MR CALLANT: Councillors, Council officers and members of the public
and the broader community who are following this meeting
on livestreaming, welcome to the 14th of February Planning
and Amenity Delegated Committee meeting.
In the absence of our chair, Councillor Samuel-King this evening,
I call for nominations for the position of Acting Chair of the Planning
and Amenity Committee this evening.
Moved by Councillor del Porto.
Seconded by Councillor Evans.
Are there any further nominations for the position of Acting Chair?
As there are no further nominations for the position,
I duly declare the Mayor, Councillor El Mouallem, as Acting Chair
for the Planning and Amenity Committee meeting this evening
Would you like to take the chair, please.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Callant.
Welcome again everyone to the 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.
The prayer, I would like to invite Councillor Stitfold
to read the prayer.
Could all present please stand.
CR STITFOLD: O God, bless this city Bayside.
Give us courage, strength, wisdom so that our deliberations may be
for the good of all.
Amen.
Acknowledgment of Country.
Please remain standing.
I would like to invite Councillor del Porto
to read the Acknowledgment of Country.
CR DEL PORTO: I don't have COVID, just to let you know.
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 the 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.
Apologies.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Move to apologies.
I note that at the 20 December 2022 Council meeting,
Councillor Samuel-King sought leave of absence between 7 February
to 17 February.
Can I have a mover and seconder to acknowledge the leave
of absence of Councillor Samuel-King?
CR DEL PORTO: So moved.
CR EVANS: Seconded.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
We move that Council notes Councillor Samuel-King's
leave of absence granted at the 20 December 2022 Council meeting.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin
and Councillor Stitfold and Councillor El Mouallem.
Against?
None and it's carried.
Declarations of interest.
Are there any declarations of interest?
I don't see any hands up.
No declarations of interest.
We move to adoption and confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting.
Confirmation of the minutes of the Planning
and Amenity Delegated Committee meeting held on 12 December 2022.
CR MARTIN: Happy to move.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
CR EVANS: Seconded.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Can I ask all those favour to please put up your hand?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin
and Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem.
Against?
None, and it is carried.
Move to section 4, reports by the organisation.
Councillors and members of the gallery, 11 members
of the community have submitted Written Statements to tonight's meeting
and a further 16 individuals have requested to speak.
In accordance with Council Governance Rules, the names
of those who have submit add written statement will be read out
at the commencement of each item and recorded in the minutes.
However, these statements will not be read out in 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).
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.
Councillors, we start with item 4.1 of the agenda, that
is 38 Haldane Street in Beaumaris.
And we have no requests
- sorry, we have three requests to speak and we start with Mrs Pauline Zielezna.
Please come forward.
MRS PAULINE ZIELEZNA: Thank you.
So do I just start speaking?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Go ahead.
MRS PAULINE ZIELEZNA: OK.
My name is Mrs Pauline Zielezna.
My husband and I have lived at 40 Haldane Street for 15 years
and we've become increasingly concerned, very concerned in fact,
about the tree in question.
For many years we have been concerned because of its close proximity to
and leaning very much towards our home, with branches and debris often falling
and landing on our garage roof.
In mid-November last year, I rang the Council because I was
- after a particularly bad storm, it caused large branches to fall
on our garage roof.
I rang them for advice because I was worried the tree could fall,
due to the many torrential rains and gusty winds we had been having.
We have had many storms and saturating rains recently.
I was advised to first speak to my neighbours to discuss a solution.
My husband Stan and I went next door and spoke to Simon and Liz and
they told us that they had made an application for removal
of the tree because they also thought that it was dangerous.
I immediately wrote a letter of support for its removal.
Simon has often seen my husband
- my husband is 76 years old and he has to get up on the ladder up
onto the garage roof to clear away all the debris, which frightens the life
out of me every time he has to do it.
Simon has seen him many times doing this and apologises
for the damage that this causes, but of course Simon cannot do anything
about it.
My husband and I raised our children in Mount Eliza for 21 years
and we were surrounded by gum trees.
During that time, two large gums fell due to their shallow roots but
because we were on two-thirds of an acre, we had no damage done to our house.
Should the tree next door fall, however, we believe our house may suffer major
damage.
For this reason, we strongly urge the Council
to grant the application for its removal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much, Pauline.
Do we have any questions of the speaker?
You may take your seat.
I'll call on Mrs Elizabeth Byers please.
When you're ready and speak through the microphone.
MRS ELIZABETH BYERS: I'm the mother of three young children,
one at Beaumaris Primary, one at Olive Phillips kinder
and one still at home.
We love Beaumaris and we will be here forever.
We have immersed ourselves in local community.
We both volunteer on the committee at the kinder.
Our kids do AusKick and tennis at the local clubs and Simon
is coaching our son's basketball team.
One of the things we love most about Beaumaris and our location
on Haldane Street are the trees.
It is what attracted us in the first place
We're here tonight because we're seeking approval
to remove a dangerous river red gum.
In December 2020, a large limb fell off a similar gum in our front yard.
It was a sunny day, no wind at all.
It took out the powerlines, cutting power to the street,
with United Energy attending for several hours to fix it.
I have thought about that day often and what would have happened had
the limb dropped when the kids and I were walking out of the driveway or
a person was walking along the footpath.
Without doubt, it could have killed someone.
When a second limb dropped in a storm several months later,
that tree was promptly removed.
The tree we're seeking support from Council to remove is also located
in my front yard and poses a similar threat to my family
and to my neighbours Pauline and Stan.
We have undertaken research into this tree species and spoken
to multiple arborists and botanists, who commonly refer to this gum
as 'the widow maker', as it is known to drop large limbs unexpectedly.
What is more concerning is that this tree is on a significant lean.
It is not highlighted by the Council arborist in the report
but we understand the lean is occurring because the tree is competing for light
with the spotted gum, which is also on our property in our front yard.
It scares me what the tree will do if and when it falls.
It will either hit my older son's bedroom or Pauline's house.
It sways in a storm.
I don't let my kids play out in the front yard if it is windy,
and if there is a bad storm at night, I will move my son into another room.
I simply do not want to see anyone in our family, our neighbours, being hurt
by this tree.
Simon and I are deeply committed
to re-establishing the character and streetscape at 38 Haldane Street.
We simply do not want a dangerous tree that poses significant risk
to anyone's life.
We request that you please support the removal of tree 3 and allow us
to replant more suitable trees.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Do we have any questions?
Sorry, we have a question for you.
CR EVANS: Just the report says the removal of tree 2, not tree 3.
MRS ELIZABETH BYERS: Yes, so there's two trees in the application.
The Council has indicated in the report they are willing to support the removal
of tree 2, which is a fig of some kind.
They have said in the report they do not support the removal of tree 3,
and that's the tree that we're requesting for consideration tonight.
CR EVANS: Thank you.
Also just another question, Mr Mayor.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Go ahead.
CR EVANS: You do also know that the replacement includes one indigenous
tree and another indigenous tree, both 8 x 4 and 6 x 3?
MRS ELIZABETH BYERS: That's correct.
My husband will speak in his two minutes about what our replacement plan is,
but it's a 3 to 1 ratio of a native mature tree.
CR EVANS: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
We'll call the next speaker, Mr Leo Simon Byers.
Please come forward.
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: Should I quickly address that question?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, if you want to.
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: So you asked about the replacement, so our plan is
to actually replace more than what the Council is suggesting.
CR EVANS: I suggest you wait for the questions
and get your two minutes worth.
CR EL MOUALLEM: No worries.
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: It was a question you just asked.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Please go ahead.
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: The point in me talking tonight is not
to repeat our concerns about the danger of this widow maker tree,
which has been covered already.
Instead, I want to stress our commitment to not just replace
but enhance the streetscape of our property and its contribution
to the greater Bayside vegetation.
The tree in question is only visible from the northern corner of the block.
From directly across the road or the southern corner,
it is hidden behind the large spotted gum, which is taller and wider,
so it provides little visual benefit to the community, which is backed up
by no-one objecting to this application.
As per our arborist's report, the tree has an open crown,
numerous failures and poor form.
In his opinion, the tree in question cannot be retained.
We will replace with mature native trees, Coastal Banksias, which I know are
of great importance in this area.
We will buy mature trees that already have some size to them.
We propose to do this at a 3 to 1 ratio, which is well above most orders
from Council, and greater than the 2 to 1 Council's recommendation
for the replacement of tree 2.
Once fully planted, our front garden will have four Coastal Banksias,
a huge spotted gum and the native snow in summer.
We then plan on engaging a local landscape designer
to plant out the ground level with out native plants that further support
the oasis that will be our front yard.
It will be exponentially better than the sparse and open garden we currently have
now.
Our neighbours will be happier, the birds will have more native vegetation to enjoy,
and it will add value to the streetscape.
The greater number of trees will see our property make an even
stronger contribution to reducing the impacts of climate change,
which I know the Council are supportive of.
The Council's arborist agrees with us, stating in their recommended that
they have reviewed the submitted landscape plan and advised the replacement plant
schedule is considered acceptable.
On reading the Council's report and recommendations to retain tree 3,
this appears to be primarily due to the risk of the character of the area.
Our plan will actually enhance the tree canopy
of our street, provide greater habitat for native wildlife
and enhance the vegetation character of the area.
We just want to do this with safe trees that allow us full use
of our time and not put the lives of us, our children or our neighbours
in any danger.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Do you have questions, Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: No, I'm right.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
Thanks for coming down, Mr Byers and Mrs Byers.
How long have you been on the block?
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: How long have we lived there?
A couple of years.
Two years.
CR MARTIN: Just tell us the maintenance regime
of the red gum that you have undertaken over the last two years?
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: When we had the event of
- was it December 2021?
- at that point, the arborist and the Council recommended that we trim
a couple of the trees, and that included that river red gum.
CR MARTIN: So when did that trimming
- MR LEO SIMON BYERS: That trimming occurred probably six months ago.
CR MARTIN: Six months ago.
OK, thank you.
CR DEL PORTO: I've got a question along the same lines.
Are you still worried about that tree, even though it's been pruned?
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: Am I still worried?
Yes, it's why we're here tonight.
CR DEL PORTO: Have you had any limbs falling out in the last few weeks?
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: Yes, every couple of weeks there will be a decent-sized
limb, varying from half a metre to three to four metres.
CR DEL PORTO: And a further question.
Did the arborist say that you should have the tree pruned every six months, year,
two years?
What was the regime that they
- once they did it, once they pruned it?
MR LEO SIMON BYERS: I think the Council arborist has said that gums need
to be pruned every couple of years.
I'm unsure of the exact date off the top of my head.
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
Further questions, councillors?
You may take your seat.
I'm in your hands, councillors.
CR MARTIN: I'm happy to move as printed, Mr Mayor.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor Martin moved.
Do I have a seconder?
CR EVANS: Seconded.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
CR MARTIN: Thanks, Mr Mayor.
Look, I certainly understand and empathise with the Byers on the tree
and these trees are spread right throughout the municipality, and they take
- to get to that height
- probably around about 20 years.
So for the replacement trees to get to that particular Banksia,
you're probably looking at a similar time line but I don't think
they would get to that extent.
As the report indicates, through our arborists, risks are assessed
through scientific means but the perception of risk
is a psychological perception.
