Logo_Primary_BlackWhite%20(JPG)

Agenda

 

OF Ordinary
COUNCIL MEETING

HELD ON

Tuesday 22 November 2016

AT 6:30pm

summons

 

You are advised that a Meeting of Council has been called by the Chief Executive Officer on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 in Council Chamber, 25 Ferres Boulevard, South Morang at 6:30pm for the transaction of the following business.

 

M WOOTTEN

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                          Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

 

 

COUNCILLORS

 

RICKY KIRKHAM                            MAYOR, NORTH WARD

JOHN BUTLER                                NORTH WARD

EMILIA LISA STERJOVA               NORTH WARD

NORM KELLY                                  DEPUTY MAYOR, SOUTH EAST WARD

SAM ALESSI                                    SOUTH EAST WARD

ALAHNA DESIATO                         SOUTH EAST WARD

MARY LALIOS                                 SOUTH EAST WARD

LAWRIE COX                                   SOUTH WEST WARD

STEVAN KOZMEVSKI                   SOUTH WEST WARD

CAZ MONTELEONE                       SOUTH WEST WARD

KRIS PAVLIDIS                               SOUTH WEST WARD


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                          Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

 

 

SENIOR OFFICERS

 

 

MICHAEL WOOTTEN                       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

RUSSELL HOPKINS                         DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

STEVE O’BRIEN                                DIRECTOR PLANNING AND MAJOR PROJECTS

NICK MANN                                       DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORT & PRESENTATION

HELEN SUI                                        DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

LIANA THOMPSON                          DIRECTOR PARTNERSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

MICHAEL TONTA                              MANAGER GOVERNANCE


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                          Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

The Chief Executive Officer submits the following business:

1.            Opening.. 11

1.1         MEETING OPENING AND PRAYER.. 11

1.2         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS STATEMENT.. 11

1.3         Present.. 11

2.            Apologies.. 11

3.            Declarations of Interest.. 11

4.            Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting.. 11

5.            Consideration and Action on Petitions and Joint Letters.. 11

5.1         Petitions.. 13

5.1.1       Petition - 2 Egret Place, Whittlesea - Parking Issues.. 13

5.2         Joint Letters.. 15

Nil Reports.. 15

6.            Officers' Reports.. 17

6.1         Planning and Major Projects.. 17

6.1.1       84 THE BOULEVARD, THOMASTOWN - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT - THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR DWELLINGS   17

6.1.2       27 Bickley Avenue, Thomastown - Request for extension of time to planning permit - the construction of two single storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling.. 29

6.1.3       36 HOWELL STREET, LALOR - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT - THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS   43

6.1.4       315 & 317-319 HIGH STREET, THOMASTOWN - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT - CONSTRUCTION OF 40 DWELLINGS (THREE STORpEY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH BASEMENT PARKING) 53

6.1.5       531 High Street Epping - Request for an Extension of Time - The expansion of Pacific Epping Shopping Centre.. 77

6.1.6       719 High Street, Epping - Request for extension of time to planning permit - Mixed use development comprising commercial uses (including office, supermarket, shops gymnasium and child care), residential apartments and reduction in standard car parking requirements. 85

6.1.7       84 Lincoln Drive, Thomastown - Request for Extension of Time to Planning Permit - Construction of a dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling.. 113

6.1.8       35 Cuthbert Drive, Mill Park - construction of a dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling.. 123

6.1.9       19 Cedar Street, Thomastown - Construction of four dwellings.. 139

6.1.10    10 KATHLEEN COURT, BUNDOORA - CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS.. 159

6.1.11    Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C175 – Panel Report Outcomes & Adoption.. 175

6.1.12    Amendment C123- 50 and 60 Hunters Road, Mernda, Amendment to the Mernda Strategy Plan.. 197

6.1.13    895 Yan Yean Road and 900 Bridge Inn Road, Doreen: Removal of Native Vegetation.. 209

6.1.14    283 The Lakes Boulevard and 70 Martin Close, South Morang - Multi-Lot Subdivision and the Removal of Native Vegetation   233

6.1.15    2016/17 First Quarter New Works Program Report. 269

6.2         Community Services.. 305

6.2.1       Petition Update - Spring Street Hall. 305

6.3         City Transport and Presentation.. 309

6.3.1       Proposed Council Lease of the Future Public Transportation Corridor at Aurora Estate.. 309

6.4         Corporate Services.. 321

6.4.1       Road discontinuance adjoining 60 Sackville Street Mernda   321

6.4.2       Land Exchange - 182 & 214W Greenhills Road Bundoora.. 337

6.4.3       Assemblies of Councillors - 22 November 2016. 345

6.4.4       Council Meeting Schedule for 2017. 349

6.4.5       Appointment of Councillor and Officer Representation on Organisation and Committees for 2017. 353

6.5         Partnerships & Engagement.. 387

6.5.1       Epping Community Services Hub - Sub Tenancies.. 387

6.6         Executive Services.. 391

Nil Reports.. 391

7.            Notices of Motion.. 393

Nil Reports.. 393

8.            Questions to Officers.. 393

9.            Urgent BusineSS.. 393

10.         Reports from Delegates Appointed BY Council TO Other Bodies.. 393

11.         Questions to CouncillorS.. 393

12.         Confidential Business.. 395

12.1       Planning and Major Projects.. 395

12.1.1    CONSTRUCTION WORKS FOR THE EPPING DEPOT CAR PARK CONTRACT 2015-222 - TENDER EVALUATION REPORT. 395

12.1.2    DESIGN SERVICES FOR PAINTED HILLS RECREATION RESERVE CONTRACT 2016-110 - TENDER EVALUATION REPORT. 397

12.1.3    RE-AWARD OF CONTRACT 2016-35 RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNIS COURTS AT THE LALOR TENNIS CLUB STAGE 3. 399

12.2       Community Services.. 401

Nil Reports.. 401

12.3       City Transport and Presentation.. 403

12.3.1    Provision of Security Services - Contract No. CT121350 - Contract Extension.. 403

12.4       Corporate Services.. 405

12.4.1    Land Acquisition - Future Road Duplication & Light Rail - South Morang.. 405

12.5       Partnerships & Engagement.. 407

Nil Reports.. 407

12.6       Executive Services.. 409

12.6.1    MEETINGS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - 1 October to 11 November 2016. 409

13.         Closure.. 411

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                          Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

Note:

At Council’s discretion, the meeting may be closed in accordance with Section 89 of the Local Government Act 1989. The provision which is likely to be relied upon to enable closure is set out in each item. These reports are not available for public distribution.

 

 

 

Question Time:

During the meeting, Council will answer questions from residents and ratepayers.  Questions should be submitted in writing before the start of the meeting unless this unreasonably prevents or hinders you from participating. A Question Time form can be downloaded from Council’s website and copies of the form are available at the meeting.

 

Council is committed to ensuring that all residents and ratepayers of the municipality may contribute to Council’s democratic process and therefore, if you have special requirements, please telephone the Governance Team prior to any Council Meeting on 9217 2294.

 

 

Large Attachments:

Where large attachments form part of the Report, due to the size of the attachments – a copy has not been provided in the Agenda document

Copies of these attachments are available for inspection by the public at the following locations:

a)      Council offices at 25 Ferres Boulevard, South Morang; and

b)      Whittlesea City Council’s internet site – www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                          Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

1.         Opening

1.1       MEETING OPENING AND PRAYER

The Chief Executive Officer will open the meeting with the reading of the prayers:

 

Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee, to vouchsafe thy blessing upon this council.  Direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of thy glory and the true welfare of the people of the Whittlesea City Council.

 

Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever.

 

Amen

 

1.2       ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS STATEMENT

The Mayor will read the following Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners Statement.

 

On behalf of the Whittlesea City Council I recognise the rich Aboriginal heritage of this country and acknowledge the Wurundjeri Willum Clan as the traditional owners of this place.

 

1.3       Present

2.         Apologies

3.         Declarations of Interest

4.         Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council held 11 October 2016; and

Special Meeting of Council held 3 November 2016.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

5.         Consideration and Action on Petitions and Joint Letters

5.1       Petitions

5.1.1    Petition - 2 Egret Place, Whittlesea - Parking Issues

 

A petition from five residents regarding parking issues at 5 Egret Place, Whittlesea:

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to receive the petition regarding parking issues at 5 Egret Place, Whittlesea and a report be prepared.

 

 

5.2       Joint Letters

Nil Reports   


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.         Officers' Reports

6.1       Planning and Major Projects

6.1.1    84 THE BOULEVARD, THOMASTOWN - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT - THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR DWELLINGS

File No:                                  712283

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

 APPLICANT:                                 Mr B Xie

COUNCIL POLICY:              Housing Policy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 712283) allowing the construction of four dwellings at 84 the Boulevard, Thomastown.  The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 20 September 2011 by Council due to two objections being received.  Three previous requests for an extension of time have been granted.  The permit expired on 20 September 2016 as development has not yet commenced.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within three months of the lapse date.

At its meeting on 30 August 2016, Council resolved to make amendments to its Instrument of Delegation to require that requests for extensions of time to planning permits under section 69(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be determined by Council where planning circumstances have changed since the grant of a permit or where there is a recommendation by officers to refuse an extension.

This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the subject permit be approved as it is highly likely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to Council’s Housing Diversity Strategy.  The outcomes of this Strategy now form part of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and provide direction on preferred housing character in different parts of the municipality.  Under the Strategy the subject land is now classified as ‘Neighbourhood Interface’ in which preferred housing is to be characterised by medium and standard density housing such as single dwellings, dual occupancies, townhouses and multi-units.  The development approved under the permit is considered to be consistent with this preferred character.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land is located on the north side of The Boulevard, Thomastown (see Attachment 1).  The site is a regular shaped allotment that is relatively flat and has a total site area of 728m2.  The site contains a single storey brick dwelling and vehicular access is provided via an existing concrete crossing located within the southeast corner of the land.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by single storey brick veneer dwellings constructed circa 1950’s.  There are also a number of recently constructed medium density developments of a double storey nature within the immediate surrounds and particularly along The Boulevard.  Further west of the site is the Thomastown Railway Station and a small commercial hub, comprising shops, medical suites and a social club.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 712283 was granted on 20 September 2011 authorising the construction of three double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling.  The application was determined by Council on 14 December 2010 as there were two objections at the end of the advertising period.  The endorsed plans are shown in Attachment 2.

Condition No. 17 of the Permit states:

In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 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.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

An application for the extension was received on 9 September 2016.  This request has been received within the time specified above and can therefore be considered.  It is noted, three previous requests for an extension of time have been granted.  The permit expired on 20 September 2016.

current permit extension request

The applicant seeks an extension of two (2) years to commence and complete the development citing insufficient funding at the present time as the reason for the request.

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was issued on 20 September 2011 the land was located in a Residential 1 Zone.  In October 2015 Amendment C181 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new Statewide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  In relation to the subject land and surrounds, the General Residential Zone was applied.  Amendment C181 also included Council’s adopted Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) within the Municipal Strategic Statement (which forms part of the Planning Scheme).  In particular, Clause 21.09-4 was introduced to define residential change areas and the preferred housing character within these areas.  The subject land was included in a ‘Neighbourhood Interface’ change area in which preferred housing is to be characterised by medium and standard density housing comprising single dwellings, dual occupancies, town houses and multi-unit developments.  These areas are within moderate proximity (10-15 minute walk) to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS sets out ‘Key Design Principles’ that encourage low to medium building heights, moderate front setbacks and sufficient side and rear setbacks to allow for medium site coverage and useable private open space with landscaping to complement medium density built form.

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is for three double storey dwellings and one single storey dwelling and is therefore consistent with the preferred density and building heights for the Neighbourhood Interface change area.  The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted allow sufficient private open space to accommodate a small to medium canopy tree for each dwelling which will soften the impact of the proposed built form on site.  The generous front setback can also accommodate a large tree or a number of medium canopy trees to further enhance the streetscape.

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils.  These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them).  The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to the extensions of time.

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying other affected persons of extension of time requests.

The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

The change of policy brought about by the approval of Amendment C181 and the introduction of the HDS and associated changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework have been discussed previously in this report.  The changed policy context supports the current proposal.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

The permit has been extended a number of times already.  No reasons (other than those mentioned below) were provided in the application for the extension of time and under these circumstances the further extension could be considered to constitute warehousing.  However, as the development is one that continues to be supported under the planning provisions, a further extension is reasonable.  It is recommended that the applicant be advised that further extensions of time are unlikely to be granted.

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

There are no intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension other than the permit holder has insufficient funding to commence the development at the present time.

The total elapse of time

The total period that has elapsed since the granting of the permit is now five years.  However, because planning circumstances continue to support this form of development, an extension is considered reasonable.

Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed was reasonable.  The permit holder was given the benefit of a standard two year commencement period and other extensions.

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit.  No evidence has been provided indicating that the permit holder is under any economic burden because of commitments made in relation to the proposal.

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made

Under the HDS the site is located within the Neighbourhood Interface change area.  This change area nominates the preferred housing type as single dwellings, dual occupancies, townhouses and multi-units such as that proposed.  It is likely the current development would be supported if a new application were to be made.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change of circumstances.  The HDS was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes in policy suggest that it is highly likely that the current proposal would be supported if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that one further extension of time be approved.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 712283 for the construction of four dwellings at 84 The Boulevard, Thomastown.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.2    27 Bickley Avenue, Thomastown - Request for extension of time to planning permit - the construction of two single storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling

File No:                                  713374

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer Established Areas Planning   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Ikonomidis Reid

COUNCIL POLICY:              Housing Policy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council refuse an extension of time.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 713374) allowing the construction of two single storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling at 27 Bickley Avenue, Thomastown.  The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement and completion date of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 16 March 2012 under delegation by officers (as no objections were received).  The permit expired on 16 March 2016.  The application requesting the extension was received within the prescribed time following the lapse date.

At its meeting on 30 August 2016, Council resolved to make amendments to its Instrument of Delegation to require that requests for extensions of time to planning permits under section 69(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be determined by Council where planning circumstances have changed since the grant of a permit or where there is a recommendation by officers to refuse an extension.

This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the subject permit be refused as it is highly likely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would not be granted.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to Council’s Housing Diversity Strategy.  The outcomes of this Strategy now form part of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and provide direction on preferred housing character in different parts of the municipality.  Under the Strategy the subject land is now classified as ‘Suburban Residential’ in which preferred housing is to be characterised by standard density housing such as detached dwellings and duplexes.  The development approved under the Permit has been assessed as potentially being inconsistent with this preferred housing and character. 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land is an irregular shaped property located on the southern side of Bickley Avenue, approximately 130m east of Richardson Street (see Attachment 1). The subject site has a frontage to Bickley Avenue of 12.5m and an overall area of 817m². The site is flat and contains a single storey detached dwelling constructed out of brick with a concrete tiled hipped roof.  The rear of the site abuts a Melbourne Water pipe track reservation which is included in a Heritage Overlay under the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Within the rear portion of the property there currently are a number of outbuildings.  The site is level and contains no native vegetation. Vehicular access into the site is achieved from the north western corner of the property via a double crossover.

The surrounding area is largely residential in nature and generally consists of slightly smaller lot sizes with each containing a similar built form to the dwelling on the subject site. Immediately beyond the rear boundary of the site and the pipetrack reservation is the Thomastown East Reserve. There are no other medium density housing sites in the surrounding area other than Nos. 9 and 49 Bickley Avenue which contain dual occupancies/ duplexes.

Background

Planning Permit No. 713374 was granted on 16 March 2012 authorising the construction of two single storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling. The application was determined under delegation by officers as no objections were received at the end of the advertising period. 

Condition No. 20 of the Permit states:

20.     This permit will expire if:

 

(a)     the approved development does not start within two years of the date of this permit; or

 

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

Before the permit expires or within three months afterwards, the owner or the occupier of the land to which it applies may ask the Responsible Authority for an extension of time. The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the development is to be started or completed.

Development under the permit did not commence within the initial two year period and a further two year extension of time to commence development was granted under delegation on 11 February 2014 to allow development to commence by no later than 16 March 2016.  Plans were endorsed on 9 April 2014 (see Attachment 2). 

A further (second) extension of time request was received on 20 January 2016.  Given that there had been a change of policy with the introduction of Clause 21.09 and the Housing Diversity Strategy in October 2015, the extension request was refused on 9 February 2016 under delegation.  Accordingly, the permit holder only had until 16 March 2016 to commence the development.

Notwithstanding the refusal to the extend the time, a building contract was signed on 9 February 2016 and a Building permit was issued on 16 February 2016.  The permit holder has also advised that Yarra Valley Water contributions were made on 7 March 2016.  No building works commenced under the Building Permit by the permit lapse date (16 March).  The issuing of a Building Permit cannot be relied upon of itself to constitute a commencement.

The current application is the third extension of time request for this Planning Permit and was received on 31 August 2016.  Although this third request was made more than three months after the extended lapse date, legislation had changed since the permit was granted to allow extension requests to be made within six months of a lapse date.  This third request was made immediately following the change in Council’s Instrument of Delegation requiring that extension of time now be determined by Council where there is a change in circumstances or where there is a recommendation for refusal.

current Permit Extension Request

The applicant seeks an extension period of one (1) year to commence and complete the development and provides the following reasons in support of the application:

·    Building delay.  A Building Permit has already been issued

·    Subdivision has been approved (22 August 2014) and certified (10 August 2016).

·    No changes to the zone and overlays affecting the land and no changes in the surrounding area.

Assessment

When the permit was issued on 16 March 2012 the land was located in a Residential 1 Zone.  In October 2015 Amendment C181 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new Statewide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  In relation to the subject land and surrounds, the General Residential Zone was applied.  Amendment C181 also included Council’s adopted Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) within the Municipal Strategic Statement (which forms part of the Planning Scheme).  In particular, Clause 21.09-4 was introduced to define residential change areas and the preferred housing character within these areas.  The subject land was included in a ‘Suburban Residential’ change area in which preferred housing is to be characterised by standard density housing and dual occupancies/ duplexes.  These areas are typically not in close proximity to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS sets out ‘Key Design Principles’ that encourage separation of dwellings at ground level, increased areas of private open space and provision for significant landscaping including canopy trees.  Building heights are to reflect existing suburban scale and character.

The proposed development (refer Attachment 2) is for the construction of two single storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling. The secluded private open space for each proposed dwelling is compliant with Clause 55.05-4 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme; however, the Key Design Principle requiring an increased area of private open space to allow for significant landscaping, including the provision of larger canopy trees is restricted, particularly within the private open space area of Dwelling No. 2. Under the current plans, such trees are generally restricted to the front setback although a small tree is nominated within each rear yard under the endorsed landscape plan. The viability of the trees within the rear yards is questionable, with the ability to plant an extra-large tree in the rear setback significantly limited by the existing drainage and sewerage easement.

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils.  These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them).  The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to the extensions of time.

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying other affected persons of extension of time requests.

The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

The change in policy brought about by the approval of Amendment C181 and the introduction of the HDS and associated changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework have been discussed previously in this report.  The changed policy context is no longer supportive of the current proposal.  These policy changes were exhibited and adopted after the permit was originally approved in 2012 and Amendment C181 was gazetted over a year ago in October 2015. This change of planning policy formed the basis of the refusal of the second extension of time request to this Permit in February 2016 under delegation. 

