Agenda attachments 1-4

Transcription

ATTACHMENTS
Urban Planning Special Committee
Monday 21 May 2012
Following are the attachments to the reports listed for consideration at
the Urban Planning Special Committee meeting on Monday
21 May 2012
UPC1
Amendment C160 - Development Plan
Overlay Update
2
UPC2
Amendment C121 to the Boroondara
Planning Scheme - Decision to Adopt
the Amendment
20
UPC3
35 - 49 Earl Street, Kew East
64
UPC4
446 Burwood Road, Hawthorn
110
UPC5
729 - 731 Burwood Road, Hawthorn East
138
UPC6
194 Canterbury Road, Canterbury
192
UPC7
April 2012 - VCAT Decisions and
Decisions under Delegation
232
ATTACHMENTS
Monday 21 May 2012
Agenda attachments to the report:
UPC1
Amendment C160 - Development Plan
Overlay Update
Attachment 1
BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME
22.06
INSTITUTIONAL USES POLICY
19/01/2006
VC37
This policy applies to the following institutional uses:
 All Hallows Roman Catholic Primary School
 Bialik College
 Camberwell Anglican Girls Grammar School
 Camberwell Grammar School
Comment [nmb1]: Removed because
this is a state school located in the Public
Use Zone and not subject to the DPO
 Carey Baptist Grammar School
 Erasmus School
 Fintona Girls School
 Genazzano Girls School
Comment [nmb2]: Removed because
this school does not exist
 Methodist Ladies College
 Our Holy Redeemer Catholic Primary School
 Our Lady Of Good Counsel School
 Preshil Middle School
 Preshil Senior School
 Ruyton Girls Grammar School
 Sacred Heart School
 Scotch College
 Siena College
 St Anne's School
 St Bede's School
 St Bridget's Catholic Primary School
 St Cecilia's School
 St Dominic's School
 St Joseph's School
 St Michael's Primary School
 Strathcona Baptist Girls Grammar School
 Trinity Grammar
 Xavier College
22.06-1
Policy basis
19/01/2006
VC37
The City of Boroondara is host to many major institutional uses including educational
establishments such as Scotch College, Swinburne, Xavier, Methodist Ladies College and
Bialik College; hospitals such as St Georges Hospital and Hartwell Private Hospital and;
LOCAL P LANNING POLICIES - CLAUSE 22.06
Attachments to UPC agenda for 21 May 2012
PAGE 1 OF 3
Item 1, Page 1 of 17
religious uses including Nazareth House in Camberwell. The Municipal Strategic
Statement recognises that such institutions play a vital role in the economy and desirability
of the City as a place to live. The MSS also recognises that while living close to these types
of institutions can offer benefits, because many are located within or closely abutting
residential areas, problems may also exist. Such typical problems relate to issues such as
parking, access and circulation, noise, difficulty in accommodating expansion proposals
and loss of residential dwellings and land use with properties being purchased for future
expansion proposals.
Such masterplans will allow Council, the community and the institution to plan for the
future physical development of the institution with certainty, commitment and confidence
and; to anticipate how the site will develop and how new buildings and works will impact
on the area. The masterplans can also attempt to proactively plan for and deal with issues
such as parking and traffic problems surrounding institutional uses.
22.06-2
Objectives
19/01/2006
VC37
 To recognise the positive and significant contribution made by the institutional uses
located within Boroondara.
 To accommodate, wherever possible, the future development needs of Boroondara’s
institutions while limiting the impact that such uses may have on surrounding
residential areas.
 To limit the demolition of dwellings for institutional uses and the loss of residential land
use.
 To develop and maintain a relationship between Council, the community and the
institution, which is wholly co-operative on those matters which have an effect on the
interface between the institutional use and the surrounding residential area.
 To actively encourage the development of Institutional Masterplans for all institutions
within Boroondara.
22.06-3
Policy
19/01/2006
VC37
It is policy that:
 A masterplan be prepared before further development of an institutional use can occur.
 All masterplans be developed in full consultation with Council and the community in
accordance with the attached consultation process:

An initial “pre-plan” and issues development meeting with surrounding residents
and Council.

A consultation meeting to consider a draft masterplan with residents and Council.

Once lodged with Council, the exhibition of the masterplan for a period of two
weeks. This will involve notifying all affected neighbours by mail, as well as
placing a sign or signs, on the site.
 The masterplan show the following matters:

Existing conditions.

The size and dimensions of the land.

Contours and levels, including levels of adjoining sites.

Existing buildings on the land.

Setbacks from all boundaries and buildings to be removed or retained.
PAGE 2 OF 3

Existing mature trees.

Number of years intended to be covered by the masterplan.

Future building envelopes and three dimensional massing, including the scale of the
development, design elements and treatment of the residential interface.

Projection of floor area needs, specialist building needs and student numbers if
applicable.

Any proposed use and development outside the existing Development Plan Overlay
area.

Proposed circulation and access systems for both vehicles and pedestrians.

Parking provision and areas.

Staging.

Landscape buffers.
PAGE 3 OF 3
Attachment 2
New Development Plan Overlay
St Anne's Catholic Primary School, Kew East
Legend:
- Existing DPO coverage
- Proposed new DPO boundary
Sheet 1
Xavier College, Kew
Legend:
Sheet 2
Camberwell Grammar, Canterbury
Legend:
Sheet 3
Fintona Girls School, Balwyn
Legend:
Sheet 4
Scotch College, Hawthorn
Legend:
Sheet 5
Erasmus School, Hawthorn
Legend:
Sheet 6
St Joseph's School, Hawthorn
Legend:
Sheet 7
St Cecilia's Primary, Glen Iris
Legend:
Sheet 8
Our Holy Redeemer Primary School, Surrey Hills
Legend:
Sheet 9
Camberwell, Girls Grammar, Canterbury
Legend:
Sheet 10
Carey Baptist Grammar School, Kew
Legend:
Sheet 11
Trinity Grammar School, Kew (1)
Legend:
Sheet 12
Trinity Grammar School, Kew (2)
Legend:
Sheet 13
Sacred Heart Primary School, Kew
Legend:
Sheet
14DPO boundary
- Proposed
new
ATTACHMENTS
Monday 21 May 2012
UPC2
Amendment C121 to the Boroondara Planning
Scheme - Decision to Adopt the Amendment
--/--/20-C-
Attachment 1
SCHEDULE 19 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO19
32-36 PRINCESS STREET, 11-15 BROUGHAM STREET, KEW
1.0
--/--/20-C-
2.0
--/--/20-C-
Design objectives

To facilitate high quality development and/or expansion of a supermarket and specialty
retail to strengthen the role of the wider area (defined as Precinct 2 in the Kew Junction
Structure Plan) as the core retail focus of the Kew Junction Activity Centre.

To contribute to the enhancement of Precinct 2 as an attractive, safe and pedestrian
focussed retail hub.

To encourage high quality new development that respects the amenity of adjoining
residentially zoned land, whilst retaining the built form character of Precinct 2.

To improve pedestrian access to supermarket entrances and minimise pedestrianvehicular conflict while improving loading arrangements.

To ensure adequate vehicle and loading access to and from Princess Street is provided.
Buildings and works
An application to develop land must be accompanied by an urban context report and design
response. The urban context report and design response must show how the development
addresses and achieves:

The Design Objectives of this Schedule and for Precinct 2 of the Kew Junction
Activity Centre;

The Requirements of the Precinct 2.

The compliance with the State Environment Protection Policy - N1 - Control of
Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade.
The responsible authority may waive or reduce a requirement for information if it considers
it to be not relevant to an application.
Requirements
New development should address the design objectives and requirements as set out below:
2.0.1
Building Design

Buildings should be designed to minimise their impact on the amenity of adjoining
residentially zoned land having regard to matters such as overlooking, overshadowing
noise and or visual bulk, guided by the objectives and standards of ResCode (Clauses
54 and 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme).

Commercial and residential development should implement acoustic treatments that
will protect residents from unreasonable noise impacts.

Building facades should be articulated through considered composition of their various
design elements. This includes the size and placement of door and window openings,
balconies or awnings and the colour and texture of different materials.
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 19
PAGE 1 OF 4

Encourage the use of high quality building materials and design innovation in the use
of elements - openings, colours, materials, textures, etc. to encourage attractive and
interesting streetscapes and reduce the apparent bulk of buildings.

The roof form and building profile should be carefully considered in terms of its
appearance within the streetscape; and from distant viewpoints to ensure that views to
the Holy Trinity Church, the War Memorial and the former Kew Post Office (along
High Street) and the Melbourne Chinese Baptist Church (along Cotham Road) are
retained.

The existing horizontal or vertical design rhythms of the streetscape should be
maintained, where these are dominant features, by
- Referencing the established roof or parapet heights of adjoining buildings, where
this is a consistent feature in the streetscape, in the design of a new facade.
- Maintaining the existing 'fine grain' appearance of buildings through vertical
articulation of wide building frontages.
2.0.2

Buildings should provide active frontages (except where landscape setbacks are
required) to streets and pedestrian spaces to increase interaction and passive
surveillance of pedestrian areas and integration with the adjoining Business 1 zoned
land. This can be achieved through design measures such as incorporation of clear
glazing at the ground level and windows or balconies at the upper levels.

Footpaths in front of redevelopment sites should be reconstructed to Council’s
streetscape standard, where applicable.

Development should demonstrate the incorporation of Environmentally Sustainable
Design techniques to improve the thermal efficiency of the building and reduce energy
and water consumption.

New development should avoid overshadowing of public spaces and private open
spaces from 11am to 3pm on 21 March and 22 September.
Heights and Setback

Building heights should not exceed an overall height of 14.5 metres (or 4 storeys).

At the building frontages, building height should not exceed 11 metres (or 3 storeys).

Levels above 11 metres should be set back 5 metres from the front ground level
facades.

Building setbacks at residential interfaces should be guided by Diagram A1 (Side and
Rear Setbacks) of Clause 54.04-1, as shown below:
PAGE 2 OF 4

Overall building heights referred to are based on a floor to ceiling height of 4 metres
for the ground level, with 3.5 metres for subsequent level. These heights include the
space required to accommodate services in between the level. The overall height is
measured to the building parapet.

Landscaped setbacks of a minimum of 2 metres should be provided along Princess
Street and the northern boundary of 36 Princess Street and 15 Brougham Street, Kew.

An application which does not meet the building height or setbacks specified must
demonstrate that the proposed development will continue to meet the design objectives
specified in the Schedule.

Minor buildings and works such as verandas, architectural features, balconies,
sunshades, screens, artworks and street furniture may be constructed within the setback
areas specified under the 'Heights and Setback' in the building requirements of the
Schedule provided:
- The facade built to the nominated setback remains visually dominant;
- All screening and balustrading to upper level balconies is glazed or of similar
lightweight materials.
2.0.3
Spaces and Access

Ensure that new or improved pedestrian links are attractive, accessible, identifiable,
well-connected and safe for users of all abilities.

Ensure development incorporates and encourages sustainable transport options,
including walking, cycling and public transport.

Ensure that supermarket loading arrangements be provided via Princess Street with
appropriate layout to minimise conflict with pedestrian and traffic movement.
Discourage loading arrangements via Brougham Street.

Ensure that supermarket loading arrangements provided via Princess Street provide for
safe and efficient movement of delivery vehicles, including provision for forward
movement in and out of the site.

The number of crossovers, garages and car park entrances should be minimised. Where
possible, car parking should be located underground.

Ensure that car-parking design and access retains or improves linkages between
Princess Street and Brougham Street, Kew.
PAGE 3 OF 4
3.0
Decision guidelines
--/--/20-C-
Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider:
 The design objectives and the requirements of this schedule.
 The urban context and design response, where required.
 The Kew Junction Structure Plan for the precinct.
 Potential amenity impacts (including impacts associated with extended trading hours if
applicable) upon adjoining residential properties.
 Whether the proposal achieves an environmentally sustainable design outcome.
 Whether the proposal makes a positive contribution to the image and character of the
centre and its pedestrian environment.
 The impact of the proposal upon the existing built form character of Precinct 2,
including as derived from the Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar era commercial
buildings in Precinct 2.
 The impact of the proposal upon local traffic management and car parking.
4.0
--/--/20-C-
Reference Document
 Kew Junction Structure Plan (adopted by Council 23 November 2009)
PAGE 4 OF 4
Attachment 2
Planning and Environment Act 1987
BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C121 Report of the Panel Pursuant to Section 153 of the Act Panel: William O’Neil, Chair 30 March 2012 Attachments to UPC agenda for 21 May 2012
Planning and Environment Act 1987
BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C121 Report of the Panel Pursuant to Section 153 of the Act William O’Neil, Chair 30 March 2012 Attachments to UPC agenda for 21 May 2012
Boroondara Planning Scheme: Amendment C121
Report of the Panel: 30 March 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 3 2.1 SUBJECT SITES AND SURROUNDS .......................................................................................... 3 2.2 WHAT IS PROPOSED? ............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 PLANNING CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 6 3. IS AMENDMENT C121 PREMATURE? ................................................................ 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4. CONSISTENCY WITH THE KEW JUNCTION STRUCTURE PLAN –
HEIGHT CONTROLS ............................................................................................... 14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5. WHAT IS THE ISSUE ............................................................................................................. 24 SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 24 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 26 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 28 TIMING OF FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK...................................................... 29 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8. WHAT IS THE ISSUE ............................................................................................................. 21 SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 21 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 22 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 23 AMENITY IMPACTS................................................................................................. 24 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7. WHAT IS THE ISSUE ............................................................................................................. 14 SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 14 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 17 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 20 APPROPRIATENESS OF THE BUSINESS 1 ZONE ........................................... 21 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6. WHAT IS THE ISSUE ............................................................................................................. 10 SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 12 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 13 WHAT IS THE ISSUE ............................................................................................................. 29 SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 29 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 29 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 30 PANEL RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................... 31
Appendices APPENDIX 1:
REVISED SCHEDULE 19 TO THE DDO, ADOPTED BY
COUNCIL ON 21 NOVEMBER 2011 ................................................. 32 Page i
1.
INTRODUCTION Amendment C121 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme was prepared by the Boroondara City Council as Planning Authority. The amendment applies to Nos 32, 34 & 36 Princess Street 11, 13, and 15 Brougham Street, Kew. The Amendment proposes to: 
rezone the subject sites from the Residential 1 zone to the Business 1 zone; and 
apply Schedule 19 of the DDO to the subject sites. The amendment was prepared at the request of Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd on behalf of LeMax Group Pty Ltd, owners of Leo’s Supermarket (the proponent). The Minister for Planning authorised Council to prepare and exhibit Amendment C121 on 27 May 2011 (Authorisation No A01975). The amendment was placed on public exhibition between 28 June 2011 and 5 August 2011. A total of 6 submissions were received, 3 of which opposed the amendment. The opposing submissions were received from: 
A& E Cipriano (23 Brougham Street); 
Nicholas Tsirogiannis (40 Princess Street); and 
Mr & Mrs Aslanidis (17 Brougham Street). At its meeting of 21 November 2012, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider Amendment C121 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 14 December 2011 and comprised William O’Neil (Chair). A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 30 January 2012. On the day of the Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook an inspection of the subject site and its surrounds. The Panel then met in the offices of Planning Panels Victoria on 1 March 2012 to hear submissions in respect of Amendment C121 (the amendment). Those in attendance at the Panel hearing included: Submittor Represented By City of Boroondara John Rantino (Maddocks Lawyers) with Ms Madeline Chi, Coordinator Strategic Planning and Ms Jo Liu, Senior Strategic Planner LeMax Group Mr Damian Iles (Hansen Partnership) with Pino Paolucci, General Manager of LeMax Group Pty Ltd Page 1
Submittor Represented By Mr Nick Tsirogiannis Mr Damien Gardiner (Clayton Utz Lawyers) with Mr Peter Delaney, Lawyer Clayton Utz and Mr Tsirogiannis At the hearing, Council’s submission addressed the following issues: 
Description of the Amendment and its background; 
The policy context; 
Compliance with ministerial directions; 
Responding to matters raised in submissions as summarised by the Panel at the Directions Hearing including: o Strategic rationale and justification for the Amendment; o Is Amendment C121 premature as the Kew Junction Structure Plan has not been tested by Panel; o Rationale for advancing Amendment C121 separate from C138; o Potential inconsistencies between C121 and C138; o Compliance with letter of authorisation; o Is the MUZ a more appropriate zone?; o Rationale for the DDO19 heights and setbacks; o Rationale for the northern extent of the proposed Business 1 zone; and o Response to other issues raised in submissions. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered the submissions and a range of other material referred to it. This includes written submissions and verbal presentations. The following chapters of this report discuss the issues raised in submissions relating to the amendment in further detail. The Panel’s recommendation is provided in Chapter 8. Page 2
2.
2.1
BACKGROUND Subject sites and surrounds The subject sites include Nos 32, 34 & 36 Princess Street and 11, 13, and 15 Brougham Street, Kew. The land (highlighted below) is located to the north of the existing Leo Supermarket, with 32 Princess Street, Kew and 11 Brougham Street, Kew adjoining the existing supermarket site. Woolworths
Subject Land
Leo’s Supermarket
Subject Land
Page 3
The LeMax Group Pty Ltd own five of the six sites. No 11 Brougham Street is not owned by the group. No objection to the Amendment has been lodged by the owner of that property. All six properties are currently zoned Residential 1. Land at 13 and 15 Brougham Street is currently vacant with the houses demolished in early 2010. These two properties are currently used as informal car parking for staff employed by the supermarket and others as available. The remaining lots are occupied by single storey dwellings. The surrounding land is commercial to the south and east (within a Business 1 zone) and residential to the north and west (within a Residential 1 zone). The Leo’s Supermarket is located on land immediately south of the subject site. The proponent advised that the supermarket is approximately 1,600m2 in area and sells a range of goods, including specialty food and wine produce. A row of speciality commercial premises (420m2 in area) extends towards Brougham Street, from the supermarket. A Woolworths supermarket is located east of Leo’s, between Walpole Street and Brougham Street. 2.2
What is proposed? (i)
The Amendment The Amendment seeks to rezone the subject land (refer Section 2.1) from Residential 1 to Business 1 and apply a Design and Development Overlay (via a new Schedule 19 and planning scheme maps) to the land (Refer Proposed Planning Scheme Extract ‐ Map 7 overleaf). The proposed Schedule to the DDO specifies a number of design objectives and requirements which respond to outcomes sought by the Kew Junction Structure Plan. The first objective is: To facilitate high quality development and / or expansion of a supermarket and speciality retail to strengthen the role of the wider area (defined as Precinct 2 in the Kew Junction Structure Plan) as the core retail focus of the Kew Junction Activity Centre. The DDO requires an urban context report and design response to be prepared and submitted with an application to develop the land. Heights and setback provisions are discretionary (should) provisions. In response to its consideration of submissions to the Amendment, Council proposes a number of modifications to the exhibited Schedule 19 to the DDO. These changes are reflected in Attachment 3 to Council’s Urban Planning Special Committee Agenda report dated 21 November 2011. At the directions hearing Council Page 4
confirmed that it seeks approval of the revised version via adoption of Amendment C121. At the Directions Hearing submittors were directed to have regard and respond to the updated version of the DDO. A copy of the 21 November version of the schedule is included at Appendix 1 of this report. Page 5
2.3
Planning context (i)
State Policy The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is generally consistent with the following policies under the State Planning Policy Framework as was described in the explanatory report accompanying the exhibition of the Amendment: 
Clause 17 ‐ Economic Development Clause 17.01 encourages developments which meet community’s needs for, amongst other things, retail services. The Amendment is consistent with this Clause as it facilitates the transition of the subject sites from residential to retail and or mixed uses to strengthen the retail core of the Kew Junction Activity Centre, as envisaged under the Kew Junction Structure Plan. 
Clause 19 – Infrastructure The Amendment will facilitate the use of existing infrastructure within proximity to the subject sites including the public transport network, road and bicycle network, public open spaces, schools and other community facilities. It is not expected that the use of water, sewerage, drainage, waste or telecommunications infrastructure will be compromised from the proposed rezoning of the subject sites. (ii)
Local Policy The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is generally consistent with the following policies of the Boroondara Local Planning Policy Framework as was described in the explanatory report accompanying the exhibition of the amendment: 
Clause 21.02 – A Snapshot of the City of Boroondara The proposed rezoning will contribute to the City’s range of vibrant large and local strip shopping centres which perform a vital role in the City’s economy and provide an important service to residents and visitors to the area. 
Clause 21.03 – Key Influence Areas for Boroondara This sets out Council’s commitment to strategies which facilitate different land uses in appropriate locations within the city. The proposed rezoning will result in an expansion of the Business 1 Zone to facilitate the redevelopment and expansion of a supermarket in an area identified by the Kew Junction Structure Plan as a Retail Core. The appropriateness of rezoning to the Business 1 Zone is discussed in Chapter 5 of this report. Page 6

Clause 21.04 – The Vision for Boroondara This sets out Boroondara’s mission to contribute to the social, physical and economic well being of the City by facilitating appropriate development and facilitating the provision of services in response to the community’s needs. The Amendment will contribute to the fulfilment of Council’s mission in that the proposed rezoning will provide opportunities for the appropriate redevelopment of the subject sites. 
Clause 21.07 Residential Land Use The Amendment seeks to rezone an area of Residential 1 Zone land to Business 1 Zone. The subject sites have been identified under the Kew Junction Structure Plan as being located within the retail core of the area. Submissions regarding potential amenity impact are discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. 
Clause 21.08 Commercial Sector Clause 21.08 seeks to ensure that vibrant strip shopping centres remain the dominant form of retailing in the municipality and to ensure that commercial development is compatible with the commercial precinct within which it is located. Further, Clause 21.08 seeks to apply the Business 1 Zone to all centres having a core retail function. The Kew Junction Structure Plan identifies the subject area as the Retail Core of Kew Junction Activity Centre. The proposed rezoning is consistent with Clause 21.08. 
Clause 22.10 Retail Centre Policy Clause 22.10 implements Council’s vision that core retail activities be located within the Business 1 Zone. Kew Junction is a Major Activity Centre as defined in Melbourne 2030. The proposed rezoning contributes to Kew Junction’s role as being a strong retail centre. (iii)
Proper Use of the Victoria Planning Provisions The Amendment seeks to apply the Business 1 Zone to the subject sites. Council submits that this is the appropriate zone to be applied within the Retail Core of Kew Junction and is consistent with the Kew Junction Structure Plan and Melbourne 2030. Council also submits that the application of the Business 1 Zone will appropriately provide for expansion of retail floor space, will provide an increase in employment opportunities which in turn, will strengthen Kew Junction’s role as a Major Activity Centre. The appropriateness of the Business 1 zone was subject of submission and is further discussed in Chapter 5 of this report. The Amendment seeks to apply the Design and Development Overlay to the subject sites. Council submits and the Panel is satisfied that the proposed Design and Development Overlay is an appropriate tool to ensure future development of the Page 7
sites comply with the height and setback objectives, as well as other development guidelines for the area set out in the Kew Junction Structure Plan. The provisions of DDO19 are discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. (iv)