Every day in Beaumaris, the trees grow another 10%
- sorry, not every day
- every year, as I was told by an arborist.
So particularly from spring to now, you'll see your canopy growth by
about 10%, so over a two or three or four years,
that's quite a significant growth when the trees are getting to the size of this,
and that is so good to here that the tree has had an arborist
up in the canopy trimming it.
From the look of the canopy now, it looks like it does need a significant trim,
a significant trim, and I note inside the tree,
there's no cable indicators that have been installed that are a cheap means
of monitoring, especially the larger boughs, that if
they are failing, a tree cable installed will provide a visual indication
to give the tree owner and the public some confidence that
that is working.
There's been a fair bit of traffic on the social media down at Beaumaris
over the last two or three weeks, and it's a debate regarding trees
and their safety, and the regime of Bayside City Council's
vegetation protection overlay.
I've seen evidence of saying "just cut it down and take the fine".
That kind of stuff is not going to get it anywhere really.
It's a matter of us encouraging, focusing, supporting the current tree canopy
on the private realm.
And as I have heard tonight their concerns , I get that, I do understand that,
but risk and the perception of danger is a perception.
It is the a perception.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
CR EVANS: I note our arborist and our Council recommendation
is that the tree 2 is low amenity value and replanting Indigenous species
is a good thing to do for removal of tree 2.
I also see that our officers are saying removal for tree 3 is not supported.
I rely on their value of assessing these trees
and also the placement on the site does not significantly
preclude any future development on the site.
So our officers are saying tree 2
- although it has good health and structure, it's low amenity,
so that's a plus for the applicant about removal of that.
That's good.
But tree 2 they do not support and hence I do not support.
I do like the idea of the
- planting the under-growth and the lower storey.
I do think that's really important.
However, I will go by the Council officers recommendation.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further debate?
Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: I think it is important to note that Council is very risk averse
and we're not going to recommend that a tree is retained
if there is any fear that there will be issues for the residents.
So for those reasons, I think I will be supporting
the Council officers' recommendation.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold.
Councillor del Porto, please?
CR DEL PORTO: Mr Mayor, I hear what's been said and my view
is that the tree was pruned by an arborist.
The owners tonight clearly are worried about their safety
and their children's safety and I think Councillor Stitfold is right.
Usually Council is risk averse, but I don't think there's any guarantee
here that a tree that's been pruned, a gum tree that has been pruned every year
, is not going to do something and drop a huge, limb and hurt people,
especially if you've got family playing there.
So I would like to foreshadow a motion where we remove tree 3 as well.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
CR DEL PORTO: I can't use amendment because I think it's a contradiction.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We will see what happens on the vote here.
Councillor Castelli?
Please put your ... CR CASTELLI: OK.
I'll reserve this for a moment.
CR EL MOUALLEM: No problem.
OK.
I'll just ask
- I've heard the speakers and I recall it was a bit of a deja vu
because there was an application in 58 or somewhere in Martin Street
in Brighton regarding a very similar red gum and the concern from the residents
about the tree and I believe some of the branches did fall on the house.
That was last year.
And I do recall I supported the removal but we had lost the motion that night.
And I would just like to remain consistent and for this I'll probably be supporting
a foreshadowed motion if this is not going to go ahead.
Councillor Castelli, would you like to say something?
CR CASTELLI: Look, I'm going to also be supporting the foreshadowed
motion.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor Martin, would you like to close?
CR MARTIN: Yes, look, I get consistency.
I'm consistent by looking at the reports each week.
I don't vote on what happened last year.
And, you know, I sit here regularly
- well, I think every month we get tree
applications to remove and generally speaking,
I support the arborist.
The Council-paid arborist.
The arborist that goes out there, gets his hands dirty, has a look
at the trees, gets involved in the tree canopy,
gets involved in making a decision, writing it in black and white, which
is what we expect, fear or favour; does not get involved in esoteric things.
It's based on his opinion or her opinion.
Then they write it in these applications.
And it's very important because without that,
I don't know where we're living.
I don't know how we govern.
I am not sure what the governance is.
So I'm consistent by looking at each report on its merits.
Sometimes reports come in where you will go against the arborist
but I haven't seen that evidence tonight that is that compelling.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour?
Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin, Councillor Stitfold.
All those against?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor El Mouallem.
And I'll use my casting vote and it is lost.
Councillor del Porto, would you like to put forward your foreshadowed motion,
please.
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, I would like to add tree 3 to the recommendation
for removal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Do I have a seconder?
Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Councillor del Porto, please go ahead.
CR DEL PORTO: Look, I agree with Councillor Martin.
These are individually judged applications
I also many times support the arborist, so I'm not arguing that.
But when you hear that it has been pruned
- sometimes we get applications where people haven't done a thing
to the tree for years and then you think, well, you know, give it a shot
by actually pruning it.
But this had been pruned and it sounds like the applicant
is worried that it's going to keep shedding limbs.
They've got family.
They've got a house they want to enjoy.
So it's always difficult with this because councillors are always
- it's a hard decision.
Councillors tend to take sometimes different points
of view.
I am sure everyone is worried about safety, all of us.
It's just whether you think that the tree with extra pruning will be safe enough so
that nothing bad happens to the people that live there.
And my view is that it's been pruned.
If it hadn't been historically pruned, I would have said let's come back
in a year, once you prune it.
But in this situation, I think that we do judge on the merits
and I tend to go with the concern the applicants have.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Thank you.
Yes, look, I do agree with some of the points made here tonight.
I've always been consistent about trees, especially when they're not safe.
Gum trees in particular and families.
So I've heard the two submissions and I'm terribly worried.
There are children involved here, and if something happens,
it's not going to be good.
Let me tell you.
It's not a good thing at all.
So this is why I support this foreshadowing.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Mr Mayor, I was wondering if I could take the indulgence
of the mover and seconder.
The applicant did offer, and I was very pleased when he offered,
and it did sway me a little bit, that instead of just a replacement
and I don't know what the mood of the motion is
- I can't read all of what the motion is, but I was wondering if the mover
and seconder would be happy with their effort of a 3
to 1 Coastal Banksias, replacing
- there's a 3 to 1 for both of them, so I was wondering
- it was offered by the applicant and I think it was a very good offer.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I see them nodding their heads.
CR CASTELLI: Yes, happy.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, Councillor Evans.
We'll wait until it is on the screen.
CR EVANS: If you wouldn't mind.
3 to 1 Coastal Banksias.
He did say some low storey planting too.
I would like to take him up on that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We have a comment from our Director here, Councillor Evans.
One second?
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, the application that was submitted
by the applicant presented a landscape proposal which presented three replanting
to each of the trees being removed so
theoretically you wouldn't need a condition requiring it to be provided.
It would be just to endorse the existing proposal presented
CR EVANS: Happy with that.
That will be removed
- this will be
- CR EL MOUALLEM: We'll just ask the mover to read it and if he's happy with that
- CR DEL PORTO: I would like to have B changed to removal of tree 3.
CR EVANS: We'll just refer to the landscaping plan.
Happy with that.
CR DEL PORTO: So the landscaping plan is as endorsed.
Must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority,
including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are
to be replaced.
Is that OK?
CR EVANS: If the landscaping plan shows 3 to 1, Coastal Banksias and under storey,
happy with that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We have confirmation from the Director that is what it is.
So would you like to add further?
CR EVANS: I'm done.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate?
No further debate.
I'll say a couple of words.
We just heard not only from the owner of the property.
I believe the next door neighbour too.
I actually do have first-hand experience with a massive tree limb falling in one
of the properties that I was leasing and it was a family with four kids
under four years old and I'll tell you that was the scariest
phone call as a landlord you want to get.
So I do understand the concerns that they have and now
they do have their neighbours supporting it and we got the replacement now.
We got six new trees coming on-site and for that I'm happy to support.
Back to you, Councillor del Porto.
CR DEL PORTO: Just to say that I think the Byers are very happy with it.
I think they would probably agree to any number of additional vegetation
right now.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor El Mouallem.
Against?
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor Martin.
And it is carried.
Thank you, councillors.
We will move to 4.2.
That's 38 Clonmore Street, Beaumaris.
And we don't have any speakers on this.
I'm in your hands.
CR MARTIN: Happy to move as printed.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
A seconder?
CR EVANS: Second.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Look, the report goes into detail about the value and the health
of the trees noted and I think it's quite clear in the report
and I support the report as printed.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor Evans, would you like to add?
CR EVANS: No.
It does look as though there's a lot of trees going.
They certainly are as in the report not on the great side.
So happy with the recommendation.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate?
Would you like to close, Councillor Martin?
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem, and it is carried.
We will move to 4.3, 59 Tramway Parade in Beaumaris.
We have two Written Statements from Mr Mason Moeini
and Mrs Vanessa Gashtasbi and we have two requests to speak
and we start with Mr Mason Moeini please.
Please come forward.
MR MASON MOEINI: Thank you, councillors.
Unfortunately, Joel Fredman, our urban planner, is not here tonight.
Couldn't make it.
Wedding anniversary of his parents.
Ironically, it's our wedding anniversary tonight
as well.
I would like actually to go through my two minutes
and see how I can go through the statement that our planner actually put through.
So, first of all, we support the Council's suggestion
to grant removal of those low-amenity, low-value trees,
as mentioned in the report.
But we understand that Council actually would like to retain trees number 12
and number 22.
I think as explained in the written statement
of Joel Fredman, our planner, the site is very restrained,
as you can see that in the landscaping plan.
The odd shape of the block, with limited depth
on the eastern boundary with 19m, makes it very difficult
for building a house on that.
It's also restrained by the eastern boundary
and northern boundary having the sewerage easement, 1.8m wide,
and active parts are going through it to the neighbouring properties.
The arborist's report that we have had by TMC describes tree number 12
as fair-poor structure, low-amenity value and low-retention value.
Tree number 12 is a species of sweet pittosporum.
Sweet pittosporum is considered a declared weed in plenty
of jurisdictions in Australia, and many of them in Victoria.
Page 63 of a Council report called Live Bayside, Plant Bayside, which is available
to the public on Bayside City Council website,
suggests that this plant, sweet pittosporum, tree number 12,
is a pest plant and it emphasises to consider removing them if you have them
in your garden.
We are 250m from the foreshore at Beaumaris and Bells Reserve
is 100m away, which suggests that you consider removing
the tree number 12 (Buzzer).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much.
Do you have any questions for Mr Mason?
There are no questions.
You may take your seat.
Do I have a mover?
CR MARTIN: Yes, I would like to move with an amendment please, Mr Mayor.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Do you mind reading the amendment please.
CR MARTIN: The amendment is to remove tree 12.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin and seconded
by Councillor Evans.
Councillor Martin, would you like to debate?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
Look, I've read through the submissions and clearly this is a difficult block.
It's an odd-shaped size.
The couple in question have been in the hands
of Carter Grange, the builder who has done
the application for them, and the urban planner I think was meant
to speak tonight.
I think his name is Joel Fredman.
Joel Fredman, yes.
So he was the chap that was going to come and explain to us why
he would design a house into the vegetation protection overlay
but he's conveniently not here.
I get it.
