Logo_Primary_BlackWhite%20(JPG)

Agenda

 

OF Ordinary
COUNCIL MEETING

HELD ON

Tuesday 21 March 2017

AT 7:30PM

summons

 

You are advised that a Meeting of Council has been called by the Chief Executive Officer on Tuesday, 21 March 2017 in Mernda Villages Community Activity Centre, 70 Mernda Villages Drive Mernda at 7:30PM for the transaction of the following business.

 

L THOMPSON

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

 

 

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 21 March 2017

 

 

 

SENIOR OFFICERS

 

 

LIANA THOMPSON                          ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

RUSSELL HOPKINS                         DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

KRISTEN JACKSON                         ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING AND MAJOR PROJECTS

NICK MANN                                       DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORT & PRESENTATION

HELEN SUI                                        DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

BELGIN BESIM                                  ACTING DIRECTOR PARTNERSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

MICHAEL TONTA                              MANAGER GOVERNANCE

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

 

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.. 12

5.1         Petitions.. 12

Nil Reports.. 12

5.2         Joint Letters.. 12

Nil Reports.. 12

6.            Officers' Reports.. 13

6.1         Planning and Major Projects.. 13

6.1.1       257 The Lakes Boulevard, South Morang - Multi lot subdivision and removal of native vegetation.. 13

6.1.2       54 CEDAR STREET, THOMASTOWN - CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING DWELLING.. 35

6.1.3       50 CHURCH STREET, WHITTLESEA - USE OF THE PREMISES AS A FUNERAL PARLOUR, REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED CAR PARKING RATE AND DISPLAY OF ADVERTISING SIGNAGE.. 53

6.1.4       26 Spring Street, Thomastown - Construction of four dwellings.. 69

6.1.5       249 Holt Parade, Thomastown - Use of the land for vehicle store (retrospective) and associated works.. 89

6.1.6       187 Settlement Road Thomastown - Use and development of a store, reduction of car parking requirements and display of internally illuminated signage.. 103

6.1.7       1/8 Childs Road, Epping - Request for extension of time to planning permit - use and development of land for the purpose of offices and take away food premises.. 123

6.1.8       24 princetown drive, south morang - extension of time request to planning permit - construction of two single storey dwellings.. 133

6.1.9       2 Brownhill Street, Bundoora - request for an extension of time - Construction of two double storey dwellings.. 143

6.1.10    15a lochaber place, Epping - request for extension of time to planning permit - construction of five double storey dwellings.. 153

6.1.11    Road Reserve Adjacent to 30 Woodcutters Grove, Epping - Removal of native vegetation (One River Red Gum) 163

6.1.12    Road Reserve Adjacent to 203-213 McDonalds Road, Epping - Removal of native vegetation (Two River Red Gums) 171

6.1.13    820 Plenty Road, South Morang - Installation and use of 40 Electronic Gaming Machines, alterations and extensions to Hotel and reduction in standard car parking and bicycle parking requirements.. 181

6.1.14    Planning Efficiencies.. 197

6.1.15    AURORA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT: REZONING OF 239-255 CRAIGIEBURN ROAD, WOLLERT FROM FARMING ZONE TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONE.. 309

6.1.16    Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan - Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment. 319

6.1.17    Barry Road Development Plan.. 369

6.1.18    240 Bindts Road, Mernda- Proposed Development Plan.. 383

6.1.19    Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C164- 75 O’Herns Road, Epping, 115 O'Herns Road, Epping and 100B Yale Drive, Epping   393

6.1.20    2016/17 New Works Program Budget Adjustments.. 401

6.2         Community Services.. 409

6.2.1       Family Violence Strategy - update Year Two (2016) 409

6.2.2       Whittlesea Reconciliation Group - Terms of Reference   413

6.3         City Transport and Presentation.. 423

6.3.1       Mernda Rail Extension Project - Activating Spaces within the Rail Corridor.. 423

6.4         Corporate Services.. 443

Nil Reports.. 443

6.5         Partnerships & Engagement.. 445

6.5.1       FRIENDS OF SOUTH MORANG INC - REQUEST FOR COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATION.. 445

6.5.2       General Council Elections 2016. 451

6.5.3       ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCIL REPORT - 21 MARCH 2017. 459

6.5.4       Interstate Conferences.. 463

6.6         Executive Services.. 467

Nil Reports.. 467

7.            Notices of Motion.. 469

7.1           Notice of Motion 819 - Rescission of Council Resolution 6.3.4 titled Local area Traffic Management (LATM) 20 Mill Park   469

7.2           Notice of Motion 820 - Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) 20 Mill Park.. 471

7.3           Notice of Motion 821 -  Rescission of Council Resolution 6.1.14, titled 310 & 290A Bridge Inn Road Mernda - Use and Development of a Childcare Centre.. 473

7.4           Notice of Motion 822 - 310 & 290A Bridge Inn Road Mernda - use and Development of a Childcare Centre.. 481

8.            Questions to Officers.. 482

9.            Urgent BusineSS.. 482

10.         Reports from Delegates Appointed BY Council TO Other Bodies.. 482

11.         Questions to CouncillorS.. 482

12.         Confidential Business.. 483

12.1       Planning and Major Projects.. 483

Nil Reports.. 483

12.2       Community Services.. 485

Nil Reports.. 485

12.3       City Transport and Presentation.. 487

12.3.1    Church Street Streetscape Redevelopment  - Contract No: 2014-140 - Finalisation.. 487

12.3.2    Provision of Maintenance Services to Exit and Emergency Lighting - Contract No. CT091039 - Contract Finalisation   489

12.4       Corporate Services.. 491

12.4.1    Photocopiers, Printers and Associated Products and Services.. 491

12.4.2    Proposed Land Acquisition - Lalor.. 493

12.5       Partnerships & Engagement.. 495

Nil Reports.. 495

12.6       Executive Services.. 497

Nil Reports.. 497

13.         Closure.. 499

 

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 21 March 2017

 

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 28 February 2017;

Adjourned Meeting of Council held 7 March 2017; and

Special Meeting of Council held 14 March 2017.


 

 

5.         Consideration and Action on Petitions and Joint Letters

5.1       Petitions

Nil Reports

5.2       Joint Letters

Nil Reports   


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.         Officers' Reports

6.1       Planning and Major Projects

6.1.1    257 The Lakes Boulevard, South Morang - Multi lot subdivision and removal of native vegetation

File No:                                  715517

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Principal Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                         Windsor Cove Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              22.10     River Redgum Protection Policy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1)

OVERLAY:                            Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6 (DPO6)

                                               Vegetation Protection overlay (Schedule 1)

REFERRAL:                          Ausnet Electricity Services
Melbourne Water
Country Fire Authority
Yarra Valley Water
APA Group

OBJECTIONS:                      The application was exempt from notification

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The application is for a 27 lot residential subdivision, which also creates a reserve and roads.  The proposed subdivision is in accordance with the Council approved Girvan Place/ Martin Close Development Plan.

The proposed subdivision retains a large remnant River Red Gum tree (in a proposed reserve) as required by the Development Plan.  However, since the preparation of the Development Plan some ten years ago, numerous River Red Gum saplings have grown around the remnant tree.

This application is being reported to Council because of the need to remove the small River Red Gums.  The removal of one or more River Red Gums, regardless of size, must be reported to Council under its Instrument of Delegation.

The application is exempt from advertising as the proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan.  The application was referred to required external authorities who have consented to a permit being issued subject to the inclusion of conditions.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme including provisions relating to native vegetation removal.

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 northern side of The Lakes Boulevard, , South Morang (see Attachment 1).  The site is vacant, roughly rectangular in shape and has an area of 1.38ha.  The site contains a large remnant River Red Gum tree located close to the eastern boundary.  A number of smaller River Red Gums (saplings) have grown in the vicinity of the large remnant tree.

The surrounding locality is characterised by standard residential allotments to the south and further west and east.  Adjoining land to the north, east and west remain as similar sized lots which are nominated for further residential development under the Girvan Place/Martin Close Development Plan.  The site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

·    Coles supermarket and a variety of specialty shops (40m south – opposite)

·    The Lakes Primary School and Merriang Special Development School (180m west). 

·    Mill Parks Lakes Community Activity Centre (250m south)

·    Mill Park Lakes Recreation Reserve (450m west)

·    Paradise Kids Child Care Centre (40m south - opposite)

restrictions and easements

The subject site is affected by Restrictive Covenant P759529 which requires dwellings to comprise 75% brick, brick veneer, stone or like material, with roofing constructed of cement tiles, terracotta tiles, slate or ‘Colourbond’.  The covenant also requires dwellings to have an area of not less than 120m2 excluding verandas, garages and carports.  The proposed lots are adequate in area and configuration to enable compliance with these requirements.

Proposal

The application proposes the subdivision into 27 residential allotments ranging between 307m2 and 404m2, with a reserve (0.13ha in area) at the eastern side of the subdivision.  Attachment 2 shows the proposed subdivision layout.  The proposed lots are oriented north-south or east-west.  The subdivision provides for road widening to accommodate the ultimate cross section of the Lakes Boulevard (which has longer term potential to accommodate light rail within a central median).  The provision of service road access adjacent to the Lakes Boulevard is also proposed.

The proposed road to the north (shown as part of Stage 2) relies on future road connections in adjoining properties.  This will be accommodated by the future subdivision of adjoining land.

The application also proposes the removal of the small River Red Gums that have grown over the last ten years.  The majority of these trees are located at the eastern end of the subdivision, around the large remnant River Red Gum to be retained.  All trees to be removed are young trees with an estimated age of between 5-10 years.

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.

PLANNING CONTROLS

State Planning Policy Framework

Officers have assessed the subdivision component of the application under the relevant State Planning Policy Framework which includes:

 

·    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 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 assessed as consistent with the relevant objectives contained in these provisions.  The 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 proposed subdivision retains the significant River Red Gum tree as nominated in the Development Plan, to be retained in the public open space reserve.

 

The trees to be removed constitute recent regrowth and these have all been the subject of a detailed arboricultural report, which demonstrates that the trees are not suitable for retention as part of the proposed subdivision.

 

Zone and Overlay Controls

 

General Residential Zone Schedule 1

 

The land is in the General Residential Zone (GRZ1).  This 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.

 

Applications for subdivision must meet the relevant objectives and should meet the relevant standards of Clause 56 (ResCode).  The subdivision has been assessed as being consistent with these provisions.

 

Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6 (Girvan Place/ Martin Close Development Plan)

 

The land is affected by the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6 (DPO6) 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 one large River Red Gum nominated to be retained within an area of public open space.  The proposed subdivision is in accordance with the Development Plan.  The large River Red Gum to be retained in the Reserve is consistent with this Plan. 

 

The Trees to be removed under this application are not marked on the approved DP and have grown since the plan was originally considered about ten years ago.

 

Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 – Significant Vegetation (River Red Gum Grassy Woodland)

The site is affected by a Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 (VPO1).  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.  The more significant nominated tree is to be retained 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.  A permit condition is recommended to require payment of the applicable contribution prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

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 the 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 application and assessed accordingly.  This satisfactorily demonstrates compliance with all relevant objectives and standards contained within that Clause.

 

REFERRALS

 

The application was referred to the following external authorities:

·    Melbourne Water

·    Yarra Valley Water

·    AusNet Electricity Services

·    APA Group

·    CFA

 

All authorities have consented to a permit being issued subject to standard 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. 

 

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The proposed subdivision is considered to be satisfactory when assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The site’s proximity to the 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 27 residential lots, all of which are standard density lots with average area of 330m2 (varying between 307m2 to 404m2).  The lots are regular in shape and dimensions, enabling the construction of appropriately sized dwellings.  The lots are oriented north-south or east-west and will therefore achieve acceptable solar access

The proposed reserve is situated on the eastern side with frontage to The Lakes Boulevard (proposed service road) and extends through to the northern subdivisional road.  Extending the reserve to the Lakes Boulevard frontage was altered through the application process at the request of Officers.  The reserve matches in with the proposed balance of that reserve which will be created in the future subdivision of the land to the east.

The significant River Red Gum tree to be protected in the reserve will contain the full tree protection zone (TPZ).  This is consistent with the Development Plan.

In relation to the trees proposed for removal, none have been assessed at high retention value in the arborist report.  The reserve is for public open space purposes (as well as for retention of the large remnant tree) rather than for conservation purposes.  A native vegetation offset will be required in accordance with State Government guidelines.  This offset will not be significant due to the small size of the trees.  Conditions are proposed to provide for this outcome.

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 proposal has been assessed as being in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  It demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, including provisions relating to native vegetation removal.  The subdivision layout is consistent with the Girvan Place/ Martin Close Development Plan which requires the significant tree to be retained within the open space be designated on the land.  Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved. 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 715517and issue a Planning Permit for a multi-lot residential subdivision on land at 257 The Lakes Boulevard, South Morang, creation of roads, creation of easements and removal of native vegetation in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       Functional Layout Plan

 

Before the submission and approval of construction plans (engineering plans) and the certification of the relevant plan of subdivision for each stage, a functional layout plan for the subdivision or stage of subdivision to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The functional layout plans must be prepared in accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) Engineering Design and Construction Manual for Subdivision in Growth Areas.  When approved, the functional layout plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  Three copies of the functional layout plan must be drawn at a scale of 1:500 to acceptable drafting standards and an electronic copy (PDF) must be provided.  The functional layout plan must be generally in accordance with the Plans prepared by Beveridge Williams Plans Ref. 1500614 notated Version 07 (dated 20/12/2016) but modified to show:

 

a.       a fully dimensioned subdivision layout, including proposed street names, approximate lot areas, lot numbers, open space areas, and widths of street reservations;

b.      topography and existing features, including contours for the subject land and any affected adjacent land;

c.       identification by survey of all trees (or group of trees) existing on the site, including dead trees and those that overhang the site from adjoining land;

d.      details of tree protection zones (TPZs), for all trees to be retained on site;

e.       all trees proposed for removal from the site (including dead native trees) clearly designated;

f.       typical cross-sections for each street type, dimensioning individual elements, services offsets and any other spatial requirements identified in the *** Development Plan;

g.      a table of offsets for all utility services and street trees;

h.      location and alignment of kerbs, indented parking spaces, footpaths on the subject land and between the subject land and the nearest other subdivision, shared paths on the subject land and between the subject land and connecting land, bus stops and traffic controls;

i.        the proposed minor drainage network and any land required for maintenance access;

j.        the major drainage system, including any watercourse, lake, wetland, silt pond and/or piped elements showing preliminary sizing;

k.       overland flow paths (100 year ARI) to indicate how excess runoff will safely be conveyed to its destination;

l.        drainage outfall system (both interim and ultimate), indicating legal point of discharge and any access requirements for construction and maintenance;

m.      preliminary location of reserves for electrical kiosks;

n.      traffic management plan showing sufficient notional (unmarked) on-street car parking spaces, at the rate of one space per lot, traffic control devices and large vehicle turning overlays;

o.      plan indicating the relationship between the subject subdivision stage and surrounding land;

p.      proposed linkages to future streets, open space, regional path network and upstream drainage;

q.      works external to the subdivision, including both interim and ultimate access requirements;

r.       intersection(s) with The Lakes Boulevard showing interim and ultimate treatments.

s.       as per Martin and Girvan and Martin Close development plan, a new Service Road must to provide an entry to the lots facing to The Lakes Boulevard and an interim exit for service road to be provided to function as one way;

t.       a traffic management plan showing on street carparking spaces, traffic control devices and large vehicle turning overlays to show that such vehicles can negotiate bends, intersections and turning areas with suitable clearance from parked vehicles. The large vehicle turning overlays are to be provided for a 12.5 metre design service vehicle in accordance with AustRoads requirements;

u.      the interim and ultimate layout plans and cross sections of The Lakes Boulevard, including (but not limited to):

a.    details of the service road in interim and ultimate scenario,

b.    vehicle exclusion fencing along the north side of The Lakes Boulevard; 

c.    a traffic island at the service road entry to the site;

 

 

2.       Certification plan requirements

 

Before a plan of subdivision is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, six copies of the plan including two signed heavyweight copies must be submitted to the Council, unless lodged electronically via SPEAR. The plan must show all bearings, distances, street names, lot numbers and any necessary easements and reserves, in accordance with the approved Functional Layout Plan. 

 

3.       Stage Plan

 

A sequential staging plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, if the subdivision is to be staged.

 

Access to the Stage 2 relies on surrounding public roads which are not constructed yet and on that basis Stage 2 as proposed cannot be approved until the required public roads are available to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  A temporary access to Stage 2 is not approved.

 

Conditions to be satisfied prior to commencement of works

 

4.       Telecommunications Service Agreement

 

The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:

a.             a telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

b.            a suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

 

5.       Engineering Plans

 

Pursuant to sections 15 and 17(1)(b) of the Subdivision Act 1988, the applicant must submit engineering plans including specifications for works required under this permit to the Responsible Authority for approval.  The engineering plans submitted for approval must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must incorporate details of all public works within and outside the subdivision as required by this permit.

 

If the subdivision is to be staged, engineering plans for each stage must be generally in accordance with the approved functional layout plans for each stage.

 

6.       Civil Works Plans

 

Works must be provided, in accordance with civil works plans and specifications as approved by the Responsible Authority, prior to the issue of Statement of Compliance.  Before any works associated with the subdivision start, detailed civil works plans for the relevant stage of works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The civil works plans will not be considered until the functional layout plan(s) for the relevant stage has been approved by the Responsible Authority and landscape works plans submitted, the plan of subdivision has been lodged for certification with the Responsible Authority and the locations of other authorities’ services have been provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the civil works plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The civil works plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. 

 

The civil works plans must include:

a.             all necessary computations and supporting documentation, including a Certificate of Compliance (design) for any structure, traffic data, road safety audit and geotechnical investigation report,

b.            all details of works consistent with the approved functional layout plan, submitted landscape plan and lodged plan of subdivision,

c.             design for full construction of streets and underground drainage, including measures to control / capture pollutants and silt,

d.            provision for all services and conduits (underground), including alignments and offsets, on a separate services layout plan,

e.             provision of public lighting and underground electricity supply within all streets,

f.             traffic control measures,

g.            provision of street name plates to the Council standard design including a schedule of individual signs and associated street numbers,

h.            provision of concrete footpaths in all streets and reserves,

i.              provision of underground easement drains of sufficient capacity to serve all lots being created to a legal point of discharge and the provision of an inlet on each such lot,

j.              the location and provision of vehicle exclusion mechanisms abutting reserves,

k.             details of the proposed treatment and provision for lot boundary fencing adjoining all reserves other than road reserves,

l.              appropriate mechanisms for protecting environmental and heritage assets during the construction phase of the subdivision,

m.           provision for the utilisation of any surplus top soil from this stage,

n.            permanent survey marks,

o.            unless an alternative empty conduit network is being installed that is suitable for fibre optic infrastructure and the applicant has evidence of an access agreement between the carrier putting in the conduit and the National Broadband Network Company, the provision of conduits, including pits and ancillary works for optical fibre telecommunications services or any equivalent alternative approved by the Responsible Authority and the conduit shall be designed in accordance with clause 22.13 Telecommunications Conduit Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and Planning Guidelines for Conduits for Optic Fibre Services, 2001,

p.            survey details of the canopy trunk location and size of trees to be retained and associated tree protection zones,

q.            details in relation to all filling on the site which must be compacted to specifications approved by the Responsible Authority,

r.             the location of any earthworks (cut or fill) or service provision in a location outside the designated tree protection zone which does not adversely impact on the health and integrity of any trees to be retained.

s.             the design and construction of the interim layout of The Lakes Boulevard, including (but  not limited to):

a.   details of the service road, which is to function as a one way road;

b.   the removal of the temporary service road accesses at 297 and 317 The Lakes Boulevard;

c.   vehicle exclusion fencing along the north side of The Lakes Boulevard;  and

d.   a traffic island at the service road entry to the site;

t.             design of the ultimate layout of The Lakes Boulevard;

 

7.       Landscape Works Plans

 

Prior to the approval of civil works plans a draft landscape works plan for that stage must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for comparison against the civil works plans.  Once approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the landscape works plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The landscape works plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies of the final plan must be provided.  The landscape works plan must show:

a.             the removal of all existing disused structures, foundations, pipelines or stockpiles and the eradication of weeds,

b.            all proposed street-tree planting using 150mm container stock, including rabbit guards,

c.             the supply and spread of sufficient topsoil and sub soil if required on the proposed areas of open space, swales and verges to provide a stable, free draining surface and hydro-seeding of proposed grass areas (including within the drainage reserve) or alternative method to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority,

d.            mechanisms for the exclusion of vehicles,

e.             treatment of all proposed open space and streetscape embellishments such as installation of pathways, garden beds, seating, shelters, picnic facilities, boardwalks, tree planting, signage, drinking fountains, irrigation systems, playgrounds, artwork, retaining walls, protective fencing (temporary and permanent), wetlands and ornamental water bodies (including within the drainage reserve) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority,

f.             typical dwelling street setbacks.

g.            hazard reduction pruning of trees to be retained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

 

8.       Tree Protection Zones

 

Prior to the commencement of works, a Tree Protection Zone plan for the subdivision or stage of subdivision to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the Tree Protection Zone plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The Tree Protection Zone plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The Tree Protection Zone plan must show:

a.             a Tree Protection Zone on a lot covering each tree marked for retention on the approved tree protection envelope plan;

b.            a Tree Protection Zone within open space and road reserves for each tree or cluster of trees marked for retention on the approved tree management plan.

 

The Tree Protection Zone is a shape defined by a circle, whose centre point is the centre point of the tree trunk at ground level, and whose radius is equal to half the height of the tree (or half the crown width (whichever is the greater)) plus the tree canopy plus one metre, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

 

9.       Tree Protection Zones Fencing

 

Before any buildings, works or demolition start on a lot, open space and/or road reservation, each Tree Protection Zone on that lot, open space and/or road reservation must:

 

a.             be fenced with temporary fencing in accordance with the attached specifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

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

 

The tree protection zone temporary fencing must be maintained until works are completed; including the construction of a dwelling if the land is a lot, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority or until such earlier date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. 

