Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Minutes 15 July 2019

9 Council Reports

9.1 City Development

Statutory Planning

9.1.1 245-247 Canterbury Road, BLACKBURN (LOT 2 PS 604010G): Amendment to the existing planning permit (WH2008/487) to include: Buildings and works for a new 2-3 storey building and associated tree removal.

FILE NUMBER: WH/2008/487/A
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application was advertised, and a total of 39 objections were received. The objections raised issues with the proposed building not respecting the neighbourhood character; overdevelopment of the site; lack of landscaping areas; tree removal; lack of on-site car parking; traffic and safety impacts; amenity impacts from noise and light spill; safety around pool areas; impacts on the nearby creek; impact on property values.

A Consultation Forum was held on 12 December, 2018 chaired by Councillor Massoud, at which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties. This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, as well as the objector concerns. It is recommended that the application be supported, subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2008/487/A for 245-247 Canterbury Road, BLACKBURN (LOT 2 PS 604010G) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of an Amended Planning Permit for the (WH2008/487) to include: Buildings and works for a new 2-3 storey building and associated tree removal is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B. Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 245-247 Canterbury Road, BLACKBURN (LOT 2 PS 604010G) for development of the land as a Place of Worship, including associated buildings and works and tree removal, subject to the following amended or new conditions:

· Condition 1 – Amended

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

a) Deleted;

b) Deleted;

c) Deleted;

d) Deleted;

e) Deleted;

f) The northern perimeter to the north-facing, ground floor terrace treated with a 1.7m high screen or balustrade which provides for no more than 25% visual transparency.

g) Any changes required to comply with the acoustic recommendations required under condition 6 of this permit;

h) The basement layout revised as per the Basement Plan from Clarke Hopkins Clarke (170140/TP04, Revision B, dated 10/1/2019);

i) A pedestrian sight triangle has been provided as per Clause 52.06.

j) Deletion of first floor ‘admin office’ areas;

k) The stair access on the northern side of the building located no closer than 10m to the northern boundary;

l) Hard surface paving within the north setback area substituted with permeable gravel walkway;

m) An increased setback between the basement and south boundary from 3100 to no less than 4200mm

· Condition 2 – No change

· Condition 3 – Amended

Before the development commences, an amended Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Landscape Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Landscape Plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects and dated 4/9/2018, but modified to include (or show):

a) Canopy trees adjacent to the western boundary selected from a species with suitable canopy dimensions to avoid excessive overhang to the western boundary;

b) Full specification for the plants within the easement area. The species must be fast growing and demonstrate being suitable for easement planting

· New condition

Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained by:

a) Implementing and complying with the provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Landscape Plan;

b) NBot using the areas set aside on the endorsed Landscape Plan for landscaping for any other purpose; and

c) Replacing any dead, diseased, dying or damaged plants,

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· New condition

Before the development commences, an amended Sustainable Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Sustainable Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Sustainable Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan prepared by F2 Design and dated 7 September, 2018, but modified to include or show:

a) A STORM Rating Report with a score of at least 100% or equivalent.

b) A complete, published BESS Report, with an acceptable overall score that exceeds 50% and exceed the ‘pass’ marks in the categories of Water, Energy Stormwater and Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ).

c) Control car park ventilation with CO sensors.

d) Control car park lighting (at least 75% of lighting fixtures) with motion sensors.

e) Commit to controlling less frequented common areas, lift areas and service areas with daylight and motion sensors and/or timers.

f) Commit to the inclusion of energy efficient heating and cooling systems indicating the associated COP and EER values and/or star ratings.

g) Commit to the inclusion of water efficient fixtures and appliances indicating the associated WELS ratings.

h) Provide and connect a rainwater tank(s) to all toilet flushing systems and irrigative areas.

i) Commit to diverting at least 70% of construction/demolition waste from landfill.

j) Submit a water balance calculation justifying the rainwater tank capacity, based on long-term average rainfall data, collection areas and expected end uses, which is in compliance with AS/NZS 6400:2016 of 1 full- and 4 half-flushes per person per day (providing 17.5 L/person/day for a 4 star WELS rated toilet). A rainwater tank size should be selected based on calculations, ensuring adequate reliability of supply is maintained with respect to overflow given that the rainwater should cater for all toilets and irrigative areas and bin wash-down areas

· New condition

Before the development commences, an Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Acoustic Report will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Acoustic Report must assess the following:

The acoustic report must make recommendations to limit the noise impacts in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of noise from industry, commerce and trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1), State Environment Protection Policy (Control of music noise from public premises) No. N-2 (SEPP N-2) or any other requirement to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· New condition

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Acoustic Report must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· Condition 9 - Amended and renumbered accordingly

Once the use is commenced it must only be used for the above purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· Condition 14 Amended and renumbered accordingly

The permitted use must be provided with no less than sixteen (16) car spaces on the site.

· New condition

Before the building is occupied, or by such later date as approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, any redundant vehicular crossing must be demolished and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel:

a) At the permit holder's cost; and

b) To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

· Condition 18 – Amended

Before the development commences, an amended Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the amended Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The amended Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design and dated 4/5/2018, but modified to include:

a) Waste collection occurring within the lot boundaries.

· New condition

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· New condition

Pollution and sediment laden runoff must not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways. Site controls must be installed during construction to ensure that no sediment or litter enters the waterway system.

· New condition

All stormwater drains and on-site detention systems are to be connected to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building/s. The requirement for on- site detention will be noted on your stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.

· New condition

Detailed stormwater drainage and/or civil design for the proposed development are to be prepared by a suitably qualified civil engineer and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval prior to occupation of the development. Plans and calculations are to be submitted with the application with all levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD).All documentation is to be signed by the qualified civil engineer.

· New condition

Stormwater that could adversely affect any adjacent land must not be discharged from the subject site onto the surface of the adjacent land.

· New condition

Prior to works commencing the Applicant/Owner is to submit design plans for all proposed engineering works external to the site. The plans are to be submitted as separate engineering drawings for assessment by the Responsible Authority.

· New condition

The Applicant/Owner is responsible to pay for all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets as a result of the development. The Applicant/Owner is responsible to obtain all relevant permits and consents from Council at least 7 days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and is to obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets. Adequate protection is to be provided to Council’s infrastructure prior to works commencing and during the construction process.

· New condition

The qualified civil engineer when undertaking civil design must ensure that the landscape plan/s and drainage plan/s are compatible. The stormwater drainage and on site detention system must be located outside the tree protection zone (TPZ) of any trees to be retained.

· Condition 18 – Amended and renumbered accordingly

a) Waste collection occurring within the lot boundaries.

· New condition

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· Condition 19 – Amended and renumbered accordingly

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

a) The development is not commenced within two years of the amendment date of this permit;

b) The development is not completed within four years of the amendment date of this permit; or

c) The approved use is recommenced within five years of the amendment date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made before the permit expires or within six months afterwards for commencement or within twelve months afterwards for completion.

· Conditions 4 to 8 renumbered accordingly.

· Conditions 10 to 13 renumbered accordingly.

