best assessed through an assessment of the amenity implications rather than any impacts upon property values. This report provides a detailed assessment of the amenity impact of this proposal.

Construction issues Impacts during the construction process are not generally a planning matter. Any closure of roads and footpaths during construction requires report and consent of Council pursuant to Regulation 604 of the Building Regulations 2006 and a Public Space Occupation Permit under Council’s General Local Law 2007. Consideration of such closure and notice as required is undertaken through these processes.

The removal of asbestos is outside of the scope of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or the Moreland Planning Scheme. There is other legislation which administers the removal and handling of asbestos. This includes Section 63 of the Moreland City Council General Local Law 2007. The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos) Regulations 2003 which apply in Victoria also have regulations regarding the handling and removal of asbestos.

Loss of sunlight to solar panels at 59 Xavier Street The setbacks of the proposed development and the location of the solar panels at 59 Xavier Street are such that solar access to the panels will not be unreasonably impacted upon. The shadow diagrams submitted with the application show no overshadowing to the dwelling at 59 Xavier Street.

Poor environmental response to remove existing building An objector has raised concerns that the existing dwelling on the land is in good condition and it is a poor environmental response to remove this dwelling.

Due to the planning controls that affect the land, the demolition of the existing dwelling on the land does not require a planning permit and cannot be taken into consideration as part of this application. Nevertheless, under building regulations, the proposed dwellings will be required to achieve a six star energy rating.


Plan inaccuracies An objector has raised the following concerns about the plans:

• The windows at 59 Xavier Street have been shown incorrectly (one habitable room window is shown as non-habitable and one non-habitable room window is shown as habitable).

• The brick wall on the north-west boundary has not been surveyed and is not shown on the plans.

• The site permeability cannot be verified.

With regard to windows, this correction is noted however there are no changes required to the proposed design as a result of this information. The development remains sufficiently setback to comply with Clause 55 standards regarding daylight to windows and there are no overlooking issues.

The brick wall on the north-west boundary has not been shown on the plans because it will likely be removed as part of the proposed development. A condition of the recommendation requires a 1.8 metre high fence to be shown in this location.

With regard to site permeability, Council officers have independently assessed the 39.2% permeability indicated on the plans and consider it to be accurate.

Signs not displayed on site for full period One objector has raised concerns about the length of time that signs were displayed on site for, due to a vandal removing the sign. This issue was also raised directly with the planning officer during the advertising period. As a result, the applicant was directed to obtain a new sign and erect it for an additional period of time, to ensure that a sign was displayed on site for a total period of 14 days.



8. Conclusion The proposed development achieves a high level of compliance with Clause 55 standards and objectives. In addition, subject to conditions of the recommendation it is considered that the proposal respects the existing character of the area and will contribute to a landscaped character.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit MPS/2015/1115 should be issued for the construction of four double storey dwellings subject to the conditions in the recommendation.

Attachment/s 1 Location plan - 7 Murphy Street, Oak Park D15/152919 2 Development plans - 7 Murphy Street, Oak Park D15/153460 3 Sketch plans - 7 Murphy Street, Oak Park D15/153294

Location plan - 7 Murphy Street, Oak Park Attachment 1


Development plans - 7 Murphy Street, Oak Park Attachment 2














Sketch plans - 7 Murphy Street, Oak Park Attachment 3


Sketch plans - 7 Murphy Street, Oak Park Attachment 3



DED55/15 32 WARBURTON STREET, BRUNSWICK, PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/577 (D15/59493)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for partial demolition and extension to the existing building to allow for a three storey building plus roof terrace containing six dwellings and a reduction in a visitor car parking space. The application was advertised and 13 objections were received.

The main issues raised in objections are neighbourhood character and overlooking.

A consultation meeting between council officers, the applicant and objectors was held on 6 May 2015. Following the meeting, the applicant agreed to additional conditions regarding screening and traffic management during construction and two objections have been withdrawn.


The key planning policy issues for consideration include impact on the neighbourhood and heritage character. Given the proposed dwellings are largely contained within the existing building envelope there is minimal change to the heritage and neighbourhood character. In addition a high level of compliance with Clause 55 is achieved.



That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2014/577 be issued for the partial demolition and extension to the existing building to allow for a three storey building plus roof terrace containing six dwellings and a reduction in a visitor car parking space at 32 Warburton Street Brunswick, subject to the following conditions :

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

a) Screening to a height of 1.7 metres to the first floor south facing bedroom windows of Dwellings 1 and 6. This must include a screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:50 which must include:

i. All dimensions, including the width of slats and the gap between slats or whether obscure glazing is proposed.

ii. All side screens

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

b) The garage doors and internal width of the garages dimensioned at least 3.5 metres wide for the entire length.

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

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


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

f) Any electricity meter boxes and services cupboard designed within the building.


3. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide details of vegetation within the planter boxes including number, size and maturity and irrigation.


5. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works pursuant to this permit, or any works associated with a sensitive use, or where no works are proposed, prior to the commencement of the permitted use, either:

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

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

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

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

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

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



8. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works associated with the proposed development, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority (Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch). The Traffic Management Plan (as relevant) must include the following requirements:

• 48 hours written notice prior to any temporary closure of Cocoa Jackson Lane will be provided to the owner / occupier of 123 – 127 Lygon Street, Brunswick (Reece Pty Ltd);

• Any temporary closure of Cocoa Jackson Lane will occur between the hours of 10am – 4pm only;

• There will be no consecutive days of temporary closure; and

• The temporary closure of Cocoa Jackson Lane must be limited to the land located immediately south of the subject side and between Warburton Street and the eastern end of the site.



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










NOTES: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this notice of decision/permit or conditions of this notice of decision/permit. Note 1: Further approvals are required from Council’s City Infrastructure Department

who can be contacted on 9240 1143 for any works beyond the boundaries of the property. Planting and other vegetative works proposed on road reserves can be discussed with Council’s Open Space Unit on 8311 4300.



REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the eastern side of Warburton Street at the intersection with Cocoa Jackson Lane in Brunswick. It has a frontage of 9.7 metres to Warburton Street and 32.9 metres to Cocoa Jackson Lane, with an overall site area of 327 square metres.

The site contains a double storey brick warehouse which covers the entire lot. The building has a maximum height of 8.8 metres with a 7.2 metre high southern wall and 7 metre high northern wall. A street tree is located within the Warburton Street nature strip.

There are no restrictions registered on the Certificate of Title.

Surrounds Warburton Street is predominately characterised by single storey detached Edwardian and Victorian dwellings. To the rear (east) of the site are commercial buildings which front Lygon Street. A 3 metre wide constructed laneway separates the site from the commercial buildings to the east.

