WEBVTT 00:00:00.018 --> 00:00:02.024 CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillors, council officers 00:00:02.024 --> 00:00:06.024 and community members following our meeting via live streaming. 00:00:06.024 --> 00:00:10.003 Welcome to the 16 November 2021 Planning 00:00:10.003 --> 00:00:13.004 and Amenity Delegated Committee meeting. 00:00:13.004 --> 00:00:16.004 The charter for the Planning and Amenity Delegated Committee is 00:00:16.004 --> 00:00:19.005 to finally determine upon statutory planning, 00:00:19.005 --> 00:00:24.002 tree removal applications, traffic and parking matters. 00:00:24.002 --> 00:00:28.000 This committee hassle full delegated authority of Council and membership 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:30.011 of the committee is all councillors. 00:00:30.011 --> 00:00:34.018 The Local Government Act 2020 was amended on 1 May 2020 00:00:34.018 --> 00:00:37.010 to direct that the requirement for a council 00:00:37.010 --> 00:00:41.010 and delegated committee meeting to be open to the public is satisfied 00:00:41.010 --> 00:00:45.010 if the meeting is streamed live on the Internet site of the Council. 00:00:45.010 --> 00:00:49.002 This provision has been extended allowing for meeting to be held 00:00:49.002 --> 00:00:52.005 in this manner, including via electronic means, 00:00:52.005 --> 00:00:56.009 until 27 April 2022, if required. 00:00:56.009 --> 00:00:59.004 At the June 2021 ordinary meeting of Council, 00:00:59.004 --> 00:01:01.015 it was resolved that both requests to speak 00:01:01.015 --> 00:01:05.012 and written statements be accepted methods of addressing reports 00:01:05.012 --> 00:01:08.003 by the organisation presented to Council or 00:01:08.003 --> 00:01:10.009 delegated committee meetings. 00:01:10.009 --> 00:01:13.024 However, it was also resolved to continue observing temporary meeting 00:01:13.024 --> 00:01:17.006 procedures until public health directions allow 00:01:17.006 --> 00:01:21.017 for the reintroduction of members of the public to the council chamber. 00:01:21.017 --> 00:01:23.022 This meeting is therefore being held remotely 00:01:23.022 --> 00:01:26.008 with only councillors and council officers present 00:01:26.008 --> 00:01:29.020 and individual presentations to this meeting were limited 00:01:29.020 --> 00:01:32.002 to written statements only. 00:01:32.002 --> 00:01:34.013 A copy of the written statements received was 00:01:34.013 --> 00:01:37.017 distributed to all councillors at approximately noon today 00:01:37.017 --> 00:01:42.006 and has been published as an attachment to the agenda on Council's website. 00:01:42.006 --> 00:01:45.005 The names of the submitters will be noted at the commencement 00:01:45.005 --> 00:01:48.005 of each item and recorded in the minutes, however, 00:01:48.005 --> 00:01:51.002 the statements will not be read out to the meeting. 00:01:51.002 --> 00:01:54.005 If a technical problem is encountered during the meeting, 00:01:54.005 --> 00:01:56.022 which prevents Council from live streaming, the meeting 00:01:56.022 --> 00:01:59.014 will be adjourned for 10 minutes. 00:01:59.014 --> 00:02:03.020 If the meeting cannot be resumed been 30 minutes, the meeting 00:02:03.020 --> 00:02:06.011 will be adjourned to be reconvened on Wednesday, 00:02:06.011 --> 00:02:10.003 17 November at 6:30pm via live streaming 00:02:10.003 --> 00:02:11.024 on Council's website. 00:02:11.024 --> 00:02:15.020 A copy of each live streamed meeting is placed on Council's website the day 00:02:15.020 --> 00:02:17.007 after the meeting. 00:02:17.007 --> 00:02:21.002 Given the existing electronic hardware for councillor, we are unable 00:02:21.002 --> 00:02:24.017 to show the minutes on the screen during the entirety of the meeting. 00:02:24.017 --> 00:02:26.020 Should councillors wish to view a particular 00:02:26.020 --> 00:02:29.023 motion or conditions, please advise the chairperson and this 00:02:29.023 --> 00:02:32.024 will be displayed to assist councillors. 00:02:32.024 --> 00:02:35.013 A reminder also to councillors and council officers 00:02:35.013 --> 00:02:38.022 to check that your mobile phones are switched off or placed on silent 00:02:38.022 --> 00:02:41.013 during the meeting. 00:02:41.013 --> 00:02:45.021 Could councillors please indicate by a show of hands that you are able 00:02:45.021 --> 00:02:49.013 to hear proceedings so far, that you can see other members 00:02:49.013 --> 00:02:52.003 in attendance and can be seen by other members 00:02:52.003 --> 00:02:55.007 and when I say your name, could you please acknowledge that 00:02:55.007 --> 00:02:57.018 you have harder me to ensure we can hear you. 00:02:57.018 --> 00:02:59.006 Councillor Castelli. 00:02:59.006 --> 00:03:01.010 CR CASTELLI: I can hear you and see you. 00:03:01.010 --> 00:03:03.017 CR EL MOUALLEM: The mayor, Councillor del Porto. 00:03:03.017 --> 00:03:05.012 CR DEL PORTO: I can see you and hear you. 00:03:05.012 --> 00:03:07.002 CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Evans. 00:03:07.002 --> 00:03:08.019 CR EVANS: I can see and hear you. 00:03:08.019 --> 00:03:10.011 CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Martin. 00:03:10.011 --> 00:03:12.002 CR MARTIN: I can see and hear you. 00:03:12.002 --> 00:03:16.002 CR EL MOUALLEM: We've got an apology from Councillor Samuel-King. 00:03:16.002 --> 00:03:17.014 Councillor Stitfold. 00:03:17.014 --> 00:03:20.007 CR STITFOLD: I can see and hear you. 00:03:20.007 --> 00:03:25.002 CR EL MOUALLEM: We will now commence with the items on the agenda. 00:03:25.002 --> 00:03:28.013 The prayer, I would like to invite Councillor Castelli 00:03:28.013 --> 00:03:32.020 to read the prayer. 00:03:32.020 --> 00:03:37.022 CR CASTELLIS: 4.1 is supported - CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Castelli, 00:03:37.022 --> 00:03:39.010 do you mind reading the prayer? 00:03:39.010 --> 00:03:42.021 CR CASTELLI: The prayer? 00:03:42.021 --> 00:03:44.008 I've got it here. 00:03:49.002 --> 00:03:53.002 O God, bless this city, Bayside, give us courage, strength 00:03:53.002 --> 00:03:58.017 and wisdom so that our deliberations may be for the good of all. 00:03:58.017 --> 00:04:00.004 Amen. 00:04:00.004 --> 00:04:02.010 CR EL MOUALLEM: I would like to invite the Mayor, 00:04:02.010 --> 00:04:04.016 Councillor del Porto, to read the acknowledge. 00:04:04.016 --> 00:04:06.003 Country. 00:04:06.003 --> 00:04:07.016 CR DEL PORTO: Thank you. 00:04:07.016 --> 00:04:10.016 Bayside City Council proudly acknowledges the Bunurong People 00:04:10.016 --> 00:04:12.019 of the Kulin nation as the traditional owners 00:04:12.019 --> 00:04:16.005 and custodians of this land, and we pay respects to their elders, 00:04:16.005 --> 00:04:19.014 past and present and emerging as well as any Aboriginal 00:04:19.014 --> 00:04:22.020 and Torres Strait Islander community members with us today. 00:04:22.020 --> 00:04:27.010 Council acknowledges the Bunurong's continuing relationship to the land 00:04:27.010 --> 00:04:30.024 and waterways and respects their connection 00:04:30.024 --> 00:04:35.002 and spiritual identity is maintained through ancient ceremonies, songline, 00:04:35.002 --> 00:04:37.020 dance, art and living culture. 00:04:37.020 --> 00:04:40.021 Council pays tribute to the invaluable contributions 00:04:40.021 --> 00:04:47.002 of the Bunurong and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder who 00:04:47.002 --> 00:04:50.013 is have guided and continue to guide the work we do. 00:04:50.013 --> 00:04:54.010 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:04:54.010 --> 00:04:55.024 We move to apologies. 00:04:55.024 --> 00:04:59.003 An apology has been received from Councillor Samuel-King 00:04:59.003 --> 00:05:00.019 for tonight's meeting. 00:05:00.019 --> 00:05:05.004 Can I have a mover and seconder - CR DEL PORTO: I'll move that. 00:05:05.004 --> 00:05:07.021 CR EVANS: Second. 00:05:07.021 --> 00:05:09.009 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you. 00:05:09.009 --> 00:05:10.021 So all in favour, please? 00:05:10.021 --> 00:05:12.009 Against? 00:05:12.009 --> 00:05:13.021 Carried. 00:05:13.021 --> 00:05:16.024 Declarations of interest, any declarations of interest tonight, 00:05:16.024 --> 00:05:18.011 councillors? 00:05:18.011 --> 00:05:19.024 No declarations of interest. 00:05:19.024 --> 00:05:21.022 Councillors, could I please have a mover 00:05:21.022 --> 00:05:24.005 and seconder for the following procedural motion 00:05:24.005 --> 00:05:27.004 which is shown on the screen in case technical difficulties are 00:05:27.004 --> 00:05:28.017 experienced during the meeting. 00:05:31.007 --> 00:05:32.020 Can I get a mover? 00:05:32.020 --> 00:05:34.007 CR CASTELLI: I'll move. 00:05:34.007 --> 00:05:36.014 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:05:36.014 --> 00:05:38.011 Seconder, thank you, Councillor Evans. 00:05:38.011 --> 00:05:39.023 All those in favour? 00:05:39.023 --> 00:05:41.011 Against? 00:05:41.011 --> 00:05:42.023 Carried. 00:05:42.023 --> 00:05:47.002 3, adoption and confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting. 00:05:47.002 --> 00:05:49.003 Confirmation of the minutes of the Planning 00:05:49.003 --> 00:05:52.014 and Amenity Delegated Committee held on 20 October 2021. 00:05:52.014 --> 00:05:54.002 Can I have a mover? 00:05:54.002 --> 00:05:55.014 CR DEL PORTO: So moved. 00:05:55.014 --> 00:05:57.005 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:05:57.005 --> 00:05:58.023 A seconder. 00:05:58.023 --> 00:06:00.010 Councillor Castelli. 00:06:00.010 --> 00:06:01.023 All those in favour? 00:06:01.023 --> 00:06:04.011 Against? 00:06:04.011 --> 00:06:05.023 Carried. 00:06:08.015 --> 00:06:13.017 Item 4.1, 10 Wickham Road, Hampton East. 00:06:13.017 --> 00:06:15.022 I believe that's in the Iverson ward. 00:06:15.022 --> 00:06:17.009 Councillor Castelli. 