CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillors, Council officers, members
of the public gallery and the broader community following our
meeting via livestreaming, welcome to the 12 December 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, Council officers and members of the public
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.
So the prayer
- I would like to invite Councillor Evans to read the prayer.
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
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 SAMUEL-KING : And please remain standing.
I would like to invite Councillor Martin to read the Acknowledgment of Country.
CR MARTIN: 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 and 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 SAMUEL-KING: Apologies?
Are there any apologies?
There are none.
I will seek leave to be an apology at the next Planning
and Amenity Committee meeting in February.
Do we need to vote on that?
CR EVANS: I'll move that Councillor Samuel-King be granted leave.
CR DEL PORTO: I second that.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And all those in favour?
Those against?
None.
Carried Declarations of interest.
Are there any declarations of interest?
CR STITFOLD: I have a conflict of interest.
It's a general conflict and I attend the dental clinic, item 4.1.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
You have filled in the red form?
Great.
Any others?
No.
Adoption and confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting.
Do I have a mover and seconder?
CR MARTIN: Happy to move.
CR EVANS: Second.
CR SAMUEL-KING: All those in favour?
Councillor Samuel-King, Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto,
Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold.
All those against?
None.
Carried.
Section 4, reports by the organisation.
Councillors and members of the gallery, 13 members
of the community have submitted Written Statements to tonight's meeting
and a further 23 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 two 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 derogatory or 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.
So item 4.1, 482 Balcombe Road, Beaumaris.
We'll make a note that Councillor Stitfold is leaving the meeting.
(Pause).
Councillors, you will be aware that since the publishing of the agenda,
officers have received a further independent arborist report which supports
removal of the tree as a required works to repair the paving
to standards which supports DDA
- I'm having a tongue-twisting evening
- DDA access for patients cannot be undertaken
without compromising the tree.
An amended recommendation supporting the issuing
of a Local Law Tree Removal Permit is now shown on the screen.
So requests to be heard.
There was a written statement from Mr David Delac.
Apologies if I didn't pronounce that correctly.
And a request to speak from Dr David Delac.
Can Dr David Delac come to the microphone, please.
DR DELAC: The omissions in the executive summary are the reason I'm here
before you tonight.
To include an assessment from council's arborist that the extensive
damage to our infrastructure is due to normal wear and tear
is completely wrong when an arborist is not qualified to give such an opinion.
That would be akin to me as a dentist practising on another part
of the human body that was not the mouth.
I would be deregistered for doing so.
That a statement like this has been included
in the executive summary is dangerous when an expert structural
engineer who is qualified to pass comment said the car park
and driveway do not meet the National Construction Code.
To have the investigations coordinator include normal wear
and tear in the summary, particularly after he's seen the structural engineer
report, and then rely upon it in part to develop his recommendation to you,
should not stand.
To have no comment that the address is a place of business
and has associated statutory OH&S responsibilities is at best unknowing
of the law, or worse.
Both these facts are material and neither have been brought
to your attention.
The high amenity value of the tree is noted in the summary
- CR MARTIN: Madam Chair, Madam Chair, I've got a problem with "or worse".
The speaker has just said the arborist has made changes "or worse",
which is akin to saying corruption, in my opinion.
I'd like him to withdraw that.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Dr Delac, would you please withdraw that statement.
DR DELAC: OK.
I don't know how the formality of that works.
CR SAMUEL-KING: You just say "I withdraw it".
DR DELAC: I withdraw it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Please continue and please remember any defamatory
statements and you will be stopped from speaking.
DR DELAK: Sure.
Both these facts are material and neither have been brought
to your attention.
The high amenity value of the tree is noted in the summary, yet no value
is placed on the risk of human injury or worse due
to the significant tripping hazards.
Our request to be heard, written transmission
and attached expert reports are clear.
The damage to the car park and driveway is a significant trip hazard
and OH&S issue.
The tree is the source of that problem due to its large invasive root system.
The structural root zone of the tree is too close to the car park and driveway
to be able to preserve the tree and repair the car park
and driveway successfully, the fixing of which is required
to meet our ongoing obligations under the National Construction Code
and the OH&S Act.
The structural engineer summarised it best when he stated there were no pavement
solutions that can resist the stresses caused by the large tree root system
as well as provide access for people with a disability or provide safe movement
to and from the building.
Please grant the tree removal permit so we can uphold our statutory
and common law responsibilities.
Surely human safety has to trump the value of any tree.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Dr Delac?
No?
You can take a seat.
CR MARTIN: I'm happy to move the amended version.
CR EVANS: Second.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to read out the amended recommendation,
councillor?
CR MARTIN: That delegated issue a Local Law Tree Removal permit for, one,
Liquidambar tree as a protected tree at 482 Balcombe Road, Beaumaris.
Two, that any such permit includes the condition requiring planting
of two Indigenous trees which are each capable of reaching a minimum height of 8m
and a minimum canopy width of 8m at maturity.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Do we have a seconder?
CR EVANS: I'll second it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate?
CR EVANS: I would, yes.
Thank you.
I'm supporting Councillor Martin in this.
The officers have told us that they didn't have time
- or they've already looked at this.
The officers see this beautiful tree and let me say, I look at it
and the value of 151,000 means it's a magnificent tree.
We don't take these lightly, as most people know.
We like our trees.
We don't like them being pulled down.
There has to be sufficient reason.
The officers have given us their opinion as to sufficient reason, and so again it's
reluctant that I support it.
However, two Indigenous trees in Beaumaris, with a canopy minimum height
of 8 metres and 8 metres in maturity I think will hopefully solve
a problem of tree canopy within that particular thing
and also alleviate the DDA problems that I think the applicant is alluding to.
So happy to support.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Before you close, I'd like to say this one was actually a difficult
one for me.
The tree does have high amenity value and yet I could see there was an issue
with DDA compliance.
The principle of net sum gain I think is really important here, that
if we are going to allow the removal of one tree, if at all possible it ought
to be replaced by two, and I'd like to see that embedded in all
of our policies and planning, that in whatever we do, wherever we can,
we go for net sum gain, but we've also got to be realistic and reasonable
about obligations for disability access.
So it makes life as a councillor very interesting
when you're balancing so many goods
- disability access, urban forest, good decision making
is often a matter of compromise.
Would you like to close, Councillor Martin?
No?
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
Carried.
Can someone call back Councillor Stitfold, please.
(Pause).
So welcome back.
So we're up to item 4.2, 15 Mary Street, Beaumaris,
Local Law Tree Removal application.
Can I have a mover
- before I do, we have a written statement by Mr Geoffrey Humphreys.
I'm just checking.
No speakers.
CR MARTIN: I'm happy to move.
CR SAMUEL-KING: We have a mover and seconder.
CR EVANS: Yes, Indigenous
- CR SAMUEL-KING : Are you moving an amended motion?
Councillor Martin, would you like to read out the amended motion?
CR MARTIN: That delegated office issue a local tree removal
for the English oak located in the front setback of 15 Mary Street, Beauie.
That any such permit includes a condition requiring the planting
of one Indigenous tree capable of reaching a minimum height of 12 metres
and a minimum canopy width of 11 metres at the tree.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: No.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you
- CR EVANS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, removing one tree is not a great thing that we like.
I've noticed it's not a native and so we're replacing a mature English oak
with an Indigenous tree.
So hopefully that's a really positive thing in Beaumaris.
Again, I support that.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Before you close, I do note that this tree has good health,
fair structure and high amenity value, with a useful life expectancy
of greater than 10 years.
However, I think for this one there's already
a permit in place and
- or at least we're getting two Indigenous trees and that again
- the principle of net gain still holds.
CR EVANS: We're only getting one, Madam Chair.
CR SAMUEL-KING: We're only getting one.
I don't think we could practically get two , could we?
CR EVANS: No.
CR SAMUEL-KING : So that's just how things are.
So any further debate or would you like to close?
So all those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold
and Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
No.
Motion carried.
4.3, we have a written statement by Mr Chris Thick and he's requested
to speak.
So could Mr Chris Thick come to the microphone, please.
Very good.
So can I have a mover?
CR MARTIN: Happy to move.
CR EVANS: Second.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Is that an amended motion?
Indigenous rather than native, one tree?
CR EVANS: The word Indigenous again?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
CR SAMUEL-KING : So could you read that out please.
CR MARTIN: That any such permit includes a condition requiring planting one
Indigenous tree capable of reaching a minimum height of 9 metres
and a minimum canopy width of 8 metres at maturity.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate?
CR EVANS: Yes, just, Madam Chair, just noting that this particular one did
have decay at the bottom of the
- at the base of it and hollows formed in the Western stem
of the tree, so although it had a life expectancy
of 10 years, it was
- it did have a little bit of trouble down at the base.
So again happy
- peppercorns are nice trees but again happy that it's replacing
by one Indigenous.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Would you like to close?
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
None.
Carried.
So item 4.4, the Bad Shepherd Brewing Co
- 386 Reserve Road, Cheltenham.
Parklet permit application.
So we have one request to speak
- Mrs Jenny Watts on behalf of the Bad Shepherd Brewing Co.
MRS WATTS: Hi there.
My name is Jenny Watts.
I'm the business development manager for Bad Shepherd Brewing Co
and I manage the site at 386 Reserve Road.
Our parklet has been vital and our ongoing viability
through the pandemic and also from the ongoing effects that have
come from that, the parklet enables us to give back to the community.
It has been vital in us maintaining our employment
of our 40 staff members, many of whom are Bayside residents,
and it provides us with an income to help support their wages.
Prior to this process, to our knowledge we've had no complaints
or incidents directly relating to the parklet.
Upon its implementation in 2020, we were required to provide the Council
with a traffic management plan and on application of our permanent permit,
a road safety audit was also completed.
Both of these were found to be compliant and in the later, the road safety audit,
there were a number of items that were advised for us
to consider for improvements, which we did and have implemented.
These include signage, greater lighting in the area,
reflective strips to help improve safety.
The decision was made by Bad Shepherd to reduce the size of our parklet
from 3 parking spaces to two.
That decision was made on consultation with businesses around us
to help support their needs in the area and was advised that that was the best way
moving forward to support them and their needs.
We do acknowledge that traffic in the area can be difficult at times,
particularly parking, and we want to work with the Council and the community
to do the best for all our
- for everyone.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Now, any questions of Mrs Jenny Watts?
Thank you.
Take your seat.
CR EVANS: I move the recommendation, Madam Chair.
CR MARTIN: Second.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes?
CR EVANS: I support this, Madam Chair.
Up there it's a vibrant business that they run, a very good vibrant business,
in an industrial area that supports that sort of thing, and I haven't been
- I've been up to have a look at it but I haven't dined there,
but again going back from three to two I think shows an endeavour.
There's also in there that the Council issue these
on an annual basis and it can be reviewed, so again
- there is a little bit of parking problems up a little bit further and
around the corner, but again I think this particular facility
adds a lot of vibrancy in that particular area.
It's a good place for it and I support that
they have the outdoor areas.
I did see it during COVID and it worked very well during COVID.
So again happy to support a business up there doing this sort of thing and
if they're satisfied going three to two, I'm happy with that.
So happy to move it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
CR MARTIN: Yes, strongly support this business.
It's a fantastic addition to Bayside.
They do a brilliant job.
It's an incredibly important part of our municipality, so anything we can do
to help them, I will do my best.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Before you close, I think parklets are fantastic.
For me they're a step in the right direction for outdoor dining
and communal and public open space and I'm very happy
to support this application.
Would you like to close?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for support from Councillor Martin and yourself.
Again, I echo those things.
They are things that we really should support and it's interesting,
I think the person that started this was a local boy, a local person,
and again really makes a vibrant area of that industrial area up there,
and again it helps support the people that live there, because most
of the industrial area up there are owner occupiers.
They do live in Bayside and they work in Bayside, so I think it serves a really
great purpose and I'm happy to support it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
None.
Carried.
4.5, Sons of Mary, 14 Spink Street, Brighton, parklet permit application.
Now, let me look.
We have two requests to speak
- Mr Douglas Dowsett, could you come to the microphone, please.
MR DOWSETT: Thank you.
My name is Douglas Dowsett.
I'm the proprietor of a business that's been there for
over 100 years in Martin Street.
I thank Council for hearing us.
I've got a very simple question.
To return to the status quo, to give all the traders their rightful use
of the six car parking spaces and to be able to operate their own businesses
as per the COVID conditions.
A reminder that the Parklet Policy was originally offered for a three-month
period to assist restaurants during a period of social distancing.
This attracted a lot of empathy.
However, these laws are now no longer relevant,
negating the need for off site areas.
All traders have suffered over COVID and should be given equal consideration.
It is unfair to favour one business to the detriment of another.
Parking in Martin Street is now the worst that I can recall
in my time in Martin Street.
We have daily negative comments from our customers, telling us it
is impossible to gain reasonable access to the area and shop.
At 8.30 this morning there was no vacant spaces in the entire Spink Street area.
In the last six months, the trading area has demonstrably suffered
with the loss of a newsagency, a butcher and the baker, all
of which who are 50-year-old businesses, which are a firm indicator
of the retail stresses being experienced.
Together with this immense impact of increased building given
to the permits has been granted with only half the amount
of parking provision normally required, our parking
is far greater relevance than ever before, and the immediate restoration
of the parking for all the traders is required.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you, Mr Douglas Dowsett.
Any questions of Mr Douglas Dowsett?
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Mr Douglas, you mentioned you are a proprietor.
What business do you have?
MR DOWSETT: It's Nicholls.
CR CASTELLI: Is that in the same street?
MR DOWSETT: Yes.
It's on the corner of Spink Street and Martin Street.
CR CASTELLI: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, you mentioned the butcher and the baker and the newsagent.
Do you know why they left the area?
MR DOWSETT: All different areas
- reasons, to which one I couldn't put a reason on each specifically, other than
to indicate the problems of actually retailing full stop, let alone
in areas that are under sufferance because our customers can't get there
to park.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I've got a question.
You mentioned the butcher, the baker, the newsagency.
You mentioned they had been there for 50 years.
MR DOWSETT: Yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I saw the butcher came in just before COVID.
MR DOWSETT: The butchery
- sorry, that proprietor wasn't there.
The actual business was there.
It's always been a butcher.
It's always been a newsagency and it's always been a bakery.
It used to be the walnut factory a few years ago.
CR EL MOUALLEM:I understand
- I received some emails and there is a bit of pressure on the parking
from the tradies working on one of the office buildings on Spink Street.
MR DOWSETT: I am very happy to address that in a separate item
but I see that as
- CR EL MOUALLEM: I don't mind if you can give us an idea of how
many tradies, for example, are parking in the street roughly?
MR DOWSETT: Well, I counted an area that has been roped off
with orange witches hat basically and there were 12 in the first section.
There was another area which was reserved for trucks coming and going.
That was I think 14.
It's just impossible.
It's just all day people are running around trying to move cars.
They're there for a short term.
Our customers are scared of getting booked.
We want the parking officers there to make sure that we don't get long-term
car park
- we rely on people coming and going.
So if we've got six
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
I think you have answered the question.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I've got the picture.
So 12 and 14.
I might have a question to the officers on this.
CR SAMUEL-KING: You can take your seat, please, Mr Dowsett.
CR EL MOUALLEM: The question to the officers, Madam Chair,
is: can we do anything about the tradies parking and reserving
all these spaces?
I have seen some of this myself, and to say 26 car spaces being taken out
is putting pressure on car parking there.
So can we do anything about this?
OFFICER: Through the chair, we can look at what the requirements
of the construction management plan were for any development.
We can also have our parking officers patrol more regularly in the area.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So I have a question of the officers on that.
- CR DEL PORTO: I had a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Look, I'll really concerned about the loss of car parking and I just wonder
whether we could establish whether these tradies or workers are
actually overstaying their welcome.
So I wonder whether once you've checked the permit requirements,
whether we could have maybe a more frequent set of patrolling of the area
because it sounds like we're getting
- and the question is: do you know roughly how long it would
take to finish the construction that's
occurring now?
You don't have to tell me now.
You can come back to us with that, but I'd like to know the time line.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, so, yes, on the second part, I'll take that
on notice and come back to you separately.
With regards to the investigation, yes, we can certainly arrange
for more parking patrols as well.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Great.
Any further questions of the officers?
No.
So we now have Mr Matthew Smith to speak.
MR SMITH: Thank you.
Sons of Mary is a business that caters for everyone.
Our age demographic is mostly 50 to 80-year-olds.
Sons of Mary is open for more hours than any other business
in the Martin Street precinct.
We have customers in from 6.30am to 11pm each night,
which means we service the community for 16.5 hours each day.
Other hospitality operators only operate from 7 till 3 or 5 to 11.
We have on average 300 to 400 customers per day.
That means we probably bring more people into the precinct who are also getting
exposed to the other businesses in the area.
The whole neighbourhood community enjoys the offering at Sons of Mary.
The parklet spaces have been a good initiative.
We are still experiencing 75 to 80% of all bookings requesting to dine outside.
We also lose customers when they cannot get a table outside,
which means the precinct area loses those people as well.
Reducing the spaces down to three will restrict the amount
of people that can enjoy the outdoor experience.
Most, if not all, parklet spaces in Bayside run parallel to the kerbside,
which gives more space, flexibility and accommodation for tables.
Sons of Mary parklet is not, although we might have six spaces,
it is not the same as three parallel parking spaces.
If we could have three spaces adjoining the kerb, we would prefer that other
over the six.
One of the recommendations is to take three spaces from Sons of Mary
and relocate them to Martin Street.
The main part of Martin Street commercial precinct is
between Azen street and Nepean Highway.
This is where the majority of shops there.
There are just 12 car parking spaces on either side of the road in this area.
Currently Spink Street in front of Sons of Mary area, there
is 26 car spaces available after taking up the six parklet spaces.
If a reduction of three spaces were to be given,
I don't believe it would be viable option to continue with the parklet space.
We've already paid 30,000
- to spend $30,000
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Your time is up.
Now, my questions of Mr Matthew Smith.
I think that was Cr El Mouallem.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Smith.
So what I heard is three car spaces is not going to be adequate
for your business or it's not going to make it available
- MR SMITH: I don't believe it will.
We'll have to look into that.
But understanding that the three kerbside parklet spaces gives more flexibility.
We currently have angled parking, which is 2.4 metres wide,
and is restricted in the space and the exposure that we can get.
We can probably get one and a half, two tables per car parking spaces running
that way compared to running kerbside along the kerb.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Another question, Madam Chair, is that OK?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, of course.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Do you have any outdoor dining beside the spacelets?
Do you have anything on the footpaths?
MR SMITH: We currently have on the kerbside six footpath trading
permit for those spaces, yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And is there potential to extend on this?
MR SMITH: No, there's not.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Not even down the road on the footpaths?
MR SMITH: No.
We've got six spaces in front of our building.
There's a laneway on each side, another business office area next door,
and another property next door.
So no, there's no expansion.
CR EL MOUALLEM: OK.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions, Cr El Mouallem?
No.
Councillor del Porto has a question.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Through you, Mr Smith I was intending to move
- and I'm still thinking of moving
- that you be given three car parking spaces because there are options
on the table that might give you none.
MR SMITH: That's correct, yes.
CR DEL PORTO: So I'm asking you now, if there was an option
between three car parks and no car parks, would you still favour three,
or are you saying it's either going to be five or six or nothing?
MR SMITH: Look, I'm not here to say six or nothing,
but to be totally honest with you, we've spent 30,000 already.
We basically now need to under the Council requirements,
to make that a permanent space, so we've got to pull up the decking area,
build it all over again.
The likelihood is we are only going to get an additional five tables
in that space, under three spaces.
That is it.
It wouldn't be viable for us.
CR DEL PORTO: So three car parks are not viable for you?
MR SMITH: I don't believe it will be.
CR DEL PORTO: OK.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: So on that, would four car parking spaces be more
viable?
MR SMITH: Probably, yes, but
- definitely, but you've also got to understand that the exposure
- that the length of the car parking spaces, as you drive
in, front to back, is completely different to having it in parallel parking
to the kerbside.
It's a lot more restrictive.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, of course
- no?
Ask a question of officers.
And stay there if you can for the time being.
CR STITFOLD: Have there been any other permit applications for parklets
in Martin Street or in that area.
OFFICER: Through you, Chair, not at this stage.
So this is the only parklet application that we've received so far.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Martin, do you have a question of
- CR MARTIN: Yes, you mentioned relocating the car spaces to Martin Street.