To the south of the site is a 4.8 metre wide bluestone laneway known as Cocoa Jackson Lane. South of the laneway are the rear fences and garages of dwellings fronting Edward Street and several two storey dwellings have also been developed fronting Cocoa Jackson Lane.


.

The application proposes partial demolition and extension to the existing building to allow for a three storey building plus roof terrace containing six dwellings and a reduction in a visitor car parking space. Specific details include:

• Each dwelling is provided with two bedrooms and one car parking space with balconies and a roof top terrace.

• A common pedestrian entrance is provided from Warburton Street. • Car access to all dwellings via Cocoa Jackson Lane. • The addition increases the maximum height of the building to 9.9 metres,

1.2 metres above the existing height of the building. • The proposal retains the brick warehouse and includes partial demolition to allow

for openings within the building. • A mixture of render, metal sheet claddings and powder coated materials.


.


A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot pursuant to Clause 32.09-5 (NRZ). It is noted that at the time of lodgement of the application for a planning permit, the land was located within the General Residential Zone.

Heritage Overlay 251

Clause 43-01-1 (Heritage) - A permit is required to demolish or remove a building, construct a building or construct or carry out works

Particular Provisions A permit is required for a reduction in one visitor car parking space pursuant to Clause 52.06 (Car Parking).



• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and • By placing two signs, one on each frontage of the site for fourteen days.

Council received 13 objections however two objections were withdrawn. The key issues raised in objections are:

• Car parking • Overlooking • Noise • Height • Overdevelopment • Heritage impact • Visual bulk • Impact on the laneway during the construction • Contamination

A consultation meeting was held on the 6 May 2015 and attended by Council officers, the applicant and three objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond. Discussions at the meeting have resulted in agreement by the applicant to provide additional screening for Dwellings 1 and 6 and a Traffic Management Plan. These conditions form part of the recommendation.

Internal referrals



Heritage Advisor No objections were offered to the proposal.


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11: Settlement • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 15.03: Heritage • Clause 16.01: Residential Development



• Clause 21.03-3: Housing • Clause 21.03-4: Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design



• Clause 22.01: Neighbourhood Character • Clause 22.03: Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access • Clause 22.06: Heritage

Planning Scheme Amendments Amendment C71 - Environmentally Efficient Design Policy Amendment C71 seeks to introduce a new local policy Clause 22.14 ‘Environmentally Efficient Design’. The Amendment is currently pending Ministerial approval.



Does the proposal comply with Council’s heritage policies? The site is located within Heritage Overlay 251, known as the Warburton Street Precinct Overlay. The heritage precinct is of aesthetic significance as a representative and relatively intact example of an early twentieth century residential precinct with a high degree of homogeneity. The subject site at 32 Warburton Street in addition to those at 12 and 16 Warburton Street are detailed in the heritage citation as non-contributory buildings as they are not developed with early twentieth century residences.

The proposal involves demolition of part of the walls and openings of the existing warehouse to facilitate the conversion to dwellings. Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.06 supports the demolition of non-contributory buildings. The proposed partial demolition of the building is supported, noting that the majority of the built form and material will be retained.

In response to the proposed additions the key decision guideline of the Heritage Overlay is whether the appearance of the additions will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

The existing building presents to the street with a two storey, 7.6 metre tall wall on the front boundary. The proposed roof terrace which is recessed 1.2 metres from the street wall is considered to be setback appropriately and combined with the proposed schedule of materials will not unreasonably impact on this heritage streetscape. Council’s Heritage Advisor has not raised any issues with the proposal. It is considered that the proposal satisfies Council’s heritage policies.

Does planning strategy support this use / development in this location? The MSS envisages minimal change and minimal housing growth in areas outside Activity Centres within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), to ensure an ongoing supply of single dwellings and low density multi dwelling developments.

The Neighbourhood Residential Zone aims to limit opportunities for increased residential development. For development received after 30 April 2015 this also means a maximum of four dwellings with a maximum height of 8 metres. This application was received prior to 30 April 2015 so that these specific height and density requirements do not apply.


This application has the benefit of the transitional provisions. Where transitional provisions apply Council is steered back to the assessment process which is more contextual, this includes characteristics of the site, built form considerations and management of amenity impacts. In recent VCAT cases relating to these matters the Tribunal has highlighted that different outcomes can be contemplated for proposals relying on transitional provisions, as they are clearly not bound by the mandatory limitations, as listed above.

The proposed dwellings, with the exception of a rooftop addition, are incorporated within the existing building. Therefore the proposed dwellings will not result in a significant departure from the existing conditions. The proposed development therefore has strategic support as it will result in minimal change to the character of the area.

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy recommends that buildings should be designed to respect the prevailing built form and scale of the surrounding context and provide a single storey form where opposite a rear yard setting.

This would generally mean that a three storey building should not be supported where there is a context of predominantly one and two storey buildings. In this circumstance the existing two storey warehouse is built to all boundaries, including where it abuts the rear yard at 30 Warburton Street. The proposed rooftop addition to the existing building is recessed from all boundaries which will ensure it will not have a significant impact on the existing streetscape or on the views from the neighbouring rear yards.

In this instance the proposal will not have a significant impact on the neighbourhood character. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable having regard to Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy.

Has adequate car parking been provided? The proposal provides one car parking spaces for each two bedroom dwelling, however does not provide a visitor car parking space which is required pursuant to Clause 52.06.

Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.03-3 states that it is policy to:

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

The site is located within 50 metres of Lygon Street which forms part of the Brunswick Major Activity Centre. Each dwelling is also provided with two bike racks where none are required by the Moreland Planning Scheme. In this context it is considered that a variation to the requirement of a visitor parking space can be supported.

Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch are also satisfied that the car parking requirement can be reduced for this application.

Will the proposal create an excessive traffic impact on the road network? Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and advised that the development will result in 24 additional vehicle movements per day on Cocoa Jackson Lane that will travel along and onto either Warburton Street or Lygon Street. This remains within the design capacity of these streets and will not exceed the permitted volumes under the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy and is not expected to cause traffic problems.


Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55? A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. Overall, the proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

Building Height Standard B7 recommends that the building height should not exceed 9 metres. The existing building has a height of 8.8 metres and the proposal seeks a maximum height of 9.9 metres. As discussed above, it is considered that the proposed additions to the existing building will not have an unreasonable impact on the neighbourhood character, including on the views from the street and adjoining properties. A variation of 0.9 metres can therefore be supported.

Side and rear setbacks The proposed rooftop terrace has a height of 9.9 metres and is setback 2.2 metres from the neighbouring rear yard of 30 Warburton Street to the north. Standard B17 recommends a wall of this height should be setback 4.99 metres from the boundary. There is an existing 7 metre high boundary wall which will be retained. Due to the location of the existing boundary wall there will be limited views of the proposed rooftop terrace from the neighbouring backyard and it is considered that a variation can therefore be supported in this context.