00:06:17.009 --> 00:06:19.003 CR CASTELLI: Yes, I support 00:06:19.003 --> 00:06:20.023 the recommendation as printed. 00:06:20.023 --> 00:06:22.014 CR DEL PORTO: I'll second that. 00:06:22.014 --> 00:06:24.011 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:06:24.011 --> 00:06:26.016 Would you like to speak, Councillor Castelli. 00:06:26.016 --> 00:06:28.015 CR CASTELLI: Of course, yes. 00:06:28.015 --> 00:06:32.019 We don't have any submissions but I know there were six objectors 00:06:32.019 --> 00:06:36.002 and then it got amended a couple of times and then, of course, 00:06:36.002 --> 00:06:37.014 it's reduced. 00:06:37.014 --> 00:06:39.002 But there's no submissions. 00:06:41.004 --> 00:06:44.020 It's actually a construction of two dwellings on the block 00:06:44.020 --> 00:06:50.024 is consistent with the existing and preferred character of the area. 00:06:50.024 --> 00:06:55.007 Applicant has worked with the objectors to respond to the concerns raised 00:06:55.007 --> 00:06:58.021 by circulating amended plans to increase additional 00:06:58.021 --> 00:07:04.004 screen of windows, removal of the rear balcony and modifications 00:07:04.004 --> 00:07:06.016 to the swimming pools. 00:07:06.016 --> 00:07:10.020 Subject to conditions, the application's highly compliant, 00:07:10.020 --> 00:07:15.012 is well designed and will ensure that the amenity 00:07:15.012 --> 00:07:17.022 of the neighbouring properties is uncompromised. 00:07:20.004 --> 00:07:22.016 For these reasons, I support this. 00:07:22.016 --> 00:07:24.024 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:07:24.024 --> 00:07:26.011 Mr Mayor. 00:07:26.011 --> 00:07:28.003 CR DEL PORTO: Thank you for that. 00:07:28.003 --> 00:07:34.015 Look, it's only marginally noncompliant on the west side of the first floor. 00:07:37.002 --> 00:07:41.012 It's a sizable block of land, nearly 700 square metres. 00:07:41.012 --> 00:07:45.016 Permeability is 33%, garden area is 40%. 00:07:45.016 --> 00:07:48.021 The building height is only 6.5 metres. 00:07:48.021 --> 00:07:52.010 All in all, you think it's a well-designed 00:07:52.010 --> 00:07:56.009 application that fits in well with the streetscape. 00:07:56.009 --> 00:07:58.003 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate? 00:08:00.009 --> 00:08:01.022 I can't see any hands. 00:08:01.022 --> 00:08:04.002 All those in favour? 00:08:04.002 --> 00:08:05.014 Against? 00:08:05.014 --> 00:08:07.002 Carried. 00:08:07.002 --> 00:08:09.016 We move to item 4.2. 00:08:09.016 --> 00:08:13.007 10/10-14 Advantage Road, Highett. 00:08:13.007 --> 00:08:14.024 Written statements, there were two 00:08:14.024 --> 00:08:18.006 written statements received, one from an objector and one statement 00:08:18.006 --> 00:08:20.010 from the permit applicants. 00:08:20.010 --> 00:08:24.006 Ms Gael O'Leary, objector, and Miss Alice Walton 00:08:24.006 --> 00:08:29.013 and Ms Pippa Burfield on behalf of Strong Women Can as an applicant. 00:08:29.013 --> 00:08:31.002 Can I have a mover? 00:08:31.002 --> 00:08:32.015 CR CASTELLI: I'll move as printed. 00:08:32.015 --> 00:08:37.006 CR EL MOUALLEM: Anyone seconding? 00:08:37.006 --> 00:08:39.004 Thank you, Councillor Stitfold. 00:08:39.004 --> 00:08:40.016 Would you like to debate? 00:08:40.016 --> 00:08:43.002 CR CASTELLI: Of course. 00:08:43.002 --> 00:08:47.018 I have acknowledged the submitter, absolutely, and thank you 00:08:47.018 --> 00:08:49.012 for the submission. 00:08:49.012 --> 00:08:52.019 The application seeks to approve the use 00:08:52.019 --> 00:08:58.006 of the site as a small-scale women's fitness studio. 00:08:58.006 --> 00:09:02.006 The site is located within an established commercial area 00:09:02.006 --> 00:09:09.002 and the use is well suited to the strategic direction of the area. 00:09:09.002 --> 00:09:14.008 The application is responding to a need within the community and 00:09:14.008 --> 00:09:18.011 is associated with a small-scale business promoted 00:09:18.011 --> 00:09:23.003 at encouraging the health and wellbeing of our community. 00:09:23.003 --> 00:09:28.002 The applicant has also worked to address some of the concerns raised 00:09:28.002 --> 00:09:33.024 by reducing the number of patrons from 12 to 8 which therefore reduces 00:09:33.024 --> 00:09:37.023 the impact on the traffic network of the area. 00:09:37.023 --> 00:09:40.012 And this is the reason why I support this. 00:09:40.012 --> 00:09:42.020 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:09:42.020 --> 00:09:44.015 Councillor Stitfold. 00:09:44.015 --> 00:09:50.019 CR STITFOLD: I note that the objectors are concerned with regard to parking 00:09:50.019 --> 00:09:55.013 but I would like to point out that the applicants have actually 00:09:55.013 --> 00:09:58.018 decided to provide adequate bicycle parking 00:09:58.018 --> 00:10:06.016 in the facilities and facilities also for those using the alternative cycling 00:10:06.016 --> 00:10:12.004 and walking which has been encouraged in connection with the health 00:10:12.004 --> 00:10:16.012 and fitness ethos of the actual application. 00:10:16.012 --> 00:10:19.006 CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Evans. 00:10:19.006 --> 00:10:20.023 CR EVANS: Thank you. 00:10:20.023 --> 00:10:23.022 I support, Mr Chair. 00:10:23.022 --> 00:10:28.005 These sort of things in areas like that I support. 00:10:28.005 --> 00:10:32.012 Again, 5:30 to 9:00 00:10:32.012 --> 00:10:36.013 in the morning and Saturdays 8:00 to 1:00, 15-minute breaks, 00:10:36.013 --> 00:10:38.008 which I think is important. 00:10:38.008 --> 00:10:45.005 And also parking, parking will be, maybe, some problem but, you know, 00:10:45.005 --> 00:10:49.009 very early in the morning, 5:30 to 9:00 00:10:49.009 --> 00:10:53.004 So, again, in a good area for this type of things. 00:10:55.022 --> 00:10:58.018 Again, yes, I will support. 00:10:58.018 --> 00:11:02.022 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate on this matter? 00:11:02.022 --> 00:11:04.010 I can't see any hands. 00:11:04.010 --> 00:11:09.003 I would just like to say it's a commercial 2 zone and it 00:11:09.003 --> 00:11:17.003 is my opinion you are bringing fitness or some type of commercial use. 00:11:17.003 --> 00:11:21.008 I much prefer it to see it in a commercial zone rather 00:11:21.008 --> 00:11:22.020 than a residential area. 00:11:22.020 --> 00:11:25.023 I fully support this. 00:11:25.023 --> 00:11:28.023 I will put that to the vote please. 00:11:28.023 --> 00:11:31.015 All of those in favour? 00:11:31.015 --> 00:11:33.003 Against? 00:11:33.003 --> 00:11:35.021 Carried. 00:11:35.021 --> 00:11:42.007 4.3, 49 Charming Street, Hampton East. 00:11:42.007 --> 00:11:44.015 There are two written statements received, 00:11:44.015 --> 00:11:49.006 one from an objector and one statement from the permit applicant. 00:11:49.006 --> 00:11:56.018 Mr Chris and Mrs Ann Bowring, and Mr Usman Mati as an applicant. 00:11:56.018 --> 00:11:58.005 Can I have a mover? 00:12:00.009 --> 00:12:01.022 Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:12:01.022 --> 00:12:03.009 CR CASTELLI: A refusal, please. 00:12:03.009 --> 00:12:07.005 CR EL MOUALLEM: And can I have a seconder for this? 00:12:07.005 --> 00:12:08.017 Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:12:08.017 --> 00:12:10.015 CAC would you like to read it. 00:12:10.015 --> 00:12:17.015 CR CASTELLI: The proposal fails to implement the planning strategy 00:12:17.015 --> 00:12:20.009 and planning policy framework. 00:12:20.009 --> 00:12:26.009 Two, the design is an overdevelopment of the land, the proposal fails 00:12:26.009 --> 00:12:31.022 to successfully meet the following requirements, clause 55A, 00:12:31.022 --> 00:12:39.002 side and rear setback standard B17, B, private open space standard B28, C, 00:12:39.002 --> 00:12:43.024 solar access to open space standard B29, 00:12:43.024 --> 00:12:48.002 front fence standard B32. 00:12:48.002 --> 00:12:49.012 And that's that. 00:12:49.012 --> 00:12:51.002 Thank you, Mr Chair. 00:12:51.002 --> 00:12:53.007 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:12:53.007 --> 00:12:55.009 Mr Mayor. 00:12:55.009 --> 00:12:57.020 CR DEL PORTO: - CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Castelli. 00:12:57.020 --> 00:12:59.017 CR CASTELLI: I'll just debate for a bit. 00:12:59.017 --> 00:13:01.005 It says it well in there. 00:13:03.023 --> 00:13:07.018 This is the 6th double storey townhouses 00:13:07.018 --> 00:13:12.004 on this site, which is a pretty small - OFFICER: We need a seconder. 00:13:12.004 --> 00:13:15.017 CR DEL PORTO: I've seconded it. 00:13:15.017 --> 00:13:20.015 CR CASTELLI: This is six double storey townhouses 00:13:20.015 --> 00:13:31.006 on a site, which is 632 metres square, which is quite a small site caring. 00:13:31.006 --> 00:13:34.023 I don't know how he's fitting the six of them. 00:13:34.023 --> 00:13:38.002 This is clear in the lack of landscaping. 00:13:38.002 --> 00:13:40.010 It's also pretty clear there's no landscaping, 00:13:40.010 --> 00:13:43.003 the small nature of the townhouses which 00:13:43.003 --> 00:13:48.022 will create internal amenity and resulting shadowing 00:13:48.022 --> 00:13:54.007 of the secluded, private open space. 00:13:54.007 --> 00:13:58.013 Built form across the entire length of site is bulky, 00:13:58.013 --> 00:14:02.015 will unreasonably dominate the surrounding single and two-storey 00:14:02.015 --> 00:14:04.007 dwellings. 00:14:04.007 --> 00:14:05.020 This is probably why I'm 00:14:05.020 --> 00:14:08.002 actually refusing this. 00:14:08.002 --> 00:14:11.014 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:14:11.014 --> 00:14:13.002 Mr Mayor. 