Is that something you've looked into?
MR SMITH: It's not something I looked into.
I think I read the report and basically one of the recommendations
is to reduce three and then relocate three,
which I would only presume would be in Martin Street.
There's 12 car parking spaces each side.
I would have thought that would be a lot more detrimental to the businesses
in Martin Street, than Spink Street that still allocates
26 car spaces.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: You mentioned that you're operating 300 patrons a day
and you're going the whole year around, basically, 7 days a week.
MR SMITH: That's correct, yes.
CR MARTIN: And you're suggesting that these extra five
- about three or four tables, maybe four, five,
on the three spaces that are in the report , won't pay off over the time line?
MR SMITH: Very simple, basically
- net operating profit in the hospitality businesses these days have shrunk to 5
to 10% net operating profit.
So if we're paying $20,000 to
- first of all, it will probably cost me $5,000
to remove what's there now, another $10,000 or more
to create the three spaces, the permits, there's $15,000, then we've got
to pay an additional $3,000 per car parking space that we take up,
there's $9,000 for the year and so on.
There's $300,000, $400,000 we've got to generate out of income
across the road just to break even.
So that's what I'm saying.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So have you got an answer to your question?
Yes?
CR MARTIN: Yes, I think he's going to make more money.
That's what I heard.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, I think so.
Any more questions?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Just a question.
Do you have parking for staff behind Sons of Mary?
MR SMITH: Do we have parking for staff?
No, we don't.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You don't have parking at the back?
MR SMITH: We've got parking but not necessarily open for all staff.
We've got offices upstairs.
They have all the accommodation
- parking accommodation for them and we meet our permit requirements
for the hospitality venue.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So would you consider if we look into the parking,
to transfer some of that parking and do it an alfresco?
MR SMITH: We don't have the capacity.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
CR DEL PORTO: I've got another question.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
CR DEL PORTO: If I moved what's printed, the three spaces, and it was recommended
- it got through tonight, would it still be an option
for the hospitality industry, the restaurant to say, "Thank you,
but no thank you"?
I mean, this is what we're
- OFFICER: Through you, chair, of course the parklet applicant,
the applicant has the final say if they decide to take the approval or not.
They're not bounded by Council's decision.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So I have a question of the applicant: I'm puzzled.
Normally an applicant puts forward an application that they are happy with.
Now I'm assuming this was your application
You actually put in a permit application, is that correct?
MR SMITH: We put in a permit application.
Through the process we were told it was going to be advertised
to local businesses.
To my
- not understanding, it was advertised to 249 people sent out in the mail.
If we knew the whole process and what the process involved,
we would have had a petition here with 3,000 or thousands
of people who would have been recommending that we keep it
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Hold on.
So that was the application that you put in, is that correct, for three
- MR SMITH: No, we put in an application to maintain the existing
- CR DEL PORTO: Status quo.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So this is not actually an application that
you have put in?
MR SMITH: No, we put in an application and I believe the councillors recommended
that we take three
- take three off us and then relocate them to Martin Street.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I might ask the officers.
Could you explain the difference between the application that was put in
by the applicant and what's in front of us?
OFFICER: Yes, through you, chair, the application was received
to retain the status quo, which is six car parking spaces.
Council's Parklet Policy identified a maximum of five car parking spaces
to be lost for the allocation of parklets.
In response to the submissions that were received
for this application, we found a compromise, which with was
to reduce the parklet to three car parking spaces
to enable three car parking spaces to be returned for car parking use,
and therefore we would enable two
- two car parking spaces to be provided as a future opportunity,
if another business within Martin Street wanted to apply
for a parklet.
So we believed in terms of fairness it would have been rather than
allocating all of the car parking spaces allocated
to parklets to one business, it would be a fair process
to allow another portion of the spacelets where there wasn't
an impact on Spink Street to be provided for another applicant.
CR SAMUEL-KING : So would there be an avenue
at a future date for the applicant to put in an application that they actually
- would be their application?
Is that
- normally an applicant puts in a permit
- an application for something that they're happy with.
CR EVANS: They did.
And we're saying three.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
Alright.
CR DEL PORTO: I would like to move the recommendation, please,
which is to occupy three car parking spaces at Sons
of Mary at 14 Spink Street.
If I could have a seconder, I can speak to it.
CR EVANS: I'll second it for debate.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you.
Madam Chair, it's an unusual sort of submission because it sounds
like the applicant may not take this up, but my view
is that we have a responsibility to
- we have to balance responsibilities.
Just like what we did in the application before,
we reduced the car parking spacelets to two instead of three.
This was originally going to be five but it actually took up six.
And I take the point, these are at right angle so I understand the logic.
But just to make a point about what was said
by the Council officer, the recommendation talks
about Spink Street.
It does not talk about any spaces to be made available in Martin Street.
My personal view is that we need to really be protective
of our car parks in general, so when people apply
for spacelets or parklets, they have to be really careful about
whether you're going too far the other way.
Now, we have had all kinds of inquiries about Spink Street and there's talk
of maybe making some open space out of it on the other side of Martin Street,
and my personal view is that we need those car parks,
or as many car parks as we can, because really Martin Street
is not a huge street and from the sounds of it there's only a handful of car parks
in Martin Street and people don't want to park 300 metres down to then walk back
up to the restaurant.
So my view is that I don't really want to support more than three car parks there
because I think that we need to protect other industries,
other businesses as well.
I hear what's been said and I think my view is that if we went
with what's been recommended, it's a reduction.
First of all, it was meant to be five car parks
but six car spaces were lost, so already there was one extra
that shouldn't have been there.
I hear what's been said and I think it's absolutely up
to the applicant to decide what to do.
I mean, obviously if he decides not to go ahead
with the three car park spacelets, then he doesn't have to spend the money
to build them.
He has to have them removed.
I hear what's been said by the other businesses
and I think that's right, I think we have to protect the car parks and I'm prepared
to provide the restaurant with three car parks and it would be up
to them to decide whether to go ahead or not.
If they don't want to
- obviously it will all be returned to car parks but my view
is that the policy we had, we have to be consistent.
We have supported parklets just in item 4.
There will be other applications from other parts of Bayside that
will be applying for parklets to be introduced or retained, so my view
is that, although I do hold those car parks really
sacred, I think that if we reduce them to three, it would be also a signal that
we do hold car parks as important, as integral to the life
of the Activity Centre.
But I think that that would also show that we're still supportive of
- I'm not convinced exactly what will happen if this gets through and
whether the applicant supports it, but my view is that we're endorsing
what has been recommended.
Six was too many.
Three is probably right.
I hear what has been said about the right angle car park but,
at the end of the day, I don't support having any spacelets
on Martin Street.
It doesn't even make sense.
The restaurant is about 50, 60, 70 metres into Spink Street away from Martin Street,
so I don't understand how you would actually have a parklet that would be
that far removed from the restaurant.
So happy to endorse what's there.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Seconder?
Any further debate?
Is CR EVANS: Yes.
Seconder to speak.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support the parklets.
I do support outdoor dining and yes, some traders get benefits from it.
Other traders don't.
But in my view, outdoor dining is something that should be encouraged
and it's worldwide.
It should be encouraged in Bayside.
It does bring business to other businesses and I encourage that.
I seconded this for debate.
I would like to hear other councillors' views
but I would probably
- if this fails I would probably be going for maybe four
- a little bit more.
We've heard that the applicant
- in his view, he says three isn't going ahead
- if that's the case and three isn't going ahead,
I think that's a bit of a pity in my view.
I think these sorts of things should be supported.
So again I'd be happy to hear debate from other councillors as to
whether or not they support three.
I'll support three definitely but if somebody wants to move an amendment
to make it four or whatever, then they'll see my vote going a
little bit further on.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, just flagging I'd certainly support that.
Or just leave it as is
- six.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Six?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
Looking at the imagery
- I mean, I've been there a few times
- it's bloody beautiful.
It's booming.
It's fantastic.
I have no idea why we
- this deal that's getting done tonight is based on no data, a few submissions.
The baker, the butcher and the newsagent went under.
Like, it wasn't because of this parklet
- well, I've got no data to suggest that
- but newsagents are going under everywhere where I am.
The butcher is being carved up because of the monopolies of supermarkets.
And I don't know what is going on with the baker.
But I know that this business is booming.
I know that this space across the road
- I've been to it a number of times and it's a fantastic space,
but it would be a very different space with only three.
It would be kind of like a bit kind of weird.
I mean, I'd suggest you strongly go there.
It seems to me we're going to wreck something because we want
to do a shandy.
It's working, it's booming.
I heard the other business guy, you know.
If your business is hanging on the thread because of three car parks
- I don't know about that.
I really don't.
I think there's a lot of traffic problems at Martin Street because
of the development at the moment, with all the tradies and all the rest
of it, but a lot of the people coming in are being attracted
because you've got this beautiful little space down Spink Street.
It's a really good nook.
Gets you away from everything.
It's quiet.
It's a nice place.
And I think it would be too small and kind of a bit weird to go across the road
with just three.
So I'd support just leaving it as it is.
They've taken their time to build it to what it is and everyone loves it.
That's my view.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I've had some advice from the officers on the maximum number
that we can have.
You can hear that from the officers.
CR EVANS: That would be good to hear.
OFFICER: Through you, Madam Chair, the Parklet Policy has identified
a maximum of five car parking spaces within the whole of Martin Street
to be allocated for a parklet.
CR CASTELLI: Madam Chair, can we have perhaps the speaker back up
and see if he likes the idea of five?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can we, Mr Callant?
CR EVANS: He's allowed to ask another question.
CR SAMUEL-KING: We are allowed to ask another question.
Mr Callant, would that be allowable?
Yes.
Now, can I have the applicant back to the microphone, please?
Mr Smith, I think Councillor Castelli would like
to ask you a question.
CR CASTELLI: So what do you think of that proposal of five?
MR SMITH: Well, five is better than three.
Three definitely wouldn't be viable.
By the time you put the concrete bollards within that space and so on, you're down
to two spaces and it would be ridiculous and not worth doing.
I wouldn't do it, and that's being honest.
So if it's five, if it has to be five, five is a hell of a lot better than three.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So yes, it would be doable?
MR SMITH: Yes.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
You can take a chair
- take a seat.
OK.
I think we're still debating a motion.
Any further debate on this one?
So Cr El Mouallem?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, Madam Chair, as you probably know, I actually
- I am involved in hospitality businesses.
We don't have any spacelets.
We weren't through COVID like everybody else with no spacelets
and the business is doing as good as it was back in 2018 and '19,
if not better.
There is not even one spacelet in Church Street and, in my opinion,
to utilise all five for one business, even though we are hearing other traders
in the street want none, it's just unfair.
I don't agree that by the time you put concrete bollards
in this, you'll lose one of them, you will probably lose 200mm, 300mm
on each side, but you still end up with more than two.
Now, I have asked a couple of questions why couldn't we extend
the footpath trading and I was told there was a laneway
and we couldn't utilise the back car parking.
But the reality is you're actually crossing Spink Street
to go to the spacelets on the other side.
So I'm not sure what the issue is of crossing a laneway
if you extend the footpath trading.
I am going
- it is Councillor del Porto's ward and I am probably going to support him
on this, but if that was in my ward, to be honest,
I would be considering it twice, specifically as I heard
not only Mr Douglas but I've heard a number of traders
against this.
And I can assure you
- I just heard from Mr Smith that 80% of the bookings are outside.
With the amount of rain we've had this year,
I doubt that most of the business is happening outside.
I just don't see it happening this way.
And if we cannot
- if Mr Smith cannot make it work on three and his footpaths
- outdoor footpath trading, I'm not sure
- he really needs to look into his operation.
So I am not in support of more than three.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: Thank you.
I'd just like to note that we do think about our MACs as being quite individual
and each having a unique sense of place and that means that one size doesn't fit
all.
I do think that parklets activate an area.
Most of the research does show that if you have people who are spending longer
in a place because there are areas to sit outside, that they
will spend more money, that they will actually go to the other businesses
and there will actually be a lot of onward benefit
to the other businesses in the area.
The other thing that we need to remember is that there is going to continue
to be pressure in major Activity Centres as there are a concentration of residents,
which means we are going to look at other ways of parking.
It's just not possible to provide parking for the increasing population.
There is a station that is right next door.
Very, very convenient to Martin Street and to Spink Street.
I would be in favour of the full five parklet
- the parking spaces being used to activate the area and provide benefit
to the whole of the Martin Street area.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
So before you close, the objector started to argue that COVID restrictions are
no longer relevant.
They are.
We're in the middle of a COVID wave.
COVID-19 is a terrible beast and many, many sensible people continue
to socially distance and dine outside, and even if we manage to move
to a COVID-free world, eating outside is fantastic.
I think it's a great thing to do to activate our spaces
and our public open space.
I'd love more of it.
I'd love cities that were more akin to Florence or even Vietnam or South-East
Asia where we had footpath trading and a lot more in the way
of outdoor dining.
Even Darwin is fabulous.
It beats us hands down.
If this motion fails, I'm more than happy to support five parklets,
if that's the maximum that is allowable under the policies we all agreed to.
So would you like to close?
CR DEL PORTO: Sure.
Thank you for that.
My view is that six, which is what we have now,
is against our own policy, so six is not on.
I think that from the sounds of it, this is going to fail but my view
is that I'm there to protect also other businesses
and I thought that at three or I would even consider four
spacelet would be OK.
Car parking is at a premium in Martin Street.
I think I mentioned this the other night at a briefing we had and so my view would
be that we have to be
- it's a big step to go from places that have no spacelets at
all to five.
Five is actually quite big.
Normally you wouldn't do five car parks on a normal street, but this
is a right angle.
So any view is that I'd like to retain the existing motion that we have
with three and obviously there will be a division called and we
will go from there.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour?
So we have Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto and Cr El Mouallem.
All those against?
So Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Councillor Stitfold,
Councillor Samuel-King.
The motion has failed
- CR EVANS: Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we resolve
to issue a permit for car parking
- let's start at the top and work down
- a parklet for five car parking spaces to Sons of Mary.
See how that goes, and if we don't get that one,
I'll move another one for four.
CR MARTIN: Happy to second.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate?
CR EVANS: No, I think we've done the debate.
It's just numbers now.
CR MARTIN: Look, I'll say a couple of words.
I just think that we're moving
- that Councillor Stitfold has hit the nail on the head.
The competition for open space is on.
It is game on, and I would prefer open space to be filled
with people socialising distantly outside, if possible,
in lovely environments rather than storing cars.
And I think as we go forward
- like, my daughter the other day checked out of the car ownership game.
It had cost her so much money, it was so much drama with it,
and she sold it, she's gone to electric bike and she's thriving
and I think you're going to see a wave of young people doing this stuff.
I did note in the report that a lot of people are coming to this place by bike
and that is just going to increase and increase.
Businesses are businesses.
Stuff happens.
Things move on.
Bakers move on, newsagents move on.
Newsagents died not because of the parklets.
It's because the whole news system is changing.
Stuff is changing, so you've got to keep up with it.
The businesses that seem to be growing are the businesses
attracting people and bringing them out.
People are isolated.
They want to meet each other and they want to meet each other in good, safe,
open environments.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
CR DEL PORTO: Division is wonderful but we have to talk about reality.
People drive to our Activity Centres.
If we don't care enough car parks, they will go elsewhere.
We've got Southland down the road, we've got Chadstone.
They're the big shopping centres where you can get car parks for free for up
to three hours.
So we're here
- we want our Activity Centres to do well.
Church Street is exceptional.
We want Martin Street, Bay Street to do just as well, Hampton Street.
To do that you've got to allow for car parking.
You heard the proprietor.
The customers are between 50 to 80.
I'm not sure they're going to be likely to ride a bike.
I mean, it could be.
I mean, I ride a bike when it doesn't rain but regularly you actually drive
to places, you know.
So let's be realistic.
I think we should really think about allowing some car parks
to be left there.
Right now we've got construction happening for a number of years.
We don't have enough space for customers and I've been to that place.
I don't see a lot of bikes.
There are actually professional bike riders that pull up for a cappuccino
and then go off, but the regular Bayside residents unless
they're wearing the leotards and all that, I don't see that many.
So my view is that I would like
- clearly three was not accepted.
I prefer four to five.
I think five is getting really to
- you need car parks there.
There aren't that many.
So I ask councillors to at least consider and I'd go up as far as five.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I echo Councillor del Porto here.
I'm not sure how many young people are going to go on their bikes
and spend money in the rest of Martin Street, and if our demographics,
which happens to be in Brighton
- the oldest demographic in Bayside
- is going to jump on a bike and go to Spink Street and then go
and spend money in the rest of Martin Street,
I actually really doubt this.
We are hearing there is lots of pressure on parking, specifically
with the construction happening on Spink Street.
Three in my opinion is probably a better balance
but it didn't go through, and nevertheless it doesn't mean that five
is the right number too.
So I'd much prefer to probably see four, if three is not the go.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Before you close, Councillor Evans, I think I'm with Councillor Martin
on the vision.
A 2040 vision
- great movie
- had a lot of our streets turned into parks and I think that
is much more the way to go.
And as you said, game on for public open space.
This is going to be a debate for the next two years and in many years
to come.
I spent a year in Japan.
The number of 80-year-olds who rode bikes there was just amazing and
they were so fit and lived incredible lives.
It's not impossible for older people to ride bikes, even myself.
That's it for me.
Would you like to close?
CR EVANS: Thank you.
Yes, I would.
It's an annual permit and, like the one before
- it didn't say it
- well, it does say it in this
- the permit is issued on Council annual basis,
however it can still be withdrawn at any time.
Should any issues or concern arise with Council, it can be reviewed
and the permit can be withdrawn.
So again I'm happy to support the outdoor dining for a number
of reasons that other councillors have alluded to.
Again, I just think it is the way of the world now and, yes,
it does favour some
- that's a fact of life
- yes, it does favour some.
However, the favouring of system
- and I notice it in my area, down in Sandringham,
it has rejuvenated the village in Sandringham because
of two or three number of parklets there, and again I think it's a good thing.
So I encourage it and I would support it.
I hope we get five but anyhow we'll see.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour of five parklets?
So Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Councillor Stitfold,
Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Cr El Mouallem.
The motion is carried.
OK, 4.6, 282 to 284 Bay Street, Brighton.
Notice of decision to refuse to grant an amendment
to a permit application 2008/804/3 Dendy ward.
Now, we have a written statement by Mr Daniel Cullen and requests to speak
- so Ms Julia Knight, can you come to the microphone, please.
So the next one was Mr Ilya Furman.
MR CULLEN: Can I go first?
CR SAMUEL-KING: I can't see why not.
So can you just clarify your name?
MR CULLEN: Daniel Cullen.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Daniel Cullen.
Sorry, what was that?
I'm just hearing some advice.
Can you speak up.
I can't hear anything.
So it's fine.
So can Mr Daniel Cullen come to the microphone, please.
MR CULLEN: Thank you.
I'd like to speak on behalf of the applicant and, as an owner
of lot 4, across the merits of our application.
Supporter Ilya will talk about process matters after myself,
and Julia will talk about lot impacts.
Essentially the fundamental basis of our application
is that the heritage impacts of not having a larger parapet installed
are outweighed by the significant and adverse amenity impacts
of having it installed.
For context, the parapet was removed in 1956.
The building itself is currently subject to Heritage Overlay 45 relating
to paint control and has a citation by the national Trust.
Now, that occurred in 1966 and the overlay for HO45 occurred significantly
after the parapet was removed.
The point we would like to make is that the heritage significance
of the building recognises the building without the parapet in place.
Other relevant matters are the building is not listed
under the Victorian heritage register, nor the national heritage register,
not is it included on Heritage Overlay 747,
being the Bayside precinct Heritage Overlay.
In contrast the amenity impacts are considered significant, both to lot 4
and lot 6, with significantly reduced daylight
to both apartments and almost complete loss
of outlook and non-compliance if particularly lot 4 was built
to today's standards, not compliant in terms of clause 58
of the Bayside Planning Scheme and in terms of best practice assessed
against the best tool.
Whilst we understand some people may consider it desirable
to include the parapet, we must look back to the heritage policies
under the Bayside Planning Scheme which do not seek
to achieve desirable outcomes, only acceptable outcomes.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Mr Daniel Cullen?
Cr El Mouallem.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Cullen.
So I heard the parapet was removed in 1956.
Do you have an idea why it was removed?
