MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING
Held on Monday 11 August 2014
Releas ed to the public on T hur s day 14 Augus t 2014
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Table of Contents
1.
PRESENT...................................................................................................................... 1
2.
APOLOGIES ................................................................................................................. 1
3.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ......................................................... 2
4.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE............................. 2
5.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS ................................................................................. 3
6.
7.
5.1
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/1025/2013
13 Reid Street, Northcote VIC 3070 ................................................................... 3
5.2
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/806/2014/A
481-487 Heidelberg Road, Alphington VIC 3078 .............................................. 31
5.3
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/298/2014
21 David Street, Preston VIC 3072 .................................................................. 72
5.4
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/290/2014
36 Shaftesbury Parade, Thornbury VIC 3071................................................... 91
OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................... 105
6.1
List Scheduled VCAT Appeals ......................................................................... 105
6.2
Significant Applications Update ........................................................................ 138
6.3
List of Applications for next Planning Committee Meeting ................................ 142
CLOSE OF MEETING ............................................................................................... 143
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMITTEE OF DAREBIN CITY COUNCIL HELD AT
DAREBIN CIVIC CENTRE ON 11 AUGUST 2014
THE MEETING COMMENCED AT 5.35 pm
WELCOME
The Chairperson, Cr. Greco, in opening the meeting acknowledged the Wurundjeri people,
the traditional owners of the land.
1.
PRESENT
Councillors
Cr Gaetano Greco (Mayor) (Chairperson)
Cr Tim Laurence
Cr Vince Fontana
Cr Bo Li
Cr Trent McCarthy
Cr Steven Tsitas
Cr Angela Villella
Cr Oliver Walsh
Cr Julie Williams (Deputy Mayor)
Municipal Monitor
Peter Lewinsky
Council Officers
Paul Crapper – Director Corporate and Planning Services
Peter Rollis – Acting Manager City Development
Julie Smout – Coordinator Statutory Planning
Jacinta Stevens – Manager Corporate Governance and Performance
Katia Croce – Coordinator Council Business
2.
APOLOGIES
Nil
Page 1
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
3.
11 AUGUST 2014
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Cr. Walsh declared an ‘interest’ in Item 5.1 – Application for Planning Permit
D/1025/2013 – 13 Reid Street, Northcote VIC 3070.
4.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. J. Williams
Cr. B. Li
THAT the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 28 July 2014 be
confirmed as a correct record of business transacted.
CARRIED
Page 2
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
5.
11 AUGUST 2014
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
Cr. Walsh declared an ‘interest’ in the following item as he has friends living in the vicinity of
this property.
5.1
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/1025/2013
13 Reid Street, Northcote VIC 3070
AUTHOR:
Principal Planner – Dale Constable
DIRECTOR:
Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant:
J Cornetta - Cornetta Partners Architects
448 Heidelberg Rd
FAIRFIELD VIC 3078
Owner:
Chris Apostolopoulos and Evelyn Apostolopoulos
19 Wallis Ave
IVANHOE VIC 3079
SUMMARY:
•
It is proposed to demolish the existing building and construct three (3) double storey
dwellings, each on an individual lot with an area of less than 300 square metres.
•
There are three restrictive covenants registered on the Certificate of Title. The
covenants do not allow brickmaking or noxious trade of any description to be carried
out on the land. The proposed development does not breach the covenant.
•
Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision subject to conditions
CONSULTATION:
•
Notice of the application was given by posting a sign on the land and mailing of notices
to affected properties.
•
Ten (10) objections were originally received against the application, including a
petition. As a result of separate discussion between the applicant and objectors, the
total number of objections is now four (4) plus a petition.
•
The application was referred internally to the Assets and Property Unit, Public Realm
Unit, Parks and Gardens Unit, Transport Management and Planning Unit and the
Capital Works Unit.
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Planning Permit D/1025/2013 be approved and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit
be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The
plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance
with the plans submitted with the application (identified as drawing numbers TPA03,
TPA04, TPA05 and TPA07, Revision F, dated 21 February 2014 and prepared by
Cornetta Partners and Landscape Concept Plan, Project Number L3520, dated 20
December 2013 and prepared by Keystone Alliance landscape Design – Green
Division) but modified to show:
a)
The pedestrian doors to the garages altered so they do not open into the
garages.
b)
The widths of the garage doors increased to a minimum of 5.3 metres.
c)
The site coverage reduced to a maximum of 60%.
d)
The provision of operable shading devices to the west facing habitable room
windows.
e)
Details and sections of all external screens and louvres. The screens and louvres
must be designed to minimise downward views.
f)
The front fence elevation shown on Drawing No. TPA07, Fence Elevation and
Sections, Rev. F, dated 21-02-2014, and prepared by Cornetta Architects.
g)
Screening (with a maximum permeability of 25%) between the first floor
balconies associated with the lofts, to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above
finished floor level.
h)
The first floor east facing windows of the bedrooms to Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 to
have fixed and obscure glass to 1700mm above finished floor level.
i)
The screens to the external stairs to the loft areas must have a maximum of 25%
perforations and the blue tint glazing must be replaced with screening.
j)
Screening to the following areas of the first floor balconies:
i.
The southern edge of the Dwelling 3 balcony.
ii.
The north edge of the Dwelling 1 balcony.
iii.
The eastern edge of the Dwelling 1 balcony commencing at the northern
most edge and continuing south for 2.0 metres.
The screening must have a minimum height of 1.7 meters above the finished
floor level and be either fixed obscure glazing, fixed screens with maximum
openings of 25%, or louvres that are designed to minimise downward views.
k)
Annotations detailing a Tree Protection Zone and associated Tree Protection
Fence with a radius of 1.4 metres (measured from the outside edge of the trunk)
for the tree within the nature strip directly to the west of the site in accordance
with the requirements of Condition 6 of this Permit. No works are permitted in the
Tree Protections Zone unless authorised by the Responsible Authority.
Page 4
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
l)
11 AUGUST 2014
The landscape plan altered to show the following:
i.
A minimum of six (6) small sized canopy trees and three (3) medium sized
canopy trees;
ii.
The nature-strip trees to be retained;
iii.
The provision of an additional garden bed within the light court of Dwelling
3.
iv.
The garden beds within the light courts of Dwellings 1 and 3 to be a
minimum 350mm wide. Each garden bed must contain a minimum of two
(2) Mandevilla boliviensis.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
•
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is
made in writing:
•
Before this Permit expires;
•
Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion
of the development or a stage of the development.
4.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or
the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in
writing.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder
must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
5.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and
any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed
Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.
Before buildings and works (including demolition) start, a tree protection fence must be
erected around the tree within the nature strip directly to the west of the site at a radius
of 1.4 metres from the base of the trunk to define a ‘tree protection zone’.
This fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh (or similar) to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed.
No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the
tree protection zone.
No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the tree
protection zone.
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The ground surface of the tree protection zone must be covered by a protective
100mm deep layer of mulch prior to the development commencing and be watered
regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7.
Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the
ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the
subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building
Regulations 2010. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed
land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days
from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor
submitted to the Responsible Authority.
8.
All dwellings that share dividing walls and floors must be constructed to limit noise
transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia.
9.
Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of
illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and
all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of
amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
10.
Boundary walls facing adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
14.
Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.
Before occupation of the development areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and
access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
a)
Constructed;
b)
Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the
plans;
c)
Surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
d)
Drained;
e)
Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
f)
Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and
driveways
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be
used for any other purpose.
Page 6
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
16.
11 AUGUST 2014
Before the development is occupied all redundant crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or
parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and
channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit)
N1
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken
to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in
the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
N2
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
N3
The amendments specified in Condition 1 of this Permit and any additional
modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed
by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition. Any “necessary or
consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this condition, should be
specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment.
N4
If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their
approval under the relevant Sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They
can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been
approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without
notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more
significant nature may require a new permit application.
N5
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other
departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals
may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the
approval of this Planning Permit.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
No relevant planning history exists for the site in Council’s records.
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area:
•
The subject site located on the east side of Reid Street between Darebin Road and
Dennis Street.
•
The site is comprised of three (3) lots and is regular in shape.
Page 7
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
The site has an overall frontage of 18.29m, a depth of 39.62m and an area of
2
724.62m .
•
The site contains a single storey weatherboard dwelling with vehicle access to a
carport along the southern boundary.
•
The site has a fall of 1.22m from the north east (rear) corner to the south west (front).
•
The site has access to a right of way at the rear.
•
To the north of the site is a single storey weatherboard dwelling with a front setback of
9.76m. Importantly, this allotment has a planning permit for the construction of two (2)
th
double storey attached dwellings (issued on 9 February 2012). This development has
a front setback of 4.25m and a setback of 1m from the common boundary (with the
rear section along the boundary). Double garages are located at the rear of the site
and vehicular access to these is to be from the abutting right of way.
•
To the south is a single storey weatherboard dwelling, with a double storey extension
to the rear. The dwelling is set back 5.7m from the street frontage and 1.219m and
1.8m from the common boundary.
•
To the east, beyond the rear right of way, are the garages and rear yards of dwellings
fronting St David Street.
•
To the west, on the opposite side of the street, are single storey dwellings, a number of
which are on narrow allotments.
Proposal:
•
It is proposed to construct three (3) double storey dwellings attached side by side
across the width of the site.
•
Dwelling 1 is located to the north, Dwelling 2 to the centre and Dwelling 3 to the south.
•
Dwellings 1 and 3 are to have a similar level of accommodation, with the ground floors
having a bedroom to the front and an open plan kitchen/meals/sitting area to the rear,
with storage, laundry and bathroom facilities. The first floors are to each have two (2)
bedrooms, en-suites and a retreat area.
•
Dwelling 2 is to have a bedroom to the front and an open plan kitchen/meals/sitting
area to the rear, with storage, laundry and bathroom facilities at the ground floor. The
first floor is to have three (3) bedrooms, a retreat, terrace to the front (west) and a
central lightcourt (for daylight to the central bedroom).
•
The dwellings are each to have a double garage at the rear, with a loft containing a
bathroom at the first floor level. Vehicle access is via the right of way to the rear
(east).
•
The dwellings will have a contemporary design with brick and rendered walls at the
ground floor, lightweight cladding to the first floor walls and flat roofs.
Objections
Ten (10) objections were originally received against the application, including a petition. As a
result of separate discussion between the applicant and the objectors, the total number of
objections is now four (4) plus a petition.
Objections summarised
•
Increased traffic along right of way.
Page 8
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
Right of way is unmade.
•
Excessive fence height.
•
Existing fence is in good condition and fence cost.
•
Impact on trees on adjoining property.
•
Inadequate shadow diagrams. Overshadowing impact on: solar panels; skylight; and
windows.
•
Dark colour of brick to boundary wall.
•
Overlooking.
•
Excessive site coverage.
•
Increased parking and traffic on the street.
•
Double storey façade height.
•
Loss of vegetation and inadequate landscaping.
Officer comment on summarised objections
•
Issues such as overshadowing, overlooking, site coverage, parking, height, landscape
character, neighbourhood character and general compliance with the provisions of
clause 55 are discussed below in the assessment of the proposal.
•
The right of way at the rear of the site was originally set aside for vehicles and
pedestrians. It is also noted that the Neighbourhood Character Study encourages
provision of vehicular access from a rear laneway if available. Additionally, it is noted
that there are other garages accessed from the rear right of way. It is not considered
that the proposed dwellings will lead to unreasonable traffic along the right of way.
Therefore, rear vehicular access is acceptable.
•
Although the right of way is unmade and not on Council’s road register, it is still
available for use as vehicular access.
•
Unless there are direct amenity impacts (such as low fences leading to overlooking)
the issue of replacement fences and cost/height of fences is not a planning
consideration. The existing 1.5m fence with 500mm trellis to the south boundary is
acceptable.
•
The applicant has provided an arboricultural assessment which has been reviewed by
Council’s Parks and Gardens Unit. The Parks and Gardens Unit have not objected to
the development subject to conditions relating to replacement planting and tree
protection measures for the nature strip tree.
•
The overshadowing assessment is concerned with shadows over secluded private
open space areas (rather than solar panels, windows and skylights) during the equinox
(not at either of the summer or winter solstice). The proposal does not unreasonably
overshadow the adjoining property and complies with the relevant standard (see
assessment below). There are no tools in the Planning Scheme to assess shadows
over solar panels and the objector notes that direct sunlight is available to the panels
during the equinox and winter solstice (at noon).
•
The colour of the brick wall to the south boundary is considered reasonable.
•
Overlooking is assessed below and may be addressed by conditions requiring
appropriate screening.
Page 9
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
The proposal exceeds the site coverage standard. A condition of approval will require
the site coverage to be reduced to a maximum of 60%.
•
The proposal provides adequate parking on the site for residents. It is not considered
that the increase in traffic or parking from the subject development would place an
unreasonable load on the surrounding street network.
•
Although the development is double storey in a mainly single storey area, Council
should assess the proposal on its merits in the context of the site and area. It is noted
that there are other double storey buildings/extensions in the area and that it is a
generally held planning principle that double storey heights are an acceptable gradual
increase over the adjoining single storey buildings.
•
The proposal will result in loss of vegetation for the site. However, as can be seen
from internal referral comments from Council’s Public Realm Unit and Parks and
Gardens Unit, acceptable landscaping may be addressed by condition.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER PRECINCT GUIDELINE ASSESSMENT
EXISTING BUILDINGS
Objective:
•
To encourage the retention of older dwellings that contribute to the valued character of
the area in the design of development proposals.
Comment:
Complies
•
The site is not located in a Heritage Overlay and therefore the building may be
demolished without planning permission. The development must therefore be
assessed in terms of the neighbourhood character.
•
Given the assessment below, it is considered that the replacement buildings are
respectful to the scale and character of the neighbourhood.
VEGETATION
Objective
•
To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of the dwellings and the presence of
trees in the streetscape.
Comment
Complies, subject to condition
•
There are a number of trees on the site, however only one (1) is of high retention
value. All of the trees on the site could be removed without planning permission.
•
The proposal provides appropriate front garden space, to maintain the landscape and
garden setting of the dwellings within the street.
Page 10
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
There is an accompanying landscape concept plan which is considered largely
acceptable, subject to conditions.
•
The proposal is appropriately sited and designed to incorporate space for the planting
of vegetation, such as canopy trees.
•
A condition of approval will require six (6) canopy trees to be provided on the site.
SITING
Objective
•
To provide space for front gardens.
•
To maintain and reinforce the existing rhythm of spacing between dwellings.
•
To minimise the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking
structures.
Comment
Complies
•
The front garden is large enough for planting of vegetation, to enable the continuation
of the garden setting in this area.
•
The proposal allows sufficient garden space for landscaping.
•
Although the dominant form of dwellings in the street is detached dwellings, there are a
number of dwellings on narrow allotments with boundary walls in proximity.
Additionally, the allotment to the north at 11 Reid Street has a proposal for two (2)
attached double storey dwellings. This is considered to be a seriously entertained
planning proposal given that it has a planning permit. While the proposed dwellings
are constructed to the common boundaries, the boundary construction is set back from
the façades. Additionally the dominant front porch structure and fences to the sides
minimise the presence of the boundary walls to the streetscape and creates the
appearance of space between buildings.
•
Car parking is at the rear, accessed from the right of way. Therefore, car parking
structures do not dominate the façade or view of the dwelling.
•
It is also noted that the widths of the dwellings are based on the widths of the individual
lots that form the site.
HEIGHT AND BUILDING FORM
Objective
•
To ensure that buildings and extensions respect the predominant height and form of
buildings in the streetscape.
Comment
Complies
•
Dwellings in the area are single and double storey.
•
The two (2) storey height is generally acceptable, as it represents an appropriate
transition over adjacent single storey developments.
Page 11
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
The front of the proposal is double storey and the upper floor is not set back one (1)
room from the ground floor façade. Nevertheless, this is acceptable as the design
provides recessed upper levels, so that a single storey leading façade is provided. The
design also includes appropriate setbacks at the upper floor levels for articulation. This
is an appropriate design response and adequate articulation is provided.
•
The development is not out of scale with the adjoining buildings and does not dominate
the streetscape, as it presents a graduated increase in height over adjoining single
storey buildings.
•
The proposal incorporates a pitched roof to Dwelling 2 which complements the
contemporary design of the development.
MATERIALS AND DESIGN DETAIL
Objective
•
To ensure that the use of materials and design detail in new development
complements that of the predominant building styles in the street.
•
To encourage buildings that contribute positively to the streetscape through the use of
innovative architectural responses and by presenting visually interesting facades to the
street.
Comment
Complies
•
Articulation to the façade is achieved through the use of brick, render and lightweight
materials.
The appropriate use of external materials combined with appropriate
setbacks and varied fenestration assists with articulating the buildings to an
appropriate standard.
•
The contemporary design is appropriate in that the Design Objective encourages
innovative architectural responses with visually interesting facades. It is also noted that
the site is not in a Heritage Overlay and the Design Response allows, cultural
expression through colour, building details and architectural reinterpretation in designs
outside Heritage Overlay areas. The proposal is considered to be appropriate in this
regard.
•
The flat roof with a pitched central feature is appropriate and complements the
contemporary design.
FRONT BOUNDARY TREATMENT
Objective
•
To maintain the openness of the streetscape and views to established gardens and
dwellings.
Comment
Complies
A 1.2m fence is proposed to the front boundary.
Page 12
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Clause 54 Assessment
As the proposal includes three (3) dwellings that are each constructed on individual lots of
under 300 square metres, an assessment against the requirements of Clause 54 of the
Darebin Planning Scheme is required. As the three (3) dwellings have been lodged as one
application the assessment will be based on the entire property and not on the individual
lots.
Clause 54.03-1 A3 Street Setback
The front setback of the adjoining dwelling to the north is 9.7m (however, it is important to
note that a planning permit has been issued for a development on this site with a front
setback of 4.25m). The front setback of the adjoining dwelling to the south is 5.7m. The
standard therefore requires a setback of 7.73m. The proposed front setback is 4.99m and
does not comply with the Standard. Nevertheless, it is considered to comply with the
objective in that:
•
The Planning Scheme does not require a particular front setback for development that
has been issued a planning permit but not constructed. The Neighbourhood Character
Study notes that Front setbacks are typically small, ranging between 3 m and 6 m.
The proposed setback is greater than this. Additionally, the Design Response in the
Neighbourhood Character Study requires that Buildings should be set back from the
front boundary a sufficient distance to accommodate a front garden. This has been
addressed in the design.
•
As noted, the allotment to the north has a proposal for two (2) attached double storey
dwellings (this is considered to be a seriously entertained planning proposal, given that
a planning permit has issued). The front setback of this development is 4.25m, which
would require a front setback of 4.975m on the subject site. As the proposed
development provides 4.98m, it would comply with the standard when taking the
proposed adjoining setback into account.
•
The front setback of the existing dwelling to the north could be considered to be
uncharacteristic given that the front setbacks in the area range between 3m and 6.2m.
The proposed front setback is within this range.
•
There will be no unreasonable visual impact of the building when viewed from the
street and from adjoining properties.
The proposal therefore complies with the objective: To ensure that the setbacks of buildings
from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient
use of the site.
Complies with objective
Clause 54.03-3 A5 Site Coverage
The area covered by buildings is 65.5%, which does not comply with the standard of having
no more than 60% of the site covered by buildings. This is not considered suitable based on
the character of the surrounding area. A condition of approval will require the site coverage
to be reduced to 60%.
Complies subject to conditions
Page 13
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Clause 54.03-5 A7 Energy Efficiency Protection
The proposal is considered to be generally energy efficient due to the following:
•
Attached construction and multi storey construction (minimising heat load/loss).
•
Cross ventilation is available in the design.
•
The development does not unreasonably affect the solar access and energy efficiency
of neighbouring dwellings.
•
Open space and living areas with access to north light.
•
Space for outdoor clothes drying facilities.
•
A condition of approval will require the west facing habitable room windows to be
provided with operable shading devices.
Complies subject to conditions
Clause 54.03-6 A8 Significant Trees
The surrounding landscape character is generally semi mature and informal with large open
spaces and spacious setbacks.
The open spaces and setbacks are large enough to provide sufficient landscaping.
A landscape plan has been submitted. A condition of approval will require changes in
accordance with the requirements of Council’s Public Realm Unit, Parks and Gardens Unit
and for the provision of six (6) canopy trees to complement the surrounding character and
replace the existing trees to be removed.
The setbacks to all dwellings are generally large enough to provide sufficient landscaping
and an appropriate landscape plan will be required as a condition on any approval.
Complies subject to condition
Clause 54.04-1 A10 Side and Rear Setbacks
The ground floor wall heights and setbacks are as follows:
Boundary
Wall height
Required
Setback
Proposed
setback
Dwelling 1 – North
3.65m
1.015m
1.08m
Dwelling 3 – South
3.74m
1.042m
1.08m
Garages – East
3.2m
1m
1.76m – 1.9m
Page 14
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The first floor heights and setbacks are as follows:
Boundary
Wall height
Required
Setback
Proposed
setback
Dwelling 1 – North
6.51m
1.873m
1.85m
Dwelling 3 – South
6.63m
1.909m
1.94m
Garages – North
3.8m to
1.06m to
1.85m to
6.1m
1.75m
3m
4.2m to
1.18m to
1.7m to
6.3m
1.81m
3m
6.3m
1.81m
1.7m
Garages – South
Garages – East
It is noted that some sections of the upper floor walls do not comply with the Standard.