Overlooking The proposed rooftop terrace is provided with planter boxes which ensure future occupants cannot stand at the edge of the terrace and view downwards to neighbouring secluded private open spaces within an area of 9 metres.

The first floor south facing bedrooms have views outwards to the laneway. There are outbuildings along the laneway and tall fences which obscure views within 9 metres to the neighbouring secluded private open spaces to the south.

As a result of the consultation meeting the applicant has agreed to a condition to screen the first floor south facing bedroom windows of Dwellings 1 and 6 to a height of 1.7 metres. This forms part of the recommendation.

Is the site potentially contaminated? The site is not affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay however due the previous known uses of the site including metal pipe manufacturing and artist studio a preliminary environmental site assessment has been submitted. The assessment has found there is a moderate likelihood of soil contamination and it is recommended that the building footprint remain unchanged and that the existing concrete capping be maintained on the site.

The practice note on potentially contaminated land recommends that a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit be completed due to the high risk associated with the previous uses of the land, the requirement of the Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit forms part of the recommendation.


• Car parking • Overlooking • Height • Heritage impact • Visual bulk • Contamination



Noise associated with dwellings Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the dwellings after occupancy. The consideration of this planning application is confined only to the construction of the dwellings. The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in an urban setting.

Overdevelopment The proposal satisfies the requirements of relevant State and Local Planning Policies and provides increased housing without creating unreasonable amenity impacts or unreasonably impacting on the neighbourhood character or heritage significance of the precinct. The existing building footprint will remain unchanged and accordingly the proposal is not considered an overdevelopment of the site.

Impact on the laneway during the construction An objection has been received from the owners of 123 - 127 Lygon Street which is located east of the site and utilises the laneway for deliveries to their business. They have requested that a condition be imposed limiting the potential closure of the laneway to certain times so that it would not impact on their business.

Any potential road closure is assessed by Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch. However the applicant has agreed to a planning permit condition in relation to this matter. This is included within the recommendation.

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


8. Conclusion On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2014/577 should be issued for the partial demolition and extension to the existing building to allow for a three storey building plus roof terrace containing six dwellings and a reduction in a visitor car parking space subject to the indicated conditions.

Attachment/s 1 32 Warburton Street, Brunswick - Objector Map D15/162346 2 32 Warburton Street, Brunswick - Development Plans D15/162348

32 Warburton Street, Brunswick - Objector Map Attachment 1


32 Warburton Street, Brunswick - Development Plans Attachment 2















DED56/15 70 LYGON STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/1176 (D15/144979)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the use and development of the land to construct a three storey addition to the rear of the existing building, containing a shop and four dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiver of the loading and unloading of vehicles requirement. The application was advertised and one objection was received.

The concerns raised in the objection were discussed with the objector during the notification period. The applicant was informed of the objection and provided a response to the matters raised. The applicant has not sought to amend the proposal in light of the objection.

The main issues raised in the objection are that the proposal does not reflect existing conditions on surrounding properties, neighbourhood character, overdevelopment, high site coverage, car parking, lack of a loading bay, and the additional load placed on utilities.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The key areas of planning policy requiring consideration are:

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

The application is before the Urban Planning Committee at the request of Council because it falls within the Lygon Street Heritage Study precinct proposed by Planning Scheme Amendment C149.



That a Notice of Decision to grant a planning permit No. MPS/2014/1176 be issued for the use and development of the land to construct a three storey extension to the rear of the existing building, including a shop and four dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiver of the loading and unloading of vehicles requirement at 70 Lygon Street Brunswick East, subject to the following conditions:

Amended plans 1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans (advertised 27 February 2015) but modified to show:

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

b) A solid stall riser below the main ground floor window facing Lygon Street, no greater than 700mm in height above the footpath and a solid panelled or half glazed entrance door.


c) The positioning and proportions of the proposed ground floor window openings in the north elevation of the original building to reflect the positioning and proportions of the window openings immediately above.

d) The glazed screen to the balcony for Dwelling 1 removed and replaced with a glazed balustrade and the rumpus room setback 2 metres from the St. Phillip Street boundary.

e) The operable facade screening in front of the windows and balconies on the northern elevation deleted.

f) The stairwell of Dwelling 4 leading to the roof deck relocated to the southern elevation.

g) A minimum of 3 cubic metres of storage space for Dwelling 1 at ground floor level.

h) The proposed vehicle crossover with 1 metre straight splays on both sides commencing at the property boundary and finishing at the kerb in accordance with Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossing design.

i) The location of any substation required by the power company for this development. Any substation must be incorporated within the building (i.e. not free standing or pole mounted in the street) to ensure minimal impact on the visual amenity of the public realm.

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

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

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

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

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

Car parking and access 4. The car parking spaces provided on the land must be solely associated with the

development allowed by this permit and must not be subdivided or sold separate from the development for any reason without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.



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


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

9. Any ramp constructed to access the garage floor from the right-of-way must be contained entirely within the site to ensure that the level of the right-of-way remains as constructed by the relevant road authority.

General 10. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use,

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

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

12. Stormwater from the land must not be directed to the surface of the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. The surface of all balconies and terraces are to be sloped to collect the stormwater run-off into stormwater drainage pipes that connect into the underground drainage system of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

15. Prior to the occupation of the development air-conditioning and other plant and generator equipment must be screened from the view of adjoining properties and the street to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


17. Prior to the occupation of the development, a letterbox must be provided for each of the premises at the street frontage. The dimensions, placement and numbering must comply with the Australia Post – General Post Guide 2004 (Point G4.3) as published on its website to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the owner must provide an advanced replacement tree in an appropriate location in a nature strip nearby in accordance with the Moreland Street Landscape Strategy for the street tree in St. Phillip Street removed for the vehicle crossing, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All costs must be borne by the owner.

Permit expiry


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

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

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

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

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

development if the development has lawfully commenced.



who can be contacted on 9240 1143 for any works beyond the boundaries of the property.

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


Note 4: The City of Moreland is committed to creating an environmentally sustainable city. A critical component in achieving this commitment is to encourage new residential development to meet appropriate environmental standards.

Applicants are encouraged to use STEPS or SDS– Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance Strategy. Using STEPS/SDS involves entering data about the proposed design into the STEPS assessment tool found at www.sustainablesteps.com.au. A score for the environmental performance is calculated and summarised. This allows applicants to design more environmentally sustainable developments and use sustainable building materials.

The use of STEPS will aid in achieving a 6 star energy rating at the building permit stage. For more information or help on ESD or STEPS please contact Council’s Sustainable Development Department on 9240 1138.

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


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the south-east corner of Lygon Street and St. Phillip Street, in Brunswick East. The site has a frontage to Lygon Street of 6 metres, a frontage to St. Phillip Street of 38.1 metres and an overall area of 229 square metres. The site is also bordered by a laneway to the rear.