MR CULLEN: We have a copy of an Andrew Ward citation report
which talks about integrity being the basis for the removal of the parapet.
That's all the detail we have, and Council have no further records
to my knowledge.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Another question, Madam Chair.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: At the age of 45, do you know when was this put
on the property?
MR CULLEN: Our understanding is that it was in the '90s.
We sought advice from Urbis, who have provided all
of our heritage advice and have supported our application.
We understand it was in the '90s, significantly
after the parapet was removed.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Can I get confirmation from the officers when the HR45 came
about?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, officers confirmed this morning
the overlay heritage was applied in February 2000.
CR EL MOUALLEM: February 2000.
And the parapet was removed in 1956?
OFFICER: 1956, yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: That's it from me.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any other questions?
CR EVANS: Yes, I'm a bit unclear.
You say the Andrew Ward citation said for integrity it was removed?
Can you repeat that?
MR CULLEN: Yes, it says it was removed for unknown reason and it has in brackets
"integrity".
We don't know exactly what that means.
It could mean structural integrity
- CR EVANS: That makes sense.
Not heritage integrity.
MR CULLEN: No.
CR EVANS: Thank you.
That makes sense.
MR CULLEN: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any other questions of Mr Cullen?
I have a question.
I'm interested in the national
- the natural justice component of this.
Could you
- I don't know if you can speak on behalf of just yourself or the owners corporation
but was there any way you or any of the owners when you bought
into these properties could have none or could have reasonably been expected
to have known that there was this issue pending?
MR CULLEN: Look, I can only speak individually,
the process I went through, which was to secure a vendors statement, which had
all of the appropriate certificates.
It included planning permits, so we could see that there was a planning
permit process and that certain conditions had to be met.
The problem with this one is that one of those conditions was that a parapet had
to be reinstated by the developer and, two, as purchaser,
when I inspected the building and reviewed the documentation,
the building does have a parapet.
Additionally, I purchased in 2017 and I wouldn't reasonably expect first
an occupancy permit to have been granted if outstanding planning permit
and building permit conditions had not been complied with.
And secondly the passage of time that it occurred between then
and when I purchased.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: I just want to ask a quick question
to the speaker please.
What would it cost to put the parapet back on?
MR CULLEN: So in terms of cost, we have received order of magnitude costs
from a quantity surveyor that specialises in heritage works.
They've indicated around half a million dollars
to reinstate, but that assumes a best-case scenario whereby parapet
and pediment elements are pre-cast off site and craned into site
over powerlines, over the streetscape, and it also assumes that there
is structural integrity in the existing facade.
We don't know if that is the case.
We know there was previous structural reports provided by the developer,
a completely unrelated party, when they went through a process
with Council and we don't know whether they were fully investigated by Council
but it remains a risk and would only send the cost northward.
CR CASTELLI: Does that mean you're going to wear these costs
if this doesn't go through tonight?
MR CULLEN: We absolutely object to wearing those costs but that
is what is suggested.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further questions?
CR EVANS: I have another one.
Sorry, Madam Chair.
It just occurred to me.
On our agenda papers here, on page 81, we have a photo of the original building
in its 1930s with the tassel balustrade, with the columns, castellated balustrade,
but from that and what we saw, there's still a parapet above the roof,
and that's what you are saying
- when you bought the thing, you could see a parapet and so that was
what you assumed the parapet was.
Forget about the other one with the top and the dwarf columns.
Is that
- MR CULLEN: That's correct, and our position
is that a reasonable purchaser acting reasonably would do exactly that.
CR EVANS: Understand.
Thank you.
Reasonable, yes.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
You can take your seat.
MR CULLEN: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING : So shall I call Ms Julia Knight?
Oh, actually, Mr Ilya Furman.
I think you pass it to Mr Callant and then he will pass them around.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Hold on.
There are just three.
We'll have to read it and pass it on.
MR FURMAN: It's a single copy of each.
Sorry.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Oh, I see.
We can't read it right now.
We're tabling a number of statutory declarations
from Anthony Howe, Vincent Vicello, Daniel Cullen and Ilya Furman.
MR FURMAN: Thank you.
So my name is Ilya Furman.
I'm a solicitor and I bought into this in 2016.
I bought an apartment where my parents live and the office where my legal
practice operates from.
Now, as an experienced solicitor, I did my own due diligence
on the documents and one of the statutory declarations
is saying that there is absolutely no way that an expert property lawyer could know,
on the basis of the documents produced by Council,
that there is anything non-compliant with this building.
So all of the current owners who are to be subject
to this enforcement order would be innocent victims who would be forced
to pay for a number of failures that is worth a Franz Kafka novel, starting
from the failure of the developer to comply with the planning permit,
failure of the surveyor who issued a certificate
to say that the building complies with the planning permit, failure
of Council to issue the statement of compliance, failure of Council
to advise each of the buyers through the certificates issued
by Council that there is anything non-compliant
with this building, or that there are any issues.
Up until most recently, the purchaser of the penthouse,
when the proceedings were already on foot at VCAT,
that purchaser's vendor statement still didn't have any notice
of there being anything non-compliant with this building, so for these reasons,
we obviously object to having to pay for the failures of
all these other people, starting from 2014 throughout the period of seven years,
for us to only find out for the first time ever
in 2021 that there was anything wrong with it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you, Mr Ilya Furman.
Any questions of Mr Ilya Furman?
I'll just ask a question of clarification, just so I understand.
So just to clarify, these are statutory declarations
for a number of owners making it clear that there is no way they could have known
of what is before us tonight.
MR FURMAN: And in the vendor's statement that contain all of the certificates.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Great.
Thank you.
Any further questions of Mr Ilya Furman?
CR EL MOUALLEM: No, I have a question to the officers.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Go ahead.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Usually in a section 32 I believe, all lawyers would have
a request for information from Council to include in section 32.
Was there any indication on the request for information
on that property that there is a non-compliance
and we're currently chasing up orders from VCAT?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, my understanding
is that Council were made aware of the non-compliance in around 2019
and that's when enforcement proceedings have work commenced and
they are currently at VCAT.
CR EL MOUALLEM: OK.
So just to sum it up correctly, we issued a certificate of compliance
and that was issued probably five or six years before we picked
up the non-compliance in 2019?
OFFICER: Yes.
I don't have the exact date, but, yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So for even a professional lawyer,
it's probably not that easy to pick up that there is a non-compliance,
if that looked into their contract, if it's not there?
OFFICER: I can't say yes or no to that one, I can't answer that.
CR SAMUEL-KING: But I will ask to clarify, it sounds as if there are a number
of years that Council was not aware of this issue so would not have made
buyers aware of that issue, would that be correct?
OFFICER: That's correct, yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Another question to the officers.
What happened to the developer that we should be pursuing in this case?
OFFICER: My understanding is that the developer went
into insolvency.
CR DEL PORTO: Sorry, I didn't hear that?
OFFICER: My understanding is that the developer went
into insolvency.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Handy.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions of Mr Ilya Furman?
No?
You can take your seat.
And Ms Julia Knight, come to the microphone.
MS KNIGHT: Thank you very much.
Thank you for listening.
Madam Chair, councillors, so what I would like to say to add
to what the fellows have been saying all the way along is that I bought
into this building in 2014
- well, I didn't buy it.
The bank bought it.
I just get to keep my shirts and pants there basically.
It's north facing, beautiful, lovely, indoor, outdoor, appealing
to what you were saying before about having the inside coming
into your lounge room and bedrooms.
It's super-important.
Dining room.
It's passive solar, which I'm very supportive of in terms
of environmentally being sound and also being able
to reduce my expenditure in terms of electricity and things like that.
Single mother, three kids.
With this parapet, my view would be gone.
The reason I'd bought this place is because I like to be able to sit outside
and look at the view and look up and down Bay Street, St Andrews Street.
I come from the country.
This is just completely going to obliterate my view,
which therefore reduces my value, and I have a letter to this effect
from Marshall White real estate agents to the tune of about $350,000.
Now, I owe $750,000.
I know that's a first-world problem but that's what I owe on this apartment.
I can't recoup that.
There's no chance of a revaluation.
No bank is going to take me.
I can't refinance and I also can't absorb the financial negative impact,
whether it be both in the construction of the parapet itself or the reduction
in the value of my apartment.
There's just no way.
If any of you guys have a Tatts Lotto ticket and a Lotto number that
you can tell me what that winning ticket would be, I would be really happy
to hear it because that's the only way out for me.
This is a very fundamental, emotional issue for me.
It's my home, I love it, I love Bayside, I support all the local grocers,
all the local businesses, and I would probably almost tie myself
to the building to stop any kind of access to my balcony to put a parapet
on my balcony to reduce the lifestyle that I have right now.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you, Julia Knight.
And any questions of Julia Knight?
MS KNIGHT: You're sure?
I'm joking.
CR SAMUEL-KING: You can take a seat.
MS KNIGHT: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can I have a mover?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Madam Chair, can I move an alternate amendment please.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, would you like to read it?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, please.
Could I have it on the screen.
CR DEL PORTO: I'll second that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
That Council resolve to issue a notice of decision
to grant an amended planning permit under the provisions
of the Bayside Planning Scheme in respect of planning application 2008/804/3
for the land known and described as 282 to 284 Bay Street, Brighton,
for the construction of a three-storey building and the use
of five new apartments and a heritage overlay and design
and development overlay schedule 6 and (inaudible) of car parking subject
to the following changes.
Point one: Make the following amendments to the planning permit, part A,
condition 1(a) to be deleted, B, condition 3 be deleted, and point 2,
the following table is to be added at the end of the permit
and the details are Amendment to the permit under section 72
of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Two, condition 1(a) to be deleted, condition 3 to be deleted and deletion
of the requirement for the original heritage parapet
of the building on east and north elevation to be reinstated
as required under the original permit conditions.
Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can I have a seconder?
Yes, would you like to debate?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, Madam Chair, I think it's a bit
of a mess happening here.
It looks like the parapet was removed for integrity and I know for a fact,
being involved in a property where the parapet unfortunately collapsed just
after a small earthquake, I can see what the integrity is.
It's a structural integrity.
So it was removed in 1956.
I'm not sure if anyone here was born then or remember
it.
OK, Councillor del Porto.
I'm not sure if you remember the parapet, though.
I don't know if my math is good.
66 or so years ago.
And just to top it off, back in 1990
- sorry, February 2000, the Heritage Overlay basically was put
on that property without that parapet.
For some reason, we made aware of a non-compliance
back in 2019 after the building was finished,
certificate of occupancy issued, people went into it,
and the developer conveniently he just disappeared or
he declared bankrupt or I don't know what happened to him.
So we are chasing not the original developer of the land.
We are chasing an owners corporation of new owners who were not even aware
of the parapet.
I've actually looked into, believe it or not, we've had 25
- one objection and 14 letters of support, and the objection that we received,
I looked at it today.
The lady from up the road, the Coles supermarket,
she don't want the existing parapet to be removed.
So even the objector we have objected thinking that
they are removing existing parapet.
I went to the city
- I worked in the city for around 15 years and I used to catch the train
from middle Brighton there and I never, ever thought that there is something
on top of that building or there is a need for anything.
So we all know that people are living in it, they bought in it
in its current state.
Putting a parapet to obstruct the daylight and the views is just not fair.
I'm really hoping I get the support of this Council to issue a permit or
a notice of division not to reinstate that parapet.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you for that.
I support the Mayor.
My argument has already been alluded to.
The heritage argument is actually one that is pretty close to my heart.
When I was Mayor many years ago in '98, we actually introduced an interim overlay
on all these Victorian properties and the Minister approved these.
We engaged a company called Allan Lovell to review the Andrew Ward study as well as
to do further research on any other Victorian-Edwardian
houses or properties.
This was one of them.
Now, by 2000, from the sounds of it, it had been incorporated in the Planning
Scheme.
Now, if the house or the building had not been worthy of heritage
because a parapet had been missing since 1956,
I would have thought Allan Lovell would have picked it up because I recall that
the consultants that we had at the time didn't include every Victorian
house or Edwardian house.
They included what they thought were the better examples of it.
There were some Edwardian and Victorian houses that were not picked
up.
This was one.
So I think to my way of thinking it was good enough
for Allan Lovell to pick it up and for us to incorporate into the Planning Scheme,
for the Minister to have a panel set up and for the panel
to say that's worthy of heritage, I think that's good enough for me.
The amenity issue is huge.
I have seen photos of what it would be like if you had a parapet there
and it would be like living in a cell.
The cost issue, $1 million from the sounds of it, is enormous and also how just
is it really?
The justice issue.
I know that we are doing planning here tonight but I don't think it's fair
that given we've got stat decs saying that people didn't know there was an issue
with any of those planning conditions and
they bought
- I know there's caveat emptor, buyers beware,
but I think we live in a civilised society and this is a building that has been there
for about 150 years.
It was legally refurbished, except for this particular issue, so my view
is that we should support the Mayor's motion, which
is basically saying just leave it.
I understand Officers are just following the law and they're just trying
to now rectify something that the consultant said we need to do
and we can't change the actual original builder, developer,
for whatever reasons I don't want to delve into, but I think we have
to also think those issues I have listed I think have some validity.
So I'm hoping that we all support the motion the Mayor put up.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Yes, Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a Planning and Amenity Committee.
Let me get that straight for everybody.
I'm judging things on the planning and amenity because that
is what this committee is.
A reinstatement of the balcony does not make this building
a better heritage building, in that castellated balcony.
It does not make it a better heritage building because people have looked
at that without it and given it heritage values.
Now I'm a great supporter of heritage, but third floor, if it was my look at it,
does not really do the justice that it should.
The fourth floor is very good.
It's very elegant.
However, we're ask
- sorry, a complaint has come in from somebody that has made Officers aware
of something and they've acted on it, which is right and proper,
and I understand
- I understand what their recommendation is and I think that's
- from an officer level, that is a proper thing to do as far
as a planning of amenity.
However, we look at it a little bit differently and, again,
I think a number of councillors went down there and had a look at it.
Judging from the amenity inside the units now, looking out
through a balcony like that, does not provide a great amount
of amenity for that.
And if it was a new one, we would not support it
on amenity grounds.
So again there's probably a couple of things that influenced me.
First of all, I think they're being very honest when
they said that if they were looking at it, that the part above it was a parapet,
which a parapet is something between a roof and going
up 1500 or whatever
- sorry, about 300 or 400, something like that, that sort of thing.
That's a parapet.
And the addition that they were talking about is an addition to it.
It was knocked over.
So again I can understand that.
That is a very I think
- an honest belief that there's a parapet there.
So I honestly believe that the people here
- the objectors to the original motion
- are seeing the right thing.
So I support it.
Two things
- I don't think that the reinstatement of the balcony
will make it a better heritage building and again I think the amenity from
inside there is so compromised with it going on both the north
and the eastern balcony that I can't support it.
So I support the Mayor's amended motion.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
Just going through what VCAT had to say and all the underlinings by the Officers
on page 82, and that was 2010, that commentary out of the VCAT report,
is that correct?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Are you asking a question of the Officers?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
In their decision, Dom v Design v Bayside 2010.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that's correct, yes.
CR MARTIN: And so VCAT ruled and then a permit was issued
and construction took place.
Is that correct?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, yes.
The permit was issued under the direction of the tribunal.
CR MARTIN: And then between 2010 and 2019, construction took place
and then a complaint was received that the permit hadn't been executed correctly.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that's correct, yes.
CR MARTIN: So I've got a few questions about this.
In the report, there's no what I can see investigation
to how a major statement by VCAT did not get executed
by the developer.
So could you just run me through how Council came
to the conclusion that that
- where that failure occurred and what date, what month?
Like, when did the actual building inspector,
the private building inspector, fail in their duties?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, we'll take that on notice.
That will require some digging around to get that information for you.
CR MARTIN: The reason why I ask Officers is because we're taking residents
through hell in a hand basket.
Like, they have gone through a lot.
I have had people ringing me and we just heard one who is concerned
about her life, so we go and chuck it all on them and we don't even know who
the perpetrator is.
Someone said, "Oh, we think he's insolvent"
or "he just disappeared".
Well, there's a building inspector that's failed and there's a developer,
a person who was around not that long ago, and they seem to have not gone
into the report today.
So I'm sort of really quite concerned that this report got here
before we've gone down the rabbit hole of these other people.
They're the people that made all the money.
They're the people that go to VCAT and get these elaborate rulings
and then go and do the building and then appoint building inspectors
who are meant to do their job, but none of that is reported.
Oh, no.
All that is reported is: oh, one of our buildings hasn't got
the permit correctly.
We're going to have to go and get the Planning and Amenity Committee
up and about.
I just get really concerned about this type of thing
because people want ticks in boxes and make sure their permits are
all implemented, but the people who caused all this trouble, the failures
of implementing their duties, are not mentioned in the report.
So I completely support the motion tonight but I don't think we should have got here
yet.
I think there should have been a lot more investigation before we got to this place
and I want to know names, I want to know numbers and I want
to know how these people got off the hook.
Just because you become insolvent doesn't mean you just disappear
off the face of Australia.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
Yes, Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: I'm still trying to imagine what a parapet looks like,
so there's been some examples.
But, anyway, besides that, I think it's a terrible injustice,
what's happened here tonight, to especially Ms Knight.
I felt her emotions.
Definitely help her to stand right underneath if she wants some help.
And also if this falls through, which I'm thinking it won't,
and I absolutely support this motion, to impose 500,000
and half a million dollars on this applicant would be a terrible
injustice, so I'm happy to support this motion, thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
So before close, I'd like to firstly ask the Officers some more
about matters that Councillor Martin has raised, if they have been dealt with
and are being dealt with?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, so whilst I don't have some
of the specifics for the questions you asked,
we have been talking enforcement action around this.
That has been going on for, I understand, about 18 months and is currently
at VCAT so we have been looking into that.
I can't give you any more specifics around the names of people at this point
in time.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
So before you close, I have just a few words.
Much of Planning and Amenity can seem very dry and we can sit here
and make decisions that seem to be just the way it's got to be
and there's not much Leeway.
This one is interesting and this one matters.
This one matters deeply to people.
For a start, amenity.
If we were to enforce this permit, we would be doing terrible things
to people's amenity.
It would just be absolutely awful to take away someone's
- people's northern light and light into their properties.
, and for what gain?
As other councillors have said, this building meets heritage requirements
without the parapet.
And then both natural justice and commonsense, there's no way
on earth I could ever condone or be part of a system that put this kind of burden
on to innocent and unsuspecting people.
It's just not right, not proper.
It just is not something I would ever want to be a part of, and I think commonsense
is part of our job as councillors.
That's what we're here for
- what is good, what is right, what is proper, what makes sense.
So I'm very happy to support and this will really make my evening,
so support removing any requirement for that parapet.
Would Cr El Mouallem like to close?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair, yes.
I'm touching on the internal amenity, which you just mentioned.
If this application was coming to us now with a parapet,
I can assure you it won't be compliant with the built environment
sustainability score card.
It won't be.
So why the hell are we still chasing it?
I understand yes, there is VCAT action now but it's against the residents,
not against the guy who built it, or not built the parapet.
The deletion of this requirement to reinstate the parapet
is probably a priority not just because the residents are concerned
about the impact on their amenity but also financially.
And I know we don't take this into account in planning but for half a million dollars
and not knowing if it's structurally fit to take on that parapet,
that cost can be a million plus.
So really I would appreciate the support of my fellow councillors
to remove that requirement, thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
None.
Carried.
So 4.7, 15 Stewart Street, Brighton.
There was a written statement from Mr Greg Barton and a request to speak
from Mr Chris Pippo.
Can Mr Chris come to the microphone.
MR PIPPO: Good evening.
First and foremost, thank you for the opportunity
to speak here this evening.
I'm here on behalf of the permit applicant asking
for your support for the matter presently before you.
This is the second application for this particular site.
The site was subject to an original application which was
refused by this very Council and that decision was ultimately upheld
by the Tribunal.
Now, on making the ruling, the Tribunal set out some clear parameters
for the site.
In short, the proposal aligns with these parameters.
Now, we believe there are two parts to this equation.
The first part deals with the merits of the design.
What we do is we have a development that, as I touched on, responds
to the parameters set by the Tribunal, delivering a compliant front setback,
a contemporary offering which is deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.
It's delivered generous setbacks from all side and rear boundaries.
Ground floor setbacks meet or well-exceed minimum requirements.
First floor setbacks predominantly meet or exceed setback requirements.
