Agenda of Council Meeting - 30 November 2020

Council Meeting 30 November 2020

9 Council Reports

9.1 City Development

Statutory Planning

9.1.1 654 Mitcham Road, Vermont (Lot 34 PS 413983C) Construction of a Telecommunications Facility with Equipment Shelter

FILE NUMBER: WH/2019/1083
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application was advertised, and a total of eight (8) objections from seven objector properties were received. The objections raised issues with health and safety, location of facility, increased industrial activity, visual amenity, overshadowing and loss of property values. A Consultation Forum was held on 2 September 2020 chaired by Councillor Cutts, at which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties. The application was called into Council for resolution by Councillor Cutts. 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/2019/1083 for 654 Mitcham Road, VERMONT (LOT 34 PS 413983C) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the Development of a telecommunications facility 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 654 Mitcham Road, VERMONT (LOT 34 PS 413983C) for the Development of a telecommunications facility, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans (three copies) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. 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) Finished floor levels in accordance with Report and Consent – Land Liable to Flooding issued by Engineering and Environmental Services, dated 2 January 2020.

b) Elevations to include clearance from ground level.

c) External colours and materials chart.

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. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or buildings and works, through:

a) Transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land,

b) Appearance of any building, works or materials;

c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

d) Presence of vermin or

e) In any other way.

4. The telecommunications cabinets and equipment must be visually maintained and kept free from vandalism and graffiti to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. The monopole must be built in a way so that it can support the future co-location of equipment from additional carriers/operators to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. No additional structures can be placed on the monopole other than those exempt under the Telecommunications (low impact facilities) Determination 1997 unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. Any communications infrastructure decommissioned and no longer required at the telecommunications facility must be removed from the site in one month of being decommissioned and no longer required to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. If the telecommunications facility hereby approved becomes redundant, all above ground infrastructure associated with the telecommunication facility must be removed and the area reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All works to comply with this condition must be completed within three months of the facility ceasing to operate and must be at the expense of the permit holder.

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

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

b) The development 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 provisions of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Permit Notes

A. Prior to any building and works on the subject land, approvals may be required from Council departments in relation to :

· Transport (Ph 9262 6177) – construction vehicles access routes, type of vehicles, peak delivery times, frequency and dates, any proposed partial/ full road/ footpath closures, nb. additional approvals may also be required from Department of Transport and VicRoads, closure of vehicle accessways (including Right of Ways), annexing/ leasing of car spaces associated with construction workers street parking permits for construction worker vehicles, pedestrian management (during construction and after hours).

· Asset Management (Ph 9262 6177) – Asset Protection permits and bonds, consent to undertake works in the road reserve (including new/temporary crossovers), temporary drainage discharge pipes, works protection notices and bonds.

· Community Laws (Ph 9262 6394) – street parking permits for construction workers vehicles, leasing of car spaces, soiling and cleaning of roadways, hours of operation, emissions of noise, smoke vapours etc. ( also relevant to Environment Protection Authority and Health Act legislation) storage of rubbish skips, building materials etc. off site, cutting of grass re vermin and fire safety, Code of Practice for behaviour of contractors, tradespersons regarding dogs, radios, rubbish and public relations with local residents.

· Building (Ph 9262 6421) – hoarding permits for site fencing/barriers, lighting, location of site offices, material storage, spoil stock-piling, asset protection permits and bonds, review of Occupational health and Safety approvals.

· All operational equipment must comply with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ARPANSA and Electromagnetic Energy & Radiation requirements.

Please ensure the landowner, permit applicant, project manager and/ or site supervisor is aware of the above requirements. Please also note that relevant approval application forms are available on the Council web site.

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.

MELWAYS REFERENCE 62 K1

Applicant: Service Stream Limited

Zoning: Industrial 3

Overlays: Nil

Relevant Clauses: Clause 19.03-04S Telecommunications

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 22.02 Visual Amenity and Advertising Signs

Clause 22.16 Industrial Areas Design Guidelines

Clause 33.03 Industrial 3 Zone

Clause 52.19 Telecommunications Facility

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Mahoneys

Subject site

7 Objector Properties

(1 outside of map)

North

BACKGROUND

History

The subject site began as part of a brickworks site, which spanned between Mitcham Road (east), Carinya Road (south), Rooks Road (west) and Rostrevor Crescent (north). The site was slowly remediated and subdivided into large industrial parcels with many planning permits for industrial uses, the earliest being 1984. The subject site arose from a later three lot subdivision.

Council approved permit WH/1998/9793 for use as a self-storage warehouse complex (Kennards) on the subject site, which is the current use of the site. Numerous subsequent planning permits have been issued for the self-storage (Kennards) use. The most recent being permit WH/2016/1008 for the construction of a freestanding canopy (for weather protection).

There have been no recent policy changes applicable to the subject site.

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the western side of Mitcham Road, 325 metres north of the intersection with Canterbury Road. The site is an L-shape with a frontage of approximately 25 metres, a depth of approximately 131 metres and 46.61 metres and comprises an overall area of approximately 10,389 square metres.

The site contains an existing self-storage business (Kennards) that consists of five single storey buildings, administration office and onsite car parking facilities. To the north and west of the subject site are industrial lots with industrial uses. The Wunderlich Terra Cotta Tile Works (heritage site HO5) is located 160 metres west of the subject site. To the immediate east are industrial factory and warehouse uses and south of the site are residential properties. Residential properties are also on the east side of Mitcham Rd. The existing vehicle crossover is located along the frontage (north-east) and provides access to the site via a service lane from Mitcham Road.

The site has a rise of approximately four metres from the north-west to the south-east. The site has a T-shaped easement running through the centre and is subject to localised flooding.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is to remove an existing (decommissioned) roof top facility and equipment shelter (currently on the subject site) and replace it with a 30 metre high monopole and equipment shelter within a 40 square metre compound, towards the north western corner of the property.

The works include:

· Construction of a new 30 metre high monopole. The overall height from the head frame (where the antennas are mounted) will sit between 30.5 metres and 31.3 metres.

· Six 2680 millimetre long by 355 millimetre wide by 165 millimetre deep, and three 827 millimetre long by 415 millimetre wide by 263 millimetre deep panel antennas to be mounted on to a triangular headframe attached to the top of the monopole.

· Ancillary equipment including six tower mounter amplifiers (TMAs), six remote radio units (RRUs) to be mounted behind the antennas, feeders and cabling.

· An equipment shelter on a concrete footing within a 40.05 square metre compound area surrounded by safety bollards.

· Associated works including a retaining wall and minor earth works.

· Facilities will be constructed in neutral, non-reflective materials, colours and finishes.

The applicant advises that the telecommunication facility is required as capacity limits have been reached on existing (Telstra) sites, increased demand on the (Telstra) network (due to a huge growth in ‘smart” mobile handsets and working from home) and the existing facilities being shared across too many customers.

Planning Controls

A planning permit is required pursuant to Clause 52.19-1 to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a telecommunications facility. A planning permit is required because a monopole is not listed as a Low Impact Facility under the Telecommunication (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997.

A planning permit is required pursuant to Clause 33.03-1 to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a Telecommunications facility.

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Mitcham Road frontage. Following the advertising period eight (8) objections from seven objector properties were received.

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

· Health and Safety of Electro-magnetic Emissions (EME)

· Location of facility

· Increased industrial activity

· Visual Amenity

· Overshadowing

· Loss of Property Value

Consultation Forum

An online Consultation Forum was held on 2 September 2020 (via Zoom). The meeting was chaired by Cr Cutts and was attended by 2 planning officers and three objectors.

The following topics were covered:

Health and Safety of Electro-magnetic Emissions (EME)

The applicant organised an independent electromagnetic emissions (EME) expert (Michael Bangay) to present at the forum on the effects of EME. The information provided discussed the Australian Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields and that this standard is governed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

At the end of the presentation, one of the Telstra representatives reached out to the objectors and advised they (Telstra) would undertake EME readings from any concerned residents homes and that they were happy to provide further information or answer their questions.

Location of Facility

The applicant advised that a coverage deficit (slow connection, internet speeds etc.) had been identified in Vermont, which is driving the need for an upgraded facility. A graphic (slide) was provided for the forum, which indicated 10 potential sites that their client had looked at. This also provided an overview of what telecommunication facilities currently exist within the area.

Visual Amenity

The applicant provided before and after photo montages of the proposed monopole on the site, (refer to Appendix 2). It was then discussed that the monopole design had been chosen as it was less obtrusive than a lattice tower. The colour palette chosen was to blend in with the surrounds.

Over Shadowing

Concerns were raised regarding the monopole overshadowing residential properties along Mitcham Road. Residential properties to the east are 173.7 metres from the monopole and 189.4 metres to the south.

Loss of Property Values

Concerns were raised with properties close to the utility station losing value. It was explained that this is not a planning consideration.

At the completion of the forum no agreements had been reached. The objectors were satisfied with the information provided however not with the proposed location and development of the telecommunications facility.

Referrals

External

The application was not required to be externally referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act.

Internal

Engineering and Environmental Services Department

· Assets Engineering

The application was referred to assets engineering due to localised flooding. The plans were unable to be assessed due to inconsistencies between finished floor levels on the plans and no dimension provided from finished floor level.

Written confirmation of the required finished floor levels for the site were provided to Assets Engineering by the applicant, after initial comments were received. This confirmed that Condition 1 requirements could be included on the permit ensuring consistency between the flood level assessment and plans to be endorsed.

ASSESSMENT

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

The proposal will see the construction of a streamline monopole and maintenance shelter containing up to date telecommunications facilities, which is consistent with the objective and strategies of Clause 19.03-4 (Telecommunications) of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. These seek to facilitate the maintenance and upgrading of facilities and infrastructure, and to ensure that the communication technology needs of business, domestic, entertainment and community services are met. This clause outlines that use of land for a telecommunications facility it not to be prohibited in any zone, highlighting the emphasis at a State Level, on the importance of the provision of these facilities.

Clause 22.02 (Visual Amenity and Advertising Signs) includes an objective ‘To ensure that the need for modern communication facilities and services is balanced against the visual and health implications of the community.’ Application of the principle of ‘prudent avoidance’ and the requirement under this clause to consider three alternative locations identified a number of sites that location wise could fit the needs of the service provider. These sites were explored and the subject site provided by the applicant along with justification regarding why it was chosen.

As previously discussed, at the Forum the applicant provided advice that they had considered 11 other sites within the area, along with why these sites were not suitable.

With regards to the proposed 30 metre monopole at 654 Canterbury Road, the applicant advised that the height is to meet technical requirements, for increased service and coverage provisions for the area. Essentially the local topography necessitates the requirement for a telecommunication facility at this height and location to better service the area and the broader network.

Clause 22.16 (Industrial Areas Design Guidelines) includes an objective to ‘establish standard of design and development that promotes industry whilst not adversely impacting on surrounding residential and public uses’. It has been established that the location of the monopole is within an existing industrial site, which is surrounded by industrial uses. It is not transforming the existing use, rather consolidating it with a preferred use for the zone, which does not require increased infrastructure such as a dedicated crossover, chainmail fencing or external lighting (for security). Due to being out of the ‘general public’ domain yet still accessible at all times and under passive surveillance by those accessing their self-storage lockers.

The equipment shelter and the majority of the monopole will be obscured due to existing industrial built form. In addition, it is located over 100 metres from any public open space and residential properties.

Victorian Code of Practice

‘A Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004)’ is referenced as a document to be considered as relevant in consideration of applications for Telecommunication Facilities in both Clauses 19.03-4 (Telecommunications) and 52.19 (Telecommunication Facilities) of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

The Code of Practice contains four principles for design, siting, construction and operation of telecommunications facilities:

· A telecommunications facility should be sited to minimise visual impact.

As previously discussed, the monopole is to be located within 654 Mitcham Road, towards the rear (north western) corner of the subject site. To the north, the subject site shares a boundary with 632 Mitcham Road (Industrial 3 Zone), which includes a wall along the length of the boundary. To the west the subject site shares a boundary with 656 Mitcham Road (Industrial 1 Zone), which is the Monier Brickworks landscape buffer between the administrative buildings and the manufacturing component of the site. As previously discussed at the forum, a monopole will be less visually obtrusive than a lattice tower.

The siting allows for use of the existing crossover, which provides for continued safe and convenient access for maintenance and servicing. Location at the rear of the site provides interrupted views of the structure from the public domain.

· Telecommunications facilities should be co-located wherever practical.

Co-location requires an existing facility that is both sited in a location that allows for coverage to be achieved, as well as being high enough and structurally capable of accommodating additional antenna structures. There were no sites identified that met these objectives. Co-location of facilities by different providers can be facilitated at this site in the future if required, providing an opportunity for consolidation of telecommunication infrastructure.

· Health Standards for exposure to radio emissions will be met.

The applicant has provided independent advice indicating that the emissions are well below the acceptable standards set out by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), and ARPANSA.

The information provided indicated that although the proposed facility was not a low impact facility, the effects from it were still 1,000 times below the Radiation Protection Series 3 (RPS3) GP limit.

The applicant’s expert advised that this is due to 5G technology being more efficient and having lower average EME levels, which significantly reduces the amount of radio waves. Whilst increasing the efficiency of how the network is used/ operates. The EME expert explained that the 5G network only switches on when someone is using it. Whereas radio waves from digital radio and television are present all the time and at much higher levels/ values.

It was explained that all case studies take into account best case scenarios for signal transmission and worst case results for EME output. This means measurements of EME are taken from a base station, where there is a clear line of sight to the transmission target area. Whereas in reality, EME is easily affected/ weakened by external environmental factors such as topography, buildings, tinted glass, landscaping and canopy trees. This indicates EME results produced for a facility are over estimations.

The EME levels for the proposed monopole indicated that the highest level of exposure was within 50 to 100 metres of the monopole at 2.23 percent. The percentage drops to 1.59 percent within 100-200 metres, which is where the closest residents (east and south) to the subject site are located.

· Disturbance and risk relating to the siting and construction should be minimised. Construction activity and site location should comply with State environment protection policies and best practice environmental management guidelines.

A Construction Management Plan (CMP) for this site is assessed as unreasonable considering the works are located at the rear of the subject site. However permit notes will be included for any approval granted.

The area of the site where the works are to take place is relatively flat and has existing vehicle access from a service lane on Mitcham Road. The site is not located in an area of significance with respect to environmental, built or cultural heritage. No canopy trees will be required to be removed to accommodate the monopole. Whilst Mitcham Road has residential zoning on the eastern side, the subject site does not abut a residential zone and any construction will be entirely abutted by other industrially zoned land.

Federal Telecommunications Legislation

Federal Legislation (Telecommunications Act 1991) and determinations (Telecommunications (Low-impact) Determination 1997) are in place with regard to telecommunication facilities. These set out what constitutes high and low impact facilities, and acceptable standards of EME emissions. The ‘Telecommunications (Low-impact) Facilities Determination, 1997’ is a reference document to Clause 52.19 (Telecommunication Facilities) of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

The new mobile telecommunications facility (monopole) is not listed as a low impact facility under the determination, however as previously discussed the EME output is well below the permissible maximums under the standard.

Clause 52.19 – Telecommunications Facilities

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the purpose of this clause which includes:

· The principles for the design, siting, construction and operation of a Telecommunications facility set out in A ‘Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria, July2004.