· Conditions 15 to 17 renumbered accordingly.

n) Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

C. Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59. 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Munroe

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2008/487/A for 245-247 Canterbury Road, Blackburn (LOT 2 PS 604010G) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of an Amended Planning Permit for the (WH2008/487) to include: Buildings and works for a new 2-3 storey building and associated tree removal is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B. Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 245-247 Canterbury Road, Blackburn (LOT 2 PS 604010G) for development of the land as a Place of Worship, including associated buildings and works and tree removal, subject to the following amended or new conditions:

· Condition 1 – Amended

a) Deleted;

b) Deleted;

c) Deleted;

d) Deleted;

e) Deleted;

f) The northern perimeter to the north-facing, ground floor terrace treated with a 1.7m high screen or balustrade which provides for no more than 25% visual transparency.

g) Any changes required to comply with the acoustic recommendations required under condition 6 of this permit;

h) The basement layout revised as per the Basement Plan from Clarke Hopkins Clarke (170140/TP04, Revision B, dated 10/1/2019);

i) A pedestrian sight triangle has been provided as per Clause 52.06.

j) Deletion of first floor ‘admin office’ areas;

k) The stair access on the northern side of the building located no closer than 10m to the northern boundary;

l) Deletion of all non-permeable paving to the north of the building;

m) An increased setback between the basement and south boundary from 3100 to no less than 4200mm;

n) Deletion of the ‘reflection pond’ on the southern side of the building with this area amended to contain landscaping;

Reduction in the extent of hard surface for the eastern corner splay of the access ramp at the intersection of Canterbury Rd and Forest Rd, to accommodate increased areas of landscaping further towards the south where it extends past the south-east boundary wall. This should ensure all minimum access widths are maintained and compliant with relevant codes and regulations.

· Condition 2 – No change

· Condition 3 – Amended

a) Canopy trees adjacent to the western boundary selected from a species with suitable canopy dimensions to avoid excessive overhang to the western boundary;

b) Full specification for the plants within the easement area. The species must be fast growing and demonstrate being suitable for easement planting

· New condition

a) Implementing and complying with the provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Landscape Plan;

b) Not using the areas set aside on the endorsed Landscape Plan for landscaping for any other purpose; and

c) Replacing any dead, diseased, dying or damaged plants,

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· New condition

a) A STORM Rating Report with a score of at least 100% or equivalent.

c) Control car park ventilation with CO sensors.

d) Control car park lighting (at least 75% of lighting fixtures) with motion sensors.

e) Commit to controlling less frequented common areas, lift areas and service areas with daylight and motion sensors and/or timers.

f) Commit to the inclusion of energy efficient heating and cooling systems indicating the associated COP and EER values and/or star ratings.

g) Commit to the inclusion of water efficient fixtures and appliances indicating the associated WELS ratings.

h) Provide and connect a rainwater tank(s) to all toilet flushing systems and irrigative areas.

i) Commit to diverting at least 70% of construction/demolition waste from landfill.

· New condition

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Acoustic Report must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· Condition 9 - Amended and renumbered accordingly

Once the use is commenced it must only be used for the above purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· Condition 14 Amended and renumbered accordingly

The permitted use must be provided with no less than sixteen (16) car spaces on the site.

· New condition

a) At the permit holder's cost; and

b) To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

· Condition 18 – Amended

a) Waste collection occurring within the lot boundaries.

· New condition

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· New condition

Stormwater that could adversely affect any adjacent land must not be discharged from the subject site onto the surface of the adjacent land.

· New condition

· Condition 18 – Amended and renumbered accordingly

a) Waste collection occurring within the lot boundaries.

· New condition

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

· New condition

Before the development commences, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The plan must provide for:

a) A pre-conditions survey (dilapidation report) of the land and all adjacent Council roads frontages and nearby road infrastructure;

b) Works necessary to protect road and other infrastructure;

c) Remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure;

d) Containment of dust, dirt and mud within the land and method and frequency of clean up procedures to prevent the accumulation of dust, dirt and mud outside the land,

e) Facilities for vehicle washing, which must be located on the land;

f) The location of loading zones, site sheds, materials, cranes and crane/hoisting zones, gantries and any other construction related items or equipment to be located in any street;

g) Site security;

h) Management of any environmental hazards including, but not limited to;

i. Contaminated soil;

ii. Materials and waste;

iii. Dust;

iv. Stormwater contamination from run-off and wash-waters;

v. Sediment from the land on roads;

vi. Washing of concrete trucks and other vehicles and machinery; and

vii. Spillage from refuelling cranes and other vehicles and machinery;

i) The construction program;

j) Preferred arrangements for trucks delivering to the land, including delivery and unloading points and expected duration and frequency;

k) Parking facilities for construction workers;

l) Measures to ensure that all work on the land will be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan;

m) An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services;

n) An emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;

o) The provision of a traffic management plan to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads.

p) The provision of a Heavy Vehicle Management Plan which includes/addresses:

i. A plan for the management of construction vehicles accessing and leaving the site to prevent queuing on roads and unnecessary disruption to local traffic;

ii. Avoidance of heavy vehicles parked in proximity to the intersection between Forest and Canterbury Road;

iii. Clear indication of truck access routes to/from the site from the nearest arterial road;

iv. A statement indicating the largest sized trucks (including trailers) which will be utilised during each phase – demolition, excavation and construction.

b) Condition 19 – Amended and renumbered accordingly

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

a) The development is not commenced within two years of the amendment date of this permit;

b) The development is not completed within four years of the amendment date of this permit; or

c) The approved use is recommenced within five years of the amendment date of this permit.

c) Conditions 4 to 8 renumbered accordingly.

d) Conditions 10 to 13 renumbered accordingly.

e) Conditions 15 to 17 renumbered accordingly.

o) Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

C. Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59. 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MELWAYS REFERENCE 62 C1

Applicant: Terrain Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Zoning: Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1

Overlays: Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 & Special Building Overlay

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 12 Environment and Landscape Values

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 22.04 Tree Conservation

Clause 22.05 Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas

Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1

Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2

Clause 44.05 Special Building Overlay

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Central Ward

Subject site

39 Objector Properties

(14 outside of map)

North

BACKGROUND

History

Planning Permit WH/805309 was issued for the development and use of the land for a funeral parlour.

Planning permit WH/2006/444 was issued for a two lot subdivision.

Planning permit WH/2008/670 was issued on 1 September 2009 for buildings and works associated with a satellite dish.

Planning permit WH/2008/487 was issued on 26 October, 2009 for ‘use as a place of worship, waiver of on-site car parking and removal of two trees’. Condition 12 of this permit limits the approved use to accommodate no more than ninety (90) persons to be present at any one time without the prior written permission of the Responsible Authority.

This permit remains valid at the time of writing this report with the existing Place of Worship operating continuously since its issue in 2009.

Planning permit WH/2013/516 for ‘buildings and works to construct a building associated with an existing place of worship and removal of vegetation’. The application proposed demolition of the existing building and removal of vegetation to allow for development of the land with a part three and part four storey building to be used as a Place of Worship.

The development included a part-basement level containing sixteen (16) car parking spaces, worship space, two dining areas, two kitchens, store room and lobby space was proposed at ground floor.

First floor contained worship space, classroom space, multi-purpose room, kitchenette, dressing room, bathrooms and reception area.

