Planning Permit Application TP-2014-115

Page 1 of 33
Report to the Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee
Planning Permit Application TP-2014-115 (Amended) 1 Shiel Street and
102A Haines Street, North Melbourne
Agenda item 6.7
2 September 2014
Presenter: Daniel Soussan, Planning Coordinator
Purpose and background
1.
To advise the Future Melbourne Committee of an application for a planning permit in the proposed
Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan area that is the subject of a large number of objections. The applicant is
Melbourne Omnibus Company Pty Ltd c/- Urbis and the Architect is Fender Katsilidis.
2.
The subject site on the north-west corner of Shiel Street and Haines Street was the subject of a Notice of
Decision to grant a permit (TP-2013-643) for a building of similar height and scale, which was considered
by the Future Melbourne Committee on 6 August 2013.
3.
The current application was first advertised in April 2014 for a part nine storey/part ten storey building
comprising 46 apartments and 45 car spaces. On 23 July 2014 the application was amended to a part
five-storey, part-six storey development comprising 34 apartments and 34 car spaces.
4.
The site is located in the Mixed Use Zone and is affected by the Environmental Audit Overlay. The site is
included in the Arden Macaulay Structure Plan area. Amendment C190 proposes new height controls for
the site through Design Development Overlay 60 (Area 11). DDO60 proposes a preferred 10.5 metre
height to Shiel Street, a preferred 14m height to Haines Street, and a 14m setback from Haines Street for
development above 14 metre up to a maximum of 30 metre.
5.
In response to the initial advertising of the application 57 objections were received. A consultative
meeting was held on 4 June 2014 and was attended by 30 objectors. On 30 July 2014 notification of the
amended plans was given by posting letters to all objectors. In response to this three new objections
were received, no objections were withdrawn and seven objections were reiterated or expanded.
Key issues
6.
The key issues for consideration are the building envelope and density of the development, the
architectural response having regard to the existing character, internal amenity, car parking and vehicle
access and the future development potential of adjoining sites.
7.
Due to the slope of the land, the proposed street edge height varies from 15 metres to Shiel Street, to
17.8 metres to Haines Street. The overall height of the amended proposal is below the discretionary 30
metre height proposed under DDO60.
8.
The proposal will not cast any shadow over Gardiners Reserve or the footpath on the south side of
Haines Street at any time of day on 22 September and therefore meets the requirements of Clause 22.02
(Sunlight to Public Spaces) and the relevant objective of Design Development Overlay 60 Area 11.
9.
One car parking space is provided per apartment and the provision for resident and visitor bicycle parking
exceeds the Planning Scheme requirement. A permit is required to reduce the visitor car parking
requirement of six spaces. Occupiers of the development will not be eligible for resident parking permits.
10.
The developer has committed to achieving a 5 star Green Star rating, and to the collection and re-use of
rainwater on site as required by the relevant clauses of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
11.
Issues relating to internal amenity, notably daylight access for bedrooms, have been addressed through
the amended plans or can otherwise be addressed by conditions of permit.
Recommendation from management
12.
That the Future Melbourne Committee issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit subject to the
conditions included in the delegate report (refer to Attachment 4 Report).
Attachments:
1.
Supporting Attachment
2.
Locality Plan
3.
Selected proposed Plans
4.
Delegate Report
Page 2 of 33
Attachment 1
Agenda item 6.7
Future Melbourne Committee
2 September 2014
Supporting Attachment
Legal
1.
Legal implications.
Division 1 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act (Act) sets out the requirements in relation to
applications for permits pursuant to the relevant planning scheme.
As objections have been received, sections 64 and 65 of the Act provide that the Responsible Authority
must give the applicant and each objector notice in the prescribed form of its decision to either grant a
permit or refuse to grant a permit. The Responsible authority must not issue a permit to the applicant until
the end of the period in which an objector may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision or, if an
application for review is made, until the application is determined by the tribunal.
Finance
2.
There are no direct financial implications for the recommendation contained in this report.
Conflict of interest
3.
No member of Council staff or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advertising or on
preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.
Stakeholder consultation
4.
Formal notification of the application was carried out in April 2014 by notices to the owners and occupiers
of adjoining land and two signs on the site. A consultative meeting with the applicant, project architect
and 30 residents/objectors was held on 4 June 2014. Notification of the amended application was
undertaken in July 2014 by posting letters to all objectors and making the plans available for viewing on
the Council website.
Relation to Council policy
5.
Relevant Council policies are discussed in the attached officer report (Attachment 4).
Environmental sustainability
6.
Environmental sustainability is discussed in the attached officer report (Attachment 4).
Page 3 of 33
Locality Plan, 1 Shiel Street, North Melbourne
Lire OF NELEOURNE
Attachment 2
Agenda Item 6.7
Future Melbourne Committee
2 September 2014
Approx. Scale 1:1000
The City of Melbourne does not warrant the accuracy, currency or completeness of information in this
product. Any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the City of Melbourne
shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the
information.
18/08/2014 4:16 PM
NORTH
Page 4 of 33
Attachment 3
Agenda Item 6.7
Future Melbourne Committee
2 September 2014
SHIEL STREET
NO. 5 SHIEL STREET
(DOUBLE STOREY
BUILDING)
E(ISTING RE 728
NO. 3 SHE_ STREET
(VACANT LAND)
ci
3 LEVEL STACKER
PARKING SPACE
3 LEVEL STACKER
3 LEVEL STACKER
RI
2 ELC
CAR PARK
ENTRY / EXIT
33 CAR STACKER SPACES
EMPTY SPACES FCC SNUFFING)
1 NC RAUL PARKING SPACES
NO. 104 HAINES STREET
(VACANT LAND)
TCTAL 34 CAR SPACES
RISING TREE —
*SRL 3.503
HAINES STREET
254 221 122'
O
LOWER GROUND LEVEL
0
SCALE 1 13015'A1
SITE
BELOW LOWER GROUND LEVEL
SCALE 1 .100401
FENOER
.
VAANFLAHA498479.3405,011
.1117-------4A:112
FOTIINFCRMATILm
25
14
3
014
6
ChM aid relit all &ludo. prior to ommencerrent el ■mk.11ia Halting 511.4 i Ix lead In
0dif ll Vilb il l acrtAa cor
dAm
Is0in0c loc s N IA IN o x f corarl rams . and Oclutfeencge
sp ciific fim s. Seek ati k athA&
y d i nc nnsm.
ist es, h=f1l i rAt AOded d rensi o rs IA de H dea
T0 ew l ead Icinensi m.l
Th1W1,WM
W
R .
k 1 N W reum ..ENDISADOKS1,Liu
paw l, of F E R KA
1 1 .01, 11M
C
SK
13.012014
L I M ..
1 111 1 1 ”1,
..IP
I 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 .
1870172014
13071
1 1
.
®
P.M}
STREET APARTMENTS
1 SHIEL STREET
NORTH MELBOURNE 3051
SHIEL
KATSALIDIS
rarat Hostas WI) mur .(6.3.1.111.017 /4.
00@A1
6611
Illt.1111111t1
LOWER GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
3
a
6 8 6
86 6 8 2
9S
353089682 8
5
ITC
SO IJ T H B A NK
CV I YT ORRAI IA A U ST R A L I A
T E L E P H O NDEE
F A CSI MIL
Lrrim, ...414, rg.
A
ITOWN PLANNING
TP1 DO
S HI ELSTREET
Page 5 of 33
3 SHIEL STREET
•
SITE BOUNDARY
VACANT LAND
—
■
•• =111115ii•N5iPI
104 HAINES STREET
ACCESSWAY
VACANT LAND
100 6 00
8 54 221 132
SITE
COSTING CROSSOVER REMOVED (EXTENT
SHOWN IN DIAGONAL HATCH),
HAINES STREET
......