A change in planning policy does not prohibit a permit being extended and the context of the site may be taken into account.  Where there are already examples of medium density development that may be non-compliant with a recently introduced change to the planning provisions, a responsible authority may exercise its discretion to extend a planning permit if other tests can be reasonably met.  However, in cases such as this, where the surrounding area is broadly consistent with the proposed change in policy, an extension of time should not be supported because it would potentially result in a development outcome that is inconsistent with both the existing and preferred character of the area.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is no evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit (i.e. not intending to act on the permit in the foreseeable future). Nevertheless, this application is the third extension of time request submitted to Council.

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

There are no intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension other than the permit holder has incurred builder delays to commence the development at the present time. It is the view of officers that this intervening circumstance is an insufficient justification for allowing an extension of time when weighted against other more critical criteria. The applicant has also stated that there have been no changes in the zoning or overlay controls, however the zoning control did change in October 2015 (as previously stated), and the introduction of Clause 21.09 into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme is considered a significant policy change.

The total elapse of time

A period of more than four years has elapsed since the permit was initially granted in 2012.

Whether the time limit original imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed was reasonable. The permit holder was given the benefit of a standard two year commencement period when the permit was granted. The applicant was then afforded a further two year extension.  This was adequate under the circumstances.

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder/ proponent is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit.  No development has commenced under the permit.  While works preparatory to the commencement of development have occurred in the form of subdivision approval and obtaining a building permit, the building application was made very close to the time of the permit expiry, and in the context of changed planning circumstances.  Making an application for a building permit without any certainty about whether a planning permit will be extended or not is not recommended. 

It should be noted that if the development had commenced under the permit (this would have required building works), a further two years would have been available to complete the development. No buildings and works have commenced on the site in association with the Planning Permit.

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made

Under the HDS the site is located within the Suburban Residential change area. This change area nominates the preferred housing type as single dwellings and dual occupancies. There is no certainty that the permit for the construction of two dwellings to the rear of the existing dwelling (a total of three dwellings) would be granted on the subject land should a fresh application be made.  Based on other similar decisions recently made by Council and VCAT, it is likely that this application would be refused based on the changed planning zone and policy. 

In a recent VCAT decision (23 June 2016) (Alliance Property Solutions v City of Whittlesea P467/2016), a senior legal member (H. McM. Wright QC) refused an application for review of an extension of time request similar to the current application. 

This matter related to permit that had been granted for three dwellings on a 773m2 lot at 16 Hall Street, Epping (also subject to a ‘Suburban Residential’ change area introduced by the HDS).  The Tribunal stated in this recent case that:

The two Kantor tests of relevance in this case are:

·    whether there has been a change of planning policy; and

·    The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made.

The two tests are related in that the planning policy will be a major determinant as to whether the permit would issue on a fresh application.

…….

The Tribunal is of the opinion that in cases where there is a real and substantial divergence of opinion as to the planning merits of a new application it is not appropriate to resolve the debate on an application for an extension of time of the existing permit.  At this stage it cannot be said that the Kantor test regarding the probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made is satisfied.  On the other hand if a fresh application is made what is presently speculation will be translated into actuality.

…….

….in cases where the use or development is still permitted the prudent course is to see whether it, of some modification of it [the development] will be permitted.

…….

In the ever changing kaleidoscope of planning policy and planning controls it should never be assumed that a permit will be extended.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change in circumstances.  The HDS was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes in policy suggest that it would be unlikely that the current proposal would be supported if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that the extension of time be refused.  The applicant is not prevented from making a further application for medium density development on the land which complies with current planning provisions.


 

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to refuse the application to extend Planning Permit No. 713374 for the construction of two single storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling at 27 Bickley Avenue, Thomastown and advise the applicant accordingly.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.3    36 HOWELL STREET, LALOR - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT - THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS

File No:                                  714828

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  MS Designer Living Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              Housing Policy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 714828) allowing the construction of three dwellings at 36 Howell Street, Lalor.  The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 23 December 2014 under delegation by officers (as no objections were received).  The permit is due to expire on 23 December 2016.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within six months of the expiry date.

At its meeting on 30 August 2016, Council resolved to make amendments to its Instrument of Delegation to require that requests for extensions of time to planning permits under section 69(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be determined by Council where planning circumstances have changed since the grant of a permit or where there is a recommendation by officers to refuse an extension.

This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the subject permit be approved as it is highly likely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to Council’s Housing Diversity Strategy.  The outcomes of this Strategy now form part of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and provide direction on preferred housing character in different parts of the municipality.  Under the Strategy the subject land is now classified as ‘Neighbourhood Interface’ in which preferred housing is to be characterised by medium and standard density housing such as single dwellings, dual occupancies, townhouses and multi-units.  The development approved under the permit is considered to be consistent with this preferred character.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land is located on the north side of Howell Street, Lalor (see Attachment 1).  The site is a regular shaped allotment that is relatively flat and has a total site area of 628m2.  The site contains a single storey weatherboard dwelling and vehicular access is provided via an existing concrete crossing located within the southeast corner of the land.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by single storey brick veneer or weatherboard dwellings.  There are a number of medium density developments within the immediate surrounds located along Howell Street, Richard Street, Tramoo Street and Mount View Road.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 714828 was granted on 23 December 2014 authorising the construction of three double storey dwellings.  The application was determined under delegation by officers as no objections were received at the end of the advertising period.  Condition No. 3 of the permit requires the submission of revised plans before the development starts.  This requirement currently remains outstanding.  The advertised development plans are shown in Attachment 2.

Condition No. 20 of the Permit states:

In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a permit for the development expires if:

(a)  the approved development does not start within 2 years of the date of this permit; or

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

 

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing.  This request must be made before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

 

An application for the extension was received on 3 August 2016.  This request has been received within the time specified above and can therefore be considered.  This is the first request for an extension of time.

CURRENT PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST

The applicant seeks an extension of two (2) years to commence and complete the development citing insufficient funding at the present time as the reason for the request.

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was issued on 23 December 2014 the land was located in a General Residential Zone.  In October 2015 Amendment C181 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new Statewide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  In relation to the subject land and surrounds, the General Residential Zone remained unchanged.  Amendment C181 also included Council’s adopted Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) within the Municipal Strategic Statement (which forms part of the Planning Scheme).  In particular, Clause 21.09-4 was introduced to define residential change areas and the preferred housing character within these areas.  The subject land was included in a ‘Neighbourhood Interface’ change area in which preferred housing is to be characterised by medium and standard density housing comprising single dwellings, dual occupancies, town houses and multi-unit developments.  These areas are within moderate proximity (10-15 minute walk) to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS sets out ‘Key Design Principles’ that encourage low to medium building heights, moderate front setbacks and sufficient side and rear setbacks to allow for medium site coverage and useable private open space with landscaping to complement medium density built form.

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is for three double storey dwellings and is therefore consistent with the preferred density and building heights for the Neighbourhood Interface change area.  The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted allow sufficient private open space to accommodate a small to medium canopy tree for each dwelling which will soften the impact of the proposed built form on site.  The generous front setback can also accommodate a large tree or a number of medium canopy trees to further enhance the streetscape.

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils.  These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them).  The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to the extensions of time.

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying other affected persons of extension of time requests.

The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

The change of policy brought about by the approval of Amendment C181 and the introduction of the HDS and associated changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework have been discussed previously in this report.  The changed policy context supports the current proposal.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is no evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit (i.e. not intending to act on the permit in the foreseeable future).

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

There are no intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension other than the permit holder has insufficient funding to commence the development at the present time.

The total elapse of time

The total period that has elapsed since the granting of the permit is currently less than two years.  However, because planning circumstances continue to support this form of development, an extension is considered reasonable.

Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed was reasonable.  The permit holder was given the benefit of a standard two year commencement period.

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit.  The request to extend the permit was made before the permit expiry date and this is the first request for an extension of time to commence the approved development.  There is no evidence that the permit holder is not committed to the permit proposal.


 

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made

Under the HDS the site is located within the Neighbourhood Interface change area.  This change area nominates the preferred housing type as single dwellings, dual occupancies, townhouses and multi-units such as that proposed.  It is likely the current development would be supported if a new application were to be made.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change in circumstances.  The HDS was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes in policy suggest that it is highly likely that the current proposal would be supported if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that the extension of time be approved.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 714828 for the construction of three dwellings at 36 Howell Street, Lalor and advise the applicant accordingly.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.4    315 & 317-319 HIGH STREET, THOMASTOWN - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT - CONSTRUCTION OF 40 DWELLINGS (THREE STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH BASEMENT PARKING)

File No:                                  714201

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Healthville Investments Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              Housing Policy

ZONING:                               Residential Growth Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend planning permit (No. 714201) allowing the construction of 40 dwellings (three storey apartment building with basement parking) at 315 and 317-319 High Street, Thomastown.  The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 20 September 2013 under delegation by officers (as no objections were received).  The permit expired on 20 September 2016 as development has not yet commenced.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within six months of the expiry date.

At its meeting on 30 August 2016, Council resolved to make amendments to its Instrument of Delegation to require that requests for extensions of time to planning permits under section 69(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be determined by Council where planning circumstances have changed since the grant of a permit or where there is a recommendation by officers to refuse an extension.

This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the subject permit be approved as it is highly likely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to Council’s Housing Diversity Strategy.  The outcomes of this Strategy now form part of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and provide direction on preferred housing character in different parts of the municipality.  Under the Strategy the subject land is now classified as ‘Neighbourhood Renewal’ in which preferred housing is to be characterised by medium and higher density housing such as townhouses, multi-units, small scale apartments and shop-top housing and mixed use developments.  The development approved under the permit is considered to be consistent with this preferred character.


 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land comprises two residential allotments (315 and 317-319 High Street) located on the southwest corner of High Street and Westall Street, Thomastown (see Attachment 1).  The site is flat and irregular in shape with a total site area of 1,665m2.  The site currently contains a single storey brick dwelling at 315 High Street and a large scale single storey medical centre and rear car parking area at 317-319 High Street.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by single storey detached dwellings.  A 3.0m wide laneway abuts the subject site to the west and extends from Westall Street to Chappell Street.  There are numerous medium density developments within the immediate surrounds including 307, 327 and 33 High Street; 25, 27, 30, 36 and 39 Westall Street; 1A, 18, 19, 20, 24, 28, 34, 37 and 38 Chappell Street; and 1, 13, 19, 22, 31, 34 and 36 Travers Street.  Further south and southeast of the site is the Thomastown Shops comprising a range of commercial uses and the Thomastown Railway Station.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 714201 was granted on 20 September 2013 authorising the construction of 40 dwellings (three storey apartment building with basement parking).  The application was determined under delegation by officers as no objections were received at the end of the advertising period.  The endorsed plans are shown in Attachment 2.

Condition No. 22 of the Permit states:

          In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a permit for the development expires if:

(a)     the approved development does not start within 3 years of the date of this permit; or

(b)     the approved development is not completed within 6 years of the date of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing.  This request must be made before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

An application for the extension was received on 8 August 2016.  This request has been received within the time specified above and can therefore be considered.  This is the first request for an extension of time.

CURRENT PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST

The applicant seeks an extension of three (3) years to commence and complete the development citing the current uncertain economic climate has resulted in difficulties in accessing the required funds from financial lenders to commence development as the reason for the request.

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was issued on 20 September 2013 the land was located in a Residential 1 Zone.  In October 2015 Amendment C181 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new Statewide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  In relation to the subject land and surrounds, the Residential Growth Zone was applied.  The Residential Growth Zone aims to provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to four storeys.  Amendment C181 also included Council’s adopted Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) within the Municipal Strategic Statement (which forms part of the Planning Scheme).  In particular, Clause 21.09-4 was introduced to define residential change areas and the preferred housing character within these areas.  The subject land was included in a ‘Neighbourhood Renewal’ change area in which preferred housing is to be characterised by town houses, multi-units, small scale apartments and shop-stop housing and mixed use developments.  These areas are within close proximity (5-10 minute walk) to public transport and in particular the train and a good mix of community services and facilities.

The HDS sets out ‘Key Design Principles’ that encourage a range of medium building heights, reduced front setbacks, medium to higher site coverage and useable private open space with landscaping to complement medium to higher density built form.

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is for 40 dwellings in the form of a three storey apartment building with basement parking and is therefore consistent with the preferred density and building heights for the Neighbourhood Renewal change area.  The indicative landscape areas shown on the landscape plan submitted allow for low level landscaping to complement the proposed higher density built form and the reduced setbacks will provide activation of the street along High and Westall Streets.

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils.  These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them).  The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to the extensions of time.

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying other affected persons of extension of time requests.

The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

The change of policy brought about by the approval of Amendment C181 and the introduction of the HDS and associated changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework have been discussed previously in this report.  The changed policy context supports the current proposal.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is no evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit (i.e. not intending to act on the permit in the foreseeable future).

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

There are no intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension other than the permit holder has insufficient funding to commence the development at the present time.

The total elapse of time

The total period that has elapsed since the granting of the permit is only three years.

Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed was reasonable.  The permit holder was given the benefit of a three year commencement period.


 

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit.  The request to extend the permit was made before the permit expiry date and this is the first request for an extension of time to commence the approved development.  There is no evidence that the permit holder is not committed to the permit proposal.

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made

Under the HDS the site is located within the Neighbourhood Renewal change area.  This change area nominates the preferred housing type as townhouses, multi-units, shop-top housing, mixed use developments and small scale apartments such as that proposed.  It is likely the current development would be supported if a new application were to be made.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change in circumstances.  The HDS was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes in policy suggest that it is highly likely that the current proposal would be supported if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that the extension of time be approved.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 714201 for the construction of 40 dwellings (three storey apartment building with basement parking) at 315 and 317-319 High Street, Thomastown and advise the applicant accordingly.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.5    531 High Street Epping - Request for an Extension of Time - The expansion of Pacific Epping Shopping Centre

File No:                                  713585

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                                  BMDA Development Advisory

COUNCIL POLICY:              Epping Central Structure Plan

ZONING:                               Activity Centre (Schedule 1)

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan (Schedules 3 & 14)

Environmental Audit Overlay

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a Planning Permit 713585. This Permit allows for the expansion of Pacific Epping Shopping Centre. The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement of the development for a further two year period. The permit was originally granted on 21 September 2012 under delegation by officers (as no objections were received). On 22 September 2014, an extension of time was granted for an additional two years. The permit expired on 21 September 2016. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 allows for extension of time requests to be made within six months of the expiry date.

 

At its meeting on 30 August 2016, Council resolved to make amendments to its Instrument of Delegation to require that requests for extensions of time to planning permits under section 69(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be determined by Council where planning circumstances have changed since the grant of a permit or where there is a recommendation by officers to refuse an extension.

 

This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the subject permit be approved as it is highly likely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted.

 

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to the approval of the Planning Scheme Amendment (Amendment C130) that was approved and came in operation since the permit was issued.  The land is now in the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 (ACZ1), is affected by new overlay controls and is guided by the Epping Central Structure Plan.  The development approved under the permit is considered to be consistent with the Activity Centre Zone, Epping Central Structure Plan and associated overlay controls.

 


 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is irregular in shape and located on the south-west corner of the intersection of High Street and Cooper Street, Epping (see attachment 1).  The site has a frontage to Cooper Street of 700m and a frontage to High Street of 400m, for a total area of approximately 24ha.  The site is currently occupied by the Pacific Epping Shopping Centre.

The subject site has good access to public transport with a bus interchange located on site, accommodating a total of six bus routes.  The bus terminal is located in the northern car park accessed via Cooper Street and positioned near the cinemas.  A new bus interchange has been constructed to increase capacity for new bus services accessing the site, including the Smart Bus service.  Epping Railway Station is located approximately 400m east of the subject site, providing access to the metropolitan rail network.

Background

Planning Permit 713585 was granted on 21 September 2012 under delegation authorising the ‘Use and development of the land for shops (expansion of the existing shopping centre) a commercial premises (Office or Shop) buildings and works associated with the use of the land for Motor Repairs, display of business identification signage, removal of native vegetation and creation of a new access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1’ (see attachment 2). The conditions of the permit were later varied on 19 February 2013 in accordance with orders issued by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Condition No. 52 of the permit states that:

In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a permit for the use and or development expires if:

(a)     the development or any stage is not started within two years after the issue of the permit; or

(b)     the development or any stage is not completed within four years after the issue of the permit; or

(c)     the use does not start within two years after completion of the development; or

(d)     the use is discontinued for a period of two years.

On 22 September 2014, an extension of time was granted for an additional two years. The permit then expired on 21 September 2016. This request has been received within the time specified by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and can therefore be considered.

Current permit extension request

The applicant seeks an extension of two (2) years to commence and complete the development citing ongoing alterations of the layout resulting from negotiations with major tenants as the reason for the request.

Assessment

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils. These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them). The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to extensions of time.

 

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying others affected persons of extension of time requests.

 

In The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application:

 

Whether there is a change of planning policy

Since the permit was issued, Amendment C130 to the Planning Scheme was approved and came into operation on 19 March 2015.  This amendment made the following changes:

·    Amended the Municipal Strategic Statement to include the policy objectives of the Epping Central Structure Plan.

·    Rezoned the subject site from Commercial 1 Zone to Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1).

·    Introduced a Parking Overlay (Schedule 1).

·    Introduced a Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 14).

·    Introduced an Environmental Audit Overlay.

 

The changed policy context would not prohibit the previously approved development from occurring, nor would it materially affect the outcome including the design of the expansion.  Contributions have already been secured through an agreement relating to the construction of Deveny Road and therefore there are no implications associated with the introduction of the Development Contribution Plan Overlay 14.

 

There are no sensitive land uses forming part of the proposal and therefore the Environmental Audit Overlay has limited implications, whilst the introduction of the Parking Overlay reduced the parking rates for the area, thereby having no impact on the parking provision included as part of the approval.

 

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

 

There is no evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit (i.e. not intending to act on the permit in the foreseeable future).

 

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

 

The applicant has indicated that ongoing negotiations with major tenants and subsequent planning approval for further development to the south-west of the site have required alterations to the layout of the development and that further changes are likely to be submitted to Council for approval in the near future.

 

The total elapse of time and whether the time limit original imposed was adequate.

 

The original time limit imposed was reasonable, with one extension of time having since been issued, providing a total of four years for works to commence.

 

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

 

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit. The request to extend the permit was made after the permit had expired, but within the prescribed time to request and extension to the permit. This is the second request for an extension of time to commence the approved development. There is no evidence that the permit holder is not committed to the permit proposal.

 


 

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made.

 

It is highly likely that the permit for the proposal would be granted should the same application be made today.  The proposed expansion of the shopping centre is consistent with the Activity Centre Zone and structure plan for the area.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change in circumstances.  The Epping Central Structure Plan and Activity Centre Zone were introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit, and the approved development remains consistent with the planning framework and associated change in controls.  On these grounds, it is recommended that the extension of time be approved.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 713585 for the Use and development of the land for shops (expansion of the existing shopping centre) a commercial premises (Office or Shop) buildings and works associated with the use of the land for Motor Repairs, display of business identification signage, removal of native vegetation and creation of a new access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 at 531 High Street, Epping and advise the applicant accordingly.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.6    719 High Street, Epping - Request for extension of time to planning permit - Mixed use development comprising commercial uses (including office, supermarket, shops gymnasium and child care), residential apartments and reduction in standard car parking requirements.

