2 Wests Road, Maribyrnong - Maribyrnong City Council

Transcription

Page 1 of 88
CITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORT
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
2 WESTS ROAD, MARIBYRNONG (TP612/2012)
Director:
Nigel Higgins
Director Sustainable Development
Author:
Amy Mak
Coordinator Urban Planning
PURPOSE
To consider a significant planning application for 2 Wests Road, Maribyrnong, which
has received 40 objections and one letter of support.
APPLICATION RECEIVED:
APPLICATION NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROPOSAL:
ZONING:
OVERLAYS:
PERMIT TRIGGERS:
INTERNAL REFERRALS:
26 July 2013
TP613/2012 (V1)
Pace Investment Holdings
2 Wests Road, Maribyrnong
Staged application for:
Use and development of the land for
dwellings and a retail premises
To exceed the three storey height and plot
ratio specified under the Comprehensive
Development Zone Schedule 2
Reduction in the carparking requirements
Creation of access to a road in a Road Zone
Category 1
Reduction in the bicycle parking
requirements.
CDZ2 - Comprehensive Development Zone 2
RDZ1 - Road Zone Category 1
DCPO2 - Development Contributions Plan
Overlay (Schedule 2)
Use of the land as a retail premises (CDZ2)
Use of the land for dwellings with a frontage in
excess of two metres (CDZ2)
Construct a building not consistent with a
development plan (CDZ2)
To exceed three storeys in height above ground
level (CDZ2)
To exceed a plot ratio of 1:5 (CDZ2)
Reduction in the carparking requirements
(Clause 52.06)
To create access to a road in a Road Zone
Category 1 (Clause 52.29)
Reduction in the bicycle parking requirements
(Clause 52.34).
Civil Design and Transport (Development
Approvals), Civil Design and Transport (Transport),
Sustainability (Waste Services), City Strategy, City
Design
Page 2 of 88
EXTERNAL REFERRALS:
COST OF DEVELOPMENT:
WARD:
ADVERTISED:
NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS:
DATE OF PLANNING
FORUM:
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Public Transport Victoria, Melbourne Airport,
VicRoads
$47,000,000
River
Yes
40
24 July 2013
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
Proposed Permit Conditions – for Committee’s consideration
Amended Plans – for Committee’s consideration
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Order for 62 Wests Road – for
Committee’s information.
ISSUES SUMMARY
The proposal considers an application for three multi level buildings.
The buildings range between four and 15 storeys in height, contain 192
dwellings, one retail premises, and 232 car spaces.
The application was advertised and received 40 objections and one letter of
support.
The applicant has formally amended the plans to address concerns raised at
the planning forum.
The application meets the carparking demand for residents and visitors.
The application has a high level of compliance with State and Local Planning
Policies, is designated a ‘landmark site’ in a Principal Activity Centre, and is
consistent with the key outcomes from the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal (VCAT) order for 62 Wests Road, Maribyrnong.
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
That the City Development Special Committee issues a Notice of Decision to
Grant a Permit for land at 2 Wests Road, Maribyrnong, subject to the
conditions contained in Attachment 1, for the staged application to:
1.
Use and develop the land for dwellings and a food and drink premises
(café).
2.
Exceed the three storey height and plot ratio specified under the
Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 2.
3.
Reduce the carparking requirements in association with the food and
drink premises.
4.
Create access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.
5.
Reduce the bicycle parking requirements.
Page 3 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
BACKGROUND
1.
Proposal
The proposal (based on the amended plans) is summarised as:
Construction of three multi level buildings containing 192 dwellings (75 x one
bedroom and 117 x two bedroom dwellings).
A total of 232 carparking spaces spread across four levels, with access to the
carpark from Wests Road.
A total of 67 bicycle spaces, with 47 spaces located within the ground floor car
park and 20 spaces located on the nature strip.
Building A is located in the south-western corner of the site, faces Wests Road,
and is described as:
Four storeys in height (approximately 14.8 metres)
Set back 2.6 metres from Wests Road
Entrance from either Wests Road or the internal courtyard (on the second
floor).
Building B is located to the south of the site and faces Williamson Road. The
building is predominantly residential and is described as:
15 storeys in height (approximately 47.8 metres)
210 square metre retail premises located at ground floor fronting
Williamson Road
Constructed along the eastern boundary at ground and first floor levels
and set back between one metre (for planting) and 5.5 metres at all other
levels
Pedestrian access from the residential foyer located behind the retail
tenancy.
Building C is located to the north of the site, faces Wests Road, and is
described as:
Ranges between four and eight storeys in height
Set back from the northern boundary between one metre and three
metres. This will accommodate a ‘planting zone’ which will see dense
cascading ground covers, climbers and 11 metre tall trees, planted to
soften the interface with the adjoining balconies
Access to the building will be via the residential lobby on Wests Road.
The landscape plan shows a number of large trees and climbers around the
perimeter of the building, within the communal courtyards at podium level
(second floor) and in the communal space on the corner of Wests and
Williamson Roads. Nine new street trees will be planted along both site
frontages.
Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the plans.
2.
Site and Surrounds
Subject Site
The subject site is located in the north-eastern corner of the Wests and Williamson
Roads, Maribyrnong, and is within the boundaries of the Highpoint Principal Activity
Centre (PAC). The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to Wests Road of
82.2 metres, a depth of 46.8 metres along Williamson Road and an overall site area
comprising 3,871 square metres.
Page 4 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
The land is known as Lot 1 on PS404592U. A vehicle crossover is located along the
Williamson Road frontage and a splay has been created in the south-western corner
of the site that accommodates a footpath.
Surrounding Area
The site and surrounding area to the north and east are located within the boundaries
of the Highpoint PAC. The area contains a diverse mix of building forms and land
uses. Highpoint Shopping Centre and Maribyrnong Aquatic Centre are located 350
metres east of the subject site.
Directly north of the site, at 4 Wests Road, are a number of three and four storey
residential buildings. These buildings are separated from the site by a five metre
wide access way. A number of habitable rooms and balconies are situated
approximately five metres from the subject site.
Further north, at 62 Wests Road, a permit has been issued at the direction of the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for the construction of multi level
buildings, with the tallest building being 19 storeys.
Directly east of the site is a tram corridor. Further east of the site, along both sides of
Williamson Road, are a number of single and double storey buildings used for light
industrial purposes.
To the south of the site, at 98-108 Hampstead Road, are a group of restricted retail
premises including a baby nursery store, a camping store, a paint store and a pet
supply store.
Directly west of the site, between 11 and 31 Wests Road, are a group of commercial
uses including retail shops, take away food premises, restaurants, convenience shop
and a medical centre. Further north-west of these shops is the Waterford Green
Estate. The Estate comprises a range of dwelling types including double storey
dwellings, through to four and five storey apartment buildings.
3.
Planning Scheme Amendments
There are no Planning Scheme amendments affecting the site.
4.
Applicable Planning Controls
State Planning Policy Framework
The following clauses are applicable to the proposal:
Clause 10 – Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework:
Clause 10.04 – Integrated Decision Making.
Clause 11 – Settlement:
Clause 11.01 - Activity Centres
Clause 11.02 - Urban Growth
Clause 11.04 - Metropolitan Melbourne.
Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage:
Clause 15.01 - Urban Environment
Clause 15.02 - Sustainable development.
Page 5 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Clause 16 – Housing
Clause 16.01 – Residential Development
Clause 16.02 – Housing Form.
Clause 17 – Economic Development:
Clause 17.01 – Commercial.
Clause 18 – Transport:
Clause 18.01 - Integrated Transport.
Local Planning Policy Framework
The following clauses are applicable to the proposal:
Clause 21 – Municipal Strategic Statement
Clause 21.03 – Council Vision
Clause 21.04 – Settlement
Clause 21.06 – Built Environment and Heritage
Clause 21.07 – Housing
Clause 21.09 – Transport
Clause 21.10 – Community and Development Infrastructure
Clause 21.11 – Local Areas.
Clause 22 – Policies
Clause 22.03 – Potentially Contaminated Land.
Reference Documents and Other Policies
Melbourne 2030
Melbourne 2030 is a 30 year plan to manage growth and change across metropolitan
Melbourne and the surrounding region. The policy established a hierarchy of activity
centres throughout metropolitan Melbourne, with Highpoint identified as a Principal
Activity Centre (PAC). It should be acknowledged that a PAC is second only in
importance to a Central Activities Area (CAA) and is generally aimed to grow and
support intensive housing developments without conflicting with surrounding land
uses.
Melbourne @ 5 Million
This policy document builds on the foundations of Melbourne 2030 to create a refined
settlement structure based upon the growth of Melbourne. The policy focuses on
locating more intense housing development in and around activity centres, and on
large redevelopment sites with good access to public transport.
Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development
The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development have been developed to
promote well designed higher density housing in activity centres and other strategic
redevelopment sites that are close to public transport. It is a tool to guide the
assessment of developments of four or more storeys.
Maribyrnong Housing Strategy (December 2011)
Introduced into the scheme as a reference document in December 2012, the
Maribyrnong Housing Strategy (the Housing Strategy) identifies locations suitable for
different rates of housing change (substantial, incremental and limited change).
Page 6 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
The Housing Strategy recognises Highpoint PAC as one of the two ‘Substantial
Change Activity Centres’ and directs the majority of future housing growth to these
areas. It envisages that apartment style housing and mixed use townhouses will be
the focus and recognises the need to avoid underdevelopment of sites within these
areas.
Highpoint Activity Centre Structure Plan (2008)
The Highpoint Activity Centre Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) is a reference
document under Clause 21.12 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme. The purpose of
the Structure Plan is to provide for growth and change in the Highpoint PAC in a
planned and managed manner. The Structure Plan objectives and strategies will be
applied to guide decision making for the centre.
The Development Framework Plan contained within the Structure Plan identifies this
site falling in the ‘Williamson Road’ precinct. The Structure Plan considers this
precinct to be “under-developed, with potential for intensification to increase the
compactness and diversity of the area”.
The Structure Plan specifically recommends the development of a ‘landmark building’
on the subject site. It should also be noted that the Structure Plan provides no
guidance on heights across the PAC.
Northern Maribyrnong Integrated Transport Strategy (NMITS)
Adopted in April 2012, the Strategy looks at future development in the activity centre
and surrounds, including 3,000 plus dwellings on the defence site, and assesses the
transport network’s functionality.
Zoning
The site is located within the Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 2. A
permit is required to:
Use the land as a food and drink premises (café) not on land shown on an
approved development plan
Use the land as a dwelling with a frontage in excess of 2 metres
Construct a building not consistent with a development plan
Exceed three storeys in height above ground level
Exceed a plot ratio of 1:5.
Overlays
The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 2. A
total contribution of $86,400 is applicable in this instance ($450 per net new
dwelling).
Particular Provisions
The following particular provisions are relevant to this application:
Page 7 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Clause 52.06 – Carparking
The proposal (as amended) satisfies the residential and visitor parking rate. A
reduction in parking is being sought for the food and drink premises (café). The food
and drink premise generates a requirement of eight spaces. Only one space and one
loading space is provided.
Clause 52.07 – Loading and unloading of vehicles
The plans show the proposed ground floor commercial use as a ‘retail premises’
which is a broad land use and can include the whole-selling and hiring of goods and
services. Based on this use, a loading bay would be required under the provisions of
Clause 52.07.
The applicant has agreed to restrict the retail use to a food and drink premises (café).
This is a more compatible use considering the zoning of the land. As such, the
requirement for a loading bay is no longer required and the space currently allocated
for loading/ unloading can be converted into a dual purpose carparking space. The
change in use and removal of the loading bay can be included as a condition of any
permit issued.
Clause 52.29 – Land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1
A permit is required to create a new crossover in Wests Road. In accordance with
the requirements of Clause 52.29, the application was referred to VicRoads.
VicRoads provided no objection to the proposal.
Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities
A total of 61 bicycle spaces is provided, which is in excess of the required spaces
(57). However, considering that 14 spaces will be provided on-street, the proposal
technically requires a reduction of 10 bicycle spaces.
Clause 52.35 - Urban context report and design response for residential
development of four or more storeys
Pursuant to Clause 52.35, an application for a residential development of four or
more storeys in a residential zone must be accompanied by an urban context report
and a design response. While the provisions of this clause do not apply to the site,
given the non-residential zoning of the land (Comprehensive Development Zone), the
applicant provided documents, plans and images to satisfy this requirement.
Clause 52.36 - Integrated Public Transport
Pursuant to Clause 52.36-1, an application for the construction of a residential
development comprising 60 or more dwellings or lots, must be referred to Public
Transport Victoria (PTV) in accordance with section 55 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 (the Act). The comments received from PTV are discussed in
section 8 of this report.
Page 8 of 88
5.
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Notification
The application was advertised pursuant to section 52 of the Act. A total of 40
submissions have been received. The objections can be summarised as:
Overdevelopment of the site
Not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood character of the area
Insufficient carparking and increase in cars parked in Waterford Green
Access and traffic difficulties
Site is in a residential zone not an activity centre
Building height is excessive and exceeds permitted height
Amenity impacts including overlooking and overshadowing
Waste and rubbish issues
Increase in air and noise pollution
Inadequate infrastructure to cater to increased population
Devaluation of property value.
It is noted that one letter of support has been received to the application.
A Planning Forum was held on 24 July 2013 and was attended by six objectors and
the two ward Councillors. Following the issues raised at the forum, the applicant
amended the plans pursuant to section 57A of the Act. The main changes included:
The addition of a basement carpark accommodating 28 car spaces
Greater setback from the northern boundary through a new ‘planting zone’
Lowering of height of the northern boundary wall
Increased glazing to the retail premises to address the tram corridor
Provision of additional storage cages within the carpark.
Council advised all objectors of the revised plans and published the plans on
Council’s website. No additional comments or objections have been received against
the revised plans and these plans form the basis for Council’s decision.
Human Rights Consideration
It is noted this application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of
the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which complies with the Charter of Human
Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Conflicts of Interest
No officer responsible for, or contributing to, this report has declared a direct or
indirect interest in relation to this report.
6.
Referrals
External
The application (including the amended application plans) was externally referred to
VicRoads, Melbourne Airport and Public Transport Victoria. All three authorities had
no objection to the proposal and their comments are summarised as:
Melbourne Airport
There is no infringement into the prescribed airspace.
Page 9 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
VicRoads
No fencing, boom gate, security door, or such structure designed to restrict
access to the site is to be provided within 12 metres from the Wests Road
carriageway, to prevent vehicle queuing on Wests Road.
The crossover is required to be widened to allow efficient left turning
movements and is to be flared 60 degrees from the property boundary with
three metre wide radial turnouts.
A swept path analysis is to be provided showing vehicles entering and exiting
the site and must have a minimum offset of 0.5 metres from extremities.
Public Transport Victoria
Improvements to the existing south-bound tram stop 50 directly abutting the site
by connecting path, landscaping, lighting and shelter - all DDA compliant.
Removal and relocation of tram stop 50 (north bound) to the western side of the
tramway abutting the subject site.
The requirements of Vic Roads and Public Transport Victoria are included as
conditions in Attachment 1.
Internal
The application was referred internally to:
Civil Design and Transport (Development Approvals)
Civil Design and Transport (Transport)
Sustainability (Waste Services)
City Strategy
City Design.
The key comments received from these departments can be summarised as:
The provision of parking provided on site is satisfactory.
The setback of the security door/ intercom should be increased to 6 metres.
The existing footpaths along the site frontages will need to be completely
reconstructed with a 1.5 metre-wide reinforced concrete footpath along the full
extent of the site frontages.
A private contractor will be used to collect waste and the applicant has
sufficiently addressed all areas of waste management.
The Structure Plan and planning policy identify that a key opportunity for this
landmark site is a medium-high density mixed use development.
The design response has minimised the adverse amenity impacts on
neighbouring residential areas by respecting their scale at the edges and
locating the tallest elements of the development away from the residential
areas.
The proposed development yield is supported by existing state and local
policies for activity centres and is a key strategic redevelopment site pursuant to
Clause 16.01-3.
The Phase 1 Report does not meet the standard for Preliminary
Environmentally Site Assessment as prescribed in Council’s Potentially
Contaminated Land Policy.
Page 10 of 88
7.
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Key Issues
Having considered all the referral comments, grounds of objection and relevant case
law, it is considered the principal issues for consideration are:
Is the proposal supported by state and local planning policy?
Does the proposal meet the policy intent and objectives of Schedule 2 to the
Comprehensive Development Zone in terms of land use, height and built form?
Is the proposal supported by the findings of the Tribunal’s decision for 62 Wests
Road?
Are the proposed traffic and carparking conditions acceptable?
An assessment against each of these questions is addressed below.
Is the proposal supported by state and local planning policy?
Clauses 11 and 16 of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) encourage
building up activity centres as a focus for high quality development and increased
housing densities that are well located in relation to activity centres and public
transport.
Clause 11.04-2 (Activity Centre Hierarchy) establishes a hierarchy of activity centres,
and defines the role and function of each centre. PACs are identified as being
second only in importance to CAAs and have the potential to support intensive
housing development without conflicting with surrounding land uses. The policies
provide no direct guidance on height controls, however it supports the intensification
of higher density developments.
Clause 16.01 provides guidance on housing and, in particular, calls for integrated
housing outcomes and the increase of housing supply in existing urban areas on
underutilised land. Clause 16.01-3 further stipulates criteria for nominating strategic
redevelopment sites, as being sites that are:
In or within easy walking distance of PACs
On or abutting tram, light rail and bus routes that are part of the Principal Public
Transport Network
Able to provide 10 or more dwelling units, close to activity centres and well
serviced by public transport.
The subject site meets all of the above locational criteria and has a high level of
compliance with Clauses 11 and 16 as it:
Is located within the nominated boundaries of the Highpoint PAC
Directly abuts both tram and bus routes providing access to locations such as
Moonee Ponds transport interchange, Footscray Railway Station and the
Central Business District
Is considered an underutilised site being a vacant lot with an area in excess of
3,800 square metres
Can accommodate a higher density development given it has a non-sensitive
interface on three of its four boundaries.
Similarly, many aspects of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) encourage
higher density development outcomes within the Highpoint PAC.
Page 11 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Council’s local settlement policy contained at Clause 21.04 supports the
transformation and housing intensification of the Highpoint PAC in accordance with
the Structure Plan. The Housing Growth Policy identifies the need for 14,000–16,000
new homes by 2031, to accommodate projected population growth, and directs
growth to identified substantial change areas and substantial change activity centres.
The Highpoint PAC is identified as a Substantial Change Activity Centre pursuant to
the Housing Growth Area Framework contained at Clause 21.07-1.
Clause 21.11-2 provides specific guidance for the future of Highpoint PAC. The local
policy envisages the transformation of Highpoint to broaden its role to include a better
community focus and more mixed use developments including higher density
housing and offices. Of relevance, strategies to expand the PAC include:
Develop the underutilised land at the edges of the activity centre.
Encourage high-density housing within the activity centre.
Support development with vertically-mixed uses to increase diversity and
compactness.
Encourage extended hours of activity within the centre to promote public safety,
amenity and vibrancy during the day and night.
Require new development to achieve high standards of environmental
sustainability in terms of design, construction and operation.
The Highpoint Structure Plan is a reference document in Clause 21.12. The purpose
of the Structure Plan is to provide for growth and change in the Highpoint PAC in a
planned and managed manner. It recognises the importance of redeveloping existing
vacant or underutilised sites within the centre to meet regional housing objectives
and targets.
The Development Framework Plan contained within the reference document
illustrates key land use, infrastructure and built form directions for the centre. It
specifically identifies the site as a ‘landmark building’ site within a mixed use precinct.
A landmark site is defined in the Structure Plan not only by the height, but through an
exemplar design outcome.
The proposal meets the intent, policy guidance, direction and strategies contained
within the LPPF, including the Highpoint Structure Plan, as it:
Provides additional housing in an identified substantial change activity centre.
Will make efficient use of a vacant and underutilised site.
Supports Council’s tram route policy by encouraging development nodes within
activity centres.
Contributes to the projected population growth and assists in meeting Council’s
targets on housing.
Demonstrates an excellence in design through the materials and colour palette,
proposed landscaping and the orientation of the building.
Before deciding on an application, Clause 10.04 requires responsible authorities to
integrate the range of policies and balance conflicting objectives in favour of
achieving a net community benefit and sustainable development. On this basis, it is
considered the proposal is supported by the policies and objectives of the SPPF and
LPPF and the objective of Clause 10.04 has been achieved.
Page 12 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
Does the proposal meet the policy intent and objectives of Schedule 2 to the
Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ2) in terms of land use, height and
built form?
From the outset it must be acknowledged there is a discrepancy between the zoning
maps and the land description contained in the CDZ2. The land description states:
“This schedule applies to mixed use development in part of the area covered by
the Riverside Physical Framework Plan No. 2, north of Wests Road and
adjacent to the Maribyrnong River.”
Physically, land can only be to the east or west of Wests Road, not north as
described above. In any instance, the zoning maps clearly show the site as being
located within the CDZ2 area.
The purpose of the CDZ2 can be broadly summarised as being to encourage the
orderly development of a high quality, mixed use precinct compatible with the
amenity of the surrounding area.
A Primary Development Plan was approved by Council on 19 January 1998,
pursuant to Clause 6.0 of the schedule. A Further Development Plan is required
before the construction of any buildings or works pursuant to Clause 7.0. A Further
Development Plan has been prepared generally in accordance with the requirements
of Clause 7.0 and can be approved following any planning approval.
In determining the appropriateness of the built form and height of the building, it is
necessary to balance the decision guidelines of the CDZ2 with state policy on Built
Environment and Urban Design. Clause 15 of the SPPF provides guidance on urban
design outcomes to be achieved for developments in excess of four storeys. The
strategies in Clause 15.01-2 must be assessed in conjunction with the Design
Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (DSE, 2004).
It must be noted neither the SPPF or the LPPF provide any guidance on preferred
heights for the PAC. Therefore the height of the building should be assessed on the
impact it will cause to the surrounding area. In this instance, it is considered the
proposal meets the intent of the decision guidelines of the CDZ2, the urban design
principles of Clause 15.01, and the guidelines for higher density developments as:
The site is set back more than 750 metres from the Maribyrnong River and has
limited impact when viewed from the river.
The residential entrances of the townhouses and the residential lobbies
servicing the apartment building are clearly identifiable from the street, creating
a sense of address for future occupants.
All living spaces and bedrooms have been designed to receive good access to
natural light.
The building design maximises passive surveillance to both street frontages and
a number of balconies, windows and openings have outlook over the tram
corridor.
The public realm is enhanced through passive surveillance from the dwellings,
the landscaped forecourt and the extensive glazing around the café.
The proposal creates a landmark building to emphasis the corner location of the
site.
Page 13 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
The design creates a sense of public and private space through fencing,
differing pavement treatments and landscape design.
No residential properties are affected by shadows and the amount of shadows
cast over non-residential properties is not excessive.
The proposal will not result in any unreasonable overlooking, with new
balconies and habitable rooms set back at least nine metres from any existing
dwellings.
High quality landscape treatment is proposed. The landscape plan shows a
number of large trees and shrubs to provide depth and separation from the
residential dwellings to the north. Further, the use of climbers and other screen
planting will soften the appearance of the high wall along the tram corridor.
A condition of any approval will require each dwelling be provided with its own
individual storage facility.
The wind assessment report submitted shows that wind conditions caused by
the proposal can be ameliorated through canopies and landscape treatment.
The amended plans generally address Council’s City Design department’s concerns,
through increased glazing for the cafe, increased setbacks and landscape treatment
along the northern elevation and the tram corridor. A condition of permit will require
the café be set back 4 metres from the eastern boundary. This will better activate the
tram corridor and improve the relationship with the new tram stops as required by
PTV. The City Design department has no objection and supports the height and
architecture of the building.
Therefore it is considered the proposed mixed use development is consistent with the
purpose of the zone, the urban design principles of Clause 15.01 and the guidelines
for higher density developments.
Is the proposal supported by the Tribunal’s decision for 62 Wests Road?
VCAT directed Council to issue a permit for the construction of multilevel buildings
(with the tallest being 19 storeys) at 62 Wests Road, Maribyrnong. The subject site is
located approximately 500 metres south of 62 Wests Road and both sites are located
within the Highpoint PAC. However, unlike the subject site, 62 Wests Road is not a
nominated ‘landmark building’ site.
In reaching its decision to support the development at 62 Wests Road, and pertinent
to the determination of this application, the Tribunal made the following commentary:
27. “State and local planning policies provide very strong support for more intensive
and higher density residential development within the Highpoint PAC and that a
significant residential development on the review site is consistent with the
directions set by the planning scheme.
28. …State Governments have recognised that there needs to be additional
development on the urban fringe, part of managing the growth in population is
to focus higher density development in activity centres such as Highpoint. The
centre may have, as acknowledged in background reports, limitations in terms
of public transport and road capacity, but such limitations are relative, both to
other activity centres and to other parts of the metropolitan area.
Page 14 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
29. We consider that in the context of the inexorable growth in Melbourne’s
population, it is not unrealistic to expect the Highpoint PAC in years to come to
contain many tall ‘landmark’ buildings not just the four shown on the Framework
Plan at Clause 21.11-2. Even if 10 taller ‘landmark’ buildings similar to Building
A were constructed, it only represents the addition of 1,710 dwellings to the
PAC…Provided there are no unreasonable off site amenity impacts then more
and more taller buildings will be constructed – not just in the Highpoint PAC but
in activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites across the metropolitan
area.
30. Unlike many other sites which are subject to major redevelopment proposals,
the review site is in the fortunate position of only having one sensitive
residential interface. On the other three sides it is separated from adjoining
land by two major roads and a tramway reserve…none of the submissions raise
serious misgivings about the architectural quality or the way in which the site
has been laid out with lower buildings facing Wests Road closest to the
Waterford Green Estate and with the taller buildings located along the eastern
side furthest away from the potentially more sensitive and lower height
dwellings to the west.
31. We support this conceptual layout and the way in which the taller elements
have been positioned furthest away from the Waterford Green Estate. We also
support the concept of providing lower buildings along Wests Road to provide a
visual transition between the lower existing built form to the south and west and
the taller buildings further away from the activity centre boundary which follows
the alignment of Wests Road.
34. We are not persuaded that there is any necessity to make any such
amendments to the buildings on the review site, either because of existing
amenity impacts or because of the necessity to provide equitable development
rights. The eastern interface is not to a suburban style residential area but is to
a business zone within the PAC.
35. That amount of shadow does not concern us given the existing zoning and land
uses. Depending on how these sites are zoned or developed in the future, there
appears to be ample opportunity to develop equitably and without any
unreasonable constraints. The tramway reserve…if it is developed as a public
reserve we are not persuaded that partial afternoon shadowing is a reason to
require a redesign of the development on the review site
48. We accept that Building A will be highly visible and represent a significant
departure from the mainly low rise and largely unimaginative built form that
currently exists within the Highpoint PAC. However policy at Clauses 21.04 and
21.11-02 makes reference to a transformation of the centre - not an
evolutionary or modest change, but a transformation. Put in that context, we do
not accept that a building or buildings should be refused or reduced in height
because it is highly visible or very much taller than existing buildings.”
Page 15 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
The Order specifically recognises the importance of Highpoint PAC to accommodate
substantial growth for the projected population. It reiterates the PAC should not
accommodate modest growth, but a complete transformation including taller building
forms. The proposed development, like 62 Wests Road, will assist in the
transformation of the centre.
Further, the Tribunal raised no concern about traffic and pedestrian safety or
overlooking and overshadowing impacts of homes within the Waterford Green Estate
given the physical separation of the site from the homes.
The proposal is located on a designated landmark building site and is 4 storeys
lesser in height than 62 Wests Road. Based on the Tribunal decision and Council’s
landmark designation of the site, it is considered the proposal should be supported.
Refer to Attachment 3 for a copy of the VCAT Order for 62 Wests Road.
Are the proposed traffic and carparking conditions acceptable?
The proposal, as originally submitted, required a 16 space reduction in carparking for
the residential and visitor component and a seven space reduction for the café.
As a result of the amended plans, a basement car park has been introduced and the
proposal now provides a total of 232 carparking spaces. The effect of this is that the
residential and visitor’s carparking rate has now been met (230 spaces required by
Clause 52.06). The proposal still requires a reduction in carparking for the food and
drink premises component.
Pursuant to Clause 52.06, the 210 square metre café requires a total of eight spaces.
The proposal provides one space for the café and an additional space for a loading
bay. It is likely that visitors to the food and drink premises will be residents of the
building or employees in the area and will not generate extra carparking
requirements. It is unlikely the food and drink premises will become a destination
point. Given the size of the food and drink premises and the likely loading and
unloading demands, the loading bay could serve as a dual purpose car space for
loading or a second staff carpark.
Therefore the reduction in car parking associated with the café (six space reduction)
is supported. A condition will also require the allocation of 38 visitor spaces (based
on 192 dwellings) in the ground floor carpark to avoid any access conflict between
residents and visitors.
In terms of objectors’ concerns regarding the increase in traffic generated by the
proposal, both VicRoads and Council’s Traffic department have no objection to the
proposal. It is considered there is adequate capacity in both Wests and Williamson
Roads to cater for the demand generated by the proposal, without causing any
adverse impacts to current users of the road network.
VicRoads and Council’s Civil Design department have requested changes to the
access arrangements to avoid vehicle queuing on Wests Road. These requirements
can be included as conditions on any approval.
Page 16 of 88
27 AUGUST 2013
AGENDA ITEM 7.1
CONCLUSION
It is considered the proposal has a high level of compliance with the intent and
objectives of the state and local planning policy frameworks and therefore the
application is recommended to be approved subject to the conditions contained in
Attachment 1.
Page 17 of 88
ATTACHMENT 1: PERMIT CONDITIONS FOR
COMMITTEE’S CONSIDERATION
APPLICATION NUMBER:
TP613/2012,V(1)
SITE ADDRESS:
2 WESTS RD, MARIBYRNONG
PROPOSAL:
Staged application for the use and development of the
land for dwellings and a food and drink premises
(cafe), to exceed the three storey height and plot ratio
specified under the Comprehensive Development
Zone Schedule 2, reduction of the loading bay
requirements, reduction in the car parking
requirements in association with the food and drink
premises, creation of access to a road in a Road Zone
Category 1 and a reduction in the bicycle parking
requirements.
DATE OF CDSC MEETING:
27 August 2013
Amended Plan Condition
1. Before the use and/or development start(s), amended plans must be submitted to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed
and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions
and two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the
plans prepared by Doig Architecture Pty Ltd, dated October 2012 Revision B but
modified to show:a) Details of the staging of the development, including all carparking areas and
services.
b) Replacement of the retail premises with a food and drink premises (café).
c) The food and drink premises (café) setback 4 metres from the eastern boundary
and clear glazing/ openings provided along this elevation.
d) The location of the exhaust or mechanical flue system for the food and drink
premises (café).
e) Two car spaces allocated to the food and drink premises (café) in the ground
floor carpark. One of these spaces may serve as a dual purpose space for staff
parking and loading/unloading of goods.
f) The provision of 1 visitor car space to every 5 dwellings provided in the ground
floor carpark.
g) The provision of a storage cage or above-bonnet storage allocated to each
dwelling.
h) As a result of condition 1(c), the eight bicycle spaces relocated within the site.
i)
The redundant 6m-wide vehicle crossing in Williamson Rd removed, and the
affected street assets reinstated to Council satisfaction.
Page 18 of 88
j)
The ‘road’ splay described in condition 18, free from any landscaping,
architectural features and structures.
k) Replacement of all existing footpath with a 1.5m-wide reinforced concrete
footpath along the full extent of the site’s frontages.
l)
Any pits, poles, signs or other street assets which may be affected by the onstreet tree planting clearly identified on the plans.
m) Acoustic treatment of all habitable room windows facing Wests Road, Williamson
Road and the tram corridor in accordance with the Acoustic Report required as
part of condition 30.
n) Any changes required as a result of the wind tunnel testing and/or Wind Climate
Assessment Report as required by condition 32.
o) Details and samples of materials, colours and external finishes as required by
conditions 16 and 17.
p) Changes to the crossover, accessway and security gates as required by Vic
Roads (conditions 38 - 45).
q) Changes to public transport infrastructure as required by Public Transport
Victoria (conditions 46 - 51).
Use Conditions (food and drink premises)
2. Unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority, the food and drink
premises (café) must only operate between the hours of 7am to 5pm, 7 days per week.
3. The kitchen’s mechanical exhaust system must be constructed in accordance with the
Australian Standard number 1668 and/or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. The use and development of the food and drink premises (café) must be managed so
that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the:(a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
(b) Appearance of any building, works or materials.
(c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot,
ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.
(d) Harbourage and/or presence of vermin
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed the noise levels as
determined by the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from
Commerce, Industry and Trade), No. N-1.
6. Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed the noise levels as
determined by the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from
Public Premises), No. N-2.
7. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles associated with the food and drink
premises (café) must only be carried out in the designated loading bay and must not
disrupt the circulation and parking of other vehicles.
Page 19 of 88
General Conditions
8. The use and/or development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered
without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
9. Once the development of any stage has started, it must be continued and completed to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10. As part of the consult team, Doig Architecture Pty Ltd or an experienced architect must
be engaged to oversee the design intent and construction quality to ensure that the
design and quality is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11. Prior to the issue of the Building Permit for each stage of development, the owner of the
land must pay a development contribution levy of $450 per net new dwelling to the
Maribyrnong City Council in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Development
Contributions Plan Overlay under the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme.
12. All boundary walls must be cleaned and finished using a graffiti proof finish or alternative
measure to prevent or reduce the potential of graffiti. Any graffiti that appears on the wall
must be cleaned or removed as soon as practicable to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority. The cost of any clean-up or removal of the graffiti from the wall
must be paid for by the developer and/or future owners of the land.
Landscape Plan Conditions
13. Before the commencement of any stage of development, a landscaping plan must be
submitted generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan prepared by John
Patrick Pty Ltd, Drawing No. TP-LO1.2 and TP-LO1.0-[A] Revision A, dated 24.07.2013;
TP-LO1-[B] and TP-LO2-[B] Revision B, dated 24.07.2013; TP-L03, TP-L04, TP-05 and
TP-06 dated December 2012, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority but modified
to show:
a) Details of the staging for all landscaping.
b) Any pits, poles, signs or other street assets which may be affected by the onstreet tree planting clearly identified on the plans.
14. Before the use and/or occupation of any stage, the landscaping works shown on the
endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
15. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to
be replaced.
Materials and Colours Schedule Conditions
16. Prior to the commencement of works for any stage, a schedule and sample board of all
external building finishes and colours must be submitted and approved by the
Responsible Authority. Once approved, the schedule and sample board will be endorsed
and will then form part of the permit.
The schedule must show, the colour and finish of all external walls, fascias, window
frames, glazing types, entry doors, fencing, architectural features and integral finishes to
all concrete panels.
Page 20 of 88
17. All finishes and surfaces of all external buildings and works including materials and
colours must comply with the approved schedule and sample board to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority. Any variation of the approved external treatment will be
subject to the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Car Parking and Infrastructure Conditions
18. Prior to the occupation of any stage, a 5.5 metre x 5.5 metre splay at the corner of Wests
Road and Williamson Road must be vested in Maribyrnong City Council as ‘road’.
19. Prior to the occupation of any stage, suitable signage must be displayed at the entrance
to the car park highlighting the availability of visitor car parking to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
20. Prior to the occupation of any stage, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and
access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
constructed
properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans
surfaced with an all weather seal coat
drained
line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes
clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all
times.
21. Prior to occupation of any stage, a new 1.5m-wide reinforced concrete footpath along the
full length of the site’s street frontages must be constructed to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority. All costs associated with the construction of the footpath must be
borne by the developer/ permit holder.
22. Any modifications to any street assets are to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority with all costs borne by the developer/permit holder.
23. No existing boundary levels abutting the site are to be altered without the consent and
approval of the responsible authority.
24. All pedestrian access to the development must be made at-grade from the existing
abutting levels and any steps or ramps must be setback from the relevant Title
boundaries.
25. Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed and/or modified to the road to suit the
proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
26. All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated with
either/or footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
Page 21 of 88
27. The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and is subject to
any requirements, conditions and subsequent approval from VicRoads. Stormwater runoff from the site must not cause any adverse impact to the public, any adjoining site or
Council asset. Stormwater from all paved area has to be drained to underground
stormwater system. Any cut, fill or structure must not adversely affect the natural
stormwater runoff from and to adjoining properties.
28. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into
Council's drains or watercourses during and after development.
29. Prior to the commencement of any works on the site and/or subdivision of the land, the
owner must submit for approval to the Responsible Authority drainage plans to the
requirements outlined in the Stormwater Discharge Permit.
Acoustic Report Condition
30. Prior to the commencement of works for each stage, an acoustic report prepared by a
qualified Acoustic Engineer must be submitted and endorsed to form part of the permit.
All of the recommendations of the acoustic report must be implemented prior to the
occupation of the building, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Construction Management Plan Condition
31. Prior to the commencement of any works for each stage, a Construction Management
Plan (CMP) must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, detailing
how the owner will manage the environmental and construction issues associated with
the development. The CMP when approved will form part of the permit and must be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CMP must address:the contact name and phone number(s) of the site manager,
excavation,
management of the construction site,
land disturbance,
hours of construction,
noise,
control of dust,
public safety,
traffic management,
construction vehicle road routes,
soiling and cleaning of roadways,
discharge of any polluted water,
security fencing, disposal of site waste and any potentially contaminated
materials,
crane locations during construction,
location of site offices,
redirection of any above or underground services,
site lighting during any night works.
Page 22 of 88
Wind Assessment Condition
32. Prior to the commencement of works for each stage, a wind tunnel testing and
environmental Wind Climate Assessment report by a suitably qualified engineering
consultant must be undertaken to ensure the development meets the criterion for walking
comfort in all public spaces including the public footpaths, the on-site public forecourt
and all pedestrian paths around the podium garden. The podium garden must meet the
criterion for short term exposure activity. The report must be submitted and approved by
the responsible authority. The recommendations of the report must be implemented prior
to the occupation of any stage, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Environmental Site Assessment Condition
33. Prior to the commencement of works for any stage, a Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment Report generally in accordance with the report prepared by Compass
Environmental Pty Ltd, Reference No. 12142RPT01, dated 30 November 2012, to the
satisfaction of the responsible authority, but modified to include advice as to whether
(having regard to the proposed use and development):
a) An environmental audit is required,
b) The level of contamination will prevent the proposed use or development of the
land and the level of contamination cannot be remediated to a level that would
enable the proposed use or development, and
c) Subject to appropriate remediation, the land would be suitable for the proposed
use and development.
34. Once submitted, the report will be approved and endorsed to form part of the permit. The
responsible authority may at the cost of the developer/ permit holder obtain a peer
review of the submitted Assessment Report.
Waste Management Condition
35. A Waste Management Plan generally in accordance with the report prepared by Leigh
Design Pty Ltd dated 11 April 2013, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Once
approved, the report will be endorsed to form part of the permit.
SDA Condition
36. Prior to the commencement of works for any stage, an ESD Strategy Plan and
Sustainability Design Assessment generally in accordance with the report prepared by
Cundall, Report No. ESD-001 Revision B, dated 12/04/2013, must be submitted to and
approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the report will be endorsed and
will then form part of the permit. All recommendations of an approved Environmental
Sustainable Design report must be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the
Page 23 of 88
Airspace Agreement for protrusions over the footpath
37. Prior to the commencement of works for Building B, the owner of the land must enter into
an agreement with the Responsible Authority. The agreement must provide the following:
Lease
a) To formalise rights to enjoy ongoing use of those parts of the development projecting
into airspace or sub-soil of land under the care and maintenance of Council.
Liability and maintenance
b) liability and maintenance of those parts of the development projecting into airspace
or sub-soil of land under the care and maintenance of Council and disclaiming any
right or intention to make or cause to be made at any time any claim or application
relating to adverse possession of the land;
c) liability and maintenance of those parts of the development projecting into the airspace or sub-soil of land under the care and management of the Council, including
provision of an indemnity and comprehensive insurance cover against damage and
injury resulting form the erection and use of the projection, to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority;
Land Value & Costs
d) providing for the payment to the Council of one lump sum licence fee of such amount
as may be reasonably determined by a certified practising valuer appointed by the
Council for that purpose.
The owner of the property to be developed must pay all of Council’s reasonable legal costs
and expenses of this agreement, including preparation, execution and registration on title (if
required).
Vic Roads Conditions (conditions 38 - 45)
38. No fencing, boom gate, security door, or such structure designed to restrict access to the
site is to be provided within 12 metres from the Wests road carriageway to prevent the
queuing of vehicles on Wests Road.
39. The crossover on Wests Road shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Roads
Corporation and the Responsible Authority and at no cost to VicRoads prior to the
completion of works hereby approved under this planning permit.
40. The proposed crossover on Wests Road must be widened so as to allow the efficient
(left) turning movements of service vehicles onto the subject site from the left lane
without encroaching 0.5m from within the kerb.
41. The crossover on Wests Road shall be constructed, so that it is flared 60 degrees from
the property boundary with 3.0 metre radial turnouts at the kerb line and 1.0 metre
clearance from any fixed object (poles, trees, pits etc.).
Page 24 of 88
42. A swept path analysis is to be provided to the satisfaction of VicRoads showing the
swept paths of appropriate design vehicles entering and exiting the subject site from
Wests Road. Ensure swept paths of the design vehicles used meet a minimum offset of
0.5m from extremities for the vehicle path to a kerb, pavement edge or centreline and to
the intercom system as indicated on the plans.
43. Submit a scaled (1:250 or larger) Functional Layout Plan to the satisfaction of VicRoads
for approval prior to the commencement of works. The functional plan must be to scale
and show the proposed access point to the development from Wests Road. The plan
must include features such as pavement, kerb/shoulders, line markings power poles,
trees, signage and other road furniture within 100 metres of the proposed access point.
44. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and reinstatement of any trees,
road furniture and any other services that may be required in this work at no cost to
VicRoads.
45. Any works associated with the proposed development shall be performed at no cost to
VicRoads.
Public Transport Victoria Conditions (conditions 46 - 51)
46. Before the development starts, or other time agreed in writing with Public Transport
Victoria, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Public Transport Victoria must be
submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will
be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with
dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must generally be in
accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
a) Improvements to the existing south-bound tram Stop 50 directly abutting the site
by connecting path, landscaping, lighting, and shelter, all DDA compliant;
b) Removal and relocation of the existing tram Stop 50 (north-bound), to a new
location within the western side of the tramway abutting the site, and to include a
connecting path, landscaping and lighting, all DDA compliant;
c) Provision of a DDA compliant shelter to the existing bus stop on Williamson
Road, in front of the development;
47. Prior to the occupation of the development all works outlined on the endorsed plans for
public transport improvements must be completed to the satisfaction of Public Transport
Victoria at the full cost of the permit holder.
48. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to tram
operation along Williamson Road and the tramway abutting the development site is kept
to a minimum during the construction of the development. Forseen disruptions to tram
operations during construction and mitigation measures must be communicated to Yarra
Trams and Public Transport Victoria in writing fourteen days (14) prior.
49. The permit holder must ensure that all track, tram and overhead infrastructure is not
damaged. Any damaged to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the
satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full cost of the permit holder.
Page 25 of 88
50. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus
operations along Williamson Road is kept to a minimum during the construction of the
development. Forseen disruptions to bus operations and mitigation measures must be
communicated to Public Transport Victoria in writing fourteen days (14) prior.
51. The existing bus stop and associated infrastructure on Williamson Road must not be
altered without the prior written consent of Public Transport Victoria. Any alterations
including temporary works or damage during construction must be rectified to the
satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria and at the cost of the permit holder.
Time Condition
52. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
The development is not started within three years of the date of this permit.
The development is not completed within ten years of this permit.
The use does not start within two years after the completion of the development.
The use is discontinued for a period of two years.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in
writing before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where development/use
allowed by the permit 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.
Notations
Residents and visitors to the development will not be entitled to parking permits.
Council will not provide a rates refund to residents where arrangements have been made
to engage private contractors to collect household waste.
A Stormwater Discharge Permit is required from MCC Operations and Maintenance and
is subject to any requirements, conditions and subsequent approval from VicRoads.
The owner shall be responsible for the loss of value or damage to Council’s assets as a
result of the development. Reinstatement or modification of the asset to Applicant.
A Council officer will contact the owner/builder to arrange a Street Asset Protection
Permit, and advise of the associated Bond required to be lodged prior to commencement
of work.
Note: If using a private building surveyor, a Section 80 Form must be supplied to
Council’s Building Surveyor to initiate the above process.
A Road Opening Permit from the Responsible Authority is required for any work or
excavation within the road reserve.
Materials are not to be stored on the road reserve without Responsible Authority
approval.
Protection of Council’s street trees shall be in accordance with Council’s Street Tree
Policy and Protocol.
Page 26 of 88
A Vehicle Crossing Permit is required from the Responsible Authority for any new
crossing prior to the commencement of works. Vehicle crossing(s) shall be constructed
in accordance with the Responsible Authority’s Standard Drawings, Specification and
Vehicle Crossing Policy.
Vic Roads Footnotes
Worksite Traffic Management is to be in accordance with the “Road Management Act
2004- Worksite Safety Traffic Management – Code of Practice” as AS 1742.3- 2009 Part
3 Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads. If traffic congestion becomes excessive at
any time, the contractor must undertake measures to ease congestion.
A Traffic Management plan is to be submitted to VicRoads for its consideration at least
14 days prior to the commencement of works on the site. No traffic management devices
are to be erected on Wests Road until VicRoads issues authorisation for the erection of
those devices in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan.
Page 27 of 88
Page 28 of 88
Page 29 of 88
Page 30 of 88
Page 31 of 88
Page 32 of 88
Page 33 of 88
Page 34 of 88
Page 35 of 88
Page 36 of 88
Page 37 of 88
Page 38 of 88
Page 39 of 88
Page 40 of 88
Page 41 of 88
Page 42 of 88
Page 43 of 88
Page 44 of 88
Page 45 of 88
Page 46 of 88
Page 47 of 88
Page 48 of 88
Page 49 of 88
Page 50 of 88
Example of tree cut-outs & paving
Example of paving treatment
Example of Light/Dark Exposed Aggregate Paving with Curved Bench Seating
E
Bike Racks
Up (4)
Bike Racks
Dark coloured Exposed Aggregrate Paving infill
E
Proposed Feature Tree Quercus palustris
Curved Timber Bench Seat
E
Proposed Street Tree in cutout
to match existing Ulmnus parvifolia
further North
SIGN
Groundcover: 'Little Jess' Dianella
E
Screening Hedge: Syzygium 'Bush Christmas'
SIGN
SIGN
E
Up (3)
WESTS ROAD
E
E
SWITCH
Light coloured Exposed Aggregate Paving Infill
Curved Timber Bench Seat
Groundcover: Clipped Trachelospermum jasminiodes
Qp (1)
SIGN
SUB-STATION
Proposed Street Tree in cut-out
CAR PARK A
RETAIL
Up (2)
RESIDENTIAL
LOBBY
Existing Bus Stop
WILLIAMSON ROAD
E
CAR PARK B
Street Tree: Ulmnus parvifolia
Groundcover: Dianella 'Little Jess'
Hedge: Syzygium 'Bush Christmas'
Groundcover: Trachelospermum jasminiodes
Feature Tree: Quercus palustris
Proposed Raised Planter
500mm High: Shrubs & Groundcovers
Proposed Light/Dark
Exposed Aggregrate Paving
To Later Detail
Proposed New Paving
To Later Detail
PROJECT
KD
JP
12-501
TP-L01-[B]
CHECKED
JOB NO
DWG NO
DATE
16.04.2013
Amendments made in response to
Council RFI
Planting amended to terraces
KD
KD
Do not scale off drawings.
PLEASE NOTE
The contractor must verify all
dimensions on site before
commencing any work or
preparing any shop drawings.
COPYRIGHT
This drawing must not be copied
in whole or in part without the
written consent of JOHN PATRICK
Pty Ltd.
24.07.2013
REVISION
A
B
12-501-TP-L01-[B] GROUND
July 2013
DRAWN
CAD FILE
1:100 @ A1
SCALE
DATE
Groundfloor Landscape Plan
DRAWING
2 Wests Road Maribyrnong
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
BY
Proposed New Groundcovers & Grasses
Refer to Plant Schedule
Proposed New Shrubs
Proposed New Feature Trees
Proposed New Street Trees
(to match existing)
CLIENT
LEGEND
Page 51 of 88
CAR PARK E
PcC (3)
Tj (2)
Cascading groundcover
STAGE 2 >
< STAGE 1
WESTS ROAD
STAGE 2 >
< STAGE 1
WILLIAMSON ROAD
CAR PARK C
Tj (4)
Cascading groundcover
Evergreen Climber: Trachelospermum jasminoides
Groundcover: Lomandra longifolia 'Tanika'
Cascading groundcover: Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus'
Cascading groundcover: Convulvulus sabatius
Screening Tree: Pyrus calleryana 'Capital'
(800mm High Wall)
To Later Detail
Proposed New Paving
To Later Detail
PROJECT
KD
PLEASE NOTE
COPYRIGHT
Pty Ltd.
Planting amended to Western
boundary.
DATE
12-501-TP-L01.2 HALF FIRST
24.07.2013
TP-L01.2
REVISION
12-501
CAD FILE
A
JP
DWG NO
KD
JOB NO
July 2013
DRAWN
CHECKED
1:100 @ A1
SCALE
DATE
Landscape: Half First Level Plan
DRAWING
BY
Proposed New Shrubs
Proposed New Clipped Trees
(in raised planter)
CLIENT
LEGEND
Page 52 of 88
ILIN
STAGE 2 >
GS
(CE
)
PA
CE
RESIDENTIAL
LOBBY #2
FFL 42.59
vo
id
[UP] >>> E
FFL 44.04
RAMP UP 1:8.7
C-E>
FFL 43.79
RESIDENTIAL
LOBBY #1
<C-D
WILLIAMSON ROAD
CAR PARK
C
[40 CARS]
CAR PARK C
1:20 GRADIENT
PLANTING
BELOW
RAMP RAMP UP
UP 1:8 1:5
FFL 42.34
TYP.
CAR PARK
FFL 43.79
FFL 43.79
VIE
WS
TO
CIT
FFL 43.79
Y>
[46 CARS]
CAR PARK
E
CAR PARK E
TYP.
CAR PARK
TYP.
AISLE
>>
VIE
STAGE 2 >
WS
TO
< STAGE 1
(chute)
FFL 42.59
FFL 42.59
< STAGE 1
WESTS ROAD
CIT
Y>
>>
Er (1)
Groundcover: Lomandra longifolia 'Tanika'
Groundcover: Dianella revoluta 'Little Rev'
Groundcover: Convulvulus sabatius
Screening Tree: Eleocarpus reticulatis
Proposed Raised Planter:
900mm High Wall: * Trees
500mm High Wall: * Shrubs &
Groundcovers
Proposed New Paving
To Later Detail
PROJECT
12-501
DATE
24.07.2013
KD
PLEASE NOTE
COPYRIGHT
Pty Ltd.
Planting amended to terraces.
REVISION
A
12-501-TP-L01.1 FIRST
JP
JOB NO
TP-L01.1-[A]
KD
CHECKED
CAD FILE
July 2013
DRAWN
DWG NO
1:100 @ A1
SCALE
DATE
Landscape: First Level Plan
DRAWING
BY
Proposed New Shrubs
(in raised planter)
CLIENT
LEGEND
Page 53 of 88
STORAGE ZONE
ArFF (1)
ArFF (1)
MgG (5)
Screening Hedge Syzygium 'Bush Christmas'
WESTS ROAD
WILLIAMSON ROAD
Er (2)
Cascading groundcover below on lower planter
Cascading groundcover on lower planter
Fp (8)
Self-clinging climber to grow on vertical wall
between upper and lower planter
Fp (16)
Self-clinging climber to grow on vertical wall
between upper and lower planter
LiB (1)
LiB (1)
Cascading groundcover: Myoporum parvifolium 'Yareena'
Cascading groundcover: Juniperus conferta
Evergreen climber: Ficus pumila
Medium Deciduous Tree : Lagerstroemia indica 'Biloxi'
Screening Tree: Magnolia grandiflora 'Greenback'
Feature Tree: Acer rubrum 'Fairview Flame'
Self-clinging climber
PROJECT
KD
KD
PLEASE NOTE
COPYRIGHT
Pty Ltd.
24.07.2013
16.04.2013
12-501-TP-L02-[B] PODIUM
DATE
TP-L02-[B]
CAD FILE
Amendments made in response
to Council RFI
12-501
DWG NO
Planting amended to North &
Western boundaries.
JP
JOB NO
A
KD
CHECKED
B
July 2013
DRAWN
REVISION
1:100 @ A1
SCALE
DATE
Landscape: Podium Level Plan
DRAWING
BY
900mm High Wall: * Trees
500mm High Wall: * Shrubs & Groundcovers
Drought Tolerant Lawn
Proposed Light/Dark
Exposed Aggregrate Paving
To Later Detail
Proposed New Paving
To Later Detail
Proposed New Shrubs
(in raised planter)
CLIENT
LEGEND
Page 54 of 88
Page 55 of 88
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST
VCAT REFERENCE NO. P1951/2012
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TP720/2011
CATCHWORDS
Maribyrnong Planning Scheme; Application pursuant to Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act
1987; Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ2); Highpoint Principal Activity Centre; 378 dwellings;
559 car spaces; Convenience store; 6 buildings; Height of Building A; Highpoint Activity Centre
Structure Plan; Balancing policies; Traffic; Absence of demolition controls.
APPLICANT
Mi Pad Pty Ltd
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
Maribyrnong City Council
REFERRAL AUTHORITIES
VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria
RESPONDENTS
Linh Tran, Andrew DeLuca, Maribyrnong
Residents Association, Jane Gilmartin, Scott
Oliver, Robert Wiatrowski, Edith Pringle, Jim
Caine and others
SUBJECT LAND
WHERE HELD
Melbourne
BEFORE
J A Bennett, Presiding Member
Peter Gray, Member
HEARING TYPE
Hearing
DATE OF HEARING
10, 11, 12 and 15 October 2012
DATE OF ORDER
12 November 2012
CITATION
ORDER
1
An amended set of 25 drawings (marked VCAT ISSUE, dated 24 August
2012) circulated to parties by letter dated 24 August 2012 are substituted
for the application plans.
2
The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
3
In permit application T720/2011 a permit is granted and directed to be
issued for the land at 62 Wests Road, Maribyrnong in accordance with the
endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit
allows:
Page 56 of 88
Construction of multi-level buildings for the purpose of dwellings, the
creation of access to a Road Zone Category 1, the use of the land for a
convenience shop and the removal of native vegetation.
J A Bennett
Presiding Member
VCAT Reference No. P1951/2012
Peter Gray
Member
Page 2 of 34
Page 57 of 88
APPEARANCES
For Mi Pad Pty Ltd
Mr Ian Pitt, SC of Best Hooper Solicitors. He
called written and oral evidence from:
Mr Jan Talacko, Environmentally
Sustainable Design Consultant of ARK
Resources Pty Ltd.
Mr Michael Stokes, Landscape Architect of
Tract Consultants Pty Ltd.
Mr Andrew Hutson, Architect.
Mr Tim Biles, Urban Designer and Town
Planner of Message Consultants Australia
Pty Ltd.
Mr Jason Sellars, Traffic Engineer of GTA
Consultants (Vic) Pty Ltd.
Ms Samantha Slicer of Flood Slicer Pty Ltd
prepared photomontages and a witness
statement but with the agreement of the parties
in attendance was not required to attend and
answer questions.
Mr Robert Ficarra, Project Architect of
Interlandi Mantesso Architects attended at the
beginning of the hearing to explain the project
design.
For Maribyrnong City Council
Ms Maria Marshall, Solicitor of Maddocks
Lawyers.
For VicRoads
Mr Frank Deserio.
For Respondents
Mr Daniel Bowden, Town Planning Consultant
for Maribyrnong Residents Association Inc.
Mrs Gilmartin, Mr Linh Tran, Mr Alan Ross,
Mr Scott Oliver (for himself and Ms Pringle),
Mr Wiatrowski and Mr Jim Caine.
Where people did not attend the hearing we
have taken into account the matters raised in
their statement of grounds.
Page 3 of 34
Page 58 of 88
INFORMATION
Description of Proposal
Construction of a six buildings containing 378
dwellings and a convenience store over
basement parking for 559 motor vehicles and
456 bicycle parking spaces.
Nature of Applications
Section 77 Planning & Environment Act 1987.
Zone and Overlays
Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule
2 (CDZ2).
No overlays apply.
Permit requirement
Cl. 32.02 (use and buildings and works for a
dwelling in CDZ2).
Cl. 37.02 (use and buildings and works for a
convenience store in CDZ2).
Cl. 37.02-4 (construction of a building
exceeding 3 storeys and exceeding a plot ratio
of 1.5 in CDZ2).
Cl. 52.17-2 (remove, destroy or lop native
vegetation - 5 Southern Mahogany Gums over
10 years in age).
Cl. 52.29 (create or alter access to a road in a
Road Zone, Category 1).
Site inspection
We inspected the site with some of the parties
on the second day of the hearing. We also
independently inspected the wider locality.
Page 4 of 34
Page 59 of 88
Land description
The review site comprises three lots, has a total
area of 8,894m2 and is located on the south
eastern corner of Wests Road and Raleigh
Road in Maribyrnong. It has a northern
frontage to Raleigh Road of 27 metres and a
western frontage to Wests Road of 164 metres.
A tram reserve containing double tracks is
located along the eastern boundary and
separates the review site from a place of
worship and the rear of commercial buildings
accessed off Rosamond Road. To the south is a
medium density development facing Wests
Road. Land on the opposite (western) side of
Wests Road is developed with dwellings
forming part of the Waterford Green Estate.
Land to the north on the opposite side of
Raleigh Road is former Commonwealth land
earmarked for development by Places Victoria
for approximately 3000 dwellings.
The review site contains a large
warehouse/industrial building, a vehicle hard
stand area at the northern end of the site, some
taller trees and 3 concrete air raid shelters
along the eastern side of the
warehouse/industrial building.
Page 5 of 34
Page 60 of 88
REASONS
What is the application for review about?
1
This is the second time the Tribunal has considered a significant residential
development proposal for the site. In February 2010 Members Naylor and
Alsop refused an application for a housing development on the site
comprising 272 apartment style dwellings within three buildings of 4-8
storeys in height.1 In essence, the Tribunal refused the application because
of inadequate on-site parking and concerns about the mix of private and
affordable housing. They did not refuse the proposal because of built form
and concluded that the form and height of the proposed buildings are
appropriate.
2
Although Ms Marshall’s submission and Mr Bowden’s submission on
behalf of the Maribyrnong Residents Association Inc suggested that this
latest application is a repeat appeal, we are not persuaded that is the case
given that the current application appears to be very different in its key
components to the previous proposal. The two previous issues of concern to
the Tribunal – on-site parking and provision of affordable housing – are not
at issue this time. In so far as Council is concerned, Ms Marshall made it
abundantly clear in paragraph 5 of her submission that:
The primary issue in this proceeding for Council is the bulk and height
of the development. In particular, Council is concerned that the tower
proposed in Building A does not accord with the strategic and
physical context of the site.
3
As noted in paragraph 1, built form was not an issue for the Tribunal at the
last hearing. While residents have broader issues of concern about the
proposal such as traffic and adverse amenity impacts, fundamentally Ms
Marshall is correct – this appeal is about the bulk and height of Building A
having regard to the site context and the applicable planning scheme
controls and policies. We have therefore assessed this proposal on the basis
of the material, submissions and evidence relating to this particular
application.
4
In summary, the application as shown on the substituted plans involves the
construction of 6 buildings – 3 along the eastern side parallel with the
tramway reserve and 3 parallel with the Wests Road frontage. They can be
described as follows:
Building A located in the north east corner is by far the tallest building
at 19 storeys. It contains 171 dwellings and a convenience store at
ground level.2
1
2
Australian Affordable Housing Association Inc v Maribyrnong CC [2010] VCAT 302.
The provision of a convenience store was not in dispute and we do not further make specific reference
to it. We do however, consider it is well located near the north east corner fronting Raleigh Road and
close to the new tram stop.
Page 6 of 34
Page 61 of 88
Building B about midway along the eastern boundary is of 11 storeys
and contains 114 dwellings.
Building C in the south east corner is of 7 storeys and contains 72
dwellings.
Building D in the south west corner facing Wests Road is of 3 storeys
and contains 9 dwellings.
Building E about midway along the Wests Road frontage is of 3
storeys and contains 6 dwellings.
Building F in the north west corner nearest the Wests/Raleigh Roads
intersection is of 3 storeys, an under croft and contains 6 dwellings.
The land slopes down from south to north by approximately 9 metres.
Basement parking accessed from Wests Road is located below the
buildings. Boundary setbacks and spaces between the buildings
provide opportunities for outdoor communal open space. Buildings A,
B and C also contain communal roof top decks and individual
dwellings are also provided with open space on balconies.
Plot ratio is 1:4.86 and dwelling density is 1 per 23.5 m2.3
5
Although Council refused the application on five grounds, we note that
Council staff recommended conditional approval. In recommending
conditional approval Council staff had the benefit of independent advice
from K20 Architecture. The advice made a number of recommendations of
which the most significant were to reduce the overall mass of Building A by
redistributing the units over Buildings B and C without sacrificing any
external roof gardens/landscape areas, to reduce the extent of glazing and to
ensure each main building has a base, middle and crown. The officer report
to Council incorporates most of these recommendations but more critically
recommended that Building A be reduced in height and width by between 3
and 6 levels.
6
Landowners in the area support Council’s reasons for refusing the
application and attended and were represented at the hearing to voice their
objections. They are also concerned about off-site amenity impacts caused
by overshadowing and overlooking, the proposal being inconsistent and out
of character with the residential development in Waterford Green Estate,
traffic congestion, not being served by adequate public transport and
community facilities, pedestrian safety and the demolition of the historic air
raid shelters.
7
All these concerns can be distilled into four key issues or questions:
i
3
Does State and local planning policy, including particular policies for
the Highpoint Principal Activity Centre, support a more intensive and
Information suppled by Mr Pitt on the second day in response to a request from Mr Bowden.
Page 7 of 34
Page 62 of 88
much taller built form compared to surrounding areas outside the
activity centre?
8
ii
Are the urban design and the built form aspects of the proposal an
acceptable response to the site context and are there any unreasonable
off-site amenity impacts?
iii
Does the proposal result in unmanageable traffic and pedestrian safety
issues and is public transport adequate to serve future residents?
iv
Can the air raid shelters be protected under the planning scheme?
One matter raised in a detailed submission presented on behalf of Ms
Pringle relates to the process adopted by Council. As we explained at the
hearing, Tribunal members often hear complaints from permit applicants or
objectors of perceived or actual instances where a Responsible Authority
has not acted in ways expected of them by parties. In the Major Cases List,
the Practice Day Hearing provides an opportunity for parties to identify
perceived procedural issues so they can be dealt with at the earliest possible
stage. We are not aware if any such matters were discussed at the Practice
Day hearing but are confident that directions would have been given at that
time if a procedural issue had been identified. We also make the point that
the circulation of amended plans has provided further opportunities for the
community to become involved in the appeal process. The essential point is
that the Tribunal hearing provides an opportunity for the merits of a
proposal to be independently assessed.
Does State and local planning policy, including particular policies for the
Highpoint Principal Activity Centre, support a more intensive and much
taller built form compared to surrounding areas outside the activity
centre?
9
It is necessary to consider both State and local planning policies, to give
weight to State policy and not just primarily focus on local policy. Clause
11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16
(Housing) are of particular relevance in terms of activity centres, urban
consolidation, diversity of housing, responding to site context including
character issues, consideration of environmental issues including vegetation
and access to public transport, and achieving a net community benefit.
10
The site forms part of the Highpoint Principal Activity Centre (PAC). It is
included in the Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) as is former
Defence Force land on the western side of Wests Road and for a strip of
land along the eastern side of Wests Road between Wests Road and the
tramway reserve to the east. The CDZ is divided into two schedules with
the vast majority of the land included in Schedule 1. The Riverside Physical
Framework Plan No 2 applies to most of the CDZ, is specifically referenced
in Schedule 2 but does not apply to the review site or land directly opposite
on the western side of Wests Road. As discussed at the hearing the
Page 8 of 34
Page 63 of 88
description of the land to which Schedule 2 applies oddly and confusingly
refers:
…to mixed use development in part of the area covered by the
Riverside Physical Framework Plan No 2, north of Wests Road and
adjacent to the Maribyrnong River.
11
Given that land can only be east or west of Wests Road, we are somewhat
perplexed by this description. The land is clearly included within the CDZ2
and yet the schedule appears to exclude certain land from the written
provisions. In at least one submission, by Mrs Gilmartin, reference was
made to the purposes and decision guidelines of Schedule 2 and she was
critical that no analysis was undertaken by Council staff or the permit
applicant against these. We do note, however, that Mr Biles did reference
these in Appendix D to his evidence statement and discussed them in much
broader terms in parts 3 and 4.2 of his statement.
12
With the exception of the review site, all the land in the CDZ has been
redeveloped for residential purposes and is known as the Waterford Green
Estate. A number of the original dwellings along Ordnance Res and larger
now reused industrial/office buildings have been retained. However the
majority of the area comprises new two storey dwellings or apartment
complexes up to 3 storeys in height. While we acknowledge that the same
CDZ applies east and west of Wests Road, we do not agree with those
submissions suggesting that the review site is affected by the same policies
as those applying to the areas outside the Highpoint PAC. Indeed it is not
unreasonable or too speculative to expect that at some future time the
Highpoint PAC will be included in an Activity Centre Zone. Ms Marshall
discussed this issue with Mr Biles and tabled a copy of the provisions in the
Manningham Planning Scheme that apply to the Doncaster Hill PAC. These
include mandatory height, setback and other requirements and raises the
question, which we return to later, as to why Maribyrnong Council has not
introduced similar provisions to regulate building heights, boundary
setbacks and other built form elements.
13
Clause 11.04-2 sets out policy for the different types of activity centres
including Principal and Major Activity Centres. Strategies seek to ensure,
amongst other matters, that such centres have the potential to grow and
support intensive housing developments without conflicting with
surrounding land uses. Unlike the strategies for Neighbourhood Character
Centres, there is no specific reference to higher density housing being
designed to fit the context and enhancing the character of the area. While
context is also called up in Cause 15.01-1, character, and neighbourhood
character in particular, does not attract the same attention as it does for
development away from Principal and Major Activity Centres or for
applications assessed under Clause 55 (ResCode).
14
Despite Mr Oliver’s submission to the contrary, the site is also without
question a strategic redevelopment site when assessed against the criteria
Page 9 of 34
Page 64 of 88
listed in Clause 16.01-3. It also clearly satisfies the strategy in Clause
18.01-1 of concentrating key trip generators such as higher density
residential development in around …Principal Activity Centres on the
Principal Public Transport Network.
15
Although on the north western edge of the Highpoint PAC, the site has
excellent accessibility to a wide range of urban services and facilities and is
earmarked in local policy at Clause 21.04 as being within a Substantial
Change Activity Centre where such centres will be transformed into mixed
use retail, commercial, residential and community service centres with a
sense of place and where there is to be an increase in housing
intensification. There is to be an increased housing intensification in
accordance with centre structure plans. There is also reference in Clause
21.04-1 to ensuring new developments respect the character, form and
height of buildings within 10 metres of site boundaries and protecting areas
adjacent to activity centres from negative impacts. Clause 21.04-3 includes
a strategy to require a social impact assessment for residential
developments greater than 300 dwellings. Other local polices at Clause
21.07 seek to provide significant opportunities for new residential
development in substantial change activity centres and to ensure
development of sites with more than 60 dwellings are well served by public
transport, the bike/shared path network and cater for potential changes to
the public transport network.
16
Specific local policy for the Highpoint PAC is set out in Clause 21.11-02.
The policy recognises that the overall capacity for growth is constrained by
the transport and traffic network limitations but notes that the Structure Plan
envisages the transformation of the activity centre to broaden its role to
include a better community focus and more mixed use developments
including higher density housing and offices. There is specific mention that
light industrial areas in the western and southern parts of the centre will be
gradually redeveloped to higher density residential uses and new forms of
business service, including offices. Strategies to achieve the listed
objectives include:
Develop the underutilised land at the edges of the activity
centre.
Support development with vertically-mixed uses to increase
diversity and compactness.
Ensure high-density housing within the activity centre.
Require new development to achieve high standards of
environmental sustainability in terms of design, construction
and operation.
Contain intensive development within the boundary of the
activity centre and require edge-of-centre development to be
responsive to adjacent residential areas.
Page 10 of 34
Page 65 of 88
Encourage development at the edge of the centre to address
surrounding streets and implement measures to reduce the
visual impact of car parking, with preference for hidden on-site
car parking.
Require development at the edge of the centre to incorporate
legible links between the centre and surrounding streets,
including improved road access, to improve the integration of
the centre with its surroundings.
Ensure development at the edges of the activity centre is
sensitive to the form of neighbouring residential areas, to
protect their amenity and character.
17
The Highpoint Activity Centre Structure Plan has been adopted by Council
and is a reference document. However very importantly, other than the
material included in Clause 21.11-2, the contents of the Structure Plan have
not been implemented into the Planning Scheme through additional
policies, zones or overlays aimed at providing, for example, clear built form
outcomes such as building heights, boundary setbacks and so forth.
18
While we accept that the Framework Plan forming part of the Structure
Plan has been included in Clause 21.11-2, we consider that too much
weight has been placed on the fact that the plan does not designate the
review site as being one of 4 sites suitable for landmark buildings or within
an area identified for retail/commercial/medium-higher density residential.
We also consider that too much weight has been given in submissions to the
commentary in the Structure Plan, but not in Clause 21.11-2, that an
opportunity for land along Wests Road (opportunity 24) is to:
Develop new medium-density, mixed-use buildings, with commercial
uses at ground floor and commercial or residential uses above.
19
The Structure Plan also includes many other statements which arguably
support the type and intensity of development proposed in this application,
some of which are directly translated into Clause 21.11-2 (as one example
see Direction D6 - ).
20
Given that the extent of built form, and particularly the height and bulk of
Building A and to a lesser extent Building B, is the major concern for
Council and residents in this application, we find it surprising that Council
has not introduced controls aimed at providing a clear statement about the
built form outcomes it is seeking to achieve throughout the Highpoint PAC.
We have previously referred to the Activity Centre Zone that has been
applied to Doncaster Hill and we observe that other municipalities have also
taken steps to introduce planning controls that regulate built form
outcomes.4
4
We use as an example a recent amendment to the Boroondara Planning Scheme (Amendment C157)
which has introduced quite specific interim controls to implement an Urban Design Framework for
West Hawthorn.
Page 11 of 34
Page 66 of 88
21
Mr Pitt correctly points out the Victoria Planning Provisions Practice Note
for Incorporated and Reference Documents states that reference documents
provide background information and have only a limited role in decisionmaking as they are not part of the planning scheme. The Practice Note also
makes it clear that reference documents have less weight than incorporated
documents. The Panel reporting on Amendment C171 to the Melbourne
Planning Scheme even went so far as to say that:
They (reference documents) should not be relied upon as a de facto
planning control that sits outside the planning scheme. If Council
intended that these documents have a statutory function then it should
have proposed that the relevant parts be included as Incorporated
Documents.
(Or we might add, based on the previously cited Boroondara
amendment, implemented by way of overlay controls).
22
Council also made reference in its submission to the Maribyrnong Housing
Strategy. Unlike the limited inclusion of the Highpoint Activity Centre
Structure Plan into the planning scheme, the Housing Strategy has been the
subject of a quite extensive planning scheme amendment (C111) which is
now with the Minister for Planning for his consideration and approval. We
agree with Ms Marshall that it is a seriously entertained planning proposal
and ought to be given weight. Although giving it weight, we are not
convinced it advances arguments against approval of this development. The
review site continues to be identified as being within a substantial change
activity centre and the Housing Strategy discusses these areas in Section
3.4. Comments for these areas include a recognition that:
They need to be regarded as both a limited resource and an
opportunity to create new housing that is suitable for present and
future societal needs.
Development in these areas should focus on apartment style
housing.
A concerted effort needs to be made to avoid underdevelopment
of sites.
23
Ms Marshall made reference to existing and projected dwelling numbers in
Footscray and Highpoint West. Based on Ms Marshall’s oral submission we
understand that zero dwellings have been provided in the Highpoint PAC to
date but that the Housing Strategy projects that 1,737 dwellings will be
required over the next twenty years. She submitted that sufficient housing
can be provided to meet demands and that the review site should not be
‘overdeveloped’. In her words, it is not a landmark site and while it is
important not to underutilise sites, it is necessary to respect neighbours and
limit the amenity impact the development will have on those neighbours.
While we understand Council’s approach to the provision of housing,
ultimately we have found the degree to which the review site contributes to
housing supply has not been determinative in our decision to approve this
application.
Page 12 of 34
Page 67 of 88
24
A related issue concerns the absence of a social impact assessment as
required by policy at Clause 21.04-3. An assessment was not asked for by
Council, was not a ground of refusal and one has not been prepared. The
absence of such an assessment was raised in Mr Oliver’s submission who
submitted that the absence of such an assessment meant that the applicant
could not prove:
… that this development has no unreasonable off-site effects nor that
it ensures appropriate amenity for its residents.
25
Clause 21.04-3 actually requires the social impact assessments to be used to
determine what new facilities are needed and the contributions required
from developers. In this case, the permit conditions include requirements
for footpaths, street lighting, new tram stop and a $150,000 contribution to
the existing maternal and child care centre along Wests Road. These are all
new or upgraded facilities for use by future and existing residents.
26
We also observe that despite the language used, the reference to an
assessment being required is not mandatory and that provisions in the
planning scheme can at times seem to be applied quite fluidly. That largely
reflects the fact that the planning system in Victoria is policy based and that
apart from mandatory controls in zones and some overlays, most planning
scheme provisions require consideration on a case by case basis. Even
Clause 55 (ResCode), which appears to include mandatory requirements
and standards, provides considerable flexibility in how it is applied.
Although it includes numeric ‘standards’ such as a 9 metres maximum
building height and a 3 metres average for boundary wall height, provided
the related objective is met then the numeric standard can be exceeded. It is
little wonder that residents struggle to understand why the planning scheme
seems to be applied inconsistently from one application to another, and
where a requirement is more fluid than the term suggests.
27
We have concluded that State and local planning policies provide very
strong support for more intensive and higher density residential
development within the Highpoint PAC and that a significant residential
development on the review site is consistent with the directions set by the
planning scheme. In the next section we discuss the urban design and built
form aspects of the proposal but there is no doubt that new development in
activity centres must be much more intensive than in areas outside such
centres if the broader strategic objectives for urban development are to be
achieved.
28
We do not usually discuss these broader strategic planning objectives that
underpin the controls and policies in the planning scheme, but because of
the views expressed by Council and residents we consider it important to
make note of some of these. They help in understanding why there is such a
focus on increasing residential densities in established urban areas. In the
early 1950’s Melbourne had a population of approximately 1.3 million
people. In the intervening 60 years the population has trebled to more than
Page 13 of 34
Page 68 of 88
4 million. Planning horizons tend to be less than 60 years, hence documents
such as Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne 2030: A planning update
Melbourne @ 5 million. However, short of a catastrophic event, Melbourne
will not stop growing in 2030 or when it reaches a population of 5 million.
We are aware of population projections for Melbourne of over 8 million
people before the end of this century and there is no reason to suppose that
the population won’t treble from its current level to over 12 million at some
point beyond that. Melbourne is already one of the most expansive and land
consuming cities for its size. If the additional population largely followed
the same development pattern then there would be thousands more square
kilometres occupied by unending urban development. Although successive
State Governments have recognised that there needs to be additional
development on the urban fringe, part of managing the growth in population
is to focus higher density development in activity centres such as
Highpoint. The centre may have, as acknowledged in background reports,
limitations in terms of public transport and road capacity, but such
limitations are relative, both to other activity centres and to other parts of
the metropolitan area. We later discuss the issue of landmark buildings, but
we consider that in the context of the inexorable growth in Melbourne’s
population, it is not unrealistic to expect the Highpoint PAC in years to
come to contain many tall ‘landmark’ buildings not just the four shown on
the Framework Plan at Clause 21.11-2. Even if 10 taller ‘landmark’
buildings similar to Building A were constructed, it only represents the
addition of 1,710 dwellings to the PAC – a drop in the ocean compared to
the millions required if Melbourne’s population continues to grow in the
manner referred to above. Provided there are no unreasonable off site
amenity impacts then more and more taller buildings will be constructed –
not just in the Highpoint PAC but in activity centres and strategic
redevelopment sites across the metropolitan area. It may be, as Mr Oliver
submits, that Building A will be the highest building in the municipality and
even higher than any buildings within the Footscray Central Activities
District. We do not understand why height is such an issue and why high
buildings, particularly ones which are well designed and provide much
needed housing, generate so much opposition when in contrast many poorly
designed, lower scale developments are approved without any opposition at
all.
Are the urban design and the built form aspects of the proposal an
acceptable response to the site context and are there any unreasonable
off-site amenity impacts?
29
There is no question that this is a large group of buildings and that Building
A is a significant and tall structure. Although a variety of issues were raised
in submissions, it is the extent of built form which has caused most concern,
particularly for residents living in the Waterford Green Estate. For Council
it is the height and bulk of Building A, and to a lesser extent Building B,
which has caused it to oppose the application. Residents are also concerned
Page 14 of 34
Page 69 of 88
about the height and scale of these buildings but are also concerned about
potential adverse amenity impacts caused by overshadowing and
overlooking.
30
Unlike many other sites which are subject to major redevelopment
proposals, the review site is in the fortunate position of only having one
sensitive residential interface. On the other three sides it is separated from
adjoining land by two major roads and a tramway reserve. Before
commenting on each of these interfaces we note that none of the
submissions raise serious misgivings about the architectural quality or the
way in which the site has been laid out with lower buildings facing Wests
Road closest to the Waterford Green Estate and with the taller buildings
located along the eastern side furthest away from the potentially more
sensitive and lower height dwellings to the west. The tallest building is in
the north east corner furthest away from the existing dwellings and in the
least sensitive part of the site in terms of visual and other impacts on
adjoining land.
31
We support this conceptual layout and the way in which the taller elements
have been positioned furthest away from the Waterford Green Estate. We
also support the concept of providing lower buildings along Wests Road to
provide a visual transition between the lower existing built form to the
south and west and the taller buildings further away from the activity centre
boundary which follows the alignment of Wests Road. The way in which
the 6 buildings are separated from each by open communal areas and
landscaped spaces is also a good design feature. Although there was some
criticism about the extent of landscaping, including the areas available for
landscaping along the Wests Road frontage, we support the landscape
concept explained to us by Mr Stokes. We consider that as the landscaping
develops this site will contribute to and be a significant improvement over
the existing streetscape appearance.
32
Despite our support for the overall layout, we acknowledge that where
buildings are on the edge of the Highpoint PAC, policy at Clause 21.11-2
requires edge-of-centre development to be responsive to adjacent residential
areas and that it be sensitive to the form of neighbouring residential areas to
protect their amenity and character. We now discuss the built form and
amenity impacts along each of the four boundaries.
The Eastern Interface
33
To the east of the site the tramway reserve is approximately 16 metres wide
and included in a Public Use Zone 4. To the east of the tramway reserve is
Middletons Centre and Homemaker City accessed off Rosamond Road and
a place of worship fronting Raleigh Road. All are zoned Business 4 and
within the Highpoint PAC. While there are no proposals afoot at present to
redevelop these sites, it would be unrealistic to expect these sites to remain
unaltered given their location within a PAC and current degree of
development. We would expect that in time some form of redevelopment
Page 15 of 34
Page 70 of 88
will take place. Although dwellings are a prohibited use in the B4Z, we
agree with Ms Marshall that future redevelopment could include a
residential component through rezoning. Ms Marshall further suggested that
if the zoning of the Business 4 Zone sites was to change in the future, then
construction of any new buildings would be constrained by the tall
buildings on the review site and particularly afternoon shadow cast by the
taller buildings. She submitted that the development on the review site
should be amended to allow equitable development on the sites to the east.
Ms Marshall also noted that if the tramway route was relocated to
Rosamond Road as foreshadowed in the Highpoint Activity Centre
Structure Plan, then the tramway reserve would become a linear public
reserve, with a consequential need for higher levels of amenity.
34
We are not persuaded that there is any necessity to make any such
amendments to the buildings on the review site, either because of existing
amenity impacts or because of the necessity to provide equitable
development rights. The eastern interface is not to a suburban style
residential area but is to a business zone within the PAC. Even if the land is
redeveloped, any design can and will need to respond to its site context.
35
Shadow diagrams were provided for the proposal for the times of 9am,
10am, 11am, midday and 3pm. Although these time spacings do not allow
an exact calculation as to when afternoon shadows fall across the land to the
east, we do note that at midday there is no shadow cast on the tramway
reserve but that at 3pm there is some shadow cast onto the Business 4 Zone
land. It is our assessment that shadows will only start to fall on the Business
4 Zone land from approximately 1pm. That amount of shadow does not
concern us given the existing zoning and land uses. Depending on how
these sites are zoned or developed in the future, there appears to be ample
opportunity to develop equitably and without any unreasonable constraints.
The tramway reserve in either its current form or as a linear reserve
provides generous space for light and separation. If it is developed as a
public reserve we are not persuaded that partial afternoon shadowing is a
reason to require a redesign of the development on the review site.
The Southern Interface
36
The land to the south is developed with residential buildings up to 3/4
storeys and the buildings are separated from the review site by an access
drive and parking areas. The southern most buildings on the review site
(Buildings C and D) are set back from the boundary and a landscaped
pedestrian thoroughfare is located between the buildings and southern
boundary. In time there is an opportunity for the walkway to provide a link
across the tramway reserve to the land on the eastern side of the reserve.
Such a link would accord with one of the objectives in Clause 21.11-2
which requires the incorporation of legible links between the centre and
surrounding streets. Building C is closest to the southern boundary but at its
nearest point is separated from the buildings to the south by a minimum
Page 16 of 34
Page 71 of 88
distance of 9.06 metres. Although Building C has minimal setbacks for
upper levels until the top two levels, we consider this is acceptable given
the separation distances, the use to which the intervening space is used and
the fact that the shadow diagrams illustrate no unreasonable effects onto the
living areas of the buildings to the south. Building D is much further
setback from the boundary, of only 3 storeys, setback behind a generous
landscaped area and provides a very benign interface to the southern
boundary.
The Northern Interface
37
The review site faces Raleigh Road along its northern side. Beyond the road
pavement, but visually forming part of the transport ‘corridor’ is a tramline
that terminates to the west of the Wests Road intersection. Land on the
northern side of the tramway is former Commonwealth land, now unused
for defence purposes, that is proposed to be developed by Places Victoria
for approximately 3000 dwellings. At present there are no amenity interface
issues to the north.
The Western Interface
38
The western interface is the one which is most sensitive because of the
residential development that exists within the Waterford Green Estate. We
have previously commented about the last Tribunal decision for this site
and the fact the Tribunal found the form and height of the buildings
appropriate. It was suggested that this latest proposal should have adopted a
similar built form and height because of the support given by the Tribunal
to those matters.
39
We do not agree with that approach. Just because the previous built form
may not have been considered flawed by the previous Tribunal, there is no
reason why we cannot consider another option for the site. Ms Marshall
submitted a copy of the plans of the previous proposal. It is a lower, bulkier
collection of buildings, with more consistent heights and finishes and a
significantly taller interface to Wests Road, typically 6 to 8 storeys. This is
in contrast to the proposal under review, that has a much lower interface to
Wests Road, and a higher degree of articulation to the buildings; their
heights, finishes, architectural treatments and the spaces between them. We
consider this is a far superior, more sensitive and respectful interface to
Wests Road and the residential area of the Waterford Green Estate beyond.
While it is clearly a more intensive level of built form than the nearest
single and double story dwellings in the Waterford Green Estate, the design
with lower buildings along the Wests Road PAC boundary, or edge, is
responsive to policy at Clause 21.11-2 and is sensitive to the residential area
for the following reasons.
40
Firstly, the edge comprises the approximately 21 metre wide Wests Road
reserve which at its northern end widens as it approaches the roundabout at
the Raleigh Road intersection. The predominant three level interface of the
Page 17 of 34
Page 72 of 88
Buildings D, E and F, we believe, is a well considered, appropriate and
generous interface and responds to the height and scale of existing
dwellings to the west and south west.
41
Secondly, the dwellings in the Waterford Green Estate do not have direct
access to Wests Road but rather turn their backs or sides to Wests Road
with (except at the southern end) high fences providing privacy and sound
attenuation. The road reserve itself provides a substantial buffer distance to
the back and side fences. The longer-range interface is also relevant, as the
tallest buildings (Buildings A, B and C) are set back approximately 20
metres from Wests Road and approximately 60 metres from the nearest
dwellings in the Waterford Green Estate. Not only is this a considerable
distance in an urban context but the intervening lower buildings (Buildings
D, E and F) along Wests Road help screen the taller buildings and provide
visual transition from lower to taller buildings.
42
Thirdly there are no direct amenity impacts when assessed using the ‘tests
set out in the planning scheme for overshadowing and overlooking. We
acknowledge there will some overshadowing of the nearest dwellings in the
Waterford Green Estate in the early morning but that by 10am at the
equinox there will be no shadow cast over any of these properties. The
overlooking ‘test’ seeks to prevent unreasonable overlooking within 9
metres. In this case the separation distance between the proposed buildings
and the nearest dwellings to the west is well beyond 9 metres. Loss of
amenity is an issue raised in nearly every hearing involving new
development within residential areas. Neighbours are often concerned that a
new or extended building next door will adversely affect their existing
amenity and lifestyle. Change to buildings and built form within our urban
areas is unceasing and the provisions and controls within the planning
scheme are aimed at managing that change, not preventing it from
occurring. In the case of residential developments, the controls that apply to
manage and assess that change are set out in Clause 55 of the planning
scheme (for buildings up to 3 storeys in height) or in the Guidelines for
Higher Density Residential Development (for buildings of 4 or more
storeys). Assessment against the different objectives and standards of
Clause 55 or the objectives and design responses in the Guidelines provides
consistency in deciding whether a development has reasonable or
unreasonable impacts when assessed against those individual objectives,
standards and design responses. We accept that people have different ideas
about what constitutes reasonable/unreasonable impacts and we understand
that neighbours highly value their current amenity and do not accept that
they should suffer any change as a result of the development on the review
site.
43
However, it is because people have different opinions about
reasonable/unreasonable impacts that various ‘tests’ or assessment criteria
have been included in the planning scheme. Compliance does not prevent
any loss of amenity; rather it ensures that any loss is within what has been
Page 18 of 34
Page 73 of 88
decided by the formulators of the planning scheme as reasonable. For
example, the overlooking standard at Clause 55.04-6 (as also called up in
Objective 2.9 of the Guidelines) only requires new windows, balconies, etc
to be screened if they overlook and are within 9 metres of existing secluded
private open space or habitable room windows. If overlooking is possible
beyond 9 metres no screening is required, although many people would still
feel a loss of privacy when overlooked from more than 9 metres away.
Building A as a Landmark Building
44
We acknowledge that Building A will be highly visible as a landmark
within the Highpoint PAC. Given that we have determined that there are no
unreasonable off site amenity impacts caused by the review buildings, we
now discuss whether Building A is visually appropriate.
45
Large complexes of buildings on Strategic Redevelopment sites often
assume significant variations in height, setback and form in order to address
the requirements of planning policy and the policy will often dictate the
ultimate building envelope. To then appropriately mass, articulate, colour
and separate, while providing an interesting outcome without losing their
sense of belonging to each other does not come easily. We consider this
proposal achieves all of these outcomes.
46
Both Mr Hutson and Mr Biles were supportive of the architectural
composition of the buildings and both submitted that removing a few levels
as recommended to Council by K20 Architecture would not make the
building any less visible. Mr Biles went further to submit that the height of
the tower portion of Building A assisted in the entire development
appearing as ‘a mass’ and Mr Hutson suggested that to reduce its height
would adversely affect its relationship to the other lower buildings.
47
Both the Structure Plan and the Framework Plan included in Clause 21.11-2
indicates four positions for landmark buildings within the Highpoint PAC.
The review site is not one of them. Submissions encouraged us to consider
the lack of designation of the site for a landmark building as ruling out
consideration of a 19 storey building. We have already made comment
about whether it is realistic to limit tall, landmark buildings to just 4 sites
when there is so much policy support for higher density development within
the PAC. Even aside from those broader policy considerations, our
observations whilst visiting the site were that this site could have quite
logically been identified for a landmark building. Not only is it a strategic
redevelopment site but it is positioned on a prominent and important
intersection at the north west corner of the Highpoint PAC. The position
and layout of the site is such that a taller building such as Building A can be
positioned well away from the nearest and most sensitive residential
interface to the west and south west. Future development to the north will
likely result in a significant upgrade to the Wests/Raleigh Roads
intersection which will serve to further reinforce the important visual and
functional role of this corner of the Highpoint PAC.
Page 19 of 34
Page 74 of 88
48
We accept that Building A will be highly visible and represent a significant
departure from the mainly low rise and largely unimaginative built form
that currently exists within the Highpoint PAC. However policy at Clauses
21.04 and 21.11-02 makes reference to a transformation of the centre - not
an evolutionary or modest change, but a transformation. Put in that context,
we do not accept that a building or buildings should be refused or reduced
in height because it is highly visible or very much taller than existing
buildings. The Housing Strategy and Amendment C111 make it clear that a
concerted effort needs to be made to avoid underdevelopment of sites.
Given our comments on both the lack of any unreasonable off site amenity
impacts and the architectural merits of the proposal, we are not persuaded to
reduce the height or amend the design of Building A or other aspects of the
development.
Does the proposal result in unmanageable traffic and pedestrian safety
issues and is public transport adequate to serve future residents?
49
None of Council’s grounds of refusal related to traffic and parking issues,
although statements of grounds lodged by other parties and submissions at
the hearing did comment on these matters. In particular, residents
questioned what they saw as inconsistencies in the traffic generation rates
(8% or 10%), inadequate parking and the practicality of relying on public
transport to gain access to the central city.
50
We make the point that the amended plans provide 559 on-site car spaces
for 372 dwellings and 76 square metres of retail floor space. This satisfies
the relevant rate included in Clause 52.06, a permit is not required to waive
or reduce the number and therefore the adequacy of car parking is not an
issue for us to decide. This is in complete contrast to the previous
application where inadequate on-site parking was a key reason for the
Tribunal rejecting the proposal.
51
Residents have also raised concerns about traffic and safety issues,
particularly for pedestrians crossing at or near the roundabout at the
Raleigh/Wests Roads intersection in order to access the tram stop located
on the north side of the Raleigh Road carriageway. On our inspection we
were able to observe traffic flow and we also had the benefit of a detailed
submission and video presented by Mr Oliver.
52
While we accept that residents are concerned about traffic congestion and
safety issues, neither VicRoads as the road authority for both roads nor
Council’s traffic engineers identified any traffic or safety reasons why the
application should be refused. In addition the only expert traffic evidence
we received was from Mr Sellars. In undertaking his traffic generation
calculations he undertook a sensitivity analysis which effectively doubled
the number of vehicles from 4 to 8 vehicle movements per day (or from 0.4
to 0.8 peak hour movements). That analysis indicted that even with such an
increase in traffic volumes, the intersection of Raleigh and Wests Roads
would operate satisfactorily. We understand resident’s concerns that the
Page 20 of 34
Page 75 of 88
roads in this area will become more congested as more and more
development takes place. In VMR Property Investments Pty Ltd5 the
Tribunal made the following comments about parking and traffic:
9
53
5
I fully understand Mr Brygel’s concerns about traffic and
parking congestion and such opinions are commonly raised in
Tribunal hearings by residents living in the inner parts of the
metropolitan area. It may be very obvious, but it is worth noting
that ever increasing traffic volumes have been a feature of our
society since motor vehicles first used our roads last century.
Government policies aim to reduce our dependence on motor
vehicles by, amongst other things, encouraging new
development into areas already well served by public transport
and by trying to better match housing and work places. I also
consider that the proximity to excellent public transport services
(train station and tram routes within a few minutes walk or
outside the site) and commercial centres within easily tram or
walking distance will encourage residents to leave their cars at
home, thereby reducing traffic movements even further than
would be expected if the site was more remote from such
facilities. Rejecting new development on sites such as the one
on the review site because of a relatively slight shortfall in onsite car parking or potential for increased traffic congestion does
not mean that the traffic situation will improve or stop getting
worse. Allowing new development on sites such as this, located
so close to public transport and in areas where people can
readily access jobs, education institutions and other facilities,
may eventually encourage a slowdown in the growth of traffic
volumes. I accept that it may be an optimistic and long term
outcome, but it is one that planning policy seeks to achieve. It is
also an outcome that has recently gained added impetus because
of the higher cost of fuel and the adverse environmental impacts
of utilising motor vehicles to the extent that we have become
accustomed to.
While the above comments concerned an application seeking a reduction in
on-site parking, the comments about traffic generation is equally relevant to
the review site. If as discussed earlier, Melbourne’s population doubles or
triples then there will be an even greater necessity to try and minimise
increases in traffic volumes. In making these comments we acknowledge
that Highpoint PAC is not served by heavy rail public transport, although
we observe that is not unique to Principal Activity Centres (for example
Doncaster Hill and Chadstone are not accessed at all by heavy or light rail).
We accept Mr Wiatrowski’s submission that tram services can be much
slower and less convenient than train and that travelling into the central city
by public transport can be complicated and slow. However not all residents
seek to travel into the central city and many key destination points such as
Footscray, Moonee Ponds and Victoria University are served by the trams
VMR Property Investments Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC [2008] VCAT 1265
Page 21 of 34
Page 76 of 88
and buses. Moreover, unlike the previous application, there is no attempt to
justify a reduction in on-site car parking on the basis of excellent access to
the public transport network. The fact that the review site has two tram
routes forming part of the Principal Public Transport Network along its
north and east sides is a major advantage but it will not make or break this
application. We also note that the permit applicant has agreed to undertake
works for a new stop immediately outside the review site and that Public
Transport Victoria has given its conditional support for the development.
We consider these are a positive improvement and one way in which the
developer has contributed to an upgrade of public facilities – not just for
future residents but also potentially for existing residents who may use the
improved facility.
54
Access to the bike path network and possible impacts on the existing
bicycle lanes/routes was also identified as a potential problem because of
the number of vehicles required to enter and exit the site from Wests Road.
We accept that motorists entering and exiting the site will need to take care
in observing cyclists (and pedestrians and other vehicles), but that is no
different to the duty of care all motorists must take when entering or exiting
a public road and would not be a reason we would refuse or modify the
proposal.
55
Mr Caine also raised issues about the capacity of and accessibility to
community facilities and schools. The adequacy of services and
infrastructure to cope with an individual new development is sometimes
raised as an issue by parties but they are not matters that can be resolved on
a site by site basis. It is the responsibility of servicing authorities (including
those dealing with education and health) to determine whether sufficient
capacity exists to cater for increased demand, and is a subject more
appropriately dealt with at a strategic or holistic level when zones, overlays
and policies are being formulated and the Planning Scheme amended.
Can the air raid shelters be protected under the planning scheme?
56
Ms Pringle prepared a detailed submission about the three air shelters and
asked us to, as an absolute minimum, delay any development until the
outcome of National Heritage Assessment of the site.
57
The information she has provided is of great interest but unfortunately the
planning scheme at present offers no protection to the air raid shelters and
they could be removed at any time without the need for planning permit.
58
In the absence of a Heritage Overlay, the Tribunal cannot prevent
demolition of these shelters. It is also contrary to case law6 to use (in our
words) a permit trigger under one control to piggy-back or try and control
something for which a permit would not otherwise be required. We would
6
National Trust of Australia (Victoria) v Australian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance
Society Limited [1976] VR592
Page 22 of 34
Page 77 of 88
therefore not contemplate delaying development of this site until and if a
Heritage Overlay is introduced for the 3 air raid shelters.
What conditions are appropriate?
59
The circulated draft conditions are based on those included in the officer
report to Council recommending support for the proposal. These were
discussed at the hearing.
60
We have deleted those requiring substantial changes to the building and
made other alterations to respond to discussion at the hearing and our own
assessment of the draft conditions. We have also deleted the condition
requiring screening of internal habitable room windows and balconies for
Buildings B, C and D. to avoid (any) internal overlooking as our review of
the plans persuades us that objective 2.9 of the Guidelines has been met.
61
We have deleted the condition requiring a Section 173 Agreement but have
included the parts (a) and (c) of the condition with other infrastructure
conditions, the clothesline condition with the general conditions and the
waste management condition with other waste management conditions. Part
(b) replicates a more detailed condition already included in the
infrastructure conditions and has not been retained.
62
We have included a requirement for a car parking allocation plan and have
also deleted the second last VicRoads condition concerning a waste
management plan and included the requirement for a swept path diagram
into the existing waste management conditions (condition 23).
DECISION
63
Having regard to the above reasons, we will therefore set aside Council’s
decision and direct that a conditional permit is to be issued.
J A Bennett
Presiding Member
Peter Gray
Member
Page 23 of 34
Page 78 of 88
APPENDIX A
PERMIT APPLICATION NO
TP720/2011
LAND
WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS
Construction of multi-level buildings
for the purpose of dwellings, the
creation of access to a Road Zone
Category 1, the use of the land for a
convenience shop and the removal of
native vegetation in accordance with
the endorsed plans.
CONDITIONS
Amended plans
1
Before the use and development starts, amended plans must be submitted to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans
will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be
drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The
plans must be generally in accordance with the plans substituted by the
Tribunal but modified to show:
(a)
Any modifications required as a result of the Wind Assessment report
in accordance with condition 27.
(b)
A roof plan showing the location of all service equipment, lift
overruns etc.
(c)
A notation on the plans to indicate that all dwellings are allocated
storage space.
(d)
Details of pedestrian circulation within all car parking levels which
may include a delineated pedestrian route to the lift cores and
stairways.
(e)
Modifications in accordance with conditions 46 to 50 (VicRoads
conditions).
(f)
Any modifications in accordance with condition 51 to 56 (DoT
condition).
(g)
A landscape plan in accordance with condition 9.
(h)
A colour and materials schedule in accordance with conditions 42-44.
(i)
A floor plan of dwelling type 7 on TP8.01.
(j)
The provision of lighting to the east-west link footpath adjacent to the
southern boundary.
Page 24 of 34
Page 79 of 88
(k)
A notation on the plans at each vehicle entry point that a sign will be
provided assisting in identifying the visitor car spaces with the car
parking areas.
(l)
Identification of any staging of the construction of the development.
General conditions
2
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered
without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3
Once a stage of the development has started, it must be continued and
completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4
A directory providing information of the layout of the development must be
provided at each entry point to facilitate the identification of dwellings.
5
No plant equipment, services or architectural features other than those
shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the floor level of the
building(s) without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6
All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents excluding downpipes, servicing any
building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden
from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7
Clotheslines on balcony or terrace areas must be secured appropriately and
must not be visible from the street. In addition, the balcony areas must not
be used as storage areas or contain any structures not normally associated
with the use of these areas. This provision must also be reflected in the
Owners Corporation rules or equivalent.
Landscape Plan conditions
8
Before the development starts, a landscape plan generally in accordance
with the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by Tract Consultants must be
submitted and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When
approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be
provided.
The plan must show:
(a)
The areas set aside for site, roof top and courtyard landscaping, and
design techniques/specifications for such planting to ensure that the
depths associated with the construction of the roof landscaping have
been properly and adequately incorporated into the plans
(b)
The location and details of planter boxes
(c)
A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will
include the location and size of maturity of all plants, the botanical
names of such plants
(d)
The hose connection points and/or an automatic irrigation system to
enable convenient maintenance of all plants
Page 25 of 34
Page 80 of 88
(e)
Paving details, seating, fence design details including heights and
other landscape works
(f)
Provision of a barbeque and associated furniture to the podium
gardens
(g)
Measures for ongoing landscape management and maintenance.
(h)
Any changes recommended in Section 7.0 of the VIPAC Pedestrian
Level Winds - Wind Tunnel Test report (Document 30N-12-0062TRP-301641-1-draft dated 21 September 2012).
9
Before the use and/or occupation of the development starts or by such later
date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the
landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and
completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
10
The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased
or damaged plants are to be replaced.
Heritage Study condition
11
Before demolition begins, three copies of an annotated photographic study
of archival quality of the concrete bunkers must be prepared by a suitable
qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority as a record
of the building. The survey must include:
(a)
Each elevation of the building;
(b)
The interior of the building;
(c)
Architectural design detailing of the building;
(d)
An statement prepared by an architectural historian describing and
explaining both the design and construction of the building and the
photographs.
Construction Management Condition
12
Prior to any works commencing on the land a “Construction Management
Plan” (CMP) must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority, detailing how the owner will manage the environmental and
construction issues associated with the development. The “Construction
Management Plan” when approved will form part of the permit and must be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and can be
amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CMP must
address:(a)
the contact name and phone number(s) of the site manager,
(b)
any demolition,
(c)
bulk excavation,
Page 26 of 34
Page 81 of 88
(d)
management of the construction site,
(e)
land disturbance,
(f)
hours of construction,
(g)
noise,
(h)
control of dust,
(i)
public safety,
(j)
traffic management,
(k)
construction vehicle road routes,
(l)
soiling and cleaning of roadways,
(m) discharge of any polluted water,
(n)
security fencing, disposal of site waste and any potentially
contaminated materials,
(o)
crane locations during construction,
(p)
location of site offices,
(q)
redirection of any above or underground services,
(r)
site lighting during any night works.
Environmental Site Assessment conditions
13
Before buildings and works commence, an assessment of the site, prepared
by a member of the Australian Contaminated Land Consultants Association
(Victoria) Inc, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority and to its
satisfaction. The site assessment must include:
(a)
The nature of the previous land uses or activities on the site;
(b)
An opinion of the level and nature of contamination (if any), how
much is present and how it is distributed; and
(c)
Recommendations on whether the environmental condition of the land
is suitable for residential use and whether an environmental audit of
the land should be undertaken.
Should the Consultant recommend that an environmental audit be
undertaken, before buildings and works start the applicant must provide
either:
(d)
A Certificate of Environmental Audit in accordance with Section 53Y
of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or
(e)
A Statement of Environmental Audit under Section 53Z of the
Environment Protection Act 1970. A Statement must state that the site
is suitable for the use and development allowed by this permit.
Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is provided, all the conditions
of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be complied with to the
Page 27 of 34
Page 82 of 88
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, prior to commencement of use of
the site. Written confirmation of compliance must be provided by a suitably
qualified environmental professional or other suitable person acceptable to
the Responsible Authority. In addition, sign off must be in accordance with
any requirements in the Statement conditions regarding verification of
works.
If there are conditions on a Statement of Environmental Audit that the
Responsible Authority consider require significant ongoing maintenance
and/or monitoring, the applicant must enter into a Section 173 Agreement
under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Agreement must be
executed on title prior to the commencement of the use and prior to the
issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1987. The
applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the
Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority.
14
Should the Responsible Authority require it, following receipt of the
Assessment, the Responsible Authority may at the cost of the owner/permit
holder obtain a peer review of the environmental site assessment. The Peer
Review shall include but not be limited to review of the methodology,
results and conclusions of the Assessment and a copy of this review must be
provided to the owner/permit holder.
15
Two (2) copies of the Environmental Audit Report and Certificate of
Environmental Audit or Statement of Environmental Audit must be
submitted to the Responsible Authority.
16
Building works to facilitate remediation may commence prior to the
completion of a Certificate of Environmental Audit or Statement of
Environmental Audit provided that a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) and
an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the subject site is prepared
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the buildings and works
are limited to only those that are required to facilitate remediation in
accordance with the RAP
17
The Remediation Action Plan (RAP) and an Environmental Management
Plan (EMP) for the subject site must be prepared:
18
(a)
With the written consent of the EPA appointed environmental auditor
responsible for issuing the Certificate or Statement of Environmental
Audit for the subject site and the Responsible Authority.
(b)
Prior to the commencement of any building works to facilitate
remediation on the subject site, and must comply with EPA
publication 480 “Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction
Sites – February 1996”,
(c)
and submitted to the EPA appointed environmental auditor for review
and written approval.
Copies of the RAP & EMP (including any updated versions) and written
approval must be provided to the Responsible Authority prior to the
Page 28 of 34
Page 83 of 88
commencement of any building works to facilitate remediation on the
subject site. No changes shall be made to the RAP or EMP unless agreed to
in writing by the EPA appointed environmental auditor, and the
19
All the conditions of the Assessment, Peer Review, Management plan or
Statement of Environmental Audit and any associated plan must be to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must be complied with to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
20
Prior to the commencement of the use or certification under the Subdivision
Act 1988, a letter must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority, by an EPA appointed environmental auditor to verify that the
conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit issued for the land have
been complied with and any environmental management plan and
remediation action plan, or conditions of the Assessment, Peer Review,
satisfactorily implemented.
Waste management conditions
21
Provision must be made on the land for the storage and collection of
garbage and other solid waste. This area must be graded and drained and
screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
22
Prior to the commencement of the development of each stage a waste
management plan for each stage of the development must be prepared to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This must include swept path
diagrams demonstrating movements of a standard service vehicle.
23
The management plan must have regard to the following matters:
24
(a)
Bin storage areas for the proposed dwellings
(b)
Owners Corporation waste management plan
(c)
Odour control from bin storage areas
(d)
Access for removal of waste bins
(e)
Delivery of bins to waste collection points and retrieval of bins once
collected
(f)
Location and detail of organic waste collection
(g)
Work cover authority safety matters.
The owners and occupiers must comply with the Waste Management Plan
as endorsed by the Responsible Authority to the satisfaction of the
Acoustic condition
25
The construction of the building must be carried out in accordance with the
requirements of the Acoustic Report prepared by Vipac, dated 16
September 2011. At the completion of the development a written statement
Page 29 of 34
Page 84 of 88
by VIPAC must be submitted to the Responsible Authority indicating that
the development has been constructed in accordance with the requirements
of the Acoustic Report.
Wind Assessment condition
26
Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant must submit
a report prepared by a suitably qualified professional providing an expert
analysis of wind impacts and recommendations to minimise any impacts.
The report must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority
and the recommendation of the report must be implemented to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Car parking and roadwork’s conditions
27
Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed and/or modified to the road to
suit the proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the Roads Corporation.
28
All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area
reinstated with either/or footpath, naturestrip, kerb and channel to the
satisfaction of the Roads Corporation.
29
Before the use and/or occupation of each stage of the development starts,
the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown
on the endorsed plans fro that stage must be to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority and be:(a)
constructed;
(b)
properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance
with the plans;
(c)
surfaced with an all weather seal coat;
(d)
drained;
(e)
line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
(f)
clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and
driveways.
30
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these
purposes at all times.
31
A car parking allocation plan for each stage of the development must be
approved by and be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. It may
be amended with the approval of and to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
Infrastructure conditions
32
The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
and is subject to any requirements, conditions and subsequent approval
from VicRoads. Stormwater run-off from the site must not cause any
adverse impact to the public, any adjoining site or Council asset.
Page 30 of 34
Page 85 of 88
Stormwater from all paved area has to be drained to underground
stormwater system. Any cut, fill or structure must not adversely affect the
natural stormwater runoff from and to adjoining properties.
33
No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or
indirectly into Council's drains or watercourses during and after
development.
34
Prior to the commencement of any works on the site and/or subdivision of
the land, the owner must submit for approval to the Responsible Authority
drainage plans to the legal point of discharge requirements.
35
Prior to the completion of the development a 1.5 metre wide reinforced
concrete footpath along the entire West Road frontage must be constructed
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority with all costs associated
with these works to be borne by the Permit Holder/Owner.
36
The provision must be made within the development to manage and
discharge from the site overland flow (stormwater) during the 1 in 100 year
storm event.
37
No existing title boundary levels adjacent to the development site are to be
altered without the consent and approval of the Responsible Authority.
38
All pedestrian access to the development must be made at grade from the
existing abutting levels, and any steps or ramps must be setback from the
relevant Title boundary.
39
The owner must upgrade the street lighting proximate to the site, including
the provision of lighting along the future east/west link adjacent to the
southern boundary.
40
A monetary contribution of $150,000 to Council for the upgrade of the
maternal child and health centre along Wests Road.
Colours and Materials Schedule conditions
41
Before the development starts, a schedule and sample board of all external
building finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
Once approved, the schedule and sample board will be endorsed and will
then form part of the permit.
42
The schedule must show, the, colour and finish of all external walls, fascias,
trims, window frames, glazing types, entry doors, fencing, architectural
features and integral (rather than painted) finishes to all concrete panels.
43
All finishes and surfaces of all external buildings and works including
materials and colours must comply with the approved schedule and sample
board to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any variation of the
approved external treatment will be subject to the written consent of the
Page 31 of 34
Page 86 of 88
SDA condition
44
Before construction is commenced on any building in the development, an
Environmental Sustainable Design report generally in accordance with the
report by ARK Resources for the building must be submitted to and
approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the report and
appropriate plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
All recommendations of an approved Environmental Sustainable Design
report must be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
VicRoads conditions (conditions 46-50)
45
46
47
Prior to the commencement of use, amended plans must be submitted to and
approved by VicRoads. When approved by VicRoads, the plans may be
approved by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the
permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies
must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans
(Mantesso Architects, TP 4.01, drawn by AF/KL, Job No. 10034, dated
21/12/2011) and modified to show:
(a)
The removal of the proposed indented loading bay on Wests Road
(b)
An on-site loading facility or facilities to service the entire site. The
loading area must demonstrate how the largest anticipated service
vehicle can enter and exit Wests Road in a forward manner.
Functional layout plans (min scale 1:250) of the following roadworks must
be submitted to VicRoads for approval prior to the commencement of any
road works on Wests Road:
(a)
left turn deceleration lane on Wests Road at the proposed northern
access.
(b)
left turn deceleration lane on Wests Road at the proposed southern
access.
Prior to the occupation of buildings approved by this permit, the following
roadworks on Wests Road must be completed at no cost to and to the
satisfaction of VicRoads:
(a)
A left turn deceleration lane on Wests Road at the proposed northern
access
(b)
A left turn deceleration lane on Wests Road at the proposed southern
access
48
All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the kerb
and channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction and at no
cost to VicRoads.
49
At no cost to and to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible
Authority, the developer must be responsible for the relocation of any trees,
Page 32 of 34
Page 87 of 88
road furniture, electricity poles and other services that may be required in
accommodating the new access points to Wests Road.
Department of Transport conditions (conditions 51-56)
50
Before the development starts, or other time agreed in writing with Public
Transport Victoria, amended plans to the satisfaction of Public Transport
Victoria must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the
permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies
must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans
submitted with the application but modified to show:
(a)
Improvements to the existing north-bound tram Stop 48 (Route 82)
directly abutting the site by connecting path, landscaping and lighting;
(b)
Removal and relocation of the existing tram Stop 48 (Route 57/82 on
Raleigh Road), to a new location within the eastern side of the
tramway abutting the site, which should become the location of a new
stop for Route 82 and to include a connecting path, landscaping,
lighting and a shelter;
(c)
Provision of a new tram stop pole and flag which will become the new
stop for west-bound stop Route 57 trams (enabling residents of the
development to cross Raleigh Road via the existing median strip at the
Wests Road roundabout, to access the new stop).
51
Prior to the occupation of Building A all works outlined on the endorsed
plans for public transport improvements must be completed to the
satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full cost of the permit holder.
52
The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to
tram operation along Raleigh Road and the tramway abutting the
development site is kept to a minimum during the construction of the
development. Foreseen disruptions to tram operations during construction
and mitigation measures must be communicated to YarraTrams and Public
Transport Victoria in writing fourteen days (14) prior.
53
The permit holder must ensure that all track, tram and overhead
infrastructure is not damaged. Any damage to public transport infrastructure
must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full
cost of the permit holder.
54
The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to
bus operations along Raleigh Road is kept to a minimum during the
construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to bus operations and
mitigation measures must be communicated to Public Transport Victoria in
writing fourteen days (14) prior.
55
The existing bus stop and associated infrastructure on Raleigh Road must
not be altered without the prior consent of Public Transport Victoria. Any
alterations including temporary works or damage during construction must
Page 33 of 34
Page 88 of 88
be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria and at the cost of
the permit holder.
Time limits condition
56
This permit will expire if:
(a)
The development is not started within three years of the date of this
permit.
or
(b)
The development of each stage to be completed within four years of
the commencement of the stage.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is
made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months
afterwards.
----------------------
Page 34 of 34

2 Wests Road, Maribyrnong - Maribyrnong City Council

Transcription

Similar documents

BesNet Center - Professionals

Vizcaya Village

Catch Of The Month Graceland Portable Buildings

Operation Re a šomaContinues……..

601 560 980 biwell construction inc 4002 134th ave se bellevue, wa

Campus planning and urban planning in Lund

here - Active House

nirula`s hotel,noida(1988)

pdf

Heritage Category: Listing List Entry No : 1227165 Grade: II County