00:14:13.002 --> 00:14:15.017 CR DEL PORTO: Thank you. 00:14:15.017 --> 00:14:20.002 The private open space provision for dwellings, 2, 3, 4 and 5 00:14:20.002 --> 00:14:23.012 is inadequate as it doesn't even meet the minimum requirement 00:14:23.012 --> 00:14:29.002 of 40 square metres of open space, private, open space. 00:14:29.002 --> 00:14:34.007 It is 25, 26 and 25 respectively for units, 2, 3, 00:14:34.007 --> 00:14:37.012 4 and 5. 00:14:37.012 --> 00:14:40.010 This provision of about private open 00:14:40.010 --> 00:14:45.011 space doesn't change, depending on whether your dwelling 00:14:45.011 --> 00:14:49.014 is in a residential 1 zone. 00:14:49.014 --> 00:14:53.016 The report itself states that the private open space provision 00:14:53.016 --> 00:14:57.002 is to provide, and I quote, "Private, open space 00:14:57.002 --> 00:15:01.015 for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents. 00:15:01.015 --> 00:15:04.017 So these are minimum standards. 00:15:04.017 --> 00:15:07.011 We would expect any new construction to satisfy 00:15:07.011 --> 00:15:11.013 and this construction doesn't do it for me. 00:15:11.013 --> 00:15:13.019 CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Evans. 00:15:13.019 --> 00:15:15.011 CR EVANS: I will support the refusal. 00:15:15.011 --> 00:15:16.024 Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:15:16.024 --> 00:15:20.015 I'm glad you recommended refusal. 00:15:20.015 --> 00:15:22.019 Look, this is just getting a little bit too much 00:15:22.019 --> 00:15:26.012 on a small block of land, six units, squeezing it on, 00:15:26.012 --> 00:15:28.022 Councillor del Porto said about the private, 00:15:28.022 --> 00:15:30.021 open space which I was going to talk about. 00:15:30.021 --> 00:15:33.013 Again, just not enough there. 00:15:33.013 --> 00:15:40.021 So, again, just too much squeezing into a smaller allotment. 00:15:40.021 --> 00:15:42.009 Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:15:42.009 --> 00:15:45.018 I was hoping you might recommend refusal. 00:15:45.018 --> 00:15:47.005 I support refusal. 00:15:47.005 --> 00:15:49.008 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans. 00:15:49.008 --> 00:15:50.021 Any further debates? 00:15:50.021 --> 00:15:52.009 Thank you, Councillor Stitfold. 00:15:52.009 --> 00:15:56.016 CR STITFOLD: I would also like to note in this application that the solar 00:15:56.016 --> 00:16:00.020 access to the open space has been noted as being unacceptable. 00:16:02.023 --> 00:16:07.002 Additionally, there are concerns that the basement is 00:16:07.002 --> 00:16:13.008 of such significant area that there is not going to be the canopy planted 00:16:13.008 --> 00:16:16.002 trees or the possibility for the deep-root 00:16:16.002 --> 00:16:20.008 planting necessary for the canopy trees to be reaching the height 00:16:20.008 --> 00:16:22.004 they might be reaching. 00:16:22.004 --> 00:16:26.003 They're my concerns as well as the other concerns that have been 00:16:26.003 --> 00:16:28.002 raised with this application. 00:16:28.002 --> 00:16:30.024 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold. 00:16:30.024 --> 00:16:32.011 Any further debates? 00:16:32.011 --> 00:16:33.024 Councillor Martin. 00:16:33.024 --> 00:16:36.022 CR MARTIN: Just a question on that open space. 00:16:36.022 --> 00:16:39.020 CR EL MOUALLEM: Question to the officers, Councillor Martin? 00:16:39.020 --> 00:16:42.023 CR MARTIN: Yes, I will just go through the conditions. 00:16:42.023 --> 00:16:46.013 Have those conditions resolved that open space issue? 00:16:52.008 --> 00:16:56.002 OFFICER: Through the chair, that will be required. 00:16:58.009 --> 00:17:05.002 OFFICER: The conditions do not address the requirements for standard B28. 00:17:05.002 --> 00:17:08.007 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Ms Collins. 00:17:08.007 --> 00:17:10.009 Any further questions, Councillor Martin? 00:17:10.009 --> 00:17:13.005 CR MARTIN: Just a secondary follow-up. 00:17:15.006 --> 00:17:23.016 If the conditions don't bring the open space into compliance, somewhat 00:17:23.016 --> 00:17:29.004 is the rationale on this being here tonight then? 00:17:29.004 --> 00:17:32.020 What's the thing that gets it over the land, if you know what I mean? 00:17:35.004 --> 00:17:39.019 OFFICER: The application is fairly compliant 00:17:39.019 --> 00:17:42.015 from our perspective, subject to the conditions outlined 00:17:42.015 --> 00:17:44.015 in the recommendation. 00:17:44.015 --> 00:17:50.002 CR MARTIN: I understand that but is an open space kind of measurable 00:17:50.002 --> 00:17:53.007 and black and white? 00:17:53.007 --> 00:18:01.005 How does the lack of open space override the other - 00:18:01.005 --> 00:18:06.018 what's that rationale that you can let open space go down but - 00:18:06.018 --> 00:18:08.005 do you know what I mean? 00:18:08.005 --> 00:18:10.002 I'm not quite sure - like there might be 00:18:10.002 --> 00:18:11.012 something else here. 00:18:13.017 --> 00:18:16.015 Is the setbacks more generous? 00:18:16.015 --> 00:18:22.013 What's the community getting through this because we're reducing 00:18:22.013 --> 00:18:24.015 the open space available to the residents? 00:18:26.017 --> 00:18:29.020 OFFICER: Through the Chair. 00:18:29.020 --> 00:18:34.007 So the proposal on page 97 does discuss the objective 00:18:34.007 --> 00:18:39.012 of the standard which seeks to provide adequate private, open space 00:18:39.012 --> 00:18:41.021 and it was considered by the officers there 00:18:41.021 --> 00:18:44.017 was sufficient private, open space to accommodate. 00:18:47.011 --> 00:18:49.022 CR MARTIN: I will say a few words. 00:18:52.024 --> 00:18:57.016 I'm receiving report after report regarding the needing of human beings 00:18:57.016 --> 00:19:02.011 to have open space and I know there's a need 00:19:02.011 --> 00:19:09.005 to have dwellings but with a little bit of a line drawn here 00:19:09.005 --> 00:19:11.023 and a change there, I think that they could have achieved 00:19:11.023 --> 00:19:16.006 the open space, possibly reduced a bedroom or two here 00:19:16.006 --> 00:19:20.018 or there but still achieved what Bayside's 00:19:20.018 --> 00:19:23.021 trying to do which is create the maximum amount 00:19:23.021 --> 00:19:26.014 of dwellings inside the activity centre. 00:19:26.014 --> 00:19:31.002 I've actually got no problem with this application at all. 00:19:31.002 --> 00:19:37.002 I think that this area of Hampton East is earmarked for high-density living. 00:19:37.002 --> 00:19:42.016 However, the applicants have got to provide these really core things 00:19:42.016 --> 00:19:46.007 of open space or we're kidding ourselves. 00:19:46.007 --> 00:19:52.002 So unfortunately the intent of this, I agree with the officers, 00:19:52.002 --> 00:19:53.013 but they could have got 00:19:53.013 --> 00:19:55.002 the open space right. 00:19:55.002 --> 00:19:56.015 That's what I'm voting on tonight. 00:19:56.015 --> 00:19:59.014 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin. 00:19:59.014 --> 00:20:01.019 Councillor Castelli, would you like to close? 00:20:01.019 --> 00:20:03.017 CR CASTELLI: No, that's fine, thank you. 00:20:03.017 --> 00:20:10.008 CR EL MOUALLEM: I do thank you for the refusal, Councillor Castelli. 00:20:10.008 --> 00:20:13.004 I can see where Councillor Martin is coming from. 00:20:13.004 --> 00:20:18.004 The open space, you know, especially in the activity areas 00:20:18.004 --> 00:20:20.001 is probably in high demand. 00:20:20.001 --> 00:20:23.011 If you are living in a dwelling with no open space attached 00:20:23.011 --> 00:20:30.000 to it I am concerned about the liveability and the future 00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:33.001 of the residents living in these dwellings. 00:20:33.001 --> 00:20:35.010 I'll be happy to support your refusal. 00:20:35.010 --> 00:20:37.000 I will put that to a vote. 00:20:37.000 --> 00:20:38.013 All those in favour? 00:20:40.021 --> 00:20:42.010 Against? 00:20:42.010 --> 00:20:45.005 Carried. 00:20:45.005 --> 00:20:50.004 4.4, 6A Willis Street, Hampton. 00:20:52.014 --> 00:20:56.023 There are no written statements received and that's in Castlefield. 00:20:56.023 --> 00:21:00.021 I've got a mover, Councillor Evans, thank you. 00:21:00.021 --> 00:21:03.019 Councillor Evans, you're on silent. 00:21:03.019 --> 00:21:06.017 CR EVANS: Thank you very much. 00:21:06.017 --> 00:21:12.017 Councillor El Mouallem, I would like to move with amendment 1B, 00:21:12.017 --> 00:21:17.007 now to read the proposed car parking spaces modified to be parked 00:21:17.007 --> 00:21:21.014 behind one another parallel to the boundary with 8 Willis Street, 00:21:21.014 --> 00:21:23.002 Hampton East. 00:21:23.002 --> 00:21:27.004 And with that amendment, I so move. 00:21:27.004 --> 00:21:28.016 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you. 00:21:28.016 --> 00:21:31.002 Do I have a seconder? 00:21:31.002 --> 00:21:32.013 Thank you, Councillor Stitfold. 00:21:35.002 --> 00:21:36.014 Councillor Evans. 00:21:36.014 --> 00:21:38.020 CR EVANS: Just a small one. 00:21:38.020 --> 00:21:43.019 Coming from the neighbour who is one of the Hampton Neighbourhood 00:21:43.019 --> 00:21:51.023 Association people just about it's just a slight technicality 00:21:51.023 --> 00:21:55.016 that he'd prefer that against his neighbourhood property and, 00:21:55.016 --> 00:22:00.002 again, it will be a sight shed or whatever so 00:22:00.002 --> 00:22:02.009 again I'm happy to move that and I don't think that 00:22:02.009 --> 00:22:09.018 will make any substantial difference to the applicant in any particular way. 00:22:09.018 --> 00:22:13.012 It's just a good amendment to his neighbours. 00:22:13.012 --> 00:22:14.024 So happy to move that. 00:22:14.024 --> 00:22:16.012 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you. 00:22:16.012 --> 00:22:17.024 Councillor Stitfold. 