The information provided by the applicant demonstrates 11 sites have been investigated and identified as unsuitable, for the needs of the network/ provider. A breakdown of the sites is provided below along with reasons as to why they were unsuitable:

Upgrade of existing facility not possible

o Telstra Utility Pole – 485 Mitcham Road

o Telstra Rooftop – 170-180 Rooks Road

o Telstra Timber Pole (small cell) - 8 Denis Street

o Telstar pole with co-location for Optus/VHA/eJV - 8 Boronia Road

Tenure not possible

o Monier Brickworks – 656 Mitcham Road

o Rooftop – 630 Mitcham Road

Coverage not achievable

o Roof top on future factory – 30 Redland Drive

o Optus/VHA/eJV Tower – 194 Rooks Road

o 1-34 Redland Drive

o 630 to 646-652 Mitcham Road

Site not yet built

o Optus/VHA/eJV Pole – 190 Rooks Road

The location of the proposed telecommunications facility meets the principles set out under the ‘Code of Practice’. The monopole design although quite tall is assessed as appropriate for the location, taking up minimal space. The construction and operation of the telecommunications facility is able to be facilitated within the site, whilst taking advantage of the existing crossover.

· The effect of the proposal on adjacent land.

As established, the subject site is within industrial zoned land, with existing industrial uses surrounding it. The proposed facility is located in an industrial zone, surrounded by industrial uses and is an additional 90 metres further from residential properties to the east, than the existing now decommissioned roof top facility currently on the subject site.

There are some visual impacts however they are limited due to the existing built form within and surrounding the subject site. The EME health implications have been discussed at length and are well under the prescribed maximum allowable thresholds. Therefore the effects of the proposed telecommunications facility on adjacent land is assessed as minimal.

With regard to overshadowing of residential properties to the east and Mitcham Road (which is 145 meters to the east), it would be minor and in the afternoon. It is acknowledged that no overshadowing diagrams were provided, however considering the closest residential property is approximately 173 metres away, any overshadowing would have the same amount of impact as an electricity pole (if any).

It is acknowledged that the telecommunications facility will provide increased/ improved access to the National Broadband Network (NBN) and telecommunications services to the adjacent properties (and surrounding residences in the area).

· If the Telecommunications facility is located in an Environmental Significance Overlay, a Vegetation Protection Overlay, a Significant Landscape Overlay, a Heritage Overlay, a Design and Development Overlay or an Erosion Management Overlay, the decision guidelines in those overlays and the schedules to those overlays.

The subject site is not located within any overlays and does not require the removal of trees or vegetation, however it is subject to localised flooding. Requirements with regard to this will be included as Condition 1 requirements on the permit.

Design and Built Form

The installation of a new telecommunications monopole will have a degree of visibility as it is required to sit, in part, above the roofs of surrounding buildings to achieve necessary coverage requirements. The ambit of discretion therefore, sits in the ability of the proposal to be reasonably well designed and sited to reduce impacts to adjoining properties.

The construction of a monopole, being slimline in its design, will reduce the extent to which the structure is obvious in the skyline, having regard to surrounding buildings and other existing urban infrastructure. In terms of providing a balance between the visual impact upon immediately surrounding properties, and servicing the communication needs of the broader community, including emergency service providers, the proposal is considered to be an acceptable outcome as it is well away from residential properties, and sits within an established industrial area.

The monopole is proposed to be located towards the north western corner of the subject site and will be setback 18.5 metres from the western boundary fence, which is behind the building line of storage units along the western boundary and 6.1 metres from the northern boundary. The northern boundary includes built form along its entirety. This is an appropriate location to enable the telecommunications facility to provide increased coverage to Vermont to service the needs of business and residential users.

The monopole will cast minimal shadow over the adjoining industrial buildings to the east and west, as the pole width is graduated from one metre at the base to 600 millimetres to the top. The detriment to the adjoining lots due to overshadowing is assesses as acceptable.

The maintenance shelter has a maximum height of 2.97 metres and the outdoor equipment cabinets have a maximum height of one metre. None of which will be visible from the public domain, given the location of the monopole at the rear of the subject site.

Amenity

The proposal has been accompanied by an Environmental Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Report that has been prepared in accordance with the relevant Federal Legislation. The new facility will be well inside the permissible exposure limits as set out by ARPANSA.

Whilst a number of objectors have expressed concerns about the way in which EME is calculated and the possible effects of mobile phone towers, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) have ruled on a number of occasions that applications must be assessed against the relevant legislatively adopted standards, rather than pioneer their own standards.

Objectors Concerns not Previously Addressed

Increased Industrial Activity

Concerns were raised with regard to increased industrial activity in the area, rather than land being available for increased residential purposes. It is well documented that industrial zoned land has been diminishing across metropolitan Melbourne. The subject site is an example of this, as it is one of only four large areas zoned Industrial 3 within the municipality. It is also acknowledged that industrial zoned land holds an important role for the municipality, in creating and attracting industry/ business. This in turn creates and increases local employment, whilst adding diversity and vibrancy to the local community.

It is noted that the proposed telecommunications facility does not seek to alter or change the nature of the existing industrial land use, rather consolidate it.

Loss of Property Values

As was raised and discussed at the consultation forum, the proposed monopole is within an existing industrial site and is surrounded by industrial uses. It is located over 100 metres from public open space and residential properties. It is a preferred use for the zone and is consolidating rather than transforming the existing industrial use of the site.

It must be noted that loss of property value is not a planning consideration under the Act.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for construction of a telecommunications facility is an acceptable one that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the Planning and Local Planning Policies, Clause 52.19 and the Industrial 3 Zone.

The proposal is for a 30 metre monopole and maintenance shelter. The applicant has demonstrated that a telecommunications facility is required within this area, and that the subject site most appropriately meets the topographical requirements for a facility such as this, as well and being able to meet the increasing demand for communication services across metropolitan Melbourne. Telecommunication facilities have become part of the urban landscape and are necessary in providing increased connectivity to local industry, commercial businesses and domestic users.

A total of seven (7) 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 Working Plans

2 Photo Montage

Whitehorse City Council

Council Meeting 30 November 2020

9.1.2 1 Andrew Street, Forest Hill (Lot 39 LP 40154) Construction of one (1) dwelling on a lot and removal of vegetation within the Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 6

FILE NUMBER: WH/2020/229
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application was advertised, and a total of twenty (20) objections were received. The objections raised issues with historical and proposed removal of vegetation, provision of high front fencing and the proposed development’s consistency with neighbourhood character. A Consultation Forum was held on 30 July 2020 and chaired by Councillor Stennett, 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/2020/229 for 1 Andrew Street, FOREST HILL (LOT 39 LP 40154) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections, is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the Construction of One (1) Dwelling on a Lot and Removal 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 1 Andrew Street, FOREST HILL (LOT 39 LP 40154) for the Construction of One (1) Dwelling on a Lot and Removal of Vegetation, subject to the following conditions:

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

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

b) The location of all service trenches to serve the dwellings (for example: gas, water, electricity, stormwater, sewerage, telecommunications), including the extent of trenching required in easements over adjoining lots (if any) and the location of protected trees within 4 metres of these trenches (if any). The service trenches must be located, hand dug or bored to ensure that protected trees are not damaged, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) Details of all external services (i.e. service metres, heating, cooling and hot water services, etc.).

d) Replacement of the two (2) Lightwood Wattles (Acacia implexa) with two (2) Blackwood Wattles (Acacia melanoxylon) on the landscape plan.

e) Provision of one additional Silver-leaf Stringybark (Eucalyptus cephalocarpa) on the landscape plan.

f) Provision of increased landscaping and groundcovers alongside rear boundaries with a fast-growing native/indigenous species selection.

g) Front fencing in accordance with concept fence elevation prepared by Axiomplus Architects Rev A dated 15 October 2020 – however be amended to be setback 0.5 metres from street frontage with landscaping in front and to show wrought iron infill in front of proposed dwellings entire frontage .

h) Landscape plan updated to include all Condition 1 requirements.

All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

3. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, all tree planting and landscaping as shown on the endorsed landscaping plan must be completed prior to the occupation of the development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan must only be used as gardens and must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed it must be replaced by a tree or shrub of similar size and variety.

5. Prior to commencement of any building or demolition works on the land, the Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be established on the subject site and nature strip 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 2 – 5.2 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ii. Tree 3 – 2.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

iii. Tree 4 – 2.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

iv. Tree 5 – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

v. Tree 8 – 5.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

vi. Tree 9 – 2.3 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

vii. Tree 10 – 2.3 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

viii. Tree 11 – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ix. Tree 13 – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

x. Tree 14 – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xi. Tree 16 – 2.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

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

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

ii. Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter the 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 100 millimetres and undertake/ provide supplementary watering/ irrigation within the TPZ, prior and during any works performed.

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 authorized person only during approved construction within the TPZ, and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.

6. During construction of any buildings, or during other works, the following tree protection requirements are to be adhered to, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) The paved area where within the TPZ of Tree 16, must be constructed above the existing soil grade using porous materials that allows water to penetrate through the surface and into the soil profile. 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.

b) For Trees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 no roots greater than 40mm in diameter are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

c) All buildings and works for the demolition of the site and construction of the development (as shown on the endorsed plans) must not alter the existing ground level or topography of the land (which includes trenching and site scrapes) within greater than 10% of the TPZs of Trees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15.

d) The builder / site manager must ensure the TPZ Fencing Conditions and the Tree Protection Conditions for Trees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are being adhered to throughout the entire building process, including site demolition, levelling, and landscape works.

7. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each garage and car parking space. Lighting must be located, directed and shielded and of limited intensity so that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site.

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 the stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.

9. 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.

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

11. 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.

12. 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 seven (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.

13. 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.

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

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

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

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

Permit Notes:

A. The design and construction of letterboxes is to accord with Australian Standard AS-NZ 4253-1994.

Asset Engineer:

B. The design and construction of the stormwater drainage system up to the point of discharge from an allotment is to be approved by the appointed Building Surveyor. That includes the design and construction of any required stormwater on-site detention system. The Applicant/ Owner is to submit certification of the design of any required on-site detention system from a registered consulting engineer (who is listed on the Engineers Australia National Professional Engineer Register or approved equivalent) to Council as part of the civil plans approval process.

C. The requirement for on- site detention will be noted on the stormwater point of discharge report, and be required as part of the civil plans approval.

D. All proposed changes to the vehicle crossing are to be constructed in accordance with the submitted details, Whitehorse Council’s – Vehicle Crossing General Specifications and standard drawings.

E. The Applicant/ Owner is to accurately survey and identify on the design plans all assets in public land that may be impacted by the proposed development. The assets may include all public authority services (i.e. gas, water, sewer, electricity, telephone, traffic signals etc.) and the location of street trees or vegetation. If any changes are proposed to these assets then the evidence of the approval is to be submitted to Council and all works are to be funded by the Applicant/Owner. This includes any modifications to the road reserve, including footpath, nature strip and kerb and channel.

F. The Applicant/ Owner must obtain a certificate of hydraulic compliance from a suitably qualified civil engineer to confirm that the on-site detention works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, prior to Statement of Compliance is issued.

G. There is to be no change to the levels of the public land, including the road reserve or other Council property as a result of the development, without the prior approval of Council. All requirements for access for all-abilities (Disability Discrimination Access) are to be resolved within the site and not in public land.

H. No fire hydrants that are servicing the property are to be placed in the road reserve, outside the property boundary, without the approval of the Relevant Authority. If approval obtained, the property owner is required to enter into a Section 173 Agreement with Council that requires the property owner to maintain the fire hydrant.

I. Floor levels need to be amended if vehicle access to the garage cannot be achieved.

J. The architect and/or designer must ensure that vehicle access is to conform to the Australian Standards for Off-Street Parking (AS/NZS 2890.1:2004).

K. No trees are permitted within the easement. Any planting must not affect the stormwater pipe within the easement, must have shallow roots that do not impact upon the functionality of the stormwater pipe and must be reflected on the landscaping plans. Council’s arborist must approve the landscaping plans.

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.

MELWAYS REFERENCE 62 F1

Applicant: Axiom Plus Pty Ltd

Zoning: Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1

Overlays: Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 6

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 12 Environment and Landscape Values

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 16 Housing

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 21.06 Housing

Clause 22.03 Residential Development

Clause 22.04 Tree Conservation

Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1

Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 6

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Mahoneys

Subject site

8 Objector Properties

(12 outside of map)

North

BACKGROUND

History

There are no previous planning permits that apply to the subject site.

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the east side of Andrew Street, approximately 90 metres north of the intersection with Shady Grove and 60 metres south of the intersection with Menin Road. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 42.67 metres to Andrew Street, a depth of 34.64 metres, and a total site area of 739 square metres.

The site is vacant after demolition of a single storey detached dwelling, following a house fire in 2019. Access to the site is via a standard width crossover located at the site’s southernmost frontage to Andrew Street. The site is relatively flat and contains a 1.83 metre wide easement running along the length of the site’s rear boundary.

The arborist report submitted with the application, prepared by Evergreen Tree Consulting, dated 30 November 2019, provides an assessment of sixteen (16) trees, of which ten (10) are located within the subject site. These include:

Tree No.	Name	Height x Width (m)	DBH (cm)	Retention Value	Recommendation
1	Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum)	8 x 4	22	Low	Shown as removed. Triggers need for permit for removal.
6	Acacia dealbata (Silver Wattle)	13 x 5	37	Low	Shown as removed. Triggers need for permit for removal.
7	Eucalyptus cephalocarpa (Mealy Stringybark)	13 x 10	57	Medium	Shown as removed. Triggers need for permit for removal.
8	Eucalyptus goniocalyx (Long Leaved Box)	12 x 8	48	Medium	Shown as retained within development. Triggers need for permit to undertake buildings and works within 4 metres of.
9	Hakea salicifolia (Willow Leaved Hakea)	7 x 4	19	Medium	Shown as retained within development. Triggers need for permit to undertake buildings and works within 4 metres of.
10	Eucalyptus ovata (Swamp Gum)	8 x 2	19	Medium	Shown as retained within development. Triggers need for permit to undertake buildings and works within 4 metres of.
11	Jacaranda mimosifolia* (Jacaranda)	5 x 4	10/9	Low	Shown as retained within development. Triggers need for permit to undertake buildings and works within 4 metres of.
12	Eucalyptus cephalocarpa (Mealy Stringybark)	12 x 6	38	Low	Shown as removed. Triggers need for permit for removal.
13	Acacia dealbata (Silver Wattle)	7 x 4	14	Low	Shown as retained within development. Triggers need for permit to undertake buildings and works within 4 metres of.
14	Dead Tree	20	10 x 5	Low	Shown as retained within development. Triggers need for permit to undertake buildings and works within 4 metres of.

The subject site is located in a primarily residential area and is within a Bush Environment/Limited Change Neighbourhood Character Precinct.

Within the immediate context, the following is noted:

· To the north-east, at 40 Menin Road is a detached single storey dwelling fronting Menin Road.

· To the east, at 40 – 46 Menin Road are detached single storey dwellings on a lot, each with secluded private open space at the rear adjoining the subject site.

· To the south, at 3 Andrew Street is a detached single storey dwelling with secluded private open space at rear adjoining the subject site.

Within the remainder of Andrew Street, the predominant housing style is that of single storey detached dwellings on a lot. Most roof styles are pitched, with some evidence of flat roof forms. Most dwellings are of brick construction (some with rendered finishes) with some examples of weatherboard cladding. The appearance of vegetated garden areas around buildings is an important feature of the area.

Planning Controls

Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (NRZ1)

Under Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone a permit is not required to construct a single dwelling on a lot as the lot is greater than 500 square metres.

Further, an application to construct a dwelling must provide a minimum garden area of 35 % (based on overall size). The development plans indicate an area of 418 square metres, equating to 56 % of the site which complies with this clause.

Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 6 (SLO6)

Under schedule 6 of the Significant Landscape Overlay, a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop a tree and to construct a front fence that is within four metres of any vegetation that requires a permit to remove, destroy or lop a tree. This application triggers an application for:

· The removal of Trees 1, 6, 7 and 12 all of which are protected under Schedule 6 to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

· The construction of a front fence within 4 metres of Trees G1, 8, 9, 10, 11 13 and 14 all of which are protected under Schedule 6 to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

A permit is also required to construct a building or construct or carry out works as the proposed dwelling does not meet the relevant exemptions for buildings and works outlined within Section 3 of SLO6 (see table below):

Permit Trigger Exemption	Proposal	Exemption Met
The total area covered by buildings does not exceed 35% of the site area.	The total area covered by buildings equates to 38.5% of the site area.	No
The works, comprising hard surfaced and impervious areas (including tennis courts and swimming pools, but excluding buildings) are less than 15 per cent of the site area.	The works comprising hard surfaces and impervious areas (excluding buildings) equates to 5.5% of the site area.	Yes
The buildings and works are set back more than 4 metres from any vegetation that requires a permit to remove, destroy or lop under the provisions of this schedule.	The buildings and works are not set back more than four metres from Tree’s 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 16 which require a permit to remove, destroy or lop.	No

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the construction of a single storey dwelling on the site and removal of vegetation. The key features of the proposal include:

· The new dwelling is proposed to be set back between 4.94 and 6.02 metres to Andrew Street, a minimum of 1.5 metres from its side (southern) boundary and between 2.44 and 3.84 metres from its rear (eastern) boundary.

· The dwelling contains an open-plan kitchen, meals and living area and four bedrooms (three of which are to be located at the front of site and one at rear).

· The existing crossover and driveway will provide access to a new double garage setback of 5.9 metres from Andrew Street and located along the sites southern boundary.

· The dwelling proposes a contemporary residential design with a pitched skillion roof forms. External materials include face brickwork, select render and metal cladding in muted (grey) tones and cladding and selected sheet metal roofing.

· The overall height of the proposed dwelling is 5.645 metres.

· The total site coverage for the dwelling is 38.5 % and including hard paved surfaces is 44 %.

· Trees 1, 6, 7 and 12 (protected under the SLO6) are proposed for removal;

· Trees 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 (protected under SLO6) (all located on subject site) are proposed to be retained.

· A 1.8 metre high sheet metal fence is also proposed along the sites frontage with Andrew Street.

For further details of the proposal, refer to the decision plans, prepared by Axiomplus Architects, dated issue C 26 March 2020. The application was accompanied by:

· Landscape Plan, prepared by Infinity Landscape Architects, dated 01 May 2020.

· Arborist Report, prepared by Evergreen Tree Consulting, dated 30 November 2019.

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to adjoining property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Andrew Street frontage. Following the advertising period twenty (20) objections were received.

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

· The development is not sympathetic to the purpose and objectives of the applicable planning controls;

· Consistency with neighbourhood character objectives;

· Over-development of the site;

· Excessive site coverage;

· Proposed and historical removal of vegetation; and

· Provision of high solid front fencing along street frontage.

Consultation Forum

An online Consultation Forum was held on 30 July 2020, chaired by Councillor Stennett. Approximately 12 objectors, the applicant and Council planning officers attended the meeting, during which the issues were explored. Key points discussed during the forum meeting surrounded the removal of vegetation, available room for landscaping and provision of high solid front fencing, however no resolution was reached between the parties.

Referrals

External

The application was not required to be referred under Section 55 of the Act to any relevant external departments in accordance with Clause 66 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

Internal

Planning Arborist

The application was referred to and reviewed by Council’s consulting arborist, who provided the following response:

· The removal of Trees 1, 6, 7 and 12 is supported; as the trees are either poor in health and / or structure and as such, they are no longer worthy of retention.

· The proposals impact on Trees 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 (all located on the subject site) is minimal with only the TPZ of Tree 8 being encroached into for a total of 7% which is considered acceptable and can be supported subject to conditions.

The proposal’s impact on Trees 2, 3, 4, 5 and 16 (all located on adjoining properties to the east or south) is minimal with only the TPZ of Tree 16 being encroached into for a total of 34.9% which is considered acceptable and can be supported subject to conditions.

· Tree 15 located on the adjoining property to the south (3 Andrew Street) had been removed following the granting of Planning Permit WH/2020/80.

Tree Education Officer

The application was referred to Councils Tree Education Officer, whom supported the proposal subject to provision of additional replanting and improved species selection.

DISCUSSION

Policy Context

The central issue surrounding this application focuses on whether the proposal appropriately responds to State and Local planning policy, which seeks consolidation within existing urban boundaries, particularly within proximity to the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) and activity centres, with that of local policy which, in this area, seeks minimal change in a landscape setting. Such policy does not envisage no development, but rather, development that has minimal impact on the existing preferred neighbourhood character and the key elements that define this character.

The following provides an outline of the relevant local planning provisions.

Clause 21.06 (Housing) is informed by Council’s Housing Strategy, 2014. It outlines how the municipality will contribute to the State’s housing objectives for Metropolitan Melbourne. It identifies three categories of housing change. The subject site placed within a ‘limited change’ area. Limited change areas enable specific characteristics of the neighbourhood, environment or landscape to be protected through greater control over new housing development. These areas represent the lowest degree of intended residential growth in Whitehorse.

Clause 22.03 (Residential Development) seeks to ensure new development reflects the minimal change designation of housing policy and contributes to the preferred character for this neighbourhood.

Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation) encourages new development to minimise the loss of significant trees and promotes regeneration of tall trees by ensuring sufficient spaces exists in new development for re-planting of tall trees. The policy sets ‘performance standards’ for the retention and regeneration of trees.

These policies, amongst other State level planning policies, justify the zoning of the site and surrounds in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1. The purpose of this zone places emphasis on neighbourhood character and its associated policies.

The NRZ1 encourages further curtailing of the ResCode standards for new dwellings by specifying a lesser site coverage and greater permeability, discouraging the construction of any walls on boundaries, and specifying greater landscaping, side setbacks and greater private open space than otherwise required under the ResCode standard. Its decision guidelines require more stringent consideration of the provision or retention of vegetation than would otherwise apply.

The proposed development, subject to minor variations, is consistent with the objectives and intent of Council’s local policies for developments within Limited Change areas and the Bush Environment Precinct.

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

The proposal is consistent with Planning and Local Planning Policies which seek to ensure housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice; and encourage the development of well-designed housing that respects the neighbourhood character and appropriately responds to the surrounding prevailing landscape character and valued built form and cultural context.

Under Clause 21.06 (Housing), the subject site is located within a ‘Limited Change Area’ and under Clause 22.03 (Residential Development), the site is included within a Bush Environment precinct. Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation) aims to assist in the management of the City’s tree canopy by ensuring that new development minimises the loss of significant trees. These local policies enable specific characteristics of the neighbourhood, environment and landscape to be protected through greater control in over new development. Moreover, architectural, urban design and landscape outcomes must positively contribute to the local urban character whilst minimising impacts on the neighbouring properties.

Consideration must also be given to the design response in relation to the site’s location within the SLO6. The SLO6 is recognised as an important part of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and as such, considerable weight is placed upon an application’s ability to meet the objectives and decision guidelines. The presence of the SLO6 does not negate the ability of a site to be developed for residential purposes, however the hierarchy of the SLO6 control requires a more sensitive approach and places a higher level of expectation on how a site is to respond to built form, landscape and environmental values.

It is not expected that all existing dwellings will continue to provide suitable housing stock into the future, nor does the SLO areas and controls seek to prohibit development. The performance measures of the SLO6 however, are designed to guide and shape new development to ensure the environmental and landscape elements valued by the community continue to be protected and any new development respects and responds to these performance objectives.

The proposed dwelling has sought to respond to these measures through a site responsive design that creates appropriately landscaped areas through the provision of a single storey built form. The design proposed is consistent with the existing housing stock and character of the surrounding area. By creating setbacks that respond appropriately to the surrounding built form, articulated façade features, provision of a pitched roof form, retention of existing vegetation and appropriate spacing for landscaping and replanting, the decision guidelines of Clause 22.04 and the SLO6 are considered to be met.

Built Form and Landscaping

The subject site is identified as being located within a Bush Environment Character Precinct.

The City of Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study, 2014 summarises the existing architectural style in the area as ‘”mixed’ and includes pre-WWII (including heritage significant bungalow dwellings), post-war, 1940s, 1950s and contemporary infill styles”. In terms of the landscape setting “Gardens are bushy and informal with predominantly native/indigenous species and large canopy trees. The appearance of vegetated garden areas around buildings is an important feature of this precinct”.

Achieving a preferred character for the area is guided by the ‘Preferred Character Statement’ outlined within Clause 22.03-5. The preferred character setting for the Bush Environment Setting is:

“The streetscapes will be dominated by vegetation with subservient buildings frequently hidden from view behind vegetation and tall trees. The buildings will nestle into the topography of the landscape and be surrounded by bush-like native and indigenous gardens, including large indigenous trees in the private and public domains.

Buildings and hard surfaces will occupy a very low proportion of the site. They will be sited to reflect the prevailing front, rear and side setbacks. The larger rear setbacks will accommodate substantial vegetation including large canopy trees. The bushy environs are complemented by street trees and a lack of front fencing. Properties abutting and close to creeks and lake environs will contain more indigenous trees and shrubs that act in part as wildlife corridors.

This precinct is identified for the lowest scale of intended residential growth in Whitehorse (Limited Change area) and the preservation of its significant landscape character and environmental integrity is the highest priority”.

The subject site is included within the SLO6 (Blackburn Area 2). The area is recognised as having special significance attributed to the quality of the environment, where dwellings are often nestled into the bush gardens comprising both exotic and native species. SLO6 provides a number of landscape objectives to be achieved, which can be summarised as retaining the dominance of vegetation cover. This is in keeping with the bush character environment and encourages development that is compatible with the character of the area and ensures that a reasonable portion of the lot is free of buildings to provide for the retention and planting of tall trees. SLO6 also includes a number of ‘decision guidelines’ which test a development’s responsiveness to a preferred neighbourhood and landscape character.

The provision of one new single storey dwelling, which replaces a dwelling which was recently removed due to a house fire, will provide an appropriate character outcome. The new dwelling will provide for appropriate development on a vacant site that ensures its front setback can be well vegetated, and in doing so, will be consistent with others in the street. The development also provides space around the new building, allowing for tree retention, as well as sufficient allowance for new tree planting and landscaping to ensure the vegetated character of the area is retained and enhanced.

Within the front setback area, Tree 8 (Eucalyptus goniocalyx – Long Leaved Box), Tree 9 (Hakea salicifolia – Willow Leaved Hakea), Tree 10 (Eucalyptus ovata – Swamp Gum), Tree 11 (Jacaranda mimosifolia– Jacaranda), Tree 13 (Acacia dealbata – Silver Wattle) and Tree 14 which is a dead tree are to be retained and complimented by the provision of three new Silver Banksia trees, a new Silver Leafed Stringy Bark and indigenous native shrubs, ground covers and grasses. This ensures the streetscape will be dominated by vegetation as encouraged by the preferred character statement and as reflected in the wider area.

Applying the average tree density decision guideline to the site of one tree per 150sqm (site area of 739 square metres) requires the provision of four canopy trees capable of growing to a mature height of 15metres. The proposal retains four (4) existing canopy trees (Tree 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13) and proposes three native canopy trees which, as previously discussed, will be conditioned to ensure species are capable of achieving a mature height of 15 metres. One additional new canopy tree will be required to provide for a total of four trees capable of achieving a mature height of 15 metres. On balance, the total of eight (8) large canopy trees which can achieve a mature height of between 8 metres (existing trees) – 15 metres (proposed new trees) provides a strong response to the SLO6 objectives.

The site coverage is 38.5% which is marginally over the 35% permit trigger requirement for the SLO6, whilst the site’s permeability is 56% which provides appropriate opportunity for tree retention and new landscaping, demonstrating the ability to achieve a preferred character outcome. Further to this, the dwelling contains a relatively small footprint and has been designed around retaining as much existing vegetation as possible whilst still allowing for a functional family home. Whilst it is noted that site coverage could have been reduced through the provision of a two storey dwelling, this would have brought forward its own specific issues and it is considered the provision of a single storey dwelling is in keeping with the character of the area, which is predominantly single storey dwellings.

The immediate locality as identified earlier, predominantly provides detached single storey dwellings on a lot. The proposed development provides a modest footprint with appropriate setbacks from side and rear boundaries and articulated forms. This leads to an outcome that presents an inconspicuous profile, particularly in a setting of large canopy trees with understorey planting.

Other attributes of the development that reflect the preferred character outcome include:

· The provision of a single-width crossover and driveway, maximising garden space across the site’s frontage.

· Recessing the car accommodation into the site to avoid the dominance of car parking structures to the street.

· Avoiding any boundary development and providing a ground level internal separation of from all title boundaries.

The above assessment identifies how the proposal can appropriately meet the neighbourhood character objectives of the planning scheme and specifically the SLO6. On balance, the proposed development is able to meet the decision guidelines under the overlay and therefore integrates with the preferred neighbourhood character (Bush Environment).

Tree Removal

The application seeks approval for the removal of four (4) trees from site, being:

Tree No.	Name	Height x Width (m)	DBH (cm)	Retention Value (as identified in the applicant’s arborist report)
1	Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum)	8 x 4	22	Low
6	Acacia dealbata (Silver Wattle)	13 x 5	37	Low
7	Eucalyptus cephalocarpa (Mealy Stringybark)	13 x 10	57	Medium
12	Eucalyptus cephalocarpa (Mealy Stringybark)	12 x 6	38	Low

The application has been referred to Council’s consulting arborist who has agreed with the above assessment from the applicant’s arborist, stating:

“The plans show the removal of these four (4) trees. They are either poor in health and/ or structure. As such, they are no longer worthy of retention”.

Further to this, the decision guidelines of the SLO6 require that before deciding on an application to remove, lop or destroy a tree, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

· The species of vegetation, its age, health and growth characteristics.

· The location of the vegetation on the land and its contribution to the lot garden area, neighbourhood and streetscape character.

· Whether the tree is isolated or part of a grouping.

· The potential to achieve an average density of one tree reaching a height of over 15 metres to each 150 square metres of site area.

· The availability of sufficient unencumbered land to provide for replacement planting. The impact of the tree on the structural integrity of existing buildings including foundations.

· Other options for further planting on the site.

· Vegetation management requirements to reduce fire hazard, prevent erosion and maintain flood control measures.

In review of the above, the removal of Trees 1, 6, 7 and 12 is considered appropriate as:

· The application has been referred to Council’s consulting arborist who has agreed with the applicants arborist in that the subject trees are of poor health or structure and not worthy of retention. In addition to this, it has been noted that the trees proposed for removal have all been identified as having useful life expectancies of between 0-10 years and as such, revegetation/replanting is considered to allow for the promotion of future canopy growth and canopy coverage of the site/surrounding area.

· The proposal as outlined above is able to achieve an average density of one tree reaching a height of over 15 metres to each 150 square metres of site, which will ensure the continued provision of canopy coverage in line with that which is to be expected within a Bush Environment Character Precinct.

· There are other options for further planting on site which will contribute to future canopy coverage and garden area of site as identified and outlined by Council’s arborist and Tree Education officer above, and which will form part of permit via conditions.

· Whilst it is acknowledged that there has been objector concern surrounding the removal of vegetation (particularly that of historical removal), it is considered that the cumulative retention of vegetation on site (particularly along the site’s frontage so as to provide for screening of the proposed development) is acceptable and that historical removal of vegetation has been resultant from either damages associated with previous house fire or approvals granted under VicSmart process.

Objectors concerns not previously addressed

Provision of High Solid Front Fencing

The application indicates the retention the existing 1.8 metre high sheet metal and brick pillar with capped picket fencing along the sites frontage with Andrew Street (see below).