 

A copy of the tree protection zone(s) are to be included in any contract for the construction of the estate or for any other works which may impact upon the trees.

 

10.     Tree protection bonding

 

Prior to commencement of the subdivision hereby permitted, or at such later date as the Responsible Authority may approve in writing, there shall be provided to the Responsible Authority a bank guarantee for the amount of $100,000 as security deposit for the satisfactory completion of the requirements in relation to tree preservation and to ensure that trees are not damaged during the construction phase.

 

Upon completion of the subdivision works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the bank guarantee will be returned to the developer.

 

Where it is determined to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that a tree covered by a tree protection envelope has been damaged as a result of buildings and works by the applicant or its contractors, to an extent that it affects detrimentally the life, health and appearance of the tree or its contribution to the streetscape, financial damages will be paid by the applicant with all monies to be used to purchase trees for planting on the land or to prune or otherwise rehabilitate existing trees to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The extent of damages must be established through the appointment of an independent suitably qualified person.

 

11.     Site Management Plan

 

Before any works, including works required by other authorities, start:

 

a.             Four copies of a site management plan for the relevant stage must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved, the Site Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The Site Management Plan must:

i.    Include separate parts describing relevant matters of occupational health and safety, traffic management, environmental controls and cultural protection measures,

ii.   Be submitted to the Responsible Authority a minimum of seven days before a required pre-commencement meeting (attended by authorised representatives of the construction contractor and project superintendent as appointed by the developer) on the site of the works,

iii.  Include the proposed route for construction vehicle access to the site including a program for the upgrade and maintenance works required along this route while any works are in progress,

iv.  Include means by which foreign material will be restricted from being deposited on public roads by vehicles associated with building and works on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

v.   Include measures to reduce the impact of noise, dust and other emissions created during the construction process.

b.            All environmental and cultural protection measures identified shall be described on a drawing(s) drawn to scale and prepared in accordance with Melbourne Water standards for such drawings.

 

The developer must keep the Responsible Authority informed in writing of any changes to the Site Management Plan.  If in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the changes represent a significant departure from the approved Site Management Plan then an amended Site Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The approved measures must be carried out continually and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

 

12.     Stormwater Drainage

 

Any stormwater drain, temporary drainage out falls and ancillary works, required as a condition of a Melbourne Water Drainage Scheme, or that are designated to become the responsibility of the Council for maintenance, must be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

 

Before the approval of construction plans for roadworks and drainage, the designs for such works and the details of maintenance requirements (asset management and maintenance schedule) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. 

 

Conditions to be satisfied during construction works

 

13.     Layout not altered

 

The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

 

14.     Native vegetation removal

 

Other than permitted, no native vegetation shall be destroyed, felled, lopped, ring barked or uprooted, without the further permission of the Responsible Authority.

 

15.     Trees to be removed

 

a.       Wherever possible and appropriate, native trees to be removed should be retained for use in core conservation areas for habitat purposes or in open space as urban art, park furniture, etc. to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All timber less than 300mm diameter and branch/leaf material should be shredded for reuse as mulch.

b.      Each native tree nominated for removal or pruning works shall be suitably marked prior to its removal or works commencing and an inspection arranged with an appropriate Council officer to verify that the tree marked accords with this permit.

c.       Prior to any removal or pruning works of native trees commencing, the subject tree must be inspected by an appropriate zoologist to determine the presence of any native animals living or nesting in the tree.  Should any native animals be detected they must be caught and relocated to a site deemed appropriate by the zoologist.

 

 

16.     Development and works in tree protection zones

 

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

 

17.     Filling of land

 

All filling on the site must be carried out, supervised, completed and recorded in accordance with AS 3798 (Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments) to specifications to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The geotechnical authority responsible for supervision and testing under this condition must be independently engaged by the applicant and not be engaged by the contractor carrying out the works.  Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, compaction test results and a report shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 

 

Conditions to be satisfied prior to issue of a statement of compliance

 

18.     Telecommunication Services Agreement

 

Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:

a.           a telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

b.           a suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

 

19.     Development contributions

Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision, development contributions must be paid to the responsible authority in accordance with the approved South Morang Local Structure Plan, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.

20.     Open Space Contributions

 

The developer or permit holder must provide to the Council a contribution for public open space in accordance with the approved South Morang Local Structure Plan, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

 

21.     Offsets for permitted native vegetation removal

 

In order to offset the removal of native vegetation (habitat hectares and scattered trees) 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 also contribute a gain of the required general biodiversity equivalence units, preferably be located within the Whittlesea municipality, 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.

 

22.     Statement of compliance with deferment of engineering works

 

Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the applicant may seek to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority the issue of the Statement of Compliance but with deferment of completion of specified civil construction works shown on the endorsed construction plans and all or part of the landscape construction works shown on the endorsed plan, provided the following requirements have been met:

 

22.1   Civil Works

 

a.             all relevant referral authorities have consented to the issue of a Statement of Compliance,

b.            civil construction works have been completed except for the wearing course asphalt works, the landscaping component of the works and any other minor works as agreed with the Responsible Authority,

c.             an amount equivalent to 150% the agreed estimated cost of outstanding civil construction works will be required by the Responsible Authority as security deposit,

d.            a works program is provided setting out the proposed timing of all outstanding construction works,

e.             a site safety plan that ensures continuous public safety measures are maintained until completion of the deferred works.

 

Upon completion of the deferred civil construction works the applicant must notify the Responsible Authority to enable its inspection.  If the works have been completed to its satisfaction, the Responsible Authority must refund fully the security deposit.  

 

22.2   Landscape Works

 

a.             An amount equivalent to 150% of the agreed estimated cost of outstanding streetscape / landscape construction plus an agreed amount for the maintenance works will be required by the Responsible Authority as security deposit for that stage.

b.            A works program is provided setting out the proposed timing of all outstanding landscape construction works.  Works must commence within 3 months of issue of Statement of Compliance for the given stage of the subdivision and must be completed prior to occupancy of any new dwelling within the given stage.

 

Upon completion of the deferred landscaping construction works, the applicant must notify the Responsible Authority to enable its inspection.  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the deferred landscaping, a Certificate of Practical Completion for landscaping will be issue, triggering the commencement of the maintenance period. If the works have been completed to its satisfaction, the Responsible Authority must refund fully the security deposit.

 

23.     Fences Adjoining Reserves

 

Before Statement of Compliance is issued for any given stage, all fences adjoining all reserves (including walkway extensions of road reserves but otherwise excluding road reserves) are to be erected for that stage by the developer (or owner) at no cost to Council.

 

Conditions to be satisfied following construction works

 

24.     Notification Of Commencement Of Street Tree Planting And Landscaping Works

 

The developer must notify the Responsible Authority a minimum of 7 days prior to commencing street tree planting and landscaping so that surveillance of the works can be undertaken.

 

25.     Completion Of Landscape Works

 

Before occupation of each stage of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscape works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Upon completion of the landscape construction works, the applicant must notify the Responsible Authority to enable its inspection.  Subject to a satisfactory completion of the landscaping in accordance with the endorsed plan, a Certificate of Practical Completion for landscaping will be issued, triggering the commencement of the maintenance period.

 

26.     Landscape Maintenance

 

a.             The landscaping shown on the approved stage landscape plans, must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for a minimum period of 18 months ending on 31 May of the given year, from the date of issue of a Certificate of Practical Completion of landscaping, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced, bare areas of grass are re-established, mulched surfaces reinstated, damaged or faulty infrastructure repaired or replaced, etc.  Rectification works must not be deferred until the completion of the maintenance period.

b.            To ensure all assets as identified in the approved stage landscape plans are retained in a safe and functional state and to prolong functional life of the asset, landscape works shall be maintained in accordance with Council’s Minimum Landscape Maintenance Specification of Services and Works (May 2010).

c.             Upon the completion of maintenance of the street tree planting and landscaping works, the developer must notify the Responsible Authority to undertake an inspection prior to the issue of the Certificate of Final Completion.

 

27.     As Constructed Engineering Plans

 

27.1   Civil Works

 

Prior to the commencement of the defects liability period the following must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a.             a complete set of 'as constructed plans' of site works, in hard copy transparent film and digital file format AutoCAD (2000). The digital files must have a naming convention to enable identification of Council assets listed.

b.            a list of asset quantities which include the following Council assets;

i.    total length of Roads, Footpath, Kerb and Channel,

ii.   total number of Bridges, WSUD features, Traffic calming devices,

iii.  total length of pipe and number of pits for Drainage & Telecommunications,

iv.  total number of streetlights.

 

c.             asset information in digital format to include drainage data as per “D-Spec” (the Consultant /Developer Specifications for the delivery of drainage data to Local Governments).

 

27.2   Landscape Works

 

Within 21 days of the issue of Certificate of Practical Completion for landscaping the following must be submitted:

a.             a complete set of 'as constructed plans' (which will be the stage landscape plan amended if necessary to show any changes that may have occurred during construction), in AutoCad digital file format. All electronic plans are to be geo-referenced with a datum (Map Grid of Australia Zone 55 [GDA 94] or AGD 94).

 

28.     Removal of top soil

 

No top soil must be removed from land covered by the subdivision without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

 

29.     Amenity

 

The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected as part of any development works by the use or development through the:

a.             Transport of materials, goods or commodities to and from the land;

b.            Appearance of any building, works or materials;

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

 

30.     Reticulated Services

 

Reticulated water, drainage, sewerage and electricity reticulation underground must be available to each lot shown on the endorsed plans before any lot can be used for houses to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 

 

Referral Authorities

 

31.     Ausnet Electricity Services Conditions

 

The Plan of Subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

 

The applicant must –

Enter in an agreement with AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for supply of electricity to each lot on the endorsed plan.

 

Enter into an agreement with AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for the rearrangement of the existing electricity supply system.

 

Enter into an agreement with AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for rearrangement of the points of supply to any existing installations affected by any private electric power line which would cross a boundary created by the subdivision, or by such means as may be agreed by AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD.

 

Provide easements satisfactory to AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for the purpose of “Power Line” in the favour of “AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD” pursuant to Section 88 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, where easements have not been otherwise provided, for all existing AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD electric power lines and for any new power lines required to service the lots on the endorsed plan and/or abutting land.

 

Obtain for the use of AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD any other easement required to service the lots.

 

Adjust the position of any existing AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD easement to accord with the position of the electricity line(s) as determined by survey.

 

Set aside on the plan of subdivision Reserves for the use of AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for electric substations.

 

Provide survey plans for any electric substations required by AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD and for associated power lines and cables and executes leases for a period of 30 years, at a nominal rental with a right to extend the lease for a further 30 years.  AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD requires that such leases are to be noted on the title by way of a caveat or a notification under Section 88 (2) of the Transfer of Land Act prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision.

 

Provide to AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD a copy of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification that shows any amendments that have been required.

 

Agree to provide alternative electricity supply to lot owners and/or each lot until such time as permanent supply is available to the development by AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD. Individual generators must be provided at each supply point. The generator for temporary supply must be installed in such a manner as to comply with the Electricity Safety Act 1998.

 

Ensure that all necessary auditing is completed to the satisfaction of AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD to allow the new network assets to be safely connected to the distribution network.

 

32.     Yarra Valley Water Conditions

 

Water

The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of water services.

 

Sewerage

The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of sewerage services

 

33.     CFA conditions

 

1. Hydrants

Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988 the following requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the CFA:

 

·     Above or below ground operable hydrants must be provided. The maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all building envelopes (or in the absence of building envelopes, the rear of the lots) must be 120 metres and the hydrants must be no more than 200 metres apart. These distances must be measured around lot boundaries.

·     The hydrants must be identified with marker posts and road reflectors as applicable to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority.

 

34.     APT Conditions

 

Easements in favor of “Australian Gas Networks (VIC) Pty Ltd” must be created on the plan to the satisfaction of APT.

 

The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to APT O&M Services Pty Ltd, in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

 

NOTES

AustNet Electricity Services Notes

 

It is recommended that, at an early date the applicant commences negotiations with AUSNET ELECTRICITY SERVICES PTY LTD for a supply of electricity in order that supply arrangements can be worked out in detail, so prescribed information can be issued without delay (the release to the municipality enabling a Statement of Compliance with the conditions to be issued).

 

Arrangements for the supply will be subject to obtaining the agreement of other Authorities and any landowners affected by routes of the electric power lines required to supply the lots and for any tree clearing.

 

Prospective purchasers of lots on this plan should contact this office to determine the availability of a supply of electricity. Financial contributions may be required.

 

CFA Notes

 

CFA’s requirements for identification of hydrants are specified in ‘Identification of Street Hydrants for Firefighting Purposes’ available under publications on the CFA web site (www.cfa.vic.gov.au)

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.2    54 CEDAR STREET, THOMASTOWN - CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DWELLINGS TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING DWELLING

File No:                                  715978

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         MS Designer Living Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              Clause 21.09 - Housing

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 construct three double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling on the subject land.  The existing crossing located on the western side of the frontage will be retained to provide vehicular access to Dwelling Nos. 2, 3 and 4, whilst a new crossing is to be constructed to the eastern side of the frontage for the existing dwelling (No. 1).

Advertising of the proposal resulted in one objection being received.  The grounds of objection relate to visual bulk, overlooking, increase in traffic, lack of on street car parking, increase in noise pollution and devaluation of property.

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, landscaping and site services.

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 both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located on the northern side of Cedar Street, approximately 50m west of Belah Street and 50m south of The Boulevard, Thomastown (see Attachment 1).  The site is an irregular shaped allotment and provides a frontage to Cedar Street of 16.5m and a depth of approximately 59.2m, providing an overall site area of 974m2.  The site is relatively flat and contains a detached single storey brick dwelling with a tiled hipped roof, a detached garage and small shed towards the rear of the dwelling.  Vehicular access to the site is provided via a single concrete crossing located along the south and west property boundaries.  There is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential land uses with the existing single storey dwelling on site being typical of the prevailing built form, with some examples interspersed of double storey built form to the northwest.  There are examples throughout the broader area of multi dwelling developments within the immediate vicinity, in particular abutting the subject site to the east and northwest of the site.

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

·        Bus route 559 - Thomastown via Darebin Drive (190m south).

·        Thomastown East Primary School (270m east).

·        Bus route 570 – RMIT Bundoora via Thomastown (355m northwest)

·        Thomastown Railway Station (500m southwest).

·        Nick Ascenzo Park (500m east).

·        Thomastown shops (570m west).

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 103 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.  There are no restrictions on title that preclude Council from determining the application.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct three double storey dwellings to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling (see Attachment 2).

Dwelling No. 1 has street frontage to Cedar Street and contains two bedrooms, a separate kitchen, dining and lounge area, a bathroom and laundry.

Dwelling No. 2 will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a laundry and powder room at ground level.  At first floor level, the dwelling will contain three bedrooms, a bathroom and a study.

Dwelling No. 3 will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a laundry and powder room at ground level.  At first floor level, the dwelling will contain two bedrooms, a bathroom and a study.

Dwelling No. 4 will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a bedroom, laundry and powder room at ground level.  At first floor level, the dwelling will contain two bedrooms and a bathroom.

Dwelling Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will be provided with attached covered car spaces serviced by a common access way.  Dwelling No. 1 will be provided with an open car space within the front setback and serviced by a separate accessway.  Each dwelling has been provided with 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

Single storey

2

7.5m front (south),

1.3m side (east),

3.0m side (west).

170m2 (including 74m2 of secluded private open space)

Open car space (4.9m x 2.6m)

5.9m (overall)

Dwelling No. 2

Double storey

3

3.7m side (east),

4.5m side (west).

47m2 (all secluded private open space)

Double garage (6.0m x 5.5m)

7.4m (overall)

Dwelling No. 3

Double storey

2

3.2m side (east),

5.3m side (west).

41m2 (all secluded private open space)

Single garage (6.0m x 3.6m)

7.3m (overall)

Dwelling No. 4

Double storey

3

1.1m side (east),

3.5m side (west),

1.2m rear (north).

45m2 (all secluded private open space)

Single garage (6.6m x 3.5m) and tandem space

7.2m (overall)

Public Notification

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

1.       Visual bulk.

2.       Overlooking into neighbouring properties.

3.       Increased traffic/lack of on street car parking.

4.       Increased noise.

5.       Devaluation of property.

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) 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.

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 is generally from the 1960s and typically consists of detached, single storey dwellings constructed of brick or weatherboard.  Garages, where provided, are generally located at the rear of the property whereas the verandah style carports are located in front of the main building line or aligned with the building façade.

The retention of the existing dwelling at the front of the site will ensure minimal impact on the streetscape from a character perspective.  Double storey form is emerging with newer infill development providing variety, whilst the proposal provides an appropriate design response to the surrounding character by using a hipped roof form with a recession of the upper levels.

Overall, the dwellings present a contemporary design that have had appropriate regarding to both the existing and emerging new character.

B2

Residential Policy

ü

ü

The proposal is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks in that it provides for moderate housing growth and diversity to the existing housing stock within a location offering good access to services and transport.

The subject site is located within the Neighbourhood Interface Change Area within the HDS.  This Change Area encourages a range of low to medium building heights that can be integrated with existing housing stock. Moderate front setbacks are encouraged to allow activation of the street while also allowing for sufficient landscaping. Site coverage objectives seek to facilitate a balance between increased densities and landscape opportunities. Provision of attractive landscaping to complement medium density built form is encouraged.

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 existing front setback can also accommodate a larger canopy tree to 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

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

Condition 4

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. A detailed landscape plan has not been provided with the application. This requirement however can be addressed via 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

Condition 3(a)

Although the plans show obscure glazing to all habitable room windows along the north, east and west elevations for Dwelling Nos. 2, 3 and 4 at first floor level, the plans should be clearly annotated to read ‘fixed obscure glazing’ to ensure any potential overlooking into the surrounding properties is minimised.

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

Condition 3(c)

A gate should be provided to the secluded private open space area of Dwelling No. 1 to ensure bins can be wheeled out on collection days.  This requirement can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.

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

3

2

1

1

Yes

4

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.


 

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme, access ways must have a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions extending at least 2.0m along the frontage road from the edge of an 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 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 in height. A revised plan must be submitted showing a visibility splay on either side of the two access ways, i.e. existing and proposed.  This requirement can be addressed via a condition on any permit that is issued.

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.       Visual bulk.

The proposed double storey nature of Dwelling Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will integrate well with the existing housing stock within the area and is similar to that provided on a number of medium density developments within proximity to the subject site.  The proposed setbacks from title boundaries at both ground level and first floor level comply with the standard requirements of Clause 55.  The proposed variation in external colours and materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings will minimise the effect of visual bulk.

2.       Overlooking into neighbouring properties.

The use of ‘hi-lite’ windows and fixed obscure glazing to habitable room windows at first floor level will ensure that there will be no overlooking into neighbouring properties in accordance with the standard requirements of Clause 55.04-6 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

3.       Increased traffic/lack of on street car parking.

The development complies with the requirements of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The proposal will result in a minor increase in vehicle movements per day and will not adversely affect Cedar Street.

4.       Increased noise.

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.  While some additional noise will be generated by virtue of the greater number of residents on the land, this is acceptable in a residential area.  In terms of the impact of noise generated during the construction period, it can be expected that there will be some level of amenity loss due to noise generated by on-site building activities.  These activities will be required to comply with the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008.

 

 

5.       Devaluation of property

It has been consistently upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that property devaluation is not a relevant planning consideration.

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 State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the Housing Diversity Strategy.  The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance subject to conditions.  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. 715978 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of three dwellings at 54 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 No. 3 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.         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 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)        All habitable room windows along the north, east and west elevations for Dwelling Nos. 2, 3 and 4 clearly annotated with ‘fixed obscured glazing’.

(b)       Visibility splays along each accessway in accordance with Clause 52.06-8 of the Scheme.

(c)        A gate to the secluded private open space area for Dwelling No. 1.

4.         Before development commences, three copies of a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. 

            When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.  The plan must show:

(a)     Details of landscaping for the front setback and other garden beds including a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers;

(b)     Designation of areas throughout the site for garden beds, grass, paths, decks and paved areas.

(c)     The provision of one (1) medium to large canopy tree within the front setback planted at a semi-advanced state;

(d)     The provision of three (3) small canopy trees within the open space areas of the dwellings planted at a semi-advanced state;

(e)     Paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill.

(f)      Consistency with the City of Whittlesea Landscape Guidelines (Residential Development).

5.         Prior to commencement of any works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plan must include details in relation to:

(a)     Vehicle access to the site.

(b)     Parking of construction vehicles.

(c)     Storage of materials/goods.

6.         Prior to commencement of any works, the permit holder must contact Council’s Infrastructure Protection Unit on 9401 5532 to arrange a site inspection to ensure all requirements of the Construction Management Plan have been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7.         All requirements of the Construction Management Plan must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8.         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.

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

10.       Prior to the occupation of the new dwellings on site or subdivision of the land, whichever comes first, all modifications to existing dwelling 1 as shown on the endorsed plans or described in the endorsed documents must be carried out to  the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11.       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.

12.       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.

13.       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.

14.       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.

15.       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.

16.       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.

17.       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.

18.       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.

19.       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.

20.       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.

21.       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.

22.       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.