Nevertheless, it is considered to be an appropriate design response and complies with the
objective in that:
•
The level of non-compliance with Dwelling 1 is minor and limited to the front yard area
and side walkway area, so that there will be no unreasonable impact on the amenity of
the private open space areas.
•
Although the garage setbacks do not comply to the east, these are acceptable as there
is a right of way to the rear, separating the subject site from the adjacent rear yard
areas. In addition, the adjacent rear yard areas have garages, which provided even
greater separation and minimises impact on the amenity of the secluded private open
space.
•
The remaining areas of the development comply with the Standard and the upper floor
areas are separated, so that there are minimal amenity impacts.
Complies with objective
Clause 54.04-2 A11 Walls on Boundaries
The standard requires that a wall be of a length of no more than 10 metres plus 25% of the
remaining length of the boundary of an adjoining lot, and a height not exceeding an average
of 3.2 metres.
Boundary and
length
Maximum length
allowable
Proposed length
Proposed height
North: 39.62m
17.405m
16.65m
Average of 3m
South: 39.62m
17.405m
16.53m
Average of 3m
East: 18.29m
12.07m
13.45m (balcony
screens)
Screens to 4.2m
Although the balcony screens to the east do not comply with the Standard, it is considered to
be an appropriate design response and complies with the objective because these abut the
adjacent right of way so that there is a setback of approximately 3.6m provided to the
nearest residential property.
Page 15
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The balcony screens are appropriately set back from any habitable room windows or private
open space areas and will not cause any unreasonable detriment.
Complies with objective
Clause 54.04-3 A12 Daylight to Existing Windows
An area of at least 3.0 square metres with a minimum dimension of 1.0 metre clear to the
sky is provided opposite all existing habitable room windows, which complies with the
standard.
Upper floor walls are set back at least half their height from neighbouring windows. This is
achieved by sloping the first floor walls to the central retreat area of Dwelling 1.
The development allows adequate daylight to neighbouring existing habitable room windows.
Complies
Clause 54.04-4 A13 North Facing Windows
The dwelling to the south has a ground floor level habitable room window set back 1.219m
from the common boundary. The standard therefore requires a setback of 1m at ground
level, which has been provided.
At first floor level the wall height of 6.5m requires a setback of 2.74m. The proposal
provides a sloped wall to the retreat, stair and bathroom area, with the top of the wall being
set back approximately 3m from the boundary.
Therefore, the north-facing habitable room windows on the adjoining property will not be
unreasonably impacted by the proposed development.
Complies
Clause 54.04-5 A14 Overshadowing
Overshadowing of adjoining open space meets the standard and objective.
Overshadowing of neighbouring properties by the proposed dwellings is minimal, with at
least 40 square metres of neighbouring dwellings’ secluded private open space with a
minimum dimension of 3.0 metres, or 75% (whichever is the lesser) receiving a minimum of
five (5) hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September.
As noted above, the overshadowing assessment is concerned with shadows over secluded
private open space areas (rather than solar panels, windows and skylights) during the
equinox (not at either of the summer or winter solstice). The proposal does not excessively
overshadow the adjoining property and complies with the relevant standard. It is also worth
noting that there are no tools in the Planning Scheme to assess shadows over solar panels.
In addition, impact on windows is assessed by appropriate setbacks and the amount of
daylight available, rather than direct sunlight.
Complies
Clause 54.04-6 A15 Overlooking
The ground floor areas have finished floor levels of less than 0.8m above natural ground
level. The existing boundary fences are 1.9m to the north and 1.5m plus 500mm trellis to the
south, which address overlooking. However the applicant is to increase these to 1.9m, with
an additional 900mm trellis, which will address overlooking.
To the north and south, the upper floor stair and retreat windows of Dwellings 1 and 2 have
louvered screens to 1700mm; however, the spacing to the louvers is required to be
confirmed by condition.
Page 16
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
To the east the views from the upper floor windows and balconies above the garages are
largely screened by adjoining garages. However, it is considered that the following screening
is required (to 1,700mm above floor level):
•
South elevation of the balcony to the loft of Dwelling 3.
•
The north elevation and 2 metres along the east elevation of the balcony to the loft of
Dwelling 1.
The first floor east facing windows of the bedrooms to Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 have obscure
glass to 1,700mm, however these must be fixed to 1,700mm.
To the west the first floor windows and terrace of Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 will overlook the street
and are acceptable.
The west elevation of the garages provides external stairs to the loft areas. These areas are
screened to 1,700mm, however this Standard does not relate to stairs.
Some screening is required so that there will be no unreasonable views to the secluded
private open space of dwellings within the development as follows:
•
The screens to the external stairs to the loft areas must have a maximum of 25%
perforations and the blue tint glazing may allow oblique views and should be replaced
with screening.
•
The first floor east facing windows of the bedrooms to Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 have
obscure glass to 1,700mm, however these must be fixed to 1,700mm.
Complies, subject to condition
Clause 54.05-2 A17 Private Open Space
The development provides adequate private open space (pos) for the reasonable recreation
and service needs of residents.
This is achieved through the provision of 40 square metres of secluded private open space
at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 25 square metres, a minimum
dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room. The development provides
the following:
Total POS
Secluded POS
Minimum Dimension
of Secluded POS
Dwelling 1
70m2
25.09m2
5.3 metres
Dwelling 2
67m
Dwelling 3
70m2
2
2
5.3 metres
25m2
5.3 metres
25m
All secluded private open space areas have direct access to a living room.
Complies
Clause 52.06 Car Parking
The dwellings have three (3) or four (4) bedrooms and access to a double garage each.
This parking provision is acceptable and in accordance with the requirements.
Page 17
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
In terms of parking design and layout (under Clause 52.06-8), the following is relevant:
•
The garages have appropriate dimensions.
•
Vehicular access is suitable subject to the widths of the garage doors being increased
to a minimum of 5.3 metres.
•
There are no ramps. The site falls allows an adequate gradient for vehicles.
•
There is no mechanical parking.
•
The proposal provides garages at the rear, so that the garages do not dominate the
public areas.
•
The parking areas may be adequately lit and surveillance is available.
•
The access provides paved areas to the car spaces via the right of way.
•
Pedestrian routes are available.
CLAUSE 55 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Clause
54.02-1
Std
A1
Compliance
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Site coverage
65.5%. Please see assessment in the body of this
report.
54.03-4
Y
Building height
6.63 metres
54.03-3
Y
Street setback
The required setback is 7.73 metres, the dwellings
are set back 4.99 metres from the street frontage.
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
54.03-2
Y
Integration with the street
The dwellings appropriately integrates with the
Street.
54.03-1
Obj
Neighbourhood character
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
54.02-2
Std
Permeability
25.5%
Page 18
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Clause
54.03-5
11 AUGUST 2014
Std
A7
Compliance
Energy efficiency
Dwellings are considered to be generally energy
efficient and will not unreasonably impact adjoining
properties, subject to conditions.
54.03-6
A8
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Daylight to new windows
Adequate setbacks are proposed
appropriate daylight access.
54.05-2
Y
Overlooking
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
54.05-1
N
Overshadowing
Shadow cast by the development is within the
parameters set out by the standard.
54.04-6
Y
North-facing windows
Development is set back in accordance with the
standard.
54.04-5
N
Daylight to existing windows
Sufficient setbacks exist to allow adequate daylight
54.04-4
Y
Walls on boundaries
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
54.04-3
Y
Side and rear setbacks
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
54.04-2
Y
Landscaping
Adequate areas are provided for appropriate
landscaping and a landscape plan has been
required as a condition of approval.
54.04-1
Y
to
allow
Private open space
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
Page 19
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Clause
54.05-3
11 AUGUST 2014
Std
A18
Compliance
Solar access to open space
Sufficient depth is provided for adequate solar
access.
54.06-1
A19
A20
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Design detail
Design detail of dwellings is appropriate in the
neighbourhood setting.
54.06-2
Y
Front fences
1.2 metre high front fence is proposed which is
appropriate in the neighbourhood context.
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority
Capital Works
Response
No objection.
Transport Management No objection subject to width of the garage doors being
and Planning
increased to 5.3 metres and the pedestrian doors should
not open into the car spaces.
Public Realm
One (1) small canopy tree should be provided within the
rear private open space of Dwelling 3.
Naturestrip trees to be shown as retained.
The light courts for Dwelling 3 should have an additional
garden bed for Mandevilla boliviensis (as per Dwelling 1).
Provide four (4) 350mm wide garden beds from planting
MBW and double the amount of MBW in each of the four
(4) beds.
Assets and Property
No Objection – The right of way is unmade and not on
Council’s roads register, but is available for use and access.
Therefore maintenance falls on the adjoining owners (under
Council’s General Local Law). It is preferred to have the
right of way constructed, however it is a long right of way.
Page 20
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required
Clause 32.01-3 (Residential 1 Zone) – construction of one dwelling on a lot of less than
300m2.
•
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme
Relevant Clauses
SPPF
11.02-1, 15.01-1, 15.01-5, 15.02, 16.01, 19.03-1
LPPF
21.05-1, 21.05-2, 21.05-3, 22.04
Zone
32.01
Overlay
46.05
Particular provisions
52.06, 54
General provisions
65.01
Neighbourhood
Character Precinct
A2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
All new dwellings are required to achieve a minimum average six (6) star energy rating (five
[5] minimum) under the relevant building controls.
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil.
Other
Nil.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this
application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil.
Page 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and
persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or
indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff,
reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
MOTION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. J. Williams
THAT the ‘Recommendation’ as presented in the agenda (to approve the Planning Permit
Application subject to conditions).
Cr. McCarthy proposed to the mover Cr. Fontana and seconder Cr. Williams that Item 1. c)
be amended to read as follows. This was accepted by Cr. Fontana and Cr. Williams
1.
c)
The site coverage is reduced to a maximum of 60% for each lot on the site.
THE AMENDED MOTION THEN READ AS FOLLOWS:
MOTION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. J. Williams
THAT Planning Permit D/1025/2013 be approved and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit
be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The
plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance
with the plans submitted with the application (identified as drawing numbers TPA03,
TPA04, TPA05 and TPA07, Revision F, dated 21 February 2014 and prepared by
Cornetta Partners and Landscape Concept Plan, Project Number L3520, dated 20
December 2013 and prepared by Keystone Alliance landscape Design – Green
Division) but modified to show:
a)
The pedestrian doors to the garages altered so they do not open into the
garages.
Page 22
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
b)
The widths of the garage doors increased to a minimum of 5.3 metres.
c)
The site coverage is reduced to a maximum of 60% for each lot on the site.
d)
The provision of operable shading devices to the west facing habitable room
windows.
e)
Details and sections of all external screens and louvres. The screens and louvres
must be designed to minimise downward views.
f)
The front fence elevation shown on Drawing No. TPA07, Fence Elevation and
Sections, Rev. F, dated 21-02-2014, and prepared by Cornetta Architects.
g)
Screening (with a maximum permeability of 25%) between the first floor
balconies associated with the lofts, to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above
finished floor level.
h)
The first floor east facing windows of the bedrooms to Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 to
have fixed and obscure glass to 1700mm above finished floor level.
i)
The screens to the external stairs to the loft areas must have a maximum of 25%
perforations and the blue tint glazing must be replaced with screening.
j)
Screening to the following areas of the first floor balconies:
i.
The southern edge of the Dwelling 3 balcony.
ii.
The north edge of the Dwelling 1 balcony.
iii.
The eastern edge of the Dwelling 1 balcony commencing at the northern
most edge and continuing south for 2.0 metres.
The screening must have a minimum height of 1.7 meters above the finished
floor level and be either fixed obscure glazing, fixed screens with maximum
openings of 25%, or louvres that are designed to minimise downward views.
k)
Annotations detailing a Tree Protection Zone and associated Tree Protection
Fence with a radius of 1.4 metres (measured from the outside edge of the trunk)
for the tree within the nature strip directly to the west of the site in accordance
with the requirements of Condition 6 of this Permit. No works are permitted in the
Tree Protections Zone unless authorised by the Responsible Authority.
l)
The landscape plan altered to show the following:
i.
A minimum of six (6) small sized canopy trees and three (3) medium sized
canopy trees;
ii.
The nature-strip trees to be retained;
iii.
The provision of an additional garden bed within the light court of Dwelling
3.
iv.
The garden beds within the light courts of Dwellings 1 and 3 to be a
minimum 350mm wide. Each garden bed must contain a minimum of two
(2) Mandevilla boliviensis.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
Page 23
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
11 AUGUST 2014
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is
made in writing:
•
Before this Permit expires;
•
Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion
of the development or a stage of the development.
4.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or
the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in
writing.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder
must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
5.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and
any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed
Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.
Before buildings and works (including demolition) start, a tree protection fence must be
erected around the tree within the nature strip directly to the west of the site at a radius
of 1.4 metres from the base of the trunk to define a ‘tree protection zone’.
This fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh (or similar) to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed.
No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the
tree protection zone.
No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the tree
protection zone.
The ground surface of the tree protection zone must be covered by a protective
100mm deep layer of mulch prior to the development commencing and be watered
regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7.
Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the
ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the
subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building
Regulations 2010. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed
land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days
from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor
submitted to the Responsible Authority.
8.
All dwellings that share dividing walls and floors must be constructed to limit noise
transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia.
9.
Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of
illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and
all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
Page 24
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of
amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
10.
Boundary walls facing adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
14.
Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.
Before occupation of the development areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and
access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
a)
Constructed;
b)
Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the
plans;
c)
Surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
d)
Drained;
e)
Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
f)
Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and
driveways
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be
used for any other purpose.
16.
Before the development is occupied all redundant crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or
parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and
channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit)
N1
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken
to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in
the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
N2
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
Page 25
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
N3
The amendments specified in Condition 1 of this Permit and any additional
modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed
by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition. Any “necessary or
consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this condition, should be
specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment.
N4
If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their
approval under the relevant Sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They
can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been
approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without
notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more
significant nature may require a new permit application.
N5
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other
departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals
may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the
approval of this Planning Permit.
THE AMENDED MOTION WAS PUT AND CARRIED AND BECAME THE COMMITTEE
DECISION AS FOLLOWS:
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. J. Williams
THAT Planning Permit D/1025/2013 be approved and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit
be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The
plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance
with the plans submitted with the application (identified as drawing numbers TPA03,
TPA04, TPA05 and TPA07, Revision F, dated 21 February 2014 and prepared by
Cornetta Partners and Landscape Concept Plan, Project Number L3520, dated 20
December 2013 and prepared by Keystone Alliance landscape Design – Green
Division) but modified to show:
a)
The pedestrian doors to the garages altered so they do not open into the
garages.
b)
The widths of the garage doors increased to a minimum of 5.3 metres.
c)
The site coverage is reduced to a maximum of 60% for each lot on the site.
d)
The provision of operable shading devices to the west facing habitable room
windows.
e)
Details and sections of all external screens and louvres. The screens and louvres
must be designed to minimise downward views.
f)
The front fence elevation shown on Drawing No. TPA07, Fence Elevation and
Sections, Rev. F, dated 21-02-2014, and prepared by Cornetta Architects.
Page 26
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
g)
Screening (with a maximum permeability of 25%) between the first floor
balconies associated with the lofts, to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above
finished floor level.
h)
The first floor east facing windows of the bedrooms to Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 to
have fixed and obscure glass to 1700mm above finished floor level.
i)
The screens to the external stairs to the loft areas must have a maximum of 25%
perforations and the blue tint glazing must be replaced with screening.
j)
Screening to the following areas of the first floor balconies:
iv.
The southern edge of the Dwelling 3 balcony.
v.
The north edge of the Dwelling 1 balcony.
vi.
The eastern edge of the Dwelling 1 balcony commencing at the northern
most edge and continuing south for 2.0 metres.
The screening must have a minimum height of 1.7 meters above the finished
floor level and be either fixed obscure glazing, fixed screens with maximum
openings of 25%, or louvres that are designed to minimise downward views.
k)
Annotations detailing a Tree Protection Zone and associated Tree Protection
Fence with a radius of 1.4 metres (measured from the outside edge of the trunk)
for the tree within the nature strip directly to the west of the site in accordance
with the requirements of Condition 6 of this Permit. No works are permitted in the
Tree Protections Zone unless authorised by the Responsible Authority.
l)
The landscape plan altered to show the following:
v.
A minimum of six (6) small sized canopy trees and three (3) medium sized
canopy trees;
vi.
The nature-strip trees to be retained;
vii.
The provision of an additional garden bed within the light court of Dwelling
3.
viii.
The garden beds within the light courts of Dwellings 1 and 3 to be a
minimum 350mm wide. Each garden bed must contain a minimum of two
(2) Mandevilla boliviensis.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
•
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is
made in writing:
•
Before this Permit expires;
•
Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion
of the development or a stage of the development.
Page 27
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
4.
11 AUGUST 2014
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or
the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in
writing.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder
must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
5.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and
any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed
Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.
Before buildings and works (including demolition) start, a tree protection fence must be
erected around the tree within the nature strip directly to the west of the site at a radius
of 1.4 metres from the base of the trunk to define a ‘tree protection zone’.
This fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh (or similar) to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed.
No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the
tree protection zone.
No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the tree
protection zone.
The ground surface of the tree protection zone must be covered by a protective
100mm deep layer of mulch prior to the development commencing and be watered
regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7.
Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the
ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the
subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building
Regulations 2010. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed
land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days
from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor
submitted to the Responsible Authority.
8.
All dwellings that share dividing walls and floors must be constructed to limit noise
transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia.
9.
Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of
illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and
all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of
amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
10.
Boundary walls facing adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Page 28
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
13.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
14.
Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.
Before occupation of the development areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and
access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
g)
Constructed;
h)
Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the
plans;
i)
Surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
j)
Drained;
k)
Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
l)
Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and
driveways
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be
used for any other purpose.
16.
Before the development is occupied all redundant crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or
parts thereof must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and
channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit)
N1
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken
to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in
the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
N2
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
N3
The amendments specified in Condition 1 of this Permit and any additional
modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed
by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition. Any “necessary or
consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this condition, should be
specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment.
Page 29
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
N4
If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their
approval under the relevant Sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They
can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been
approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without
notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more
significant nature may require a new permit application.
N5
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other
departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals
may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the
approval of this Planning Permit.
CARRIED
A Division was called by Cr. Fontana:
For
Against
Cr. B. Li
Cr. J. Williams
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. G. Greco, Chairperson
Cr. S. Tsitas
Cr. T. Laurence
Cr. A. Villella
Cr. O. Walsh
Cr. T. McCarthy
The Chairperson, Cr. Greco declared the Motion to be carried.
Jacinta Stevens, Manager Corporate Governance and Performance temporarily left the
meeting during discussion of the above item at 5.40 pm and returned at 5.42 pm.
Page 30
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
5.2
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/806/2014/A
481-487 Heidelberg Road, Alphington VIC 3078
AUTHOR:
Principal Planner – Chris Lelliott
DIRECTOR:
Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant:
R Dev - Premier Projects Pty Ltd
358 Springvale Rd
DONVALE VIC 3111
Owner:
Mayur Krishnaswamy
9 Howard St
KEW VIC 3101
Consultant:
DT C Radisich
Associate Town Planning Consultants
PO Box 2336
RINGWOOD NORTH VIC 3134
SUMMARY:
•
Planning permit D/806/2012 was issued on 29 July 2013 for construction of a medium
density housing development comprising six (6) dwellings within a three (3) storey
building and reduction in visitor car parking (to zero).
•
The plans for the development are yet to be endorsed.
•
This application seeks an amendment to the Planning Permit with amended plans.
•
The amended development would comprise an additional storey, two (2) additional two
(2) bedroom dwellings and two (2) additional car parking spaces, including a reduction
in visitor car parking to zero.
•
The application seeks deletion of the following permit conditions:
1(b) Minimum headroom clearance to the garage of 2.2m.
1(d) Common boundary fences to the east and north are to have a minimum
height of 1.8m above the natural ground level on the subject site.
1(e) Notation to confirm the obscure glass to the north facing study window of
Dwelling 5 is to be fixed.
1(f)
Removal of all redundant crossovers and reinstatement of kerb, channel
and naturestrip in accordance with condition number 23.
6
Green walls/vertical gardens must comply with current best practice
industry standards. Measures must be accompanied by relevant details,
including cross sections, specifications, and maintenance requirements
where appropriate. Such features may also require the provision of an
appropriate engineering certification (prepared by a suitably qualified
person) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Page 31
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
The amended development will comprise the construction of a four (4) storey building
comprising eight (8) dwellings.
•
The ground level would comprise a garage/parking area with storage, bin store, bicycle
parking and water tanks. Each of the two (2) bedroom dwellings will have one (1) car
space. 7 car parking spaces would be provided by a mechanical vehicle stacker and
there would be one standalone space. There is common lift and stair access to the
upper floors to the west. The garage is accessed from a single crossover to Austin
Road.