00:22:17.024 --> 00:22:20.024 CR STITFOLD: Just to support that I think it's 00:22:20.024 --> 00:22:25.021 a respectful amendment looking after the needs of the neighbours. 00:22:25.021 --> 00:22:27.022 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you. 00:22:27.022 --> 00:22:30.009 Any further debate? 00:22:30.009 --> 00:22:31.024 Thank you, Councillor Martin. 00:22:31.024 --> 00:22:34.017 CR MARTIN: I support that change as well 00:22:34.017 --> 00:22:37.002 and I also support the application. 00:22:37.002 --> 00:22:39.008 I think it's a good use of this site. 00:22:39.008 --> 00:22:45.021 I think we're now moving into nearly 6, 7, maybe 8 years since the site was - 00:22:45.021 --> 00:22:52.002 has been unoccupied and, you know, it's just been - we've tried 00:22:52.002 --> 00:22:55.002 to knock it down, we've tried to put the swings up, we've tried to do 00:22:55.002 --> 00:22:56.014 all sorts of things. 00:22:56.014 --> 00:22:59.014 At least it's going to have some occupation which hopefully 00:22:59.014 --> 00:23:03.011 will repel the graffiti artists and everyone else that are doing 00:23:03.011 --> 00:23:04.023 bad things there at the moment. 00:23:04.023 --> 00:23:08.006 So it's good to see it finally getting used. 00:23:08.006 --> 00:23:10.011 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin. 00:23:10.011 --> 00:23:16.002 I agree it's good to see it being used and generating income for the council. 00:23:19.005 --> 00:23:21.005 Councillor Evans, would you like to close? 00:23:21.005 --> 00:23:22.018 CR EVANS: No, I'm right. 00:23:22.018 --> 00:23:25.011 CR EL MOUALLEM: All those in favour? 00:23:25.011 --> 00:23:26.024 Against? 00:23:26.024 --> 00:23:28.011 Carried. 00:23:28.011 --> 00:23:31.013 4.5. 00:23:31.013 --> 00:23:33.004 CR DEL PORTO: Mr Chair? 00:23:33.004 --> 00:23:35.007 CR EL MOUALLEM: Mr Mayor. 00:23:35.007 --> 00:23:37.012 CR DEL PORTO: I would like to move refusal 00:23:37.012 --> 00:23:40.024 on the following grounds, one, the proposed built form doesn't achieve 00:23:40.024 --> 00:23:43.023 the designed objectivities of the design development overlay 00:23:43.023 --> 00:23:48.010 schedule 1 as the development A fails to relay the scale and form 00:23:48.010 --> 00:23:51.024 of the new development to the land form on the coast. 00:23:51.024 --> 00:23:55.004 B, fails to maintain consistency with urban design 00:23:55.004 --> 00:23:59.008 and relevant objectives in the Bayside coastal strategy 1997 00:23:59.008 --> 00:24:02.009 and the coastal strategy 2014. 00:24:02.009 --> 00:24:05.023 Fails to protect the amenity of residential properties, fails 00:24:05.023 --> 00:24:10.008 to demonstrate the access structure does not exceed 2.4 metres in height. 00:24:10.008 --> 00:24:12.006 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:24:12.006 --> 00:24:13.018 Do I have a seconder? 00:24:13.018 --> 00:24:15.006 CR CASTELLI: I will. 00:24:15.006 --> 00:24:16.024 CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Castelli. 00:24:16.024 --> 00:24:20.009 I would like, before we debate, I would like to mention that there were two 00:24:20.009 --> 00:24:25.023 written statements received, Mr Yana Catanese as an objector 00:24:25.023 --> 00:24:29.003 and Mr Peter Barber as an applicant. 00:24:29.003 --> 00:24:30.018 You may debate. 00:24:30.018 --> 00:24:32.005 Thank you. 00:24:32.005 --> 00:24:34.023 CR DEL PORTO: We received the submissions and I've got 00:24:34.023 --> 00:24:36.011 to say they're very impressive. 00:24:36.011 --> 00:24:39.002 The fact is that the roof deck had previously 00:24:39.002 --> 00:24:43.022 been refused by Bayside Council on this very same block of land. 00:24:43.022 --> 00:24:47.004 The Council determined to end the proposal 00:24:47.004 --> 00:24:50.012 on the basis that it does not meet the neighbourhood character purposes 00:24:50.012 --> 00:24:52.002 of the residential zone. 00:24:54.003 --> 00:24:58.008 The actual roof deck itself,, a much smaller roof deck than 00:24:58.008 --> 00:25:05.013 the one being proposed, was also seen to be visually bulky of the building. 00:25:05.013 --> 00:25:11.012 The other issue is that the application referred to 00:25:11.012 --> 00:25:16.012 by the objector referred to something to a property not far from this one. 00:25:16.012 --> 00:25:18.011 The roof deck was again refused. 00:25:24.018 --> 00:25:29.019 This area has a height restriction because it is so close to the coast 00:25:32.005 --> 00:25:39.002 and I also see that the member on the second application that 00:25:39.002 --> 00:25:44.024 we're looking at also felt that there probably wasn't 00:25:44.024 --> 00:25:49.007 a huge demand for a roof deck if you were looking 00:25:49.007 --> 00:25:55.005 to find extra open space because in this case, the block of land 00:25:55.005 --> 00:25:56.018 is quite big. 00:25:56.018 --> 00:25:59.019 So there's no requirement to sort of add the roof deck space 00:25:59.019 --> 00:26:03.006 and provide open space for the property. 00:26:03.006 --> 00:26:10.011 I just feel that by the time you add the lift lobby or the stairwell lobby 00:26:10.011 --> 00:26:14.016 you're looking at 2.4 metres on top of the building 00:26:14.016 --> 00:26:19.020 and it really would really stand out and I'm not sure 00:26:19.020 --> 00:26:25.018 to what extent the roof deck would actually be able to be used to look 00:26:25.018 --> 00:26:27.012 at the views of the bay as well. 00:26:27.012 --> 00:26:31.006 So we're very protective of that part of Brighton 00:26:31.006 --> 00:26:36.009 and I really think that just like we refused it a few years ago, 00:26:36.009 --> 00:26:38.004 this roof deck should be refused again. 00:26:38.004 --> 00:26:39.017 Thank you. 00:26:39.017 --> 00:26:41.007 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:26:41.007 --> 00:26:42.020 Councillor Castelli. 00:26:42.020 --> 00:26:45.014 CR CASTELLI: Yes. 00:26:45.014 --> 00:26:52.002 This application, if you look at it, it's off the DDO1. 00:26:54.015 --> 00:26:59.020 When viewed holistically with the overall built form, 00:26:59.020 --> 00:27:06.004 it adds an unnecessarily and unreasonable degree of visual bulk 00:27:06.004 --> 00:27:09.009 and also the roof deck would impact negatively 00:27:09.009 --> 00:27:14.019 on the neighbourhood character and it would present a poor addition 00:27:14.019 --> 00:27:16.017 to already prominent dwellings. 00:27:16.017 --> 00:27:19.003 So that's why I seconded it. 00:27:19.003 --> 00:27:20.021 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you. 00:27:20.021 --> 00:27:23.006 Any further debate? 00:27:23.006 --> 00:27:24.018 I can't see any hands. 00:27:24.018 --> 00:27:27.005 I would just say a couple of words, it is in Dendy ward 00:27:27.005 --> 00:27:28.024 of what I represent. 00:27:28.024 --> 00:27:32.019 What's more important is our mayor, Councillor del Porto, used 00:27:32.019 --> 00:27:38.019 to represent this ward, or part for the last 20 or so years 00:27:38.019 --> 00:27:43.002 and I do thank you very much for flagging the DDO requirements. 00:27:45.014 --> 00:27:49.015 The reason we've got the DDO1 which is to protect the privacy and amenity 00:27:49.015 --> 00:27:53.023 of properties and to manage the increased pressure 00:27:53.023 --> 00:27:55.016 on higher buildings. 00:27:55.016 --> 00:28:01.010 Talking about higher buildings, I notice in one of the pages here that 00:28:01.010 --> 00:28:07.002 the lift chart of 15.36 while the footpath 00:28:07.002 --> 00:28:12.003 next to the crossing is 5.66, which I believe gives a total 00:28:12.003 --> 00:28:14.005 height of 10.7. 00:28:14.005 --> 00:28:18.003 I do like to also acknowledge the submissions 00:28:18.003 --> 00:28:21.019 and Mr Yana Catanese, what a fantastic job. 00:28:21.019 --> 00:28:30.004 And I would like to read from point 5, the noise, where it stated usually 00:28:30.004 --> 00:28:34.019 the private open spaces occurs on ground level where the plantings, 00:28:34.019 --> 00:28:38.019 fences and other soft sound absorbing surfaces can help 00:28:38.019 --> 00:28:42.022 to absorb noise impacts on other properties. 00:28:42.022 --> 00:28:46.015 To me that rings true because I had a property 00:28:46.015 --> 00:28:50.022 in an area where there are roof decks and people are entertaining 00:28:50.022 --> 00:28:57.008 on the roof deck you hear them more than when they are entertaining 00:28:57.008 --> 00:28:58.020 on the ground. 00:28:58.020 --> 00:29:05.019 So I do like to thank the Mayor, Councillor del Porto 00:29:05.019 --> 00:29:07.017 for moving the refusal. 00:29:07.017 --> 00:29:10.011 Would you like to close, Mr Mayor? 00:29:10.011 --> 00:29:11.023 Thank you. 00:29:11.023 --> 00:29:13.022 All those in favour? 00:29:13.022 --> 00:29:15.010 Against? 00:29:15.010 --> 00:29:16.024 Carried. 00:29:16.024 --> 00:29:20.012 4.6, 43 Black Street, Brighton. 00:29:22.012 --> 00:29:24.012 We have two written statements received, 00:29:24.012 --> 00:29:27.023 one from an objector and one from a permit applicant. 00:29:27.023 --> 00:29:31.022 Miss Katie Zhang is an objector and Ms Edelene Loke 00:29:31.022 --> 00:29:34.002 for Ratio Consultants as applicant. 00:29:36.007 --> 00:29:39.013 CR DEL PORTO: I would like to move the recommendation 00:29:39.013 --> 00:29:41.009 with two additional conditions. 00:29:43.016 --> 00:29:45.003 I am happy to read them. 00:29:47.017 --> 00:29:54.002 Both dwellings to be made compliant with B17 and 1O, the second site 00:29:54.002 --> 00:29:57.003 to be made compliant with B7 of the ResCode. 00:30:00.014 --> 00:30:02.020 CR EL MOUALLEM: Seconded Councillor Castelli. 00:30:02.020 --> 00:30:04.007 You can debate. 00:30:04.007 --> 00:30:08.022 CR DEL PORTO: We are having a lot of applications in Black Street 00:30:08.022 --> 00:30:13.005 and in the area, in the new vicinity that we are trying our best 00:30:13.005 --> 00:30:15.024 to manage what's coming. 