FOTINFORMATION 3
FENDER
2.11.1
"Mir
1r
°L
CP441 and way aN &Terme, Prix lo tawancernere el wort This Crewe Aral be read In
coniunclem rellh all ogee reread tbceneets Mekong rose Icy eta °emblem ad Enclosing
spentlealiced.Seek daubed:8n El 01
,WlcElIFl,EEXlflEldflXEElIElfl precedence
10 scaled &wefts.
proxrn of FENOERPArsAuDis [WIPP, LTIC
TtrI 8..9 6 COPYRIGHT ed Win.*
SE
13.01 2014
JP
1710112014
13071
KATSPLIDIS
Metim,....lAsixt , rninK, FM@ 41.09,41=
1:100@A1
1 0
3 00 6
61
61
SHIEL STREET APARTMENTS
1 SHIEL STREET
NORTH MELBOURNE 3051
GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
3
3
CITY FOND SOUTHBANK
VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
TELEPHONE
FACSIMILE
ERIE
Sr 612
3808
5935
.......
111111111.111•.
A
ITOWN PLANNING
Page 6 of 33
SITE BOUNDARY
3/.19 4126
INErimi ,
IIMINMEM
*
GEV
SITE BOUNDARY
minim
minim
A 19 rr,'
PEI
IIII op
...•
OW AREA 2 6
..L. 11.11::41-17°
1
DOW AREA 2.8 r00
LN AREA 4.4 th'
,,orto
e
c,551'2 `
SELECTED WINDOW / BEDROOM AREA PERCENTAGE
Unit No.
-.4 227 22
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
SITE813/ FEDORA
Window
Area (m2)
2
Bedroom
Area (m2)
11
Percentage
3.4
3.2
3.3
2.1
2.9
12
12
12
10
13
28%
27%
28%
21%
22%
18%
v'ELOP ML NT
- Required % of room area for natural light is 10%.
- Required % of room area for ventilation is 5%.
C)
The window area provided is well in excess of thhis requirement.
LEVEL 1-4
FENDER
10AL!
FGRINFORMATION
2 3 JUL 2014
SCALE 1:100eAl
Clod and only 911 0,4'I000 A',4 to thyyrrencernert ol work On9 domnp 6991 to nod in
eakenetlenntth aN other canner tfi.ment, thelueling ihose ty other [DAMIAN, Ake Inducing
Sireeketeres. Seek eUelialzernireconsuanciesr cerekcis. Agee Arnens4yes ele11113148 ,64444.9
10 soled dIrnernons.
TTIN doong n COPYRIGHT an 94 MIDI So pony 91TENOTE KATS0.1106 ALSO PLY LID
11A11
5X
I
13.01.2014 JP
61 3
69 3
I !LAI NATI 141116.
17/07/2014
13071
kATSALIDIS
neceerrerverisAyerrelnkthme.thru 4.51731917.2
1.100gA1
011•10111101
SHIEL STREET APARTM ENTS
1 SHIEL STREET
NORTH MELBOURNE 3051
LEVEL 1-4 FLOOR PLAN
78 CITY ROAD 331.111160146
30 OE 41212016 AUSTRALIA
IL TELEPHONE
869638
9 6 8 2 5625 FAMIAILF
0. .....
001•111111,
A 1TOWN PLANNING
Page 7 of 33
F.E 1
91
0
CI
I
N
LIMIT OF BUILT FORM SO AS TO
NOT OVERSHADOW GARDINER
RESERVE BETWEEN 11AM AND
2PM ON SEPTEMBER 22
N
N
APARTMENTS
N
OUTLINE OF PREVIOUSLY
SUPPORTED SCHEME
ROOF IL 24000
N
CO
APARTMENTS
LNEL 4
EL 21.01D
LEVEL 3
FIL 18000
LLJ
CE
APARTMENTS
LEVEL 2 BI- 15 "
NO. 5 SHIEL STREET
(2 STOREYS)
NO. 3 ShIEL STREET
(VACANT LAND)
LEVEL 1 RL izoct
LOWER GROUND LEVEL R L
-1:014/1
23 JUL 2014
4.0510
FENDER
1,4nninngIn'ur4r1
J
FORINFORMATION
lacIA
14
*46.11:171,1111r rilmensemprk•la oannercerf.11 otworkihisclowo
be read in
canKnalOn valll all &her corCraci &anent Includim elm bent. 272m7 15807, and Including
CinannitaLlos,2774 ClitiFNIFOr Imn72315-1147ie50 corrrnds. Wed &Tlemcen still tna colneCenCe
to caged inanencionr.
Mind-MN gccpyinFAIrd she. mum he prowl, or FENDER MIS4LK/15 ALM PlY LTD
91
61
am.. rill.
SI(
1101.2014
71
I7/0712014
130E1
KATSNLIDIS
nePann wAnnr, gcn nom .54 cnv ans=
1:100@Al
SHIEL STREET APARTMENTS
1 SHIEL STREET
NORTH MELBOURNE 3051
SECTION AA
3
3
70 CITY ROAC SOUTHHANS
2426 VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
6 6 9 6 2944 TELEPHONE
6642 5 9 2 5 7417.72144E0E
AFV1111..11•1"
ITOWN PLANNING
Page 8 of 33
OUTLINE OF PREVIOUSLY
SUPPORTED SCHEME
RL 26.58
_
1111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111$111P 1111111111
ROOF RI 24 .000
LEVEL 4 RL 21 000
LEVEL 3 R
00 ')
LEVEL 2 RL 15.000
LEVEL 1 RL 12.000
GROUND FLOOR RL MI
RL 6 360 . NATURAL. GROUND LEVEL
NT
GROUND LEVEL
23 JUL 203
A
EXTERNAL FINISHES LEGEND
C) LIGHT GREY/ NATURAL PRECAST CONCRETE
UGHT GREY TEXTURED PRECAST CONCRETE
CD COLOURED & TEXTURED PRECAST CONCRETE
1161E0 GLAZING WITH POWDERCOATE0 ALUMINIUM FRAMES
(-
ZINC CLAWING
TIMBER CLADDING
0 POINDERCOAIEDLOINRE SCREEN
C) TINTED GLAZED BALUSTRADE
ENDER
CLAIR
18.92,914
FGRINFORMATION
III
"
Chect and vallv 311 81838930118101 convrrencement olwotk. Ilvs traeon g
10 00/00
an ivricrion 000h al olt/u con13C1139111rnenSIn01,19 8 tom by 018ff co03311/313 30,17/131•89
311801101,03s. Sed claulgarm 8810rts ■strive00/ wild, Figured dimensions 091 We DIPCecence
sAlled &rano.
1a008.0 7 5 coroaq
res083 {Mr/ 81331,0ER KNISAUCIS AUSTI PTV LTD
I ME
SK
13.01.2014
DI
II
..... CI
JP
17707/2014
13071
MATSALIDIS
1,1101,N,LERV15,171011C1 091943P21•11:1741,11417
1 :1 0 D@Al
SHIEL STREET APARTMENTS
1 SHIEL STREET
NORTH MELBOURNE 3051
"OWN. TTTTT
SOUTH EAST ELEVATION
3
3
70 CITY KCAL/ SOUTHSANK
3 0 0 6 VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
8 6 9 6 3 8 11 8 TELEPHONE
9 6 8 2 5 9 2 5 FACSIMILE
11141/11011I CRA•let 11•.
A I TOWN PLANNING
Page 9 of 33
1=1
1032
731
OUTLINE OF PREVIOUSLY
SUPPORTED SCHEME
_
RL 24.000
RL 26.58
ROOF
'111 1 I I II1E
.1 1
111-2_410
LEVEL 4
SL 18.002
LEvo_ •
81 15.°°°
LEVEL 2
R IL 121)I)C
LEVEL 1
.