•
The first floor is to have three (3) dwellings, each with two (2) bedrooms and west or
south facing balconies.
•
The second floor has additional setbacks from the north and east, has a similar layout
to the first floor however comprises one (1) two (2) bedroom dwelling and two (2) one
(1) bedroom dwellings.
•
The third floor again provides additional setbacks from the north and substantial
setbacks from the east. It is to have two (2) dwellings, each with two (2) bedrooms and
west and south facing balconies.
•
The development is of a contemporary design with materials comprising of painted
concrete walls, timber/aluminium battens, aluminium cladding, glass balustrades and a
flat roof.
•
The maximum height of the amended development is approximately 12 metres (the
development previously approved was a maximum height of approximately 9.4
metres).
•
The Certificate of Title indicates that there are no covenants applying to the land.
•
It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Amend a Planning Permit be issued
subject to conditions.
CONSULTATION:
•
Notice of the application was given by posting two signs on the land and mailing of
notices to affected properties.
•
Fifteen (15) objections were received.
•
The application was referred internally to the Capital Works Unit and the Transport
Management and Planning Unit.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Application to amend planning permit D/806/2012 be approved and a Notice of
Decision to Grant an amended Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority.
Page 32
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in
accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as sheet numbers
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 revision dated 3 December 2013, job no. HR481-7/2011, prepared
by Premier Projects Pty Ltd) but modified to show:
a)
The uppermost level of the development set back at least an additional 1 metre
from the northern boundary so that the minimum setback is 4.5 metres. This
must be achieved without increasing any other setbacks.
b)
Design detail to create visual interest and a strategy to mitigate against graffiti to
the ground level wall facing Heidelberg Road to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
c)
The uppermost level of the development clad in high quality and contrasting
durable material and be a light neutral colour to differentiate the uppermost level
from the bottom three levels.
d)
Vertical wooden cladding feature proposed in D/806/2012 or alternative material
of similar appearance provided to the east elevation adjoining no. 491 Heidelberg
Road.
e)
The metal grille/door to the garage entrance set back from the property boundary
6 metres to allow for a vehicle to wait off the road and footpath whilst waiting for
the garage door to open.
f)
The Public Acquisition Overlay outline on the floor plans. All development must
be shown outside the overlay area.
g)
Floor plans elevations and sections appropriately dimensioned showing the floor
to ceiling heights within the car parking area and a minimum of 2.2m headroom
(including under the garage door).
h)
Details and specifications of the vehicle stacker to confirm that the proposed
ground level car park can accommodate a 7 car mechanical vehicle stacker.
i)
Any modifications in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment (Refer
to Condition 8 of this Permit).
j)
A comprehensive schedule of external materials, colours and finishes (including
colour samples). Construction materials are to be low maintenance. External
materials and finishes (including glazing) are to be of a low reflectivity level. The
use of painted surfaces must be minimised.
Annotated coloured elevations showing the location/application of the materials,
colours and finishes must be provided.
k)
A single communal antenna for the development (refer also to Condition No. 18
of this Permit). The location of the antenna must be shown on the roof plan and
elevations. The height of the antenna must be nominated.
l)
The location of all plant and equipment (including air conditioners and the like).
These are to be co-located where possible, screened to be minimally visible from
the public realm and adjacent properties, located as far as practicable from site
boundaries and integrated into the design of the building.
m)
A landscape plan in accordance with Condition No. 5.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
Page 33
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
•
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in
writing before this Permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.
4.
Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible
Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then
form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified
person and must incorporate:
a)
Details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed,
including overhanging trees on adjoining properties. The genus, species, height
and spread of all trees must be specified.
b)
A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name,
common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants.
c)
Details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and permeable
and/or hard paving (such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel) demonstrating a
minimum site permeability of 20%.
d)
Street trees within the nature strip/s adjacent to the property.
e)
All constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin
receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting, clotheslines etc.
f)
Edge treatment between grass (lawn) and garden beds.
g)
An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of
entry doors, windows, gates and fences. An outline of buildings on adjoining
land, including the location of windows and doors which face the subject site
must also be shown.
h)
The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services.
Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be
avoided.
i)
Clear graphics identifying
groundcovers and climbers
j)
A scale, North Point and appropriate legend.
trees
(deciduous
and
evergreen),
shrubs,
The species of all proposed plants selected must be to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
5.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or
the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in
writing.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder
must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
Page 34
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
6.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and
any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed
Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7.
Before the development starts, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) detailing
sustainable design strategies to be incorporated into the development to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved in writing
by the Responsible Authority. The SDA must outline proposed sustainable design
initiatives within the development such as (but not limited to) energy efficiency, water
conservation, stormwater quality, waste management and material selection. It is
recommended that a STEPS report (residential) or Sustainable Design Scorecard
(SDS) is undertaken as part of the SDA.
The development must be constructed in accordance with the requirements/
recommendations of the Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
8.
Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the
ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the
subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building
Regulations 2010. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed
land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days
from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor
submitted to the Responsible Authority.
9.
All dwellings that share dividing walls and floors must be constructed to limit noise
transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia.
10.
The design of habitable rooms of all dwellings adjacent to a road must limit internal
noise levels to a maximum of 35 dB(a) in accordance with relevant Australian
Standards for acoustic control (including AS3671-Road Traffic).
11.
Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of
illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and
all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of
amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
12.
Boundary walls facing adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
16.
Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17.
Only one (1) communal television antenna may be erected on the building. Individual
antennae for individual dwellings/tenancies must not be erected.
Page 35
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
18.
11 AUGUST 2014
Before occupation of the development areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and
access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
a)
Constructed;
b)
Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the
plans;
c)
Surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
d)
Drained;
e)
Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
f)
Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and
driveways
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be
used for any other purpose.
19.
Before the development is occupied vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align
with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant
crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with
footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
VicRoads Conditions:
20.
There shall be no direct vehicle access to Heidelberg Road.
21.
The existing crossover in Heidelberg Road must be removed and the kerb and
channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority and at no cost to VicRoads or the Responsible Authority.
22.
No compensation is payable under part 5 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in
respect of anything done under this permit.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken to
have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in the land
and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal.
•
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
•
The amendments specified in Condition 1of this Permit and any additional
modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed
by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition.
Page 36
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Any “necessary or consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this
condition, should be specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment.
If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their
approval under the relevant Sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They
can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been
approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without
notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more
significant nature may require a new permit application.
•
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other departments
of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals may be required
and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the approval of this
Planning Permit.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Planning application D/806/2012 was approved and a planning permit was issued on 29 July
2013.
The permit granted planning permission for construction of a medium density housing
development comprising six (6) dwellings within a three (3) storey building and reduction in
visitor car parking (to zero).
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area:
•
The subject site is located on the north east corner of Heidelberg Road and Austin
Street. It is irregular in shape with frontages of 22.86m to Heidelberg Road and 33.3m
to Austin Street, the area of the site is approximately 626.7m2. The site presently
contains a double storey brick dwelling. The dwelling has a crossover from Heidelberg
Road to the eastern boundary and an additional crossover from Austin Street. The land
has a fall of approximately 700mm from the south west corner to the south east.
•
To the north of the site is a medium density development comprising two (2) double
storey attached dwellings and beyond this is an ambulance station. To the south, on
the opposite side of Heidelberg Road is a service station use and a commercial car
sales business. To the east is a medium density development comprising two (2) three
(3) storey dwellings, with vehicle access adjacent to the common boundary with the
subject site. To the west of the site, on the opposite side of Austin Street, is a
commercial car sales use. Apart from the car sales and ambulance station to the south
of Austin Street the remainder of the street has a mix of 1 and 2 storey residential
dwellings,an aged care facility and school.
•
Land to the south of Heidelberg Road is located within the City of Yarra.
Page 37
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Proposal:
•
This application seeks amendments to planning permit D/806/2012 which would alter
the development by proposing and additional storey comprising two (2) additional
dwellings and two (2) additional car parking spaces, including a reduction in visitor car
parking to zero.
•
The application also seeks deletion of the following conditions:
1(b) Minimum headroom clearance to the garage of 2.2m.
1(d) Common boundary fences to the east and north are to have a minimum height of
1.8m above the natural ground level on the subject site.
1(e) Notation to confirm the obscure glass to the north facing study window of
Dwelling 5 is to be fixed.
1(f)
Removal of all redundant crossovers and reinstatement of kerb, channel and
naturestrip in accordance with condition number 23.
6
Green walls/vertical gardens must comply with current best practice industry
standards. Measures must be accompanied by relevant details, including cross
sections, specifications, and maintenance requirements where appropriate. Such
features may also require the provision of an appropriate engineering
certification (prepared by a suitably qualified person) to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority.
The amended development plans submitted with the application propose changes to the
materials and finishes including:
•
Removal of the green wall to the Austin Street frontage and replacement with timber
battens.
•
Alterations to the construction and look of the roof form.
•
Changes to the size of windows found in the to both the Austin Street and Heidlberg
Road elevations.
•
Removal of vertical timber batten feature to east elevation and provision of alternative
timber cladding detail.
•
Removal of vertical aluminium cladding detail from Heidelberg Road frontage and
replacement with alternative timber cladding.
Amendments to development include:
•
Changes to the internal layout of the car parking area including provision of a
mechanical car stacker, water tanks, storage and cycle parking.
•
Increase in the length of the northern boundary wall from 8.2m to 11.3m.
The development proposed under this amendment includes:
•
Construction of a four (4) storey building comprising eight (8) dwellings.
•
The ground level would comprise a garage/parking area with storage, bin store, bicycle
parking and water tanks. Each of the eight (8) dwellings have one (1) car space. There
is common lift and stair access to the upper floors to the west. The garage is to be
accessed from Austin Street.
•
The first floor is to have three (3) dwellings, each with two (2) bedrooms and west or
south facing balconies.
Page 38
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
The second floor has additional setbacks from the north and east, has a similar layout
to the first floor however comprises one (1) two (2) bedroom dwelling and two (2) one
(1) bedroom dwellings.
•
The third floor again provides an additional setback from the north and substantial
setbacks from the east. It is to have two (2) dwellings, each with two (2) bedrooms and
west and south facing balconies.
•
The development is of contemporary design with materials comprising of painted
concrete walls, timber/aluminium battens, aluminium cladding, glass balustrades and a
flat roof.
Requirement for a planning permit and planning scheme controls
•
Clause 32.08-4 (General Residential Zone) – construction of two or more dwellings on
a lot.
•
The site is partly covered by a Public Acquisition Overlay (Schedule 1). Land subject to
this overlay is reserved for road construction or widening (the Acquisition Authority is
VicRoads). The overlay affects the front of the site to Heidelberg Road. The proposal
was referred to VicRoads for comment.
•
Under clause 52.06-3 (unless a schedule to the Parking Overlay or the schedule to
Clause 52.06 specifies otherwise), a permit is required to reduce the car parking
requirement under this clause; allow some or all of the car parking spaces required to
be provided on another site; or provide more than a maximum parking provision
specified in a schedule to the Overlay.
•
Bicycle parking must be provided in accordance with Clause 52.34-2. A permit may be
granted to vary, reduce or waive any requirement of Clause 52.34-3 and Clause 52.344.
Objections
Fifteen (15) objections were received to the application.
Objections summarised
•
Inadequate car parking.
•
Traffic.
•
Height and scale.
•
Overlooking.
•
Overshadowing.
•
Overdevelopment.
•
Not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
Officer comment on summarised objections
•
Issues such as overlooking, overshadowing, height, parking and general compliance
with the provisions of clause 55 are discussed below in the assessment of the
proposal.
Page 39
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
Adequate car parking is provided on the site for the dwellings, in accordance with the
requirements of clause 55 and clause 52.06. The proposal will require the waiver of
only one (1) visitor car space. It is not considered that the increased intermittent
parking demand of one (1) visitor car space would place an unreasonable load on the
surrounding street network.
•
It is not considered that the increase in traffic from the subject development would
place an unreasonable load on the surrounding street network or result in any
management or safety issues. Additionally, no objections have been raised from
Council’s Transport Management Unit regarding traffic on the local street network. Car
parking is addressed in the assessment section of this report, with particular focus
upon Clause 52.06 of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
•
Appropriate screening is provided to all habitable room windows to the north and east
which have the potential to overlook neighbouring residential properties. The screening
proposed is in accordance with the requirements of Clause 55, Standard B22 in that
the upper floor windows are provided with fixed obscure glazing to a height 1700mm
from finished floor level and ground level overlooking is screened via 1800mm
boundary fences. Balconies are orientated to the south and west, away from the
private open spaces of adjoining dwellings.
•
The shadowing from the proposal would be over the adjoining streets and the adjacent
driveway. Overshadowing would not unreasonably affect secluded private open spaces
of adjoining properties.
•
The overall height is considered to be acceptable and the use of setbacks from the
north and east ensures a graduated increase in height over the adjoining buildings.
The building fronts busy Heidelberg Road and is adjacent to a commercial car
dealership which would not result in any adverse impacts.
•
The proposed height, setbacks and orientation of the development will ensure that
there would be no unreasonable impact on daylight to neighbouring habitable room
windows.
•
Neighbourhood character, height, scale and materials are addressed within the
assessment section of this report with particular focus on Clause 15.01 and 22.10 of
the Darebin Planning Scheme.
•
On balance the development is considered appropriate for the site and would not be
considered an overdevelopment.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Urban Environment – Clause 15.01
In assessing the proposal, Clause 55 applies, however due to the location of the site on
Heidelberg Road it is considered beneficial to apply the design principles of Clause 15.01-2
and the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, further noting that the
relevant standards of Clause 55 are included within these policies.
Page 40
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Context
The proposal provides a quality design and provides residential on the site, furthering urban
consolidation objectives.
The applicant has undertaken a site analysis as part of the design process, which has
informed the height, scale and massing of the development. The height of the development
provides an appropriate transition to the adjoining lower scale buildings to the north and
east.
Complies
The public realm
The public realm will be enhanced with appropriate pedestrian entries for the dwellings to the
street. The design provides an appropriate entry and passive surveillance from the upper
floor balconies.
Complies
Safety
The pedestrian entry is visible and provides an appropriate sense of address, which is
secure, with passive surveillance.
Complies
Landmarks, Views and Vistas
Views are not protected under local policy. The proposal provides appropriate articulation to
the facades through materials, design and varied setbacks. It is considered to provide a
suitable outlook to surrounding properties, consistent with the strategic intent of the area.
Complies
Pedestrian Spaces
The access to the site is from Austin Street. The development provides an acceptable entry
area and the right of way provides appropriate access to the site.
The design is considered appropriate, with passive interaction and surveillance to
neighbouring streets.
Complies
Heritage
The site is not located within an area covered by a Heritage Overlay or proposed Heritage
Overlay.
Not applicable
Page 41
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Consolidation of Empty Sites
Whilst the site is not currently vacant the development scale is consistent with the strategic
intent of the area and provides appropriate works to complement the complexity and
diversity of the built environment.
Complies
Light and Shade
Having regard to the site context and the orientation of the land, there is no unreasonable
loss of sunlight/daylight to the public realm.
Complies
Energy Resource and Efficiency
The proposal provides a residential development in an appropriate area to take advantage of
existing services. A Sustainable Design Statement (SDS) has been required as a condition
of approval and the implementation of the ESD measures within will be secured via a
condition of any approval.
Complies subject to condition
Architectural Quality
Materials include painted concrete walls, timber/aluminium battens, aluminium cladding and
glass balustrades.
The materials are generally acceptable but further material details and design features must
be submitted as a condition of approval. Plant is not shown and will be required by condition
on any approval.
The elevations show an articulated façade providing a design of interest when viewed from
the public realm.
Complies subject to condition
Landscape Architecture
A condition of any approval will require a Landscape Plan to be submitted. Landscaping is
proposed to the Austin Street frontage.
Complies subject to condition
Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability
and Environment)
Clause 15.01-2 requires that responsible authorities should have regard to Design
Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. The following is an assessment
against this document:
Height and Massing
•
The site is located adjacent to a commercial area and on Heidelberg Road (a busy
arterial road), where higher densities and larger buildings are encouraged.
•
Although the amended proposal is four (4) storeys, the height and scale of the
development is considered to be consistent with the future character, as can be seen
in the assessment in this report.
•
The elevations are provided with appropriate articulation through setbacks, materials
and fenestration.
Page 42
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
11 AUGUST 2014
Sunlight access to public spaces will not be unreasonably affected.
Complies
Street Setbacks
•
The proposal has setbacks to the street consistent with the previously approved
application and with the amendments proposed these setbacks continue to be
acceptable given the context of the site and area.
Complies
Relationships to Adjoining Buildings
•
Conditions of approval require a minor reduction in the bulk of the roof form and an
increased setback to the northern boundary. The following response is an assessment
taking account these required changes.
•
Although four (4) storeys, the development setbacks proposed to the north and east
allow the development to integrate with lower scale, neighbouring residential properties
providing a transition in height to the corner of Heidelberg Road.
•
The balconies have an appropriate depth, which allow the passage of daylight. The
majority of the proposed dwellings have an outlook to the east and so development on
adjoining sites will not be unreasonably impacted.
•
The development allows adequate aspect and sunlight to open spaces.
Complies
Views to and From Residential Units
•
Windows and balconies are provided to the façade to promote passive surveillance.
•
The orientation of balconies will allow distant views and amenity to the occupants.
•
Views from the southern and western balconies are to the neighbouring commercial
buildings. Other windows are designed to appropriate standards to avoid overlooking.
Complies
Wind Protection
•
It is not considered that the development would lead to unreasonable wind turbulence,
given the narrow form and relatively low height.
Complies
Roof Forms
•
The plans detail a flat roof form. This is an acceptable design solution and serves to
minimise impact of building bulk.
•
Detail of plant is to be detailed on drawings as a condition of any approval.
Complies subject to condition
Page 43
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Street Pattern and Street Edge Integration
•
The entry at ground level provides a connection between the building and the street.
•
A condition will require design treatment to improve the interface of the development to
Heidelberg Road and to mitigate against graffiti at ground level.
•
•
There are no apparent recesses which could allow concealment.
The car parking area does not dominate the street frontage.
Complies
Building Entries
•
The entrance to the building is clearly identifiable from the façade.
•
The entrances to the car parking areas are to the right of way and do not detract from
the façade.
Complies
Front Fences
•
There is no front fence.
Complies
Parking Layout
•
The car park will be convenient to use and will provide adequate resident parking. See
car parking assessment.
•
Bicycle parking has been detailed.
Complies
Circulation Spaces
•
The residential foyer is of sufficient size and the corridor width allows adequate
circulation and delivery/removal of large furniture items.
•
The entrance provides visibility and light into the front area.
•
Adequately proportioned foyer areas and adjoining corridors are provided within the
upper levels.
Complies
Site Services
•
Space for designated for the storage of garbage within the garage area on the ground
floor.
•
Mailboxes for the dwellings are sited to the front of the property.
•
The compliance of the development with relevant fire fighting requirements, including
water supply and access, is assessed at the Building Approval stage.
Complies, subject to condition
Page 44
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Dwelling Diversity
•
The development provides different dwelling layouts with dwellings having either one
(1) or two (2) bedrooms.
Complies
Building Layout
•
There are no dwellings with only a southern orientation.
•
The living areas are provided with views, with natural light and ventilation to all dwelling
and habitable areas.
•
The lift and stairs provide acceptable access to the dwellings.
•
Storage areas for the dwellings are appropriately designed and are provided within the
car parking area.
Complies
Design Detail
•
Subject to conditions the development is considered to represent an adequate design
response in terms of detail and finishing, with appropriate articulation with setbacks
and fenestration to the facades. Some further detail is required and this is discussed in
further detail below.
•
Detail of plant is to be shown on the plans.
•
The building is not an excessive height and scale
Complies subject to condition
Private and Communal Open Space
•
All dwellings are provided with private open space in the form of balconies,
appropriately located adjacent to living areas and with adequate dimensions and
access to sunlight. Open spaces areas are acceptable.
Complies
Public Open Space
•
No areas of public open space are provided.
Not applicable
Safer Design Guidelines (Department of Sustainability and Environment)
The proposal generally complies with these guidelines in that:
•
The proposal includes a visible pedestrian entry.
•
Private open space is not accessible to the general public.
•
The car parking areas are secure.
Housing and Communities - Clause 21.11
The proposal assists in the provision of a range of housing styles and densities in the locality
and is an appropriate use of land. The proposed use is consistent with the planning
strategies applicable to the area.
Page 45
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Urban Character – Clause 21.12
The location of the site is on the periphery of the Heidelberg Road/Station Street activity
centre. The urban character presently comprises car sales, a hotel, furniture
manufacture/sales and residential uses. The area is likely to undergo some change to one
featuring larger scale developments of contemporary design, with some departure to the
character of the residential precincts, which adjoin the area.
Neighbourhood Character – Clause 22.04
The provisions of the Neighbourhood Character policy at clause 22.04 (and therefore the
precinct guidelines) apply to sites within residential zones. Issues of neighbourhood
character, building form and context are addressed elsewhere in this report.