Other Strategic Issues Requirements of any relevant Minister’s Directions The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is consistent with the following directions from Ministerial Direction 9, which requires Melbourne 2030 – Planning for Sustainable Growth to be considered in the assessment of all amendments: Direction 1 – A more compact city o Encourage the consolidation of new development to be located in areas that are well serviced by existing infrastructure. Direction 5 – A great place to be o Promote excellence in urban design that positively contributes to existing and future urban environments, in terms of quality, functionality and safety. The Panel also accepts Council’s submission that the Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 
Views of Agencies Submissions from Melbourne Water, Department of Sustainability and Environment and VicRoads were received in response to the exhibition of the Amendment. None of the submissions opposed the Amendment. The VicRoads submission sought an addition to the proposed DDO which was supported by Council and has been incorporated in the amended version provided in Appendix 1 to this Panel report. 
Requirements of the Transport Integration Act 2010 The Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is not likely to have a significant impact on the transport system as defined by section 3 of the Transport Integration Act 2010. Further, it is satisfied there are no applicable statements of policy principles prepared under section 22 of the Transport Integration Act 2010. (v)
Key Issues The submissions to the Amendment raised a number of issues for resolution. The Panel has summarised these as follows: (i)
Is Amendment C121 Premature? (ii)
Consistency with the Kew Junction Structure Plan – Height Controls. Page 8
(iii)
Appropriateness of the Business 1 Zone. (iv)
Amenity Impacts. (v)
Timing of Further Strategic Work? The following sections of this report address each of the above matters in turn. The Panel was assisted in its consideration of these issues by the submissions of the various parties and its inspection of the site and surrounds. Page 9
3.
3.1
IS AMENDMENT C121 PREMATURE? What is the Issue The issue is whether Amendment C121 is premature and should wait until Amendment C138 is finalised and then formally considered. 3.2
Submissions Mr Gardiner on behalf of Mr Tsirogiannis submitted that Amendment C121 was premature and should not proceed prior to the finalisation of the more holistic Amendment C138. Amendment C138 has been prepared by Council to implement the Kew Structure Plan through the insertion of a new Clause 22.15 (Kew Junction Local Policy) into the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) and the inclusion of a new Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO 20). Council resolved on the 4th July 2011 to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment. Authorisation has not yet been received. Mr Gardiner submitted that Amendment C138 responds directly to the Implementation Plan which has been prepared in relation to the Structure Plan. The Implementation Plan expressly outlines the need for a planning scheme amendment to incorporate the objectives, strategies and controls of the Structure Plan. Mr Gardiner noted that as Amendment C138 has not yet been through a planning scheme amendment process, key elements of the Kew Junction Structure Plan are yet to be incorporated into the Boroondara Planning Scheme. Mr Gardiner concluded that consideration that Amendment C121 was therefore premature. Mr Gardiner submitted that Amendment C121 should not be considered on a stand‐alone basis, and without the benefit of a proper consideration of the Structure Plan and the strategic planning imperatives sitting behind that. He also concerned that it appears that Amendment C121 is seeking de facto incorporation and implementation of the Structure Plan as it will become a reference document and a decision guideline under Design and Development Overlay ‐ Schedule 19 (DDO19). It was also submitted that the introduction of two Amendments to implement the Structure Plan increases the risk of conflicting planning policy outcomes for the Kew Junction precinct being reflected in the planning control framework. The submission also states: To seek to make the Structure Plan a reference document in the context of Amendment C121 is to delegate to Amendment C121 a task that it is not qualified to perform. The Page 10
Structure Plan has not been properly exhibited as part of this amendment process. It should only be formally incorporated into the Scheme following careful consideration by a Panel that has been appointed for that purpose. Such a Panel should be charged with the specific responsibility of carefully considering the strategic planning merits of the Structure Plan itself. This Panel has not been so appointed, and has not heard evidence dealing with this issue. Therefore, we respectfully submit that the current Panel is not in a suitable position to adequately consider the merit of the Structure Plan, particularly having regard to the paucity of information before it. The 21 November 2011 officer report which considered submissions and recommended the appointment of this Panel, noted that Amendment C121 was being progressed in advance of Amendment C138 in response to an application made to Council to rezone the subject sites. The report highlighted the application was received prior to Council’s resolution to prepare Amendment C138. It said Amendment C121 is informed by the strategic directions of the adopted Kew Junction Structure Plan and is also consistent with the provisions proposed in the Design and Development Overlays prepared as part of Amendment C138. Mr Rantino’s submission to the Panel on behalf of the Council acknowledged that the Kew Junction Structure Plan is being advanced as part of the strategic rationale for this Amendment (C121) and if approved it will be a reference document and one of the decision guidelines for the subject land (Council emphasis). Accordingly: The Kew Junction Structure Plan is therefore open to be tested as part of Amendment C121, just as it will be open to be tested as part of Amendment C138. It cannot be truly said that this amendment is ʺprematureʺ. Virtually no planning scheme amendment can be given that label. The submissions in opposition to the Amendment raise the prematurity point but do not in any considered way, outline any strategic inadequacies of the KJSP as it applies to this Amendment. That is perhaps not surprising because the KJSP is a thoroughly informed and consulted plan for the overall planning of the activity centre. On this issue Mr Rantino concluded that the proponent has been waiting for its request to be considered for a considerable period of time (since October 2010) and that it is entitled to have it considered. It presents as a separate scheme amendment capable of standing or falling (and being considered) on its ʹown two feetʹ. The submission by Mr Iles for the proponent supported Council’s position that Amendment C121 is not premature. Mr Iles noted that the Kew Junction Structure Plan was adopted by Council in November 2009 and updated in December 2011. Page 11
The plan directly supports the expansion of the Leo’s supermarket on the land subject of Amendment C121. Mr Iles said: In the absence of any development proposal associated with Amendment C121, it is logical that the strategic significance of the parcels of land sought to be zoned is realised. Accordingly, it is an appropriate approach to extricate the Leo’s proposal from what is expected to be a more complex assessment that will require the review of numerous land use and development issues likely to come from public exhibition of Amendment C138. The submission of Mr Iles also noted that the land that is the subject of Amendment C121 is the only recommended retail expansion area included within the Kew Junction Structure Plan. Given this recommendation, we believe there is priority to be applied. This position has been agreed by Boroondara Council, and given the minimal level of objection and public submission, we believe it is timely to progress Amendment C121 ahead of C138. Mr Iles concluded that that the outcome sought by LeMax Group Pty Ltd for its Princess Street and Brougham Street properties, is directly in line with Council’s adopted Structure Plan for the Kew Junction. 3.3
Discussion The relative merits of Amendment C121 in the context of submissions received in response to its exhibition are the matters which this Panel has been appointed to consider. Amendment C138 is not before the Panel. Further, Council has not yet received authorisation from the Minister to prepare or exhibit Amendment C138. Council received Ministerial Authorisation to prepare and exhibit Amendment C121 in May 2011. The explanatory report that accompanied the exhibition of the Amendment clearly states that the subject land is currently used for residential purposes and has been identified in the Kew Junction Structure Plan, which has been adopted by Council, as being located with the retail core of area. It then explains that rezoning of the sites to the Business 1 zone is required to strengthen the role of the area as a retail core and in particular to support the expansion of Leo’s supermarket to a full line facility consistent with the recommendations of the Kew Junction Structure Plan. The explanatory report also states that the purpose of DDO19 is to ensure future development on the subject sites comply with the height and setback limits, as well as other development guidelines and objectives for the area set out in the Kew Junction Structure Plan. The Kew Junction Structure Plan is listed as a Reference Document at Clause 4.0 of the proposed DDO. Page 12
Having noted the above references to the Kew Junction Structure Plan in the exhibited Amendment explanatory report and exhibited statutory controls, the Panel disagrees with the submission of Mr Gardiner that the Structure Plan has not been properly exhibited as part of this amendment process. The content of the Kew Junction Structure Plan, as it relates to the subject land, is a relevant matter before this Panel. Council’s submission went to great lengths to explain the history and background to the Kew Junction Structure Plan and the multitude of reports that influenced it findings and conclusions in relation to the subject land and broader precinct in which it sits [Refer Council Submission ‐ Paragraphs 9 – 27 with direct reference to planisphere Background Report (March 2006), planisphere Technical Report (March 2006), Essential Economics 2 Retail and Commercial Assessments (March 2006 & March 2009), and planisphere Capacity Analysis (May 2009)]. The Panel agrees with the submission of Mr Rantino that the submissions in opposition to the Amendment, while raising the prematurity point, do not advance substantive submissions regarding inadequacies of the Kew Junction Structure Plan as it applies to this Amendment. The Panel reiterates that this Panel hearing has provided Mr Gardiner and any other submittor the opportunity to highlight inadequacies with the Kew Junction Structure Plan or its background documents in relation to the methodology and consultation framework adopted and or its findings. Other than the mandatory vs. discretionary height control issue which is discussed in the following Chapter of this report, no merit based submissions have been put to the Panel regarding inadequacies of the Kew Junction Structure Plan. No Planning, Traffic, Urban Design or Economic evidence was called by opposing submittors to challenge the findings of the Kew Junction Structure Plan. The Panel notes Mr Rantino’s contention that this is perhaps not surprising because the KJSP is a thoroughly informed and consulted plan for the overall planning of the activity centre. 3.4
Findings The Panel is satisfied that the exhibition and subsequent Panel hearing relating to Amendment C121 has adequately provided the opportunity for the merits of the Kew Junction Structure Plan, as it relates to the subject land, to be challenged, assessed and determined. Having reviewed the Kew Junction Structure Plan and background documentation which informed its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel is satisfied that Amendment C121 has a sound strategic basis. Deferring the consideration of Amendment C121 until such time as Amendment C138 is authorised, prepared, exhibited, considered and determined is not supported. Page 13
4.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE KEW JUNCTION STRUCTURE PLAN – HEIGHT CONTROLS 4.1
What is the Issue The issue is whether Amendment C121 should be abandoned because it seeks to introduce, via DDO19, height controls that are discretionary despite the Kew Junction Structure Plan specifying height controls as absolute maximum building heights that must not be exceeded. 4.2
Submissions In opposing the Amendment on behalf of Mr Tsirogiannis, Mr Gardiner submitted that there is a fundamental inconsistency underpinning Amendment C121 in that it proposes discretionary height controls in proposed DDO19 despite the Kew Junction Structure Plan, which is a listed reference document in the schedule, specifying that heights must not be exceeded (that is, the height controls are worded as mandatory provisions in the Structure Plan). Mr Gardiner also highlighted that Amendment C138 seeks to implement mandatory height controls. Mr Gardiner submitted: Given the fundamental inconsistency between Amendment C121 on the one hand, and the Structure Plan and Amendment C138 on the other, it becomes clear that this proposal has not benefited from the careful consideration of a more comprehensive strategic planning assessment. This significant inconsistency suggests that Amendment C121 is a stand‐alone proposal which is intended to address site‐specific issues, at the expense of a comprehensive review of broader strategic planning considerations. The submission detailed that Clause 2.0.2 of DDO19 provides that building heights on the sites should not exceed an overall height of 14.5 metres (4 storeys) and building frontages should not exceed 11 metres (3 storeys). This is in contrast with the Structure Plan that states that these height restrictions are mandatory rather than advisory, and that the ʹabsolute maximum height must not be exceededʹ (p 35, Structure Plan). Mr Gardiner submitted: In light of the above, it is submitted that DDO19 should be amended to make the stated height restrictions mandatory, given that the Structure Plan is classified as both a mandatory decision criterion and a reference document in DDO19. Page 14
The mandatory nature of the height controls also requires that the following paragraph under Clause 2.0.2 of DDO19 be removed: ·
ʹAn application which does not meet the building height or setbacks specified must demonstrate that the proposed development will continue to meet the design objectives specified in the Schedule.ʹ Mr Gardiner submitted that such a change would be substantive and would require the current Amendment C121 to be abandoned. In replying to Mr Gardiner’s submission, Mr Rantino highlighted that it does not appear that the submitter is arguing that mandatory controls are warranted in the circumstances of this case or that discretionary controls are not warranted. Mr Rantino said: In the absence of such submission, it is left for the Panel to determine independently of such submission whether the discretionary elements of the Amendment is a reason for recommending an abandonment of the Amendment. It is hard to imagine a Panel recommending against an amendment because it contains discretionary as opposed to mandatory requirements. Mr Iles for the proponent did not specifically address the inconsistency issue between the DDO and the Structure Plan, but rather submitted a comprehensive case for why the height controls in DDO19 should remain discretionary as exhibited in the Amendment. In presenting on this issue, Mr Iles relied upon the content of Practice Note 60, Height and setback controls for activity centres, April 2010 and a review of Panel reports for the Melbourne Planning Scheme (Amendment C20) and Port Phillip Planning Scheme (Amendment C52). In relation to Practice Note 60, Mr Iles highlighted that it provides guidance on the Department of Planning and Community Development’s preferred approach to the application of height and setback controls for activity centres. According to the practice note, height and setback controls must be soundly based on a comprehensive built form analysis that is consistent with state policy and in particular the practice note states: “The application of discretionary controls, combined with clear design objectives is the preferred form of height and setback controls. Discretionary controls are more likely to facilitate appropriate built form outcomes than mandatory controls by providing more flexibility to accommodate contextual variations and innovative design. This form of height control has been supported through a number of planning panels, more so than mandatory height controls. …. Mandatory height and setback controls (ie controls that cannot be exceeded under any circumstance) will only be considered under exceptional circumstances.” Page 15
Mr Iles highlighted that some of the exceptional circumstances listed within the practice note include; ·
Sensitive coastal environments; ·
Significant landscape precincts; ·
Significant heritage places; ·
Sites or recognised state significance (ie the Shrine of Remembrance); and ·
Helicopter and aeroplane flight paths. Mr Iles concluded that there are no exceptional circumstances within the Kew Junction Major Activity Centre that warrant protection through the use of mandatory height controls. In relation to the Panel findings in Amendment C20 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme Mr Iles highlighted the following: The Panel recognises that there is considerable pressure for a mandatory/prescriptive approach to be used by those who do not feel comfortable with objective‐based decision making. This pressure may arise as a result of: ·
Lack of confidence by the community in the skills or consistency of those making assessments and decisions. ·
Lack of appropriate skills and experience in council staff making assessments and decisions. ·
Lack of resources to devote to time and qualified staff necessary to adequately engage in objective decision making. ·
Lack of strong enough strategic framework to underpin and guide objective based decision making. In these instances, it may be seen as easier and simpler to rely on a prescriptive, mandatory building height requirement. This is not supported by the Panel. Objective based, strategic decision making is a fundamental tenet of the planning system now in operation in Victoria and embodied in the VPPs. An over‐reliance on mandatory building requirements in Design and Development Overlays is a departure from this system and undermines it. There is a discipline associated with objective decision‐making that is not as simple or straight forward as simply administering a set of rules without the need to constantly refer to their purpose…. In respect of a C52 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme the following extract of the Panel report was noted: Departures from the nominated heights should not be treated lightly, nor should they arise from the unfounded expectation that the availability of discretion within the DDO simply means that the discretion will be exercised in every instance. Page 16
Every proposal, whether it seeks to depart from the nominated requirements or not, must be assessed bearing the relevant objectives and the envisaged outcomes in mind. In support of discretionary height and setback controls in the DDO, Mr Iles concluded that the LeMax Group Pty Ltd accepts that the proposed DDO height controls will require Council to exercise its discretion in determining a planning proposal against the relevant design objectives, various requirements as well as any supporting/reference documents. Mr Iles said: It is our submission that where merit exists, it should be possible to exceed specified building heights. In the case of the Kew Junction, this retail precinct is designated as a Major Activity Centre which is the focus of major investment and the location for intensive future development. Subject to an appropriate design solution, we say that it is at least open to LeMax Group Pty Ltd to contemplate the potential for a development that may exceed the 4 storeys. Such a proposal would be subject to a Planning Permit. and While we feel the height controls sought by DDO19 are inherently conservative for land within a designated Major Activity Centre, we do not seek to jeopardise the amendment by opposing the 4 storey height control. It is however, important that these provisions are expressed as discretionary height controls. 4.3
Discussion In May 2011, when Ministerial Authorisation was granted to prepare and exhibit Amendment C121, the height controls within the Kew Junction Structure Plan were phrased as discretionary controls. The exhibited DDO19 accurately reflected the discretionary nature of the provisions at that time. Two months later, in July 2011, at the urban planning special committee meeting in which Council resolved to seek authorisation to prepare Amendment C138, Council resolved to amend the Kew Junction Structure Plan to make the height controls mandatory. This resolution was given effect by changes endorsed to the Kew Junction Structure Plan by the CEO of Boroondara City Council on 28 December 2011. Mr Gardiner has rightly highlighted that as a result of the July resolution of Council, and Council’s subsequent actioning of the resolution by CEO endorsement on the 28 December 2011, the Kew Junction Structure Plan (28 December 2011) is no longer consistent with the discretionary nature of the exhibited height control provisions of DDO19 in the exhibited C121 Amendment. While the Panel considers this an unfortunate outcome, it does not consider it a threshold issue. Page 17
On a functional level the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides clear guidance on which provisions of a planning scheme prevail over others where an inconsistency exists. Section 7 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states: (4) If there appears to be an inconsistency between different provisions of a planning scheme….. (b) (i) the State standard provisions prevail over the local provisions; and (ii) a specific control over land prevails over a municipal strategic statement or any strategic plan, policy statement, code or guideline in the planning scheme. The Act provides clear guidance in regard to the administration of the Scheme to deal with the inconsistency between DDO19 and the Kew Junction Structure Plan (which is listed as a reference document in Section 4.0 of the DDO19 schedule). The provisions of the DDO19 will prevail over the reworded strategy in the Kew Junction Structure Plan that reads: “The absolute maximum height must not be exceeded”. As highlighted, administratively the inconsistency poses no issue. In respect to the potential inconsistency with the Amendment C138 the Panel notes that Ministerial Authorisation to prepare and exhibit that amendment has yet to be granted. Regardless, any proposed DDO arising from that Amendment will not apply to the land that is the subject of Amendment C121. In respect to the submission by Mr Gardiner that DDO19 should be amended to make the stated height controls mandatory, given that the Structure Plan now phrases them as a mandatory decision criterion and the plan has the status as reference document in DDO19, the Panel is assisted by the guidance provided the Practice Note – Incorporated and Reference Documents (August 2000) and findings of previous Planning Panels that have dealt with similar submissions. The Panel Report of Amendment C55 to the Colac Otway Planning Scheme – Planning Scheme Review (September 2008) addresses in detail issues relating to the content of reference documents, their statutory role and the process for implementing them. Some relevant extracts of that report, which also reference the Practice Note, are reproduced below: In forming our views about these issues we have relied on the Practice Note: Incorporated and Reference Documents (August 2000) which includes the following commentary in relation to Reference Documents. Reference documents provide background information to assist in understanding the context within which a particular policy or provision has been framed. A variety of different types of document may perform this Page 18
role. They may be wide ranging in their content and contain information not directly relevant to specific decisions under the planning scheme. … Reference documents can be used in a number of ways. They can be used as a basis for preparing the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), local planning policies or requirements in the planning scheme, or can be mentioned in the planning scheme as a source of useful background information. Reference documents have only a limited role in decision‐making as they are not part of the planning scheme. They do not have the status of incorporated documents or carry the same weight. … It is clear to us that Reference Documents should only be relied upon to provide background or explanatory material in support of the planning scheme. They should not be relied upon as a de facto planning control that sits outside the planning scheme. If Council intended that these documents have a statutory function then it should have proposed that the relevant parts be included as Incorporated Documents. … Amending Reference Documents Given our view about the role of Reference Documents, we do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to recommend that they be modified so that they are consistent with the planning scheme provisions. In addition we do not believe that we need review or form conclusions about all of the material in these documents except where they have an explicit link to the Amendment (Emphasis Added). We have considered these documents in so far as they are relevant to the exhibited Amendment provisions and where appropriate have recommended various changes to those provisions. It makes no sense to reflect these changes in a revised version of the Reference Documents given that they have no statutory weight. The Panel for Greater Geelong C129 stated: We also believe that revising Reference Documents to reflect the final content of the Amendment ignores the practical difficulties associated with the precedent that this would set. It is not sensible to require that these documents be revised every time a planning scheme amendment renders them inconsistent. (Panel Report, Amendment C55 to the Colac Otway Planning Scheme, Pages 23 – 25) Page 19
The Panel considers that finding is apposite here. Just because the exhibited DDO19 control now no longer accords with the specific strategy articulated in the Kew Junction Structure Plan, this does not require modification of the reference document. In relation to merits of whether the height controls in DDO19 should be reflected as discretionary or mandatory, based on the submissions before it, the Panel supports the position of the proponent that they are appropriately drafted as discretionary provisions. Mr Gardiner did not provide the Panel with any merits based assessment as to why, in this or any other instance, a discretionary control was inappropriate and a mandatory control satisfactory. Conversely, the Panel was assisted by the submission of Mr Iles with reference to Practice Note 60 and guidance provided by other Panels. 4.4
Findings The Panel does not accept the submission of Mr Gardiner that Amendment C121 should be abandoned because it seeks to introduce via DDO19, height controls that are discretionary despite the Kew Junction Structure Plan specifying height controls as absolute maximum building heights that must not be exceeded. The Panel also does not consider it is appropriate to amend the Kew Junction Structure Plan to achieve consistency between the two. In the absence of competing submission or evidence the Panel is also satisfied that the height controls reflected in DDO19 are appropriate. Page 20
5.
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE BUSINESS 1 ZONE 5.1
What is the Issue The issue is whether it is appropriate to rezone the subject land to Business Zone 1. 5.2
Submissions Mr Gardiner submitted that the proposed rezoning to the Business 1 Zone (B1Z) is inappropriate and in the event that Amendment C121 proceeds, the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) should be applied to the subject land. He submitted a MUZ would be more appropriate due to: ·
MUZ zoning more accurately captures the aims of the Structure Plan, which seeks to encourage medium‐density residential development in the Kew Junction Activity Centre. ·
Under the MUZ, use of the land as a Shop or a Food and Drink Premises is a Section 2 use, and exemptions from notice and third party review are not available. This would result in a greater level of community involvement in any decision making. ·
Applying the MUZ is supported by Clause 21.07 of the Scheme, which notes that higher density residential uses can be supported through use of this zone. In submitting the above, Mr Gardiner noted that the B1Z zoning facilitates business uses by removing the requirement of a planning permit which in turn will limit the ability of the local community to have input into development proposals for the subject land. He also highlighted that the B1Z provides significant exemptions from third party notice and rights of review. He submitted that: These exemptions will further restrict the ability of local residents to comment on proposed new uses and developments. Given the permit triggers under the B1Z, opportunities for community comment will be limited to the issue of compliance with DDO19, restricting comments on the full range of planning issues associated with particular development proposals. In response to this issue, the 21 November 2011 officer report noted that the subject land is located in the Retail and Activity Core of the Kew Junction Activity Centre and that the Structure Plan envisages strengthening the role of this area as the retail core of the activity centre, particularly supporting the expansion of Leoʹs supermarket to a full line facility. The officer report highlighted that the purpose of the Business 1 Zone is to ʺencourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other complementary Page 21
commercial, entertainment and community usesʺ whereas the Mixed Use Zone ʺencourages residential developmentʺ among ʺa range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed‐use function of the localityʺ. The report concluded that the Business 1 Zone more appropriate than the Mixed Use Zone for the purpose of implementing the vision set out for this area as a ʺRetail Coreʺ under the Kew Junction Structure Plan. Mr Rantino reiterated that what is sought for the subject land, consistent with the Kew Junction Structure Plan and the technical reports, is to bring the subject land into the ʺcore retailʺ precinct of the activity centre. A Business 1 zoning is the most logical zone for such purpose. The objectives of the Business 1 zone are facilitative of such outcomes. In concluding on this issue, Mr Rantino also urged the Panel to bear in mind that: the Business 1 zone is also facilitative of higher density residential and mixed use developments – both perfectly consistent with the broader planning policies and the KJSP. The DDO parameters are intended to work in conjunction with the Business 1 zone and the relevant policy framework to deliver appropriate built form and respond to interface issues with the adjoining properties in Residential 1 zone (as well as issues such as car parking, traffic etc). Mr Iles submitted that the proposed rezoning to Business 1 Zone is appropriate given its designation in the retail core of Precinct 2 of the adopted Kew Junction Structure Plan. He said the LeMax Group strongly opposes the submission that the subject land should be rezoned to the Mixed Use Zone if the amendment is to be approved. Mr Iles highlighted that the MUZ is nested in the residential suite of zones within the Boroondara Planning Scheme, where the list of purposes does not directly support retail uses. They concluded that a MUZ would not facilitate the outcomes sought by LeMax Group Pty Ltd. 5.3
Discussion The Panel is satisfied that the Kew Junction Structure Plan is unambiguous regarding its conclusion and recommendation that the subject land should form part of the retail core of Precinct 2 of the Kew Junction Major Activity Centre. The Plan at page 80 specifies the following land use future – Encourage expansion of Leo’s supermarket to full line facilities, supported by additional speciality retail. At page 98 within the Implementation Recommendations section, the Structure Plan acknowledges that “Rezoning of various parcels of land is required’. The Panel agrees with Council’s and the proponent’s submissions that the Business 1 Zone is the appropriate zone to facilitate the stated desired outcome for the site. Page 22
The Panel does not share the degree of concern expressed by Mr Gardiner regarding potential loss of community input into future decision making processes. The Business 1 Zone’s exemptions from notice and review do not apply when an application relates to buildings and works within 30 metres of a residential zone. In this instance the subject land abuts the Residential 1 zone. Given that the total width of the three lots to the north of the existing supermarket is less than 40 metres (tabled Document 9 specifies a combined width of 39.83 metres), it is unlikely that any future development application will be exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52, the decision requirements of Section 64 and the review rights of Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Importantly, the exhibited DDO19 Schedule does not include an exemption from notice and review and thus an application would require notice if a permit is sought under Clause 43.02 and Schedule 19. The content of the Schedule in relation to Building Design, Heights and Setbacks, Spaces and Access and accompanying Decision Guidelines is broad including potential amenity impacts upon adjoining residential properties. 5.4
Findings The Panel finds that the application of the Business 1 Zone to subject sites, as exhibited, is appropriate. Page 23
6.
AMENITY IMPACTS 6.1
What is the Issue The issue is whether approval of the Amendment will result in unacceptable amenity impacts. 6.2
Submissions Mr Gardiner submitted that the City of Boroondara LPPF contains many themes, objectives and strategies which require conserving and enhancing residential amenity (Clause 21.05‐1, 21.07‐2, 21.07‐3). With reference to these components of the LPPF, Mr Gardiner submitted that Amendment C121 will work against the intent of the Scheme by: potentially facilitating development which may result in significant negative amenity impacts for the well‐established residential area near the Junction. The potential and unacceptable negative amenity impacts that may result of approval of the Amendment cited by Mr Gardiner included: ·
altering the character of the area by expanding a Business 1 Zone within a traditionally residential area. This will facilitate a range of commercial uses of the land, and detract from its presently distinctive residential character; ·
adverse impact on the existing character of the area by allowing the development of buildings of significantly greater height and bulk compared to the predominant built‐form in the area. Of particular concern is the lack of a mandatory building height and setback control in DDO19; ·
increased noise in the area (including from reversing beepers, truck deliveries and unloading and rubbish collection). Although it is proposed to incorporate noise‐reduction strategies in the development of new dwellings, no mitigation measures are proposed to reduce noise impacts for existing residences; ·
further noise and other impacts will be experienced by residents through possible extended hours of trading; ·
exacerbation of traffic congestion and parking issues on Princess Street and surrounding streets; ·
overshadowing to neighbouring properties and public thoroughfares, and reduction to privacy through overlooking due to the scale and height of development allowed under the DDO; Page 24
·
detraction from the visual amenity of the area, especially through large illuminated advertising and other signs likely to be used on the site; and issues with light‐spill and light pollution. The proposed controls do not propose any specific controls, such as a light management plan, to deal with these issues. Mr Gardiner included within attachment A to his submission a number of recommended amendments to DDO Schedule 19 Amendment C121 proceeds. The additions reflect the balance of suggested changes reflected in Mr Tsirogiannis’ original letter of objection. ·
The submission by A & E Cipriano (23 Brougham Street) in objecting to the rezoning of land in particular in Brougham Street also raised concerns regarding amenity impacts. They were concerned that the rezoning would increase traffic congestion and parking as well as safety issues because a Business zone will attract more undesirables, especially after hours. They submitted that resulting development would increase pollution and also impact nearby residents by illuminated signs and other lighting. The submission also expressed concern about the potential development of 4 storey buildings which they consider will change the character of the area. The submission by Mr and Mrs A Aslanidis (17 Brougham Street) opposed the Amendment due to concerns that resultant development will reduce their privacy and increase noise. They specifically opposed the potential for 4 storey development and considered that only 2 storey development should be allowed. The submission also referred to concerns regarding potential overshadowing, lighting and traffic impacts. The 21 November 2011 officer report considered the amenity impact concerns raised by Mr Tsirogiannis is more closely associated with the potential development on the subject site, rather than directly from the rezoning of the subject land. The report noted that as the rezoning proposal does not include any development plans for the sites, officers cannot assess potential amenity issues at this stage. The report noted that the proposed DDO19 includes detailed design and development guidelines to protect neighbouring amenity so that the impact associated with the redevelopment can be assessed during the planning permit stage when a detailed site development plan is prepared and submitted to Council. The report also noted that some changes have been made to the proposed DDO19 to clarify design and development requirements. Page 25
6.3
Discussion At the Directions Hearing for Amendment C121 the Panel requested the preparation of an annotated plan indicating the RL heights of a number of properties in proximity to the subject lands. Such a plan was prepared by Council and circulated to the Panel, and all submittors prior to the hearing. The plan is included overleaf.
Page 26
Page 27
The Panel considers that the plan and accompanying photographs assist in highlighting that the land surrounding the subject sites contains a mixture of land uses and buildings of varying bulk and height. The Panel considers the submission of Mr Gardiner that the area has a presently distinctive residential character is overstated. While the Panel accepts that there are a number of single storey residential properties immediately to the north of the subject sites, apartment blocks, motel accommodation, shopping centres also are distinctive land uses within close proximity of the subject land. The Panel does not accept that the proposed requirement that buildings should not exceed an overall height of 14.5 metres (or 4 storeys) is unreasonable in the context provided by the surrounding built form. In relation to other concerns regarding other potential amenity impacts, the Panel is satisfied that the matters within DDO19 adequately specify the design objectives and requirements to achieve a development form that will respect the amenity of adjoining residentially zoned land. The Panel notes that the revised DDO19 included in Appendix 1 includes modifications generally consistent with those proposed by Mr Tsirogiannis relating to: 
Building design requirement for commercial development as well as residential development regarding implementation of acoustic treatments. 
Building design requirement that new development should avoid overshadowing of public and private open spaces. 
Inclusion of the following additional Decision Guidelines: o Whether the proposal makes a positive contribution to the image and character of the centre and its pedestrian environment. o The impact of the proposal upon local traffic management and car parking. The Panel does not consider the further modifications sought by Mr Tsirogiannis as contained in Attachment A to the submission of Mr Gardiner are warranted given the existing extent of coverage of the issues by the DDO19 as drafted. 6.4
Findings The Panel does not consider that approval of Amendment C121 will result in unacceptable amenity impacts. It also considers that DDO19, as modified by Council in response to submissions, will appropriately guide the design and built form of new development on the subject land in a manner that appropriately respects amenity of adjoining residential land. Page 28
7.
TIMING OF FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK 7.1
What is the Issue The issue is whether the preparation of a Parking Precinct Plan and a Signage Strategy are required prior to the adoption of Amendment C121. 7.2
Submissions Mr Gardiner noted that the Kew Junction Structure Plan and its accompanying Implementation Plan make reference to the preparation of a Parking Precinct Plan and a Signage Strategy, which will support the Structure Plan. Mr Gardiner submitted that creation and implementation of the supporting traffic and signage strategies must occur prior to the adoption of Amendment C121 to ensure that: 7.3
·
a holistic, ʹJunction Areaʹ‐wide approach (rather than piecemeal approach) is taken to these important issues; ·
there is consistency between the treatment of the Kew Junction and similar localities; and ·
there is sufficient time for community consultation, removed from the pressure that would be created if a development is imminent or even underway, leading to a reduced probability of an ad hoc response. Discussion The Kew Junction Structure Plan, Part 2: Implementation Plan which was adopted by Council in November 2009 and referred to in Mr Gardiner’s submission, identifies the development of a Signage Strategy and the Parking Precinct Plan both as Medium term implementation priorities. The table defines Medium as 3 – 7 years and also notes that the implementation program is indicative and subject to successful budget bids and work programs. The Panel accepts that implementation of the two studies will likely provide beneficial outcomes for the centre and adjoining residents and land uses. Until the studies are prepared and scheme changes introduced, applications can be assessed under the existing provisions of the Boroondara Planning Scheme. Based on the information before it, the Panel is not in a position to comment whether expenditure of resources, both human and financial, that will be required to advance these two initiatives should take precedence over the multitude of other short, medium and long term tasks identified in the Implementation Plan. Page 29
7.4
Findings The Panel does not consider that the preparation of a Parking Precinct Plan and a Signage Strategy is required prior to the adoption of Amendment C121. Page 30
8.
PANEL RECOMMENDATION For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel recommends that: 1.
Amendment C121 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modification: i) Replace the exhibited Schedule 19 to the Design and Development Overlay with the amended version adopted by Council at its Urban Planning Special Meeting dated 21 November 2011 (included in Appendix 1 to this report). William O’Neil 30 March 2012 Page 31
APPENDIX 1: REVISED SCHEDULE 19 TO THE DDO, ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON 21 NOVEMBER 2011 Page 32
--/--/20--
SCHEDULE 19 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO19
32-36 PRINCESS STREET, 11-15 BROUGHAM STREET, KEW
1.0
--/--/20--
2.0
--/--/20--
Design objectives