LLI
CC
RIL 9. 1: 02 GROUND FLOOR
VELopok
Fa. cow LOWER GROUND LEVEL
rul,xen,
23 JUL 2014
EXTERNAL FINISILES LEGEND
0 LLGHT GREY! NATURAL PRECAST CONCRETE
0 TINTED GLAZING WITH POMERCOATED ALUIAINIUM MANES
O
O
LIGHT GREY TUTORED PRECAST CONCRETE
C) ZINC CLADDING
C) PCSSURCOATED LOUVRE SCREEN
O
COLOURED 2, lEiTURED PRECAST CONCRETE
0
TIMBER CLADDING
11 /013 GLAZED BALUSTRADE
FENDER
Check and renly dIrnalwas gm to camcorder.. II 2.1.L This dravort UAI l3r1d II
om junto mt II olled coarad document Mud.. dose by 030 223220121 anclocluencr
condiltalOns. Seek claillicelinn V Ineansttnees/ cents. Flared dImertOnnt shall take pre:Kerne
lo 22021 3023232223.
um. eloume us COPOOGRImd doll rural me roma, ni FENDER KAMM'S MIST) PT, 270
17707/2014
13071
Crnenli149101310 ,109
II3
II
OMNI" TTTTT
13.011914 JP
RATSALIDIS
rotoresmas Wilrr11,
1:100@A1
SHIEL STREET APARTMENTS
1 SHIEL STREET
NORTH MELBOURNE 3051
NORTH EAST ELEVATION
8630
9682
30 05
38 68
59 25
CITY ILIAD SOUTIIBANK
VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
TELEPHONE
FACSIMILE
“61.1.1
A TOWN PLANNING
Page 10 of 33
OUTLINE OF PREVIOUSLY
SUPPORTED SCHEME
PRELIMINARY'
-)I
FOR INFORMATION
FENDER
It17.1
Ofiedy.dyyrilysi 6111E1110M
coymencemer4 o? work Ths !Map 33211 be ream in
njundkol ollh all Met oaradc16xaments Illays by IgIN cored:els. and
,nclo01.9
YONIdtalbes. Seek drOcatIo , Incenvialtkll melds. Egged dinNONRAs Vail 00 7001000.
to Wad &Toulon.
nft
.CONRIOK
0.5
IKATSALIDIS
601
00,0016
NTS@Al
70 CITY ROAD 00U1H8A916
3009 VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
81 3
61 3
.900..s,00 Tr< mat, of MOD, ItAIPLIDISIAUST) Prt LID
8 896 3 8 8 8 TELEPHONE
FAC$11.111F
9662
5925
.10111811/
ASP
27.052014 JP
1507/2014 13071
SHIEL STREET APARTMENTS
1 SHIEL STREET
NORTH MELBOURNE a051
SHADOW DIAGRAMS
11111.11•. 00.
INOT ISSUED
Page 11 of 33
Attachment 4
Agenda Item 6.7
Future Melbourne Committee
2 September 2014
DELEGATED PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Application number:
TP-2014-115
Applicant and Architect
Melbourne Omnibus Company Pty Ltd c/Urbis, Fender Katsalidis
Address:
1 Shiel Street, NORTH MELBOURNE and
102A Haines Street, NORTH MELBOURNE
Proposal:
Construction of a six storey building
comprising 34 apartments and associated
car and bicycle parking
Date of application:
21 February 2014
Responsible officer:
Josephine Lee
1
SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS
The subject site is located on the western corner of the intersection of Haines Street,
Shiel Street and Dryburgh Street in North Melbourne. The site has a total site area of
677 square metres and has a curved frontage to Haines and Shiel streets, with a
length of approximately 47 metres. The site slopes down significantly from north to
south, dropping approximately 3.3 metres.
The site contains an existing two storey warehouse with open air car parking located
within the Haines Street frontage. The site is not affected by any easements or
restrictive covenants.
The west boundary abuts a narrow lot known as 102A Haines Street, which the
permit applicant is negotiating to purchase to provide access to the subject site.
To the north of the site is narrow strip of land at 3 Shiel Street, which is currently
vacant and being used as a car park. Further north is a two storey panel beating
workshop, setback approximately 4.5 metres from Shiel Street and built to all other
site boundaries.
To the west at 110 Haines Street is a vacant block of land. Approval has been
granted to construct two four storey buildings to the rear of the block (112 Haines
Street) for use as apartments. The front did have a permit for approval of a four
storey development, but via an amendment to the permit has since been nominated
as landscaped area as an interim measure. It is understood that this land may have
recently been sold and there have been pre-application discussions regarding the
redevelopment of this site.
Further west again at 114-116 Haines Street, an application has been lodged for
construction of a ten storey building comprising 31 apartments.
1
Page 12 of 33
Locality Plan
To the south of the site is Haines Street, a 17 metre wide road reserve. To the south
of Haines Street is Gardiner Reserve, a 677 square metre reserve with lawn,
playground equipment and picnic tables.
To the east of the site is a round-about at the intersection of Haines, Shiel and
Dryburgh streets. Three storey apartment buildings are constructed on the opposite
side of this intersection, approximately 50 metres from the subject site.
On the north-east side of Shiel Street north of the site, existing dwellings range from
one to three- storey and some sections of the streetscape have buildings of heritage
significance reflected by the application of a Heritage Overlay on that side of the
street.
2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
2.1
Pre-application discussions
Discussions were held in 2013 about the potential to add a taller development at the
rear of the site that would accord with the MPS amendment C190 indicative height
limits, given that a Notice of Decision for a five to six storey building had been issued
to the previous owner.
2.2
Planning History
The following applications, listed as considered relevant to the current proposal, have
previously been considered for the subject site and/or adjoining sites:
2
Page 13 of 33
TP number
Description of
Proposal
Decision & Date
of Decision
Officer Comment
TP-2012-643
Construction of a
five-six storey
building
comprising 22
apartments and
office space
Notice of Decision
to grant a permit
issued on 8
August 2013. No
planning permit
has however
been issued (see
officer comment
section for detail).
This application was presented to
the Future Melbourne Committee
(FMC) on 6 August 2013. FMC
resolved to issue a permit for the
proposal subject to conditions and
an NOD was issued on 8 August
2013.
1 Shiel Street
The neighbouring property owner
lodged an appeal against this
decision which related to concerns
regarding proximity of the site to
exhaust stacks.
Following the lodgement of the
appeal the subject site was sold to
a new owner.
Given the previous owner no
longer had an interest in the site
they requested that the matter be
withdrawn.
On 6 May 2014 VCAT issued an
order (by consent) that no permit
issue.
There was no hearing with respect
to the merits of the application.
TP-20091151/B
110-112
Haines Street
TP-2008684/A
118 Haines
Street
TP-2014-419
114-116
Haines Street
2.3
Construction of
two four
storey apartment
buildings
24 January 2014
Construction of
four three-storey
dwellings with
roof top terraces.
18 October 2010
Application for a
ten-storey
building
comprising 31
apartments.
Current
application
awaiting further
information
The buildings are to the rear of the
site with landscaping at the front.
The front of the site is likely to be
developed to a similar scale in the
future.
Completed and occupied.
Amendment after Advertising
The application was initially lodged on 21 February 2014 as a ten storey proposal.
The application was advertised and received a number of objections. It was also the
subject of internal referral and a consultation meeting involving resident objectors
and the permit applicant.
3
Page 14 of 33
In response to internal referral comments and objections received, the application
was formally amended under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
on 29 July 2014.
The amended plans are date stamped 23 July 2014 and propose a six storey building
comprising 34 apartments. These plans supersede the previously advertised plans
and are the plans that are described in part 3 of this report and which have formed
the basis for the assessment that follows.
3
PROPOSAL
The proposal is to demolish the existing building on the land and to construct a
residential apartment building over semi-basement car parking, services and storage
areas. Key features of the proposal are:
•
Partial excavation of the site and adjoining 3.05m lot to provide vehicle access on
the west side of the site.
•
A rainwater tank and storage cages at basement level.
•
Parking for 34 cars in the form of triple stackers and three at-grade spaces.
•
A corner splay on the south-west corner to provide sight-lines for exiting vehicles.
•
A setback of the lower ground floor at the west end of the site to allow for planter
boxes and bicycle parking to provide pedestrian interest adjacent to the footpath.
•
Resident entry lobby adjacent to the north boundary and six apartments on the
ground floor.
•
Seven apartments per floor on levels 1-4 (three x two-bedroom, three x twobedroom plus study and one x one-bedroom plus study.
•
Apartment sizes range from 67sqm to 84sqm.