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

NOTES

Advanced Trees

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

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

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

Property Numbering

Please note that property addresses and numbering is allocated by Council.  This is usually formalised at the time of the subdivision, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments/apartments/dwellings as follows:

Dwelling 1                  1/54 Cedar Street, Thomastown

Dwelling 2                              2/54 Cedar Street, Thomastown

Dwelling 3                              3/54 Cedar Street, Thomastown

Dwelling 4                              4/54 Cedar Street, Thomastown

Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department to verify all street numberings.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.3    50 CHURCH STREET, WHITTLESEA - USE OF THE PREMISES AS A FUNERAL PARLOUR, REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED CAR PARKING RATE AND DISPLAY OF ADVERTISING SIGNAGE

File No:                                  716281

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         Hall’s Funeral Services

COUNCIL POLICY:              Nil

ZONING:                               Commercial 1 Zone

OVERLAY:                            Nil

REFERRAL:                          Nil

OBJECTIONS:                      24 objections plus 8 submissions in support

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

It is proposed to use an existing tenancy within the Whittlesea town centre located at 50 Church Street, Whittlesea for the purpose of a funeral parlour to accommodate up to 120 attendees on the premises at any one time.  The application is also for a reduction in the required car parking rate and the display of business identification signage associated with the proposed use.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in 24 individual objections plus eight submissions in support of the proposal, being received.  The submissions in support of the proposal include two petitions and six individual letters.  The two petitions in support include 45 signatories from the Whittlesea Business Group (owners/traders association), and 55 signatories from local residents respectively.  The grounds of objection relate to traffic and on-street car parking and the use being inappropriate for the area.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of the Commercial 1 Zone, Clause 52.05 (Advertising signs), Clause 52.06 (Car parking) and has been addressed as consistent with both the State and local planning policies.  It is therefore recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located within the Whittlesea town centre on the southeast corner of Church Street and Walnut Street approximately 350m southwest of the Plenty Road and Wallan Road, intersection (see Attachment 1).  The site is irregular in shape and has a frontage of 24.6m to Church Street, a frontage of 60.5m to Walnut Street and yields a total site area of 1,689m2

The site contains a commercial building that comprises three tenancies with individual access (one of which is the subject of this application).  The subject tenancy (see Attachment 2) is currently vacant and the other two tenancies are occupied by a music school and office use respectively.  On site car parking is provided to the rear of the commercial building and services all three tenancies.  A total of 34 car spaces are provided on site and vehicular access is provided via thee separate accessways along Walnut Street.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by various commercial land uses that form part of the Whittlesea town centre to the north, south and west of the site.  The wider surrounding area and the abutting properties to the east of the site are characterised by residential development.  A bus stop is located immediately adjacent to the subject site along Church Street.

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any registered Covenants or 173 Agreements.  The land is however encumbered by a 2.4m wide drainage and sewerage easement.  There are no buildings and works proposed within this easement.

Proposal

Use

It is proposed to use the subject site at 50 Church Street, Whittlesea for the purpose of a funeral parlour.  The funeral parlour will provide for the arrangement and conduct of funeral and memorial services and for the display and selection of caskets.  Mortician facilities will not be included as these activities will continue to be carried out at the applicant’s principal premises in Diamond Creek.

The funeral parlour will be staffed by two staff members during normal administrative operating hours between 10.00am to 2.00pm Monday to Friday.  Viewings and appointments outside of these hours will be by arrangement with staff.  Funeral or memorial services will generally be conducted during hourly intervals between the hours of 10.00am to 3.00pm.  Additional staff will be present during funeral and memorial services with a maximum of seven staff (four permanent and three casual) at any one time.

It is proposed to operate the funeral parlour with a maximum of 120 patrons with seating provided for 110 attendees at any one time.  The projected number of services to be held at the premises is one per week with an average of 40 attendees.  This however is determined by individual preferences and circumstances related to the deceased.

Public access will be maintained via the existing entrance doors along Church Street and Walnut Street.  Services held at the premises will not include processions into or out of the building.  Caskets will only be delivered and dispatched via the door to the rear laneway utilised for loading/unloading.

Whilst the existing floor area will remain unchanged, the internal layout of the premises is to be modified to facilitate the proposed use.  A stage and seating will be installed for the conduct of services.  Additional internal partition walls will also be constructed to create a waiting lounge and a casket display room.  These works will also include the provision of amenities including an accessible toilet on site.

Car parking

The existing car park located to the rear of the building provides a total of 34 car parking spaces on site.  This car park accommodates the existing three tenancies i.e. 50 Church Street, 27 Walnut Street and 29 Walnut Street.  It is proposed to utilise 28 of the 34 car parking spaces for the proposed funeral parlour use.  Vehicle access is provided via two existing concrete crossings along Walnut Street.  A third crossover is also available along Walnut Street and provides access to an informal drop off/pick up area located adjacent to the building.

Signage

Several business identification signs are proposed to be displayed to the façade of the subject tenancy along the north, northwest and west elevations of the building.  These signs will identify the business name ‘Hall’s Funeral Services’ and the company’s corporate logo, contact details and operating hours.

Public Notification

Advertising of the proposal resulted in 24 individual objections plus eight submissions in support of the proposal, being received.  The submissions in support of the proposal include two petitions and six individual letters.  The two petitions in support include 45 signatories from the Whittlesea Business Group (owners/traders association), and 55 signatories from local residents respectively.  Those in favour of the proposal stated:

1.       The proposal will generate activity within the town centre.

2.       The town centre has appropriate on-street parking to accommodate the proposed use.

3.       The subject site has been vacant for some time and having the subject site occupied means less vandalism within the area.

4.       The proposed funeral parlour will service the needs of locals and the district and therefore is an appropriate addition to the community.

5.       The subject site is within walking distance for locals.

In terms of the objections received, the grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1.       Increase in traffic and loss of on-street car parking.

2.       Adverse impact on local traders and

3.       Adverse impact on the local character of the township.

4.       Inappropriate use for the town centre environs.

5.       Psychological impact on local residents and traders.

6.       Excessive pedestrian traffic within the area.

7.       Drop off/pickup of caskets via the front entry.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

State and Local Planning Policy Framework

The following State and Local Planning Policies are considered relevant to the application.

Clause 17.01-1 - Business

The objective of this clause is ‘to encourage development which meets the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities’.

Clause 21.04-1 – Activity Centre Planning

The objective of this clause is ‘to define the role and extent of a series of activity centres which establish a focus for the provision of accessible goods and services, diverse housing opportunities, employment generation, community meeting places and associated land uses.  One of the strategies is to support the continued viability of lower order centres.

The proposed funeral parlour use will broaden the range of facilities and services within the Whittlesea town centre available to the local community and surrounding areas.  The proposal will make efficient use of a currently vacant and underutilised commercial premise and will contribute to the on-going viability of the town centre.

Zoning

The subject site is located within the Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z).  Pursuant to Clause 34.01 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the purpose of the C1Z is in part to ‘create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses’.  Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 of the Scheme, a funeral parlour is a Section 2 (permit required) use.

There are no buildings and works proposed as part of this application other than the internal rearrangement of the building.  These internal modifications are exempt from the permit requirements of Clause 34.01-4 for buildings and works within a C1Z.

Particular provisions

Clause 52.02 – Advertising signs

The Commercial 1 Zone provisions specify that ‘Category 1’ (Commercial areas – minimum limitation) advertising controls apply.  The proposed signage will comprise above verandah business identifications signage (non-illuminated) located on selected areas on the parapet, verandah face and on selected areas of windows fronting Church and Walnut Streets.  An assessment of the proposed business identification signage (see Attachment 2) against the requirements of Clause 52.05 (Advertising signs) has shown that the proposed signage is discrete and compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of the area and will not contribute to excessive visual clutter.

Pursuant to Clause 52.05-7 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme a business identification sign with a total advertisement area greater than 8m2 in a commercial area (minimum limitation) requires a planning permit.

The proposed signage is of an appropriate scale and form and will provide effective identification for the proposed business activities of the funeral parlour.  The signage is consistent with the pattern of advertising signs within the activity centre and will not cause any visual detriment to the surrounding land uses.  The signage will not compromise any important views and vistas and will not be illuminated or floodlit so as to cause any detrimental glare/illumination to the surrounds.  The proposed signage should therefore be supported subject to appropriate conditions being included on any permit that is issued.

 

Clause 52.06 – Car parking

Pursuant to clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the following car parking rates are required for the three tenancies occupying the existing building:

 

Use

Clause 52.06

Car Parking Rate

Size/No.

No. of Spaces required

No. of Spaces provided

Total Planning

Scheme Shortfall

Existing Shop (Whittlesea Music School)

27 Walnut Street

4 spaces to each 100m2 of leasable floor area.

Floor area of 96m2

3

3

0

Existing Office (Taxat Partners – Whittlesea Business & Finance Centre)

29 Walnut Street

3.5 spaces to each 100m2 of net floor area.

Floor area of 110m2

3

3

0

Proposed Funeral parlour

50 Church Street

0.3 spaces to each patron

120 patrons

 

36

28

8

Based on the above assessment, the proposed funeral parlour will generate a shortfall of eight car spaces.  The subject site includes 34 car parking spaces on site.  These spaces are not allocated to the subject tenancy but are to be shared with the other two tenancies at 27 Walnut Street and 29 Walnut Street which generate a combined car parking rate of six spaces (as outlined above).

Where the required number of parking spaces required for a use is not provided on site, a planning permit may be granted to reduce the parking requirement.

To address the proposed shortfall of car parking on site, the applicant has submitted a Car Parking Assessment report for the proposal.  This report was prepared by TraffixGroup in November 2016.  Car parking occupancy surveys were undertaken within the surrounding road network, within approximately 150m walking distance from the site.  The report had particular regard to the existing traffic and car parking conditions along Church Street and Walnut Street.  The surveys were conducted on Tuesday 4 October 2016 and Thursday 6 October 2016 between the hours of 9.30am and 2.30pm at hourly intervals.  These hours are consistent with the proposed operating hours when attendees are expected to arrive prior to a service and require a car parking space.

In summary, the surveys concluded that on-street car parking within the area comprises a mixture of short-term (2 hour limit) and unrestricted parking.  There were 198 car spaces available within the survey area, comprising 149 on-street spaces and 49 off-street spaces provided within a public car park to the northwest of the subject site along Walnut Street.  Overall, the peak on-street parking demand occurred on Thursday 6 October 2016 at 12.30pm when 111 on-street spaces were occupied (74% occupancy), leaving a total of 38 vacant spaces within the survey area and 25 spaces were available within the off-street car park.

The subject site is also serviced by public transport, with the following services operating within immediate proximity:

·        Bus route 382 operates along Church Street and provides a service between Whittlesea and Northland Shopping Centre.

·        Bus route 384 operates along Church Street and provides a service between Kinglake and Whittlesea.

·        Bus route 385 operates along Church Street and provides a service between Whittlesea/Mernda North and Greensborough.

Consequently, a shortfall of eight car parking spaces is considered satisfactory and can be accommodated by way of the existing on-street car parking available within the surrounding road network.  Council’s traffic engineers have assessed the Car Parking Assessment undertaken by TraffixGroup and provided no objection to the proposal given there are no identified parking or traffic related issues.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1.       Increase in traffic and loss of on-street car parking

Some of the local traders have raised concerns that businesses will suffer financially due to an increase in local traffic and a decrease in available on-street parking.  It is the view of planning officers that the potential impact in terms of increased traffic within the local road network and on existing on-street car parking provisions will be minimal.  The proposed use generates a total shortfall of eight car parking spaces which as demonstrated in the Car Parking Assessment report provided can be accommodated within the surrounding road network and within the public car park along Walnut Street.  A number of existing commercial uses along Church Street and Walnut Street do not provide parking on site and utilise the existing on-street car parking available within the immediate surrounds.  The proposed funeral parlour use is therefore not expected to cause any major traffic or car parking concerns.

Council’s traffic engineers have advised that the Car Parking Assessment report submitted is satisfactory and demonstrates that there is sufficient on-street car parking available within the surrounding road network to accommodate any shortfall generated by the proposed use.

2.       Adverse impact on the local character of the township.

The low key colour scheme and design of the existing building already lends itself to the dignified atmosphere of a Funeral parlour.  With the exception of the proposed business identifications signage, no other alterations or additions are proposed to the façade of the building and therefore its appearance will remain unchanged and will not impact on the local character of the area.

3.       Inappropriate use for the town centre environs

The subject site is located within an existing activity centre.  In a strategic context, both the State and local planning policy frameworks aim to provide a full range of facilities and services within activity centres to meet the needs of the local and wider community.  The proposed funeral parlour will broaden the range of facilities available to the local community.  Additionally, the proposal will make use of a tenancy that has been vacant for some time and effectively contribute to the viability of the activity centre.

4.       Psychological impact on local residents and traders.

In terms of the psychological impact on local residents and traders and in particular those affected by the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, the applicant has provided in writing that funeral services already occur at a number of church sites within the township and the proposed use will not cause any additional emotional distress to the local community.  The appropriateness of locating a funeral parlour use within an activity centre has been addressed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in a number of decisions where evidence presented indicated that those people located close to this type of use suffered no psychological impact from the proximity of the use.  As an example (which is cited in current cases), in John (Roy V) Allison Operations Pty ltd v City of Nunawading and Morgan and Other (1991/31870, 37500), Robert Montgomery, psychologist states:

 

Death is a natural and inevitable part of our lives.  We will all have to come to terms with the deaths of family members and friends, and inevitably with our own deaths.  It is an historically recent development, reflecting the shrinking of the family and the development of hospital and hospices, to not die at home with one’s family.  This development has taken death out of the family and its natural place in the human life cycle and sanitised it, with euphemisms such as passing on.  Grief counsellors agree that the essential component of healthy grief is a gradual acceptance of one’s loss and a realistic acceptance of human mortality.  Hiding death away, treating funeral parlours and their normal activities as though they were shameful or obscene, robs us of our traditional opportunities to develop a realistic acceptance of human mortality.  Hiding death away, treating funeral parlours and their normal activities as though they were shameful or ‘obscene’ robs us of our traditional opportunities to develop a realistic understanding of death and so increases our distress when we must face up to death.

From a psychologist’s perspective and with specific regard to the well-being of living in the vicinity of a funeral parlour and in the community in general, I strongly believe that the proper place for funeral parlours is amongst the general community, signifying our realistic understanding of death in the human life cycle.


 

5.       Excessive pedestrian traffic within the area.

While it is proposed to have a maximum number of 120 attendees on site at any one time, this amount of patronage is expected to be an infrequent occurrence as large funeral services will not be held at the premises.  The applicant has provided in writing that the number of services projected to be held at the premises is approximately one to two per week, with an average of 80 to 100 attendees.  Services are generally held at a wide range of venues determined by individual preferences and circumstances (i.e. church, crematorium, chapel or other venues specifically related to the deceased).  Therefore any pedestrian traffic associated with the proposed funeral parlour along Church Street and Walnut Street will be kept to a minimum and will not impact on the local residents or traders operating within the immediate surrounds.  Notwithstanding, in the context of generating activity within the Whittlesea activity centre, increased pedestrian traffic is not necessarily a bad outcome for the town centre environs.  In a petition with 45 signatories, local traders have offered their written support for the proposal stating that any increase in activity is to be encouraged and will be beneficial to the on-going viability to their business and the centre as a whole.

6.       Drop off/pickup of caskets via the front entry.

Concerns have been raised about the drop off and pick up of caskets via the front entry along Church Street and Walnut Street, in full view of the main shopping strip.  The application provides in writing that services held at the premises will not include processions into or out of the building.  Caskets will be discretely delivered and despatched via the door to the rear accessway utilised for informal loading/unloading.

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 planning zone provisions and other relevant provisions, including the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, and is considered to be consistent with these provisions.  It is considered that the proposed use, reduction of car parking requirements the display of associated business identification signage will not cause any adverse amenity impact on the surrounding land uses.  The Funeral parlour will generate activity within the existing activity centre which will benefit local traders and the overall viability of the centre.  Therefore, it is recommended that a Planning Permit be issued, subject to appropriate conditions

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716281 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for use of the premises as a funeral parlour, reduction of car parking requirements and display of advertising signage at 50 Church Street, Whittlesea in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1.       The use 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.

2.       Once the use has commenced it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3.       The use may operate only between the hours of Monday to Friday from 10.00am to 3.00pm.

4.       The use hereby permitted shall be restricted to a maximum of 120 attendees on the premises at any one time, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

5.       The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development through the:

(a)     Transport of materials, goods or commodities to and from the land;

(b)     Appearance of any building, works or materials;

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

(d)     Presence of vermin.

6.       The permit holder should be aware that the operation of the use is at all times required, pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1970, to meet the requirements of the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.  The onus to demonstrate compliance with this policy in the event of request will lie with the permit holder.

7.       Noise emissions from any equipment for refrigeration, air conditioning, heating, ventilation and the like must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 and/or Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997 and/or Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92, whichever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

8.       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.

9.       A sign to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres in area.

10.     Vehicles under the control of the operator of the use or the operator’s staff must not be parked on nearby roads.

11.     The drop off and pick up of caskets must at all times be carried out within the existing car park area to the rear of the building.

12.     The site shall at all times be kept in a neat and tidy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Any litter shall be immediately removed from the site and surrounding area at the written direction of the Responsible Authority.

13.     The permit holder must promptly remove or obliterate any graffiti on the subject site which is visible to the public and keep the site free from graffiti at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14.     All external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent adverse effect on adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15.     All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type approved by the Standards Association of Australia and be connected to a registered security service.

16.     Adequate provision shall be made for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid wastes within the curtilage of the site.  This area shall be properly graded and drained, and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17.     In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if:

(a)     The approved use is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit.

(b)     The use is discontinued for a period of two years.

Signage Conditions (Conditions 18 to 23)

18.     The location and details of the signs, including supporting structures, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

19.     The signs must not contain any flashing or moving light, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20.     The signs must not be illuminated by external or internal light.

21.     The signs must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22.     No bunting, streamers, windvanes or the like shall be displayed unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

23.     This permit so far as it relates to the signage expires 15 years from the date of issue.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.4    26 Spring Street, Thomastown - Construction of four dwellings

File No:                                  716241

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer Established Areas Planning   

 

APPLICANT:                         Ikonomidis Reid

COUNCIL POLICY:              21.09 Housing

ZONING:                               General Residential

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan (Schedule 3)

REFERRAL:                          Engineering

OBJECTIONS:                      One

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling (and associated outbuildings) and construct four new two storey dwellings on the subject site.

Advertising of the application resulted in one objection being received.  The grounds of objection relate to the two storey nature of Dwelling No. 4, privacy concerns, impacts on views and overshadowing.

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, landscaping and parking location.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates this 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 medium density 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 both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the HDS, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located on the north side of Spring Street, Thomastown. The site is regular in shape and has an area of 697m2, with a 15.24m frontage to Spring Street and a depth of 45.72m.

The site currently contains a single storey brick dwelling with a separate garage located along the eastern boundary (accessed via the existing driveway). An outbuilding is located in close proximity to the northern boundary.  The land is relatively flat and devoid of any significant vegetation. Two large trees are located in the west-adjoining site, and in close proximity to the common property boundary.  The abutting property to the north is a single storey brick dwelling located in a complex of units. A car park/accessway to the northern units is located to the west, and a single storey brick dwelling adjoins to the east.

Surrounding land is characterised by a mixture of older single storey brick dwellings on allotments ranging from 600-750m2 and more recent, modern medium density developments ranging in two storey and single storey. Older style dwellings are generally constructed from brick or weatherboard in 1950’s and 1960’s styles, with some more recent developments also present. Multi-unit developments exist throughout the area, most notably on Spring and Main Streets, Thomastown.

The subject site is located within close proximity to the following services and community facilities:

 

§ Thomastown Primary School (50m east)

§ Bus Service along Spring Street, routes 357, 554, 557 (70m east)

§ High Street Shopping Strip (200m east)

§ Equator Reserve 480m (south-east)

§ Thomastown Railway Station (510m north-east)

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 6 on Plan of Subdivision 050167. A 1.83m wide drainage and sewerage easement is located along the northern (rear) boundary. There are no restrictions on title that preclude Council from determining the application.

Proposal                                                                   

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and construct four two storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).

Each dwelling has a similar floor layout with the ground level comprising an open plan kitchen/meals/family area, laundry and powder room and the upper floor containing two bedrooms and a bathroom. Dwelling No. 1 contains an ensuite within one of the bedrooms.

All dwellings will utilise the existing crossover and driveway located along the eastern 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

Two storey

2

7.5m front (south), 3.2m side (west), 3.2m side (east)

112m2 (including 25m2 secluded private open space)

Single open car space 

(2.6m x 4.9m)

7.2m (overall)

Dwelling No. 2

Two storey

2

3.2m side (west), 3.2m side (east)

40m2 (all secluded private open space)

Single open car space 

(2.6m x 4.9m)

7.1m (overall)

Dwelling No. 3

Two storey

2

3.2m side (west), 3.2m side (east)

40m2 (all secluded private open space)

Single open car space 

(2.6m x 4.9m)

7.0m (overall)

Dwelling No. 4

Two storey

2

1.8m rear (north), 3.5m side (west), 0.2m side (east)

49m2 (including 26m2 secluded private open space)

Single open car space 

(2.6m x 4.9m)

6.9m (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 two storey nature of Dwelling No. 4

2.       Privacy concerns

3.       Impact on views

4.       Overshadowing

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) 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.

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 a mixture of older single storey brick dwellings on allotments ranging from 600-750m2 and more recent, modern medium density developments ranging in two storey and single storey. Older style dwellings are generally constructed from brick or weatherboard in 1950’s and 1960’s styles, with some more recent developments also present. Multi-unit developments exist throughout the area, most notably on Spring and Main Streets, Thomastown.

Overall, the dwellings present a contemporary design in a neighbourhood which currently contains some examples of similar multi-dwelling developments and they have had appropriate regard to both the existing and emerging new character. 

B2

Residential Policy

P

P

The proposal provides an appropriate response to both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks through proposing a development that offers diversity to the existing housing stock.

 

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

Generally, the proposed four dwelling development achieves the key design principles for the Neighbourhood Interface Change Area.  The sufficient setbacks provided at the front, side and rear throughout the development is consistent with the emerging medium density character of the area, and appropriate recession and separation has been provided at the upper floors to minimise the bulk and mass of the built form.  The proposed setbacks from title boundaries will allow for reasonable landscaping to be provided throughout the development, including a large canopy tree within the front setback of the property and smaller trees within the private open space areas of each dwelling.