To facilitate high quality development and/or expansion of a supermarket and specialty retail
to strengthen the role of the wider area (defined as Precinct 2 in the Kew Junction Structure
Plan) as the core retail focus of the Kew Junction Activity Centre.

To contribute to the enhancement of Precinct 2 as an attractive, safe and pedestrian focussed
retail hub.

To encourage high quality new development that respects the amenity of adjoining
residentially zoned land, whilst retaining the built form character of Precinct 2.

To improve pedestrian access to supermarket entrances and minimise pedestrian-vehicular
conflict while improving loading arrangements.

To ensure adequate vehicle and loading access to and from Princess Street is provided.
Buildings and works
An application to develop land must be accompanied by an urban context report and design
response. The urban context report and design response must show how the development
addresses and achieves:
 The Design Objectives of this Schedule and for Precinct 2 of the Kew Junction Activity
Centre;
 The Requirements of the Precinct 2.
 The compliance with the State Environment Protection Policy - N1 - Control of Noise from
Commerce, Industry and Trade.
The responsible authority may waive or reduce a requirement for information if it considers it to
be not relevant to an application.
2.1
Requirements
New development should address the design objectives and requirements as set out below:
2.0.1
Building Design

Buildings should be designed to minimise their impact on the amenity of adjoining
residentially zoned land having regard to matters such as overlooking, overshadowing noise
and or visual bulk, guided by the objectives and standards of ResCode (Clauses 54 and 55 of
the Boroondara Planning Scheme).

Commercial and residential development should implement acoustic treatments that will
protect residents from unreasonable noise impacts.

Building facades should be articulated through considered composition of their various design
elements. This includes the size and placement of door and window openings, balconies or
awnings and the colour and texture of different materials.

Encourage the use of high quality building materials and design innovation in the use of
elements - openings, colours, materials, textures, etc. to encourage attractive and interesting
streetscapes and reduce the apparent bulk of buildings.

The roof form and building profile should be carefully considered in terms of its appearance
within the streetscape; and from distant viewpoints to ensure that views to the Holy Trinity
Page 33
Church, the War Memorial and the former Kew Post Office (along High Street) and the
Melbourne Chinese Baptist Church (along Cotham Road) are retained.

The existing horizontal or vertical design rhythms of the streetscape should be maintained,
where these are dominant features, by
- Referencing the established roof or parapet heights of adjoining buildings, where this is a
consistent feature in the streetscape, in the design of a new facade.
- Maintaining the existing 'fine grain' appearance of buildings through vertical articulation of
wide building frontages.
2.0.2

Buildings should provide active frontages (except where landscape setbacks are required) to
streets and pedestrian spaces to increase interaction and passive surveillance of pedestrian
areas and integration with the adjoining Business 1 zoned land. This can be achieved through
design measures such as incorporation of clear glazing at the ground level and windows or
balconies at the upper levels.

Footpaths in front of redevelopment sites should be reconstructed to Council’s streetscape
standard, where applicable.

Development should demonstrate the incorporation of Environmentally Sustainable Design
techniques to improve the thermal efficiency of the building and reduce energy and water
consumption.

New development should avoid overshadowing of public spaces and private open spaces from
11am to 3pm on 21 March and 22 September.
Heights and Setback

Building heights should not exceed an overall height of 14.5 metres (or 4 storeys).

At the building frontages, building height should not exceed 11 metres (or 3 storeys).

Levels above 11 metres should be set back 5 metres from the front ground level facades.

Building setbacks at residential interfaces should be guided by Diagram A1 (Side and Rear
Setbacks) of Clause 54.04-1, as shown below:

Overall building heights referred to are based on a floor to ceiling height of 4 metres for the
ground level, with 3.5 metres for subsequent level. These heights include the space required
to accommodate services in between the level. The overall height is measured to the building
parapet.

Landscaped setbacks of a minimum of 2 metres should be provided along Princess Street and
the northern boundary of 36 Princess Street and 15 Brougham Street, Kew.

An application which does not meet the building height or setbacks specified must
demonstrate that the proposed development will continue to meet the design objectives
specified in the Schedule.
Page 34

Minor buildings and works such as verandas, architectural features, balconies, sunshades,
screens, artworks and street furniture may be constructed within the setback areas specified
under the 'Heights and Setback' in the building requirements of the Schedule provided:
- The facade built to the nominated setback remains visually dominant;
- All screening and balustrading to upper level balconies is glazed or of similar lightweight
materials.
2.0.3
3.0
--/--/20--
Spaces and Access

Ensure that new or improved pedestrian links are attractive, accessible, identifiable, wellconnected and safe for users of all abilities.

Ensure development incorporates and encourages sustainable transport options, including
walking, cycling and public transport.

Ensure that supermarket loading arrangements be provided via Princess Street with
appropriate layout to minimise conflict with pedestrian and traffic movement. Discourage
loading arrangements via Brougham Street.

Ensure that supermarket loading arrangements provided via Princess Street provide for safe
and efficient movement of delivery vehicles, including provision for forward movement in
and out of the site

The number of crossovers, garages and car park entrances should be minimised. Where
possible, car parking should be located underground.