Second floor contained a three bedroom dwelling including open terrace areas.

The maximum height of the building was 16.1 metres with a site coverage of approximately 70 percent.

This application was refused under delegation on 3 March, 2014 on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with state and local planning policy in particular Clause 21.06 – Housing, Clause 22.03 – Residential Development; Clause 22.04 – Tree conservation and clause 22.05 – Non-residential uses in residential areas.

2. The proposal fails to adequately respond to the landscape character objectives and decision guidelines of clause 42.03 Schedule 2 (Significant Landscape Overlay).

3. The proposal fails to adequately respond to the preferred neighborhood character objectives and design guidelines of Neighborhood Character Study Area 24.

4. The size, scale and form of the buildings and works would be excessively bulky, has insufficient setbacks, landscaping buffers and new tall tree planting opportunities and excessive hard surfacing, inconsistent with the prevailing and preferred neighborhood character.

5. The proposal fails to provide adequate parking in accordance with the requirements of clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

6. The proposal will result in unacceptable off site amenity impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties.

The decision to refuse planning permit application upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under Hearing P718/2014.

The current application being Planning Permit application WH/2008/487/A proposes to introduce buildings and works and additional tree removal to the current planning permit.

The Site and Surrounds

Subject site

The subject site is located on the north-western corner of the intersection between Canterbury and Forest Roads in Blackburn. The lot itself is generally rectangular in shape with the exception of a splay to the south-eastern corner.

The lot has a frontage to Canterbury Road of 33.12m and 38.4m to Forest Road, covering a total site area of approximately 1609 square metres.

The site is currently developed with a single-storey, brick dwelling with a sealed car parking area to its northern side with vehicle access into Forest Road. A 1.83m wide sewerage easement runs adjacent to the northern boundary.

The site currently contains the following trees:

· A 8m high Silver Birch (T4);

· Two 6m high Lily Pily (T5 and T7);

· A 6m high Black Wattle (T6);

· A 7m high Monterey Pine (T8);

· A 7m high Flowering Pear (T9);

· A 6m high Callistemon (T14);

· A 14m high Monterey Cypress (T15);

· Two 7m high Paperbarks (T16 and18);

· A 16m high Spotted Gum (T17 on boundary shared with No.22); and

· A 6m high Chinese Elm (T19).

Surrounding area

The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses with land on the northern side of Canterbury Road falling within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and land on the southern side being within the Commercial 1 Zone and generally associated with the Forest Hill Chase Shopping Centre.

The subject site is located at the very south-eastern corner of the boundary to the Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 2) areas on the eastern side of Forest Road and fronting onto Canterbury Road being located within Schedule 9 to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

The immediately adjoining lots can be described as follows:

North – No.22 Forest Road

This lot abuts the northern boundary shared with the subject site and contains a single-storey dwelling which is set back approximately 45m from the Forest Road frontage. The areas within this neighbouring lot which adjoin the subject site relate to a car port and driveway area with the dwelling itself located approximately 7 metres to the west of the subject site’s western boundary.

This lot is irregularly shaped with only a narrow portion of the lot adjoining the subject site and with the majority of its area located to its north-west.

West – No.241-243 Canterbury Road

This lot is currently vacant.

East – No.249 Canterbury Road

This lot is currently occupied by part single and part double-storey building utilised as a medical centre. The building is orientated south towards Canterbury Road with car parking areas to the rear (north) with vehicle access via Forrest Road.

As outlined earlier, this lot is located within Schedule 9 to the Significant Landscape Overlay as is reflected in the modest landscape plantings to the lot perimeter.

South – Canterbury Road

Directly to the south of the subject site is Canterbury Road, which carries three lanes of traffic in either direction, separated by a median strip which contains densely planted canopy trees.

Further south, on the opposite side of Canterbury Road is the Forest Hill Chase Shopping Centre which presents as a two-three storey concrete panel wall, adorned with various panel treatments of either perforated metal or unfinished timber palings and some signage.

Planning Controls

Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1

Pursuant to the table of uses at clause 32.09-1 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme (the Scheme), a permit is not required to use land as a Place of Worship subject to the following criteria being met:

(a) The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 250 square metres;

(b) Must be located in an existing building;

(c) The site must adjoin or have access to a road in a Road Zone; and

(d) Must not require a permit under clause 52.06-3.

With the existing Place of Worship operating under Planning Permit WH/2008/487 – no additional permission is required for the use to continue.

A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of clause 32.09-2.

Significant landscape Overlay – Schedule 2

Pursuant to clause 42.03-2 of the Scheme, a permit is required to:

· Construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply if a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit is not required.

· Remove, destroy or lop any vegetation specified in a schedule to this overlay. This does not apply if the table to clause 42.03-3 specifically states that a permit is not required.

The proposed development does not meet the exemptions under Schedule 2 of the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO2) and therefore trigger permit requirements for buildings and works and tree removal.

Special Building Overlay

Pursuant to clause 44.05-2 of the Scheme, a permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works.

The proposed vehicle crossover is partially located within areas affected by the Special Building Overlay (SBO) and therefore trigger a permit under this clause but with the remainder of the development being outside of the affected area.

An application must be referred to Melbourne Water as the relevant floodplain management authority pursuant to clause 44.05-6 of the Scheme.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to develop the land with a new, 2-3 storey building with ground/basement level parking. The proposed building would result in a site coverage of 49% and site permeability of 42%.

There is no proposal to increase the number of persons to be present on the site from that previously approved.

The development can be summarised as follows:

Basement

Within the basement level, the proposed building would contain sixteen (16) car parking spaces with vehicle access via the eastern boundary into Forest Road.

A waste storage area would be located adjacent to the northern wall.

Two separate access points would be provided via the north-west and south-eastern corners of the basement level.

Ground floor

Ground floor would be accessible via the south-eastern corner via a new pathway leading to the intersection between Forest and Canterbury Roads. This level would contain the prayer hall and communal area (double height spaces with voids opening to the first floor above), a kitchen and two sets of toilet facilities.

A terrace would extend north past the kitchen area.

First floor

First floor would contain three admin office rooms, four ‘classrooms’, a prayer room and two separate bathroom areas.

General

The building would have a maximum height of 10.7m at its north-eastern corner.

External walls would be constructed/treated with light and mid-grey textured concrete render, concrete finish panels; breeze blockwork; bronze metal inserts and feature cladding.

Tree removal

The following trees are proposed for removal (which trigger a permit):

Tree	Name	Species	Height (m)	DBH (cm)	Retention value
4	Silver Birch	Betula pendula	8	20	low
5	Lily Pily	Syzygium smithii	6	Twin 20	low
9	Flowering pear	Pyrus calleryana	7	Twin 32	medium
14	Callistemon	Callistemon citrinus	6	25	Low
15	Monterey Cypress	Hesperocyparis macrocarpa	14	40/69	low
16	Prickly-leaved paperbark	Melaleuca stypheliodes	7	Triple 18	Low
17	Spotted gum	Corymbia maculate	16	50	Medium
18	Prickly-leaved paperbark	Melaleuca stypheliodes	6m	27	low

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Canterbury and Forest Road frontages. Following the advertising period 39 objections were received.