B3

Dwelling Diversity

N/A

N/A

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 adjoining dwelling to the east has a front setback of 9.2m and the property to the west provides vehicle access to a 24 dwelling development at the rear of the site.  Dwellings further west contain setbacks of around 6.5m at 30, 32 and 34 Spring Street, whilst further east is another vehicle access point for the development at the rear and a 8m setback at No.18 Spring Street.  Dwellings on the southern side of Spring Street in vicinity of the site typically contain setbacks ranging between 7.2m and 8.5m.

The existing dwelling has a front setback of 7.6m from Spring Street. Dwelling No. 1 is proposed to have a front setback to Spring Street of 7.5m, which is 1.5m less than the standard requirement at 9m.

Given that the existing dwelling has a setback of 7.6m, and the pattern of development within the street contains setbacks ranging between 6.5m and 8.5m, it is considered that the proposed front setback is acceptable in the context of the preferred neighbourhood character and will allow appropriate area within the frontage to provide meaningful landscaping.

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

Condition 4

A concept landscape plan was submitted with the application showing higher level locations for planting as well as paving or similar ground treatments.  A condition of any approval granted will require a detailed landscape plan.

B14

Access

P

P

 

B15

Parking location

P

Condition 3(a)

The habitable room windows located along the ground floor east elevation for Dwelling Nos. 2, 3 and the southern elevation for Dwelling No. 4 do not appear to meet the minimum requirements of this standard (no dimensions have been shown). These windows are required to be located at least 1.5 metres from the accessway or may be reduced to 1 metre where there is a fence at least 1.5 metres high or where window sills are at least 1.4 metres above the accessway. Therefore, a condition of permit will be included on any permit issued requiring the submission of revised plans showing full compliance with this standard, with no reduction in setbacks to any other boundary or other modification as a result.

 

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

Condition 3 (b)

It appears that there may be some overlooking opportunity from the east-facing upper floor windows of Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3 into the east adjoining property. Therefore, a condition of permit will be included requiring confirmation of compliance with Clause 55.04-6, 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

 

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

2

1

1

Y

2

2

1

1

Y

3

2

1

1

Y

4

2

1

1

Y

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 appears to comply with these requirements; however confirmation is required that the open car space dimensions satisfy the minimum requirements of Design Standard 2 of Clause 52.06-8. This will be included as a condition of any approval granted.

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 two storey nature of Dwelling No. 4

The two-storey built form proposed for Dwelling No. 4 satisfies the planning scheme requirements in relation to building height, and therefore does not pose an unreasonable built form.

2.   Privacy concerns

Each dwelling appears to satisfy overlooking requirements however some clarification is required in relation to compliance with Clause 55.04-6 for the east-facing upper floor windows of Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3. This will be included as a condition of any approval granted. Therefore, this ground of objection can be addressed by including a condition on any permit issued.

 

3.   Impact on views

It has been consistently upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that ‘the right to a view’ is not relevant planning consideration.

4.   Overshadowing

The application has including the submission of shadow diagrams representing the shadows cast at 9am, 12pm and 3pm. The extent of overshadowing complies with the requirements of Clause 55.04-5.

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 State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the Housing Diversity Strategy.  The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance subject to conditions.  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. 716241 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for construction of four dwellings at 26 Spring 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)         Compliance with Clause 55.03-10 for the habitable room windows located along the ground floor east elevation for Dwelling Nos. 2, 3 and the southern elevation for Dwelling No. 4 with no consequent reduction in setbacks to any other boundary or other modification as a result, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

b)        Compliance with Clause 55.04-6 for the east-facing upper floor windows of Dwelling Nos. 2 and 3, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

c)         Provision of dimensions (millimetres) that show each open car space to satisfy the minimum requirements of Design Standard 2 of Clause 52.06-8 with no other modification as a result, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4.   Before the development commences, three copies of a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan and must show:

 

a)         Details of landscaping for the front setback and other garden beds including a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers;

b)         The provision of (2) medium to large canopy trees within the front setback planted at a semi-advanced state;

c)         The provision of (4) small canopy trees within the open space areas of the dwellings planted at a semi-advanced state;

c)         Paving, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill;

d)         Consistency with the City of Whittlesea Landscape Guidelines (Residential Development).

5.   Prior to commencement of any works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The plan must include details in relation to:

a)         Vehicle access to the site.

b)        Parking of construction vehicles.

c)         Storage of materials/goods.

6.   Prior to commencement of any works, the permit holder must contact Council’s Infrastructure Protection Unit on 9401 5532 to arrange a site inspection to ensure all requirements of the Construction Management Plan have been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7.   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.

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

9.   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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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. 

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

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

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

·    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

Please note that property addresses and numbering is allocated by Council.  This is usually formalised at the time of the subdivision, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments/apartments/dwellings as follows:

            Dwelling 1                  1/26 Spring Street, Thomastown

            Dwelling 2                  2/26 Spring Street, Thomastown

            Dwelling 3                  3/26 Spring Street, Thomastown

            Dwelling 4                  4/26 Spring Street, Thomastown

Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department to verify all street numberings.

Easements

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.5    249 Holt Parade, Thomastown - Use of the land for vehicle store (retrospective) and associated works

File No:                                  715573

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer Established Areas Planning   

 

APPLICANT:                         Bricktrans Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              22.09     Industrial Development Policy

ZONING:                               Industrial 1 Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan (Schedule 3)

REFERRAL:                          AusNet Services

OBJECTIONS:                      Four (Including three outside municipality)

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council refuse the application.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant seeks retrospective planning approval to use the land for the purpose of a vehicle store. The existing business (previously operating unlawfully) specialises in delivery of bricks, tiles and scaffolding (non-hazardous goods). The application proposes that the existing use be authorised to allow the parking and storing of vehicles (trucks) associated with the business while not in operation.  The subject land abuts a residential area and objections from residents have been received as part of the public notification.

 

This application was previously considered by Council at its meeting on 7 June 2016.  The officer recommendation was that the application be approved subject to conditions (including conditions relating to noise attenuation with the abutting residential interface).  Council resolved to defer a decision on the application to a future meeting to allow the applicant to submit further information in support of the proposal and in particular provide an acoustic report setting out appropriate noise attenuation measures with the abutting residential interface to the south (rather than have this resolved as a condition of permit).

 

The applicant prepared and submitted an acoustic report and is proposing to utilise shipping containers as ‘acoustic measures’ with the abutting residential land.  The containers will be positioned 1.0m off the rear residential boundary of the site.  The applicant has been advised by officers that this form of noise attenuation is not appropriate from an urban design perspective (particularly given the residential interface) and that a more appropriately designed acoustic fence treatment will be necessary.  The proposed shipping container treatment would also contravene an existing section 173 Agreement which requires that a 6.5m wide strip of land at the rear of the site be set aside for landscaping.


 

Despite a number of requests to substitute the proposed shipping container treatment with more appropriate noise attenuation fencing, the applicant is not prepared to make the changes requested by officers.  Under these circumstances, it is now recommended that the application be refused.  The occupier/ applicant has been directed to cease the ongoing unauthorised use (until such time as any planning permit may be granted at a future date).

 

The application involving the amended shipping container treatment was readvertised to adjoining property owners and occupiers.  However, none of the original objections have been withdrawn and must therefore still be considered. The grounds of objection relate to trucks parked on Holt Parade, dirt, mud, dust and noise emissions produced onsite affecting nearby properties and trucks parked up to the common boundary with residential properties.

 

The amended proposal incorporating the shipping container acoustic treatment demonstrates an unsatisfactory level of compliance with the Industrial Development Policy (Clause 22.09) and Industrial 1 Zone provisions (Clause 33.01) set out in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and would result in an unattractive outcome which would set a precedent for other industrial uses in the municipality.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site (Attachment 1) is located on the southern side of Holt Parade, Thomastown and is (for the most part) rectangular in shape.  A public utility reserve exists in the northwestern corner of the site.  The site has a frontage of 40m, a length of 94m (eastern boundary) and a total site area of 4,163m2.

There is a portable office located in the rear south west corner of the site, and three shipping containers located around the perimeter of the site.

The site has sealed driveway access, however the remainder of the site and parking areas are gravel.

The site is located directly below high voltage power transmission lines.

 

The site is located within an established industrial area to the north, east and west. The site adjoins an established residential area located in the City of Darebin to the south.

Vegetation on site is limited to some areas of grass and two established non-native trees in the south-western corner.  Chain wire mesh fencing exists around the perimeter of the site to the north, east and west with heights varying between 2.3m-2.7m, and a timber paling fence exists to the rear (south). 

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 21 on Plan of Subdivision 404481E. The subject site is affected by various easements related to transmission of electricity and drainage.

Section 173 Agreement P563602U affects the site restricting the uses of lots 5 to 13 contained in the subdivision. Additionally, it restricts any building within 6.5m of the rear boundary to provide and maintain landscaping.

 

The proposed placement of the shipping containers within 1.0m of the rear (southern) boundary would result in a breach of Section 173 Agreement P563602U registered on title of which is not supported. This area is designated for landscaping and offers a reasonable buffer to the south - adjoining residential area. Therefore, given that the application does not achieve the required buffer distance of at least 6.5m, this is directly contrary to the purposes of this restriction, and is not supported.

BACKGROUND

There is a history of planning enforcement on the site dating back to 2010 relating to the unlawful storing of vehicles on the site. 

 

Council has received a number of complaints from the local community about the subject site, specifically in relation to the unlawful storing of vehicles on the site, and in relation to dirt, dust and noise emissions from the site, particularly affecting the adjoining residential area to the south (within City of Darebin).

 

The current application has been submitted to seek formal approval for use of the land for a vehicle store.

 

At its meeting on 7 June 2016 Council resolved to defer the item to a subsequent Council meeting.  It is understood that the resolution related to concerns about noise impacts on adjacent residential areas (within the City of Darebin).  The officer report set out a recommendation that the use be approved subject to the following condition 2 d):

 

d)    Submission of an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified person demonstrating satisfactory levels for noise emissions associated with use of the land for a vehicle store or provision of broadband reverse beepers or similar to all vehicles associated with the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

 

Councillors requested that this report be completed up front to better inform Council of noise effects on residents and what measures would be necessary to mitigate noise impacts to an acceptable level.  Officers subsequently requested that the applicant undertake this work.  The applicant committed to undertaking this work but after some time had passed, the applicant/ landowner was requested by officers on 7 November 2016 to cease the use of the site for the storage and parking of trucks until such time as any permit is issued and any conditions needing to be met before the use commences are also resolved.  Following the cessation of use, the acoustic report was lodged to Council for review on 10 November 2016, along with an amendment to the application to include shipping containers as an acoustic treatment within 1.0m of the southern boundary. The application was subsequently re-advertised. The applicant has been advised on multiple occasions that the shipping container acoustic treatment is unlikely to be supported.

Proposal

The applicant proposes to use the land as a vehicle store (Attachment 2). The business associated with the site specialises in delivery of bricks, tiles and scaffolding (non-hazardous goods). The purpose of the use of the land is to park/store the vehicles associated with the business while not in operation. No goods are proposed to be stored on the site.

The use will operate between 4.00am to 5.30pm.

The vehicles leave in the morning and return in the afternoon and there is no dispatch or manufacture from the premises, and no person or vehicles are on the site between 6.00am and 3.00pm.

A total of 18 on-site car parking spaces cater for employees and visitors. There are 14 trucks expected on the site including the business operator (totalling to a maximum of 15 car spaces taken at any one time). The trucks comprise of small rigid tray trucks, larger trucks and trailer tray trucks. Trucks and trailers are approximately 19.0m x 2.3m with rigid trucks measuring 9.0m x 2.3m. There are 14 ‘vehicle store’ truck parking spaces proposed in addition to the 18 car parking spaces. These spaces are proposed to be setback 9.5m from adjoining residential properties to the rear. The applicant has advised that some goods (such as new bricks associated with the business) can be stored overnight on the site within or on the trucks.

A portable office measuring approximately 6.0m x 4.0m exists on the western boundary, in the southwest corner of the site which is to be retained. The office is used informally for the storage of miscellaneous goods associated with the business and is not utilised as a space for employees or for book-keeping purposes.

Three (3) shipping containers exist on the site. The applicant states that these containers are used informally for the storage of truck tyres, filters, oil, and spare parts. The applicant has confirmed that no chemicals or hazardous material is stored on the site or within the shipping containers.

Five (5) additional shipping containers are proposed to be located 1.0m off the rear (southern boundary) to act as an acoustic measure to the south - adjoining the residential area. The containers are proposed to be located within the 6.5m wide landscape buffer required by Section 173 Agreement P563602U.

There is existing chain-wire fencing surrounding the boundaries of the site with heights between 2.3m and 2.8m with the exception of the rear boundary which has a 1.8m high timber paling fence, separating the site from residential properties.

A 6.0m wide landscaping strip is proposed in the front (northern) setback of the site. A buffer of 1.0m is proposed to the rear (south) of the site. A concept landscape plan has been submitted which shows a number of medium canopy trees in the front setback. A revised landscape plan has not been submitted in relation to the reduced rear (southern) setback.

Public Notification

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

1.   Trucks parked on street (Holt Parade) and blocking driveway of nearby businesses

2.   Dirt and mud residue left on Holt Parade in association with the trucks stored onsite

3.   Dust produced onsite affecting nearby residential properties and causing health issues

4.   Trucks parked up to the common boundary with residential properties and noise of trucks in early hours of morning

5.   Lack of time provided for notification of the application

 

REFERRALS

External

AusNet Services

This application was referred to AusNet Services (AusNet Transmission Group) pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 due to the proposal being located within high voltage power line easements. AusNet Services did not object to the application subject to the inclusion of conditions on any approval granted restricting certain activities and buildings/works.   The amended application was also referred to the authority which has resulted in some varied conditions (in the event that a permit is issued).

 

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)

 

The EPA has advised of conditions to protect offsite amenity in the planning permit is issued.  It was not considered necessary that the amended application be referred to the authority.


 

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

 

The following State Planning Policies, Local Planning Policies and particular provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme (the Scheme) are considered relevant to this application.

State Planning Policies

Design of Industrial Development (Clause 17.02-2)

 

The objective of this Clause is to facilitate the sustainable development and operation of industry and research and development activity.

 

It is considered that the land use for a vehicle store may be a reasonable outcome for the restricted industrial site (given that electricity easements cover the site thereby restricting other forms of use and development). However, the sensitive residential interface to the south of the site has not been appropriately considered in relation to the development elements associated with the use (such as the placement of shipping containers within the designated landscape buffer at the rear of the site). Ultimately, it is considered that this will result in a poor amenity outcome for the surrounding area and poses an undesirable design outcome.

Local Planning Policies

Industrial Development Policy (Clause 22.09)

 

The objective of Council’s Industrial Development Policy is to achieve well designed, quality industrial developments that are suitably located so as to meet stated economic development objectives.

 

An assessment of the proposal against the requirements of this Clause is provided below:

It is policy to:

 

·        Ensure that the scale and appearance of all buildings and works is consistent with the purpose of the zone, site location, and surrounding land uses.

The proposal is an allowable use within the Industrial 1 Zone, and is one of only a few allowable uses for sites located beneath high voltage transmission lines. Nevertheless, a good design outcome is expected which meets the objectives of this Policy. Given that the site directly adjoins residential properties to the south, the use of the site is further constrained. Given the sensitive (residential) interface to the site it is considered that the placement of shipping containers within a 1.0m setback distance to these properties is an inappropriate design outcome which does not present an attractive or desirable appearance, and which does not adequately respond to the constraints of the site.

·        Encourage appropriate landscape and building setbacks that enhance and / or improve the appearance of industrial areas.

The proposed 6.0m wide landscape setback to the frontage of Holt Parade is considered sufficient area to provide an appropriate landscape outcome to enhance and improve the appearance of the industrial site, particularly with the provision of ‘transparent’ chain mesh fencing. However, the proposed reduced rear (southern) setback to 1.0m does not accord with the Section 173 Agreement registered on title which requires a minimum 6.5m landscape setback. It is considered that this reduced setback is not only an undesirable outcome in relation to improving and enhancing the appearance of the site (particularly to the adjoining residential properties), but also directly breaches a requirement of the Section 173 Agreement registered on title.

This outcome is not supported. Further, the applicant has not provided an updated landscape plan which provides information on how the 1.0m setback will be treated.

·        Ensure landscape plans are provided, showing:

o   an automatic sprinkler irrigation system;

o   simple landscaping which includes provision of lawn and high canopy trees especially along front setbacks;

o   provision of trees in carpark areas; and

o   preservation of existing trees on site.

The application originally indicated concept landscaping on the site; however since the proposal was amended, an updated plan has not been submitted regarding the proposed treatment of the 1.0m wide rear (southern) setback. It is considered that the requirement for a detailed and thorough landscape plan is essential, and the absence of a plan is not supported.

Zoning and Overlay Provisions

Industrial 1 Zone (Clause 33.01)

 

The site is affected by the Industrial 1 Zone. The objectives of this zone include providing for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner that does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities.

 

It is acknowledged that the site is compromised by the transmission line easement, and use and development of the site is considerably restricted. While the proposal is an allowable use within the Industrial 1 Zone, and is one of only a few allowable uses for sites located beneath high voltage transmission lines, it is considered that the associated development (particularly the location and reliance on shipping containers as an acoustic treatment) does not result in a good design outcome, and does not present an attractive or desirable appearance particularly to the residential properties directly adjoining to the south. The applicant has been encouraged to consider utilising alternative acoustic design mechanisms, such as an acoustic fence to achieve adequately amenity, however this has been disregarded.

 

Industrial estate amenity

 

To ensure that the use operates harmoniously with regard to the surrounding industrial uses, conditions of approval could be included in relation to landscaping, fencing, and the sealing of surfaces (to prevent offsite amenity impacts). However, given the reliance on shipping containers as an acoustic measure at the rear of the site, it is considered that this does not achieve the objectives of the Industrial Zone, nor Council’s Industrial Development Policy, and ultimately undermines the intentions for this policy.

 

Residential interface amenity

 

The unlawful use of the land for a vehicle store has an enforcement history and documented amenity impacts, particularly in relation to the adjoining residential properties. Therefore, it was considered necessary to require the submission of an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified person demonstrating satisfactory levels for noise emissions associated with the use of the land and recommending adequate acoustic mechanisms to address the sensitive interface. The proposed shipping container acoustic treatment is not considered a suitable outcome in relation to the purpose or objectives of the Industrial Zone, nor Council’s Industrial Development Policy and will result in an undesirable outcome in industrial areas.

 


 

Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 3 (Clause 45.06)

The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 3).  The schedule to the overlay requires development contributions for drainage infrastructure for industrial/warehouse developments at a rate of $3.50 per square metre of the total site area.  This rate is subject to the Consumer Price Index at the time of payment.  This requirement could be included as a condition on any planning permit that is issued.

Particular Provisions

Car Parking (Clause 52.06)

 

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site.  There is no definable car parking rate listed in this clause for a ‘vehicle store,’ however this definition falls within ‘store’ pursuant to Clause 74 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. 

 

Pursuant to clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the following car parking rates are required for the proposed development:

 

Proposed Use

Clause 52.06

Car Parking Rate

Size/No.

No. of Spaces required

No. of Spaces provided

Total Planning Scheme Shortfall

Vehicle Store

 

 

10 per cent site area

Site area = 4163m2

10 percent site area =416.3m2

32

32

0

 

Council’s City Design and Transport Department and the Environmental Protection Authority have expressed some concern in relation to the unsealed nature of the area proposed to conduct the use. Given the high number of vehicle movements expected on the site in association with the use, and the immediate proximity of the site to residential properties to the south, it would be considered appropriate to impose a requirement to provide a sealed surface for the car parking area and the internal accessway, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (in the event that a planning permit was issued). However, this would result in a significant amount of impervious surfacing on the site. The requirement for extensive sealing of the site in combination with a reduction in the rear (southern) setback from a landscape buffer of 6.5m to 1.0m is not supported, and will not provide sufficient pervious surfacing on the site.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1.   Trucks parked on street (Holt Parade) and blocking driveway of nearby businesses

The conduct of individuals on public land or within the road network in relation to the parking of vehicles or blocking accessways is an issue to be addressed under separate provision (Local Laws and Victoria Police). However, it is noted that designated car parking has not been provided on the subject site previously. Given that there are 32 formal parking spaces proposed to be provided on site satisfying the requirements of Clause 52.06, this ground of objection could be addressed if a permit were to be issued. 

2.   Dirt and mud residue left on Holt Parade in association with the trucks stored onsite

A condition of any approval granted could be included to require the appropriate treatment of any trucks entering/existing the site to remove residue so as to not impact upon the local road network. However, this would require the provision of a sealed surface for the car parking area and accessway, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  It is noted that the existing crossovers providing access to the site are sealed. It is considered that the requirement to provide a sealed surface for the car parking area and accessway is a significant condition to impose on any approval granted, however could address the grounds of this objection.

3.   Dust produced onsite affecting nearby residential properties and causing health issues

The application has been referred to the EPA and the authority has confirmed it has no objection to the proposal. Condition of any approval granted could require the provision of a sealed surface for the car parking area and accessway thereby eliminating the issue of dust emissions from the site. It is a significant condition to impose on any approval granted, however it could address the grounds of this objection.

4.   Trucks parked up to the common boundary with residential properties and the noise of trucks in early hours of morning

Currently onsite it appears that there is a 4.0m wide buffer to the rear (south). A landscape buffer of a minimum width of 6.5m is required to the rear (southern) property boundary adjoining residential properties pursuant to Section 173 Agreement registered on the title. The plans propose a 1.0m setback to the shipping containers, and a total of 9.5m to the parked trucks. It is considered that the shipping containers do not offer a suitable treatment to address the amenity issues raised by objectors nor the purpose and objectives of Council’s Industrial Development Policy, and the 1.0m wide buffer distance does not provide a sufficient distance to minimise disturbance to the adjoining properties. Therefore, this objection is reasonable and substantiated.

5.   Lack of time provided for notification of the application

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires a period of advertising to occur for no less than 14 days. The applicant has provided a signed Statutory Declaration to Council confirming that notice was undertaken for a minimum of 14 days as part of the original and amended applications.