File No:                                  713509

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Principal Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Citinova (on behalf of property owner)

COUNCIL POLICY:              Epping Central Structure Plan

ZONING:                               Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 3 and Schedule 14
Parking Overlay

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend Planning Permit 713509.  This Permit allows the construction of a mixed use and residential development, with a height of part 10 storeys and part 12 storeys.  The Permit also authorised a reduction of associated car parking.  The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement of the development for a further two year period.  The permit was originally granted on 23 September 2013 at the direction of VCAT, via a consent order, after agreement was reached between Council and the Applicant.  By condition of permit, the development had three years to commence and five years to complete.  The commencement time therefore expired on 23 September 2016.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within six months of the expiry date.

At its meeting on 30 August 2016, Council resolved to make amendments to its Instrument of Delegation to require that requests for extensions of time to planning permits under section 69(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be determined by Council where planning circumstances have changed since the grant of a permit or where there is a recommendation by officers to refuse an extension.

This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the subject permit be approved as it is considered that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to the approval of the Planning Scheme Amendment (Amendment C130) that was approved and came in operation since the permit was issued.  The land is now in the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 (ACZ1).  The initial application was considered having regard to the then proposed ACZ1.  The development approved is considered to be consistent with the current controls.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The site is presently vacant and situated on the northwestern corner of High Street and Wedge Street (see Attachment 1).  .

It is irregular in shape with an area of 4,697m2, with frontages of 53.5m to High Street and 84.2m to Wedge Street.

To the north of the site fronting High Street are a number of established business and retail outlets and at the rear (west) of these buildings is a squash court complex with an adjacent sealed car parking area.  The site also abuts the end of a laneway on the north side, which runs off Coulstock Street past the rear of the shops fronting High Street.

To the west is vacant land at 70 and 72 Wedge Street, and on the south side of Wedge Street opposite the site is Council’s Epping Community Services Hub building (formerly Centrelink office).

BACKGROUND

The application initially proposed the development as a 17 storey “podium and tower” development.  It was refused by Council at its meeting on 25 February 2013.

As part of its VCAT Application for Review (Appeal), the Applicant prepared revised plans, to replace the plans considered by Council, to address concerns.  These revised plans reduced the overall height from 17 storeys to partly ten storeys and partly 12 storeys, with other minor consequential changes (see Attachment 2).

The revised plans were reconsidered by Council on 2 July 2013, where it was resolved to support the amended plans in principle subject to additional changes to address design issues such as building massing and scale, overshadowing and amenity impacts.  These were addressed through the VCAT process.

The proposed development includes a number of shops at ground floor level (including a small supermarket), with offices, gymnasium, ‘wellness centre’ and child care centre in the lower seven levels.  The levels above contain residential apartments.

Agreement was reached through the VCAT process and a ‘consent order’ by VCAT confirmed that agreement.  The permit was issued on 23 September 2013.

There was a minor amendment to the permit granted in December 2015, which allowed the deletion of the basement parking with an additional internal car parking level in the multi-level car parking in the core of the building.  There were no external alterations.  Plans relating to that amended permit are still to be endorsed.

When the initial application was considered by Council and subsequently by VCAT, the site was within the Business 1 Zone (B1Z), Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 (DDO10), which designated the site as one of four key development sites, and the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 3 (DCPO3).

Consideration of the proposal had significant regard to the Epping Central Structure Plan (adopted by Council on 13 December 2011).  A Planning Scheme amendment (Amendment C130) was prepared to implement that Structure Plan.  Amendment C130 was well advanced at the time the application was considered, and was finally approved and came into effect on 19 March 2015.  This led to the present Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 (ACZ1).

CURRENT PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST

The Applicant has requested an extension of time of two (2) years to commence and complete the development, citing that there have been delays in getting the contractors lined up due to the overall size and scope of the project.

ASSESSMENT

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils.  These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them).  The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to the extensions of time.

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying other affected persons of extension of time requests.

The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

Since that permit was issued, Amendment C130 to the Planning Scheme was approved and came into operation on 19 March 2015.  However, the proposal was substantially assessed under the ACZ1, by both Council and VCAT, prior to the approval of that Amendment, as it was then close to approval and was considered as a ‘seriously entertained’ planning proposal (than pending approval by the Minister).

Notably, the permit includes conditions requiring the Development Contributions to be paid in accordance with the current DCPO3 and DCPO14, the latter of which was introduced by Amendment C130.

While the ACZ1 has been formalised since the Permit was issued, there has been no change in the effect of planning controls or policy.  The changed zone and policy context supports the proposal.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is no evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit (i.e. not intending to act on the permit in the foreseeable future).

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

There are no intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension other than the permit holder states that the size and scope of the project has delayed engaging contractors.

The total elapse of time

The total period that has elapsed since the granting of the permit is now three years.  However, because planning circumstances continue to support this form of development, an extension is considered reasonable.

Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed was reasonable.  The permit holder was given the benefit of a three year commencement period, instead of two years as typically imposed.

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit.  The request to extend the permit was made before the permit expiry date and this is the first request for an extension of time to commence the approved development.  There is no evidence that the permit holder is not committed to the permit proposal.


 

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made

It is likely that the permit for the proposal would be granted should the same application was made today.  The proposal is consistent with the ACZ1, and in particular the expectations of development in “Precinct 1” which has the objective to be a high-change.  Precinct 1 also designates the subject site as a “Strategic Redevelopment Site”.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change in circumstances.  The introduction into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme of the ACZ1 subsequent to the issue of the permit, support the proposal and would support a permit being granted if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that the extension of time be approved.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 713509 for a mixed use development at 719 High Street Epping and advise the applicant accordingly.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.7    84 Lincoln Drive, Thomastown - Request for Extension of Time to Planning Permit - Construction of a dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling

File No:                                  712422

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Chang E Liang

COUNCIL POLICY:              Housing Diversity Strategy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No.712422) allowing the construction of one single storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling. The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement and completion of the development. The permit was originally granted on 28 September 2010 under delegation by officers (as no objections were received). An application for an extension of time to the permit was granted on 26 March 2015, extending the required completion date of the development to 28 September 2016.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within three months of the expiry date.

At its meeting on 30 August 2016, Council resolved to make amendments to its Instrument of Delegation to require that requests for extensions of time to planning permits under section 69(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be determined by Council where planning circumstances have changed since the grant of a permit or where there is a recommendation by officers to refuse an extension.

This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the subject permit be approved as it is highly likely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to Council’s Housing Diversity Strategy.  The outcomes of this Strategy now form part of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and provide direction on preferred housing character in different parts of the municipality.  Under the Strategy the subject land is now classified as ‘Suburban Residential’ in which preferred housing is to be characterised by standard density housing such as detached housing and dual occupancies/duplexes.  The development approved under the permit is considered to be consistent with this preferred character.


 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land (see Attachment 1) comprises a lot of 639m² with an existing single storey dwelling, located on the east side of Lincoln Drive, Thomastown. The surrounding area is described as predominantly flat with some gently sloping land. The area contains a range of road layout patterns, with a distorted grid being most frequent. Development is mainly detached average size single storey houses in Cream Brick style dating from the 1960’s. There are also some areas of 1950’s Timber houses. Front fences are generally low.

Background

Planning Permit No. 712422 was granted on 28 September 2010 authorising the construction of one single storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling.  The application was determined under delegation by officers as no objections were received at the end of the advertising period.  The endorsed development plans are shown in Attachment 2.

Condition No. 20 of the Permit states:

In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a permit for the development expires if:

(a)  the development of any stage is not completed within 4 years after the issue of the permit.

 

Before the permit expires or within three months afterwards, the owner or the occupier of the land to which it applies may ask the Responsible Authority for an extension of time.  The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the development or any stage of it is to be started or the development or any stage of it is to be completed.

 

An application for the extension was received on 23 August 2016.  This request was received within the time specified above and can therefore be considered.  This is the second request for an extension of time.

CURRENT Permit Extension Request

The applicant seeks an extension of two (2) years to commence and complete the development citing insufficient funding at the present time as the reason for the request.

Assessment

When the permit was issued on 28 September 2010 the land was located in a Residential 1 Zone.  In October 2015 Amendment C181 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new Statewide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  In relation to the subject land and surrounds, the General Residential Zone is essentially the same as the former Residential 1 Zone.  Amendment C181 also included Council’s adopted Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) within the Municipal Strategic Statement (which forms part of the Planning Scheme).  In particular, Clause 21.09-4 was introduced to define residential change areas and the preferred housing character within these areas.  The subject land was included in a ‘Suburban Residential’ change area in which preferred housing is to be characterised by standard density housing such as detached housing and dual occupancies/duplexes.

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is consistent with the preferred density and building heights for the Suburban Residential change area.

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils.  These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them).  The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to the extensions of time.

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying other affected persons of extension of time requests.

The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

The change of policy brought about by the approval of Amendment C181 and the introduction of the HDS and associated changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework have been discussed previously in this report.  The changed policy context supports the current proposal.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is no evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit (i.e. not intending to act on the permit in the foreseeable future).

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

There are no intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension other than the permit holder has insufficient funding to commence the development at the present time.

The total elapse of time

The total period that has elapsed since the granting of the permit is now six years.  However, because planning circumstances continue to support this form of development, an extension is considered reasonable.

Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed was reasonable.  The permit holder was given the benefit of a standard four year completion period and a further two year extension of this period.

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit.  The request to extend the permit was made before the permit expiry date and this is the first request for an extension of time to commence the approved development.  There is no evidence that the permit holder is not committed to the permit proposal.

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made.

Under the HDS the site is located within the Suburban Residential change area.  This change area nominates the preferred housing type as standard density housing such as detached housing and dual occupancies/duplexes.  It is likely the current development would be supported if a new application were to be made

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.


 

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change in circumstances.  The HDS was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes in policy suggest that it is highly likely that the current proposal would be supported if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that the extension of time be approved.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 712422 for the construction of a dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling at 84 Lincoln Drive, Thomastown and advise the applicant accordingly.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.8    35 Cuthbert Drive, Mill Park - construction of a dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling

File No:                                  716015

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Principal Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                        Mr D Ujgunovski

COUNCIL POLICY:              Nil

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 3)

                                               Special Building Overlay

REFERRAL:                          Melbourne Water

OBJECTIONS:                      Two

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application. 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to construct a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling.  The proposal will utilise the existing crossover to Cuthbert Drive.

 

Advertising of the proposal resulted in two objections being received. The grounds of objection relate to the demolition of the existing garage and erection of a new garage on, or near to, the shared side boundary; and the impact of development on an established garden on the objectors land.    

 

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and meets all standards relating to overshadowing and overlooking. The proposal also meets the requirements relating to site coverage, permeability and the provision of private open space.

 

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates this site as being within the ‘Suburban Residential Change Area’. The proposal complies with the preferred density and design principles of this Change Area and is considered to be an acceptable two dwelling development in an appropriate location as nominated by the HDS.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s general compliance with the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located on the northwest side of Cuthbert Drive and is approximately 642m2 in area (see Attachment 1).  The subject site currently contains a single storey, brick dwelling and a large garage at the rear of the site.  Two large trees in the rear open space were removed within the last 12 months.  There is very little vegetation on the site. 

To the rear of the site, is a single storey dwelling, setback 5.1m from the shared boundary, this dwelling faces Wickham Court.  To the southwest of the site is a double storey dwelling and to the northeast of the site is a cluster of four established single storey dwellings that were constructed on a double allotment.   

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

·    Freeman Park (120m north)

·    Findon Primary School (240m southwest)

·    Bus Routes 562 – Greensborough to Whittlesea, 566 – Lalor to Northland and 955 – night bus (250m north).

·    Bus Route 564 – Bundoora to South Morang (360m south)

·    Findon Recreation Reserve (470m southwest)

·    St Francis Assisi Primary School (620m northeast)

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any encumbrances or restrictions. 

There is an existing 2.0m wide easement that extends for the entire width of the rear boundary. 

Proposal

It is proposed to construct a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling.  Both dwellings will share vehicle access from the existing access point from Cuthbert Drive.  The new dwelling includes a double car garage next to the dwelling and the existing dwelling will be provided a single car carport located between the two dwellings. 

The new dwelling will be provided living areas and secluded open space on the ground level and three bedrooms and amenities on the upper level.  The new dwelling will have a mix of external materials including face brickwork on the lower level and render finish for the upper level.  The pitched roof will be tiled. 

The existing dwelling will be modified.  Changes include reducing the number of bedrooms from three to two and converting bedroom 3 into an extension of an open plan living area accessing the open space to the northeast.  Additionally, the existing verandah will be removed and the garden will be redone.   


 

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

 

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

(existing)

Single storey

2

 9.4m front setback; 4.5m side (east) setback; 1.2 side (west) setback. 

61m2

 Single car carport

4.5m

Dwelling No. 2

Double storey

3

2.2m rear setback; zero (east) side setback; 1.1m side (west) setback. 

57m2

Double car garage

7.4m

During the detailed assessment it became apparent that there were some details that were missing from the plans, such as internal fencing detail, details relating to window treatments that protect neighbouring from overlooking and notations about modifications to the amended plans.  Amended plans were submitted addressing these matters (see Attachment 2).  The changes to the plans did not have the potential to increase any detriment, therefore the plans were not readvertised. 

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in two objections being received.  The grounds of objections can be summarised as follows:

1.       Inadequate replacement boundary fencing

2.       Damage to established garden bed on objector’s land

3.       Loss of privacy and security.

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme via Planning Scheme Amendment C181, gazetted on 22 October 2015. The Strategy provides a strategic framework for future residential development in the established areas of the municipality for the next 20 years. It aims to guide the future location and diversity of housing stock and identifies areas of housing growth and change, including areas where future housing growth will not be supported. In general, it aims to encourage higher residential densities and a diversity of housing types and sizes into areas within convenient walking distance to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS is now a reference document in the WPS and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Under these provisions a development:

·    Must meet all of the objectives

·    Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

 

 

ü - Compliance
× -  Non compliance

Objectives

Standards

Comments

B1

Neighbourhood character

ü

ü

 

B2

Residential policy

ü

ü

 

B3

Dwelling diversity

n/a

n/a

Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings

B4

Infrastructure

ü

ü

 

B5

Integration with the street

ü

ü

 

B6

Street setback

ü

ü

 

B7

Building height

ü

ü

 

B8

Site coverage

ü

ü

 

B9

Permeability

ü

ü

 

B10

Energy efficiency

ü

ü

 

B11

Open space

n/a

n/a

Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development

B12

Safety

ü

ü

 

B13

Landscaping

ü

ü

 

B14

Access

ü

ü

 

B15

Parking location

ü

ü

 

B17

Side and rear setbacks

ü

ü

 

B18

Walls on boundaries

ü

ü

 

B19

Daylight to existing windows

ü

ü

 

B20

North-facing windows

ü

ü

 

B21

Overshadowing open space

ü

ü

 

B22

Overlooking

ü

ü

 

B23

Internal views

ü

ü

 

B24

Noise impacts

ü

ü

 

B25

Accessibility

ü

ü

 

B26

Dwelling entry

ü

ü

 

B27

Daylight to new windows

ü

ü

 

B28

Private open space

ü

ü

 

B29

Solar access to open space

ü

ü

 

B30

Storage

ü

ü

 

B31

Design detail

ü

ü

 

B32

Front fences

n/a

n/a

There is no front fence proposed. 

B33

Common property

ü

ü

 

B34

Site services

ü

ü

 

CAR PARKING 

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site.  Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.

No. of bedrooms

Car spaces required

Car spaces provided

Complies

1

2

1

1

Yes

2

3

2

2

Yes

 

Garages should be at least 6.0m long and 3.5m wide for a single space and 5.5m wide for a double space (measured inside the garage or carport).  An open car space should be at least 4.9m long and 2.6m wide. 

There was some concern regarding the ability of vehicles being able to exit their carport or garage and then have adequate space to turn their vehicle and leave the site in a forward direction.  As a result, the applicant provided amended plans (10 October 2016) to address the matter.  Minor modifications were made to increase the width and reduce the length of the proposed carport for the existing dwelling.  The amendment increased the setback of the turning area for the garage of the proposed dwelling and reduced the porch area.  This resulted in very minor decrease of the setback to the rear (120mm). 

The alteration of the plans is very minor and will not warrant readvertising.  The alteration of the plans has improved the turning area for the vehicles and is now satisfactory.  The modifications all still comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06.  If approval is granted a permit condition will require that plans be provided in accordance with the amended plans. 


 

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay. Pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the Development Contributions Plan Overlay enables the levying of contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities prior to development commencing. Schedule 3 to the overlay requires contributions for drainage infrastructure for medium density residential development at a current rate of $2.19 per square metre of the total site area. This requirement must be included as a condition on any planning permit that is issued.

Special Building Overlay

The site is affected by the Special Building Overlay, which is an overlay relating to anticipated areas of flooding.  Pursuant to Clause 44.05 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the application was required to be referred to Melbourne Water under section 55 of the Act.  Melbourne Water does not object to the proposal, but has provided four conditions that need to be included as part of any approval. 

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1.   Inadequate replacement boundary fencing

 

The boundary between the subject land and Unit 3/37 Cuthbert Drive currently comprises a 14 m long brick garage.  This structure is to be removed and replaced with shorter section of garage wall (6.0m in length).  A 1.95m high paling fence will be constructed on the remaining part of the east boundary and this will accord with the relevant standards relating to seclusion and privacy.  The objector (landowner) has requested that the existing garage wall be retained to provide privacy or, alternatively, a new 2.0m high double brick wall be constructed to maintain privacy rather than the proposed paling fence.

 

The request goes beyond the standards for privacy and seclusion set out in Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme and it would not be appropriate to compel the applicant to provide this outcome.  If provided, this would to be via an agreement between the objector and the applicant or, alternatively provided by the objector with the consent of the applicant/ landowner.

 

2.   Damage to established garden bed on objector’s land. 

The occupier of Unit 3/37 Cuthbert Street has objected to the proposed development on the basis that it will damage a garden that has taken a long time to establish.  No details are provided as to how this might occur.  While disturbance  may result as a consequence of building and fencing works along the shared boundary, building regulations can ensure that assets are appropriately protected.  The objection is not sufficient for the proposal to be refused or modified.

3.   Loss of privacy and security

The occupier of Unit 3/37 Cuthbert Street requests that the permit not be granted because it would result in a loss of privacy and security.  As previously set out in this report, fencing will be provided to appropriate standards and upper storey windows have been designed to prevent overlooking.

It is not considered the objections to the application warrant the refusal of the application of modifications to the design.


 

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and in particular the objectives and standards of Clause 55.  The proposal demonstrates a high level of compliance subject to minor modifications as outlined.  It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood nor the existing surrounding residential properties and accordingly approval of the application is recommended. 

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716015 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of a second dwelling to the rear of the dwelling and modifications of the existing dwelling at 35 Cuthbert Drive, Mill Park in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1.       Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition No. 3 of this permit, the permit holder must pay to Council a contribution for drainage pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The drainage contribution will be subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applicable at the time of payment.