The site is currently developed with a double storey rendered commercial building of Victorian architectural style built to both street frontages. There is a single storey section at the rear of the main building and an outbuilding is located to the rear of the site. The building currently contains a shop at ground floor level facing Lygon Street and a dwelling containing four bedrooms over the ground and first floors. Vehicle access to the site is currently gained via a crossover to the east of the St. Phillip Street frontage, with a single car garage providing an off-street car parking space. There are no restrictive covenants indicated on the Certificate of Title.

Surrounds The surrounding area is characterised by commercial uses. The building to the rear of the subject site is a double storey warehouse building facing St. Phillip Street. To the immediate south at 68 Lygon Street is a double storey commercial building that originally matched the appearance of the subject building. From Brunswick Road to Weston Street, the eastern side of Lygon Street is characterised by predominantly double storey commercial buildings that are almost exclusively of Victorian architectural style.

The subject site is located within the Brunswick Major Activity Centre. The site is therefore well serviced by public transport, with both the number 1 and 8 trams travelling along Lygon Street in front of the site.


.

The proposal is summarised as follows:

• The retention of the existing double storey component and the facade of the single storey section of the existing Victorian building.

• The demolition includes part of the roof, external walls associated with the kitchen and bathroom, and the rear outbuilding.

• The construction of a triple storey addition to the rear of the existing double storey building, partially above the existing single storey section and extending to the rear boundary, consisting of 100 per cent site coverage and a maximum building height of 12.8 metres.

• The existing building and three storey addition will contain:

- A shop with a floor area of 75.1 square metres at ground floor level facing Lygon Street.

- Three garages for the four dwellings. - Four two-bedroom dwellings all accessed from St. Phillip Street.

• Vehicle access to the garages of Dwelling 2 and 3 via a proposed 6 metre wide crossover onto St. Phillip Street.

• Vehicle access to the garage of Dwelling 4 is via the rear laneway. • Colours and materials include rendered walls, perforated screening and cladding,

steel fins, powder coated metal garage doors and black tinted glass. • A waiver of the loading and unloading of vehicles requirement.

The development plans form Attachment 2.


Planning Permit and site history MPS/2012/405 This application sought approval for the extension to the existing building, including two storeys above the single storey section of the existing building facing St. Phillip Street (total of three storeys). The development contained a shop at ground floor level and a two bedroom dwelling over the first and second floors. This planning permit was approved under delegated authority of Council on 19 September 2012. An extension of time was granted and requires the development to commence by 19 September 2016.

MPS/2014/346 This application sought approval for buildings and works to construct a flue, a waiver of the loading bay requirement and a reduction in the car parking requirement associated with a restaurant. This planning permit was issued on 16 May 2014.


Control Permit Requirement Commercial 1 Zone Pursuant to the table at Clause 34.01-1, a dwelling is a

section 2 use because the frontage to St. Phillip Street at ground floor level exceeds 2 metres. A planning permit is therefore required to use the land for the purpose of a dwelling. A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Clause 52.06-3 requires a planning permit to reduce the car parking requirement from seven spaces to three spaces.

Clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of Vehicles

Pursuant to Clause 52.07, a planning permit is required to waive the loading and unloading of vehicles requirement.


• Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities


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

Council has received one objection to date. The key issues raised in the objection are:

• An earlier application for the site was refused by Council. • The proposal does not reflect existing conditions on surrounding properties. • Neighbourhood character. • Overdevelopment of the site. • High site coverage. • Lack of car parking. • Lack of a loading bay • The additional load placed on utilities.


The concerns raised in the objection were discussed with the objector during the notification period. The applicant was informed of the objection and provided a response to the matters raised. The applicant has not sought to amend the proposal in light of the objection.

Internal referrals

Internal Department Comments City Strategy and Design Branch

No objections were offered to the proposal.

Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are discussed further in the recommendation section of this report.

Heritage Advisor On heritage grounds this application may be supported subject to the following suggested conditions: • That the proposed new ground floor shopfront

facing Lygon Street must include a stall riser and an entrance door that is characteristic of the heritage building’s Victorian architectural style.

• That the proportions of the proposed new window openings to the northern elevation of the heritage building must match those of the window openings immediately above.

• That the development directly above the retained single storey facade facing St. Phillip Street must be setback 2 metres from the street frontage to create a sense of visual separation between the existing heritage building and the new development.

Supervising Arborist Council supports the removal of the street tree in St. Phillip Street with all costs related to the tree’s removal to be borne by the applicant.


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.01: Activity Centres • Clause 11.04: Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 15.03: Heritage • Clause 16.01: Residential development • Clause 16.02: Housing Form • Clause 17.01: Commercial • Clause 18.01: Integrated Transport • Clause 18.02: Movement Networks


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


• Clause 21.01: Municipal Profile • Clause 21.02: Vision • Clause 21.03: Strategic Framework


• Clause 22.01: Neighbourhood Character • Clause 22.03: Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access • Clause 22.06: Heritage

Planning Scheme Amendments Planning Scheme Amendment C71 – Environmentally Efficient Design Amendment C71 seeks to introduce a new local policy for environmentally efficient design. This amendment is pending Ministerial approval.

Planning Scheme Amendment C134 – Brunswick Activity Centre Amendment C134 seeks to implement the recommendations of the Brunswick Structure Plan (2010) and the Addendum to the Brunswick Structure Plan (2012) as permanent planning controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme. Under Amendment C134, the proposed Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 19) (DDO19) ‘Brunswick Major Activity Centre – Lygon Street Local Area’ will apply to the site. The proposal substantively addresses the objectives envisaged by the DDO19.

The panel hearing report considering the amendment was publicly released in May 2015 and is currently being reviewed by Council.

Planning Scheme Amendment C149 – Lygon Street Heritage Review Amendment C149 sought to introduce a Heritage Overlay on a number of properties along Lygon Street, including the subject site. A panel hearing was held in April 2014 and ultimately recommended that the amendment be adopted subject to changes outlined in the panel report. The site is proposed to be located within the Heritage Overlay (Schedule 439) which relates to the Lygon Street Precinct E area. This amendment is pending Ministerial approval.

This precinct is a principally commercial area comprising a portion of the earliest part of Lygon Street associated with shopping and retailing. The Lygon Street Precinct E area is historically significant for its longstanding role as an important commercial centre within the East Brunswick locality and for its capacity to illustrate two of the major phases of development in the municipality associated with the 1880s and early 1890s land boom and the period of economic recovery and prosperity following the First World War.



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

Does planning strategy support the use and development in this location? The subject land is located within the Brunswick Major Activity Centre with excellent access to a range of infrastructure and services. A mixed use development including commercial at ground level and residential above as proposed is consistent with the general strategies outlined in the SPPF that encourage urban consolidation and employment generating uses in such locations, where full advantage can be taken of existing settlement patterns and significant investment in transport, communication, water, sewerage and social facilities that already exist.