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

· The design does not respond to the existing neighbourhood and landscape character;

· The building would result in an overdevelopment of the site;

o Lack of space for tree plantings;

· Tree removal;

· Lack of on-site car parking;

· Traffic impacts and associated safety concerns;

· Amenity impacts;

o Noise;

o Lighting;

· Safety around pool areas;

· Impacts on nearby creek;

· Impacts on property values;

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum was held on 12 December, 2018. Approximately 25 objectors attended the meeting.

The Consultation Forum was chaired by Councillor Massoud and attended by Council officers and the permit applicant. The concerns/objections with the proposal were grouped under broad categories with all parties afforded the opportunity to provide commentary on each concern. The permit applicant was also given an opportunity to respond to objector concerns. Some potential resolutions were discussed between parties however no resolution was reached.

Amended Plans

A set of plans were provided by the applicant to Council on the 17^th of January, 2019 following the public consultation forum showing:

(a) Reduced hard surface paving within the north setback area (Hard paving substituted with permeable gravel walkway)

(b) An increased setback between the basement and south boundary (Canterbury Road) to provide additional space for deep root planting (setback increased from 3100 to 4200mm);

These plans were not formally substituted into the application material but will be utilised for the purpose of forming conditions in the assessment section of this report.

Referrals

External

Melbourne Water

The application has been referred to Melbourne Water with the following comments received:

Melbourne Water, pursuant to Section 56(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, does not object to the proposal.

Conditions

Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways. Site controls must be installed during construction to ensure that no sediment or litter enters the waterway system.

Advice

Flooding may be associated with the Melbourne Water regional drainage system and/or the local Council drainage systems. Information available at Melbourne Water indicates that the property is not subject to flooding from Melbourne Water's drainage system, based on a rainfall event which has a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), that is, a 1% probability of being equalled or exceeded in any one year. For any flooding by Council drainage system Council must provide this information. Melbourne Water's Forest Hill Main Drain (DR4892)/ open creek is traversing in proximity to rear boundary of the property and care must be taken at construction to control pollution and sediment entering the waterway.

Internal

Transport Engineer

The application has been reviewed by council’s Transport Engineering Unit who are generally supportive of the proposed development subject to the following issues being resolved:

(a) A pedestrian sight triangle has been provided as per Clause 52.06.

(b) The height clearance within the basement car park has not been provided on the plan, but according to the Traffic Engineering Assessment it will be at least 2.2 metres which is satisfactory.

(c) The provision of an accessible (disabled) car parking space is supported, however AS2890.6:2009 (Section 2.4) requires a minimum height clearance of 2.5 metres above the dedicated accessible car parking space which cannot be accommodated within the proposed 2.2 metre height clearance of the basement car park.

(d) The proposed aisle widths and car parking space dimensions comply with Clause 52.06 and AS2890.1:2004 requirements, except that the blind aisle is to be extended by 1 metre beyond the last car parking space as per Clause 2.4.2(c).

(e) Vehicle swept path analysis demonstrating ingress/egress to car parking spaces within the basement car park for a B85 vehicle has not been provided.

(f) The location of the proposed crossover for the subject site may result in the loss of the existing on-street car parking space on Forest Road between the subject site’s existing vehicle crossing and the vehicle crossing for No. 22 Forest Road.

Waste

The comments received from the Waste Services Officer did not support the outcomes proposed under the application, requiring waste collection to be undertaken internal to the subject site as opposed to on Forrest Road.

This issue will be addressed through condition.

Assets Engineer

The assets engineering unit support the proposed development subject to the inclusion of standard conditions and notes.

Arborist

Council’s arborist has reviewed the proposed tree removal and supported the tree removal. The following comments were also made:

The retention of tree #9 located in the southwest corner of the site is good. The landscape plan shows the replanting of 14 new Eucalypts, of which two species are indigenous to the area.

The replanting of 18 new trees in total far outweighs the trees proposed for removal. Long-term the outcome for the site and character of the area will be greater than what the existing site conditions provide. I support the removal of the trees proposed for removal and believe the landscape plan is good and should be supported.

Parkswide Department

Council’s Parkswide Department have reviewed the proposed development with regards to trees located within the road reserves adjacent to the subject site and are generally satisfied with the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions for tree protection measures.

Landscape Architect

Council’s landscape architect has reviewed the proposed development and landscaping documentation and has provided the following comments:

Planting; acceptable – this list is diverse and the selected species generally commercially available and robust.

Tree selection – the trees selected are acceptable (see note on western boundary).

Northern boundary – I would prefer to see the no. 5 Eucalyptus species planted further away from the easement. At present they are right on the easement boundary, there is scope to move them closer to the building – this may require the path also to be relocated closer to the building.

Western boundary – no more than 25% of the tree canopy as estimated mature width should overhang the boundary (for equitable development rights). Either relocate the trees or choose a suitable tree species that has a more narrow canopy.

Gateway – the building footprint and basement carpark extents allows for a reasonable area of natural ground on all four boundaries for canopy tree planting. I think the evergreen vegetation along with the aesthetics of the building present an acceptable gateway treatment.

Easement planting – the plan does not fully specify the plants to be planted in the easement. There is a note referencing the selection of suitable species only. Request more detailed information before being able to comment. In principle I support plants that are fast growing and known for being suitable for easement planting.

ESD Advisor

Council’s ESD advisor has reviewed the proposed development and accompanying reports and identified various areas for improvement to ensure the project complies with Council’s policies at clause 22.10 – Environmentally Sustainable Development.

These issues can be addressed through conditions and will be discussed in the body of this report.

DISCUSSION

Policy Context

Since planning permit application WH/2013/516 was refused in March 2014, the zoning of the land has changed from Residential 1 Zone to Neighbourhood Residential 1 Zone as part of Planning Scheme Amendment VC160, gazetted 14 October, 2014.

This change to the zoning has only marginally altered the permit requirements under the zoning for a Place of Worship which is listed as a Section 1 – permit not required use, subject to slightly differing requirements between the old and new zoning as laid out below:

Residential 1 Zone

- Must be no social or recreational activities;

- The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 180 square metres;

- The site must not exceed 1200 square metres;

- The site must adjoin or have access to a road in a Road Zone.

Neighbourhood Residential Zone

- The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 250 square metres;

- Must be located in an existing building;

- The site must adjoin, or have access to a road in a Road Zone;

- Must not require a permit under clause 52.06-3.

These changes to the permit triggers do not reflect any particular change in policy direction for Place of Worship uses between the zonings and further clarification must then be sought from the relevant policy under the Planning Policy Framework.

The policy under the Significant Landscape Overlay, clause 22.04 – Tree conservation and clause 22.05 – Non-residential uses in Residential Areas have not had any significant policy shift since Planning Permit WH/2013/516.