The provision of high solid front fencing is not considered to be uncharacteristic within the immediate context of the site and surrounding area with it noted that the following properties within the immediate context of the site contain high fencing of various materials and heights along street frontages (see attachment):

· 3 Andrew, Street Forest Hill;

· 4 Andrew Street, Forest Hill;

· 18 Andrew Street, Forest Hill;

· 40 Menin Road, Forest Hill;

· 54 Menin Road, Forest Hill;

· 56 Menin Road, Forest Hill;

· 59 Shady Grove, Forest Hill;

· 68 Shady Grove, Forest Hill;

· 68A Shady Grove, Forest Hill;

· 1 Fisher Street, Forest Hill, and

· 6 Fisher Street, Forest Hill.

Whilst is acknowledged that the Bush Environment Character Precinct guidelines seek that either no or low front fencing be erected, the above sites evidence that there is an existing character for front fencing within the immediate context of the site.

The applicant has acknowledged that the provision of high solid front fencing is of significant concern to the community following forum, and has since put forward a concept front fence plan (see attachments) seeking to soften the materiality of the proposed fence and to provide for more transparency at dwelling frontage, through the use of wrought iron infills between existing piers and the changing of horizontal timber slats to vertical slats (see below):

Officers acknowledge that this is an improvement from that which was originally proposed, it is considered that the revised scheme does not go far enough in addressing objectors concerns and ensuring consistency with preferred neighbourhood character.

As such, it is noted that a condition will be placed on permit requiring the fence to be setback 0.5 metres from boundary (so as to allow for the provision of small scale landscaping at frontage) and that the wrought iron infill be extended to be the full length of the dwelling (so as to increase transparency from street frontage and provided for further softening). It is considered that this is more in line with keeping with the existing fencing character of the area and will allow for an appropriate balancing of the streetscape.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for construction of one (1) dwelling on a lot and removal of vegetation within the Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 6 is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policies, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1 and Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 6.

The proposed development’s form, siting and overall design is acceptable and will integrate into the existing built form and character.

A total of twenty (20) 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 Decision Plans

2 Concept Fence Design

3 Existing Street Front Fencing Photos

Whitehorse City Council

Council Meeting 30 November 2020

9.1.3 129-133 Burwood Highway, Burwood (Lot 1 TP 254250, Lot 1 TP 429285, LOT 1 PS 338433H) Construction of a part five part six storey building, with basement car park, buildings and works within 4 metres of trees (SLO9) and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

FILE NUMBER: WH/2020/677
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application is the third for this site, with the two previous applications being refused by Council and also refused by VCAT. This third application seeks to address the key matters outlined in the last VCAT decision.

This application was advertised, and a total of 144 objections were received. The objections raised key issues with neighbourhood character, non-compliance with planning controls, amenity impacts, car parking and traffic, landscaping and internal amenity.

A Consultation Forum was held via teleconference (Zoom) on 19 October 2020 chaired by an external facilitator (no Councillors attended as this was held during caretaker period) with the assistance of Council’s planning officers. The forum was attended by approximately 18 objectors. At this Forum key objection themes were discussed, however there was no resolution of issues. Subsequently no resolution was reached between the parties.

This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, the objector concerns and the key matters outlined by VCAT in the 2019 decision on the second application for the site. It is recommended that the application be supported, subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

A Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2020/677 for 129-133 Burwood Highway, BURWOOD (LOT 1 TP 254250, LOT 1 TP 429285, LOT 1 PS 338433H) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the construction of a part five storey and part six storey building, with basement car park, buildings and works within 4 metres of protected trees (SLO9) and, alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 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 129-133 Burwood Highway, burwood (LOT 1 TP 254250, LOT 1 TP 429285, LOT 1 PS 338433H 47B) for the construction of a part five storey and part six storey building, with basement car park, buildings and works within 4 metres of protected trees (SLO9) and, alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, or any trees or vegetation removed, amended plans and documents must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to 1:100 scale, with dimensions, and be generally in accordance with the plans identified as Revision TPO1, prepared by CHT Architects, dated 9th July 2020, but modified to show:

Built form and layout

a) Dwelling 3.01 deleted.

b) The north facing balcony area of Dwelling 2.01, recessed and absorbed into the building form, to reduce the building protrusion at this point.

Screening and glazing

c) The screening application type proposed on any windows or balcony to be fully detailed on elevation and suitably demonstrated compliance with the objective and standards of Clause 55.04-6 of the Whitehorse planning Scheme.

d) The north facing balcony of Dwelling 2.09, to achieve screening in accordance with Clause 55.04-6 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme

Site Services

e) Details of how service cabinets, along Burwood Highway, will be screened/finished, so as to reasonably integrate into the overall development scheme.

f) Roof plan illustrating all plant and equipment with screening ensuring views from all street frontages are obscured. The screening should be lowered to minimum height possible and be of lighter colouring and no-solid material.

Material and urban design

g) Provision of horizontal separation (100 – 200mm) between the masonry lower ground and the precast concrete over to assist with articulation of the architectural form.

h) A separate sheet with a full schedule of materials and finishes with colour samples of all external walls, roofs, fascia, window frames, paving (including terraces, balconies, roof terraces, stairs), fencing, privacy screens, roof top plant screens and retaining walls. This is to include:

i. The screening for west facing windows, fronting Roslyn Street and the dwelling at 2A Roslyn Street to comprise a range of materials.

ii. The use of suitable material to the under balconies that extend from the building line.

iii. Confirmation that the colour of the precast is embedded in the concrete mix and not a painted finish.

i) Integration of Engineering and Environmental Services requirements into the plans as necessary, as follows:

i. Prior to construction works commencing a Car Parking Management Plan is to be submitted in accordance with Condition 3

ii. The gradients within the proposed ramp and grade changes to the basement to be designed in accordance with AS 2890.2.

j) All modifications to the plans as specified in Condition 5 amendment to the Sustainability Management Plan.

k) All modifications to plans as required by Condition 3 and Conditions 23 to 30, Drainage and Assets.

All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, these plans become the endorsed plans of the permit.

Car Parking Management Plan

3. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, a Car Parking Management Plan, detailing how car and bicycle parking areas, accessways and waste collection bays will be allocated and managed, must be submitted to and approved by Responsible Authority.

This plan is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must include, but is not limited to, the following:

a) Allocation of all parking spaces (except visitor spaces) to individual dwellings and procedures to allocate disabled car spaces to residents/visitors as required.

b) Pedestrian access and movement within the car parking areas, including strategies to minimise the potential for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. This may include line marking such as hatched shared areas, direction signs and/or physical barriers.

c) Allocation of bicycle spaces to tenancies and visitors.

d) Directional signs to car and bicycle parking spaces and facilities.

e) Location of bicycle parking signs in accordance with Clause 52.34-5.

f) Line marking of parking spaces.

g) How parking will be secured and details of how access to car spaces, disabled car spaces and bicycle spaces will be achieved by visitors and delivery vehicles as required (via an intercom).

h) Details of how access to the waste collection areas will be achieved by waste collection vehicles. The collection area cannot be within the access aisle and must demonstrate how these areas will be secured.

i) Advise where delivery vehicles and moving vans serving the dwellings will park. These vehicles must be able to park for a reasonable period of time in convenient locations.

j) How the car park will be managed to ensure that all vehicles exit the site in a forwards direction.

Once submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, the Car Parking Management Plan will form part of the documents endorsed as part of this planning permit.

The requirements of the Car Parking Management Plan must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site for the life of the building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to commencement of any building and works which have any impact to the road reservation and existing trees, a Construction Impact Assessment and Tree Management Plan is to be prepared for these trees by a suitably qualified arborist, detailing construction methodologies and tree protection measures to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Sustainability Management Plan

5. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, an amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP submitted with the application but amended to include the following changes:

a) 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) or that is otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) A minimum 50,000 litre rainwater tank connected to the development’s entire roof area.

c) An annotation on Development Plans indicating the capacity of the rainwater tank and that the capacity stated is allocated exclusively for reuse/retention purposes and excludes any volume allocated for detention.

d) Appropriate access to maintain and service the rainwater tank must be demonstrated on Development Plans.

e) That all toilet services and irrigation areas throughout the development are facilitated by the rainwater tank, annotated on Development Plans.

f) Water efficient fixtures and fittings include minimum 5 star WELS taps, 4 star WELS toilet, 3 star WELS showerheads (≤ 7.5 L/min) and 4 star WELS urinals.

g) Daylight modelling assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) Natural ventilation with all operable windows, doors, terrace openings and vents provided in elevation drawings.

i) Preliminary NatHERS Energy Efficiency Assessments for 50% of the total amount of dwellings within the development. The assessment, as a whole, must ensure that thermally unique dwellings have been modelled, representative of an equitable, average, performance of the development. Each dwelling must demonstrate that the development will achieve cooling loads ≤ 21 MJ/m2/annum. Assessments must demonstrate an average NatHERS energy efficiency star rating of 6.5 achieved throughout the development with no dwelling performing below 5.5 stars. Indicative commitments towards thermal performance (i.e. R-values), artificial lighting and glazing (i.e. U- and SHGC- values) for residential areas must be provided.

j) LED light fittings used to provide artificial lighting and designed to exceed National Construction Code 2019 Building Code of Australia requirements.

k) Energy efficient heating, cooling and hot water systems indicating the associated COP and EER values or energy efficiency star ratings.

l) Exterior building services equipment including any heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water and renewable energy systems on Development Plans.

m) A minimum 22 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system.

n) Double glazing for all external windows.

o) Car park ventilation fitted with CO sensors.

p) Car park lighting, where reasonably safe to do so, fitted with motion sensors or timers.

q) All common, external, service and lift area lighting fitted with sensors or timers.

r) Common, service and lift area ventilation fitted with sensors or timers.

s) The location of alternative transport facilities including residential and visitor secure bicycle spaces, demonstrated on Development Plans.

t) A commitment to divert at least 80% of construction and demolition waste from landfill.

u) Use of low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and formaldehyde products.

v) Include an annotation of that the timber species intended for use as decking or outdoor timber are not unsustainably harvested imported timbers (such as Merbau, Oregon, Western Red Cedar, Meranti, Luan, Teak etc.) and meet either Forest Stewardship Council or Australian Forestry Standard criteria with a commitment provided as an annotation on Development Plans.

w) Where measures cannot be visually shown, include a notes table or ‘ESD Schedule’ on Development Plans providing details of the requirements (i.e. average energy rating for the development’s dwellings, % energy efficiency improvement, energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling, hot water and plumbing fittings and fixtures etc.).

All of the above is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Once submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SMP will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.

The requirements of the SMP must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement, and the requirements of this plan must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site when constructing and fitting out the building, and for the duration of the building's operation in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Landscape Plan

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

a) Any changes resultant from Condition 1 requirements.

b) Notate the type, location, quantity, height at maturity and botanical names of all proposed plants.

c) Nomination of all proposed services.

d) Details of all containerised planting infrastructure.

e) Detail the design (including the provision of sections) and layout of the common area, planters and ground level planting areas;

f) Provide a specification of works to be undertaken prior to planting;

g) Further detail on any sustainable treatments and water harvesting methods ;and

h) Detail plant/planting maintenance schedules and requirements to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Landscape Maintenance Plan

7. Prior to the occupation of the approved building, a Landscaping Maintenance Plan, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant, must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscaping maintenance plan must include, but is not limited to:

a) Irrigation system/program for street trees and street level garden beds, including details of frequency and water delivery method.

b) Details of the ongoing maintenance procedures to ensure that the garden areas in the communal open space at Level 4 are healthy and well maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This must include:

i. Irrigation frequency and delivery method.

ii. Drainage.

8. Before the building is occupied, or by a specified 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 achieve at all times:

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

b) Compliance so that areas set aside on the endorsed Landscape Plan for landscaping are not be used for any other purpose; and

c) Replacement of any dead, diseased, dying or damaged plants, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. No street tree may be removed without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Construction Management Plan (CMP)

10. Prior to the commencement of buildings or works on the land, a Construction Management Plan, detailing management of the environmental and construction issues associated with the development, must be submitted to and approved by.

The Construction Management Plan must be prepared and managed by a suitably qualified person who is experienced in preparing Construction Management Plans in accordance with the City of Whitehorse Construction Management Plan Guidelines.

When approved, the Construction Management Plan will form part of this permit and must be complied with, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, to the extent that this is in the control of the owner of the land. The owner of the land is to be responsible for all costs associated with the works to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Management Plan.

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

Waste Management Plan (WMP)

12. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, an amended Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This WMP must be generally in accordance with the WMP submitted with the application but amended to show:

a) Waste Generation Rates:

i. General/domestic waste: 4,000 L/week.

ii. Recycling: 5,664 L/week.

iii. Bulk Waste: To be advised.

iv. Hard Waste: As arranged through private contractors.

v. Green Waste: Minimal – assumed private contractor who will remove materials from the site.

b) Proposed MGB configurations:

i. General/domestic waste: 6 no. 660L MGB’s @ 1 coll./week.

ii. Recycling : 9 no. 660L MGB’s @ 1 coll./week,

i. General/domestic waste: 4 no. 660L MGB’s @ 2 colls./week.

ii. Recycling: 5 no. 660L MGB’s @ 2 colls./week.

c) The residential bin storage room shown on the lower ground floor needs to accommodate areas for the following:

i. Storage of bulk items (cardboard etc.)

ii. Hard waste.

iii. Charity bin.

d) Clearly state in the WMP the use of a double (waste & recycling) chute system.

13. The requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan, forming part of this permit, must be implemented by the building manager, owners and occupiers of the site for the life of the building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Drainage and Assets

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Applicant must allow for the design and construction of an outfall drain along the full length of the drainage easement to cater for upstream properties east side of Roselyn Street. Drain to be designed for a 10% ARI and existing outfall drain to be checked for the same.

21. Offset of building from easement may need to change due to the vicinity of new drain. The applicant must apply for Report and Consent – Building over the Easement prior to approval of the Planning Permit. Plans must show location of existing sewer and location of new outfall drain (for upstream properties).

22. No trees are permitted within the easement. Any planting must not affect the new stormwater pipe within the easement and have shallow roots that do not impact upon the functionality of the stormwater pipe. Please reflect this on the landscaping plans. Councils arborist must approve the landscaping plans

Amenity

23. Noise from any fixed domestic plant must not be audible within a habitable room of any other residence during prohibited hours prescribed by the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

Building Services

24. The development must provide the capacity for television signal distribution to each dwelling unit and any satellite dish, antenna or similar structure must be designed and located at a single point to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

25. All building plant and equipment on the roofs, balcony areas, common areas and public thoroughfares is to be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Noise emitting plant equipment such as air conditioners, must be shielded with acoustic screening to prevent the transmission of noise having detrimental amenity impacts. The construction of any additional plant, machinery or other equipment, including but not limited to all service structures, down pipes, aerials, satellite dishes, air-conditioners, equipment, ducts, flues, all exhausts including car parking and communication equipment must include appropriate screening measures to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

26. All mechanical exhaust systems for the car park hereby approved must be located and sound attenuated to prevent noise and general nuisance to the occupants of the surrounding properties, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Department of Transport

27. Prior to the occupation of the development, all vehicle crossings on Burwood Highway must be removed, and the area reinstated to kerb and channel, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to the Head, Transport for Victoria.

Expiry

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

a) The development is not commenced within three (3) years from the date of issue of this permit;

b) The development is not completed within five (5) years from the date of this permit;

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.