I understand where this couple is coming from.
I understand the need for this response to this block.
It really does disappoint me that it's a good company, Carter Grange,
but they have designed a property that's caused this amount of grief and drama
in this couple's life.
So I do support this amendment and I support the report as printed,
apart from the amendment.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: I think it is commonly known pittosporums aren't one
of my favourite trees so again happy for it to be removed.
So I support the recommendation with the amendment.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Any further debate?
Would you like to close, Councillor Martin?
I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem and it is carried.
Moving on to 4.4 and it's 11 to 13 Black Street, Brighton.
We've got one written statement from Mr Johannes Risseeuw
and we've got three requests to speak.
We start with Ms Rosa Morstyn please.
Please come forward.
When you're ready.
MS ROSA MORSTYN: Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Ms Rosa Morstyn and I live at 10 Black Street.
It's a heritage house built in 1885.
It's directly opposite the proposed 23-unit development at 11
to 13 Black Street.
I'm here to object to the enormous scale of this development, which proposes
to build 23 units on just two blocks of land.
The proposal would just inevitably dominate the street.
I'd like Council to consider the character of this section of Black Street.
It's between Saint Andrews and Carpenter, so it's just one block, one large block,
and it encompasses a very unique and historic part of Brighton.
It's unlike a lot of the surrounding streets.
In this one section of Black Street, it has one of the densest numbers
of heritage houses and there are in this one block
at least 9 heritage buildings, including the hugely significant Trinity
Church, which was built in 1875 and the land also includes a heritage
Morton Bay fig given to Brighton by the baron von Muller who established
the Botanical Gardens.
We feel in the neighbourhood, and other people I've spoken to,
that we're at a bit of a crossroads as the Brighton community needs to decide
whether it will preserve the historic nature
and atmosphere of this street because the massive developments
that are proposed would dominate and change the character of the street.
I believe the proposal should go back to the drawing board and a smaller,
appropriately scaled with more setback proposal
to be put forward.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any questions of the speaker?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
Thanks very much for coming down.
Can you just step me through
- so that the grounds that you want us to refuse the application is based
on the heritage or is it other
- MS ROSA MORSTYN: There is the scale but a big part of it
is that this part of Brighton, which is really part of Black Street
is just full of heritage buildings and what we'd like to do
is keep that atmosphere and that scale that the heritage buildings
show as part of our, you know, history.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Martin, another question?
CR MARTIN: Just one more.
With the existing building stock on the land,
could you see them having heritage value over time?
MS ROSA MORSTYN: Well, there are two blocks.
One of them has a heritage building on it, but the other one next door
- because they bought two
- the one next door would have a much more frontal and
- you know, three storey sort of impact on the street, plus it is right
next to the church property as well.
CR MARTIN: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you for that.
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Hi.
Thank you for your submission.
What is the direct impact on you?
Because you're just next door.
MS ROSA MORSTYN: We are right opposite and we're
in this lovely heritage house too.
But the thing is that we face the
- all our living rooms, dining and the lovely balcony faces right across
from that development, that three storey development.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
Thank you very much.
We'll move to Mr Mark Stanojevic.
Mark, come forward.
MR MARK STANOJEVIC: Councillors, hi.
Mark Stanojevic.
I'm a planning consultant.
I represent four residents who reside across the way, not far from Ms Morstyn,
at 6 and 8 Black Street.
It's not often I present to you in opposition of a development
in this chamber but I do come to you tonight with what I say
is a strong case for you to refuse this application,
and I think a couple of your questions went to the essence
of that concern.
Effectively, this building, particularly that wedge at 11, between 9
and 13, is simple too large.
It's three storeys.
It has adopted setbacks which are very proud, yet ought to be more respectful
in this setting, of almost half of the setbacks
on the adjoining contributory buildings on either side.
We say that's a really flawed design response.
When you factor in that of 15 of the lots at this end of the street,
10 of them are in a Heritage Overlay and contributory or significant,
the setback simply makes no sense.
When you look at your own policy, your own policy has words that says set
back new buildings the same distance from the front boundary
as adjacent contributory buildings.
So I question how we've arrived at an acceptable setback at 8m
in amongst setbacks to contributory buildings.
To me, it appears as though the brakes are off.
We recognise it's in a go area.
There's a green light.
But there has to be some moderation in terms of how this building fits
within this particular setting.
It's not other streets in Brighton that are free
of heritage controls.
There are significant constraints to how this best fits and then, of course,
with that limited setback, particularly at 11, it means that landscaping
is very limited.
In effect, that front page, before you even look at the plan, sums it
up.
That yellow dot is the cottage in amongst the mass and scale
of that building.
Simply the development subsumes the cottage.
It is great they have retained it but the design doesn't hit the mark.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much, Mark.
Do we have any questions of the speaker?
Councillor Evans?
Sorry, Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Look, thanks, Mark.
Can you just tell me the contributing building setbacks,
what's the current setbacks for the contributing buildings?
MR MARK STANOJEVIC: Thanks, Councillor.
The first building is on the subject site itself.
13 is set back at 15.4m or thereabouts.
And 11 is part of the subject site, where the 8m to the first floor
is proposed.
The other contributory building which sits on the other side of the proposed building
is setback at 15.38m.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Another question.
Go ahead.
CR MARTIN: Just on the setbacks, are there any buildings that do come
within that 8m setback in the street?
MR MARK STANOJEVIC: Yes, there is, Councillor.
The property beyond number 9, it might be 7,
which understand is a single-storey building, sits
at what I believe might be close to that setback, though, by and large,
they're deep setbacks, and you can see that visiting the site
with the extent of landscaping.
CR MARTIN: I'll just do another one if I may.
You mentioned that the street has 10 heritage properties.
Do you know when they were provided heritage protection?
How long have they been
- MR MARK STANOJEVIC: I couldn't tell you, Councillor.
All I know is that on the opposite side of the street,
there are seven properties more or less on either side of the subject site
and five of those are in a Heritage Overlay,
and on the other side, one of the two subject sites is affected
by the overlay.
The one next to it is within and so there are
- of 10, there are five Heritage Overlays on that side.
I couldn't tell you the date.
CR MARTIN: And just one last one, if I may, Mr Mayor.
You mentioned there are other streets in Brighton that don't have that type
of heritage
- volume of heritage properties.
Are they nearby to Black Street?
MR MARK STANOJEVIC: There are streets north of that we've had some involvement
with that didn't have direct relationships
with heritage-affected properties, and that's where we would say if you want
to pursue an 8m front setback with a bold three-storey building,
that might be more appropriate or befitting of (inaudible) or areas where
you would expect change.
The difficulty in this street is that those dwellings in the Heritage
Overlay are set to stay.
They form part of the future character of the streetscape by virtue
of the heritage control.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor Evans has a question.
CR EVANS: As a planner, can I summarise your objections
to be the bulk over the small heritage building
- setbacks and bulk, it is within a MAC, so it's going to be
- there are rules and regulations within a MAC.
So the setbacks and the bulk of it, the number of units
- I mean, the bulk of it is the main objection next to the heritage
- are you happy with the heritage listing house being
retained?
That's a plus.
MR MARK STANOJEVIC: Absolutely.
CR EVANS: But the bulk of the next door and wrap around
- MR MARK STANOJEVIC: The bulk, mass and scale are problematic.
If the right design achieves three storeys , theoretically one would expect that
that would be acceptable with the right setbacks.
It just doesn't go near it.
There are probably four apartments at the front of the building
on 11 that are simply needing to be deleted or redesigned,
in our humble view.
That simply can't be done on the run.
CR EVANS: I suppose it's a question and a comment.
It is within a MAC and it can be built out.
MR MARK STANOJEVIC: Yes, of course.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor Martin to the officers.
Any further questions to the speaker first?
Mark, you can take a seat.
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, could I ask the officers when these houses had heritage protection
put on them, the 10 in Black Street?
MR CALLANT: Through the Chair, that might take a minute to get the answer
to.
CR EVANS: And a follow-up question, are they individual
- you keep saying
- are they individually listed?
It's not a precinct?
MR CRIPPS: Through you, chair, I can confirm that
they are individually identified properties.
I'm just needing to go back and see whether we can confirm the exact date
of when the heritage control came in.
CR MARTIN: Can I ask another question in relation to that, and I asked
whether the property itself, the one being demolished
- we were forecast to do some sort of heritage assessment in Brighton.
When is that going to take place?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Martin, that's probably off the topic right now.
It's already got Heritage Overlay.
CR MARTIN: But the one due to be demolished?
CR EL MOUALLEM: It is not of significance.
Number 11 you mean.
It's a brick veneer, probably 1970s.
13 already has Heritage Overlay.
It's on two blocks.
CR MARTIN: I'm just asking a question.
Are you answering the question?
CR EL MOUALLEM: I answered it for you.
I know the area very well.
CR MARTIN: So what is the answer to the question?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Number 11 is actually brick veneer,
probably a 1970s property.
CR DEL PORTO: Point of order.
Relevance.
Section 56 of the Governance Rules calls for (inaudible) debate proposed
by what the Council is asking is actually relevant
to the (inaudible) we are discussing future Heritage Overlays.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I suggest let's stick to the application.
CR MARTIN: Just in response to the objection to the question,
I do think it's relevant because
- CR DEL PORTO: Are you the Chair and not Councillor El Mouallem?
CR MARTIN: I'm asking the Chair
- I'm asking the Chair a question.
That's OK.
CR DEL PORTO: No, it's not.
CR MARTIN: Who is running this meeting?
CR DEL PORTO: We're asking the Chair on the point of order
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Do you have a question relating to the application?
CR MARTIN: Yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: What is it?
CR MARTIN: If the application gets refused tonight, what
is the likelihood of the 1970s property being
assessed for heritage?
CR DEL PORTO: Hypothetical and irrelevant.
Point of order, Mr Chair.
CR MARTIN: It's a question.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We will move on, please.
CR MARTIN: I think it's a question.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Do you have an answer when they were heritage listed?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, the ones that we have managed
to find so far were in the late 1990s.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
CR MARTIN: Sorry, and was that as a precinct?
Was that part of an assessment?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, they're all individually heritage listed.
CR MARTIN: How did they get heritage listed?
What was the process to get them heritage listed?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, I can't answer that.
Mr Cripps maybe.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Martin, we'll just get Mr Cripps
to answer this and please, we need to move on.
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, the inclusion
of those properties were identified through a heritage study dating back
to I believe the mid-'90s.
They went through a formal Planning
Scheme amendment process.
Sorry, late '90s.
And it went through a formal Planning
Scheme amendment process, which then ultimately saw a Planning
Scheme being supported and overlays introduced
into the Bayside Planning Scheme.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Cripps.
We'll move on.
We have one more speaker and that's Mr Ben Cooke, please.
MR BEN COOKE: Hello and good evening, Councillors.
Thank you very much for your time.
My name is Mr Ben Cooke.
Happy Tuesday and thanks for having us here today.
I'm a town planer and I'm acting on behalf of the applicant, the landowner
and the project team who are responsible for this proposal.
I would just like to say a few brief comments in support
of the project.