•
Roof level provides the lift overrun adjacent to the north boundary, photo-voltaic
cells and indicative planting boxes.
•
Floor to floor heights of 3m
•
Private open space, generally in the form of two balconies per apartment ranging
in size from 5sqm to 9sqm.
•
Street edge height of 15m at the north-east corner (Shiel Street)
•
Street edge height of 17.8m at the south-west corner (Haines Street)
•
Developer commitment to achieve a 5-star Green Star rating using the Green
Building Council’s multi-unit residential rating tool.
•
Achievement of a Wat-1 rating for water efficiency
•
A waste storage area adjacent to the street to avoid storage of bins on the
footpath.
•
Vertical timber and zinc cladding are the predominant materials used on the
curved façade.
•
The north elevation expresses the floor plates and has vertical concrete sections
in different shades to provide visual interest.
4
STATUTORY CONTROLS
The following clauses in the Melbourne Planning Scheme require a planning permit
for this proposal:
4
Page 15 of 33
Clause
Clause 32.04
Mixed Use Zone
Permit Trigger
Pursuant to Clause 32.04, a permit is required to construct two
or more dwellings on a lot. Clause 55 does not apply to a
development of four or more storeys in height.
Clause 45.03
Environmental Audit
Overlay
Pursuant to Clause 45.03, before a sensitive use (residential
use) commences or before the construction or carrying out of
any buildings and works in association with a sensitive use
commences, a certificate or statement of Environment Audit
must be issued.
Clause 52.06
Pursuant to Clause 52.06-1 a permit is required to reduce the
standard car parking requirement. Clause 52.06-5 requires one
space per dwelling of two bedrooms or less and visitor spaces
at a rate of one space for every five dwellings. The proposal
generates a demand of 34 resident spaces and six visitor
spaces.
Car Parking
The plans show 34 spaces and therefore a permit is required to
waive the visitor parking spaces..
Clause 52.34
Bicycle Parking
Pursuant to Clause 52.34 a new use must not commence until
the required bicycle facilities have been provided on site. A
permit is required to reduce the standard requirement. The
table to this clause requires one resident space for every five
dwellings and one visitor space to each ten dwellings. On this
basis seven resident spaces and three visitor spaces are
required. The proposal for 49 bicycle spaces in the basement
and thirteen spaces adjacent to the street frontage, therefore
exceeds the requirements and a permit is not required for a
reduction.
Clause 52.35
Urban Context Report
and Design Response
for residential
development of four or
more storeys
This clause requires that an urban context report is prepared
before a residential development of four or more storeys is
designed and that the design responds to the existing urban
context and preferred future development of the area.
5
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
5.1
State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
The relevant provisions of the SPPF are summarised as follows:
•
Clause 13.03— Use of contaminated and potentially contaminated land
•
Clause 15 — Built Environment and Heritage, including Urban Design Principles
such as safety, energy and resource efficiency and architectural quality.
•
Clause 16 — Housing, including integrated housing, location of residential
development, strategic redevelopment sites, housing diversity and affordability.
•
Clause 19.03 - Design and Built Form
5
Page 16 of 33
5.2
Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)
5.2.1
Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)
Since the previous proposal (TP-2012-643) was considered for the subject site and a
Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit issued on 8 August 2013, the MSS has been
updated (by the gazettal of Amendment C162 on 12 September 2013).
The subject site and the adjoining land zoned as Mixed Use has now been formally
identified as being within Stage 1 of the Arden- Macaulay proposed urban renewal
area, thus distinguishing it from other parts of North Melbourne that are not expected
to experience significant change or re-development.
For the proposed urban renewal areas, Council has prepared structure plans and
carried out related studies and reviews, including heritage reviews. A planning
scheme amendment for the Arden- Macaulay Stage 1 area was exhibited in 2012 as
Amendment C190 to the Melbourne Planning Scheme.
In response to submissions received, Council made changes to the proposed
amendment including details of a new Design Development Overlay 60, which would
apply to the subject site.
This version of Amendment C190 is referred to as the ‘Panel version’.
Hearings by an independent Panel of the submissions to the proposed amendment
commenced in September 2013 but were adjourned when announcements were
made about construction of part of the East-West Link along the alignment of the
Moonee Ponds Creek. It is proposed that the Panel will reconvene to consider if
there are any issues arising from the East-West Link proposal that would prevent the
hearing from recommencing now that the report on the proposed new road has been
released.
Because the subject site is already zoned Mixed Use, it is not proposed to be
rezoned by C190. It is proposed, however, to introduce a Design Development
Overlay (DDO 60 Area 11) to guide building heights and setbacks for new
development. The implications of the Structure Plan and preferred building envelope
are discussed in detail below.
Clause 21 of the MSS sets out the vision, objectives and strategies for managing
land use change and development under four themes of land use, built form,
transport and environment with each theme broken down into sub-themes.
Clause 21.04-1 Growth Area Framework identifies the subject site as being in Area 6
– the proposed Arden-Macaulay Urban Renewal Area.
5.2.2
Local Policies
The relevant local policies are summarised as follows:
•
Clause 22.02 — Sunlight to Public Places
•
Clause 22.17 — Urban Design outside the Capital City Zone
•
Clause 22.19 — Energy, Water and Waste Efficiency
•
Clause 22.23 -Stormwater Management ( Water Sensitive Urban Design)
6
ZONE
The subject site is located within the Mixed Use Zone. The purposes of the Mixed
Use Zone include:
•
To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses that
complement the mixed-use function of the locality.
6
Page 17 of 33
•
To provide for housing at higher densities.
•
To encourage development that responds to the existing or preferred
neighbourhood character of the area.
8
OVERLAY
The subject site is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay, the purpose of which
is to ensure that potenially contaminated land is suitable for a use that could be
significantly adversely affected by any contamination.
Clause 43.05-1 states:
‘Before a sensitive use (residential use, child care centre, pre-school centre
or primary school) commences or before the construction or carrying out of
buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either:
-
A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in
accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or
-
An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection
Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act
that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the
sensitive use’.
The application was accompanied by a Preliminary Site Investigation Report, which
makes recommendation for further subsurface investigations based on the known
history of the site. That being said the Environmental Audit Overlay has a mandatory
requirement for an audit to be included on any permit that may issue.
9
PARTICULAR PROVISIONS
The following particular provisions apply to the application:
•
Clause 52.06 - Car Parking
•
Clause 52.34 - Bicycle Facilities
•
Clause 52.35 - Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential
Development of Four or More Storeys
10
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following general provisions apply to the application:
•
Clause 65, Decision Guidelines, which includes the matters set out in Section 60
of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
•
Clause 66, Referral and Notice Provisions
11
OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
11.1
Amendment C190 — Arden Macaulay
Amendment C190 is the implementation of land use and built form controls for the
Arden-Macaulay area. Amongst other matters this proposes a new Design and
Development Overlay Schedule 60 that will affect the subject site.
The site would be located within Area 11 of this DDO, and the following guidelines
are applicable:
•
Preferred maximum building height of 30 metres
7
Page 18 of 33
•
Maximum street edge height for Shiel Street must be equal to 10.5 metres and
Haines Street must be equal to 14 metres
•
Preferred building envelope from street should be within the line of sight as
shown in Figure 10 in Shiel Street.
•
In Haines Street any part of building above 14 metres must have a setback of 14
metres from Haines Street.
With regards to the above recommended heights and setbacks, the following Built
Form Outcomes must be considered:
•
Deliver scale of development that provides street definition and a high level of
pedestrian amenity, including access to sunlight to ground floor, sky views and a
pedestrian friendly scale.
•
Setback of higher building form along the interface with established low-scale
residential to deliver a scale of development that responds appropriately to the
existing context, provides a transition in height and minimises the visual impact of
upper levels.
This “Panel version” of the proposed DDO60 is a refinement of the exhibited version,
and has been adopted by the Council.
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 states at Clause 60(1A) that
‘Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority, if the
circumstances appear to so require, may consider (inter alia):
(g) any other strategic plan, policy statement, code or guideline which has
been adopted by a Minister, government department, public authority or
municipal council; and
(h) any amendment to the planning scheme which has been adopted by a
planning authority but not, as at the date on which the application is
considered, approved by the Minister or a planning authority.’