Ensure that car-parking design and access retains or improves linkages between Princess
Street and Brougham Street, Kew.
Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider:
 The design objectives and the requirements of this schedule.
 The urban context and design response, where required.
 The Kew Junction Structure Plan for the precinct.
 Potential amenity impacts (including impacts associated with extended trading hours if
applicable) upon adjoining residential properties.
 Whether the proposal achieves an environmentally sustainable design outcome.
 Whether the proposal makes a positive contribution to the image and character of the centre
and its pedestrian environment.
 The impact of the proposal upon the existing built form character of Precinct 2, including as
derived from the Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar era commercial buildings in Precinct 2.
 The impact of the proposal upon local traffic management and car parking.
4.0
--/--/20--
Reference Document
 Kew Junction Structure Plan (adopted by Council 23 November 2009)
Page 35
C121 notification map
Attachment 3
owners and occupiers
KEY
Scale = 1:3,925
Metres
50
Contains Vicmap information
The State of Victoria,
Department of Sustainability
and Environment, 2006.
This material may be of
assistance to you but the
State of Victoria and its
employees do not guarantee
that the publication is without
flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for
your particular purposes and therefore
disclaims all liability for any error, loss or
consequences which may arise from your
relying on any information contained in this
material [or publication].
The City of Boroondara does not warrant the
accuracy or completeness of the information
in this document, and does not accept
responsibility for any losses or damages
(whether direct or consequential) suffered by
you or any other person, arising from your use
of or reliance on this
information. You
must not reproduce
or communicate this
document without
the prior permission
of the City of
Boroondara.
Map produced:
7/06/2011 11:57:47
ATTACHMENTS
Monday 21 May 2012
UPC3
35 - 49 Earl Street, Kew East
STATUTORY PLANNING
OFFICERS REPORT
Urban Planning Committee
Application Number
Date Application Received
60 Day Statutory Time Frame
Planning Officer
PP11/00534
08/06/2011
N/A
Anna Barclay
Applicant
Owner
Dq Pty Ltd
Earl Street Property Ltd
Property Address
Proposal
35-49 Earl Street, Kew
Development for a shop, 29 dwellings and
alter access to a Road Zone Category 1,
waive the loading requirements and reduce
the standard car parking requirement.
Studley
Ward
Zoning
Overlays
Trees Identified on the Significant Tree
Register?
Advertised?
Number of Statements of Grounds
Received
Recommendation
Business 1 (45-49 Earl Street) and Residential
1 (35 Earl Street)
None
Nil
Yes the original application was advertised by
Council. 95 objections were received.
All objectors were notified of the appeal being
lodged.
5
Agree to sign the consent order to approve the
amended plans subject to conditions.
PLANS ASSESSED IN THIS REPORT
Draft amended plans Revision C.
BACKGROUND / APPLICATION HISTORY
This application was first lodged with Council in June 2011. The application included three sites,
160 Pakington Street, 45-49 Earl Street and 35 Earl Street, Kew and proposed 47dwellings in a
4 to 5 storey building. The application was advertised in September 2011 and 95 objections
were received. An objection was also received from VicRoads. Subsequently, the application
was refused under delegation on the following grounds:
1. Pursuant to Section 61 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the relevant road
authority, VicRoads objects to the proposal.
2. The proposed building in terms of height, scale and mass does not respond to the
character of the area and will have a dominating impact on the public realm.
3. The proposed materials, in particular the extent of patterned concrete walls on the south
elevation, will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area.
4. The location of the crossover and driveway adjacent to an existing crossover and
laneway is a poor design response, prevents an active street frontage to Earl Street and
results in a large expanse of concrete to the street.
5. The location of the substation in the Earl Street front setback is inappropriate and will
have an adverse impact on the streetscape.
6. Unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining residential properties, in particular visual
bulk to the east and overshadowing to the south.
7. The proposed building height and setbacks are inconsistent with Council's Activity
Centre Strategy for Willsmere Village.
8. The proposed vehicle access is unsafe and inefficient due to conflict with vehicles
accessing adjoining sites via the laneway and the proximity of the proposed vehicle
crossover to the roundabout.
Following refusal of the application, an appeal against the refusal was lodged at VCAT. Of the
95 objectors, 5 people lodged statements of grounds with the Tribunal and became party to the
appeal. Following this, a mediation session was held at VCAT in 19 March 2011. The mediation
was attended by four (4) of the objectors, VicRoads, the applicant and a Council representative.
At the mediation, the applicant tabled draft amended plans for discussion. These plans propose
a number of significant changes to the proposed development including the following:
•
Deletion of 160 Pakington Street from the proposal (5 storey building with 3 shops and
14 dwellings).
•
•
•
•
Deletion of the fourth floor so that the building is reduced from a maximum height of
14.5m (5 storeys) to 11.57m (4 storeys).
Reduction in the number of apartments from 47 to 33.
Deletion of the second basement level of car parking.
Increase in setbacks of the building at the interface with the residential zone on the
south east.
At the mediation, all the objectors in attendance, VicRoads and the applicant came to an
agreement. This is based on the following further changes to the plans which are shown on
Revision C of the plans (Appendix A) as follows:
• Internal alterations to further reduce the number of apartments to a total of 29 dwellings.
• Increase in the number of car spaces to a total of 40 spaces.
• Minor balcony and window re-arrangements as a result of the internal alterations
including screening on the south elevation.
The resident objectors agreed to these changes and have signed an agreement based on the
amended proposal.
VicRoads has no objection to these plans, subject to standard conditions (which are outlined in
the referral section below). The applicant has indicated that they accept these conditions.
At the mediation, all the parties in attendance, except Council, signed a consent order agreeing
to these changes.
At the mediation, Council's representative asked the applicant for detailed plans showing the
sections of the building where the height does not comply with the ACS. Officers also sought
agreement that the setback of the second floor be increased from a 2m setback to a 3m setback
from the street, as outlined in the ACS. The applicant subsequently provided this information
and agreed to set the second floor back to 3m. The applicant has indicated they are willing to
accept these changes by condition.
The next step is for Council to determine whether or not to support the proposed changes and
agreed to the consent order that has already been agreed to by the objectors, VicRoads and the
applicant. If Council supports the proposed changes, a consent order will be prepared, signed
by all parties, and sent to VCAT, and the hearing will not be required. These plans have not
been formerly substitute at VCAT. Therefore, should Council determine not to support these
plans, the VCAT hearing scheduled for 27 August 2012 will proceed, and this is most likely to be
based on the original (5 storey, 47 dwelling) plans.
PROPOSAL
Appendix A - Draft Amended Plans
The proposal before Council is for development for a shop, 29 dwellings, alter access to a Road
Zone Category 1, waive the loading bay requirement and reduce the standard car parking
requirement.
Details of the proposal (including all the changes that have been agreed to) are summarised as
follows:Basement
• Basement car parking with 40 car spaces. Parking is allocated within the basement with one
space for the shop tenancy and two visitor spaces and the remaining (37) spaces to
residents of the dwellings. All the spaces except the shop space are provided in
independent car stackers.
• The basement also contains bicycle racks and a waste room.
• Vehicle access is proposed via Earl Street adjacent the laneway (road) on the west. A new
crossover is proposed on Earl Street which requires the removal of street trees/shrubs.
Ground floor
• The ground floor contains a shop with 75 m2 of floor area located within the business zone
of the Earl Street frontage. There are also seven dwellings (1 x 1 bed and 6 x 2 bed)
proposed at ground floor level, located in the residential zone.
• The ground floor shop is setback 2m and the dwellings setback a minimum 3.3m from Earl
Street. The front setback is staggered and increases to 7.7m towards the east. The building
is built to the south boundary in the business zone and setback 4.1m from the south and
2.5m from the east boundary in the residential zone.
First floor
• The first floor contains nine, two bedroom dwellings. This level is setback a minimum 2m
from the frontage in the business zone and between 3.3m and 8m in the residential zone,
with balconies within this setback. The setbacks increase towards the east so that the
building steps back towards the residential area. In the residential zone this level is setback
4.1m from the south and 2.5m from the east boundary.
Second floor
• The second floor contains eight dwellings (3 x 1 bed and 5 x 2 bed). This level is setback 3m
from the front boundary, 4.1m from the south boundary and between 5.3m to 7.2m from the
east boundary.
• The business zone portion of the property contains a third floor with four dwellings (3 x 2
bed and 1 x 3 bed). This level is setback 5m from Earl Street. There are no dwellings within
the residential zoned portion of the site (except one balcony) at this level.
General
• The maximum building height is 11.57m.
•
•
The site coverage is 75% in the residential zone and 79% in the business zone.
The materials are a mix of patterned precast concrete, face brick and metal cladding.
THE SITE
Appendix B - Locality Plan
Site Location
Width of Frontage
Maximum Depth of Site
Total Site Area
Easements
Fall of the Land
Front Fence Details
•
•
•
•
The site is located on the south side of Earl Street.
31.28m
41m
1175m2
The subject site is not encumbered by any easements.
The site has a minimal fall from the north west to the south
east of approximately 1 metre.
There is a high brick fence on the frontage of 35 Earl Street,
45-49 Earl Street does not have front fencing.
The subject site is currently developed a double storey brick commercial building at 45-47
Earl Street and a single storey weather board dwelling and brick factory building at 35 Earl
Street.
Vehicle access is via a crossover and driveway adjacent to the eastern boundary of 35 Earl
Street. No. 45-47 Earl Street utilises the laneway on the west of the site.
The subject site is devoid of significant vegetation.
There are street trees/shrubs within the Earl Street frontage of the site.
Photo (Google street view) of the subject sites from Earl Street.
THE SURROUNDING AREA
The site is located within and on the eastern edge of the Willsmere Village local shopping area.
To the east (include part of the subject site) and south east the area is residential. To the west is
a motor vehicle mechanic. Opposite the site on Earl Street is public open space with the Outer
Circle bicycle path to the north of the site. To property abutting the subject site immediately to
the south is zoned business but appears to be used partially as a residence and the area further
south is zoned residential, but includes some non-residential uses, such as a kindergarten.
Aerial Photo c2010
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT/AGREEMENTS
No covenant or restriction has been registered on Title for this property.
PERMIT/SITE HISTORY
A review of Council records indicates that there have been no previous planning applications at
the subject site.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
All parties to the appeal were all served with a copy of the draft amended plans by the permit
applicant prior to the mediation hearing. At the mediation hearing the residents present signed a
consent order agreeing to the proposed changes. All parties to the appeal were invited to the
Urban Planning Committee meeting.
INTERNAL REFERRALS
The application was referred to the following:Strategic Planning
The proposed development has been reduced in scale from the previous proposal, and is now
more in accordance with the requirements of Amendments C107 and C108.
However, the overall height of the proposed building at four storeys and 11.57 metres is greater
than the maximum allowed height of three storeys and 11.0 metres. As Amendment C107 and
C108 propose maximum mandatory heights, the proposed development is not in accordance
with the Amendments.
At ground floor, the property is set back 2.0 metres from the front boundary, which is not in
accordance with Amendment C107 and C108, which seek a 0.0 metres setback from the street
edge. However, it is considered that in this case, the greater setback is appropriate, given the
lack of a hard street edge on surrounding properties, and the primarily residential nature of the
rest of the street.
The upper storey should be set back 3.0 metres from the street edge above a height of 8.0
metres. The development proposes having the entire building set back 2.0 metres from the
street, with balconies projecting into the front setback, for the first three stories. The upper
storey, at a height of 8.8 metres, is to be set back 5.0 metres, with the balcony projecting to
within 3.0 metres of the front boundary. This is not strictly in accordance with Amendments
C107 and C108. The mandatory maximum street wall height of 8.0 metres is exceeded (though
not presented as a street wall), and the recommended minimum setback of 3.0 metres is not
achieved between the heights of 8.0 and 8.8 metres, with the building being setback 2.0 metres.
This is a small area of non-compliance with the recommended controls, and is considered to
achieve the objectives of the controls, in that the upper storey is set back from the street and
visual dominance of the building in the streetscape is reduced.
In conclusion, it is considered that the development is not in accordance with the recommended
controls of Amendments C107 and C108, as the building is to be greater than 11.0 metres in
height.
As these amendments are yet to receive authorisation from the Minister for Planning, and have
yet to be publically exhibited, they have little weight in relation to the Planning Scheme. They
articulate Council's position on development in the area, and should be regarded as such.
Officer Comment
In relation to the setback of 2m, the applicant has agreed to increase this to 3m in accordance
with the issue outlined above. The non-compliance with the street wall height and overall height
is discussed in detail below.
Urban Design
I am supportive of the amended proposal and am generally comfortable with its slight height
increase above that which is recommended in the draft Activity Centre Strategy.
I feel that it is acceptable for this site to accommodate a slight departure from the preferred
height due to the sites main road location, at a main intersection, and its position opposite open
parkland. The site is also a brownfield site and is at the fringe of the activity centre and is very
much removed from the valued character of the Neighbourhood Activity Centre.
With regard to the design of the proposal itself, there are a number of design attributes that take
advantage of the sites location and which further justify a slight increase in scale.
•
At the north west corner of the proposal, there is a canopy positioned within the
preferred building envelope with a setback to the cap of the form. This will achieve a
feathering of the roof line, effectively reducing the presence of the upper level in direct
views within the streetscape.
•
The building base, through the first floor balcony treatment, has a heavier and more
robust presentation which will attract the eye in direct views.
•
The height, the increased scale is positioned at the street frontage and is removed from
sensitive interfaces.
I am confident that the development also achieves an effective transition from the business
zoned land to the residential.
Officer Comment
These comments indicate that the building style and height is appropriate in this context. This
building height and form is discussed in more detail below.
Traffic
Adequacy of Parking Provision
The proposed provision of 40 spaces leads to a shortfall of 12 spaces under Clause 22.03 and a
shortfall of 24 spaces under Clause 52.06.
While not strictly applicable to the proposal, Traffic Engineering considers that the ResCode
(Clause 55.03) parking rates may be considered as an indication of the likely parking demands
of a residential component for this development in this location. Under ResCode the
development would require 1 space per one or two-bedroom dwelling and 1 visitor space per 5
dwellings. This would equate to 30 resident spaces and 5 visitor spaces (35 spaces total).
It is proposed to allocate 39 spaces to the apartments, comprising 37 resident spaces and 2
visitor spaces.
This exceeds the requirement for resident spaces, but leads to a shortfall of 3 visitor spaces.
Based on our previous Traffic Impact Assessment (dated 8 July 2011), the parking occupancy
surveys undertaken by the applicant’s traffic engineer indicate that there is adequate available
public parking in the vicinity of the site to accommodate the shortfall of 3 visitor spaces.
Accordingly, the provision of 37 resident spaces and 2 visitor spaces are considered adequate
in this case, however, the visitor spaces must be in regular parking spaces. Traffic Engineering
does not support visitor spaces being allocated within car stackers (as shown for spaces 1 to 7).
Additionally, the parking occupancy surveys undertaken by the applicant’s traffic engineer
indicate that there is adequate available public parking in the vicinity of the site to accommodate
the customer parking demands associated with the proposed shop. Accordingly, the proposed
provision of 1 space allocated to staff of the proposed retail tenancy is considered acceptable in
this case.
It should be noted that under Council's Residential Parking Permit Policy (2011), residents or
retail tenancy of the development will not be eligible for residential parking permits.
Car Stacker Specifications
In general Traffic Engineering supports independent car stacker systems where vehicles up to
1.7m or greater in height can park on all levels.
Traffic Engineering has no objection to the proposed car stacker TrendVario 4100, version
08.2009 for the development.
Traffic Impact
The proposed access location is very close to the roundabout at the Willsmere Road
intersection (approximately 20m). Traffic Engineering have concerns for the potential queue at
the roundabout. It is recommended that all vehicles access to/from the site should be 'Left-In'
and 'Left-Out' Only.
Conclusion
The application is supported on traffic engineering grounds subject to the following conditions:
•
•
•
It should be noted that under Council's Residential Parking Permit Policy (2011),
residents or retail tenancy of the development will not be eligible for residential parking
permits.
Traffic Engineering does not support visitor spaces being allocated within car stackers.
Visitor spaces should be relocated in regular parking bays.
All vehicles access to/from the site should be 'Left-In' and 'Left-Out' Only.
Officer Comment
A note will be included on the permit that future occupants will not be eligible for parking permits
in accordance with Council's policy.
A condition will be included on the permit that the two visitor spaces are regular parking bays,
not in a stacker or tandem arrangement.
A condition will be included that all vehicle access to and from the site is "Left-in' Left-out' only.
The condition will require details of signage and traffic measures to be shown on the plans. The
applicant has agreed to these conditions.
Infrastructure
Council’s Works Permits Department supports the crossover and access proposal subject to the
following
•
•
•
•
•
;VicRoads conditions and guidelines to be noted in conjunction with this assessment
5.50 metres wide, to provide a passing area at the entrance for two-way traffic flow and to
afford improved sightlines and movements.
All vehicles must enter and exit to and from Earl Street in a forward direction.
Council Parks and Gardens approval granted {in principle} for the removal of the existing
street trees and vegetation in accordance Council’s Policy. Costs for these work are to be
borne by the applicant.
Should the development not proceed, Council will not support the tree removal /
replacement.
•
•
•
•
Kerbline of the existing indented parking area to be re-aligned / modified to provide a
minimum 6.00 metre parking bay / amenity outside the property. The vegetation / garden
beds to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.
Adequate clearances to be maintained from any and all existing street assets.
Redundant vehicular crossing must be removed concurrently with the construction of any
new crossover and prior to the completion of development works.
A Vehicular Crossover Permit must be obtained prior to any crossover works
Officer Comment
The above requirements will be included as conditions and notes on the permit.
Parks & Gardens
It is recommended that the Manager Parks and Gardens approve the removal of the two
Gungurru (Eucalyptus caesia) Specimens subject to the development proceeding as planned
and a crossover permit application being submitted.
•
•
That Parks and Gardens undertake the tree removal works and notification to neighbouring
propertied in line with Council's Tree Management Guidelines.
That the developer be required to pay all costs associated with removal and replacement of
the trees.
This application has been supported by Parks & Gardens in this instance.
Officer Comment
A note will be included on the permit that the costs associated with the removal and
replacement of the trees is borne by the applicant.
EXTERNAL REFERRALS
The application was referred externally to:Vic Roads
No objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions being placed on the permit.
1. All parking spaces must be design so that vehicles can enter and exit the development
in a forward direction to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Provision for vehicles to enter and exit the property in a forward direction must be
available at all times and all vehicles must enter and exit in a forward direction.
3. Prior to the occupation of the permitted development:
a) The vehicular crossover and driveway, 5.5 metres wide as measured at the property
boundary, must be fully constructed with the eastern edge of the crossover angled at
60 degrees to the road reserve boundary, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
b) The redundant existing crossover on Earl Street must be removed, and the area
reinstated to nature strip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
4. The slope of the access driveway must not be steeper than 1:20 for the first 6.0 metres
within the property boundary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Adequate signs shall be provided to direct and control traffic entering and exiting the
subject site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Vehicles must be able to fully enter the site without obstruction. If any gate, intercom or
any similar device to control vehicular access is provided, it must be located a minimum
of 6.0 metres from the property boundary to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
Officer comment:
The above conditions will be included on the permit.
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, including Council's Victorian Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Compatibility Assessment Matrix (Version 1, August 2011).
It is considered that the purpose of the officer's report does not negatively impact on the values
identified in the Charter.
The officers responsible for this report have no direct or indirect interests requiring disclosure.
CONSIDERATIONS
In assessing this application, consideration has been given to the following:•
•
•
•
The objectives of planning in Victoria as detailed in Section 4 of the Planning & Environment
Act 1987;
Section 60 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987;
The relevant provisions and decision guidelines of the Boroondara Planning Scheme
including the decision guidelines of Clause 65; and
Any comment or decision of a referral authority.
STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following State policies are relevant to the assessment of the current application:•
•
•
•
•
Clause 11 - Settlement
Clause 15- Built Environment & Heritage
Clause 15.01-1 - Urban Design
Clause 16 - Housing
Clause 18 - Transport
Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne 2030: A Planning Update Melbourne @ 5 Million seeks to
facilitate sustainable development that takes full advantage of existing settlement patterns,
transport, communication, water, sewerage and social facilities. More specifically, it seeks to
encourage well designed, energy efficient, site responsive higher density housing development
on sites that are well located to activity centres and public transport and to ensure housing stock
matches changing demand by widening housing choice, particularly in the middle and outer
suburbs.
The subject site has convenient access to community facilities as follows:•
•
•
•
Local shops and some services in Willsmere Village.
North Kew Kindergarten is 95m walking distance from the site.
75m from the bus stop on Willsmere Road.
80m to the Outer Circle bike path.
The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the broad urban consolidation,
energy efficiency and medium density housing objectives outlined in the relevant Clauses of the
State Planning Policy Framework.
Furthermore, the proposal is considered to respect the character of the surrounding area and
contributes positively to the preferred character of this area.
For residential development proposals not covered by Clause 55 (ResCode), planning and
responsible authorities must have regard to the design principles in Clause 15. This includes
assessment of the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, the Safer
Design Guidelines and the Activity Centre Guidelines, which are reference documents for
residential developments of four or more storeys. The relevant elements of these guidelines are
discussed against the original grounds of refusal in the assessment section below.
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following Local policies are relevant to the assessment of the current application:•
•
•
•
•
Clause 22.03 - Car Parking Policy
Clause 22.07 - Neighbourhood Character Policy
Clause 22.10 - Retail Centres Policy
Proposed Clause 22.10 - Neighbourhood Centres and Enterprise Corridors Land Use
Policy
Proposed Clause 22.12 - Neighbourhood Centres and Enterprise Corridors Urban
Design Policy
Council’s Car Parking Policy seeks to ensure that each change of use or new development
provides sufficient car parking to meet its own demands in appropriate locations. The policy
specifies that a “dwelling” (other than a caretaker’s house if at least two on a lot – standard)
should generate a parking rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling for residents and 0.2 spaces per
dwelling for visitors. Clause 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme also applies car parking
rates per dwelling. It is considered that the car parking rates as specified in Clause 55 are more
appropriate and will be applied in these circumstances.
Clause 22.03 specifies a rate of 3 spaces per 100m2 of shop floor area. The proposal shop is
75m2 and therefore requires 2 car spaces under this clause. Car parking is discussed in more
detail below.
Clause 22.07 - Neighbourhood Character Policy
Council's Neighbourhood Character Policy seeks to "encourage design solutions which enhance
and respond positively to the existing neighbourhood character of residential areas in the City".
The subject site is not included in a neighbourhood character area. It is considered that the
proposal is appropriate for the preferred neighbourhood character of the area. This is discussed
as relevant below.
Clause 22.10 - Retail Centres Policy
The Retail Centres Policy at Clause 22.10 specifies that it is policy that:
•
•
The basis for future use and development of individual shopping centres, in the absence
of a Structure Plan, be in accordance with the attached Table 1.
The location of core retail activities be encouraged within Business 1 Zones.
•
•
•
•
The location of core retail activities be generally discouraged in Business 2 and 3 Zones.
Non-retail activities be encouraged to locate in centres no longer fulfilling a convenience
or regional retail function (principally Specialist Business Centres and Specialist Leisure,
Entertainment or Niche Activity Centres) in accordance with Table 1.
Office, residential and community infrastructure that enhance the vitality of a shopping
centre be encouraged:
o At the periphery of the centre.
o Above retail premises, if appropriate.
A Structure Plan be jointly developed by Council and the proponent for a retail centre
which is being targeted for a development over 2,000 square metres in floor area.
CENTRE NAME CURRENT ROLE DESCRIPTION & ACTIVITIES FUTURE ROLE
Willsmere Village is included in Table 1 as follows:
Current Role
Small Convenience Retail Centre Small centre with limited range of convenience retail facilities.
Description and Activities
Has strong “village” atmosphere and potential for further development as a specialist food and
casual eatery centre. It is close to new Willsmere residential development which should enable
centre to increase patronage.
Future Role
Consolidate as specialist food and casual eatery centre, in addition to limited convenience role.
The proposal meets the broad objectives of this policy by providing shop use at ground floor and
residential above. However, this policy is outdated and more recently Council has adopted an
Activity Centre Strategy which includes Willsmere Village.
Planning Scheme Amendment C107 and C108 (the only difference is one amendment seeks
permanent controls and other seeks interim controls). This amendment replaces Clause 22.10
with a Neighbourhood Centres and Enterprise Corridors Land Use Policy. This updates
Willsmere Village as follows:
Proposed Clause 22.10 Neighbourhood Centres and Enterprise Corridors Land Use
Policy via Planning Scheme Amendment C107 and C108
This policy is derived from, and implements the provisions of, the Boroondara Activity Centres
Strategy, 2011.
Relevant to this application the following applies to the Willsmere Village:
CENTRE
NAME
DESCRIPTION
AND
ACTIVITIES
FUTURE ROLE /
STRATEGIC
DIRECTIONS
PREFERRED AREA
SPECIFIC LAND USE
OUTCOMES
CENTRE
NAME
DESCRIPTION
AND
ACTIVITIES
FUTURE ROLE /
STRATEGIC
DIRECTIONS
Willsmere
Village
Willsmere Village
has a strong village
atmosphere and
offers a limited
range of
convenience
facilities, services
and eateries.
The centre includes
facilities such as a
small supermarket,
medical facilities,
cafes and take-away
food.
Willsmere Village will host
additional convenience
retail goods and services, in
addition to specialist retail,
office, art and community
services, eateries and
cafes, to enhance its village
atmosphere.
The Centre will develop as
an attractive mixed-use
centre with retail services
and residential development
on upper levels, influenced
by a strong community and
arts culture.
PREFERRED AREA
SPECIFIC LAND USE
OUTCOMES
Area 1: Mixed use
development with:
- Retail and/ or office
uses at ground floor
level.
Office uses and/or
residential on upper
levels.
The proposed mix of uses of retail at ground floor and residential on the upper levels are
consistent with this policy. It is noted that the ground floor residential uses proposed on part of
the site are located outside of the Willsmere Village boundary.
Proposed Clause 22.12 - Neighbourhood Centres and Enterprise Corridors Urban Design
Policy via Planning Scheme Amendment C107 and C108
This policy implements the provisions of the General Urban Design and Built Form Guidelines,
which have been derived from the Boroondara Activity Centres Strategy, 2011.
This policy seeks to ensure that development in the activity centres and enterprise corridors
promotes sustainability, improves functionality, accessibility and improved integration with the
public realm, and addresses scale and identity through site responsive design.
The following objectives of this policy are relevant to this proposal:
Objective 1 - Sustainable Design
Objective 2 – Vertical Land Use Mix
Objective 3 – Overall Building Height
Objective 4 – Street Frontages: Ground Level Setbacks
Objective 5 – Street Frontages: Upper Level Setbacks
Objective 6 – Street Frontages: Integration with the Public Realm
Objective 7 – Frontages onto Service Lanes
Objective 9 – Shared Side and Rear Boundaries
Objective 10 – Overshadowing, Overlooking, Noise and Wind
These objectives are discussed in more detail as relevant against the grounds of refusal in the
assessment section below.
ZONING & OVERLAYS
Appendix D - Zoning Map
Business 1 Zone
Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is required to
construct buildings and works in a Business 1 Zone.
Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is not required for
use as a shop or dwellings provided that no frontage at ground floor level exceeds 2m. The
proposed dwellings in the business zone are all at first floor level and the entrance does not
exceed 2m in width. Therefore, there is no permit required for use under this zone.
Residential 1 Zone
construct more than one dwelling on a lot.
The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54 and Clause 55. This does not
apply to a development of four or more storeys, excluding a basement.
Proposed Clause 42.03-18 - Design and Development Overlay (DDO18) via Planning
Scheme Amendment C107 and C108
Design objectives - General
•
•
•
•
To achieve appropriately designed development that is consistent with the building heights,
setbacks and design outcomes of this Schedule.
To ensure that the building design is of a high architectural and urban design standard, is
compatible with the traditional high street character of the centres and accommodates the
preferred land use mix.
To redevelop and refurbish redundant buildings.
To maintain and enhance the character and amenity of adjacent residential areas.
•
•
•
•
To ensure new development respects and enhances heritage buildings and precincts.
To achieve ecologically sustainable development in the centres.
To incorporate noise attenuation measures, where appropriate, into the building design.
To create an environment conducive to walking, cycling and public transport use.
The subject site is partially located within WILLSMERE VILLAGE
Area
Maximum Overall
Building Height
Maximum Street
Wall Height
1
11 metres
(3 storeys)
8 metres
(2 storeys)
Preferred Minimum Upper
Storey Setback
(from all street frontages)
Map 20
3 metres*
(* and 3 metres from the
public park interface)
Willsmere Neighbourhood Activity Centre: Built Form Areas
Subject site outlined in white.
This overlay controls the building heights, setbacks and application requirements. It is noted that
the street wall height, overall height and 3m setback from residential 1 zone properties are
sought to be mandatory requirements under the DDO. For the discretionary elements, the
policy includes the following decisions guidelines:
An application which does not meet the preferred building setback requirements must
demonstrate that the proposed development:
•
•
Will continue to meet all the relevant design objectives and built form requirements of this
Schedule and the Neighbourhood Centres and Enterprise Corridors Urban Design Policy at
Clause 22.12 of the Planning Scheme.
Will provide a net community benefit and have minimal impact on the amenity of the area,
the public realm and adjoining residential areas as a result of the reduced building setback.
An assessment against this overlay is provided against the relevant grounds of refusal below.
PARTICULAR PROVISIONS
Clause 52.06 - Car Parking
Under Clause 52.06, a new use must not commence until the required number of car spaces
have been provided on the land.
The amended proposal is for 29 dwellings and a 75m2 shop.
Clause 52.06 specifies that a “dwelling” should generate a parking rate of 2 spaces per dwelling.
Clause 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme also applies car parking rates per dwelling. It is
considered that the car parking rates as specified in Clause 55 (ResCode) are more appropriate
and will be applied in these circumstances. It is noted that these rates are consistent with those
adopted by Council under the proposed draft Clause 52.06.
Clause 52.06 specifies a rate of 8 spaces per 100m2 of shop floor area. It is noted that the draft
Clause 52.06 proposes a rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 for shops in a business zone or activity
centre. Council's policy at clause 22.03 requires 3 per 100m2.
Therefore, the appropriate parking rates to apply are as follows:
Use
Dwellings - 28 x 1-2
bedroom
1 x 3 bedroom
Shop - 75m2
Rate
Clause 55 (ResCode)
1 space per 1-2
bedroom
2 space per 3
bedroom
1 per 5 dwellings for
visitors
Clause 22.03
3 spaces per 100 m2
Total
Parking Requirement
30 resident spaces
6 visitor spaces
Parking Provided
37 resident spaces
2 visitors spaces
2 spaces
1 space
38 spaces
40 spaces
The proposal includes 40 car parking spaces, 37 of these are allocated to residents, 2 to visitors
and 1 to the shop. This exceeds the requirement of 38 spaces. There are also bicycle facilities
provided on-site. Comments from Council's Traffic Engineers indicate that this allocation of
parking is appropriate. However, the visitor parking spaces must not be provided in car parking
stackers. This will be required to be amended by condition.
In regard to visitor parking, comments from Council's Traffic Engineers indicate that there is
adequate parking available to accommodate the shortfall of three visitor spaces for residents
and customer parking for the shop. This assessment takes the loss of one on-street parking
spaces, as a result of VicRoads crossover requirements, into account.
While some stackers could be removed to provide additional visitor parking, this would reduce
the total parking on site. Council's Traffic Engineers do not consider additional on site visitor
parking necessary. Therefore, the minor reduction in visitor spaces is acceptable in this case.
In regard to long term parking for the shop, given the small size of the shop, one on-site space
for staff is appropriate.
As a result of the crossover requirements of VicRoads, one of the indented on-street parking
spaces directly in front of the site will be removed. Conditions will be imposed to ensure that one
of the spaces is reinstated with a minimum length of 6m, in accordance with requirements from
Council's Infrastructure Department.
Overall, considering the parking provided on-site, parking availability in the area, the location in
an activity centre and the bicycle parking provided on-site and proximity to a bicycle path, the
amount of car parking is appropriate. It is noted that car parking was not included as a ground of
refusal on the original plans.
52.07 Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
Purpose
To set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and
adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety.
Requirements to be met
No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of
goods or materials unless:
• Space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles as specified in the table
below.
2,600 sq m or less in single occupation Area 27.4 sq m
Length 7.6 m
Width 3.6 m
Height clearance 4.0 m
For every additional 1,800 sq m or part Additional 18 sq m
•
•
The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. If a driveway changes direction
or intersects another driveway, the internal radius at the change of direction or intersection
must be at least 6 metres.
The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide.
A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if either:
• The land area is insufficient.
• Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority.
OF BUILDING MINIMUM LOADING BAY DIMENSIONS
No loading bay is proposed on-site and therefore a permit is required to waive this requirement.
Loading will occur via on-street parking on Earl Street or Pakington Street. Considering the
small size of the shop this is considered to be acceptable. Council's Traffic Engineers noted that
the original proposal, which proposed greater shop floor area, did not require a loading bay.
Clause 52.29 - Land adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1
Pursuant to Clause 52.29 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is required to alter