First of all, as we are retaining the heritage building
at number 13 Black Street and proposing to build an apartment building partially
behind and partially on the two properties next door at number 11
and 11A Black Street, it's in the Church Street Major Activity
Centre, which is bound by the respective local council DDO,
and we are very much meeting the setbacks, the height and the various provisions
within that planning policy.
We are proud to have put forward a building
with perimeter planting the entire way around the building.
We are not proposing any walls on boundaries like you would typically see
in proposals of this nature and, as such, we're proposing for a 39% garden area,
which is 4% more than the minimum requirements.
- there are four crossovers currently on the site or the collection of sites
on Black Street.
We're proposing to remove three of them and only retain one of them, which
will be a positive for the pedestrianisation
along Black Street, and also we're proposing a beautiful new
communal space for the new residents with the front setbacks.
So I'd encourage you to have a look at some of the project renders,
which are quite beautiful from the front.
Thank you to Council Officers for your time
throughout the pre-application meeting, the community consultation meeting
which occurred towards the end of last year,
and thanking the Officers again for their detailed report and assessment
and ultimate supportive position.
I welcome any questions
- and, finally, there is no reduction of car parking as part of this proposal.
We are proposing a single basement with enough cars for all the residents.
Thanks again very much for your time and more than happy to answer any questions
if that's of any help.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Cooke.
Do we have any questions for the speaker?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, look, thanks for coming down.
Happy Tuesday to you too.
Happy Tuesday.
MR BEN COOKE: Thank you, Councillor.
CR MARTIN: Now, your response to the citation of significance that says
"The garden and fencing are also of note and enhance this intact building.
The house makes an important contribution to the overall streetscape
of Black Street, which contains a mix of late Victorian
and Edwardian building stock".
So how are you responding to that through this development?
MR BEN COOKE: Thank you, Councillor, for your question.
I entirely support and agree with that comment.
We're retaining the heritage building.
We're retaining the front fence, which is the white picket fence.
We're retaining the front hedge, which is just behind the picket fence,
in front of the heritage building, and we're not proposing to build anything
in front of the heritage building.
So in a singular, we are being very responsive
to the Heritage Overlay by retaining as much as we possibly can.
One of the really nice things about this proposal
is how we're responding to building behind it and next to it.
And one of the design mechanisms we've used is for the pedestrian entrance
to be between the heritage building and the next door building so it appears
as if there are two separate buildings and it is set back and internalised,
if you like, to allow for a green spine or some greenery
on either side of that pedestrian laneway.
So we think that combination of design techniques is quite a response
to the ability to build a three-storey building in a general residential zone
but also being respectful to the single-storey heritage
on the 10 Black Street portion.
CR MARTIN: Just one more.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Go ahead, Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: I could be wrong but my understanding is
with the heritage buildings that you can work with a Heritage Overlay
as long as your extension
- normally out the back, not out the front
- does not from the streetscape affect the placement of the heritage building
right around it.
But from the streetscape, if your development went through,
I think that we'll see in the backyard a three-storey building,
whereas if this was an application to modify or extend the heritage house
on there, they would have to respond by ensuring that from the streetscape
we wouldn't lose that amenity.
Is that the way the heritage plan is meant to be undertook?
MR BEN COOKE: Through you, Councillor, if I can reply, it is a good summary
of the general heritage intent.
If this was two separate applications, one for 13 Black Street,
it would be entirely plausible to build an extension
on the back not dissimilar to what we're doing, and if number 11
and 11A Black Street was to be developed by itself,
it is entirely appropriate for a three-storey well-setback,
garden in the front, garden down the sides, not dissimilar
to what we're doing right now as well.
So it is just because they're combined into one application which might see it
being a bit of an easy built form proposition,
but with the combination of the design and development overlay,
the general residential zone, the very generous garden area
and landscape provisions and the full retention of the heritage,
on balance it's a very well responding proposition.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
You may take your seat.
Councillor Del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: I would like to move refusal of the application
and I'll read the grounds.
The proposal fails to successfully implement the municipal
planning strategy and the planning policy framework,
which require an increase in density to be balanced with consideration
regarding neighbourhood character, heritage and achieve a high-quality
urban design.
2, the proposal fails to respect the existing preferred
neighbourhood character of the area and fails to respond
to the preferred character strategy as well as a general strategies
and objective of clause 15.01 (5)(L), neighbourhood character precinct B2
of Bayside Planning Scheme on the following grounds.
The proposed front fence has a maximum height of 2m
and includes limited transparency, which is inconsistent
with the low open-style fences encouraged.
Second storey fails to be adequately recessed and contributes
to visual dominance to the streetscape.
The front facade parapet features contribute to visual dominance
to the streetscape.
And D, the proposal fails to site buildings
to accommodate substantial vegetation.
3, the proposal fails to successfully meet the numerical
requirements of clause 55 of the Bayside Planning Scheme,
specifically A, standard B6 street setback,
B standard B8 site coverage, C standard B17 side and rear setbacks,
D standard B32 front fences, E standard B47 room depth.
4, the proposal fails to comply with the objectives
and decision guidelines of clause 43(0)(2) for the following reasons, A,
the second floor has not been set back the required 4m
from the front or immediately below.
5, the proposal fails to comply with the objectives, strategy
and decision guidelines of clause 15(0)(3) Heritage Overlay
for the following reasons.
The scale, massing and form of the proposed development
is not sympathetic to the heritage building.
And I've got an additional point.
B, the proposed works to the existing heritage building are
inappropriate and would lead to the destruction of the heritage fabric.
The additions overwhelm the heritage building and detract from its value
and significance when viewed along the streetscape and
from the wider area.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Was there a part B, Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Part B is to get the external representation
as well.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
Do I have a seconder?
Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
CR DEL PORTO: Mr Chair, thank you for that.
Look, we had 1,587 properties affected by Heritage Overlay in Bayside.
760 located within heritage precincts.
The rest are individually listed.
As the citation I have given Councillors, it says March 1999.
That's when the study was completed.
It became incorporated in the Planning Scheme around 2001/2002.
I can't recall exactly which month.
It was a couple of years later.
Mr Chair, Councillor Martin has read some of it so I'll read the first bit,
about sustained and significance of this house gives land
at 13 Black Street, Brighton, a historic and aesthetic significance.
The house is particularly noteworthy for its unusual veranda design,
incorporating a barrel-vaulted section, timber balance
and distinctive trellis support.
The garden and fence are also of note and enhance this intact building.
Mr Chair, the impact on the actual property in Black Street
is going to be I think overwhelming.
13 Black Street will be completely surrounded
and overpowered to the rear and north by the proposed development.
The design does not provide any relief to the heritage dwelling and it
is completely out of character and far too large.
So, in my view, just on that ground alone, it should be refused.
But then if we look at the Res Code requirements,
we also see that, for example, it is on a huge block of land.
2,548 square metres.
And yet somehow it manages to be non-compliant in side setbacks
by a wide margin.
The setbacks to the north on the first floor is meant to be 2.97m
and it's only proposed to be 1.79, so we have a deficiency of 1.17m.
On the second floor, again it should be 5 metres point 5
and it's only again proposing 1.79.
No setback at all from the floor below.
This is a deficiency of nearly 4m and this is on a block
of land that you could do an Olympic-sized swimming pool and have a stadium on it.
B6, we've actually made compliant as a condition.
I know it's part of the grounds but I don't know
- it's not a huge issue.
The site coverage only marginal, but again it's not complying
with site coverage.
- it is an Activity Centre and yet they're not able
to make it compliant.
Again, I don't understand but that's how it is.
The other one that I'm really worried about from the point of view of ResCode
is B47, Mr Chair.
Room depth.
This requires adequate daylight into single habitable rooms.
These rooms should not exceed a room depth of 2.5 times the ceiling height.
There are eight apartments, Mr Chair, that do not comply
with what I feel are minimum standards.
But we are told in the report that that's acceptable, it's OK,
as these dwellings face the north and eastern sides, which are more hours
of daylight than the southern dwelling sites.
But the ResCode requirement, Mr Chair, does not state that it should only apply
to dwellings facing the south.
It's meant to apply to all dwellings, and eight of these in this proposal fail
to do so.
(Inaudible) open space
- it is adequate but can I say does it capture the spirit
of the objective, which is to enhance the residents' amenity?
I don't think so because in actual fact it's situated in the front
setback where people have to use the front door to get in and
out of the place.
So I am not sure how quite and how secluded the communal space would
be with people coming and going.
So, all in all, I think that
- my view is that there are the two issues
of heritage.
I think that it is going to completely destroy the look
of the place that is heritage listed but also I think the ResCode to me
- some of them are addressable, but B47, you've got eight apartments that are
designed that they can't even apply to the minimum standards.
Mr Chair, we've heard from people saying that you probably
have to redesign, and, look, the only one with qualification here would be you
and Councillor Evans.
I'm not prepared to redesign because I'm not a planner.
I can only tell you that I'm not happy with what has been proposed.
I think it should go back to the drawing board and come back
with something else.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Yes, look, I'm not going to repeat everything that's just been said
I'm actually supportive of the refusal.
But I understand that this is within the MAC.
I think is it around the boundary side of the MAC?
Where would it be?
MR CALLANT: Through the Chair, there is a map on page 122 which does indicate
where the property is.
It is towards the periphery, not right on the periphery but towards it.
CR CASTELLI: OK.
Look, I understand also there's a State Government initiative
to intensify areas such as that nearest to Activity Centres and transport.
But I don't have to agree to a development as huge as this.
I do support developments in that area but not as big as this.
23, 24 apartments in an area of over 2,000 and yet it cannot be compliant, which
is strange because I've got one that's coming
up very soon on a very small lot.
So as mentioned, a lot of the non-compliant
areas our standards don't meet, which are very important.
Not even close to them.
This is my feeling of this.
So this is why I don't really support this
It's quite close to the heritage part.
Some beautiful homes are there.
They're beautiful heritage homes.
Look, I'll only support something a little bit less than this and it's not
as intensified as this.
This is too many.
So this is my view on this.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Mr Mayor, this one had me in a bit of a quandary.
Again, a lot of things get the tick of the officers
and I note the heritage conservation work can be conditioned, as it is in
- it says 28 in part of the thing but it is the heritage conservation works
on clause 27.
So it can be conditioned.
The thing that really stood
- and the ones
- the front fence, the height of 2m, those are really little details
on the overall scheme of the thing with me.
I went down today and I had a look at the street.
I spent an hour walking up and down the street,
noticing anchored buildings on either end.
So the street is going to be developed.
It has some beautiful period homes there.
No doubt about it.
No question about that.
It is going to be developed.
The thing that actually swayed me to be supportive of refusal was probably
the additions overwhelm the heritage building and detract from its value.
So again I think the thing that I see as an architect was it's just a bit too
bulky on the left and back, on the west and north, and again that sort
of stuck with me.
Again, the neighbourhood character I think
- the new building does I think fit in with the neighbourhood character
but I guess the thing that sways me is the bulk of the building overwhelming
the heritage building, and again I note that the second floor
hasn't got setbacks, so again the required 4m,
so again I think that also swayed me, but again
- I think people in that particular street need
to know that it's a beautiful street, no doubt about it.
The heritage buildings are beautiful.
But there is going to be development there.
I think
- I guess what the ward Councillors are saying is it's just a bit too overwhelming
and that really got to me.