This is therefore a document that the responsible authority can rightly consider in
assessing the current application.
11
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
It was determined that the proposal may result in material detriment. Notice of the
proposal was given by ordinary mail to the owners and occupiers of surrounding
properties and by directing that two notices be posted on the site for a 14 day period
on 22 April 2014, in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act
1987.
On 30 July 2014 informal notification of the amended plans was given by posting
letters to all objectors. In response to this informal advertising three new objections
were received, no objections were withdrawn and seven objections were reiterated or
expanded.
12 OBJECTIONS
In response to the 2 April 2014 advertising of the ten-storey proposal, 57 objections
were received. Concerns have been summarised as:
•
Impact of the proposal on the ventilation stacks for the vehicle repair centre on
the adjoining site, which will no longer meet Environment Protection Authority
Guidelines and adversely affect business viability. It is the responsibility of the
8
Page 19 of 33
‘agent of change’ to address issues that would affect the operation of an existing
business in the Mixed Use Zone.
•
A ten-storey building is not appropriate in a street of predominantly 1-2 storey
buildings.
•
The building is out of scale with the existing mix of historically significant housing
and low scale apartments.
•
At 27 metres, the proposal is twice the maximum height of 14 metres proposed
for this site in the Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan.
•
The proposal is much higher than any other approved development in the area or
development contemplated by the Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan.
•
The extensive of community consultation and discussion surrounding preparation
of the Structure Plan, recognised the need to provide sufficient new local
infrastructure. A building exceeding the height limit by a factor of two will place
unreasonable demand on local resources.
•
Forty-six new dwellings would add to pressure on local resources and
infrastructure.
•
The proposal is an over-development of the site.
•
The building will overwhelm and depersonalise the adjoining streets and park.
•
Overshadowing of Gardiner’s Reserve, which is cherished as there is little open
space to serve existing residents.
•
The playground in Gardiner’s Reserve already has limited sunlight and any
increase would affect the utility, aesthetics and character of the park.
•
Access to the site from a narrow lane will cause difficulties for large trucks and
emergency vehicles, leading to parking on the street.
•
There are insufficient car parking spaces on the streets for existing residents and
this development will increase pressure for parking.
•
Additional traffic will create safety issues in the streets. Residents are concerned
that issues relating to the location of existing pedestrian crossings will be
aggravated by additional traffic in the area.
•
The proposal is an attempt by developer, who will not have to live in the area, to
push the boundaries of what will be allowed.
•
Impacts on the amenity and enjoyment of existing dwellings will include loss of
views and outlook.
•
Houses on the other side of Shiel Street (eg numbers 2 to 10) have restrictions
on development to maintain a connection with the heritage value of the area –
similar restrictions should apply on the subject site to maintain the character of
the area.
Additional matters raised in response to the advertising of the amended plans
include: (summarised)
•
The building remains in excess of 14 metres, measuring 15 metres at the Shiel
Street corner and 17.6m in Haines Street, plus 2.5m of roof plant.
•
Floor to floor heights should be 3.5 metres as recommended in the Arden
Macaulay Structure Plan.
•
The planting at roof level should not be associated with the communal open
space, which would be a de facto’ additional storey.
9
Page 20 of 33
•
Most balconies are less than 5sqm and there is no communal open space.
•
Lack of detail and clarity in the amended plans.
•
Waste management issues will result in bins being stored on street.
•
The increased density per floor results in a poor layout with many rooms lacking
natural light and ventilation.
•
The proposed materials and lack of articulation are not respectful of the area.
•
The No 57 tram and local schools are already overcrowded and increased
densities should not be allowed until infrastructure is in place.
•
Additional pressure on Gardiners Reserve as the only open space and
playground available to local residents.
13
CONSULTATION
Given the receipt of the above objections, a meeting with objectors and the applicant
was held on 4 June 2014 at the Council offices. The meeting was attended by 30
objectors and the project architect. No resolution was reached on the issues raised
at the meeting.
14
REFERRALS
14.1
Internal
The advertised application was referred internally to Engineering Services, Land
Survey and Urban Design. Comments summarised below relate to the ten-storey
proposal.
14.1.1
Urban Design (summary of comments dated 18 June 2014)
Building Envelope
The building height and resultant bulk is excessive in the context and with reference
to proposed DDO60. The upper level will read as overly bulky in relation to the fivestorey podium.
Reference was made to a sketch based on a 3-dimensional computer modelling
exercise for the subject site undertaken by Council officers in relation to the
implications of the DDO 60 controls described in Part 10 of this report. Maintaining
street edge heights of 10.5m in Shiel Street and 14m in Haines Street and applying a
line of site test across Shiel Street an indicative envelope of four to five storeys with
two additional levels set back 14 m from Haines Street could be achieved.
The proposed ten-storey development with reduced setbacks above 14 metres could
not therefore be supported on the basis that it would not achieve the built form
outcomes sought by DDO60 for the subject site.
Façade Presentation to the Street
•
Design and construction detailing must be high quality
•
Window reveals should have adequate depth to allow play of light across the
façade
•
Doors at ground level could be improved as features to provide visual interest.
•
Locations of air-conditioner units should be nominated.
10
Page 21 of 33
Pedestrian Safety
All entry points should be well lit and include details such as post boxes to contribute
to the ground floor presentation.
Materials and finishes
Broadly supportive of the proposed materials but require samples.
Internal Planning
Recommend that the internal plan be reconfigured to ensure that every bedroom has
good access to natural light and ventilation.
Environmental Sustainability
Recommend further exploration of the inclusion of green roof and vertical planting.
Amended plans dated 23 July 2014
In response to the amended plans, the urban design adviser generally reiterated all
of the above comments in relation to façade presentation, pedestrian safety, and
internal planning. Support was offered for the materials, including timber and zinc for
the main façade.
On the matter of building height and massing, the following comment was made:
‘We repeat our previous comments and defer to the sketch provided by
Strategic Planning and consider that building should be compliant with those
cited in DDO60.’
14.1.2
Land Survey
•
The land at 102A Haines Street which is required for access for this proposal is
not encumbered by any easements or rights of carriageway for adjoining sites.
•
There is a sewer located beneath this land that appears to extend to the rear of
No. 3 Shiel Street. A note should be included in any permit advising that City
West Water must be consulted about any excavation or other works that might
affect the sewer.
•
As the proposal relies on the land at 102A Haines Street for access, any permit
address should include this land.
14.1.3
Engineering Services (Summarised comments relate to the advertised
proposal)
Civil Engineering
•
Prior to development, the developer must purchase the land known as certificate
of title 10929 folio 131 (102A Haines Street) and consolidate with the subject site
to establish a legal right of carriageway over this land to serve the development.
•
The footpath in Shiel Street at the building entrance is narrow and should be
widened. (This would involve removal of turf around an existing Council tree and
would need to be approved by Urban Landscapes.)
•
The bicycle parking adjacent to the Haines Street frontage must be redesigned so
that bicycles do not project outside the title boundary over the footpath.
•
Standard drainage upgrade and footpath reconstruction conditions will be
required.
11
Page 22 of 33
Car Parking Layout and Access
•
The provision of 45 spaces is adequate for residents but given the location and
size of apartments, some provision should be made for visitor parking (nine
spaces required by Clause 52.06) on site.
•
A note must be placed on the permit advising that residents will not be eligible for
resident parking permits and on-street restrictions will not be altered to cater for
this development.
•
The applicant should confirm that the site has right of carriageway over the
adjoining land.
•
Given that this ‘lane’ will be used by adjoining sites and that actual usage is
unknown at this time, the section between Haines Street and the site entry should
be widened to allow for two-way traffic.
•
A utility pole and sewer vent pole on either side of the lane in the Haines Street
footpath, which are not shown on the plans, may restrict entry/exit movements
and may need to be relocated to widen the lane.
•
The access in part has a gradient of 1:5, which is steeper that the existing and
will adversely impact access to the subject and adjoining site.