MELWAYS REFERENCE 60 J6

Applicant: Imax Land (Australia) Pty Ltd

Zoning: Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 (RGZ1)

Overlays: Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 9 (SLO9)

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 11.03-1S Activity Centres

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 15.01-1S Urban Design

Clause 15.01-2S Building Design

Clause 15.01-5S Neighbourhood Character

Clause 15.02-1S Energy and Resource Efficiency

Clause 16.01-1S Housing Supply

Clause 16.01-1R Housing Supply – Metropolitan Melbourne

Clause 16.01-3S Housing Affordability

Clause 18.02-1S Sustainable Personal Transport

Clause 18.02-2S Public Transport

Clause 19.03-2S Infrastructure Design and Provision

Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 21.06 Housing

Clause 22.03 Residential Development

Clause 22.04 Tree Conservation

Clause 22.06 Activity Centres

Clause 22.10 Environmentally Sustainable Development

Clause 32.07 Residential Growth Zone Schedule 1

Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

Clause 53.18 Stormwater Management in Urban Developments

Clause 58 Apartment Developments

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Wattle

Subject site

18 Objector Properties

(72 outside of map)

North

Please note, there a number of objector properties which had multiple objections.

BACKGROUND

History

Planning application WH/2015/109 sought permission for the development of the land for a three storey building comprising 7 dwellings and reduction in car parking requirements at 129 Burwood Highway, Burwood and was approved in August 2015. This permit was never acted upon.

Planning Application WH/2014/746 sought planning permission for the use and development of the land for one 5 storey building and one 7 storey building comprising 206 dwellings and ground floor retail, reduction in car parking requirement and loading area, and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 for the land at 133 and 145 Burwood Highway, Burwood and was refused in 2015.

Planning application WH/2016/1131 sought planning approval for construction of a part five, part six storey building with two levels of basement car parking (comprising 60 dwellings), lower ground level food and drink premises (café), reduction of car parking, waiver of the loading and unloading bay requirements, and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1. The applicant lodged an application for review to VCAT against Council’s failure to determine the application within time, however the position of officers was that the application should not be supported. The Tribunal upheld the Council position and ordered that no permit issue.

Planning application WH/2018/258 sought approval for construction of part five, part six storey building with two levels of basement car parking (comprising of 50 dwellings). The application was refused by Council on 10 August 2020. The applicant lodged an application for review to VCAT of council’s decision. The Tribunal determined that the failings of the previous application had not been sufficiently addressed and again upheld the decision of Council, ordering that no permit issue.

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Burwood Highway and Roslyn Street, Burwood. The subject site has a frontage to Burwood Highway of approximately 47.5 metres, a frontage to Roslyn Street of approximately 30 metres and a total site area of approximately 1827 square metres.

The site was previously occupied by one dwelling on each of the three properties at 129, 131 and 133 Burwood Highway, with 129 Burwood Highway deriving vehicle access from Roslyn Street. Numbers 131 and 133 Burwood Highway obtain vehicular access from Burwood Highway. The buildings on each property were demolished in January 2017 and the lots were levelled (works that do not require planning approval).

The land has a fall from Burwood Highway toward the rear (south) of approximately 4.1 metres across the site. The finished surface level of the site is higher than the adjoining footpath to the south, with low brick front fences also serving as retaining walls. As part of the demolition works the site was levelled/battered to the footpaths. The subject site does not contain any vegetation as trees and shrubs were removed at the time when the buildings were demolished.

The site is located within walking distance of retail and other services, numerous education facilities including Deakin University, recreation areas including Wattle Park and located immediately opposite the Route 75 Tram line. Numerous buses provide easy access to nearby activity centres including the Box Hill MAC.

Burwood Highway is an arterial road running east-west, extending past the southern boundary of the subject site. In the vicinity of the site, Burwood Highway provides two traffic lanes in either direction separated by a dedicated central tramway. Kerbside parking is not permitted.

Roslyn Street is a local road running north-south, between Patterson Avenue in the north and Burwood Highway in the south. Roslyn Street operates as a two-way road, with kerbside parallel parking permitted on both sides of the road.

Figure 1 – Aerial imagery of the subject site.

The immediate context comprises:

South:

· Land on the opposite (south) side of Burwood Highway generally consists of properties located within the Burwood Village Shopping Centre and are all contained within a Commercial 2 Zone.

West:

· On the opposite side of Roslyn Street, at 123-127 Burwood Highway, is land in a Public Park and Recreation Zone, known as Roslyn Street Reserve. This local park contains children’s play equipment, trees, and open lawn area.

· Directly abutting the north-western section of the subject site is 2A Roslyn Street. This property is contained within the General Residential Zone, Schedule 1. It contains a single storey brick dwelling with attached double garage. The dwelling is oriented to the west (toward Roslyn Street). There is an undercover patio located at the rear. The dwelling has a blank wall constructed on the common (southern) boundary with the subject land and a range of habitable room windows in the east elevation of the dwelling. Secluded private open space adjoins the common western boundary with the subject land.

East:

· Land to the west of the subject site, up to the edge of Parer Street, is contained within the Residential Growth Zone Schedule 1.

· 135 Burwood Highway is currently occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling with gable roof. Private open space for this dwelling is located to its north (rear). Vehicle access is provided from the Burwood Highway.

· 137-139 Burwood Highway has a newly constructed five storey building comprising 50 dwellings.

North:

· To the north of the subject land, properties are contained within the General Residential Zone Schedule 1.

· 2 Roslyn Street is occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling, with a single vehicle carport in the frontage. Secluded private open space is located to the south of the dwelling, and adjoins the common boundary with the subject land.

The site is located within the Burwood Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre, which is centred around the intersection of Warrigal Road and Burwood Highway. It provides retail, education, office, civic, medical, community facilities, entertainment, dining and recreational opportunities, as well as a hub for local community activities.

The Burwood Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre Framework Plan was adopted by Council in December 2009 and was introduced as a reference document in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. This Framework Plan identified the area surrounding the subject site as being characterised by land used for the purposes of retail, office, light industrial and commercial uses, with a notable presence of motor vehicle sales. Built form was identified as eclectic, utilitarian commercial building forms of 1-3 storeys. The Framework Plan identified the subject land as presenting an opportunity for non-residential use or more intensive residential development. It was envisaged that this area would be suitable for substantial change, where built form would include three storey dwellings and medium density housing.

Planning Controls

The subject site is zoned Residential Growth Schedule 1, and is covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9.

Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 (RGZ1)

The purpose of the Residential Growth Zone includes:

· To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings.

· To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activity centres and town centres.

· To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential areas.

· To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

A permit is required for the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings.

Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 9 (SLO9)

The land is included in the Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 9), clause 42.03 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

A planning permit is required for buildings and working within 4 metres of protected trees. In this instance a planning permit is required for works within 4 metres of Tree 1 (Street Tree – along Roslyn Street frontage).

Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1

In accordance with Clause 52.29 (Access to a Road Zone, Category 1), planning permission is required for alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (Burwood Highway), including the removal of existing access points.

PROPOSAL

The proposal comprises the construction of an apartment style residential building (part 5-storey, part 6- storey in height), above two (2) levels of basement car parking. The building will contain 44 dwellings, 58 resident parking spaces and 7 visitor parking spaces) and the proposal includes alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (Burwood Highway).

Details of the proposal are as follows:

Lower Basement and Basement

· The basement contains two levels of car parking, storage cages, bicycle parking, lift and stair access and water tanks/building services.

· The basement levels comprise a total of 58 car parking spaces for residents.

· The lower ground floor comprises 12 residential and 2 visitor car parking spaces.

· Both levels of the basement will be setback 2.0 metres from the site’s northern boundary, and 3 metres from the eastern boundary.

Lower Ground Floor

· The lower ground comprises storage cages, 9 car parking spaces (2 residents and 7 visitors), bicycle parking, lift and stair access, substation/ building services, waste storage room and lobby area.

· Pedestrian access to the apartment building via the southern interface (Burwood Highway), which leads to a lobby area, with direct access to the mail room, bicycle workshop, as well as the lift and stair access.

· Ground level footprint is set back three metres (minimum) from the eastern boundary (interface with 135 Burwood Highway) and four metres from the southern boundary (Burwood Highway), with terraces and landscaping within the southern setback area.

· The south eastern portion of the building at this level comprises three dwellings of mixed typologies (two x 1-bedroom and one x 2-bedroom dwelling).

Ground Level

· Vehicular access to the car parking areas via a crossover (5.5 metres wide) on Roslyn Street.

· There are 10 dwellings located at the ground floor comprising a mix of two and three bedroom typologies (eight x 2-bedroom, two x 3-bedroom dwellings).

· Given the fall of the land to the east, dwellings identified on the plans as G.07, G.08, G.09 and G.10 are provided with ground level terraces (between 44.86 square metres and 164.8 square metres). Other dwellings on this level have balconies ranging from 8 to 14.5 square metres. The terraces and balconies will have aspect toward landscape zones around the site’s edges.

· The ground floor level is set back a minimum of 4 metres from the northern boundary, 3.05 metres from the eastern boundary, 4 metres from the southern boundary (Burwood Highway), 3 metres from Roslyn Street and between 6.1 to 12.5 metres from 2a Roslyn Street (western boundary).

First Floor

· Twelve (12) dwellings are located at first floor level comprising a mix of one, two and three bedroom typologies (4 x 1-bedroom, 6 x 2-bedroom and 2 x 3-bedroom).

· Dwelling balconies range in size from 8.3 square metres to 18.6 square metres.

· A ‘T-shaped’ central corridor provides access from the lift and stairwell to apartments, which has been provided with an operable window for natural ventilation and light.

· The first floor level has been set back a minimum of 4 metres from the northern boundary, 3.05 metres from the eastern boundary, 4 metres from Burwood Highway, 3 metres from Roslyn Street and between 6.1 to 12.5 metres from 2a Roslyn Street (western boundary).

Second Floor

· Nine (9) dwellings are located at second floor level comprising a mix of one, two and three bedroom typologies (2 x 1-bedroom, 6 x 2-bedroom, 1 x 3-bedroom).

· Dwelling balconies range in size from 8.3 square metres to 26.78 square metres.

· A ‘T-shaped’ central corridor provides access from the lift and stairwell to apartments, which has been provided with an operable window for natural ventilation and light.

· The second floor level has been set back a minimum of 10.375 metres from the northern boundary, 5.02 metres from the eastern boundary, 4 metres from Burwood Highway, 3 metres from Roslyn Street and 11.2 metres from 2a Roslyn Street (western boundary).

Third Floor

· Eight (8) dwellings are located at third floor level comprising a mix of one, two and three bedroom typologies (3 x 1-bedroom, 4 x 2-bedroom, 1 x 3-bedroom).

· Dwelling balconies range in size from 8.47 square metres to 15.7 square metres.

· A ‘T-shaped’ central corridor provides access from the lift and stairwell to apartments, which has been provided with an operable window for natural ventilation and light.

· The third floor level has been set back a minimum of 13.075 metres from the northern boundary, 5.02 metres from the eastern boundary, 4 metres from Burwood Highway, between 3 metres and 20.2 metres from Roslyn Street and 11.2 metres from 2a Roslyn Street (western boundary).

Fourth Floor

· Two (2) dwellings are located at fourth floor level which are both 3-bedroom dwellings.

· Dwelling balconies range in size from 17.1 square metres to 26.5 square metres.

· A communal area of 152.85 square metres, comprising of an outdoor terrace space of 110.83 square metres and an indoor area of 42.02 square metres.

· An ‘L-shaped’ central corridor provides access from the lift and stairwell to apartments, which has been provided with an operable window for natural ventilation and light.

· The fourth floor level has been set back a minimum of 19.5 metres from the northern boundary, 8.64 metres from the eastern boundary, 8 metres from Burwood Highway, 3 metres from 2 Roslyn Street and 11.2 metres from 2a Roslyn Street (western boundary).

General

· Maximum building height of approximately 21 m above natural ground level (including a 1.4m high lift overrun and plant area).

· The building utilises a varied palette of contemporary materials of precast concrete panels, masonry and metal cladding.

· The building presents as four storey built form to 2a and 2 Roslyn Street due to the fall of the land and six storeys in part, along Burwood Highway and five storeys along Roslyn Street frontage.

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent property owners and occupiers and by erecting two notices on site, along Roslyn Street and Burwood Highway frontage. Following the advertising period one hundred and forty four (144) objections were received. The issues raised in the objections can be summarised into the following key themes:

a) Amenity impacts –

i. Overlooking

ii. Overshadowing

iii. Increased noise from use and from services

iv. Emission of dust and dirt on the road

v. Noise and headlight impact of the basement ramp adjacent to a bedroom wall.

vi. Reduced safety.

vii. Impact on personal health and wellbeing.

viii. Construction impacts

b) Neighbourhood character –

i. Building height is out of keeping with the neighbourhood

ii. Part five, part six-storey built form is too close to General Residential Zoned dwellings to the north

iii. Inadequate setbacks and transitions provided to surrounding residential lots.

iv. Insufficient tree planting, not in character with the surrounding area.

c) Internal Amenity

i. Insufficient private and communal open space

ii. Lack of amenity services for future residents.

d) Car parking and traffic –

i. Increased traffic along Roslyn Street and surrounding residential streets

ii. Impact of additional traffic on the intersection of Burwood Highway

iii. Insufficient on-site car parking

iv. Visitors to apartments will not typically utilise basement parking provided

v. Increased demand – on-street parking

vi. Suitability of the entry location to the proposed basement, off Roslyn Street.

vii. Traffic and pedestrian safety impacts

e) Landscaping –

i. Insufficient landscaping, out of character.

ii. Impact on existing vegetation

f) Compliance with planning controls –

i. Contrary to Zone and Policy requirements.

g) Non-planning matters –

i. Negative impact on surrounding property values.

ii. Increased pressure on local infrastructure.

iii. This is the third application for this site.

iv. Profiteering.

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum was held on Monday 19 October 2020 via teleconference (Zoom). Approximately 18 objectors attended the meeting, which was chaired by an external planning consultant, and also attended by 3 planning officers

Objectors raised general issues relating to amenity, particularly overshadowing, overlooking, loss of views, noise (from waste collection, air conditioning, waste collection and vehicle movements), visual impact, setbacks and traffic and parking. The issues that drew most discussion on the night related to:

· Neighbourhood character in terms of the height and appearance of the proposed building.

· Adequate car parking and traffic disruptions to other residential properties including during construction.

· Extent of trees that have been removed from site and concern about replanting of trees only being minimal.

· Direct impact of the development on adjoining properties at 2 and 2A Roslyn Street and 135 Burwood Highway.

· Landscape maintenance, particularly after the development has been constructed.

Despite a robust conversation amongst parties attending the forum, no resolution of issues were explored. Subsequently no resolution was reached between the parties.

Referrals

External

Department of Transport (DOT)

The application was referred to the Department of Transport as a determining authority for the proposed alterations of vehicular access to Burwood Highway.

DOT has no objection to the proposed alterations along Burwood Highway, subject to conditional requirements.

Internal

Engineering and Environmental Services Department

Transport Engineer

No objection subject to conditions for the provision of a Car Parking Management Plan.

Waste Engineer

No objection subject to conditions.

Assets Engineer

The proposal was referred to Council's Asset Engineers who does not object to the proposed development subject to:

· The design inclusion for and the construction of an outfall drain along the full length of the easement to cater for upstream properties east side Roselyn Street.

· Amended plans to show the alignment of the Sewer and proposed outfall drain in easement on all plans and elevations (showing sufficient clearances from both Sewer, drain and building).

· Standard drainage conditions.

Planning Arborist

The application was referred to Council’s Planning Arborist who does not object, subject to tree protection conditions and amended plans to show the correct location of Tree 3.

ESD Advisor

The application was referred to Council's ESD Advisor who does not object to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of conditions on any approval issued.

Urban Design

Urban Design comments were sought by Council from Hansen Partnership on the submitted plans. These comments were generally favourable of the proposal. A number of recommendations were made, which are summarised as follows:

Materials and Finishes

· Provide some horizontal separation (100 – 200mm) between the masonry lower ground and the precast concrete over to assist with articulation of the architectural form. The precast could site proud of the finished masonry line.