I think that's the sort of thing
- when I stood in front of the building and imagined the new building
on the Western side, that was the sort of word that I think stuck out with me.
So again I think I'll support the refusal but it was touch and go with me,
I must say.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Any further debate?
Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: I think we've very clearly heard that heritage does matter
and that there needs to be a balance and there needs to be nuance
within the MAC.
Yes, we are consolidating population but that doesn't mean that we can lose
the character and the history and it needs to be respectful.
I think one of the most telling comments that I heard tonight was that there's
an uneasy built form composition and that actually came from the applicant.
So I think that's very telling.
All the metrics around the setbacks as well was telling, as well as
all the discussion around the appropriate scale
and the number of heritage properties in that area of Black Street.
So for that reason and all the other arguments we've had tonight
I'll be supporting refusal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold.
Any further debate.
Yes, Mr Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, I agree with Councillor Stitfold,
heritage does matter and I absolutely congratulate
the Councillors who made sure that the assessment and the follow-up
and getting the Minister's panel up and about back in March 1999 were successful
because, if that wasn't successful, we wouldn't have even had a Heritage
Overlay of these particular properties, and from my reckoning, we're not going
to have another assessment for another four years,
but that's a different issue, frustrating as it is.
The issue is that the heritage assessment conducted
in the report on page 123 is ambiguous and it's the Council's heritage adviser's
opinion that the development will not have any adverse impact
on the heritage significance of the site.
It is an opinion.
And when he says that the views forward, which we talked about,
why these setbacks come so forward, will have not have a significant impact,
well, I disagree.
I think it's just frankly ridiculous.
I don't know what he's talking about.
I mean, this development is going to absolutely consume the Heritage
Overlay of (inaudible).
There's no doubt about it.
And when the heritage Council's adviser says it's set back to the ground
and not be visually dominant, I mean, come on.
You're putting a three-storey high-density development in the backyard
of (inaudible).
That's the bottom line.
Now, I think it's quite right for us as elected Councillors to question this
and to object to it and to get behind the residents who have lived
in their heritage homes for over
- at least
- well, the heritage homes have had a Heritage Overlay for, what, 23,
24 years so therefore they've had to maintain them to heritage standards
and, therefore, the Council needs to maintain the character of the area
to the same standards.
That's what we're talking about.
We just heard there isn't a lot of these areas left
and we've certainly made every chance of trying to get more done,
we've thrown it out at this elected Council
because we voted against it.
So the only chance we've got is this type of hand to hand combat
with the developers on a case-by-case basis.
So therefore we need to take this to VCAT and we need
to argue why this particular precinct of Black Street is different to the others
and we need to argue very strongly, and the reason we have
is that the residents who own the 10 heritage properties
and now the developer owns one too, I might add, need to be respected
and we need to really get around this or Brighton
will just become one great big blob of development, you know,
concrete, glass, brick and nothing else, and when they say
- oh, in this report
- and we hear this all the time, you know, "It's not the existing dwellings you've
got to take into account.
It's the future of the strategic planning and the structured plan
of the MAC that we need to take into account ": I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
But in this particular case, we've got this little thing called
10 heritage properties, so we need to take them into account and we need
to do it much more deeply than how the urban planner for the development
and our planners have considered this particular part of Brighton
and I think it needs to be completely thrown out and we need
to have a discussion about how this part of Black Street is going to operate
in our MAC.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
First of all, I thank Councillor del Porto for moving the objection and this
is here a map of the 10 properties and I believe one
of the speakers mentioned that the character of this section
of the street, yes, it is within an Activity Centre but there
is nearly half of these properties subject to Heritage Overlay.
Now, the developer here has been a bit smart because I'm reading some
of the commentary that it's important to know that half of the site is
within a Heritage Overlay.
I actually dispute this.
There is not half.
There is more than half of the site is under Heritage Overlay.
The citation here is telling me that the garden
and fencing are also of note and enhance this building.
So what is it doing?
What is the definition of garden?
It is only just the front hedge, which he referred to.
I don't agree with this.
You look into this street, there are some really mature trees.
We heard about the Moreton Bay fig but also just across the road on number 8,
there is a beautiful oak tree.
I went through a number of open homes where
they opened the garden, and on that note, number 8 Black, I recall it went to VCAT
because Council insisted they couldn't extend the one house.
So all of a sudden, things change.
A few years back
- we can put 23 apartments just across the road, but the original owner,
he couldn't extend his house to the back.
So I'm just seeing a bit of inconsistency here.
I am glad that we are all on the same page and I am also a bit surprised that with
all this size of a block, that the applicant could not really
meet the ResCode, especially clause 55.
Eight of the apartments are not achieving enough daylight in them.
I don't think that's what the people downsizing in Brighton want.
They don't want to be living in boxes with no sunlight.
Yes, there is apartments on the street but I see five of them on a block,
for example, or eight.
Five or eight.
Not 23.
This is probably not what the Brighton community was expecting when they heard
about this development and I see why they are annoyed about it.
Now, again, thank you to Councillor del Porto
and Councillor Castelli for seconding and I hope we got a unanimous agreement
to this.
Councillor del Porto, back to you to close.
CR DEL PORTO: You are correct.
It's in your ward, just to let you know.
Mr Chair, last October we did vote to support 64 properties, mid-century
homes, that now have interim overlay and we're waiting for the Minister to set
up a panel, and we expect hopefully once that is done for us to vote on that
by maybe September, give or take.
We're not sure.
That part of Black Street, between St Andrews Street
and Carpenter Street, is a beautiful street.
It has not only the 10 heritage properties
It has the lovely heritage church as well.
So I agree with you, if you look at not only that block of land
but the totality of the street, they're huge blocks of land.
It's got to be more than half of that street that is under heritage,
individual Heritage Overlay.
I don't think the residents would expect no development.
I don't think anyone is expecting that.
It is in an Activity Centre but I'm hoping for a much smaller
and much less visually bulky application that doesn't overwhelm the heritage
property.
Thank you, Councillors.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
I'll put refusal to vote.
All in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem and that
is carried.
Thank you.
We'll move on.
4.5, and that's 49 to 51 Abbott Street, Sandringham.
And Councillors, you will be aware that a number
of late objections were received to the Planning Department in respect
to this item.
The report states there were 45 objections received.
Please be advised that there are now 65 outstanding objections.
We have received four Written Statements from Mr Chris Winchester,
Mr Timothy Gunning, Mr Paul Martin, Ms Rosemary Raffaele,
and we have four requests to speak and we'll start with Mr Perry Bremner.
Perry?
Do we have Perry in the room?
No.
We'll move to Miss Georgia McKay on behalf of Owners Corporation 4987.
Please come forward.
MISS GEORGIA McKAY: Good evening.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak at this meeting.
I'm representing the Owners Corporation at 40 Bamfield street, which is located
to the north of
- CR EVANS: Sorry, I couldn't hear.
MISS GEORGIA McKAY: I represent the Owners Corporation
at 40 Bamfield Street, which is to the north of the subject site.
And my mother owns a property in there and so I'm also representing her.
And that's six single-storey dwellings in that
- on that property.
We wish to object.
We made a formal objection in writing.
One of our main concerns is the built form is not consistent or sympathetic
to the existing built form in the area, so it's not consistent
with the neighbourhood character.
It has excessive height.
It exceeds the 9m height limit, and although I'm trained in building
and reading building plans, I could not find anywhere
on the plans where it actually said what height it was.
Clearly it's not 9m.
There's a number of discrepancies on the plans and, in fact, our property,
which is known as 40 Bamfield Street, was established as 3 at 40 Gypsy Way and 4
at 40 Gypsy Way, so there's a little bit of discrepancy there.
The site coverage is non-compliant.
It should be 60% and it's proposed at 63.9%.
But I guess our biggest concern is that the proposed development is
to be accessed from Gypsy Way.
Gypsy Way is more of a laneway than a roadway
and it's narrow, but essentially it's really quite
a community space.
Kids play out there.
People walk back and forth to the supermarket with their shopping
and the like.
And children play on their bikes and their skateboards.
So it's really a lovely community space where people can mingle,
including our residents.
We don't deny that it is used for accessing our own apartments ...
(Buzzer).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you for your time.
Any questions of the speaker?
No questions.
You may take your seat and we call on Dr Warwick Pattinson.
Thank you, doctor, when you're ready.
DR WARWICK PATTINSON: Thank you, Mayor and Councillors.
I live at 36 Bamfield Street, which abuts the western section
of Gypsy Way.
My family use Gypsy Way as pedestrians on a daily basis
and frequently are cyclists.
We are concerned about the effect of this proposal on the safe movement
and amenity of Gypsy Way.
The frontage of the proposed development to Abbott Street is where Abbott Street
is a major access road.
The pavement is 11.3m wide and it's marked for two lanes of traffic, car parking,
separate footpaths on both sides.
Gypsy Way, however, is a shared space.
It is narrow, only 4.6m wide, no footpaths,
and it's also not a traditional laneway.
It's actually got 12 properties in that section that front on to the lane
with small front gardens.
We have done a sample traffic survey and we found 49 pedestrians, six cyclists
and 11 cars using it, the ratio report only counted nine cars
and ignored all the other traffic.
It's not predominantly an access lane.
It's used by five times as many pedestrians as car occupants.
People on foot in Gypsy Way feel safe.
They push strollers and walk their dogs and it has become a treasured high-amenity
and safe pedestrian and cyclist way.
It is part of a route including the
delightful tree-lined avenue of Vincent Street.
It's a pedestrian priority street and should be subject to the protections
of the urban design guide as such.
The proposed access to Gypsy Way has particular problems.
It provides an additional 54 parking spaces, which effectively double
the motor traffic.
Due to the distance from Beaumont Street, drivers would be expected to travel
at a higher speed than others.
A small number of speeding drivers will detract from the perception of safety
of Gypsy Way.
Now, the site has four large driveways onto Abbott Street and it's not necessary
to require the site to have an access of an underground car park via Gypsy Way.
A single car park ramp off Abbott Street would improve
the streetscape and.
..(Buzzer).
Thank you, do you have any questions of the speaker?
You may take your seat.
Thank you.
And we'll call on Mrs Harriet Canwell please
to come forward.
MRS HARRIET CANWELL: Good evening, Councillors.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Whenever you're ready.
MRS HARRIET CANWELL: If I could just introduce myself first.
I'm Harriet Canwell from 46 Bamfield Street.
The urban village strategy never intended the megascale consequences
of this type of development.
Commonsense required.
Proposal is not in line with desires of the vast majority of community.
Ever-increasing pressure on Sandringham amenities
from huge Bay Road developments and Sea and Sky still to come.
Our suburb can't absorb high levels of residents.
Already at stretching point.
Property should be two storeys.
No roof terrace or balconies.
Many of our Written Statements note
- sorry, current properties suit aged and low income.
Proposed apartments won't contribute to local community when likely AirBnBs.
Many of our Written Statements note proposal's poor environmental effects,
future wellbeing of 14 trees threatened.
Recently witnessed two large trees illegally destroyed,
removed from units, one at least more than 37 in diameter.
Proposal fails to conform to Council's F1 precinct brochure.