The policy context for the subject site has been explored in detail under the previous Tribunal hearing for Planning Permit application WH/2013/516 in which Member Deidun succinctly described the competing objectives under Paragraph 14 of the determination as follows:

On balance, we consider the policy applicable to the designation of the site as a minimal change area affected by the SLO2 to clearly identify that a different outcome is sought on the review site, compared to locations outside of the minimal change area. This means, in our view, that a very different built form and landscape outcome is reasonably expected on the review site, compared perhaps to what occurs on land directly opposite and further to the east on the northern side of Canterbury Road. However the extent to which the development of the review site needs to achieve all that the SLO2 and the minimal change area seeks, can be tempered having regard to:

(a) The main road and corner location of the review site;

(b) The character of the surrounding area, including land both within and outside of the minimal change area;

(c) The site’s location almost as proximate as one can get to a higher order activity centre.

Member Deidun continues in his deliberations to state ‘in this case, we are not expecting the applicant to achieve an outcome entirely consistent with the SLO2 and minimal change area policy as one might expect to achieve in the heart of land so designated.

With the use of the land as a Place of Worship being established under the existing planning permit, the ambit of discretion for this application largely relates to the proposed built form and proposed tree removal outcomes and whether these are acceptable for the subject site’s location within a minimal change residential area.

The Tribunal’s earlier deliberations have clearly set the direction that there is an expectation that there will be a tempering to the outcomes which would typically be sought for a new building within the SLO2 for this site.

While the following sections of this report will assess the relevant policy areas relating to tree removal and landscaping, built form and amenity impacts, it is considered that subject to conditions, the proposed built form strikes an appropriate balance between these competing policy objectives.

Tree Removal

As outlined earlier in this report, council’s arborist has reviewed the proposed tree removal and has no objection, citing that revegetation of the lot will derive a long-term benefit for the area which outweighs the trees proposed for removal being retained.

With regards to the policy direction under clause 22.04 -3 of the Scheme, given the comments from council’s arborist do not identify any of the trees proposed for removal as holding significance for aesthetic, ecological, cultural or historic reasons, their removal is justified under the performance standards at clause 22.04-4.

With regards to the decision guidelines under Schedule 2 of the Significant Landscape Overlay, none of the trees proposed for removal form part of a significant grouping of similar vegetation on the subject or adjoining lots and while each tree provides a contribution to the lot garden area, improved landscaping outcomes will be achieved in the long term through appropriate replanting around the proposed development.

Landscaping

The purpose of the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) is to identify, conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes, with the Statement of nature and key elements listing the quality of the environment and its vegetation and wildlife contributions being central to the objective of the planning control.

The SLO requires the Responsible Authority to consider the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework in balance with the objectives of the SLO which as outlined earlier in this report creates a policy context described by the Tribunal as being tempered by the site’s proximity to a higher order activity centre, location on a main road and the character of the immediately surrounding lots.

The decision guidelines under the Schedule to the SLO require the Responsible Authority to consider the ability of the development to provide for an average density of canopy plantings of one tree to each 150 square metres of site area. Meeting this equation for the subject site would require the planting of ten (10) canopy trees (reaching a 15 metre mature height) around the proposed development.

The landscaping documentation provided with the application details the planting of eighteen (18) canopy trees within the subject site, fourteen of which would achieve a mature height of 15 metres.

The development’s ability to exceed the suggested canopy planting ratio indicates that the proposed development has provided appropriate areas for landscaping to assist with the development providing an inconspicuous profile within the surrounding area.

While council’s tree conservation policy under clause 22.04 of the Scheme suggests that these trees would need to be located within 50 square metres of clear space, the comments received from council’s Landscape Architect are generally supportive of the landscaping detail other than suggesting that trees along the western boundary should be selected from a species with a narrower canopy to avoid overhanging the adjoining lot.

This issue would be addressed through a condition for canopy plantings to the western side of the building to be selected from a species with a reduced canopy spread to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The comments from council’s landscape architect also request more detail around planting areas shown in the northern easement, commenting that plants that are fast growing and known for being suitable for easement planting would be most appropriate. This issue would be addressed through a condition for a revised landscaping plan in addition to the points above.

These comments would assist with ensuring the areas around the proposed building provide reasonable areas for landscaping appropriate to the site’s location at the entrance to the Significant Landscape area and buffer areas along boundaries to assist with softening the proposed built form in significant views from outside of the subject site and improving the canopy cover to the site as a whole.

Overall, the proposed development would provide appropriate landscaping areas to regenerate significant canopy plantings within the subject site without the need to remove vegetation which has been identified as significant under the relevant performance standards (SLO2) and is generally supportable for this reason.

Built Form Outcomes

The development has substantially tempered the extent of built form in comparison to the previously refused application. The proposed building design and siting has clearly sought to integrate the commentary from the Tribunal offering significant improvement to setbacks and landscaping areas along the Forest Road and northern boundary interfaces.

In general, the current application has significantly reduced the height and extent of built form through the depth of the site (north to south) with the intention of ‘scaling down’ the building from the more robust elements presenting onto Canterbury Road to those areas further north.

The presentation of the building to Canterbury Road (as shown in Figure 1 below) provides a high quality architectural design which is in keeping with the scale of buildings on the opposite side of Canterbury and Forest Roads while also providing appropriate setbacks for landscaping opportunities.

Figure 1 – Southern perspective image of the proposed building:

While the architectural language is distinctly different from existing buildings in the surrounding area, this is derived from the purpose of the building and its use as a Place of Worship and is not inappropriate in itself. The design language of the building was addressed in the Tribunal hearing for the previously refused application with Member Deidun stating at Paragraph 27:

We accept submissions made that a sizeable mosque is an appropriate built form outcome for the review site. We also accept that such an appropriate outcome will include architecture that is not the norm for this suburb, and built form, site coverage and landscaping outcomes that may be a bit different to that achieved in other parts of the minimal change area. We are persuaded that these outcomes are consistent with our task to balance the competing policy objectives we have already identified. They are also consistent with our recognition that places of worship are important community facilities that should be encouraged, and that, to an extent, the function of these buildings will influence their built form.

With the above points in mind, the proposed building is considered to achieve an appropriate design response with regards to the southern interface with regards to both its scale, massing and design detail.

Forest Road interface

The Tribunal’s assessment of the previously refused application was critical of the lack of sufficient landscape setbacks from Forest Road and the entry platforms height facing onto the street stating:

We view Forest Road as an important interface, not only because it provides the public entry into this minimal change area, but also because it needs to draw a distinction with the landscape outcomes achieved on the opposite side of the road, being land outside of the SLO2. It is also an elevation that is highly exposed to angled views from residential properties further to the north along Forest Road.

The arrangement of the Forest Road elevations for the previously refused application is illustrated in Figure 2 below

Figure 2: Eastern elevation for WH/2013/487 (Previous application):

In contrast with the previously refused application, the proposed development has included a 6.0 metre deep landscaping area across Forest Road in addition to reducing the height of the eastern elevation from 13.8m down to a maximum height of 10.7m

Significantly, the maximum height of the currently proposed building would be set back 11 metres from Forest Road while the previous refused application had the wall positioned only 5 metres from this same boundary.

The 6.0m deep landscaping areas to Forest Road will work in conjunction with the revised building design which has included an erosion of the building’s north-eastern corner through the ground floor terrace and second floor areas being set back a further five (5) metres behind the classroom areas presenting onto Forest Road as shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: Perspective image from eastern side of Forest Road:

As demonstrated in the image above, this erosion of the built form to the rear (north) would allow for substantive views through the subject site from the footpath areas along Canterbury Road and within the intersection between Canterbury and Forest Roads.