00:30:15.024 --> 00:30:20.018 Mr Mayor, this application with those two amendments actually 00:30:20.018 --> 00:30:23.008 is completely compliant. 00:30:23.008 --> 00:30:27.008 I was very taken by another submission received 00:30:27.008 --> 00:30:31.009 from Ms Zhang at 43 Black Street. 00:30:31.009 --> 00:30:35.006 She made a very good point about overshadowing saying that 00:30:35.006 --> 00:30:39.009 if we approve the original application without the setback that 00:30:39.009 --> 00:30:44.011 we just changed, the proposed development would block 00:30:44.011 --> 00:30:48.003 sunlight on the whole north-west side of the property 00:30:48.003 --> 00:30:51.019 and would significantly overshadow my main bedroom, my home office, 00:30:51.019 --> 00:30:55.002 my dining area, my kitchen, my backyard and front yard resulting 00:30:55.002 --> 00:30:58.023 in me having extremely limited access to natural light. 00:30:58.023 --> 00:31:05.020 So I think that all we can do is ask the developer to apply - 00:31:05.020 --> 00:31:09.020 to comply with the actual guidelines and that's what we do. 00:31:12.002 --> 00:31:15.012 Mr Chair, the applicant lodged an amendment 00:31:15.012 --> 00:31:18.014 to address some of the objections in April and looked 00:31:18.014 --> 00:31:21.005 at issues that were shifting the ground, 00:31:24.007 --> 00:31:27.014 to increase setbacks, deletion of first floor retreat 00:31:27.014 --> 00:31:32.023 and street facing fascia, to remove boundary-to-boundary 00:31:32.023 --> 00:31:34.024 built form. 00:31:34.024 --> 00:31:43.006 The applicant again amended on 12 October the application including 00:31:43.006 --> 00:31:47.016 south setback of bedroom 3 that has been increased by 00:31:47.016 --> 00:31:50.017 more than half a metre, ground floor height 00:31:50.017 --> 00:31:56.003 above dining room reduced by 75mm, the external canopy roof reduced 00:31:56.003 --> 00:31:59.002 marginally with a greater setback to the southern boundary 00:31:59.002 --> 00:32:02.007 and this changes, as the report states. 00:32:02.007 --> 00:32:07.004 Do make the applications compliant with overshadowing as well. 00:32:07.004 --> 00:32:15.021 So my view is that the application is now completely compliant unless 00:32:15.021 --> 00:32:17.016 I'm missing something. 00:32:17.016 --> 00:32:21.016 So I don't see how I could refuse it. 00:32:21.016 --> 00:32:23.003 Thank you. 00:32:23.003 --> 00:32:24.019 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:32:24.019 --> 00:32:26.006 Councillor Castelli. 00:32:26.006 --> 00:32:29.002 CR CASTELLI: Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:32:29.002 --> 00:32:32.012 It was a pretty hard one to refuse. 00:32:32.012 --> 00:32:36.016 Initially I was umming and ahing on this one. 00:32:36.016 --> 00:32:40.002 But with those conditions put on, and I think hopefully it 00:32:40.002 --> 00:32:43.020 will appease the objector. 00:32:43.020 --> 00:32:45.007 There's been quite a few. 00:32:45.007 --> 00:32:46.020 There's been six of them. 00:32:46.020 --> 00:32:49.019 But it looks back, as it got amended better and better 00:32:49.019 --> 00:32:51.021 and I think it kind of dropped off. 00:32:54.002 --> 00:32:59.009 You know, subject to these conditions, the building would be appropriate 00:32:59.009 --> 00:33:00.022 for this area. 00:33:00.022 --> 00:33:05.014 So there has been - actually, the area's 00:33:05.014 --> 00:33:08.006 been earmarked for high-density as well. 00:33:08.006 --> 00:33:12.020 So it's only two times three storeys. 00:33:12.020 --> 00:33:15.010 So I'm happy with that. 00:33:15.010 --> 00:33:16.022 Thank you. 00:33:16.022 --> 00:33:20.009 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate? 00:33:20.009 --> 00:33:22.015 I can't see any hands. 00:33:22.015 --> 00:33:24.002 I will just say a couple of words. 00:33:24.002 --> 00:33:30.018 I do know the area very well, Mr Mayor, and I'm actually surprised they're 00:33:30.018 --> 00:33:34.006 going for townhouses instead of apartments. 00:33:34.006 --> 00:33:39.012 I drove past yesterday, I drove past today and the whole area there 00:33:39.012 --> 00:33:42.017 is looking a construction site. 00:33:42.017 --> 00:33:47.014 That part of Black Street is experiencing a fair bit of density 00:33:47.014 --> 00:33:52.010 and to be honest, I'm actually a bit surprised that 00:33:52.010 --> 00:33:56.006 the site coverage on this is only 46%. 00:33:56.006 --> 00:34:01.002 Looking into what's getting built now, I probably - I think there 00:34:01.002 --> 00:34:05.020 is site coverage up to 60, 70, 80% on some of the sites. 00:34:05.020 --> 00:34:09.012 I do believe also townhouses, in my opinion, 00:34:09.012 --> 00:34:13.002 probably considering the number of apartments coming up in the area, 00:34:13.002 --> 00:34:18.015 townhouses are pretty much in demand, not everyone wants an apartment. 00:34:18.015 --> 00:34:20.007 I thank you for the amendment. 00:34:24.002 --> 00:34:28.015 I do see there was a great submission from Miss Zhang which I would 00:34:28.015 --> 00:34:30.003 like to acknowledge. 00:34:30.003 --> 00:34:32.016 There's a submission on behalf of the applicant. 00:34:36.004 --> 00:34:40.020 It's in residential of the Church of the Church Street major activity 00:34:40.020 --> 00:34:45.004 centre and Mr Mayor and councillors you all know there's a fair bit 00:34:45.004 --> 00:34:48.013 of activity happening around the activity centre 00:34:48.013 --> 00:34:51.019 and the reason that that is happen is so that we can limit the increased 00:34:51.019 --> 00:34:55.005 amount of density or at least not provide these bigger 00:34:55.005 --> 00:34:57.016 developments in the neighbourhood area. 00:34:57.016 --> 00:35:01.020 I support your amendment and I hope that 00:35:01.020 --> 00:35:05.002 it's successful tonight. 00:35:05.002 --> 00:35:06.012 Sorry, would you like to close? 00:35:06.012 --> 00:35:08.002 CR DEL PORTO: No, thank you. 00:35:08.002 --> 00:35:09.015 CR EL MOUALLEM: All those in favour? 00:35:09.015 --> 00:35:11.003 Against? 00:35:11.003 --> 00:35:13.011 Carried. 00:35:13.011 --> 00:35:19.010 4.7, that is 8 Glendora Avenue, Brighton. 00:35:21.015 --> 00:35:25.013 We've got four written statements, two from objectors, one supporter 00:35:25.013 --> 00:35:28.012 and one statement from the permit applicant. 00:35:28.012 --> 00:35:33.002 Mr Malcom Richards and Ms Trish Carney are objectors. 00:35:33.002 --> 00:35:37.010 Mrs Maarit and Dr Peter Frith are objectors 00:35:37.010 --> 00:35:42.004 and Ms Rosemary Ross for Rosstang Architects as a submitter 00:35:42.004 --> 00:35:46.012 and Mr Christian Wallis and Dr Christine Satchell 00:35:46.012 --> 00:35:48.002 as an applicant. 00:35:48.002 --> 00:35:49.013 Can I have a mover? 00:35:49.013 --> 00:35:54.010 CR DEL PORTO: Mr Chair, I would like to move refusal to the application. 00:35:54.010 --> 00:35:57.024 CR EL MOUALLEM: Do I have a seconder? 00:35:57.024 --> 00:35:59.012 Councillor Evans. 00:35:59.012 --> 00:36:00.024 Mr Mayor, would you like to read? 00:36:00.024 --> 00:36:02.012 CR DEL PORTO: Sure. 00:36:02.012 --> 00:36:07.012 One, the proposed built form doesn't achieve the design objectives of design 00:36:07.012 --> 00:36:11.016 and development overlay schedule 2 as the development A, fails 00:36:11.016 --> 00:36:14.005 to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes 00:36:14.005 --> 00:36:17.012 that contribute positively to local neighbourhood character 00:36:17.012 --> 00:36:23.003 and detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. 00:36:23.003 --> 00:36:26.007 B, fails to preserve the existing character 00:36:26.007 --> 00:36:30.018 and amenity of the areas as low rise, up to 2 storeys, suburban areas 00:36:30.018 --> 00:36:33.006 with a strong garden character. 00:36:33.006 --> 00:36:37.002 Fails to maintain the streetscape with building scale 00:36:37.002 --> 00:36:38.013 and height of neighbourhood. 00:36:38.013 --> 00:36:41.022 And two, the proposal doesn't achieve the objectives and strategies 00:36:41.022 --> 00:36:44.009 of the A2 neighbourhood character precinct. 00:36:44.009 --> 00:36:49.021 Of course 15015L in particular A, fails to design the extension being 00:36:49.021 --> 00:36:56.008 complementary to the building's era and fails contemporary responses 00:36:56.008 --> 00:36:58.018 around building style. 00:37:00.021 --> 00:37:04.006 CR EL MOUALLEM: We have got a seconder. 00:37:04.006 --> 00:37:05.024 Would you like to debate? 00:37:05.024 --> 00:37:10.013 CR DEL PORTO: I would like to say the application has come to us 00:37:10.013 --> 00:37:17.002 because they're wanting the extra level otherwise it would have been - 00:37:17.002 --> 00:37:23.007 there would not have been a planning requirement. 00:37:23.007 --> 00:37:27.008 I don't think it exists at all with the existing streetscape. 00:37:29.011 --> 00:37:36.006 It doesn't add to the amenity of the area and I believe that it fails 00:37:36.006 --> 00:37:39.016 to really design the extension, the complementary way 00:37:39.016 --> 00:37:41.004 to the existing building. 00:37:41.004 --> 00:37:47.002 So for those reasons I don't know that I could have supported it 00:37:47.002 --> 00:37:51.012 and it's a combination of height and style, 00:37:51.012 --> 00:37:58.002 architectural style and I don't think is respectful 00:37:58.002 --> 00:38:01.004 of the urban character in the area. 00:38:01.004 --> 00:38:04.020 I have to refuse it. 00:38:04.020 --> 00:38:06.010 CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Evans. 00:38:06.010 --> 00:38:11.002 CR EVANS: Yes, certainly thanks for those words, Mr Mayor. 