And when you couple this with the public open space,
or the open space provision, which is double ResCode (inaudible),
we say that it appropriately offsets the marginal increase in site coverage
of 1% and the minor non-compliance of one small section of wall
at the first floor level from the west side boundary.
The second part of the equation was a consultation process
and the outcome of that saw a number of windows being screened,
some of which didn't have to by the rules and regs of the Planning Scheme.
It saw an agreement between a land owner and a neighbour to the west in terms
of the erection of a new fence.
And I understand, as referenced up there, a written submission has been made
about the garage on the eastern boundary.
That concern was raised at the consultation meeting,
where the applicant then went away and undertook exploratory works
to make sure the garage could be positioned on that particular boundary
without unreasonably impacting up on the tree
and those findings were supportive and the garage itself is now set back
off the boundary by 200mm to retain the fence.
So meaningful outcomes came from this process.
So it's a well-informed design.
It's one that has listened to the residents, one that has listened
to the Tribunal's decision, and we respectfully ask
for your support here this evening.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Do you have a question, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, thank you.
So we refused the application here and VCAT affirmed that decision,
they supported our decision, and then they've made these commentaries
for you to guide through to this application now.
And you have accepted basically the ruling of VCAT,
with the changes put forward.
MR PIPPO: That's correct.
Yes.
So the main issue with the Tribunal
- or the Tribunal upheld the Council's decision
because the applicant hadn't successfully addressed the neighbouring trees in terms
of proximity of built forms to the trees and so forth,
and that ultimately was the thing that knocked it on the head.
But then following that, in the ruling, the member there stipulated what is
and isn't appropriate for the site.
So there are some similarities between the two
but ultimately the key one was the tree and we intentionally (inaudible)
to retain it.
CR MARTIN: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
No.
You can take a seat.
Can I have a move err and a seconder?
You're moving?
CR MARTIN: I'm happy to second.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Move as printed and you're seconding as printed?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
CR CASTELLI: So in my view, this is in my view
- I believe
- it's a two storey dwelling and as mentioned is well designed and
will sit comfortably in the street.
And also it is an improvement to the previous design refused by Council
and VCAT and addresses the issues around the protection
of the neighbouring trees, which is great.
So the dwelling is pretty much largely compliant
and designed to limit amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and this
is subject to conditions acceptable landscaping
will be provided, and this is why I do support this application.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
CR MARTIN: Yes, well, look, I sort of vaguely remember this one,
and it's just really good to see VCAT understanding where Bayside
is coming from.
As the speaker said, the tree knocked it on the head.
Well, there you go.
So, you know, we made our commentary on the night, which is stated there
on page 112, things like the development failed
to maintain or enhance the garden setting of the precinct, the development failed
to maintain the spaciousness of the setbacks and rhythm
of visual separation between buildings within the streetscape, and et cetera.
So it's really pleasing to see that the application
and the process hasn't just ended.
They're back.
And they're delivering on what we're trying to achieve
through literally millions of dollars, hundreds of hours, an unknown amount
of drive to try to make Bayside beautiful and liveable,
and good.
So this tension between us and these applicants
- if we could just get to the point where we're slowly getting
there, we wouldn't have to go through VCAT and do all this sort of stuff.
The developments would go through and the place would be a better place.
So this is a pleasing example of what could be done
and we literally didn't have to go to VCAT for this result.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support the application as we have it now.
I note that the wall on boundaries B18 is now compliant
and the site coverage is minimally non-compliant,
51 instead of 50%, so I won't worry about that.
And the side and rear setbacks
again are marginally non-compliant by 10cm.
So really I think it's a much better proposition, so happy
to support it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, happy to support.
The key issue is the garage on dwelling 2 and again,
as Councillor Martin says, it is encouraging that sometimes VCAT do
support our refusals but also on the other hand,
it's really good that the applicant comes back, addresses those issues,
and I hope we all get a better outcome.
So, yes, happy to support.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Just a question, Madam Chair.
On page 112, it mentioned the structural root zone
of tree 16.
Is that correct?
Is it tree 16 or 6?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, I believe it's tree 6.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Tree 6, OK.
That's it.
Madam Chair.
I just wanted clarification on this.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate on it?
CR EL MOUALLEM: No debate.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to close?
So all those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
None.
Carried.
So 4.8 is 14 to 16 Grenville Street, Hampton.
Now, there's a correction.
As the item is currently an appeal before the Victorian civil
and administrative tribunal, the Officers recommendation should read
support the grant of an amendment to a permit, not issue a notice
of decision.
Oh, the request to speak.
I have Mr Paul Little on behalf of 14 Grenville Street.
MR LITTLE: Good evening, councillors.
Thank you for hearing me out tonight.
I act for 14 Grenville Street Pty Ltd, the registered proprietors
of the review site here, which is 14 to 16 Grenville Street.
It's a site situated within the Hampton Major Activity Centre.
It's benefitted by the typical general residential zone
and of course schedule 12 to the DDO.
The site does benefit from an existing planning permit,
and that permit resulted from a previous VCAT hearing.
Whilst our clients were not involved in that process,
having purchased the site last year, that permit did ultimately come
from a compulsory conference and an agreement reached
between the parties.
This proposal, as it is before you, seeks to make modifications.
Our clients' view was that they could make improvements
to the existing approval.
Those improvements include increasing the size of apartments, reducing them
from 9 to 8, and maintaining two cars for each of the apartments.
These apartments will make a truly valuable contribution
to the Grenville Street precinct but of course also the Activity Centre itself.
We've worked with Council Officers since prior
to the application being lodged.
We've participated in consultation through the process and, as a result
of feedback from third party participants in this proceeding,
our client formed the view that the path for them was ultimately going to be VCAT
as a result of that advice, and they sought
to take the initiative themselves to progress the matter to VCAT.
That hasn't however stopped us working through matters with Council Officers
and the culmination of that position is the report you see before you tonight.
So the report insofar as it deals with the merits of this proposal
is very well composed and the conditions including
the additional conditions, some of which seek
to reinstate landscaping that was agreed under the previous application,
are all welcome and accepted by our client.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any questions of Mr Paul Little?
No.
You can take a seat
- oh, sorry, Mr Paul Little.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, thanks, Paul.
So we are reducing the number of dwellings from 9 to 8.
Can you tell me if the sellable area is also reduced or just the number
of apartments?
MR LITTLE: No, I don't believe the area of the apartments has reduced overall.
The apartments have simply got larger by a factor of positioning three
at ground, three at first and then only two at the upper level.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And the car parking that was available for unit 9,
is it still on-site or is that removed?
MR LITTLE: No, it's removed.
The proposal as it was approved had two car spaces
for each dwelling, so a total of 18.
It's now proposed to have 16 in lieu of the reduction of one dwelling.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And I am not sure if it's appropriate
but would it be possible to keep these two car spaces for visitors?
That is maybe a question to the Officers or the applicant.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Who are you asking?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I am not sure.
Whoever can answer it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can we start with the applicant?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Are you open to maintaining two car spaces
for visitors?
MR LITTLE: We have a difficulty with this site that in
between the original approval and the current application,
the site was impacted by a special building overlay,
and what that has required us to do as part of this redesign as well is
to increase the ramp length because we have to ramp up
to a certain level and then ramp down into the basement.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So it's a flood overlay.
MR LITTLE: Yes, thank you.
So the difficulty we then have is it has reduced the amount of area
within the basement that we can use to occupy with vehicles.
Consequently, we also have a garden area control
and we also have landscaping that we're seeking to maintain.
So the imposition of a condition requiring two further
spaces would not be straightforward for this design.
CR EL MOUALLEM: What about one?
MR LITTLE: Similarly, it would require a larger footprint
to the basement, not impossible, but it is not something that forms part
of the current application.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Paul.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Are you satisfied?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions?
No?
Can I have a mover and a seconder please?
So Councillor del Porto and seconded by Councillor Castelli, to move
as written.
Would you like to debate?
CR DEL PORTO: Just briefly, the application went to VCAT
in November 2019 and 12 apartments were approved.
It then went back to VCAT under section 72 amendment
on 29 April 2022, and it went from 12 to 9.
Now we have a further reduction to eight apartments,
so I think that's a plus.
I hear the apartments are larger, which in my way of thinking
is a good thing.
We don't want rabbit warrens.
I am sure these are all good quality apartments.
I welcome the landscaping conditions included and so I'm happy to support it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Thank you, Madam Chair.
This site is pretty much located in the Hampton
Street major Activity Centre and it's covered
by a design DDO where higher density development is encouraged and, of course,
there's been an improvement in this application from 12 down to 8.
It's a significant improvement, which is great.
And also I think
- I feel that the architecture actually retains an aesthetically pleasing
presentation to the street and adjoining properties,
one that would integrate well with the surrounds.
The car parking would be reduced in accordance with the dwelling numbers,
so it's been a reduction in the car parks, and importantly, no parking reduction
is being sought.
So this is why I actually support this application
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
No?
Would you like to close, Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: No, thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold
and Councillor Samuel-King.
The motion is carried.
So 4.9, 284 to 286 Highett Road, Highett.
Now, let me have a look.
We've got requests to be heard.
I call Dr Mayumi Purvis, forgive me if I got the pronunciation of that wrong.
Is Dr Purvis here, great.
DR PURVIS: Thank you, councillors.
My reasons for objecting to the signage application are as follows.
First, the large back lit sign on the upper level of the building
is inappropriate because it is at first floor level and, therefore,
shines directly into the opposite apartments living
areas and bedrooms.
And due to the considerable size of the sign, when it is turned
on the illumination is immense.
The first floor sign, secondly, wrongly advertises the venue
for that which they are not licensed for.
The current permit is for a restaurant cafe only.
In terms of the defined land use term
in the Planning Scheme.
The advertisement of a bar as the sign does is a different use term
under the Planning Scheme and the reason for this is
because a bar has significantly different impacts on amenity.
The current sign identifies the operating nature of the venue as a restaurant
and a bar.
It advertises a variety of different brands
of beers via their logos, because it is seeking to attract patrons to the venue
in order to only consume alcohol, with the resulting impacts on the amenity
of the surrounding area, and the residents of this area have witnessed large amounts
of people often congregating outside, not in designated dining area,
but just standing out the front drinking.
It's not what the venue is licensed for.
They do not have a right to operate as a bar.
Finally, the sign is not in keeping with the immediate surrounds, which
is heavily populated by apartments and the street frontage shops below and
around it have no illumination.
So on the basis of this, I respectfully ask that Bayside Council
requires the venue to remove the upper level signage,
as it is oversized and inappropriate advertising,
given the liquor licence only covers the venue as a cafe restaurant.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Dr Purvis?
I have one.
Can you explain to me
- and just to clarify, is this sign currently present, so this
is a retrospective planning application?
DR PURVIS: Yes, it was implemented without permit.
CR SAMUEL-KING : Are you aware of how it impacts
on any residents' amenity as far as the light at night?
Can you explain that a bit more to me, please?
DR PURVIS: So the illumination is extremely bright.
Now, Bayside Council have required the venue to not illuminate the sign,
so it hasn't been turned on for some months, and I might also add
at this point that the venue has closed permanently.
They have closed down, so the venue
- the restaurant is no longer operating and hasn't been for some weeks.
But the planning permit for some reason is still going ahead.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
Thank you.
Any other questions of Dr Purvis?
To the Officers?
Take a seat, please.
Would you like to ask a question?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, you have heard the speaker, the objector.
Now, where are those signs located?
The signs that we're talking about in this application?
OFFICER: So through the Chair, the elevations are proposed
in attachment 1.
The best sheet to look at would perhaps be page 242.
And the two signs that we're considering
- so the illuminated F8 sign is the one in red and then there's the secondary sign
that contains various beers and does state restaurant and bar
in its text.
So those are the two signs.
CR CASTELLI: So are they internal?
Are they inside because I'm looking at something upper level
- OFFICER: Through the Chair, they're not internal.
They're attached to the external shell of the building or on the front facade.
CR CASTELLI: OK.
And now there was also considered that the venue is not in working
- it's not working at all.
It's closed.
Is that right?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, I believe that is correct.
We did make some inquiries with the permit applicant as to whether
they wanted to progress with the application in light
of it not currently being open and they did state that they did want
to progress, for reasons that they believe it is every chance
to operate in the near future.
CR CASTELLI: So it's not operational at the moment?
OFFICER: I believe it's not operational at the minute.
CR CASTELLI: At the minute, OK.
CR SAMUEL-KING: A question, so Councillor del Porto, a question
of the Officers?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
The statement about the illuminated sign being
at first floor level, can you confirm for me that the F8 sign is at
- it looks like it's on the ground level.
It's the height of a person, and also can you clarify for me
whether the other little signs are illuminated or not in some other way?
OFFICER: So through the Chair, the F8 sign is I guess it's a little bit
above ground level.
Now, whether one would call that first or
ground floor
- I guess there would be some ambiguity there, but it is approximately two metres
above the footpath level.
Those signs that state restaurant and bar and contains a number of beer brands that
is also illuminated.
CR DEL PORTO: Is there a reason why the F8 sign is more brightly illuminated
and the other one less bright to the eye?
Are they different type of lights?
OFFICER: Through the chair, I'm not entirely sure
of the technical specifics of the lighting mechanism but
they do appear to be quite different.
CR DEL PORTO: Right.
Thank you.
CR CASTELLI: Just another question.
So it appears this is a cafe restaurant not a bar restaurant.
That's what's been mentioned.
So what is the technical
- OFFICER: Through the Chair, what they call themselves isn't so
relevant.
It's more so how they operate with respect to the limitations of each licence.
Now, if this premises is operating as a bar and not a restaurant,
that would leave them open to enforcement action or an application
to acquire a different type of licence.
So that would be a liquor licence matter.
But it's not uncommon for I guess people to call themselves different things.
It's just a matter of branding rather than changing
the technical definition.
CR CASTELLI: So there's no legal implication to any of that?
OFFICER: Not associated with the name itself, no.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions?
We might then move on.
We have more speakers.
CR MARTIN: Just on that theme, just to clarify, so their permit is
to have alfresco dining at a street level, from page 760, and how many tables have
they got a permit for?
And does the red line assume those tables?
I am assuming they can drink outside on their tables?
OFFICER: They do definitely have consent to use that alfresco area.
I'm going to see if I can find for how many people.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Do you want to take that on notice and I'll call Mr Anthony Carr
and maybe you can get back to us in a minute.
So can Mr Anthony Carr come to the microphone, please.
KAROLINA BARTKOWICZ: Sorry there's been a bit of a change.
Mr Anthony Carr can't come but I'm representing him.
I have registered to speak as well but unfortunately my name did not appear.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So what is your name?
KAROLINA BARTKOWICZ: My name is Karolina Bartkowicz.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Karolina Bartkowicz, come to the microphone, if that's OK.
Ah, there you did.
Yes.
KAROLINA BARTKOWICZ: Thank you very much, Council.
I will keep this very brief because Dr Mayumi covered all
of our points but I would like to also make note
of one particular aspect.
The red lit-up sign, the F8 sign at ground level, also poses a safety risk
in terms of confusing oncoming traffic, vehicle traffic, as it competes
with the adjacent traffic lights, increasing opportunities for accidents
to occur.
So that's just one thing I'd like to add to that particular part.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any questions of Karolina Bartkowicz?
No, you may take your seat.
Oh, to Officers?
Did you have a question of Officers?
CR CASTELLI: Safety risk.
What is your opinion about that?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that's not
- I'm uncertain if this was referred to our traffic team.
I would have to perhaps take that on notice and double check that.
It's not required to be referred to the Department
of transport because it wouldn't
- it's not an electronic sign, so the imagery is not moving.
It's a static sign.
It's only electronic signs that would require a formal referral
to the Department of Transport.
I guess essentially the planning Department didn't see this
as a significant issue such that it warranted any further investigation.
CR SAMUEL-KING : I'll call Mr Steven Thomas to speak.
MR THOMAS: Councillor, good evening.
I represent a group of residents directly affected
by said signage from the cafe and restaurant.
The restaurant closed down very recently.
As the new landlord had purchased a building
- the building was sold about a month or two ago
- the new landlord terminated the lease on the operator of that restaurant.
The signage was
- CR EVANS: Sorry, could you say that again?
MR THOMAS: The new owner of the building terminated the lease
of the operator of the restaurant and locked them out.
CR SAMUEL-KING : Let's let the speaker speak
and then we'll ask questions.
CR EVANS: I couldn't hear him.
MR THOMAS: The operator of the restaurant is no longer allowed in the building
themselves.
They have been removed from the premises.
So there is no-one in the building at the moment.
It's not operational.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
Let's start the timer again.
MR THOMAS: The operator of the site erected those signs
without consultation and no permits from Council.
Bayside Council then ordered them to turn the lights of the larger sign,
he turned that off totally, so that was switched off, so it's not lit
at the moment.
In the photograph they are not lit due to an order from Bayside Council
to turn them off.
The red F8 sign was lit and that caused quite a bit of confusion
at the traffic lights because there is a set of traffic lights 5 metres away
from that sign and it's always red in that corner.
So nobody knew what was going on.
And basically every sign was erected without permits and consultation
from Council.
It's an illegal sign.
It shouldn't be there and it promotes beer and bars and everything else.
There was no permit for it.
It wasn't approved.
And that's basically it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
Thank you.
Any questions of Mr Thomas?
CR CASTELLI: Yes.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Sorry.
Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Yes, thanks for coming down.
You said you represent owners.
MR THOMAS: Yes, I'm the Chair of the committee
- the committee from the building across the road.
CR MARTIN: What's the name of that building?
MR THOMAS: 487 Highett Road.
CR MARTIN: So it's across the road.
And you're the OC chair?
MR THOMAS: Yes, I am.
CR MARTIN: Secondly, that business has got a checkered history
in Highett but it has got approval with
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Excuse me, just
- MR THOMAS: Yes.
CR MARTIN: And your AC is aware of that?
MR THOMAS: Yes, no problem with that.
CR MARTIN: And the third question is I'm assuming that you guys support
that business being run to the permit not out of order because we've had a lot
of trouble in Highett when the businesses are empty,
like vandalism, stuff happens, so you do want the business there.
You just want it to be operating properly?
MR THOMAS: According to the rules and the permits.
CR MARTIN: And that includes the alfresco?
MR THOMAS: Yes, I've got no issues with the alfresco.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Castelli, did you have any questions?
CR CASTELLI: I think not.
I'll get everyone else's.
CR DEL PORTO: I have a question.
Madam Chair, I just wonder, given the information we received,
whether we should actually establish if the applicant wants
to pursue this permit or has contacted Officers to say
"I'm still pursuing the permit"
and if we can't have that information; I wonder whether we should defer this item
until we establish that the applicant, whoever we are, want
to pursue this permit.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I think we heard earlier that the applicant does want
to pursue this permit.
That is what the officer said.
Do you want to clarify that?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that exact question was posed
to the permit applicant who did advise that they wanted to progress
with the application.
CR DEL PORTO: Question through you to the officer,
was this question asked in the last few weeks when this thing
- since they have been actually asked to vacate?
OFFICER: So, through the Chair, the question was asked approximately
two weeks ago.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So yes.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Was that a question asked for the owner or the restauranteur?
Who asked?
Who was it?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the question was asked
to the permit applicant, who is acting on behalf of the owner.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
No more questions of Mr Thomas.
You can take your seat.
MR THOMAS: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Mr Thomas has alleged that the operator
of the restaurant bar has been locked out.
Is that true?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, it's not something I know factually but it
is my understanding that at this very minute they're not
in operation.
Now, the how, why and when as to how that's occurred,
it's not something I'm privy to.
CR MARTIN: OK.
So the second question is: if you do not have a lease
and you've been locked out, can you apply to put a sign up?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, yes, you can.
CR MARTIN: OK.
When can't you apply?
When you're not on the lease anymore or that dispute is over or
- OFFICER: So, through the Chair, whether or not you have a valid lease
is not something that is relevant to the planning permit application process
All you need to do is simply advise the owner that
you have lodged an application.
Now, whether you have a lease might influence
whether you can ever act on that permit but it won't influence
whether you can make the initial application.
CR MARTIN: Madam Chair I'm a little bit confused here.
I just want to step this through.
So you actually don't need to have a lease, like a signed document,
to make an application to Bayside Council to put a sign up?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that's correct.
CR MARTIN: Just to avoid all
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Is this relevant?
CR MARTIN: It is because the applicant is in this situation.