(Inaudible) close up to Gypsy Way and far too close to the lane.
Needs to be set further back due to its narrowness.
Lane part of historical Gypsy Village and is contrary to Council's F1, page 3,
reflecting current scale and forms.
1800% increase in vehicle traffic at Gypsy Lane
and Beaumont Street junction.
Inconceivable.
(Inaudible) during school hols.
Only cars.
Not all children from the school in Bayside playhouse.
Pedestrians, cyclists, scooters, waste collection service vehicles
and delivery vans increasing hugely.
The lane so narrow vehicles trying to pass often reverse out into Beaumont.
Already very dangerous.
It's a seriously blind corner, alarmingly close to railway crossing.
Access to a car park would have to be from Abbott Street.
Re Abbott Street, request Council examine Ian Whitbread's
objection on issue of equitability.
Some neighbours unfit to speak partly from deep distress caused
by proposed height of this.
Will lose half our light and view of the sky.
Object strongly to high balconies directly
overlooking our gardens, with young naked children vulnerable
to being observed all hours by strangers, looking directly
into children's bedrooms and bathrooms
- (Buzzer).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Do we have any questions of the speaker?
Go ahead, Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: Just with the
- you said people back out into
- MRS HARRIET CANWELL: Beaumont Street.
CR MARTIN: Beaumont Street.
Is there any parking
- The question is: are there any parking restrictions
in Gyspy lane now?
MRS HARRIET CANWELL: There are but they're not observed all the time.
I'm aware of the fact that the playhouse, when parents are dropping off there,
there's already insufficient parking and so they do need to come into Gypsy Way
and park there.
So there's an awful lot of congestion in Gypsy Way.
Already it's a nightmare.
That is why I am saying it is inconceivable
to be proposing having access to a huge car park going
into this little lane.
CR MARTIN: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Yes.
I am puzzled by how you say they're backing out
into Beaumont Street.
They're coming from the lower end of Gypsy Lane all the way down
to Beaumont?
MRS HARRIET CANWELL: So halfway down Gypsy Lane
- Gypsy Way, sorry, there are bollards, exactly.
So when there are larger vehicles, van deliveries, refuse lorries,
this sort of thing, if there's a vehicle coming out
from the other direction, then they have to reverse
- it is very dangerous already.
CR EVANS: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
You may take your seat.
Thank you.
MRS HARRIET CANWELL: Am I able to ask why there are only
four written objections?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Sorry, no, you cannot ask.
But maybe one of the Councillors might be able to ask on your behalf
but you can take a seat.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
CR MARTIN: I've got a question, Mr Mayor.
Why have we only got four written objections when we know there was
a lot more?
CR EL MOUALLEM: See.
Someone asked the question.
Officers?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, there were about 65 actual written objections
to the applicant.
In terms of the written submissions to tonight's meeting,
there were four received and then four requests to be heard.
CR MARTIN: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
There are no more speakers for tonight on this item so I'm in your hands,
Councillors.
Councillor Stitfold?
Follow-up question, please, go ahead.
CR STITFOLD: One of the concerns that was raised was
that some of the submissions had actually been lost,
the original ones.
Could you clarify, please.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, I can confirm all the people who contacted Council
to inquire about that, we were able to find out their objections.
There were no objections that were lost.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
Anyone want to move a motion.
CR EVANS: I have a question, if I may.
I was searching and if you could point me to the
- somewhere in the body of the text where it discusses the volume
traffic on Gypsy Way, is there anything
- I mean, there are concerns about it.
Is it discussed in the body of the report?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, if you turn to page 273.
CR EVANS: Thank you.
Oh, yes.
But it doesn't say about volumes, does it?
Oh, yes.
- I missed that.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
I'm in your hands, Councillors?
Councillor Stitfold?
CR STITFOLD: I'd like to move a refusal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Would you mind reading it please.
CR STITFOLD: The proposal fails to successfully implement the municipal
planning strategy and the planning policy framework
which require an increase in density to be balanced with considerations
regarding neighbourhood character, be site responsive
and achieve high-quality urban design.
The proposal fails to respect the existing preferred
neighbourhood character of the area and fails to respond
to the preferred character strategies, as well as the general strategies
and objectives of clause 15.01-5L, neighbourhood character precinct G1,
of Bayside Planning Scheme on the following grounds.
The proposed front fence has a maximum height of 2.2
and includes limited transparency, which is inconsistent
with the low open-style fences encouraged.
The second storey fails to be recessed, which contributes to visual dominance
to the streetscape.
The proposal fails to site buildings to accommodate substantial vegetation,
including the retention of tree 11.
The proposal fails to successfully meet the numerical requirements of clause 55
of the Bayside Planning Scheme, specifically standard B8, site coverage,
standard B17 side and rear setbacks, standard B32, front fences.
The proposed vehicle access to the rear laneway
of Gypsy Way creates unreasonable impacts by way of potential for conflict
between vehicles and pedestrians and amenity impacts by way of noise
to adjoining properties.
The proposal fails to comply with the objectives
and decision guidelines of clause 43.02, design and development overlay schedule 8
for the following reasons.
The preferred scale of development exceeds the scale of development expected
on the fringe of a Major Activity Centre that adjoins neighbourhood
residential zoned land, and there is an additional point B,
that Council notes that traffic, parking and pedestrian movement in Abbott Street,
Gypsy Way and the surrounding areas of concern and seeks its traffic team
to undertake a review of the traffic, parking and pedestrian movement and safety
to ensure that the amenity of the area is best protected.
The assessment must include public consultation
and provide recommended changes to protect road users
and pedestrians in the area.
The report from the traffic team should be presented
to the Planning and Amenity Delegated Committee
by no later than the September 2023 meeting.
CR EVANS: Seconded.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Evans.
We've got a seconder.
Councillor Stitfold.
CR STITFOLD: As we have heard from our speakers, the development
is excessive and in contrast to the area.
What we have noticed is there a number of single storeys that abut the property
to the north so there isn't a sufficient transition to the general residential zone
that it abuts.
Interestingly, Gypsy Way is also right on the edge of the MAC and the line
between the MAC and the general residential zone
is actually split along the middle of Gypsy Way.
Another really good point that was raised was the environmental effects
of this development and if we take a look at the page
- sorry, bear with me
- page 259 of the Council policy, it has a number of different objectives
as well as strategies and if we take those into consideration,
particularly the climate emergency and striving to reduce emissions
and the health on our environment, there are many ways that could actually be
achieved with this development to take that into consideration.
It also fails to respect the character.
There are a number of heritage properties along Abbott Street and Gypsy Village
in itself is a very important historic area
with a number of different heritage properties
throughout that area.
We've heard already tonight how much it is important that we balance the MAC
and the needs within the MAC with the heritage and the character
of the area and this proposal does not do that.
The traffic consideration is considerable.
That is probably outside of this and that is why we've put part B
in so that we can address those issues separately.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
Yes, again, this one was a bit of a quandary for me because
if you have a look at the
- it complies in a lot of respects and, again, it's part of the MAC
and we are entitled to build in the MACs.
The couple of things that really resonated with me and I spent a bit of time going
down there and having a look at it, the two things that resonated
with me were the access from Gypsy Way, which I thought was really probably not
the best access that could be done.
The two bollards really does restrict that and, again, I do understand now
about the backing out where trucks come in and back out so it
is a bit dangerous there.
The other thing that was really concerning me was
- and Councillor Stitfold has alluded to it, was the transition
between the back or the northern side and the residences at the back
of Bamfield Street.
Now, again, I think that doesn't transition well
to me in the north-east corner.
I thought the north-east corner of the overlooking may be a problem
to the adjoining owners at 53, in the back units,
but again the two things that really concerned me about this was the access
from the rear.
The number of
- because of the development size, the number of cars and traffic coming in
from Gypsy Way, that does concern me because coming in from Nelson Street,
it is a very quiet area.
Nelson Street is a quiet area.
We have children transgressing, going to the state school there walking.
So to me it just didn't resonate about coming in from that particular way
and also the transition.
The front fences and those
- whilst they're part of the refusal, that didn't really
- I mean, it's not one of the game changers to me.
The game changers were the second storey not being recessed enough
and the vehicle access coming in from the rear.
They certainly resonated with me and again I did have a good, hard think
about this because I've spoken to a couple of the objectors, had long conversations
with a couple of the objectors, who were concerned about overlooking
but the 9m rule overrules the overlooking part.
So again they were the two things that swayed me into refusal,
both second storey recessing and the access from Gypsy Way.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you, Mr Mayor.
I'm wondering if I could ask the mover and seconder whether they would like
to include a part B2 to have legal representation included
in the motion?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Are you happy?
Leave it as it is.
CR DEL PORTO: OK.
That is fine.
Mr Mayor, I'm looking at the site coverage, standard B8.
Now, we're talking in a MAC you're allowed to do 60%, built 60%.
This is fine.
This is actually 63.9.
So you're looking at a non-compliant of about 8% more.
Now, the block of land is 2453 square metres.
It is proposed to have three storeys, 27 apartments, four rooftop terraces.
I look at the report at the bottom of page 267, Mr Mayor,
and it says the objective of the standard is to ensure that the site coverage
respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
And it's a variation of 3.8%.
It is considered that the variation to this standard remains consistent
with the objective because it's located in an Activity Centre.
So to my way of thinking, what is the point of having standards when
we're prepared to say you can go another 8% more because
of the location that you're in when 60% already is
more than the 50% you're allowed to build anywhere else.
So you're getting the 10% extra site coverage because you're
in an Activity Centre.
They go, "No, we want 63.9".
Councillor Evans, I think I agree with you about the second floor on compliance
of the east and the western side boundaries.
Again, if you look at page 271, notably, the last dot point,
you could achieve the required setbacks, it says here, but it
will jeopardise the internal amenity of the future dwellings.
So the report is saying you could get the setback requirements but it
will actually threaten the internal amenity of the future dwellings.
For example, currently 100% of the dwellings proposed
to achieve the accessibility requirement of section B42, accessibility,
which could be jeopardised to achieve the numerical requirements
of section B17.
So why not expect the developer to design something that is compliant
with setbacks and internal amenity.
You have the space.
You have 2,500 square metres.
So I understand the argument.
I don't share the way the argument
- I don't support what is being proposed, just like I didn't support the fact that
we were saying 6.39 is OK because it's in a MAC.
This is saying really, if you expect then to comply with setback, well,
you're not going to get internal amenity.
Is that our problem?
Is that the problem of a Council or is it the problem of the applicant
to actually come up with something that is amenable to both,
given that it's a huge block of land?
So I just think
- I won't go
- the front fence, I won't even talk about that.
It's an easy one to address.
But happy to support refusal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
Any further debate?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: This all comes down to tree 9, Mr Mayor
- ah, 11.
This whole thing comes down to tree 11 because they have said in the report that
to keep tree 11, the willow myrtle, we can't bring the cars in
off Abbott Street, and so now we've got to do everything else
and put everything back to Gypsy Lane.
And if you look at Gypsy Lane, you can see the imagery on page 273
and you can read "Council's traffic engineer did advise
that it was a preference for access to be off Abbott Street".