· Provide a different colour/material to the massing above and behind the masonry façade to Roslyn Street. This will assist in defining this mass separately to the south west corner mass.

· Introduce a range of materials that will be used to screen the west facing windows fronting Roslyn Street and the dwelling at 2A Roslyn Street. These could include timber or metal and can be effectively used to provide further articulation to the façade. This will also contribute to improved amenity for residents.

· Identify a suitable material to exposed soffits of balconies that extend from the building line.

· Confirm that the colour of the precast is integral to the concrete mix and not a painted finish.

· Identify a different colour to the vertical element at the north western internal junction to assist in further articulation of the building massing.

Adjoining uses

We consider that all windows to habitable rooms and balcony spaces that are less than 4.5m from the common boundary between the subject site and the adjacent site at 135 Burwood Highway to the East should be adequately screened to prevent future overlooking, or preferably set back 4.5m from the boundary to ensure future equitable development. We note that the drawings suggest a 1700mm high screen to affected windows with 25% visual permeability. We question whether this provides adequate screening to neighbouring properties. Screens should either be fully opaque or translucent.

Activation

· Refine the ground level to make use of the roof spaces over the lower ground floor – preferably as external balconies to the ground level apartments. This may require some internal reconfiguration.

· Extend uses along the southern façade that activate the lower ground level. For example, swap the bicycle workshop and switchroom with a dedicated entrance to the bicycle workshop fronting Burwood Highway.

· Provide the Primary entrance to Apartments LG 1 directly from the street with access via the lobby considered secondary.

· Provide the primary entrance to Apartment G.01 From Roslyn Street with access from the internal corridor considered secondary. We note that a fence and gate is indicated on the plan. The main entrance should be consistent with an entrance off Roslyn Street commensurate with the character of other entrances in the neighbouring residential area to the north, and should include a street address, post box, and not be concealed behind a tall fence (greater than one metre) and gate.

· Extend the balcony (or alternatively include an external deck area) to apartment G.01 near the south west corner of the apartment to improve surveillance over Roslyn Street and to break up the extent of terraced landscape treatment fronting Roslyn Street at the South West corner of the proposed development.

· Provide a direct entrance to Apartment G.10 from Roslyn Street. This should be treated as the primary access with the internal corridor access considered secondary. The primary entrance should be consistent with an entrance off Roslyn Street commensurate with the character of other entrances in the neighbouring residential area to the north, and should include a street address, post box, and not be concealed behind a tall fence (greater than one metre) and gate.

· We do not support the inclusion of a 2m high fence in the location between the existing dwelling at 2A Rosslyn Street, and the driveway entrance ramp. We consider that this results in a concealed set back area that would be potential unsafe and is contrary to accepted CPTED principles. We note that the fence is labelled ‘acoustic’ which we consider of dubious merit and unclear as to its purpose. The landscape strip should be redesigned to afford good surveillance along this corridor space, including the primary access path and main entrance to apartment G10.

Landscape Architect

The application was referred to Council Landscape Architect who does not object, however, have requested a greater number of large canopy trees to be planted.

ParksWide

The proposal was referred to Council's ParksWide Department who does not object, subject to the inclusion of conditions on any approval issued to protect the street tree in Roslyn Street.

Strategic Planning

The proposal was referred to Council's Strategic Team who did not object to the proposed development however have provided the following comments:

· It is considered that greater side setbacks of 4.5 metres should be incorporated at the lower levels of the building to enhance amenity, protect equitable development rights, and provide for adequate landscaping between buildings. A greater rear setback is also encouraged to manage the transition to the adjacent GRZ land.

· The proposed design presents a four to five storey podium to Burwood Highway however, we suggest that the top two levels should be recessive in the streetscape, with a three to four storey podium presentation to Burwood Highway. This would assist in alleviating the visual impact of the tall building and would appear to be more in keeping with the approved development at 137-139 Burwood Highway. It would be helpful to view a Burwood Highway streetscape elevation that encompasses all properties between Roslyn Street to Parer Street in order to fully consider the scale of the proposed building in comparison to the development under construction to the east.

DISCUSSION

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant state and local planning policies, the zone and overlay and the relevant particular provisions and general provision of the Scheme.

The following assessment is made under the headings:

· Response to previous VCAT Decisions;

· Planning policy frameworks;

· Design and built form;

· On-site and off-site amenity;

· Car parking, access, traffic and bicycle facilities; and,

· Objectors’ concerns not previously addressed.

Response to previous VCAT Decisions

As outlined in the background section of this report, the site has had two previous VCAT determinations, both of which upheld Council refusals. It is therefore considered that a key area of assessment for the current application is how the proposal addresses the failings identified in both of the previous VCAT decisions.

In the 2017 VCAT decision, the Tribunal made the following key findings:

· That the redevelopment of the site in the form of a multi-storey apartment building is supported by policy.

· That the site and its neighbours between Parer Street and Roslyn Street front Burwood Highway have a somewhat unique setting.

· That while exceeding the anticipated four-storey height referred to in the zone purpose and provisions, the inclusion of a recessive top floor can be supported, subject to a reduction in its extent to achieve a responsive outcome to the GRZ which adjoins the land.

· That the proposed front setback of between 4.0 metres to 6.0 metres can be considered to be acceptable.

· That from an overall built form perspective, the development was too tall at the rear of the site where it was proximate to the GRZ properties.

· That it was too tall and positioned too close to the boundary and that there was insufficient justification for the construction of a five-storey built form in the rear portion of the site.

The more recent VCAT decision focussed extensively on the matter of the interface with 135 Burwood Highway, 2A and 2 Roslyn Street and the acceptability of the communal space location. In the order dated 7/8/19, Senior Member Naylor outlined the following commentary relating to these matters:

· The Council considers this new design has failed to strike the right balance between facilitating increased residential densities in an area earmarked for substantial change, and respecting and tempering the built form because it interfaces with other residential land in Roslyn Street that has a lesser expectation for change. The Council submits the development is seeking too much and creates a dominating building form that is greater than what is expected in this context. The residents share these concerns (paragraph 4).

· Surrounding residents also have many other concerns about the proposal including the height, shape and materials of the building; the suitability of the vehicle access location; the parking and traffic generation; and the amenity impacts on adjoining properties (paragraph 5).

· This proposal has satisfactorily addressed many of the previous decision’s concerns about the design of the built form and the vehicle access location. The parking provision is acceptable (paragraph 6).

· There are aspects of this proposal that are not acceptable including the proposed communal open space areas, and the stepping of the built form in Roslyn Street and in proximity to Nos. 2A and 2 Roslyn Street (paragraph 7).

The Tribunal went on to conclude at paragraphs 8 and 9:

· On the one hand, these unacceptable aspects of the design can be changed. But, on the other hand, they are not capable of being changed through planning permit conditions or an interim decision allowing for changes. This is because it is likely that the changes required will result in consequential modifications to matters such as the number of apartments and hence the number of car spaces, the presentation of each streetscape elevation, and the location and extent of communal open space.

· If these aspects of the proposal can be acceptably addressed through a new permit application, an intense development of this site would be acceptable.

In summary, any proposal must adequately consider the following areas of findings:

a) The acceptability of a five to six storey apartment building on this site;

b) The Residential Growth Zone interface with the General Residential Zone;

c) The acceptability of the rear interface with Nos. 2A and 2 Roslyn Street that are zoned General Residential including amenity impacts of overlooking and visual bulk;

d) The acceptability of the location and design of the vehicle access, the parking provision and the traffic generation;

e) The acceptability of the streetscape presentations to Burwood Highway and Roslyn Street; and

f) The provision and design of the communal open space areas.

The following responses are provided against each of the above key finding.

a) The acceptability of a five to six storey apartment building on this site;

Since the date of the above VCAT decision, the wider context of the site has changed, with the recently developed five storey apartment building at No. 137-139 Burwood Highway. On the basis of the contextual change, officers concede that the possibility of a part 5, part 6 storey built form on the subject site will not present as much as an alienating structure. Rather the attention needs to be focused on the design elements and landscape response which would aid the transition of built form to the abutting low scale, existing dwellings to the north a west of the site.

Concerning the eastern interface with property No. 135 Burwood Highway, the proposal has provided for an appropriate design transition, which is discussed in further detail in a later section of this report.

b) The Residential Growth Zone interface with the General Residential Zone;

c) The acceptability of the rear interface with Nos. 2A and 2 Roslyn Street that are zoned General Residential including amenity impacts of overlooking and visual bulk;

The above matters are further assessed in later sections of this report and therefore do not need to be repeated. However, the following key points are noted in relation to the revised scheme:

· The proposal provides for increase setbacks to both properties at 2A and 2 Roslyn Street from those provided in previous applications, and with further conditions relating to the deletion of Dwelling 3.01, the proposal will provide for appropriate tiering of built form along these interfaces.

· Subject to conditions, the proposal will achieve a high level of compliance with regards to overlooking. This is due to the substantive setback of building form from both boundaries.

d) The acceptability of the location and design of the vehicle access, the parking provision and the traffic generation;

Council’s transport engineer and the Department of Transport have identified no concern relating to the location of the proposed crossover. Objectors however have raised concerns, relating to noise and car headlights accessing and exiting the basement. It is noted that the applicant has included the provision for a 2.0 metres high acoustic fence along the shared northern boundary with 2A Roslyn Street running the full length of the frontage setback.

Additionally, the proposal will incorporate a 3.0 metre wide landscaping buffer with appropriate planting along this boundary setback. Overall, it is accepted that adequate measures have been provided to ensure the concerns regarding impact on the adjoining property at 2A Roslyn associated with noise and light spill are mitigated.

e) The acceptability of the streetscape presentations to Burwood Highway and Roslyn Street;

Concerning the built form presentation, along Burwood highway, this matter has been explored in the earlier section of this report.

From the perspective of Roslyn Street presentation, it is noted that the proposal will present, for the most part, as a double storey built form, adjacent to 2A Roslyn Street. The proposal has also allowed for an increase setback above the first floor level along this street frontage and the deletion of the wrap-around communal terrace is also a positive reduction. Overall it is considered that the proposal has offered for a more refined design response, with appropriate transitioning along Roslyn Street compared to previous design scheme, presented at the VCAT hearing.

f) The provision and design of the communal open space areas.

The proposed design has allowed for the relocation and combining of the communal open space, to be located on level 4, at the south-west corner of the building. It is considered that the overall location of this area is appropriate, given it is situated well away from the property at 2A Roslyn Street and will be of appropriate size and dimension.

In summary, it is considered that the current proposal has adequately addressed the key failings identified in both VCAT decisions.

Planning Policy Framework

The above discussion outlines the history and context of the site and the previous development applications, which is important in ‘setting the scene’ for how this current application has been approached in its design and layout, and subsequently, how it is to be assessed.

Despite the repeat appeal principals set out by VCAT, and which must be given some weight in assessing this application, the following policy framework must continue to be considered in the assessment of the proposal.

When assessing the proposal against both state and local policies, there is clear support for development of the land in terms of urban consolidation and a proposed increase in density. Specific reference is made at clause 16.01-1S and 16.01-1R of the scheme as to what constitutes a strategic redevelopment site. While the subject site is not identified in the planning scheme as a key strategic redevelopment site, it displays many attributes that define a large redevelopment site as outlined within these clauses.

State policy provides strategic support for consolidating urban areas which are well connected to facilities including public transport and services, especially areas which are close to an activity centre. The subject site is well serviced by infrastructure (including public transport) and community services. Development of the subject site would ensure efficient use of infrastructure and is consistent with state policy which directs higher density residential development to these areas that are well serviced.

These objectives are further developed at a local level through the Local Planning Policy Framework. Clause 21.06 Housing recognises the need to reduce developmental pressure on areas of established environmental or heritage values through infill residential development and consolidation. This notion is implemented through the separation of Whitehorse’s residential land into three category of change areas that seek to channel increased housing densities around activity centres and main roads, where greater facilities and services are available. Such areas are referred to as Substantial Change areas.

The higher density outcomes for Substantial Change areas are controlled through the implementation of the Neighbourhood Character Study 2014, which establishes a preferred neighbourhood character for, and further separates residential land into three precincts. These sub-precincts all anticipate increased housing densities, however, with varied built form outcomes to provide for appropriate transitions between precincts, and to more sensitive adjoining residential areas to direct appropriately graduated built form and minimise amenity impacts.

Contextually, the site meets the fundamental principles for urban consolidation which are sought at both the State and Local levels. High quality urban design outcomes are achieved that will contribute positively to the public realm and urban fabric. Subject to conditions, the development proposes a scale and intensity which is appropriate to the neighbourhood and site context, and is generally consistent with the strategic intentions of local policy.

The Residential Growth zoning of the site encourages increased densities within apartment buildings of up to, and including four storeys and with a preferred maximum heights of up to 14.5 metres. The proposal will provide for a maximum building height of approximately 21 metres (including a 1.4 metre high lift overrun and plant area). While it is acknowledged that the building will be taller than the existing built form to the north east and west, however, it is generally consistent with the recently completed development at 137-139 Burwood Highway. Additionally, given the site has an unusually large area (of nearly 1900 square metres), and a substantial frontage width to Burwood Hwy, this in itself supports a greater intensity of built from. The development also offers increased housing diversity to support the changing demographics and ageing population, and greater housing choice from the traditional single homes which continue to characterise much of the municipality.

Overall, the proposed development supports the key vision objectives which encourage a higher density and innovative contemporary design by providing residential development in a location that is highly accessible to services and infrastructure. In that regard it is consistent with policy.

Design and built form

Building Scale and Massing

The proposal comprises a 6 storey residential development with an approximate maximum building height of 21 metres above natural ground level (including a 1.4m high lift overrun and plant area). It is noted that, the site benefits from a fall of 5.3m from the north-west to the south east corners (approximately 1.5 storeys). Consequently, as viewed from the rear of 2 Roslyn Street, the proposed building presents as a 4 storey building and from the Roslyn Street frontage as a 5 storey building.

The sectional diagrams submitted with the application provide a more tangible depiction of the actual building height at varying points across the site. They also demonstrate that the more substantial part-five and part-six storey building heights are confined to the south-west and south-east part of the building respectively ie fronting Burwood Highway. As mentioned above, the north and east part of the building (located toward the rear boundary and Roslyn street frontage) achieves an approximate 8 metre building height, with a two storey scale.

The substantial site area and location of the site upon the prominent and busy Burwood Highway suitably justifies a more “robust” built form as presented to the streetscape. The “stepping” of the building down toward the rear, as a response to the sensitive interface is an appropriate design response. This further gives due consideration to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Due to the sheer length of the site frontage (over 47.5 metres) the six storey elements enable the building to appear vertically proportionate to the horizontal span of built form across the Burwood Highway frontage. Without it, the built form is likely to be at odds with usual residential proportions.

The sixth storey is also appropriately treated in a contrasting darker colour to provide a “capping” effect, which acts to reduce the perceived height, whilst contributing to the overall interest and design detailing. Its location is suitably inset from the side and rear boundaries, and is overall a recessive element to both the streetscape and neighbouring perspectives.

Along the Roslyn Street interface, it is considered that the stepped down design approach to the built form is appropriate. As demonstrated in the above image, the highest portion of the built form will be located towards the south-west corner of the site. Where the site interface with the properties at 2 and 2A Roslyn Street, the built form will reduce to a typical height of 1 to 2 storeys, with the remaining upper levels displaying greater recession through increased setbacks. This has allowed the built form to present a scale, as described in the urban design report, ‘that is reminiscent of the prevailing residential typology’ along Roslyn Street.

Overall, while the maximum height exceeds the preferred maximum height of 14.5 metres, the overall height is considered appropriate due to the length of the site frontage, and is appropriate with regard to this specific site and neighbourhood context.