2.       Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.  The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans, but modified to show:

a)   Changes to the plans in accordance with the plans received by Council on 19 September 2016, showing:

i.    Correct details of modifications to existing dwelling

ii.   Internal fencing detail

iii.  Corrected visibility splay for vehicles

iv.  Window treatments

 

b)   Changes to the plans in accordance with the plans received by Council on 10 October 2016, showing improvements to the vehicle turning areas, including:

i.    Changes to carport dimensions

ii.   Changes to building setback

iii.  Reduction of the porch for the proposed dwelling

 

c)   The changes required to the elevation plans as a result of the amendments shown on the plans received by Council on 10 October 2016. 

3.       Prior to the commencement of works civil engineering plans prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and show Drainage Plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas including the use of an on-site detention system.

Discharge of stormwater from the land will be required by means of an underground pipe drainage system designed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and discharging into an approved outlet in a street or an underground pipe drain to the requirements of the Responsible Authority. In this regard no water shall be discharged from any pipe or paved area onto the surface of any adjacent land.

4.       The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and/or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Prior to occupation

5.       Prior to the occupation of the proposed dwelling the following works must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a)  Modifications required to Dwelling 1 (existing dwelling), in accordance with the endorsed plans. 

b) Landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c)  The car parking areas and access ways must be drained, and fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) Construction and connection of all internal drainage including the drainage between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge.

6.       Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority of the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

Parking and Access

7.       In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

8.       Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s).  The location, design, and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority.  Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

9.       In accordance with Whittlesea Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, access ways should have a corner splay or area at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions extending at least 2m along the frontage road from the edge of the exit lane and 2.5m along the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road. The area clear of visual obstructions may include an adjacent entry or exit lane where more than one lane is provided, or adjacent landscaped areas, provided the landscaping in those areas is less than 900mm high.

Requirements during works

10.     At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder shall take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

11.     During the construction phase, a truck wheel washing facility or similar devise must be installed and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

12.     Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites.  The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land.  Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

Expiry

13.     This permit will expire if:

a)   the approved development does not start within two years of the date of this permit; or

b)   the approved development is not completed (including works required for the existing dwelling) within four years of the date of this permit.

 

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing. This request must be made before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

 

Notes:

A.  The permit holder shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development.  The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

 

B.  No structure may be built over an easement on the subject site without the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.9    19 Cedar Street, Thomastown - Construction of four dwellings

File No:                                  715980

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer Established Areas Planning   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Archedge Design

COUNCIL POLICY:              Nil

ZONING:                               Residential Growth Zone

OVERLAY:                            Special Building Overlay

                                               Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL:                          Melbourne Water

OBJECTIONS:                      One

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct four double storey dwellings on the subject site.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in one objection being received.  The grounds of objection relate to the application being an overdevelopment; traffic congestion and lack of car parking; overlooking; loss of privacy and overshadowing; and an increase in noise, particularly during construction.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and meets all standards relating to site coverage, permeability and the provision of private open space.  Conditions can be included to adequately address minor non-compliances in relation to overlooking and car parking.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates this site as being within the Neighbourhood Renewal Change Area.  The proposal complies with the preferred density and design principles of this Change Area and is considered to be an acceptable medium density development in an appropriate location as nominated by the HDS. 

The application was referred to Melbourne Water as a determining referral authority. No objection was received subject to the inclusion of standard conditions of permit.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s general compliance with the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.


 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The site is located on the south side of Cedar Street between Station and Beech Streets, approximately 170m east of the Thomastown Shopping Centre and train station. The land is rectangular in shape with a street frontage width of 15.2m, a depth of 42.7m and an area of 650m2

 

The site has been developed with a single storey, faux-brick dwelling setback approximately 6.8m from the street.  Vehicle access to a garage at the rear is located adjacent to the western boundary.  Private open space is located to the rear of the dwelling, and the front setback consists of lawn.  There is no significant vegetation on the site.  A low timber picket fence abuts the street frontage.

 

The adjoining property to the east contains a single storey brick dwelling and is located 1.1m from the common boundary.  The adjoining property to the west contains a single storey brick dwelling and is setback 1.3m from the common boundary.

 

Cedar Street is a local residential street, with medium density development emerging.  Features directly in front of the site include a street tree.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

·    Bus route 570 – South Morang Station to Pacific Epping Shopping Centre (120m north).

·    Bus route 559 – Thomastown via Darebin Drive (130m west).

·    Thomastown Railway Station (300m west)

·    High Street shopping strip (400m west).

·    Thomastown East Primary School (560m east).

·    Nick Ascenzo Reserve (800m east).

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 139 on Plan of Subdivision 013479.  Covenant 2448748 applies to the land and relates to the removal of any earth, clay, stone, gravel or soil from the site for purposes other than building.  Covenant 2738609 also applies to the land and relates to the minimum floor areas for any dwelling erected on the land being no less than 850 square feet (79m2). There are no restrictions on title that preclude Council from determining the application.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct four double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).  The existing dwelling will be demolished.

Dwelling No. 1 is proposed to be ‘reverse living’ and contains three bedrooms and a bathroom on the ground level and an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, laundry and toilet and balcony on the upper level. The remaining dwellings (nos. 2-4) are proposed to each contain an open plan living/meals/kitchen area a laundry and powder room at the ground floor (Dwelling No. 4 also contains a small study on the ground floor) and two bedrooms, a bathroom and study nook area at the upper floor. Dwellings Nos. 2 - 4 will utilise the existing crossover and driveway located along the western boundary and Dwelling No. 1 will be accessed by a new crossover and driveway located along the eastern property boundary.


 

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

 

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

Double storey

3

5.4m front (north), 0m side (east), 4.1m side (west)

Balcony 9.3m2 (plus 3.8m2 service yard)

One car parking space within a carport (6.0m x 3.5m) + tandem car space

7.0m (overall)

Dwelling No. 2

Double storey

2

3.3m side (east), 4.0m side (west)

40m2 (all secluded)

One car parking space within a garage (6.0m x 4.0m)

6.9m (overall)

Dwelling No. 3

Double storey

2

3.3m side (east), 4.0m side (west)

43.9m2 (all secluded)

One car parking space within a shared carport (6.0m x 6.0m)

6.9m (overall)

Dwelling No. 4

Double storey

2

3.3m side (east), 1.2m side (west), 1.3m rear (south)

42.8m2 (including 25m2  secluded)

One car parking space within a shared carport (6.0m x 6.0m)

7.0m (overall)

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in one objection being received.  The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1.       The application is an  overdevelopment and is not in character with the neighbourhood

2.       Traffic congestion and lack of car parking

3.       Overlooking/loss of privacy/overshadowing

4.       Increase in noise, particularly during construction

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme via Planning Scheme Amendment C181, gazetted on 22 October 2015. The Strategy provides a strategic framework for future residential development in the established areas of the municipality for the next 20 years. It aims to guide the future location and diversity of housing stock and identifies areas of housing growth and change, including areas where future housing growth will not be supported.  In general, it aims to encourage higher residential densities and a diversity of housing types and sizes into areas within convenient walking distance to public transport and activity centres.

 

The HDS is now a reference document in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

REFERRALS

The application was referred to Melbourne Water as a determining referral authority. The authority requires the inclusion of standard conditions on any permit issued.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Under these provisions a development:

·    Must meet all of the objectives

·    Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

 

 

ü - Compliance
× -  Non compliance

Objectives

Standards

Comments

B1

Neighbourhood Character

P

P

Developments within the area are generally from the 1960s and typically detached, double fronted single storey houses in brick or weatherboard cladding.  Garages, where provided, are generally located at the rear of the property whereas the veranda style carports are located in front of the main building line or aligned with the building façade.

A medium density multi-unit development is considered to be in keeping with the changing neighbourhood character (to a more contemporary, higher-density character).

Overall, the dwellings present a contemporary design in a neighbourhood which currently contains some examples of generally low-scale multi-dwelling developments. 

B2

Residential Policy

P

P

The subject site is located within the Neighbourhood Renewal Change Area within the HDS.  This Change Area encourages a range of medium building heights that can be integrated with existing housing stock. Reduced front setbacks are encouraged to allow activation of the street. Medium to higher site coverage is allowed to facilitate a balance between increased densities and landscape opportunities. Provision of attractive landscaping to complement medium to higher density built form is encouraged. 

 

Generally, the proposed four dwelling development achieves the key design principles for the Neighbourhood Renewal Change Area.  The double storey nature of dwellings is consistent with the emerging medium density character of the area, and sufficient separation has been provided between the dwellings at the upper floors.  The proposed setbacks from title boundaries will allow for generous landscaping to be provided throughout the development, including a large canopy tree within the front setback of the property and within the private open space areas of Dwelling Nos. 2 -4.

B3

Dwelling Diversity

P

P

Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings

B4

Infrastructure

P

P

 

B5

Integration with the street

P

P

 

B6

Street setback

P

x

The proposed setback of 5.4m is slightly less than the required setback of 6.6m; however, it is considered that within the context of the Neighbourhood Renewal Change Area as nominated in the HDS, the reduced setback is appropriate, and the planting of a large canopy tree can still be accommodated to provide an attractive streetscape appearance.

B7

Building height

P

P

 

B8

Site coverage

P

P

 

B9

Permeability

P

P

 

B10

Energy efficiency

P

P

 

B11

Open space

N/A

N/A

Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development

B12

Safety

P

P

 

B13

Landscaping

P

P

 

B14

Access

P

P

 

B15

Parking location

P

x

The proposed car spaces for Dwelling Nos. 3 and 4 are constrained and do not allow for convenient turning circle movements to enter/exit the site safely. Therefore, a condition will be included on any permit issued requiring an increase in the width of the shared carport to be no less than 7.0m, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

B17

Side and rear setbacks

P

P

 

B18

Walls on boundaries

P

P

 

B19

Daylight to existing windows

P

P

 

B20

North-facing windows

P

P

 

B21

Overshadowing open space

P

P

 

B22

Overlooking

P

x

The upper floor west-facing windows of Dwelling No. 3 appear to have some overlooking opportunity. Therefore, provision of diagrams representing full compliance with Clause 55.04-6 must be provided, or appropriate obscuring provided, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

B23

Internal views

P

P

 

B24

Noise impacts

P

P

 

B25

Accessibility

P

P

 

B26

Dwelling entry

P

P

 

B27

Daylight to new windows

P

P

 

B28

Private open space

P

P

 

B29

Solar access to open space

P

P

 

B30

Storage

P

P

 

B31

Design detail

P

P

 

B32

Front fences

N/A

N/A

None proposed.

B33

Common property

P

P

 

B34

Site services

P

P

 

CAR PARKING 

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site.  Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:


 

 

Dwelling No.

No. of bedrooms

Car spaces required

Car spaces provided

Complies

1

3

2

2

Y

2

2

1

1

Y

3

2

1

1

N

4

2

1

1

N

Garages should be at least 6.0m long and 3.5m wide for a single space and 5.5m wide for a double space (measured inside the garage or carport).  An open car space should be at least 4.9m long and 2.6m wide.  Dwelling Nos. 1 and 2 comply with these requirements.

The proposed shared carport for Dwelling Nos. 3 and 4 is 6.0m x 6.0m. Turning templates have been applied and convenient and safe turning movements appear difficult to achieve, and are not supported. Therefore, a condition will be included on any permit issued requiring an increase in the width of the shared carport to be no less than 7.0m, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay.  Pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the Development Contributions Plan Overlay enables the levying of contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities prior to development commencing.  Schedule 3 to the overlay requires contributions for drainage infrastructure for medium density residential development at a current rate of $2.19 per square metre of the total site area. This requirement must be included as a condition on any planning permit that is issued.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1.   The application is an  overdevelopment and is not in character with the neighbourhood

Council’s Housing Diversity Strategy nominates the subject site as located within the Neighbourhood Renewal Change Area where medium to high density housing development is encouraged.  Subject to minor conditions included on any permit issued, the proposal will provide sufficient car parking and private open space areas, will not result in unreasonable overlooking or overshadowing, and meets the site coverage and permeability requirements of Clause 55 and is therefore considered appropriate for the site.  Accordingly, this ground of objection is not substantiated.

2.   Traffic congestion and lack of car parking

The proposal is not expected to generate a significant increase in the number of vehicles along Cedar Street and therefore will not cause an adverse impact on the volume of traffic within the surrounding road network.  Subject to the inclusion of minor conditions of permit in relation to the width of car spaces to achieve sufficient turning circle movements, the proposal complies with the relevant on-site car parking provisions within Clause 52.06 of the Scheme.  Accordingly, this ground of objection can be addressed by including a condition of any permit issued.


 

3.   Overlooking/loss of privacy/overshadowing

The proposed habitable room windows at first floor level for each dwelling have generally incorporated appropriately designs to prevent overlooking, either through the provision of fixed obscure glazing in accordance with the standard requirements of Clause 55.04-6 or obscured to 1.7m by way of a highlight window.  However, the upper floor west-facing windows of Dwelling No. 3 appear to have some overlooking opportunity. Subject to the inclusion of minor conditions of permit in relation to the provision of diagrams representing full compliance of these windows with Clause 55.04-6, it is considered that this ground of objection can be addressed by including a condition of any permit issued.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that the level of overshadowing experienced by neighbouring properties will be in accordance with Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which aims to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space of an existing dwelling.  The shadow diagrams show a minor shadow cast over existing dwellings and outbuildings of the abutting properties to the east and west; however the extent of shadow cast complies with Clause 55.04-5 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Accordingly, this ground of objection is not substantiated.

4.   Increase in noise, particularly during construction

The development as proposed complies with Standard B24 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which seeks to contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings and to protect residents from external noise.  The proposal is for residential use of the land in a residential area and the development will not require external mechanical plant or any other inappropriate source of noise.  Whilst some additional noise will be generated by virtue of the greater number of residents on the land, this is considered acceptable in a residential area. Construction noise associated with the development is not a relevant planning consideration and should be addressed under separate cover.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and in particular the objectives and standards of Clause 52.06, Clause 55 and the Housing Diversity Strategy.  The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance subject to minor modifications as outlined.  It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood nor on existing surrounding residential properties and accordingly approval of the application is recommended.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 715980 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for construction of four dwellings at 19 Cedar Street, Thomastown in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1.       Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition 3 of this permit, the permit holder must pay to Council a contribution for drainage pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The drainage contribution will be subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applicable at the time of payment.

2.       Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition No. 3, or at such later date as the Responsible Authority may approve in writing, there shall be lodged with the Responsible Authority an amount of $800.00 as security deposit for the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the landscaping works hereby permitted.

Upon completion of the landscaping works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Responsible Authority will refund the security deposit to the then owner of the subject land.

3.       Before the development starts, three copies of a revised plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, showing:

a)      Diagrams representing full compliance with Clause 55.04-6 for the upper floor west-facing windows of Dwelling No. 3, or appropriate obscuring provided;

b)      An increase in the width of the shared carport to Dwelling No. 3 and 4 to be no less than 7.0m with no reduction in setback to any other boundary as a result nor reduction in width of the Dwelling No. 2 garage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

c)      A revised landscape plan in accordance with Condition No. 3 b).

4.       Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, a detailed landscape plan, prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plans must be drawn to scale, with dimensions, and show all proposed landscaping, including details of any existing vegetation to be removed or retained, the location of all new planting, a schedule of plant species and height at maturity and a maintenance schedule.  Species selection is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Any proposed trees must be at an advanced stage of growth when planted.

5.       The development allowed by this Permit and shown on the plans and / or schedules endorsed to accompany this Permit must not be amended for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

6.       Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7.       Prior to the occupation of the proposed dwellings hereby approved, landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8.       Prior to the occupation of the proposed dwellings hereby approved, the car parking areas and accessways must be drained, fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9.       In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

10.     Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s).  The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority.  Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

11.     Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas, including the use of an on-site detention system (if required), must be submitted to Council for approval.  These internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site.

12.     Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the permit holder is required to construct at no cost to Council, drainage works between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge.  Such drainage works must be designed by a qualified engineer and submitted to and approved by Council.  Computations will also be required to demonstrate that the drainage system will not be overloaded by the new development.  Construction of the drainage system must be carried out in accordance with Council specifications and under Council supervision.

13.     Discharge of stormwater from the land will be required by means of an underground pipe drainage system designed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and discharging into an approved outlet in a street or an underground pipe drain to the requirements of the Responsible Authority.  In this regard no water shall be discharged from any pipe or paved area onto the surface of any adjacent land. 

14.     Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, reticulated (water, sewerage, gas and electricity) services must be constructed and available to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15.     The permit holder shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development.  The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

16.     Prior to the occupation of any dwelling on the subject site, a letter box and house number to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority shall be provided for each dwelling.

17.     At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder shall take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

18.     Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority of the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

19.     Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites.  The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land.  Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

20.     Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

Melbourne Water conditions (21 to 29)

21.     Prior to the development plans being endorsed, the plans must be amended to address Melbourne Water's Conditions 3 & 4. Plans must be submitted with surface and floor levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

 

22.     The dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels set no lower than 108.2 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD) which is 300mm above the applicable flood level of 107.9 metres to AHD.

 

23.     The garage of Unit 2 must be constructed with finished floor levels set no lower than 108.05 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD) which is 150mm above the applicable flood level of 107.9 metres to AHD.

 

24.     The carports of Units 1, 3 & 4 must be set at natural surface levels with no roller/garage doors and remain open for the life of the structure.

 

25.     Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the AHD, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.

 

26.     The building footprint must not be altered without prior consent of Melbourne Water.

 

27.     Imported fill must be kept to a minimum on the property and only be used for the sub floor areas of the dwellings, garage and driveway ramp.

 

28.     Any new fence must be of an open style of construction (minimum 50% open) to allow for the passage of overland flows.

 

29.     Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways.

30.     In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a Permit for the development expires:-

(a)     The approved development does not start within two years of the date of this permit; or

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

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing.  This request must be made before or within six months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

 

Notes

Advanced Trees

An advanced tree under this Permit shall generally constitute the following:-

·    Evergreen – minimum container size 45 litre spring ring, calliper at ground level 50mm.

·    Deciduous – minimum calliper at ground level 65mm, minimum height 2 metres.

Property Numbering

·    Property Numbers will be allocated by the City of Whittlesea in accordance with Council’s Street Numbering Policy.  Please do not give potential buyers any interim numbering as this often leads to confusion and problems once the correct number is issued.  Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department or GIS Department to verify all street numberings before commencement of any advertising for sale or lease.

Melbourne Water

·    If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 239698.

 

·    Flood Level and Velocity Information:

 

The property is subject to flooding from the Thomastown Drain. For a storm event with a 1% chance of occurrence in any one year, the applicable flood level for the property is 107.9 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

 

For the purpose of the Building Code of Australia - Building in Flood Hazard Areas, Melbourne Water has determined that during a flood event that has a probability of occurrence of 1% in any one year, the maximum flow rate of flood water (velocity) will be below 1.5 metres per second.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.10  10 KATHLEEN COURT, BUNDOORA - CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS

File No:                                  715807

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Development Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  B Mitris

COUNCIL POLICY:              Housing Diversity Strategy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL:                          Nil

OBJECTIONS:                      One

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct three double storey dwellings on the subject land.  The existing concrete crossing located along the south and east property boundaries is to provide vehicular access to all three dwellings.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in one objection being received.  The grounds of objection relate to overlooking and impact on the amenity of the existing abutting school site (Northside Christian College).

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  All objectives of Clause 55 can be met.  A small number of standards have not been met but can be addressed through conditions of any permit that may be issued.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates the site as being within the Neighbourhood Interface Change Area.  The proposal complies with the preferred density and design principles of this change area and is considered to be an acceptable development in an appropriate location as nominated by the HDS.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s general compliance with the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a residential property located on the northeast side of Kathleen Court at the end of the court bowl, approximately 68m north of Nickson Street and 390m west of Plenty Road, Bundoora (see Attachment 1).  The site is irregular in shape and provides a frontage to Kathleen Court of 14.4m and a depth of approximately 35.0m, providing a total site area of 889m2.  The site is relatively flat and contains a detached single storey brick dwelling with a tiled hipped roof, a garage and a bungalow located to the rear of the dwelling.  Vehicular access to the site is provided via a single concrete crossing located along the south and east property boundaries.  There is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential land uses with existing single storey dwelling being typical of the prevailing built form and some double storey built form to the east of the site.  There are a number of multi-dwelling developments within the immediate vicinity to the east and west of the site.  The Northside Christian College school site abuts the northern (rear) boundary of the subject land.  A large school building is set back approximately 5.0m from this rear boundary.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

·        Northside Christian College (abutting subject land to north).

·        Bus Route 902 - SMARTBUS Service Chelsea to Airport West (300m south on Settlement Road).

·        Norris Bank Parklands (480m west).

·        St Damian’s Primary School (310m southeast).

·        Bundoora Shopping Centre (340m east).

·        Edward Street Preschool (400m southwest).

·        Tram route 86 - Bundoora RMIT to Waterfront City Docklands (460m southeast on Plenty Road).

·        Goodstart Early Learning Centre Bundoora (700m southeast).

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any restrictive covenants or Section 173 Agreements.  The site is however encumbered by a 2.44m wide drainage and sewerage easement along the north and east property boundaries.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct three double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).  The existing dwelling is to be demolished.

Dwelling No. 1 will have street frontage to Kathleen Court and comprise an open plan kitchen/meals area, a separate family/living area, a powder room and laundry facilities at ground level.  At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom.

Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3 will be located side-by-side and to the rear of the property.  The dwellings will each comprise a similar floor plan with a varied configuration.  At ground level, the dwellings will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/family area, a powder room and a laundry.  At first floor level, the dwellings will contain three bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a separate bathroom.  These dwellings will also contain a study nook at ground level for Dwelling No. 1 and first floor level for Dwelling No. 2.

All three dwellings will be provided with an attached double space garage, private open space and secure external storage accessible from their respective living areas.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:


 

 

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

Double storey

3

7.0m front (southwest),

5.0m side (southeast) and

2.2m side (west).

 

143m2 (including 54m2 of secluded private open space)

Double garage (6.0m x 5.5m)

8.3m (overall)

Dwelling No. 2

Double storey

3

1.6m side (west) and

3.0m rear (north).

85m2 (all secluded private open space)

Double garage (6.0m x 5.5m)

7.8m (overall)

Dwelling No. 3

Double storey

3

2.4m side (east),

1.0m side (southeast) and

3.5m rear (north).

88m2 (all secluded private open space)

Double garage (6.0m x 5.5m)

7.4m (overall)

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in one objection being received by the abutting Northside Christian College.  The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1.       Overlooking.

2.       Impact on amenity of the existing abutting school site.

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme via Planning Scheme Amendment C181, gazetted on 22 October 2015. The Strategy provides a strategic framework for future residential development in the established areas of the municipality for the next 20 years. It aims to guide the future location and diversity of housing stock and identifies areas of housing growth and change, including areas where future housing growth will not be supported.  In general, it aims to encourage higher residential densities and a diversity of housing types and sizes into areas within convenient walking distance to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS is now a reference document in the WPS and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Under these provisions a development:

·    Must meet all of the objectives

·    Should meet all of the standards

 

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.


 

 

 

ü - Compliance
× -  Non compliance

Objectives

Standards

Comments

B1

Neighbourhood Character

ü

ü

Development within the area generally consists of detached, average size single storey dwellings in 1970’s style.  Roofs are either of hip or gable style and consist of concrete or terracotta tiling.  Where present, garages and carports are either attached to dwellings or located within rear yards or alongside boundaries.  Neighbouring properties along Kathleen Court have varying street frontage setbacks ranging from 7-12m and front fences are not present.

The surrounding area to the east and west of the subject site is also characterised by recently constructed medium density developments that exhibit a contemporary double storey built form.  The area is further characterised by a school site to the north and public open space and sporting facilities to the west.

The proposed development includes reduced upper level components and concrete tiled hipped roof forms that will complement the streetscape.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the emerging mixed density residential character of the surrounding area.

B2

Residential Policy

ü

ü

The subject site is located within the Neighbourhood Interface Change Area within the HDS.  This Change Area encourages medium and standard density development with the preferred housing types comprising single dwellings, dual occupancies (including duplexes), townhouses and multi-units.

Key design principles include a range of building heights that support housing diversity, moderate front setbacks to allow for significant landscaping and medium canopy trees in the front setback, medium site coverage, useable private open space and the provision of a large canopy tree in the rear setback.

The proposed development is generally consistent with the preferred density and key design principles outlined in the HDS. The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted allow sufficient private open space to accommodate a small to medium canopy tree within the rear setback for each dwelling which will soften the impact of the proposed built form.  The generous front setback can also accommodate a large canopy tree or a number of medium canopy trees to replace the existing tree on site and further enhance the streetscape.

B3

Dwelling Diversity

N/A

N/A

Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings.

B4

Infrastructure

ü

ü

 

B5

Integration with the street

ü

ü

 

B6

Street setback

ü

×

The standard requires a street setback that is the average of the front walls of the existing dwellings on the two abutting properties or 9.0m whichever is the lesser.

The proposed street setback for Dwelling No. 1 is varied with a minimum street setback of 7.0m and a maximum street setback of 8.5m due to the subject site being located at the end of the court bowl.  The average street setback of the two dwellings on the abutting properties is 7.8m.  Applying the minimum street setback of 7.0m for Dwelling No. 1 results in a reduction of 0.8m.

The proposed 0.8m variation to the standard requirements is considered to be a minor and will not have a detrimental visual impact on the existing streetscape.  Dwelling No. 1 has been designed to promote a good transition between the varying setbacks of the dwellings on the abutting properties and will enable the development to proceed without compromising the existing neighbourhood character.

B7

Building height

ü

ü

 

B8

Site coverage

ü

ü

 

B9

Permeability

ü

ü

 

B10

Energy efficiency

ü

ü

 

B11

Open space

N/A

N/A

Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development.

B12

Safety

ü

ü

 

B13

Landscaping

ü

×

A landscape plan has not been provided with the application.  It is considered that this can be dealt with by a condition on any permit that is issued.

B14

Access

ü

ü

 

B15

Parking location

ü

ü

 

B17

Side and rear setbacks

ü

ü

 

B18

Walls on boundaries

ü

ü

 

B19

Daylight to existing windows

ü

ü

 

B20

North-facing windows

ü

ü

 

B21

Overshadowing open space

ü

ü

 

B22

Overlooking

ü

ü

 

B23

Internal views

ü

ü

 

B24

Noise impacts

ü

ü

 

B25

Accessibility

ü

ü

 

B26

Dwelling entry

ü

ü

 

B27

Daylight to new windows

ü

ü

 

B28

Private open space

ü

ü

 

B29

Solar access to open space

ü

ü

 

B30

Storage

ü

ü

 

B31

Design detail

ü

ü

 

B32

Front fences

ü

ü

 

B33

Common property

ü

ü

 

B34

Site services

ü

ü

 

CAR PARKING 

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site.  Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.

No. of bedrooms

Car spaces required

Car spaces provided

Complies

1

3

2

2

Yes

2

3

2

2

Yes

3

3

2

2

Yes

 

Garages should be at least 6.0m long and 3.5m wide for a single space and 5.5m wide for a double space (measured inside the garage or carport).  An open car space should be at least 4.9m long and 2.6m wide.  The proposal complies with these requirements.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay.  Pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the Development Contributions Plan Overlay enables the levying of contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities prior to development commencing.  Schedule 3 to the overlay requires contributions for drainage infrastructure for medium density residential development at a current rate of $2.19 per square metre of the total site area. This requirement must be included as a condition on any planning permit that is issued.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1.       Overlooking into neighbouring properties.

The proposed habitable room windows at first floor level for each dwelling have been appropriately screened and located at a distance to minimise the impact of overlooking into neighbouring properties including the school.  Clause 55.04-6 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme aims to limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows of an existing dwelling.  The objector in this instance is the abutting school where concerns have been raised regarding the lack of screening to the proposed north facing bathroom and stairwell windows at first floor level for Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3.  Although these windows are defined by the Scheme as non-habitable room windows, given the sensitive interface between the subject site and the school, these windows should be appropriately screened to minimise overlooking into the abutting school site.  This requirement can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.  Accordingly, this ground of objection can be resolved via conditions of permit.

2.       Impact on the amenity of the existing abutting school site.

The objector has raised concerns in terms of how the proposed development may compromise the viability of future buildings and works within the abutting school site.  The objector has advised that it is very possible that an additional floor level will be constructed above the existing school building.  The proposed dwellings have been appropriately designed to comply with the standard requirements of Clause 55.04-1 which aims to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of surrounding built form.  There is no evidence that the proposed development will compromise the amenity of any future buildings and works on the abutting school site.  Accordingly, this ground of objection cannot be substantiated.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and in particular the objectives and standards of Clause 55 and the Housing Diversity Strategy.  The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance subject to minor modifications as outlined.  It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood nor on existing surrounding residential properties.  Additionally, a condition will be included on any permit that is issued to prevent overlooking into and from the abutting Northside Christian College school site.  Accordingly approval of the application is recommended.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 715807 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of three dwellings at 10 Kathleen Court, Bundoora in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1.       Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition No. 2 of this permit, the permit holder must pay to Council a contribution for drainage pursuant to Clause 45.06 (Schedule 3) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The drainage contribution will be subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applicable at the time of payment.

2.       (a)     Prior to the endorsement of the plans required under Condition No. 3, or at such later date as the Responsible Authority may approve in writing, there shall be lodged with the Responsible Authority an amount of $600 as security deposit for the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the landscaping works hereby permitted.

(b)     Upon completion of the landscaping works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Responsible Authority will refund the security deposit to the then owner of the subject land.

3.       Before the development starts, three copies of a revised plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, showing:

(a)     A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition No. 4.

(b)     Appropriate screening to all north facing windows at first floor level for Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3 to prevent views into and from the abutting school site.

4.       Before development commences, a detailed landscape plan prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and show all proposed landscaping, including details of any existing vegetation to be removed or retained, the location of all new planting, a schedule of plant species and height at maturity, and a maintenance schedule.  Species selection is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Any proposed trees must be at an advanced stage of growth when planted.

5.       The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and/or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

6.       Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7.       Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8.       Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the car parking areas and access ways must be drained, fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9.       In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

10.     Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s).  The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority.  Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

11.     Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas, including the use of an on-site detention system, must be submitted to Council for approval.  These internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site.

12.     Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the permit holder is required to construct at no cost to Council, drainage works between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge.  Such drainage works must be designed by a qualified engineer and submitted to and approved by Council.  Computations will also be required to demonstrate that the drainage system will not be overloaded by the new development.  Construction of the drainage system must be carried out in accordance with Council specifications and under Council supervision.

13.     Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, reticulated (water, sewerage, gas and electricity) services must be constructed and available to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14.     The permit holder shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development.  The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

15.     Prior to occupation of any dwelling on the subject site, a letter box and house number to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority shall be provided for each dwelling.

16.     At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder shall take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

17.     Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority of the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

18.     Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites.  The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land.  Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

19.     During the construction phase, a truck wheel washing facility or similar device must be installed and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

20.     In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a permit for the development expires:

(a)     the approved development does not start within 2 years of the date of this permit; or

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

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing.  This request must be made before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

NOTES

Advanced Trees

An advanced tree under this permit shall generally constitute the following:

·        Evergreen – minimum container size 45 litre spring ring, calliper at ground level 50mm.

·        Deciduous – minimum calliper at ground level 65mm, minimum height 2 metres.

Easements

No structure may be built over an easement on the subject site without the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

Property Numbering

Property Numbers will be allocated by the City of Whittlesea in accordance with Council’s Street Numbering Policy.  Please do not give potential buyers any interim numbering as this often leads to confusion and problems once the correct number is issued.  Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department or GIS Department to verify all street numberings before commencement of any advertising for sale or lease.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                           Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.11  Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C175 – Panel Report Outcomes & Adoption

File No:                                  191851

Attachments:                        1        Locality and Zoning Plan  

2        C175 Panel Report - Executive Summary  

3        Proposed Concept Plan (Panel Version)    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Strategic Planner   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The purpose of this report is to consider the recommendations of the Panel Report arising from the Independent Planning Panel Hearing held in relation to Amendment C175 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Amendment C175 seeks to provide improved guidance over the future growth of the Mernda Township (the area generally bound by Hazel Glen Drive to north, Plenty River to the east, Bridge Inn Road to the south and the Mernda Rail Reserve), by rezoning land currently zoned Township and Public Use to General Residential Zone, and applying the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 34, the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, and the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1.

The Panel Report recommends approval of Amendment C175 subject to 12 modifications. The Panel Report also makes a ‘further recommendation’ that Council should prepare a new Amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which seeks to rezone land currently zoned Rural Conservation (to the east of the Township Zone land).

Generally, the recommendations in the Panel Report align with Council’s formal position on the Amendment adopted at the 26 April 2016, Council Meeting. The Panel concluded that the Amendment represents sound planning, and should be supported. This report proposes that Council adopt Amendment C175 subject to incorporating each of the Panel’s recommendations, with the exception of the ‘further recommendation’.

With respect to the ‘further recommendation’ it is considered that as Council made a relatively recent decision on this matter, at its 14 July 2015 Council Meeting, and that circumstances remain unchanged, the position of Council to hold in abeyance any rezoning of the RCZ land until an appropriate time in the future should circumstances change, should persist.

Upon adoption of Amendment C175, Council’s position on Amendment C175 as outlined in this report, and the Panel Report will then be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for ultimate determination.

PROPOSAl

Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C175 (Amendment C175) applies to multiple properties within the Mernda Township, the area generally bounded by the Mernda Rail Reserve to the west, Bridge Inn Road to the south, Hazel Glen Drive to the north and the Plenty River and Environs to the east. Amendment C175 only affects land within the Mernda Township which is currently subject to the Township Zone (TZ) and Public Use Zone 2 (PUZ2) (see Attachment 1).

Amendment C175 proposes to rezone land in the Mernda Township from TZ and PUZ2 to the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and introduce a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) – Schedule 34 to the full extent of the nominated Township area. The Amendment will also apply the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) and Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 (VPO1) on select areas within the Township. This is consistent with the current planning controls within the broader Mernda/Doreen growth corridor.

In addition, Amendment C175 also seeks to correct an anomaly in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, by removing DPO – Schedule 16 as it applies to land adjacent to the intersection of Plenty Road and Bridge Inn Road and instead, applies DPO – Schedule 15 being the correct Schedule.

Background

Authorisation

As previously reported to Council, Amendment C175 when originally conceived consisted of two components relating to the Mernda Township. First being the proposed rezoning of the TZ and PUZ2 to the GRZ and application of the DPO and VPO. The second component related to the land between the current TZ area and the Plenty River, which currently, is mostly within the Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ).

At that time the proposal was to rezone a portion of the RCZ to GRZ and apply the DPO and VPO as per the proposal for the area affected by the current TZ, with the balance of land abutting the Plenty River being transferred to Council to establish a linear open space link.

Early in 2015, the Costa Mushroom Exchange (Mushroom Exchange) raised concerns regarding the proposal to rezone the RCZ land on the basis that it would result in urban development encroaching into buffer areas which would adversely impact their operations on site.

Given the potential impact of this component of Amendment C175 on the Mushroom Exchange, it was resolved by Council, at its 14 July 2015 meeting, to proceed only with the first component of the rezoning, namely that part within the TZ boundary. The RCZ rezoning component was excised from Amendment C175, to be held in abeyance and reviewed as a separate Amendment at a future point in time, should circumstances change.

Following the 14 July 2015 Council Meeting, Council Officers sought authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the revised form of Amendment C175, which was subsequently granted.

Exhibition & Submissions

Amendment C175 was placed on public exhibition for ten weeks between 3 December 2015 and 8 February 2016. Of the 300 plus properties affected, and the twenty authorities notified, a total of twenty submissions were received in response to the public exhibition process. Of the submissions, twelve were in support of the Amendment (although five requested changes), eight were opposing (two of the objecting submissions were subsequently withdrawn).

The main issues raised in submissions were:

§ The reinstatement of rezoning the RCZ portion of the Township as part of Amendment C175 as previously proposed;

§ The necessity to apply the LSIO and the impact this will have on the development potential of the land affected;

§ Ensuring that new development fostered under proposed Amendment C175 will not impact upon the Mernda Rail Extension Project (MREP).

Following close of exhibition, Council Officers liaised with submitters in an attempt to resolve issues where possible. Council Officers (with assistance from Melbourne Water) were successfully able to resolve a number of issues raised and resulted in the complete withdrawal of two submissions.

For the submissions and issues that could not be negotiated at Officer Level, it was resolved by Council at its 26 April 2016 meeting to request that the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Planning Panel to consider unresolved submissions made in relation to Amendment C175.

PANEL HEARING

The Minister for Planning appointed a two-member Panel to consider unresolved submissions to Amendment C175.

Following the appointment of the Planning Panel, a Directions Hearing to deal with scheduling and administrative matters was held on 4 July 2016, followed by the formal Panel Hearing which occurred on 3 August 2016.

Parties presenting to the Panel included the following stakeholders:

§ City of Whittlesea;

§ Melbourne Water;

§ Owner of 303 Hazel Glen Drive (with support from 265, 289 and 295 Hazel Glen Drive);

§ Costa Mushroom Exchange;

§ Owner of 90 Schotters Road;

The Panel also considered the written submissions from Public Transport Victoria (PTV), the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA), and the landowner at 31-35 Johnsons Road and the landowner at 345 Hazel Glen Drive, all of whom did not present to the Panel.

Discussion relating to the status of the RCZ land, impact of Amendment C175 on the Mushroom Exchange and the application of the LSIO to encumbered land accounted for the majority of the Panel Hearing time.

Following the conclusion of the Panel Hearing, the Panel Members provided their formal recommendation on Amendment C175 and submissions within a Panel Report. All submitters were notified of the Panel Report which was publicly released on 22 September 2016.

PANEL REPORT – PROCESS & RECOMMENDATIONS

From a process perspective it is important to clarify the role of the Panel and the Planning Scheme Amendment process. The Minister for Planning is the person responsible for making the ultimate decision on this Planning Scheme Amendment. In the circumstance where submissions to an amendment are not able to be resolved then it is general practice to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to hear submissions, review the overall amendment and make recommendations.

Following this, Council then needs to provide a formal position on the amendment as a whole and each of the Panel’s recommendations. Council’s position on these matters and the Panel Report are then forwarded to the Minister for Planning for his decision. Whilst the Minister for Planning will seriously consider the recommendations of the Panel and Council in his decision making, it is important to note that the Minister for Planning is not bound by these recommendations, and as such, can determine the amendment as he deems appropriate.

With regard to Amendment C175 the Panel found that the Amendment represents ‘sound planning’, and has recommended that Amendment C175 proceed to the Minister for Planning for consideration as exhibited, subject to a number of drafting changes. The Executive Summary of the Panel Report has been included as Attachment 2 to this report.

The Panel provided a total of twelve recommended changes to Amendment C175. These changes were made in relation to: the proposed Schedule 34 of the DPO, the Concept Plan (see Attachment 3) and the Schedule of Clause 66.04 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme (Referral and Notice Provisions). The Panel also provided an additional recommendation for Council to begin preparation of a new Planning Scheme Amendment to rezone the RCZ land that was omitted from Amendment C175.

The table below outlines the full set of Panel Recommendations for Amendment C175 as detailed in the Panel Report. Each Panel Recommendation has a corresponding Council Officer response and recommendation. The table below matches the numbering and structure of the Panel Report.

Panel Recommendation

Officer Response

1. Amend Schedule 34 to the Development Plan Overlay as follows:

a)   Include the following in a new Clause 3.0:

‘3.0 Referral of applications’

In accordance with section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application must be referred to the relevant authority specified in the Schedule to Clause 66.04 [Public Transport Victoria].

 

This recommendation has been made due to the request of Public Transport Victoria (PTV) to be nominated as a determining referral authority under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, for all planning permit applications within 50 metres east of the Mernda Rail Reserve.

Council acknowledged the importance of PTV’s role in maintaining and protecting the Mernda Rail Reserve and associated MREP. It was the preference of Council to nominate PTV as a recommending referral authority under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on the basis that the majority of land within 50m to the east of the Mernda Rail Reserve had largely been developed. Council argued that it was unnecessary to refer development applications associated with existing uses to PTV.

The Panel were sympathetic to Council’s position, however were concerned that the powers vested under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 were not substantial enough for PTV to ensure the role of the Mernda Rail Reserve was not compromised.

In this instance, it is considered that this recommendation should be supported. By having PTV nominated as referral authority under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this will enable an appropriate and statutory assessment of the merits of the development on the state significant Mernda Rail Reserve and MREP.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 1a.

b)   In Clause 3.0 (now Clause 4.0), include the following additional dot point under the heading ‘Road and pedestrian network’:

§ Provision of a shared pathway along the length of Schotters Road that provides a pedestrian connection from Bridge Inn Road to Hazel Glen Drive. The final layout of the shared pathway is to be determined following discussions between the Responsible Authority and Public Transport Victoria prior to approval of the Development Plan.

 

Originally it was intended to provide the north-south shared path along the length of the Mernda Rail Reserve. As the southern portion of the Mernda Rail Reserve is required for stabling as part of the MREP, an alternative was proposed to relocate the shared path to form part of the road reserve of Schotters Road.

Whilst officers supported the alternative proposed by PTV, concerns were raised about the amount of land available within the road reserve of Schotters Road to deliver a shared path.

It was agreed to at the Panel Hearing that for the purposes of Amendment C175 the shared path should be shown within the road reserve for Schotters Road. The ultimate form and delivery of the shared path will be subject to discussions with PTV at an appropriate time in the future at the subsequent Development Plan application stage and once design and implementation of the rail works are advanced.

Future discussions with PTV will determine if an alternative solution can be implemented should the Schotters Road road reserve not be suitable.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 1b.

c)   Include the following in a new Clause 5.0:

‘5.0 Decision guidelines’

Before deciding on a request to approve or amend a Development Plan, the Responsible Authority must consider the views of Public Transport Victoria in relation to whether the Development Plan or Amended Development Plan prejudices the operation of the Mernda Railway Line.

This recommendation has also been made in response to PTV requesting their involvement in the assessment of development application for land adjacent to the Mernda Rail Reserve.

Council’s original position was that is unnecessary to include PTV as a nominated referral authority as part of the Development Plan assessment process given its well established practice of inviting all referral agencies to comment on all proposals.

The Panel identified that the Mernda Rail Extension was of state significance and that the views of PTV should be sought. Unlike the referral authority recommendation previously discussed for planning permit applications, this recommendation merely asks the Responsible Authority to consider the views of PTV as part of the Development Plan process. It does not require the Development Plan to be approved to PTVs satisfaction.

There is no objection to this position. It is considered appropriate to include specific reference to refer Development Plan applications to PTV for their input.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 1c.

2. Amend the Concept Plan in Clause 4.0 (now Clause 6.0) of Schedule 34 to the Development Plan Overlay as follows:

a)   Amend the boundaries of the ‘Plenty River Environs’ designation insofar as it affects the property at 88-90 Schotters Road and the properties fronting Hayes Road so that the ‘Plenty River environs’ boundaries accord with those of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO). Insert the following footnote:

§ The area designated as ‘Plenty River environs’ that is also subject to the LSIO is developable on conditions consistent with, and no more onerous than, those applying under the LSIO.

The application of the LSIO to land encumbered by the 1:100 year flood line within the Mernda Township was disputed in three submissions to the Amendment.

As documented in the 26 April 2016 Council Report and discussed at length at the Panel Hearing, the LSIO concerns related to the perceived loss of developable land and more substantially the validity of data that is used to determine the application of the LSIO.

The issue of flooding and identifying risk is ultimately the responsibility of the Catchment Management Authority, in this instance Melbourne Water. In addition, it is the role of Melbourne Water to communicate these circumstances to the public. Council Officers and Melbourne Water held discussions with the three submitters on this issue. It should be noted that as a result of these discussions one submission was successfully withdrawn and of the two remaining submissions only one presented to Panel.

At the Panel Hearing, Melbourne Water presented information relating to flooding in the Mernda Township. It was explained that areas within the 1:100 year flood line were susceptible to low risk flooding and therefore the application of the least onerous planning control (the LSIO) was the most appropriate measure to deal with the issue. In essence the LSIO does not prohibit development within the area affected by the overlay, but requires Melbourne Water approval as the relevant authority.

The Panel accepted, from the material presented before it, the position of Melbourne Water and Council and supported the application of the LSIO. However the extent and purpose of the LSIO drew the attention of Panel, particularly in relation to is reflection on the Concept Plan within DPO 34.

The ‘Plenty River Environs’ designation on the exhibited Concept Plan was intended to show land encumbered by 1:100 year flooding, and with respect to the LSIO it was to accurately reflect the definition and extent of the LSIO. However there was no explanation on the exhibited Concept Plan confirming this.

Given the representation of the ‘Plenty River Environs’ on the Concept Plan as green and the lack of detail establishing its purpose, it is conceded that some of the concern relating to the application of the LSIO was as a result of the inadequate representation of the ‘Plenty River Environs’. The current depiction on the Concept Plan could be misinterpreted as the land not being suitable for any development. It is considered for clarity that Council support the recommendation of the Panel to update the Concept Plan.

The inclusion of the footnote on the Concept Plan will also serve to clarify that the land although encumbered is still developable subject to the advice of the relevant authority (Melbourne Water).

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2a.

b)   Illustrate the Mernda Rail Reserve and clearly show it as being outside the area covered by the Concept Plan and Schedule 34 to the Development Plan Overlay.

Prior to the Panel Hearing, Council Officers agreed to support this technical request made by PTV for clarity. This position was conveyed at the Panel Hearing.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2b.

c)   Remove the shared pathway shown in the Mernda Rail Reserve and include it within the Schotters Road road reserve. Insert the following footnote:

§ The ultimate form and delivery of the shared path will be subject to discussion with Public Transport Victoria at the Development Plan and Planning Permit application stages.

This recommendation is reflecting the recommended change proposed at Recommendation 1b), to make provision for the north-south shared path along Schotters Road on the Concept Plan.

It is considered for completeness that this change be made.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2c.

d)   Delete the two east-west road links across the Mernda Rail Reserve.

Prior to the Panel Hearing, it was reported that at the time the Concept Plan was being prepared, it was unclear how the Mernda Rail Reserve was to be used. Through the exhibition process PTV advised that the southern portion of the Mernda Rail Reserve would be used for stabling, and as such would not accommodate the road crossings as proposed. Based on this advice the request was supported by Council, and was conveyed at the Panel Hearing.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2d.

e)   Remove the status of Station Road as nominated on the Concept Plan. Insert the following footnote:

§ The status of Station Road is to be determined by a separate planning process.

Given the proximity of Station Road to the Mernda Township, it was considered important to highlight the road on the Concept Plan for clarity. The exhibited Concept Plan was merely reflecting the current status of Station Road. Discussions relating to the ultimate role and function of Station Road have been considered and contested through assessment of the Mernda Town Centre North East Development Plan and delivery of the MREP.

As the role and function of Station Road has no bearing on the scope of Amendment C175 it was considered appropriate to amend reference to Station Road to reflect that its status would be determined via separate planning processes.

The recommendation of the Panel reflects the suggestion of Council in response to PTV’s submission regarding the status of Station Road. In their report, the Panel supported the rationale of Council in making this suggestion.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2e.

f)    Remove any reference to specific intersection treatments and nominate intersections likely to require an intersection treatment. Insert the following footnote:

§ The ultimate form and details of intersection treatments are to be determined at the Development Plan and planning permit application stages

The recommendation has been made in response to the concerns raised by Vic Roads in their submission to Amendment C175.

The concerns related to the level of ambiguity of the nomination of ‘Controlled Intersections’ on the exhibited Concept Plan, as this could be misinterpreted as those that require traffic signals. It was agreed between Council and Vic Roads that the ultimate form of the intersection treatments would be discussed as part of future Development Plan and Planning Permit applications. It was further agreed that the Concept Plan should be amended to reflect this position.

This proposed change was supported by Council at its 26 April 2016 Meeting and in a letter from Vic Roads dated 1 July 2016, which were then conveyed to the Panel. As a result the recommendation of the Panel reflects the suggested recommendation of Council.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2f.

g)   Show an additional ‘proposed local open space’ area in the location of Reserve No.1 as shown on the certified plan of subdivision prepared pursuant to Planning Permit 713337 for the subdivision of the land at 345 Hazel Glen Drive.

In preparing the Concept Plan an error occurred when an endorsed tree protection reserve from Planning Permit 713337 was not shown on the plan. Council submitted that the Concept Plan within Amendment C175 be updated to accurately reflect the status of the tree protection reserve. The Panel agreed with Council’s submission.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2g.

h)   Designate the residential portion of the land at 31-35 Johnsons Road Mernda as ‘standard density residential / retirement village’.

Prior to the Panel Hearing, Council agreed to update the Concept Plan to reflect the land use designation as ‘retirement village’ to support the landowner’s request, who has been actively seeking to build a retirement village on this land for a number of years.

It was made clear by Council Officers to the proponent that in making this change, the flexibility for the use of the land would be lost. If the retirement village was not considered to be viable, the applicant would have to amend the Concept Plan via a new Planning Scheme Amendment process.

The Panel agreed with Council that specifically designating the land as ‘retirement village’ may limit flexibility going forward should the landowners wish to proceed with pursuing an alternative land use.

The Panel also noted that a retirement village could also be argued that it is not generally in accordance with the current designation of the land for ‘standard density residential’, which is the reason for the proposal to amend the designation.

To avoid the possibility of the site being restricted by the specific land use designations, the Panel have recommended a dual land use designation of ‘standard density residential’ / ‘retirement village’.

It is agreed that this recommendation is appropriate as it maximises the flexibility of the land use and does not render the land undevelopable should a retirement village be unfeasible.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 2h.

3. Amend the Schedule to Clause 66.04 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to include the following requirements in the table in the Schedule:

§ Clause – Clause 3.0 of Schedule 34 to Clause 43.04 (Development Plan Overlay)

§ Kind of application – An application to use land, subdivide land, or construct a building or carry out works on land within 50 metres east of the Mernda Rail Reserve and within the area of the Mernda township as shown on the Concept Plan in Clause 3.0 of Schedule 34 to Clause 43.04.

§ Referral Authority – Public Transport Victoria

§ Type of referral authority – [determining] referral authority

This recommendation is a technical change to legitimise the role of Public Transport Victoria as a referral authority under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in accordance with Clause 3.0 of DPO34.

As it is recommended that Council support PTV becoming a referral authority in accordance with Clause 3.0 of DPO34, it is further recommended that these changes proposed under Clause 66.04 be supported.

Officer Recommendation:

Support Panel Recommendation 3.

 

Further Recommendation

Whittlesea City Council should prepare an amendment without delay to:

§ Rezone Rural Conservation Zoned land within the Mernda Township for residential development.

§ Apply the Land Subject to inundation Overlay to that part of the land that is within the declared 1 in 100 year flood line.

The further recommendation of the Panel has been made in response to the request made in a number of submissions to reinstate the proposal to rezone the RCZ land within the Mernda Township to the GRZ. This being the component that was not included within the exhibited Amendment C175.

The issues regarding the RCZ land and the recommendation of the Panel are discussed in detail in the following section of the report.

 


 

PANEL REPORT – FURTHER RECOMMENDATION

As mentioned previously, a substantial portion of the Panel Hearing was dedicated to the re-instatement of the RCZ land as part of Amendment C175. This has translated into a significant portion of the Panel Report discussing the implications and benefits of reinstating the RCZ land. 

In its deliberations, the Panel resolved to support Council’s position to exclude the RCZ land from Amendment C175. The decision made by the Panel however, was not as a result of the arguments raised by Council, but rather on a technicality. As the RCZ land had not been subject to the same formal processes of a Planning Scheme Amendment, as per the TZ land, the inclusion of the RCZ land at this late stage in the Planning Scheme Amendment process could be seen as being procedurally unfair for potentially affected landowners.

The Panel concluded that:

“On the basis of the material before it, the Panel would have found it difficult not to recommend rezoning the RCZ land to GRZ, if not for the transformation and procedural fairness issues”. 

As a result of this conclusion, the Panel have made a recommendation that:

“Whittlesea City Council should prepare an amendment without delay to:

·    Rezone the RCZ land within the Mernda Township for residential development”.

Whilst not a formal recommendation that relates to the finalisation of Amendment C175, it is important that Council form a view as part of the response to be forwarded to the Minister for Planning.

At its meeting of 14 July 2015 Council noted that the achievement of an open space pedestrian link along the Plenty River is an important strategic objective (which remains relevant), however on balance the concerns raised around the impact any additional development in proximity to the Mushroom Exchange may have on its ongoing viability in that location, should be considered. As a result Council resolved to hold in abeyance the rezoning of RCZ land until a future point in time should circumstances with respect to the operations of the Mushroom Exchange change to allow consideration of such a proposal.

Notwithstanding the Panel’s recommendation, it is considered that the circumstances relating to this issue remain unchanged since Council’s relatively recent decision, and as such do not warrant a change of course at this stage. It is on this basis that, in line with its 14 July 2015 decision, Council should continue to hold in abeyance any consideration to rezone RCZ land until an appropriate future point in time should circumstances change.

Officer Recommendation:

·    Not support the further recommendation (iv) of the Panel.

NEXT STEPS

As part of the Planning Scheme Amendment process under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, having regard to Panel Recommendations, Council must determine whether to abandon the Amendment or adopt the Amendment.

Should Council adopt the Amendment, the Amendment will need to be forwarded to the Minister for Planning within 10 business days, for his ultimate determination.

The Minister will hand down his decision within 40 business days from the lodgement of the Amendment. During this time Amendment C175 would be known as being ‘seriously entertained’ by Council, whereby Council Officers are required to acknowledge the proposal and consider it in any development assessment applications during this time.

Critical Dates

§ December 2012 – Amendment C175 first reported to Council requesting Ministerial authorisation to prepare and exhibit the Amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

§ July 2015 – Amendment C175 reported to Council requesting Ministerial authorisation to prepare and exhibit a revised Amendment which limits the proposed rezoning to the existing Township Zoned land. Request granted by Council. Ministerial authorisation sought.

§ July 2015 – Relevant stakeholders and landowners notified of Council’s decision to hold in abeyance any rezoning of the Rural Conservation Zoned land.

§ December 2015 to February 2016 – Amendment C175 placed on public exhibition.

§ April 2016 – Outcomes of the public exhibition process are reported to Council. Council resolves to request the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Planning Panel to consider unresolved submissions to Amendment C175.

§ August 2016 – Panel Hearing for Amendment C175 held at the City of Whittlesea Civic Centre.

§ September 2016 – Panel Report handed down outlining findings and recommendations for Amendment C175.

Financial Implications

There may be an increase in additional permits triggered under the LSIO that will have a small, but manageable administrative impact within existing resources of the Planning and Major Projects Directorate.

Policy strategy and legislation

Amendment C175 reflects the ambitions of the extensive set of Council policies. Several notable Community Plan Strategic Objectives include:

·    Accessibility in, out and around our city – our road network provides access to the municipality and beyond.

·    Growing our economy – there are a diverse range of local employment opportunities.

·    Places and spaces to connect people – our urban design helps build connection to place and the community.

Amendment C175 will also help ensure that significant heritage sites are retained and incorporated into the future vision of the Mernda Township. This is in accordance with Clause 21.08-3 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, which seeks to increase the level of protection for and opportunities for incorporation of the City’s European and Aboriginal heritage.

These build upon the strategies and objectives of the State Government’s key Metropolitan Planning Strategy Plan Melbourne particularly:

·    Initiative 1.2.2 – Maintain the competitiveness of employment land in Melbourne’s growth areas.

·    Initiative 1.2.3 – Plan for commercial land and activity centre needs.

·    Initiative 2.2.3 – Deliver housing close to jobs and transport.

·    Direction 3.4 – Improve local travel options to increase social and economic participation.

·    Initiative 4.2.1 – Protect our unique neighbourhoods from residential densification.

·    Initiative 4.2.4 – Protect waterways from inappropriate development.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Growing our economy

Theme                                   Employment

Strategic Objective              There are a diverse range of local employment opportunities

 

FUTURE DIRECTION          Places and spaces connect people

Theme                                    Planning our space

Strategic Objective                        Our urban design helps to build connection to place and the community

The proposed Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C175 will provide for the framework to allow the existing Mernda Township to better integrate with the larger Mernda-Doreen development corridor.

As such, it is considered that the plan will meet the direction of creating places and spaces for people to connect and that the plan has also utilised the principles of good urban design to facilitate future development to create a place which helps the existing and future community to connect with each other and their surrounds.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The proposed Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C175 represents a significant strategic project that will provide the Mernda Township with the same level of long-term planning controls that are afforded to the adjacent and surrounding Mernda Strategy Plan area.

This Amendment has been advanced essentially to ensure that the relevant planning controls are in place to guide the significant growth currently occurring and likely to occur in the future.

Underpinned by sound planning merit, Amendment C175 has been subject to a formal Planning Scheme Amendment process and is supported by an Independent Panel (subject to minor drafting changes).

It is recommended that all the Panel Recommendations regarding the specific matters in relation to Amendment C175 as exhibited are supported, as detailed in the submissions table in the body of this report. The specific Panel Report recommendations include 1(a) – 1(c), 2(a) – 2(h) and 3.

With respect to the ‘further recommendation’ regarding the advancement of a new Planning Scheme Amendment for the Rural Conservation Zone land within the Mernda Township, it is considered in keeping with earlier Council recommendation that this should not be advanced at this time and therefore Panel ‘Further Recommendation (iv)’ should not be supported.

From a process perspective the Panel Report together with Councils response and updated Amendment documents should be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for determination.


 

It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to:

·    Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C175 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme as per Panel Recommendations 1(a) – 1(c), 2(a) – 2 (h), and 3;

·    Not support Panel ‘Further Recommendation (vi)’;

·    Forward Amendment C175, together with the Panel Report and Council’s recommendations, to the Minister for Planning for determination;

·    Advise the submitters of Council’s resolution regarding the above.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C175 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme as per Panel Recommendations 1(a) – 1(c), 2(a) – 2 (h), and 3;

2.       Not support Panel ‘Further Recommendation (vi)’ ;

3.       Forward Amendment C175, together with the Panel Report and Council’s recommendations, to the Minister for Planning for determination;

4.       Advise the submitters of Council’s resolution regarding 1. to 3. above.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



 


 


 


 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.12  Amendment C123- 50 and 60 Hunters Road, Mernda, Amendment to the Mernda Strategy Plan

File No:                                  195015

Attachments:                        1        Subject Site  

2        Zoning Plan  

3        Overlay Plan  

4        Amended Mernda Strategy Plan Precinct 4 Plan    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Strategic Planner   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

 

Whittlesea Planning Amendment C123 proposes to amend the Mernda Strategy Plan by removing the current Conservation Open Space designation from the subject land known as 50 and 60 Hunters Road, Mernda. The amendment does not seek to alter or amend any of the zone and overlay controls that currently apply to the land.

 

The Amendment was reported to Council on 27 April 2016, where Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the Amendment.

 

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition to affected landowners, relevant authorities and prescribed Ministers for a period of 28 days. At the conclusion of the exhibition period, only one submission was received from the landowner of one of the affected sites which did not object to the amendment.

 

It is recommended that Council adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C123 and forward to the Minister for Planning for approval.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to discuss the outcomes of the statutory exhibition process for Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C123 and provide recommendations to finalise the amendment process.
   

The amendment proposes to amend the Mernda Strategy Plan to nominate the future land-use of 50 and 60 Hunters Road as residential, rather than the current designation of Conservation Open Space.

 

The Mernda Strategy Plan is an incorporated document in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and as such any changes require a Planning Scheme Amendment.

Background

The amendment applies to the land at 50 and 60 Hunters Road, Mernda (Attachment 1- Subject Site). The subject properties were rezoned to a Residential 1 Zone (now General Residential Zone) (Attachment 2- Zoning Plan), with a Development Contributions Plan- Schedule 8, Development Plan Overlay- Schedule 5 (attachment 3), Incorporated Plan Overlay- Schedule 1 and the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule, in 2004 as part of the approval of the Mernda Strategy Plan. These zoning and overlay controls are consistent with those applied to all land within the Mernda Strategy Plan.

The Mernda Strategy Plan currently provides for a Conservation Open Space designation to the subject properties which applies generally to the area of the current Woodland Waters Conservation Reserve.

 

On 16 August 2015, 10 Consulting Group, on behalf of the landholder of 60 Hunters Road, Mernda requested that Council prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to the Mernda Strategy Plan, in order to change the land use designation on the site from Conservation Open Space to Residential. It was noted in this request that the existing Zone and Overlay controls on the site were considered to be appropriate, and no change was proposed.

 

The properties combined, the sites are a total of approximately 8000 square metres. Each site currently contains a single dwelling and importantly do not contain any known native vegetation values.  It has been identified by Council’s Parks and Open Space department as being surplus to its open space needs.

 

It is noted that any future re-development of the subject sites will be able to be incorporated as part of the proposed development to the south.  It is noted that there is currently a Development Plan under preparation which will be required to integrate the subject properties  into any layout proposed layout.

NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

Amendment C123 was placed on public exhibition from 29 August 2016 until 30 September 2016, to adjoining landowners, prescribed Ministers and relevant authorities. Notice of the Amendment was also placed in the Whittlesea Leader and the Victorian Government Gazette.

The exhibited documentation included a list of changes and a full copy of the Mernda Strategy Plan and all plans which are proposed to be altered as part of Amendment C123.

Of the plans contained within the Mernda Strategy Plan, the plans on pages 10, 15, 23, 25, 30 and 34 are required to be amended in order to change the land use designation on the subject properties.

At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, one submission was received from the landowner at 60 Hunters Road, Mernda. The submission was supportive of the Amendment, as exhibited, however, it was noted that the Precinct 4 Plan on page 15 of the proposed Amendment, had erroneously shown the subject properties as Conservation Open Space rather than the proposed Standard Residential land use designation. 

This error has been noted, and the Precinct 4 Plan has been updated to reflect the proposed change in land use designation (Attachment 4- Proposed Mernda Strategy Plan Amendment Precinct 4 Plan).

DISCUSSION

The Amendment has been the subject of a standard exhibition process. It is noted that at the conclusion of the exhibition period, no objecting submissions were received.

The subject sites have been identified as being surplus to Council’s open space needs, and the site does not contain any known native vegetation values. On this basis there is little value in maintaining the subject sites as Conservation Open Space, particularly where Council would be liable to acquiring this land through the DCP as currently designated.

Importantly, the proposed amendment to the Mernda Strategy Plan reflects what is considered to be the both the current use of the sites and the logical future use of the subject sites, which is supported by the underlying zones and overlays that apply to the site.

The proposed Amendment has been considered within the broader context of the area, and it is noted that the subject sites will be able to be incorporated into future residential development which will occur to the south.

Noting the above, it is considered that the proposed land use designation change from Conservation Open Space to Standard Residential is appropriate, and necessary to ensure that the future planning and use of the subject properties adequately reflects existing site conditions.   

Policy strategy and legislation

The proposed Amendment to the Mernda Strategy Plan is supported by underlying Zones and Overlays which apply to the site.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Places and spaces to connect people

Theme                                   Planning our space

Strategic Objective              Our urban design helps build connection to place and the community

 

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Amending the Mernda Strategy Plan to change the land use designation of the sites at 50 and 60 Hunters Road, Mernda from Conservation Open Space to Residential will provide a practical outcome for the landowners of these properties for land considered to be surplus to Council needs and are no longer required for Conservation Open Space.

 

The properties will be able to be integrated into the property to the south, and will be able to be considered under their current zones and overlays in order to ensure a consistent approach to residential development within this area.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that Council resolve to adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C123 and forward to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C123 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme;

2.       Request the Minister for Planning approve Amendment C123 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme;

3.       Advise the landowners of Council’s resolution regarding 1. and 2. above.

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

 

 



6.1.13  895 Yan Yean Road and 900 Bridge Inn Road, Doreen: Removal of Native Vegetation

File No:                                  716177

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Tree Removal and Retention Plan  

3        Photos of Trees    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer - Growth Areas Development Assessment   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Mr Stephen Lake

COUNCIL POLICY:              River Redgum Protection Policy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan (Schedule 6)

Development Plan (Schedule 5)

Incorporated Plan (Schedule 1)

Vegetation Protection (Schedule 1)

REFERRAL:                          Sustainability Planning

                                                Parks and Open Space

                                                Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

OBJECTIONS:                      Nil

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council resolve to approve Planning Permit No. 716177 to allow for the removal of ten (10) River Red Gum trees.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

Planning Permit No. 712003 was issued on 27 July 2010 for the purpose of undertaking a multi lot residential subdivision (comprising 361 lots, native vegetation removal and the construction of the Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road intersection) at 830-860 Bridge Inn Road, Doreen (also known as the ‘Hazelcroft’ estate) (see Attachment 1).  Condition Nos. 1(q), 1(s), 1(t), 7(c) and 7(d) of Planning Permit No. 712003 require upgrade works and the preparation of the interim and ultimate design of the Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road intersection.  During the preparation of the functional layout design for this intersection, it was identified that the required road works would negatively impact upon native vegetation located on two adjoining properties on the southwest corner of the Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road intersection. 

A tree assessment of the vegetation identified twelve (12) indigenous River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) trees in this location and recommended the removal of Trees 1-11 as they would be directly impacted upon by the road upgrades.  The tree assessment also identified that the trees proposed to be removed are fair to poor in health with moderate to low retention value.   Council’s Sustainability Planning Unit and Parks and Open Space Department support the removal of the trees except for Tree 11. Accordingly, it is recommended that Planning Permit No. 716177 be approved to allow the removal of ten River Red Gum trees (Trees 1-10) from the land.  Conditions on any permit issued will require the retention of Tree 11 and the provision of native vegetation offsets in accordance with the provisions of the ‘Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEPI 2013) and Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual (DEPI 2013)’.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located to the south of Bridge Inn Road and consists of two properties which have a total frontage to Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road of 330m and 161m respectively (see Attachment 1).  The site comprises a total area of approximately 41 hectares and is located within the General Residential Zone. 

The locality has undergone significant change over the past five years from rural living and agricultural uses to a more urban character.  Surrounding developments include the Vaucluse Estate which is located to the south of the site whilst to the west is the Hazelcroft Estate which is under construction.  A series of remnant rural-residential land parcels adjoin the site to the north and east. 

The site is predominantly vacant and is partly encumbered by an existing electricity transmission easement along the northwest portion of the site which will be embellished with a shared path and landscaping when the land is developed.  A tree assessment identified twelve (12) trees within the northwest corner of the site.  All trees are remnant, indigenous River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) trees. 

restrictions and easements

No. 900 Bridge Inn Road, Doreen is legally described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 139446U of Volume 7834 Folio 149 whilst No. 895 Yan Yean Road, Doreen is known as Lot 1 on Title Plan 139447S of Volume 09812 Folio 806.  There are no restrictions on both Titles that preclude Council form determining this application. 

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located within the Garden Road Development Plan area and the Mernda Strategy Plan area.  According to the Garden Road Development Plan, the site is identified for standard density residential development. 

Planning Permit No. 712003 was issued on 27 July 2010 to allow for the creation of a multi-lot residential development and the removal of forty four (44) native trees to the west of the subject site at 830-860 Bridge Inn Road, Doreen (also known as the ‘Hazelcroft’ estate). No. 830-860 Bridge Inn Road, Doreen is located within the Ashley Park Development Plan which identifies the land for residential purposes.  The Tree Removal and Retention Plan (see Attachment 2) which forms part of this current application under consideration shows the vegetation already approved for removal under Planning Permit No. 712003.

A number of conditions on Planning Permit No. 712003 require the construction of the Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road intersection in order to facilitate safe and efficient access to the proposed subdivision and surrounding estates.  Planning Permit No. 712003 did not consider the impacts of the intersection on a number of trees located on two adjoining properties on the southwest corner of Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road as these trees were outside the confines of the proposed subdivision.  The current application seeks to allow for the removal of eleven (11) additional trees to expedite the construction of the above-mentioned intersection, however Council’s assessment has identified that only ten (10) of these trees should be removed as identified below in greater detail.  


 

Proposal

The applicant proposes the removal of eleven (11) River Red Gum trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) from the site (see Attachments 2 and 3). 

Details of existing vegetation on the site is outlined in the following table:

Tree Identification

Common Name (Species)

Height and Width (m)

Diameter of Trunk over bark at Breast Height (cm)

Retention Value

Health

Australian Standard Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) (m- radius)

1

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

15 X 19

88

Moderate

Fair

10.6

2

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

28 X 20

113,47

Moderate

Fair

14.7

3

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

12 X 3

23

Low

Fair-Poor

2.8

4

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

13 X 8

45

Low

Fair-Poor

5.4

5

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

7 X 6

17

Low

Fair

2.0

6

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

18 X 20

114

Low

Fair

13.7

7

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

18 X 11

70

Low

Fair-Poor

8.4

8

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

15 X 14

79

Moderate

Fair-Poor

9.5

9

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

12 X 8

32

Low

Fair

3.8

10

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

19 X 18

80

Moderate

Fair

9.6

11

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

23 X 25

159

Moderate

Fair-Poor

15.0

12

River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)

16 X 16

75

Moderate

Fair-Poor

9.0

The assessment of the proposed native vegetation earmarked for removal identifies the trees with a low to moderate retention value with fair to poor health and structure.  The functional design for the subdivision has resulted in the need for construction activities to occur at the Bridge Inn Road and Garden Road intersection within proximity to the Tree Protection Zones of Trees 1-11.  The applicant’s submission notes that the works will negatively impact upon the longevity of the trees which may ultimately pose a liability to Council in the future if they were to be retained, however Council’s assessment has identified that only ten (10) of these trees should be removed.  The Tree Removal Plan submitted with the application also does allow for the retention of Tree 12. 

PLANNING CONTEXT

State Planning Policy Framework

 

Clause 12.01-1 Protection of biodiversity

 

Clause 12.01 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme relates to biodiversity and the protection of Victoria’s natural habitat. The objective of this clause is to assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals.


Clause 12.01-2 Native Vegetation Management

 

This clause seeks to achieve no net loss in the extent and quality of native vegetation. The strategy to achieve this is to apply the risk-based approach to managing native vegetation as set out in Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013).

 

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

 

Clause 22.10 River Red Gum Protection Policy

 

Clause 22.10 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme relates to Council’s River Red Gum Protection Policy. This policy applies to the protection of River Red Gums located in urban and rural areas. The objective of this policy is “to ensure that the development of urban and rural areas takes into account the presence, retention, enhancement and long term viability of Red Gums in urban areas.” The policy states that:

 

·    The intrinsic value of River Red Gums be recognised in establishing character and identity in urban and rural areas.

·    Urban development be designed to take into account the presence, retention and long term viability of River Red Gums.

·    Generally only those trees independently assessed as presenting a danger to people and property should be removed.

·    Where feasible, areas of significant River Red Gum regeneration be protected in any development proposal.

·    The awareness of developers and land owners to the significance, value and potential benefits of the trees be increased.

 

When assessed against the relevant decision guidelines of this policy and in the context of the level of remnant River Red Gums being retained across the site as a whole, the proposed removal of the River Red Gum trees is considered satisfactory except for the removal of Tree 11.

 

Whilst River Red Gum trees contribute to the landscape character of the surrounding area, Trees 1-10 which are proposed to be removed are in fair-poor condition, and located between an upcoming major vehicular intersection and an electricity transmission easement.  Furthermore, as the alignment of these roads is largely set and is required under the Ashley Park and Garden Road Development Plans, retaining these trees would significantly compromise the future development of the subject sites and surrounding area.  Notwithstanding, Council’s Parks and Open Space Department considers that Tree 11 can be retained subject to the applicant engaging an arborist to oversee all works within the Tree Protection Zone during the construction of the intersection as described in greater detail under ‘Referrals’ below.

 

Consequently, it is considered that the removal of ten River Red Gums is consistent with the overarching objectives and decision guidelines of this policy.

ZONE AND OVERLAY DECISION GUIDELINES

The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone.  The land is also affected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1), Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 1), Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 6) and Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 5).  Pursuant to Clause 32.08 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a planning permit is not required to remove native vegetation from land within a General Residential Zone, in which the trees are earmarked for removal is located.

 

Of particular relevance to this application is the Vegetation Protection Overlay - Clause 42.02 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which requires a planning permit for the removal, destruction and lopping of native vegetation on land affected by the overlay.  Schedule 1 to this overlay relates to the River Red Gum Grassy Woodland region within the Mernda, Doreen and South Morang area, where the subject site is located.  This schedule has the following objectives:

 

·    To preserve and maintain significant vegetation and the character of the area;

·    Maintain soil qualities and minimise the impacts of erosion; and

·    Preserve natural habitat for flora and fauna.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation

 

Pursuant to Clause 52.17 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, planning approval is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead vegetation, on land that together with all contiguous land in one ownership, has an area greater than 0.4 hectares. This does not apply:

 

·     If the table to Clause 52.17-6 specifically states that a permit is not required.

·     To the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation specified in the schedule to this clause.

·     To an area specified in the schedule to this clause.

 

The permit exemptions in Clause 52.17-6 do not apply to this proposal.

REFERRALS

Internal

 

The application was referred internally to Council’s Parks and Open Space Department and Sustainability Planning Unit.

Council’s Parks and Open Space Department considered the application and offered no objection to the removal of Trees 1 -10 as these trees will be significantly impacted upon as a result of the proposed road works and service provision associated with the Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road intersection. However, it was noted that the road works could allow for the retention of Tree 11 subject to the applicant engaging an arborist to oversee all work within and adjacent to the Tree Protection Zone during the construction of the intersection.  Accordingly, a condition on any permit issued will require the retention of Tree 11.

Council’s Parks and Open Space Department also stated that a road side barrier may need to be installed to mitigate a road side hazard in relation to Tree 11, however this will be determined separately as part of the assessment of the Functional Layout Plans for the intersection under Planning Permit No. 712003 and subject to the consent of VicRoads.

 

Council’s Sustainability Planning Unit advises that the proposal to remove the River Red Gum trees from the land is acceptable subject to the inclusion of conditions on any permit issued. 

 

External

 

The application was referred externally to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). 

 

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning advised that they do not object to the removal of the River Red Gum trees from the land since the total removal of native vegetation is less than 0.5ha and therefore not considered to have detrimental biodiversity impacts on the site. 

PLANNING COMMENTS

Council acknowledges the importance of native vegetation, and in particular River Red Gum trees, as a visual and environmental feature within the municipality.  In this instance, the removal of ten River Red Gum trees (Trees 1-10) from the land and the retention of Tree 11 is considered acceptable.

 

The removal of the River Red Gum trees is required to facilitate the construction of the Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road intersection which is a requirement of Planning Permit No. 712003 and is in accordance with the provisions of the Ashley Park and Garden Road Development Plans.  The intersection is required to enable safe and efficient access to the Hazelcroft estate and the surrounding area. 

 

The arboricultural and ecological assessments provided by the applicant confirm that the native vegetation earmarked for removal is of poor to fair health with low to moderate retention value.   It was also found that the Tree Protection Zones associated with Trees 1-10 will be considerably impacted as a result of the road works, service provision (water and gas) and ultimately a 2.5m wide shared path that forms part of the construction of the Garden Road and Bridge Inn Road intersection.  However, Council’s Parks and Open Space Department noted that the road works could allow for the retention of Tree 11 subject to the applicant engaging an arborist to oversee all work within and adjacent to the Tree Protection Zone during the construction of the intersection.  Accordingly, a condition of permit will require the retention of this tree.

 

The removal of ten (10)  River Red Gum trees is considered to provide a balanced outcome by facilitating development that accords with the relevant policies of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, Ashley Park and the Garden Road Development Plans.  The road works will also allow for the retention of Tree 12.

 

It is considered that the relevant policy objectives relating to Clauses 22.10 (River Red Gum Protection Policy), 42.02 (Vegetation Protection Policy Overlay Schedule 1), and 52.17 (Native Vegetation Removal) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme have been appropriately addressed in the planning assessment.  Offsets in accordance with the provisions ‘Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEPI 2013) and Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual (DEPI 2013)’ may be required as a condition on any permit that issues.

Public Notification

The site is covered by the Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 5 (DPO5) and the Incorporated Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (IPO1) which both exempt planning permit applications from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987, provided that the application is generally in accordance with the associated incorporated or approved plan. 

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

It is considered that the removal of ten (10) River Red Gum trees is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The removal of ten River Red Gum trees of fair to poor health and moderate to low retention value is acceptable subject to the retention of Tree 11 and given the support by Council’s Parks and Open Space Department and Sustainability Planning Unit, and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.  The vegetation removal is justified given the need to facilitate the construction of the Bridge Inn Road and Garden Road intersection in order to provide for efficient access to a planned community. 