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 Council’s Industrial Development Policy (Clause 22.09), Industrial 1 Zone (Clause 33.01), Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 3 (Clause 45.06), and Car Parking (Clause 52.06).  The proposal demonstrates an unsatisfactory level of compliance with the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and it is considered that the proposal cannot be remedied by including conditions of approval.  It is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and on existing surrounding industrial and residential properties and would set an undesirable precedent for industrial uses in the area.   It is therefore recommended that the application be refused and the land reinstated.


 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to:-

A.      Refuse Planning Application No. 715573 for Use of the    land for vehicle store (retrospective) and associated works at 249 Holt Parade, Thomastown subject to the following grounds:

1.       The proposal breaches the requirement to provide a clear 6.5m wide landscape buffer in Section 173 Agreement P563602U registered on title.

 

2.       The proposal fails to comply with the State Planning Policy Framework in particular Clauses 15.01-1 (Urban design), 15.01-2 (Urban design principles), 17.02-2 (Design of Industrial Development) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

 

3.       The proposal fails to comply with the Local Planning Policy Framework, in particular Clause 22.09 (Industrial Development Policy) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

 

4.       The proposal fails to comply with the purpose of Clause 33.01 (Industrial 1 Zone) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

 

5.       The proposal fails to comply with the purpose and decision guidelines of Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, particularly in relation to adequate provision of a sealed surface for the car parking area and accessway.

 

6.       The landscaping opportunities of the site are unsatisfactory.

 

7.       The proposal will detrimentally affect the amenity of the local community/surrounding area by presenting an unattractive streetscape and rear boundary appearance to the surrounding industrial and residential area, and will set an undesirable precedent.

 

B.      Advise the applicant, occupier and landowner to permanently cease the unauthorised use of the land, remove all buildings and structures and establish and maintain the 6.5m landscape buffer at the rear of the site in accordance with the section 173 Agreement affecting the land.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.6    187 Settlement Road Thomastown - Use and development of a store, reduction of car parking requirements and display of internally illuminated signage

File No:                                  715944

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                         Kennards Self Storage Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              Industrial Development Policy

ZONING:                               Industrial 1 Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan (Schedule 3)

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council provide conditional support the amended application currently before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

At its meeting on 11 October 2016, Council resolved to refuse to issue a planning permit for the use and development of the land for the purposes of a store (self-storage facility); buildings and works associated with a restricted retail premises; the display of business identification signage; a reduction of car parking requirements; and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

On 12 October 2016 Council officers were advised that an appeal had been lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal scheduled a compulsory conference on Thursday 16 February 2017. The outcome of this meeting was that the applicant would provide amended plans and information addressing the issues set out in the officer’s report and Council resolution.

This report outlines the grounds of refusal and the changes that have been made by the permit applicant to address these grounds.

Having considered the amended plans and supporting documentation, it is the recommendation of officers that the application can now be supported subject to the inclusion of specific permit conditions. Should Council adopt this position, the issues in dispute will be significantly reduced and may lead to the matter being resolved at the compulsory conference, when it reconvenes on Friday 24 March 2017.

Background

On 11 October 2016, Council determined to refuse this planning permit application on various grounds. Following the publication of the Council meeting agenda, and before the matter was determined, the applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal against Council’s failure to determine the application within the prescribed time.

Since then, the application before the Tribunal has progressed and a compulsory conference was held on 16 February 2017. The compulsory conference was adjourned to allow time for amended plans to be circulated and for the amended proposal to be considered by Council.

The amended proposal seeks to address Council’s grounds of refusal and is discussed in detail within this report. A revised position by Council may see this matter resolved, or may assist to narrow the issues in dispute.

Review of the Proposed Changes

The applicant has circulated amended plans (Attachment 2), which seek to address the grounds of refusal.

The changed shown in the amended plans are summarised as:

1.   Alterations to the car parking layout resulting in a total of 159 car parking spaces being provided on the site (previously 153 spaces were provided).

2.   Screening in the form of a 2.4m high timber fence and gate to Apex Court.

3.   A reduction of building ‘F’ (abutting the southern wall of the gym) to allow the retention of existing windows to the gym.

4.   Additional car parking spaces to be provided near the existing Commonwealth Bank.

The following identifies the grounds of refusal and discusses the changes (and supporting documentation) provided by the permit applicant in support of the amended proposal:

1.       The proposed built form is in breach of restrictive covenant L319044J.

The representative for the applicant has provided additional supporting information confirming that the covenant applies only to a small portion of the land that previously formed part of the Apex Court subdivision.

The plans have also been amended to improve the presentation of the new eastern building to Settlement Road by providing a rendered finish in lieu of the previously proposed ‘Colourbond’ cladding.

It is the opinion of the applicant that the proposal now complies with the requirements of the covenant. Officers now support this interpretation.

2.       The proposed store will unreasonably disrupt the circulation of delivery vehicles around the periphery of the site and result in an inappropriate alteration of access to Settlement Road.

The applicant has suggested that a permit condition be used to ensure that all tenancies are provided with access to the secure areas (e.g. a pin code to the security gate) to enable the delivery of goods and materials.

To further assist the circulation of delivery vehicles, a permit condition requiring swept paths for an appropriately sized truck must be shown on the endorsed plans. Officers consider this to be an appropriate outcome.

3.       The proposed development fails to demonstrate compliance with the design requirements of Clause 52.06 with regard to the design of car parking spaces and accessways.

The plans have been amended to enable vehicle access to all proposed car parking spaces.

4.       The proposed development fails to provide sufficient parking in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06 and the reduction is not appropriate due to:

a)    The demand of existing tenants on the site;

b)    The potential demand for future tenants on the site; and

c)    The future car parking requirements of the undeveloped portion of the site.

The applicant has provided amended plans showing additional car parking spaces and further clarification of the likely demand for car parking. This information has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineers who, for the most part, agree with the rationale provided by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant.

The exception to this is the rate of parking applied to the restricted retail premises (Gainsville furniture store). Here the applicant proposes that a rate of 1.5 parking spaces (which is half of the rate set out in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme). While the existing store currently generates a low demand for car parking, existing planning permissions for the site allow for a new restricted retail business to replace Gainsville, which may have a higher demand for parking. Therefore the Council’s Traffic Engineers believe that a rate of 2 to 2.5 would be more appropriate.

The following table sets out the ‘Planning Scheme Rate’, a ‘Revised Rate’ that is supported by Council’s Transport Engineers, the number of ‘Car Spaces Required’ in accordance with the revised rate and the number of spaces that are proposed by the permit applicant. The table then summarises the discrepancy between the proposal and the recommendation of officers.

 

Use

Planning Scheme Rate

Revised Rate

Area / No. Patrons

Car spaces required

Car spaces provided

Restricted Retail (Gainsville)

3 car parking spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area.

2 car parking spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area.

3,784m2

75

159

Warehouse

(Gainsville)

1.5 car parking spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area, plus 2 additional spaces.

1

850m2

8

Restricted Recreation Facility (Gym)

No rate specified.

0.7 car parking spaces per patron*

120 patrons

84

Bank

3.5 car parking space per 100m2 of net floor area.

3.5 car parking space per 100m2 of net floor area.

390m2

13

Undeveloped Pad site

No proposed use.

Approximately 3 car parking spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area.**

Min 500m2

≥15

0

Store

(Self-Storage)

10% of the site area

0

10,950m2***

0

0

Total

Car spaces required

(revised rate)

Car spaces provided

Shortfall

 

195

 

159

 

36 spaces

 

* The car parking rate for a Restricted Recreation facility is not defined by the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, but must be provided at a rate to the satisfaction of Council.

** This rate of car parking is typical of uses most likely to use and develop the ‘pad site’. Alternative uses such as office have a slightly higher rate.

*** The total site area of the self-storage facility only includes buildings and would actually be greater if outdoor vehicle storage areas were to be included.

The rationale provided by the permit applicant has demonstrated that the impact of the development will be less than previously considered, the applicant’s Traffic Engineer relies on the peak times of the existing and proposed uses on site to be different. While this may be the case now, the following concerns exist:

1.    The peak times associated with each use are not regulated by way of permit conditions for the existing uses. For example, the maximum number of patrons for the gym (120) is not restricted to any particular time or day.

2.    While Gainsville does not currently generate a high demand for car parking spaces, the existing permits would allow for a change in business, which may ultimately have a higher demand for car parking. Likewise, the peak hours of the gym could alter if new business initiatives were to be pursued that increase patronage during the day.

3.    The existing tenants occupy spaces that were originally designated for multiple tenants. Should the use of the site revert back to this, or a similar arrangement, car parking demand is likely to increase.

4.    The traffic demand that could be generated by the undeveloped ‘pad site’ has not been considered.

To ensure that the site remains flexible for both the existing businesses, or to any new business that may occupy the site, additional parking needs to be provided. In this instance, it is recommended that permit conditions be imposed requiring the provision of at least 36 more car parking spaces (or 21 more spaces if the undeveloped ‘pad site’ was to be developed for car parking spaces with appropriate landscaping). Permit conditions that reflect this have been included in the recommendations section of this report.

5.    The proposed built form presents a poor interface to the street and design outcome for a prominent site having regard to the location of the site on an arterial road and the existing retail and commercial of uses on the site.

The applicant has amended the façade treatment to the portion of Building D to show a ‘smooth face cladding’. While this is a step in the right direction, it is recommended that the plans be further modified to clarify the cladding material and to have the amended cladding wrap around the edge of the building that would be visible from Settlement Road. Permit conditions that reflect this have been included in the recommendations section of this report.

6.    The proposed signage located at the site frontage fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause 52.05, is excessive for the site and contributes to signage clutter.

The proposed signage did not present as a unified signage strategy for the site, resulting in a cluttered outcome. It is recommended that permit conditions be used requiring the consolidation of the standalone signs that are located along Settlement Road Frontage to be redesigned. This redesign would provide for, and facilitate, a consistent signage strategy for the site.

Next Steps

The compulsory conference for this matter will reconvene on Friday 24 March 2017, following Council’s consideration of this amended proposal. Should an agreement be reached between all parties, then orders will be issued by the Tribunal. If an agreement cannot be reached, the matter will be heard at a full hearing on 3 April 2017.

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 applicant has provided an amended application with supporting documentation that addresses Council’s previous grounds of refusal. The notable exception to this is the provision of car parking that can be addressed via the use of a permit condition requiring additional car parking spaces to be provided on the site. It is the view of officers that the application can now be supported subject to the inclusion of permit conditions to resolve the car parking discrepancy.

The following recommendation provides a list of permit conditions that would be presented to the applicant. If accepted by all parties to the appeal, a permit may be granted in accordance with the recommendation. In the event that an agreement is not reached, the revised position on the application will assist to narrow the issues in dispute when the matter proceeds to a hearing at the tribunal.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to consent to a planning permit being granted by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for the use of the land for the purpose of Store, construction of buildings and works, display of internally illuminated business identification signs, reduction in car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 and alteration of access to a Road Zone (Category 1) subject to the inclusion of the following conditions:

1.       Prior to the endorsement of plans, Planning Permit No. 708192 must be amended by way of application to the Responsible Authority. The amendment must resolve conflict between the permits with specific regard given to the provision of car parking spaces on the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2.       Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans prepared by MCHP Architects and submitted to Council on 20 February 2017* but amended to show:

a)      The provision of additional car parking spaces be provided by way of:

i.   A total of 36 additional car parking spaces that must be accessible to all visitors to the site; or

ii.  If the area known as the ‘pad site’ located at the northwest corner of the site is constructed for car parking (with appropriate landscaping), provide a total of 21 additional car parking spaces that must be accessible to all visitors to the site. 

b)      A detailed schedule of colours and materials to be provided on a separate sheet and include colour samples and detailed disruptions of all cladding materials. This schedule must also include the facades of existing buildings.

c)      A change to the material on the north elevation of Building D to replace the proposed section of ‘Colourbond’ cladding identified as KSS Orange and KSS Blue to painted concrete of similar finish.

d)      All references to ‘selected smooth face cladding’ to be specific as to the material to be used and consistent with the detailed schedule of colours and materials.

e)      Swept paths for 12.5 metre truck movements manoeuvring around the south-western edge of Building F.

f)       Modifications to the free-standing pylon sign (“Sign A”) to provide for the following:

i.     An overall height which is not more than the height of the existing multi-tenant sign on the western side of the central vehicle access location for the site;

ii.    A width which is not more than the width of the existing multi-tenant sign on the western side of the central vehicle access location for the site;

iii.   Provision of a solid base, consistent with the existing multi-tenant sign on the western side of the central access location for the site; and

iv.   Signage content to be limited to business identification information. 

3.       Before the development starts 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 landscape plan must be generally in accordance with landscape concept plan prepared by Urbis*.

4.       Before any works start, including works required by other authorities, three copies of a site management plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Site Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The Site Management Plan must:

a)      Include separate parts describing relevant matters of occupational health and safety, traffic management and delivery times and methods.

b)      Include proposed location of car parking for construction workers’ private vehicles if they are not to be parked on site.

c)      Include the proposed route for construction vehicle access to the site.

d)      Include means by which foreign material will be restricted from being deposited on public roads by vehicles associated with building and works on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The developer must keep the Responsible Authority informed in writing of any changes to the Site Management Plan. If in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the changes represent a significant departure from the approved Site Management Plan then an amended Site Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The approved measures must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5.       Prior to or on 28 August 2017:

a)      Unless with written agreement between the permit holder and Nicholson Nominees Pty Ltd, the only development that may occur  is:

i.   the Building A extension works;

ii.  the Building B works, excluding any works to the Bingo tenancy; and

iii. removal of the curved landscape strip at the southwest corner of Building C, and the pavement must be sealed contemporaneously with commencement of works in either (i) or (ii) above;

b)      no construction fencing or obstacles may be placed on the southern side of Building B or the eastern side of Building A ensuring clear access for vehicles along the southern side of Building B and along the eastern side of Building A through to Settlement Road prior to 29 August 2017;  

c)      no construction fencing may be placed along the northern side of Building B;

d)      any construction fencing required for the Gainsville extension must not extend beyond the existing veranda on the façade of Building A on the west side and must not obstruct vehicle movement on the eastern side of Building A and eastern side of Building B; and

e)      the Bingo tenancy may utilise the area along the full length of the southern side of Building B to park vehicles. 

This condition is not relevant on or after 29 August 2017, or any earlier date by which the Bingo tenant has vacated its premises in Building B and advised to Council in writing.

6.       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 prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

8.       Before the use of the development allowed by this permit starts, landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9.       Before the use of the development starts, the car parking areas and access ways must be drained, and fully sealed and constructed with asphalt or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10.     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.

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 new 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 using or occupying any building on the site, 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.     Before the use of the development commences, 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.     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.

16.     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.

17.     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.

18.     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.

19.     The permit holder must promptly remove or obliterate any graffiti on the subject site which is visible to the public and keep the site free from graffiti at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Signage Conditions

20.     The location and details of the signs shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

22.     Signs must not contain any flashing light.

23.     All signs must be constructed and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Expiry Conditions

24.     The signage component of this permit expires fifteen years from the date of issue, unless an extension of time is approved

25.     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; or

c)      if the use of the land herby permitted does not commence 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

*Details of the plans referred to by the abovementioned conditions, including those amended and submitted to Council on 20 February 2017 are:

16-005-DA000 C: TITLE SHEET

16-005-DA001 B: EXISTING SITE PLAN

16-005-DA002 C: SITE ANALYSIS PLAN

16-005-DA003 F: PROPOSED SITE | GROUND FLOOR PLAN

16-005-DA004 A: PROPOSED FLOOR | ROOF PLAN BUILDING A

16-005-DA006 A: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BUILDING A

16-005-DA007 A: PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN BUILDING B - OVERALL

16-005-DA010 A: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BUILDING B - OVERALL

16-005-DA011 A: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS PART BUILDING B

16-005-DA012 A: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS PART BUILDING B

16-005-DA013 A: SECTION PART BUILDING B

16-005-DA014 A: PROPOSED OVERALL PLANS BUILDING D + E

16-005-DA015 A: PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR - BUILDING D

16-005-DA016 A: PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR - BUILDING D

16-005-DA017 A: PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING E

16-005-DA018 A: PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING E

16-005-DA019 B: PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS D + E - OVERALL

16-005-DA020 A: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BUILDING D

16-005-DA021 A: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BUILDING E

16-005-DA023 B: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BUILDING D + E

16-005-DA024 B: PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AND ROOF PLAN - BUILDING F

16-005-DA025 B: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS - BUILDING F

16-005-DA030 A: PROPOSED SIGNAGE DRAWING

16-005-DA031 A: TRUCK PATH - MEDIUM RIGID VEHICLE

16-005-DA032 A: TRUCK PATH - HEAVY RIGID VEHICLE

16-005-DA033 A: TRUCK PATH - ARTICULATED VEHICLE

16-005-DA040 B: PART SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION (FROM APEX COURT)

DWG No: LSK-001 A: LANDSCAPE CONCEPT

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.7    1/8 Childs Road, Epping - Request for extension of time to planning permit - use and development of land for the purpose of offices and take away food premises

File No:                                  714498

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         Jamluk Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              Nil

ZONING:                               Activity Centre Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan (Schedules 3 and 14)

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council refuse an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 714498) allowing for the use and development of land for offices and a take away food premises at 1/8 Childs Road, Epping.  The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement of the development for a further two years.  The permit was originally granted on 12 February 2015 under delegation by Council officers. The permit expired on 12 February 2017 as development had not yet commenced. 

This application is being reported to Council because planning circumstances have changed since the permit was initially granted.  The report recommends that the extension of time be refused as it is unlikely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted with the same conditions.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to Amendment C130 (gazetted March 2015) which included the rezoning of land to the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) in accordance with the Epping Central Structural Plan.  Other associated changes to the Scheme also occurred at this time including a requirement for the payment of development contributions (estimated to be $97,000) to assist in the funding of infrastructure associated with the future growth of the area.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land is located on the north side of Childs Road, Epping (see Attachment 1).  The site is an irregularly regular shaped allotment that is relatively flat and has a total site area of 1,716m2The site currently contains a car wash.  Vehicle access is provided via a common accessway to the east of the subject land.

The land is currently characterised by industrial and warehouse uses to the north, east and west and established residential areas to the south opposite Childs Road.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 714498 was granted on 12 February 2015 under delegation to allow the use of the land for offices and a take away food premises (see Attachment 2).   Condition No. 24 of the permit allows extensions of time to commence and complete the development.

current permit extension request

The applicant seeks an extension of a further two (2) years to commence the development.  During this period the permit holder intends to finalise the approval of plans under the permit and obtain building approvals.

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was granted, the land was located in an Industrial 1 Zone.  In March 2015, immediately following the grant of the permit, Amendment C130 was approved which introduced the new ACZ within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Under the Schedule to the new zone the subject land has been included within an employment precinct which seeks to provide modern and high quality buildings with appropriate landscaping.  Although the proposed development was approved under the former Industrial Zone provisions, it has been designed to a standard that is acceptable and compliant with the new planning provisions.  However it was not possible at the time of the initial approval to levy development contributions to support the changes in land use and increase in employment activity resulting from the proposal.  The applicant was provided with a permit that was generally consistent with the proposed Activity Centre Zone but not with the requirement for contributions to be paid in support of new uses and development.

Amendment C130, which came into effect in the month following the grant of the permit, was on exhibition during application consideration stage.  The intention to levy contributions as part of the ACZ was widely exhibited.  The Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) introduced as part of the approval of Amendment C130 sets out the following purpose (Clause 45.06):

To identify areas which require the preparation of a development contribution plan for the purpose of levying contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities before development can commence.

Under the DCPO provisions a permit granted must ‘include any conditions required to give effect to any contributions or levies imposed…’

Under Schedule 14 to the DCPO, contributions are required to contribute to road and traffic management works, streetscape and environmental improvements and new drainage.  The estimated amount that is now payable for the proposed development is new estimated to be $97,000.  The current permit does not provide any provision for this payment and it not possible to amend the permit to provide for this outcome.  (The contributions do not include a community infrastructure component as this precinct is not proposed for residential purposes).

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.   An application should meet all the relevant tests.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

The change of policy brought about by the approval of Amendment C130 and the introduction of the ACZ and implementation of various planning scheme overlays have been discussed previously in this report.  The changed policy context, in particular the introduction of DCPO14, means that the current permit no longer contains up-to-date planning scheme requirements.  The extension request fails on this test alone.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is no substantial evidence that the owner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit as no previous extensions have been granted.

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

The applicant has not set out any extenuating intervening circumstances.  The permit holder has merely chosen to not act on the permit over the last two years.  During this period the contribution arrangements have formally been introduced into the planning schemes for new applications and proposals.  To the extent that an applicant may be personally inconvenienced by the need to lodge a new application, that reason would not of itself be sufficient to justify the extension when weighed against the need for critical infrastructure funding that would be levied under a new permit that may be issued.  It would not be appropriate that Council incur infrastructure costs associated with the proposed development when these levies can be reasonably required and included in any new planning permit.

The total elapse of time

The total period that has elapsed since the granting of the permit is now two years.   

Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed under the original permit (two years) was reasonable. This period allowed for sufficient time to have plans endorsed and for the development to commence.  Planning officers are not aware of any external constraints preventing the development from proceeding.

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.  An application for building approval had not been lodged or approved and development has not commenced.

The permit holder has paid development contributions pursuant to DCPO (Schedule 3).  This relates to the upgrading of existing drainage infrastructure (and is to be distinguished from the drainage infrastructure component required under the newer DCPO Schedule).  The amount paid DCPO3 is $6,462.  In the event that the permit is not extended this payment may be held as credit for any new permit that may be issued or refunded pending any new permit or in the event that a new application does not proceed.

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

Under the ACZ the site is located within ‘Precinct 5 – Childs Road Employment’. While a development proposal consistent with the previously approved plans is likely to be supported under a new application, it would be subject to different conditions including a requirement for the payment of development contributions.