The proposal meets the objectives and strategies of the LPPF by incorporating a range of uses including increased housing and active spaces at ground level to create and reinforce an active and pedestrian friendly street environment. The proximity of the site to a variety of public transport options and the provision of bicycle facilities on the site encourages less reliance on cars as a means of travel.

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? The proposal is consistent with Clauses 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) of the Moreland Planning Scheme. Council’s neighbourhood character policy aims to support substantial change in the Brunswick Major Activity Centre, through the creation of a new character of increased density and scale of built form, as defined in the relevant structure plan.

The Brunswick Structure Plan (2010) and the Addendum to the Brunswick Structure Plan (2012) imposes a maximum overall building height of five storeys and a three storey street wall height with a 3-5 metre setback above the street wall. These built form guidelines are reflected in the Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 19) proposed to apply to the land.

The proposed development seeks to retain the double storey Victorian building, with the proposed triple storey component setback 12 metres from the Lygon Street facade. This will ensure that the street wall remains the visually dominant element of the development and that the height above the street wall is visually recessive, subservient and does not dominate the streetscape appearance. It is also recognised that a valid planning permit, MPS/2012/405 allows for an overall building height of three storeys facing St Phillip Street.

Additionally, the retention of the existing building will result in the valued streetscape characteristics being retained while creating a new character to the rear of the site accommodating a three storey built form. The proposed development reinforces the fine grain character of Lygon Street and as discussed in more detail below, complements the valued built form and heritage character of the precinct.

Does the proposal adequately address heritage issues? The site is not affected by a Heritage Overlay. It is however, identified to be covered by Heritage Overlay (Schedule 439) that forms part of Planning Scheme Amendment C149. Council’s Heritage Policy aims to ensure that new buildings and works respect the heritage significance of a heritage place by encouraging new buildings and alterations and additions that:


• Adopt innovative and contemporary design that make a positive contribution to the heritage place.

• Do not closely replicate historic styles and detailing. • Encouraging new buildings that adopt a facade height that is consistent with

adjoining or nearby contributory or significant buildings.

Under the current planning controls, the existing building could be removed without a planning permit. It is positive that the applicant has sought to recognise the proposed heritage controls that may apply to the land.

Demolition Council’s heritage advisor has reviewed the proposed demolition and advised that the extent of building to be retained in its original three-dimensional form is considered acceptable for maintaining the historic character of the Victorian commercial building and for maintaining the Lygon Street streetscape. Given that the single-storey wing attached to the front portion may be original, it is considered that the retention of the facade to St. Phillip Street is desirable.

Alterations Council’s heritage advisor has also reviewed the alterations proposed, including the removal of the non-original shop windows facing Lygon Street and the introduction of new openings in the northern side elevation of the retained heritage fabric.

The removal of the non-original shop windows facing Lygon Street is encouraged. However, to enhance the Victorian character of the building and make a positive contribution to the heritage character of the Lygon Street streetscape, certain characteristics should be adopted such as a solid stall riser below the main ground floor window facing Lygon Street, no greater than 700mm in height and a solid panelled or half glazed entrance door. A condition contained in the recommendation section of this report reflects this requirement.

The positioning of the proposed ground floor window openings in the north elevation of the original building appear to be consistent with the openings immediately above. However, the proportions of the original openings should also be reflected. A condition contained in the recommendation section of this report reflects this requirement.

The proposed alterations to the openings in the retained facade of the rear single storey wing are considered acceptable on the grounds that this part of the property is creating a visible transition between the old and new parts of the building.

Additions Council’s heritage advisor also considered the proposed triple storey addition to the rear of the heritage building. The proposed facade height for the new development will be 10.3 metres. This is higher than the existing heritage building which has a facade height of 8.5 metres. This increase in height is not considered a dramatic change of scale.

The proposed upper level setback of the triple storey addition will be behind the retained double storey portion of the existing building. The submitted sightline drawing shows that the proposed development will be concealed from immediately opposite the site in Lygon Street by the original building. It must be recognised however that the subject site is a corner allotment so oblique views of the proposed development will be available from the intersection of Lygon Street and St. Phillip Street.


To reinforce the scale of the retained single storey facade in St. Phillip Street, it is considered that the proposed development directly above the existing facade should be setback from the street frontage. Council’s heritage advisor has recommended removing the glazed screen to the balcony for Dwelling 1 and setting the rumpus room back, thereby creating a degree of visual separation between the original building and the proposed development at the rear.

Additionally, Council’s heritage advisor has noted that the extensive use of corten steel perforated screening for the facade treatment is not respectful of the character and appearance of the heritage building or the proposed heritage precinct. However, the proposed development mainly fronts St. Phillip Street and views of the proposed addition will not make a substantial impact on the Lygon Street streetscape. To reduce the visual impact of the corten steel, the operable bi-fold sections of corten steel in front of the windows on the northern elevation should be deleted.

Similarly, the stairwell in Dwelling 4 leading to the roof deck extends above the facade height. The stairwell should be relocated to the southern boundary to conceal it from view from the streetscape. Conditions in the recommendation reflect these two requirements.

Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55? A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. While the commercial zoning of the land does not require the proposal to comply with all the objectives of Clause 55, the decision guidelines of the zone require it to be considered against the standards and objectives of Clause 55. Overall, the proposed development complies with the standards and objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

Building Height Standard B7 aims to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. The proposal reaches a maximum height of 12.8 metres. The variation is acceptable as the Brunswick Structure Plan anticipates an increase in density and allows up to five storeys in this section of Lygon Street.

Site Coverage/Permeability/Landscaping Clause 55.03-3 aims to ensure that the site coverage respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. The proposed development exceeds the standard and proposes a site coverage of 100 per cent. This is considered acceptable as the site is located within the Brunswick Major Activity Centre where a change in character and built form is expected. Additionally, the surrounding properties have similar high site coverage, including other examples of 100 per cent site coverage.

Side and Rear Setbacks/Walls on Boundaries Clause 55.04-1 and Clause 55.04-2 aim to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary and the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.

The setbacks and walls on boundaries to both the south and east boundaries fail the standards. These variations are considered acceptable as they create new built form character that accommodates mid-rise buildings ranging from three to seven storeys while respecting valued streetscape characteristics through the retention of the existing heritage building, as outlined in the proposed DDO19.


Noise The subject site is located on Lygon Street and therefore certain measures are required to ensure the future occupants of the dwellings are protected from any excessive noise, especially from the tram line. As such, a condition of any planning permit that issues will require a report prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer to be submitted outlining specific noise attenuation measures required to ensure noise impacts are minimised from the adjacent railway line.