access to a Road Zone, Category 1. Earl Street is a Road Zone, Category 1 and the proposal
involves the construction of a new crossover adjacent on Earl Street.
VicRoads have agreed to the amended plans subject to standard conditions. These conditions
will be included on the permit.
Clause 52.34 - Bicycle facilities
The purpose of this clause is:
-
To encourage cycling as a mode of transport.
To provide secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and associated
shower and change facilities.
The required bicycle provision equates to a requirement for this development to provide 6
resident bicycle parking spaces for the dwellings (1 per every 5 dwellings). There is no bicycle
requirement for shops with a floor area less than 600m2. It is proposed to provide 10 bicycle
parking spaces. Therefore the provision of bicycle parking facilities exceeds the requirements
and there is no permit requirement under this clause.
Clause 52.35 - Urban context report and design response for residential development of
four or more storeys
The purpose of this clause is to ensure that an urban context report is prepared before a
residential development of four or more storeys is designed and that the design responds to the
existing urban context and preferred future development of the area.
A detailed report was provided with the application, urban design is discussed as relevant
below.
Clause 55 - (ResCode)
The part of the proposal located at 35 Earl Street is located in the Residential Zone and is three
storeys in height; therefore Clause 55 (ResCode) applies to this section of the proposed
building.
Pursuant to Clause 55 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a development:•
•
Must meet all of the objectives of this clause
Should meet all of the standards of this clause.
Overall, the proposal generally complies with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Boroondara
Planning Scheme. The relevant sections of ResCode in relation to the grounds of refusal are
discussed below.
OFFICER ASSESSMENT
The following is an assessment of the amended proposal against the grounds of refusal issued
for the original proposal.
1. Pursuant to Section 61 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the relevant road
authority, VicRoads objects to the proposal.
As previously discussed, VicRoads have withdrawn their objection and now support the
proposal subject to standard conditions. Therefore, this ground of refusal is no longer
relevant.
2. The proposed building in terms of height, scale and mass does not respond to the character
of the area and will have a dominating impact on the public realm.
The original proposal failed to take into account the scale of the Willsmere shopping centre
and instead presented a building that would be overwhelming in terms of building height and
scale for this centre which was inappropriate for the site context. The building proposed on
Pakington Street which was five storey and highly visible from Willsmere Road was of
particular concern. The removal of the building at 160 Parkington Street and the removal of
this site from the proposal largely address this concern.
The proposal has been reduced in scale from a five storeys maximum to a four storey
maximum and the overall height reduced. The deletion of the building on the Pakington
Street site alleviates the main concerns raised about the scale of the building as viewed
from the public realm. This was also previously the highest section of the building and
presented an inappropriately long and bulky building that was visible from Willsmere Road.
In terms of building form and mass, Council's Urban Designer had previously expressed
concern about the continuity of the mass along the north-south axis with the central section
of the mass exceeding 35 metres in depth. The deletion of the building at Pakington Street
addresses this issue because the length of the proposed building visible from Willsmere
Road and Pakington Street is significantly reduced.
The Earl Street frontage was not a concern in the original proposal as it currently makes a
limited contribution to the public realm due to the car yard on the corner, and the lack of
active frontages that the buildings at the subject site contain.
The amended proposal takes into account the surrounding site context by providing a
transition between the business zone and residential zone on Earl Street and providing a
more appropriate building scale. The presentation to Earl Street takes into account the
neighbourhood character context by stepping down to the residential zone and providing an
appropriate transition between. It is not considered that the building as proposed will have a
dominating impact on the public realm.
Therefore, it is considered that this ground of refusal has been addressed.
3. The proposed materials, in particular the extent of patterned concrete walls on the south
elevation, will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area.
The deletion of the Pakington Street building, reduction in height and the increased setback
between the business zone and residential zone assist to reduce the extent of concrete wall
that will be visible from the south. However, there are still two levels of patterned concrete
on the south elevation that will be visible above the existing building. Therefore, a condition
requiring a variation in materials on south elevation will be included. This will address this
ground of refusal.
4. The location of the crossover and driveway adjacent to an existing crossover and laneway is
a poor design response, prevents an active street frontage to Earl Street and results in a
large expanse of concrete to the street.
As previously discussed, VicRoads now agrees to the location of the crossover. Further,
comments from Council's Infrastructure Department and Traffic Engineers have now been
sought and they have no objection to the crossover location, subject to conditions. These
conditions will be included on the permit.
With the reduction in the size of the development and subsequent deletion of a basement
car parking level and the site at 160 Pakington Street, it is no longer considered that the
location of the crossover is a poor design response. This is because less vehicles are
entering and exiting the site.
In regard to the lack of an active street frontage and hard street edge, to Earl Street,
comments from Council's Strategic Planning Department indicate that in this case the 2m
setback at ground floor level is acceptable. This is due to the lack of a hard street edge on
surrounding properties and the primarily residential nature of the Earl Street to the east. As
this site on the edge of the business zone, it is appropriate to provide a transition between
the commercial area and the residential area. The 2m setback achieves this transition. In
addition, the applicant has indicated that the 2m setback is required to afford safe sightlines
from the driveway when vehicles exit the site. This is considered sufficient justification for
the 2m setback.
5. The location of the substation in the Earl Street front setback is inappropriate and will have
an adverse impact on the streetscape.
As a result of the reduction in scale and size of the development, a substation is no longer
required and the substation has been removed from the plans. Therefore, this ground of
refusal is no longer relevant.
6. Unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining residential properties, in particular visual
bulk to the east and overshadowing to the south.
Visual Bulk
The amended plans include a comparison with the ResCode setback envelope which
demonstrates that the setbacks from the east adjoining property are well within the
ResCode envelope. The overall reduction in height of the building also assists to reduce the
visual bulk impact to the east. The building is also proposed to be slightly cut into the natural
ground level so the height is reduced at the interface with the adjoining residential property.
The proposal comfortably complies with the minimum ResCode setbacks and exceeds the
setback requirements at each level. This is demonstrated in the table below:
Level
Ground floor
First floor
Second floor
Rescode Setback required
1 metre
1.8 metres
2.4 metres
Proposed Minimum setback
2.5 metres
2.5 metres
5.5 metres
Overshadowing
The amended plans include an increased setback from the south and east where the site
(45-49 Earl) abuts the residential property at 85 Tennyson Street. The first, second and third
levels have been setback at this interface. The deletion of the Pakington Street building and
the reduction in overall building height also assist to reduce overshadowing impacts. The
proposal would also comply with the relevant ResCode standard for overshadowing, if it
applied. Therefore, it is now considered that the proposal will not result in unreasonable
overshadowing impacts.
Overall, the proposed amended plans are not considered to have an unreasonable off-site
amenity impact and therefore this ground of refusal has been addressed.
7. The proposed building height and setbacks are inconsistent with Council's Activity Centre
Strategy for Willsmere Village.
The original proposal exceeded the height requirement by 3.5m and two storeys. In addition,
the street wall height at both Pakington Street and Earl Street exceed 8m and the third level
was not setback 3m from the street frontages. Therefore, this was included as a ground of
refusal.
Since the refusal was issued, Council has received a number of VCAT decisions in relation
to the ACS. These decisions consistently note that the ACS indicates Council's current
thinking on development in the area but has no formal status in the planning scheme and
therefore can only be given very limited weight. This is relevant to this application which is
currently before VCAT.
The circumstances in this instance are unusual as the proposal is now before VCAT and
mediation has been held, all the resident objectors have now agreed to the amended
proposal. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to assess the proposal on its merits.
The applicant has agreed to setback the third level 3m from the street frontage, in line with
the requirements of the ACS. However, the current proposal does not fully comply with the
ACS. The mandatory requirements sought under the Design and Development Overlay
(DDO18) of an 11m maximum height and 3 storeys, 8m maximum street wall height and 3m
setback from residential 1 zone are discussed below. The discretionary requirements that
are sought to be varied include a lack of a hard street edge (0m setback). For the reasons
outlined above, the hard street edge on this frontage is not considered necessary. The
proposed mandatory controls are discussed in turn below.
Maximum building height
The proposal is for a four storey building with a maximum height of 11.57m. At the 45-49
Earl Street site, which is located within the ACS boundary, the proposed building is between
175mm and 570mm above the 11m height limit and one storey above the storey limit.
In this case, it is considered appropriate to consider the variation in height due to the sites
location which is partially located within the ACS boundary and partially in a residential
zone.
When viewed from the street, the building on the 45-49 Earl Street section of the site is
between 260mm and 570mm above 11m. This is shown in drawing below and in the 3D
imagine provided in Appendix A.
Figure 1: The solid line shows 11m above natural ground level.
There is also a non-compliance with the number of stories, being four stories instead of
three stories. However, it is considered that the appearance of the building and overall
height is more critical. The objectives of the overall height controls in the ACS (Section
16.5, p278) include achieving a consistent visual definition of streetscapes, protecting the
character of the area and to actively encourage infill development and urban consolidation,
so as to relieve development pressure on more sensitive areas. These heights were
expressed in metres and storeys to assist the community understand the controls
proposed. With the translation of the ACS into mandatory provisions, the expression of
the overall height limits in metres and storeys creates potential confusion, possibly
preventing the development of land to the capacity assumed by the ACS. Therefore, it is
considered the non-compliance with the number of storeys is inconsequential when
assessing neighbourhood character and off-site amenity impacts. The only relevance
there is in ascribing a building height in terms of the number of storeys is to assist in
providing people with a conceptual appreciation of the building height relative to nearby
buildings.
Comments from Council's Urban Design indicate that the design response is appropriate for
the site context and that the minor variation to the height prescribed in the ACS will not
undermine the character of the Willsmere village centre. Specifically, the Urban Designer
has noted that the design and setbacks with a feathered roof line will reduce the presence of
the upper level in the streetscape. Further, in regard to the perception of the building from
the street, comments from Council's Urban Designer include that: the building base,
through the first floor balcony treatment, has a heavier and more robust presentation which
will attract the eye in direct views.
From an urban design perspective, this minor increase in height is not considered to have
an adverse impact the Willsmere Village centre. This is due to the setback to the building
from the street which means that the building will not be significantly larger in scale than any
future buildings of 11m that are built to the street edge. The ACS specifies an 11m height
limit at the street edge (zero setback from the street). The proposed building is setback a
minimum 2m from the street. Therefore, the urban design impact from the street of the
proposed building is likely to be lower in scale than an 11m high building which is built to the
street edge.
The section of the building that exceeds the height limit is setback 5m from the street. This is
2m greater than the 3m preferred setback outlined in the ACS for Willsmere Village. This
ensures that the small amount of building height above 11m will not have an adverse impact
on the streetscape.
The building is well articulated and uses a mix of materials, finishes and setbacks to ensure
it does not create visual bulk to the public realm. In addition, part of the site is located within
the residential zone and the proposal makes an appropriate transition between the
commercial precinct and the residential precinct.
The site is located on the edge of the Willsmere Village centre and is not part of the core
retail section of the centre which is located in Willsmere Road and Pakington Street. The
proposed building where visible from the main part of the centre is 250mm above the 11m
height limit and is more than 30m from Parkington Street. Therefore it is not considered to
have a significant impact on the overall urban design appearance of the centre.
Overall, the combination of the setbacks, particularly the upper level being setback an
additional 2m beyond the recommended setback, and the site's location means that the
minor variation in height will not have an adverse impact on the built form character of the
area.
Maximum street wall height
The ACS seeks a mandatory street wall height of 8m. The proposed building does not have
a street wall as specified in the policy as the building is setback 2m from the street. In regard
to the presentation of the building to the street, the first two levels have a maximum height of
6.4m, which is considered to be an appropriate wall height when viewed from the street. The
second floor has a height of 7.94m to top of the floor, plus the balcony parapet which means
that the height is 9.06m. The applicant has agreed to set this level back 3m from the street.
This is consistent with the policy for upper level setbacks and will ensure that the street wall
height is consistent with the preferred character of the area sought under the ACS.
Setbacks
As previously discussed, the applicant has agreed to setback the second floor 3m from the
street, in accordance with the discretionary provisions of the ACS. The third floor is setback
5m from the street which exceeds the 3m requirement of this policy. As previously
discussed, this ensures that the building height above 11m is not overly visible or dominant
when the building is viewed from the street.
In regard to the mandatory 3m setback from residential 1 zones, the only part of the site
within the ACS boundary which abuts a residential zone is the subject site to the east. The
purpose of this setback requirement is to protect the amenity of adjoining residential
properties. In this case as the adjoining property is part of the subject site it is not relevant.
The amenity impacts in regard to the part of the building on 35 Earl Street which has
residential zone interfaces have been discussed under the amenity section, as the ACS
does not apply to this part of the site. It is noted that the ResCode requirements have been
met.
Conclusion
Overall, the above assessment indicates that on a planning merits basis the proposal is
acceptable in terms of the objectives of the ACS and the presentation of the building in
Willsmere Village.
8. The proposed vehicle access is unsafe and inefficient due to conflict with vehicles accessing
adjoining sites via the laneway and the proximity of the proposed vehicle crossover to the
roundabout.
This issue has been further assessed by Council's Traffic Engineers and Infrastructure
Department. They have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. This includes
restricting vehicle entry and exit to the site to left turn only. The applicant has agreed to
these conditions. Subject to this condition, this ground of refusal has been addressed.
yApPEN)D‘
Y‘
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT
35-49 EARL STREET, KEW
Development Summary
FECA ( Fully enclosed area)
SCALE @ Al
SCALE @ A3
COVERSHEET
NTS
NTS
TP01 NEIGHBOURHOOD & SITE DESCRIPTION PLAN
1:300
TP02 DESIGN RESPONSE
DRAWING REGISTER
Total Site Area
1175 m 2
Site Area R1Z
547 m 2
Site Coverage R1Z
411 m 2
1:600
Site Area B1Z
628 m 2
1:300
1:600
Site Coverage B1Z
501 m 2
TP04 BASEMENT
1:100
1:200
TP05 GROUND FLOOR PLAN
1:100
1:200
TP06 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1:100
1:200
TP07 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1:100
1:200
TP08 THIRD FLOOR PLAN
1:100
1:200
TP10 ROOF PLAN
1:100
1:200
TP11 ELEVATIONS
1:100
1:200
1P12 ELEVATIONS
1:100
1:200
TP14 SHADOW DIAGRAM 9AM SEPT 22
1:200
1:400
TP15 SHADOW DIAGRAM 12PM SEPT 22
1:200
1:400
1:200
1:400
1:200
1:400
1:200
1:400
TP19 SECTION
1:100
1:200
75%
Ground Floor
714 m 2
First Floor
796 m 2
Second Floor
737 m 2
Third Floor
466 m 2
79%
_
Basement 1
Residential
First Floor
Apts
9
Apts
6 2 Bed
Apts
3 1 Bed
Apts
9
Apts
1 3 Bed
Apt
3 2 Bed
Apts
4
Apts
37 car spaces
Visitor
2 car spaces
Shop
1 car space
Total
9 2 Bed
Total 1 FL
Second Floor
40 car spaces
min. 10 Bicycle pa king spaces
Total 2 FL
for staff and residents
Ground Floor
Total GFL
Third Floor
1 Retail Shop
6 2 Bed
Apts
1 1 Bed
Apts
7
Apts
Total 3 FL
Total
29 Apartments
REVISION C
TOWNPLANNING
CH Architects ply 11d
ABNI: 31 717 719 866
Cc EShE
uch
nz
00ErnEm-fifi carabott holt architects
DOLIMEICI
iblEJL.131=1
204 Wellington Street
Collingwood, Victoria 3066
(03) 9417 1944
F: (03) 9415 1847
[email protected]
www.charchitects.cornau
COVERSHEET
PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
reynoot
JOB No.
10159
SCALE
NTS
DATE:
MAR 2012
Arahaml• URI
Da. dmalrga aryag.aa an, awalaahana
aaal.
DRAWN BY VIOF
saaallae r.aaaa,
ara mem Pa, LES
CAD File.
40199,TRICLOS
00
RESPONSE TO SITE CONSTRAINTS
4(5,
Cl
I
C21
The design has been careful y considered in relation to all
nei ghbowing properties and offers generous setbacks to the
residential interfaces that are within ResOode.
The proposal mana ges the two zonin gs of the site b y carefully
locatin g retail shops, access ramps Into the business zone and
ensurin g the development complies with the ResCode
requirement in the residentel zone.
Overlookin g has been addressed through the use of obscure
windows up to 1 .7m hi g h, highti ght windows and screening.
H4
Overshadowin g has been minimised b y the careful articulation
Of building mass and envelope.
The existing buildin g s on the site are proposed to be
demolished.
A pedestrian ramp has been proposed to inte grate the fall.
02
CONCRETE
C7
The development reposes a two way ramp which ensures
vehicles can exist Ins forward direction as re q uired by file
ROZ1.
The existing street tress are of Ito si g nificance and are
proposed lobe removed_
epic
RESPONSE TO SITE OPPORTUNITIES
.1.1••114
Q
0 i
eFFrin
I °P1
site
. ,T4S,7,,,,:
OP2
The large area of the subject site makes the desi gn more
efficient and encoura g es multi-unit development.
oP0
As the subj ect oile rs ',noted within the Willsrnere Villa ge, a
Nei ghbourhood Activity Centre, multi- store y residential it
mixed use development is encoura ged.
ce ok
iti 0,4, \
s
CO
-.-1
The proposed development is consistent with Eta arid RIZ
zonings of the site_
4
I 0P4
..aR
tu•
97.57
iisciscREIt
en05SO4
OPS
The neighbeuMarne good public transportation services and
location within the VIfillsmere Villa g e makes the site ideal for a
multi-unit development,
The ROW to the west of the site creates a butter between the
proposed development and the existin g building.
The development proposes to widen the existin g net ghbounng
crossover and make good the existin g carparkin g ba y in the
Earl Street fronta g e_
7'7 ,7
r_
-
CONCRdIE
CeosNdd
CAREPNC
-•_ - • - _ • _
604
—/
Norte
%VI Son,
iT
KINDERGARTEN
_•_
-•--•_
a
DRIVEWAY j CONCRETE
I CROWNS
Its
POS
CPIRPARK
79 A
Storey
_
/ ihritelL'4 lit
,A
,.,,,,,i i ...
STATUTORY PLANNING
CROSSNG
ele.135
Si 4 MAR ZOIZ
Set. See7
sees U.N.
RECEIVE'
CONCAVE
cense NO
4
DRIVEWAY I CONCRETE
CROS9NO
CONCRT
CROS9
TOWNPLANNING
CH Architects ply ltd
ABN: 31 717 71 866
0001_0 0
o amno
manIi
nu
atuocna3—
001-1300
carabott holt architects
204 Weillingt00 Street
Unialar3 collingwood. Victoria 3066
a
T: (03) 9417 1944
F: (03) 9415 1847
[email protected]
www.charchitects.com au
42 DESIGN RESPONSE
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
JOB No:
Ce9M9ht
10199
Frel.eb ,7
nelmal
fewalkeeer oneqr..
wIlve. Me imp,. own. genaen ri
Archilvetli reDO
SCALE:
liXlCKX ,
DATE:
MAR 2012
L. not sell• bawng,
DRAWN BY: VIGIF
CAD File:
10199_71:92_CR
02
„
„
/
\
\
,„,-,
BUSINESS "SI' RESIDENTIAL
ZONE 1
/\
\\N
1
8
SHOP
17 18
BUILDING AT 160 PAKINGTON STREET
DELETED FROM PROPOSAL
REVISION C
BUSINESS-4e. RESIDENTIAL
ZONE 1
ZONE 1
'MOL D
ABN: 31 717 719 896
D
03nn DO
cn toni_ no]
DDLinnn
U 0113
C
-
ollingwcod, Victoria 3068
7: (03) 9417 1944
F: (03) 9415 1847
irrlo@charchitects_conau
www.charchitects.com ,au
BASEMENT PLAN
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
TOWN PLANNING
JOB No:
THE 41.1.91 deo, cularraeseNHHHH.
cHHHECHHORH
nserrnei used
HH/Lbi
coped H. mg.H HIArdly •r pari
gmr.Hien el CH
Nal,
LH cHH fnonnps Use,nandognsens
cHH
tla ■ Heirycl. LHArthhell PH Ltd
ED
10199
SCALE
I .1 00 Al
DATE
MAR 2012
DRAWN BY: VitilF
CAD File:
04
lel 99_1704_BSIAT
Tar'.
60•N,
SHOP
9.50
Mln. Setback
75SQM
NURSERY
008BK
0,19IREN
I RL 99.10 GROUND
(o<`'
lo
IR REGOL AR
H/GH IjRic
No.164
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK BUILDING
97,38
TISQM
<c,
4?c.,2' SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHOP
>0
"FTPROPOSED S BICYCLE
—
<v-
HOOPS FOR VISITORS
FIG
AL
(IP
(;) \ •
270°00'
),71
r2Q
BRICK
0.04
COVERED
AREA
NE
ACCESS
•0 .
k"),
;4zt
(
n
Cb
r5
11+ .
W
1'
r-,
(27.0
•
•n
/1\
lii i
0(2) -
r\-
cJ
MEM
MEM
NNW
MEE
i
1• 1
1•1
r
UNIT
No,33
DOUBLE STER
CEMENT RENDEREE
DWELLING
0.18IREN
KITCHEN
111•111111=
Li
MEM=
MENEM=
=Maid
INNEN=
INNEN=
or&.
BRICK GARAGE
No,160
SINGLE STEREY
BRICK SHOP
N3I
c)CL
m
UNIT 2
Imtml
BUILDING AT 160 PAKING'
DELETED FROM PROOS
Imo
El
<c\'
76),
1•11
.70
PALIN
uviNg
II1
Ill
Ii
UNIT 3
I
DEUBLE
CEMENT PEN
DWE
onommom
mi•Nommi
limosmom
limmou
Immom
_illosimmo
0
i
TBSO
PALING
27
LHW
Al
cs,211),
Da, rin
ManCrin3- DO
MOLI3C10
6.1M.130
UHW
. .9, (. ec.L
CH Architects pty ltd
ABN al 717 719 996
OMMEID
9.103 0 OLD
DC
•c•NC)c)
(:,\•
T: (031 9417 1944
F: (03) 9415 1947
[email protected]
www.charchhects.com.au
ULH1W
LHW
„
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
4ffioN;c
E\
TOWNPL NINQ
RESIDENTIAL
ZONE 1
Co srdsels. cH
JOB No
10199
SCALE:
1:10099 Al
DATE:
MAR 2012
Iss LS
-77.=
AMA.. LS LS.
0. nan scale deass, ...ten dens. re
DRAWN BY: VKAF
As/ Mb, Swences.........
SS Is ...est so CH Ash.. RISS
CAD File:
10199_TP05 0FL REV
-
/
/
/
-------I
1
I
‘,,,
I
1,
\\
.-\:,/ /--)I--1/
I
I
i
1
\
1
1
I
ir
\ G./
/ BUSINESS
. - - ZONE 1
BK0.14
OVERHEAD
COVER WAY
Gq
FOO -Fp
9.50
Min, Setback
NURSERY
No,164
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK BUILDING
1
Mir
SERVICES
No.33
DOUBLE STER
CEMENT RENDERED
DWELLING
KITCHEN
SINGLE STEREY
BRICK SHOP
COVERED
I CM 0.1
L
PI- rn
AREA
ic-)
NO
ACCESS Li-I
270°00'
1E,71
A
al rummy—
Flom
i ■-■-■ imam
&mull
270
3,0
NE HABIT(
WINDOWS FAC
GAT
No,160
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHOP
EI L.19
L=1-1
BRICK GARAGE
b
BUILDING AT 160 FAKING1 )N STREET
DELETED FROM PROPOS)
esieuICT
TO 1.1,14.1
cE
DRIVEWAY
KE
1=1
PALINGS
DRIVEWAY
rRu-N1.9in Rgh
PALING
270°00' 31,46
I 4•
270000'
TOWNPL NINQ
ABN: 31 717 719 865
0i
0cl i 3hE
E' BUI
nD
C1C11 DO,
0CHDCnD7-DO
CICILprom
H15432
204 Wellington Stet
Collingswood, Victoria 3068
T: (03) 9417 1944
F: (03) 9415 1847
[email protected]
Yomv.charchitecis.com.au
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
JOB No:
10198
SCAtE:
1:190 @
DATE:
MAR 2012
CarryikM • Clt Art MM.
loused
,ort
wrlhoul the erprep
Re...swine LH
Pe,r1.1.
De m.o...., Ule pre 611,1.77,
DRAM EN: VK/IF
io199
CAD File:
,_10 6
1°20 56) ,
21, es
■
,/` BUSINESS
ZONE 1
RE
IAL
EARL 87`17`
BK0.14
C
LI
TE-
c4 R PARkING
Fljri TpA
950
Min, Setback
NURSERY
, IRREGUL
,
AR
pRicic
ICTCHEN
No.164
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK BUILDING
Mir
SERVICES
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHOP
COVERED
AREA
ND
ACCESS
270°00'
1.71
le, so,
'00
.05
ATE
No 160
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHDP
BRICK GARAGE
\
'NEI HABITi
WINDOWS FAC
Immo
immom
urns
NENE=
949 <00,
17111 2,5
smm
moor=
mum=
mr---iol
ImImi
MI
El
El
NI
BUILDING AT 160 PAKING"
DELETED FROM PROPOS,
M•I
MEM
f=i
IRON— —
1,9m High
PALINGS
270 0 00'
2.6
Ii
I
OEM
MN
IMII
MN
111
111
MI
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
No.33
DDUBLE STDR
CEMENT RENDEREE
DWELLING
PALING
31.46
270°00'
J
CH Architects ply Ito
ABN: 31 717 719 656
0001 0
uono no
Don mmt_no
Ogccnc37- mE)
0D1-133D
carabott hoft architects
T: (03) 9417 1944
F: (03) 9415 1847
[email protected]
www.charchitects.corn.au
_J
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
BUSINESS
ZONE 1
TOWNPL NINq
RESIDENTIAL
CAIMIMM1.1
cry
Pm 1.1.1
JOB Nu
10199
SCALE:
11 oo iS Al
DATE:
MAR 2012
7,71.
Do me. MMI.Ammu, 1,ryry pren Mrnamore
DRAWN BY: VK/IF
Anry olscremem...,
*RIM. rolmm , MOM.,
CAC File:
07
10199 IPO7_2FL
/
/
/rA
I
i s',
/
/
}- 21,
C. 6)px)
/
''•41
I
I
/
/I
BUSINESS
ZONE 1
RE
1YL.
BK0.14
NAM' ROW
OVERHEAD
COVER WAY
"--■
• 9.50
Min. Setback
NURSERY
No.164
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK BUILDING
c[
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHER
270°00'
Ilimm.101111101111M
Ettli000111111111_
1111114111100110111•00110111Sa-011
--"""11111100=00011111111imirm."""411110010R11001i
1111
-"14111111010001
110
--- ' JI
111
IR
ENE
1•0
INN
1•0
ION
100
'NZ
ifh
11111
IN
VI
IN
10
•
•
Min
• ml
mon
um
im
.MI1
mu
No.33
DEUBLE STOR
CEMENT RENDERED
DWELLING
.2,41
I•ml
'El
Noll
RICI T FENCED35, 05
vim
vow
bilL "NIT-._
mimmulln •
uramosi
FA •
NE.... No.160
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHOP
BUILDING AT 160 FAKING"
DELETED FROM PROPOS,
PALING
30,485
270 0 010'
TOWNPL NINg,
BUSINESS-41. RESIDENTIAL
i ZONE 1
ZONE 1
ABN: 31 717 719 866
a
OQD1_01
zmnn um
no
urnupocnqmDDL.1711
uL.101130
•
o
204 Wellingtin Street
T: (03) 9417 1944
F: (03) 9415 1847
[email protected]
www.charchitects.com.au
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
CeprfpN • ...WM
CS
.{,rarehleartia, L. end Inurtnol
prnprpal.alyp.r. pea
eapres.,,e,errnialm .1 CM
4*Rn
lac
De
JOB No:
10199
SCALE:
1:1005 Al
DATE:
MAR 2012
W• 7^, ^
DRAVVN BY: VKAF
1,. , enarre..C1.1Anlyutce
1.41
CAD File
lc 199_TP08_3FL
/
\
1'
,t------1-t
1
'I
I
i
c=\
1
1.
i
1,
X
I
I
.
,
\
\\ --__%. /' 1 i \
•-e----r
,
1
l
/
'I
1
\
\
C,i/c,pti,c)/c.
I
RE
1 BUSINESS
ZONE
cw m
OVERHEAD
COVER WAY
GA 7-F-
-
9,50
Min, Setback
0 "rpA
1H
BALCONY
BELOW
NURSERY
HIR REGuLA R
IGH BRick
No.164
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK BUILDING
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHOP
COVERED
AREA
NO
ACCESS
00 ,
0
LIFT
OVERRUN
BALCONIES
BELOW
1270°00
3.05
BRICK GARAGE
BALCONIES
BELOW
—
d>,`
c<N.
NO TFENCED
GATE
No,160
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHOP
NO HABIT
WINDOWS FA[
35, 05
270°00'
1r).71
No.33
DOUBLE STDR
CEMENT RENDERER
DWELLING
DOUBLE
CEMENT REN
DWE
Th
DRIVEWAY
'11 4 MAR Z012
I —
RECEIVED PALI
PALINGS
DRIVEWAY
270 0 00' 31,46
30.485
270°00'
II
1_1
UMUL0 C
Mh=riET
MC
IMM0Ci-1133"iO carabott holt architects
mmi_
mapui
01
'
CH Architects pty
ABN: 31 717 719 866
T: (03) 9417 1944
F: (03) 941 5 1847
[email protected] ,au
1_1
ROOF PLAN
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
REVISION B
I
BUSINESS -el- RESIDENTIAL
ZONE 1
ZONE 1
TOWNPLAi\ININg,
JOB No:
10199
SCALE:
1:100(g) Al
DATE:
14,1Ft 2012
0 M.... wylui
bwrar eet prr.
CH ArdellelsKe
cotim reporused..., 1.1
enet.ou.t.
Dona se....one,
DRAWN BY: VKIIF
asmoance
env It elb.alo
Lie
CAD File:
10199_TP1O_ROOF
TITLC BOUNDA RY
- MATER(AL 2:
SELECTED METAL
CLADDING
RL 111.00 TOP OF PPT,
—
iiiiiiiiii mamma
MATERIAL 2:
MATERIAL 2:
SELECTED METAL SELECTED METAL
CLADDING
CLADDING
RL 107.80 THIRD
1111111111MM Y11111111E=====E=====
1Miiii11111111111111111;=========jk==
II 11 ili _
RL 104.90 SECOND
-2-,..:
AM. hmiii
: ',.=[,..im. ii......_,.._
RL 102.00 FIRST
NO.33
DOUBLE STOREY
CEMENT RENDERED
BRICK DWELLING
II IIII III WI 9 Irm; 1 i
lic iiiii rn
.:' :'7 .,rrii__,- ;1..,
, ir
I
,-
RL 99.10 GROUND
k11.1.111111111111.1.111.11MISMIll
•• I MI=111111111 IIIIII••II••1111=111 ■111= IIIM III IIIIIIMINI
91 ........
111111I Timimpummilimmormilmilmommimmiummim
'9111
1111111111111111111111111111liiiiiMminliiimmillifillim1111 -
limn 111 NI 1 1 . IIIori ' I
is mimi Elm 1
iill ii
Em
hhi......1 - . .. Nimi I
1 .. .= ... III
i... ... i, • .. ... I •. .. .. .. 1I1m.
MATERIAL 1:
SELECTED
FACE BRICK
RL 96.30 BASEMENT
0
ammium111111111111111111111111
.--
!!! IiiIIMMEMIN
EM
m
WIMIll
itrA ---'
i JAI Rilo4il ligiiiiii iiiiiggigii•i,.1
PLANTER
BOXES
MATERIAL 4:
SELECTED METAL
CANOPY
MATERIAL 5:
MATERIAL 5.
SELECTED APPLIED
FINISH
SELECTED METAL
SCREEN
NO.53
SINGLE STOREY
SERVICE STATION &
NURSERY
NO.164
SINGLE STOREY
BRICK SHOP
PAKINGTON
STREET
NORTH (EARL ST) ELEVATION
SCAL 1:101
1>,2 *
MATERIAL 2
SELECTED METAL
CLADDING
MATERIAL 0:
SELECTED SLIDING
PERFORATED METAL
SCREEN
tO
RL 111.00 TOP OF PPT
1111101111111111111111111111111111111111M1111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIThimmaiimiammammanammom
III
IIIIIII!!lIIIII11II
111
1111111'11111
1
lllllllllllll
•
•1111 !!!!!!!!!!!!! =-
=.I ■ 1 111111 11111111 I ■
=MIMI
11111111k
9111111
RL 107.80 THIRD
•
:::
11116;•-.7 -.7
•1911111 ,-0, 1-.1,1.0
RL 104.90 SECOND
• .
::111111I
IIE
IIlllIIIIIIIIIIII
..1111111111
.111
lllllll I
L
• •••••,Bil .V.7...••:••••••...11111111ii inL
... I
III=
RL 102.00 FIRST
EARL
STREET
RL 99 10 GROUND
RL 96.30 BASEMENT 1
0
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE 1100
REVISION C
TOWNPLANNING
ABN: 31 717 719 E86
D
DD
ncn nDLID='
no
Lamm
cm-pun
T: (03) 9417 1944
ji carabott holt architects
LIDLI3D
F: (03) 9415 1847
infogicharchitects :com,au
www: charchiteds : cam,au
ELEVATIONS
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
JOB No:
10199
SCALE-
i:loorgm
DATE:
MAR 2012
.9, V, M11 • CR Art la Is Pri
dan,
ong al.., And
erne pa, of
A.*. pry L. Am At. a
oad. or ,rAda er Ap,
Arwil,AP
DRAWN Bsi' VK/IF
A, a.wom in
...Ha he Wm. ci LA. Mehionn
CAD File:
11
10199_TPI I_ELEV
I
MIMMISMILIW III IIIIIIII1IIII
IRL 107.80 THIRD
mipluesorimum1 ■ 11=1
IRE
■r■
I:I
I
■ =MIT =/■ 1,
RL 104.90 SECOND
RL 102.00 FIRST
MID i H10 1 11111 1 1 1
RL 99.10 GROUND
NATURAL
GROUND LEVEL
RL 96.30 BASEMENT
O
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1:10:1
— MATERIAL
SELECTED PATTERNED
PRECAST
SCREEN UP TO
1,7M HIGH
I
UF.
uRETo
GLASS
i .7M HIGH
i:111111'il 111111111111111111
101011111;11-41111„ HH1„
M Fil..,... nrinIMMIIII
.
RL 107.80 THIRD
RL 104.90 SECOND
RL 102.00 FIRST
RL 99.10 GROUND
1
O
CURRENT
— EXISTING WALLS
ON BOUNDARY
SHOWN DASHED
CURRENT
EXISTING ROOF
SHOWN DASHED
RL 98.30 BASEMENT
SOUTH ELEVATION
REVISION C
SCALE 1 . 100
TOWNPLANNING
0
5:20M L0 I=1
D3n0 CD
M CI1
ooh
momc no- 00
'U
UL
ABN: 31 717 719 966
T: r03) 9417 1944
P: (03) 9415 1547
[email protected]
ELEVATIONS
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
JOB No -
10199
SCALE:
1:100 a A1
DATE:
!VAR 2012
m.F.r..IM a.m.,. Ply 1.16
icinvnini,...n, and yeatle.nnn. and
in.
tb
r...e not he lanan1
Pt/ Lug
iniriproducssIM or in Fians
Ito inairen,,,,,,,,, iggrinnsuir inf
S n■ini^.. .": Z
Any MP, in nra,angs eineanesCarn
Nal be raw, Ann*
DRAVVN BY: VKIF
CAD File:
1919S_TPIO_ELEV
2
RL 111.30 TOP OF PET
RL 107.80 THIRD FLOOR
RL 134.90 SECOND FLOOR
1.1
1.8
LID
1.0
RL 102.00 FIRST FLOOR
EARL
STREET
RL 09.18 GROUND FLOOR
,0
•444/44
• •tk44
•.,,\
. 4. v
RL 90.20 BASEMENT
0
UNIT 1
....,
____,nink.„
...
.,-,,,m-,..,
...... .
•44•.4.44y.
—.0,....:
v<Ac■'/•%/.
/.#Qg.4 qt.
•#, r •r
)7;YWV7..V- r7W-70A-T?'.
.
W7'.W‘ iry'rt!WAtrpr., Al„,
./,‘NVi;
et
9•).• •r•r
•
.4fr.4r r•
4Y . 14:0/ Y,* ,,, ,i* „s: /..4,:*5.a.,1,,RA 5/\'/./N. ;\ .. ' \ ..
' 4. */' . /‘ .1 /t/k
/ #N / yerY/r/ir
A
V4‘.
V444./ t/,/,,,,,/,./..e.,‘„,,v„,,,,A.-,..„-,,,,0,4,0,4.0.,
/. • `• ,,,,V• •,'. • ,,,,W4Y•"4
4.°4 ,
r rN'"/e
.. r / rr#.YY/
,r,' , /•
b,,\.*„#„\k,,,,b,K
UNIT 2
UNIT 3
54;S\MM
ete:(0.
VA*
k*
SECTION A-A
SCALE I 100
REVISION C
TOWNPLANNING
CH Architects pt y 118
ARN: 31 717 719 856
101
OCIDLO 111
C131-10
ocn oraL no
=man- mo
unworn
uoLimm
a
T (03) 9417 1944
F' (03) 9415 1847
204 Weliington Street
[email protected]
Collingwong Viciaria 8066
www.charclnitects.com.au
SECTION
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
.L.P.9.9.
wr...e
JOB No.
10199
SCALE
Hoe gAi
DATE
MAR 2012
LI.
,1•61,...p ...lg. and epulx.s. and
tnfelikldwren.we 11,2
...SWIM NFL..., num nee n-del
tnl
...P.% L.
[...scan obern, I.n.s Ninon Ann...
DRAWN BY: VKilF
Any
indronugn
.aw
CAD File:
19
10199_TP19_SEC
.4411
gig
11M11111111111 1W11111111111 (
-4,_41
;
r.•
. 41 1111 111111r1 1111111 1 111A
'1411111111Limast
ARTIST IMPRESSION
NORTH (EARL STREET) ELEVATION
OCIC,
o, oon ooDori Elu l_ no
occonoo- Do
DOW=
'uoLpo carabott holt
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
Copyright 0
copyright CH Architects Ply Lld The drawings. designs, and spec ficationstherein are the property
of CH Architects Pty Ltd and must not be used,copied. or reproduced wholly or in part without
the express written permission of CH Architects Pty Lid only. Do not scale drawings. Use given
dimensions Any discrepancy in drawings or specifications shall be referred to CH Architects
Pty Ltd.
TOWNPLANNING
JOB NO: 10199
DATE: MAR 2012
DRAWN BY: VKIIF
t
it— +
110011010111001
175mm
IL+ 575mm
1111111116,7
BIRDS EYE VIEW- u rn PLANE
EH
:h
,
En
nc
U Lp carabott hok.
ARTIST IMPRESSION
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
Copyright
topyright CH Architects Pty Ltd The drawings, designs, and speciications therein are the property
of CH Architects Pty Ltd and must not be used.copied, or reproduced wholly or in part without
the express written permission hi CH Architects Pty Ltd only. Do not scale drawings. Use given
dimensions Any discrepancy in drawings or specifications Shall be referred to CH Architects
Pty Ltd.
TOWNPLANN1NG
JOB NO: 10199
DATE MAR 2012
DRAWN BY: VKAF
Afj?friD\X
Location of Subject Site, Notified Properties & Objectors
18
KEY
Subject Site
45-49
Earl Street
KEW
IAN\
Vicmap Property
Footprint
. Base
Proposed Application
X
Properties Notified
• PC1(4142S
40
424:90-6,
h shc.,A)r)
on rt. c1/4.0
CfNer
20
PA03
fea
'158-158
152-154
NOT TO SCALE
Contains Vemap information
The Stale of Victoria,
Department of Sustainabilit y
14141"ille
and Environment, 2906.
vicmap
State of Victoria and 0
caw at any kind or is wholly appropriate for
conse q uences which may arise from your
material or publication/.
The City of Boroondara does not warrant. the
accuracy or completeness of the ntormation
In this document. and does not accept
(whether direct or conse quential} suffered b y
you or any other person. arising from your use
afar reliance on this
information.You
must not reproduce
or communicate this
document without
Ifs poor permission
of the City of
BOROONDARA
Boreondara.
Pi)k- Oot .). c
SITE CONSTRAINTS
I et I
The subject sfie has five immeet ate neighbours.
The eastern part of the site is zoned R1Zwhile
the remaining site is BIZ.
I
Ca I
There is potential far overlooking to
neighbouring properties to the east. south and
west.
There is potental for overshadowing to
neighbounng properties to the east. south and
west.
NO 116
1E1
There are single storey and double storey
buildings on the site.
I
co
There is a fall of over 1m from the south-east to
the north-west of the site
es I
There are some existing street trees in the site's
Earl Street tentage
Earl Street is a ROZ1 road zone.
I
9023
talk
['POLE RUEDAEn
C7791 - "''.
OVERICAD
COVEN VA
SITE OPPORTUNIES
AN. Setback
0,0 VEAD-ERJCIAND
SINC-E STOREY
Ode! aril
I OP1 I
The site is zon ad B1Z and RIZ.
I OP2
The subject sie is relatively large with an area
oft175sqm.
11:21
There are a multitude of multi storey residential
and mixed use developments within the
immediate neighbourhood.
[0P4 j
The site has excellent access to a wide range of
estabt shed infrastructure and community
assets.
CONCRETE
CROSSING
ERICK
FACORY
Nona
SINGLE STOREY
RICK SHOP
There is a ROW to the west of the subject site
OP6 j
ERICK
0 04
03
There are existing car parking bays along the
Earl Street frontage.
'Pa s
441 ,
9705
, CONCRElt
Ivan,*
,
30.485
27000'
40.
•_ - • _
-•- -•- • -
BUSINESS
ZONE 1
E
_FA,LyZxf__
1
,,yy
809rn
R 0
ZONE 1
AL
CONCRETE'
CROSSING!
POS
CONCRETE
•
r" ,
TORO'
LING
DARRAN4
OArvEDAT !CoNcRETE
TWO
ROSSIRG
POS
KINDERGARTEN
-•_ - • _
- • -
CONCRETE
CROSSING
CARPARK
CONC ETE
CROSSING
CONCRETE
• CROSS.
STA) UTORY PLANNING
CONCRETE! DRIVEWAY
CROSSiNG .
POS
4 MAR 2012
Na'M
5,19 DORY
CH, DereHr
RECEIVED
TOWNPLANN1NG
0.
ABN: 31 717 71986E
01031_0
01
=no au
can unh nu
cone 3:23-
DEOLREDI
UELIMED
caraboft holt architects
T: (03) 9417 1944
9: (03) 9415 1847
infogrcharchilecis.com au
NEIGHBOURHOOD & SITE DESCRIPTION PLAN
35-49 EARL ST, KEW
SCALE:
10199
T300
DATE:
MAR 2012
JOB
C4/31141A 0 CH •rchilact• Pe, 1.c1
"
e'r
60660000 R504.d
00.0
pope, LW
N.Igt1.•,.1.
eiVIcs IHnetn ',Healer, al CH
Do not 005050ea.a. 60. 5000.
vet
4,Tmbbb45, chunnes spelhans
O.. Won. to CFI Arttitem TO US
No:
Ol
DRAWN BY: VItAF
CAD File: ima 113013A
01
A AP.ENON
D
Zoning Map
KEY
SubjectSite
45-49
Earl Street
KEW
4 35
im
Vicmap Property
Footprint
Base
Planning Scheme Zones
B1Z
Business 1
B2Z
Business 2
B3Z
Business 3
CDZ1
Comprehensive
Development
MUZ
Mixed Use
PCRZ Public Conservation
& Resource
PPRZ Public Park
& Recreation
Public Use Zones
PUZ1
Service & Utility
PUZ2 Education
PUZ3
Health &
Community
PUZ4 Transport
PUZ5 Cemetery/
Crematorium
PUZ6 Local Government
PUZ7
Other Public Use
R1 Z
Residential 1
R2Z
Residential 2
RDZ1 Road Zone
SUZ1
Special Use 1
SUZ2 Special Use 2
UFZ
Urban Foodway
NOT TO SCALE
64
120
130
100
OMNI
60
107
101
ague
110
120
111111rnme
40-42
30
mormuZiOsin
Map produced;
Contains Vicmap information
The State of Victoria.
and Environment, 2006
This matenal may be of
assislance to you but the
icina
State of Victoria and its
ypTap pierrnEn
A lap W.f.+. NA
flaw cif any kind or is wholly appropriate for
disclaims all liability far any error, loss or
consequences which may arise from your
relying on any information contained in Ma
material Ion publication].
Ir
p
The City at Boroondara does net warrant the
accuracy or completeness of the informagon
irs his document, and does not accept
(whether direct or consequential} suffered hy
you or any other parson, arising from your use
information. You
most not reproduce
or communicate this
document without
)
of the City of
BOROONDAKA
Boroondara
C
30/04/2012 14,1822
ATTACHMENTS
Monday 21 May 2012
UPC4
STATUTORY PLANNING
OFFICERS REPORT
Urban Planning Committee
Application Number
Date Application Received
60 Day Statutory Time Frame
Planning Officer
PP11/01004
18/10/2011
3/04/2012
Andrew Kerr/Erin Dicketts
Applicant
Owner
St. Columb's Anglican Church
Trustees St Columb's Church
Property Address
Proposal
Change of use of part of the existing place of
worship to be used as a food and drink
premises (cafe), display of floodlit business
identification signage and consent for car
parking
Glenferrie
Ward
Residential 1 Zone
Zoning
Heritage Overlay (HO164)
Overlays
Trees Identified on the Significant Tree Nil
Register?
Advertised?
Number of Objections Received
Recommendation
Yes
Seven (7)
Notice of Decision
PLANS ASSESSED IN THIS REPORT
Plans advertised 'February 2012'.
PROPOSAL
Appendix A - Plans
Page 1 of 20 Attachments to UPC agenda for 21 May 2012
An application has been made to Council for the change of use of part of the existing place of
worship to be used as a food and drink premises (cafe), display of floodlit business identification
signage and consent for car parking.
Details of the proposal are summarised as follows:







It is proposed to use part of one of the existing church halls for a food and drink premises
(cafe).
The hall building is accessed off St Columbs Street and is located directly to the rear (south)
of the Church Hall facing Burwood Road, approximately in the centre of the St Columbs
Street frontage.
The main entrance to the cafe will be from St Columbs Street.
The cafe is proposed to have 40 seats and is proposed to operate with one full-time and two
part-time staff.
The proposed opening hours are Monday-Friday 7am to 5pm; Saturday 7am to 2pm and
Sunday 12pm to 10pm. The hours are intended to coincide with the current peak use of the
hall.
It is proposed to construct and display a sign (1.0mx1.4m) on the north side of the building,
facing Burwood Road. The sign will be illuminated by a floodlight above the sign.
It is proposed to provide 3 car spaces for cafe staff within the existing car park accessed off
St Columbs Street, to the rear of the hall building.
Existing car parking areas on site will be maintained and will be available to cafe patrons.
THE SITE
Appendix B - Locality Plan
Site Location
Width of Frontage
Maximum Depth of Site
Total Site Area
Easements
Fall of the Land
Front Fencing Details


The subject site is located on the south side of Burwood Road
on the corner of St Columbs Street. The church complex is
located over 5 different lots.
24.9m to Burwood Road (combined total).
100.67m (combined total).
Approximately 2500m2
The site is encumbered by 4 sewerage, 1 drainage and 2 right
of way easements located throughout the subject site.
The site is generally flat with minimal fall across the allotment.
The site does not have front fencing.
The subject site is currently developed with a church, known as the St Columbs Anglican
Church Hawthorn.
The subject site is graded as 'Significant' in Council's Local Heritage Policy.