Building Setbacks

Along the street frontages, (Burwood Highway and Roslyn Street) the proposal incorporates minimum setbacks of 4.0 metre and 3.0 metres, respectively. It is acknowledged that these setbacks are at the minimum end of the preferred setbacks outlined in the Burwood Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre, however, they are considered acceptable as they are generally in-line with the current setbacks of the recently developed apartment building at 137-139 Burwood Highway and the property at 2A Roslyn Street.

In relation to side setbacks the following are proposed:

· Along the northern interface with properties 2 and 2A Roslyn Street:

2 Roslyn Street – 2.0 metres at each basement level and lower ground level, 4.0 metres at ground and level 1, 10.3 metres at level 2 (with 2.0 balcony encroachment into this setback), varying setbacks of 12.4 metres and 13.0 metres (with 3 metres balcony encroachment) at 3 level and at 19.5 metres at level 6 (with 4 metres balcony encroachment).

2A Roslyn Street – 3.0 metres at each basement level and up to level 1, 5.0 metres at second floor, 10 metres at level 3 and level 4.

· Along the eastern interface with 135 Burwood highway, given there is an existing 3.05 metre drainage easement, the building is setback a minimum of this distance at each basement level, lower ground level, first floor level. These setbacks increase in width for the portion which is running parallel with existing dwelling at 135 Burwood Highway, with varying setbacks of between 5.0 metres to 6.4 metres. This setback is further increased at level 2 and level 3. The final fourth level is setback a minimum of 8.6 metres from the eastern boundary.

It is noted that, pursuant to Clause 32.07-10 (Buildings on lots that abut another residential zone) of the Residential Growth Zone, any buildings and works constructed on a lot that abuts land which is in General Residential Zone (GRZ) must meet the ResCode requirements of clauses 55.03-5, 55.04-1, 55.04-2, 55.04-3, 55.04-5 and 55.04-6 along that boundary.

In this instance, the site abuts land zoned GRZ with the adjoining properties at 2 and 2A Roslyn Street, therefore the proposed setbacks the building must meet the requirement of Clause 55.04-1 (side and rear setbacks – Standard B17). The proposal has exceeded the required setbacks of Standard B17 along these interfaces, as demonstrated in the section diagram below.

Figure 2 – Section diagram showing B17 – setback compliance with property at 2 Roslyn Street.

Notwithstanding these setbacks, officers remain concerned that the extent of visual bulk, presented by the proximity of Dwelling 2.01’s balcony area and the entire dwelling 3.01 when viewed from the east facing habitable room windows of 2A Roslyn Street. Subsequently, it is considered that dwelling 3.01 should be deleted and the balcony area of Dwelling 2.01 should be recessed into the building line. This will enable a clear ‘L’ shape built with a greater setback to reduce the impact on the adjoining property at 2A Roslyn Street.

Concerning the eastern interface with 135 Burwood Highway, it is noted that the proposal will present as a four storey built form when viewed from the rear secluded private open space area of this dwelling. The built form along this interface achieves varying recessions above level 1. At level 2 and 3, along this interface, the proposal will achieve a minimum setback of 6.4 metres. This is considered appropriate and will not restrict the equitable development opportunity of the property at No. 135 Burwood Highway in the longer term, nor importantly, the immediate amenity of this property.

Overall the proposed building setbacks are considered acceptable and are considered to respond appropriately to both the existing and emerging built form and building appearance.

Materials and Architectural composition

As identified earlier in this report, urban design comments were sought by Council from Hansen Partnership. Having regard to the architectural composition, the urban design comments identify only small issues which can be addressed through permit conditions.

Regarding material composition, the following recommendations were provided:

· Provide some horizontal separation (100 – 200mm) between the masonry lower ground level and the precast concrete over to assist with articulation of the architectural form. The precast could sit proud of the finished masonry line.

· Provide a different colour/material to the massing above and behind the masonry façade to Roslyn Street. This will assist in defining this mass separately to the south west corner mass.

· Identify a suitable material to exposed soffits of balconies that extend from the building line.

· Confirm that the colour of the precast is integral to the concrete mix and not a painted finish.

· Identify a different colour to the vertical element at the north western internal junction to assist in further articulation of the building massing.

Planning officers agree with most of the above recommendations, and have sought to formulate appropriate conditions to be included on approval granted. The only recommendation that will not be utilised relate to the ‘vertical element at the north western internal junction’. This is not considered necessary as officers has sought for the deletion of Dwelling 3.01.

Public Realm

The treatment of the interfaces between buildings and public spaces to enhance the visual and social experience of residents is an important assessment given the site has two street interfaces. The site is vacant and the construction of a modern building with ground floor lobbies, and outdoor spaces is a significant improvement and provides an opportunity for improved surveillance and activation at both street levels. Through the activation of the ground floor, the building will provide interaction at street level where there currently is none. In this respect, the proposal represents an improvement in the streetscape, public space quality and perceived safety.

Off-site and on-site amenity

Overshadowing

Given the location and orientation of the site, together with the stepped down design for the northern part of the building, shadow diagrams submitted with the application documents demonstrate the shadow impact of the development would not result in unreasonable impact to the existing residential properties at 2A Roslyn Street (north-east) and 135 Burwood Highway (west) of the site.

Overall, the proposal will achieve adequate compliance with the Clause 55.04-5, overshadowing of open spaces (Standard B21). The dwellings at 2A Roslyn Street and 135 Burwood Highway would receive a minimum of 5 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm which complies with the requirements of Clause 55.04-5.

Overlooking

As noted throughout the report, the site abuts sensitive interfaces to the north at 2 Roslyn Street and north-west at 2A Roslyn Street. Both these properties are single storey and the proposed building interfaces with the secluded private open space of these properties. The requirements of clause 32.07-10 of the Scheme (Buildings on lots that abut another residential zone) apply specifically to these interfaces and the proposed development must meet these requirements as well as meeting the requirements of Clause 55.04-6 (Standard B22 Overlooking) along these boundaries.

The proposed building will present balconies orientated to the north and west, within 9 metres of the respective boundary, at first floor and second floor which creates the potential for overlooking. It is acknowledged that the majority of the balconies and habitable room windows have screening proposed, meeting the requirement of Standard B22. However, of concern is the north facing balcony of Dwelling 2.09 which appears to be unscreened. As the edge of this balcony area is within 9 metres of the northern boundary, screening is required in order to achieve compliance. This can be addressed by way of conditions, should a permit be issued, requiring compliance with Standard B22.

With regard to the remaining balconies at level 3 and level 4, it is noted that these balconies exceed the setback requirement of 9.0 metres from the common boundaries, therefore, these balconies are not required to be screened.

Clause 58 Assessment

Planning officers have assessed the proposal against the requirements of Clause 58, Apartment Developments and the Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria. The proposed apartments are considered to deliver high quality, functional and efficient accommodation and associated open space. A summary of key assessments include:

· Standard D7 (Communal Open Space)

The proposal includes the provision of a 110 square metre communal terrace area, to be located on level 4, at the south-west corner of the building. It is considered that the overall location and size of the communal terrace is appropriate. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that the majority of this area will receive adequate sunlight throughout the day.

· Standard D10 (Landscaping)

The application proposes canopy trees along the periphery of the site, at ground level. The proposal provides for approximately 184 square metres of deep soil planting area within the rear yard of dwelling G.09. This area is nominated for the purpose of planting canopy trees plantings, which is generally in accordance with Standard D10 requirements.

Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed the submitted landscape plans and has stated that provision for additional large trees should be considered for the site, specifically along the north and within the setback area adjacent to 2A Roslyn Street. While officers acknowledge the desire to increase the number of larger trees to be planted onsite, it is noted that Schedule 1 of the RGZ only requires the provision of one canopy tree that has the potential of reaching a minimum mature height of 8 metres.

In this respect, the proposal has met both the requirement of Standard D10 and the varied Landscaping requirement, outlined within Schedule 1 of the RGZ.

With respect to canopy tree planting within the eastern drainage easement. While council policy does not support the planting of canopy trees within this area, it is noted that this easement area is under the control of Yarra Valley Water. Based on the submitted landscape plans, the applicant has indicated that the proposed tree planting along this area is in compliance with Yarra Valley Water trees and sewer pipe guidelines.

Canopy trees are also proposed within the frontage setback of Burwood Highway. This is considered appropriate in providing for the softening of the proposed built form, and is generally consistent with the recently constructed building at 137 -139 Burwood Highway.

· Standard D14 (Building setback)

Daylight to new dwellings and views into habitable room windows of new and existing dwellings requires further consideration and is listed in conditions for any approval granted, as has been described earlier in this report.

To the north and north-west of the site the side and rear setback exceeds the Standard B17 requirement. Concerning the eastern side setbacks, the minimum equity setback of 4.5 metres from the common boundary has been achieved from level 2 upwards. However the site backs on to the habitable windows of the immediate dwellings east of the site. All east facing windows and balcony spaces situated less than 9 metres from the eastern boundary are proposed with appropriate screening.

A total of 18 of the proposed 44 dwellings are south facing, which equates to approximately 40.0% of all dwellings. Given the orientation of the land, which presents a challenge to achieve greater numbers of dwellings not facing south, this ratio is acceptable as these dwellings will have direct interface to Burwood Highway, hence maintaining adequate daylight access into the living area of each respective dwelling.

· Standard D17 (Accessibility)

The submitted plans provide over 50% of the dwellings with 0.850 mm door openings, entry path widths and access from bedrooms to habitable rooms. Additionally, the proposal has incorporated a central lift area which provides access to all level of the building, including the basement, therefore providing convenient access for those with limited mobility. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with the requirements of Standard D17.

· Standard D19 (Private open space)

Ratios of private open space in relation to apartment sizes/numbers of bedrooms is not compliant for a number of dwellings. Whilst the proposal has achieved compliance with minimum area requirements, it has failed to achieve the minimum width requirements in particular the apartment labelled type 3F, where the angle splay of the balconies’ design results in non-compliance. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that a variation to the standard is appropriate in this instance as these dwellings (of which there are two) will be provided with two balconies areas, both accessible from the main living zone.

· Standard D20 (Storage)

Storage capabilities have been provided within the basement area of the proposed development and comply with the requirement of Standard D20.

· Standard D24 (Functional layout)

Room depth calculations are unclear, although a manual calculation shows that they appear to achieve compliance. Requirements for apartment room dimensions, room depth and ceiling height ratios are sufficiently addressed in the ESD condition requirements.

Car parking, access, traffic and bicycle facilities

Clause 52.06-2 requires resident car parking to be provided at a rate of 1 space for each dwelling with one or two bedrooms, and 2 spaces for each dwelling with three or more bedrooms. Therefore there is a statutory rate for the proposal to provide 52 resident car spaces. A total of 52 spaces are provided for residents.

Amendment VC148 was introduced into the planning scheme on 31 July 2018 making changes to the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06. As a result of this amendment, any land within 400 metres of the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) Area as shown on the Principal Public Transport Network Area Maps (referred to in Column B of Table 1) does not require visitor car parking to be provided on site.

This site falls within the PPTN, therefore no visitor parking is required to be provided on the site. Despite this, the proposal provides 7 spaces for visitors. Had the previous scheme rate of 1 visitor space per 5 dwellings been applied, 8 visitor spaces would have been required for the proposal. As such, the provision of 7 visitor spaces is considered generous.

There are a total of 65 car spaces to be provided on site, which exceeds the statutory rate by 13 spaces. Given the absence of available on-street car parking in the immediate vicinity, the higher parking provision is a positive attribute, and goes a long way to addressing a major concern raised by objectors.

Waste collection can occur within the basement though it is reliant on the use of the accessway adjacent to the waste room to facilitate collection. This is considered an issue for vehicle movements within the basement during collection time. It is considered that a designated area should be provided for the parking of the waste collection vehicle, within the visitor areas further north on collection days, to resolve this conflict. It is noted that the site will be serviced by private waste collection, not Council collection. Additional requirements for the allocated visitors parking spaces to be appropriately sign marked are to form part of the Waste Management Plan and the Car Parking Management Plan, in which pick up times will be detailed to be generally outside of peak visiting hours to reduce the potential for conflict.

Council’s Engineers are supportive of proposal, subject to some further conditional requirements, generally relating to the provision of a Car Parking Management Plan and the requirement for the ramp grades to the basement to achieve compliance with the requirement of AS 2891.2.

Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1

A permit is required under Clause 52.29 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme as the proposal involves alterations to access and the removal of the existing crossovers along Burwood Highway.

The Depart of Transport, as the relevant referral authority, are satisfied with the proposed access arrangements as detailed within the proposed development, and have provided a conditional approval subject to standard conditions.

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

The development is required to provide 1 bicycle space to each 5 dwellings for residents, and 1 space to each 10 dwellings for visitors. Accordingly, the development is required to provide 13 spaces, with 9 for residents and 4 for visitors. A total of 51 bicycle spaces are provided for the development, with the majority of spaces located within the basement car parking, however, 8 bicycle parking spaces are located within the front setback (Burwood Highway frontage), adjacent to the building’s entry lobby area.

Objectors’ concerns not previously addressed

Contrary to Zone and policy non-compliances

As detailed within the above assessment, the proposal is consistent with both State and Local objectives that seek to increase housing densities in areas surrounding existing services, jobs, public transport and infrastructure, in order to accommodate Melbourne’s anticipated population growth in a sustainable manner.

As demonstrated earlier in the report, the proposal achieves compliance with the relevant objectives and standards of both Clause 55 and Clause 58. Where a lack of compliance has been identified, conditional requirements have been recommended to address such shortcomings.

Landscape maintenance

Concerns were raised by the objectors during the Consultation Forum, regarding landscape maintenance, once the building is constructed. It is noted that a condition of permit, on any approval granted, will require the provision of a landscape maintenance plan provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Increased noise from use and from services

The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal in an urban setting. Any future issues of amenity, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.

Construction impacts and Emission of dust and dirt on the road

It is acknowledged off site impacts are inevitable when any construction occurs. The developer will be required to meet relevant Building and EPA regulations, in addition to the provision of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) required as a condition of any approved granted.

Reduced safety

The proposal does not seek to alter the existing road layout and will achieve a compliant street network layout that will support other road users such as pedestrian and bicycle users. No concerns regarding safety have been raised by Council’s Transport Engineers, or the Department of Transport.

Impact on personal health and wellbeing.

The use and development of the proposed dwellings will be managed to ensure no unreasonable amenity impacts to surrounding lots, with various planning, building and civil enforcement mechanisms in place to regulate this. This is the extent to which the planning scheme is able to manage and control these matters.

Negative impact on surrounding property values

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

Increased pressure on local infrastructure

The application was referred to Council’s Engineering and Environmental Services Department. No concerns were raised relating to overloading of existing infrastructures, therefore, it reasonably to assume that the existing infrastructure has capacity for this new development.

This is the third application for this site

Each application is assessed in relation to the relevant planning controls, site context, the prevailing neighbourhood character and merits of the development design at the time of considering the application.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for the construction of a part 5, part 6 storey building (plus basement carpark), providing 44 dwellings is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policies, the Residential Growth Zone, Clause 58, Apartment Development and strategies.

A total of 144 objections were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised have been discussed as required. Additionally, the proposal has adequately responded to the previous design failings, identified through the two previous VCAT decisions.

It is considered that the application should be approved.

Attachment

1 Decision Plan - Architectural Plans

2 Decision Plan - Landscape Plans

Whitehorse City Council

Council Meeting 30 November 2020

Strategic Planning

9.1.4 Heritage Advisor Annual Report 2019-2020

FILE NUMBER: SF09/52
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

The nineteenth year of work by the Heritage Advisor at Whitehorse City Council is now complete. This is an outline of the work undertaken by the Advisor between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council accepts the report and acknowledges the valuable contribution made by the Heritage Advisor towards the protection of heritage places across the City.

background

This is the tenth year that Coleman Architects has provided heritage advisory services to Council after being the successful tenderer for the current contract (Contract 14029) that was signed on 19 February 2020. The term of the contract is four years with the option for a further one year extension at Council’s discretion.