Residential and mixed use development of four (4) or more storeys – Clause 22.10
Clause 22.10 provides a level of assessment for residential or mixed use development of
four (4) or more storeys in height. It is also worth noting that this policy requires the
consideration of a number of objectives and standards of Clause 55.
The following is a summary of the assessment of the proposal against the provisions
contained in the Policy.
Sustainability
•
The design provides natural light and ventilation to the bedrooms and living areas
within the proposed dwellings.
•
There is scope for on-site water infiltration given the low site coverage.
•
The proposal provides a higher density development in an appropriate area to take
advantage of existing services.
•
A Sustainable Design Statement (SDS) is required as a condition of approval, and the
implementation of the ESD measures within will be secured via a condition of any
approval.
Complies subject to condition.
DESIGN and MATERIALS
•
Subject to conditions the development generally exhibits an acceptable standard of
design, materials of construction and external finishes, with adequate articulation
through setbacks and materials.
•
The design does not mimic the existing character of the area and provides an
acceptable contemporary design.
•
The development is acceptable in terms of scale and articulation.
•
Plant is not shown and details of any plant and equipment are required.
•
Further design details are required as conditions of approval to add interest to the
south and east elevations.
Page 46
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The proposal is largely acceptable in terms of the external appearance and the
contemporary design.
Complies, subject to condition.
Building Height
•
Surrounding development is single, double and three storey in scale and there are
some larger scale commercial buildings. The proposed height is a departure from the
existing lower scale of development, but is consistent with the policies for increased
densities and scale encouraged near activity centres and in proximity to services and
facilities.
•
Although four (4) storeys, the proposed uppermost level is appropriately setback from
the east and a condition of approval will require the development to provide an
additional 1m setback to the north. Due to the setbacks to the adjacent streets and the
commercial interface to the west, the design provides an appropriate transition in
height to the lower scale residential area to the north and east.
•
The height is acceptable and the development is appropriately articulated through
materials, fenestration and setbacks, ensuring that the height of the development does
not result in inappropriate visual bulk impacts to surrounding area.
Complies
Setbacks
•
An additional 1m setback at the uppermost level from the northern property boundary
will be required as a condition.
•
Although four (4) storeys, the development setbacks proposed to the north and east
allow the development to integrate with lower scale, neighbouring residential properties
providing a transition in height to the corner of Heidelberg Road.
Complies subject to condition
Dwelling Diversity
•
The design includes eight (8) dwellings, with varied layouts of one (1) or two (2)
bedroom, providing some diversity.
Complies
Car Parking and Vehicle Access
•
Vehicle access is appropriately provided from Austin Road way and not from the busy
Heidelberg Road.
•
Adequate security is provided to the car parking area by the garage doors.
•
Car parking demand and vehicle access is addressed further below.
Complies
Street Address
•
The proposal has direct street frontage and the entrances (pedestrian and vehicle)
provide a sense of address and access.
Page 47
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
11 AUGUST 2014
Weather protection and an appropriate entry area are provided by the entrance.
Adequate surveillance is provided and mailboxes are located to the foyer.
Complies
Amenity Impacts Including Overshadowing and Overlooking.
•
There will be no unreasonable overshadowing or overlooking impacts to any dwellings,
including residential uses.
•
A condition of any approval will require select habitable room windows to be
acoustically treated to ensure road noise is appropriately mitigated.
Complies, subject to condition
On-site Amenity and Facilities, including Private Open Space
•
Balconies range from 8.1 square metres to 14.2 square metres and are of an
appropriate dimension. Private open space is appropriately integrated with principal
living areas, have varying aspects and provide sufficient amenity.
Complies
Waste Management
•
An area to store waste and recyclables is provided in the garage.
•
The site has a large frontage to Austin Street on which bins associated with the
development can be placed for Council collection.
Complies
Equitable Access
•
The ground floor of the development is accessible to persons of limited mobility.
•
Access to all levels of the building is available via stairs and lift.
Complies.
Utility Services
•
There are no known issues with provision of services to the site.
Complies
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER PRECINCT GUIDELINE ASSESSMENT (B3)
EXISTING BUILDINGS
Objective:
•
To encourage of the retention of older dwellings that contribute to the valued character
of the area in the design of development proposals.
Page 48
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Comment
•
The existing building on the subject site contributes to the streetscape however it is not
in particularly good condition and is surrounded by high impermeable fencing which
limits its value to the streetscape. The land is not subject to a Heritage Overlay and
planning permission is not required to demolish the dwelling.
•
The streetscape is not intact as there are a mixture of older dwellings and more recent
infill development.
•
The merits of the proposed development are assessed below and it is considered that
the development is appropriate and will make an acceptable contribution to the
surrounding character.
Complies
VEGETATION
Objective
•
To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of the dwellings and the presence of
trees in the streetscape.
Comment
•
There are some small to medium sized trees on the site but nothing that could be
considered significant.
•
There is an accompanying landscape concept plan; however an appropriate plan
prepared by a suitably qualified professional would be required as a condition of
approval to ensure adequate landscaping.
•
Although there is limited opportunity for landscaping, this must be balanced against the
development expectations of a site, with the front half given over to a Public
Acquisition Overlay, a site abutting a Road Zone and commercial/retail uses opposite.
The proposal provides an acceptable amount of garden space, to maintain appropriate
landscaping and the garden setting of the dwellings.
Complies
SITING
Objective
•
To provide space for front gardens.
•
To maintain and reinforce the existing rhythm of spacing between dwellings
•
To minimise the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking
structures.
Page 49
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Comment
•
The proposed setbacks do not change from those previously approved.
•
The proposal is appropriately set back from the Heidelberg Road street frontage (due
to the Public Acquisition Overlay). The proposal allows adequate garden space around
the building for landscaping. Should a road be constructed over the land in the Public
Acquisition Overlay the design of this infrastructure would need to consider the
development and provide an appropriate setback.
All access is via one (1) crossover to the street Austin Street. All other crossovers are
to be removed (condition of approval). The access is therefore considered to be
acceptable.
•
•
The ground level adjacent to the Austin Street frontage, it is set back from the façade
and would not unreasonably impact on the streetscape or dominate the front façade.
Complies
HEIGHT AND BUILDING FORM
Objective
•
To ensure that buildings and extensions respect the predominant height and form of
buildings in the streetscape.
Comment
•
The predominant height of buildings in the area ranges between one (1) and three (3)
storeys. The adjoining property to the east has a three storey height and the dwellings
to the north are double storey. Additionally, the nearby commercial building to the west
has a high wall to Austin Street.
•
The height must be also considered in the context of the higher scale buildings along
Heidelberg Road.
•
Although four (4) storeys, the new third level is appropriately setback from the east and
a condition of approval will require the development to provide an additional 1m
setback to the north. Due to the setbacks to the adjacent streets and the more
commercial interface to the west, the design provides an appropriate transition in
height to the lower scale residential area to the north and east.
Complies with objective
MATERIALS AND DESIGN DETAIL
Objective
•
To ensure that the use of materials and design detail in new development
complements that of the predominant building styles in the street.
•
To encourage buildings that contribute positively to the streetscape through the use of
innovative architectural responses and by presenting visually interesting facades to the
street.
•
To use materials and finishes that harmonise with the Darebin Creek setting for
dwellings within proximity of the creek.
Page 50
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Comment
•
The context around the development on Heidelberg Road comprises a number of
commercial and residential buildings utilising mixed materials and building forms.
•
The proposed development has a contemporary design, which is acceptable as it
complements other nearby similar scaled building forms.
•
Articulation in the façade is achieved through the use of materials and colours to the
walls, as well as fenestration.
•
Additional setbacks to north at the fourth floor and additional detailing to the
development would be required as conditions of approval.
Complies subject to condition
FRONT BOUNDARY TREATMENT
Objective
•
To maintain the openness of the streetscape and views to established gardens and
dwellings.
Comment
•
There is no fencing proposed, maintaining views to the entry and façade.
Complies
CLAUSE 55 ASSESSMENT
The following assessment provides discussion on fundamental areas of clause 55 including
variations of standards and matters informing conditions of the recommendation above.
Standard B1 - Neighbourhood Character:
This element has been considered above in the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines
Assessment. Given the nearby development, the location of the site abutting a RDZ1 to the
south and proximity of the site to activity centres (a local convenience centre to the east at
the corner of Station Street and Heidelberg Road and the Primary Neighbourhood Centre
along Station Street) and other facilities, larger scale development is considered to be
acceptable. Therefore, the increased scale of the development must be considered in regard
to the more intense development expectations of a site. In this regard the proposed four (4)
storey development is considered to be of an appropriate height and form given the context
of the site subject to conditions requiring some increased setbacks and improved materials
and detailing.
Complies, subject to condition
Standard B4: Infrastructure
The development is to be located in an established area where there is adequate
infrastructure. The proposal will not exceed the capacity of local infrastructure. Council’s
Capital Works Unit has commented that drainage is available to the site, subject to
conditions.
Complies, subject to condition
Page 51
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Standard B5: Integration with the Street
The proposal provides adequate vehicle and pedestrian links, with separate pedestrian
entries. The development fronts the street network and no high front fence is proposed,
which is acceptable.
Complies
Standard B6: Street Setback
To Heidelberg Road, the Standard requires a setback of 9m. The proposed setback is
13.02m (the setback is a result of the Public Acquisition Overlay).
To Austin Street, the Standard requires the front of the development to be set back 3m. The
proposal is set back between 1m and 3.7m.
The development is setback 3.7m at ground level to the north of the site adjacent to
residential properties. This allows for some landscaping within this interface.
The first, second and third floors would be setback from Austin between 3.25m and 3.6
metres although the balconies would cantilever over the front of the property and the stairs,
lift and lobby would encroach into the setback. The design and setbacks proposed provides
for articulation in the front elevation.
The entry, staircase and lift shaft have a minimum setback of 1 metre. These elements are
opposite commercial land uses.
The 3rd floor proposed as part of this amendment application will follow the same street
setbacks to Austin Road and Heidelberg Road as the 1st and 2nd floors.
The street setbacks are considered acceptable and comply with the objective in that:
•
The proposed setbacks follow those approved under Planning Permit D/806/2012.
•
The proposed setbacks are acceptable given the context of the site and would not
result in unreasonable visual bulk to the streetscape or adjoining properties.
•
The adjacent car sales building to the west has a large building from and minimal
setbacks to Austin Street.
•
The existing side setback is zero (however the existing building is only single storey).
•
The proposal setback to Austin Street allows adequate provision for landscaping,
particularly to the north of the site where the development adjoins residential
properties.
•
The front façade is articulated and a mix of materials is used providing interest to the
street.
•
The proposed setback results in efficient use of the site.
•
The Public Acquisition Overlay places a significant constraint on redevelopment of the
site, with regard to setbacks to Heidelberg Road. The design response is an
appropriate balancing the development expectations of the site.
Complies with objective
Page 52
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Standard B7: Building Height
The maximum building height of the development is approximately 12.2m to the parapet
although the majority of the development is set at 11.7m.
This exceeds the maximum 9m standard. The development is considered to comply with the
objective in that:
•
The design response is appropriate, as it provides a graduated increase in height over
the adjoining 2-3 storey dwellings and adjacent commercial properties.
•
The site is located on the corner of Heidelberg Road, a busy road, is located adjacent
to commercial uses and is considered to be in a location where larger buildings are
appropriate.
•
The development provides a buffer between Heidelberg Road and the residential area
to the north.
•
The development is of appropriate design and provides acceptable articulation, varied
setbacks, a mix of materials and fenestration.
•
The area where the 9m height is exceeded will not lead to unreasonable visual bulk to
the streetscapes or the adjoining properties.
Complies with objective
Standard B8: Site Coverage
The area covered by buildings is 47.38%, which complies with the standard of having no
more than 60% of the site covered by buildings.
Complies
Standard B9: Permeability
To reduce the impact of increased stormwater run-off on the drainage system and to
facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration, at least 20% of the site should be permeable.
Permeability is 53.33%.
Complies
Standard B10: Energy Efficiency
The proposal is considered to be generally energy efficient due to the following:
•
Multi storey construction.
•
Natural daylight and ventilation is available in the design.
•
The development does not unreasonably affect the solar access and energy efficiency
of neighbouring dwellings.
•
Open space areas with access to north light.
•
Space for outdoor clothes drying facilities.
A condition of approval requires an appropriate Sustainable Design Statement and the
applicable design measure to be implemented.
Complies, subject to condition
Page 53
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Standard B12: Safety
The entrance to the development is clear and the dwellings are adequately visible from
internal accessways.
The development is able to provide good lighting, visibility and surveillance of the entry and
has secure car parking.
The private open space within the development is protected from inappropriate use as a
public thoroughfare.
Complies
Standard B13: Landscaping
The surrounding landscape character is generally semi mature and informal with limited
open spaces and setbacks. The open spaces and setbacks are large enough to provide
sufficient landscaping.
A detailed landscape plan will be required as a condition on any approval.
Complies, subject to condition
Standard B14: Access
Vehicle access to and from the site is safe, manageable and convenient.
There is to be only one (1) vehicle crossover, taking up 9% of the street frontage (where
33% is allowed under the Standard. All other crossovers would be removed (to be confirmed
by condition of any approval).
Adequate manoeuvrability within the car parking area is provided to allow vehicles to enter
and exit the site in a forward direction.
The width of the accessway is acceptable.
A condition of approval will require the garage door to be set back a minimum of 6m from the
property boundary to allow a car space to wait off the footpath and roadway whilst the
garage door opens.
Complies, subject to condition
Standard B15: Parking Location
Parking facilities are located within the basement and would be proximate to the dwellings
they serve.
The proposed car parking area is an adequately secure form of parking.
No habitable rooms will be affected by the proposal.
Complies
Page 54
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Standard B17: Side and Rear Setbacks
The following is an assessment against the heights and setbacks
Ground Floor
Boundary
Wall height
Required
Setback
Proposed setback
Garage – North
2.7m
1m
1m
Garage – East
2.7m
1m
1.5m
Boundary
Wall height
Required
Setback
Proposed setback
Dwelling 3 – East
5.56m
1.59m
1.5m
Dwellings 2 and 3 –
North
5.62m
1.6m
1.5m
Boundary
Wall height
Required
Setback
Proposed setback
Dwelling 6 – East
8.52m
3.62m
2.5m
Dwellings 5 and 6 –
North
8.49m
3.6m
2.5m
Boundary
Wall height
Required
Setback
Proposed setback
Dwelling 6 – East
11.7m
6.79m
5.67 – 4.47m
Dwellings 7 and 8 –
North
11.7m
6.79m
3.5m
First Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
There are a number of areas where the proposal does not comply with the Standard.
It is recommended that a larger setback be provided from the northern property boundary at
the proposed uppermost level, acknowledging the residential interface. A condition will
require an additional 1m setback so that the setback is a minimum of 4.5m.
With the additional 1m setback from the northern boundary it is considered that the
additional uppermost level would be an acceptable design response in that:
•
The proposed development would not result in any significant overshadowing beyond
that allowed by the development approved under Planning Permit D/806/2012.
•
With the additional 1m setback from the north the proposed uppermost level would not
be readily visible from the neighbouring residential properties to the north.
•
To the north, the subject site mainly abuts a boundary wall and the narrow side
setback of the adjoining dwelling.
Page 55
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
The setback of the proposed third floor to the east is considered sufficient to ensure
that the development does not result in unreasonable visual bulk when viewed from
nearby residential properties.
•
Daylight to adjoining habitable room windows would not be unreasonably affected.
Complies with objective subject to condition
Standard B18: Walls on Boundaries
In the amended application the northern boundary wall has been increased in length from
8.2m to 11.3m.
The standard requires that a wall be of a length of no more than 10 metres plus 25% of the
remaining length of the boundary of an adjoining lot, and a height not exceeding an average
of 3.0 metres.
Boundary and length
Maximum length
allowable
Proposed length
Proposed height
North: 21.49m
12.87m
11.3m
2.9m (average)
Complies
Standard B19: Daylight to Existing Windows
An area of at least 3.0 square metres with a minimum dimension of 1.0 metre clear to the
sky is provided opposite all existing habitable room windows, which complies with the
standard.
Upper floor walls are set back at least half their height from neighbouring windows.
The development allows adequate daylight to neighbouring existing habitable room windows.
Complies
Standard B20: North Facing Windows
There are no north-facing habitable room windows on adjoining properties adjoining the
development.
Complies
Standard B21: Overshadowing
Overshadowing of adjoining open space meets the standard and objective.
Overshadowing of neighbouring properties to the south and west by the proposed
development is minimal, with at least 40 square metres of neighbouring dwellings’ secluded
private open space with a minimum dimension of 3.0 metres, or 75% (whichever is the
lesser) receiving a minimum of five (5) hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22
September.
Complies
Page 56
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Standard B22: Overlooking
The car parking is located at ground level and presents no overlooking opportunities.
The first, second and third floor habitable room windows to the north and east will have sill
heights to a minimum of 1.8m or obscure glazing which would appropriately limit overlooking.
The first, second and third floor windows and balconies to the south and west overlook the
streets and are acceptable.
Complies.
Standard B23: Internal Views
There will be no unreasonable internal views between dwellings.
Complies
Standard B24: Noise Impacts
There are no obvious noise sources from the development. Noise mitigation measures from
the adjoining road (Heidelberg Road) will be addressed by condition to ensure the proposed
dwellings would not be unreasonably affected by noise.
Complies, subject to condition.
Standard B25: Accessibility
The upper floor levels are access via stairs and a lift, the ground levels of the proposed
development would be accessible for people with limited mobility.
Complies.
Standard B26: Dwelling Entry
The centrally located entry is visible and easily identifiable. A sense of address and shelter is
provided.
Complies
Standard B27: Daylight to New Windows
Adequate daylight is available to the windows in the new development, which face an
outdoor area of at least 3m2 with a minimum dimension of 1m clear to the sky.
Complies
Page 57
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Standard B28: Private Open Space
Dwelling
Dwelling 1
Dwelling 2
Dwelling 3
Total required
Total Secluded
Private Open Space
A balcony of 8m2 8.1m2
with a minimum width
9.19m2
of 1.6m
2
8.8m
Dwelling 4
8.1m2
Dwelling 5
9.19m
Dwelling 6
8.89m2
Dwelling 7
8.10m2 + 14.24m2
Dwelling 8
9.19m
2
2
The balcony widths are a minimum of 1.6m2 and are directly accessed via living areas.
The balconies would receive adequate light, would not overlook neighbouring residential
properties and would provide notable views for the units.
The development provides acceptable private open space for the reasonable recreation and
service needs of residents.
Complies
Standard B29: Solar Access to Open Space
The private open space areas of Dwellings 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 do not have dimensions to
comply with Standard B29. The balconies do however receive acceptable solar access and
daylight. The balconies are positioned to not overlook secluded private open spaces of
neighbouring residential properties and the balconies are orientated to take advantage of
views towards the city. The balconies are considered acceptable in that they offer ample
amenity given the adequate east and west orientation that is provided.
Complies with objective
Standard B30: Storage
Externally accessible secure storage facilities with a volume of 6 cubic metres are provided
for the dwellings within the car parking area.
Complies
Standard B31: Design Detail
As detailed above in the neighbourhood character considerations a contemporary design is
appropriate in this location.
The green wall previously proposed has been removed due to concerns surrounding
maintenance and its positioning on the western elevation which would compromise the
ongoing success of the installation.
Page 58
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
For the amended application Council considers that further attention to the design detail,
materials and finishes is required to achieve a more acceptable development.
he following details will be required as conditions of approval:
•
Design detail and strategy to mitigate against graffiti to the ground level wall facing
Heidelberg Road.
•
The proposed third level finished in light coloured durable cladding in contrast with the
lower levels to differentiate the upper most floor.
•
A vertical wooden cladding feature or alternative feature reintroduced to the east
elevation adjoining 491 Heidelberg Road.
Clause 52.06 Car Parking
Table 1 to Clause 52.06-5 requires one (1) car space to each one (1) or two (2) bedroom
dwelling, plus one (1) visitor car space for every five (5) dwellings (for developments of five
(5) or more dwellings).
All of the dwellings are to have either one (1) or two (2) bedrooms and so require one (1) car
space each. Additionally, one (1) visitor car space would be required. The total car parking
requirement is seven (7) car spaces.
Six (6) car spaces have been provided on the site. Although a visitor parking space is
required, a waiver is considered to be acceptable, in that there is on-street parking available
in the area to cater to a demand of one (1) additional car space and the site is located
proximate to public transport, facilities and services. Lastly, the demand for a visitor car
space is intermittent and infrequent and will not place an unreasonable burden on the area.
In terms of parking design and layout (under Clause 52.06-8), the following is relevant:
•
The vehicles are able to enter and exit the street network in a forward direction.
•
The garage appears to provide an acceptable height clearance (however details of the
mechanical vehicle stacker and height under the garage door are to be required by
condition).
•
Adequate pedestrian visibility splays are provided.
•
The dimensions of the car spaces and accessways are acceptable and comply with the
relevant design standard.
•
There are no ramps.
•
The car spaces are at the rear and do not dominate the public areas. The design
removes existing crossovers and provides only one (1) crossover to the street.