Well, of course it is because it's a much wider street
and it's going to be a lot safer, and if they had have just done exactly
what Councillor del Porto just said and took into account our own preferences
within our own Planning Scheme, they would have designed the whole
development to keep tree 11, or the front tree,
have the property entering and exiting on Abbott Street, and I think they had,
like you said, so much room that they could have done anything.
But they've got themselves into this pickle where they say
- several objectors also raised concerns about access on Gypsy Way.
We heard them tonight.
And then the applicant explored options for access to be relocated
to Abbott Street.
However, ultimately this was not deemed feasible,
as it would result in tree 11 being removed and the removal
of street trees and the reduction in front garden space.
Well, that's because they wanted to keep the way the whole thing was
designed, not redesigning it.
It's silly.
Just redesign it.
It's a huge block of land.
You've managed to get the land.
Well done.
And I support that.
We just heard what happens when you don't get the whole block.
It turns into a basket case, whereas they have got the whole nice square block
and yet they've still managed to get themselves into this thing
of coming up and down Gypsy Way.
So that's my reason for supporting the refusal.
I would much prefer them
- and I think the residents would and I think the man or the person
on the street or the pub test or whatever you want to call it would say,
"Just redesign it so that cars can come in and out of Abbott Street on one crossover"
Get rid of the other three crossovers, as the report says.
Keep the tree.
You would be able to do that.
I am sure you would be able to do that.
You may have to remove one street tree, not sure, but I am sure that
is the logical answer.
But if you are making your decisions contextualised on can we keep exactly the
same design and just move where the entry to the underground car park is, well,
you're never going to get there.
But if you then start changing the whole intent of the design, well,
you will get there.
Lastly I will say, I'm kind of like
- we're just stuck in this paradigm of building car parks, Mr Mayor,
and I know all of our paperwork and everything says it,
but the logical conclusion is we continue to build more
and more underground car parks in our MACs, Gypsy Lane looks like it
will get 10% increase, the report says, but the entire MAC
will be a congested nightmare if we keep building underground car parks.
We've got to mix it up.
We've got to actually build developments where they don't need to push
all these car parks on to the consumer of the end result.
I know the developers love it because they can sell them at huge amounts
of money but if we could have reduced the amount of car parks on this site,
we could have put in some affordable houses
and I think then maybe Gypsy Way could have been accessible
because you wouldn't have had the 10% increase in the traffic.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Any further debate?
I'll just say a couple of words.
I went there earlier today and I did notice there is four crossings
at Abbott Street and I can't see why we cannot get the main entry
to the basement from Abbott Street
- out of the four, I am pretty sure they can redesign it.
And the fall of the ground will probably help if it is from 49,
and therefore you don't need much excavation.
Also, my main concern, though, is the interface to the Gypsy Way
and the neighbourhood area.
So I would have thought that a site like this one, which is a great site,
you've got enough space to provide maybe two levels in the back,
towards Gypsy, and in this way you reduce the bulk.
Also, you reduce the number of apartments.
You make the apartments more compliant.
I don't see the reason why we need to give them 3.5% variance
on the site coverage.
Overall, I support Councillor Stitfold with her refusal because I believe
they can do better on this site.
Councillor Stitfold, would you like to close.
CR STITFOLD: Thank you.
One of the intentions of the increased population density
within the MACs is for people to be able to use the public transport.
So we've had so many discussions tonight about transport and the impact
of additional cars, but I think we need to remember at that point that when
we are increasing density, it is because there
is a major public transport network.
The other thing that we need to bear in mind, this is already a multi-unit
location.
On that site there are already a number of different dwellings,
so the crossovers already support those dwellings, so it
is most likely very feasible that those crossovers can be used for a basement,
if we have to have those, but I would hope that we're thinking
about the climate emergency when we're talking about basements,
and it should also mean that the trees can be retained both on the nature strip and
within the site.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Stitfold.
I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour of refusal?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem.
And it is carried.
Move to 4.6, that is 56 Graham Road in Highett.
We've got two Written Statements from Miss Kirsti Vitala
and Mrs Suzanne Henry, and we have two requests to speak
from Ms Ivy McKenna.
Please come forward.
MS IVY McKENNA: Good evening, Council members.
I'm very new to this so I don't know how this ask.
Can I ask you two questions?
CR EL MOUALLEM: No, you can just present to us.
MS IVY McKENNA: Alright.
I am a resident of 1A Thistle Grove.
I've just recently moved there at the end of January last year.
And this proposal poses a few concerns.
We're not rejecting
- me and my neighbours, we're not really rejecting
the development itself.
We're rejecting the inconvenience that is actually created based on its design.
First and foremost, the proposed plans have indicated that
the side boundary is along Thistle Grove and the front entry is Graham Road.
Therefore, the plan's front entry, as indicated, should reside
on Graham Road.
As such, the proposed four out of the five units to be front entry
on Thistle Grove and this also forces a change of our entire street
to be readdressed, and we are one of four townhouse units.
Two of the residents are widowed between age 70 and 80,
so to have this proposed readdressing actually creates a lot of anxiety
and stress towards my neighbours at the moment.
And, furthermore, the congestion
- and if you know Thistle Grove, I know there's a lot of development,
there's a lot of conversation about Heritage Overlay.
Definitely we're not a heritage street.
We're not pretty.
But we do have residences there.
There currently is three major developments on Graham Road
and the major large vehicles access have continuously to block Bay Road access
onto Graham Road.
We also have a higher traffic issue where whenever I need to make a right turn
onto Highett Road and there's a rail crossing there,
it blocks that Graham Road as well.
So if you have the CSIRO building accessing entrances with large vehicle,
including this new development proposal to have large vehicle access as well,
I'm proposing that the Council actually consider what is the traffic management
of this because we all need to come in and out of Thistle Grove and we're gridlocked
between two entrances from Highett Road and Bay Road
- (Buzzer).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Ms McKenna.
Any questions of the speaker?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Thank you, Ms McKenna.
So at the moment, at your residence, you've got a development four doors up?
Is that right?
MS IVY McKENNA: No.
So imagine we are
- my house faces on to Thistle Grove.
There's a driveway to the right of my house, if I'm looking
out towards Thistle Grove, to the right is a driveway, and back on to three
- along the driveway there's three properties running along that driveway.
So the access is on to Thistle Grove, left on to the driveway
to the neighbouring three properties, past that driveway is my property,
front-on to Thistle Grove.
So the planning
- so the permit is 56 Graham Road, which has side boundary on
to Thistle Grove, and the front boundary on to Graham Road.
So they're proposing five units, and four of which is going to front Thistle Grove.
CR MARTIN: Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Sorry, what number are you?
MS IVY McKENNA: Yes, it's very confusing.
I'm 1A.
So the driveway access 1B, C, D, E.
I am the house that passes the driveway, which is 1A.
So my driveway, my garage or whatever you call that
- CR EVANS: Yes, I've got you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor Castelli, do you have a question?
Go ahead.
CR CASTELLI: Thank you for your submission.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Through the microphone, please.
CR CASTELLI: OK.
So your main concerns are that you're going to be readdressed.
Is that your main concern and that
- the second question, I would think, that you wanted to know
if there was any traffic management happening in that area.
So we're going to be answering that now.
I'll be asking the officer, and he will address those concerns for you.
MS IVY McKENNA: Thank you very much.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We have one more speaker.
Would you like to ask the officers now.
CR CASTELLI: I could.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any more questions of the speaker.
You may take your seat.
Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: OK.
So you've heard the resident in her submission.
They are worried about being readdressed and also they also state
in here that they're a little bit confused
It's contradicting, where they thought proposed plan have indicated
the side boundary is along Thistle Grove and first entry is to be Graham Road,
and therefore planning is requested that the setback
for the proposed development to be relative to Graham Road.
This completely contradicts.
So this is the statement here.
The requirements for the four out of five units to have main entry on
to Thistle Grove, basically using the convenience
of the side boundary and yet having setbacks be further forward
without adhering to the current setback of other properties on Thistle Grove.
I've spoken to you before and you had a really great answer and,
in addition
- and of course some traffic lights being put up as well, if you'd like to explain.
MR CRIPPS: Thank you, and through you, Mr Chair, so in relation to the first item
around addressing of properties, Council is the relevant authority
and would generally determine what to address properties.
Given the fact that the site
- the subject site proposes four dwellings to front on to Thistle Grove,
the general approach would be to look at numbering those properties as one.
That would be the general approach, which has created some of the concerns
for the submitter, where that property would potentially need
to be renumbered.
However, having said that, Council, as the relevant addressing authority,
has the ability to reconsider that and to look at how we can best manage
the addressing to minimise the need or the angst that has been created
for the submitter that you have heard from today and other residents
within that development site.
The second item relates to the design of the property.
The development has a crossover and one of the dwellings fronting
onto Graham Road, and when you are looking at the development site, that
is considered to be the property frontage, whilst the secondary street frontage
on Thistle is a side boundary and, therefore,
has a reduced setback requirement, which this proposed development has been
designed to comply with.
It does sit forward of the normal standards that ResCode would
generally require if it were the front boundary, but it
is compliant with the requirements set out in ResCode, which I believe
is a 3m setback to a secondary street frontage.
The last issue is in relation to construction activity and this part
of Graham Road and Thistle Grove is going to be subject
to significant I guess increased development pressures subject
to the former CSIRO site, which is currently experiencing a series
of planning applications and development.
The subject site which has been proposed, and there are a number
of other developments within the surrounding area,
and potentially the rail crossing removal project will look to undertake works
in this area into the future, as has been announced
by the State Government.
On the CSIRO site and as part of the condition, condition 28, which is
on page 385 of the papers, there is a requirement
for a construction management plan for this site, which would need
to be approved by Council to ensure that traffic management
during construction is appropriately managed.
Post construction there will be all access to and from the site from Graham.
It will not require entering into Thistle Grove per se,
and then lastly the wider traffic requirements have been considered as part
of the CSIRO site redevelopment.
There is requirement from DoT
- and plans have been approved
- to provide a signalised intersection at Bay Road and Graham Road, which
will provide better traffic management in that location,
and we also have the likelihood of changed traffic condition as a result
of the LXRP and a review of that intersection at that point in time
at the Highett and Graham Road intersection.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Cripps.
Councillor Evans, do you have a question?
CR EVANS: A bit confused.
So just so the postie knows in that area, he's going to Graham Road, to 56A, B,
C and D?
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, that would still need to be confirmed
but that is potentially an offer that we could consider,
which would be numbering those properties fronting on to Thistle to be still known
as 56A, B, C, D and so on.
CR EVANS: So the postie goes to 56A, he knows he turns right to the 56B, C,
and D and then there's 1A, which Ms McKenna is
- that makes sense to me, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Castelli, do you have a question
because we have another speaker still?
CR CASTELLI: We have another speaker, do we?
CR EL MOUALLEM: Yes, we do.
We will bring the next speaker.
Can we bring Ms Dianne King please forward
MS DIANNE KING: Thank you, Councillors.
The proposed development has been designed to ensure that the built form is set back
from sensitive interfaces, provides Council's preferred landscape
outcome, including the provision of canopy trees throughout the open space
and street interfaces, and provides sufficient car parking
within the basement car park to remove the impact of accessways
and parking that would occur on the street, should each townhouse have
an individual access.