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 additional planning controls implemented as part of Amendment C130 relating to Epping Central were introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes now require that development contributions be levied to support additional growth in Epping Central.  Because the current permit does not contain these requirements, it is recommended that the extension of time be refused.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to refuse the application to extend Planning Application No. 714498 for the use and development of land for offices and take away food premises at 1/8 Childs Road, Epping and advise the applicant accordingly. 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.8    24 princetown drive, south morang - extension of time request to planning permit - construction of two single storey dwellings

File No:                                  713614

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         M Di Cesare

COUNCIL POLICY:              Nil

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 6)

Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1)

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 713614) allowing the construction of two single storey dwellings. The application seeks to extend the time for the completion of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 16 May 2012 under delegation by officers (as the application was generally in accordance with an approved development plan).  Development in the form of building foundations had commenced with the initial two year commencement period required under the permit but the development was not completed within the four year completion period also specified in the permit.  This completion expiry date was 16 May 2016.  As of this date only the concrete slab of one of the dwellings had been completed.

Under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a request to complete a development may be made within 12 months of a lapse date (i.e. within 12 months of 16 May 2016).  The current application has been received within this prescribed period.

This application is being reported to Council because planning circumstances have changed since the permit was initially granted.  This report recommends that the extension of time relating to the completion of the development be granted as it is 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 State-wide reformed Residential Zones introduced under Amendment VC116 (gazetted 1 July 2014).  Under the Amendment the subject land was rezoned from ‘Residential 1’ to ‘General Residential’. The development approved under the Permit has been assessed to be consistent with the purpose of this new zone. The subject site is not affected by the Housing Diversity Strategy.    

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is formally described as Lot 343 on Plan of Subdivision 539558Q and more generally known as 24 Princeton Drive, South Morang. The subject site is located on the south side of Princetown Drive, South Morang approximately 330m east of Plenty Road (see Attachment 1).  The site is an irregular shaped allotment with a site area of 862m².  The site is a part of the Bellevue Stage 3 Estate.  There are no other medium density style dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.  

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 713614 was granted on 16 May 2012 authorising the construction of two single storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).  The application was issued under delegation by officers as the proposal was generally in accordance with an approved development plan.  Consequently, the application was exempt from adverting requirements.  The permit allows for extensions of time to be granted if development is not completed within the specified four year time period.

Under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a request to complete a development may be made within 12 months of a lapse date (i.e. within 12 months of 16 May 2016).  The current application has been received within this prescribed period.

current permit extension request

The applicant seeks an extension of two (2) years from the current Permit lapse date (16 May 2016) to complete the development due to a protracted legal dispute between the building company and the permit holder.

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was issued on 4 January 2013 the land was located in a Residential 1 Zone.  On 1 July 2014, Amendment VC116 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new Statewide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The subject site is now zoned ‘General Residential’ (Clause 32.08 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme).

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is for two single storey dwellings. The development approved under the Permit and partially commenced remains consistent with Clause 55 (ResCode of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which has remained unchanged..

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 VC116 continues to support the current proposal.

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit.  The permit holder has commenced development under a Building Permit.

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

The completion of the development has been held up because of a legal dispute between the permit holder and the builder.  These circumstances are a relevant consideration in allowing the extension.

The total elapse of time

A period of four years has elapsed since the permit was initially granted in 2012.  During this period the development has commenced.

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 and four year completion 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.  As the development has commenced under the development under a Building Permit and although the extent of development has only involved foundations and the installation of a concrete slab, this still represents an economic and financial commitment that may be compromised if the permit is not extended.

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

As discussed above, under the reformed residential zones, the site is now zoned ‘General Residential’. This zone allows for, and encourages, the provision of diverse housing options. In light of this, it is likely that the permit for the construction of two single storey dwellings would be granted on the subject land should a fresh application 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 reformed residential zoning was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes in policy suggest that it would be 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 granted. 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 713614 for the construction of two single storey dwellings at 24 Princetown Drive, South Morang, and advise the applicant accordingly.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.9    2 Brownhill Street, Bundoora - request for an extension of time - Construction of two double storey dwellings

File No:                                  713880

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         Mr J Pietryszen

COUNCIL POLICY:              Housing Diversity Strategy

ZONING:                               Residential Growth Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL:                          Nil

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 713352) allowing the construction of two double storey dwellings at 2 Brownhill Street, Bundoora. The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement and completion of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 1 February 2013 by planning officers under delegation as no objections had been received following public notification of the application.  One previous extension of time to the permit was granted on 12 February 2015. Following this extension, the permit expired on 1 February 2017 as development had not yet commenced.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within six months of the expiry date.

This application is being reported to Council because planning circumstances have changed since the permit was initially granted.  The report recommends that the extension of time be approved as it is 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, and small scale apartments. The development approved under the permit is considered to be consistent with this preferred character.    

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is formally described as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 509070S and more generally known as 2 Brownhill Street, Bundoora. The site is located on the northeast corner of Brownhill Street and Authur Street, approximately 270m west of Plenty Road, Bundoora (see Attachment 1).  The site is irregular in shape and is relatively flat.

The site is currently occupied by a single dwelling, and vehicular access is provided via an existing concrete crossing located within the northwest corner of the land. Surrounding land is characterised by standard residential development with some nearby medium density housing development.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 713880 was granted by planning officers under delegation on 1 February 2013 (as no objections were received following the advertising period).  The permit authorises the construction of two double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).  The permit has been extended once and expired following this extension on 1 February 2017.  Condition No. 21 of the permit allows for an extension of time to be granted to commence and complete the development.

current permit extension request

The applicant seeks an extension of one (1) year from the current permit expiry date (1 February 2017) to commence the development due to financial reasons.

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was issued on 1 February 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.  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 medium and higher density housing such as townhouses, multi-units, and small scale apartments.

The HDS sets out ‘Key Design Principles’ that encourage a range of medium building heights that is of a ‘human scale’ which will allow for passive surveillance and reduced front setbacks to encourage activation of the street, whilst still allowing sufficient space for appropriate landscaping.  

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is for two double storey dwellings.  This form of development is consistent with the preferred density and building heights for the ‘Neighbourhood Renewal’ change area.  The dwellings are of a reasonable scale and height and will provide passive surveillance to Brownhill Street and Arthur Street. An approved landscape plan demonstrates the provision of low level landscaping and canopy trees.

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.  An application should meet all the relevant tests.

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:

Although one previous extension of time has been granted, there is no evidence at this stage that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit.

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 organising construction, appointing a builder and obtaining finances.

The total elapse of time:

The total period that has elapsed since the granting of the permit is four 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.  A standard two year commencement period and a further two year extension period have been previously granted.

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 Renewal’ change area.  This change area nominates the preferred housing to be characterised by medium and higher density housing such as townhouses, multi-units, and small scale apartments. 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 likely that the current proposal would be supported if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that a further extension of time be approved.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 713880 for a further one year until 1 February 2018 for the construction of two double storey dwellings at 2 Brownhill Street, Bundoora, and advise the applicant accordingly.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.10  15a lochaber place, Epping - request for extension of time to planning permit - construction of five double storey dwellings

File No:                                  713583

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         Modina Home P/L

COUNCIL POLICY:              Nil

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 1)

Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 12)

Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 2)

REFERRAL:                          Nil

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 713583) allowing the construction of five double storey dwellings at 15A Lochaber Place, Epping. The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement and completion of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 29 May 2012 by planning officers under delegation.  One previous extension of time to the permit was granted on 24 April 2014. Following this extension, the permit expired on 29 May 2016 as development had not yet commenced.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within six months of the expiry date.

This application is being reported to Council because planning circumstances have changed since the permit was initially granted.  The report recommends that the extension of time be approved as it is 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 State-wide reformed Residential Zones introduced under Amendment VC116 (gazetted 1 July 2014).  Under the Amendment the subject land was rezoned from ‘Residential 1’ to ‘General Residential’. The development approved under the Permit has been assessed to be consistent with the purpose of this new zone. The subject site is not affected by the Housing Diversity Strategy.    

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is formally described as Lot 1031 on Plan of Subdivision 624575R and more generally known as 15A Lochaber Place, Epping. The site is located on the north side of Lochaber Place, approximately 250m north of O’Herns Road, Epping (see Attachment 1).  The site is irregular in shape and is relatively flat. The site has a total site area of 935m2

The surrounding area is generally characterised by modern estate-style double and single storey dwellings.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 713583 was granted on 29 May 2012 authorising the construction of five double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2).  The application was issued under delegation by officers as the proposal was generally in accordance with an approved development plan.  Consequently, the application was exempt from adverting requirements.  Condition No. 17 of the permit allows for extensions of time to be granted if development does not commence within the two year period.

One previous extension of time to the permit was granted on 24 April 2014. This extension required development to commence by 29 May 2016.  The current request was made within the allowable six month period following this lapse date.

current permit extension request

The applicant seeks an extension of two (2) years from the current permit expiry date (29 May 2016) to commence the development due to a new owner recently acquiring the land and associated financial reasons.

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was issued on 29 May 2012, the land was located in a Residential 1 Zone.  On 1 July 2014, Amendment VC116 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new Statewide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The subject site is now zoned ‘General Residential’ (Clause 32.08 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme).

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is for five double storey dwellings. The development approved under the Permit remains consistent with Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which has remained unchanged.

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 zoning brought about by the approval of Amendment VC116 continue to support the current proposal. 

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

Despite  one previous extension, 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 new ownership of the land.

The total elapse of time

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

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 a further two year extension of that 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.  No development has commenced under the permit and endorsement of plans has not yet occurred. The new permit holder has indicated that arrangement are being made to have plans endorsed and finance approved in preparation of a commencement. 

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

As discussed above, under the reformed residential zones, the site is now zoned ‘General Residential’. This zone allows for, and encourages, the provision of diverse housing options. In light of this, it is likely that the permit for the construction of five double storey dwellings would be granted on the subject land should a fresh application 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 reformed residential zoning was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  Under these changes is remains 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 granted. 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 713583 for the construction of five double storey dwellings at 15A Lochaber Place, Epping, and advise the applicant accordingly.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                              Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

 

6.1.11  Road Reserve Adjacent to 30 Woodcutters Grove, Epping - Removal of native vegetation (One River Red Gum)

File No:                                  716231

Attachments:                        1        Loclaity Map

2        Site Plan

3        Photos of trees   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         Whittlesea City Council

COUNCIL POLICY:              River Redgum Protection Policy

ZONING                                 Road Zone Category 1

OVERLAY:                            Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 12)

Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 2)

REFERRAL:                          Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)

OBJECTIONS:                      The application was not required to be advertised

RECOMMENDATION:         That application be approved

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

 

The application seeks approval to remove a single semi-mature River Red Gum within a road reserve to facilitate the construction of a required path along the west side of Epping Road, Epping. The provision of the path forms part of the implementation of Council’s ‘Missing Links’ program which seeks to ensure that existing and new communities are better integrated with community infrastructure, local transport and retail services..

 

Although planning provisions strongly encourage the retention of indigenous River Red Gums, the removal of the tree is necessary to accommodate critical shared path infrastructure to service the City’s growing population.  Engineering and design options to retain the trees are not considered feasible, would result in the project being unviable and would pose unacceptable safety risks to pedestrians and bicycle users.

 

This report recommends that a planning permit be issued for the removal of the tree.  Conditions will ensure that there is an appropriate offset to compensate for the losses.

 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The tree is located on the road reserve adjacent to 40 Woodcutters Grove, Epping (which is land within the Lydarum Town Centre environs).  An informal and unprotected gravel path currently extends through this area and under the tree subject to this report.

 

Proposal

It is proposed to remove a single semi-mature River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) to facilitate the construction of a 2.5m wide shared concrete path along the west  side of Epping Road (see Attachment 1 and 2).  The construction of this shared path forms part of the implementation of the ‘Missing Links’ program and will fill a gap in the path network to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility to local transport and services. 

 

The tree to be removed (see Attachment 3) is 9.0m in height with a 10m spread and DBH of 48cm.  The tree is in fair health although compromised by overhead power lines.

 

Public Notification and referral

Where a responsible authority is also the applicant for a planning permit, the Planning and Environment Act (1987) and Clause 67 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme set out particular notice requirements.  In relation to the removal of native vegetation, Council was required to refer the application to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).  The authority have not responded to the notice and this can be taken as a non-objection to the proposal.

 

Advertising of the application more broadly to surrounding property owners and occupiers was not required as officers formed the view that no persons would be materially affected by the removal.

 

Planning ASSESSMENT

A planning permit is required for the removal of the tree pursuant to Clause 52.17 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  While this provision sets out exemptions from the need to obtain a planning permit for the removal of native vegetation in order to maintain an existing road, the removal in this instance is required to facilitate new road infrastructure (shared path) and therefore the exemption provisions are not available.  A permit is also required under the Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1) which affects the land.

The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) (Clause 12.01) set out provisions for the protection of biodiversity and native vegetation management with an emphasis on avoiding and minimising losses.  Where losses are unavoidable offsets are required to contribute to biodiversity gains elsewhere.  Other SPPF provisions emphasise the need to improve roads in developing outer suburban areas to cater for car, bicycle and pedestrian movements – with an emphasis on providing safe and efficient transport corridors.

Local Planning Policy Framework provisions also require that Council recognise the importance of River Red Gums in providing character and identity to urban areas.  Clause 22.10 (River Red Gum Protection Policy) states that tree removal should be limited to only those trees independently assessed as presenting a danger to people and property (which has been demonstrated for the tree in question in the context of the proposed works).  

The subject land is included in a Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1).  Council is required to consider the impact of proposals on the operation of the road and public safety.

Under Clause 52.17 of the Planning Scheme (native vegetation), Council is required to consider the steps that have been taken to minimise impacts and losses.  For the current proposal, Council can be satisfied that there are no viable alternatives to retain the tree.  Council’s arborists and traffic engineers have confirmed that the alignment of the path cannot be deviated to avoid the trees without significant impacts on road function and safety. 

Council will be required to provide an offset for the loss of the trees under conditions of permit.  Further conditions will ensure that removed trees continue to be used for habitat purposes.

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 removal of the tree is required to facilitate important community infrastructure in form of a concrete shared path which will provide a ‘missing link’ within the existing path network.  The loss of the semi-mature tree has been assessed as unavoidable and necessary under the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Accordingly, it is recommended that a planning permit be issued, including conditions for an offset to compensate for the loss.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716231 and issue a Permit for the removal of native vegetation (one River Red Gum) in the Road Reserve adjacent to the land described as 30W Woodcutters Grove, Epping in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1.       In order to offset the removal of native vegetation approved as part of this permit (one semi-mature River Red Gum), the permit holder must provide a native vegetation offset prior to the removal of the native vegetation.  The offset must be 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 percent of the strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation approved for removal. Before the native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2.       The permit holder must ensure that the removal of the tree is carried out in a safe manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and VicRoads.

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

4.       Wherever possible and appropriate, the removed tree should be relocated and placed within nearby 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 or VicRoads.

5.       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 in nearby areas.

6.       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 six months afterwards, the permit holder may ask the responsible authority for an extension of time. The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the native vegetation removal may be started or completed.

 

 

 



Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.12  Road Reserve Adjacent to 203-213 McDonalds Road, Epping - Removal of native vegetation (Two River Red Gums)

File No:                                  716230

Attachments:                        1        Locality Map

2        Site Plan

3        Photos of trees   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                         Whittlesea City Council      

COUNCIL POLICY:              River Redgum Protection Policy

ZONING:                               Road Zone Category 1

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO3)

REFERRAL:                          Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)

OBJECTIONS:                      The application was not required to be advertised

RECOMMENDATION:         That the application be approved.

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

 

The application seeks approval to remove two mature River Red Gums within a road reserve to facilitate the construction of a required path along the south side of McDonalds Road, Epping. The provision of the path forms part of the implementation of Council’s ‘Missing Links’ program which seeks to ensure that existing and new communities are better integrated with community infrastructure, local transport and retail services..

 

Although planning provisions strongly encourage the retention of indigenous River Red Gums, the removal of the trees is necessary to accommodate critical pedestrian infrastructure to service the City’s growing population.  Engineering and design options to retain the trees are not considered feasible, would result in the project being unviable and would pose unacceptable safety risks to pedestrians.

 

This report recommends that a planning permit be issued for the removal of the trees.  Conditions will ensure that there is an appropriate offset to compensate for the losses.

 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The mature trees are located on the road reserve adjacent to No. 203-213 McDonalds Road, Epping.  The trees are adjacent to vacant land that is yet to be developed.  An informal gravel path exists between the road pavement and the tree.


 

Proposal

It is proposed to remove two River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) to facilitate the construction of a 1.5m wide concrete footpath along the south side of McDonalds Road adjacent to 203-213 McDonalds Road (see Attachment 1 and 2).  The construction of this section of footpath forms part of the implementation of the ‘Missing Links’ program and will fill a gap in the footpath network to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility to local transport and services.  A summary of the trees to be removed (also see Attachment 3) is provided below:

 

Species

Height

Spread

DBH  (Combined)

Health

Age

Comment

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

 13m

 6m

60cm

 Fair

Mature

Asymmetric with bias to west

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

14m

10m

82cm

Fair

Mature

Asymmetric with bias to the south

 

Public Notification and Referral

Where a responsible authority is also the applicant for a planning permit, the Planning and Environment Act (1987) and Clause 67 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme set out particular notice requirements.  In relation to the removal of native vegetation, Council was required to refer the application to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).  The authority have not responded to the notice and this can be taken as a non-objection to the proposal.

 

Advertising of the application more broadly to surrounding property owners and occupiers was not required as officers formed the view that no persons would be materially affected by the removal.

Planning ASSESSMENT

A planning permit is required for the removal of the tree pursuant to Clause 52.17 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  While this provision sets out exemptions from the need to obtain a planning permit for the removal of native vegetation in order to maintain an existing road, the removal in this instance is required to facilitate new road infrastructure and therefore the exemption provisions are not available.

The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) (Clause 12.01) set out provisions for the protection of biodiversity and native vegetation management with an emphasis on avoiding and minimising losses.  Where losses are unavoidable offsets are required to contribute to biodiversity gains elsewhere.  Other SPPF provisions emphasise the need to improve roads in developing outer suburban areas to cater for car, bicycle and pedestrian movements – with an emphasis on providing safe and efficient transport corridors.

Local Planning Policy Framework provisions also require that Council recognise the importance of River Red Gums in providing character and identity to urban areas.  Clause 22.10 (River Red Gum Protection Policy) states that tree removal should be limited to only those trees independently assessed as presenting a danger to people and property (which has been demonstrated for the trees in question in the context of the proposed works).  

The subject land is included in a Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1).  Council is required to consider the impact of proposals on the operation of the road and public safety.

Under Clause 52.17 of the Planning Scheme (native vegetation), Council is required to consider the steps that have been taken to minimise impacts and losses.  For the current proposal, Council can be satisfied that there are no viable alternatives to retain the trees.  Council’s arborists and traffic engineers have confirmed that the alignment of the path cannot be deviated to avoid the trees without significant impacts on road function and safety. 

Council will be required to provide an offset for the loss of the trees under conditions of permit.  Further conditions will ensure that removed trees continue to be used for habitat purposes.

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 removal of the two trees are required to facilitate important community infrastructure in form of a sealed footpath which will provide  a ‘missing link’ within the existing path network.  The loss of the two trees has been assessed as unavoidable and necessary under the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Accordingly, it is recommended that a planning permit be issued, including conditions for an offset to compensate for the losses.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716230 and issue a Permit for the removal of native vegetation (two River Red Gums) in the Road Reserve adjacent to the land described as 203-213 McDonalds Road, Epping subject to the following conditions:

1.       In order to offset the removal of native vegetation approved as part of this permit (two mature River Red Gums), the permit holder must provide a native vegetation offset prior to the removal of the native vegetation.  The offset must be 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 percent of the strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation approved for removal. Before the native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2.       The permit holder must ensure that the removal of the trees is carried out in a safe manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and VicRoads.

3.       After the trees have been felled, the trees must be protected from firewood harvesting via temporary fencing and signage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and VicRoads until such time as the trees have been relocated for habitat or mulched.

4.       Wherever possible and appropriate, the removed trees should be relocated and placed within nearby 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 or VicRoads.

5.       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 in nearby areas.

6.       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 six months afterwards, the permit holder may ask the responsible authority for an extension of time. The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the native vegetation removal may be started or completed.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.13  820 Plenty Road, South Morang - Installation and use of 40 Electronic Gaming Machines, alterations and extensions to Hotel and reduction in standard car parking and bicycle parking requirements

File No:                                  715988

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Principal Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                         ALH Group Property Holdings

COUNCIL POLICY:              City of Whittlesea Gambling Strategy and Action Plan

ZONING:                               Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z)

Residential Growth Zone Schedule 1 (UGZ1)

OVERLAY:                            Heritage Overlay

OBJECTIONS:                      128 objections received

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council resolve to not support the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing Commercial Hotel including conversion of the drive-through bottle shop to a function room and a roof top bar and beer garden on the northern side of the hotel.  It also proposes the installation and use of 40 Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) within the existing building in the area presently used for the TAB Agency.

The proposed alterations and additions are considered to be satisfactory.

However, the proposed installation and use of the EGMs is not supported, based on consideration of controls and policies set out in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  There was an earlier application for license to the VCGLR considered by Council in July 2016, where it was resolved to oppose approval for gambling (40 EGMs) at the Hotel.  This was also refused by the VCGLR at the formal hearing of the application for license.

The Applicant has now appealed to VCAT against the VCGLR refusal, and concurrently lodged an appeal against the planning application not yet being determined.

The planning application was advertised and there have been numerous objections received,

Council’s opposition to the VCGLR license application was based on social and economic impacts.  The planning application is similarly for the 40 EGMs as well as the additions and alterations which are (at least in part) to facilitate the EGM accommodation.  It is recommended that the planning application not be supported.


 

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The site is the Commercial Hotel, situated on the northeastern corner of Plenty Road and Gorge Road, South Morang.  The site has an area of 1.2ha with frontages to both Plenty Road and Gorge Road.  The hotel is situated at the southwestern corner of the site, and is partly constructed to each road frontage.

The hotel as it presently operates involves the following:

·    It includes a Bistro, TAB bar, public bar, and drive-through bottle shop.