•
The parking areas may be adequately lit and surveillance is available. Pedestrian
routes are separated from the access.
•
The access provides large paved areas to the car spaces. However, landscaping is
provided around the site.
•
It will be necessary to require the garage door to be set back at least 6 metres from the
property boundary to allow a car to wait off the road and footpath whilst the garage
door opens.
Page 59
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Clause 52.34 Bicycle Parking
The bicycle parking requirements detailed at clause 52.34 require:
One space to each 5 dwellings for residents and 1 space for each 10 dwellings for visitors.
The development provides for 7 bicycle spaces which exceeds the number of bicycle parking
spaces required.
Public Acquisition Overlay 1
The site is subject to a Public Acquisition Overlay (Schedule 1), which is set aside for road
construction or widening (the Acquisition Authority is VicRoads). The overlay affects the front
of the site to Heidelberg Road. The proposal was referred to VicRoads for comment and no
objections have been received, subject to conditions.
The works are clear of the PAO1 area (to be confirmed by condition).
Deletion of Conditions:
The application seeks deletion of the following permit conditions:
1(b) Minimum headroom clearance to the garage of 2.2m.
The minimum 2.2m headroom to the garage is notated on the amended plans.
1(d) Common boundary fences to the east and north are to have a minimum height
of 1.8m above the natural ground level on the subject site.
1.8m high boundary fences are notated on the amended plans.
1(e) Notation to confirm the obscure glass to the north facing study window of
Dwelling 5 is to be fixed.
1(f)
A notation is provided on the amended plans detailing that the obscure
glazing would be fixed.
Removal of all redundant crossovers and reinstatement of kerb, channel and
naturestrip in accordance with condition number 23.
The plans detail that the existing crossover would be removed and condition
23 also covers reinstatement of the kerb and channel.
6
Green walls/vertical gardens must comply with current best practice industry
standards. Measures must be accompanied by relevant details, including
cross sections, specifications, and maintenance requirements where
appropriate. Such features may also require the provision of an appropriate
engineering certification (prepared by a suitably qualified person) to the
satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The green wall element is no longer proposed and this condition can be
deleted.
It is recommended that all of the condition 1 is deleted in its entirety and an
amended condition 1 is implemented as detailed above in the
recommendation.
Page 60
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
CLAUSE 55 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
CLAUSE
STD
COMPLIANCE
Std
55.02-1
B1
Neighbourhood character
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
55.02-2
B2
B3
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y/N
Y/N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Residential policy
The proposal complies with the relevant residential
policies outlined in the Darebin Planning Scheme.
55.02-3
Obj
Dwelling diversity
N/A as development contains less than 10 dwellings
55.02-4
B4
Infrastructure
Adequate infrastructure exists to support new
development
55.02-5
B5
Integration with the street
The residential appropriately integrates with the
Street.
55.03-1
B6
Street setback
The required front setback is 9 metres, the dwellings
are set back 13 metres from the street frontage.
The required side setback 3 metres, the dwellings
are set back between 1 metre and 3.7 metres from
Austin Street.
55.03-2
B7
Building height
The maximum building height is 12.2m to the
parapet although the majority of the development is
set at 11.7m. This exceeds the 9m height limit set by
Rescode.
Page 61
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
CLAUSE
STD
55.03-3
B8
11 AUGUST 2014
COMPLIANCE
Site coverage
47.38%
55.03-4
B9
B10
B11
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Energy efficiency
Dwellings are considered to be generally energy
efficient and will not unreasonably impact adjoining
properties.
55.03-6
Y
Permeability
53.33%
55.03-5
Y
Open space
N/A as the site does not abut public open space.
55.03-7
B12
Safety
The proposed development is secure and the
creation of unsafe spaces has been avoided.
55.03-8
B13
Landscaping
Adequate areas are provided for appropriate
landscaping and a landscape plan has been
required as a condition of approval.
55.03-9
B14
Access
Access is sufficient and respects the character of the
area.
55.03-10
B15
Parking location
Parking facilities are proximate to the dwellings they
serve, the access is observable, habitable room
windows are sufficiently set back from accessways.
55.04-1
B17
Side and rear setbacks
The building is considered to have acceptable
setbacks subject to conditions to increase the
setback to the north at level 3.
Page 62
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
CLAUSE
STD
55.04-2
B18
11 AUGUST 2014
COMPLIANCE
Walls on boundaries
Length: 11.3m
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Height: 2.9 average
Walls on boundaries comply with the requirements
of this standard.
55.04-3
B19
Daylight to existing windows
Sufficient setbacks exist to allow adequate daylight
55.04-4
B20
North-facing windows
There are no north facing windows within 3.0 metres
of the common boundary with the subject site.
55.04-5
B21
Overshadowing open space
Shadow cast by the development is within the
parameters set out by the standard.
55.04-6
B22
Overlooking
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
55.04-7
B23
Internal views
There are no internal views
55.04-8
B24
Noise impacts
Noise impacts are consistent with those in a
residential zone.
55.05-1
B25
Accessibility
The ground levels of the proposal can be made
accessible for people with limited mobility.
55.05-2
B26
Dwelling entry
Entries to the dwellings are identifiable and provide
an adequate area for transition.
Page 63
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
CLAUSE
STD
55.05-3
B27
11 AUGUST 2014
COMPLIANCE
Daylight to new windows
Adequate setbacks are
appropriate daylight access.
55.05-4
B28
proposed
to
allow
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Common property
Common property
manageable.
55.06-4
Y
Front fences
No front fence is proposed which is acceptable.
55.06-3
N
Design detail
Design detail of dwellings is appropriate in the
neighbourhood setting subject to conditions.
55.06-2
Y
Storage
Sufficient storage areas are provided.
55.06-1
Y
Solar access to open space
Sufficient depth is provided for adequate solar
access.
55.05-6
Y
Private open space
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
55.05-5
Y
areas
are
appropriate and
Site services
Sufficient areas for site services are provided.
Page 64
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
REFERRAL SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT/AUTHORITY
Capital Works
RESPONSE
No objection, subject to conditions included in
recommendation see body of report for details.
Transport Management and No objection, see body of report for details
Planning
VicRoads
Referred pursuant to previous application. No objection,
subject to conditions, see body of report for details
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
SECTION OF
SCHEME
RELEVANT CLAUSES
SPPF
11.02-1, 15.01-1, 15.01-5, 15.02, 16.01, 19.03-1
LPPF
21.05-1, 21.05-2, 21.05-3, 22.04
Zone
32.08
Overlay
45.01, 45.06
Particular provisions
52.06, 55, 52.34
General provisions
65.01
Neighbourhood
Character Precinct
B3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
All new dwellings are required to achieve a minimum six (6) star energy rating under the
relevant building controls.
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Other
Nil
Page 65
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this
application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and
persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or
indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff,
reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
The following people verbally addressed the meeting and were ultimately thanked for their
presentation by the Chairperson, Cr. Greco:
•
Grazyna Zajdow – Objector
•
George Demirov – Objector
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. B. Li
Cr. V. Fontana
THAT Application to amend planning permit D/806/2012 be approved and a Notice of
Decision to Grant an amended Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority.
Page 66
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in
accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as sheet numbers
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 revision dated 3 December 2013, job no. HR481-7/2011, prepared
by Premier Projects Pty Ltd) but modified to show:
a)
The uppermost level of the development set back at least an additional 1 metre
from the northern boundary so that the minimum setback is 4.5 metres. This
must be achieved without increasing any other setbacks.
b)
Design detail to create visual interest and a strategy to mitigate against graffiti to
the ground level wall facing Heidelberg Road to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
c)
The uppermost level of the development clad in high quality and contrasting
durable material and be a light neutral colour to differentiate the uppermost level
from the bottom three levels.
d)
Vertical wooden cladding feature proposed in D/806/2012 or alternative material
of similar appearance provided to the east elevation adjoining no. 491 Heidelberg
Road.
e)
The metal grille/door to the garage entrance set back from the property boundary
6 metres to allow for a vehicle to wait off the road and footpath whilst waiting for
the garage door to open.
f)
The Public Acquisition Overlay outline on the floor plans. All development must
be shown outside the overlay area.
g)
Floor plans elevations and sections appropriately dimensioned showing the floor
to ceiling heights within the car parking area and a minimum of 2.2m headroom
(including under the garage door).
h)
Details and specifications of the vehicle stacker to confirm that the proposed
ground level car park can accommodate a 7 car mechanical vehicle stacker.
i)
Any modifications in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment (Refer
to Condition 8 of this Permit).
j)
A comprehensive schedule of external materials, colours and finishes (including
colour samples). Construction materials are to be low maintenance. External
materials and finishes (including glazing) are to be of a low reflectivity level. The
use of painted surfaces must be minimised.
Annotated coloured elevations showing the location/application of the materials,
colours and finishes must be provided.
k)
A single communal antenna for the development (refer also to Condition No. 18
of this Permit). The location of the antenna must be shown on the roof plan and
elevations. The height of the antenna must be nominated.
l)
The location of all plant and equipment (including air conditioners and the like).
These are to be co-located where possible, screened to be minimally visible from
the public realm and adjacent properties, located as far as practicable from site
boundaries and integrated into the design of the building.
m)
A landscape plan in accordance with Condition No. 5.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
Page 67
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
•
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in
writing before this Permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.
4.
Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible
Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then
form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified
person and must incorporate:
a)
Details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed,
including overhanging trees on adjoining properties. The genus, species, height
and spread of all trees must be specified.
b)
A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name,
common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants.
c)
Details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and permeable
and/or hard paving (such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel) demonstrating a
minimum site permeability of 20%.
d)
Street trees within the nature strip/s adjacent to the property.
e)
All constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin
receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting, clotheslines etc.
f)
Edge treatment between grass (lawn) and garden beds.
g)
An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of
entry doors, windows, gates and fences. An outline of buildings on adjoining
land, including the location of windows and doors which face the subject site
must also be shown.
h)
The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services.
Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be
avoided.
i)
Clear graphics identifying
groundcovers and climbers
j)
A scale, North Point and appropriate legend.
trees
(deciduous
and
evergreen),
shrubs,
The species of all proposed plants selected must be to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
5.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or
the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in
writing.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder
must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
Page 68
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
6.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and
any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed
Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7.
Before the development starts, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) detailing
sustainable design strategies to be incorporated into the development to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved in writing
by the Responsible Authority. The SDA must outline proposed sustainable design
initiatives within the development such as (but not limited to) energy efficiency, water
conservation, stormwater quality, waste management and material selection. It is
recommended that a STEPS report (residential) or Sustainable Design Scorecard
(SDS) is undertaken as part of the SDA.
The development must be constructed in accordance with the requirements/
recommendations of the Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
8.
Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the
ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the
subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building
Regulations 2010. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed
land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days
from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor
submitted to the Responsible Authority.
9.
All dwellings that share dividing walls and floors must be constructed to limit noise
transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia.
10.
The design of habitable rooms of all dwellings adjacent to a road must limit internal
noise levels to a maximum of 35 dB(a) in accordance with relevant Australian
Standards for acoustic control (including AS3671-Road Traffic).
11.
Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of
illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and
all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of
amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
12.
Boundary walls facing adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
16.
Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17.
Only one (1) communal television antenna may be erected on the building. Individual
antennae for individual dwellings/tenancies must not be erected.
Page 69
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
18.
11 AUGUST 2014
Before occupation of the development areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and
access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
a)
Constructed;
b)
Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the
plans;
c)
Surfaced with an all weather sealcoat;
d)
Drained;
e)
Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
f)
Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and
driveways
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be
used for any other purpose.
19.
Before the development is occupied vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align
with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant
crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with
footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
VicRoads Conditions:
20.
There shall be no direct vehicle access to Heidelberg Road.
21.
The existing crossover in Heidelberg Road must be removed and the kerb and
channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority and at no cost to VicRoads or the Responsible Authority.
22.
No compensation is payable under part 5 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in
respect of anything done under this permit.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken to
have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in the land
and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal.
•
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
•
The amendments specified in Condition 1of this Permit and any additional
modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed
by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition.
Page 70
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Any “necessary or consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this
condition, should be specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment.
If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their
approval under the relevant Sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They
can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been
approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without
notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more
significant nature may require a new permit application.
•
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other departments
of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals may be required
and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the approval of this
Planning Permit.
CARRIED
A Division was called by Cr. Fontana:
For
Against
Cr. B. Li
Cr. J. Williams
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. G. Greco, Chairperson
Cr. T. Laurence
Cr. O. Walsh
Cr. S. Tsitas
Cr. A. Villella
Cr. T. McCarthy
The Chairperson, Cr. Greco declared the Motion to be carried.
Page 71
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
5.3
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/298/2014
21 David Street, Preston VIC 3072
AUTHOR:
Senior Planner – Craig Murphy
DIRECTOR:
Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant:
Ikonomidis Reid
713 Plenty Rd
RESERVOIR VIC 3073
Owner:
Catania Investments Pty Ltd
1 Cleeland St
RESERVOIR VIC 3073
Consultant:
Planning Appeals Pty Ltd
3/780 High Street
THORNBURY VIC 3071
SUMMARY:
•
It is proposed to construct a medium density housing development comprising five (5)
dwellings and reduce car parking equivalent to one (1) visitor space.
•
The certificate of title for the subject site indicates that the land is not burdened by any
registered restrictive covenants.
•
Recommendation – Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit subject to
conditions.
CONSULTATION:
•
Notice of the application was given pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 (‘Act’) by posting two (2) signs on the site and sending letters to
owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties.
•
Five (5) objections have been received to date.
•
A consultation meeting was held on 14 July 2014 and attended by the applicant party,
two (2) objector parties and a Council Planning Officer. No resolution was achieved at
the meeting and all objections remain outstanding.
•
No external referrals under Section 55 of the Act are applicable to this application.
•
The application was referred internally to Council’s Capital Works Unit, Transport
Management and Planning Unit and ESD Officer. Response details are contained
within the report below.
Page 72
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Planning Permit Application D/298/2014 be approved and a Notice of Decision to
Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The
plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance
with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Job No. 7884, Drawings
Nos. TP-03 and TP-04 (Rev. C) prepared by Ikonomidis Reid and received by Council
on 16 May 2014) but modified to show:
a)
First floor finished floor levels (to AHD) shown on the plans and elevations.
b)
First floor setbacks of Dwelling 3 from the east and west boundaries
dimensioned.
c)
An operable window to Dwelling 4 – Bathroom.
d)
An operable, external sun shading device fitted to the west-facing glass doors of
Dwelling 4.
e)
An operable, external sun shading device fitted to the east-facing glass doors of
Dwellings 3 and 5.
f)
The height of fences on the southern and western boundaries (except within 3
metres of the eastern boundary and 7.01 metres of the northern boundary of the
land) to be a minimum height of 1.8 metres as measured above natural ground
level.
Where necessary, the fence height may be increased by raising the height of the
fence or by the provision of free-standing, self-supporting trellis adjacent the
fence to the required height. If utilised, such trellis must be a maximum of 25%
open and be fixed, permanent, durable and coloured or painted to blend with the
development.
g)
Dwelling 2 provided with a minimum 6 cubic metres of externally accessible
storage.
h)
The storage areas opposite the vehicle parking aisle allocated to Dwellings 3 and
5.
i)
The bins provided at the end of the vehicle parking aisle contained within a
suitably screened enclosure.
j)
Each car parking space to be a minimum length of 5.4 metres (4.9 metres plus
500mm clearance from the adjacent wall) with a minimum parking aisle of 5.8
metres in accordance with AS2890.1:2004. This is to be achieved without the
reduction of any other setbacks.
k)
An additional pedestrian visibility splays measuring 2.0 metres (width across the
frontage) by 2.5 metres (depth into the site), to the northern and southern sides
of the crossover to Jackman Street. Where within the subject site, any
structures or vegetation within these splays must be not more than 1.15 metres
in height.
l)
A landscape plan in accordance with Condition No. 4 of this Permit.
Page 73
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
m)
11 AUGUST 2014
Modifications in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment (refer to
Condition No. 5 of this Permit).
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
a)
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
b)
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is
made in writing:
4.
c)
Before this Permit expires;
d)
Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
e)
Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the
completion of the development or a stage of the development.
Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible
Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then
form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified
person and must incorporate:
a)
Details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed,
including overhanging trees on adjoining properties. The genus, species, height
and spread of all trees must be specified
b)
A planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name,
common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants
c)
Details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and hard paving
(such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel)
d)
Street trees within the nature strip/s adjacent to the property
e)
All constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin
receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting, clotheslines etc
f)
Edge treatment between grass (lawn) and garden beds
g)
An outline of the approved building/s including any basement, the location of
entry doors, windows, gates and fences. An outline of buildings on adjoining
land, including the location of windows and doors which face the subject site
must also be shown
h)
The location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services.
Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be
avoided
i)
Clear graphics identifying
groundcovers and climbers
trees
Page 74
(deciduous
and
evergreen),
shrubs,
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
j)
11 AUGUST 2014
A scale, North Point and appropriate legend
The species of all proposed plants selected must be to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
5.
Before the development starts, an amended Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA)
detailing sustainable design strategies to be incorporated into the development to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved in writing
by the Responsible Authority. The SDA must outline proposed sustainable design
initiatives within the development such as (but not limited to) energy efficiency, water
conservation, stormwater quality, waste management and material selection. It is
recommended that a STEPS report (residential) or Sustainable Design Scorecard
(SDS) is undertaken as part of the SDA.
The development must be constructed in accordance with the requirements/
recommendations of the Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
6.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or
the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in
writing.
No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder
must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.
7.
The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and
any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed
Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8.
Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the
ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the
subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building
Regulations 2006. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed
land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days
from the date of the sub-floor inspection. The upper floor levels must be confirmed
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, by a report from a licensed land surveyor
submitted to the Responsible Authority.
9.
All dwellings that share dividing walls and/or floors must be constructed to limit noise
transmission in accordance with Part F(5) of the Building Code of Australia.
10.
Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of
illuminating the entry to each unit, access to each garage and car parking space and
all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no loss of
amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
11.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Page 75
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
13.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
14.
Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
15.
Before occupation of the development, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and
access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:
a)
Constructed;
b)
Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the
plans;
c)
Surfaced with an all weather sealcoat; and
d)
Drained
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be
used for any other purpose.
16.
Before the development is occupied, vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to align
with approved driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All redundant
crossing(s), crossing opening(s) or parts thereof must be removed and replaced with
footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit)
N1
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken
to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in
the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
N2
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
N3
The amendments specified in Condition 1 of this Permit and any additional
modifications which are “necessary or consequential” are those that will be assessed
by Council when plans are lodged to satisfy that condition. Any “necessary or
consequential” amendments, in addition to those required by this condition, should be
specifically brought to the attention of Council for assessment.
If any other modifications are proposed, application must also be made for their
approval under the relevant sections of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. They
can only be approved once the required and consequential changes have been
approved and the plans endorsed. It is possible to approve such modifications without
notice to other parties, but they must be of limited scope. Modifications of a more
significant nature may require a new permit application.
Page 76
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
N4
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other
departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals
may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the
approval of this Planning Permit.
N5
To complete a satisfactory Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) the Responsible
Authority recommends the use of Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance
Strategy (STEPS) and/or Sustainable Design Scorecard (SDS) to assess the
developments environmental performance against appropriate standards.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Council records indicate that previous planning permit applications are relevant to the
subject land.
On 5 December 2013 application D/924/2013 was lodged for the construction of a medium
density housing development comprising six (6) dwellings and a reduction of car parking
(equivalent to one (1) visitor space).
A request for further information was issued pursuant to Section 54 of the Act which also
outlined a series of issues with the proposed development. A revised development was
formulated however Council was not formally furnished with the requisite information prior to
the specified date. The application consequently lapsed on 9 April 2014.
The current application, for all intents and purposes, serves as a re-lodgement of this
previous application.
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area
•
The subject site has a 17.37 metre frontage to David Street and a 36.49 metre
frontage to Jackman Street comprising a total site area of 634 square metres.
•
The land is located within the General Residential Zone (‘GRZ’) and encumbered by
the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (‘DCPO’).
•
The site is located on the southern side of David Street on the western corner of the
intersection with Jackman Street.
•
The subject site is currently occupied by a detached single storey brick dwelling with a
tile hipped roof. An associated garage is located within rear setback of the site in the
south-west corner accessed by a crossover to Jackman Street.
•
The surrounding neighbourhood comprises of generally detached single and double
storey dwellings with traditional hipped or gabled roofs. Examples of medium density
development can be seen in the locality and are generally reserved to corner lots
benefitting from multiple street frontages.
Page 77
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
11 AUGUST 2014
Council’s Neighbourhood Character Study provides the following description for
Precinct E4 within which the site is located:
“Californian bungalows and immediate Postwar style dwellings form the
architectural base for this precinct, however some infill building has taken place
throughout the precinct since these eras. Some streets contain consistent rows
of Californian bungalows. Streetscapes are generally open and low-scale, with
wide nature strips adding to this openness in many streets. Infill dwellings often
dominate the low-scale atmosphere with large, visible second storeys that sit
above the predominant dwelling height. Gardens are mostly low-scale and
bounded by picket or low brick fences that allow views to dwellings and front
gardens.”