•
Insufficient information is provided about operation of the car lift selected. Swept
path diagrams do not allow for the structure of the stackers, requiring 5.2m
whereas the width available is 4.8m.
•
Motor cycle parking for 5.6 percent of dwellings (equal to motor cycles as a
proportion of road traffic) should be provided. 5.6 percent of 46 =2.6 spaces.
•
A traffic generation rate of 0.5 vehicles per dwelling with an allocated car space
indicates that exiting vehicles may encounter incoming vehicles up to three times
per week, which is unacceptable as vehicles waiting in Haines street could cause
a hazard. Therefore the laneway should be widened to allow for two-way traffic
between Haines Street and the vehicle entrance.
14.2
External
No external referrals were required.
15
ASSESSMENT
The application seeks to redevelop a site in the Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan area
for a residential apartment building.
A planning permit is not required for removal of the existing structure on the land.
Under the current controls, a planning permit is required to construct two or more
dwellings on a lot in the Mixed Use zone and to waive the visitor car parking
requirement of Clause 52.06.
The key issues for consideration in the assessment of this application are the
strategic support for the redevelopment, building envelope and design, traffic and car
parking and internal amenity.
15.1
Urban Design
The site is located within the Mixed Use Zone, which is silent with respect to height.
The site is however subject to a seriously entertained Planning Scheme amendment
with respect to built form.
The following assessment therefore addresses both the Urban Design Guidelines for
Higher Density Residential Development, which provide direction with regards to
12
Page 23 of 33
Urban Context, Building Envelope, Street Pattern and Street Edge Quality,
Circulation and Services, Building Layout and Design and Open space and
Landscape Design for developments of four or more storeys, and the objectives and
built form outcomes of proposed DDO60.
Amendment C190 seeks to further elaborate on the objectives of the current local
Urban Design Policy Outside the Capital City Zone (Clause 22.17) with the following
detailed objectives for the Arden-Macaulay urban renewal area: (Panel Version)
•
To ensure the preferred character of Arden Macaulay develops as a compact,
high density, mid-rise, walkable and high amenity neighbourhood.
•
To provide for mid-rise 6 – 12 storey development, stepping down at the interface
with the low scale surrounding established residential neighbourhoods.
•
To ensure the scale, height and setbacks of new buildings at the interface with
the surrounding established residential neighbourhoods is compatible with the
scale, amenity and context of these areas.
•
To create urban streetscapes within the area that are defined by a generally
consistent plane of building facades that collectively enclose the sides of the
streetscapes whilst allowing good levels of daylight and sunlight to penetrate to
the streets and to lower building levels.
•
To ensure buildings align to the street edge.
•
To deliver a fine grain of built form creating architectural variety and interest along
streets by encouraging buildings with wide street frontages to be broken into
smaller vertical sections.
•
To create streetscapes that have a high level of pedestrian comfort in terms of
their scale, access to sunlight, daylight and sky views.
•
To provide shelter for pedestrians on primary streets from the rain, wind and sun
without causing detriment to building or streetscape integrity.
•
To ensure new development respects the character, form, massing and scale of
adjoining heritage buildings and places.
•
To improve the neighbourhood walkability by introducing a fine-grain network of
laneways/through links, which is integrated with the pattern of development of
adjacent areas, maximises permeability for pedestrian movement and
accommodates vehicular and service access to developments.
•
To ensure that development provides a high level of amenity for building
occupants.
•
To create a streetscape microclimate where street trees will flourish.
•
To encourage the ground floor of buildings to be designed so that they can be
used for a variety of uses over time.
•
To promote a visual link of the public realm with the first five levels of the building
and facilitate the passive surveillance of the public realm.
For the subject site in Area 11 under proposed DDO60 the preferred building
envelope is expressed as :
•
Preferred maximum building height of 30 metres
•
Maximum street edge height for Shiel Street must be equal to 10.5 metres and
Haines Street must be equal to 14 metres
•
Preferred building envelope from street should be within the line of sight as
shown in Figure 10 in Shiel Street.
13
Page 24 of 33
•
In Haines Street any part of building above 14 metres must have a setback of 14
metres from Haines Street.
This proposal does not now seek to include any taller built form at the rear of the site,
but to offer a built form similar to that previously approved by Council under
application TP-2012-643.
The maximum street edge heights exceed both the 10.5m recommended for Shiel
Street and the 14m recommended for Haines Street but the sixth floor above these
preferred heights is broken up into a series of separate elements to reduce the mass
and improve light penetration to bedroom windows.
Subject to the constraints imposed by the south-east facing curved frontage to this
site, it is considered that this proposal meets the built form outcome for Area 11 in
that it will deliver a scale of development that provides street definition and a high
level of pedestrian amenity. .
Neighbourhood Character and Strategic Context
This design objective seeks to ensure that buildings 'respond creatively to their
existing context and to agreed aspirations for the future development of the area'.
The existing site comprises an uninspiring commercial warehouse building fronting a
mixed use street opposite open space, close to shopping facilities and public
transport and within the Arden-Macaulay future urban renewal area.
Area 11 lies opposite an established residential neighbourhood, with the more
sensitive interface being to the north and east. Although the subject site has a very
limited frontage to Shiel Street itself, any building constructed here will have high
visibility across the roundabout and from Gardiners Reserve.
Anticipated new development at the rear of this site and west along Haines Street will
result in a new built form context that has yet to emerge.
Design Response
The design response that has been submitted draws on the opportunities and
constraints identified in the urban context report. An amended urban context report
was not provided when the application was amended, however the detailed
illustrations, photo montages, sections and other material demonstrate the design
intent.
Street Edge Heights
The proposed maximum building height of 17.8 metres is well within the C190
suggested height control of 30 metres, however the street edge heights do not
comply. At the north edge, where 10.5m is preferred, the height will be 15m, and at
the west edge where 14m is preferred, 17.8m is proposed.
The expressed floor slabs create a strong curved edge from the ground level (taken
at the Shiel Street end) to the top of level 4. Above this, the glazed balcony
balustrades alternate with zinc-clad enclosed spaces to break up the edge line
Viewed from the east along Haines Street, the proposal is likely to have a backdrop
of taller built form (up to 30m) as anticipated under C190.
The proposed street edge height and setbacks are supported on the basis that this is
a better design outcome than a lower or stepped form with taller element above on
this prominent corner .
Whilst C190 is an adopted policy of the Council has not yet been scrutinised by an
independent panel. At present there are no height controls on the site, but the site is
14
Page 25 of 33
located within an area that is promoted as an Urban Renewal area under the MSS. It
is considered that the proposed street edge height and setbacks respond to the site
and surrounds as well as the built form outcomes of the proposed height controls,
and that these can be supported.
Further, it is noted that the street edge heights and setbacks are similar to the
proposal set out under TP-2012-643 that was considered and approved by the
Future Melbourne Committee on 6 August 2013
Sunlight to Public Spaces
Objective 2.3 — To protect sunlight access to public spaces
The height and setbacks of the proposed development will not result in any increased
overshadowing of Gardiner Reserve at 2pm on the 22 September, as demonstrated
in the shadow diagrams below.
Clause 22.02 includes the following relevant policy:
‘Development should not reduce the amenity of public spaces by casting any
additional shadow on public parks and gardens, public squares, major
pedestrian routes including streets and lanes (including all streets within the
retail core of the Capital City Zone), and privately owner plazas accessible to
the public between 11.00 am and 2.00 pm on 22 September.’
The DDO60 Area 11 setbacks from Haines Street have been designed to ensure
new developments do not increase shadowing to Gardiner’s Reserve or the footpath
north of the Reserve along Haines Street, between the hours of 11.00 am and 2.00
pm on the 22 September.
Whilst many objectors have raised potential shadow impact during winter as a
concern, the Melbourne Planning Scheme (consistent with the Victorian Planning
Provisions) sets the Spring Equinox as the relevant test.
The proposal complies with the City of Melbourne’s policy on shadowing of public
parks and other public spaces.