The existing building was constructed c 1882-1883 and was designed by architects George
Wharton and James Anderson.
The church is constructed of bluestone and the hall and residence are constructed of red
brick.
The subject site contains various buildings including the church, two halls and a residence.
There is an existing crossover and driveway off Burwood Road leading to a car park area
with parking for approximately 6 cars.
There are also 2 crossovers located off St Columbs Street leading to informal parking areas.
There are approximately 35 car parking spaces located within the church complex. These
car parking spaces are a combination of ad-hoc spaces around the main church and to the
east of the church hall, as well as in a dedicated car parking area (accessed from Patterson
Street to the east) which has space to park approximately 26 cars.
Subject site Location of proposed cafe Aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding area.
Hall to be used for cafe
Location of proposed sign View to the subject site from St Columbs Street, showing the location of the part of the hall to be
used for the proposed cafe.
THE SURROUNDING AREA
North - Across Burwood Road to the north-east of the subject site is The Hawthorn Hotel, which
is located on the corner of Burwood Road and William Street. Directly opposite the subject site
is a group of various commercial premises, next to which is Swinburne University.
East - Adjacent to the site to the east is a building owned by Swinburne Senior Secondary
College.
South - Abutting the subject site to the south is a residential property at No. 9 St Columbs
Street. Given the size of the church complex site, this dwelling is situated approximately 55m
from the existing church hall subject of this planning permit application.
West - Opposite the subject site across St Columbs Street is a motor repair business. Adjacent
to that business is a residential property, and diagonally opposite the subject site is a residential
dwelling at No. 2 St Columbs Street, approximately 20m from the subject site.
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following statement of significance provides a summary of the significance and key
attributes of Boroondara's Heritage Overlay precinct. Unless otherwise referenced, the
statements have been identified in the Review of Heritage Overlay Precinct Citations (2006)
prepared by Lovell Chen Pty Ltd.
HO164
Heritage Precinct
Statement of Significance
HO164 Leslie Street Precinct, Hawthorn
The Leslie Street Precinct, Hawthorn, which includes both Leslie Street and the Urquart Estate
and Oxley Road precincts, is an area of heritage significance for the following
reasons:





The place illustrates most of the significant development phases affecting Hawthorn
including the early years of settlement (1835-1855), the growth of Hawthorn as a Victorian
garden suburb, the Federation-era prosperity of 1901-1919; and interwar concepts of the
garden suburb.
The place contains a number of individually significant buildings exemplifying High Victorian
and Italianate design, the Federation style in its formative phase, and a series of
characteristic interwar designs.
Individually significant buildings in the Oxley Road precinct include institutional buildings
such as St Columbs Church, Auburn Uniting Church and its accompanying buildings, and
notable houses including Terrick Terricks and Auburn House.
The place has a particularly well-preserved and notable collection of the prevailing house
styles of the 1880s through to the 1930s, with homogeneous concentrations of style in
several streets. The interwar Old English and Mediterranean is particularly well represented
in Urquhart Street and Swinburne Avenue and homogeneous arrays of 1920s Bungalows
are found in The Boulevard and Lyall Street. Oxley Road, Elmie and Goodall Streets have a
good variety of Victorian and Federation houses. Leslie Street is a homogeneous run of
1880s workers’ cottages, and Minona Street has a relatively intact group of small late
interwar housing units.
Through the road layout, the footpaths transecting parts of the precinct, the broad street
lawns in the Urquhart Estate component, mature street trees and other landscape features,
and concrete road paving (Swinburne Avenue), the place clearly demonstrates the
application of the ‘garden suburb’ ideal as variously interpreted in the later nineteenth
century, Federation and inter-war periods. In Hawthorn the precinct compares interestingly
with its primarily Victorian and Federation predecessor, the Grace Park Estate (HO 152).
The Urquhart Estate component (Urquhart Street, Swinburne Avenue, and The Boulevard)
was the last substantial land holding in Hawthorn to be subdivided for residential purposes
(in 1919).
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT/AGREEMENTS
No covenant or restriction has been registered on Title for this property.
PERMIT/SITE HISTORY
Details of previous applications are as follows:Application
Date
of Decision
No
Decision
BOR/00/00227 9/10/2000
Permit
BOR/01/00300 20/9/2001
PP03/00353
27/6/2003
Permit
Permit
Description of Proposal
Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of
a new dwelling
Subdivide the land creating 5 allotments
Buildings and works associated with an existing
church in a heritage overlay.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, the application was advertised
by:

Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land;
Placing signs on the land for a period of 14 days.
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED?
Seven objections have been received to the proposal.
summarised as follows:












The grounds of objection are
Increase in traffic in an already busy street;
Decrease in parking available to residents and their visitors;
Increase in behavioural issues, especially if serving liquor;
Increase in number of eating/drinking venues when there are already too many in the
area;
Increase in litter and vermin;
Noise from early morning commercial rubbish collection;
Increased vandalism;
Loss of amenity and neighbourhood character of residential street in heritage area;
Odours from cooking;
Impact of signage on residential street;
Neon sign is not appropriate in this heritage area;
Use incompatible with existing streetscape;
Increased noise from additional people in the area;




Decrease in property value of residential properties;
Change of use for potential commercial advantage;
Sunday evening opening until 10pm is inappropriate;
Increased safety concerns through increased traffic and cars parked on both sides of the
street.
INTERNAL REFERRALS
The application was referred to the following:Traffic
We have reviewed the application documents dated 17 October 2011 and plans received on 3
February 2012. The proposal is to operate a 40 seat cafe on the site in an existing hall.
The proposed hours of the cafe are 7am-5pm Monday-Friday, 7am-2pm Saturday, and 12pm10pm Sunday. Three parking spaces are provided on the site for staff. The cafe is expected to
operate with one full-time and two part-time staff.
A 40 seat cafe would generally require parking for between 12 and 20 spaces, under Local
Clause 22.03. Traffic Engineering would expect the parking rate would be lower, in this case,
given the availability of public transport (tram and train) in the surrounding area and its location
near a business and educational precinct. The cafe is also proposed to be open at the peak
times associated with the existing Church and halls located on the site.
Traffic Engineering concurs with the applicant that the cafe will largely serve patrons already
visiting the site or surrounding area. It is not expected that the cafe would be a destination in
itself.
However we are satisfied that the parking opportunities are available in the surrounding area to
meet any shortfall.
In view of the above, Traffic Engineering has no objection to the proposed development
provided the following item is addressed:

Traffic Engineering suggests that at least 2 bicycle parking spaces should be provided
on the site, if not already provided.
Officer Comment
A condition of any permit issued will require the provision of at least 2 bicycle spaces on site.
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, including Council's Victorian Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities Compatibility Assessment Matrix (Version 1, August 2011).
It is considered that the purpose of the officer's report does not negatively impact on the values
identified in the Charter.
The officers responsible for this report have no direct or indirect interests requiring disclosure.
CONSIDERATIONS
In assessing this application, consideration has been given to the following:




The objectives of planning in Victoria as detailed in Section 4 of the Planning & Environment
Act 1987;
Section 60 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987;
The relevant provisions and decision guidelines of the Boroondara Planning Scheme
including the decision guidelines of Clause 65;
Any comment or decision of a referral authority;
Objections received.
ZONING & OVERLAYS
Appendix C - Zoning Map
Residential 1 Zone
Pursuant to Clause 32.01-1 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is required to use
land for a Section 2 use (food and drink premises).
Advertising sign controls are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 3.
Heritage Overlay
construct or display a sign.
PARTICULAR PROVISIONS
Clause 52.05 - Advertising Signs
Pursuant to Clause 52.05-9 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a permit is required to display
a floodlit business identification sign.
Clause 52.06- Car Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-1 a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use
must not be increased until the required car spaces have been provided on the land.
Given that the proposed use is not specified in the table at Clause 52.06-2, an adequate
number of car spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
OFFICER ASSESSMENT
STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following State policies are relevant to the assessment of the current application:


Clause 15 - Built Environment and Heritage
Clause 17 - Economic Development
Clause 18 - Transport
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following Local policies are relevant to the assessment of the current application:



Clause 22.01 - Advertising Signs Policy
Clause 22.04 - Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy
Clause 22.05 - Heritage Policy
Advertising Signs Policy - Clause 22.01
The objectives of the local Advertising Signs Policy are:

To encourage the form and location of signs to respect the character of the buildings on
which they are attached and the character of the street or area.

To control the number of signs to reflect the nature and intensity of the land use of the area.
An assessment of the proposed advertising sign will be undertaken in the 'Officer Discussion'
section of this report.
Car Parking Policy – Clause 22.03
Council’s car parking policy sets out various car parking rates for different land uses based on
surveys and studies which reflect local circumstances. The objectives of this policy are:





To ensure that each change of use or new development provides sufficient parking to
meet its own demands in appropriate locations.
To maintain the amenity of residential areas by minimising overspill parking from
adjacent non-residential uses and centres.
To avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and its surrounds.
To ensure fair and equitable treatment of all land owners and users.
To recognise the particular parking requirements of Camberwell Junction, being the
premier activity centre in the City.
A cafe is not listed under Council's Local Car Parking Policy. An assessment of car parking will
be undertaken in the 'Officer Discussion' section of this report.
Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy – Clause 22.04
The Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy at Clause 22.04 states the following
objectives:
 To ensure the sensitive integration of discretionary uses into their surrounding areas.
The Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy provides the basis for development in
Residential 1 and 2 Zones to ensure their proper integration into such areas. In acknowledging
that such uses have a place in the community and sensitive areas, which make them highly
accessible to the public. However the uses must be managed to minimise any adverse effects
on the amenity or character of the area.
The policy groups different types of discretionary uses under seven headings, namely:





General;
Corporate;
Institutional;
Function Centre;
High intensity community;
 Local community; and
 Domestic.
These groupings reflect the likely intensity of the discretionary use, private and public facilities
and the uses catchment, i.e. whether the facility attracts people from the metropolitan, regional,
local or neighbourhood level.
Relevant policy for this proposal includes:




The discretionary use provides services that respond to local need.
The discretionary use minimises its impact on existing residential areas.
The creation of clusters of non-residential activity be avoided.
New buildings and alterations to existing buildings complement the appearance of nearby
dwellings.
 Sites previously used or constructed for non-residential purposes be favoured.
 The demolition of existing dwellings be minimised.
Of relevance to this application are policies under the heading "Function Centre". The proposed
food and drink premises (cafe) is not specifically listed in this Policy, however both place of
worship and restaurant are listed as a 'Function Centre', pursuant to Clause 22.04. This is
defined as large attractors of people at one time, usually regional catchment, usually large
purpose built buildings, includes or predominantly evening and weekend hours of operation.
Clause 22.04-4 states:
Performance standards describe one way the proposal may satisfy the relevant policy
objectives and statements outlined above. An alternative method may be used if it can be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority that the alternative will meet the
policy objectives and statements. Similarly, the responsible authority may also diverge from the
performance standard if it believes that compliance with the standard will not meet the policy
objectives or statements.
For a Function Centre facility, the following performance standards are outlined:





Preferably adjacent to a commercial centre when activities will primarily be out of business
hours, and with access to a Road Zone or collector road.
Possible spread of hours 8 am - 11 pm Sunday - Thursday, 8am - midnight Friday and
Saturday.
Main access point preferably from a Road Zone or collector road, or predominantly nonresidential road.
Entry and exit points located to avoid car headlight glare spillage onto residential properties.
New buildings, refuse and car parking areas located at least 3m from residential property
boundaries.