00:38:11.002 --> 00:38:15.007 Whilst you might sort of argue that the rhythm of the street 00:38:15.007 --> 00:38:19.020 is maintained by the recessiveness of the second story, 00:38:19.020 --> 00:38:22.012 a little pod sitting on top of the building 00:38:22.012 --> 00:38:28.017 of the third storey certainly sort of in congress with the dominant style 00:38:28.017 --> 00:38:32.012 and it is a dominant part of that neighbourhood character 00:38:32.012 --> 00:38:34.002 surrounding it all. 00:38:34.002 --> 00:38:41.004 And certainly could be argued that the third storey pod 00:38:41.004 --> 00:38:45.023 is a dominant architectural feature and really not in keeping 00:38:45.023 --> 00:38:47.011 with the landscaping. 00:38:47.011 --> 00:38:51.020 So I agree wholeheartedly with Councillor del Porto, the mayor, 00:38:51.020 --> 00:38:55.017 that this really just doesn't fit in with the neighbourhood character. 00:38:55.017 --> 00:39:00.006 You walk along there and whilst it is recessed, 00:39:00.006 --> 00:39:05.002 it is a dominant recessed part and, again, 00:39:05.002 --> 00:39:13.007 I did read the architect's submission and I disagree with some 00:39:13.007 --> 00:39:14.019 of the points of it. 00:39:14.019 --> 00:39:22.002 I did note that the naming of it and, again, whilst that names only a name, 00:39:22.002 --> 00:39:27.006 I think the more important thing to me is the dominant part 00:39:27.006 --> 00:39:30.017 of that recessive part sitting like a little pod. 00:39:30.017 --> 00:39:34.003 It's like a little beacon there and I just don't think it fits in 00:39:34.003 --> 00:39:37.010 with the neighbourhood character, in my view. 00:39:37.010 --> 00:39:39.002 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate? 00:39:39.002 --> 00:39:40.014 Councillor Martin. 00:39:40.014 --> 00:39:42.011 CR MARTIN: Thanks, Mr Chair. 00:39:44.013 --> 00:39:49.002 I just want to ask the officers regarding a few 00:39:49.002 --> 00:39:51.024 of the points being made by the objectors, 00:39:51.024 --> 00:39:56.013 particularly Mrs Maarit and Dr Peter Frith. 00:39:56.013 --> 00:40:04.021 What's the Council's responsibility to ensure the building surveys provided 00:40:04.021 --> 00:40:06.017 are fit and proper? 00:40:06.017 --> 00:40:11.009 Do we do any checking to make sure they've got building 00:40:11.009 --> 00:40:14.023 licences or they're approved to do this? 00:40:14.023 --> 00:40:17.001 CR EL MOUALLEM: Dr Farrand, can we get a reply? 00:40:20.014 --> 00:40:24.002 OFFICER: Each private building surveyor has to be licenced and accord 00:40:24.002 --> 00:40:30.017 to certain regulations, and provided they are a private building surveyor, 00:40:30.017 --> 00:40:33.007 we would not do any further checks at that point. 00:40:35.010 --> 00:40:39.011 CR MARTIN: Just a further one if I may, on that point. 00:40:39.011 --> 00:40:43.015 It's alleged in here that a principal officer of one 00:40:43.015 --> 00:40:49.017 of the companies is on suspension due to noncompliance 00:40:49.017 --> 00:40:51.024 for submitting planning permits. 00:40:51.024 --> 00:40:56.022 Is that something that would trigger Council to say, look, 00:40:56.022 --> 00:40:59.022 we won't accept this building permit? 00:40:59.022 --> 00:41:04.002 Like do we follow - like do we get informed of these sort 00:41:04.002 --> 00:41:06.002 of suspensions or previous history? 00:41:06.002 --> 00:41:09.023 Like before they're shut down, before their licence is suspended. 00:41:09.023 --> 00:41:15.013 But do we get notification that it could be something going wrong? 00:41:15.013 --> 00:41:18.005 CR EL MOUALLEM: I'm not sure if Dr Farrand can answer this. 00:41:20.017 --> 00:41:23.008 CR MARTIN: More than happy to take advice from you. 00:41:26.007 --> 00:41:28.003 OFFICER: I don't believe that we would. 00:41:28.003 --> 00:41:32.002 I don't know whether Mr Cripps would be able to expand further on that. 00:41:32.002 --> 00:41:34.021 That is an area outside the planning side 00:41:34.021 --> 00:41:37.021 of things that would be covered under the building regulations. 00:41:37.021 --> 00:41:40.014 CR EL MOUALLEM: We can take it on notice, Councillor Evans, 00:41:40.014 --> 00:41:42.002 if you don't mind. 00:41:44.024 --> 00:41:46.015 We'll take this question on notice. 00:41:46.015 --> 00:41:48.003 Would you like to debate? 00:41:48.003 --> 00:41:50.016 CR MARTIN: Thank you. 00:41:50.016 --> 00:41:54.014 The good news from what I can see in the report, 00:41:54.014 --> 00:41:59.002 I know the officers on page 221 say given that the works 00:41:59.002 --> 00:42:01.022 are largely complete, a consultation meeting 00:42:01.022 --> 00:42:07.019 was not considered, but I look at it and it's just some framing 00:42:07.019 --> 00:42:11.017 and the Council building inspectors have ceased work on it. 00:42:11.017 --> 00:42:16.009 So I don't see that as a big issue, really. 00:42:16.009 --> 00:42:19.022 I see someone who is building a third storey 00:42:21.024 --> 00:42:23.011 without a planning permit. 00:42:23.011 --> 00:42:26.017 So I completely agree with refusing this 00:42:26.017 --> 00:42:30.018 and I completely agree with the cease work being no more work 00:42:30.018 --> 00:42:32.005 should be taken. 00:42:32.005 --> 00:42:35.018 I do note on page 29 of the submissions that they're 00:42:35.018 --> 00:42:37.015 alleging work continues there. 00:42:37.015 --> 00:42:39.012 But I hope that does stop. 00:42:39.012 --> 00:42:44.002 I've seen it continue in other parts when this has happened 00:42:44.002 --> 00:42:46.006 to me previously. 00:42:46.006 --> 00:42:49.020 So I hope the work is ceased. 00:42:49.020 --> 00:42:52.022 I think Council should continue to make sure it is ceased 00:42:52.022 --> 00:42:55.020 until this matter is concluded. 00:42:55.020 --> 00:42:59.021 Building third storeys where no-one's allowed to build a third storey I find 00:42:59.021 --> 00:43:04.002 is probably the biggest contravention you can do is 00:43:04.002 --> 00:43:07.002 to start building stuff without permits. 00:43:07.002 --> 00:43:09.013 It's just the worst thing that possibly can happen. 00:43:09.013 --> 00:43:11.008 So I take it very seriously. 00:43:11.008 --> 00:43:14.002 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin. 00:43:14.002 --> 00:43:16.009 Any further debate on this matter? 00:43:16.009 --> 00:43:18.002 No? 00:43:18.002 --> 00:43:19.012 I will say a couple of words. 00:43:19.012 --> 00:43:24.005 It is in the Dendy ward and I actually do agree. 00:43:24.005 --> 00:43:27.021 I second everything Councillor Evans said and I respect his opinion 00:43:27.021 --> 00:43:29.010 as an architect. 00:43:29.010 --> 00:43:31.014 I think he hit the nail on the head. 00:43:31.014 --> 00:43:38.007 That part is very dominant in style and I also see where Councillor Martin 00:43:38.007 --> 00:43:45.016 is coming from and possibly agree also that how can you build something 00:43:45.016 --> 00:43:49.004 like that knowing that the area is subject 00:43:49.004 --> 00:43:51.020 to the design development overlay 2 which is 00:43:51.020 --> 00:43:56.004 to preserve the existing character and amenity of the area as low rise 00:43:56.004 --> 00:43:58.007 of the two storeys. 00:43:58.007 --> 00:44:01.015 It has a strong garden character. 00:44:01.015 --> 00:44:04.014 I'm not sure what happened or the history but I can see 00:44:04.014 --> 00:44:08.007 from the objector's side, I'm reading seven outstanding 00:44:08.007 --> 00:44:11.009 objections here but I did get a few emails, 00:44:11.009 --> 00:44:17.006 more than seven people contact me regarding this matter, which 00:44:17.006 --> 00:44:20.002 is labelled as a store room. 00:44:20.002 --> 00:44:21.014 It is concerning. 00:44:21.014 --> 00:44:24.014 I'm saying that it is concerning because the way I look at it, 00:44:24.014 --> 00:44:30.002 it is a store room on level 2 but also we do have another store room 00:44:30.002 --> 00:44:35.014 which is pretty much useable on the ground floor, if you look 00:44:35.014 --> 00:44:43.006 to the page 327 and I don't see why they need another store room accessed 00:44:43.006 --> 00:44:45.010 by a spiral staircase. 00:44:56.018 --> 00:44:58.024 What I believe is it's a dominant style, there 00:44:58.024 --> 00:45:02.016 is a DDO2 on the subject site in the area 00:45:02.016 --> 00:45:05.020 and I thank Mr Mayor for moving the refusal. 00:45:05.020 --> 00:45:07.019 Mr Mayor, would you like to close? 00:45:07.019 --> 00:45:09.016 CR DEL PORTO: No, thank you. 00:45:09.016 --> 00:45:12.008 CR EL MOUALLEM: All those in favour? 00:45:12.008 --> 00:45:13.021 Against? 00:45:13.021 --> 00:45:15.016 Carried. 00:45:15.016 --> 00:45:21.020 We move to 4.8, 8 Arranmore Avenue, Black Rock. 00:45:21.020 --> 00:45:26.007 I would like to note to advise the councillors that 00:45:26.007 --> 00:45:30.010 since the publication of the agenda, two objections have been withdrawn. 00:45:30.010 --> 00:45:34.004 The application therefore has only two outstanding objections. 00:45:34.004 --> 00:45:37.011 Whilst this would usually be dealt with under delegation, 00:45:37.011 --> 00:45:41.012 given that the invitations had already been sent to all parties, 00:45:41.012 --> 00:45:43.024 including the two remaining objecting parties, 00:45:43.024 --> 00:45:47.010 it was felt the matter should be determined by councillors 00:45:47.010 --> 00:45:48.022 at this meeting. 00:45:48.022 --> 00:45:53.010 We have one written statement received from permit applicant, 00:45:53.010 --> 00:45:54.022 Mr Callum Knight. 00:45:54.022 --> 00:45:59.002 CR EVANS: Happy to move the officer's recommendation. 00:45:59.002 --> 00:46:02.018 CR EL MOUALLEM: Do we have a seconder? 00:46:02.018 --> 00:46:04.009 Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:46:04.009 --> 00:46:05.021 Councillor Evans. 00:46:05.021 --> 00:46:07.009 CR EVANS: Thank you, Mr Chair. 