Street setbacks
Objective 2.4 - To respond to existing or preferred street character
The building is proposed to be constructed almost up to the street edge with minor
setbacks to provide visual interest to the façade. This is consistent with the existing
and recently approved street setbacks along this stretch of Haines Street, and with
the mixed use nature of the site and surrounds.
15
Page 26 of 33
Relationships to adjoining buildings
Objective 2.5 - To ensure building separation supports private amenity and
reinforces neighbourhood character.
As previously stated, the proposal responds to the existing conditions of the
neighbouring sites with regards to building height and setbacks and also makes
allowance for the anticipated future development of these sites.
Objective 2.6 – To ensure areas can develop with an equitable access to
outlook and sunlight.
The proposed access over the Lot on the west will maintain a 3.05m wide driveway
clear to the sky and allow potential access to light for any future development on the
land at 110 Haines Street, and carriageway to 110 Haines Street..
The site to the north is currently used for industrial purposes. A blank wall is
proposed to the common boundary which would provide opportunities for the
redevelopment of this site consistent with the intent of Amendment C190.
Objective 2.7 – To ensure visual impacts to dwellings at the rear are
appropriate to the context.
This objective seeks to ensure that views from dwellings at the rear and sides of the
development are considered. The proposal has provided design detail to all
elevations, including the northern boundary.
Views to and from residential units
Objective 2.8 – To maximise informal or passive surveillance of streets and
other public open spaces.
The proposal maximises passive surveillance opportunities of Shiel Street, Haines
Street, Gardiner Reserve and the private driveway through the provision of externally
orientated living spaces and balconies at the levels above.
Objective 2.9 – To maximise residential amenity through the provision of
views and protection of privacy within the subject site and on neighbouring
properties.
The design suggestion linked to this objective seeks to locate living areas, windows
and private open spaces to minimise the potential for overlooking. It suggests that
existing dwellings should be protected from overlooking in accordance with the
requirements of Clause 55 of the planning schemes and that overlooking between
new residential units should be minimised.
Screens are proposed to open space areas and most apartments are orientated
towards Gardiner Reserve. Screens will prevent overlooking from neighbouring or
future residential developments to the north and west. There are no existing
residential dwellings that will be unreasonably overlooked having regard to the
provisions of Clause 55 (which typically consider overlooking within 9m).
Wind protection
Objective 2.10 – To ensure new tall buildings do not create adverse wind
effects.
Given the proposed height of the development and the orientation of the site, wind
impacts are not anticipated to be an issue with regards to this proposal.
16
Page 27 of 33
Roof forms
Objective 2.11 – To treat roof spaces and forms as a considered aspect of
the overall building design.
The lift overrun is set well back from street edges and the rest of the roof is to be
utilised for energy-saving devices such as photo-voltaic cells. The amended plans
indicate some vegetation at roof level and the applicant has been asked to clarify if a
‘green roof’ is the intention.
15.2
Heritage
The subject site is not in a Heritage Overlay and the streetscapes on the south-west
side of Shiel Street and in Haines Street are quite different in character to the
opposite side of Shiel Street which has sections of high heritage value. As quoted in
part 15.1 of this report above, proposed DDO60 includes the following objective:
‘To ensure the scale, height and setbacks of new buildings at the interface
with the surrounding established residential neighbourhoods is compatible
with the scale, amenity and context of these areas.’
For the subject site, which has a Shiel Street address but primarily addresses the
round-about and Gardiner Reserve, there is no direct interface with that part of the
established residential neighbourhood that is a maximum of three storeys and
includes dwellings from the nineteenth century of heritage value.
The relationship between the subject site and the north side of Shiel Street is
demonstrated in the image below.
Relationship of site to north side of Shiel Street.
Site boundary
sits clear of
heritage
properties and
lower scale
development on
the north side of
Shiel Street
Subject Site
15.3 Internal Amenity
In response to initial concerns about internal amenity (which appears to have been a
result of an increased number of units per floor compared to the 2012 application),
the applicant has removed some of the secondary balconies to improve daylight
penetration into the development.
17
Page 28 of 33
A table on floor plan TP-102 (levels 1 to 4) demonstrates that for all bedrooms not
located on a boundary the percentage of daylight exceeds the ten per cent minimum
specified by the building regulations.
The applicant has further submitted that the 2012 application had all bedroom
windows set back from the street frontage, some up to 11 metres back, and relying
on narrow slots above for light. The proposed inboard study spaces that have no
direct light or opportunity for natural ventilation are designed as separate rooms,
which would not meet the relevant regulations. The walls and doors of these studies
should be removed and this floor area would then form part of the main living area
and could be used as a flexible space to suit the occupier (e.g. home cinema, study,
etc).
Floor to floor heights of 3 metres will allow for 2.7 metres floor to ceiling heights.
15.4
Potential Amenity Impacts
As discussed above, the proposal has been designed to allow for the anticipated
future development of adjoining land. The 3.05 metre wide lot to be added to the
west of the site is to remain clear to the sky above and development of the land
further to the west will benefit from having this opportunity for daylight access on its
boundary.
Overlooking between dwellings that may be developed to the north and west is the
main potential amenity issue. To maintain equitable access to outlook from all of the
sites, some additional screening may be required. At present there are no
opportunities for unreasonable overlooking.
15.4
Car Parking and Traffic Access
The amended application reduces density on the site (compared to the advertised
proposal) which will reduce traffic generation rates and avoid the need for widening
of the accessway.
The applicant’s traffic engineers have provided a detailed response to the traffic
engineering referral comments set out in part 14.1 of this report. Further revisions
have been made to the lower ground floor layout, including a change to the type of
automated parking system to be installed.
Key features of the revised layout (Drawing TP100 revision A received on 18 August
2014) are:
•
A Wohr Combilift 543-2,0 system or similar is to be installed to provide 34
resident car parking spaces with a useable platform width of 2.7m, which exceeds
planning scheme requirements and can be accommodated in the 3.0m wide
parking bays with 5.8m wide access aisle as shown on the plans.
•
Swept path diagrams attached show that the mechanical car parking is clearly
accessible by a B85 design vehicle.
•
The planning scheme requirement to have at least 25 per cent of spaces with a
minimum clearance of 1.8m would apply to nine of the 34 spaces, which would
need a floor to ceiling clearance of 3.75m.
•
There is no carriageway easement over the land at 102A Haines Street that
would require access for any adjoining site.
•
Based on 34 car spaces, the probability of two cars meeting in the accessway
during peak hour is 1 per cent or approximately three times per year.
•
Haines Street is sufficiently wide for an entering vehicle to prop for the short time
required for the exiting vehicle to pass.
18
Page 29 of 33
•
There is no statutory requirement for motorcycle parking, however the amended
plan shows two motorcycle parking spaces for residents.
•
Resident bicycle parking has been rationalised to a single compound providing 34
spaces with dimensions to comply with Clause 52.34-4 of the planning scheme.
•
Visitor parking demand is anticipated to be 0.06 spaces per apartment during
business hours and 0.10 spaces per apartment in the evening and on weekends,
which equates to 2 spaces during the day and three spaces evenings on
weekend. Based on the car parking surveys submitted with the application, there
are 110 available spaces at peak times in close proximity to the site. The peak
demand can therefore be accommodated on the streets.
•
It is not practicable to provide for visitor parking within a secure car park on the
site, and given the available parking on the streets visitors are unlikely to use on
site spaces.
Based on the above information and the revised plan, it is considered that all of the
car parking and traffic issues initially raised have been satisfactorily addressed.
As an added precaution, signage could be provided at the car park exit requiring
exiting vehicles to give way to incoming. This is matter that can be addressed by
condition should a permit issue.
15.5
Response to Objector Concerns
The preceding discussion seeks to address the concerns of objectors. A number of
concerns however remain outstanding. These matters are discussed further below.
3-5 Shiel Street Ventilation Stacks
The proposed development is to be constructed beside the existing ventilation stacks
for the auto repair business at 3-5 Shiel Street, which comply with the current EPA
requirements. The development would result in these stacks not complying with the
EPA requirements. Clause 21.04 Table 3 with relation to the Mixed Use Zone states:
‘Ensure that responsibility for management of operational impacts such as
traffic, parking, odour, lightspill, signage and noise falls upon the agent of
change, to minimise impacts on the neighbourhood.’