So am I getting confused, so can I just say I want to put a sign up
- I haven't got a lease or anything, but I want to make an application
to Bayside.
I might go and get a lease.
Can I put a sign up?
OFFICER: So through the Chair, you can lodge the permit application but
whether you can ultimately put the sign up, you would need the consent
of the owner to do so but that's separate to gaining a planning permit.
CR MARTIN: Wow.
OK.
Thank you.
I have learnt something tonight.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions?
CR STITFOLD: Yes.
On page 234 it's talking about lighting and the outdoor lighting must be designed,
baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Is that light actually baffled?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, no.
That doesn't have any baffling on those signs.
So there's no light baffle on that sign.
That's a standard condition, such that if we thought the emissions
from that sign were unreasonable, we could require it to be baffled,
but that's not the case at the minute.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So do I have a mover
- oh, more questions?
It's a long night.
Is it a question?
CR CASTELLI: I want to defer this item because I'm really totally
- CR DEL PORTO: I'd second that.
CR CASTELLI: I'm confused with everything.
I want to defer it.
I just need an applicant here.
CR DEL PORTO: I'll second that.
CR CASTELLI: I don't mind.
Whatever you like to do.
CR SAMUEL-KING : You're the first so we're moving
to defer.
CR DEL PORTO: Defer the item to establish that the applicant
is still wants to pursue the permit as of today.
CR CASTELLI: It's all gone.
I'm going to move
- I'm going to refuse.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Move to refuse.
So you're moving to refuse.
Do we have a seconder that will move to refuse?
I think we've got Councillor Martin to second.
Yes?
Yes.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I need grounds for a refusal?
So we have some grounds to refuse.
CR CASTELLI: What page?
CR SAMUEL-KING: They're on the screen I think here.
So you might just read them out.
CR CASTELLI: So the proposal fails to satisfy the relevant decision
guidelines of clause 52 of the Bayside Planning Scheme
in particular the impact of the proposed illumination
on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the area.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Would you like the debate?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, just that we have listened
to our objectors.
It is actually imposing and impacting on them by the looks of it
and there's no-one in that venue at the moment and there's illumination
of a sign up there and it's so confusing at this moment to understand what's going
on.
So I've decided to refuse this on those grounds.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Seconder?
CR MARTIN: Yes, look, I just think that the applicant
needed to be here.
By them not being here or providing any real detail, it says to me
- and hearing that it's alleged
- well, they're definitely not operating, I have been told that a number of times,
that refusal is the best course of action for all of us tonight.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Evans and then Councillor del Porto.
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I agree.
Seeking retrospective permissions doesn't go down well anyway,
but again seeking retrospective permission
A turmoil as to who owns, who wants to run it, it's not
- and the illumination to nearby residents certainly isn't
helping their amenity.
So again if either the owner or the new lessee want to do a similar sign,
take it down, put up a similar sign, they'll come back and ask for a permit
and let it eek out amongst the applicants as to what they think of something that
will come before the Council not retrospectively.
So again they will be able to have their say both for and against.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Well, my view was that before we found out all this,
that I actually thought the application was reasonable because the sign itself
is not on the first floor.
It's two metres up, and part of the original conditions we imposed
on page 337 would have been that the sign will be illuminated between the hours
in which the premises are actually in operation.
So I didn't think it was that much over the top.
It is a commercial one zone.
And now from the sounds of it we're saying well, look,
we're not sure where we are, let's just say no and then it will
- if they want to reapply, they can, once we establish what's going on.
Well then I think it would be more logical to defer the item until
- and contact the applicant and say, "Are you still continuing
to pursue this permit as of today?".
And then we then say do we think
- we think it's an amenity issue or not.
The way we're going now, we're going with respect to everyone here,
the applicant doesn't have to turn up.
The applicant
- there's no requirement on the applicant to turn up, so I don't think that's
a validating point.
My view is that we should defer the item until we establish that there
is an applicant interested in pursuing it because we're mixing up
whether it's an amenity issue, which I don't think it is personally.
Maybe everyone else thinks so and that's fine.
Whether the application
- because there is somebody interested in pursuing it or not, so we're sort
of conflating the two.
So in my view it would be more logical to defer the item
until we establish that there an applicant still interesting in pursuing this.
From the sound of it we spoke not to the applicant but to the planner that
is representing the applicant, but my original view was that I didn't
think it was that much of an imposition on amenity,
so that's why I'm in two minds.
I don't know what the truth is because I'm not there.
We're getting one side of the story, which could be absolutely correct,
so I probably am interested in deferring the item
more than refusing it straight out because I
- CR CASTELLI: Can I
- CR SAMUEL-KING: You will need to wait because your motion is as it is.
You don't have to vote for it but we do want
to hear other councillors speak.
So Cr El Mouallem?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to refer to page 242 and that sign,
which you can call it ground or level 1
- in my opinion it's above the door, so it's probably located around 3 metres
above the ground level, but it's 3.2 metres by 750,
so that's probably as big as a car.
It's a very long sign.
And the sign is not showing it illuminated.
It is showing the F8 underneath it but not the big sign on top.
So really there is no way of knowing how much it's going
to impact the amenity because it's not turned on.
But I do have an issue and the issue is with the retrospective approvals.
It seems there is a number of applications here.
People in the municipality just going and doing what they want and then
they come to us and ask for retrospective approvals and
for that reason I am not supporting this one.
We need to get the message out, they cannot go and do what they want
and then come back to us asking for approvals.
We haven't a chance to see it illuminated.
They should have come to us telling us what type of sign.
It's not a small sign.
And if it's illuminated, someone living on level 1 across the road,
it's going to be in their face.
For that I'll support the refusal.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
Before closing, just on amenity, I would refuse this.
Everything else put to one side, these are big signs.
They are very, very, very, very big.
If you look, we're looking at 3.2 metres
- it's certainly longer than my car out there
- by just under a metre, 750, and then we've got a good two metres high
and then it's a good metre
- these are big signs.
They're illuminated.
I don't think with the kind of Bayside that we want.
They remind me more of maybe Hong Kong.
Now, I'm not saying that Hong Kong doesn't have
- or maybe Las Vegas, all the signs there
- doesn't have its, what's the word, desirable features,
but I don't think it fits with what we want here.
I certainly wouldn't want to be looking at that F8 as I got
up in the morning or went to bed.
I suspect it may well have an effect on traffic.
I don't think it's the kind of sign we're wanting to encourage.
I'd want to see more low-key, more in keeping with the street.
Let's be real about what we're aiming for.
Bayside is a beautiful city and in my humble opinion,
these are not beautiful signs.
I think they're too much, too in your face, and
for that reason alone I would like to support a refusal.
So any further debate and would you like to close, Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Can I just say, look, my refusal was about the confusion here,
that totally
- they weren't there, they're not operating.
I have no understanding of what the applicant wants to do
and when they're going to start operating.
They don't need to be here at all, true, but I've never been
in such a confused state of mind.
So the best thing for me was either going to be defer it or
refuse, and I think I'm going to stick with refusal and
they can always come back and reapply.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So, all those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Cr El Mouallem,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
Councillor del Porto.
The motion to refuse is carried.
Now, 4.10.
This is 20Correa Avenue, Cheltenham, in Ebden ward.
Let me just have a look.
There's one written statement, Robyn Taylor, and no requests to be heard.
Can I have a mover and seconder please?
CR EVANS: I move the recommendation.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Pardon me.
Just a memo.
Officers have advised that since the writing of the report,
a further four objections have been withdrawn.
This leaves the number of outstanding objections at two.
Please also there is an amendment to the Officers recommendation,
being the addition of condition 1F, which is now on the screen.
CR EVANS: With the amendment F, I move.
CR MARTIN: Seconded.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, seconded.
Would you like to debate?
CR EVANS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
I went up and had a look at this.
It's a young lady who wants to come into the suburb that wants
to have one unit for herself and one unit for her parents, which I think
is a delightful thing to have.
She's had a number of objections.
And if you see the number of objections that the applicant has
looked at, the building layout has been refused
to maintain two metre setback, to retain the existing Lilly pilly tree,
which I think was a tick as far as I'm concerned.
The driveway was made permeable, which again I ticked as far
as I was concerned.
Both dwellings have substantial setbacks from boundaries.
Another tick.
Air conditioners placed away where they shouldn't be.
So driveways to each dwelling.
But one of the things that I thought was pretty substantial in this
- first of all, in Ebden ward, coming down the street
- Correa street is a big street and it does have a number
of single dwellings that will be transformed into duplexes,
that is the nature of the suburb
- it is a two storey, not three, which is allowed in there,
and again the thing that attracted me was the number of objections that started off
and the endeavour that the applicant went to to satisfy each of the objectors
and the main thing that really took me was the objectors either side
of this dwelling withdrew their objections and now don't have an objection.
So I think that's pretty telling as far as I'm concerned.
So again most of the things
- there are a couple of
- there are a couple of abnormalities as far as setbacks.
Again, they're not huge but, again, both the eastern
and the Western neighbours have both given it a tick and if the person
- the applicant that's coming in to live in there wants to be a good neighbour,
then I think that she's done the right thing
by getting the adjoining neighbours to tick off on the application.
So again it ticked most of the boxes except for a couple of setback issues
- it ticked all the boxes as far as I was concerned.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Is there a seconder?
You're good.
Any further debate?
CR DEL PORTO: I am quite happy with the application.
The only thing I had was the side setbacks on page 289.
They're not marginally non-compliant.
They're non-compliant by between 800 and to 1,000 millimetres, so by nearly a metre
in some places, and Councillor Castelli has just alerted
me to an SMS we received just now from Daniel Speed and I won't read it
but it talks about how they would not have withdrawn
the objection
- he's one of the neighbours
- had they understood that the setback from his property on the second level
is so heavily non-compliant.
So my view is that we can easily make
it more compliant without
- I have asked a question of Council Officers
- without actually compromising the design.
I believe you were talking about half a metre.
Is that right?
To pull back the east and west elevation on the first floor by half a metre,
and still not change any of the internal bedrooms?
Is that correct?
OFFICER: So through the Chair, something in the order
of 500mil certainly can be accommodated at the Western facade.
There would be some slight difficulty at the eastern facade
for bedrooms three and four, as they're currently dimensioned at 3m
by 3m, which is genuinely considered to be about the minimum for a bedroom.
Now, it's not to say they couldn't achieve compliance
through some other mechanism, for example lowering the ceiling heights,
but it's apparent that it would be more easily achieved to the west than the east.
Without the applicant here, it's a bit difficult for me
to provide any further direction over and above that.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you for that.
So I would like to move an amendment that we pull back the setback
from both the east and west side by 500 millimetres
- CR SAMUEL-KING : Should the current motion fail?
CR EVANS: Just a point of order, Madam Chair.
Sorry to interrupt.
But are we allowed to accept SMSs from people directed to one councillor
as far as an objection?
CR SAMUEL-KING: I'd have to ask the Officers for advice on that.
CR DEL PORTO: I'm not using
- I'm using my own arguments.
I'm not actually talking
- CR EVANS: You alluded to an SMS.
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, that Councillor Castelli received.
CR SAMUEL-KING: We can dismiss that but there is also the compliance that is
in front of us.
CR DEL PORTO: I didn't know about that until now.
CR EVANS: I didn't know about it.
CR DEL PORTO: I understand.
But my view was made clear a couple of hours ago,
when we were actually talking about it, that I was happy with the application.
I felt that given that there was a non-compliance of 800, 900, 1,000mm
on the east and west side, and I asked the Council officer and
he said that you could pull it back by 500, reduce the visual bulk
and not actually impinge on the design.
So I've asked for
- I'm asking for an amendment to be put up.
If I get a seconder, we can then debate the amendment.
CR SAMUEL-KING: If this motion fails.
CR DEL PORTO: No, I can put an amendment to the motion because I'm in favour
of the motion.
I just want to make one change, that's all.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So the mover and the seconder
- would you like to consider that?
CR EVANS: No.
I'm not happy with it.
But I have moved
- that's an amendment.
You have to debate the amendment and then
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Perfect.
You second it?
OFFICER: You want to shift the west and east boundary
on the first floor ... OFFICER: Through the Chair,
can I just clarify something?
I'm assuming that we only want to shift those non-compliant aspects?
There's obviously areas of the first floor that already comply?
CR DEL PORTO: Absolutely, yes.
OFFICER: So just for clarity's sake, the east, that would be the sitting room,
bedroom 3 and 4, the walk-in robe and the ensuite?
And at the west
- CR DEL PORTO: On the first floor.
OFFICER: It would be bedroom 3 and 4.
CR DEL PORTO: Again, I ask councillors to look at page 289 up the top there.
OFFICER: The bathroom, the ensuite and the walk-in robe,
so essentially those areas highlighted in yellow.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So would you like to speak to the amendment?
Need a seconder?
CR DEL PORTO: Madam Chair, this is not a huge issue.
We have often moved things and then we say, look, we might be able
to include an amendment, particularly when the setback
is non-compliant by that much.
So I'm not asking for a huge concession.
I'm actually saying I am happy with the proposition and I didn't know
about the message.
My view was already that two hours ago that I felt that it was
- if it's doable, without compromising the design,
I don't see why we can't accept our own planning guidelines.
That's all.
CR CASTELLI: As mentioned in the pre-meeting upstairs,
and when I got this message, it indicates the same thing.
So if you want me to read this message out, I will share it gladly.
CR SAMUEL-KING: It's up to you to debate.
CR CASTELLI: So it mentions that he is impacted by the setbacks,
the enormous setbacks.
And that's where it mentioned it.
That's why I actually showed Alex, when he was talking about the whole thing,
that this is referring to this person who didn't know at
all this was happening.
So he is one of those objectors who did
withdraw but didn't know
- the correspondence wasn't fully given to him at all.
So tell me.
I'm getting this, a message.
I believe in this message.
And I'm supporting Councillor del Porto's
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Sorry, Councillor Castelli is debating.
Please be quiet and let her debate.
CR CASTELLI: Thank you.
I am very supportive of the application but I'm also supportive
of the setback compliance as well.
I've always been very stiff on guidelines and they were huge, very huge.
CR MARTIN: Madam Chair, I've got
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Is it a point of order?
CR MARTIN: Point of order.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Tell me what the point of order is and I'll see if I allow it.
CR MARTIN: I want to get this SMS right out of this meeting because
if we start allowing SMSs coming in here, no-one is going to come anymore.
I know.
But I want to
- I'm just sitting here going, you know what, my phone is about
to explode.
CR DEL PORTO: What's the point of order?
CR MARTIN: My point of order is we should not accept an objection via
text during a meeting.
And it shouldn't be referred to
- it should be just taken off the
- the reason is because people take a lot of time out to come
to these meetings to represent themselves
- CR DEL PORTO: There's no point of order.
CR MARTIN: It is a point of order.
Hang on.
Sorry, I'll just finish and then people can debate my point
of order, whether you're allowed to do that I'm not sure, but my point
of order is we're bringing a new process in by allowing objectors
to contact councillors live using SMS.
That's my point of order.
I want to find out whether that's allowed or not.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I hear you.
I will ask for advice from the Officers.
OFFICER: Through you, Madam Chair, it's not a requirement
of the Governance Rules.
If people want to lodge an objection, they have two opportunities
- through a request to be heard through a written submission
before the meeting.
There's no other objections that are received up until the meeting commences.
That's it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So thank you.
So Councillor Castelli, you can finish your debate
but please don't refer to any texts that you've received.
CR CASTELLI: It's not referring to this.
It won't be referring to this text at all because I do follow what Councillor del
Porto is mentioning.
As I mentioned, I am a stickler with guidelines especially with setbacks.
There are certain guidelines.
If we could halve it, as mentioned, that would be absolutely great.
I've always been and I've been consistent of this and I would have done this anyway,
regardless of this text.
So that's my thing.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: I have a question.
I just want clarification on whether or not changing the setbacks
to both the east and the west will actually
but make the bedroom sizes non-compliant?
OFFICER: So through the Chair, it's not that
they would make them non-compliant but smaller than what I guess the industry
standard would say is the minimum size for a bedroom.
So that's generally
- if this was an apartment, that would be defined as 3m by 3m.
Now, it's not an apartment so technically there's no formal requirement of a bedroom
of X metres by X metres but using the apartment standard,
it is suggested that anything below 3X3 can be considered perhaps too
small for a bedroom.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Hold on.
I think it's Cr El Mouallem's turn.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Question.
I understand it is in a GRZ zone.
Can you confirm if three levels are allowed and what
is the maximum height.
Also, advice on the side setback because I have seen GRZ sites where
you get away with 2 metres on level 1.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that is correct.
It is GRZ.
It is an area where three storeys could potentially be applied for.
Now we have a few different GRZ areas.
There are some GRZ areas that exist with I guess what you would call
the standard ResCode setback, which is 1m.
However, this GRZ area, which is GRZ
- bear with me, I believe it's GRZ2
- this maintains the Bayside setback variation.
So that's commencing at 2m at ground floor and so forth.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So just for my information to clarify, so this GRZ
is different to what we have in Brighton, for example, in the GRZ
around the Activity Centre Church Street?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that's correct.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And the site coverage, can you confirm is it 50 or 60?
OFFICER: Site coverage is 50%.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
CR CASTELLI: So did all the objectors withdraw?
All of them?
How many were left?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, at the time of reporting there were six objectors,
that's now down to two.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Point of order.
Sorry, if you can stop for a minute
- CR EVANS: No, I am just saying I can debate
the amendment.
I move that
- I want to debate the amendment when you see fit, Madam Chair.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
Sorry, did you have any further questions because I think you have debated?
CR CASTELLI: Would you know where they live?
Do they live right next door?
Are they impacted?
CR SAMUEL-KING : I think I'll ask Councillor del Porto
to close on the amendment?
CR EVANS: No, I haven't debated the amendment.
You can't close the amendment, anyway.
But I haven't debated for the amendment.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Beautiful.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Madam Chair, let me be quite clear about
- I don't know where the SMS has come from and so, as far as I'm concerned,
it is not allowable in this.
I don't know where it's come from.
I'm telling you that the two objectors
- the two people either side of the said development did not object.
Objections were withdrawn.
I'm telling you that.
The Officers
- the Officers say in their
- I know Councillor del Porto is a stickler for regulations on setbacks as far
as numerical values.
The Officers here on page 269 say both variations are
considered to be acceptable as they sit opposite an area
of reduced sensitivity.
The Officers say that on both the east and the west elevation.
So the Officers are informing the councillors that
they consider these variations, which I know Councillor del Porto
- and Councillor del Porto wasn't alluding to the setbacks from the SMS.
He did say it in the briefing and I understand that.
I understand that perfectly.
However, the Officers disagree with him and I'm saying what the Officers have said
that they sit in an area of reduced sensitivity
on the adjoining block, and they're the things that we should be
taking notice of in my view, and I won't be supporting the amendment.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So can I ask for some advice.
We'll need to vote on the amendment.
So all those in favour of the amendment?
I think so.
Apologies.
OK.
Apologies.
We won't vote.
Any further debate on the amendment?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm actually in between, between Councillor del Porto
and Councillor Evans.
I think a bit of flexibility is important here, specifically
because we can go another level on top, and this proposal is not going exhausting
the height limit.
However, I don't really like to see the bedrooms smaller than 3X3.
There is an option where we can do probably
the sitting room a bit smaller and the walk-in robe,
make these compliant, keep the two bedrooms at 3X3,
rather than making these bedrooms smaller.
So in my opinion, that's a compromise between the two.
So I'll be happy with that.
So at this stage I'm just nowhere.
I'm not here or there.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate on the amendment?
CR MARTIN: I heard earlier tonight that we don't want to be making pokey,
unlivable places.
That's what I heard, and then the Officers have gone
to the trouble of explaining why they think the setbacks should be
beyond the guidelines, and this is my sixth year on Council
and we continue to have the debate, saying well, that's what the numbers say,
but then numerical numbers, if you don't take them into the context
by reading the east facade and the west facade on page 269,
you can end up creating very small pokey unlivable
bedrooms.
So I support it as printed, that the ward councillor put it
through tonight without amendment.
So I don't support the amendment.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So no further debate on the amendment.
Would you like to close in relation to the amendment?
CR DEL PORTO: You can't close.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
We'll put the amendment to a vote.
All those in favour?
Councillor del Porto and Councillor Castelli.
All those against?
Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Cr El Mouallem,
Councillor Stitfold and Councillor Samuel-King.
The amendment has failed.
So let's go back to the original motion.