The ability of the proposed built form to allow views through the rear of the subject site to a backdrop of canopy trees clearly responds to the site’s location at the gateway to the SLO2 area. With a more robust level of built form being acceptable to the Canterbury Road frontage as discussed earlier, it is these views through the northern portion of the subject site which are most critical in terms of ensuring the demarcation of the SLO2 area is maintained by the proposed development.

The proposed north-facing admin office areas at first floor and part of the stair access will be deleted through conditions to address issues of visual bulk but also to improve upon the scaling of the building into Forest Road, away from the intersection with Canterbury Road by increasing the setbacks at first floor to 14.3m to the northern boundary.

This condition will remove the tallest portions of the proposed building away from the sensitive northern interface where the level of built form must present less strongly in comparison to the canopy planting areas along the northern boundary.

Subject to the conditions discussed above, the proposed built form would achieve a profile which is sympathetic to the landscape values identified under Section 2.0 of the Schedule to the SLO with the canopy plantings to the north proportional to the building heights.

Amenity Impacts

The proposed development is located adjacent to two residentially zoned lots to the north and west and therefore it is appropriate to assess whether the proposed built form would result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to these lots.

Visual bulk

The Tribunal’s findings of the previous application under Planning Permit WH/2013/516 were critical of the lack of appropriate setbacks from the northern boundary which interfaces with No.22 Forrest Road stating at Paragraph 35:

The building will essentially present a four storey scale when viewed from the adjoining residential property. As such it will appear very large and dominating when viewed form the adjoining properties which have a lower natural ground level. The height and scale of the proposal along its northern elevation will be far removed from the domestic scale that one might expect to find on a site in a minimal change area in a residential zone. The building will also have a lack of articulation above ground floor level, primarily consisting of two large rectangular forms joined at an interesting angle with a setback third storey to the closer of the rectangular forms.

Figure 4 below shows the northern elevation proposed under the previous planning application:

Figure 4 – North & west elevations for WH/2013/516

The proposed amendment has substantially increased the landscaping areas across the northern boundary and provided for a ‘stepping’ of built form away from the boundary and introducing an increased setback of 9.0m at first and second floors which is well within the ResCode envelope, which whilst not strictly applicable to this application, provides useful guidance as to appropriate building heights when interfacing with residential lots. This envelope is shown in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5 – Proposed development, sectional diagram:

While the proposed setbacks are considered to have been vastly improved upon since the previously refused application, it is considered that the extent of built form presenting to the residential lot to the north is still beyond that which can reasonably be expected in the context of a minimal change, residential area.

This issue would be addressed through a condition to delete the first floor classroom areas and to relocate the stair access to be no closer than 10m to the northern boundary.

This condition will assist with providing a more appropriately scaled building for lots within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which under clause 32.09-10 would limit building heights no more than two storeys and/or 9 metres in height. While this clause technically applies to dwellings and residential buildings only, these controls indicate a reasonable guide for what heights can reasonably be expected within the residential area.

The proposed conditions would allow the building to reflect as a double-storey built form, with the higher areas set back further towards Canterbury Road where this is contextually more appropriate. The reduction in height through conditions would achieve a level of built form that is respectful of the residential nature of the adjoining lot while also improving the ‘scaling down’ of the built form away from Canterbury Road by deleting the areas circled red in Figures 6 and 7 below:

Figure 6: Perspective image from Forest Road:

Figure 7: Perspective image from No.22 Forest Road.

Subject to the conditions above, the building would provide a design response which both limits unreasonable visual bulk to the adjoining lot and provides an appropriate ‘descaling’ of the building to follow the topography of the land along Forest Road which was previously identified by the Tribunal as a necessary undertaking for the design response.

Overlooking

The north-facing, communal terrace proposed at ground floor would have its northern edge located 6.0m from the northern boundary shared with No.22 Forest Road. Using the ResCode Standards under clause 54 of the Scheme as a guide, being within 9m of the neighbouring property indicates that this may create a scenario for unreasonable overlooking opportunities to occur.

This issue would be addressed through a condition which requires the terrace to be treated with a screen or balustrade to its northern edge to limit opportunities for views to the north.

For the levels above, the north-facing windows would be set back no less than 9m from the northern boundary and would therefore not provide for unreasonable overlooking opportunities.

No windows are proposed to the western elevation and any views to the east and south would fall onto Forest and Canterbury Roads respectively (and therefore not resulting in any unreasonable loss of privacy).

Overall, subject to the condition discussed above, the proposed development would not result in any unreasonable overlooking opportunities.

Overshadowing

While the adjoining lot to the west would be subject to some additional overshadowing during the morning hours, the affected space would be modest in comparison to the areas throughout the lot which would retain access to direct sunlight throughout the day.

This neighbouring lot is currently vacant and has no development approvals pending at the time of writing this report. Even whilst this may be the case, these shadowing impacts would not unreasonably diminish the capacity of this neighbouring lot to be developed in the future while retaining a high level of amenity relating to solar access for the reasons outlined above.

No other lots would be subject to overshadowing impacts as a result of the proposed development.

Noise

Whilst the existing use is established under the current version of Planning Permit WH/2008/487, it is appropriate to consider the noise impacts associated with the use and the ability of the new building to appropriately attenuate any possible noise to the surrounding residential areas.

This issue would be addressed through a condition requiring the applicant to undertake acoustic testing to determine any appropriate attenuation measures to be utilised for the construction and/or management of the building to ensure surrounding dwellings are not unreasonably impacted.

Light spill

Similarly to the previous Planning Permit Application WH/2013/516, a perforated metal screen is proposed to be applied to much of the upper-level facades as part of the buildings overall design.

With regards to possible light spill impacts, the north-facing windows which are orientated towards No.22 Forest Road are associated with the ground floor kitchen and first floor office spaces.

These windows are modest in scale and are not associated with the main hall or communal areas which would typically require more intensive illumination. In conjunction with the setbacks from the northern boundary being greater than 9 metres, it is unlikely that these windows would result in unreasonable impacts to the adjoining residential lot.

Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD)

As outlined earlier in this report, Council’s ESD advisor has reviewed the application and has suggested various conditions to address Council’s ESD policy under clause 22.10 of the Scheme.

These points will be included as conditions for a revised Sustainability Management Plan to be provided which shows/addresses stormwater runoff, energy and water efficiency and indoor environment quality.

Car Parking and Traffic

As outlined earlier in this report, the application while proposing a larger building from what currently exists on site, is not proposing to increase the patronage which is capped at 90 persons under condition 12 of the ‘use’ permit.

With no increase to patron numbers proposed, there is no requirement to provide additional car parking on the site from the fifteen (15) car parking spaces stipulated under condition 14 of the current permit.

This issue was explored by Member Deidun in the previous Tribunal hearing for the site, stating:

Turning to the car parking and traffic issues, there exists a planning permit on the site for a place of worship to operate with a maximum of 90 people. The proposal before us is for a much larger place of worship, but one that will still retain its present limit of 90 people. Further, the proposal incorporate the provision of additional car parking on site, compared to that which currently exists. Therefore the proposal will have no net impact on car parking issues in the surrounding locality.