•
The subject site is located approximately 440 metres east of the No. 86 tram (Plenty
Road) and 1.3km south-west of Northland Shopping Centre.
Proposal
•
It is proposed to construct a medium density housing development comprising five (5)
dwellings contained within two (2) double storey buildings, and reduce the visitor car
parking requirements (to zero).
•
Dwellings 1, 2 and 4 will each comprise one (1) bedroom and are provided with ground
floor courtyard areas adjacent to the living space.
•
Dwellings 3 and 5 will each comprise two (2) bedrooms and are provided with first floor
balconies adjacent to the living space.
•
A central parking corridor will provide five (5) on-site parking spaces access from
Jackman Street.
Objections
•
Notice of the application was given pursuant to Section 52 of the Act and five (5)
objections have been received to date.
Objections summarised
•
Proposed number of dwellings / overdevelopment of the site
•
Registration status of the permit applicant
•
Noise
•
Overlooking / Privacy
•
Car parking / traffic
•
Waste Management
•
Community animosity / volume of objection(s)
Officer comment on summarised objections
•
The Darebin Planning Scheme does not stipulate maximum/minimum dwelling
numbers; rather, the acceptability of a development is therefore indicated by
satisfactory compliance with the objectives, standards and decision guidelines
contained within Clause 55.
Page 78
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The removal of quantifiable ‘density control’ was a conscious decision of the Rescode
Advisory Committee (2000) with a clear preference for performance-based measures.
In the case of the proposed development, the proposal has been assessed as
providing a high level of compliance with the relevant requirements which have been
considered in the Planning Assessment below.
•
There is no obligation under the Act for a permit applicant to be a registered
proprietary limited company. Moreover, nothing in the assessment of a development
application turns to the name of the applicant, with any decision issued running with
the land rather than a specific person.
•
The proposed use is residential and will have noise impacts consistent with those
normal to a residential zone. Speech, laughter, music etc. are noises associated with
people living their lives and are all part of life in an urban area.
•
Overlooking of neighbouring properties is considered under the provisions of Clause
55.04-6 (refer Planning Assessment below). In this case, the proposal has been
assessed as compliant with the relevant requirements (subject to conditions).
•
The development provides on-site parking for five (5) vehicles allocated at one (1)
space per dwelling. A waiver is sought for the one (1) statutory visitor space generated
which has been assessed as acceptable (refer Planning Assessment below).
Both David and Jackman streets are local roads with unrestricted parking available on
both sides of the road reserve. Consequently the situation can arise where vehicles
may have to yield to oncoming traffic where parked cars are adjacent. In a low speed,
local road environment this is a common arrangement that provides an acceptable
traffic outcome. Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit have expressed
that the proposed development will not impose an unreasonable impact on the local
road network.
•
The development provides adequate space for the provision and storage of waste
receptacles. As the site is located on a corner with only one (1) vehicle crossover
proposed, the site is afforded adequate frontages to allow for individual bins for each
dwelling and Council kerb-side collection.
•
The consideration of raw number objections received must be considered in the
context of a significant social effect, and linking community opposition to that effect
(see Stonnington City Council v Lend Lease Apartments (Armadale) Pty Ltd [2013]
VSC 505).
Given the planning merits of the proposal (refer Planning Assessment below) and the
existing presence of medium density housing developments in the area there is no
indication that the proposed development will result in a significant, detrimental social
effect.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Neighbourhood Character Precinct Guideline Assessment
Existing Buildings
•
To encourage the retention of older dwellings that contribute to the valued character of
the area in the design of development proposals.
Page 79
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The dwelling that currently occupies the site is typical of, yet not necessarily contributory to
the overall character of the area. Moreover, there are no planning controls that specifically
require the retention of the dwelling, thus demolition is considered acceptable subject to an
appropriately designed replacement development.
Complies.
VEGETATION
•
To maintain and strengthen the garden setting of the dwellings.
There is limited significant on-site vegetation however two (2) permitter canopy trees are to
be retained as part of the proposal. There is adequate space within the street setbacks and
private open space areas to allow future canopy trees and complementary understorey
plantings.
The provision of a landscape plan prior to the commencement of the development forms a
condition of the above recommendation.
Complies (conditional).
SITING
•
To provide space for front gardens.
•
To ensure new development retains substantial space for landscaping.
•
To maintain and reinforce the side boundary setback pattern and the existing rhythm of
spacing between dwellings.
•
To minimise the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking
structures.
The proposed development is set back from both street frontages allowing the establishment
of front gardens to both David and Jackman streets. As noted above, the private open space
areas provided will allow supplementary landscaping opportunities along the southern and
western property boundaries.
The surrounding area exhibits a distinctive detached character which is maintained by the
proposal with no on boundary construction proposed. The proposal creates two detached
building forms which is consistent with the prevailing development pattern of the area.
A central parking corridor is provided between the two buildings which is set back behind
Jackman Street building line of Dwelling 1 and is softened with both vegetation and a feature
screen to limit its presence in the streetscape.
Complies
HEIGHT AND BUILDING FORM / FRONTAGE WIDTH
•
To ensure that buildings and extensions respect the predominant height and form of
buildings in the streetscape.
•
To maintain, where present, the consistency of frontage widths and building heights
and forms.
The proposed development presents a double storey height to both David and Jackman
streets which will sit comfortably within the surrounding residential context which already
comprises a mix of single and double storey buildings.
Page 80
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The use of horizontal articulation will recess the upper storey component ensuring it does not
appear dominant to the public realm.
The respective buildings respect the prevailing detached streetscape rhythm each providing
a frontage width that is consistent with the neighbouring buildings, and is representative of a
single dwelling form when viewed from the street.
Complies
MATERIALS AND DESIGN DETAIL
•
To encourage buildings that contribute positively to the streetscape through the use of
innovative architectural responses and by presenting visually interesting facades to the
street.
The development uses vertical and horizontal articulation on the facades to provide visual
relief to the street. The use of design details such as projecting entry porticos, fascia
elements and a hipped/eave roof form provides architectural interest which is appropriate to
the area.
A mixed palette of materials and finishes is proposed including face brickwork and horizontal
profile cladding consistent with remnant housing stock of the area. Areas of feature cladding
and rendered panels will provide a contemporary presentation to the street and neighbouring
properties.
Complies
Front Boundary Treatment
•
To maintain the openness of the streetscape and views to established gardens and
dwellings.
No dwelling is to be provided with a front fence allowing views of the development from the
public realm and maintaining the open character of the streetscape.
Complies
CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE) ASSESSMENT
The following sections provide discussion on fundamental areas of Clause 55 including
variations of standards and matters informing conditions of the recommendation above.
Clause 55.03-1 (Standard B6) Street Setback
Only one of the abutting lots fronts David Street thus the requisite setback for Dwellings 1
and 2 is 6.82 metres. The proposal provides a progressive setback of 6.76 – 7.01 metres
however the objective is still satisfied for the following reasons:
•
The technical non-compliance relates to a small section of only 60mm which will be
indiscernible to the public realm.
•
The non-compliance results from the tapering of the David Street lot boundary rather
than projection of the dwellings.
•
The front setback retains adequate opportunities for landscaping with no hardstand of
car parking proposed in the David Street frontage.
Page 81
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Dwellings fronting the side street (Jackman Street) are setback a minimum of 3.0 metres as
required by the standard.
Complies with objective
Clause 55.03-5 (Standard B10) Energy Efficiency
The proposal is considered to be generally energy efficient due to the following:
•
Consolidated construction.
•
Cross ventilation is available in the design.
•
The development does not unreasonably affect the solar access and energy efficiency
of neighbouring dwellings.
•
Open space and living areas with access to north light.
•
Space for outdoor clothes drying facilities.
The application was referred to Council’s ESD Officer and the following requirements will
form conditions to further improve the development’s energy efficiency:
•
An operable window provided to Dwelling 4 – Bathroom.
•
Adjustable external shading provided to the west-facing doors/windows of Dwelling 4
and east-facing doors of Dwellings 3 and 5.
•
A Sustainable Design Assessment (incorporating a STEPS and STORM assessment)
to be provided prior to the commencement of the development.
Complies (conditional).
CLAUSE 55.04-6 (STANDARD B22) OVERLOOKING
The ground floor dwellings have finished floor levels less than 0.8m above natural ground
level at the boundary. A condition will require fencing along the southern and western
boundaries of the site provide a visual barrier equivalent to 1.8 metres to limit overlooking.
The development is designed to limit views into neighbouring secluded private open space
and habitable room windows.
Upper storey windows are, generally, appropriately designed and/or screened to ensure no
overlooking. This is achieved through the use of fixed obscured glazing to a height of 1.7
metres above the finished floor level of habitable room.
Complies (conditional).
CLAUSE 55.05-4 (STANDARD B28) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
The development provides adequate private open space (POS) for the reasonable recreation
and service needs of residents.
Page 82
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
This is achieved through a combination of at-grade courtyards (for ground floor dwellings)
and balconies (for first floor dwellings). The provisions are as follows:
Total POS
Secluded POS
Minimum Dimension
of Secluded POS
Dwelling 1
75.7m2
25.2m2
4.1m
Dwelling 2
86.4m2
25.1m2
4.1m
Dwelling 3
8.6 m2 (balcony)
Dwelling 4
64.7m2
Dwelling 5
11m2 (balcony)
2.4m
28.9m2
3.8m
2.2m
All secluded private open space areas have direct access to a living room.
First floor balconies are provided with 1.0 metre high balustrades to maximise amenity to
future occupants.
Complies.
Clause 55.05-6 (Standard B30) Storage
Dwellings 1 and 4 are provided with 6 cubic metres of externally accessible storage while
two (2) unallocated storage areas are provided opposite the vehicle parking aisle.
To ensure compliance, conditions will require the following:
•
Dwelling 2 be provided with 6 cubic metres of externally accessible storage.
•
The storage areas opposite the parking aisle be allocated to Dwellings 3 and 5.
Complies (conditional).
Clause 55.06-4 (Standard B34) Site Services
Sufficient area is provided to allow for the installation and the maintenance of site services.
The site’s corner location affords adequate frontage to rely on Council waste collection with
individual bins for each dwelling.
A condition will require the bins located at the rear of the parking aisle be suitably screen.
Complies (conditional).
CLAUSE 52.06 (CAR PARKING) ASSESSMENT
Number of Parking Spaces Required
One car parking space is provided for each of the one and two bedroom dwellings.
A reduction of the one (1) statutory visitor car parking space is sought and is considered
acceptable for the following reasons:
•
The visitor demand associated with a five (5) dwelling is anticipated to be low.
•
The site will retain a single vehicle crossover to Jackman Street resulting in no loss of
on-street car parking.
Page 83
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
•
Both David and Jackman streets provide unrestricted parking which can easily
accommodate the visitor car parking demand for the proposed development.
•
The site is proximate to the principal public transport network providing a sustainable
transport option for visitors.
•
Council’s Transport Management and Planning Unit have viewed the proposal and
expressed no objection to a reduction of the visitor space given all dwellings are
afforded their requisite car parking.
Design Standards for Car parking
The car parking facilities are designed, surfaced and graded to reduce run-off and allow
stormwater to drain into the site.
The car parking spaces, carport/undercroft parking area and the accessways generally have
appropriate dimension to enable efficient use and management.
The proposal includes standard design vehicle spaces of 4.9 metres length and 2.6 metre
width. A 6.05 metre wide parking aisle is provided in lieu of the 6.4 metres required by
Clause 52.06.
Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 required that a minimum 5.8 metre wide parking aisle with
each space being extended by 500mm due to abutting a solid wall. This has been included
as a condition and will require modification of approximately 250mm.
Visibility splays are required at the accessway interface with the footpath to protect
pedestrians. This has been requested as a condition of approval.
CLAUSE 55 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Clause
55.02-1
Std
B1
Compliance
B2
B3
Y
Y
Y
Y
Residential policy
The proposal complies with the relevant residential
policies outlined in the Darebin Planning Scheme.
55.02-3
Obj
Neighbourhood character
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
55.02-2
Std
Dwelling diversity
N/A as development contains less than 10
dwellings.
55.02-4
B4
N/A
Infrastructure
Adequate infrastructure exists to support new
development
Page 84
Y
Y
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Clause
55.02-5
11 AUGUST 2014
Std
B5
Compliance
Integration with the street
Each of the dwelling appropriately integrates with Y
the street network.
55.03-1
B6
Street setback
The required setback is 6.82 (David St) and 3.0
metres (Jackman St). The dwellings are set back
6.76-7.01 (David St) and 3.0 metres (Jackman St)
from the street frontage.
55.03-2
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Energy efficiency
Dwellings are considered to be generally energy
efficient and will not unreasonably impact adjoining
properties.
55.03-6
Y
Permeability
47%
55.03-5
Y
Site coverage
38%
55.03-4
N
Building height
8.13 metres
55.03-3
Y
Open space
N/A as the site does not abut public open space.
55.03-7
B12
Safety
The proposed development is secure and the
creation of unsafe spaces has been avoided.
55.03-8
B13
N/A
Y
Y
Y
Y
Landscaping
Adequate areas are provided for appropriate
landscaping and a landscape plan has been
required as a condition of approval.
Page 85
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Clause
55.03-9
11 AUGUST 2014
Std
B14
Compliance
Access
Access is sufficient and respects the character of
the area.
55.03-10
B15
B17
B18
Y
Y
Y
Y
Side and rear setbacks
Dwellings are set back in accordance with the
requirements of this standard.
55.04-2
Y
Parking location
Parking facilities are proximate to the dwellings
they serve, the access is observable, habitable
room windows are sufficiently set back from
accessways.
55.04-1
Y
Walls on boundaries
No on boundary construction is proposed.
55.04-3
B19
Daylight to existing windows
Sufficient setbacks exist to allow adequate daylight
55.04-4
B20
N/A
Y
North-facing windows
There are no north facing windows within 3.0
metres of the common boundary with the subject
site.
55.04-5
B21
B22
B23
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Overlooking
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
55.04-7
N/A
Overshadowing open space
Shadow cast by the development is within the
parameters set out by the standard.
55.04-6
Y
Internal views
There are no internal views.
Page 86
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Clause
55.04-8
11 AUGUST 2014
Std
B24
Compliance
Noise impacts
Noise impacts are consistent with those in a
residential zone.
55.05-1
B25
B26
B27
B28
to
allow
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Front fences
No front fence is proposed which is acceptable.
55.06-3
Y
Design detail
Design detail of dwellings is appropriate in the
neighbourhood setting.
55.06-2
Y
Storage
Sufficient storage areas are provided.
55.06-1
Y
Solar access to open space
Sufficient depth is provided for adequate solar
access.
55.05-6
Y
Private open space
Please see assessment in the body of this report.
55.05-5
Y
Daylight to new windows
Adequate setbacks are proposed
appropriate daylight access.
55.05-4
Y
Dwelling entry
Entries to the dwellings are identifiable and provide
an adequate area for transition.
55.05-3
Y
Accessibility
The ground levels of the proposal can be made
accessible for people with limited mobility.
55.05-2
Y
Common property
Common property areas are appropriate and
manageable.
Page 87
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Clause
55.06-4
11 AUGUST 2014
Std
B34
Compliance
Site services
Sufficient areas for site services are provided.
Y
Y
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority
Capital Works
Response
No objection, subject to condition included in
recommendation.
Transport Management No objection, subject to condition included in
and Planning
recommendation.
ESD Officer
No objection, subject to condition included in
recommendation.
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required
•
Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4, a planning permit is required to construct two or more
dwellings on a lot.
•
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to reduce (including to zero) the
number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.
•
The Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) is the only overlay control that
applies to the land. The approved Contributions Plan (June 2004) ceases to have
effect after 30 June 2014 as it has expired.
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme
Relevant Clauses
SPPF
11.02-1, 15.01-1, 15.01-5, 15.02, 16.01, 19.03-1
LPPF
21.05-1, 21.05-2, 21.05-3, 22.04
Zone
32.08
Overlay
46.05
Particular provisions
52.06, 55
General provisions
65.01
Page 88
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
Section of Scheme
Neighbourhood
Character Precinct
11 AUGUST 2014
Relevant Clauses
E4
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
A Sustainable Design Statement (SDS) has been required as a condition of approval. The
SDS will outline sustainable design initiatives required to be incorporated into the
development.
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Other
Nil
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this
application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and
persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or
indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff,
reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act (1987) as amended.
Page 89
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The following people verbally addressed the meeting and were ultimately thanked for their
presentation by the Chairperson, Cr. Greco:
•
Chris McKenzie – Applicant
•
Andrew Murphy – Objector
•
Enrico Biagioni – Objector
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. B. Li
Cr. A. Villella
THAT Planning Permit Application D298/2014 be refused on the following grounds:
1.
The proposal fails to respect the Neighbourhood Character – Standard B1, Clause
55.02-01.
2.
The proposal fails to comply with Standard B6, Clause 55.03-1 (Street setbacks).
3.
The proposal fails to comply with Standard B22, 55.04-6 (Overlooking)
4.
The proposal does not comply with Clause 52.06 – Car parking
5.
The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
6.
The proposal does not provide an appropriate level of internal residential amenity.
CARRIED
Cr. Williams temporarily left the meeting at the conclusion of the above item - 6.56 pm.
Page 90
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
5.4
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT D/290/2014
36 Shaftesbury Parade, Thornbury VIC 3071
AUTHOR:
Senior Planner – Deborah Metcalfe
DIRECTOR:
Director Corporate and Planning Services – Paul Crapper
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONSULTANT:
Applicant:
Shouman Pty Ltd
95 Lambeth Street
KENSINGTON VIC 3031
Owner:
St George Antiochian
28 Shaftesbury Parade
THORNBURY VIC 3071
Consultant:
Shouman Pty Ltd
95 Lambeth Street
KENSINGTON VIC 3031
SUMMARY:
•
Construction of a bell tower to the existing church. The tower is to be constructed of
brick, with render detail and will have a height of approximately 15.5m.
•
The Certificate of Title indicates that there is no restrictive covenant applying to the
land.
•
Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit subject to conditions.
CONSULTATION:
•
Notice of the application was given by posting a sign on the land and mailing of notices
to affected properties.
•
Five (5) objections were received.
•
The application was referred internally to the Heritage Advisor. Referral comments are
included later in this report.
Page 91
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Planning Permit Application D/290/2014 be approved and a Notice of Decision to
Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans
submitted with the application (identified as Project No. 1079, TPO8, TPO9 and TP10,
Revision A, dated 23 April 2014 prepared by Shouman Architects).
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
•
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is
made in writing:
•
Before this Permit expires;
•
Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
•
Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the
completion of the development or a stage of the development.
4.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit)
N1
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken
to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in
the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
N2
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
Page 92
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
N3
11 AUGUST 2014
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other
departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals
may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the
approval of this Planning Permit.
REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Planning Permit D/556/2003 was issued on 26 July 2004 for additions to the existing place of
worship, comprised of an assembly area, recreation facility, presbytery, meeting rooms,
offices and a reduction to the car parking requirements.
Amended Planning Permit D/556/2003A was issued on 10 June 2005 for alterations to the
roof form and change of wall construction material.
Planning Permit D/226/2013 was issued on 21 May 2013 for the construction of a storage
area.
ISSUES AND DISCUSSION
Subject site and surrounding area
•
The site is located on the north east corner of Shaftesbury Parade and Stott Street.
•
The site is irregular in shape, with frontages of 34.35m to Shaftesbury Parade and
2
45.72m to Stott Street, with an overall area of 1,681m .
•
The site in a General Residential Zone, Heritage Overlay 151 and a Development
Contribution Plan Overlay.
•
The allotment contains a large brick church building to its southern half (to Shaftesbury
Parade), with a height of approximately 11.5m to the gable end. To the northern part
of the site is a single storey brick and render building used as a reception centre.
•
The church building has a lower tower structure to the south west corner of the site
(subject to the present application).
•
There is a formal, ornamental garden to the intersection.
•
The site has access to a right of way to the rear.
•
To the north of the site, beyond the right of way, are the rear yard areas of allotments
fronting Normanby Avenue. These allotments contain a single storey weatherboard
dwelling, double storey brick dwelling and double storey brick flats.
•
To the south of the site, on the opposite side of the street, are a number of single
storey period weatherboard dwellings on narrow allotments.
•
To the east of the site are buildings associated with the St George Antiochian
Orthodox Church including a church hall, offices and a dwelling.
•
To the west, on the opposite side of Stott Street, is the Epping Railway line.
Page 93
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
11 AUGUST 2014
The site is approximately 200m to the east of High Street Thornbury and the 86
tramline. St Georges Road and the 112 tramline are 400m to the west. Croxton
Railway Station is approximately 400m to the south.
Proposal
•
Construction of a bell tower to the existing church.
•
The proposed bell tower is to be located to the south western corner of the site
(adjacent to the intersection of Shaftesbury Parade and Stott Street).
•
The tower is to be constructed over the existing lower square tower in this location.
•
It is to have a height of approximately 15.5m to the top of the roof (with a cross above
this). It is to be constructed of brick, with render detail to match the existing building.