Storage The proposal incorporates overhead car storage with 3.2 cubic metres for Dwelling 4, and 4 cubic metres each for Dwellings 2 and 3, less than the required 6 cubic metres. This is considered acceptable given the amount of bedrooms in each. In addition, five bicycle racks have been proposed within the garages, further reducing the need for storage.

Dwelling 1 has not been provided with any storage. A condition in the recommendation requires a minimum of 3 cubic metres of storage space be provided for this dwelling at the ground floor level.

Has adequate car parking, bicycle parking and loading space been provided? Clause 52.06-3 requires a planning permit to reduce the car parking requirement. The proposed development has a statutory car parking requirement of seven spaces (one space for each two bedroom dwelling and three spaces for the shop). The proposal incorporates three car parking spaces.

Based on Council policy, it is considered reasonable to reduce the car parking requirement. Clause 22.03, relating to car and bike parking and vehicle access, aims to support reduced car parking rates in developments within and in close proximity to activity centres, with excellent access to a range of public transport options and with increased provision of bicycle parking above the rates specified in clause 52.34.

The site is located within the Brunswick Major Activity Centre with excellent access to the tram line on Lygon Street. Clause 52.34 does not require any bicycle facilities and the proposal incorporates five bicycle racks within the garages. Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch is satisfied that the car parking requirement can be reduced for this application and that the internal dimensions, which fall below those required by Clause 52.06-8 are acceptable.

However, Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch has also recommended that one of the car parking spaces currently allocated to the dwellings be allocated to the business owner so that the transfer of goods and cash can be undertaken in relative safety. In this instance, given the size of the shop and the late night activity that provides passive surveillance of the surrounding area, the car parking space for the shop can be waived, in favour of the provision of car parking for the dwellings which require car parking 24 hours.

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

Will the proposal create an excessive traffic impact on the road network? Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in twelve additional vehicle movements per day on St. Phillip Street. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems.



• The proposal does not reflect existing conditions on surrounding properties. • Neighbourhood character. • High site coverage. • Lack of car parking. • Lack of a loading bay


An earlier application for the site was refused by Council. As mentioned above, a previous application was approved under delegated authority of Council and allowed the extension to the existing building, including the creation of a third storey component within the existing building footprint. There is no evidence that a previous planning permit application was refused for this site.

Overdevelopment of the site. State Government Policy as well as Council Policy supports higher densities in areas that are within activity centres, or within areas with good access to public transport and other services. Given the size of the site, its location in an activity centre and its proximity to public transport, the level of development proposed is appropriate and consistent with State and Local planning policy frameworks.

The additional load placed on utilities. A concern raised was the impact of the dwellings on infrastructure, particularly electricity. The site owner will be required to address infrastructure servicing demands of the additional dwellings as required by the various service agencies at the time of subdivision or connection of the development, including any service authorities’ requirements to contribute to the cost of upgrading trunk infrastructure.



8. Conclusion The proposed development adequately responds to its site context and respects the valued streetscape characteristics. The site is well located in terms of proximity to public transport and other services and provides sufficient on-site car and bicycle parking to accommodate the future residents.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for MPS/2014/1176 should be issued for the use and development of the land to construct a three storey addition to the rear of the existing building, containing a shop and four dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement and a waiver of the loading and unloading of vehicles requirement at 70 Lygon Street, in Brunswick East subject to the indicated conditions.

Attachment/s 1 MPS/2014/1176, 70 Lygon Street, Brunswick East - Location of

Objectors Map D15/176460

2 MPS/2014/1176 - 70 Lygon Street, Brunswick East - Development Plans

D15/156784

MPS/2014/1176, 70 Lygon Street, Brunswick East - Location of Objectors Map

Attachment 1


MPS/2014/1176 - 70 Lygon Street, Brunswick East - Development Plans

Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



DED57/15 54 WINIFRED STREET, OAK PARK - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/839 (D15/147358)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the construction of three dwellings comprising two double storey and one single storey dwellings. The application was advertised and no objections were received. The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The key planning policy considerations relate to the front setback variation and the layout of the two crossovers. An assessment of the application has revealed that the front setback variation and two vehicle crossings will have an adverse impact on neighbourhood character.

To be able to be supported, the development would be required to have one crossover to Winifred Street with the front setback largely landscaped with canopy trees and an increase in the setback to the street. Car parking facilities and built form also should not dominate the facade and streetscape. The opportunity to redesign the proposal to present an alternative design was offered to the applicant, however this option has not be been pursued.

The application is being reported to the Urban Planning Committee at the request of Cr Ratnam.

The Group Manager City Development is recommending the issue of a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the proposal.


That a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2014/839 be issued for the development of three dwellings comprising two double storey and one single storey dwellings at 54 Winifred Street,Oak Park, on the following grounds of refusal:

1. The development proposes two crossovers and as a result:

a) The accessways dominate the street frontage and reduce landscaping opportunities within the front setback failing the following objectives of Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character):

i. Ensure car parking facilities (crossovers, accessways, garages and carports) do not dominate the streetscape.

ii. Ensure vehicle crossing provision limits the removal of on street public parking spaces, removal of street trees, and encroachment into landscaped front setbacks, and maximises pedestrian safety and sight lines.

b) The development fails to meet the policy direction of Clause 22.03-3 (Car and bike parking and vehicle access) as it does not:

i. Limit the number of vehicle crossings to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots.


2. The proposed front setback fails to satisfy Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.03-1 (Street Setback) of the Moreland Planning Scheme resulting in an unduly prominent development sited forward of the prevailing front setbacks.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the northern most side of Winifred Street, 87 metres west of John Street. The site has a frontage of 15.24 metres, a depth of 45.72 metres and an overall are of 696.77 square metres. The site is currently developed with a single storey weatherboard and tile roof dwelling. A single crossover and accessway is located on the eastern side of the site.

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

Surrounds The land surrounding the subject site is predominately residential and developed with a broad mix of dwellings that pertain to various architectural styles. The typical materials used are brick and weatherboard with minimal inclusion of render. There appears to be a recent emergence of infill multi-dwelling development that has occurred within the immediate area.

The development pattern of the area is generally single and double storey, detached dwellings with large rear yards and/or large outbuildings with some mature vegetation prevalent. There are however examples of multi-dwelling developments throughout the immediate area. Additionally, there are very few that have two or more vehicle crossovers to each site frontage.

A location plan forms

The proposal Attachment 1

The proposal to construct three dwellings is summarised as follows:

• Dwelling 1, a double storey dwelling presenting to Winifred Street, will comprise three bedrooms, living areas at ground floor, north facing secluded private open space, a single car garage and tandem car space accessed via an individual crossover and accessway at Winifred Street.

• Dwelling 2, a double storey dwelling located in tandem to Dwelling 1 presents the same living arrangements as Dwelling 1, however; a double car garage is located to the rear of the dwelling and accessed via the common accessway and crossover.