The proposed development would provide sixteen (16) on-site car parking spaces so would in fact, improve upon the existing car parking arrangements for the existing use.

Access arrangements

As outlined earlier in this report, the comments received from council’s Traffic Engineering Unit have requested a number of points to be included as conditions. Generally, these will be included but excluded as follows:

· A pedestrian sight triangle has been provided as per Clause 52.06.

This point will be addressed through a condition.

· The height clearance within the basement car park has not been provided on the plan, but according to the Traffic Engineering Assessment it will be at least 2.2 metres which is satisfactory.

· The provision of an accessible (disabled) car parking space is supported, however AS2890.6:2009 (Section 2.4) requires a minimum height clearance of 2.5 metres above the dedicated accessible car parking space which cannot be accommodated within the proposed 2.2 metre height clearance of the basement car park.

The applicant has provided confirmation that there is room within the basement to achieve the 2.5m clearance outlined above.

· The proposed aisle widths and car parking space dimensions comply with Clause 52.06 and AS2890.1:2004 requirements, except that the blind aisle is to be extended by 1 metre beyond the last car parking space as per Clause 2.4.2(c).

The ‘discussion’ plans submitted on the 17/1/2019 have provided a revised car parking layout which provides this extension to the blind aisle at the southern end of the basement through relocation of waste storage areas. This revised arrangement would retain the same number of car parking spaces and same building footprint as shown in the advertised plans with the exception of also increasing the 3.0 metre setback from the southern boundary to 4.2m.

The increased setback to the southern boundary would provide improved areas for the proposed landscaping to Canterbury Road and is generally an improved outcome from the approved plans.

In light of the points above, these changes shown in the discussion plans will be included as a condition.

· Vehicle swept path analysis demonstrating ingress/egress to car parking spaces within the basement car park for a B85 vehicle has not been provided.

The ability of the proposed car parking arrangements to meet the layout requirements under clause 52.06 is the relevant test under a planning permit application and with these requirements having been met (as identified in the traffic engineering comments) to require the submission of swept path diagrams would be onerous.

· The location of the proposed crossover for the subject site may result in the loss of the existing on-street car parking space on Forest Road between the subject site’s existing vehicle crossing and the vehicle crossing for No. 22 Forest Road.

The proposed vehicle access would utilise a single crossover point into Forrest Road. There are limited areas which can be utilised along the eastern boundary for vehicle access due to street trees and the fact that the site is a corner lot.

A condition would require any redundant vehicle crossover to be reinstated to assist with minimising the loss of any on-street parking along Forrest Road.

Permit Preamble and Conditions

With the introduction of buildings and works and additional tree removal to the permit through the proposed amendments, there is a need to update the permit preamble and/or amend/delete a number of conditions to the existing permit.

The permit preamble would be amended from:

· Use as a Place of Worship, waiver for onsite car parking and removal of two trees.

To read:

· Use and development of the land as a Place of Worship, waiver of on-site car parking and associated buildings and works and tree removal.

Condition 1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) would become obsolete as a result of the revised car parking layout and landscaping areas and would therefore be deleted from the permit.

· Condition 3 for a landscaping plan would be amended to reflect the requirements under this new application;

· Condition 14 would be amended to reflect the proposed number of car parking spaces at sixteen as shown in the development plans.

· Condition 18 would be revised to reflect the need for a revised waste report for on-site collection;

· Condition 19 would be revised to reflect amendments to the permit and new expiry dates.

· A suite of new conditions relating to the approved buildings and works would be included within the permit, these conditions would be highlighted in bold so as to be distinguished from existing conditions to the permit.

Objector Concerns

The majority of objectors’ concerns have been discussed in detail through the body of this report. The following section will address those which have not already been assessed:

Safety around pool areas

The location of the ‘mirror pool’ on the southern side of the proposed building was cited in the objections as a possible safety risk. Safety issues (as controlled through the Building Regulations) are not able to be directly addressed through the requirements of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and would be addressed through the issue of a Building Permit.

Impacts on nearby creek

The application has been referred to Melbourne Water as the floodplain management authority as discussed earlier in this report.

Melbourne Water has not objected to the proposed development but has required the inclusion of a condition to any permit issued. Council considers the referral response from Melbourne Water to have addressed any issues associated with waterways in the surrounding area to the satisfaction of the floodplain management authority.

Impacts on property values

Impacts to property values are not an issue which can be directly addressed through the requirements of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

CONCLUSION

The proposed amendment to the existing planning permit (WH2008/487) to include buildings and works for a new 2-3 storey building and associated tree removal is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policies.

The proposed design has been diligent in responding to the key failings of the previous planning permit application, which was refused under delegation and upheld as a refusal at VCAT. It is considered that the proposal has achieved a design response which balances the competing objectives under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

A total of 39 objections were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised have been discussed as required.

It is considered that the application should be approved.

Attachment

1 Advertised Plans ⇨

2 Current Planning Permit and plans ⇨

3 Tribunal outcome - Project Planning & Development v Whitehorse CC ⇨

4 Amended permit conditions as per officer's recommendation ⇨

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Minutes 15 July 2019

9.1.2 14 Dickens Street, Blackburn: Buildings and works for the construction of a double storey dwelling within the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2, tree removal and works within 4m of vegetation

FILE NUMBER: WH/2018/1036
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application was advertised on 12^th November 2018, and a total of twenty (20) objections were received. The objections raised issues including regard to loss of indigenous trees, loss of habitat, neighbourhood character, viability of retained trees, inadequacy of proposed replanting, overdevelopment of the site, non-responsive site design and amenity concerns. A Consultation Forum was held on 27^th March 2019 chaired by Councillor Munroe during which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties. This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, as well as the objector concerns. It is recommended that the application be supported, subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

A Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2018/1036 for 14 Dickens Street, BLACKBURN (LOT 22 LP 41862) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for Buildings and works for the construction of a double storey dwelling within the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2, tree removal and works within 4m of vegetation is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 14 Dickens Street, BLACKBURN (LOT 22 LP 41862) for Buildings and works for the construction of a double storey dwelling within the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2, tree removal and works within 4m of vegetation, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, or vegetation is removed, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale, with dimensions, and be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a) The locations of Tree Protection Zones described in Condition 5, with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on both site and landscape plans, and the requirements of Conditions 5 and 6 to be annotated on the development and landscape plans.

b) Provision of detailed materials and finishes schedule

c) Tree to be shown on site plan and landscape plan.

All of the above requirements must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Once approved these plans and documents become the endorsed plans of this permit.

2. The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. No building or works shall be commenced (and no trees or vegetation shall be removed) until a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. This plan when endorsed shall form part of this permit. This plan shall show –

a) Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:

i. Providing a complete garden scheme,

ii. Softening the building bulk,

iii. Providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective,

b) A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of condition No. 1.

c) The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.

Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule shall be completed before the building is occupied.

Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

4. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works the appointment of the project arborist must be confirmed in writing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the commencement of any building and or demolition works on the land, a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) must be established on the subject site and maintained during and until completion of all buildings and works including landscaping, around the following trees in accordance with the distances and measures specified below, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) Tree Protection Zone distances:

i. Tree 4 (Eucalyptus radiata – Narrow leafed Peppermint Gum) – 9.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ii. Tree 5 (Camellia sp. – Camellia) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

iii. Tree 6 (Pittosporum undulatum – Sweet Pittosporum) – 2.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

iv. Tree 7 (Suzygium smithii – Lilly Pilly) – 3.1 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

v. Tree 10 (Corymbia citriodora – Lemon Scented Gum) – 4.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

vi. Tree 11 (Eucalyptus botryoides – Bangalay) – 5.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

vii. Tree14 (Letospermum petrsonii – Lemon Scented Tea-tree) – 2.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

viii. Tree 19 (Pittosporum tenuifolium – Pittosporum) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ix. Tree 20 (Eucalyptus melliodora – Yellow Box) – 7.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

x. Tree 21 (Eucalyptus melliodora – Yellow Box) – 7.7 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xi. Tree A (Acer palmatum – Japanese Maple) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xii. Tree B (Mixed species) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

b) Tree Protection Zone measures are to be established in accordance to Australian Standard 4970-2009 and including the following:

i. Erection of solid chain mesh or similar type fencing at a minimum height of 1.8 metres held in place with concrete feet.

ii. Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter fencing identifying the area as a TPZ. The signage should be visible from within the development, with the lettering complying with AS 1319.

iii. Mulch across the surface of the TPZ to a depth of 100mm and undertake supplementary watering in summer months as required.

iv. No excavation, constructions works or activities, grade changes, surface treatments or storage of materials of any kind are permitted within the TPZ unless otherwise approved within this permit or further approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

v. All supports, and bracing should be outside the TPZ and any excavation for supports or bracing should avoid damaging roots where possible.

vi. No trenching is allowed within the TPZ for the installation of utility services unless tree sensitive installation methods such as boring have been approved by the Responsible Authority.

vii. Where construction is approved within the TPZ, fencing and mulching should be placed at the outer point of the construction area.

viii. Where there are approved works within the TPZ, it may only be reduced to the required amount by an authorised person only during approved construction within the TPZ and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.

6. During the construction of any buildings or works, the following tree protection requirements must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) A project arborist must be appointed by the applicant or builder. The project arborist must have a minimum qualification in arboriculture to be appointed the project arborist. The qualifications of the project arborist must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (RA)

b) The driveway where within the TPZ’s of Trees 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11 must be constructed at the existing soil grade using Lilydale Toppings or similar. There must be no grade change within the TPZ’s, and no roots are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

c) Longitudinal cross section to demonstrate driveway works are at/above the existing grade levels.

d) The removal of the sections of the existing driveway where within TPZ’s must be undertaken with the supervision and direction of the project arborist where those sections occur within the calculated TPZ’s of Trees 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11. The exposed areas must then be mulched with a 75mm layer of course grade composted woodchips, which must be maintained until such time as the treatment approved for that section is installed.

e) The path where within the TPZ of Tree 4 must be constructed at the existing soil grade using Lilydale Toppings or similar. There must be no grade change within the TPZ, and no roots are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

f) Screw piles and lintel for wall plate and lightweight wall construction for garage within the TPZ of Tree 14. A Geotechnical Engineer must assess the soil type and provide the result to a Structural Engineer so that appropriate footing and foundations can be designed so that they are not affected by soil movement.

g) For Trees 19, A and B no roots are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

h) All buildings and works for the demolition of the site (excluding the driveway) and construction of the development (as shown on the endorsed plans) must not alter the existing ground level or topography of the land within greater than 10% of the TPZ’s of Trees 4, 19, A and B.

i) The dwelling and decking where within the TPZ of Tree 20 must be constructed on Tree sensitive footings, such as post footings or screw piles, with no grade change within the TPZ. The postholes are to be hand dug and no roots greater than 25mm in diameter are to be cut or damaged. A Geotechnical Engineer must assess the soil type and provide the result to a Structural Engineer so that appropriate footing and foundations can be designed so that they are not affected by soil movement.

j) The project arborist and builder must ensure that TPZ Fencing Conditions are being adhered to throughout the entire building process, including site demolition, levelling and landscape works.

7. Council's Compliance Officer must be advised within one (1) month of the completion of all tree planting required by this permit so that a site inspection can be carried out. A further inspection will be carried out 6 months after the completion of the landscaping to ensure that the planting has been adequately maintained.

8. All stormwater drains and on-site detention systems are to be connected to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building/s. The requirement for on- site detention will be noted on your stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.

9. The Applicant/Owner is responsible to pay for all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets as a result of the development. The Applicant/Owner is responsible to obtain all relevant permits and consents from Council at least 7 days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and is to obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets. Adequate protection is to be provided to Council’s infrastructure prior to works commencing and during the construction process.

10. The qualified civil engineer when undertaking civil design must ensure that the landscape plan/s and drainage plan/s are compatible. The stormwater drainage and on site detention system must be located outside the tree protection zone (TPZ) of any trees to be retained.

Permit Expiry

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

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

b) The development and removal of vegetation is not completed within four (4) years from the date of this permit;

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing pursuant to the provision of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Permit Notes

1. This application has not been assessed under ResCode by the Responsible Authority.

2. All other infrastructure required is recommended to not alter the NGL within the TPZ of any protected trees.

C Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Munroe

That Council:

b) In addition to the requirements of Condition 6 i), timber decking adjacent to Tree 20, Eucalyptus melliodora, increased north setback from approximately 8.12 metres to approximately 8.8 metres, relocation of the steps to the west side of the deck and spacing between decking boards at 6 mm, to allow increased absorption of water and nutrient into the root zone of this tree.

c) Provision of detailed materials and finishes schedule

d) Tree to be shown on site plan and landscape plan.

All of the above requirements must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Once approved these plans and documents become the endorsed plans of this permit.

a) Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:

i. Providing a complete garden scheme,

ii. Softening the building bulk,

iii. Providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective,

b) A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of condition No. 1.

c) Trees for replanting to have potential to reach a minimum height of 10 metres and have a spreading canopy form

d) The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.

Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule shall be completed before the building is occupied.

Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

4. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works the appointment of the project arborist must be confirmed in writing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

a) Tree Protection Zone distances:

i. Tree 4 (Eucalyptus radiata – Narrow leafed Peppermint Gum) – 9.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ii. Tree 5 (Camellia sp. – Camellia) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

iii. Tree 6 (Pittosporum undulatum – Sweet Pittosporum) – 2.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

iv. Tree 7 (Suzygium smithii – Lilly Pilly) – 3.1 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

v. Tree 10 (Corymbia citriodora – Lemon Scented Gum) – 4.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

vi. Tree 11 (Eucalyptus botryoides – Bangalay) – 5.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

vii. Tree14 (Letospermum petrsonii – Lemon Scented Tea-tree) – 2.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

viii. Tree 19 (Pittosporum tenuifolium – Pittosporum) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ix. Tree 20 (Eucalyptus melliodora – Yellow Box) – 7.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

x. Tree 21 (Eucalyptus melliodora – Yellow Box) – 7.7 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xi. Tree A (Acer palmatum – Japanese Maple) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xii. Tree B (Mixed species) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.