The Heritage Advisor is located in the Strategic Planning Unit, generally one day per week. The main role of the Heritage Advisor is to provide advice to both planning staff and members of the public regarding development works on properties covered by a Heritage Overlay (HO) within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. The Heritage Advisor also investigates and provides advice regarding protection of heritage places generally across the municipality. Council has provided this service since 2002.

DISCUSSION

Following is an outline of the work, tasks and achievements undertaken by the Heritage Advisor over the last financial year. This responds to the primary duties of the Heritage Advisor as specified in the Heritage Advisor Contract and the items are listed in Attachment 1 to this report.

Heritage advice to property owners (Refer Item a)

Owners of heritage properties who make enquiries to the Planning and Building Department are advised of the heritage advisory services and the benefit of speaking directly to the Heritage Advisor before submitting an application and/or when preparing documentation for works. The majority of the Heritage Advisor’s time is spent guiding owners making planning applications for properties which are affected by the HO. Such advice is provided during meetings or over the phone during both the pre- and post-application stage. This commonly entails:

· Visiting the site to assess what is being proposed and its likely impact on the heritage place.

· Advising property owners and/or permit applicants whether changes are suitable for the property.

· Guiding the choice of materials and finishes selected by applicants for works on heritage buildings.

· Advising appropriate conservation/restoration techniques, particularly for detailing and the materials required for additions and/or alterations; and

· Assessing conservation works as part of the Heritage Assistance Fund.

Pre-application consultations with potential applicants consistently result in the submission of planning permit applications which need little or no further comment by the Heritage Advisor. This indicates that Council's policy of encouraging potential applicants to meet with the Heritage Advisor prior to finalising their application is successful.

During the latter part of the 2019 - 2020 financial year the heritage advisor’s delivery of advice was restricted to remote methods of consultation such as telephone calls and meetings via the internet. This was due to the impact of COVID 19.

Heritage promotion - Refer Item b)

Over the past twelve months the Heritage Advisor has been actively involved in the State of the Heritage Review, conducted by the Heritage Council of Victoria. The main aims of the Review are:

· To establish a clear picture of local cultural heritage protection and to establish a clear picture of local cultural heritage protection and management arrangements across the state to identify what support is required to improve local cultural heritage management.

· To identify examples of best-practice local cultural heritage management and how this may be shared and celebrated.

· To provide tangible and practical opportunities for enhancing the way, State and local governments work together to recognise, protect and manage local heritage.

Over the past 12 months the Heritage Advisor has attended seminars, workshops and participated in a follow up interview with representatives of the Heritage Council to explain more about the way that heritage is promoted in Whitehorse. Through this review process Council’s heritage communication and promotion mechanisms were highlighted as an example of ‘best practice’. This accolade is to be reflected as a positive case study in the final State of the Heritage Review Report, due to be made publicly available by the Heritage Council in the coming months.

Over the past 12 months the Heritage Advisor has also been involved with the fifteenth year of the Whitehorse Heritage Assistance Fund, assessing applications and providing this review to the Heritage Steering Committee which in turn recommends successful applications.

Administration of the planning scheme - Refer Item c)

The Heritage Advisor keeps a record of the advice that he provides on permit applications and general heritage enquiries. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the number of pre-application advice meetings and referral reports for planning permit applications completed by the Heritage Advisor this year. The Heritage Advisor also provided advice to the strategic planning team regarding applications under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 for demolition and provided advice on the appropriateness of seeking interim HO protection to these places. Over the past twelve months no recommendations were made for interim heritage protection controls.

The Heritage Advisor also provided advice to Council project managers and other officers on preliminary proposals and development guidelines for Council properties, including:

· Strabane Hall, Mont Albert North – Providing advice to officers, discussions with consultants and preparation of permit application to Heritage Victoria.

· Nunawading Community Hub - Site meetings with officers, architects and builder and review of associated documents.

· Mountainview Cottage, Nunawading - Inspection and advice regarding chimneys.

· Schwerkolt Cottage, Mitcham – Inspection and advice regarding ongoing conservation works.

· Strathdon House, Forest Hill - Advice to officers regarding the proposed master plan.

· Box Hill Community Arts Centre - Site inspection and advice to officers regarding proposed sustainability measures including the location of solar panels.

· Box Hill Town Hall - Site inspection and advice to officers regarding proposed sustainability measures including the location of solar panels and advice regarding proposed accessibility and wayfinding upgrades.

Sharing of information with planners (Refer Item d)

When preparing referral reports, the Heritage Advisor meets with the appointed planner to explain the reasoning behind the comments provided. This assists with the planner’s understanding of heritage principles in order to accurately assess applications. These meetings are followed up with detailed referral notes which are recorded on both the planning and property files for on-going reference.

Change to heritage assets (Refer Item e)

The Heritage Advisor keeps a record of all heritage meetings, enquiries and referrals (summarised in Attachment 2), and of the changes proposed. This provides a snapshot of significant changes to heritage properties that are occurring, for both individual places and within the heritage precincts to enable appropriate monitoring.

Heritage education (Refer Item f)

There generally seems to be a good understanding of heritage issues in the Whitehorse community. This is due in part to heritage promotion exercises such as the Heritage Assistance Fund and the promotion of heritage on Council’s webpage. Potential gaps in heritage knowledge are identified and monitored through:

· Discussions with permit applicants.

· Community consultation for heritage planning scheme amendments.

· Reviewing community reaction to particular planning outcomes as seen in the local press for example, or as a result of customer enquiries.

Heritage Steering Committee Meetings are also an opportunity to share heritage information with Councillors and the community through the Historical Society representatives.

Heritage funding (Refer Items g and h)

The Heritage Assistance Fund (HAF) provides funding support to owners and occupiers of properties in the Heritage Overlay, to restore and maintain properties with heritage significance.

The Heritage Advisor assessed all applications received last year under the Whitehorse Heritage Assistance Fund (HAF). A total of 56 applications were received in August / September 2019 (compared to 48 in the 2018/19 year) and approval was granted to 22 applicants. A total of 19 recipients completed their works and claimed the funding but 3 recipients requested extensions of time due to the difficulty completing works during COVID-19. These applicants have been given until 31 December 2020 to complete the works and make their claim.

Applications for the 2020/21 round of HAF were scheduled to open on 17 August 2020, however due to COVID-19 Stage 4 restrictions, it was not considered possible for applicants to obtain the necessary trade quotes. Applications for the HAF were therefore deferred and opened on 2 November 2020.

Notification of the HAF postponement was advertised in the September edition of the Whitehorse News and on Council's website. All owners and occupiers of heritage overlay properties (with the exception of non-contributory properties within a heritage precinct) were advised via direct mail when the fund opened. Applications for the HAF will close on 30 November 2020. The Heritage Advisor will assess all of the applications received and provide this review to the Heritage Steering Committee at a meeting scheduled in December 2020

The Heritage Advisor also organises, supervises and seeks appropriate funding for public conservation or restoration projects. The Living Heritage Program was launched by the State Government in 2016 and provides grants for conservation works on places that are included on the State Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). There are 10 places listed on the VHR in the City of Whitehorse (refer below). Only one of these (Former Chapel of St. Joseph in Mont Albert North) is owned by Council. In consultation with the Heritage Advisor, Council writes to owners of properties on the VHR to advise them when funding is available and how to apply.

Maintain lists of trades and specialists (Refer Item i)

A list of suitably qualified and experienced local architects, engineers, conservation specialists, tradespeople and material suppliers has been established and is continually expanded as others are brought to the attention of the Heritage Advisor.

This list is only shared on an as needs basis if owners of heritage properties are looking for tradespeople who specialise in heritage restoration. The list is not promoted on Council’s website to avoid any mistaken Council endorsement.

State and Commonwealth registers (Refer Item j)

There are currently no places being considered for potential State significance. For the record, the places in the municipality currently included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) are:

· Former Burwood Primary School (VHR No. H975)

· Former Standard Brickworks, Box Hill (VHR No.H720)

· Wattle Park (VHR No.H904)

· Former Wunderlich/Monier Terracotta Roof Tiles Complex (VHR No. H1008)

· Box hill Cemetery Columbarium and Myer Memorial (VHR No. H2045)

· Former Wesleyan Chapel, Box Hill North (VHR No. H2010)

· Willis Pipe Organ (in Wesley Uniting Church, Box Hill) (VHR No. H2156)

· Stone Pipe Organ (in The Avenue Uniting Church) (VHR No. H2166)

· All Saints (former Christ Church) Anglican Church, Mitcham (VHR No. H2302)

Former Chapel of St Joseph, Mont Albert North (VHR No. H2351)

Anyone can nominate a place or object to be listed on the VHR and the Heritage Council of Victoria determines what places and objects are included. Applications to register a place or object on the VHR are processed by Heritage Victoria, a part of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). The Executive Director of Heritage Victoria recommends whether a place or object should be registered but the final decision is made by the Heritage Council of Victoria, which is an independent statutory body.

Promotion of places of historic interest (Refer Item k)

The Heritage Advisor provides advice to Council’s Heritage Program’s Officer, to assist with the interpretation, conservation and restoration of culturally and historically significant places throughout Whitehorse. This assistance ensures that works to Council owned heritage places are undertaken to the heritage specifications.

The Heritage Advisor’s investigations of individual properties for possible inclusion in a Heritage Overlay and liaison with owners of heritage properties also enhances the knowledge base of the history and cultural significance of the local area.

Advise on places under threat (Refer Item l)

During the latter part of 2019 the Heritage Advisor was involved with making a submission on behalf of Council to the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) in relation to the proposed level crossing removal at Mont Albert. The Mont Albert train station is covered by a local heritage overlay (HO27) and the station building is important to the context of the local area and the ensemble of low scale period buildings that contribute to the village like character. The Heritage Advisor attended meetings with the LXRA and prepared written advice supporting the protection of the heritage place and the adjacent heritage area.

On 23 July 2020 Notice of Approval of Amendment C216whse appeared in the Victoria Government Gazette. This Amendment introduced a permanent heritage overlay to the property at 42-48 Glenburnie Road, Mitcham. This property was identified as being under threat when an application under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 was received by Council in December 2018. In approving the amendment the Minister for Planning considered the detailed documents prepared by the Heritage Advisor forming part of Council’s planning scheme amendment, including the heritage assessment and citation. Most of the Heritage Advisor’s input on this matter took place in the 2019/20 year.

Heritage recommendations and implementation in Whitehorse - Refer Items m) and n)

Part of the role of the Heritage Advisor is the ongoing review of places with potential heritage significance. Assessment of these places has been guided by the City of Whitehorse Potential Heritage Framework 2008. As most of the tasks identified in the 2008 Framework are now complete it was considered an appropriate time to prepare a new Heritage Framework Plan. Revision of the Framework also responded to a resolution of Council on 14 October 2019 requesting a report on the proposed approach to reviewing the potential heritage properties from the Whitehorse Heritage Review 2012 and the Post 1945 Heritage Study.

The Heritage Framework Plan 2020 will guide heritage planning in the City of Whitehorse over the next 10 years. The Framework prioritises future heritage projects and highlights tasks that should be undertaken to improve heritage protection and services to the community. The purpose of the Whitehorse Heritage Framework Plan 2020 is to:

· Identify the current status of heritage planning in the City of Whitehorse including remaining areas needing protection.

· Identify opportunities to improve the identification, protection, management and promotion of heritage assets in the City of Whitehorse.

· Identify and prioritise future heritage work in the municipality.

The majority of work to draft the Heritage Framework Plan 2020 occurred in the 2019/20 year. The Framework was recently adopted by Council on 21 September 2020.

Heritage library (Refer Item o)

A library of heritage publications and technical literature is kept and maintained within the Strategic Planning Unit. This library is gradually being transferred to Council’s electronic document management system and relevant information is added to Council’s website on an ongoing basis. The library includes photos of good examples of alterations/additions to heritage properties and infill development in heritage precincts. The Heritage Advisor is continually collecting and adding information.

CONSULTATION

The Heritage Advisor provides advice to the Heritage Steering Committee which provides comment and advice on the heritage work of the municipality. The Committee for the reporting year comprised:

· Two Councillors – Councillors Carr and Stennett

· Mr William Orange (Box Hill Historical Society)

· Ms Vicki Jones Evans (Whitehorse Historical Society)

· Council’s Strategic Planner (Whitehorse City Council)

The Heritage Advisor provides input to the Heritage Steering Committee on matters such as Heritage Assistance Funding and the preparation of plans or frameworks that guide heritage planning in Whitehorse such as the Heritage Framework Plan 2020.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

After a competitive tender process for Heritage Advisory Services early in 2020 Coleman Architects was the successful tenderer for the current contract (Contract 14029) which was signed on 19 February 2020. In the 2019/20 year, expenditure under the Heritage Advisor contract was $56,798 (excluding GST).

The Whitehorse Heritage Assistance Fund provides financial support to owners and occupiers of eligible buildings covered by a Heritage Overlay to assist in maintenance and enhancement of heritage places. Applicants can seek funding of up to 100 per cent of the total cost of the project, with the maximum grant per application being $2000. The annual budget for the Heritage Assistance Fund is $40,000.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The continued work of the Heritage Advisor will address some of the key strategies identified in the Council Plan 2017 – 2021, the Council Vision 2013 – 2023, and the Municipal Strategic Statement. This will include:

· Continuing the vibrancy of the community by preserving places of heritage significance.

· Protecting the natural and built heritage environments through the appropriate legislative frameworks.

· Encourage sustainability practices by retaining and maintaining heritage places as well as appropriate ESD design adaptations.

· Protecting and enhancing the built environment to ensure a liveable and sustainable city.

Attachment

1 Heritage Advisor Contract Duties

2 Planning Advice and Referral Reports

Meeting Date	Matter/s Discussed	Councillors Present	Officers Present	Disclosures of Conflict of Interest	Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure
12.11.20 5:30-7:00pm	Councillor Oath or Affirmation of Office	Cr Barker Cr Cutts Cr Carr Cr Davenport Cr Lane Cr Liu Cr McNeill Cr Massoud Cr Munroe Cr Skilbeck Cr Stennett	S McMillan J Russell	Nil	Nil
16.11.20 5:30-7:00pm	Councillor Briefing Session	Cr Barker Cr Cutts Cr Carr Cr Davenport Cr Lane Cr Liu Cr McNeill Cr Massoud Cr Munroe Cr Skilbeck Cr Stennett	S McMillan J Green S White T Wilkinson P Smith J Russell C Altan D Hastas	Nil	Nil
23.11.2020 6:00-6.25pm, 6.40-6.55pm, and 7.30 - 8.50pm	Councillor Briefing Session · Annual Report 2019/20, and Overview Financial Performance Requirements · Capital Works Update · Council Vision, Community Engagement Policy, Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan · Draft Council Agenda 30 November 2020	Cr Munroe (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Carr (Deputy Mayor) Cr Cutts Cr Davenport Cr Lane Cr Liu Cr McNeill Cr Massoud Cr Skilbeck Cr Stennett	S McMillan J Green S White T Wilkinson P Smith J Russell C Altan R Johnson S Cann N Brown S Belmore R Andresson -and via Zoom: K Marriott J Hansen A Egan	Cr Munroe declared a conflict of interest in Item 9.1.1 654 Mitcham Road (Lot 34 PS 413983C) due to his employment with Telstra.	Having declared a conflict of interest in Item 9.1.1 654 Mitcham Road (Lot 34 PS 413983C),Cr Munroe left the meeting at 8.20pm before discussion on the item and returned to the meeting at 8.30pm.