00:46:07.009 --> 00:46:11.022 Look, this one's another one with a couple of roof decks on top. 00:46:11.022 --> 00:46:15.008 But the main point that really was the concern of a number 00:46:15.008 --> 00:46:18.020 of the objectors was the protection of the coastal tea 00:46:18.020 --> 00:46:24.015 tree in the north-east corner if I remember correctly. 00:46:24.015 --> 00:46:32.004 Has had a bit of a history of putting the planning permit off 00:46:32.004 --> 00:46:33.021 for a number of years. 00:46:33.021 --> 00:46:39.024 Again, I see this as a win for that particular tea tree 00:46:39.024 --> 00:46:43.017 and also turning the pool around so that it's going 00:46:43.017 --> 00:46:47.002 the other way, which I think - and also the condition, 00:46:47.002 --> 00:46:54.008 I think it's condition 1 where it's set back so the tree root zone is protected 00:46:54.008 --> 00:46:55.021 for that particular tree. 00:46:55.021 --> 00:46:59.002 I see all those as big ticks. 00:46:59.002 --> 00:47:04.019 The recessiveness and also the setbacks for the upper decks, 00:47:04.019 --> 00:47:07.011 seeing we don't have any objectors, I'd support 00:47:07.011 --> 00:47:09.016 the council officer's recommendation. 00:47:09.016 --> 00:47:11.023 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans. 00:47:11.023 --> 00:47:13.010 Mr Mayor. 00:47:13.010 --> 00:47:16.018 CR DEL PORTO: Just that the point that Councillor Evans made, 00:47:16.018 --> 00:47:24.009 that VCAT auditor was granted on the condition that the banksia would 00:47:24.009 --> 00:47:30.015 be located in the north-west corner, that will be retained. 00:47:32.023 --> 00:47:38.014 Vegetation is protected and I think that the ward councillor 00:47:38.014 --> 00:47:43.009 has really very well summarised the issues. 00:47:47.024 --> 00:47:49.014 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate? 00:47:51.018 --> 00:47:53.006 I can't see any hands. 00:47:53.006 --> 00:47:58.006 I would just like to mention in this specific application we do have 00:47:58.006 --> 00:48:05.020 a 1.7 metre screen on two of the sides of that roof deck and it 00:48:05.020 --> 00:48:10.008 is an outcome that I believe if you are to provide a roof deck, 00:48:10.008 --> 00:48:14.015 having a 1.7 screen would go a long way in protecting the amenity 00:48:14.015 --> 00:48:16.016 of the adjoining neighbours. 00:48:16.016 --> 00:48:20.012 So I will be happy to support. 00:48:20.012 --> 00:48:23.007 Mr Mayor - sorry, Councillor Evans, would you like to close? 00:48:23.007 --> 00:48:24.021 CR EVANS: Thank you. 00:48:24.021 --> 00:48:26.020 Yes, I completely agree. 00:48:28.021 --> 00:48:33.009 Also being set back from both sides and also the frontage 00:48:33.009 --> 00:48:38.006 with these roof decks and also as a roof deck as just going 00:48:38.006 --> 00:48:43.006 up there whereas I think the previous one, or the one 00:48:43.006 --> 00:48:49.004 before the one, was really, well, you know, it was a whole new storey 00:48:49.004 --> 00:48:50.020 on top of it. 00:48:50.020 --> 00:49:00.020 So, again, there are differences and I take into account also the people 00:49:00.020 --> 00:49:03.020 that want to object to these really, you have to take into account 00:49:03.020 --> 00:49:07.005 if objections are removed and they are removed mainly because 00:49:07.005 --> 00:49:11.011 of the tree, I said north-east, but it's in the north-west corner, 00:49:11.011 --> 00:49:16.017 then certainly that was the main agitation from the objectors. 00:49:16.017 --> 00:49:19.002 So with that, I'm happy to move. 00:49:19.002 --> 00:49:21.004 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans. 00:49:21.004 --> 00:49:22.016 I put that to a vote. 00:49:22.016 --> 00:49:24.004 All those in favour? 00:49:24.004 --> 00:49:25.016 Against? 00:49:25.016 --> 00:49:28.007 Carried. 00:49:28.007 --> 00:49:33.012 4.9, 261 Hampton Street, Hampton. 00:49:33.012 --> 00:49:35.010 And that's Boyd ward. 00:49:35.010 --> 00:49:37.013 There were two written statements received, 00:49:37.013 --> 00:49:39.002 both from objectors. 00:49:39.002 --> 00:49:46.002 One, Ms Michelle Williamson, and Mr Peter DeSanto. 00:49:46.002 --> 00:49:50.002 Do I have a mover? 00:49:50.002 --> 00:49:54.006 CR STITFOLD: I'd like to ask some questions, please, 00:49:54.006 --> 00:49:56.004 Mr Chair. 00:49:56.004 --> 00:49:59.008 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you. 00:49:59.008 --> 00:50:00.021 Please do. 00:50:00.021 --> 00:50:02.024 Dr Farrand is probably on standby somewhere. 00:50:05.010 --> 00:50:06.022 Yes. 00:50:09.013 --> 00:50:11.019 CR STITFOLD: I would like to ask a couple 00:50:11.019 --> 00:50:15.013 of questions that were raised by one of the objectors. 00:50:15.013 --> 00:50:19.023 Could you advise where the red line is currently and where it 00:50:19.023 --> 00:50:21.017 is proposed for extension? 00:50:24.006 --> 00:50:25.019 OFFICER: Through the Chair. 00:50:25.019 --> 00:50:28.017 So the red line as currently goes to the end 00:50:28.017 --> 00:50:31.011 of the existing decking area. 00:50:31.011 --> 00:50:34.011 This proposal is extending the decking area 00:50:34.011 --> 00:50:39.001 by a total of just under 12 scare metres and the red line 00:50:39.001 --> 00:50:43.007 will be extended to incorporate that area 00:50:43.007 --> 00:50:45.002 on the extended deck. 00:50:45.002 --> 00:50:52.003 CR STITFOLD: So the full red line goes out onto the pavement, so it's part 00:50:52.003 --> 00:50:55.013 of the pavement, the footpath trading policy also 00:50:55.013 --> 00:51:01.009 to serve the alcohol onto the pavement and is there's no can change 00:51:01.009 --> 00:51:02.021 to that area? 00:51:02.021 --> 00:51:04.009 OFFICER: That's correct. 00:51:04.009 --> 00:51:05.021 There's no change. 00:51:05.021 --> 00:51:07.013 The only change is to the rear. 00:51:07.013 --> 00:51:11.023 The other question was, and I do understand that these 00:51:11.023 --> 00:51:14.011 questions are outside the scope of consideration, 00:51:14.011 --> 00:51:17.015 however they have been raised. 00:51:17.015 --> 00:51:22.016 If there has apparently been breaches of the current permit, 00:51:22.016 --> 00:51:26.003 where does somebody who has those concerns, who can 00:51:26.003 --> 00:51:30.015 they ask in council to respond or get 00:51:30.015 --> 00:51:33.005 that information from? 00:51:33.005 --> 00:51:36.024 OFFICER: They should be contacting council's investigations team and they 00:51:36.024 --> 00:51:40.009 will investigate whether there are any breaches. 00:51:40.009 --> 00:51:42.019 CR STITFOLD: So the planning investigations team. 00:51:42.019 --> 00:51:45.013 Thank you. 00:51:45.013 --> 00:51:50.002 I'm happy to move as recommended by the council officers. 00:51:50.002 --> 00:51:51.019 CR EL MOUALLEM: Do we have a seconder? 00:51:54.010 --> 00:51:56.002 Thank you, Councillor Evans. 00:51:56.002 --> 00:52:00.002 Councillor Stitfold, would you like to debate? 00:52:00.002 --> 00:52:05.008 CR STITFOLD: In terms of the other objections that have been 00:52:05.008 --> 00:52:09.020 raised I have concerns with regard to additional patrons. 00:52:09.020 --> 00:52:13.003 There's no change to the number of patrons. 00:52:13.003 --> 00:52:17.018 Noise has been raised as a concern, however, I understand that there 00:52:17.018 --> 00:52:23.010 is buffering to an acoustic treatments that will provide buffer 00:52:23.010 --> 00:52:26.018 against the noise that's been anticipated. 00:52:26.018 --> 00:52:30.015 Additionally, there's a roof which I understand 00:52:30.015 --> 00:52:37.014 will also buffer sound and there is attention being paid 00:52:37.014 --> 00:52:42.003 to the hours that the outside decking area can be used 00:52:42.003 --> 00:52:46.004 to hopefully minimise the impact on neighbouring residents. 00:52:46.004 --> 00:52:49.013 Additionally, there was a concern raised 00:52:49.013 --> 00:52:55.004 with the stacker, that was already there so there won't 00:52:55.004 --> 00:52:58.014 be the construction around the stacker. 00:52:58.014 --> 00:53:01.020 For all those reasons. 00:53:01.020 --> 00:53:06.017 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold. 00:53:06.017 --> 00:53:09.005 Councillor Evans, would you like to add anything? 00:53:11.019 --> 00:53:15.010 CR EVANS: Just getting myself off mute. 00:53:15.010 --> 00:53:19.024 Yes, Mr Chair, happy to endorse all the things Councillor Stitfold, 00:53:19.024 --> 00:53:21.019 the mover has said. 00:53:21.019 --> 00:53:23.009 Mostly all the sound things 00:53:23.009 --> 00:53:26.021 have been enclosed, the sound buffers have been enclosed 00:53:26.021 --> 00:53:28.009 within the space. 00:53:28.009 --> 00:53:33.022 I do have a retractable awning thing but, again, hopefully 00:53:33.022 --> 00:53:36.003 with the noise, the noise does go upwards. 00:53:36.003 --> 00:53:40.012 So the theory of the buffer of noise is to keep it 00:53:40.012 --> 00:53:43.022 within the walls sort of things, so I do notice that 00:53:43.022 --> 00:53:47.010 they do have retractable roof showing in the papers. 00:53:53.016 --> 00:53:57.010 I can't just remember what it was, a double skin one. 00:53:57.010 --> 00:53:58.022 But happy to support. 00:53:58.022 --> 00:54:01.002 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans. 00:54:01.002 --> 00:54:03.023 Any further debate? 00:54:03.023 --> 00:54:05.010 Can't see any hands. 00:54:05.010 --> 00:54:08.003 I will just say a couple of things. 00:54:08.003 --> 00:54:09.019 I went there earlier today. 00:54:09.019 --> 00:54:14.005 I've had a walk around the site, I went through the back laneway. 00:54:14.005 --> 00:54:20.002 I usually am not a big fan of businesses losing car spaces 00:54:20.002 --> 00:54:25.004 because I understand they end up parking in the residential areas. 