Minutes of Council Meeting - 6 August 2018 › files › assets › ... · Web viewAug 06, 2018 · 11.Vehicle Crossing Application – 76 Lang Street, South Yarra 12.Planning Application

Minutes of Council Meeting - 6 August 2018

MINUTES

of the ORDINARY MEETING of the STONNINGTON CITY COUNCIL

held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, MALVERN TOWN HALL

(CORNER GLENFERRIE ROAD & HIGH STREET, MALVERN)

on

6 August 2018

A.Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Affirmation Statement

B.Introductions

C.Apologies

D.Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63 of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

1.Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 23 July 20185

E.Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act[footnoteRef:1] [1: Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.]

F.Questions to Council from Members of the Public

G.Correspondence – (only if related to council business)

H.Questions to Council Officers from Councillors

I.Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters

J.Notices of Motion

K.Reports of Special and Other Committees

L.Reports by Delegates

M.General Business Including Other General Business

1.Planning Application 0498/17- 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor VIC 3181- Construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement8

2.Planning Application 0258/17- 18 Parslow Street, Malvern VIC 3144- Construct two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone8

3.Planning Application 1225/16- 94 Chomley Street, Prahran VIC 3181- Extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm in a General Residential Zone 14

4.418 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, 1529 Malvern Road, Glen Iris & 104 Caroline Street, South Yarra - Telecommunications facilities 15

5.Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Adoption17

6.Amendment C276 - Improvements to Chapel ReVision Planning Controls - Consideration of Submissions17

7.Metro Tunnel Project - Proposed Early Works for Eastern Portal17

8.Endorsement of the Princes Gardens Masterplan 18

9.Vehicle Crossing Application – 76 Lang Street, South Yarra18

10.Reconciliation Action Plan 2018-202018

11.Elizabeth Street Car Park - Modify Parking Rates19

12.Victoria Terrace, South Yarra - Section 223 Advertisement of Proposed Road Closure Trial19

13.Millewa Avenue, Malvern East - Proposal to Install NO STOPPING Restriction19

14.Community Grant 2018-2019: TRY South Yarra Pre School19

15.Community Grant 2018-2019: Inclusion Melbourne20

16.Community Grant 2018-2019: Melbourne Rainbow Band20

N.Urgent Business

O.Confidential Business

Council Minutes

Monday 6 August 2018

Page 3

Present:cr steven stefanopoulos, mayor

:cr glen atwell

:cr john chandler

:cr sally davis

:cr marcia griffin

:cr judy hindle

:cr jami klisaris

:cr matthew koce

:cr melina sehr

Council Officers Present

:warren roberts, ceo

:geoff cockram

:simon thomas

:stuart draffin

:cath harrod

:alexandra kastaniotis

:fabienne thewlis

:judy hogan

Council Minutes


Page 4

The meeting began at 7.01pm.

A.Reading Of The Reconciliation and Affirmation Statements

Fabienne Thewlis, Manager Governance & Corporate Support, read the following reconciliation statement:

We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Boonwurrung and Wurundjeri people and offer our respects to the elders past and present. We recognise and respect the cultural heritage of this land.

The Mayor Cr Stefanopoulos read the following Affirmation Statement:

We are reminded that as Councillors. we are bound by our Oath of Office to undertake the duties of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the City of Stonnington and to faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in us under the Local Government Act and any other relevant Act.

B.Apologies

Nil

C.Introductions

The Mayor Cr Stefanopoulos introduced the Councillors and Chief Executive Officer Warren Roberts. Mr Roberts then introduced the Council Officers.

D.Adoption And Confirmation Of Minutes Of Previous Meeting(S) In Accordance With Section 63 Of The Act And Clause 423 Of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

1.

Council Meeting - 23 July 2018

Motion:Moved Cr Marcia GriffinSeconded Cr Matthew Koce

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council and the Confidential Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 23 July 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Carried

E.Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act

Cr Hindle declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest Close Association in Item 6 – Amendment C276 – Improvements to Chapel ReVision Planning Controls – Consideration of Submissions and Item 12 – Victoria Terrace South Yarra – Section 223 Advertisement of Proposed Road Closure Trial as her son lives within the area of the two items.

Cr Chandler declared a Direct Conflict of Interest in Item 3 – Planning Application 1225/16 – 94 Chomley Street Prahran as his wife owns property within the area of the application.

F.Questions to Council from Members of the Public

During Council’s previous Ordinary Meeting one set of Questions to Council were submitted.

The questions asked of Council awareness of the ‘Good Governance Guide’. The questions were responded to by the Mayor at the Council meeting and written answers were subsequently provided to the submitter. The responses were included in the minutes of 23 July 2018 Council meeting.

For tonight’s Ordinary Meeting of Council no Questions to Council have been received.

G.Correspondence – (only if related to council business)

Cr Griffin tabled the following correspondence:

· Five emails from residents of Caroline Street South Yarra expressing concern at the proposal by TPG to install a ‘small cell’ mobile facility on an existing power pole within proximity of their properties, and asking for help from Council to stop this.

· A letter from a resident of Cunningham Street South Yarra asking Council to consider the installation of a pedestrian crossing in Forster Street and outlining the issues with traffic in that area.

· A letter of support and also objection to Planning Amendment C270 – Adoption of the Federation Houses Heritage Study and outlining the reasons why.

· An email from a concerned resident pointing out that property occupiers are leaving bins out after collection for too long and they should be fined as they do in Adelaide.

Cr Chandler tabled the following correspondence:

· Two emails from a local resident pointing put, with photographs provided, the poor condition of the footpaths and road and illegal parking in Albion Street South Yarra and asking that something be done to rectify the condition of this street. Cr Chandler asked to be informed on the long-term plans for this street and work.

· Two letters of objection to planning application 0551/18 at 18 Oxford Street South Yarra which also outline the reason for such objections.

Cr Hindle tabled the following correspondence:

· Three emails expressing concern at the proposed demolition of 34 Armadale Street Armadale and Council take immediate action to prevent the loss of more of Stonnington’s historical architecture.

Cr Sehr tabled the following correspondence:

· Noted that she had also receive the emails tabled by Cr Hindle and tabled a further seven emails that she has received on the subject.

Cr Davis tabled the following correspondence:

· An email from a local resident near Central Park noting that the playground equipment is past its prime and asking Council to consider upgrading this equipment which was installed 20 years ago.

Cr Atwell tabled the following correspondence:

· An email from a local resident regarding the traffic volume and other traffic issues in Hyslop Parade Malvern East.

Cr Stefanopoulos tabled the following correspondence:

· Letter from Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival (VAMFF) thanking Council for its support in 2018 and enclosing the 2018 Festival report.

· Two emails from local residents concerning the traffic congestion in Grattan Street Prahran with two-way traffic, parking on both sides of the street and narrow street and proposing a one-way solution for Council to consider.