• Dwelling 3, a two bedroom, single storey dwelling located at the rear of the site will be accessed via the common accessway and crossover with a single car garage located to the side boundary of the dwelling.

Overall, the proposal provides 48.68 per cent site coverage and land covered by pervious surfaces equates to 26.86 per cent.

The development plans form

Statutory Controls – why is a planning permit required? Attachment 2


A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot pursuant to Clause 32.09-5 (NRZ).No permit is required to use land as a dwelling. Although it is noted that the application benefits from transitional provisions, the proposed number of dwellings on the lot complies with the requirements of Clause 32.09-3 (no more than 4 dwellings) and the maximum height of the development complies with the requirements of Clause 32.09-8 (8 metre maximum height).


Control Permit Requirement Overlays Clause 44-01-1 (Erosion Management Overlay) - A permit is

required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works.

Clause 55 (Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings) and Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) are relevant Particular Provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

Relevant Legislation The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 provide for the protection of Aboriginal places, objects and human remains in Victoria.

While the site is close to a waterway/defined heritage place, the permit applicant has supplied evidence that the land has been subject to significant ground disturbance and is therefore not an area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity. No cultural heritage management plan was therefore required.


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

Council has received no objections to date.

Internal/external referrals No statutory referrals to external agencies were required.


A recommendation was made to reduce the number of crossovers to one or allow 8 metre separation between the two accessways to allow the retention of an on-street car park. It is noted that this is not a matter which can be conditioned without substantial change to the proposal.

Open Space The proposal will require the removal of a tree within the street. This was referred to Council’s Arborist, who did not object to the removal. The developer would be required to pay the cost of the removal and replacement of vegetation.


• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11.02: Urban Growth • Clause 11.04: Metropolitan Melbourne • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 16.01: Residential Development • Clause 16.02: Housing Form







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



Does planning strategy support this development in this location? The MSS envisages minimal housing growth to ensure an ongoing supply of single dwellings and low density multi dwelling development that contributes to an enhanced green leafy landscape character. The development does this by proposing three dwellings on the lot with a provision of land at the rear of each dwelling that would allow for improved landscaping. Due to the proposed two crossovers and associated accessways, the ability to landscape the front setback is reduced. This creates an area where hard paving, crossovers and accessway are visually dominant. This is contrary to the Neighbourhood Character policy at (Clause 22.01).

It is policy at Clause 22.03 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) to:

• Limit the number of vehicle crossings to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots

• Ensure vehicle crossing provision limits the removal of on-street public parking spaces

• Minimise the removal of street trees and encroachment into landscaped front setbacks, and maximise pedestrian safety and sight lines.

The second vehicle crossover on the northern side of the site, in addition to the existing crossover, does not adequately reflect the existing neighbourhood character of single crossovers per site frontage. Winifred Street does not have an established character of two crossovers per lot. The retention of only one crossover would increase the opportunity to provide landscaping within the setback to the street. Safety to pedestrians would also be maintained if there was no proposed change to the existing number of crossovers within the street. The development therefore fails Clause 22.03.


Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? The proposal is inconsistent with Clauses 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) of the Moreland Planning Scheme and is identified as being within an area of minimal change (Neighbourhood Residential Zone).

It is considered that the development does not respond to the Neighbourhood Character policy for the following reasons:

• The proposal does not respect the prevailing built form scale, siting and appearance of the surrounding context, particularly with regard to the front setback.

• Car parking facilities (crossovers, accessways and garages) dominate the streetscape.

• The proposed second vehicle crossover and accessway seek the removal of a street tree, will remove an on-street car space, encroaches into the landscaped front setback and does not maximise pedestrian safety and sight lines.

Officers raised the proposal’s conflict with Clause 22.01 and Clause 22.03 with the permit applicant to explore potential changes capable of receiving officer support. The deletion of the second crossover would necessitate a complete redesign of the proposal which the applicant was not prepared to pursue.

Has adequate car parking been provided? Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme includes the following car parking provisions for residential development:

• 1 car space for every one or two bedroom dwelling • 2 car spaces for a three or more bedroom dwelling

The proposed development satisfies the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06.

Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55? A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

Clause 55.03-1 - Street Setback objective – Standard B6 The required setback for Dwelling 1 is 6.72 metres. The setback proposed is 6 metres. The neighbourhood and site description provided shows that the average street setbacks of dwellings surrounding the subject site range from 7 - 9 metres or greater. The majority of sites in the immediate context area, presenting to Winifred Street, have setbacks in excess of 7 metres. Whilst there are two sites in the context area with street setbacks less than 7 metres, this is not considered to be characteristic of the area and therefore, the proposed variation is considered excessive and does not warrant support. It is noted that the front setback could have been potentially resolved through a planning permit condition, however when combined with the two vehicle crossings adds to a poor design response.

Clause 55.03-8 - Landscaping objective – Standard B13 If the application was being supported, a landscape plan would be required to be provided to meet Standard B13. The layout plans indicate that there is sufficient room for the establishment of landscaping. Canopy trees would also be required within the front setback.

5. Response to Objector Concerns Nil.




8. Conclusion The application generally satisfies Council’s vision for modest change in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Clause 55 requirements. Additionally, no objections have been received.

The proposal with two vehicle crossovers fails to satisfy the policy direction and objectives of Clauses 22.01 and 22.03 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The applicant has been offered the opportunity to redesign the proposal with this option not taken. It is also not considered that the issue can be resolved through a permit condition.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme it is considered that the application for a planning permit for 54 Winifred Street Oak Park (MPS/2014/839) should be refused.

Attachment/s 1 Location plan - 54 Winifred Street, Oak Park D15/163897 2 Development plans - 54 Winifred Street Oak Park D15/151423

Location plan - 54 Winifred Street, Oak Park Attachment 1


Development plans - 54 Winifred Street Oak Park Attachment 2













DED58/15 86 TARANA AVENUE, GLENROY PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2014/519 (D15/151170)


Executive Summary The application seeks approval for the construction of two double storey semi-detached dwellings. The application was advertised and 3 objections were received. The main issue raised in objections was off-site amenity impacts of bulk, overshadowing, overlooking and daylight impacts to windows. The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The key issue with the proposal is the provision of two crossovers and associated driveways within the front setback of the building. It is considered that the provision of two crossovers and parking areas within the front setback is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character and negatively impacts on the pedestrian environment contrary to Council policy at Clause 22.03-3. The Group Manager City Development is recommending the issue of a Notice of Refusal for the proposal.


That a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2014/519 be issued for the construction of two double storey semi-detached dwellings at 86 Tarana Avenue Glenroy, on the following grounds:

1. The development proposes two crossovers and as a result:

a) The accessways dominate the street frontage and reduce landscaping opportunities within the front setback failing the following objectives of Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character):

i. Ensure car parking facilities (crossovers, accessways, garages and carports) do not dominate the streetscape.


b) The development fails to meet the policy direction of Clause 22.03-3 (car and bike parking and vehicle access) as it does not:

i. Limit the number of vehicle crossings to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots.


