Banyule City Council 13 April 2015 Ordinary Meeting - Attachments 1

ATTACHMENTS

4.1

Proposed 26 Storey Mixed Use Development at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe (P1453/14) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

4.3

Proposed multi dwelling development at 229 and 229A Banksia Street, Ivanhoe (former Bellfield Primary School) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

4.4

Manningham MAV State Council Motions ...................................... 384 Maroondah MAV State Council Motions ........................................ 385 Banyule City Council MAV State Council Motions 2015 ................. 392 Whitehorse City Council MAV State Council Motions 2015............ 395

Advocacy Report 1 July 2014 - 31 December 2014 Attachment 1

6.3

Melbourne's North Food and Beverage Growth Plan ..................... 256

Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) - State Council Motions 2015 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4

5.2

Attachment 1 ................................................................................. 173 Attachment 2 ................................................................................. 237 Attachment 3 ................................................................................. 247

Food and Beverage Growth Plan - Melbourne's North Attachment 1

5.1

Architectural plans ......................................................................... 111 Background information ................................................................. 153 Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development ............................................................... 164

Advocacy Report 1 July 2014 - 31 December 2014 ....................... 396

Rating Strategy 2014/2015 Attachment 1

Rating Strategy 2014-2015 ............................................................ 422

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 109

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 111

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 112

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 113

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 114

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 115

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 116

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 117

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 118

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 119

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 120

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 121

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 122

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 123

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 124

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 125

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 126

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 127

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 128

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 129

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 130

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 131

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 132

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 133

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 134

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 135

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 136

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 137

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 138

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 139

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 140

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 141

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 142

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 143

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 144

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 145

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 146

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 147

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 148

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 149

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 150

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Architectural plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 151

Item: 4.1

Attachment 2: Background information

PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning provisions are relevant to the assessment of application:

4.1

P1453/2014: ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE Under Clause 34.01-1 planning approval is required for the use of land as a dwelling and residential hotel. Under Clause 34.01-4, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Under Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with any requirements in a schedule to this overlay.

The site is affected by Schedule 5 - Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centres.

Objectives of the Overlay include: Clause 3.2 provides site specific guidelines for the site as follows: At the property boundary, the building can be constructed up to a maximum height of 10 metres.

Buildings higher than 10 metres should be setback 1.5 metres for every 3 metres of additional building height. No additional setback is required above a building height of 16 metres.

The building should be constructed to a maximum of 28 metres. However, the building should split above 16 metres to form two towers. Each tower should provide a thin profile when viewed from Bell and Burgundy Streets and be set no less than 10 metres apart.

CLAUSE 52.05 – CAR PARKING Clause 52.05 outlines that the standard car parking requirement for the proposal is 481 spaces, calculated as follows:

Dwellings

Office Retail

Car parking rate  1 space for each one or two bedroom dwelling;  2 spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling;  0.2 visitor spaces per dwelling; 3.5 spaces per 100sqm of floor area; 4 spaces per 100sqm of floor area

Spaces required  271 spaces for residents  53 spaces for visitors  20 spaces for serviced apartments 125 spaces 12 spaces

The proposal incorporates a total of 332 parking spaces, and a permit is required to waive the additional 149 required.

CLAUSE 52.29 - ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1 Clause 52.29 outlines that a planning permit is required to create or alter access to a Road Zone Category 1. A permit is therefore required for both proposed vehicular access points.

It is a requirement of the Clause that the application be referred to Vic Roads for comment.

Any conditions required by the Authority must be included on any approval given, and the application must be refused if the Authority objects to the proposal.

CLAUSE 52.34 – BICYCLE FACILITIES ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 153

Attachment 2

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY – SCHEDULE 5

4.1

Item: 4.1

Clause 52.34 outlines that a total of 95 bicycle parking spaces be provided on site (52 for residents, 13 for employees and 30 for visitors), as follows:

Dwellings

Office

Retail

Attachment 2

Attachment 2: Background information

Bicycle parking rate  1 resident space for each 5 dwellings;  1 visitor spaces for each 10 dwellings;  1 employee space per 300 m2 of net floor area (if the total exceeds 1000 m2);  1 visitor space per 1000 m2 of net floor area (if the total exceeds 1000 m2);  1 employee space per 300 m2 of leasable floor area;  1 visitor space per 500 m2 of leasable floor area .

Spaces required  52 spaces for residents  26 spaces for visitors (there is no specified rate for Serviced Apartments)  12 spaces for employees  4 spaces for visitors



1 space for employees

There is also a requirement to provide a shower and change room for employees.

The proposal incorporates 165 bicycle parking spaces, although no differentiation is provided between visitor and employee/resident spaces. No shower facilities are provided. Although not identified in the application documentation or public notification, a permit is therefore required to waive the requirement for shower facilities. This would appear to be readily addressed through a minor modification to the plans, however.

CLAUSE 52.36 – INTEGRATED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PLANNING Clause 52.36 outlines that the application be referred to the Public Transport Corporation for their comment.

POLICIES CONSIDERED STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The following policy is relevant to the assessment of the proposal and is outlined below and expanded on where considered appropriate: Settlement Clause 11.01- Activity Centres seeks to build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres.

Urban Design Clause 15.01-2 seeks to achieve high quality urban design and architecture. In assessing the design and built form of residential development of four or more storeys development must be considered under the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004).

Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character Clause 15.01-5 seeks to recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Sustainable Development Clause 15.02-1 seeks to encourage energy and resource efficiency.

Residential Development ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 154

Clause 16.01 sets out objectives in relation to integrated housing, location of residential development, strategic redevelopment sites, housing diversity and housing affordability.

Relevant objectives include: 

To promote a housing market that meets community needs.



To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.



To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan Melbourne.



To provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.



To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Municipal Strategic Statement Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement sets the direction for land use and development in Banyule by identifying key planning elements for consideration and nominating a series of objectives and strategies for each. The overarching vision of the Municipality is: Banyule will be regarded as a city offering a range of quality lifestyles in an urban setting enhanced by the natural environment, and served by an efficient and committed Council.

The relevant objective encompasses Environmental Management.

Housing Clause 21.04-1 seeks to encourage higher density housing close to activity centres and the Principal Public Transport Network and protect residential amenity and provide for the desired future neighbourhood character of residential areas.

Built environment The objective in relation to Clause 21.06 is: To ensure that development respects and contributes to the desired future character of residential neighbourhoods and the identity of Activity Centres, in a manner that supports varying degrees of housing change.

Strategies include but are not limited to: 

Promoting high quality design in all new residential development that makes a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character.



Encourage the retention and planting of significant trees, substantial trees and other vegetation to protect and improve the landscape character, streetscapes, habitat links and biodiversity of the area.



Support residential development in accordance with the Residential Areas Framework which identifies varying degrees of housing change across the City’s residential neighbourhoods and Activity Centres.

In relation to sustainable design, strategies include: Support the retention of significant trees and the planting of trees and other vegetation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 155

4.1

Attachment 2: Background information

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

Item: 4.1

Attachment 2: Background information

4.1

In relation to housing, strategies include: 

Encourage a substantial proportion of new housing to be located within or close to Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network particularly where there is high frequency and quality of public transport services in operation.



Encourage a range of types and sizes of housing, particularly in areas located close to public transport, services and facilities.



Encourage development to provide a wider range of household types particularly smaller sized dwellings, including those with only one bedroom.

Attachment 2

Clause 21.06-2 - Residential Areas Framework identifies that the site is located within a Diversity area in the indicative map forming part of Clause 21.06 of the Housing Framework Map. These areas typically have the following characteristics:  Within the business core of an Activity Centre.  Some residential properties along streets that immediately surround the business core of an Activity Centre.

They will provide for shop-top and apartment living in higher density mixed use and residential developments. These areas include strategic redevelopment sites that provide for higher density housing.

Development will make a positive contribution to the identity of the Activity Centre and the desired future character of surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

In these areas people live close to train stations, transport interchanges, shops, services and nodes of employment. These areas include higher density and some medium housing opportunities.

Local Places Clause 21.08 seeks to provide guidance to the use and development of land within specified Activity Centres. Clause 21.08-2 provides specific guidance with respect to the Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centre, of which the site forms part. The Clause identifies that: The Activity Centre has several defining characteristics and attributes for a preferred identity. These are as follows: … 

The centre can support change that enhances liveability and sustainability for social activity, the environment and local economic growth.



Change in the centre needs to:



o

Enable the precinct’s preferred identity and as appropriate, avoid new development and subdivision that inappropriately constrains the floor space growth potential that is provide by the Heidelberg Structure Plan

o

Provide a public realm that supports prioritised modes of transport and encourages best practice environmental and urban design of buildings and spaces.

The activity centre is set within an undulating and vegetated urban landscape with mature trees on ridgelines and in streets. As such, many building facades and roof tops are highly visible from public domains and streetscapes in the valley and from the surrounding ridgelines. Burgundy Street forms the valley floor with easterly views to the Yarra River

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 156

Attachment 2: Background information

parklands and the Dandenong Ranges in the distant backdrop. The valley is edged by mature-treed ridgelines and streetscapes that are punctured by the Austin/Mercy Hospital complex. … 

4.1

Item: 4.1

Bulky goods retailing and a mix of other land uses cluster along the Bell Street arterial road, to the west of Upper Heidelberg Road.

Relevant objectives and strategies include: Land use and economic development

Strategies

To facilitate and promote the continued vital, viable and economic development of Heidelberg. 

Establish development that creates a diverse range of dwelling sizes and types, including opportunities for affordable housing and apartments in mixed-use buildings.



Strengthen the wide range of health care, family support and other health related professional services by promoting/locating: o

Above ground floors in the Peripheral Retail Sales Precinct.

Built Form Objective

To provide new built form that makes a positive contribution to streetscapes and urban form.

Strategies



Encourage development that provides an active frontage at the street level.



Promote environmentally sustainable design.



Establish high quality and distinctive built form outcomes.



Encourage buildings to integrate vegetation within the built form, such as terrace gardens, rooftop gardens and vegetated facades.



Work with land owners to develop master plans for key strategic redevelopment sites identified by the Heidelberg Structure Plan, to encourage redevelopment outcomes that respond appropriately to the attributes of each site and surrounding area.

Access and Connections Objective

To improve, promote and encourage safe pedestrian access, cycling access and public transport use to and within the activity centre.

Strategies



Minimise the adverse impacts of through-traffic on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.



Provide for high levels of access by walking, cycling and public transport.



Provide vehicle access and connectivity, including convenient access to commercial premises by service and delivery vehicles.



Provide and manage an appropriate provision of car parking.



Ensure that car parking provisions do not adversely impact upon ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 157

Attachment 2

Objective

Item: 4.1

Attachment 2: Background information

Attachment 2

4.1

the pedestrian environment. 

Encourage regional traffic to travel around the precinct.

Identity Objective

To ensure that development provides a positive contribution to the preferred identity of Heidelberg.

Strategies



Strengthen the identity of the activity centre through the use of building materials, built form, public interfaces, civic spaces and landscaping.



Ensure new development provides active frontages at the street level.



Capitalise on the environmental, artistic and cultural heritage of Heidelberg.



Realise the potential of key intersections to read as gateways.

Precinct 5: Bell Street Peripheral Retail Vision

The Bell Street Peripheral Retail Precinct will continue to provide a range of small to medium sized peripheral sales retailing for the regional market, with redevelopment to provide residential and medical service uses above street level.

Objective

To support uses primarily for small and medium sized bulky goods retailing with opportunity for medical services and dwellings.

Strategies



Provide higher density residential developments that provide a diverse range of dwelling sizes and types, including opportunities for affordable housing and apartments in mixed-use buildings.



Provide opportunities for medical uses that service and support the function of the hospitals and Medical Precinct.

Objective

To encourage well designed mixed use buildings which respond appropriately to their site and context.

Strategies



Development should provide a built form that is respectful of adjoining residential areas and create visual interest along Bell Street.



Other than the entrance to the building, residential development should not be provided at street level.



Development at 443 Upper Heidelberg Road should provide the only dominant building that protrudes noticeably above the treed ridgeline to provide a landmark that makes a positive contribution to the identity of the activity centres.



Provide the area with a landscape identity, particularly one that fosters comfortable pedestrian movement.

Safer Design Policy Clause 22.03 aims to create an attractive, useable, well maintained environment in which people feel safer to live, work and travel.

REFERRAL COMMENTS VICROADS VicRoads has advised that it notes: ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 158

1.

The proposed access on Upper Heidelberg Road is within close proximity to a median break. VicRoads is not satisfied that this arrangement will operate safely and requires the application be amended to show closure of the median opening.

2.

The interface between the site and Bell Street is not considered satisfactory. The parking bay area and outer separator require modification to create safer ingress and egress to and from the Bell Street carriageway.

In particular, it is noted that the angle of approach to enter the Bell Street carriageway does not allow vehicles to safely or reasonably view oncoming traffic to give way.

The Authority advises that it would be in a position to support the application if these matters were addressed through an amended application, but that it objects to the current application on the following grounds: The proposed access is incompatible with the operation of Bell Street, Upper Heidelberg Road and public safety.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT VICTORIA Public Transport Victoria raise no objection to the proposal.

URBAN DESIGN Urban design advice has identified that the preferred height envelope under the DDO is designed to satisfy a simplified ‘sectional’ rather than 3 dimensional understanding of the potential building mass which is flawed in urban design terms given the site’s visual prominence. A built form of a ‘slender’ tower above a podium to 28 m would also present a poor compositional outcome, comprising a 10m base, terraced mid-section and minor projection of 12m above the 16m datum. This form would at best present as an infill building, comparable to completed development elsewhere in strategically less significant sites within the Heidelberg Major Activity Centre. When viewed in the round, this form would be ungainly and have a wedding cake quality.

Taking into account the above finding, Council’s urban design advice supports a podium tower form with a single projection.

It is considered however that the specific architectural resolution of both the podium and tower form, taking into account the obligation to achieve exceptional architectural merit befitting of the site’s exposure and urban role, is lacking. Further improvement to the podium is required to adequately respond to each varying interface, and provide diversity and interest over the surface, within a coherent whole. The repetitive, bladed skin approach has some merit as a starting point, but requires further architectural development, through the establishment of rebates, additional colour, lighting and significant ‘moments’ within its overall wrapping profile.

The static, rectangular volume of the building form and its specific architectural resolution accentuates the perceptions of breadth, and requires sufficient vertical division, commensurate on either side of the form. Currently the expressed lift core and vertical striped effect unsuccessfully realised this objective to the degree required.

The skyline profile currently has a disappointing flat-cap presentation. Given the site’s significant exposure in silhouette terms, this requires further development to enhance its distinction.

The concerns with the architectural expression of the tower form can be resolved through multiple approaches, including minor contorting of plan shape, creation of strong rebates, and further material resolution.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 159

4.1

Attachment 2: Background information

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ENGINEERING Clause 52.06:

Attachment 2: Background information

Number of spaces

A traffic report prepared by TTM Engineers has been provided to support the request for a reduction in parking spaces. Engineering disagrees with the parking rate detailed for the serviced apartment component of the development, and recommends the adoption of the 0.4 spaces per serviced apartment. This rate is further supported by VCAT decisions on similar developments containing this use.

Attachment 2

When considering a proposal to reduce the parking requirement, Council can consider a number of factors, including: 

The variation of parking demand over time (i.e. daytime in comparison to evening);



Short-stay and long stay demand;



Proximity to public transport;



Provision of bicycle facilities and end of trip facilities, and the convenience of these facilities.

In consideration of the provided traffic report and empirical data collected by Council officers, the following reductions in the parking rate could be considered: 

A rate of 0.73 parking spaces per one bedroom dwelling, and 0.87 spaces per two bedroom dwelling, based on ABS vehicle ownership data for the Ivanhoe area.



The empirical residential visitor parking rate for high density development is lower than the parking rate specified in the planning scheme. Collated data suggests a rate of 0.12 visitor spaces would be appropriate.



For an office use, the expected long-term/short-term (i.e. staff vs visitors) split is 90%/10%. Given the proximity of the site to public transport, a lower overall rate of 3.0 spaces per 100sqm could be adopted. This use is unlikely to be in operation outside of business hours.



For a retail use, the expected long-term/short-term split is 20%/80%. This use is unlikely to be in operation outside of business hours.

Based on the above information, the weekday, weeknight, and weekend empirical rates for this development would be: Long Term Rates W'day W'night 0.73 0.73 0.87 0.87 2 2 0.4 0.4 2.7 0 0.8 0

Residential (per unit) 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Serviced Apartments Office (per 100sqm) Shop (per 100sqm)

W'end 0.73 0.87 2 0.4 0 0.8

Short Term Rates W'day W'night 0 0.12 0 0.12 0 0.12 NA 2.7 0 3.2 0

W'end 0.12 0.12 0.12 0 3.2

These rates would generate an empirical long-term parking demand of 332 spaces, and 107 short term parking spaces during the week-day periods. A lower parking demand of 232-234 long term parking spaces and 30-40 short term parking spaces are expected during the weeknight and weekend periods respectively. These calculations are shown below.

QTY Residential (per unit) 1-bed 2-bed

159 106

Long Term Demand W'day W'night W'end 115 115 115 92 92 92

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 160

Short Term Demand W'day W'night W'end 0 18 18 0 12 12

Attachment 2: Background information

3-bed Serviced Apartments Office (per 100sqm) Shop (per 100sqm)

3 51 3595 315

TOTAL

6 20 97 2

6 20 0 0

6 20 0 2

0 NA 97 10

0

0

0 0

0 10

336

236

236

107

30

40

4.1

Item: 4.1

Based on the parking data provided within the report, and taking into account the relocation of the vehicles onsite, the expected short-term parking generation is expected to utilise significant portion of on-street parking, particularly during the weekday period.

Accordingly, the application in its current form is unlikely to be supported. Opportunities to improve accessibility to the site via more sustainable travel modes, and to reduce the overall parking demand should be explored by the permit applicant. This could include the provision of ‘share’ or ‘hire’ cars associated with the development.

Clause 52.06:

Design

Design standard 1 – Accessways Bell Street Access This section of Bell Street is one-way, operating in the eastbound direction only. The proposed access is to be served from the service road, will be 8.56 metres wide and will require the removal of four on-street parking spaces. Given limited availability of short-term parking and redistribution of current parking demand onsite, the removal of these spaces is not supported.

Furthermore, Clause 52.06-8 requires access ways to have a corner splay or area at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions extending at least 2m along the frontage road from the edge of the exit lane and 2.5m along the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road.

Council may consider allowing solid structures (including letterboxes, meter boxes, fences and retaining walls) to be located within the 2m x 2.5m splayed area adjacent to the driveway entrance provided they are constructed to a maximum height of 900mm, to ensure adequate sight distance to pedestrians. A wider crossover, as proposed, is not considered to meet this requirement.

Upper Heidelberg Road Access Turning movements provided in Appendix I of the traffic report detail the required turning movements for a Medium Rigid Vehicle into the site. However, closer inspection of the diagrams highlighted that vehicles in the diagrams are accessing and departing the site from the wrong side of the road, due to the central median In order to facilitate a right-turn out of the site at this location, the central median will need to be reconfigured (subject to VicRoads approval). It should be noted, however, that VicRoads have since indicated that the median break will need to be removed, preventing right turns from the site into Upper Heidelberg Road.

Design standard 2 – Car parking spaces The dimensions of the parking spaces within the car park do not comply with the requirements of Design Standard 2, which requires 2.6m wide by 4.9m long parking spaces with a 6.4m wide aisle. The majority of parking spaces also do not comply with the ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 161

Attachment 2

While the on-site parking demand can effectively accommodate the long-term parking generated by the development, short-term parking availability in the immediate area is low.

Furthermore, the development of this site will result in the relocation of 138 vehicles that are currently using the site into the surrounding road network.

4.1

Item: 4.1

Attachment 2: Background information

requirements of AS2980.1, which requires a 2.4m wide by 5.4m long space, with a 5.8m wide aisle. The design of the parking spaces within the car park should comply with either planning scheme or Australian Standard requirements.

(Engineering would prefer planning scheme requirements be adopted, as they allocate more space to aisle widths and less to parked spaces to provide improved operation and access.

Based on the current design, there is sufficient length available for planning scheme requirements to be adopted).

Attachment 2

Where the aisle narrows to 4.485m, wider parking spaces will need to be provided. The dimensions of these spaces are required to be shown on the plan.

Disabled parking spaces must be designed in accordance with AS 2890.6 (2009) clause 2.2.1. AS2890.6- 2009 and the Building Code of Australia. Accordingly, the parking space must be 5.4m long, with a shared area 2.4m x 5.4m to be provided alongside the parking space. To accommodate their additional length, disabled car parking spaces may encroach into an accessway width specified in Table 2 of Clause 52.06-8 by 500mm.

Design standard 3: Gradients The accessway gradients are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 3.

Design standard 4: Mechanical parking No mechanical parking has been provided as part of this development.

Design standard 5: Urban design Design of car parks should take into account their use as entry points into the site Design standard 6: Safety In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, Pedestrian access to car parking areas from the street should be convenient, with pedestrian routes through car parking areas to be clearly marked and separated from traffic in high activity parking areas.

Clause 52.34: Bicycle Parking & Access 165 long term bicycle spaces are proposed within the basement car park, with 55 spaces provided on each of the lower floors (i.e Levels L02-L04). No visitor bicycle parking appears to be provided.

The provided long-term spaces requires negotiating 3 levels of ramps and significant interaction/potential conflict with moving vehicles and cars parking. Access to the lifts into the main building from these areas is also restricted, with columns reducing the available width to 600mm.

To ensure the bicycle spaces are well utilised, they should be relocated within 70m of the main entrance point into the car park (i.e from Upper Heidelberg Road). End of Trip Facilities, including lockers, showers, and change rooms should also be provided for the office/retail/serviced accommodation uses.

Visitor bicycle rails should also be provided at the main pedestrian entrances into the building.

Flooding

Flooding – Unlikely

Point of Discharge

Discharge to Council pit outside north eastern corner of property in Upper Heidelberg Road. Onsite detention is required. CEXIST = 0.35. See Council requirements.

‘New (or altered) crossings to comply with the Relevant Road Authority’s standards and specifications

Vehicle Crossings

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 162

Item: 4.1

Attachment 2: Background information

Permit Conditions

A Green Travel Plan to Councils satisfaction is required. This should include mandatory reporting to Council 1 year after use has commenced detailing initiatives used and uptake of alternative transport modes.

4.1

Easements According to Council records there are no easements located on site.

ARBORIST Proposed Tree Removal

Of the trees within the site proposed for removal, one tree (Tree #11) has been assessed as having medium retention value. The consulting arborist has identified that this tree has fair health and structure and could be retained. Having inspected this tree, I disagree with the findings of the arborist. I assessed the tree as having good health and structure, good future potential, and high retention value. It is very prominent and has potential to provide a major landscape contribution. A tree preservation zone radius of no less than five metres would be required to suitably retain the tree. Given the location of tree #11 at the very edge of the site boundary, and given its upright and comparatively slender form, there is scope to retain the tree without significantly reducing the potential to develop the site in the manner proposed.

Proposed Tree Retention No trees are directly proposed for retention. However, there are numerous trees located on adjoining property (the embankment of the Bell Street cutting on the site’s south-western boundary) that have not been assessed in by the arborist. Given the scale of the proposal, and given the proximity and degree of overhang of several of the large specimens, a complete impact assessment of the development proposal on these trees is required.

LANDSCAPE Landscape architectural advice has identified that no landscaping is proposed at the street interface on the site. Limited space is also available within the Upper Heidelberg Road road reserve to accommodate street tree planting. The podium roof garden planting has also been considered to lack depth for trees to establish. Planting tubs of 1 to 1.2 metres are required for trees to establish.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 163

Attachment 2

The application proposes the removal of all twelve trees located within the site, and also proposes the removal of a Council-owned street tree (tree #1).

4.1

Item: 4.1

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDELINES FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.: DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL:

P1453/2014 443 Upper Heidelberg Road IVANHOE Buildings and works for a 26 storey building comprising apartments, a ground floor retail area and offices, use of land for Dwelling and Serviced Apartments, reduction of on-site car parking, creation of new access to a Road Zone Category 1 (Bell Street) and altered access to a Road Zone Category 1 (Upper Heidelberg Road) Element 1: Urban context

Neighbourhood character and strategic context

Attachment 3

1.1

To ensure buildings respond creatively to their existing context and to agreed aspirations for the future development of the area. This should take the form of an urban context report.

Does not comply

The proposal significantly exceeds the preferred podium height and setback requirements and exceeds the preferred maximum building height of 28 metres, with a total height of 80 metres proposed. Whilst the permit applicant has been encouraged to consider a combined Planning Permit and Planning Scheme Amendment to the Design and Development Overlay provisions, which would have allowed the strategic context to be reviewed in a considered manner, they have declined to do so.

The topography of the site and its island nature means that any development on this site will remain prominent from all directions, with there being limited potential for future screening of the building by surrounding development. In addition, the DDO5 outlines that development in gateway locations, such as this, should make a positive contribution to Heidelberg’s identity and sense of place. As such, it is appropriate that any building constructed be of a high architectural quality. The rectangular form of the tower element, relatively flat nature of the facades, and flat roof form result in a building which does not fulfil this requirement.

Concerns with the architectural expression of the tower form can be resolved through multiple approaches, and is not readily addressed through a specific permit condition.

Design Response 1.2

To provide a creative design response that is based on a clear understanding of the urban context and neighbourhood character.

Does not comply

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 164

It is considered that, as outlined above and detailed by Council’s Urban Design consultant, the proposal lacks the resolution and architectural merit that is appropriate on this site.

The form, materials and articulation of the proposal do not display an appropriate level of visual interest. There are concerns with both the poor relationship between the building and the street level interface, and the presentation of the building as viewed from significantly further afield. The elevational treatment of both the podium and tower combined with the proposed building height and scale will have a detrimental impact upon

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development the preferred built form character of the area.

Refer also to comments by Council’s Urban Design consultant.

4.1

Item: 4.1

Element 2: Building envelope Height and massing To ensure that the height of new development responds to existing urban context and neighbourhood character objectives of the area.

Does not comply

The proposal incorporates an overall height that is 52m, or approximately 17 storeys, higher than anticipated by the site-specific Design and Development Overlay provisions which apply to the property. Whilst the provisions of the Scheme in relation to height and building setbacks are not mandatory: 

The additional height does not provide a positive contribution to the form of the building, in that its form is considered to be inappropriate in envelope and detailing as proposed;



The resultant building does not respect the scale of surrounding development and the topography of the surrounding land;



The additional floor area created is not considered to be required in order to provide for an appropriate mix or intensity of land uses (in that a lower building could also provide the same range of uses, whilst the intensity of land use directly contributes to concerns with respect to car parking.

2.2

To ensure new development is appropriate to the scale of nearby streets, other public spaces, and buildings.

Does not comply

See Section 1 and 2.1 above

2.3

To protect sunlight access to public spaces.

Complies

No important public spaces, such as a park or piazza, are overshadowed at either the Equinox or Winter solstice.

Does not comply

The podium height setback does not comply with the Objectives and setback requirements of the Overlay and will have a detrimental impact upon the preferred character of the area as a result of building bulk and mass.

Street setbacks 2.4

To respond to existing or preferred street character.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 165

Attachment 3

2.1

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

Relationship to adjoining buildings 2.5

To ensure building separation supports private amenity and reinforces neighbourhood character.

Complies

The site is surrounded on all sides by road reserves. The separation of the site from neighbouring land by these road reserves provides an appropriate degree of separation between buildings. As a result, the proposal will not result in an unreasonable impact upon surrounding residential properties by means of overlooking or overshadowing.

2.6

To ensure areas can develop with equitable access to outlook and sunlight.

Complies

Design Standard 2.6.2 seeks to maintain sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of dwellings in accordance with Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme. The objective of Clause 55.04-5 is to ensure that buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. Standard B21 requires that existing secluded private open spaces are provided with a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 September for at least 75% of their area, or 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of three metres (whichever is the lesser). Whilst it is noted that there is some additional shadow cast to surrounding properties in the early morning on the equinox as a result of the proposal, this shadow is relatively fast-moving due to the height of the building and its separation from the residences. As a result, from 9.00am onwards the development will not cast any shadow on the rear yard areas of the neighbouring properties to the south, with shadow falling on the Yarra Valley Water storage tank site and across the Bell Banksia Link. By 12pm, the shadow would fall across Upper Heidelberg Road and again, no residential properties would be affected by this shadow.

By 3pm, shadow would fall across the western portion of the Austin Hospital site.

Attachment 3

4.1

Item: 4.1

It is acknowledged that the building will cast a greater shadow extending through to some residential properties to the south in the morning period during the winter months, with some loss of direct sunlight for these properties. Although some overshadowing of these properties may be unavoidable in the morning, the extent of shadowing could be reduced with a decreased height and improved articulation of the proposed building.

As compliance with Clause 55.04-5 is achieved, it is not possible to conclude that the development will unacceptably overshadow adjoining properties. The impact of shadowing could however be further reduced through modifications to the design.

2.7

To ensure visual impacts to dwellings at the rear are appropriate to the context.

Does not comply

Views to and from residential units 2.8

To maximise informal or passive surveillance of streets and other public open spaces.

Complies

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 166

The visual impact of the proposal is increased as a result of the building height, form and architecture.

To maximise residential amenity through the provision of views and protection of privacy within the subject site and on neighbouring properties.

Complies

Under this objective, living areas, windows and private open spaces are required to be located to minimise the potential for overlooking. The internal layout of buildings and individual apartments should take adjoining properties into account. Existing dwellings should be protected from potential overlooking in accordance with the requirements of Clause 55 of planning schemes. Overlooking between new residential units should be minimised by appropriate site and building layout, window location and design.

The objective of Clause 55.04-6 is to limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows. Due to the distance and separation of the site from neighbouring residences, proposed screening measures and the physical separation achieved by the proposed boundary setbacks, it is considered sufficient attention to overlooking has been achieved to ensure that compliance with Standard B22 at Clause 55.04-6 is achieved. Specifically, no windows and balconies/terraces are within a horizontal distance of 9 metres of the neighbouring secluded private open space areas.

Standard B22 does not require screening of those windows and balconies that are beyond the specified 9.0 metre distance.

Whilst it would be possible to see into the rear yards of individual dwellings from windows or balconies of some upper level apartments, merely being able to see the rear yards, especially at such a distance, does not constitute overlooking that would result in loss of privacy. Not only would it be difficult to make out what individuals are doing within the yards but the presence of trees within and adjoining properties would obscure some views.

Whilst the offices will have a glass curtain wall looking to the south-west, the office space is restricted to the lower three levels of the podium. Views would therefore be localised and directed over the Bell Banksia Link and the on ramp.

Given the compliance with Clause 55, it is not considered that the development will result in unacceptable overlooking.

Wind protection 2.10 To ensure new tall buildings do not create adverse wind effects.

Complies

An environmental wind speed assessment report has been prepared to accompany the proposal. This has identified that the submitted design will not adversely affect the walking comfort of pedestrians at street level in the surrounding road network.

Does not comply

Whilst roof top plant is proposed to accommodate approximately 40% of the roof space, the roof has also been designed to be used as a roof terrace for residents. The roof top plant is to be enclosed within a purpose built structure and faced with off form concrete to

Roof forms 2.11 To treat roof spaces and forms as a considered aspect of the overall building design.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 167

4.1

2.9

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

Attachment 3

Item: 4.1

Item: 4.1

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

4.1

integrate with the design and appearance of the building.

As detailed in Council’s Urban Design advice, however, the roof form proposed is somewhat bland, and a more imaginative top to the tower structure could form part of a redesigned proposal for the site.

Element 3: Street pattern and street-edge quality

Attachment 3

Street pattern and street edge integration 3.1

To create walkable areas within a safe and interesting public setting.

Does not comply

Further consideration of the lack of street level interaction between the proposed ground floor elevation and use is required to contribute to the liveliness, interest, comfort and safety of the street.

3.2

To closely integrate the layout and occupation patterns of new development with the street.

Does not comply

The proposed Ground Floor commercial use located in the north-eastern corner of the site will activate this part of the site at street level. The Ground Level office use faces onto the Bell Street off ramp and endeavours to create some degree of interaction with windows facing the road. The relationship of these windows and presentation of this façade to the street is unresolved and requires further consideration. The slope of the site also does not assist with integrating the ground level façade with the street. The current presentation of the building at street level is considered harsh and requires softening.

3.3

To ensure car parking does not dominate the street frontage.

Complies

The two basement car park entries are reasonably well concealed in the façade treatment and do not read as primary visual elements in the podium design.

Building entries 3.4

To create street entrances with a strong identity that provide a transition from the street to residential interiors.

Complies

There are three main pedestrian entries to the building; two from Bell Street and one from Upper Heidelberg Road. These are clearly defined.

3.5

To ensure car park entries do not detract from the street.

Complies

See 3.3 above

Front fences 3.6

To avoid creating inactive frontages as a result of fencing private open spaces.

N/A

3.7

To ensure that front fences respect and contribute to the neighbourhood character.

N/A

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 168

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

4.1

Item: 4.1

Element 4: Circulation and services

4.1

To provide adequate, safe and efficiently designed parking layouts.

Does not comply

The majority of the proposed parking spaces do not meet either the Planning Scheme or Australian Standard requirements for parking space and access aisle dimensions. In addition, bicycle parking is poorly located for accessibility. As a result, a redesign of the basement area is appropriate. It is unclear of the impact of this on parking space provision.

4.2

To provide safe and convenient access between car parking and bicycle areas and the pedestrian entry to buildings.

Does not comply

Refer above.

Complies

Good sized lift and lobby/circulation areas provided.

Circulation spaces 4.3

To create shared internal spaces that contribute positively to the experience of living in higher density development.

Site services 4.4

To minimise running and maintenance costs.

Complies

Energy efficient devices including motion sensor lighting for communal areas and contaminant monitoring system for the basement car park are provided as well as natural lighting.

4.5

To minimise water use.

Complies

Water efficient fixtures and water leak sub metering to be used. A 70kl rainwater storage tank is also proposed for swimming pool top up, landscaping and toilet use.

4.6

To incorporate provision for site services in the building design to ensure good function and ease of service and maintenance.

Ability to comply

No waste management plan has been submitted to support the proposal. Waste from the residential tower is disposed of through a chute system to a ground level waste storage area. Further details of residential, serviced apartment, office and commercial waste collection would be required to be addressed in a management plan as a condition of permit, were one to be granted.

Element 5: Building layout and design Dwelling diversity

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 169

Attachment 3

Parking layout

4.1

Item: 4.1 5.1

To provide a range of dwelling sizes and types in higher density residential developments.

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development Complies

A total of 258 apartments are proposed, comprising 97 x 1 bed, 56 x 1 bed plus study, 102 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed apartments. A total 51 serviced apartments comprising 24 studio apartments and 27 x 1 bed apartments, which can also be combined to form 2 bed apartments, are also proposed.

Building layout 5.2

To optimise the layout of buildings in response to occupants’ needs as well as identified external influences and characteristics of a site.

Complies

The design makes good use of views from the site. The north-south configuration of the tower, whilst not maximising solar access to the north, reduces shadow to the south so a balanced outcome has been sought in this regard.

5.3

To create functional, flexible, efficient and comfortable residential apartments.

To ensure that a good standard of natural lighting and ventilation is provided to internal building spaces.

Complies

Functional and flexible apartment layouts have been provided.

Does not comply

The studies within the 1 bedroom apartments have limited access to natural light. Further consideration should be given to improving the internal amenity of this space within these apartments.

To provide adequate storage space for household items.

Complies

Stacked storage facilities or over bonnet storage is provided for permanent residents.

Does not comply

As detailed above, it is considered that the rectangular plan form of the tower element, along with the architectural styling and detailing results in a building that is not of the high architectural quality and visual interest sought on this site.

Attachment 3

5.4

5.5

Design detail 5.6

To promote buildings of high architectural quality and visual interest.

Element 6: Open space and landscape design Private and communal open space 2

6.1

To ensure access to adequate open space for all residents.

Partially Complies

All dwellings and residential apartments are provided with private balconies from 4 m to 2 151 m in area. A resident swimming pool and spa is proposed on top of the podium. It is 2 considered that dwellings should be provided with a minimum balcony area of 8 m , with a minimum width of 1.6m, as required for lower buildings under Clause 55.

6.2

To ensure common or shared spaces are functional and attractive for their intended users.

Complies

The landscape plan submitted with the application demonstrates that the podium roof pool area would be an attractive feature of the development and would be likely to be well utilised. The area will receive a good amount of natural light and sunshine from 9am at the Equinox. Details of the screening of bedroom windows facing onto this area would need to be provided to ensure that privacy of residents is maintained.

6.3

To allow solar access to the private and shared

Complies

All dwellings have northern, eastern or western orientation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 170

open spaces of new high density residential units.

6.4

To integrate the design of shared and private open spaces into the overall building design and façade composition.

Complies

The rectilinear form and its specific material and articulation resolution of both the podium and tower form, taking into account the obligation to achieve exceptional architectural merit befitting of the site’s exposure and urban role, lacks a sufficient level of dynamism or visual interest, and accordingly has an unfortunate institutional appearance.

6.5

To provide for greenery within open spaces.

Does not comply

The proposed building does not provide any separation from a mature Spotted Gum located in the north-eastern corner of the site to facilitate its retention. Whilst there are no tree protection controls applying to the site, the tree is located on the periphery of the site and has been assessed as being in good health and of high retention value. This tree is a strong natural feature of the site and makes a valuable contribution to the streetscape character of this part of the centre.

Whilst the submitted arborist report supports the removal of this tree, it would be possible to retain this tree with a modified floor plan. Retention of this tree is considered to be consistent with the objective of integrating landscaping with design, including canopy trees in the landscaping of development as well as meeting the design objectives of Element 6 – Open Space and Landscape Design of the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.

No landscaping is proposed at the street interface on the site. Limited space is available within the Upper Heidelberg Road road reserve to accommodate street tree planting.

Podium roof garden planting lacks depth for trees to establish. Planting tubs of 1 to 1.2 metres required for trees to establish.

Public open space 6.6

To create public open space appropriate to its context.

Ability to comply

There is opportunity for a small area of public open space on the north-eastern corner of the site in association with the potential café use and the retention of Tree 11.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 13 APRIL 2015 Page 171

4.1

Attachment 3: Assessment against Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development

Attachment 3

Item: 4.1