·    Dan Murphy bottle shop in a freestanding building at the rear of the hotel, close to the eastern boundary.

·    The first floor of the hotel is office space and associated with the hotel.

·    Operating hours of between 7.00am to 1.00am Monday to Saturday, 10.00am to 11.00pm on Sundays, and 12.00noon to 1.00am on Good Friday and Anzac Day.

The adjoining land to the north and east is being developed with a medium and higher density residential development, with previous approval for apartment buildings and townhouses.  The first stage is nearing completion, which includes townhouses along the Gorge Road frontage and to the rear and a small apartment building close to the boundary with Dan Murphy’s.

Opposite the site on the south side of Gorge Road is a small strip shopping centre comprising a number of shops and commercial premises with indented parking in front.  Opposite on the site (oppositie Plenty Road) is the former Masters development, with a number of adjacent dwellings at 841 Plenty Road.

restrictions and easements

There are no encumbrances, restriction or agreement registered on the title.

Proposal

The proposal includes buildings and works to facilitate alterations to the existing hotel, alteration to the licensed area and the installation of 40 EGMs.  In more detail, the main elements of the proposal are as follows:

·    The conversion of the existing drive-through bottle shop to provide a 305m2 function room with ancillary facilities including toilets, a bar and a separate main entrance.

·    Construction of a new roof-top bar and beer garden on the northern side of the building, with newly installed lift and staircase adjacent to the public bar area on ground level.

·    Alteration (increase) to the licensed area to accommodate the proposed first floor beer garden.

·    Internal modifications to the area within the hotel currently used as the TAB agency to provide an enclosed space for the proposed gaming room.  This is on the eastern side of the building

·    The installation of 40 EGMs within the gaming room, with hours proposed being 10.00am to 1.00am on Sundays, 12.00noon to 1.00am on Good Friday and Anzac Day, and 10.00am to 1.00am on all other days.

The application was accompanied by several expert reports, including:

·    Acoustic report (Marshall Day April 2016)

·    Traffic and transport assessment (Cardno May 2016)

·    Heritage assessment alterations and additions (Bryce Raworth April 2016)

·    Planning report (Urbis May 2016)

·    Social and economic impact assessment (Urbis April 2016)

background

The Hotel does not currently operate any EGMs.

The application was lodged concurrently with the copy of the Hotel’s application to the Victorian Commission for Gaming and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR).  This is a process distinct from the planning application process and required a response from Council as to its position and whether it sought to be heard by the VCGLR.

Council considered the VCGLR application at its meeting held 19 July 2016, where it resolved:

1.       Note an application has been lodged with the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) from Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (ALH) Applicant) for approval of premises for gambling at the Commercial Hotel (Hotel), 820 Plenty Road South Morang for 40 electronic gaming machines (EGMs), with the following supporting documentation:

a)      Social and Economic Impact Assessment, May 2016 (Urbis Pty Ltd)

b)      Expenditure Report, 19 May 2016 (ShineWing Australia)

2.       Note and consider the Social and Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) – (July 2016) report commissioned by Council

3.       On the basis of the evidence presented in the SEIA (July 2016) oppose the application by ALH for approval of premises for gambling suitable for 40 EGMs at the Commercial Hotel, 820 Plenty Road South Morang and:

i)       Follow the processes outlined by the VCGLR to oppose the application

ii)      Submit the SEIA commissioned by Council to the VCGLR indicating Council does not support the application by ALH for approval of premises for gambling suitable for 40 EGMs at the Commercial Hotel, 820 Plenty Road South Morang

iii)     Be represented at the VCGLR hearing (legal and expert witness representation)

The VCGLR application was heard on 15 to 17 November 2016 with Council represented in accordance with the above resolution.  It is recommended that this representation be continued for the VCAT hearing.

The VCGLR decided to refuse the application, with its written decision released on 12 December 2016.

In coming to that decision, the VCGLR placed significant weight on Council’s submission, stating that (at paragraph 169):

According to the Council SEIA, the Council considers that the Application would have, on balance, “a net detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the municipal district”.  While the Council SEIA did not identify any beneficial impacts of the Application, the SGS Report found that the community was not significantly socio-economically disadvantaged (which reduced the risk of harm associated with problem gambling) and the Applicant was likely to have a positive impact on the provision of entertainment and recreational facilities in the area.  However, these benefits were outweighed by the negative impacts associated with the Application, in particular the increase in gambling-related harms resulting from increased incidents of problem gambling and accessibility of EGMs, net employment losses in the municipality and the detrimental impacts on community health and connectedness.  The Council also provided evidence of a degree of community disquiet and opposition to the Application to which the Commission has had regard.

The VCGLR concluded as follows (at paragraph 170):

After consideration of the material before it, including the evidence provided at the public hearing, and weighted as outlined above and summarised in tabular form at Appendix One of these Reasons for Decision, the Commission has concluded that there is likely to be a net negative social and economic impact to the well-being of the community in the municipal district in which the Premises is located if the Application is approved.

The Applicant has lodged an Appeal to VCAT against the VCGLR refusal, and has concurrently lodged an appeal against this Planning Permit Application not having yet been decided (failure to determine).  The two matters will be heard concurrently by VCAT.

Due to the Appeal lodged against the Planning Application, the matter can still be determined by Council but the formal decision not issued.  VCAT will consider the Council position as part of its consideration, as it would consider a formal approval or refusal.

Public Notification

Advertising of the application was undertaken by mail notification to surrounding and nearby owners/occupiers, signs at both street frontages and notice in the local newspaper.  The advertising has resulted in 128 objections being received.  The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1.       Poker machines can be correlated with many social problems, including problem gambling, crime and family violence.

2.       The social and economic harm caused by poker machines.

3.       The harm to other small businesses and potential loss of jobs.  It would result in a net employment loss in the area.

4.       The Commercial Hotel is one of very few non-gaming hotels in the area, and the introduction of gaming will remove the option of having a ‘pokie free’ hotel more suited to families.

5.       The location is unsuitable because it is a shopping precinct.

6.       Inadequate parking and traffic congestion.

Notably, a number of objections include detailed written submission from several organisations including:

·    Whittlesea Interagency Taskforce on Gambling

·    Plenty Valley Community Health

·    Whittlesea Community Legal Service

·    Women’s Health in the North

·    Victorian Counselling & Psychological Services

·    Nillumbik Shire Council

·    Kildonan Uniting Care

PLANNING controls and assessment

While the proposal is essentially packaged as a single proposal, it essentially comprises two main elements:

·    The alterations and additions to the hotel.

·    The proposal for the installation of 40 EGM’s.

The proposal triggers the following planning permit requirements under the Planning Scheme:

 

·    Buildings and works in the Commercial 1 Zone – Clause 34.01

·    Buildings and works in the Residential Growth Zone – Clause 32.07

·    Buildings and works in the Heritage Overlay – Clause 43.01

·    To increase the area that Liquor can be consumed or supplied (under existing Liquor License) – Clause 52.27

·    The installation and use of Electronic Gaming Machines – Clause 52.08

·    To waive standard number of car spaces – Clause 52.06

·    To waive the standard bicycle facilities – Clause 52.34

 

Planning and Environment Act

Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act provides that in deciding on a planning permit application, the Council must consider (among other things) “…any significant social effects and economic effects which the responsible authority considers the use or development may have.”

This section of the Act is reiterated in the Planning Scheme as a guideline for decision making where appropriate (at Clause 65.01).  This provision is particularly relevant to the proposal for the installation and use of the EGM’s in this instance.

In dealing with the VCGLR license request, the application included a Social and Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) prepared by Urbis.  This concluded that the net effects of the installation of 40 EGMs at the Hotel will not be detrimental to the wellbeing of the local community or the broader community in the City of Whittlesea.  It was seen that the proposal would unlikely act as the primary attraction or change the focus of the venue and concludes the impact on problem gambling at the venue will be minimal

Council commissioned an independent SEIA (D. Bell, July 2016) to assist in informing its decision in that regard.  The purpose of this report was to assess the potential impacts of a new gaming venue focussing on health and related social impacts of problem and harmful gambling at individual, family and community levels.  A public health approach to assess impacts of more EGMs present on the population and the whole municipality was chosen as the best area for analysis as 75% of the population lives within a viable driving distance from the hotel.

The Independent SEIA commissioned by Council concluded the proposal for 40 EGMs at the Hotel will have, on balance, a net detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the municipal district.  This informed the Council decision to oppose the application.

In the subsequent hearing, the VCGLR similarly concluded that there is likely to be a net negative social and economic impact to the well-being of the community in the municipal district.

Notwithstanding the VCGLR decision, Council has already reached a resolution in relation to the social and economic impacts, based on the independent SEIA (Bell, July 2016).

State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

The elements of the SPPF considered to be particularly relevant are as follows:

·    Clause 10.04 – Integrated Decision Making

·    Clause 11.01 – Activity Centres

·    Clause 11.02 – Urban Growth

·    Clause 15 – Built Environment

·    Clause 15.03 – Heritage

·    Clause 17.01 - Commercial

These clauses seek to ensure outcomes that balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit, ensure that commercial activities are in locations that are easily accessible, encourage development that respects identified heritage values, facilitate development that provides for likely parking demands and encourage development that is sustainable and accessible

Notably, the SPPF is silent on the issue of gaming.

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The elements of the LPPF considered to be particularly relevant are as follows:

·    Clause 21.03 – Council Vision and Strategic Framework

·    Clause 31.08 – Built Environment and Heritage

·    Clause 21.10 – Economic Development

These clauses seek to maintain the character of the municipality while progressively upgrading the image and appearance, retain the significance of heritage buildings, to provide for sustainable economic opportunities, economic activity which is responsive to the economic and employment needs of the community, and compatibility of proposals with adjoining and nearby land uses.

Similarly, the LPPF does not provide policy guidance on gaming issues.

Zoning Controls

The land is in both the Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) and the Urban Growth Zone Schedule 1 (UGZ1).  The proposed buildings and works are predominantly in the C1Z, with the drive-through bottle shop (proposed function room) partly in the UGZ1.

Both zones provide that a permit is required for buildings and works.

Overlay Controls

Heritage Overlay

A permit is required for any buildings and works or demolition within the Heritage Overlay.

The Commercial Hotel is a heritage place of local significance under the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Architecturally, the significance of the building is generally limited to the original two-storey form at the Plenty Road and Gorge Road frontages, and not to the rear extensions and drive-through bottle shop.  That heritage part of the building is recognised as an elaborate version of Federation freestyle architecture and a dominant feature of the local landscape.

The application includes a Heritage Report (Bryce Raworth April 2016) which concludes that the proposed alterations and additions have been designed with regard to the character, appearance and significance of the heritage building.

The proposed alterations include little exterior alteration, which is limited to the roof top beer garden which is at the rear of the building, well away from the original hotel building.  The conversion of the bottle shop to a function room is mainly an internal alteration with a new entry door on the eastern side of the hotel.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

This Clause prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site, and require that a permit be obtained to reduce the parking requirement.  In this instance, the requirement for any additional parking, relates to the increase in floor area or patronage.

A traffic report submitted with the application establishes that the required number of car spaces were available. This is based on a number of site surveys regarding the use and availability of existing parking

Clause 52.27 Licensed Premises

This Clause provides that a permit is required if the licensed area is to be increased.  In this instance a permit would be required to include the roof top bar area as part of the licensed area.

Clause 52.28 Gaming

This Clause provides that a permit is required to install or use a gaming machine(s).  The stated purpose of this Clause includes:

To ensure that gaming machines are situated in appropriate locations and premises.

To ensure the social and economic impacts of the location of gaming machines are considered.

To prohibit gaming machines in specified shopping complexes and strip shopping centres.

It also includes a number of decision guidelines to be considered as appropriate:

§ The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

§ The compatibility of the proposal with adjoining and nearby land uses.

§ The capability of the site to accommodate the proposal.

§ Whether the gaming premises provides a full range of hotel facilities or services to patrons or a full range of club facilities or services to members and patrons.

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

This Clause seeks to encourage cycling as a mode of transport.  Assessment under this Clause based on the additional increase in floor area only attracts a requirement for eight bicycle parking spaces.  A permit is required to reduce or waive that requirement.

In this instance the additional floor area related to the proposed roof top bar and beer garden.  This is not considered a significant change to the way the Hotel operates at present, and a waiving of that requirement is considered to be appropriate.

council policy

The City of Whittlesea Gambling Strategy and Action Plan 2014-2024 was adopted by Council on 9 December 2014.  It has the vision to minimise the harm associated with gambling in the municipality through investing in health and community well-being, while recognising that EGMs are a legal recreational activity that forms part of a range of entertainment options available to the community.  It seeks to promote healthy communities to mitigate the harms associated with EGMs by adopting a public health approach.  This approach recognises that many factors influence both the health and wellbeing of individuals, families, businesses and community.

The Strategy objectives are that Council will:

1.   Effectively lead in working towards reducing the harm to public health caused by gambling.

2.   Advocate for best practise gambling regulation and policy changes that reduce the potential harms to the social, economic, environmental and health outcomes of current and future City of Whittlesea residents.

3.   Provide transparent and coordinated decision-making across Council in relation to gambling, especially in Council’s role as a regulator and planning authority.

While the policy assists in informing Council’s decision relating to EGMs, it does not form part of the Planning Scheme and will be afforded very limited weight in the VCAT consideration of the Planning Permit Application.

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 under the provisions the proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance relating to the proposed buildings and works (alterations and additions to the hotel) as outlined.  However, it is considered that the installation and use of the proposed 40 EGMs will have a detrimental social and economic impacts and will cause net community harm.

As the proposal is an integrated application, and the alteration and additions are part of the overall proposal for the installation of the EGMs, it is recommended that Council resolve that it would refuse the application.

Recommendation

A       THAT Council resolve that if it could formally determine the application, it would refuse Planning Application No. 715988 for the installation and use of 40 Electronic Gaming Machines, alterations and extensions to the existing hotel and reduction in the standard car parking and bicycle parking requirements at 820 Plenty Road, South Morang on the following grounds:

1.       The social and economic impacts of the location of the gaming machines will cause social and economic harm to the community and will not result in a net community benefit.

2.       The location is inappropriate for gaming machines given the characteristics of the activity centre that includes convenience shopping and retail uses.

3.       The area and the local community are already well served by accessible gambling facilities.

4.       There are limited other similar facilities in the vicinity of the site which offer alternative forms of non-gaming entertainment.

5.       The provision and use of electronic gaming machines would be inconsistent with the decision of the Victorian Commission for Gaming and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) on 12 December 2016 to not allow gaming machines.

B       THAT Council resolve to continue with representation (legal and expert witness) at the VCAT hearing.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.14  Planning Efficiencies

File No:                                  192007

Attachments:                        1        Statistical Analysis

2        Instrument of Delegation

3        Sample Weekly "Call In" Report   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Manager Development Assessment   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

A comprehensive review of the planning assessment process has not been undertaken within the City of Whittlesea for over 2 decades.  Planning has become more complex with additional considerations, as well as significant increases in population and application numbers over that period.

 

It is important to ensure that those decisions needing to be made by Council are made at that level, whilst remaining applications are processed promptly and efficiently to ensure minimal delays and impact on the local economy, job growth and investment (including infrastructure).

 

This report outlines the impact the current planning assessment process is having on Council performance and provides options available to streamline and improve the decision making process, without compromising Council oversight and control.  The streamlined process also provides opportunity to free up Council time for a greater focus on higher level strategic matters, like planning controls that shape planning assessments.

Introduction

Council’s instrument of delegations under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 allow Council Officers to make decisions on behalf of Council.  While many of these decisions are administrative in nature, such as requesting additional information, some decisions may have broader implications for the municipality.  Despite changes to the statutory planning framework over the last few decades, and the growing and changing population, workload and community needs/involvement in applications, the planning delegation from Council to members of Council staff has remained unchanged for assessments and been reduced when considering permit extensions.

Background

The current delegation that applies to planning permit applications at the City of Whittlesea is as follows:

·    Council determines an application if objections have been received;

·    Council determines an application that results in the loss of one or more River Red Gums.

·    Officers cannot refuse an application other than for ‘procedural matters’ such as prohibited activities; or as directed by a statutory referral authority; or applications that are contrary to a restrictive covenant.

·    Council determines the great majority of applications for extension of time for a permit.

 

The preparation of Council reports requires a significant amount of Council Officer time and can delay the decision making process by a minimum of 4 weeks, although this can extend out to closer to 11 weeks where a matter is deferred.

 

Analysis was undertaken for the 2016 calendar year where on average more than 90 applications are presented to Council across the calendar year (approx 6 per Council meeting), which represents around 10% of all applications received for that year.  This is now forecasted to increase to around 15-20 planning matters (including extension of time requests) being reported to each meeting which has been evident at the first two meetings of 2017.

 

The estimated value of works for permits is over half a billion dollars annually which is comparative with the City of Hume and City of Wyndham, as well as bigger inner city Councils.  The State Government’s 2010 expansion of the growth areas means that development activity will continue to be a key focus for the City of Whittlesea for considerable time.  To ensure that our competitive advantage as a preferred location for investment is maintained, and our resources are focused on ensuring quality outcomes for the Community, it is critical that we explore opportunities to streamline our decision making processes, without limiting the ability for elected representatives to represent community views.

Our Performance

An analysis of statistics in relation to planning applications and reports to Council across 2016 revealed that:

·    89% of those matters decided by Council were consistent with the Officer recommendation of which 47 (57%) were decided en bloc. 

·    100% of all tree removal applications referred to Council were consistent with the officer recommendation and decided en bloc.

·    Of the 5 planning permit applications where Council’s decisions have overturned officer recommendations in 2016, 3 have been appealed at VCAT to date, of which only one has been heard.  Of the one heard VCAT reversed Council’s decision.

 

Refer attachment 1 for more information on the above analysis.

 

In summary the analysis revealed that more than half of the applications were decided en bloc without discussion, indicating there is opportunity for streamlining the decision process, without compromising Council control. 

 

These trends have continued for the first two meetings of 2017 with 91% (32/35) of decisions adopting the officer recommendation and only 5 matters have been discussed by Council with 85% being decided en bloc and without any discussion.

 

Over the past 3 years, on average more than 125 extension of time requests have been received each year.  These requests are now being reported to Council where a change in circumstance has occurred or where the recommendation is for a refusal.  13 were reported to Council over the last 3 meetings of 2016 with Council supporting 9 of the recommendations and overturning 4, which all related to officer recommendations for refusal. 

Delegation Analysis

Previous and current surveys of Councils (comprising both Growth area and north region Councils) demonstrate that the level of delegation is higher for other Councils when compared to the City of Whittlesea.  More general investigations indicate Whittlesea has one of the lowest planning delegations in Victoria. Importantly, many other Councils have a ‘call in’ process that assists filtering those applications that Councillors are and are not interested in, as opposed to using a catch all mechanism. 

The criteria for delegation can vary based on the number of objections, if it’s a straight refusal, or the type of application, such as tree removal, where a permit is being appealed at VCAT, or if it’s an application for extension of time.  

 

1.   Objections

 

Delegating decisions based on the number of objections received in response to a planning application is a common mechanism to determine whether a matter can be determined by Council Officers or at a Council Meeting.

 

With regard to the level of delegation, the Councils previously surveyed allow planning permit applications with between 3 to 14 objections to be determined under delegation, with the exception of City of Banyule, which does not specify a number of objections and essentially uses a call in process to identify planning applications that are to be determined at a Council meeting.  Some of the objector requirements have qualifiers, such as that the objector must live within 200m of the site that is the subject of the application and the most commonly used trigger is that of 5 objections.

 

Council will also occasionally receive petitions and group objections in response to planning permit applications.  Each petition and group objection, despite the number of signatures, is measured as one objection (common among Councils), although petitions will often call the on the Council to do something like refuse an application, rather than identify how they will be affected by a proposal.

 

2.   Refusals

 

Currently, applications that clearly propose a development or use that is contrary to the planning scheme policy or fail to meet the technical /specific provision of the scheme require the application to be listed for Council to determine.  The exception is for procedural matters which have not been identified in the delegations, such as where a referral authority has objected and Council has no option but refusal, or where there is a breach of a registered restrictive covenant, or where something is prohibited.

 

Mitchell Shire has expanded the procedural or to also include situations where the required and necessary information has not been provided, or where a proposal is not in accordance with an approved Development Plan, Precinct Structure Plan or other approved plan. In addition Mitchell considers refusal procedural where an advertising direction has not been complied with in a specific time, not less than 14 days.

 

Based on analysis, a majority of all applications at Whittlesea are supported (96%) and it is rare that an officer’s recommendation of refusal of a planning application be overturned by Council, with the exception of some extension of time requests which are delegated to officers at all other Council’s previously surveyed.

 

3.   Tree Removal

 

An application involving the removal of one or more river red gum trees must be referred to Council for a decision, unless falling into a VicSmart category where it is then dealt with under delegation.  This is irrespective of health, safety, size and whether they are regrowth or otherwise.

 

VicSmart was established through an amendment to the Planning and Environment Act in September 2012 to allow a streamlined permit process to be set up in planning schemes for straightforward, low impact proposals. The vast majority of planning applications received by the City of Whittlesea are assessed under normal procedures, however, there are a small number (<5%) processed under the VicSmart provisions. 

VicSmart provisions establish the CEO, or delegated officer, as the responsible authority, overriding Council delegations for permits in that category. 

 

The fact that the current delegations do not distinguish between the size and health of a trees means that an application as simple as removal of a sapling, or large dead tree that is a safety hazard still needs to be reported to Council.

 

4.   VCAT and Mediation/Compulsory Conference

 

In some circumstances, Council officers are asked by Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to make a decision on behalf of Council.  This typically occurs during mediation/compulsory conferences but can also occur during a hearing.  Discussions with other Councils revealed that many do not have a formal process in place, but allow Council officers to make decisions on behalf of the Council at VCAT.  In these cases it is understood that there is an expectation that any decision made by a Council officer on behalf of the Council will be consistent with any previous decision of the Council.