00:54:25.004 --> 00:54:31.004 Nevertheless, I notice there is a double stacker at the end 00:54:31.004 --> 00:54:36.012 of the block and usually the people, if you park on the stacker it 00:54:36.012 --> 00:54:39.002 will become very hard to have attendant parking. 00:54:39.002 --> 00:54:42.012 So I don't think they were really using that car space, 00:54:42.012 --> 00:54:44.011 the one they're going to lose. 00:54:44.011 --> 00:54:47.008 But also at the same time what I really 00:54:47.008 --> 00:54:52.012 liked about it, is there a full-on roller door at the end of the laneway. 00:54:55.014 --> 00:55:01.005 I was concerned that people would be leaving their extended decks 00:55:01.005 --> 00:55:05.003 to the back laneway which would cause some amenity issues 00:55:05.003 --> 00:55:07.012 to the adjoining residence. 00:55:07.012 --> 00:55:13.017 There is a stacker, it would probably be very hard 00:55:13.017 --> 00:55:18.002 to get anyone to leave that side through back roller. 00:55:18.002 --> 00:55:20.011 For that reason and the main reason there 00:55:20.011 --> 00:55:24.009 is no addition in the patron's number, there is no change. 00:55:24.009 --> 00:55:27.002 So what they're asking for is an extension 00:55:27.002 --> 00:55:30.002 of 12 square metres which I'm hoping will give them more space 00:55:30.002 --> 00:55:34.002 to provide an acoustic treatment. 00:55:34.002 --> 00:55:38.014 In this instance, I'm actually happy to support. 00:55:38.014 --> 00:55:42.010 Would you like to close, Councillor Stitfold CR STITFOLD: No, 00:55:42.010 --> 00:55:43.023 thank you. 00:55:43.023 --> 00:55:45.013 CR EL MOUALLEM: All those in favour? 00:55:45.013 --> 00:55:47.002 Against? 00:55:47.002 --> 00:55:48.013 Carried. 00:55:48.013 --> 00:55:55.024 4.10, 1-3/429 and 429A Bay Street, Brighton, 00:55:55.024 --> 00:55:59.016 and that's in the secondary content in the Bleazby ward. 00:55:59.016 --> 00:56:01.010 CR DEL PORTO: Move as printed. 00:56:01.010 --> 00:56:02.023 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you. 00:56:02.023 --> 00:56:05.021 Do I have a seconder? 00:56:05.021 --> 00:56:07.009 Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:56:07.009 --> 00:56:09.008 Would you like to say something, Mr Mayor? 00:56:09.008 --> 00:56:14.002 CR DEL PORTO: Mr Chair, look, this is a secondary consent which looks 00:56:14.002 --> 00:56:18.017 at issues like changing of balustrade in design, 00:56:18.017 --> 00:56:24.002 relocating gas metres, in apartment 205 to be converted from a three bedroom 00:56:24.002 --> 00:56:26.003 to two bedroom with a separate study. 00:56:26.003 --> 00:56:31.002 So I don't think there's significant changes and I'm happy to support them. 00:56:31.002 --> 00:56:32.018 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor. 00:56:32.018 --> 00:56:34.006 Councillor Castelli. 00:56:34.006 --> 00:56:36.024 CR CASTELLI: As mentioned, they're kind of minor changes. 00:56:36.024 --> 00:56:40.022 There's not really anything significant to worry about with this application. 00:56:40.022 --> 00:56:42.010 Thank you, Mr Chair. 00:56:42.010 --> 00:56:45.008 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any other councillors? 00:56:45.008 --> 00:56:46.021 I can't see any hands. 00:56:46.021 --> 00:56:48.009 Mr Mayor, would you like to close? 00:56:48.009 --> 00:56:49.021 CR DEL PORTO: No, thank you. 00:56:49.021 --> 00:56:52.018 CR EL MOUALLEM: All those in favour? 00:56:52.018 --> 00:56:54.005 Against? 00:56:54.005 --> 00:56:55.018 Carried. 00:56:55.018 --> 00:57:00.011 4.11, 15 Rooding Street, Brighton. 00:57:00.011 --> 00:57:04.018 Another secondary consent in the Dendy ward. 00:57:04.018 --> 00:57:06.006 Can I have a mover? 00:57:06.006 --> 00:57:07.020 Thank you, Councillor Castelli. 00:57:07.020 --> 00:57:09.021 Moved as written, Councillor Castelli? 00:57:09.021 --> 00:57:12.002 CR CASTELLI: Absolutely. 00:57:12.002 --> 00:57:14.022 CR EL MOUALLEM: Seconder? 00:57:14.022 --> 00:57:16.010 We've got a seconder, Mr Mayor. 00:57:16.010 --> 00:57:18.015 Councillor Castelli, would you like to debate? 00:57:18.015 --> 00:57:21.014 CR CASTELLI: All this is an application for aesthetics, 00:57:21.014 --> 00:57:25.009 colour, different types of material. 00:57:25.009 --> 00:57:29.002 As mentioned before, it's nothing significant 00:57:29.002 --> 00:57:31.003 but just a couple of minor things. 00:57:31.003 --> 00:57:32.015 Thank you. 00:57:32.015 --> 00:57:34.003 CR EL MOUALLEM: Mr Mayor? 00:57:34.003 --> 00:57:35.015 CR DEL PORTO: Reserve. 00:57:35.015 --> 00:57:37.019 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate? 00:57:37.019 --> 00:57:39.007 Nothing from me on this matter. 00:57:39.007 --> 00:57:40.020 I put that to have a vote. 00:57:40.020 --> 00:57:42.022 All those in favour? 00:57:42.022 --> 00:57:44.009 Against? 00:57:46.015 --> 00:57:48.002 Carried. 00:57:48.002 --> 00:57:51.021 4.12, statutory planning monthly report. 00:57:51.021 --> 00:57:54.006 Written statements are not permitted to this item. 00:57:54.006 --> 00:57:55.019 Can I have a mover? 00:57:55.019 --> 00:57:57.006 CR MARTIN: Happy to move. 00:57:57.006 --> 00:57:58.019 CR DEL PORTO: Second. 00:57:58.019 --> 00:58:00.022 CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans. 00:58:00.022 --> 00:58:04.005 Would anyone like to mention anything about it? 00:58:04.005 --> 00:58:09.013 CR MARTIN: I just want to say that the VCAT hearings 00:58:09.013 --> 00:58:12.018 are going good. 00:58:12.018 --> 00:58:17.021 The median days are very good and healthy for us. 00:58:17.021 --> 00:58:24.007 The way I'm reading it, we're nearly almost 60% better than 00:58:24.007 --> 00:58:26.024 other councils under the metro average. 00:58:26.024 --> 00:58:32.023 So it's an enormous pat on the back to the Council. 00:58:35.002 --> 00:58:42.014 You know, we have the target for 21/22 of 65% of all our meeting 00:58:42.014 --> 00:58:48.006 and the delegated officers decisions should not be set aside by VCAT. 00:58:48.006 --> 00:58:52.024 And currently, that target is, I think, going very well 00:58:52.024 --> 00:58:54.024 from the way I read the report. 00:58:57.010 --> 00:58:59.010 50/50 at the moment. 00:58:59.010 --> 00:59:09.021 So we need to get up another, what, 10 or 20% to get - hit the target. 00:59:09.021 --> 00:59:12.002 We're tracking OK. 00:59:12.002 --> 00:59:16.006 The only other point I'd sort of like to make, which is a bit 00:59:16.006 --> 00:59:24.016 of commentary coming from this report, on page 504, where it talks 00:59:24.016 --> 00:59:27.005 about the SLO and the VPOs. 00:59:27.005 --> 00:59:29.010 This is the vegetation protection overlay 00:59:32.007 --> 00:59:42.002 and the significant landscaping overlay that this part of Beaumaris enjoys. 00:59:42.002 --> 00:59:47.003 The way I'm reading these words is probably bringing me a fair 00:59:47.003 --> 00:59:48.016 bit of concern. 00:59:48.016 --> 00:59:54.003 It's almost saying that the VPO and the SLO are important factors 00:59:54.003 --> 00:59:57.020 in the trees that have limited value or short life-span 00:59:57.020 --> 01:00:02.015 but the grounds of refusal around tree removal were dismissed, 01:00:02.015 --> 01:00:05.015 they were dismissed by the tribunal, in large part 01:00:05.015 --> 01:00:11.000 because the applicant was proposing to plant greater numbers of trees 01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:13.009 on the site than were being removed. 01:00:13.009 --> 01:00:15.000 The overall amount of landscaping. 01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:17.016 So this complied with the fact that the trees 01:00:17.016 --> 01:00:19.020 were not significant. 01:00:19.020 --> 01:00:21.017 I don't know what the word "significant" 01:00:21.017 --> 01:00:25.011 means whether it's significant on a significant tree register or 01:00:25.011 --> 01:00:27.009 some other matter. 01:00:27.009 --> 01:00:31.016 Where not significant was a key factor in why the proposed vegetation removal 01:00:31.016 --> 01:00:33.018 was consider acceptable. 01:00:33.018 --> 01:00:38.017 Look, I'm really keen, and I'm going to probably put a notice of motion 01:00:38.017 --> 01:00:40.009 to an ordinary meeting about this. 01:00:42.009 --> 01:00:48.004 But if the decision to pull down big trees is granted 01:00:48.004 --> 01:00:53.000 because you're planting more trees, we're in a world of trouble 01:00:53.000 --> 01:00:58.000 because it takes decades to get little trees to the same height 01:00:58.000 --> 01:00:59.015 as the big trees. 01:00:59.015 --> 01:01:04.010 And it's so obvious that a large old tree has hundreds, if not thousands 01:01:04.010 --> 01:01:07.017 of times the leaf area of a young tree. 01:01:07.017 --> 01:01:09.004 We all know that. 01:01:09.004 --> 01:01:13.023 So I'm just flagging tonight that this type of commentary alarms me. 01:01:13.023 --> 01:01:17.011 I think well it's certainly alarmed many members of the community 01:01:17.011 --> 01:01:20.016 about this who have fought so hard to get the VPO 01:01:20.016 --> 01:01:25.011 and this type of language, this type of commentary, you know, 01:01:27.017 --> 01:01:30.003 I just wanted to raise it. 01:01:30.003 --> 01:01:32.002 I don't agree with it. 01:01:32.002 --> 01:01:34.018 I want - I am certainly going to follow it up to find out what 01:01:34.018 --> 01:01:36.006 "significant" 01:01:36.006 --> 01:01:38.015 means and all of that other stuff. 01:01:38.015 --> 01:01:40.016 Thank you, Mr Chair. 01:01:40.016 --> 01:01:42.015 CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate? 01:01:45.016 --> 01:01:47.004 No problem. 01:01:47.004 --> 01:01:50.009 All those in favour? 01:01:50.009 --> 01:01:51.022 Against? 01:01:51.022 --> 01:01:54.006 Carried. 01:01:54.006 --> 01:01:57.008 There is no items of confidential business submitted 01:01:57.008 --> 01:02:01.013 to this meeting and therefore I declare the meeting closed at 7:32pm.