H.Questions to Council Officers from Councillors

Nil

I.Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters

Cr Davis tabled a petition with sixteen (16) signatures regarding the VCAT approved child-care centre in Spring Road Malvern and concerns with the traffic volume and speed in Spring Road . The petitioners request that “ …a speed hump between Embling Road and Haverbrack Avenue would help to moderate this speeding traffic and that a speed limit of 40kph should be introduced for all of Spring Road. The design of the speed hump would need to be similar in size to the one in front of the school at the southern end of Spring Road to be effective. This is a dangerous situation which will only get worse when the new development is completed.”

Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Judy HindleSeconded Cr Jami Klisaris

That the petition regarding Spring Road Malvern be received.

Carried

J.Notices of Motion

Nil

K.Reports of Special and Other Committees

The CEO Warren Roberts tabled the following Assembly of Councillors Records:

· Strategic Planning Advisory Committee meeting held on 30 July 2018

· Councillor Briefing held on 30 July 2018

· Summary of Planning Consultative meetings held in July 2018

Cr Chandler reported on a meeting of the Strategic Planning Advisory Committee held on 30 July 2018 noting that the minutes were circulated to all Councillors.

L.Reports of Delegates

Response to presentation of Mayoral Chains to Council by Mayor Cr Stefanopoulos

Cr Sehr addressed the Mayor:

“Councillors, staff and the gallery were taken somewhat by surprise at the last Council meeting (23 July) when the Mayor presented mayoral chains to the City of Stonnington.

On behalf of the Councillors and the City of Stonnington, I would like now to place on record our sincere thanks the mayor for his most generous gift.

A century long tradition that ended when the Cities of Malvern and Prahran merged in the mid 1990’s has now been resurrected thanks to this donation.

Manufactured by renowned makers of regalia P Blashki and Sons, the chain is fashioned with 26 gold-plated. Sterling silver links supporting two central pendants. The upper pendant, an emblem of the letters P and M to symbolise the City’s history as the former Cities of Prahran and Malvern, carries a sterling silver adornment engraved and painted with the Stonnington logo.

Links in the chain represent previous Mayors and will be engraved with their name and term/s of office.”

Cr Hindle reported on her attendance at the Power House Book Launch on Sunday 5 August 2018. Cr Hindle noted that the Power House Rowing Club has been in existence since 1932 and presented a book on their history to go to the Library entitled “A History of Power House Rowing Club 1932 – 2017, noting that the Library should obtain further copies as the community would be interested in this history.

M.General Business Including Other General Business

1

Planning Application 0498/17- 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor VIC 3181- Construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement

Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Judy HindleSeconded Cr Melina Sehr

That consideration, at the request of the applicant, of Planning Permit No: 498/17 for the land located at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement under the Stonnington Planning Scheme be deferred until the next meeting of Council.

Carried

2

Planning Application 0258/17- 18 Parslow Street, Malvern VIC 3144- Construct two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone

Motion:Moved Cr Sally DavisSeconded Cr Jami Klisaris

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 258/17 for the land located at 18 Parslow Street, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans TP-01 to TP-11 Revision C and Council date stamped 18 May 2018 and the Landscape Plan Council date stamped 16 November 2017 but modified to show:

a) Correctly show the setback of the garage of Dwelling 1 from Parslow Street.

b) Show the dimension length of construction on (or within 200mm) of the boundaries.

c) Remove the outline of the existing dwelling from the ground floor, first floor and roof plans.

d) Provide an even surface for the transition from the formed rear garage floor to the laneway without altering the laneway levels.

e) Provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the property onto the laneway with the use of convex mirrors or other method to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

f) The south facing window of Bed 2 and Leisure (Dwelling 1) to be converted to highlight windows, with a sill height of no less than 1.8m above the finished floor level. The width/size of these windows to be increased to ensure compliance with Standard B27 Daylight to New Windows.

g) Fixed, external metal horizontal screens to be included outside the east facing master suite windows of both dwellings. The horizontal slats are to be 1.7m in height (above the finished first floor level) and positioned on a 45 degree angle to prevent horizontal and downward views. A cross section of the screen is to be provided to demonstrate that no horizontal or downward views can be gained.

h) Provide a note on TP-04 and the landscape plan to state that any permanent structures or landscaping within the sightline triangles adjoining the driveway to not exceed 900mm in height.

i) The wall height and/or setback opposite the habitable room windows of 20 Parslow Street to comply with the daylight provisions of Standard B19.

j) Any new heating or cooling units for both dwellings to be placed centrally on the new roof in proximity to the party wall too minimize visibility from adjoining lots. Any new unit must not be in direct view of the north facing first floor bedroom of no. 16 Parslow Street.

k) A schedule of the materials and finishes.

l) Any changes as required by Condition 5 (Sustainable Design Assessment including stormwater management measures) of this permit.

m) Any changes as required by Condition 9 (Tree Management Plan (1)) of this permit.

n) Any changes as required by Condition 18 (landscape plan) of this permit.

o) Show the trees identified for protection by Condition 16 (Tree Management Plan (2)) of this permit.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

4. The existing levels of the right-of-way must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate the garage floor level). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow along the ROW is not able to enter the garage due to any lowering of the ROW levels.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SDA must be in accordance with the SDA report prepared by Green Rate and received by Council on 2 August 2017 but updated to: ensure that all sections are complete; and incorporate any changes to the plans required by conditions of this permit.

6. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SDA Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SDA Report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and Water Sensitive Urban Design response provided in the Sustainable Design Assessment.

8. Prior to the occupation of the building, the fixed privacy screens required in accordance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

9. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans in accordance with Condition 1, a Tree Management Plan (1) prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Tree Management Plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the Tree Management Plan (AS 4970).

The Tree Management Plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of Trees 1 (street tree), 6 (located within 16 Parslow Street) & 7 (located within the laneway at the rear of the site).

Among other things, the Tree Management Plan must include the following information:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and a method of protection of exposed roots.

c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Responsible Authority's Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the Tree Management Plan must be authorised by the Responsible Authority's Parks Unit.

10. Prior to the endorsement of plans and prior to any development commencing on the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the owner/ developer must enter into a Deed with the Responsible Authority and provide it with a bank guarantee of $1024 for Tree 1 - Melaleuca styphelioides as security against a failure to protect the health of this tree. The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Deed, including those incurred by the responsible authority. Once a period of 12 months has lapsed following the completion of all works at the site the Responsible Authority may discharge the bank guarantee upon the written request of the obligor. At that time, the Responsible Authority will inspect the tree(s) and, provided they have not been detrimentally affected, the bank guarantee will be discharged.

11. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans or prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), whichever occurs sooner, a letter of engagement must be provided to the Responsible Authority from Rob Galbraith of Galbraith and Associates (the project arborist) to oversee all relevant tree protection works.

12. The project arborist must maintain a log book detailing all site visits. The log book must be made available to the Responsible Authority within 24 hours of any request.

13. Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the project arborist must advise the Responsible Authority in writing that the Tree Protection Fences have been installed to their satisfaction.

14. Prior to the commencement of any works on the land, each Tree Protection Zone nominated within TMP OR on the approved Landscape Plan must:

a) be fenced with temporary fencing in accordance with the attached specifications annotated in this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) include a notice on the fence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority advising on the purpose of the Tree Protection Zone, the need to retain and maintain the temporary fencing and that fines will be imposed for removal or damage of the fencing and trees.

c) No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

15. A copy of the tree protection zones are to be included in any contract for the construction of the site or for any other works which may impact upon the trees.

16. Before the development starts, a Tree Management Plan (2) (report) and Tree Protection Plan (drawing), must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The Tree Management Plan (2) (report) must be specific to the site, be in accordance with Australian Standard: Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS4970-2009 and include:

· Details of Tree Protection Zones for all trees to be retained on the site and for all trees on neighbouring properties where any part of the Tree Protection Zone falls within the subject site, including tree no. 2-4 & the Camelia trees along the northern boundary of no. 16 Parslow Street;

· Comment on methods to be utilised and instruction on how to deploy them;

· Comment on when the protection measures are to be deployed;

· Comment on when the protection measures can be modified;

· Process that will be followed if any damage occurs to a tree;

· Process that will be followed if construction works require alteration to protection measures outlined in report; and

· Stages of development at which inspections will occur.

Any proposed alteration to the plan must be assessed by the site arborist and can only occur following the approval of the site arborist. Such approval must be noted and provided to the Responsible Authority within 28 working days of a written request.

Any damaged tree must be inspected by the site arborist without any delay and remedial actions undertaken. Such actions must be documented.

The Tree Protection Plan must be drawn to scale and show the location of all tree protection measures to be utilised.

If tree protection measures are proposed to be changed during the development, one plan for each stage of tree protection measures must be submitted.

17. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

18. Before the development starts, a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan is to be based on the Landscape Plan prepared Zenith Concepts Landscape Design but modified to show the following: canopy trees to be provided within the rear setbacks of both dwellings; replacement of the proposed Jacaranda mimosifolia proposed within the frontage setback with a species that is more vigorous in establishing in Melbourne’s climate, all to the satisfaction of Council.

19. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

20. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

21. Prior to the occupation of the building, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the permit holder must obtain approval from Council’s Building and Local Laws Department to construct or modify any vehicle crossovers providing access to the subject site. The issue of a planning permit does not provide approval for vehicular crossovers which are outside of the title boundary.

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

a)The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

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

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:

a)with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or

b)with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or

c)listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

C. The permit holder / developer must advise Council in writing that a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued in respect to the development and that the 12 month establishment period has commenced.

D. Council has adopted a zero tolerance approach in respect to the failure to implement the vegetation related requirements of Planning Permits and endorsed documentation. Any failure to fully adhere to these requirements will be cause for prosecution. This is the first and only warning which will be issued.

E. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

F. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i.Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Carried

Having declared a Direct Conflict of Interest in Item 3 – Planning Application 1225/16 – 94 Chomley Street Prahran as his wife owns property within the area of the application, Cr Chandler left the meeting at 7.18pm.

3

Planning Application 1225/16- 94 Chomley Street, Prahran VIC 3181- Extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm in a General Residential Zone

Motion:Moved Cr Judy HindleSeconded Cr Melina Sehr

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1225/16 for the land located at 94 Chomley Street, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for an extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm in a General Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

1.Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans (Council date received on 22 February 2018) but modified to show:

a)The proposed first floor balcony associated with the first floor addition above the existing garage at the rear to be deleted; and any subsequent changes required to the external staircase.

b)Subsequent screening to the first floor west facing window with opaque glass to a minimum height of 1.7m above finished floor level in accordance with Standard A15 of Clause 54.

c)A schedule of proposed external finishes (including roof materials) and colours of all buildings (including colour swatches)

d)All permeable surfaces to be identified on the ground floor level plan and shown to equate to a minimum of 20% of the overall site area

e)The correct location and setback of the first floor north facing habitable room window of the southern neighbouring dwelling.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2.The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3.Prior to the occupation of the building, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4.Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard A15 of Clause 54 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

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

a)The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

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

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

A.This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B.Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:

a)with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or

b)with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or

c)listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

C.At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i.Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii.Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Carried

Cr Chandler returned to the meeting at 7.21pm at the conclusion of Item 3.

4

418 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, 1529 Malvern Road, Glen Iris & 104 Caroline Street, South Yarra - Telecommunications facilities

Motion:Moved Cr Glen AtwellSeconded Cr Matthew Koce

That Council:

1. note the assessments undertaken in line with the applicable Commonwealth Legislation.

2. write to and call on TPG to engage meaningfully with objectors to hear their significant concerns towards the proposed telecommunications facility locations at 418 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, 1529 Malvern Road, Glen Iris and 104 Caroline Street, South Yarra

3. call on TPG to abandon the proposed sites at 418 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, 1529 Malvern Road, Glen Iris and 104 Caroline Street, South Yarra and seek more appropriate alternative locations in non-residential areas, away from sensitive uses.

4.advise submitting parties of Council’s assessment and actions.

Carried

With the leave of the meeting the Mayor Cr Stefanopoulos brought forward Item 12 – Victoria Terrace South Yarra – Section 223 Advertisement of Proposed Road Closure Trial.

Cr Hindle having declared an Indirect Conflict of Interest Close Association in Item 6 – Amendment C276 – Improvements to Chapel ReVision Planning Controls – Consideration of Submissions and Item 12 – Victoria Terrace South Yarra – Section 223 Advertisement of Proposed Road Closure Trial as her son lives within the area of the two items left the meeting at 7.34pm.

12

Victoria Terrace, South Yarra - Section 223 Advertisement of Proposed Road Closure Trial

Motion:Moved Cr Matthew KoceSeconded Cr Marcia Griffin

That Council:

1.Trial a full closure of Victoria Terrace, South Yarra for a period of 9 months;

2.Undertake an independent evaluation of the traffic impact during the trial period;

3.After the 9 month trial, consult with the affected community directly abutting Victoria Terrace and the section of Tivoli Road north of Malcolm Street seeking their feedback on the trial, and their preference for either permanently closing Victoria Terrace or reopening the street;

4.Consider a further report to Council following the trial, including the result of the consultation to seek a decision regarding the future of Victoria Terrace;

5.Notify all property occupiers previously consulted, and those who submitted a written response to the S223 consultation, of this decision.

Carried

Noting that Cr Hindle had a declared Conflict of Interest in Item 6 the Mayor Cr Stefanopoulos, with the leave of the meeting brought forward Item 6 - Amendment C276 – Improvements to Chapel ReVision Planning Controls – Consideration of Submissions forward while Cr Hindle was already out of the meeting for her other declared conflict of interest item.

6

Amendment C276 - Improvements to Chapel ReVision Planning Controls - Consideration of Submissions

Motion:Moved Cr John ChandlerSeconded Cr Matthew Koce

That Council:

1.Requests that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions to proposed Amendment C276 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2.In its submission to the Panel Hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C276, generally in accordance with the Officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 1.

3.Refers the submissions and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C276.

4.Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C276 of Council’s decision.

Carried

Cr Hindle returned to the Chamber at the completion of Items 12 and 6, at 7.41pm.

5

Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Adoption

Motion:Moved Cr Jami KlisarisSeconded Cr Judy Hindle

That Council:

1.Notes the public release of the Panel Report of Amendment C270.

2.On considering the Panel report, adopts Amendment C270 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme, with changes since exhibition outlined in Attachment 2 pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3.Submits the adopted Amendment C270 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4.Advises the submitters to Amendment C270 of Council’s Decision.

Carried

7

Metro Tunnel Project - Proposed Early Works for Eastern Portal

Motion:Moved Cr Marcia GriffinSeconded Cr John Chandler

That Council:

1. notes the proposed Rail Infrastructure Alliance Early Works proposed program and schedule affecting the Eastern Portal area of South Yarra, east of the Sandringham Rail Corridor; and

2. notes that Council Officers are preparing and lodging a coordinated submission in relation to the Rail Infrastructure Alliance Early Works Plan, highlighting various concerns with the extent of road closures, parking loss, tree removal, and the need for proper construction management plans and mitigation which acknowledges the imposition on residents and traders.

3. acknowledges that these works will affect residential and commercial uses in the area of the works and that Council expects that Rail Projects Victoria and any sub-contractors will choose the least disruptive options, and mitigate any effects as far as possible.

4. encourages affected parties to engage directly with Rail Projects Victoria and its established project feedback and complaints handling process with issues that may arise.

5. continues to liaise with and advocate to Rail Projects Victoria for the best possible outcomes and management of the site and environs during the lengthy construction period.

Carried

8

Endorsement of the Princes Gardens Masterplan

Motion:Moved Cr Melina SehrSeconded Cr Matthew Koce

That Council:

1. Endorse the Princes Gardens Masterplan

2.Note A ‘CPTED’ (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) analysis will be undertaken on each design stage

3.Note the delivery of stage 1- Main Axis Path and lighting improvements within the 2018/19 financial year.

4.Refer funding for implementation of the subsequent stages of the masterplan for consideration as part of the preparation of future capital works budgets.

A Division was called by Cr Hindle:

For:Crs John Chandler, Melina Sehr, Jami Klisaris, Matthew Koce, Marcia Griffin, Sally Davis, Glen Atwell and Steven Stefanopoulos

Against:Cr Judy Hindle

Absent:Nil

Carried

9

Vehicle Crossing Application – 76 Lang Street, South Yarra

Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Matthew KoceSeconded Cr Melina Sehr

That Council defer consideration of vehicle crossing application at 76 Lang Street South Yarra to the next meeting of Council.

Carried

10

Reconciliation Action Plan 2018-2020

Motion:Moved Cr Jami KlisarisSeconded Cr Marcia Griffin

That Council approves the Reconciliation Action Plan 2018 – 2020 and Statement of Commitment to Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Carried

11

Elizabeth Street Car Park - Modify Parking Rates

Motion:Moved Cr Marcia GriffinSeconded Cr Jami Klisaris

That Council:

1.Approve the removal of early bird parking rates on Market weekdays (Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays) commencing October 2018, or earlier if parking occupancy levels increase to a level in which short stay parkers are regularly being denied parking at peak times.

2.Authorise officers to determine the timing of any implementation prior to October, 2018

3.Notification signage be installed in the car park 2 weeks prior to any fee or sign changes.

4.Review whether early bird parking fees be reintroduced on Market weekdays when the Cato Square project is operating and parking patterns are known.

5.The Prahran Market be notified of the decision.

Carried

13

Millewa Avenue, Malvern East - Proposal to Install NO STOPPING Restriction

Motion:Moved Cr Sally DavisSeconded Cr Glen Atwell

That Council:

1. Install NO STOPPING restrictions on the west side of Millewa Avenue, Malvern East for the full length of the street;

2.Install permissive parking signage on the east side of Millewa Avenue, Malvern East from a location approximately 10m south of Waverley Road to a location approximately 10m north of Dandenong Road to highlight that this side of the street is available for parking;

3.Those previously consulted be notified of the decision and the program of future works for Millewa Avenue as outlined in the report.

Carried

The following three items were considered as a Block Motion

14

Community Grant 2018-2019: TRY South Yarra Pre School

Motion:Moved Cr Judy HindleSeconded Cr John Chandler

That Council approve a cash grant for the TRY South Yarra Pre School Program of $15,000 (GST exclusive) through the Community Grants 2018/2019 Program and for a Partnership Agreement of a three year term;

AND

15

Community Grant 2018-2019: Inclusion Melbourne

That Council approve an in-kind grant for Inclusion Melbourne of $14,400 (GST exclusive) for use of the Phoenix Park Community Centre through the Community Grant 2018/2019 Program;

AND

16

Community Grant 2018-2019: Melbourne Rainbow Band

That Council approve an in-kind grant for the Melbourne Rainbow Band of $248 (GST exclusive) for use of Council Buses through the Community Grant 2018/2019 Program.

Carried

Other General Business

Cr Atwell congratulated Council on the Waverley Park Playground redevelopment which he considered a fabulous improvement on what was there. He noted the rubber soft fall and nest swing sets a new standard for accessible and truly inclusive design in the City. The tree canopy is great and there will be more using the playground in the warmer months. He is spreading the word to relevant agencies and organisations.

N.Urgent Business

Nil

O.Confidential Business

Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Jami KlisarisSeconded Cr Sally Davis

That the meeting be closed to the public to consider the following matters that are confidential in accordance with Section 89 (2) of the Local Government Act 1989 for the reasons specified: (8.13pm)

Confidential Matter

Reason for Confidentiality

1. Prahran Market Pty Ltd Variation of Purpose of $1.0m Loan

89 (2)(d) contractual matters

Carried

Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Jami KlisarisSeconded Cr Judy Hindle

That the meeting be re- opened to the public. (8.17pm)

Carried

There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.17pm..

Confirmed on Monday 20 August 2018

...................................................................................

CR STEVEN STEFANOPOULOS, MAYOR

Item

5

Attachment

2Attachment 2 - Proposed changes to Citations

Item Error! No document variable supplied. Attachment Error! No document variable supplied. Error! No document variable supplied.


Page 70

Page 16

Attachment 2

Proposed changes to exhibited Amendment C270 for Adoption

The Panel concluded that the places in Table 1 met the heritage significance threshold for inclusion in the HO but the Panel recommended that the corresponding heritage citation be updated in the manner outlined in Table 1. Officer’s recommendation for adoption is also included.

Table 1

Heritage Place

Recommended Changes to Citation for Adoption

Officer Recommendation for Adoption

32 Huntingtower Road, Armadale (HO598)

Post Exhibition Changes Supported by Panel

Add a photo of and reference to the infill of the verandah on the southern return (noting it appears to be an early addition) to the History and Description.

Support changes

120 Kooyong Road, Armadale (HO602)


Remove references to the terracotta kangaroo roof finials or note as later additions.

Note that the boundary fence and pedestrian gate were noted as later (1980s) additions.

Add further information to the history section from the Stonnington City Council Property File describing the 1980s works to the house and outbuildings, including the construction of the existing garage.

Update place name to reflect its current name used by owner (One GQ) and original name.

Support changes

1 Golden Quadrant, Glen Iris (HO606)


Add further information to the History and Description regarding the later sympathetic additions on the south-east and rear elevations and the Cork Oak (which was planted in the 1950s does not contribute to the significance of the place).

Post Panel Recommendation

Revise the citation for 1 Golden Quadrant, Glen Iris to indicate that the condition of the property is very poor and the rear of the property does not contribute to the significance of the place.

Revise the Place name to reference the current owner’s name for property – “OneGQ”

Support changes

29 Scott Grove, Glen Iris (HO609)


Update the History and Description to note that:

all but one section of the original leadlight has been replaced

the encaustic tiles to the verandah floor are modern and that the original bluestone steps to the entrance have been removed

the front entrance (door and side lights) are not original.

Support changes

1 and 3 Dixon Street, Malvern (HO612)


Update the history to note that the front doors are not original and the timber fence to no. 3 is possibly early in date but not original.

Support changes

11 A’Beckett Street, Prahran (HO624)


Make reference to the fence were removed from the Statement of Significance.

Support change

36 Lansell Road, Toorak (HO629)


Amend the history to note the subdivision and the re-consolidation of the rear portion of the property.

Update the Description to reference the wall construction to overpainted brick, removing reference to a rendered finish.

Support changes

45 Lansell Road Toorak, (HO630)


Remove all references to the term ‘outbuilding’ to the north of the house and amend the Description to refer instead to the small room projecting off the north elevation.

Support changes

5 Haverbrack Avenue, Malvern (HO614)

Agreed Post Exhibition

Amend the history section to confirm the 1980s works, which included the extension to the rear of the house and construction of the ‘summer house’ and associated pool, carport and front fence.

Amend the description to remove reference to a mature garden, noting that it dates post-1980s.

Note that: the red brick walls are overpainted, the leadlight is modern and the front fence is constructed with metal railings.

Amend the level of integrity from ‘Very High’ to ‘High’.

Support changes

707 Malvern Road, Toorak

Panel Recommendations

Make corrections to indicate the brick wall on the western boundary is not the party wall and refer to the shallow niche finished in ceramic tiles on the façade, timber veranda posts and the number of chimneys to four

Update references to alterations to the fabric of the building, including: fitting of a new door in a former window opening and the lowering of a sill on another window on the front elevation; remodeling of the east elevation to build a splade wall to accommodate a car space, mention the tiled niche under Criterion E in the ‘Why’ section of the Statement of Significance.

Support changes

The Panel confirmed that the following places met the heritage significance threshold for inclusion in the HO but recommended changes to the boundary of the HO together with changes to the HO Schedule and the relevant citation:

Heritage Place

Panel recommended change/s to HO map, Schedule and citation

Officer Recommendation for adoption


Reduce the curtilage of HO629 36 Lansell Road, Toorak to exclude the rear lot.

Support changes

120 Kooyong Road, Armadale (HO602)

Remove fence controls

Support change

1 and 3 Dixon Street, Malvern (HO612)


Support change

11 A’Beckett Street, Prahran (HO624)


Support change


Remove outbuilding controls.

Support change

Amendment C270 proposes to apply permanent heritage controls which would replace all interim heritage controls applied to the 36 heritage places and two precincts (as part of Amendment C269.



Page 73

Page 25

Item

6

Attachment

1Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions



Page 74

Page 26

AMENDMENT C276 – Chapel revision planning control improvements

response to submissions

Themes:

Proposed reduction in preferred maximum height in River Street

Overshadowing, Key Strategic Development Site

Proposed change to Interface Setback in River Street

Not policy neutral, inequitable, Developer Contributions Plan

Proposed change to Interface Setback north of open space

General

Preferred maximum building height exceedance

THEME

SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES RAISED

OBJECTION/SUPPORT

COMMENT/ DISCUSSION

RECOMMENDATION

Submission 1: 67a and 67b Tivoli Road


Current preferred maximum height of 18 metres in northern end of River Street is not responsive to the sensitive context of the adjacent heritage overlay in Tivoli Road

Current applications for 5 storeys in FH-9 will compromise amenity and overshadow existing photovoltaic solar panels at 67a Tivoli Road

Support

Noted.

1.No change.

Submission 2: 69 Tivoli Road


Current preferred maximum height in Forrest Hill-9 (FH-9) is not responsive to the sensitive context of the adjacent heritage overlay in Tivoli Road

Believes that current requirements in River Street are contradictory to other sections of the planning scheme

Support

Noted.

2.No change.



Current preferred maximum height and setbacks in northern end of River Street is not responsive to the sensitive context of the adjacent heritage overlay in Tivoli Road

Believes that current requirements in River Street are contradictory to other sections of the planning scheme

Current applications for 5 storeys in FH-9 will compromise amenity

Support

Noted.

3.No change.



Current preferred maximum height in northern end of River Street is not responsive to the sensitive context of the adjacent heritage overlay in Tivoli Road

Loss of amenity due to insensitive transition in heights between 5 Storeys in River Street and 1-2 Storeys in Tivoli Road

Support

Noted.

4.No change.



Current preferred maximum height in northern end of River Street is not responsive to the sensitive context of the adjacent heritage overlay in Tivoli Road

Loss of amenity due to insensitive transition in heights between 5 Storeys in River Street and 1-2 Storeys in Tivoli Road

Support

Noted.

5.No change.

Submission 6: 94-96 River Street


C172 was approved by Stonnington as a guiding document for development which has been relied upon by residents, including the subject site property owner

C276 is in conflict with professional advice of urban design experts engaged by Council during the C172 process (and decision of Council pursuant to this advice) in relation to development outcomes

It is too soon to revisit new controls and represents poor planning practice

The proposed reduction in preferred maximum height in northern end of River Street is an inappropriately restrictive response to the interface sites between tall towers across the road [western side of River Street] and the heritage precinct in Tivoli Road and will result in an underdevelopment of land

Objection

Advice was sought by the same urban design experts that developed the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and C172 to review the River Street heights. This advice was in response to concerns raised from the community that the current height and setback controls do not adequately reflect the context of River Street.

It is considered appropriate to reduce the preferred maximum height and alter the rear setbacks to the northern end of River Street; noting:

-more fine grain residential allotments and contemporary lower rise residential development with a ground level setback are more prevalent north of Malcolm Street, particularly between 86 to 96 River Street and 2 Victoria Terrace

-the existing topography (3 storey form located at the northern end of River Street are likely to have comparable effect to 5 storey form at the southern end of River Street)

-the greater level of sensitivity of the adjacent Neighbourhood Residential Zone within Heritage Overlay 149

-where existing buildings are not built to boundaries, there is merit in retaining ground level setback (2m) from River Street frontage on 86-96 River Street and 2 Victoria Terrace in transition to residential setting further north

6.No change.

Submission 7: 2b Copelen Street


Limit the building height to a 3 storey maximum [northern end of River Street]

Shadowing is an issue with high buildings

Higher density living impacts on street parking and amenities

Negatively impact on the restored older residences in Tivoli Road

Multi-storey buildings lower property prices

Support

Noted.

7.No change.



The amendment addresses issues of concern, namely the encroachment of Forrest Hill precinct into the heritage area of Tivoli Road north

Proposed height changes to the northern end of River Street will reflect the height of their 1870s terrace house, reduce feeling of being enveloped by development, and follow the natural lie of the land, maintaining the amenity of this unique enclave

Support

Noted.

8.No change.

Submission 9: 2c Copelen Street


The proposed 3 storey height limit in [northern end] of River Street:

-Is more appropriate height limit given its proximity to Tivoli Road to which Heritage Overlay 149 applies

-Will improve the general area and amenity for nearby residents

-Will reduce overshadowing of existing homes

-Will be a more suitable transition from 1-2 storey buildings on Tivoli Road to 3 storeys on eastern side of River Street, then 5 storeys on western side of River Street

-Will reduce amount of traffic in the already congested surrounding streets

Support

Noted.

9.No change.

Submission 10: 8 River Street

Proposed change to Interface Setback in River Street

It has become apparent that the required response to River Street sought by the current controls is not in fitting with the character of River Street nor does it create an efficient development approach

The proposed controls under C276 have cleared up some ambiguities, they do not give rise to quality of streetscape

Having multiple setbacks at the front [proposed 3m setback above 12m street wall with a further 3m setback above 21m] creates an unconventional and inefficient form and development of land

Whilst the submitter appreciates that the street wall and setback are discretionary, the submitter is of a view that a street wall height of up to 12m, and then a 3m setback above would create a consistent and regular streetscape; a further 3m setback above 21m is not required

Objection

Advice was sought by the same urban design experts that developed the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and C172 to review the River Street heights. This advice was in response to concerns raised from the community that the current height and setback controls do not adequately reflect the context of River Street.

It is considered appropriate to alter the front setback to the southern end of River Street; noting:

-Remnant light industrial warehouse/ non-residential forms and recent mid-rise development (up to 4 storey) are commonly found south of Malcolm Street

-Introducing a 3 storey (12m) street wall definition along a narrow street (12.5m), in a ‘transition’ area between Forrest Hill and residential precinct (NRZ2) is an acceptable response to mitigate possible overwhelming sense of enclosure

-Existing contemporary 3-4 storey forms have demonstrated how upper level setbacks (2m or greater) with private open space opportunities can achieve a more desirable street-based response

-A discretionary ‘Type 2’ Interface Setback has been applied [12m street wall height, with a 3m setback above and a further 3m setback above 21m] in line with urban design expert advice and for consistency within the Activity Centre Zone

10.No change.

Submission 11: 24,25a, 25b and 26 Grattan Street


Broadly, the submitter supports the location of more open space within the Prahran precinct

Although 55 Porter Street is large enough to support a small park for recreation use, the land at 18-22 Grattan Street [to the south of the submitter’s property] (by virtue of its small physical size, small depth and large length) is more akin to an enhanced greened pedestrian link between larger open space at 55 Porter Street and Grattan Gardens and Como Square

Does not support the application of the Type 3 Interface setback control being applied to the southern boundary of the submitter’s site on the basis that the open space to the south is not large enough to benefit from this type of restriction as it acts as a through block link

Objection

Sites to the north of future and current open space have Type 3 Interface setback control applied to their respective southern boundary. This is to ensure that solar access to open space is considered if and/or when development is to occur to the north. The Type 3 Interface setback has been applied consistently to all sites to the north of future and current open space, no matter the size. It is a discretionary control that can be assessed during a development application process.

11.No change.



The proposed height and setback controls [at the northern end of River Street] will assist in the loss of amenity and are more appropriate and sensitive transition to the primarily single and double-storey Tivoli Road properties (subject to heritage overlay controls)

Support

Noted.

12.No change.



It is vital to the continued residential amenity of Tivoli Road and Copelen Street that the buildings on the east side of River Street, north of Malcolm, be limited to 3 storeys

A hard edge along River Street needs to be maintained as demarcation between encroaching residential and commercial development

5 storey developments will cast shadows and cause a major loss of amenity to properties within heritage overlay 149

Support

Noted.

13.No change.



It is vital to the continued residential amenity of Tivoli Road and Copelen Street that the buildings on the east side of River Street, north of Malcolm, be limited to 3 storeys

A hard edge along River Street needs to be maintained as demarcation between encroaching residential and commercial development

5 storey developments will cast shadows and cause a major loss of amenity to properties within heritage overlay 149

Support

Noted.

14.No change.

Submission 15: 4B Copelen Street


Vehement opposition to this form of town planning on River Street [5 storey height limit] which destroys the neighbourhood feel of the area and adds to congestion; negatively impacts residents and benefits developers

Support

Noted.

15.No change.

Submission 16: 2a Copelen Street


Opposes loss of amenity due to insensitive transition in heights between 5 Storeys in River Street and 1-2 Storeys in Tivoli Road

Do not destroy the neighbourhood feel and increase congestion

Support

Noted.

16.No change.



Allowing 5 storeys in River Street would be irresponsible and will destroy the unique character of South Yarra

Support

Noted.

17.No change.

Submission 18: 650, 644 and 620 Chapel Street and 299 Toorak Road and 7 River Street (Como Centre)

General

Submitter notes that the exhibited version does not propose built form control changes that relate directly to their site

Any refinements made to the Amendment throughout the process, the submitter reserves the right to provide further comments

Submitter wishes to be kept informed of progress and of any Panel Hearing

Neutral

Noted.

18.No change.



Opposes form of town planning on River Street that adds to congestion and works against the heritage overlay of Tivoli Road

River Street marks a boundary between high rise development and low rise

The development that the submitter lives in was proposed to be higher but was disallowed and built within height restrictions – support the Council in their endeavour to follow guidelines, rulings and precedents

Support

Noted.

19.No change.

Submission 20: 80-82 River Street


No sound basis for the preferred maximum height to be reduced from 18m/5 storeys to 12m/3 storeys; there has been no significant change to the strategic setting or characteristics of the area to warrant a reduction to the subject site’s redevelopment potential

The site at 65 Tivoli Road is developed for a 3 storey apartment building. The amendment seeks a preferred maximum height on subject site at same scale as 65 Tivoli Road; this is inconsistent with accepted strategic planning principles that land within an Activity Centre is shown to have equal or lesser development potential than land located outside the Activity Centre

Designation of River Street having a residential interface of 9.5m does not regard the existing conditions or surrounding context, including the development of the opposite side of River Street to the west

Preferred 4.5m setback from side boundaries above podium being applied to the subject site would render properties undevelopable without consolidation

Objection

Advice was sought by the same urban design experts that developed the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and C172 to review the River Street heights. This advice was in response to concerns raised from the community that the current height and setback controls do not adequately reflect the context of River Street, including the topography.

It is considered appropriate to reduce the preferred maximum height and alter the rear setbacks to the northern end of River Street; noting:

-more fine grain residential allotments and contemporary lower rise residential development with a ground level setback are more prevalent north of Malcolm Street

-the existing topography (3 storey form located at the northern end of River Street are likely to have comparable effect to 5 storey form at the southern end of River Street)

-the greater level of sensitivity of the adjacent Neighbourhood Residential Zone within Heritage Overlay 149

The submitter states that 65 Tivoli Road is at the same scale as the proposed preferred maximum height in River Street (north of Malcolm Street). It is difficult to comment on the planning context at the time of this approval. The properties within Tivoli Road north of Malcolm Street are within a heritage overlay (HO149) and the majority are 1-2 storeys.

The amendment proposes to apply ResCode B17 to the rear of the subject site. Advice from urban design experts is as follows:

To the rear, along more sensitive residential interface,

recent developments fronting River Street have

typically adopted ResCode B17 envelope. We consider rear interface treatment akin to a ResCode B17 standard is an acceptable measure to manage the profile of new development to avoid adverse impact. Noting consideration of building height reduction and additional setbacks (ground, or upper), we recommend application of ResCode B17 from adjoining property boundary across the laneway.

Amendment C276 is not proposing changes to the preferred 4.5m setback from side boundaries above podium; this is currently in the Planning Scheme. The amendment proposes to revise the wording to state that the building separation section diagram [ensuring suitable separation between habitable room windows and balconies] also applies to rear setbacks (following advice from urban design experts) as there is currently minimal guidance for rear boundaries. It should be noted that this is a discretionary control.

20.No change.

Submission 21: 17-22 Grattan Street

Preferred maximum building height exceedance

As it relates to the subject site, the amendment does not propose any changes to the preferred requirements relating to maximum building height, street wall height or upper level setbacks

The amendment does however propose to change the designation of the criteria under which applications for development which exceeds the preferred maximum building height from a ‘Height and massing guideline’ to a ‘Height and massing requirement’

The relevant criteria reads:

The preferred maximum building height may be exceeded in some circumstances if:

-It can be demonstrated that a significant community benefit can be achieved; and,

-It continues to meet the objectives, requirements and guidelines in relation to visual impact and overshadowing with increase upper level setbacks

This proposed change would have the effect of applying a pseudo mandatory control whereby it could be interpreted that the above criteria are the only circumstances where an application for development in excess of the preferred maximum building height could be approved

Practice Note 59 sets out that mandatory provisions should only be used in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and it is submitted that they do not exist in this case

ACZ1 was only recently introduced and the Panel for C172 supported the designation for a guideline

Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 2155 found that the criteria are not the only circumstances in which the preferred maximum building height may be exceeded and that they are not preconditions for exceeding the preferred maximum height

There is no guidance or description of what constitutes ‘significant community benefit’

The relevant criteria should remain a ‘guideline’ rather than a ‘requirement’

Objection

The relocation of the ‘preferred maximum building height’ control from under ‘Height and massing guidelines’ to under ‘Height and massing requirements’ is to provide more consideration weight to this control within the statutory assessment of planning permit applications.

The current provision could be interpreted as discretionary, whereas the original intent through Chapel Revision and Amendment C172 is for this to be a consideration for all proposed height exceedances. It is considered that this provision be a requirement in order to ensure a fair and transparent assessment process for all proponents seeking to exceed the preferred maximum building heights. Therefore all proponents would need to demonstrate that the development achieves a significant community benefit as well as continues to meet all other built form provisions of the scheme.

21.No change.

Submission 22: 2 Carlton Street

General

Informing Council that submitter’s clients are interested parties in this matter and intend to make a full and detailed submission at both Council level and when/if matter proceeds to panel

Neutral

The submitter stated that they were appointed by their client later in the exhibition process and therefore will submit late (by 9 July).

Council officers offered the submitter the opportunity for an extension to submit by 22 June (closing of exhibition was 18 June). No further information has been received by the submitter.

22.No change.

Submission 23: 24-26 Chapel Street

Overshadowing, Key Strategic Development Site

Substantive changes have been made to the ‘Overshadowing guidelines’ but not to the ‘Overshadowing requirements’

In Overshadowing requirements “…buildings and works are not to cast shadows over footpaths along Chapel Street…” is not possible to achieve with a preferred maximum height of 12 storeys for the submitter’s site

Overshadowing requirements are without sound basis and will not allow for development in a strategic redevelopment precinct

The amendment allows for the overshadowing provisions to be more clearly and sensibly articulated

The star designating the key strategic development site in WV-7, as shown on the Chapel Street Activity Centre Land Use and Land Use and Framework Plan, indicates the entire precinct is a key strategic development site, whereas the star shown on the Precinct Map appears to indicate a specific site within the precinct as the key strategic development site and therefore should be amended to show a star that applies to the entire WV-7 sub-precinct

Submitter trusts that the detail provided in their submission will assist in the continued assessment of C276

Neutral

The overshadowing controls are already in the Planning Scheme, having been approved by the Minister for Planning, and applied via Amendment C172. This amendment is not proposing to review the overshadowing controls further.

The Overshadowing requirements are in place to protect the amenity for pedestrians on the Activity Centre’s main streets. It should be noted that although the Overshadowing requirements are expected to be considered, they are not mandatory.

The star on the Precinct Map is placed in that location for graphic design reasons (to avoid overlap with other attributes on the map). The Precinct Guidelines text clearly states that the key strategic development site applies to all of WV-7 as well as on the Land Use and Framework Plan. It is noted that this amendment does not propose to change the location of this marker.

23.No change.

Submission 24: 27-29 Regent Street


Does not support the application of the Type 3 Interface setback control being applied to the southern boundary of the submitter’s site

Oppose the amendment on the following grounds:

-imposes unreasonable restrictions on any future development of the site;

-unreasonably limits growth and value of the site;

-will result in poor urban design outcomes;

-other properties are not affected by similar restrictions;

-exact location of proposed PPRZ in Precinct 3 Plan and interface setback requirement wording in the table is not clear

Objection

Sites to the north of future and current open space have Type 3 Interface setback control applied to their respective southern boundary. This is to ensure that solar access to open space is considered if and/or when development is to occur to the north. The Type 3 Interface setback has been applied consistently to all sites to the north of future and current open space, no matter the size. It is a discretionary control that can be assessed during a development application process.

Regarding the clarity of the precinct map, it is challenging to show a PPRZ site at the scale the Precinct Plan needs to be in the ACZ1. The location of the proposed PPRZ site on the Precinct 3 Plan can be made clearer by zooming in on the Plan in electronic form. The wording is consistent with other Interface setback requirements wording in the table and is considered to be as clear and concise as possible.

24.No change.

Submission 25: 329, 331 and 333 Toorak Road

General

Submitter provides commentary in terms of car parking support columns locations/design within a building to inform justification to eliminate Interface setback controls at upper levels, instead having setbacks at ground level

Neutral

The Interface setback controls for the submitter’s site are already in the Planning Scheme, having been approved by the Minister for Planning, via Amendment C172. Amendment C276 is not proposing changes to these Interface setback controls.

Setbacks at upper levels are important to reduce the impact of built form dominating streets; it is equally important to maintain a consistent building line along the street for activation at ground level.

It should be noted that on site car parking in the ACZ is to be provided in a basement format not above ground.

25.No change.