2. The proposed boundary to boundary design is not in keeping with the pattern of side setbacks and is contrary to Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 22.01.


REPORT

1. Background Subject site The subject site is located on the south side of Tarana Avenue. The site has a frontage of 15.26 metres, a depth of 36.69 metres and is 605 square metres in area. The site contains a single storey detached weatherboard dwelling with a driveway along the southern boundary. There are no restrictions registered on the Certificate of Title.

Surrounds Tarana Avenue is characterised by single storey brick and weatherboard detached dwellings. To the west of the site are two single storey town houses and to the south and east of the site are single storey dwellings. The area is characterised by garden frontages with only one crossover and driveway.


.

The application proposes construction of two double storey semi-detached dwellings, specific details include:

• Both dwellings are provided with 4 bedrooms and two car parking spaces. • Both dwellings are provided with garages which face the street. • A second crossover located towards the northern boundary is proposed. • Materials include brick and weatherboard walls and pitched tile roofs. • The proposal has a site coverage of 57% and a maximum height of 7.6 metres.


.


A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot pursuant to Clause 32.09-5 (NRZ). Pursuant to Clause 32.09-1 (NRZ) no permit is required to use land for dwellings. The proposal does not breach the maximum height of 8 metres or maximum number of 4 dwellings.


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

Council has received 3 objections to date. The key issues raised in objections are:

• Overlooking • Overshadowing • Daylight to windows • Visual bulk


The objections were discussed with the applicant who advised that should a permit be issued they would support a condition requiring screening to ensure any overlooking complied with Standard B22 of Clause 55. Objectors have been contacted and informed about measures to limit overlooking.

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




• Clause 9: Plan Melbourne • Clause 11: Settlement • Clause 15.01: Urban Environment • Clause 15.02: Sustainable Development • Clause 15.03: Heritage • Clause 16.01: Residential Development



• Clause 21.03-3: Housing • Clause 21.03-4: Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design


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

Planning Scheme Amendments Amendment C71 - Environmentally Efficient Design Policy Amendment C71 seeks to introduce a new local policy Clause 22.14 ‘Environmentally Efficient Design’. The Amendment is currently pending Ministerial approval.



Does planning strategy support this use/development in this location? The MSS envisages minimal change and minimal housing growth in areas outside Activity Centres within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), to ensure an ongoing supply of single dwellings and low density multi dwelling developments.


The Neighbourhood Residential Zone aims to limit opportunities for increased residential development.

The proposed development which provides two dwellings on a lot has strategic support as it will result in minimal change and minimal housing growth.

Does the proposal respond to Clause 22.03 (car and bike parking and vehicle access policy) The objectives of this policy are:

• To ensure provision of car, bike and vehicle access and parking: • Contributes to an improved built environment. • Is suitable to the likely demand and nature of the locality, and • Encourages people to walk, cycle and use public transport.

It includes a policy to limit the number of vehicle crossings to one per site frontage, other than on corner lots.

The proposal provides two crossovers. It is considered that the additional crossover will negatively impact on the pedestrian environment by including multiple pedestrian and vehicle conflict points. The proposal is therefore contrary to this policy.

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area? Council Neighbourhood Character Policy recommends that buildings should be designed to respect the prevailing built form and scale of the surrounding context and provide a single storey form where opposite a rear yard setting.

The proposed two storey dwellings are setback from the boundaries with the exception of the garages. The boundary to boundary design of the garages is not considered to be in keeping with the character of side setbacks.

Secluded private open spaces are provided to the rear of the lot which is responsive the neighbouring backyards.

The neighbourhood character policy also recommends that car parking facilities should not dominate the streetscape.

The provision of the two crossovers and driveways to the street creates additional hard surfaced areas in the front setbacks which cannot be landscaped. It is considered that this design response is contrary to the character of front gardens within the street. In addition the two crossovers, driveways and garages results in 39.3% of the frontage devoted to car parking facilities. This is not consistent with the character of the area where typically only one crossover and garage form less than 20% of the frontage.

Has adequate car parking been provided? The proposal provides two car parking spaces for each four bedroom dwelling, which meets the requirements of Clause 52.06 (car parking).

Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55? A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. Overall, the proposed development complies with the standards and objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.

Side and Rear Setbacks The first floor walls are 6.1 to 6.34 metres in height and are setback 1.99 metres from the boundary eastern and western boundaries. Standard B17 recommends a wall of this height should be setback 1.75 to 1.82 metres from the boundary. The proposed walls therefore comply with the standard.


Overshadowing The shadow diagrams were corrected and provided to an objector at 88 Tarana Avenue who raised issues with overshadowing. The shadow diagrams are included within Attachment 2

Daylight to windows

. The shadow diagrams show a minor increase in overshadowing along the fence line to the dwelling at 88 Tarana Avenue. More than 40 square metres of secluded private open space will not be affected by overshadowing between 9am and 3pm. The proposal complies with the standard.

The daylight to existing windows standard states that any existing habitable room window should be provided with a 3 square metres light court clear to the sky. The window of the neighbouring dwelling to north is setback 1.3 metres from the boundary however the eaves of the dwelling are located 800mm from the fence line. The proposed boundary wall would need to be offset 200mm from the boundary to ensure a 3 square metre light court to the existing window is provided. If the proposal were supported it would be recommended that the boundary wall be setback 200mm from the boundary in accordance with Standard B19 of Clause 55.

Landscaping There is considered to be insufficient landscaping in front setback area which forms an important part of the neighbourhood character of Tarana Avenue. A landscape plan has not been submitted with the proposal. Should the development be supported it would be recommended that one be submitted showing at least two canopy trees within the front setback and also within the rear private open space areas of each dwelling in accordance with the Neighbourhood Character Policy.

Overlooking The proposal provides first floor north facing windows and first floor east facing balconies which will have views to the neighbouring secluded private open spaces within 9 metres.

If the proposal were supported it would be recommended that these windows and balconies be screened in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.

5. Response to Objector Concerns The issues raised by objectors have been considered under Section 4.

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


8. Conclusion On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that application No MPS/2014/519 should be refused on the grounds contained in the recommendation.

Attachment/s 1 Objector map - 86 Tarana Avenue, Glenroy D15/162418 2 Development plans - 86 Tarana Avenue, Glenroy D15/162420

Objector map - 86 Tarana Avenue, Glenroy Attachment 1


Development plans - 86 Tarana Avenue, Glenroy Attachment 2














Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE 2015 - City of Moreland · 2015-06-18 · 72 dwellings, food and drink premises...

Documents