Where relevant, noise attenuation barriers are be constructed along boundaries abutting
residential properties.
Rubbish collection to occur between 7am and 8pm Monday to Friday.
Set down and pick up areas to be provided on site.
An assessment of the policy statements and performance standards will be discussed in the
'Officer Discussion' section of this report.
Heritage Policy - Clause 22.05
The objectives of the local Heritage Policy are:






To encourage the retention and conservation of all ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage
places in the Heritage Overlay.
To consider the cultural heritage significance described in the statement of significance for
any heritage place as part of the design process of any proposal and when making
decisions about proposed buildings and works associated with that place.
To ensure that works, including conservation, alterations, additions and new development,
respect the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place.
To ensure that subdivision respects the cultural heritage significance of the heritage place.
To ensure that, when determining or when considering issues of bulk, form and appearance
of additions or new development, the evaluation is based on the characteristics of the
significant or contributory components of the fabric of the heritage place, rather than any
non-contributory elements that may exist in the area.
To promote urban and architectural design which clearly and positively supports the ongoing
significance of heritage places.
The Heritage Policy will be further discussed in the 'Officer Discussion' of this report.
Clause 43.01 - Heritage Overlay
The purpose of the Heritage Overlay is:





To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy
Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.
To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage
places.
To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise be
prohibited if this will demonstrably assist with the conservation of the significance of the
heritage place.
Clause 52.05 - Advertising Signs
The purpose of the Advertising Signs provision at Clause 52.05 is:




To regulate the display of signs and associated structures.
To provide for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area,
including the existing or desired future character.
To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.
To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built
environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.
Clause 52.06 - Car Parking
The purpose of the Car Parking provision at Clause 52.06 is:
To ensure that car parking facilities are provided in accordance with:












The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including
the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
Any parking precinct plan.
To provide the opportunity to use parking precinct plans in appropriate locations.
To promote the efficient use of car spaces through the consolidation of car parking facilities.
To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the
activities on the land and the nature of the locality.
To ensure that the design and location of car parking areas:
Does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, in particular the amenity of pedestrians
and other road users.
Achieves a high standard of urban design.
Creates a safe environment for users, particularly at night.
Enables easy and efficient use.
Protects the role and function of nearby roads.
Facilitates the use of public transport and the movement and delivery of goods.
OFFICER DISCUSSION
Introduction
The primary issues with this application that will be discussed below are:



The appropriateness of the use;
Council’s Discretionary Uses policy;
Traffic and car parking;


The proposed advertising sign and the Heritage Overlay; and
Responses to issues raised in objections.
The appropriateness of the use
The proposed use as a food and drink premises (cafe) within the existing hall on site is
considered appropriate for the site. Clause 22.04 (Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas
Policy) supports discretionary uses which provide services that respond to local need; minimise
their impact on existing residential areas and where the demolition of existing dwellings is
minimised.
The proposed cafe is located within the existing church complex and opposite a motor repair
business. It is approximately 55m from the nearest residential property on the east side of St
Columbs street (same side as the church) and approximately 20m diagonally from the closest
residential property on the west side of St Columbs Street. It is therefore considered that its
impact on nearby residential properties will be limited in terms of activity, noise and smell. While
the proposed food and drink premises (cafe) is obviously different from a residential use, it is
considered that it is not unreasonable to provide such a use in a residential area, provided that
the use is respectful of surrounding properties and seeks to minimise potential impacts.
The proposed cafe is modest in scale, with a maximum of 40 seats proposed. It is considered
that the potential impact on the neighbourhood of the proposed cafe will be limited and will not
be significantly different from the activities that already occur on site. As the applicant has
advised, St Columbs is an active church community that already runs or hosts several
community programs. It is considered that the majority of cafe patrons will come from the church
itself, as opposed to patrons visiting the cafe as a specific destination. As the subject site
already contains a non-residential use, it is considered that the impact of the proposed cafe
within the existing church hall will not be unreasonable.
Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy Assessment
The Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy is listed at Clause 22.04 and provides the
basis for development of non-residential uses in Residential 1 and 2 zones to ensure their
proper integration into such areas. The proposed food and drink premises (cafe) is not
specifically listed in this Policy, however both place of worship and restaurant are listed as a
'Function Centre, pursuant to Clause 22.04. This is defined as large attractors of people at one
time, usually regional catchment, usually large purpose built buildings, includes or
predominantly evening and weekend hours of operation.
Performance Standards
As Clause 22.04-4 outlines, performance standards describe one way the proposal may satisfy
the relevant policy objectives and statements outlined above. An alternative method may be
used if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority that the alternative
will meet the policy objectives and statements. Similarly, the responsible authority may also
diverge from the performance standard if it believes that compliance with the standard will not
meet the policy objectives or statements.
In accordance with Clause 22.04-4 of the Scheme, the following performance standards should
be met:

Preferably adjacent to a commercial centre when activities will primarily be out of
business hours, and with access to a Road Zone or collector road.
This standard is met given that the subject site abuts Burwood Road, which is a Road Zone,
Category 1. The subject site is also adjacent to the commercial area surrounding Swinburne
University, which contains a variety of different uses. It is also just outside the Glenferrie Activity
Centre and Glenferrie Structure Plan Area. Given this location, it is considered an appropriate
location to situate a discretionary use, particularly given that the site is already non-residential.

Possible spread of hours 8 am - 11 pm Sunday - Thursday, 8am - midnight Friday
and Saturday.
The proposed hours of operation are Monday-Friday 7am to 5pm, Saturday 7am to 2pm and
Sunday 12pm to 10pm. The proposed opening hours therefore generally fall within the specified
hours except for the 7am opening time instead of 8am. It is considered that the 7am start time is
acceptable given that the proposed spread of possible opening hours is less than that permitted
by the Policy. It is considered that the hours proposed are consistent with the current operating
hours of the church and its facilities and that the opening hours will not significantly impact on
the amenity of the nearby residential area. While several objections received have raised
concern with the opening hours and particularly the Sunday 10pm closing time, it is considered
that the proposed hours of operation will generally overlap with other business activities around
the site and will not unreasonably impact the surrounding area. The cafe's location within the
existing hall and a distance from residential properties will also ensure that it will not cause
unreasonable disruption.

Entry and exit points located to avoid car headlight glare spillage onto residential
properties.
The staff car park is located behind the existing hall where the cafe will be located and away
from residential properties. The entry and exit points to the other car parking areas on the site
that may be available for patrons to the cafe are located opposite the motor repair centre and
away from residential properties.

New buildings, refuse and car parking areas located at least 3m from residential
property boundaries.
No new buildings are proposed as it is proposed to use part of the existing church hall on site
and no external alterations are required. The existing car parking area for staff is located to the
east of the existing building, which is not adjacent to residential areas. Waste storage areas will
be located more than 3 metres from the nearest residential property boundary given the
generous distances between the cafe and nearby dwellings.
 Where relevant, noise attenuation barriers are be constructed along boundaries
abutting residential properties.
Given the location of the existing hall from which the proposed café is proposed to operate has
no abutting residential properties, it is considered that noise attenuation is not required. The
café will operate within the existing hall building, which is located generally in the centre of the
church's frontage to St Columbs Street. It is considered that the proposed café is modest in size
and given its confined location, will not generate unreasonable levels of noise.

Rubbish collection to occur between 7am to 8pm Monday to Friday.
A condition of any permit issued will require collection by a private contractor,
Waste Services Department has advised that as per its policy, it only collects
rateable premises. As it is considered that the proposed cafe, when combined
waste generated, would most likely require additional bins, private collection will
required. A condition of any permit issued will ensure that collection times are
specified above.

as Council's
one bin per
with existing
therefore be
within those
Set down and pick up areas to be provided on site.
Deliveries to the site will be able to occur wholly on site, given the existing crossovers and car
parking areas available to the site. This ensures that the operation of St Columbs Street will not
be adversely affected by deliveries to the proposed cafe.
Car Parking and Traffic
In regard to traffic generation, it is considered that the proposed use will not unreasonably or
significantly impact on the surrounding road network or surrounding streets. Council's Traffic
Engineers have reviewed the proposal and have advised that the proposed cafe will largely
serve patrons already visiting the site or surrounding area, rather than being a destination in
itself. Therefore, it is considered that there would be a minimal increase in traffic as a result of
the proposed cafe.
With regard to car parking, three car parking spaces will be provided on site for staff within the
existing car park off St Columbs Street. There will not be any spaces specifically allocated on
site for patrons. As the applicant has advised, while there are approximately 12 existing car
parks on the subject site that may be available for patrons, it is not possible to guarantee that a
substantial proportion of them will always be available for the exclusive use of the proposed
cafe, given the variety of activities that occur on site. However as previously discussed, it is
considered most likely that the majority of cafe patrons will already be visiting the church, as
opposed to travelling to the cafe specifically. It is also reasonable to assume that students from
Swinburne University opposite the site along Burwood Road may visit the cafe and would walk
from the campus, rather than drive. Seating is also restricted to 40, which would be a condition
of any permit issued.
Given that a food and drink premises (cafe) is not listed in the Car Parking table in Clause 52.06
of the Scheme, car parking is required to be provided to the satisfaction of Council. The
applicant has advised that there are 33 on-street car parks on the streets that border St
Columbs and the proposed cafe. Many of the objections received have raised concern about the
lack of available car parking already in St Columbs Street and the surrounding streets and that
the proposed cafe will exacerbate the situation. Council's Traffic Engineers have advised that
given the availability of public transport (tram and train) in the surrounding area and its location
near a business and educational precinct, combined with the proposed opening hours
coinciding with the peak times associated with the existing Church and halls located on the site,
that parking demand will be limited. Council's Traffic Engineers have therefore raised no
objection to the proposal, subject to the provision of two on-site bicycle parking spaces. This will
form a condition of any permit issued. It is therefore considered that consent for car parking
should be given.
Advertising Signage and the Heritage Overlay
It is considered that the advertising sign proposed at the front of the hall is appropriate and that
the appearance of the sign will not detract from the surrounding area or cause disruption to the
road network or nearby residential area. The proposed sign is for business identification
purposes and will be illuminated by an external floodlight. It will be located on the side of the
existing hall facing Burwood Road. Given this location and its limited size (1.4sqm), it is
considered that the proposed sign will not detract from the heritage significance of the existing
building, nor will it adversely affect the nearby residential area, given that it is facing towards
Burwood Road. While several of the objections received have stated that the proposed sign will
be neon, this is not the case. The sign will be illuminated by a spotlight above the sign, which is
considered to be reasonable. The sign will also be attached to the existing building in a way that
it is easily removable in the future without damaging the original fabric of the heritage building.
Overall, therefore it is considered that the proposed sign is acceptable.
OBJECTION RESPONSE
Those matters not already addressed in the foregoing report are discussed below:Total Number of Objections Received:
Seven (7)
Summary of Objection
Increase in traffic in an already busy street
Officer Comment
As advised by Council's Traffic Engineers, it is
considered that the proposed cafe will not be a
destination in itself but rather, will be largely
patronised by people already on site attending
the existing church and its facilities. Therefore
a significant increase in traffic is considered to
be unlikely.
Decrease in parking available to residents and As above.
their visitors
Increase in behavioural issues, especially if Liquor is not proposed to be served as part of
serving liquor
this proposal. It is considered that a food and
drink premises is unlikely to create
unreasonable behavioural issues in patrons.
Increase in number of eating/drinking venues It is considered that an additional food and
when there are already too many in the area
drink premises in the area will not create
further detriment to the amenity of nearby
Increase in litter and vermin
It is considered that a modest-sized cafe within
the existing church hall is unlikely to create
litter and vermin issues. Waste collection
associated with the cafe will be required to be
undertaken by a private waste collection
contractor and the cafe would be subject to
standard Health Department requirements.
Noise from early morning commercial rubbish A planning permit condition will require that
collection
waste associated with the cafe be regularly
collected by a private waste collection
contractor in accordance with the hours
specified in Clause 22.04. it is noted that
under the planning permit condition, waste will
be collected after 7.00 am on weekdays only.
Increased vandalism
It is unlikely that the proposed cafe would lead
to increased vandalism in the area, given the
small size of the cafe and particularly that it is
not proposed to serve liquor.
Loss of amenity and neighbourhood character The use of the existing church hall for the
of residential street in heritage area
proposed food and drink premises is not
considered to lead to a loss of amenity or
adversely affect the existing neighbourhood
character, particularly given that a nonresidential use already operates from the site.
Odours from cooking
The proposed cafe would be subject to
standard EPA guidelines. It is considered
unlikely that the operation of the proposed
cafe within the existing hall would create
significant cooking odours.
Impact of signage on residential street
The proposed business identification signage
is considered to be modest in size and given
its location will not adversely affect the
residential street.
Neon sign is not appropriate in this heritage A neon sign is not proposed. The proposed
area
sign will be lit by an external floodlight only.
Use incompatible with existing streetscape
Given the existing non-residential use
operating from the site, it is considered that
the operation of a food and drink premises
within the existing church hall will not have a
significant impact on the existing streetscape.
Increased noise from additional people in the As previously explained, it is considered that
area
the majority of patrons to the proposed cafe
will be visitors to the church who are already
on site. It is unlikely that there would be a
significant increase in noise from additional
people coming to the area.
Decrease in property value of residential The addition of a cafe within the existing
properties
church hall is unlikely to have an impact on
property values associated with nearby
Change of use for potential commercial The proposed use of part of the site for a food
advantage
and drink premises is considered to be an
appropriate use for the site and surrounding
area.
Sunday evening opening until 10pm is It is considered that the proposed hours of
inappropriate
operation will generally overlap with other
business activities around the site and will not
unreasonably impact the surrounding area.
The cafe's location within the existing hall and
a distance from residential properties will also
ensure that it will not cause unreasonable
disruption.
Increased safety concerns through increased As Council's Traffic Engineers have advised, it
traffic and cars parked on both sides of the is considered that the majority of patrons to
street
the proposed cafe will come from the church
itself and people therefore already on site.
Therefore it is unlikely that there will be
increased safety concerns through traffic and
parked cars.
A-?()
()‹ A
Eramo
CTAUTC.prkl,' Pi
male
toile
-3 FrP,
if
")
IM
disabled
_ _a baby
'thange
tg—ItItCri
FEB 2012
ro
on
install new on bench
dishwasher
store
grass
kerrianne barnes
female
toilets -
remove existing gate
and fence
1.
dp-ad 18624
concrete
p.o.box 393
diamond creek
victoria 3089
nom 16.5 m between exit and toilet facilities
-/—
concrete
new so
benches
grass area
Gas
0418 570 949
maya_moss©optusnet.com.au
ash sink
remove old hws - install new _
hws to exterior of building
HWS-
install new hard
non-slip commercial
grade linoleum to
kitchen floor area
existing
shed Et
storage
sink
oven
install new
underbench
dish washer
..
oven
existing sealed
timber floor
install new
hand wash
basin
timber floor to
be sealed
kitchen area
remove existing
window exhaust and
make good glasswork
reach re
existing
laminate
tables
7-
freezer
■.5
new stainless steel_
bench
Exm ,
shelves &
bench
a)
shelves
a.)
cafe lark sign
1000 x 1400
(illuminated by
sign spot from
above)
1 _—
entry
note: all wood surfaces to
be sealed with water based
epoxy
LEGEND
FS
rnaya a moss
E>c-PC:'
fin
existing laminate surfaces
EX-11.1
EX-DC
cafe
area 2
4
ki.dge
concrete
bitumum
cafe
area 1
cofle
se rve ry a rea
install new
commercial extractor
hood over stoves
fire extinguisher - water
fire extinguisher - dry chemical
heater
ire blanket
main entrance
for pedestrian
traffic coming
from burwood
road
all kitchen preparation area
walls to be steam cleaned
install insect screens to all
openable windows in kitchen
cafe layout plan 7N
r_g
stcolumbs - lark cafe
concrete landing
and concrete
pathway
alongside hall Et
adjacent to St.
CoLumbs street
footpath
in
cafe lark
st.columbs
anglican
st.columbs street
hawthorn
issue:
cafe permit plans
date:
25.11.2011
as shown
dwg no:
2 of 3
0
0—
existing church carpark
- crushed rock
swfnbume carpark
- crushed rock
0
to
0
1
concrete
grass
area
red brick hail
bitonnini
residence
existing student
accornodetIon
burwood road
new location
for 448 parking
existing site plan zN
rubbish Et rncgoilog bins
shed
biturrum
tt,
grass area
shared use
outdoor area
Indoor cricbet
hawthorn brick hall
concrete path
existing
Id lets
proposed re eryed
Cafe staff p rking
SYd.51. Are,
shared use
ontrlisnr area
grass area
St. columbs - lark cafe
-
kerrianne barnes
main church proper
entry to cafe
proposed location
of new cafe
premises
dp-ad 18624
p.o.box 393
diamond creek
Il
new cafe sign
location
main street entry to
victoria 3089
0418 570 949
"
[email protected] ,au
2012
'I": • LA; iNth
•
maya a moss
client:
cafe lark
st.columbs
anglican
address:
St. COI mbs street
hawthorn
proposed plans
Issue:
date:
25.11.2011
Scale .
as shown
I of 3
dwg
-
72
FEB 2012
c4.
kerrianne barnes
door swing shown dashed
actual graphics to be
determined
7
cafe lark sign
nom 570 x 1610
(door and sign illuminated by
flood light from above)
sign size to match
window opening size in
street elevation
to
dp-ad 18624
p.o.box 393
diamond creek
victoria 3089
0418 570 949
[email protected]
roadway
burwood rd elevation - /N
signage location
1-100
-
client:
cafe lark
st.columbs
anglIcan
address:
mbs street
hawthorn
St. COIL'
issue:
cafe permit plans
date.
25.11.2011
side profi e - cafe Lark sign
nom 570 x 1610
(illuminated by sign spot from above)
St. columbs ave - signage location /N
scale:
as shown
dwg no
3 of 3
ST COL vBS
SIC\ D SI
STAr..ITORY PI
1
'
3
PliklING
_,...) c...2
F7'
e.
White font fixed inside
perspex.
Clear perspex - allows brick
work to be visable.
FEB 2012
CPE\
l
WI
MN
1111:1-mi
gm'rimimm
NOT exact font
Possible change.
Font larger smaller
depending on
visibility.
Ii
11111•1111111111111
1111111
■ 111M
ST COL,vBS S C\ AS
\ \G
3TA1:rrowiPL4imiNG 1
1 - 3 77
,..
r- .
10 mm
Counter sunk I
Hexend bolt
FEB
A PPE AJO (2(
8
Location of Subject Site, Notified Properties & Objectors
KEY
Subject Site
Vicmap Property
Footprint
Base
Proposed Application
X
Properties Notified
•
Objectors
NOT TO SCALE
ConlainsViorrap information
The State or Victoria,
and Environment. 2006.
Thls material may be of
If n's
S late &Victoria and its
employees do nol guarantee
thel the publication is without
'm
flaw ninny kind or in wholly appropriate for
consequences which may arise frorrtyour
material for publication].
61
28
35
33 37
36
30
38
43
40 42
Tr
44 46
54 56
.2,...7.
63 85 67
•
_ . __ ___, ___
•ufm__
6.0 n.
..
.60 f62
64
esi•
68
76 n 78A
,...,
80 ,
co
49
.
.
•
45 47 51 53
55 57 8 61 63 65
67 89 71
..'
The Clly of Boroondara does not warrant the
accuracy or completeness of the informat ion
in this document, and dosiS not accept
(whether direct or consequential) suffered by
you or any ether person. arising from your use
information. You
must not reproduce
o r communicate this
document without
of the City of
Boroondare.
fiC A/P
Os- C
Zoning Map
KEY
Subject Site
Vicmap Property
Footprint
TT
Base
Planning Scheme Zones
H046
--666
7—
401-451
66-68
Illif .111
8
B 3Z
Business 3
CDZ1
Comprehensive
Development
MUZ
Mixed Use
Public Use Zones
PUZ1
Service & Utility
Education
1-10489 4
t,
Business 2
PPRZ Public Park
& Recreation
11?8
1.410 204.12
.
ritt-eee
2
B2Z
& Resource
36-38
1111
Business 1
PCRZ Public Conservation
PUZ27
B2Z
8 505
PUZ-2
131Z
446
B2Z
Health &
Community
44
448 454 462
468 474
472
47 S 482
- :;T A6 480
460
g
-
4
5
-
'
P UZ2
co
c
_
- GA
520
522 526' 1.530
492-500 . .?A4.
H0212 I
5 _
7
_
119
2)9
Transport
534
Cemetery/
Crematorium
536!
13 ,
357
.1
18
2A
Local Government
Yinap.a.Sfreet
rr
A
Other
a-
Public Use
Residential 1
H0210
H0209;
E 79A-81)
47
Residential 2
1
Road Zone
Special Use 1
Special
2
Use 2
Urban Floodway
584-586
31 33
H0164
a5 37 39 41.
47 49 53
55
11
NOT TO SCALE
57-59
"C7'
•3
61.
14
15
17
19
31 33 35
12 14 20
20
21
37
2.9
22
28
34
36
36 40 42 44 46
13-15
17
19
.
16
18
.>0
41 45 47
61 63 65 67
Urquhart Sh4ot
22
16
18
11A
St
78 78A 80
Map produced:
Contains )(reeled Information
no State of Votoria,
Department of SUstainanility
and Environment, 2oos.
assistance to yau hut the
inctrap
Slate of Victoria and its
mployees do not guarantee
t hat the puhlicaf on is without
fl aw of any kind or is wholly appropriate far
dIsciagns all liability -tor any error, less or
c onsequences which may arise from your
r elying on any information contained in this
material [or publIcation).
The City of Boroondara does not warrant the
accuracy or completeness ol the information
n this document and does not accept
whether direct or consequential) suffered by
you or any other person, arising from your use
nformatIon, You
must not reproduce
or communicate this
document without
Me prior permission
of the City of
Boroondara
11164/2012 11,3g:59

Agenda attachments 1-4

Transcription

Similar documents

What is a parallelometer? - Artiglio

Aitons House - Chestertons

mix connect public transport densify cycle walk transit

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

Open living room

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

FlexiFile™ - Lee Products

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

bib kushies