In this case a permit is not required for the residential land use, given the site is
located within the Mixed Use Zone. Therefore, it was considered to be the
responsibility of the industrial land use to comply with any relevant EPA
requirements. The current operator of the business at 3-5 Shiel Street sought a
review of the Notice of Decision to Grant permit TP-2012-643 for 1 Shiel Street on
the basis of the cost to the business. On the basis of a Consent Order, VCAT
directed that no permit should issue without the merits of the case being considered.
A separate permit has been granted for relocation of the ventilation stacks away from
the site boundary to a location where the EPA requirements would be met. It is also
understood that the owner of 3-5 Shiel Street is currently considering redevelopment
of the site for residential development.
Increased demand on local services and facilities including Gardiner Reserve
and the local tram route.
The Arden Macaulay Structure Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement seek to
increase density in this location and encourage medium rise residential development.
The site is well located with regards to community facilities including Gardiner
Reserve, North Melbourne Oval, Pool and Recreation Centre, and Moonee Ponds
Creek reserve and bike paths. Bus and Tram and both within easy walking distance,
19
Page 30 of 33
and North Melbourne and Macaulay Train Stations are within 1 km of the site. The
site is therefore considered well located for a medium density development.
Location of the building entrance where the footpath is narrow and widening
may compromise the existing street tree.
Engineering Services have provided standard conditions in regard to any changes in
the road reserve and a condition requires consultation with Urban Landscapes if any
works would affect the canopy or root zone of the existing street tree.
Contaminated land
The site has previously been used as industry and is downhill from a motor vehicle
repairs centre; therefore there is the potential that the site may be contaminated.
The applicant submitted a preliminary site investigation which included the follow
recommendations:
‘OTEK recommends a subsurface investigation be performed on the site to
determine if contaminated coils or groundwater will need to be managed as
part of the redevelopment activities.
In any event the site is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay and should a
permit issue this is a matter that must be required by condition.
15.6
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant sections of the
Melbourne Planning Scheme, the intent of proposed DDO60, and is broadly
consistent with the approval granted for the development under TP-2012-643. It is
considered that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit should be issued for the
proposal subject to conditions.
16
RECOMMENDATION
That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Prior to the commencement of the use and development on the land, two
copies of plans, drawn to scale must be submitted to the Responsible
Authority generally in accordance with the plans received on 23 July 2014,
and Lower ground Floor Plan revision a received on 18 August 2014 but
amended to show:
a. Removal of internal walls and doors to the ‘study’ spaces of
apartments 103-105, 203-207, 303-307, 403-407 and 603-607 to
ensure these spaces are not individual habitable rooms in their own
right.
b. All existing features in the road reserve including trees, poles, sewer
vent, crossings and pits, and if any of these are to be removed or
relocated.
c. A building name, street number, or other identifying feature at the
Shiel Street residential entrance.
d. Provision of signage inside the car park requiring exiting vehicles to
give way to incoming vehicles
e. Provision of two motor cycle parking spaces within the basement.
20
Page 31 of 33
f.
Redesign or the bicycle parking adjacent to the Haines Street frontage
to provide for a minimum of three bicycles to be parked so that they do
not project over the footpath..
g. Further greening of the north-east ground floor brick wall on the corner
of Shiel and Haines Streets and details of any proposed green roof.
h. Any changes to the waste storage and collection areas as required by
the Waste management Plan approved under condition 4.
These amended plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority and when approved shall be the endorsed plans of this permit.
2.
The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be
altered or modified unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible
Authority.
3.
Prior to the commencement of the development, excluding any demolition or
bulk excavation, a schedule and samples of all external materials, colours
and finishes including colour rendered and notated plans and elevations
must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority.
4.
Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management Plan
(WMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Melbourne Engineering Services. The WMP should detail waste storage and collection
arrangements and be prepared with reference to the City of Melbourne
Guidelines for Preparing a Waste Management Plan 2014. Waste storage
and collection arrangements must not be altered without prior consent of the
City of Melbourne - Engineering Services.
5.
No garbage bin or waste materials generated by the permitted use may be
deposited or stored outside the site and bins must be returned to the
garbage storage area as soon as practical after garbage collection, to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority - Engineering Services.
6.
Prior to the commencement of the development (excluding any demolition or
bulk excavation), a detailed landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified
landscape architect must be submitted and approved by the Responsible
Authority. This plan must include details of any landscaping to the roof, the
landscaping to the building entry and ground floor brick wall and any
proposed street tree planting. Street Tree planting must be to the
satisfaction of the City of Melbourne, Tree Planning.
7.
Prior to the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association
with a sensitive use commences, the following information must be
submitted to the Responsible Authority. Either:
a. A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in
accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or
b. An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection
Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that
Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the
sensitive use.
8.
The ESD measures specified in the ESD Planning Report prepared by
Clement Bresson dated 30 March 2014 for the development must be
updated to relate to the amended plans required by Condition 1 and
implemented prior to occupancy at no cost to the City of Melbourne and be
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any change during detailed
design which affects the approach of the endorsed ESD Statement, must be
21
Page 32 of 33
assessed by an accredited professional. The revised statement must be
endorsed by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of
construction.
9.
No street tree adjacent to the site may be removed, lopped, pruned or rootpruned without the prior written consent of Council’s Tree Planner. Any
consent to lop, prune or root-prune any street tree may first necessitate the
submission of a Tree Protection Plan. This plan must be submitted to and be
approved by the Council’s Tree Planner prior to the lopping, pruning or rootpruning of any street tree(s).
10.
Prior to the commencement of the development the land in certificate of title
10929 folio 131, also known as 102A Haines Street, must be purchased
from Council and consolidated with all the land for the development.
11.
Prior to the commencement of the development, a stormwater drainage
system incorporating integrated water management design principles must
be submitted to, and approved, by the Responsible Authority - Engineering
Services. This system must be constructed prior to the occupation of the
development and provision made to connect this system to the City of
Melbourne's stormwater drainage system.All necessary vehicle crossings
adjacent to the subject land must be constructed and all unnecessary
vehicle crossings demolished in accordance with plans and specifications
first approved by the Responsible Authority – Manager Engineering Services
Branch.
12.
The existing footpath/road levels in Haines Street and Shiel Street must not
be altered for the purpose of constructing new vehicle or pedestrian
entrances without first obtaining the written approval of the Responsible
Authority - Manager Engineering Services Branch.
13.
The footpaths in Haines Street and Shiel Street must be reconstructed,
including the renewal and/or relocation of kerb and channel adjacent the
subject land, provision of public lighting, street trees, street furniture or other
services, at the cost of the owner/developer in accordance with plans and
specifications first approved by the Responsible Authority – Manager
Engineering Services Branch.
14.
No more than one telecommunications receiver/television aerial may be
erected on the building without the consent of the Responsible Authority.
15.
This permit will expire if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
a. The development is not started within two years of the date of this
permit.
b. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this
permit.
c. The use is not commenced within four years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the date upon which the permit
expires a request for an extension of time must be in writing and be received
before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
NOTES
1.
Any requirement to temporarily relocate street lighting must be first approved
by the City of Melbourne – Manager Engineering Services Branch.
2.
All street lighting temporarily relocated must be reinstated to the satisfaction
of the City of Melbourne - Manager Engineering Services Branch.
22
Page 33 of 33
3.
Any crossings to be retained must be reconstructed in asphalt to the
satisfaction of the City of Melbourne - Manager Engineering Services
Branch.
4.
All necessary approvals and permits are to be first obtained from the City of
Melbourne – Engineering Services and the works performed to the
satisfaction of the City of Melbourne – Engineering Services.
5.
Under the Resident Priority Parking Permit scheme, occupiers of the
development approved by this permit are not eligible to obtain resident
priority parking permits or visitor vouchers.
6.
The applicant should consult with City West Water before carrying out any
works on the land known as 102A Haines Street that may affect the sewer
located beneath the land.
23

Download Report