 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application for the removal of native vegetation be approved in this instance. 

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716177 and issue a Planning Permit for the removal of native vegetation (11 River Red Gum trees) at 895 Yan Yean Road, Doreen and 900 Bridge Inn Road, Doreen in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

 

1.       Before the tree removal commences, three copies of amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the Tree Removal and Retention Plan, Drawing No. 0094-GR-F11, prepared by GPR Consulting, dated October 2016, Rev A, and modified to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to show:

 

a)      The retention of Tree 11 and the inclusion of an annotation specifying that the permit holder must engage an arborist to oversee all work within and adjacent to the Tree Protection Zone during construction.

 

2.       No trees, dead or alive, or remnant vegetation, other than that shown on the endorsed plan, shall be destroyed, felled, lopped, ring barked or uprooted, without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

 

3.       Prior to the commencement of the tree removal works, all scattered trees and remnant vegetation to be retained must be protected in the following manner:

 

a)      Trees are to be protected in accordance with the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) to the standards requirements by the City of Whittlesea (SDL.2.01) and areas of native vegetation to be retained must be temporarily fenced. Fencing must comply with the Australian Standard for the protection of trees/native vegetation on development sites (AS4970-2009).

b)      Fencing must be signposted as ‘Tree Protection Zone’ or “No Go Zone” and must remain in place for the entire construction period.

 

4.       In order to offset the removal of native vegetation (habitat hectares and scattered tree) approved as part of this permit, the applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that is in accordance with the Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual. The offset must contribute a gain of the required general biodiversity equivalence units, be located within the boundary of the Whittlesea municipality or the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority area, and have a strategic score of at least 80 per cent of the strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation approved for removal.  Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

 

5.       Prior to removal, the subject trees must be inspected by a suitably qualified and experienced zoologist to determine the presence of animals living or nesting in the tree. Should any native animals be detected, reasonable steps must be taken to capture and relocate such animals as recommended by the zoologist.

6.       Each tree nominated for removal must be suitably marked prior to the commencement of any works and an inspection arranged with an appropriate Council officer to verify that the trees marked accords with this permit.

7.       The applicant must contact Council’s Parks and Open Space Department to arrange for an appropriate officer to be present on site to supervise the removal of the trees.

8.       The project manager is to ensure that tree removal is carried out in a safe manner.

9.       The project manager is to locate all services either above or below ground prior to the commencement of any works.

10.     Stumps and any surface roots are to be ground down below ground level. Ground and chipped material to a depth of 50mm is to be removed from site at the direction of the project manager. The project manager must supply and replace suitable topsoil and seed the area making certain that the reinstated ground surface is level, even and safe.

11.     All stumps not removed immediately after removal of the tree are to be paint marked with a suitable bright yellow reflective marking paint.

12.     All stumps must be removed within 14 days of removal of the tree.

13.     After a tree has been felled, the tree must be protected from firewood harvesting via temporary fencing and signage to the satisfaction of Council until such time as the tree has been relocated for habitat or mulched.

14.     Wherever possible and appropriate, native trees to be removed should be retained for use in core conservation areas for habitat purposes or reused in open space as urban art, park furniture and/or other uses determined appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

15.     All timber greater than 300mm in diameter that cannot be reused as habitat, furniture or another use determined as appropriate by the Responsible Authority shall be hammer milled and shredded for reuse as mulch within the subject site.

16.     All timber less than 300mm in diameter and branch/leaf material shall be shredded for re-use as mulch within the subject site.

17.     At the completion of the works, the applicant is to arrange for an appropriate Council officer to inspect the site to ensure compliance with the planning permit.

18.     No buildings or works, including loading and unloading, storage of materials, dumping of waste, vehicle access, parking and other construction activity is to occur within a tree protection zone without the written consent of and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19.     The permit for tree removal expires if it is not commenced and completed within two years after the issue of the permit.  Before the permit expires or within three months afterwards, the owner or occupier of the land to which it applies may ask the responsible authority for an extension of time. The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the use or development or any stage of it may be started or any stage of it is to be completed.

Notes:

Prior to the removal of the trees, the permit holder must notify all adjacent landholders that the trees are to be removed with Council consent.

A consulting arborist must be employed to supervise works which may impact upon trees marked for retention on the approved plan.

 

The consulting arborist must conduct an induction of all personnel involved in construction that may impact on tree protection zones.

 

Any works within the tree protection zone should be completed or supervised by the consulting arborist.

 

The area inside the tree protection zone should, where considered relevant by the consulting arborist, be modified in the following manner to enhance the growing environment of the tree and to help reduce stress or damage to the tree:

·    the area within the tree protection zone may require mulch with wood chips or compost matter to a depth of 150 millimetres.

 

·    trees may require supplementary watering, with the amount to be assessed by the consulting arborist and determined by the extent of disturbance to the trees roots and climatic conditions.

 

·    where severing of roots (greater than 50 millimetres in diameter) is required directly adjacent to the exclusion zone they must be cut cleanly.  Where possible this is to be completed at the beginning of development of the site.  Roots are not to be left exposed, but back-filled or covered with damp hessian.

 

The storing or disposing of chemicals or toxic materials must not be undertaken within 10 metres of any tree protection zone.  Where the slope of the land suggests these materials may drain towards a tree protection zone, the storing or disposing of these materials is strictly forbidden.

 

Tree protection envelope fencing is to be constructed to the following requirements:

 

·   Ring lock wire mesh (or equivalent) no less than 1.2 metres high.

 

·   Main posts 100mm treated pine (TP).

 

·   Intermediate posts steel star pickets (SP).

 

·   The corner posts are to be TP with TP stays.

 

·   Every third post is to be TP.

 

·   SP to be placed intermediately between the TP at 3m intervals.

 

·   The ring lock mesh to encircle the structure and be firmly secured at each post.

 

·   Posts must be sunk into the ground by 450mm (there is to be no concrete to secure posts as this may affect p.H. levels).

 

·   The tree protection zone is to be clearly sign posted in accordance with the condition titled Tree Protection Zone fencing.

 

With the agreement of the responsible authority, tree protection zone fencing may not be provided where permanent reserve fencing is introduced prior to construction.  The specification of the permanent fencing must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

 



 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                              Tuesday 22 November 2016

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                        Tuesday 22 November 2016

 

6.1.14  283 The Lakes Boulevard and 70 Martin Close, South Morang - Multi-Lot Subdivision and the Removal of Native Vegetation

File No:                                  715996

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps  

2        Subdivision Plan  

3        Tree Removal/Retention Plan  

4        Photographs    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Principal Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Balance Property Partners Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              22.10     River Redgum Protection Policy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Plan Overlay

Vegetation Protection Overlay

 

REFERRAL:                          AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd

Melbourne Water

Country Fire Authority

Yarra Valley Water

APA Group

OBJECTIONS:                      Not applicable

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The application involves a multi-lot subdivision (21 residential lots, including three reserves) and the removal of native vegetation (28 small River Red Gums).  This application is being reported to Council because the application for subdivision also involves the removal of small River Red Gums.  The removal of one or more River Red Gum, regardless of size, must be reported to Council under its Instrument of Delegation.

The application is exempt from advertising pursuant to Clause 43.04-2 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, as it was considered to be generally in accordance with the Council-approved Girvan Place/ Martin Close Development Plan.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme including provisions relating to native vegetation removal.

The application was referred to a number of external referral authorities who had no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions in any permit that is issued.

On the basis of the proposal’s general compliance with the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located on the northeastern corner of The Lakes Boulevard and Martin Close, South Morang (see Attachment 1).  The site is vacant, has an area of 1.69ha and is irregularly shaped.  The site contains two large River Red Gums located centrally within the site.  Another large River Red Gum straddles the northern property boundary.  A number of smaller River Red Gums are located immediately adjacent to the northern boundary on 70 Martin Close. 

The surrounding locality is characterised by standard residential allotments to the south and east.  To the north and west are larger low density residential allotments which are nominated for further residential development under the Girvan Place/ Martin Close Development Plan (DP).  The site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

§  Mill Park Lakes Community Activity Centre and Red Gum Grove Park (370m west)

§  Coles supermarket and a variety of specialty shops (250m west

§  The Lakes Primary School and Merriang Special Development School (450m west). 

§  Mill Park Lakes Recreation Reserve (680m west)

§  Paradise Kids Child Care Centre (150m west)

restrictions and easements

The subject site is affected by Restrictive Covenant P720320R which requires any dwelling to be constructed on the site to be 75% brick, brick veneer, stone or like material, with the roof to be constructed of cement tiles, terracotta tiles, slate or Colorbond.  The covenant also requires all dwellings to have an area of not less than 120m2 excluding verandahs, garages and carports.  Subdivision Permit No. 609248 was issued on 1 September 2016 for the removal of this covenant which is currently under consideration.

Proposal

The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject land into 21 residential allotments ranging between 200m2 and 583m2, with a 3,186m2 super lot, two tree reserves (1,217m2 and 221m2) and an open space reserve (1,217m2).  Attachment 2 shows the proposed subdivision layout.  Two roads are also proposed: the continuation of Odette Way, with an intersection provided at Martin Close, and Chiodo Street, which will continue north into 70 Martin Close.

The application also proposes the removal of 28 small River Red Gums (see Attachment 3).  The majority of these trees are located on the southern boundary of 70 Martin Close which abuts, and has a shared boundary with, the subject land.  The canopy of these small young trees overhang proposed and future residential lots and the future extension of Chiodo Street.  The remaining trees to be removed are located within the existing Martin Close Road reserve (on land required for road works) and within proposed Odette Way (on the land subject to the proposed subdivision).  All trees to be removed are young trees with an estimated age of between 5-10 years.  The following table provides a breakdown of the characteristics of each of the trees.  Attachment 4 provides photos of the trees to be retained and removed.


 

Tree No.

Botanical Name / Common Name

Height

Width

DBH

Health

Structure

Form

Retention Value

Comment

2

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

7.5m

6.5m

31cm

Good

Fair

Good

Medium

 

3

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

13.0m

7.0m

35cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

4

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

10.6m

5.0m

28cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

5

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

10.6m

5.0m

33*cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

6

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

10.6m

5.0m

26cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

7

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

9.5m

5.0m

30cm

Good

Poor

Poor

Low

Bifurcated with included bark

8

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

6.0m

4.0m

13cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

9

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

7.0m

2.0m

11cm

Good

Good

Good

Medium

 

10

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

5.0m

4.0m

10cm

Good

Poor

Poor

Low

Stump regrowth

11

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

4.0m

2.0m

8cm

Poor

Fair

Poor

Low

 

12

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

9.5m

7.0m

17cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

13

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

3.0m

2.0m

27cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

14

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

6.0m

1.0m

9cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

15

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

4.0m

1.0m

7cm

Fair

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

16

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

6.0m

1.0m

9cm

Fair

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

17

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

6.0m

4.0m

10cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

18

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

7.0m

3.0m

11cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

19

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

6.0m

2.0m

8cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

20

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

11.0m

4.0m

20cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

21

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

4.0m

1.0m

6cm

Fair

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

22

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

4.0m

3.0m

7cm

Fair

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

23

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

4.0m

2.0m

7cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

24

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

8.0m

1.0m

11cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

25

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

6.0m

2.0m

9cm

Good

Fair

Poor

Medium

 

26

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

4.5m

2m

7cm

Good

Good

Good

Medium

 

27

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

6.5m

2.0m

13cm

Good

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

28

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

5.0m

2.0m

7cm

Fair

Fair

Fair

Medium

 

29

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

 

River Red Gum

9.0m

7.0m

42cm

Good

Poor

Poor

Low

Stump regrowth

Public Notification

A development plan has previously been approved by Council in relation to the subject land and surrounding areas (Girvan Place/ Martin Close DP).  Pursuant to Clause 43.04-2 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, an application under any provision of this scheme which is generally in accordance with an approved development plan is exempt from the public notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

PLANNING CONTROLS

State Planning Policy Framework

Officers have assessed the subdivision component of the application under the relevant State Planning Policy Framework which include:

 

§  Clause 11.02-1 Supply of urban land

§  Clause 11.02-2 Planning for growth areas

§  Clause 11.04-2 Housing choice and affordability

§  Clause 15.01-1 Urban design

§  Clause 15.01-2 Urban design principles

§  Clause 15.01-3 Neighbourhood and subdivision design

§  Clause 15.01-5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood character

§  Clause 16.01 Residential development

§  Clause 18.02 Movement networks

 

The key strategic directions which emerge from these policies include:

 

§  Provide a range of lot sizes to suit a variety of dwelling and household types to meet the needs and aspirations of different groups of people.

§  Ensure that new land is released in growth areas in a timely fashion to facilitate coordinated and cost-efficient provision of local and regional infrastructure.

§  Require new development to make a financial contribution to the provision of infrastructure such as community facilities, public transport and roads.

§  Promote good urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive.

§  Pedestrian spaces, streets, parks and walkways, should be protected and enhanced.

§  Create compact neighbourhoods that have walkable distances between activities and where neighbourhood centres provide access to services and facilities to meet day to day needs.

 

The proposed subdivision is considered to be consistent with these policies and directions.

 

In relation to native vegetation, State Planning provisions seek to ‘assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals’ (Clause 12.01-1) and ‘ensure that permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity’ (Clause 12.01-2)

 


 

Local Planning Policy Framework

Officers have assessed the subdivision component of the application under the relevant Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including the Municipal Strategic Statement which includes:

 

Clause 21.04-2 (Urban growth)

Clause 22.04-4 (Open space network)

Clause 21.08-1 (Urban design)

Clause 21.09   (Housing)

Clause 21.11-1 (Integrated transport)

Clause 21.12-3 (Development Infrastructure)

 

The application is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives contained in these provisions.  The proposed subdivision will allow for a range of lot sizes within walking distance to community and retail services, schools and open space.

 

Clause 22.10 of the LPPF (River Red Gum Protection Policy) seeks to ‘ensure that the development of urban and rural areas takes into account the presence, retention, enhancement and long term viability of River Red Gums in urban areas.’

 

The policy requires that the intrinsic value of River Red Gums be recognised in establishing character and identity and that urban development be designed to take into account the presence, retention and long term viability of River Red Gums.

 

The proposed subdivision retains all significant River Red Gums on the land within public open space reserves.  The trees to be removed constitute recent regrowth and these trees have been assessed as not being capable of retention as part of the proposed subdivision.

Zone and Overlay Controls

General Residential Zone – Schedule 1

 

The subject site is located within a General Residential Zone (GRZ1).  The GRZ1 seeks to encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services.  Pursuant to Clause 32.08-2 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a permit is required to subdivide land within this zone.  The proposal involves a 22 lot subdivision with three lots to be vested in Council for reserve purposes for tree protection and public open space.  Applications for subdivision must meet the relevant objectives and should meet the relevant standards of Clause 56.  The subdivision has been assessed as being consistent with these provisions.

 

Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 6 (South Morang Development Plan)

 

The subject site is affected by the Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 6) pursuant to Clause 43.04-1 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The Girvan Place/ Martin Close DP has been previously approved by Council (3 October 2006 and amended on 16 September 2014) to guide future subdivision within this area.  The subject site has been designated for standard and medium density residential development, with a large River Red Gum to be retained within an area of public open space, to be serviced by public local roads and a service road adjacent to The Lakes Boulevard.  The proposed subdivision is considered to be in accordance with the Girvan Place/Martin Close DP.  The large River Red Gums to be retained in Reserve Nos. 2 and 3 are consistent with this plan

 

The Trees to be removed under this application are not marked on the approved DP and have likely grown since the plan was originally considered a decade ago.  Because these trees are not nominated for removal under the DP, their removal must be authorised via a resolution of Council as officers have no discretion to consider this matter under delegation.

 

Vegetation Protection Overlay - Schedule 1 – Significant Vegetation (River Red Gum Grassy Woodland)

The subject site is affected by a Vegetation Protection Overlay.  Pursuant to Clause 42.02-2 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any native vegetation.   The removal of the small trees has been assessed as acceptable under this planning provision because the trees are not significant, other more significant trees are to be protected and a native vegetation offset is proposed to compensate for the loss.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.01 Public Open Space Contribution and Subdivision

 

Pursuant to Clause 52.01 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a person subdividing land must make a contribution for public open space.  Development Contributions are calculated under the South Morang Local Structure Plan. Should Council resolve to support the application, a permit condition will be included requiring payment of the applicable contribution prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.  It is noted that open space contributions have already been paid for this site.

 

Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation

 

Pursuant to Clause 52.17-2 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation.  The application involves the removal of 28 young River Red Gums to facilitate subdivision works within the site.  Accordingly, permit is required under this provision.

 

Clause 56 - Residential Subdivision

 

Clause 56 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme outlines the basic Planning Scheme requirements for subdivision design with respect to lot design, access, services, open space, integration with surrounding development and related matters. Under the GRZ1, an application for subdivision must meet all the relevant objectives and should meet the relevant standards outlined under this provision.

 

A full assessment of the proposed subdivision against Clause 56 has been provided with the applicant’s planning submission and reviewed by Council officers. The submission satisfactorily demonstrates compliance with all relevant objectives and standards contained within that Clause.

 

REFERRALS

The application was referred to the following external authorities for comment:

 

Melbourne Water

Consent with standard conditions

Yarra Valley Water

Consent with standard conditions

AusNet Electricity Services

Consent with standard conditions

APA Group

Consent, no conditions

 

The application was also referred internally to Council’s City Design and Transport, Strategic Planning and Design, Sustainability Planning and Parks and Open Space Departments for comment.  No objections were received subject to permit conditions relating to the provision of road infrastructure, traffic management devices, and tree removal. 

A condition requiring the reconfiguration of Lot 10 and the adjoining tree reserve is required to ensure sightlines towards the River Red Gum are not impeded and a more practical lot configuration is provided.  Permit conditions will require these changes.  Council’s City Design and Transport Department have also requested a temporary turnaround area be provided at the interim northern end of Chiodo Street to allow for the turning of large vehicles.  This may require reconfiguration of Lots 4 and 9.  A condition requiring this outcome is also proposed.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The proposed subdivision is considered to be satisfactory when assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The site’s proximity to a nearby retail centre, community centre, schools and active open space will support the proposed lot density and housing outcomes. 

The proposal involves the subdivision of the site into 21 residential lots, including 10 medium density allotments (200m2 to 206m2) and 11 standard density lots (300m2 to 629m2). A 3,186m2 superlot is proposed in the southwest corner of the site, to be serviced by an extension to the existing service road located to the east.  An application for planning permit (No. 716087) has been lodged for the use and development of this land for the purpose of a child care centre and a food and drink premises.  This application is currently under consideration by officers.  Odette Way has been designed to continue further to the north when this abutting land is subdivided at a future date.  This and other local roads will facilitate a conventional and permeable grid street network and subdivision layout.  All proposed lots will be oriented north-south or east-west and will therefore gain adequate solar access. The lots are regular in shape and dimensions, enabling the construction of appropriately sized dwellings.

The significant River Red Gum tree to be protected in Reserve No. 2 will contain the full Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and will form part of a larger public open space reserve that will prominent on the northwest corner of The Lakes Boulevar