 

At the City of Whittlesea, current delegation requires matters in this category that have been determined by Council to be reported back to Council to enable appropriate representation at VCAT.  This is not always possible due to timeframes and the cyclical nature of the Council meetings.

 

It is acknowledged that there is some flexibility with respect to forming a position on a matter where an appeal against a failure to make a decision has been lodged.  Delegates can form a view where timeframes do not permit something going back to Council, and a report must be presented to the subsequent meeting for information.

 

The situation becomes even more complex, as in many instances during the VCAT process amended plans are circulated that may address some or all of Council’s reasons for the refusal.  There will be instances where sufficient time is afforded to prepare a report to Council seeking a consent order based on the changes; however this will not always be the case

 

5.   Extension of time to planning permit requests

 

Delegates have the power to extend the time of a permit (both commencement and completion) where circumstances have not changed.  This is somewhat ambiguous to interpret and in many instances will have no bearing on the decision, especially for those extensions to permits that are to complete works that have already started.

 

All refusals of extension of time requests must go to Council regardless of changed circumstances.

Call in Procedures

All Councils previously surveyed have a process in place to ensure that the Councillors are made aware of planning applications that have been lodged and enable Councillors to ‘call in’ applications of interest to Council Meetings for a decision. The process for “call in” varies amongst the Councils surveyed and has been adapted to the level of delegation that exists.  Some Councils require a ‘seconder’ to a request to call a matter in which ensures an even more transparent process that can reduce criticism of individual councillors.

 

Refer to attachment 2 for an example on how a “call in” report may look. Depending on Council’s view, this could be revised to include more or less information to satisfy Council.

 

DISCUSSION

There is no question that certain types of applications should be presented to Council for a decision, including those that are important to Councillors in their role in representing the Community.  In fact the Local Government Act describes the role of Council as providing leadership by establishing strategic objectives, through taking into account the diverse needs of the community in decision making, and ensuring resources are managed in a responsible and accountable manner to name a few.

 

Finding the balance is difficult and while there are opportunities for Council to be more involved at a strategic level in formulating planning controls and policy that guide the future development, there will always be instances on the ground where involvement should be occurring at the statutory level.  That balance must also have regard for the competing interests of both applicants and objectors. We do not want to unnecessarily hold up decisions and add costs and timelines that can impact on local businesses, job stimulation and creation of new homes for members of our community.  We also want to provide clarity for objectors as quickly as possible as applications can place a mental strain on community members who may not want a development occurring next door to them.

 

Job growth is becoming increasingly competitive amongst growth area Council’s due to the rapid increase in population and travel times to employment.  Being able to facilitate and fast track certain commercial applications that generate jobs can be difficult due to the timeframes associated with presenting applications to Council.

 

A high majority of extension of time requests are approved and there will almost always be a change in circumstance as the planning scheme is an evolving document.  The level of change can vary considerably and in many cases will not affect the outcome (i.e. a change to the Municipal Strategic Statement of a higher level policy would be unlikely to render an application inappropriate), however in other instances it will.  Given the breadth of what constitutes a change in circumstance, almost every extension of time request will be required to be reported to Council irrespective of the recommendation which will contribute an extra 125 reports on average annually which is more than 8 per meeting on top of planning applications.

 

There are also risks to local builders needing to complete developments and having to wait for the next available Council meeting for confirmation that their permit has been extended to complete development.  This can in some instances be a 4 or more week wait which impacts on the coordination of other local trades, impacts on income as the next job may not be able to be started and can affect settlement dates for new owners moving in.

 

Decision timeframes are yet another important consideration having regard to delegations as they are important to applicants and service users as well as how Council is measured by the State Government through Local Government Performance Reporting Framework and via the ‘Know Your Council’ website.  The decisions on average for 2015/16 were 19 more days per application than other similar growth and interface councils, whilst we also achieved 3% less on average for the number of decisions made within the statutory timeframe.  This trend has continued to Quarter 2 for the 2016/17 period with additional days to a decision and even less being decided within the statutory timeframe.

 

There were a total of 27 planning permit applications reported to Council for a decision in quarters 1 & 2 of the 2016/17 financial year.  Only 1 of these was decided within the 60 statutory day timeframe, with the remaining 97% decided outside. 

 

One of the key contributing factors to this result is the number of applications that are reported to Council and the lead in time needed to prepare and review the reports that, in the majority of cases, result in the application being determined outside of the statutory timeframe.

Proposal

To summarise the earlier content, delegations should:

·    Ensure those applications of importance at the higher level to the community are being considered by Council;

·    Avoid unnecessary delays for matters being caught up in the process unintentionally;

·    Enable efficiency in decision making, use of resources and Council meeting time; and

·    Ensure open transparency in decision making.

 

To achieve this, it is proposed that the planning delegation be revised as follows:

 

·    Make changes to position titles to ensure they are correct and accurate;

·    Introduce a ‘call in’ procedure that requires 2 Councillors (a requestor and seconder) to advise the CEO, Director and/or Manager that they would like a matter to be brought before Council for a decision;

·    All applications that receive 5 or more objections to be considered by Council;

·    Applications can be refused under delegation, unless called in by Council;

·    Applications involving the removal of two or more river red gum trees that have a trunk diameter of 50 centimetres or more at 1.3 metres above ground level must be reported to Council for a decision;

·    The power to form a position on a matter after an appeal has been lodged can occur under delegation unless there were more than 5 objections or the matter had been ‘called in’ before the appeal was lodged;

·    All applications seeking an extension of time can be considered under delegation, unless called in by Council.

 

The above proposal ensures that Councillors retain the right for matters over certain criteria to be ‘called in’ prior to a decision being made which is the most effective method for capturing those matters that should be brought before Council and that does not unnecessarily hold up decisions and timeframes.

 

There will need to be key mechanics behind the ‘call in’ process including:

 

·    Provision of weekly lists provided to Councillors via the Councillor portal for review; Refer to Attachment 2 for example “call in” report

·    Agreed criteria for more significant applications that would be identified on the list;

·    Better access to our online Planning Application Status and Tracking Application (PASTA) which allows real time review of live applications and where they are in the process via the Whittlesea website;

·    Agreed procedures for ‘calling in’ applications

·    Agreed procedures for requesting more information about an application to enable decisions to be made.

 

The current delegations would be used as a guide for what would appear on the weekly distribution list, except for extension of time requests where the officer recommendation was for approval.  Consultation with Councillors revealed that this was not an interest area.  These changes would achieve an increase in the number of planning permit applications being decided under delegation which would have the benefit of Council focussing on the matters that are important to them and more time would be provided to discuss and debate those important applications during meetings.  It would enable an increase in the decisions made within the 60 day statutory timeframe and continued methods of providing information to Council on delegated decisions would need to be maintained.

 

Under this proposal, the amount of information being made available to Councillors would be increasing in volume and frequency enabling them to make more informed decisions about what should be presented to Council for a decision.

This proposal is reflected in the changes to the Instrument of Delegation from Council to Members of Council Staff– see Attachment 3.

 

To complement the delegation reforms, it would also be proposed that a priority development process be developed and implemented that sets a specific focus for facilitating developments that create jobs and investment within the municipality.

Consultation

In preparing this report, consultation has taken place with relevant representatives from internal departments and the options were presented at a Council Forum on 14 February 2017.  Additional meetings have occurred with Councillors not in attendance at the forum to ensure that their views were taken into consideration in preparing this report and proposal.

Financial Implications

At present, each Council Report can take 2 to 5 days of preparation, review, editing, documenting and finalising so that it can be considered at a relevant Council meeting.

 

The community benefits through faster decisions as processing times are reduced, customer service is enhanced, new homes are built, there is increased economic development and job creation as well as increased investment across the municipality.

Policy strategy and legislation

As a legal entity, Council can exercise certain powers by resolution of the whole Council at a Council meeting or through members of Council staff acting on its behalf. This Instrument delegates Council powers directly from Council to members of Council staff under section 98 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Delegations are to positions and not to individuals to ensure that delegations do not become obsolete or ineffective in the event of a staff member leaving the organisation or being absent or on leave. In these instances, the delegated powers of the position are automatically transferred to the Council officer acting in the position.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous improvements

Strategic Objective              Council adopts best practice models of operation

 

Future Direction 3: Growing Our Economy – There are a diverse range of local employment opportunities

 

Future Direction 7: Good Governance – Council provides an efficient and effective service to residents

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

Changing legislation, increasing proportion of applications with objections and the increasing focus on more strategic planning matters of significance by Council demonstrates a need for change to the current planning delegation. Opportunities exist for Council to maintain the same level of control that it currently has on planning assessments, through the introduction of a “call in” process, whilst reducing red tape for the applicants.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to;

1.       Delegate the powers, duties and functions set out in the attached Instrument of Delegation to members of council staff, subject to the conditions and limitations specified in the Instrument effective from 21 March;

2.       Officers commence distribution of the weekly list of applications for call-in purposes; and

3.       Officers investigate, prepare and implement a priority development process with associated criteria to facilitate planning applications that create jobs and investment.

 

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

 

Sample Weekly ‘Call in’ report

 

Application Number

Date Received

Property

Applicant

Description

Status

Value

717111

01/01/2017

25 Ferres Boulevard, South Morang

Griffin Property Group

Use and Development of a 10 storey residential apartment building and reduction in car parking requirements

Site Area: 8500m2

Site Coverage: 60%

Advertising: Yes

Objections: 4

Grounds of objection: Overlooking, overdevelopment, insufficient parking

Officer recommendation: Refusal on the grounds of:

·      Overdevelopment

·      Bulk & Scale

·      Car Parking

·      Waste Management

$20million

717222

10/01/2017

24 Dalton Road, Thomastown

ABC Consulting

Construction of one (1) double storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling

Site Area: 620m2

Site Coverage: 43%

Advertising: Yes

Objections: 1

Grounds of objection: Overlooking, overshadowing, privacy and devaluation

Officer recommendation: Approval with conditions as the development complies with:

·      HDS

·      Open space, site coverage

·      Car Parking provision

$250,000

717333

20/01/2017

3 John Street, Thomastown

B Brown

Application to extend permit for construction of five (5) dwellings

Site Area: 820m2

Site Coverage: 52%

Advertising: N/A

Objections: N/A

Officer recommendation: Refusal on the grounds of:

·      Zoning of land has changed from General Residential to Neighbourhood Residential and more than two dwellings are prohibited

 

$900,000

 

Note:   These applications are fictitious.  More work can be done with Council to determine the extent of information in the table.  Planning delegations for planning scheme and policy amendments would remain unchanged and continue to be reported as currently.


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.15  AURORA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT: REZONING OF 239-255 CRAIGIEBURN ROAD, WOLLERT FROM FARMING ZONE TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONE

File No:                                  195394

Attachments:                        1        Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan

2        Locality Plan

3        Aurora Development Plan Part 2   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Strategic Planner   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been lodged seeking to rezone land at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert, from its current Farming Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone. The proposed amendment is required to facilitate the use and development of the site in accordance with the approved Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan (Attachment 1) and the Aurora Development Plan Part 2 which sets out the strategic direction for the area. The rezoning of the land is predicated upon signing the requisite legal agreement for Council to secure development contributions when the land is subdivided. This approach has been consistently applied to other similar landholdings within the Aurora area.

The report was presented to Council at its meeting of 7 February 2017 and 28 February 2017 where determination was deferred pending additional information. This matter was discussed at the Council Forum of 8 March 2017 and the outstanding issues resolved. As such, the report has been placed before Council again for consideration. 

The proposed amendment is implementing the approved Council framework for the land, therefore it is considered procedural in nature. As such, it is recommended that the Council provide support for a limited exhibition process under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to discuss a proposed planning scheme amendment at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert. Tract Consultants Pty Ltd are acting on behalf of the landowner Lenncomm Group Pty Ltd and are seeking an amendment to rezone the subject site 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert from Farming Zone to Schedule 4 of the Comprehensive Development Zone.

The subject site is located to the southern side of Craigieburn Road in Wollert and is approximately four hectares in size (Attachment 2). The site is rectangular in shape and is undeveloped with the exception of a single dwelling and associated outbuildings. The present use of the site is in keeping with its designation as Farming Zone which allows for a range of agricultural and associated uses appropriate to a rural context.

The subject site sits adjacent to the Aurora estate which forms part of the Epping North Growth Corridor. As a result, the surrounding area is the subject of significant urban development. This process is guided by the Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan (ACDP), which was approved as part of Amendment C41 (Part 1) in November 2007. The ACDP covers a far larger area than just the Aurora estate (approximately 592 hectares) and includes a number of smaller landholdings including the subject site. The ACDP is bounded by O’Herns Road to the south and Craigieburn Road to the north, with the Hume Freeway forming the western boundary and pre-existing lot boundaries to the east. The subject site is located approximately midway along the northern boundary of the overall precinct with frontage to Craigieburn Road.

The Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan established the basis for the more detailed Aurora Development Plan: Part 2 by establishing a set of detailed design and development principles for the development of the area (Attachment 3). Together these documents set out the strategic guidance required to facilitate the urban development of the precinct which will ultimately be home to approximately 25,000 residents. 

The subject site is identified within the above mentioned strategic documents as being suitable for residential development. 

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Council and the Minister for Planning agreed at the time of the original rezoning of the ACDP area (C41 Part 1) that the rezoning of the ‘balance’ individual parcels of land not forming part of the Aurora estate would be contingent upon landowners signing an agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement would essentially formalise the requirements for developer and open space contributions. Aurora’s majority landholder at the time, Places Victoria, entered into such an agreement as part of the original rezoning. This unilateral undertaking enabled the largest part of Aurora to be rezoned and for key infrastructure works to proceed over time.

A number of smaller landholders opted not to sign agreements and were subsequently left out of the rezoning at that time. Several of these landowners have subsequently entered into agreements with Council and have had their land rezoned. These amendments (C41 Part 2, 3 and 4) were all approved by the Minister for Planning under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This was on the basis that the strategic merit of the wider proposal had already been considered as part of a large public process (C41 Part 1).

Recently, the landowner at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert has sought to commence the rezoning process in accordance with the established strategic framework. To this end, the landowner has signed the requisite Section 173 Agreement. In this context, the current request to amend 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert should be considered as a procedural step in implementing this approach.

A number of planning overlays were applied to 239-255 Craigieburn Road as part of C41 Part 1 and require no alteration as part of the proposed amendment. They include:

·        Schedule 23 of the Development Plan Overlay. This overlay provided the basis for the preparation of the Aurora Development Plan (Part 2); and  

·        Schedule 2 of the Vegetation Protection Overlay. The intention of this overlay is to ensure that suitable assessment of vegetation takes place during forward planning and detailed proposal assessment stages of the planning process.

NOTIFICATION

The strategic intent of Amendment C41 has already been extensively considered and subsequent parts to the amendment have been approved in recent years without formal exhibition. In the past, Council has sought the Minister for Planning’s consideration and approval of the proposed amendment under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. However, Council officers have been advised that Planning Scheme Amendments seeking full Ministerial intervention are unlikely to be supported in this instance.

Notwithstanding, given that the strategic justification for the land has already been determined and the longstanding process for these ‘balance’ lots established, it is considered appropriate that the amendment be considered using the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The provisions of Section 20(2) allows the Minister for Planning to grant an exemption from the requirements relating to giving notice of an amendment, except for those notice requirements for any Minister as listed within the Regulations which cannot be exempted. It is considered that this approach will have a better chance of support from the Minister for Planning and in so far as it streamlines aspects of the notification process, it is considered appropriate to advance this request in this instance.

Notwithstanding, it is recommended that any Council resolution should provide for a full exhibition process in the event that the Minister does not support the Section 20(2) request. Whilst not providing the full notification exemption of a 20(4) process, it is still considered a more streamlined approach to deal with this amendment which is of a procedural nature.

DISCUSSION

The subject site is located within the ACDP area and identified as part of this strategic plan as being suitable for urban development. The current Farming Zone affecting the property is essentially a ‘holding zone’ until appropriate infrastructure arrangements can be agreed. It is considered that this proposal implements Council’s long term strategic vision for the area as directed by ACDP and ADP2.

Prior to considering this amendment, the land owner was required to enter into a legal agreement to ‘lock in’ development and open space contributions applicable to the ACDP area, consistent with other ‘balance’ landowners in the area. As indicated earlier in the report, this continues on a well-established process for rezoning ‘balance’ parcels of land within the ACDP.

Once rezoned (if supported by Council) and once all other relevant approvals are obtained, these ‘balance’ parcels are able to be developed and integrated into the broader area. In particular, the subject land once subdivided will connect into the existing Aurora estate which is currently being developed by Lend Lease.

The timing of ‘balance’ landholdings entering into legal agreements is completely dependent on the landowner and not dictated by Council. It is the preference of Council officers to include more than one landholding into a Planning Scheme Amendment as it has been the case in previous amendments, but this is not always possible given the differing individual circumstances of each landholding. 

In order to ascertain interest, Council officers wrote to the remaining Farming Zone properties in the Aurora area soon after this proposal was lodged, however no response was received to these letters. Now that this landowner has signed the legal agreement, there are only three parcels of land remaining in the ACDP area where development and open space contributions have not been secured.

Policy strategy and legislation

The Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan was adopted by Council and the Minister for Planning in 2007. It sets the long term strategic direction for the area and is the approved council framework for the wider area. The proposal is intended to facilitate the ongoing development of Aurora and is necessary to achieve the overall aims and objectives of the Aurora Development Plan (Part 2).

 

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

 

The proposed amendment will contribute toward the strategic objective of the Council Plan to use Urban Design in order to build connection to place and the community by enabling the strategic aims of the Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan to be achieved. It will also contribute towards the strategic objective to establish a road network that provides adequate access to the municipality.

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

Rezoning the land at 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert from Farming Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone will implement the objectives envisaged in the Aurora Comprehensive Development Plan and the Aurora Development Plan Part 2. The landowner has entered into the necessary infrastructure agreement for the site which removes the impediment for the rezoning process to occur. This reflects the longstanding implementation framework for rezoning of these smaller ‘balance’ landholdings and their integration into the overall Aurora precinct. 

It is considered that this proposal implements Council’s long term strategic vision for the area as directed by ACDP and ADP2.This amendment is a procedural process to rezone the land for urban development following execution of the relevant Section 173 Agreement enshrining applicable development and open space contributions.

Given the procedural nature of the amendment, it is considered appropriate to request from the Minister for Planning a more ‘streamlined’ approach to the consideration of this amendment.

It is therefore recommended that Council support the amendment and seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the planning scheme amendment to rezone the land in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. If the request for consideration under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is not supported, then a full amendment would be required.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme for the rezoning of 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert from Farming Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

2.       Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 should the Minister for Planning not consent to the exhibition of the amendment under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3.       Advise the affected stakeholders of the above and any decisions of the Minister for Planning.

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                                                     Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                               Tuesday 21 March 2017

 


Ordinary Council Agenda                                                                  Tuesday 21 March 2017

 

6.1.16  Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan - Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment

File No:                                  193260

Attachments:                        1        Site Context Plan

2        Precincts Plan

3        Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, March 2017 (distributed separately - refer to p.7)

4        Stage 2 Consultation Submission Summary Table

5        Plenty Valley Town Centre Draft Parking Precinct Plan, March 2017   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Strategic Planner   

gReport

EXECUTIVE Summary

The draft Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) has been prepared to provide a strategic framework and guide development and investment in the Town Centre in accordance with the vision for the Centre.

The Plenty Valley Town Centre is identified by the State Government as an ‘Activity Centre’ however it requires an updated holistic strategic planning framework to achieve this vision. The current planning controls affecting specific areas were progressively put in place and need revision to ensure they provide for a more coordinated approach to planning, development and infrastructure provision across the Town Centre.

The Structure Plan provides a holistic plan to guide development and investment in the Town Centre for the next 20 plus years. The Structure Plan identifies the strategies and actions to be implemented to realise the vision for an attractive, accessible and vibrant Town Centre. The plan will oversee a change in the development focus throughout the Town Centre as the Centre matures from a predominantly retail/ commercial basis to a more mixed use outcome.

The Structure Plan project has been ongoing for a number of years and Council has been regularly briefed and updated at key milestones of the project. The project has also incorporated a broader community and stakeholder engagement process which has included two stages of community consultation.

Stage 1 consultation was held in May-June 2014 and was designed to get an understanding of how people use the area and their ideas and aspirations for its future. The draft Structure Plan document was prepared based on the key themes and issues received in Stage 1 consultation as well as the key findings from the Structure Plan’s Background Report.

The Stage 2 consultation occurred in March-April 2016 and involved engaging with the community and other key stakeholders to obtain community feedback on a draft Structure Plan document. The feedback from the community has been reviewed and some changes have been made to the draft document in response to the feedback received. The updated Structure Plan document is attached to this report. 

The next stage of the project is the implementation phase. A Planning Scheme Amendment is required to make necessary amendments to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to implement the Structure Plan. This includes (but is not limited to):


 

 

·        rezoning of majority of land in the Town Centre to the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ)

·        the application of a Parking Overlay (PO) to provide guidance for parking in the Town Centre

·        the application of a Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) to require contributions to be made towards infrastructure in the Town Centre

·        the removal of controls which will be superseded by the Plenty Valley Structure Plan (i.e. Development Plan Overlays).

To provide for the implementation of the Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan, Council needs to approve the request to seek authorisation to prepare and exhibit the Planning Scheme Amendment. The exhibition will provide stakeholders and the community an opportunity to view, and make a submission on, the updated draft Structure Plan document.

A report will be presented to Council following the public exhibition process outlining the outcomes of the exhibition period and explaining the next steps forward.

The report was presented to Council at its meeting of 7 February 2017 and 28 February 2017 where its determination was deferred pending further clarification in relation to parking in the Town Centre. The matter was discussed in detail at the Council Forum dated 8 March 2017 and changes have since been made the draft Parking Precinct Plan (Attachment 5) in response to the issues discussed. Since these matters have been further addressed, the report is presented for Council’s consideration. 

It is recommended that the request to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment is resolved to enable the updated Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan and proposed Planning Scheme Amendment to be publicly exhibited. 

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to: