CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillors, Council officers, members
of the public gallery and the broader community following
our meeting via live-streaming, welcome to the 13 September 2022 Planning
and Amenity Delegated Committee Meeting.
The Charter for the Planning and Amenity Delegated Committee is
to finally determine upon statutory planning,
tree removal applications, traffic and parking matters.
This committee has the full delegated authority of Council and the membership
of the committee is all Councillors.
In accordance with Council's Governance Rules, members
of the community were afforded the opportunity
to provide a written statement or request to speak in relation
to eligible agenda items for tonight's meeting.
A copy of the written statements received was distributed to
all Councillors yesterday and has been published as an attachment
to the agenda on Council's website.
This meeting is being recorded and streamed live on the internet
to enhance the accessibility of Council meetings
to the broader Bayside community.
The recordings are archived and available on Council's website.
All care is taken to maintain your privacy.
However, as a visitor in the public gallery,
your presence may be recorded.
It should be noted that when a member of the gallery is addressing the Council,
your name, comments or submission will be recorded.
A reminder also to Councillors and Council officers
to check that your mobile phones are switched off or placed on silent
during the meeting.
Thank you, Councillors.
We will now commence with the items on the agenda.
The prayer
- I would like to invite Councillor Samuel-King
to read the prayer.
Could all present please stand.
CR SAMUEL-KING: O' God, bless this city Bayside, give us courage,
strength and wisdom so that our deliberations may
be for the good of all.
Amen.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Please remain standing, I would like to invite Councillor Stitfold
to read the Acknowledgement of Country.
CR STITFOLD: Bayside City Council proudly acknowledges the Bunurong people
of the Kulin Nation as the traditional owners and custodians
of this land and we pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging
as well as any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community members with us today.
Council acknowledges the Bunurong's continuing relationship to the land
and waterways and respects that their connection
and spiritual identity is maintained through ancient ceremonies, songlines,
dance, art and living culture.
Council pays tribute to the invaluable contributions
of the Bunurong and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders
who have guided, and continue to guide, the work we do.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Please remain standing as we observe a minute's silence
to acknowledge the recent passing of Queen Elizabeth II.
(A minute's silence) CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Item 1 of our agenda, apologies.
We have received no apologies for this meeting.
Declarations of interest
- are there any declarations of interest, Councillors?
There's no declarations of interest.
Point 3, adoption and confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting.
Can I have a mover?
CR DEL PORTO: So moved.
CR EVANS: Seconded.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
All those in favour, against, carried.
Section 4, reports by the organisation.
Councillors and members of the gallery, 7 members
of the community have submitted written statements to tonight's meeting
and a further 15 individuals have requested to speak in person.
In accordance with Council's Governance Rules, the names
of those who have submitted a written statement will be read out
at the commencement of each item and recorded in the minutes.
However, the statements will not be read out to the meeting.
We will then hear from any registered speakers
to each item who will each have 2 minutes to make their presentation.
Speakers, the time will be electronically displayed
on the screen above and after your time has expired,
you will hear this sound (buzzer sounds).
A reminder also to speakers to contain your presentation
to the subject matter.
Please also ensure your comments are respectful and refrain
from making any defamatory comments of any Councillor, member
of Council staff or member of the community.
Should you be in breach of this requirement, your presentation
will be immediately terminated and you will be asked to return to your seat.
Should you have any documents or pictures to be circulated to Councillors as part
of your presentation, please indicate when you approach
the speakers table and the Governance Manager
will review the documents first and assist in distributing them to each Councillor.
We start with item 4.1, 18 Clonmore Street in Beaumaris.
We have nil requests to be heard.
CR MARTIN: Happy to move
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Just with a minor amendment on page 8.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Can you please read it?
CR MARTIN: Recommendation 1, "that delegated officers issue a Local Law
tree removal permit for the Liquidambar"
and then in recommendation 2 "that any such permit includes a condition
requiring planting of one indigenous tree"
so strike out "native",
replace with "indigenous".
CR EVANS: Seconded.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Seconded
- thank you, Councillor Evans.
Councillor Martin, would you like to discuss?
CR MARTIN: Yeah, look, I think the officers have done a good job
with this report, the recommendation for the removal, and I support that,
and I think replacing the native with indigenous meets our policies
and I thank Councillor Samuel-King for noting that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: No, thanks, Chair.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate on this item, Councillors?
Councillor King?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Simply a question to Mr Cripps.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead.
CR SAMUEL-KING : I'm wondering what our thinking is in
as far as one for one, tree for tree, and whether not necessarily in this case
but in future we could have a policy of one for two or one for three.
Would that be
- where are we up to with the strategic thinking
in that regard?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Mr Cripps?
MR CRIPPS: Through you, Mr Chair, the current policy in place talks
about a one for one ratio replacement currently,
though as part of the current financial year there
is an expectation that our tree removal policy on private property
will be reviewed and there's an opportunity
to consider the ratio of replanting through that review at that time.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Great, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Cripps.
Any further questions or debate?
Councillor Martin, would you like to close?
All those in favour, Councillors, against, carried.
- we've got a written statement from Mr Andrew Caris
and we've also got one speaker, Mr Andrew Caris.
Would you like to come forward, please?
MR ANDREW CARIS: And I do have some slides that we're going to put up.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, no problem.
Can we have the slides up, please?
Take a seat, Mr Caris.
MR ANDREW CARIS: Good evening, Mayor, fellow Councillors and officers.
My application for removal of the non-indigenous
Cedrus deodara has been rejected on three criteria, being overrun 55cm
in girth and further than 2 metres from the house and its amenity
to the community.
This amenity comes with 11 consequences, hardships that I've listed
in my original submission at 6 July.
The common response listed found in the agenda
- new slide, please
- was that my concerns were
not policy considerations.
I further provided evidence submission to this meeting as well
as a pic taken this morning of the build-up of pine needles since
they were last cleared a month ago.
Do these policies really address the intention
of Council fairly and appropriately?
The next slide.
The satellite photo shows the extensive tree canopy provided by the trees
at the front of 1 Herbert, completely blocking any of the yard
from being seen as well as the front section of the house.
There are actually 13 trees in the front yard, an additional two being greater than
155cm in girth.
This contrasts strongly with the other properties shown,
where there are no substantial trees or canopies blocking views
of the yards or covering roof spaces.
Next slide.
On the current slide I've put in a line starting at the Cedrus on my property
and running parallel to the street across every other property
in Herbert Street, showing that every other property has
a structure at that position on the block.
Next slide, please.
From the street view, the contrast is equally significant.
These two properties typical of the location are diagonally opposite
in Victor Street.
Next slide, please.
The two photos of 1 Herbert Street taken from the moving Google camera car
do not show the Cedrus due to the other trees on the front
of the block.
Hence the amenity provided by the other 12 trees
is obviously substantial and far in excess of any other property in the location.
So does it pass the pub test?
The ability to live comfortably without nuisance, hardship and safety
is denied when both the green space and the dwelling already provide community
amenity in spades and far above the level of others in this location.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Caris.
Do we have any questions?
Councillor Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I have a number of questions, Mr Caris, if I could,
so bear with me, they're important.
MR ANDREW CARIS: Okay.
CR SAMUEL-KING: If we were hypothetically to approve the removal of the tree,
I'd be really interested
- and apologies for putting you on the spot
- with the following conditions and how you'd feel about them.
I was thinking originally with replacing it
with three indigenous trees and some understory.
Would that be feasible or is that too much?
MR ANDREW CARIS: That would be reasonable.
I have intentions to replant trees on the western side
of the land in the backyard which have fallen over in recent years
to provide additional cover in the back yard and certainly one in the front
if that's justified.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So that is feasible?
MR ANDREW CARIS: That's feasible
- totally feasible, yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: One other question?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
I also heard tonight that the property might be up for sale.
MR ANDREW CARIS: Correct.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
Would it be something that would be acceptable and okay
to you that that condition stayed with the property and when it was sold,
and there's a way of doing it that I'd need Mr Cripps
to explain?
MR ANDREW CARIS: No, that would be fine.
That would be fine if that condition was
- it would be in the section 32, would it?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
Mr Caris, we might just seek some information
from our Director in regard to this.
MR CRIPPS: Through you, Mr Chair, the opportunity to look
at imposing some kind of requirement for the retention
of vegetation most likely would be through a 173 agreement.
That's an agreement that would be registered on title which would ensure
that any future property owner was aware of the requirements for the retention
and replanting obligations which would be agreed to if a permit was issued
for the removal of the tree.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And is that acceptable by you?
MR ANDREW CARIS: That is acceptable.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Now, Councillor Samuel-King, do you have any further questions?
Okay.
Are there any further questions for Mr Caris?
You may take your seat, Mr Caris.
Councillor Samuel-King?
CR SAMUEL-KING: I'd like to move a motion to allow for the removal
of the tree subject to three indigenous replacement trees
and suitable middle and understory and that that obligation remains
with the owner
- with the property under a section
- CR EL MOUALLEM: 173 agreement.
CR SAMUEL-KING:-
- 173 agreement.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Let's put something in writing first, Mr Mayor,
before you second it.
CR DEL PORTO: Sure.
I agree with it, but anyway, that's fine.
CR EL MOUALLEM: The first part is a standard part, Councillor Samuel-King
, namely part 2, if you'd like to
- is that what you're after?
CR SAMUEL-KING: My only concern with this, officers, is that too restrictive
as far as
- and is that all ordinary and normal to have
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, Mr Cripps, go ahead, please.
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair.
In order for a 173 agreement to be entered into, there needs to be a plan endorsed
which would indicate what planting is required and where,
so what has been outlined is for a landscape plan to be provided.
Part (c) is quite clear which includes a minimum of three canopy trees
and the size at planting and the count based
on Council's preference for 80% indigenous species and then part 2
is really aimed at placing that obligation through a section 173 agreement on title.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Comfortable to move this, Councillor Samuel-King?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Mr Chair, may I have leave to check with the owner?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, we can call on Mr Caris, please, back to the table.
Mr Caris, can you read what's on the screen?
MR ANDREW CARIS: Yes, yes.
Without reading the fine print, would it be a situation where the trees
would be planted really close to the house again?
CR EL MOUALLEM: You need to provide I believe a drawing showing
where the trees are going to be planted and this drawing becomes part
of section 173, so you can discuss with our officers where these plants are
going to be.
MR ANDREW CARIS: So that would be sort of my choice,
I could put them in a good position.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'll confirm with the Director, but I believe so.
Mr Cripps.
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, yes, the obligation as part 1 is
to submit a landscape plan which you would identify where the trees
are being planted.
So the obligation is not about requiring you
to plant in a specific location, but you to present your plans identifying where
you would undertake the replanting.
CR EVANS: But Mr
- oh, sorry, through the Chair.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, Councillor Evans, you've got a question?
CR EVANS: Well, I just think Mr Caris is concerned that by doing this,
he may have to plant them close to a house where the design might be,
so can we make it on the edges or, you know,
how does that actually give him some benefit that it's not going to be
- he doesn't have to plant in the middle of the block?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'm not sure if we need to clarify this.
We need to submit a landscape drawing and Mr Cripps?
CR EVANS: Yeah, but it's subject to approval
from the responsible authority.
How does he know the responsible authority isn't
going to say in the middle of the block, you know
- not that I think they will.
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, I can first of all confirm that officers would
unlikely be requiring planting in the middle of the block.
However, I am happy to add an additional point
to clarify the planting can be undertaken around the perimeter of the site
if that would be of assistance.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And Mr Cripps, is there any way of pulling back
on the burden that we're placing on the owner, just as far as it's just
- CR EVANS: It's the owner's application now.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, sure.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I believe Mr Cripps might just put something in place now
to simplify it.
Let's give him a minute or so.
CR EVANS: Mr Chair, please don't think I would think that
the responsible authority would be that, but I think there's concern
from the applicant that, you know, he's concerned
- he doesn't want to plant them in the middle of the block,
I guess.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Just bear with us a couple of minutes, Mr Caris,
if you don't mind.
CR SAMUEL-KING: No, that's all fine, keep that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Don't touch that.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Mr Cripps, it's things like details of all surfaces
and pathways and driveways.
I don't want to lock this site into pathways and driveways, that's all.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So we remove
- CR SAMUEL-KING : I just don't believe it's relevant,
that's all.
CR DEL PORTO: Which item?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Oh, point (e), "details of surface finishes of pathways
and driveways".
It's about trees, yeah?
That's all.
CR DEL PORTO: Councillor Samuel-King, are you happy with canopies planted
around the perimeter of the property?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
CR DEL PORTO: I'll be happy to second that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And Mr Caris?
MR ANDREW CARIS: It sounds great to me.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Fantastic.
You may take your seat back.
Sorry to call you back.
Okay, we've got a seconder.
Councillor Samuel-King, would you like to debate?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
Thank you.
CR EVANS: You don't have to stand.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I don't have to stand, perfect.
I think, Mr Chair, everyone is very well aware of my position
on trees.
Part of why I'm on Council is to protect them.
But it is also my job to be able to put myself in a person's shoes
and also look at a whole of ecosystem perspective.
I know this site, I know this tree, I know that there's an abundance of trees
and plants on this site and I can tell that tree doesn't
- from my perspective, from an ecological perspective and also
from a practical perspective, it does not belong there.
It's not providing a decent ecosystem service from a habitat perspective
and also it is just causing an undue burden
to the owner.
I know if I was the owner, I would know I could not grow a single
thing under that tree and it would drive me around the twist.
It would stop me from planting an indigenous garden there
and from enjoying my property and I'd spend my time up
on the roof potentially falling off the roof trying
to get the pine needles off.
So I feel that I have to have an element of commonsense and from time
to time know when it's time for a tree to come down, but encourage the owner
to replace it with trees and middle story and understory that
will provide ecosystem services.
I needed to know that the owner would be okay
with these kind of impositions and I also want to protect this site
and protect those trees into the future should the property be
sold.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor King.
Mr Mayor, would you like to debate?
CR DEL PORTO: Reserve.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You reserved.
Any further debate?
Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Yes, look, absolutely hear that approach,
but I've got to speak on the other side and the other side is that the officers,
quite rightly, report that this tree has high value amenity
and it literally does not
- this application does not comply to the Council's criteria on any fronts
except the point that Councillor Samuel-King has made about there are
at least two other trees.
That is the only criteria that this meets, this application, the only criteria.
In relation to the maintenance of properties that have canopy
trees in Beaumaris, that is a matter that every home owner
in Beaumaris has, whether it's a pine tree, a liquidambar,
a beautiful indigenous canopy tree.
I can tell you right now I have a massive ghost gum and the litter drop
on that is extraordinary.
But to manage that every seven to eight years I get a suitably qualified
arborist who provides this beautiful service to shape the tree
and it reduces the litter drop by up to 70% and that money is well spent.
It was only about $2,500, and I've been doing that
for nearly 20 years because that's what the previous owner told me to do
and it works very well.
To leave these trees just to grow out of control, you can end up
with litter drop all over your roof, leaking pipes, all sorts of problems.
You've got to maintain them.
So that's the sort of real encouragement we're putting through to the ward there
with the Vegetation Protection Overlay.
And just finally, I think that the matter of doing this kind of planning
on the night, I'm very uncomfortable talking
about landscape plans and section 173s for a house that's about to be sold
with a new owner that might have a whole lot
of other plans where you can get to see the actual
- like a normal planning application, you see the planning scheme and
all the different kind of things.
So we're putting a restrictive instrument, a measure
on someone's property who's just nodded five minutes ago and just said, "Yeah,
I think that's all right."
I wouldn't be saying that at all.
I would be saying, "Look, I'm not putting 173s on my property,
I need to get some urban planning advice, I need to get some real estate advice
and I need to get some legal advice."
So that's the three reasons why I don't support it.
Certainly I've heard the reason and understand that
and certainly that tree at the moment is a large tree, but it can be maintained,
as the report says.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: Thank you, yes.
First of all, I didn't move it, Councillor Samuel-King moved it, so I'd
like the
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, it's moved by Councillor Samuel-King,
please.
Can we do a correction there?
CR EVANS: Thank you, debating now.
It was a tricky one for me, Mr Chair, because I, like Councillor Martin, don't
like going against the officers' recommendations
on those.
They have very, very good reasons for it.
A couple of things went through my mind as I was thinking about this
and a couple of things were
- this house was originally on our heritage listing,
so some person has thought that this is a house to be restored,
so it was originally on the heritage listing.
- and that's been overturned, so it's now, I gather, getting sold.
However, one of the things that
- I did go and see one in
- another one that was not on the heritage listing
but a beautiful house, very similar in style to this in mid-century modern,
where it was going to be transformed into a mid-century
modern house and it was planting and I asked the Council to take
out some native plants which the people planted there 17 years ago and
to restore them within the native plants that are indigenous to Beaumaris.
So again, my thoughts about this are yes, I actually agree with Councillor Martin
about the size and what we should be doing with the trees,
but I think the important thing for me is that we are asking that Beaumaris be
represented by indigenous trees if we're pulling out a tree.
So again, I'm not always comfortable going against the officers' recommendations,
but again, I think that site would be enhanced if,
first of all, the house was kept, but that's my view, and secondly,
if indigenous growth was around it and new indigenous growth.
So again, I'll be supporting it.
It was a tough decision for me because, again,
I could see where the officers were coming from and again, as Councillor Martin says,
many trees in Beaumaris have litter all around.
That is the nature of trees and sometimes people see it as a thing
of beauty.
My parents hated leaves, but that's another thing.
So again, I'll support this in this particular part.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Any further debate?
Mr Mayor, would you like
- CR DEL PORTO: Yes, quickly.
Look, I think we must always judge all applications on their merits.
This is Beaumaris.
It is an exotic tree.
It has less than 10 years of life.
It is a tree that has deformed.
It is actually 13 metres in height and a canopy with about 13 metres
and it's only about 2.5 metres from the dwelling in the front setback,
so probably it was planted in the wrong location many years ago.
So these are things that always come to my way of considering things.
The last thing I wanted to add is that on page 14 we're told that there are
at least two other trees on the property that are protected
by local law and they tell us what they are
and have a sustainable life expectancy of more than 10 years.
We're also proposing to add another three new saplings
or native trees, indigenous, so I think it's probably a good idea
to sort of, you know, use your
- what I think, use your judgment on this.
I hear what's been said.
I'm very happy to support this motion with all the extra conditions and caveats.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: Thank you.
These decisions are always very difficult.
We are talking about living creatures and we do need to change the way that
we think about trees and other vegetation because they are living and
they do provide a huge amount of services.
Other things that have gone through my mind
is that even though you replace a mature tree, it will take 30 to 40 years
to actually provide the services that that mature tree has already provided,
even if you're providing two additional new trees or three trees.
So there's all of those sorts of things to weigh up as well,
but when we're talking about the habitat value,
as Councillor Samuel-King said, if we're looking
at the indigenous planting, which is probably not only representative
of that area but is more appropriate to that area, then we need to weigh that
up as well.
So on balance, I think we're probably doing the
right thing even though, in terms of a living creature, that
is a very difficult decision to make.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold.
I might ask a couple of questions before I debate.
One, I understand the roof is made of asbestos and would like to clarify
if it's possible for the roof to be removed
without a planning application just to make sure, you know, the maintenance
is a bit easier.
MR CRIPPS: Through you, Mr Chair, my understanding
is that the roof could be removed and replaced
without needing a planning permit, so it would be under routine repairs
and maintenance provisions.
CR EVANS: Oh, sorry, I thought you were going to condition it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: No, no, because we understand there is an issue
with maintenance with asbestos roofing.
Now, the second question is, Mr Caris can decide not to proceed
in removing the tree and the tree can remain
and in the future we can get an application with a building permit
which basically impacts the tree and therefore the tree will be removed
- is that correct?
MR CRIPPS: Through you, Mr Chair, if an application for the construction
of a single dwelling on the site were lodged which required
the tree to be removed, an application would still need
to be sought through our local laws, but it would be approved because it
is considered an exempt or an allowable action on the basis that our local law
is actually subordinate legislation to the Building Act.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Cripps.
Thank you first to Councillor Samuel-King for the amendment.
Looking at it from a maintenance point of view, we do have an asbestos roof
in there and it requires a fair bit of cleaning.
I personally am not comfortable in letting anyone work
on an asbestos roof, so that's why I asked about a replacement.
But second, we've seen in item 4.1 that they are removing a tree which is
in canopy wise slightly bigger than this and they are replacing it
with one indigenous tree.
What Councillor Samuel-King has done here is we're actually making sure this one
is replaced by three plus understory and middle storey and the minimum height
of 1.5.
I'd also like to add that the report is telling us that the stem
of the tree has deformed.
It also states that the retention value is low and the life expectancy
is less than 10 years.
On balance, I believe a replacement of this by three indigenous trees
of 1.5 minimum height is probably a good outcome.
I believe that Councillor Samuel-King struck a good balance here
and I'm happy to support.
Councillor Samuel-King, would you like to close?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you, Mr Chair.
I could easily argue the other case, the other side of this,
and I have huge amounts of sympathy for Councillor Martin's
and Councillor Stitfold's reservations and I share them.
I could add to them climate change, cooling, I could go on.
But in the end I do understand Mr Caris's plight and also the importance
of indigenous vegetation in and around Beaumaris
and I'm also quite respectful of Mr Caris's flexibility
in accepting these conditions and also in relation to doing these kind of things
on the fly, Mr Caris always has the option of not proceeding, which would get us back
to where we would be anyway, which would be to keep the tree.
So it's I think a reasonable way forward, so I'll stick with it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Samuel-King.
I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour, against, carried.
We'll move to 4.3, 9 Exley Road in Hampton East.
Councillors, please be aware of a correction to the recommendation
for this item.
Officers have advised that condition 1(e) refers to "access
to Dwellings 3 and 4",
when this should in fact read "access to Dwellings 2 and 3".
We've got no requests to be heard and we've got two requests to speak
from Mr George Borg and Mr Manu Matthews.
Mr Borg, please come forward.
Please go ahead.
MR GEORGE BORG: Good evening, Mayor, Councillors and officers and thank you
for the opportunity to present this application today.
I'm here representing my client, Neoland.
I'd like to thank the planning officers Mr Peter
Hampton and Mr Steven Mallett for their clear and frank advice
and balanced report and recommendation.
At the outset, I would like to advise that we fully support
the officers' recommendation with the changes you've identified
and accept all the conditions proposed.
Echoing the officers' report, the application was received and lodged
in 2021, advertised and received 11 objections.
It went to an important consultation meeting,
where nine of the 11 objectors attended.
To my client's credit, he genuinely listened
to the concerns raised by the officers and the objectors and
he made changes in the manner described in the officers' report.
Importantly, the amended proposal has resulted
in no additional objections, the withdrawal of one objection,
no opposing speakers here tonight, and the support of Council's officers.
So Councillors, I respectfully submit that this
application as amended is worthy of your support.
I commend the officers' report and recommendation to you.
And I'm happy to take any questions and will advise,
while I still have 37 seconds left, that Mr Manu Matthews won't be speaking
tonight and he sends his apologies.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Borg.
Do we have any questions to Mr Borg?
You may take a seat, no questions.
Councillors, I'm in your hands.
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, I support as printed.
CR EL MOUALLEM: As printed, thank you.
We need a seconder.
CR DEL PORTO: I'll second that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Councillor Castelli.
CR CASTELLI: I've read this application.
Thank you for your submission and of course from one that's absent as well.
Now, I found this application pretty compliant and feel that it is
in an activity centre where development of this kind of type and scale
is encouraged and we're looking at site coverage is modest which allows
for a number of canopy trees, which is a great thing, we're talking
about trees.
And, you know, it pretty much would enhance the natural
aesthetics of the area and I also feel that this proposal
is a site responsive to design as well, which is fully supported by me.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Mr Mayor.
CR DEL PORTO: Yeah, look, I've got to say it's not a really big block
of land, it's about 619 square metres, and yet it is completely compliant with
all our guidelines.
I've got to say I'm looking at the usual stuff that I look at
- you know, side and rear setback.
It is really amazing and I think they've done a very good job.
Site coverage 54%
- I believe it's 60% in activity centres, so well under; permeability 30%; height
for three storeys just over 10 metres.
It is where it is and it's designed for the activity centre.
I really think it's really well designed given the restriction that they had
on the size of block of land.
So well done.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Any further debate?
Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Just a quick question.
It might be in here.
Does this trigger an undergrounding event?
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, no, it wouldn't.
They're in the major activity centres, not the activity centre zone.
CR MARTIN: Okay.
I'm happy to debate.
Look, the precinct 6 of the activity centre at Hampton East
is a really important part of the planning scheme
and it was hard fought and it's got a structure plan to it
and this is the type of moderate application that
is required in the transitional zone to the hinterland of Hampton East.
It's a shame that it doesn't trigger an undergrounding event because
over the next 10 to 15 years all the houses
in precinct 6 are very likely to have application of high-density
development like that and if we don't get the undergrounding going
in the transition zone, you're going to end up with these beautiful tree-lined
streets in the activity zone just to find the transition zone is going
to have power.
So I might take that up after tonight's meeting.
But the other part about this is that this particular application
that has got the support of the Mayor so strongly tonight
and the reason why it's so compliant to the actual report is
because it's meeting the very policy supports that we have put into place
over the last five years.
That's why it's compliant.
That's why they've been able to achieve so much on that block.
But it's really, really important that these applications
keep coming like this because, you know, we're basically building the city
of the future for the next generation.
It's got nothing to do with the people that are there now.
It's the people that are moving into these blocks and these densities that
we're putting in to Hampton East and Sandringham and Brighton and Highett.
So I've been really interested to see this one come through
and I'm just really pleased that the applicant has almost 100% complied
and responded to the type of policy settings that this council has
put in place and it's very important because it is the Councils, represented
by the Councillors, who create the plan, not the developers, and this
is a really great outcome of urban planning,
strategic urban planning, and an applicant coming in understanding
all of that and also meeting the residents and listening and doing some changes.
So it's got my 100% support as well.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Any further debate?
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Oh, yes, just a quick one, Mr Chair.
Yeah, nicely designed, wedding caked away from Warland Road
with a northern elevation, so sitting back, so nicely designed and,
as the Mayor says, it would be hard not to say well done because it ticks
all the boxes.
But particularly I like the way in which it sits there as well
as respecting the neighbours on the side as in the wedding cake style, so again,
a nice piece of architecture.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Any further debate?
No?
Councillor Samuel-King, go ahead.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I must admit if I lived near here and didn't understand what
the major activity centres were all about I might be a bit shocked
with this kind of dwelling, but this is where it is.
It's in an activity centre and given that, it's actually, I would have to agree,
incredibly compliant and that's really well done
and also a consultation meeting was held and you can see on page 21 of the document
in front of me anyway there are a whole raft
of amendments that have been made and that's great to see.
So I would have to be completely supportive
of it given our planning framework.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Samuel-King.
I'd just like to add that back in 2018 there was a permit for number 7
and 9 for 10 triple-storey dwellings and a basement and on this site there was
an approval for five with a basement, so triple storey and a basement.
What we're seeing here is actually four, three levels without a basement.
In my opinion, that's probably a better design
and a better outcome for the site and for this reason I'm happy to support.
Councillor Castelli, would you like to close?
CR CASTELLI: I'm right, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour, against, carried.
We'll move on.
4.4, 33 Laburnum street in Brighton.
We've got one written statement from Ms Janice Cook
and we've got three requests to speak from Mrs Janice Cook, Mr Paul Truong
and Mr Ramsay Jurdi.
Ms Janice Cook, please come forward.
MS JANICE COOK: Thank you, Mayor and Councillors.
My name is Janice Cook.
I have lived at 35 Laburnum Street for 43 years.
I own 37 Laburnum Street behind my home.
Both my properties are adjacent and north of 33 Laburnum Street.
I have objected to this proposal because it is a major overdevelopment
for our street and will have an adverse impact on the nature
of Laburnum Street and particularly on the amenity of my properties.
It does not align in the north with the requirements
of the Bayside Planning Scheme in terms of minimum setbacks for each
of the three proposed units.
Two canopy trees supported in the plan are very close to a major sewerage pipe
under 1 metre from my fence running dune the entire south side of my properties.
I have already repaired this pipe after tree roots caused a problem
with a sewerage leak.
The positioning of the three swimming pools
is directly adjacent to my bedrooms and family room.
The noise levels from pool filters and people using the pools
will be considerable.
The enormous impact on my property shows a complete lack of consideration.
I imagine when each residence has more than two cars,
there could be nine cars parked in our street.
Theatres and gyms for each unit could be turned
into additional bedrooms and living areas separate from each house.
This property is within a minimal growth area.
The current format of this development does not respect
the neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics
There is an underground stream which runs down past my home and through number 33.
I have never watered my nature strip tree, which is younger and flourishes much
better than any other tree in the street.
I urge you to endorse the controls within the Bayside Planning Scheme and
to reject this proposal as an overdevelopment (buzzer sounds)
of this site.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Ms Cook.
Any questions to the speaker?
No questions, we'll
- CR MARTIN: Yes, I've got one.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead, Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Have you done some core sampling or drilling
for that underwater stream or is that
- MS JANICE COOK: No, it's been anecdotal evidence
because water has leaked from two of my neighbours' properties
across the road.
They are higher than me and I don't water my garden very often.
And one other tree on my property I've never watered at all
and it's flourishing and I cut it back all the time.
So everyone who lives there knows the moisture and seepage is a problem.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
No further questions.
Mr Paul, please come forward.
We'll just ask the governance
- have a seat and we'll ask the Governance Manager.
CR DEL PORTO: If you will sit down, Mr Truong, and we will get back to you.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You can go ahead, Mr Truong.
MR PAUL TRUONG: Good evening, Councillors, and Council staff and members
of the public.
I act on behalf of the owner for 31 Laburnum Street, which is located
near the south of the subject site.
The main concern that we have with this development is overlooking,
in particular the first floor south-facing window of bedroom 2 of drawing 1
into our front private open space and the area connecting
to our secluded private open space.
The south elevation of dwelling 1 shows that this window would have a fixed clear
glaze to a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level
with an openable window above.
Why have this window fixed at this height if there is no potential for overlooking?
This window will have a direct view to our front private open space
and given it is enclosed by a high front fence and the west-facing
lounge room window as highlighted.
This window also has a direct view towards the area located north of our lounge room,
which currently has no roof structures.
Refer to the photo.
And we have emailed the applicant on 26 July advising that we would withdraw
our objection should this window be screened and have not received a reply
from the applicant to date.
So we request that Council would include a condition should one be issued requiring
that the fixed part of the first floor south-facing window
of bedroom 2 of dwelling 1 be screened at least 1.7 metres
above the finished floor level.
Thank you.
(Buzzer sounds).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Do we have any questions?
CR DEL PORTO: I have a question of Council officers.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead, Mr Mayor.
Any questions to the speaker?
You may take a seat.
CR DEL PORTO: Questions of Council officers
- I note that the issue of non-compliance it overlooking has been addressed
on pages 71 and 72 to the northern first floor,
the southern first floor, the western first floor
and the statement here is that the overlooking plan demonstrates
that 9 metres from this window is the adjoining property's roof
and front garden, therefore it is not required to be screened.
So are you satisfied with the measures that were taken
in the report to address overlooking?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Dr Farrand can answer this
DR FARRAND: Could you just repeat that last part of the question, please,
Councillor?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, on page 72 of 718, up the top you have,
"The southern first floor includes obscure glazing ... The overlooking plan
demonstrates that 9 metres from this window
is the adjoining properties roof and front garden (which
is not secluded private open space) therefore it is not required
to be screened.
"I wonder if you're happy with that statement
because everything else has been addressed
DR FARRAND: Yes, through the Chair, it is compliant
because it's not overlooking secluded private open space, yes.
CR DEL PORTO: That's right, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
Councillor Samuel-King, a question to the officers?
We've got one more speaker.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I am confused because of the way I read this that it doesn't
meet the overlooking requirements as per the table
- CR DEL PORTO: The conditions are included
CR SAMUEL-KING:-
- and yet now I'm hearing it does, so I'm lost, sorry,
if that could be clarified.
DR FARRAND: So Standard B22 of the Bayside Planning Scheme talks
about overlooking and anything that is within 9 metres of a habitable window,
whether that be secluded private open space or a habitable window
of a neighbouring property, would require the window
to be obscure glazed.
In this instance, the particular window, the bedroom window bedroom 2 of unit 1,
there are no habitable windows or secluded private open space within 9 metres
of that proposed window.
Therefore there is no requirement to screen it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So why on page 96 of my documents in the table
"B22 Overlooking"
does it have "Does not comply"?
DR FARRAND: Through you, Chair, that's relating to the balcony on unit 3.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Right, okay.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
We'll call Mr Ramsey Jurdi, please.
MR RAMSAY JURDI: Thank you, Mr Chair.
So I'm representing the architect of the application.
In relation to the concerns regarding neighbourhood density
and neighbourhood character, the site is in a neighbourhood residential zone
which does recognise predominantly single and double-storey
dwellings, which this proposal is, and it's important to note that the site
is more than 900 square metres, so we can support more intensive
development than just a replacement dwelling or another dwelling.
We've been able to accommodate this without pushing the boundaries,
given that site coverage is below the maximum, there's no walls
and boundaries proposed, and also more than seven trees proposed on site
as well, so that will contribute to the neighbourhood character,
the garden suburban character in the area.
And my client would support the officer recommendations
of an additional tree planting as outlined in the officer recommendation.
And it's important to note that the jacaranda proposed
will grow up to 12 metres in height and also that the blueberry ash can grow
up to 8 metres in height, so over time I think that
will really enhance the neighbourhood character in the area.
In terms of density, the Bayside Planning Scheme doesn't
outline a maximum number of dwellings proposed, so as long
as it's compliant with the setback site coverage,
generally that's pointing to a pretty respectful development.
And it's also worth noting that 88, 104, 112 Roslyn Street have four dwellings,
as does 12 Laburnum Street, and Hampton Street contains a number
of dwellings
- a number of lots with five and seven dwellings, so I think three
is not really pushing the boundaries in that regard.
There were concerns raised also about basement excavation
and swimming pools, so those will be dealt with
under the building permit stage and my client
- you know, I would be happy to arrange contact between the client
and the permit applicant in that regard to fencing and excavation.
(Buzzer sounds).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Jurdi.
Do we have any questions to the speaker?
Go ahead, Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Look, thanks for coming down.
You heard from Mr Truong.
Firstly, did you get that email?
MR RAMSAY JURDI: It would have gone to the architect, not myself personally,
so I'm unaware of that email until tonight.
CR MARTIN: Right.
Would you be interested in frosting that window?
MR RAMSAY JURDI: I think it's a
- given this is facing the front setback and the primary open space
is in the back yard where the pool is, ideally it will be
about balancing the internal amenity of the future occupants
for that front dwelling, so by frosting it to an area that complies,
probably would not be too comfortable with that.
CR MARTIN: Right.
That's the only thing the neighbours ask for?
MR RAMSAY JURDI: I would have to take that on notice.
CR MARTIN: Okay, that's fine.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Do you have any questions, Councillor Samuel-King?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, there were some issues raised
by a neighbour about sewerage that could be impacted
by the proposed trees I think.
Has that been looked at at all or considered?
Is that something that your clients would be interested
in making sure wasn't disrupted?
MR RAMSAY JURDI: Yeah, absolutely.
So items like drainage and all of that wouldn't be dealt with as part
of the town planning stage, so should a planning permit be granted
and proceeds to building, all those kind of checks would need to occur in terms
of drainage and I'm happy to look into that as well and, you know, liaise
with the neighbours in that regard.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Evans, do you have a question?
CR EVANS: Yeah, just one question, if you wouldn't mind.
Just the pool filters and that, I'm concerned with the neighbours to 35-37
, not going to do much about the noise of people having a swim,
but there are pool filters and that.
Could you just explain to me where you would position those,
please?
Are they those boxes one in the front
- I'm looking on page 83.
There's a little box in the front garden adjacent to the pool, there's one
at the back.
Are they the filters?
Can you just explain to me where they will be, please?
That's a concern of the neighbour to the north.
MR RAMSAY JURDI: From memory, there might be a couple
of changes needed given that there's an officer recommendation
for a tree in the front setback, so that will probably
- I remember there was showing a pool equipment area for the front unit,
but near where the spa is, but I note that those would normally not
require planning permits, but would be happy to liaise
with the neighbours in that regard.
CR EVANS: Could we condition that
- Mr Cripps, is there any way of conditioning it just
to have the pool filters in some position where it's
at least annoying for the neighbours, is that a possible condition,
providing the applicant is supportive of that.
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, a condition could be included
on the permit to require the location of the pool equipment to be identified
and that would enable the applicant to demonstrate where they're being
located and assessed.
CR EVANS: It's probably the main thing.
Whoever is going to move it might keep that in mind, thank you.
Thanks for that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
I've got a question, Mr Ramsey, if you don't mind.
You just commented on the amenity and the bedroom 2 window if it's frosted,
it might impact the amenity.
I understand that it is in two parts.
One part is openable above the 1.7 and one is fixed.
Can you explain to me how frosting the lower part would
impact the amenity if the openable part is kept clear?
How would that impact?
MR RAMSAY JURDI: Because the lower part of the elevation
- I'll just bring them up, sorry.
I'd just be reluctant with the up to 1.7 being frosted which would impact
the views from the bedroom out towards, you know, the street scape.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay.
So you're concerned about street scape views?
MR RAMSAY JURDI: From the subject site.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And is there any balcony?
MR RAMSAY JURDI: No balcony would be proposed from that window.
CR EL MOUALLEM: No problem.
No worries.
Okay, thank you, Mr Ramsey, you can take a seat.
CR DEL PORTO: I'd like to move with a couple of changes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead, Mr Mayor.
Can you read them, please?
CR DEL PORTO: Taking on board Councillor Evans' issue,
I think I'd like to move a condition that the location of the pool equipment is
to be identified on the plans.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Can you just give us a second?
CR DEL PORTO: Happy to do that.
Also keeping in mind what Mrs Cook said, I'd like to make sure the side setback
to the south becomes compliant, involves 33 centimetres, but having spoken
to council officers, we can make that compliant that setback.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
And nothing on the window frosting up to 1.7?
CR DEL PORTO: No, I'll talk to it when I
- I'll debate it.
I don't think we need to do any more on the windows.
CR EVANS: Happy to second.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Do you want to wait until
- CR EL MOUALLEM: We'll wait, Councillor Evans.
CR DEL PORTO: Right, thank you for that, Councillor Evans.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead, Mr Mayor.
CR DEL PORTO: Happy to move and debate.
A couple of things.
I mean, I think the location of the equipment for the pool I think
is a good idea because that's always an issue
- it's a small issue, but it becomes a really sort
of important one as the years progress.
I think the setback
- I didn't think it was that big an issue, but it is a third of a metre
and we can make it compliant to the south and I think that will help
with visual bulk.
I also think
- first of all, the application is largely compliant.
There are 34 guidelines and apart from the overlooking Standard B22
and now I've addressed one of the two non-compliance issues,
so the other one is street setback which is
- I'm not touching it, but I'm just pointing out that it's
about 20 centimetres non-compliant.
I really think it is largely compliant.
We have a large block of land, 935 square metres.
We have three dwellings, site coverage 44%, permeability nearly 21,
each dwelling has two spaces at basement level.
The height is 8.7 metres.
And I also note in the report the application doesn't propose
to remove any trees protected by the local law.
Also, the applicant has had a consultation in June of this year,
so I think that's also another tick.
With overlooking, I mean, I looked at pages 71 and 72.
I mean, you've got
- the northern first floor has obscure glazing,
the southern first floor includes obscure glazing
and the western first floor includes obscure glazing as well and
as Dr Farrand said, the overlooking plan demonstrates
that 9 metres from this window, which is bedroom 2 of unit 1
of the adjoining property's roof and front garden,
it's actually further than 9 metres and therefore it's not required
to be screened.
I'm just worried that, you know, if we're going to have complete glazing,
it obscure totally, we're going to end up creating a bit of a cell.
So I think it's important that they have a look somewhere,
but I think that the overlooking has been addressed with the conditions,
which I think there's only one condition, 1(b), "1.7m high privacy screen (complying
with Standard B22 Overlooking) included to the western side
of the first floor balcony associated with Unit 3."
The others have already included.
I think the application stands on its own merits again.
I think it's a good application.
The pool I've noticed here, but we've included that issue
about the location of the equipment, but the applicant has reduced the size
of the pool to allow for greater landscaping
along the boundary, which is on page 73.
So I think that's also been addressed.
So I think it's a pretty good application.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: The Mayor said most of it and again, just happy
with the pool equipment coming apart.
Look, if we put screens to every
- up to 1.7, minimum 9 metres away we'd be
having every window.
So again, you know, you have to make a value judgment sometimes
with those where there's an exceptional case where the 9 metre rule
needs to be overruled, but again, you know, that's what the rules are,
that's what the law says, so happy to support this.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Councillor Castelli, go ahead.
CR CASTELLI: Just a quick thing.
Subject to conditions, of course, this application pretty much has
strong compliance and also it's carefully sited
to minimise impact on the neighbouring amenity as well.
I think there are minor variations except for the
- which I think the setback is being conditioned, which
is a great thing, and I think the overlooking has been
addressed, which makes this application a good application to go through.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Any further debate?
No further debate.
Mr Mayor, would you like to close?
CR DEL PORTO: No, all good.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'll put this to the vote.
CR DEL PORTO: Division
- I'll call a division.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Division is called.
All those in favour
- Councillor Castelli, Mr Mayor, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Samuel-King, Councillor Stitfold,
Councillor El Mouallem
- against, carried.
We move to 4.5 and that is 52 Ebden Street in Brighton.
We've got four written statements from Miss Jann Townsend,
Ms Adelheid Scholer, Mr Albrecht Scholer, and Miss Karen Davies,
and we've got three requests to speak, Mr Albrecht Scholer, Miss Jann Townsend,
and Mr Shane Brown.
Mr Albrecht, please come forward, please.
MR ALBRECHT SCHOLER: Good evening.
My name is Albrecht Scholer.
The proposed development provides an improved level of amenities
for 52 Ebden Street whilst substantially negatively impacting on our level
of amenities by building a 45 degree raked roof
abutting to our small courtyard, by a spa 1.5 metres in front
of our master bedroom, and by the conversion of the two rooms,
office and store, 75% site coverage south bound permissible,
16.4 metres, 46%, proposal total 28 metres, 82% probability.
I ask Council to include conditions: no equipment can be placed
on the visible area of the raked roof which can be viewed
from the courtyard, kitchen and living area of 3 Hunter Street;
skylights to be of opaque glazing; roofing material non-reflective;
not to approve the conversion of the two rooms, office and store,
at the rear of 52 Ebden Street.
There are contradicting statements.
I quote page 99, "a space and conversion of the study
and store adjoining the carport to one office".
However, the plans show otherwise.
It is a conversion to two rooms with one toilet, shower and hand basin,
the other basin labelled office, but the label could be changed
to guest room, granny flat.
The proposed new layout becomes a self-sufficient independent dwelling,
easy to add electric hot plate, fridge and a kettle.
Then there will be two dwellings on one lot established.
I ask Council not to approve the proposed conversion.
I refer to our written submissions for further details
for your consideration.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Scholer.
Any questions to the speaker?
Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: I just ask if you could go through the
- I got no equipment on the roof.
Could you just go through the other two, please?
I didn't
- I couldn't make it out.
MR ALBRECHT SCHOLER: No equipment can be placed on divisible area of the raked roof
- CR EVANS: Yes.
MR ALBRECHT SCHOLER:-
- which can be viewed
- CR EVANS: I got that, no, the next one?
MR ALBRECHT SCHOLER: Then it's first skylights to be opaque glazing.
CR EVANS: The skylights, okay.
Yes.
MR ALBRECHT SCHOLER: Roofing material
- CR EVANS: Not reflective, yes.
MR ALBRECHT SCHOLER: Not reflective.
Not to approve the conversion of the two rooms, office and store.
CR EVANS: Okay, I've got that, thank you.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
Mr Albrecht, I've got a question for you.
On page 101 of the report we've got a comment
- a note here to say, "No plant, equipment, services or architectural features
other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted
above the roof level of the building without the written consent
of the Responsible Authority".
Would you be satisfied with this condition as it is or
- because there's currently no equipment showing and that's a condition
of the permit.
MR ALBRECHT SCHOLER: Yes, I would not because I accept the condition
of the permit.
However, it states "without the future consent"
of the Council, or planning department, whatever.
So my concern with that is that I have experienced it very
frequently there will be a request made for dispensation and then it
will be located wherever it is, while on the planning it was what it is, but no,
I don't think it's enough cover, enough cover.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay, thank you, Mr Scholer.
Any further questions?
You may take your seat and we'll call Miss Jann Townsend, please.
CR DEL PORTO: Mr Chair, can I ask a quick question
of the Council officers?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead, Mr Mayor.
CR DEL PORTO: Can we have some wording to I guess ensure that there won't be any
equipment on the roof or some wording that will give comfort to the objector?
SPEAKER: Well, can you just say "without the written consent
of the responsible authority",
just withdraw that?
Is that okay?
CR DEL PORTO: Would that be enough?
Just whatever you think is suitable.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Can we beef that condition , can we make it stronger?
MR CALLANT: Through the Chair, yes, that's something we can do and prepare
to provide that extra degree of certainty.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Let's hear from Miss Jann Townsend for now.
Thank you, Miss Townsend.
MISS JANN TOWNSEND: Hi, I'm Jann and for more than 30 years I lived
at 5 Huntley Street.
I made lots of friends in the neighbourhood
and there was much laughter, music and chatter between back yards.
I'm not here to try and stop that.
It's what living is all about.
I'm here to stand up for what is everybody's right to reasonable peace
and quiet in their own special place, their home.
The application to build a spa in the tiny back garden of 52 Ebden Street
on what is already proposed to become a highly overdeveloped block
will mean the residents of 3 Huntley Street
will experience excessive noise, resulting in significant impact to their amenity.
Their master bedroom has doors that open to a tiny courtyard so
they can enjoy fresh air during the warmer months.
The room isn't overly large, the bed probably less than 2 metres
from the fence line.
Can you imagine spa jets, blowers and a clanging gate coupled
with raised voices to be heard above this racket well into the night,
not to mention filtration noise and that's generally twice a day.
The owners won't hear any of this.
Their bedroom is way up the front of the house.
My friends shouldn't have to endure this around 2.5 metres from where
they lay their heads of a night.
To me this renovation and addition of a spa shows total lack of sensitivity
and care for the people around you.
Surely if Councillors allow this development
to go ahead, it will demonstrate a precedent
of overbuilding and complete abrogation of responsibility to the amenity
of residents within the community.
As a footnote, I stand firm on all my earlier written objections.
Thank you for your consideration.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Miss Townsend.
Do we have any questions to the speaker?
You may take your seat and we'll ask the officers some questions.
Go ahead, Councillor Castelli.
CR CASTELLI: You've heard the statement about the excessive noise from the spa.
What can be done about that, please?
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, as we discussed with the last item,
there is the ability to seek details of the location
of the pool pump equipment.
However, often with spa units they are incorporated into the actual spa.
That could still be requested.
Beyond that, in relation to noise, there are EPA standards that are set out
in relation to residential noise and there would be an obligation that
the spa would be operated in accordance with the EPA standards.
Now, if at the time it is operating and installed there were concerns
by residents in relation to noise, they could raise that issue with us
and our Health Department, who are responsible
for investigating residential noise, could undertake the investigations
to ensure there is compliance with the EPA noise standards.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay.
Any further questions?
Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Is there a way of putting like the spa half in the ground with
all that equipment you can sort of access it with a pit
and that would remove a lot of the noise?
MR CRIPPS: Well, it's
- so through the Chair, in terms of the way a spa is designed,
it can sit fully in-ground or fully out-ground and I might need
to confer with my colleagues just in terms of the design of the spa
and what can be designed into any feature is acoustic treatment
around the pump equipment and the like to try to reduce that noise.
So whether it's a cladding or an acoustic treatment,
whether it's actually pushed into the ground, as you're suggesting,
there are ways of treating the noise that emanates from the spa.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Martin, you've got another question.
CR MARTIN: And what is the design feature of the fencing between
- I think it is confirmed 2.5
- CR EL MOUALLEM: There is an existing brick fence there now
between the two.
CR MARTIN: Masonry.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Masonry fence.
CR MARTIN: Single or
- CR EL MOUALLEM: I assume so.
I believe it would be single plus piers.
MR CRIPPS: So through the Chair, it does appear on the plans
to show a single skin with piers on the inside of the fence line.
CR MARTIN: And the distance is 2.5 metres?
MR CRIPPS: In terms of the
- CR MARTIN: Spa to the inside of that room?
MR CRIPPS: I will defer to Michael.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We'll just seek clarification from Michael.
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, the spa is currently
- well, not currently
- it's proposed to be located approximately 1.5 metres.
I can confirm that it's entirely below ground as well,
so the spa surface would be at natural ground level, not raised above.
CR MARTIN: But just to confirm, it's
- so from the edge of the spa across the fence then
into the neighbours is
- MR CALLANT: Oh, sorry, I'm just measuring from the edge of the spa
to the fence line.
CR MARTIN: 1.5.
MR CALLANT: Is 1.5.
CR MARTIN: And then the current dwelling
- because these are really tight dwellings.
I've driven past there
- is about 1.5
- MR CALLANT: The current dwelling is about a metre beyond that.
It's also constructed partially along that boundary, so flush
with the boundary.
CR MARTIN: So it's about between me and Councillor Samuel-King
with a brick fence?
MR CALLANT: From the boundary that's approximately correct.
CR MARTIN: So spa, bedroom.
Right.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Mr Mayor, you've got a question.
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, just to confirm
- I've got a spa as well.
I don't know about the noise.
But this is an in-ground spa, it's not a
- I've got, you know, a stand-up one, so that's an in-ground spa?
MR CALLANT: Through the Chair, that's correct.
The elevation suggests that it's entirely underground.
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, that's fine.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'll ask a question.
Can the applicant now put a spa without a planning permit?
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, spas and pools
and the associated mechanical equipment are exempt under the planning scheme,
so it's not often that we get applications just for spas because they are exempt.
That being said, we often do consider their location,
but it's more so from a landscape perspective rather than
a mechanical equipment perspective because, as Mr Cripps suggested,
the noise associated with such things are dealt with
under the EPA rather than the planning guidelines.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
We've got one more speaker.
Let's bring Mr Shane Brown to the table.
Thank you, Shane.
Please go ahead, Mr Brown.
MR SHANE BROWN: Thank you, Councillors and staff.
Thanks for the opportunity for me to speak on behalf of my wife, Bernadette,
and myself.
This lovely period home at 52 Ebden Street, Brighton
is not destined to become a multi-unit development or investment property.
It's our forever home.
The existing house and 30-year-old previous renovation could have been easily
demolished and replaced with a modern alternative.
However, we have retained all of the original property and its features
to be respectful of it and the character of the neighbourhood.
The renovation is a single-storey design which minimises impact
to our neighbours when it could have easily been a double-storey,
box on the back modern solution.
We have participated in the consultation process cooperatively with all parties,
even directly approaching our immediate neighbours late last year to discuss
with them our renovation plans.
The design of the renovation is thoughtful, considered and
of high quality to respect the necessary
standards and regulations.
This application is consistent with many other renovations approved
in the area.
We have worked cooperatively with Council officers
to achieve a great overall outcome.
We are not asking for anything more than what has been achieved
by our immediate neighbours and other neighbours.
We have addressed the relevant planning concerns from the pertinent parties
and reflected this in an altering of the design
to accommodate any legitimate planning concerns raised.
The thoughtful design amendments means that there's no loss of amenity
to our neighbours and we have a landscape design which
will enhance the property with trees and shrubs to support the design
of our home.
In summary, it's with some pride we would like to simply quote
from the town planning report, which states for the above reasons,
it is submitted this submitted proposal is an excellent response to the site,
its opportunities and its constraints and should be supported by Council.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Brown.
Do we have any questions?
Mr Mayor?
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you.
Just about the issues about the equipment on the roof, are you proposing
to have any equipment on the roof?
MR SHANE BROWN: Not on that 45 degree angle
near their private open space, no.
CR DEL PORTO: Would you be concerned about if we add some wording that would prevent
future equipment being placed on the roof?
I understand what you're saying.
MR SHANE BROWN: My concern is that private open space, we don't want
to impact on that, but I don't really want to put constraints
on where the equipment would go because that's not been finalised as yet
as far as heating and cooling goes.
So there are other sections of the roof further forward
- CR DEL PORTO: That you might be able to place that?
MR SHANE BROWN: Yes.
CR DEL PORTO: Okay, okay.
And is there another location for that equipment to be placed
if people were concerned about placing it on that part of the roof?
MR SHANE BROWN: There's no impact because it's further along both
of our respective houses from number 3 and ourselves,
so it's actually further down the block away
from any open private space, so there should not be any impact.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you.
And the other issue was
- through you, Mr Chair
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead.
CR DEL PORTO:-
- was the skylights to be made opaque.
I think there's probably worries of reflection maybe.
MR SHANE BROWN: I'm not sure what the issue is
because it's a 45 degree angle and they're facing up like that.
So I'm not sure what making them opaque will achieve apart from limiting our view
of the sky and allowing sunlight in.
So there is no point to having an opaque glass to my mind
because it actually stops our view of the sky.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions to Mr Brown?
I've got a question.
Can you explain to us the spa treatment, the pool or the spa equipment?
Is it fully enclosed underground and would you be happy
to provide some acoustic treatment to the equipment?
MR SHANE BROWN: If necessary, absolutely, but what's being proposed
- and I think it was in the report
- that the actual equipment itself is actually at the end of the block
at the end of our property, not near any windows or doors or anything
else.
So it's actually quite a distance away from the spa and any bedrooms impacted
by our neighbours.
So it's an in-ground spa, the equipment is at the end of the block.
I'm not sure of the impact there, but as you say,
there's EPA standards that apply to this.
So I'm not the expert in that space.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Brown.
Yes, I can see the equipment on the drawing, they are at the back
of the block.
MR SHANE BROWN: Yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
Do we have any questions?
You may take your seat.
MR SHANE BROWN: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Samuel-King
- sorry, Mr Brown, we've got a question
here from Councillor Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING : There was one other request
from the neighbours and I think it was non-reflective roofing,
did I hear correctly?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, non-reflective
- basically a matt colour rather than
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, rather than kind of shining in the neighbours' eyes.
Is that something that
- MR SHANE BROWN: Again, with respect, I'm not sure the impact if the roof
is going to be on a 45 degree angle that there's any reflection whatsoever
apart from the sky.
So from their private open space there's a 45 degree angle,
so it should actually reflect to the sky, not down on the ground to where
- CR SAMUEL-KING: I might ask the officers, could I have some advice on that
on the height of the roof?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions to Mr Brown?
CR SAMUEL-KING: No.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You can take your seat and we'll get an answer from the officers.
I think we do have a schedule for the material and they can advise
on this.
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, I would generally agree
with what we just heard.
I would add that I guess it is somewhat subjective
and someone may take a different view as to what's reflective and what's not.
But I would generally agree that with the pitch of the roof, any reflection
is unlikely to project directly into that private open space area.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay, Councillors, I'm in your hands.
Mr Mayor?
CR DEL PORTO: Move as printed.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Move as printed.
Do we have a seconder?
Councillor Castelli.
CR EVANS: I'd like to move an amendment about the
- I think you said it, Councillor, about the
- CR EL MOUALLEM: The pool equipment?
CR EVANS: Yeah, about 4 without the written consent
of the responsible authority, are you happy with that?
Sorry, Mr Mayor.
CR DEL PORTO: No, you're right.
CR EVANS: Just take those words out and I'd be happy to support that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You are saying no plant or equipment to be placed there, okay.
Mr Mayor, are you happy?
CR DEL PORTO: Happy with that.
Thank you for that, Councillor Evans.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Castelli, happy to second?
CR CASTELLI: (Inaudible).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay, thank you.
Mr Mayor, go ahead.
CR DEL PORTO: Look, we have a very small block of land,
290 square metres.
The existing site coverage is already over, it's 56%, so I think we have
to make a judgment call whether we want to allow anything
to be renovated or not there because it is a small block of land,
there's no two ways about it.
But can I just point out to you that the spa issue to me
is not a great concern.
I have a spa in the back of my property and it's not an in-ground spa,
it's aboveground.
I don't
- and I'm not very far from the neighbour.
I've got a small block of land.
I don't think it makes a lot of noise.
This one here is actually even better
because it's in-ground and they've got the equipment somewhere
else.
So I don't think it should be an issue really.
You know, I don't see how it could be
- well, if Mr and Mrs Brown are using it, that's fine, but they're asleep,
then there would be no-one else using it.
So I don't understand how other people's sleep would be disturbed
if the Browns are also asleep, unless they've got more people coming
in using the spa.
So I don't follow the argument there.
So I don't think the spa is an issue.
I think the
- I've asked a question about the equipment on the roof and it sounds
like it won't be too close to the objectors, it will be further up.
The skylights to be opaque
- I didn't get the impression that it would have made any difference
- it would make no difference except to the quality of life
of the Browns, who are actually moving in, and all we're talking
about here is a single-storey extension of the rear, new kitchen, dining
and living area, studio turned to an office.
You know, I think it's, you know
- they could have done more, they could have pulled it all down
and come up with something quite intrusive.
So my way of thinking is actually given the small block of land,
which obviously councils have to make a judgment call there,
I think it's actually quite an acceptable sort of proposal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Councillor Castelli.
CR CASTELLI: Thank you.
I do support this application with that amendment.
It is a small light and what the applicant has tried to do is
to extend the home.
It's a tiny house and I'm pretty sure he wanted to make it more liveable
in there.
So I'm happy with the answers that the Council officer has given me
about the EPA, also happy with the window not being opaque
because it was
- yes, the skylight.
Okay.
I'm not sure about the noise, but as mentioned, if there
is some residual noise, that can be reported, which
is a good thing I think.
But it looks like the EPA has got it under control here.
I just think this is a pretty good application so far.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Any further debate?
Councillor Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I can see both sides of the argument with this one
and I hear the applicant in saying that it could have been
a lot worse, the whole thing could have been knocked
down.
My concern with it is the extent of variation, 25% variation,
and I get that it's a tiny site and I understand why we're allowing that
kind of variation, but if there were no objectors and
if people didn't feel it was going to be impacting on their amenity,
sure, tiny site, fair enough, but what I hear is it is
and that gives me some concern.
I was hoping that the applicant might be a little bit more flexible
in addressing the neighbours' concerns, but unfortunately I'm not hearing that,
so I'd prefer us to refuse it and let the applicant
and neighbours sort it out in mediation where there was more
equitable and constructive dialogue so that these things could be worked on.
So I would argue that we'd be better to just step back and let it go
to mediation.
Maybe it still can.
That's where I stand.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Samuel-King.
Any further debate?
Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: Yeah, these are unusual sites, Mr Chair.
They go from one street to the other.
They have frontages to one street, they have garages to the back and again,
quite an unusual situation that you don't see quite often
in our municipality.
It is a tiny site.
I think
- I do hear what the neighbours have said and I think the accommodation of first of
all the pool pump being at the back of the thing, the back of the site,
is a really good thing.
I think to have it adjacent to the spa is probably not the best thing.
Again, it's respectfully keeping the frontage, which I think
is a very good thing.
It is developing the middle in a single storey, which again, although
- and I hear the arguments about the variation.
There's not much else you can do on blocks like that and similar things are done
with each of the other blocks.
So again, you'd have a very hard argument to convince me that it's
out of neighbourhood character within that particular street.
You know, the frontages to one street are the frontage
of the garages and they turn around, you know, that sort of thing.
So again, it would be a hard point
- if it was going two storeys and a development along there,
I think you'd have a very good point, but I think respectfully doing this
within the middle of the site I think probably gets a tick
from me.
I can see arguments from neighbours and that,
but I think probably we're conditioning it that one of them
about the responsible authority taking that off I think is a better condition
and the equipment at the rear of the thing I think does help.
A difficult site to try and develop in any particular way.
A single storey within the middle I think is probably a good thing.
The 45 degree roof I think also is a very sensible design element.
So again, it would be very hard to knock it back
on neighbourhood character seeing that most of the others have done the
same sort of thing.
So again, I'll be supporting it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Councillor Stitfold, go ahead.
CR STITFOLD: Yes, thank you.
I'd just like to point out on page 105 there is a visual
of both Ebden and Huntley Street and looking at it, there are a number
of other properties around that area that also have
significant site coverage.
I think the one storey is a really adequate response.
Overdevelopment would be two storeys, basements, as has been pointed out.
But the other thing that would be really nice to point out
is that I hope the neighbours will continue to talk to each other
and work out how they can best find a solution.
Talking over the back fence is a very, very important element of our community
and it would be nice that that would continue.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold.
I might just have a question on your comment on page 105.
Can I get an idea about the site coverage of number 3 Huntley Street, please,
and in comparison to what we have on 52 Ebden.
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, the site coverage next door
at number 3 was found to be 73%.
SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Callant, what was that?
CR EL MOUALLEM: 73%.
And the new site coverage for 52 Ebden, how much would that be?
MR CALLANT: Through the Chair, 75%.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So there's 2% variance.
Another question I heard, there was concern from the neighbour
regarding having two dwellings on one site.
Is that possible and if it is to happen, do they need to come back to us?
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, I believe that was referring
to the works in the rear corner, so the small office adjacent
to the car port.
That doesn't contain the required facilities to constitute a dwelling.
It is lacking food preparation facilities.
Given its minimal size, I would be very surprised if they managed
to fit that in and use that as a standalone dwelling.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And if they decide to fit it to make it another dwelling,
do they need to come to council?
MR CALLANT: That's correct, they would need to come to Council
to amend this permit.
And if we're of the mind that it was two dwellings,
that would be a brand-new application rather than simply amending
this in all likelihood.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Michael.
I've heard the debate.
First, I'd like to thank both the applicant
and the objectors for attending the consultation meeting.
There was a slightly different proposal when I attended the meeting and
to be honest, in my opinion, what we have here tonight
is probably more respectful of the amenity of number 3 Huntley.
I did go through number 3 Huntley, which is a beautiful, beautiful house,
but also it went through a renovation where they did extend on the old property
and just seeing now that we've got 73% site coverage versus 75,
I strongly believe, you know, if it's good for one, it's good
for the neighbour too.
Also, I like the idea of
- Councillor Evans mentioned a sensible design element,
having the 45 degree pitch running from the existing fence 700 or 800mm in
and then going up 45 degrees.
I quite
- I think it's an innovative approach and it's not, in my opinion, going
to impact the amenity of the courtyard of number 3 Huntley Street.
I know it's not straightforward, but we really need to look
into the restrictions we have on these sites.
They are 288 square metres.
I've seen some of the two-storey extensions on that street and
they do look ugly.
You know, the street character, the neighbourhood character,
in my opinion should remain as a single level and if we are going
to sacrifice some of the site coverage, in my opinion, this
is a better outcome than putting these tiny second or possibly third-storey
extensions and for this reason I'll be supporting
this application tonight.
Mr Mayor, would you like to close?
CR DEL PORTO: Look, just to say that Councillor Castelli told me
what to say next, which is exactly what you've just said
and what Councillor Stitfold said, that this could have been pulled down and
they could have built a double story, which is a point you made.
And I think looking at visual bulk, I mean, you can't compare it, you know.
As Councillor Evans said, the existing single storey
with this double storey on a small, narrow block of land would have gone
to VCAT, but most likely would have got through.
So I think we should be happy with what we have.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillors, I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour, against, carried.
Thank you.
We'll move to 4.6, 21 to 27 Holyrood Street in Hampton.
We've got one written statement from Ms Bronya Love
and we've got four requests to speak, Mr Roger Vial, Ms Bronya Love,
Mr Jim Westhead on behalf of Hampton RSL Bowls Club,
and Mr Peter Lanigan.
Mr Roger Vial, please come forward.
Please go ahead.
MR ROGER VIAL: Thank you.
Good evening.
I'm Roger Vial.
I live at 2 Hardie Street adjacent to the Hampton RSL bowling green.
My wife and I have lived there for over 24 years and our home
is the closest residence to the bowling green.
We are here tonight because when the floodlights were
installed at the Hampton RSL, the key conditions of the permit issued
in October 2020 were ignored.
All four light towers were installed in the incorrect position,
no baffles were installed, and the club used external
sound amplification equipment, all contrary to the permit.
In November '21 an amended application was rejected by the Council, again
because the proposed antiglare shields were inadequate
and the bowling club wanted to continue to use sound amplification equipment.
With regard to the current proposal, we fervently hope that the proposed new
baffles will work effectively and relieved to see the addition of condition 6,
which will require an independent review of the installation.
We would ask that that should also provide surety that the proposed antiglare shields
are fit for purpose, not only for competition use but for all usage.
We'd also appreciate confirmation as to who will be the responsible authority
on this matter.
It remains our strong preference that the pole in the north-east
corner should be relocated to the correct position
as it has a major impact on our home.
No explanation or justification has been provided as
to why the light poles should not be moved to their approved position.
Failure to correct the position of the light towers would send
an inappropriate message to the community that permit
conditions are negotiable.
The original application showed that the light levels would be
at the maximum permitted levels on our boundary based on the north-east
pole being 6 metres from our boundary.
It is currently 3 metres from our boundary and no updated light intensity information
has been provided to residents (buzzer sounds).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Vial.
Any questions to the speaker?
No questions.
We call Ms Bronya Love, please.
You can go ahead.
MS BRONYA LOVE: Good evening.
I live at 4 Hardie Street, Hampton with my partner and my young child.
Number 2 Hardie Street, where Roger and Wendy live, is a property
between ourselves and the RSL bowling green.
I'd ask the Councillors to refer to my written statement which is
at the end of the request to be heard document for some context
and also for some photos.
The current bowling green lights shine directly into our living room
through two large double glass sliding doors, rendering the space unusable while
the lights are on.
All of our living, dining, kitchen spaces are accessed via this
living room.
This living room is also my office space from which I work full time
and I frequently work evenings when the lights will be permitted to be used.
Our concern is that the property
- as our property is not considered adjoining land
under condition 4 and the lighting report recommending
the shields has not considered our quality at all.
We've not had any lighting inspector visit our property
to address our particular concerns with regards to horizontal light spill
and glare.
We would like to see condition 4 changed from adjoining land to affected properties
to ensure that our property is considered if we are adversely affected.
Our other objection is around condition 5, which we believe is ambiguous
in that it effectively gives permission for the RSL to use sound amplification at
all other times except when the lights are turned on.
We would like to see this clarified to prevent sound amplification being used
preferably on the bowling green at all times or
within restricted time limits.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Ms Love.
Do we have any questions for the speaker?
CR EVANS: Just a quick question.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
CR EVANS: I missed where you were.
MS BRONYA LOVE: We live at 4 Hardie Street, Hampton,
so we have one property between ourselves
- 4 Hardie.
CR EVANS: So it's the one adjacent to
- MS BRONYA LOVE: Yes, adjacent to number 2.
CR EVANS: Yes, so there's two adjacent and then you're the next one up?
MS BRONYA LOVE: Just number 2 is between us, just one property
- CR EVANS: Yes, I've got it on page 11.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Martin has got a question.
CR MARTIN: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Have you investigated or trialled vegetation at the end of your block?
PERSON IN THE GALLERY: (Inaudible).
CR MARTIN: Mr Chair.
MS BRONYA LOVE: We actually have ocean views.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Order, please.
Thank you.
MS BRONYA LOVE: Sorry.
So there is nowhere that we could put vegetation.
So our house is an upside-down house.
All of our living room, dining and kitchen is upstairs.
Our doors go on to a deck and then below the deck there's just a sideway
which is just concrete.
There's no garden bed in which we could put vegetation.
We also have ocean views in that direction, so that would obviously
- even if we were able to put vegetation, it would, you know
- we wouldn't be able to see the ocean anymore
and also the sunset, we get beautiful sunset views.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions to the speaker?
Councillor Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING : You mentioned that the living room was
unusable when the lights were on.
In what way do the lights make it unusable or less usable?
MS BRONYA LOVE: The lights
- and you can see from the pictures that I've sent in
- are at
- basically if I'm standing up, they are shining right in my eyes.
There's also considerable glare from the lights which bounces off all
of our walls.
Even if we put our blinds down, we can't possibly, you know, restrict all
of that light from coming into our house because we have two large sliding doors
that we need to be able to access, so it would be very difficult for us
to put any kind of window coverings which would completely
cover that light, and nor do I think that we should have to.
If the baffles had been installed as was in the initial permit,
then perhaps we wouldn't have this issue.
At the moment there are no baffles on the lights at all.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
Okay, let's see if there's any more questions
to the speaker.
Any further questions?
No, not to the speaker.
CR DEL PORTO: Not to the speaker, no.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You may take your seat and we'll take questions to the officers.
Councillor Samuel-King first and then
- CR DEL PORTO: Sure.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So Mr Cripps, I'm wondering has the amenity
of property number 4 been considered and have the baffles that are suggested
been looked at as to whether they would actually address number 4's
concerns or if not, is there anything that we can do?
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, the issue that is currently faced
by the property owner at number 4 is as a result
of the current lights not actually having baffles in place,
so the current application and the current proposition in front
of you is considering the lighting, the light spill,
we've had a lighting plan provided which will require baffles to be installed
to address the light spill outside of the site.
So the amenity issue has been
- from an officer perspective and based on the advice we've received
from lighting specialists, will address the amenity issues
experienced by the neighbouring properties.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Mr Mayor, you've got a question?
CR DEL PORTO: Just to clarify, the lighting poles were previously
approved and this application is an amendment to ensure the lighting is
in compliance with the Australian Standards
with the baffling.
So the poles are already there and we're saying if you have
- and I understand the concerns that people have, but they have a concern
about things that happened in the past.
Is that correct?
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, a planning permit was issued for lighting
on this site.
The lighting poles have been erected in the incorrect location
and have not been installed in accordance with the expectations
- ie, baffling and the like.
This application is seeking to obtain approval and
to maintain the location of the poles to bring them into compliance as well
as deal with the light spill issues that we've heard from some
of the speakers this evening.
CR DEL PORTO: And through you, Mr Chair
- so the application is seeking to utilise the existing poles
with additional baffling that will address the issue of lighting?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I understand it's retrospective approval for what
they have done.
CR DEL PORTO: I understand, yes.
So that is what you're proposing anyway?
MR CRIPPS: That is correct.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions to the officers?
We'll go Councillor Stitfold first.
CR STITFOLD: If the pole was moved as the objector said,
would there be any repercussions?
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, it might be a question that the permit
- my best answer, though given my history with this I would have knowledge that
if you move one pole, there's a strong likelihood that you're
going to have to move all of the other poles in order
to distribute the light evenly along the court.
So I don't think it would be as simple as moving one light pole.
If you did move one, I dare say there would be a requirement
to move all four.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor Samuel-King, you've got a question too?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Two questions.
If the baffling didn't work and the affected properties still had
issues, is there something that can be done
about that?
That's my first question.
And the second is is it reasonable for us to change the wording rather than
- from neighbouring properties to "affected properties"?
CR EL MOUALLEM: An answer from Michael?
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, the questions kind of tie in
with each other in that condition 4 can be amended
to limit the effect on not only the adjoining land
but surrounding land.
The issue with relying on that so as to prevent any adverse effect is that that
is somewhat subjective.
The main enforcement tool we have is condition 6 that does require it
to be installed and operate to a specific standard,
so beyond compliance with that standard it will be difficult for us
to guarantee an outcome just to someone's satisfaction,
to an individual's satisfaction.
The best we can do is ensure that it does comply
with the relevant Australian Standards, which we have required there
in condition 6.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
We call Mr Jim Westhead, please, to the table.
MR JIM WESTHEAD: Good evening.
I'll try and be very brief and beat the 2 minutes.
I've been involved in the RSL for a long time, over 50 years,
and I'm speaking mainly about the RSL community.
I think it's been clearly noted that this, being the third planning
- amended planning permit, addresses the required lighting standards
and in fact once the new baffling has been installed on the lights,
it's going to be checked by an independent.
So there's no question that these lights meet Australian Standards at the end
of this.
I just wanted to speak about the RSL community.
This isn't just for 300 or 400 bowlers.
The RSL has nearly gone under many times.
The bowls club represents over 55% of the RSL's income.
If it wasn't for the way the bowls club supports
the RSL, things like veterans' families, the fact that the RSL supplies chair lifts
, air conditioning to veterans and war widows' units,
we help senior veterans, we help with hospital appointments and fees.
We help with a lot of medical bills for people who can't afford it,
even provide lawn mowing.
I don't think I have to talk about what we do on Anzac Day
to try and look after
- not just commemorate our vets, but look after the war widows, et cetera.
We provide taxis, we provide service for Bayley House
and other community organisations and we pride ourselves on that.
That's why we need to extend our bowling time
by a minimum amount on Tuesday nights basically
to make sure that the RSL stays alive and can keep helping the community
the way it does.
(Buzzer sounds).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much, Jim.
Do we have any questions to the speaker?
You may take your seat, please, and we call Mr Peter Lanigan, please.
MR PETER LANIGAN: I am Peter Lanigan.
I'm the past President of the Hampton RSL, which has been established
at its current location in Hampton for 68 years.
The planning application was commenced some three years ago.
We did not comply with the original planning
permit conditions accidentally.
Negotiations with lighting consultants have been
extensive and extended through the COVID lockdown period
and it took us an extraordinary time to find a solution which has been met now
and agreed between Council's external consultants
and ours.
The activation of the lighting installed will provide for additional use
and Jim Westhead has made reference to that.
During this period of negotiation with consultants,
the Hampton RSL was under threat of fines of up to $250,000 for non-compliance.
Now, those fines were never enacted and we appreciate that,
but it was very unnerving to us to go through this extensive period of two years
with that fine threat hanging over us.
So we were pretty much prepared to do anything
and we did what two independent consultants have agreed should be done
and that's now specified in the proposed planning permit amendments.
So we acknowledge the conditions have
- that is, planning permit conditions have changed
from what they were
- and we accept that.
So on behalf of the members and the supporters of the Hampton RSL,
we seek your approval to the amendments to the planning permit so that
we can continue to do the work, the good work which I know some of you are
aware of at the Hampton RSL.
And I thank you for your attention (buzzer sounds)
and that's the end of my time.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much.
We might have some questions.
Do we have any questions for Peter?
No.
I've got a question.
So just tell me why was it that you did not comply
with the original conditions on these locations originally?
What was the accident, how did it happen?
MR PETER LANIGAN: Well, it happened because we were advised
by our then planning consultant through the construction contractor that
the baffles wouldn't be needed.
With these lamps that we're using, they're called vertex lamps,
he told us that would provide
- they would provide the baffle within themselves due to the shape
of the lights.
It's not a big bowl, it's not the balloon type thing,
it's a rectangle special designed thing.
So we said, "Oh, gee, that's good, that will be good",
bearing in mind that I always knew that there was a permit condition
that said that the lighting baffling must comply with Council requirements.
When we actually launched the lights, and there were members
of you who were present for that, we got a bit of a shock
to hear the following day that there'd been a report that they were
in non-compliance with the permit condition.
Coincidence maybe.
So then we set about asking the Council's compliance
officer what do we need to do to comply?
How do we make these lights that our consultants have told us do comply
- can you tell us how we make them comply?
The Council compliance officer couldn't tell us.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I think I get
- MR PETER LANIGAN: The response was, "Put them up and we'll tell you
if they're okay."
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay, so that's regarding the lighting, but what
about the location of the light poles?
MR PETER LANIGAN: Yes, the location of the light poles were altered,
again at the recommendation of the consultant to the contractor,
so that there was a more balanced light spill on the four corners
of the green.
There are four light poles, they're located generally at the corners
of the green, and the adjustment was made to the dimensions on the approved plan
to improve
- the approved plan to improve the spill of light and reduce the spillage
over the boundary line.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay.
MR PETER LANIGAN: We took that again, that advice on face value
from our consultants.
Since then there have been
- that issue of the actual location of the poles
as constructed has been reconsidered by consultants for both parties.
The responsible authority's consultants and the applicant's consultants have
agreed.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much.
You might take your seat.
Councillors, I'm in your hands.
Councillor Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I'd like to move as printed.
CR DEL PORTO: Second that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Councillor Samuel-King, would you like to debate?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
First, the Hampton RSL has my full support and yet that's not the key issue here.
But before I move beyond that point, I think I want to remember the death
of our Queen, the new King, and the fact that the RSL represents
people who have served Queen and country, I doubt any have served King and country
as yet, and they deserve our full and wholehearted support.
And it's not just the service of Queen and country,
but also vulnerable people.
It's a fantastic community organisation and I am so glad to hear that none
of those fines were ever acted upon.
I think that would have been a terrible thing.
So I will put all of that to one side and look at the application on its merits.
I think it's really important that neighbours' amenity is protected
and I really feel if we were allowing a proposal to go through that was going
to allow that kind of spill into the future
to really make a living space unusable, I just couldn't support it, but I have
to take the advice of the officers that those issues have
been attended to.
Now, if that is not the case, then I'd really want to know about it,
but as far as I can tell everything that needs to be done
to protect the neighbours' amenity has been done, so I am more than happy
to move as printed.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Samuel-King.
Councillor Castelli.
CR CASTELLI: Thank you.
I echo those sentiments from Councillor King, very well done
with that.
I'm a great belief of the Hampton Bowling Club.
They're fantastic at what they do, very, very good people.
Now, going back to the application, I'm looking at the recommendation that
the officers have done and I believe that the conditions
highlighted here encapsulates everything that persuaded me to vote
to actually support this.
I understand and I just thank the objectors as well
as the applicants.
Thank you for that.
But I'm hoping that once this has been accommodated, the objectors
will be appeased and everyone will be happy
- I'm hoping, I'm hoping with that.
So I believe that this conditions will limit the obtrusive lights
to the objectors.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Mr Mayor.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Look, I mean, a mistake was made.
They made a mistake.
You know, Mr Lanigan explained the situation
and I respect that.
Mr Westhead came up with a very passionate argument
about the RSL club in Hampton, which is a very good community and family club,
and the fact that not a planning consideration but nevertheless
they are really keen to keep going with the bowls
because it gives them some funding.
And don't forget this club chose to divest themselves
of pokies a few years ago as well, so I think they've chosen the hard way
to go about it and they've done well.
The baffling should address the issue and, as Councillor Castelli said,
condition 6 says that once it's been installed, the baffling is installed,
if there are still additional light spill, the baffles should be
- there should be additional baffling installed.
So let's see how it goes.
If it needs more, well, it's going to have to be assessed
by a qualified lighting consultant.
So either way, it's going to be addressed.
So for that reason, I think that this club has suffered plenty
for the last few years' mistakes and I think that they deserve
to finally have the access to the bowls club that they need
to be able to sustain themselves in the next few years.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Yes, I support everything that the mover and seconder and the Mayor have said.
I was there actually when the poles were there and I did talk
to the officer that was concerned and Mr Lanigan at that particular time
and there was genuine remorse that they did not do the right thing
at the particular time.
They were getting advice from their consultant.
It was a genuine
- he told me
- looked me in the eye and told me it was a genuine mistake
and I accepted that.
Again, I think now the
- and I think it's wonderful when people come and say that, you know,
that's what's happened and are frank and truthful about it
and I can confirm that that was a true remorse that the club had.
Again, recommendations from our officers are 4,
5 and 6 really do crunch anything that probably should allay the fears
of any of the neighbours and again formally use the competitive
purposes for those light poles, they will be checked
and I don't think that we can condition anything more than that.
Let me say Mr Westhead and Mr Lanigan don't have
to tell this council how good the RSL are.
I think they know they have the support of this council.
Most RSLs have the support of this council for the work that they do in the community
and on a broader sense.
So again, whilst not a planning issue, it does come into a fact where people come
to this council and tell you genuine things
and I support that.
So I support this.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Yeah, look, you know, I listened to Mr Vial
and his objections tonight, but really when you look at the history
of the RSL and what's been going on, I think that they've done everything that
they have been expected to do.
They took advice and it didn't come to fruition those particular globes
that were the design feature.
That RSL has been there for 68 years and I sometimes think what would happen
if it closed, like many RSLs in the suburbs have closed?
And it would be an absolute disaster.
It would be a disaster.
And the suburban RSLs of Melbourne are going
through a transition and the ones like Hampton, who are understanding,
who can see the future, the future is not in pokies,
it's embracing their community, providing services and going beyond what
they were doing and really partnering with the community.
And I think that just the demonstration of seeing, you know,
two members of the RSL here tonight speaking
passionately, reminding us all of what this is all about.
And I think I agree with Councillor Evans that, you know, we don't need to be told,
we know, but it is really important for us to hear this regularly
on what these RSLs do because they do it often without any
- under the radar.
The amount of support that these RSLs provide
without anyone knowing at all is absolutely a testament to the members
and many of those members are veterans that do it or their partners.
So not only they serve the country, like Councillor Samuel-King has said.
They've gone on to serve again and again looking after their mates,
looking after their mates and their families and other members
of the community that have joined the RSL as affiliates or as social members.
So I really do
- I'm really pleased that this has been presented like it is
and that the RSL has reached out to the council.
They want to become fully compliant because they are the exemplars
of our local community clubs.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Any further debate?
No further debate.
I'd just like to say there seems to be a bit of history behind this one
and I do agree with absolutely everything said
about the RSL and the good work they are doing,
but we do have some residents that got impacted with what was installed
against the conditions of a permit and that's the reason it is here tonight.
Nevertheless, I got assurance from our officers and the experts,
I understand they did seek external consultant,
lighting consultant advice and condition 6 here,
I was assured that it is going to make the existing lighting once it's
baffled compliant and we will be expecting a report to come to us
to confirm this.
Based on what I heard from the officers and the condition 6 here on paper
and I can see that the RSL want to make things better
with their neighbours and I'm pretty sure they'll do the
right thing and for this reason I'm happy to support it tonight.
Councillor Samuel-King, would you like to close?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
Firstly, absolutely an exemplar of a community organisation.
I think we have seven Councillors in hearty agreement about that.
But I do have just one final question of the officers.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Go ahead, Ms Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING : There was an objection raised
about noise or sound amplification and a suggestion that we could perhaps
impose some kind of permit that would make sound
amplification, just ban all 24/7.
I'm assuming that wouldn't be suitable because this is a lighting application.
Am I correct in that regard?
CR EL MOUALLEM: We'll get just confirmation from Michael on this.
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, that's correct.
The change to condition 5 essentially corrected
an error on the original permit.
We should never have restricted the noise that's not associated
with these light poles because ultimately all this application is doing
is approving the light poles.
So to place restrictions on any activity that wasn't associated
with the light poles would have been incorrect because there was no nexus.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Michael.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
I just wanted to explain to the objectors that it's just not
reasonable or correct for us to kind of expand or spill out our permit
beyond what is relevant
- or permit controls what is relevant to this application and what's important
about this application now is it is compliant and ought
to protect residents' amenity whilst allowing the Hampton RSL to be able to get
on with their good work.
And I echo the sentiments of I think two other Councillors.
I am entirely supportive of the fact that the Hampton RSL has moved
away from pokies.
I think that's absolutely fabulous.
It's a great community organisation that is not leading
to lots more gambling problems and needs to be entirely supported
and I hope the residents can join in.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Samuel-King.
I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour.
SPEAKER: Division, Mr Chair.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Division is called.
All those in favour
- Councillor Castelli, Mr Mayor, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Samuel-King, Councillor Stitfold,
Councillor El Mouallem, against, carried.
We'll move to 4.7, 1/44 Tramway Parade, Beaumaris and we've got one request
to speak from Dr Bronwyn Ridgway.
Thank you, doctor.
Please come forward.
We've got some material to the governance.
DR BRONWYN RIDGWAY: We are here this evening to ask Council not
to approve this roof deck application.
Our units, number 2 and 3 44 Tramway Parade are immediately
behind unit 1 and our principal outlook is towards unit 1.
This is the direction that we look out to every day.
This is where we sit in the sun and relax.
This is where we eat and this is where we sleep.
Any person standing on this roof deck will be able to see directly
into our habitable rooms and we will be left looking
at an ugly box sitting on top of the roof next door.
Our privacy and amenity will be very much affected each
and every day for a roof deck that will be barely used given Melbourne's
climate.
Despite our original objections to Council, officers did not seek
to see how we are impacted by the development or to consult with us
about how the development would be to us and we are dismayed that they state
in their report that there will be no unreasonable amenity impacts
upon the adjoining properties or visual bulk.
This is not the case.
If you look at the photo, you can see what my rather home-made
impression of what it will look like is going to be.
They also state there are no structures or elements that exceed 1.7 metres.
This is also not the case.
The whole structure is elevated above the current roof level about 500mm
and then the walls are 1.7 metres above this.
The overall structure therefore must exceed the mandated maximum height
of 1.7 metres.
Section 6.1 of the report also states the setbacks of 2 metres
from the roof edge.
However, the only dimension plan, TPO9, does not show that this is the case
for two of the four directions, so this 2 is not the case.
The permit requirements state the roof deck must be designed to limit views
and must not have elements greater than 1.7 metres.
DDO1 goes to say a permit cannot be granted
to construct a building or construct any works which are not in accordance
with these requirements and we therefore ask that given (buzzer
sounds) Council does not
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Dr Ridgway.
Do you have any questions?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, I do.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Go ahead, Mr Mayor.
CR DEL PORTO: Dr Ridgway, could you tell me your address?
I've got a map.
DR BRONWYN RIDGWAY: 2 and 3 44 Tramway.
CR DEL PORTO: Right, thank you.
DR BRONWYN RIDGWAY: And we have an upside-down unit in unit 2, so we look
out pretty much at eye level across to the top of unit 1.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Are there any further questions to the speaker?
Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Just with that upside-down model, is there any other amenity impacts
of the unit next door to this?
DR BRONWYN RIDGWAY: Well, the unit next door has a bedroom,
so it's a very similar
- in fact, it's a more intrusive view into that bedroom,
but a very similar view to that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
Dr Ridgway, you may take your seat.
Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Yes, just a couple of questions, technical questions,
that's been raised tonight about the compliance to the height levels
of the structure.
I think what was raised was that the overall height is above 1.7 by 500mm
because of the way they've used the internal construction material.
Is that correct?
CR EL MOUALLEM: We'll get clarification.
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, we're just checking that.
We'll just take that on notice.
CR EL MOUALLEM: What's your second question, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: The other question I have is this phrase that's been put
into the report on page 172 and I think we just heard it, it says
"suitably setback from adjoining properties (upon compliance
with permit conditions), the street",
so this is the street, "and will result in no unreasonable amenity impacts".
What is unreasonable?
What's the criteria to use the word "unreasonable"?
It seems very subjective.
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, yes, I would agree there is a degree
of subjectivity to that.
When assessing the application, we're looking for one at the setbacks
of the roof deck in terms of it being sufficiently set back
to limit views into neighbouring properties requiring
the 2 metres set back in, the 1.7 metre screening,
so those are things that have been taken into account when
we've assessed this application.
CR MARTIN: And just if I may, Mr Chair, just one last question.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, go ahead, Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: I've got a question here regarding the way we communicate
to neighbours when they're on a property about using a notice of planning
and building application for subdivisions and owners corporations.
Was that complied with?
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, so this application is
on private property, it's not on common land,
so it would not require any consent from an owner's corporation.
CR MARTIN: Okay, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We might have an answer for your first question too.
Do you have an answer for his first question?
MR CALLANT: So through the Chair, going back to the potential issue
about where the 1.7 is measured from, going through the wording of the overlay,
it would indicate that the 1.7 metres is measured from the floor level
of the roof rather than the original element of roof form as was suggested
by the speaker.
So there's no issue in terms of this one being non-compliant
with that aspect of the overlay.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Mr Mayor, you've got a question?
CR DEL PORTO: I've got a question, just to clarify for me, how far away
is the proposed roof deck from the objectors' property in units 2
and 3, please?
I've seen the photos.
I'm trying to work out
- CR EL MOUALLEM: It's outside the 9 metres I can see.
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, it's about 14.8 from the edge
of the roof deck to the neighbour's property, built
from the neighbour's property.
CR DEL PORTO: 14 metres?
DR FARRAND: Yes.
CR DEL PORTO: Right, okay.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillors, I'm in your hands.
CR MARTIN: I'm happy to move with an amendment.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Moved with an amendment and can you please read it,
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, I can, "that Council resolves to issue a Notice
of Decision to ... install
- sorry, I'll have to have it on the screen, sorry.
Yes, condition 1(b), "that screening on the south-eastern
boundary of the roof deck to have a minute minimum height of 1.7m
above finished floor level with no greater than 25% transparency".
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
CR EVANS: Happy to second.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And seconded by Councillor Evans.
Councillor Martin, would you like to
- CR MARTIN: Yes, just before I debate, I just want one other question resolved
for me and that's the compliance of the internal staircase to this deck.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'm not sure if this is a planning matter or a building matter,
but we'll get clarification.
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, that will be covered
under the building regulations.
CR MARTIN: Under the building inspector.
Okay, thank you very much for that.
And just by the way, is that subservient to the planning permit?
DR FARRAND: So through the Chair, they need to have a planning permit before
they can actually get a building permit and then anything where they're basically
showing the same thing, the building permit has to comply
with the planning permit.
CR MARTIN: And so those building permits in relation to staircases
to these roof decks would require to be complied with in their
- DR FARRAND: In terms of any access structures, yes.
CR MARTIN:-
- you know, their angle and design and all of that?
CR EL MOUALLEM: The stepped widths and the rises and all this
and the handrails.
CR MARTIN: The handrails, rises.
So to get up there, they're going to have to comply.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
CR MARTIN: Okay.
Because that's important I think.
Look, we've seen the photos and that screen that we are proposing
to put in, you just draw the line above the kind of head there
and you can sort of see what we're putting in there.
We're 3 metres or 5 metres short of the 9 metres, but the 9 metres
is really looking down into people's back yards
and when you have these upsidedown situations that these objectors have
come to tonight, they're like that is their main
- what you're looking there is their main
- I've been in there.
It's their main living room.
They've got a balcony where they live outdoor.
And so, you know, they're going to lose a lot here.
They're losing all that sky forever, they're going to have this screen.
This is a much better outcome, of course, because a 1.1 metre,
they would be literally looking down.
It's not that far 14 metres.
It really isn't that far.
It would be just pretty weird to see people up there watching the view
and looking down on these people's amenity.
But I'm reluctant to refuse it tonight because I think that we might lose
the 1.7 screen.
So that's why I've gone with this, but I'm really disappointed that,
you know, when these sorts of things get approved, this
is three units on a block two storeys, like look at the sheer wall there,
and then here we are 10 years later mission creep, let's put a roof deck
on, after all what would have gone through this council 10 years ago
to make sure that everyone was sort of happy.
So these are the consequences of these type of decisions.
It can really affect the unintended consequences because it is a 9 metre
and you've got to comply with that.
So that's why I'm going with this recommendation.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: Thank you, yes, I'm supporting.
Again, it's one of those where it's not mandatory,
you don't have to do it.
It is a thing I think where Councillor Martin has made a subjective view
of either refusing or getting something that is better for the amenity
of the neighbours and I think he's done a good job with that and I support that
because I do think it's a balanced and a better outcome rather than
a refusal, where you may not get anything.
So again, the applicant may just sort of say, "I don't want
to do this, don't want to do that",
so again, I think it's a balanced view and I think it's a better one
for the residents around.
So I support it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Any further debate on this?
Mr Mayor, go ahead.
CR DEL PORTO: I hear what's been said and I was supportive
of the extra condition that Councillor Martin has included,
but I've never had a great love for roof decks.
I know that I'm typecast a bit with council officers and I was going
to support it, but I'm thinking to myself the more Councillor Martin was
arguing that 10 years ago we would have
- well, maybe it was me, but we would have approved that
without thinking about the roof deck at the time and roof decks on townhouses,
you know, that are designed that way are even more
intrusive I think.
And I hear what's been said that it will go to VCAT, who knows what
will happen.
On the other hand, I mean, if it goes to VCAT we don't know what might happen.
They might refuse it or they might include the condition that
we want to put in as well.
If we don't like it, we shouldn't really support it.
We don't have to support this.
So now I'm thinking that maybe I'd like to see it refused, from my point of view,
just because, you know
- I mean, you know, I can see the photo, I know that it's an approximation, but it
is really going to be in the faces of the people at the rear
and it certainly wasn't something that would have been raised 10 years ago.
I don't remember it, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been.
So I don't know, I'm thinking that I might actually
foreshadow a refusal of this on the ground that the impact
of the development on the coastal environment
is considered unsatisfactory.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Any further debate?
Councillor Stitfold, please go ahead.
CR STITFOLD: I'm actually really pleased that the Mayor has foreshadowed that
because I just think the visual bulk is very confronting and I would like to
- if it does go to VCAT, I'd like to have it tested there on the visual bulk
and I'm wondering if we can put an additional condition
in there it's not just for the coastal, foreshadow an additional condition so that
we're actually looking at the visual bulk as well.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, thank you, Councillor Stitfold.
Any further debate.
Councillor Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING: If we're going to refuse it, surely overlooking
is another grounds upon which we'd be refusing it.
We can discuss it.
CR EVANS: If this loses, we can debate that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'm probably one person who knows more about roof decks than any
of you here because I went to VCAT against one and I actually lost it.
They removed the screen, which was a part of the condition
of the original roof deck.
And for this reason I much prefer not to support the screen at all and not
to support the roof deck.
So I'll be of the position to not support it.
I understand, Councillor Martin, you're trying to reach a compromise
between the two, but from my own experience, once a roof deck
is there and the screen is there, they can go to VCAT
and remove the screen even if it's installed.
Now, I'll put this
- I'll get you to close, Councillor Martin, and put it to a vote and all those
in favour of the screen.
No-one in favour.
All those against.
CR EVANS: That's a first.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And it's failed.
With that, we need an alternate motion, foreshadowed motion from Mr Mayor,
which is?
CR MARTIN: I'm happy to move the refusal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Refusal, yes.
CR EVANS: Happy to second.
CR DEL PORTO: Oh, sorry, just with
- we've got the second point was going to be contributes to visual bulk.
I'm not sure that we can have any more because I'm not sure that it's
- I think it is compliant with setback, so I'm not sure we can include
that setback thing.
But I'm asking Council officers
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Can we just have some words, please, Councillor Martin,
if you don't mind?
CR MARTIN: Well, for the overlooking?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Overlooking and visual bulk.
CR DEL PORTO: The one they say, the impact of the development
on the coastal environment is considered unsatisfactory.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Samuel-King, you've got a question while
we're working on this?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, overlooking seems to be the major issue,
so surely it would be refusing on that ground.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We're including overlooking and visual bulk.
Satisfied with this, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Yes, I'm happy.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Would you like to debate at all?
CR MARTIN: I think we've debated this one.
I'm happy with those words.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay, we'll put this to the vote then.
All those in favour.
CR DEL PORTO: Division.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Division is called.
Councillor Castelli, Mr Mayor, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Samuel-King, Councillor Stitfold,
Councillor El Mouallem, against, carried.
Thank you.
We'll move to 4.8, which is 90 Outer Crescent, Brighton.
And Councillors, you would be aware that the permit applicant formally
withdrew this application.
All objecting parties have been notified of this update.
Therefore, an amended officers' recommendation
is now shown on the screen that withdraws the item from tonight's agenda.
Can I have a mover, Councillors?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, Mr Chair, I'd like to move as printed
on the screen that Council knows that the permit applicant has withdrawn permit
application 2022/71/1 for the land known and described as 90 Outer Crescent,
Brighton.
They no longer seek to pursue the proposal and 2, withdraws the item from the agenda
for this meeting.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Can I have a seconder?
Councillor Castelli.
Would you like to debate it or we just go on?
CR DEL PORTO: No, I don't think
- it's a very good outcome.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any debate?
We put this to vote.
All those in favour, against, carried.
We move to 4.9, 69 Park Road in Cheltenham.
And we've got one request to speak from Ms Emma Regos.
Ms Emma, please come forward.
MS EMMA REGOS: Hi, I'm Emma from 24A Correa Avenue, or also known
as unit 2, 24 Correa Avenue, which is located
on the laneway directly opposite of this proposed development.
So the balcony and large windows on bedroom 2 on the second storey
of unit 3 would invade privacy, my privacy.
It would look directly into my master bedroom of my property
as well as my private open space.
The wooden screening would be insufficient as it does not appear to be solid
and potentially easily removable.
The rest of the windows along unit 1 are far less obtrusive than
what's on unit 3.
Also with the proposed pavement to the end of the boundary of the property
of the laneway a small portion of the laneways will still be unpaved.
Increased traffic on the laneway because of these three units would lead
to further deterioration of the unpaved section of the laneway
and further potholes and tripping hazards, especially at night,
where you cannot see the potholes on the laneway as it's completely dark
which will then directly be outside my house where the pavement
will end.
This can be seen at the entrance from Correa Avenue on
to the laneway where the sudden stop of concrete to dirt
is a real tripping hazard to the point where council
is constantly needing to come and fix it.
Another issue that I'm not sure if I can object to is the parking.
Three dwellings on the single property will make it ineligible
for parking permits.
Two car spaces for three
- or four-bedroom townhouses is insufficient and will likely lead
to illegal parking or hanging out on to the laneway (buzzer sounds).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you Ms Regos.
Do we have any questions to the speaker?
You may take your seat.
CR EVANS: Question to the officers.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You can take your seat, Ms Regos.
CR EVANS: I thought this was just an amendment to the floor of the balcony
of unit 4 and some of the things that Ms Regos has said
don't gel with what the application is.
Would you help me with that, please?
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, that is correct.
This is an amendment application.
What you are considering is the first floor balcony to bedroom 4
of unit 1 and the removal of conditions 8 and 9 relating
to the neighbouring tree directly to the north as that's been removed
to facilitate a development on that site.
Issues that were raised around car parking and the impact on the laneway,
they were considered at the original application.
They're not up for consideration tonight.
CR EVANS: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Dr Farrand.
Any further questions?
CR EVANS: I move the recommendation.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So
- sorry, Councillor Samuel-King.
CR EVANS: Oh, sorry, have you got a question?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, can I ask for some clarification.
On page 245, the third dot point, "removal of conditions 8 and 9 from the permit
as the neighbouring tree to the north of Unit 3 has been removed"
- just to clarify, does that mean that the tree
is gone so that's no longer relevant, is that correct?
DR FARRAND: Through the Chair, that is correct, yes.
That tree was removed under another application on that site.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Okay.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
CR EVANS: So sorry, we're just talking about the extension of a balcony
and I hear what Ms Regos has said, but unfortunately this planning permit is
about an application to extend the balcony.
So I've moved.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You've moved.
Thank you, Councillor Evans.
CR DEL PORTO: I second.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
CR EVANS: Again, I hear the complaints that Ms Regos has
about parking and all those, but should have been
and were addressed in the original one.
This is an extension of just a balcony between
- on unit 3, as I recall
- sorry, 4, unit 4, and really it's an amendment to a permit,
so again, not a lot of amenity lost for any of the neighbours that I can see.
So I'll support it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans, Mr Mayor?
CR DEL PORTO: No, thanks.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate?
Councillor Evans, would you like to close?
CR EVANS: No.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour, against, carried.
We move on to 4.10.
Councillors, you will be aware that the permit applicant,
which in this instance is Bayside City Council,
formally withdrew this application to carry out further investigation.
An amended officers' recommendation is now shown on the screen that withdraws
the item from tonight's agenda.
Can I have a mover?
Moved Councillor Stitfold
- CR EVANS: Second.
CR EL MOUALLEM:-
- and Councillor Evans.
Would you like to debate it, Councillor Stitfold?
Or Councillor Evans, any further debate?
CR EVANS: No, good withdrawal.
I like the applicant.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
That's good to know.
Councillor Stitfold, would you like to close?
CR STITFOLD: I like the applicant too.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Okay.
We'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour, against, carried.
4.11, 2-6 Fern Street, Black Rock and there is nil request to be heard.
Councillors, I'm in your hands.
CR EVANS: I move an alternative motion.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
CR EVANS: Mr Chair, "Council resolves to approve the amended plans
identified 1904 DDO3, DDO4 both Revision 6 and Finishes Schedule Revision 3, prepared
by Zen Architects and dated",
blah, blah, blah, "in accordance with secondary consent provisions
the planning permit subject to the following changes: 1, the colours
and materials shown to show the roof cladding
to be BlueScope Lysaght Spandek in Colorbond finish and deletion
of the solid 1.5 fencing to the south of building, retention
of the open style fencing as shown previously in endorsed plans,
and then when the plans are endorsed",
the same things there and the plans 3 to 6 of six plans endorsed be superseded.
So they're the technical things.
But the main things are the colour of the deck and the open-style fencing.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Do I have a seconder?
Mr Mayor.
Councillor Evans, would you like to debate?
CR EVANS: Again, Mr Chair, I've had enormous support
from the officers for a couple of these changes.
They were changes to support a reduction in costings from the original applicant
and again as an architect and in my ward I see the beauty
of a nice coloured fence and a nice
- sorry, a nice colour roof and a nice colour
- a nice open fence.
The roof
- I wouldn't mind
- normally mind being Zincalume if it wasn't seen, but it is set down.
It's quite a beautiful building by Zen Architects.
It's had a lot of input from myself and the neighbours as far as
to keep the lovely gum trees that are there so we get a very good ingress
and egress but also the vegetation that's
on the south-east side.
So a lot of thought has gone into this and I think the little touches that
the architect has had about the fencing and the colour of the roof I think are
important as far as architectural things, so I hope it gets some support, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Mr Mayor, would you like
- CR DEL PORTO: I support the Councillor in his quest for beauty.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Any further debate.
Councillor Samuel-King.
CR SAMUEL-KING: A question for officers, page 375,
I'm hoping you've got something that's legible for me.
The landscaping plan.
Page 375 of 718, otherwise I'm going to need cataract surgery or a magnifying
glass.
CR EL MOUALLEM: This application, Councillors, is probably not
- there is no landscape
- is there any landscape changes?
There's no modifications.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So no landscaping, so it's not relevant.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, it's not relevant.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Okay, that's fine.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Sorry, Councillor.
SPEAKER: Beautiful tree is kept.
CR STITFOLD: From what I can read, I think, if my eyes are correct,
then I'd be happy with the planting plan anyway,
but just a reminder to officers I'd love legible landscape
plans.
So because I can read some fantastic indigenous plants and trees in there
and everything else and Councillor Evans' request
and seeking of beauty, which I completely support, happy
to support as amended.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor King.
Any further debate?
I'd just like to have a little comment here.
I understand the project manager about value engineering,
but in this instance I don't believe there's much money to save,
so I do respect Councillor Evans' architectural view and
for this reason I'll be very happy to support the changes.
Councillor Evans, would you like to close?
CR EVANS: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councillors, for supporting it.
Just a couple of comments.
This is going to be a really beautiful little building.
It is replacing our maternal health and welfare that was on the corner
of Abbott Street and Station Street and also adding more services
to our children's services, which I know all the Councillors support.
Again, there's part of the landscaping
- and lovely landscaping by Mary Jeavons, a lovely landscaper.
I don't know
- if you don't know Mary, her sister is an architectural planner
and she's a landscaper, a very competent landscaper.
And again, some of the beautiful trees that are gum trees there has been designed
around the gum trees that are on the north-west
side so you can get ingress and egress around and plus also we spent a lot
of time trying to get the cars off the road and on to a car parking area
to satisfy the residents within Garnet-Leary and Sturdee Road
and a number of the roads along there.
So hopefully with your support it will be I think an exemplary building.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour, against, carried.
4.12.
Councillor Castelli.
CR CASTELLI: Yes, Mr Chair, I propose that we block the rest
with support to every one of those items
- all of them support.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Have we got a seconder?
All those in favour, against, carried.
So we declare the meeting closed at 9.08pm.
Thank you very much, everyone.