•
The bell is to replace the existing bell. It is to operate at 11am on Sundays for a period
of approximately 5-10 seconds and for weddings, funerals and other religious
occasions (usually between 11am and 4pm).
OBJECTIONS
•
Five (5) objections were received.
Objections summarised
•
Style and scale do not respect the existing building.
•
Excessive height and scale and will dominate the building and area.
•
Contrary to neighbourhood character.
•
Expansion of the church and its activities, leading to parking and traffic issues.
•
Hours and noise to be restricted to existing.
•
There is no guarantee that the church will abide by restrictions on use and
construction.
•
Issues with parking, traffic, anti-social behaviour.
•
Excessive noise.
•
Frequency and length.
•
Noise during construction.
•
Bell tower is not required.
•
Congregation does not live in the area, therefore it isn’t required.
Officer comment on summarised objections
•
Style and scale do not respect the existing building.
As can be seen in the assessment below, it is considered that the style of building, design
and materials are appropriate and complement the existing building.
•
Excessive height and scale and will dominate the building and area.
Page 94
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The height is not considered to be excessive, given that it is only approximately 4m higher
that the existing building. Additionally, as it is a tower structure, it does not present a broad
structure to the elevations so that the scale and mass are not considered to be excessive.
•
Contrary to neighbourhood character.
The character of the neighbourhood is varied, with lower scale period dwellings, a train line,
church use, reception centre, double storey flats and the High Street activity area to the east.
It is not considered that the proposal will be contrary to the character of the area, given this
variety and that the proposal complements the existing church building.
•
Expansion of the church and its activities, leading to parking and traffic issues.
•
Issues with parking, traffic, anti-social behaviour.
The overall use of the site as a church has existing use rights, which includes all church
activities, such as worship, community services and associated noise. Bells are traditionally
associated with church uses. The application does not propose an expansion of the existing
activities; the proposal is solely related to the bell tower structure. In this context it does not
affect the existing church use and issues of parking, traffic and anti-social behaviour are not
a relevant consideration.
•
There is no guarantee that the church will abide by restrictions on use and
construction. Excessive noise.
•
Frequency and length.
•
Hours and noise to be restricted to existing.
As the proposal is solely for building and works associated with the construction of the bell
tower structure specific controls relating to the use of the bell for example hours of operation,
frequency and period of ringing are not applicable. Issues of compliance with the permit and
conditions would be subject to separate enforcement action, should the buildings and works
not comply with planning permit conditions.
•
Noise during construction.
It is not considered that issues arising from construction would be unreasonable in this
instance given the relatively low level of works and confined area of construction.
Notwithstanding construction noise is controlled by the Environmental Protection authority
(EPA).
•
Bell tower is not required.
•
Congregation does not live in the area, therefore it isn’t required.
The need for a particular structure is not a relevant planning consideration.
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The existing use of the site is for a place or worship located in a residential area and the
proposal provides buildings and works to the site. It is considered that the proposal is
acceptable and the buildings and works are appropriate, given the existing building on the
site and the proposed design.
Page 95
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Buildings and works
Although the proposal is not for a residential use, the works must be assessed under Clause
22.04 (Neighbourhood Character), as it is in a residential zone. Firstly an assessment
against the relevant precinct controls are required; however, it is important to note that some
aspects of the precinct controls have limited applicability due to the scope of works and the
existing buildings on the site.
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER PRECINCT GUIDELINE ASSESSMENT (A2)
Existing buildings
The precinct has a clear preference to retain older dwellings that contribute to the valued
character of the area. Although the subject building is not a dwelling, the proposal maintains
the existing period church building on the site. This is important, given that the site is located
within a Heritage Overlay.
It is also noted that the Precinct controls are to avoid the loss of intact streetscapes and new
development that is out of scale and character with the existing Victorian/Edwardian
dwellings. The proposal is higher than the existing building form in the area; however, it is on
a site containing a large church building. The proposal is for a narrow bell tower, which does
not present a significant increase in mass to the street and is an appropriate scale. It is
therefore considered to be an appropriate addition to the site and area.
Complies
VEGETATION
There is no accompanying landscape concept plan; however, the proposal maintains the
existing setbacks and does not reduce the areas covered by the existing formal ornamental
landscape regime. The proposal will not result in the loss of vegetation from the site
Complies
SITING:
The existing setbacks are maintained to the frontages, to retain the front garden area.
The proposal maintains the setbacks to the street interfaces so that the rhythm of building
spacing and setbacks between buildings is not altered.
There is no change to any parking or access.
Complies
HEIGHT AND BUILDING FORM
The predominant height of buildings in the street is single storey. However, the existing
building on the site has a height of approximately 11.5m and there are a number of double
storey structures in proximity to the subject building.
Given that the works relate to a higher scale church building and that they present a narrow
structure to the streetscape (i.e. 3.55m x 3.55m), it is not considered that the mass is
excessive or the overall height of approximately 15.5m is disproportionate.
Page 96
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
This is particularly the case, given that churches often have bell towers and that the works
are to match the existing material and design, so that the proposal is to appear as part of the
original structure.
Complies
MATERIALS AND DESIGN DETAIL:
The proposal provides brick walls with render detailing, which are considered acceptable and
respect the brick and render materials of the subject building.
The materials, fenestration and design respect the existing building design and are
considered to be acceptable.
Complies
FRONT BOUNDARY TREATMENT:
There is no front fence and the existing low level formal landscaping is to be retained.
Complies
Zoning and State Policy
In terms of buildings and works, Clauses 32.08-10 and 15.01-2 provide some design
principles against which a proposal must be assessed. The following is a summary of the
assessment against these design principles:
Is the development compatible with residential use
•
•
•
•
The proposal is appropriate, in that it relates to the continuing place of worship use of
the land.
The works will provide an appropriate addition to the existing building on the site and
are set back from any sensitive interfaces.
The proposed design is appropriate in the context of the area and the public realm and
pedestrian amenity will not be substantially altered.
Landmarks, views and vistas will not be significantly affected by the proposal.
Whether the use generally serves local community needs
The scale and intensity of the use and development
•
The above guidelines are not applicable as previously mentioned the use of the bell is
as of right.
The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed building and works
•
The existing building is to be retained and although the works exceed the height of any
buildings in proximity, this must be seen in the context of the high scale church
building, the narrow form of the proposal, the respectful design and the separation to
any adjoining sites containing lower scale buildings. The tower will not provide an
unreasonable mass in this context.
Page 97
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
11 AUGUST 2014
The height is considered to be appropriate in the context of the site and area (see
further assessment above).
The site is in a Heritage Overlay and is considered to be appropriate, given the
materials and design respect the building on the site.
The design will contribute to the complexity of the built environment.
The development will not unreasonably overshadow the public realm or adjoining
properties.
Plant and equipment is to be further detailed by condition.
The proposed landscaping
•
Landscaping is not required as existing landscaped areas will not be altered or
reduced by the proposal.
The provision of car and bicycle parking and associate accessways.
•
The planning application does not propose to alter the existing provision of car and
bicycle parking or accessways. As the floor area of the use is not increased and the
proposal does not alter the use or patrons/parishioners numbers, additional car parking
is not required.
Proposed loading and refuse collection facilities
•
No loading and refuse collection facilities are proposed.
Safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.
Not applicable see above.
Heritage Overlay
The subject site is covered by a site specific Heritage Overlay (HO 151 - 28 Shaftesbury
Parade, Thornbury, Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Vicarage and Parish Hall).
The decision guidelines under Clause 43.01-4 require the Responsible Authority to consider
the bulk, form and appearance of the works in the context of the heritage place and adjacent
buildings.
The proposed redevelopment is considered appropriate, in that:
•
The proposal will not unreasonably affect the significance of the heritage place.
•
The proposal will maintain the main façades of the building.
•
The works provide appropriate form, scale and design. The design will use appropriate
materials to respect those used in heritage place (i.e. render and brick), which is
considered to be an acceptable design response.
•
The location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will not adversely
affect the significance of the heritage place and the development is in keeping with the
character and appearance of the heritage place.
In addition to the above, Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed the proposal and has no
objections on heritage grounds.
Importantly, it is not intended that heritage overlays are kept in original condition. Buildings
are altered and extended and are often required to be altered as standards change from the
previous periods. Heritage controls are to manage changes rather than prohibit them.
Page 98
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
The location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposal buildings is in keeping with the
character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place and will not adversely
affect the significance of the heritage place. Therefore it is considered that the proposal
complies with the provisions of the heritage overlay.
CONCLUSION
Given the above, it is considered that the buildings and works are acceptable in the context
of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and will not lead to unreasonable impact
on the neighbourhood character or the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.
The proposal is appropriate in the context of the existing building and provides an
appropriate addition to the building through the design and materials. It respects the existing
building and neighbourhood character and does not adversely affect the significance of the
heritage place.
REFERRAL SUMMARY
Department/Authority
Heritage Advisor
Response
No heritage concerns
PLANNING SCHEME SUMMARY
Darebin Planning Scheme clauses under which a permit is required
•
Clause 32.08-10 – Decision guidelines – Non-residential use and development.
•
Clause 32.08-6 – Buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use
•
Clause 43.01-1 – Construct a building or construct or carry out works
Applicable provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme
Section of Scheme
Relevant Clauses
SPPF
11.02-1, 15.01-1, 15.01-5, 15.02, 16.01, 19.03-1
LPPF
21.05-3, 21.05-4, 22.04
Zone
32.08-10
Overlay
46.05
General provisions
65.01
Neighbourhood
Character Precinct
A2
Page 99
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Environmental Sustainability
Nil
Social Inclusion and Diversity
Nil
Other
Nil
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or resource implications as a result of the determination of this
application.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Nil
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff and
persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council to disclose any direct or
indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.
The Manager authorising this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff,
reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Darebin Heritage Review 2000
The following people verbally addressed the meeting and were ultimately thanked for their
presentation by the Chairperson, Cr Greco:
•
Neal Connor - Objector
•
Grace Cruickshank - Objector
Page 100
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
MOTION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. T. McCarthy
Cr. S. Tsitas
THAT the item be deferred to allow consultation with the applicant and Council’s heritage
adviser and an acoustic adviser regarding the potential for louvers on a redesign of the bell
tower in order to reduce the noise impact on surrounding residents.
THE MOTION WAS PUT AND LOST
THE MOTION BEFORE THE CHAIR IS AS FOLLOWS:
MOTION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. O. Walsh
THAT the ‘Recommendation’ as presented in the agenda (to approve the Planning Permit
Application subject to conditions).
Cr. McCarthy proposed to the mover Cr. Fontana and seconder Cr. Walsh that Notation 4 be
added to the motion as follows:
N4
The applicant be asked to consider the inclusion of an appropriate acoustic
treatment to limit the noise impacts on surrounding residents.
This was accepted by Cr. Fontana and Cr. Walsh
Cr. Laurence further proposed to the mover Cr. Fontana and seconder Cr. Walsh that further
wording be added to Notation 4 as follows:
N4
The applicant be asked to consider the inclusion of an appropriate acoustic
treatment to limit the noise impacts on surrounding residents and to the
satisfaction of Darebin’s Heritage advisor
This was accepted by Cr. Fontana and Cr. Walsh
Page 101
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
THE AMENDED MOTION THEN READ AS FOLLOWS:
AMENDED MOTION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. O. Walsh
THAT Planning Permit Application D/290/2014 be approved and a Notice of Decision to
Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans
submitted with the application (identified as Project No. 1079, TPO8, TPO9 and TP10,
Revision A, dated 23 April 2014 prepared by Shouman Architects).
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
•
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is
made in writing:
•
Before this Permit expires;
•
Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
•
Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the
completion of the development or a stage of the development.
4.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit)
N1
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken
to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in
the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
N2
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
Page 102
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
N3
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other
departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals
may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the
approval of this Planning Permit.
N4
The applicant be asked to consider the inclusion of an appropriate acoustic treatment
to limit the noise impacts on surrounding residents and to the satisfaction of Darebin’s
Heritage advisor
THE AMENDED MOTION WAS PUT AND CARRIED AND BECAME THE COMMITTEE
DECISION AS FOLLOWS:
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. V. Fontana
Cr. O. Walsh
THAT Planning Permit Application D/290/2014 be approved and a Notice of Decision to
Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions:
1.
The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans
submitted with the application (identified as Project No. 1079, TPO8, TPO9 and TP10,
Revision A, dated 23 April 2014 prepared by Shouman Architects).
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
This Permit will expire if either:
•
The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this
Permit; or
•
The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.
As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is
made in writing:
•
Before this Permit expires;
•
Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or
•
Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the
completion of the development or a stage of the development.
4.
The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings
and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6.
No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the
endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior
written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Page 103
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
NOTATIONS
(These notes are provided for information only and do not constitute part of this
permit or conditions of this permit)
N1
Any failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may result in action being taken
to have an Enforcement Order made against some or all persons having an interest in
the land and may result in legal action or the cancellation of this permit by the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
N2
Nothing in the grant of this permit should be construed as granting any permission
other than planning permission for the purpose described. It is the duty of the permit
holder to acquaint themselves, and comply, with all other relevant legal obligations
(including any obligation in relation to restrictive covenants and easements affecting
the site) and to obtain other required permits, consents or approvals.
N3
This Planning Permit represents the Planning approval for the use and/or development
of the land. This Planning Permit does not represent the approval of other
departments of Darebin City Council or other statutory authorities. Such approvals
may be required and may be assessed on different criteria to that adopted for the
approval of this Planning Permit.
N4
The applicant be asked to consider the inclusion of an appropriate acoustic treatment
to limit the noise impacts on surrounding residents and to the satisfaction of Darebin’s
Heritage advisor.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Cr. Williams returned to the meeting during discussion - 7.00 pm.
Jacinta Stevens, Manager Corporate Governance and Performance, temporarily left the
meeting during discussions at 7.05 pm and returned 7.06 pm.
Page 104
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
6.
11 AUGUST 2014
OTHER BUSINESS
ADOPTION OF SEVERAL COMMITTEE DECISIONS ‘EN BLOC’
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. S. Tsitas
Cr. V. Fontana
THAT Planning Committee agree to consider the adoption
‘Recommendations’ contained in Item Nos. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 ‘en bloc’.
of
the
CARRIED
Cr. Walsh declared an ‘interest’ in item 6.1 (List Scheduled VCAT Appeals) as he has close
friends that in the area
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. S. Tsitas
Cr. J. Williams
THAT the ‘Recommendations’ contained at Item Nos. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 be
adopted ‘en bloc’.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.1
List Scheduled VCAT Appeals
Following is a list of scheduled VCAT appeals for the information of the Planning Committee.
The table includes appeals heard as well as those scheduled for the coming months (but
does not include mediations and practice day hearings).
Where an appeal has been adjourned and a new hearing date not yet set, the details appear
with the text ‘struck out’.
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. S. Tsitas
Cr. J. Williams
THAT the list of Scheduled VCAT Appeals be noted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 105
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Delegate Decisions before VCAT
December 2013
Date of
Hearing
2/12/2013
App. No.
D/370/2012
Property/Ward
36 Lawry Avenue,
Northcote
Rucker
11/12/2013
D/860/2012
3 Arcadia Avenue,
Reservoir
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Demolish
existing house
and construct
3 level
buildings
comprising 6
dwellings with
basement car
park
Construction
of a medium
density
housing
development
comprising 2
double storey
dwellings to
the rear of the
existing
dwelling
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal was not
satisfied the development
was an acceptable response
to policy for the site. In
particular, the Tribunal
considered the combination
of policy identifying the site
to be within a “low change”
area, together with the
robust design response was
made the proposal fail to
respect the residential
character of Lawry Street.
Application
Withdrawn
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Page 106
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
The Applicant requested of
the Tribunal that their
application for review be
withdrawn. The Tribunal
granted this request.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
December 2013
Date of
Hearing
13/12/2013
App. No.
D/640/2012
Property/Ward
76 Speight Street,
Thornbury
Rucker
13/12/2013
D/678/2012
391 Murray Road,
Preston
Cazaly
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Construction
of 3 double
storey
dwellings
Vary
Restrictive
Covenant
Notice of Decision Objector appeal
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
decision
affirmed.
Permit
Granted
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Page 107
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal considered the
proposal to provide very
generous first floor setbacks
over not great sections of
wall towards to appealing
objector. Accordingly, the
Tribunal affirmed Council’s
decision on the proposal has
been designed to be
respectful of its neighbours.
VCAT affirmed Council’s
refusal of the application as
the permit applicant was not
able to satisfy the Tribunal
that the owner of land
benefitted by the covenant
will be unlikely to suffer any
detriment of any kind (which
is the test established by
section 60(5) of the Planning
and Environment Act 1987).
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
December 2013
Date of
Hearing
19/12/2013
App. No.
D/1032/2012
Property/Ward
28 Reid Street,
Northcote
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
A medium
density
housing
development
comprising the
construction of
1 double
storey dwelling
to the rear of
the existing
dwelling
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Page 108
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal’s main
concerns in respect of this
proposal was the proposal’s
design response to
neighbourhood character. In
particular, the Tribunal was
not satisfied that the
dominant design could be
conditioned to achieve an
acceptable streetscape
response. In addition, it also
had concerns about off site
amenity impacts however
these were not as great as
the concerns VCAT held in
respect to neighbourhood
character.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
January 2014
Date of
Hearing
App. No.
Property/Ward
6 Elliott Street,
Reservoir
23/01/2014
D/78/2013
La Trobe
29/01/2014
D/133/2013
1 Harker Street,
Alphington
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Variation of
Restrictive
Covenant
Partially
demolish and
modify the
existing
dwelling and
construct 2
double storey
dwellings to
the rear on
land within a
heritage
overlay
Refusal – Applicant
Appeal
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Notice of Decision –
Objector Appeal
Page 109
Council’s
decision
varied
Permit
Granted
Result
VCAT affirmed Council’s
refusal of the application as
the permit applicant was not
able to satisfy the Tribunal
that the owner of land
benefitted by the covenant
will be unlikely to suffer any
detriment of any kind (which
is the test established by
section 60(5) of the Planning
and Environment Act 1987).
Notwithstanding the subject
site being in a heritage
overlay, VCAT was satisfied
that the design response of
2 double storey dwellings
behind the existing dwelling
in the context of being
adjacent to a Commercial 1
Zone meant the proposal
respected the heritage
streetscape. VCAT was also
satisfied the impacts on the
objector’s property were
acceptable having regard to
the site’s context and design
response of the proposal.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
January 2014
Date of
Hearing
29/01/2014
App. No.
D/548/2013
Property/Ward
39 Dally Street,
Northcote
Rucker
29/01/2014
D/187/2013
307 Spring Street,
Reservoir
La Trobe
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Construction
of a single
storey
extension on a
lot less then
2
300m
The erection
and display of
an electric
major
promotion sign
Notice of Decision –
Objector Appeal
Refusal – Applicant
Appeal
Page 110
VCAT
Decision
Adjourned
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
Matter adjourned at the
request of the Objector
The Tribunal was persuaded
that the proposed sign would
not adversely affect traffic
safety or the operation of the
nearby roads. However,
VCAT refused the
application on the basis that
it was not persuaded the
proposed sign struck the
right balance between
providing advertising and the
local policy direction for
signs to be for business
identification purposes. The
Tribunal also was of the view
the size of the sign was a
significant departure from
the “generally much smaller
business identification
signage in the activity
centre.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
February 2014
Date of
Hearing
11/02/2014
App. No.
D/833/2012
Property/Ward
3 Crabtree Court,
Reservoir
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
A two storey
medium
density
housing
development
comprised of
the
construction of
7 dwellings
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Page 111
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal affirmed
Council’s refusal due to the
application proposing to
locate an open car parking
area within the land’s front
setback. Specifically, the
Tribunal refused the
application on the basis that
the car parking area in the
site’s front setback together
with the proposed building
pushed to the rear of the site
would not be an acceptable
response to neighbourhood
character.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
February 2014
Date of
Hearing
26/02/2014
App. No.
D/681/2010/A
Property/Ward
204 High Street,
Preston
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Amendment to
Planning Permit
allowing
buildings and
works for a 6
storey building
(plus 2
basement
levels), use of
land for a
residential
building (81
student
accommodation
units) and a
reduction in car
parking
associated with
a shop and
residential
building (81
student
accommodation
units)
Page 112
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
VCAT
Decision
No Hearing
Required
Permit
Granted
Result
The permit applicant formally
submitted amended plans in
response to Council
concerns. These plans were
considered acceptable and
therefore the matter was
resolved by consent order
without the need for a
hearing.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
March 2014
Date of
Hearing
6/03/2014
App. No.
D/414/2013
Property/Ward
10 Callander
Street, Reservoir
La Trobe
6/03/2014
D/548/2013
39 Dally Street,
Northcote
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Variation of
restrictive
covenant
Construction
of a single
storey
extension on
a lot less
then 300m2
Refusal –
Applicant appeal
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Notice of Decision
– Objector Appeal
Page 113
Council’s
Decision
Varied
Permit
Granted
Result
VCAT affirmed Council’s
refusal of the application as
the permit applicant was not
able to satisfy the Tribunal
that the owner of land
benefitted by the covenant
will be unlikely to suffer any
detriment of any kind (which
is the test established by
section 60(5) of the Planning
and Environment Act 1987).