Submission 26: 35 Claremont Street (South Yarra Claremont Pty Ltd)

Not policy neutral, inequitable, Developer Contributions Plan

Opposes the amendment as:

-It is not policy neutral as it is intended to apply to Forrest Hill precinct

-Substantive changes inequitable as other development has been permitted under less onerous provisions

-Significant community benefit criterion should not be deleted

-Developer Contributions Plan for Forrest Hill has not gone through a statutory process in an endeavour to circumvent the Developer Contributions Overlay and section 62(5) and (6) of the Act and is inequitable at this late stage in the development of the Forrest Hill precinct

Objection

The amendment is not policy neutral and is therefore undergoing public exhibition.

Design Development Overlay 8 (DDO8) which covered Forrest Hill were translated into the current Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1.

The significant community benefit criterion has not been deleted; it is proposed to be given more weight by moving it from a guideline to a requirement.

The Developer Contributions Plan is not part of Amendment C276.

26.No change.



Page 93

Page 28

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD

This Form MUST be completed by the attending Council Officer and returned IMMEDIATELY to Judy Hogan – Civic Support Officer

ASSEMBLY DETAILS

STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Date and Time: Monday 30 July 2018, 5.00pm

Assembly Location: Meeting Room 1.1, 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern

IN ATTENDANCE

Councillors:

Cr Chandler

Council Officers:

Stuart Draffin, General Manager Planning & Amenity

Susan Price Manager City Strategy

Vanessa Davis, EA Planning & Amenity

Matter/s Discussed:

Conflicts of Interest

Activity Centre Planning

· Caulfield Station Precinct

· Amendment C276 - Chapel reVision

· C223 - Glenferrie Road High Street

Heritage

· Strategy & Gaps

· Heritage Investigations Update

Strategies for Creating Open Space

Metro Tunnel Project

Housing Strategy

Upcoming Panel Hearings

· C221 SBI/LSIO

Strategic Priorities

Other Business

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES:

Councillors:

None declared

Council Officers:

None declared

Form completed by: Vanessa Davis

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD

This Form MUST be completed by the attending Council Officer and returned IMMEDIATELY to Judy Hogan – Civic Support Officer

ASSEMBLY DETAILS

Date: Monday 30 July 2018 Councillor Briefing

Time: 5.50PM Councillors Only

Briefing started at 7.25pm

Assembly Location: Committee Room, Level 2, 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern

IN ATTENDANCE

Councillors:

Cr S Stefanopoulos (Mayor)

Cr G Atwell

Cr J Klisaris (left 8.30pm)

Cr J Chandler

Cr J Hindle

Cr M Griffin

Cr M Koce (8.15pm)

Cr M Sehr (apology)

Cr S Davis

Council Officers:

Warren Roberts (CEO)

Stuart Draffin

Ian McLauchlan

Cath Harrod

Geoff Cockram

Fabienne Thewlis

Susan Price (left 8.25pm)

Simon Holloway (left 8.17pm)

Alexandra Kastaniotis (8.57pm, left 9.55pm)

Rick Kwasek (left 8.17pm)

Julie Fry (7.27pm, left 8.30pm)

Nicole Dewhurst (7.27pm, left 8.30pm)

Matter/s Discussed:

1.CEO Annual Review – Councillors and Consultant Only

2.Endorsement of the Princes Gardens Masterplan

3.Metro Tunnel Project - Proposed Early Works for Eastern Portal

4.Amendment C270 - Federation Houses Heritage Study - Adoption

5.Amendment C276 - Improvements to Chapel ReVision Planning Controls - Consideration of Submissions

6.Reconciliation Action Plan 2018-2020

7.Infrastructure Victoria - Five-year focus: Immediate actions to tackle congestion

8.Victoria Terrace, South Yarra - Section 223 Advertisement of Proposed Road Closure Trial

9.Millewa Avenue, Malvern East - Proposal to Install NO STOPPING Restriction

10.Elizabeth Street Car Park - Modify Parking Rates

11.Vehicle Crossing Application – 76 Lang Street, South Yarra

12.Planning Application 0498/17- 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor VIC 3181- Construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement

13.Planning Application 0258/17- 18 Parslow Street, Malvern VIC 3144- Construct two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone

14.Planning Application 1225/16- 94 Chomley Street, Prahran VIC 3181- Extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm in a General Residential Zone

15.418 Wattletree Road, Malvern East & 1529 Malvern Road, Glen Iris - Telecommunications facilities

16.Prahran Market Pty Ltd Variation of Purpose of $1.0m Loan

17.Community Grant 2018-2019: TRY South Yarra Pre School

18.Community grant 2018-2019: Melbourne Rainbow Band

19.Community Grant 2018-2019: Inclusion

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: including time left and returned to meeting

Councillors:

Cr Hindle declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 5 - Amendment C276 - Improvements to Chapel ReVision Planning Controls - Consideration of Submissions as she is on the Body Corporate of a building in the area and left the meeting at 8.22pm. Cr Hindle returned to the meeting at 8.25pm after the discussion had ended.

Cr Hindle declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 8 - Victoria Terrace, South Yarra - Section 223 Advertisement of Proposed Road Closure Trial as she is on the Body Corporate of a building in the area and left the meeting at 8.55pm. Cr Hindle returned to the meeting at 8.57pm after the discussion had ended.

Cr Chandler declared a Conflict of Interest in Item 14 - Planning Application 1225/16- 94 Chomley Street, Prahran VIC 3181- Extension to a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm in a General Residential Zone as his wife owns a property in the area and left the meeting at 9.30pm. Cr Chandler returned to the meeting at 9.35pm after the discussions had ended.

Council Officers:

Nil

Form completed by: Fabienne Thewlis

Council Minutes


Page 50

Assembly of Councillors Report July 2018

Tabled at Council Meeting

· A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors and a member of Council staff, and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision of the Council; or subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee;

· An Advisory Committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present – eg:-on-site inspections/meetings; planning or other consultative meetings;

Date of Meeting

Meeting name

Ward

Councillors Attendance

Officers

Attendance

Conflict of Interest disclosures

and if left meeting

Matter/s Discussed

Councillors

Officers

3/7/18

Planning Consultative Meeting

South

Cr Stefanopoulos

Aliza Fischer Webberley

Nil

Nil

Planning Application No:0663/17 – 18 Albion Street South Yarra

10/7/18


East

Cr Klisaris

Edward Wilkinson

Nil

Nil

Planning Application No: 1265/16 – 29 McArthur Street Malvern

24/7/18


East

Cr Atwell

Cr Klisaris

Jennifer Ozer

Nil

Nil

Planning Application No: 0223/18 – 100Darling Road Malvern East

31/7/18


East

Cr Atwell

Cr Davis

Nathaniel Man

Nil

Nil

Planning Application No: 1362/17 – 118 Burke Road Malvern East

31/7/18


East

Cr Davis

Cr Atwell

Amanda Connolly

Nil

Nil

Planning Application No: 1060/11-6 – 1250-1256 Malvern Road Malvern

Documents

Minutes of Council Meeting - 6 August 2018 › files › assets › ... · Web viewAug 06, 2018 · 11.Vehicle Crossing Application – 76 Lang Street, South Yarra 12.Planning Application