Now, any further debate on the original motion?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Can I move an amendment to the original motion?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can we hear it and then we'll find out
whether you've got a seconder?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Making the east facade sitting room and walk-in robe
and ensuite walls compliant, keeping the bedrooms at 3X3 and also
on the west facade, making the sitting room,
the ensuite and the walk-in robe compliant and keeping bedroom 3 and bedroom 4
at 3X3.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Is there a seconder?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, I'll second the amendment.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate the amendment?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, I don't mind, Madam Chair.
In my opinion, this is a good compromise.
We're keeping the bedrooms at a side
- yes, I understand numerically it's not compliant but what we're doing
is we're breaking the facade.
Rather than being one wall, we're actually articulating
by moving the sitting room in and moving the master bedroom and walk-in
robe and keeping the bedrooms out.
I believe this is architecturally probably a better feature
and also keeping the bedrooms of the size that currently designed for.
So I'm not fussed about making the sitting room
and the walk-in robe a bit smaller.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Would you like to debate?
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
My view is that if the non-compliance is 10 or 20 centimetres,
I've always said I don't care.
I could be a stickler for a metre though.
This is a metre to 800m.
So it is actually quite
a significant amount of non-compliance.
So whether the neighbours have changed their
minds, they're in favour or they have withdrawn, it really
is irrelevant because neighbours come and go.
Once a thing is visually bulky and it's built that far away or that close
to the boundary line, it's going to be there
for another 50 years or so.
So that's my issue really.
And, again, why are we not respecting our own Planning Scheme?
And the report will always try to explain why it is
in this instance you can make exception.
I mean, I've been reading these for 25 years.
They explain why it is that we're not abiding by it,
but neighbours come and go and my view is that if we are going to make it
as visually bulky as what it is, I probably want people to support it
because it is a metre non-compliant on the first floor at this stage.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
CR EVANS: On the amendment, yes.
I won't be supporting the amendment and I will tell you the reasons why.
I don't believe
- if the built form of that particular thing
- it looks like one house.
If you have a look at the roof form, it goes across both dwellings,
so if you look at the roof form, if you look at the front elevation,
it looks like one house.
To make the walls coming in, I don't think it's really relevant
as far as that, and I hark back to the Officers
- I know Councillor del Porto says that
- they say them for particular reasons because they say
they are not sensitive areas, and that's what we are debating,
about sensitive areas.
If they are sensitive areas, I would be well and truly agreeing
with him.
They are not sensitive areas.
If you have an infringement on a sensitive area,
you won't get anybody else not supporting it but me.
But I'm not.
If you have a look, the windows in this facade, they're encroaching
on insensitive areas: it says there in the
- page 269.
So I don't be supporting
- sorry, Mr Mayor, I won't be supporting the amendment.
CR MARTIN: Yes, I won't be supporting the amendment.
One thing that really freaks me out is when we start doing the designs
around here at night-time, especially after 9 o'clock.
Lots of highly paid architects have gone to a lot of trouble on getting this thing
right, so that's one thing.
The second thing is this actually shouldn't have even come
to us.
It's only come to us because they didn't have time to withdraw it.
You only come to the planning committee if you have more than three objectors.
Three objectors or more, you're here.
There's only actually two objectors.
And three is that again we've got to really work
out what this compliance thing is.
What is compliance?
So compliance comes from VCAT and it comes from our Officers and it comes
from the table that says this.
But really when you start seeing all of the rulings, the table
and the guidelines of what setbacks are and what they aren't are all guided
by the context of the sensitivity, where the architects have landed it
and why they've landed it.
So I don't support this amendment either.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So any further debate on the amendment?
I think you've debated.
No, you haven't.
CR CASTELLI: No, I haven't.
I'm supporting the Mayor's amendment.
Why the application
- how many?
Six objectors.
That is the reason why it came here and all of a sudden it went down to two
because it got amended in various directions.
Still not quite right on the guidelines on the setback but this
is a good compromise and hopefully it appeases the objectors
that are remaining, hopefully.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate on this amendment?
Let's put it to a vote.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Cr El Mouallem.
All those against?
Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Councillor Stitfold
and Councillor Samuel-King.
The amendment has failed.
So we go back to the motion as written.
CR EVANS: I think everybody has debated.
I think I close.
CR DEL PORTO: I can't remember that far back.
CR EVANS: I think everybody else has debated.
CR SAMUEL-KING : I think I haven't said anything.
CR EVANS: I beg your pardon, Madam Chair.
CR SAMUEL-KING: It is clearly part of the art of this to balance amenity
of the residents living in these properties versus the neighbours.
There's a fine line and a fine balance.
I don't know if we've got it right but I'd like to trust the Officers on this one
and it's
- and I do have some sympathy for Councillor Martin's caution
for us making these kind of fine tuned decisions.
I'd like to leave it to the architects.
CR DEL PORTO: I didn't get the last thing you said?
CR SAMUEL-KING: I would like to leave the finetuning to the architects.
I don't trust myself at this point.
So that's my debate.
CR DEL PORTO: Madam Chair, we are entitled to follow the Planning Scheme.
CR SAMUEL-KING: I know.
This is a decision of mine.
That's all.
Would you like to close?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes.
Look, I understand councillors wanting numerical
value.
Sometimes you have to put that out of your mind and look
at the whole context and, again, that's what
- I mean, that's what Officers do at a bureaucratic level.
They try to take out the emotion and they try to look at it.
Where there are sensitive areas, they will tell us
about the sensitive areas.
Where there are nonsensitive areas, they tell us about that.
So I'm guided by that.
I'm also guided by the length that this applicant has gone
to to appease her neighbours so that she can come into a neighbourhood
and be respected by the neighbours and, again, I place a lot of importance on that
and I place a lot of importance on the reason that
- she did tell me.
I didn't know before I met her just up the road when she showed me about it
but also the importance of bringing her family in her.
I think that's a really good thing as far as community goes.
Not a debating issue on planning and amenity but it's not a bad issue.
So again I support the original recommendation from the Officers.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour?
So Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Councillor Stitfold,
Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto and Cr El Mouallem.
The motion is carried.
So 4.11 is 30 Oak Grove, and we have a request to speak,
Mr Hamish Balzan.
Mr Hamish Balzan?
MR BALZAN: Good evening, all.
I'm addressing both applications so item 4.11 and item 4.12
regarding the air conditioning units at 28 to 30 Oak Grove.
So as addressed in the officer report, there is no requirement
under the zone or provisions of the Bayside Planning Scheme
for those units, noting that these works are normally
except under clause 62.02-2 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
Rather conditions 1 and 3 of both permits are where this gets caught
up.
While we note that objections have been received, it is a significant reduction
with the number that were originally associated with the original application
in 2009 and the subsequent planning permit since.
So we note the concerns regarding the air conditioners adding
unreasonable height and scale to the development.
However, it is maintained that the units are
acceptable for the following reasons.
The units are located in the central portion of the roof profile sitting 300
millimetres below the top of the roof ridge
with substantial setbacks provided from the front, side and rear boundaries.
There are no direct view lines from my level at the street front
to the units, as outlined in the Council officer report,
with views only available via (inaudible) and elevated height.
The units are not considered to be built form, noting even
with screening they are no solid elements of structures attached
to side walls or boundaries.
And they will also not result in any off site impacts such as overshadowing.
The presence of these units would be further aided
by the inclusion of screening, 1.2m is proposed,
provided in a similar colour tone to the roof tiles to integrate
within this section of the buildings.
This will further preclude views.
Given the screening to be provided, it is respectfully requested that
the air conditioners be supported.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Mr Balzan?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I have a question, Madam Chair.
So Mr Balzan, you mentioned condition C which means no plant equipment service or
architectural feature other than those shown are permitted above the roof level.
Can you tell me how come it's built now and they are installed above roof level,
even though you are aware of this condition?
MR BALZAN: They weren't originally shown on the original plans
and were provided there during the construction stage
by the builder, so now are being retrospectively sought
to be approved, and improved by the provision of the screen being cased
around those units.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So you're telling me they were not indicated
on the original permit?
MR BALZAN: No.
CR EL MOUALLEM: It went to VCAT, didn't it?
MR BALZAN: I wasn't involved in this.
The original application back in 2009 did regarding the two units
but my understanding as well is that two separate permits have been
issued in around 2015 for the construction of one dwelling on each lot.
So there's a bit of complex planning history that I've had
to get my head around but it dates back to that 2009 permit originally
for those two units.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Another question.
Page 333 is showing an indicative location of the units which was central
to the roof line, which you mentioned.
Can you confirm that this is exactly what has been built now?
MR BALZAN: That is my understanding from going out to the site last week,
that those air conditioning units are in that location, yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: OK.
And did you mention that you cannot see them from the footpath level?
MR BALZAN: If you are looking at it directly at street level, you can't.
You can see if you walk further to the left and right at an oblique angle.
But you are having to look for those units.
They're not in your face, so to say.
CR EL MOUALLEM: One question.
You mentioned the screen is 1200 millimetres.
MR BALZAN: So the screen itself is proposed to be 1.2m high from the floor
of the roof, which sits 300mm lower than the roof ridge itself.
CR EL MOUALLEM: OK.
And on the submitter drawing you gave us, it's showing aluminium screen
to air con units 1,700mm high.
So is that a mistake?
MR BALZAN: My understanding is it is to be 1.2m.
That is what was shown on the advertised plans that I saw.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Maybe I need to seek clarification.
It is on page 333.
Because I visited the site today and I can tell you these units are
probably higher than 1200 and this screen is 1700.
Can we get clarification on this?
Is it 1700 or 1200?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the proposed screening is height is 1.2m.
There were discussions originally for a 1.7m high screen
and this was reduced to 1.2 throughout discussions with Officers.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Madam Chair, if you don't mind, another question.
Would the 1.2 cover the units?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, Council Officers are satisfied that
the 1.2m high screen would cover the visual impacts of the units.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Sorry, I am confused.
Cover the visual impact on cover the units?
OFFICER: Cover the units.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions of Mr Balzan.
I do.
I know Cr El Mouallem asked the question but I didn't really get an answer
that satisfied me.
What are we doing here, as in why on earth was an application
for this air conditioning unit not sought prior to construction?
MR BALZAN: My understanding is that the units were only placed
within this area during the construction stage, so this
is a retrospective application
- CR SAMUEL-KING : So that's telling me a matter of fact,
not the why of that fact, if that makes sense.
You're telling me there was a permit application that didn't have these air
conditioners and then the air conditioners were put on.
I know that.
Why?
Why are we sitting here now?
MR BALZAN: In terms of why the units couldn't be relocated
- CR SAMUEL-KING: No, why wasn't it part of the original application.
Surely the developers or the applicants knew that
they were going to be having air conditioning.
MR BALZAN: I wouldn't be able to tell you why that was the reason.
I guess maybe they thought those units could be located
in a separate area of the building or on the site separately but
- CR SAMUEL-KING: So you don't know?
MR BALZAN: I don't know is the short answer.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
So Councillor del Porto, then Councillor Castelli,
you're asking Mr Balzan
- CR DEL PORTO: Yes.
Mr Balzan, if hypothetically these units were
required to be removed from the roof, where would you locate them?
Where would they be located?
I mean, the natural location of these would be where?
MR BALZAN: I had a site meeting last week with the builder and
he said it would be quite difficult to relocate those units because
they are associated with the first floor level.
So they haven't had those discussions yet for where they could be relocated,
whether that would be to the ground floor level or
to the basement level itself, but it would be considerable,
significant difficulty in relocating those units due
to how the building has been constructed to this point.
CR DEL PORTO: I didn't ask you
- I asked you where they would be located, not whether it's going to be easy or hard.
MR BALZAN: I am not sure where they could be located if they couldn't be
in their present position.
CR DEL PORTO: OK.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: This is a question to the Officers.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
CR CASTELLI: You've heard what the Chair was stating.
What is the usual protocol or is there a policy
about these air conditioners that isn't part of a retrospective,
or is it a retrospective
- can you do a retrospective?
I don't know.
This is the thing.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, generally speaking,
air conditioning units are exempt from requiring planning permit permission.
Due to conditions on the permit, they were required
to be shown or located appropriately.
Because the works have been constructed, the applicant has then sought
retrospective approval of the proposed work,
so we're discussing that now.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions of Mr Balzan?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, I have a question, Madam Chair.
Mr Balzan, you mentioned you spoke to the builder
and you told us that these units are associated with the first floor level.
So all these three units that I saw today, which to be honest I don't think they are
in that location shown here, but all these three units are associated
with the first floor?
That's a lot of air conditioning for one floor of a duplex.
They are big units.
MR BALZAN: Yes, I understand.
That's just the instruction I've been provided.
CR EL MOUALLEM: OK.
CR SAMUEL-KING: OK.
You can take a seat.
I have a question of the Officers.
Have we got any information from the applicant?
Have you heard why we're in this position now?
Why this application wasn't part of the original permit application?
Is OFFICER: Through the Chair, that information hasn't been provided
to the Officers.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Madam Chair, I would like to move a refusal.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Do I have a seconder?
So we have a seconder.
Would you like the debate?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
There are a couple of things not adding up here.
I was told that these units are associated with first level.
I do build houses myself and I'll tell you what,
these three massive units are for more than one level.
So I'm sorry but I don't believe Mr Balzan or
the builder on this matter the.
Also I am concerned with the location of them.
As they are built now, I'm not sure if they relate to the drawing we have.
I'm having an issue with the screen.
I'm hearing 1.2 but then the screen is showing 1.7.
A 1.2 screen I don't personally believe is going to enclose these units so there
is some visual bulk and you can see it from the footpath.
Oak Street is a beautiful street with a heritage building facing Corcoran
street.
I believe it is visually not suitable for the street.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Councillor Castelli?
I think you're seconding a refusal?
Thank you.
Yes, a matter of order.
Can you read out
- CR EL MOUALLEM: That Council resolve the notice of decision
to refuse an amendment planning permit under the provisions
of the Bayside Planning Scheme in respect of planning application 2018/210/2
for the land known and described as 30 Oak Grove, Brighton,
for the construction of a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres
for the following reasons: the proposed air conditioning unit
screening is contrary to conditions 1 and 3 of the existing planning permit.
The proposed air conditioning unit/screening is contrary
to standard A19, detailed design of clause 5406/1
of the Bayside Planning Scheme by creating unreasonable visual bulk
when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties, and point 3,
proposed air conditioning units/screening will result in unreasonable amenity impact
to neighbouring properties by way of visual impact and noise which
is contrary to the decision guidelines of clause 65, decision guidelines
of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
So I think you have debated.
Yes.
Would you like to debate, Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: I think it all says
- it says it right in there.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Madam Chair, it's one of those nights really.
I don't like retrospective applications and I think no-one does here,
but we've had lots of residents come to us over the last many years saying and to us,
please do something about the air con, the noise of the air con, which happens
to be usually on the other side of the fence.
So I understand the visual issue but to me the main issue with air con
is the noise.
Now, we're told
- we have been here and we've requested applicants
to relocate their air con from the garden next door
from the ground level to either the basement, if they have one,
or up stairs to the roof because of the noise.
Noise is one of the issues that comes up all the time with single dwellings or
with dual occs.
This application is centrally located.
It's setback and it's screened.
You can see it if you stand on the side definitely.
I don't think it's a huge obstruction, visual obstruction, but I think my view
is that the main amenity with air con is not the way they look,
it's the way they sound, and in this situation,
it can't be any further away than up the roof.
So that's why I would foreshadow the motion that says
- the printed motion, to give them the approval.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: I support
- I hear what the Mayor is saying and I certainly get extremely frustrated
with this sort of behaviour by people that should know a lot better.
But this one stacks up.
I'm seeing this refusal and I'm seeing a lot of trouble.
There's a lot of drama behind that and I just don't think this
is the one that I want to be a part of.
They're better off up in the sky.
They should have got that right at the first place.
They didn't.
And some people have made some decisions on the site and here we are.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, yes.
I completely support Councillor del Porto and Councillor Martin in this.
I'm sorry, Mr Mayor.
I know it's your ward and I respect
- I try to get guidance from you in your ward, absolutely.
I respect that you know your ward very well and the problem
is that I completely agree with Councillor del Porto.
Getting denser units up in the air is probably the best position,
as an architect, as I can say to you is the best position to have them
on the ground, next to people's living areas or even
garages.
They are noisy.
The noise goes up and that's why people like them on the roof.
They like the roof because the noise dissipates out
into the air and, again, I'm sorry not to support you in your ward, Mr Mayor,
but that's just
- that to me is just good guidance on good design, in my view.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: I just think this is a perfect example of why we need
to consider climate change and have passive design houses.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
So Cr El Mouallem, would you like to close?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I hear my fellow councillors and I'm going to be honest with you,
if it was a different application, I would probably support it,
but in this case, I'm looking into what message are we putting out there
for builders and developers?
Are we putting a message that they can build whatever they want,
and they can come back to us for retrospective approval, or do
they need to consult, consult with the neighbours and Council
before they build?
It is a building 101.
If you're building a house of that size, you know where the air conditioning units
are going to be.
Just don't go and put them without a planning permit first.
If for any reason we need to reject this, it's just for the reason that
to tell people, get the message out there, "No, you need to come to us, you need
to get your planning in place before you go and do whatever you want
and then come ask for forgiveness".
But anyway, it's up to the councillors here what message
they want to put out.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour of refusal?
So Councillor Castelli, Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold
and Councillor Samuel-King.
CR EVANS: What about those against?
CR SAMUEL-KING: And those against?
Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin.
So Council has resolved to issue a notice of decision to refuse
to grant an amendment to a permit with a number of grounds for refusal.
Now, we do need to do 4.
- because that was 4.11.
So we need to do 4.12?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'm moving refusal for the same grounds as per
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Sorry.
The speaker said he was speaking on behalf of both.
We need to give Mr Balzan an option to speak again.
Do you wish to speak again?
You don't have to.
No.
I'll make a note that Mr Balzan is not taking up the option
to speak again.
So can I have a mover and a seconder?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Moved for refusal, Madam Chair.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And is there a seconder?
Seconded by Councillor Castelli.
Do you wish to debate?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I think we've discussed it
We debated it enough previously for the same conditions as for point 11,
on that reason I'm moving refusal.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So would you like to read out the refusal?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
That Council resolve to notice of decision to refuse an amendment,
amended planning permit under the provisions
of the Bayside Planning Scheme in respect of planning application 2018/209/2
for the land known and described as 28 Oak Grove, Brighton
for the construction of a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres
for the following reasons.
The proposed air conditioning unit/screening is contrary to conditions 1
and 3 of the existing planning permit.
2, the proposed air conditioning
unit/screening is contrary to standard A19, detailed design
of clause 54.06/1 of the Bayside Planning Scheme
by creating unreasonable visual bulk when viewed from the street
and neighbouring properties.
And point 3, the proposed air conditioning
units/screening will result in unreasonable amenity impact
to the neighbouring properties by way of visual impact and noise which
is contrary to the decision guidelines of clause 65, decision guidelines
of the Bayside Planning Scheme.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
So any further debate?
CR DEL PORTO: Madam Chair, can I say something?
CR SAMUEL-KING: So the seconder is Councillor Castelli.
Would you like
- CR CASTELLI: No, I'm fine.
We've debated enough.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So would you like to debate?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I have had six losses.
I have lost everything tonight.
But I want to make a point.
I hear what Mr Mayor said, that's fine, but I can hear
from councillors who are going to support refusal,
an argument that says we prefer it somewhere else, but
to hear that the argument is that we are in favour of controlling carbon emission
and there's a climate emergency, that presumes that somehow the air con
will never appear on any future permits
on this multimillion-dollar dwelling.
That is not going to happen.
So I would like to know what amenity issues that are
involved that are prompting councillors to vote against a refusal,
unless it's the visual bulk
- CR MARTIN: Point of order.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes?
CR MARTIN: Could we just clarify whether councillors can
direct other councillors to
- CR DEL PORTO: I'm not directing.
I'm not directing.
I'm interested if what people have to say.
Unlike other people, I would like to know what other people have to say
because I respect other councillors point of view, that's all.
CR MARTIN: Point of order.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Point of order.
I can hear it.
Can you wind up your debate please?
CR DEL PORTO: My view is that in the future
- I don't support a refusal for the same reasons we had before,
because I think it will return to us either to VCAT or come back to us
and there will be some air con there because it's upstairs, there
will be a need of one, and people are not going to spend millions
of dollars buying a dwelling with no air con upstairs.
It's just not
- it's not going to happen.
So the question that I would like to ask to think about is if you don't want it
on the roof, where would you think it should be located
where it impinges less on the amenity of neighbours?
That's all.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate on the matter?
CR EVANS: I'm in.
I take a little bit of a different view on this.
On most of the
- and I'm speaking against refusal
- most of the applications that come before Council say air conditioning,
they ever, ever give a direction of where they are,
and constantly we are saying we don't want them there,
we want them there, so again I'm speaking again,
I'm reinforcing my views about not supporting refusal here
because we constantly do it as councillors to say we don't want it on the ground next
- we want it shown on plans and we want it shown in an elevated area
and if you have a look at
- most condensers these days that are in neighbourhood character,
people want them on elevated areas and so again whilst I
understand the Mayor's view about sending a message
about not retrospective
- I understand that.
However, I just don't think you'll get a better solution.
That's the problem.
And that's why I'm not supporting it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Would you like to close?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, I don't mind closing.
I do understand when you're designing a property like this,
there would be a service area, which I expect these services
to be located at.
In most cases, you'll have a service area behind the garage or somewhere on the side
of the house.
And I still stand by what I said earlier, what message I'll be putting out there.
Just let them build what they want and then come to us
for retrospective approval, or it's an important
- Councillor del Porto mentioned it, no-one is going to buy it
without an air conditioner so why didn't you think of it beforehand?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
So let's put this
- the refusal to a vote.
All in favour?
So Councillor Castelli, Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold
and Councillor Samuel-King.
Council has resolved to issue a notice
- oh, forgive me.
All those against?
Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans and Councillor Martin.
OK.
Council has resolved to issue a notice of decision to refuse
to grant an amendment to a permit with a number of grounds of refusal.
Number 4.13, 7 Kent Avenue, Brighton.
There are two Written Statements
- Ms Andrea Tuckman and Mr Joe Grech.
I think we have no requests to be heard.
Can I have a mover and a seconder, please?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Move as written.
CR DEL PORTO: Seconded.
I am hoping to get one through.
Seconded.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So Cr El Mouallem, would you like to debate?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was approached about this site probably in my early days on Council because it was
on the market and it's 2,100 square metres, and the residents
in Kent Avenue were actually concerned that someone was going
to put townhouses or units or apartments on it.
So there was this massive scrambling to protect the on street car parking
and seeing what we can do, which Officers have done, and guess what?
We're looking to an application for one house on that site that's a
beautiful part of Brighton.
I do understand the only reason it's coming to us is because of the heights
of the floor to ceiling, which I actually don't mind.
I quite like high ceilings, especially when you are talking
in that pocket of Brighton, very exclusive streets and probably some
of the most expensive houses we have in Brighton.
So Madam Chair, I know there are three objectors.
I have had a look at them.
I am not sure actually if we can help them under this application.
I don't believe we can because it's strictly
regarding the heights
- the first floor height and maximum
- because the maximum overall height is 8.78, which is
underneath the maximum height allowed on that site.
I'd just like to mention a correction.
The site was subdivided, so the area is not 2,153.
It is probably more 1,096 square metres, and one house on one block
like this in a beautiful location
- if I can get approval.
CR EVANS: It is still big.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Seconder?
Councillor del Porto, would you like to speak?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, I support the Mayor.
I think we have had these applications before where you've got one dwelling
but you've got floor to ceiling heights exceeding 3.5m.
There is a height restriction on the (inaudible) one.
The actual overall height
- as the Mayor said, it's 8.78m, so it is below the 9.
It is 1,096 square metres.
It's huge.
So I think if people want to build something big on the big block
of land and have big floor to ceiling, it's a free country and they can do it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Cr El Mouallem, would you like to close?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, I'd just like to close.
It is probably touching on the previous application
and people asking where do you put the air conditioning units.
I'd just like you to know that there is something called the
in ceiling cassette units where you actually put it inside the ceiling
between your plasterboard and the level above.
I assume that is what they are probably doing in this property.
That is why they need the height.
So there is ways around it.
You can design and engineer around it.
So that is my closing comment.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Evans, Cr El Mouallem,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King?
All those against?
Nil.
So the recommendation
- Council has resolved to issue a notice of decision to grant a permit
with a number of grounds for approval.
4.14, which is 17 Rooding Street.
We have a request to speak, Mr Lewis Moore.
Can he come to the microphone, please.
MR MOORE: Good evening.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to present today.
My name is Lewis Moore.
I'm a senior planner at Ratio Consultants.
The matter before you tonight relates to an amendment to an existing permit
for 10 townhouses.
The key aspects of the amendments include the deletion
of one townhouse resulting in a net yielding of nine townhouses.
The architectural response is also modified,
improving the building's overall presentation to the street
and the surrounds.
Importantly, there is no increase in building height
and subsequently no increase in the shadowing
on adjoining properties either.
Following the advertising period, we received 7 objections, similar
to the previous two cases, the prevailing theme was the location
of air conditioning units, which were to be on the rooftops.
We listened to these concerns and with the assistance
of the architects relocated them to the basement.
So you can either put them on top where they're not audible or
you can put them within the basement with you can't see them or hear them.
We've done the latter.
And subsequently, we can consider there to be no reason
to refuse this application, as the prevailing theme of the objections
is now resolved.
And we would respectfully request that the Council uphold the Officers
recommendation, which is supportive of the amendments,
and support that movement.
Thank you very much.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So any questions of Mr Lewis Moore?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
Thank you, Mr Moore, for the presentation.
So you're reducing one townhouse.
Is there also a reduction in the site coverage?
MR MOORE: That's right.
The site coverage now sits at 52%, which is below the 60% maximum.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So it was reduced from the previous site coverage?
MR MOORE: Yes, that's correct, as a result of the net decrease of one dwelling,
from 10 to 9 townhouses.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Moore.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: The colour palette, you have chosen some dark colours there.
Have you taken into consideration the heat impact
that has?
MR MOORE: My understanding is that we must consider urban heat island
effects and while that's a salient issue, particularly at rooftop levels,
we've considered the architectural treatment to be improved and this
is echoed throughout the officer report, which comprehensively assesses the range
of planning matters, and it speaks to the improved architectural language
of the amended proposal.
CR MARTIN: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions of Mr Moore?
I have a couple.
I don't know if you've got access to this but here the proposal suggests that
the amendment includes the relocation of air conditioning units
from the basement to the rooftop.
Can you speak to that?
The can you clarify, are they going do or are they going up?
MR MOORE: Initially they were to be going up and then we got the objections and
they have gone back down again.
As a result of listening to those objections,
we decided it was possible and preferable to move them
into the basement where they're no longer a visibility issue or an acoustic issue.
CR SAMUEL-KING : So I might just check with Officers.
Is the proposal before us for the air conditioning units to be
on top or below?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the amended plans that formed part
of the assessment do have the air conditioning units within the basement.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
And one Moore question, if you can't answer this,
the Officers may be able to.
There seems to be one big tree here.
It's called tree 15.
I think it might be on an adjoining property.
Are you absolutely sure that that tree will be OK?
MR MOORE: If I remember correctly, councillor, you're referring
to a tree within
- so the site is a sort of L shape if you like, upside down, the one that's sort of
below the L there, in that spot?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
MR MOORE: My understanding is that that tree
- the root zones of that tree won't be encroached
further as the basement
- the setbacks of the basement level aren't going
to encroach further into that root zone.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So there's no increase?
Is that what you're saying
- MR MOORE: No, and having reviewed it further today
and also the agenda which included the officer report, that's consistent
with Council's findings, that there's not going to be any further
encroachment into that tree's root zone.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And I might just check with the Officers.
Are we happy that that tree is properly protected?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the tree protection measures are still
maintained at condition 10 of the planning permit,
so tree protection measures would be required to be
- CR SAMUEL-KING: Required to be adequate?
OFFICER: Yes.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
You may take a seat.
Can I have a mover and a seconder?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Move as recommended.
CR DEL PORTO: Seconded.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
So we do have confirmation that the air conditioning units are back
in the basement.
It was music to my ear to hear that the site coverage was reduced
, so they are down to 52% I heard in a GRZ zone, which is
in my opinion a much better outcome than what we have had.
On balance, I like the reduced site coverage.
I like that with also increased permeability
and I do understand you might have some concerns with the colour scheme
but I actually don't mind it.
Thank you.
That's it from me.
CR SAMUEL-KING: And a seconder?
CR DEL PORTO: Look, Rooding Street has been subject of a lot
of interest on the part of developers for maybe about 10 years.
It's a very narrow street and I think this is a better outcome.
It's just still going to be Moore higher density but I also
like the fact that we've got conditions that require certain adequate head room
to be provided at the entrance of the basement, also
for the waste collections to be able to enter and exit.
So just basic sort of requirements that I would have thought
should already have been there.
But anyway it is an improvement, so for the reason that the Mayor mentioned
, I'm happy to support it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, I'll support this.
Again, let's talk about air conditioning because the Mayor mentioned cassettes just
a moment ago.
Yes, I do support condenser units
in the basement but again let me point out there they're not as good
as condenser units on the roof because condenser units rely
on air flow around them.
So whilst it's a very good point of view to take condenser from the roof
to the basement, which I support as a second view, I support because
of noise, not because of the air flow around it.
The air flow around it is best at the roof level
and I think most architects or designers would know that.
So again I support the air conditioners going down in the basement, mainly
because of noise.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
So before you close, a couple of points of interest on trees.
I do have concerns for that tree but just have to go
on what the arborists are telling us, that it will be OK.
I just ask the developer to take particular care.
Some lovely things.
I have the actual landscape designs and there are some beautiful trees going
in here.
There's a coastal banksia, ornamental pear, Lilly pilly,
beautiful plant selection and not a bad design overall so I'm very
happy to support it.
Would you like to close?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Samuel-King, and on the comment
from Councillor del Porto regarding Rooding Street, yes,
we have had lots of objectors on a number of projects but what I would really like
to make the room aware of is that this is actually a proposal in a GRZ zone,
just next to Bay Street.
It is not utilising the full site coverage but it's also not utilising the height.
It's for two levels.
I personally think it's a fantastic outcome for that site a and I'm not going
to say it's under utilisation but it's probably appropriate utilisation
for that site and for this reason I hope I get
the support of Council.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour?
So Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans,
Councillor Martin, Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold,
Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
So Council has resolved to issue a notice of decision to grant an amendment
to a planning permit with a number of grounds for approval.
So 4.15.
1 Summerhill Road, Beaumaris.
We had a written statement from Mr Robert Simunic.
Apologies if the pronunciation is incorrect.
And three requests to speak.
I call Ms Jan Kreymborg to the microphone, please.
MS KREYMBORG: Hi.
My name is Jan Kreymborg.
I'm the neighbouring property at 4A Fairlie Avenue to 1 Summerhill Road.
I have concerns
- I retired two years ago and bought the property to retire
- well, I am retiring in to live out my days.
The size of this building is astronomical.
They're looking at putting a 400 square metre home
on a block of only 330 square metres.
The boundaries
- they're wishing to build right on the boundary, my boundary,
all the boundaries.
Their setbacks aren't within regulations.
The first floor also aren't within regulations.
The build is just not in keeping of the street, of this beautiful street,
Fairlie Avenue, and also Summerhill Road.
I also have a gum tree, which is about 20m high, in my back, which is
about 4m from that boundary line, which is where they are wanting to build
on the boundary.
I asked for that tree to be removed by Council, which it was rejected.
It's only 6 inches from my home, so they go and build that carport or
the underground car park, it is certainly going
to affect the root system and the integrity of this tree
and the livelihood of my home and myself.
The fence height is another concern.
They have amended the fence from other objections we've had to it but
they are still well over the regulated 2.1m high fence.
My fence height is at that regulation and I have no qualms
with privacy or anything like that so I don't understand why
the fence height has to be so high.
It's just too high.
It's going to look out of place in the area.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions?
Yes.
CR EVANS: Sorry, can you just take me back about the flowering gum.
MS KREYMBORG: Yes.
What do you want to know, sorry?
CR EVANS: Well, it says here tree 2 on the landscaping, it says tree 2
is a 9m high flowering gum, has
- MS KREYMBORG: No, I think that's on their property.
That's on their property.
CR EVANS: There's another one on your property?
MS KREYMBORG: There's another one on my property which is only metres away
from the boundary line where they're wanting to do the car park
- massive car park underneath, which is going right on the boundary.
CR EVANS: I have got you now.
I was getting confused.
MS KREYMBORG: I'm very concerned about that tree.
CR EVANS: Got you now.
Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Do you have a question of Ms Kreymborg?
CR CASTELLI: No, for the Officers.
The tree of concern
- the question is: is the tree safe?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, Council's arborist has confirmed that
through the conditions included in the recommendation,
that the adjoining trees will be viable post construction.
CR CASTELLI: And it's a condition in there?
OFFICER: There are various tree protection conditions in the recommendation.
MS KREYMBORG: Can I
- CR SAMUEL-KING: No, you can't.
Any further questions?
Yes, Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: With regard to your fence, I'm just wondering,
is that also forming a retaining wall similarly to
- MS KREYMBORG: My fence?
Yes, it is.
My retaining wall is 80cm and then I have a picket fence which is
at 1.2.
CR STITFOLD: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions?
You can take a seat.
Oh, do you have a question, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, so you're number
- MS KREYMBORG: Number 4A, I'm on the west side of that property.
It's a corner block and I'm on the west side.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Microphone so we can hear you, please.
CR MARTIN: So the property in question is 1 Summerhill and you're 4A
- MS KREYMBORG: I'm 4A.
So the property was subdivided.
Originally it was 1 Summerhill and I'm the backyard of that property.
It was subdivided.
CR MARTIN: How long ago?
MS KREYMBORG: I think it would be 15 years ago maybe.
The property at 1 Summerhill, that was the original house built
in Fairlie Avenue, or on that property that the house
is in question, or the property is in question.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Sorry, relevance?
And have you finished?
CR MARTIN: I've finished with that one but I might ask the Officers a question.
So when do we start getting into this dual occ when people have sold
off a backyard and started doing the front yard?
Is there a time limitation or is it just a ... OFFICER: Through
the Chair, there's no time limitation in terms of requiring amendments.
CR MARTIN: Amendments or planning
- OFFICER: Planning permits.
CR MARTIN: Because this is a single application coming to us
- OFFICER: That's correct.
This is for a single dwelling.
CR MARTIN: Because the fence is too high.
Is that correct?
Is that why it's here?
OFFICER: The permit trigger relates to the size of the lot, so because the lot
is under 500 square metres, the planning permit application
is required because of the size of the lot.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Ms Jan, you can take your seat, thank you.
Mr Michael Boer.
MR BOER: Good evening, all.
We are objecting to the proposed application based
on the impact to the character of the neighbourhood.
It's non-compliant to setbacks and height of the proposed fence not being compliant
with building regulation.
The overall scale of the property, being of substantial size,
with these proposed setbacks are in no way in keeping with the characteristics
of the surrounding houses in the area.
The size and the scale of the dwelling is overbearing to both 3 Summerhill Road,
which we do have a north-facing backyard, and 4A Fairlie Avenue, Jan's place.
At this scale, the property is proposed to be built, it will be overpowering
and intrusive to look at from every angle.
The roof line shown on the plans of the proposed is clearly above that
of 3 Summerhill Road.
They have clearly raised the natural ground level.
This is clearly not in keeping with the lay of the land, as the proposed
is located at the lower end of Summerhill Road,
then it should follow the suit and in height ratio should reflect the contour
of the street grading.
It should show elevations being lower than that of 3 Summerhill Road, not higher.
On-site inspection, it is easily seen that the natural ground
level of the proposed is approximately 1 millimetre higher than
it should be.
I feel sorry for Jan because it's going to block her completely.
Boundary fences
- they're also not compliant.
They stand at 2.7m high.
It's going to be
- it's almost going to look like a gaol fence.
(Buzzer sounds).
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Mr Boer?
No, you may take a seat.
MR BOER: Thanks.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can I call Mr Chris Pippo to the microphone.
MR PIPPO: Hi again.
So I'm here on behalf of the (inaudible) family, asking
for your support for the family home being proposed.
This site before you is not your everyday allotment.
It's a subdivided allotment.
It's square in shape.
It's a modest 337 square metres.
A lot of that space is lost within the front setback areas
along Summerhill and the side street.
It's defined by a high rock retaining wall along both street frontages which elevates
this site from the street and it's a site that is well vegetated.
So when we consider development on this block of land in the context
of its features, we say it has to move away from just a blind application
of our ResCode standards because ultimately
to simply apply the ResCode stands may ultimately render the block undevelopable
but it's about focussing on the design response.
And the question must be asked: has the right design response been achieved
in terms of considering external and internal living matters.
It looks to retain high (inaudible) trees on the site.
(Inaudible).
It is very much underpinning and championing what (inaudible) talks to.
Much has been made about the front fence.
Ultimately what we have here is a site that sits elevated in the street
and what the application looks to do is replace the existing retaining wall
with a comparable height retaining wall and then propose a fence above it
at 1.5m in height.
This ultimately encloses the front setback area but also allows for surveillance
over the street.
It maintains a rhythm of front setback along both street frontages.
Much comments (inaudible) about the finished floor level,
and when we look at the plans, you can see the dwelling itself
in its finished floor level (inaudible) is relative to natural ground level
to the back half of the site.
The site slopes towards in a northern direction.
The proposal maintains a similar finish floor level and ultimately is exposed
to the front section away from high amenity areas.
Finally, site setbacks, we recognise there are some variations
to the south and west interface.
We say it is not unreasonable on three fronts: One being it has no
impact on amenity because the dwellings around it turn their back
on this property ...(Buzzer sounds) CR SAMUEL-KING
: Thank you.
Any questions, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: What's on there now?
MR PIPPO: A single dwelling.
CR MARTIN: How many bedrooms?
MR PIPPO: I'm not sure.
It's quite dilapidated.
It is not liveable.
It has been vacant now for quite some time I think.
I can't say how many exact
- how many bedrooms there are.
It's pretty small.
The survey that comes with the plan doesn't stipulate
the exact layout of the
- CR MARTIN: Just one other question.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, another question.
CR MARTIN: You just said the site is undevelopable.
MR PIPPO: I said it in the context of just strictly applying
the rules and regulations.
So, for example, when you take
- right now we have a development that has a 50% site coverage.
Right now
- and it adopts a minimum
- so, for example, it adopts a minimum setback
to Summerhill Road of approximately of 6.223m.
Now, if one is to comply with the front setback
along Summerhill Road, that now has to be increased to 8.7m to comply
with the Bayside standards.
So you can see when you have a block of land that only has a certain width
to it and only 330 square metres, it starts really chewing in to the block
of land.
So what I was trying to say in that context was that once you apply
the front setbacks and if you turn around and then apply the Bayside side setbacks,
being double ResCode (inaudible), it renders the site
- the site itself or the development itself is probably less than half.
The exact figure I couldn't tell you.
I haven't done that calculation, but just by some simple mathematics
- and in the report itself, it shows red lines in fronts
of front setbacks, which gives appreciation
in terms of how much the dwelling would be lost to simply comply with standard B6
and B17.
CR MARTIN: Just one last one.
So the size of the dwelling would be lost but the land would still be there
for gardens and open space and a lifestyle using the land rather
than built form.
Would that be correct?
MR PIPPO: It's a bit of a juggernaut because everyone's entitled
to have a dwelling on a block of land.
It just comes down to what is and isn't appropriate.
Ultimately, it is really a judgment call of juggling: well, we have a block of land
of X amount of square metres.
We have the rules and regs in place.
How do we find the right balance?
And that is what I was trying to communicate.
It's not just a straight application.
It is try to say how do we juggle these aspects,
including the retention of the trees that are quite significant
on the block of land.
How do we strike the right medium?
That's the question.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
One thing I think councillors are struggling with in the pre-briefing
was just the height of the fence, and again I know part of it is retaining
but if the fence was reduced, what would be an acceptable reduction?
We're looking at maybe
- what is it now?
2.7.
I know you want to enclose yourself but would you accept two things?
I think there is probably a feeling that that's a sticking point
with a lot of Councillors.
MR PIPPO: It's a fair question and is something we have turned our minds
to in the lead-up to this evening.
Currently, on the site we have retaining walls
in the order of between 800 to a metre in height across those two frontages.
We propose anywhere between 800 and 1200 at its highest point in that corner.
I think one of the things we put forward to the Council this evening
for consideration is reducing the height of the retaining wall to be no
more than 1m so it keeps it relative to what's there.
That will step down as it gets to the corner.
And then ultimately replace the 1.5 high fence with a 1.2 high fence,
so the resulting outcome comes up to a maximum of 2.2m.
And what that then does is
- it's a bit of a juggling act because the block is so elevated
from the street.
That is effectively taking 500m off the overall height of that fence.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions of the applicant?
No?
So do I have a mover and seconder?
CR EVANS: Yes, I would like to move with an amendment to get it down to 2.2,
the fence.
CR DEL PORTO: I second that.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can we have that up on the screen please?
So we've got Councillor Evans moving an amended motion.
And who put their hands up first?
I think Councillor del Porto.
So can we have something up on the screen?
Would you like to read out, Councillor Evans, the amended part
of the motion, please?
CR EVANS: Yes, introduce B, the proposed front fence reduced
to a maximum height of 2.2 or for the satisfaction
of the responsible authority.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Would you like to debate?
CR EVANS: Thank you, can I debate now?
Thank you.
Look, this is a tricky one.
Nobody likes having a biggish house built on a smallish block next to them.
I do realise that the objector is on the eastern side, one of the objectors
is on the eastern side, so it does form sort of barriers
as the sun goes over, it does give them all the light in the afternoon.
So it's not getting any shading as far as afternoon sun, from sort
of two o'clock onwards, so again I think that's a thing.
It's a tricky site.
It's a hilly site, and trying to get anything on there
is probably pretty challenging, I would have thought.
As I read this report from the Officers, the proposal is removal of four trees,
which has sent an alarm to me, but again I think importantly,
they have tried to work within that particular block
and do the best they can.
So again it's a small block and working with it on a hill and small block
is tricky, so I'm not sure that we would get
a better application.
Maybe we would but we're judging this particular one.
The only reason it is coming to us is it is a lot of 500 square metres
and it's a fence of
- a high fence.
So we can't knock off less site, we can't do anything about the site area,
but again knocking down the fence might alleviate some
of the problem for neighbours.
So with that I'll move it.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, thank you for that.
Look, it is a really small block of land.
337 square metres, so you cannot expect compliance.
You're either going to say no, it's too small or never build anything
else on it, but an existing dwelling, so something was there before, so my way
of thinking is that it's also
- it has the issue about the fact of height.
The front fence was of concern to me it's come down from 2.7 to 2.2
and I see that there is
- the compliance is impossible to get.
If you made it fully compliant, you will end up with a handkerchief
of land, so I understand that.
I like the fact that the walls and boundaries are compliant
and also that it is compliant with open space as well,
private open space, which is a good thing on a small block of land.
It's meant to have 25 square metres, secluded at 66 overall,
it's got 112 square metres overall, so it's actually quite a bit more.
So all in all I think that
- I don't want to see it become an unusable block
of land.
I think this is the best way to do it.
I can't think of a lot more you could do with it that would retain some
of the amenities for the owners but also to try to protect the residents as well,
but it is a small block so you are either going to say yes or no to it
and I support Councillor Evans on this.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further debate?
Before you close, there are a number of reasonable things
about this development.
I'm very appreciative of protecting the major trees
on this site.
That I completely approve of.
I do still see
- and I would agree with the objectors
- it's just from my perspective too big for the site still.
Of course it's got to be liveable and I understand that
and I'm not suggesting quite a micro home, but I could see there could be a way
that this could be tweaked and brought back and even looking
at page 485 and the red lines, well, they could be brought back.
I'm not going to try to do it now.
I'm not going to try to be an architect at 10.29 at night.
Far be it from me to do that.
But I actually think we would get the best outcome by refusing it tonight
and encouraging the applicant to come back with something that was just a little bit
more in keeping with the size of the site and then I'd be more than happy
to approve it myself, but not with this degree of non-compliance.
CR EVANS: I'm closing?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, would you like to close, Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: No, I don't.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So all those in favour?
So we've got Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold.
And all those against?
So Councillor Martin and Councillor Samuel-King.
So it's carried.
So Council has resolved to issue a notice of decision to grant a permit
with that amendment with a number of grounds for approval.
Thank you.
So 4.16, 469 Hampton Street, Hampton.
Picasso Family Restaurant.
So we have
- there were four Written Statements by Mr Peter Robertson, Ms Gabrielle Bibby,
Mr Darren and Mrs Cathryn Sayers, and Ms Vanessa Issa, and requests
to speak, we have four requests to speak, but before we do, is there a time
- wait until 11?
OK.
So Mr Peter Robertson?
MR ROBERTSON: Thank you.
We believe the beer garden is inappropriate for this location.
The fundamental question is are the building works appropriate
for its intended use as a beer garden?
Our view is a resounding no.
This is a retrospective application for building and works.
The beer garden space was an undercroft car park, not an existing dining area,
not dissimilar from all the shops down Hampton Street which contain parking
at the rear to support the retail businesses.
The beer garden was given a temporary permit under the COVID state
of emergency rules.
It is important to point out this space never met the open
air dining criteria.
The rear undercroft is enclosed by solid walls on two adjacent sides and
on the other two sides by chain mesh and a plastic weathered covering.
We live directly behind Picasso Restaurant and our living area
and bedroom are only 8 metres from the beer garden.
The beer garden provides seating for some 30 people and the noise generated
from the patrons is excessive.
The solid brick walls directly radiate the noise to our place and beyond.
And the use of this space has been the subject of numerous noise complaints
to Council as a matter of record.
Apart from destroying our quiet amenity, the noise is so loud I can't sleep.
I have to sit up and wait until patrons depart, and this can be
as late as 11.30 because they tend to mill in the laneway after
they have finished their evening
- and I work in construction so I'm up at 5.30 in the morning and the lack
of sleep is affecting me.
There's no acoustic report or attempt has been made to assess the noise issue
within the design.
This is clearly a planning issue.
It is not an enforcement issue.
But to resolve it, we believe an acoustic wall is required.
(Buzzer sounds).
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you, Mr Robertson.
Any questions of Mr Robertson?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes.
Mr Robertson mentioned his bedroom is 8m from the beer garden.
I thought there is a laneway currently
- MR ROBERTSON: There is a laneway separating us which
is 3m wide and then there is a car space which is 5.5m wide.
So our bedroom abuts straight onto the laneway.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So your bedroom is on the boundary, your wall?
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
Upstairs straight down the boundary.
CR EL MOUALLEM: So your house is built on the boundary?
MR ROBERTSON: Our house abuts on the laneway.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further questions?
You may take your seat.
Ms Gabrielle Bibby?
MS BIBBY: As a local resident, my interest and my objections mainly relate
to the negative impacts to amenity.
These are my four objections to the application
to seeking the retrospective permit.
Firstly, noise.
I live within 100m of the dining area in question.
My home is a new built double glazed.
I can still hear the noise through all of that.
It invades our quiet space and keeps us awake.
Parking reduction
- the area has now resulted in four car parking spaces gone.
This site requires four car parks for the business and two for the residents
above.
We already have issues with Picasso vehicles parking
on Hollyrood streets for days and months on end in timed zones
and residential zones.
Built form
- the temporary structure is a wire mesh covering
with a nylon green shade cloth.
It's not similar to, it does not complement,
nor does it add any architectural merit to the buildings in the vicinity.
And fire safety
- the temporary structure is nylon cloth, a fire hazard to the smoking patrons
and also to the water heating unit, which is very close
to this nylon sheeting wall.
On reading the BCC report for the meeting, I'm concerned
of the limited considerations to these four areas.
As a previous applicant and a reviewer and respondent to applicants up and
down Hampton Street, these are usually taken quite seriously,
as impacts to public amenity is considered.
I'm also very concerned that if Council approves this application,
it would set a precedent for all other businesses up and
down Hampton Street and in Bayside.
I think the time to act is now.
Relying on compliance as a remedy after the fact for negative impacts
will not work and will not lead to positive outcomes for any stakeholders.
I understand there were 25 or so households who objected.
That more people are not here tonight is perhaps more a reflection of the date,
being mid-December, school holidays and Santa Claus, than a lack
of legitimate concern.
I urge the Council to not decide on this application
until these ... (Buzzer sounds).
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Ms Bibby?
You can take a seat.
Mr Darren and Mrs Cathryn Sayers?
I think we can just have one.
MR SAYERS: Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair and councillors.
My name is Darren Sayers and my family live
on the laneway, and so our property abuts the laneway about 20, 25m away
from Picasso's.
I'm surprised in terms of the some of comments because essentially Picasso's
is a family restaurant.
We hear no noise.
In fact, since I became aware of the concerns,
I paid particular attention to what was happening
from the noise perspective.
There was one night where I heard noise.
It was over by about 9pm.
So apart from that, there are no concerns.
In terms of people milling around in the laneway,
I have never seen anyone mill around the laneway.
In fact, my wife and I and family, who are sitting over there,
we eat in the restaurant probably once a month or so and, in fact,
it's made a point that we actually cannot go out the back.
We can only go out on the front onto Hampton Street.
So in terms of some of those noise concerns,
I really don't have any.
In terms of when we do eat in the restaurant,
as the name suggests, it's a family restaurant.
We see elderly people coming in for dinner and we see people with young families.
So in terms of the concerns around unsavoury types or anti-social
behaviour, we see none of that.
So part of the reason my wife and I moved into Bayside is we actually wanted to be
near Hampton Street, the vibrancy, of access to restaurants and so on.
So it is something we actively sought, not something that we're actively
looking to stop.
So from my concern, absolutely no issues with noise and have never experienced it.
So thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Mr Darren Sayers?
So Ms Vanessa Issa.
MISS ISSA: Good evening, members.
Our family have owned Picasso's for the last 15 years and are part
of the local community.
We share the space with a large number of businesses trading both during the day
and during the night.
As you are aware, the hospitality industry was struck quite
hard, and to this day, as a family business, we are still dealing
with the loss of income faced during the pandemic.
Within the objections, one proposed key factor was
to install solid acoustically-rated external walls and doors
to reduce any impact noise may have on our neighbours.
To be proactive, based on the current circumstances,
we have reached out to a local builder to provide a quote.
We were quoted $23,175.
We considered this option but, unfortunately,
we are still struggling with the after-effects of COVID and,
unfortunately, this added expense is not an option, as you could imagine.
We have offered alternative cost-effective solutions to the neighbours but
they were declined.
While investigating the amenity rights of the space, we have liaised with the EPA
regarding our rights as a business.
As per the EPA regulations, music is only prohibited after 10pm
during the week and on Sundays, and after 11pm on Friday, Saturdays
and public holidays, and we have agreed to stand by these laws.
Following original complaints, we have advised all customers that
they are unable to use the laneway and this has been enforced at least
for the last year.
Furthermore, during the process, we have not reduced any car parks.
As indicated within the written document, no car spaces have been changed since
at least 2015.
Furthermore, the resident residing upstairs
is also the owner of the business.
Please be aware that we have tried to cooperate with neighbours
at every stage of this matter as we want a peaceful resolution
that does not impact our business further.
Despite these efforts, it is no secret that COVID has had
a costly and
- sorry, it is no secret that this has been a costly and time consuming exercise
- (Buzzer sounds).
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any questions of Ms Vanessa Issa?
Cr El Mouallem?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ms Issa.
Now, you told us you had the acoustic wall and screening at the back.
It was $23,000 and you don't have the money.
If there was a condition on the permit to say you do this
in two years or three years from now, wouldn't that cost be something
you would be willing to
- MISS ISSA: Unfortunately, not.
We're still repaying rent from COVID, so we're still struggling with money
and that's why this space is such a benefit to our business.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any further questions?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Another question.
You mentioned also passing comment that you're not allowing your customers
to go through to the laneway.
And if there was a condition on the permit to make sure this is not going to happen,
is that something you would be OK with?
MISS ISSA: Yes.
What we have done is we have included emergency exit signs
at the back of the premise.
Upon booking of any clients, they advise that they are not allowed
to exit through the rear and upon entry, that is something that we highlight
as well.
And ever since we've had any complaints, we have eliminated this.
The only people that go through the back would be employees,
as we have a dumpster outside.
That is when employees go through the back and there are odd occasions that families
bring in balloons and they don't want to walk through the restaurants or
large cakes and they can put that straight in the
cool room, which is in the rear of the premises.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I have a question to the Officers.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes.
You may take a seat, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: It is possible to include a condition
on the permit that no exit from the back of the property is allowed for patrons?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the use is not being considered as part
of this application, so the movement of patrons can't be controlled.
If that could be tied into the building as a working element,
a condition could be included to that effect.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So I think the answer is no.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, in terms of the patron movement,
there's little planning merit to that argument.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Another question, and it's probably somewhere here,
what time is the restaurant or that back area
supposed to close?
Is it the same operating hours as the rest of the restaurant?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the use is not being considered as part
of this application.
However, as part of the liquor licence application
currently before the Tribunal, the hours of operation have been
for 10pm Tuesday to Thursday, 5pm till 11pm Friday to Saturday, and 5pm
until 10pm on Sunday.
So that relates to the liquor licence element.
CR EL MOUALLEM: OK.
And I assume we cannot put any conditions regarding the use of the back area also?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, unfortunately, not, from a planning perspective.
CR SAMUEL-KING : I think we have some more information
to my right.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, so the rear outdoor dining area does have
additional conditions about being accessed
- not to be accessed by patrons after 10 o'clock on Tuesday to Saturday
and after 9 o'clock on Sundays.
So that's the rear outdoor area.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Yes, a question?
Have you finished, Mr Mayor?
Yes?
CR DEL PORTO: I have a question about the Planning Scheme amendment VC193
and how that relates to the current issue that it makes it retrospective.
If I could have that clarified by the Officers for the benefit
of the gallery?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, VC193 was introduced during the pandemic
and when the state of emergency was declared.
It effectively was encouraging businesses to provide other ways
to keep the businesses going and the like.
The provisions occur until the state of emergency is no longer in effect
and 12 months after that.
So the state of emergency was finalised on 22 October
- sorry, on 12 October 2022, so VC193 applies 12 months
after that date.
Therefore, those exemptions can no longer apply.
However, if they have undertaken works in accordance with those exemptions,
they then have the opportunity to apply for that planning permit.
CR DEL PORTO: Another question.
How is that relevant to this application?
OFFICER: So the works undertaken were part of the exemption under VC193.
Given the state of emergency has now been declared
finished and will end in 12 months time, the works are now applied for
to become permanent.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Another question?
CR STITFOLD: Thank you.
What is it that is exactly under consideration at VCAT at the moment
and how does that relate to this planning permit request?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the current application
before the Tribunal relates to liquor licence
for the existing restaurant use.
So it is for the red line area and for the consideration of liquor to be sold
and consumed on the site.
CR STITFOLD: The second part was how does that actually relate to this permit?
So the red line would take in
- assuming the built form that we're considering at the moment?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that's correct.
The red line would apply to that redecking area that forms part
of this application.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Any more questions?
Yes?
CR CASTELLI: Is there a time
- an end of time for liquor to be drank outside?
Would there be
- what time would that be?
CR SAMUEL-KING : I think that's already been answered.
We had those times read out.
Is that correct?
OFFICER: That's correct.
CR CASTELLI: So there's no limit outside until 11 on a Saturday.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, so the recommended condition that will be
before the Tribunal, if the Tribunal is of a mind to issue a planning permit,
it would be the rear outdoor area is not to be accessed by patrons
after 10pm Tuesday to Saturday and after 9pm on Sundays.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So can I have a mover and seconder please?
CR CASTELLI: I'll move.
I'll second.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So Councillor Martin is moving as printed
and Councillor Castelli seconding.
Would you like to debate?
CR MARTIN: Yes, so, look, I hear the residents
but I also note that there's different experiences happening there.
But this is a family-run restaurant in a major Activity Centre
that's striving to survive during unprecedented amount
of disruption through construction, changes to the way Hampton Street
is operating.
The current liquor licence is modest in its application.
The hours aren't long and I think that what I heard tonight was
a business on the precipice so I'm prepared
to back the business tonight.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, it's a bit late.
So there's points of difference here tonight
and I'm hearing two sides to the story here but I'm also hearing
about a struggling business and it's been struggling since the time
of COVID and it's a family restaurant
and I'm thinking
- I'm also thinking well, they have it under control
about the laneway so I'm hoping that they have and we can't put a condition
on that but that's OK.
I am sure they have it under control.
There's a lot of families that go there, elderly people, and there's never
- well, they are stating
- well, one of the patrons are stating there's never
been any anti social behaviour, I don't feel, unless there's been
- unless there has been any report of anti social behaviour in that place.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, we may need to take that on notice and have a look.
CR CASTELLI: So we don't know.
So they are actually working on getting an acoustic wall but it's going
to take them some time.
$23,000 is quite a lot of money for them to pay out.
And that's probably why I'm actually supporting them because
they are struggling and they need some help, and also
- whilst there are some concerns over noise and amenity, this application
is not
- does not address that at all, so it kind of falls outside the remit
of the application unless something can be addressed through the application
for liquor licences, so when that comes up for the outdoor area.
So I'm quite happy to support this as printed.
So that's my view.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Madam Chair, I just wanted to clarify
for everyone that this application is only technically retrospective because
under the COVID amendment of VC193 businesses could apply
for temporary permit condition exemptions, so I think that's an important thing
to remember.
It is for the existing as of right use of the site is as a restaurant.
The work is at ground level, which is a decking area, are to the rear
of the restaurant.
The roof terrace is well setback.
I do support local businesses and I think this would need more support
and I'm happy to support it by voting for it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Madam Chair, can I ask Mr Sayers a question.
Is your house accessed through Avondale Street and your back up
to the lane?
MR SAYERS: Correct.
CR EL MOUALLEM: And without disclosing your address
but your lot is within 50m from the site?
100?
MR SAYERS: Closer to 20, 25m.
CR EL MOUALLEM: OK.
Very close.
I've got an idea where you are.
So I'll debate, Madam Chair.
I came here with one opinion, but now, thanks to Councillor del Porto
and clarifying, I am not too excited about retrospective,
but considering it comes under the VC193, it is slightly different
to the previous retrospective which I was talking about earlier.
But also Mr Darren and Ms Cathryn Sayers, they are still here with their kids.
That tells me something.
That tells me that the business is trying their best.
I see all businesses need a bit of support.
Just earlier in Martin Street, we have given away five car parking spaces
So we're giving car parking spaces away in Martin where we really need them.
This is not impacting car parking.
There is an impact on amenity which concerns me
but also I am hearing two sides of the story.
I am hearing they are very proactive about it, making sure no-one
accesses or there are limitations on access to the area at 10pm and 9pm
but also the operator has been proactive about it in making sure no-one exits
and that is what Mr Sayers mentioned earlier,
that they wouldn't let him go to the back to access his house.
I actually
- once I heard this, it moved me a little bit.
That means the operator is doing their best.
Now, I would have really liked to see some acoustic treatment maybe
on both sides, on the operator side and also
- and I know it's unfair for number 77 but I'm pretty sure a small investment
of roller shutters or something like this would also help, and on balance,
considering they have been there for so long and
they are doing their absolute best to improve their amenity
- well, not improve, but to limit the impact to amenity,
I'm happy to support.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
Any further debate?
So before you close, Councillor Martin, a family business in the MAC doing
an awesome job, doing their best, yes, there are amenity impacts and I hear that
but I also see family, kids here at five minutes to 11, here
to support the business.
So I really want to support this business and understand that, yes,
there are impacts but in the end it is a major Activity Centre.
Thank you.
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Look, I would just say that we heard
through the operator tonight that they were looking for peace
and I really encourage that.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Thank you.
So all those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
The motion is carried.
So Council has resolved to issue a notice of decision to grant a permit
with a number of grounds for approval.
CR CASTELLI: Chair?
Can I propose something?
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can I have a motion to extend this meeting for a period
of 30 minutes?
Yes?
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
Those against?
Nil.
Carried.
So you
- CR CASTELLI: We won't need that much time
So I'm going to propose
- because it has come to the end of the night
- that we will block the rest of this agenda and support every one
of them.
CR SAMUEL-KING: Can you read out the item numbers?
CR CASTELLI: OK, yes.
4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23.
CR SAMUEL-KING: So do I have a seconder?
Councillor del Porto.
Does anyone want to debate?
No.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Cr El Mouallem, Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Samuel-King.
All those against?
Nil.
The motion is carried.
I declare this meeting closed at 10.58pm.