VCAT did not agree with the
objector that the approval of
the application would result
in adverse amenity or
neighbourhood character
outcomes. VCAT concluded
the proposal was supported
by state and local policy and
was an acceptable outcome.
It gave little weight to the
expert evidence of the
objector. VCAT did however
vary one permit condition to
require a higher fence
between the 2 properties.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
April 2014
Date of
Hearing
App. No.
Property/Ward
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
There were no Delegate Matters Listed for Hearing in April 2014
Page 114
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
May 2014
Date of
Hearing
5/05/2014
App. No.
D/245/2013
Property/Ward
92 Kellett Street,
Northcote
Rucker
16/05/2014
D/938/2012
333 Victoria
Road, Thornbury
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Construction
of a medium
density
housing
development
comprising two
(2) double
storey
dwellings
A medium
density
housing
development
comprising
the
construction
of two (2)
dwellings
Notice of Decision Objector Appeal
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Confirmed
Permit
Granted
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Page 115
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal had no option
but to confirm Council’s
decision to grant a permit
due to the withdrawal of the
objector appeal.
While VCAT was satisfied
that the site had attributes
that lend itself to medium
density development, VCAT
refused a permit. In doing
so, it found the proposal had
issues with its setbacks,
height, landscaping and
design features (a cuboid
form). In addition, VCAT was
not satisfied that access
arrangements to Victoria
Road were satisfactory and
the proposal unreasonably
impacted upon the dwelling
immediately to the south.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
May 2014
Date of
Hearing
21/05/2014
App. No.
D/257/2012/A
Property/Ward
495 High Street,
Northcote
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Amendment
to Planning
Permit
(deletion of
conditions
1(b) and 1(f)
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Page 116
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
decision
Varied
Conditions
Deleted
Result
The Tribunal did not provide
written reasons save for that
condition 1(b) could be
removed by consent, and
that condition 1(f) was
unnecessary.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
June 2014
Date of
Hearing
App. No.
Property/Ward
Proposal
Council
VCAT
Decision/Nature of Decision
Appeal
There were no delegate matters listed for hearing in June 2014
Page 117
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
July 2014
Date of
Hearing
2/07/2014
App. No.
D/389/2013
Property/Ward
36 Hickford St
Reservoir
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
3 double
storey
dwellings
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision Set
Aside by
Consent
Permit
Granted
17/07/2014
D/112/2013
84 Roseberry
Avenue, Preston
25/07/2014
D/827/2012
6 Clifton Street,
Northcote
Construction
of a 3 storey
residential
building with 7
dwellings
A medium
density
housing
development
comprising the
construction of
two (2) double
storey
dwellings in
accordance
with the
endorsed
plans
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Application to
Cancel Permit (by
neighbour)
Page 118
Result
The Permit Applicant
circulated amended plans
which significantly reduced
the scale and impact of the
development. On the basis
of the amended plans
Council and the Permit
Applicant were able to reach
agreement that a permit
issue subject to conditions.
VCAT Decision Pending
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
August 2014
Date of
Hearing
4/08/2014
App. No.
D/688/2011
Property/Ward
Proposal
15A Anderson Road,
Thornbury
s87A
application to
amend trading
hours
Cazaly
22/08/2014
D/920/2013
22 Gadd Street,
Northcote
Rucker
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
s87A amendment
application
Council’s Planning
Committee has
subsequently
resolved to support
the proposal
Development
of an
additional
dwelling and
reduction of
car parking
requirements
Page 119
Failure appeal –
deemed refusal
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
August 2014
Date of
Hearing
27/08/2014
App. No.
D/825/2013
Property/Ward
5 Glasgow Avenue,
Reservoir
La Trobe
27/08/2014
D/746/2012
104 Westgarth
Street, Northcote
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Variation of
Restrictive
Covenant
contained in
Instrument No.
2159503,
Volume 7971
Folio 199 to
delete the
words 'and not
more than one
dwelling house
shall be
erected on
each Lot
hereby
transferred...'
Extension to
an existing
dwelling on a
lot less than
2
300m and
within a
Special
Building
Overlay
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Conditions Appeal
Page 120
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
September 2014
Date of
Hearing
18/09/2014
App. No.
D/276/2013
Property/Ward
172 Darebin Road,
Northcote
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Six (6)
attached
dwellings in a
triple storey
building
Page 121
Failure appeal –
deemed refusal
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
October 2014
Date of
Hearing
14/10/2014
App. No.
D/715/2013
Property/Ward
13 Hayes Street,
Northcote
Rucker
29/10/2014
D/366/2014
3-15 High Street,
Preston
Cazaly
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Medium
density
housing
development
comprising the
construction of
four (4) double
storey
dwellings
A 13-storey
building
comprising 94
dwellings,
three (3)
commercial
tenancies and
a reduction to
the car parking
and loading
and unloading
requirements
Notice of Decision Objector Appeal
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Page 122
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
Planning Committee Decisions before VCAT
December 2013
Date of
Hearing
11/12/2013
App. No.
D/646/2012
Property/Ward
215-217 Arthur
Street, Fairfield
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Construction
of 10 double
storey
dwellings and
a reduction in
the visitor car
parking
requirements
Page 123
Failure appeal
(Committee
Determined to
Refuse)
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
(deemed)
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal considered the
critical failing of the proposal
was its response to Arthur
Street. In particular, the
Tribunal was satisfied that
the design response did not
sufficiently interpret
elements of Victorian,
Edwardian or Interwar era in
a contemporary manner
while respecting period
architecture. The Tribunal
accordingly formed the view
that the design response as
proposed resulted in large
contemporary design
elements and unbroken built
form which did not reflect
surrounding traditional
housing.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
January 2014
Date of
Hearing
App. No.
Property/Ward
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
VCAT
Decision
Result
There were no matters decided by Planning Committee which were heard and determined by VCAT in January 2014.
Page 124
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
February 2014
Date of
Hearing
12/02/2014
App. No.
D/504/2013
Property/Ward
20 Lowell Avenue,
Kingsbury
La Trobe
24/02/2014
D/283/2013
42 Swift Street,
Thornbury
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
A medium
density
development
comprised of
the
construction of
one (1) singlestorey and
three (3)
double-storey
dwellings
Construction
of six (6)
attached
dwellings (five
(5) 3-storey
dwellings and
one (1) 2storey
dwelling) and a
reduction to
the car parking
requirement
Refusal - Applicant
appeal
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 125
VCAT
Decision
Hearing
Adjourned
Indefinitely
Council’s
Decision Set
Aside
Permit
Granted
Result
At a Directions Hearing held
15/01/14, VCAT advised the
Permit Applicant it did not
consider sufficient evidence
had been provided to show
the land had been subject to
‘significant ground
disturbance’ per Aboriginal
Heritage legislation.
Accordingly, a Cultural
Heritage Management Plan
is required by Aboriginal
Heritage legislation before
VCAT can consider the
matter.
Prior to the hearing of this
matter, the Permit Applicant
circulated amended plans
which Council was in a
position to support. VCAT
considered that the
amended plans acceptably
meets the Planning Scheme
requirements’, noting that
the Permit Applicant reduced
the proposed building’s
height and intensity.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
February 2014
Date of
Hearing
26/02/2014
App. No.
D/786/2012
Property/Ward
91 Shaftesbury
Parade, Thornbury
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Multi unit
development
comprising the
construction of
4 double
storey
dwellings
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 126
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision Set
Aside
Permit
Granted
Result
VCAT considered the 2 main
issues in dispute was
whether the proposal
respected preferred
neighbourhood character,
and whether there were any
unreasonable off site
amenity impacts. VCAT
concluded the design was
acceptable and there were
no unreasonable off site
amenity impacts having
regard to the site’s context
and the mixed character of
the area. VCAT did however
give effect to some of
Council’s proposed
conditions – Dwelling 1 is to
be amended from a 3
bedroom to a 1 bedroom
dwelling. In turn, this
reduces the car parking
demands of the
development so it provides
all resident car parking on
site.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
March 2014
Date of
Hearing
4/03/2014
App. No.
D/760/2011
/A
Property/Ward
81A Thomson
Street, Northcote
Rucker
19/03/2014
D94/2013
10-12 Don Street,
Reservoir
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
The change of
use of the land
to a restaurant
and a waiver
of the car
parking
requirement
associated
with the use
and the display
of business
identification
signs
Construction
of 7 dwellings
comprising 6
double storey
and 1 single
storey
dwellings and
reduce visitor
car parking to
zero
Notice of Decision
(in line with Officer
recommendation)
– Objector Appeal
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 127
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Varied
Result
The Tribunal did not provide
written reasons.
Permit
Granted
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
The Tribunal was satisfied
that the land was suitable for
redevelopment, but that the
proposal fell short when it
came to matters of detail. In
particular, the critical failing
of the proposal identified by
the Tribunal was the lack of
contribution to preferred
neighbourhood character (in
particular, space around
dwellings for the planting of
vegetation).
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
March 2014
Date of
Hearing
24/03/2014
App. No.
D/211/2013
Property/Ward
3 Mihil Street,
Preston
Proposal
Construction
of a medium
density
housing
development
comprising 3
double storey
dwellings and
1 single storey
dwelling
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Original
Decision – Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Amended Plans
Received – Council’s
Revised Decision Support
Page 128
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
revised
decision
Affirmed
Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal was satisfied
that the subject site was
ideally located for higher
density development. It
found the proposal would not
result in unreasonable traffic
impacts and that the
amended plans addressed a
number of Council’s original
concerns.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
April 2014
Date of
Hearing
4/04/2014
15/04/2014
App. No.
D/1030/2012
D/978/2012
Property/Ward
48 Murphy Grove,
Preston
138 Darebin Road,
Northcote
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Development
of three (3)
double storey
dwellings and
one (1) single
storey dwelling
(total of four
(4) dwellings
Construction
of a four (4)
storey building
including
basement car
parking,
containing 16
dwellings; a
reduction in
the visitor car
parking
requirement;
alteration of
access to a
road in a
RDZ1
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 129
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision Set
Aside
Permit
Granted
Council’s
Decision Set
Aside
Permit
Granted
Result
VCAT was satisfied that the
proposal was supported by
local policy which seeks
provision of a variety of
housing types. When regard
was had to the mix of
housing styles in the area,
the Tribunal was satisfied
that the proposal would “sit
comfortably in its context”.
The Tribunal considered that
subject to conditions, the
primary issue in dispute was
the proposal’s response to
neighbourhood character (as
opposed to site coverage,
lack of one visitor space and
overall building height). The
Tribunal was of the view as
the site was located adjacent
to a main road which was
well served by public
transport, the balancing of
relevant considerations fell
in favour of the grant of a
permit.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
May 2014
Date of
Hearing
13/05/2014
App. No.
D/102/2013
Property/Ward
241 Heidelberg
Road, Northcote
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Development
of one 3 storey
dwelling and
six 2 storey
dwellings and
a reduction to
the car parking
requirement
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 130
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
decision set
aside
Permit
Granted
Result
The key issue for VCAT was
whether the proposal has
responded to the comments
in the previous VCAT appeal
for this site where a permit
was refused. VCAT found
the proposal responded to
VCAT’s previous concerns
about neighbourhood
character, vegetation and
overlooking; and therefore
decided to grant a permit.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
June 2014
Date of
Hearing
2/06/2014
12/06/2014
App. No.
D/208/2013
D/800/2013
Property/Ward
154-156 High Street,
Preston
50 Grange Road,
Alphington
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Use of the
land for
dwellings,
buildings and
works to
construct a
seven (7)
sorey building
comprising of
two (2) shops
and fourty four
(44) dwellings
and a
reduction of
the car parking
and loading
requirements
Construction
of a double
storey building
comprising 11
dwellings over
basement car
parking and
alteration of
access to a
Road Zone Category 1
VCAT
Decision
Result
Failure appeal –
Deemed Refusal
(Committee
subsequently
resolved that Council
would have refused
the application if it
were in a position to
decide – in line with
officer
recommendation)
Council’s
decision set
aside
Permit
Granted
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 131
Decision
Pending
The matter resolved at
mediation following a
reduction in scale of the
proposed development so as
to obtain the support of
adjoining residents.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
June 2014
Date of
Hearing
30/06/2014
App. No.
D/73/2013
Property/Ward
1/62 Oakover Road,
Preston
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Construction
of a 5 level
building and
multi level
basements
containing 42
dwellings; a
retail premises
and a
reduction in
the car parking
requirement
Notice of Decision
(in line with Officer
recommendation) –
Objector Appeal
Page 132
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Varied
Permit
Granted
Result
This site had previously
been to Council’s refusal for
a 5 storey apartment
building was affirmed. Now,
VCAT was satisfied the
application had addressed
the shortcomings from the
previous appeal in terms of
equitable development and
internal amenity. Also, since
the previous appeal the
purpose of the Mixed Use
Zone was amended to
include a new purpose: to
provide for housing at higher
densities. Together local
policy which seeks
redundant industrial land to
be reused for residential
uses, and the design
response being acceptable,
led VCAT to affirm council’s
decision to grant a permit.
VCAT did vary some of the
conditions to manage car
parking and landscaping.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
July 2014
Date of
Hearing
1/07/2014
and
16/07/2014
App. No.
D/604/2013
Property/Ward
229 Gilbert Road,
Preston
Cazaly
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Construct a 3
storey building
containing 22
dwellings
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 133
VCAT
Decision
Council’s
Decision
Affirmed
No Permit
Granted
Result
The Tribunal was not
satisfied that the extent of
change proposed by the
application was supportable
having regard to current
planning policy.
Notwithstanding the
identification of the site as
“substantial change” under
Amendment C138, the
Tribunal did not place
significant weight on this as
the Panel’s report on the
Amendment had not yet
been released. The Tribunal
was also not satisfied with
the level of internal amenity
to be achieved by the
apartments (and was of the
view internal amenity could
be revisited in a re-design of
the proposal), as well as the
interface of the development
to the minimal change
properties to the rear of the
site.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
July 2014
Date of
Hearing
9/07/2014
App. No.
D/504/2012
Property/Ward
20 Lowell Avenue,
Kingsbury
La Trobe
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
A medium
density
development
comprised of
the
construction of
one (1) singlestorey and
three (3)
double-storey
dwellings
Refusal (in line with
Officer
Recommendation) Applicant appeal
Page 134
VCAT
Decision
Interim
Decision
Result
VCAT was not satisfied that
the site was capable of
supporting 4 dwellings
having regard to the future
strategic work for the site.
The Tribunal has given the
permit applicant the
opportunity to lodge further
plans showing only 3
dwellings on the block –
after which Council can
comment on the plans. A
further hearing can be listed
if required.
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
August 2014
Date of
Hearing
19/08/2014
App. No.
D/825/2012
Property/Ward
845-847 High Street,
Thornbury
Rucker
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
Retention of
the existing
restaurant,
construction of
a three (3)
storey
extensions (4
storeys in
total)
comprising
eight (8)
dwellings and
a reduction to
the car parking
requirement
Notice of Decision
(in line with Officer
Recommendation) –
Objector Appeal
Page 135
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
September 2014
Date of
Hearing
19/09/2014
App. No.
D/926/2013
Property/Ward
84 Miranda Road,
Reservoir
La Trobe
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
A medium
density
housing
development
comprised of
the
construction of
five (5) doublestorey
dwellings and
a reduction in
the visitor car
parking
requirement as
shown on the
plans
accompanying
the application
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Page 136
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
11 AUGUST 2014
October 2014
Date of
Hearing
15/10/2014
App. No.
D/992/2013
Property/Ward
649 High Street,
Preston
Cazaly
Proposal
Council
Decision/Nature of
Appeal
A housing
development
comprising the
construction of
a four (4)
storey building
(plus roof
terrace)
consisting of
eight (8)
dwellings and
a reduction in
the car parking
requirement
Council Officer
Recommended NOD
Council Decision –
Refusal
Applicant Appeal
Matters completed and to be heard to 30/10/2014.
Page 137
VCAT
Decision
Result
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
6.2
11 AUGUST 2014
Significant Applications Update
Below is a list of applications with a cost of construction of at least $3,000,000 currently
under consideration.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
•
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6-34 High Street, Preston
Cazaly
D/1007/2012
Construction of a mixed use development containing
209 dwellings, seven (7) retail tenancies and
gymnasium contained within a 16 level building plus
basement car parking
20 December 2012
Advertising completed
80 Tyler Street, Reservoir
Cazaly
D/498/2014
Residential development – 73 dwellings
20 June 2014
Further information requested
195-209 St Georges Road, Northcote
Rucker
D/1011/2012
Mixed use development – 102 dwellings and
supermarket (6 storey building)
20 December 2012
Application being assessed
40-42 Mary Street, Preston
Cazaly
D/964/2013
Mixed use development – 57 dwellings and 1 office (6
storey building)
11 December 2013
Further information received
86 Bell Street, Preston
Cazaly
D/183/2014
Restricted retail development – 5 tenancies
20 March 2014
Further information requested
200 High Street, Northcote
Rucker
D/523/2014
Mixed use development comprising 31 dwellings and 3
shops within a 4 storey building
24 June 2014
Further information requested
Page 138
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
•
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11 AUGUST 2014
531 St Georges Road, Thornbury
Cazaly
D/485/2014
Residential development – 33 dwellings (6 storey
building)
17 June 2014
Referrals sent
435-437 High Street, Northcote
Rucker
D/966/2013
Mixed use development – 20 dwellings and 2 shops (5
storey building)
11 December 2013
Further information requested
629 Plenty Road, Preston
Cazaly
D/482/2013
Mixed use development – 30 dwellings and 1 retail
premises (6 storey building)
5 July 2013
Further information requested
716 High Street, Thornbury
Rucker
D/474/2013
Mixed use development – 41 dwellings and 4 retail
tenancies (5 storey building)
3 July 2013
Advertising completed
87-93 Radford Road, Reservoir
Latrobe
D/71/2014
Medium density housing – 21 dwellings
7 February 2014
Currently advertising
11 Ashley Street, Reservior
La Trobe
D/486/2014
Medium density housing – 16 dwellings
17 June 2014
Further information requested
Page 139
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11 AUGUST 2014
41 Separation Street, Fairfield
Rucker
D/564/2014
Residential development – 11 dwellings
27 June 2014
Further information requested
501 Plenty Road, Preston
Cazaly
D/723/2013
Medium density housing – 11 dwellings (3 storey
building)
26 September 2013
Advertising completed
3 Harold Street, Preston
Cazaly
D/36/2014
Medium density housing – 13 dwellings (3 storey
building)
24 January 2014
Further information received
136-138 Plenty Road, Preston
Cazaly
D/300/2013
Mixed use development – 15 dwellings and 1 shop
3 May 2013
Report in process
301 St Georges Road, Northcote
Rucker
D/403/2014
Residential development – 22 dwellings (4 storey
building
26 May 2014
Further information requested
1 Hartley Street, Northcote
Rucker
D/489/2014
Residential development – 13 dwellings (2 storey
building)
18 June 2014
Further information requested
Page 140
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
•
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
Description
Date Received
Status
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11 AUGUST 2014
254-256 Murray Road, Preston
Cazaly
D/519/2014
Residential development – 15 dwellings within a four
level building
20 June 2014
Further information requested
66 Station Street, Fairfield
Rucker
D/1033/2013
Medium density housing – 17 dwellings (4 storey
building
20 December 2013
Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit issued
1056-1070 Plenty Road, Bundoora
La Trobe
D/264/2014
Medium density housing – 63 dwellings
15 April 2014
Report in process
759 Gilbert Road, Reservoir
La Trobe
D/334/2014
Mixed use development – 14 dwellings and 1 shop
9 May 2014
Further information requested
787-789 Heidelberg Road, Alphington
Rucker
D/354/2014
Redevelopment of shop and office
13 May 2014
Further information requested
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. S. Tsitas
Cr. J. Williams
THAT the Significant Applications Update be noted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 141
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
6.3
11 AUGUST 2014
List of Applications for next Planning Committee Meeting
Below is a list of applications for the upcoming Planning Committee Meeting. Please note
that this list of applications is based upon best available advice at the time of publishing the
Planning Committee Agenda. For confirmation of agenda items reference should be made to
the Planning Committee Agenda on Council’s website the Friday prior to the scheduled
meeting.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
•
No. of
objections
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
No. of
objections
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
No. of
objections
Address
Ward
Application No
Proposal
No. of
objections
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
14-18 Candy Street, Northcote
Rucker
D/806/2013
Part demolition of 3 existing dwellings and construction
of 2 additional dwellings to the rear fronting Cornwall
Street
18
215-217 Arthur Street, Fairfield
Rucker
D/390/2014
9 dwellings
9
35 Gillies Street, Fairfield
Rucker
D/137/2014
8 dwellings
15
923 High Street, Reservoir
Latrobe
D/174/2014
6 dwellings
7
COMMITTEE DECISION
MOVED:
SECONDED:
Cr. S. Tsitas
Cr. J. Williams
THAT the List of Applications for the next Planning Committee meeting be noted.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 142
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
7.
11 AUGUST 2014
CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting closed at 7.41pm.
Page 143