The site location and orientation, coupled with the two-storey building
with generous boundary setbacks, results in a majority of shadow falling
on Graham Road and Thistle Grove rather than
adjoining sensitive interfaces.
The proposed townhouses all have excellent internal amenity
and a variety of townhouse configurations, including three and four bedrooms, and one
and two living areas.
I do sympathise with the owners on Thistle Grove, having to renumber
as a result of the development.
No-one wants that hassle.
And whilst we have no objection to an alternative approach,
we would just simply ask consideration of the result of doing an A, B, C,
D in terms of the people living in these townhouses,
explaining their address and what street they'll have to enter via.
I am not sure that this should form any condition of permit, however,
because numbering of houses isn't a valid planning
consideration.
The development is reflective of similar scales
of development in the area, including numerous multi-unit developments
on the south side of Thistle Grove, and is comparable in setbacks
to the development immediately across Thistle Grove,
which has (inaudible) similar setbacks to Thistle Grove and Graham Road.
It's reflective of Council's MSS, the zoning and overlay controls and which
all encourage intensification of development in this location,
which is so well serviced by local shops, services and public transport.
Thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much.
Any questions?
Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Thank you for that.
Ms King, were you involved in the design of this application?
MS DIANNE KING: I was engaged just prior to lodgment of the application
but I wasn't involved in the initial
- I didn't provide the initial
- CR DEL PORTO: I was just going to say, it is absolutely excellent.
You'll be able to manage all the ResCode requirements
within a small block of land.
MS DIANNE KING: I agree.
That's to the credit of the architects.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: It probably is your role but number 58 next door,
are they an objector?
MS DIANNE KING: We had objections from 1A.
I can open up the objections and just double check.
It's been a while since they all came through.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Should we get the officers to answer this, Councillor Martin?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, so there was an objection
from the property immediately to the north, which I believe is 58.
I will just confirm that.
MS DIANNE KING: I believe it was the rear unit.
There is two houses to the north
- purely from memory, and not double checking,
it was the rear unit that was an objector.
CR MARTIN: Can I just ask whether the applicant
- like, we've seen tonight properties gaining
more than one, like you get
- MS DIANNE KING: Yes, consolidating sites.
CR MARTIN: Was that part of
- MS DIANNE KING: I am not aware.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further questions?
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Just you do acknowledge that 1A, B and C will keep their numbers
in Thistle Grove and if it's not 54A, B, C and D, it will be something
along those lines.
MS DIANNE KING: Yes.
We don't have any real objections to what numbering happens.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Question to the speaker?
CR CASTELLI: No, not to the speaker.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Castelli, question?
CR CASTELLI: To the Council officer, what we can do tonight to make sure it
is not readdressed and relocated?
What can we do?
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, as you have heard,
it's not necessarily a planning-related item and shouldn't be conditioned,
but we could prepare a part B to the recommendation,
which would provide a direction to our relevant rating team
to reconsider the addressing and ensure it doesn't impact
on the neighbours.
CR CASTELLI: I will ask for that, if you don't mind.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Do we have a mover?
Councillor Martin, a question?
CR MARTIN: Just before you do ask for that, what about the issue
about traffic during construction, the traffic management plan I
think was mentioned.
Does that need
- considering the scale of construction, I was down there I think yesterday.
It is enormous.
So what are we doing outside of just this application
to manage what's going to be 10 years of construction.
Are we able to cite a document within this
- like a condition that they need to consider?
I'm talking about sequencing.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Mr Cripps, I am not sure if you can answer this.
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, I will be conditioning the planning permit
as proposed and the papers does talk to a construction management plan,
which would be required to consider traffic.
When considering and adopting that, we would need to look at the context
of other I guess developments within the proximity and we are aware of
at least one that is actively occurring currently,
being a former CSIRO site.
The challenge that we do have is understanding the timing or the scope
of works associated with the rail separation project,
which the State Government is likely to do but we could
- obviously we would need to have some foresight and attempt to try
to have regard to what that might mean for this site.
CR MARTIN: Is there any way of siting that tonight?
MR CRIPPS: Through the Chair, we can only rely
from an officer perspective
- we believe the only way we can do that is through the current proposition
of the construction management plan, which has been documented another I think
it's condition 28 of the proposal.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Mr Cripps.
Do I have a move?
CR CASTELLI: You do.
CR DEL PORTO: I'll second that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Can we have a read, please.
Moving as recommended?
CR CASTELLI: With that additional
- CR EL MOUALLEM: Can we have something on screen, please.
Thank you.
Councillor Castelli, do you want
- can you read it please?
CR CASTELLI: I'll read it for you.
That Council rates
- reviews the
- OK.
So Council reviews the street numbering for the proposed development
at 56 Graham Road, Highett, with the focus of ensuring the existing numbering
of properties in Thistle Grove, Highett, are maintained.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Do we have a seconder?
CR DEL PORTO: I second that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Councillor Castelli, would you like to debate?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, as you heard, they're not actually objecting
about the development.
It is five apartments and it is within an Activity Centre.
So with this extra addition, I'm hoping that it comes
through that there won't be any kind of relocating or readdressing
of that kind.
So not to make people stressed out
- stressed at all.
So the application is a very good one.
It's compliant in all areas.
There might be a very minor, minor non-compliant area,
but it's something you can't see or feel.
There is a tiny bit, a tiny, tiny.
Look, there's also quite good parking
spaces there provided.
You've got 21 trees proposed to be planted.
So it kind of generally meets all the objectives really.
It is within an Activity Centre.
It's not one of those big ones of 24 apartments, of flats or whatever
they are, trying to get into a lot, but this is a very small lot
and it's working, and it's compliant.
Five good apartments, and I'm hoping this additional stuff
will appease the objectors with that.
So I cannot actually refuse this one because it's just
- it would come back to me.
It really would come back to us.
It could come back to us much worse.
So I'm happy to support this one, with the additional adding of those words.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Councillor del Porto, would you like to add anything?
CR DEL PORTO: Look, as I said to the applicant,
I can't see anything that's not compliant, and they have been able to manage
to put five double-storey dwellings on the block of land that's only 700
square metres big, and the issue of the address issue
is not really the fault of the application.
It's something that we have to look at because it just happens that there
is an issue with Thistle Grove.
The other one about the sequencing that Councillor Martin raised, we did talk
about it last year, but I think
- I am not sure whether we have the power to impose a sequencing and construction.
Certainly it was something that was raised by us during the state issues,
state election issues, and I would like to pursue it
but I don't think we could do it ad hoc tonight just on this one
because it wouldn't really be fair.
You can't really just have one application and say, look, you're going
to have wait for the next one to be finished.
But I think it is something to discuss in a planning forum ourselves
in the next few months.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
Any further debate, Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
As Councillor del Porto said, it's a nice piece of architecture
with sort of
- well, I think it's slick.
I think it's a slick piece of architecture with the fenestration being punctuated
and the height being extended, the height being elongated,
and the implementation of different materials.
So I just think on the Thistle Grove elevation,
I think it's particularly nice.
It's just a pretty slick piece of architecture.
So again well done to the architect.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Any further debate?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Yes, hopefully these guys will get cracking and get this thing done
before CSIRO kicks off and I suspect they probably will be able to,
by the history of the CSIRO progress.
But I really do rely on the construction management plan
and that's condition 28, and 28J does talk about preferred arrangements
for trucks delivering to the land, including delivery and unloading points
and expected duration and frequency.
That's something in our control on this plan, and also is in our control
is the location of the loading zones, the site sheds, the materials, the cranes,
so that's also in our bailiwick and I do look
across the road in the CSIRO vacant land there and there's opportunities
for Councils to work around all this.
And also where the workers park and all that sort of stuff, so there is a lot
in our control and I think this to me is a good opportunity for Council officers
to get into the weeds and get into the nitty gritty and
to start really muscle up and making sure we don't end up
with what happened in Black Street, which I think late last year,
there was a situation where four or five developments were all at the same point,
trying to get concrete trucks and everything else in.
We are the Local Government.
We do control this.
So I think it's time for us to
- I think it's uncommon for us but we need to work with the
- we need to start thinking about who is starting to develop and work
with the other parts of the Council to make sure that we're talking
to one another and we don't
- we learn from the Black Street experience.
We've got residents
- we just heard one tonight and I would hate
to see these residents just being exposed to chaos and madness when we don't need
to put them through that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Any further debate?
Councillor Castelli, would you like to close?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, just the setbacks on this property, just that the setbacks
on this property are pretty good.
You get visual right through.
And also
- and I think the good thing about this is there's no walls being proposed
boundary to boundary like the other two applications that
we've had before, which was pretty terrible, but, yes,
I couldn't in good conscience refuse this one.
You can't.
It's five really good apartments and hopefully with that additional,
as I mentioned, that it will help and appease the objectors,
and there's also talk about traffic lights.
Is that right?
CR EL MOUALLEM: We're just closing now.
CR CASTELLI: I think there's a question of traffic lights as well
in an area there to assist.
I think that's about it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
I'll put it to the vote.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem and it is carried.
Move to 4.7, 30 Beach Road in Beaumaris.
We've got one written statement from Mr John and Mrs Fay Weislemann.
Councillors, I'm in your hands.
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, I'd like to move.
It is your ward, Mr Mayor.
CR EL MOUALLEM: No, it's Beach Road, Beaumaris.
CR DEL PORTO: Oh, not the Esplanade yet.
Well, I would like to move but I'll get Councillor Martin move.
I support it anyway.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
And seconded by?
Councillor Evans.
Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: No, Councillor Evans.
CR EVANS: I second it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: You moved.
That's fine.
CR DEL PORTO: No, he moved.
I withdraw the motion
- CR EL MOUALLEM: So Councillor Martin, you're happy to move as amended.
CR MARTIN: Yes.
CR EL MOUALLEM: We have a seconder, Councillor Evans.
Would you like to debate?
CR MARTIN: Just a question before I start the debate.
This isn't about the approve for the single dwelling.
This is about the removal of the tree and the roof deck.
Is that correct?
OFFICER: Through the Chair, that is correct, yes.
CR MARTIN: OK, because I did note that one of the neighbours has taken
the opportunity to press on or object to the actual
- a lot of the building aspects rather than the two points.
OFFICER: Through the Chair, so in this instance,
the objection has raised concerns regarding ResCode non-compliances
, which is not applicable to this particular application.
CR MARTIN: And I do want that to be noted and I am sure John
and Fay are listening or watching this tonight and I just wanted that
to be absolutely clear, that we're only contained into the tree
and to the floor/ceiling heights.
And the reason why I am moving it as printed is because that's dealt with
in some of the conditions here, that we're retaining tree 4
and that the enclosed area of the north stairs
within the access structure to be removed, so we're not building these three deck
things.
I mean, a three storey that's meant to be a three deck.
So that's why I support this.
And, look, this particular moment in time, this home was lived in
by our great friend Geoff Gude.
It was where he was brought up and recently they
- well, not recently, 10 years ago, they sold it and I am sure it's something
that they're keeping an eye on and I notice that the Gudes have
not objected tonight.
But it's a good result that we're going to keep that tree on the corner.
I think there's plenty of room to fix that.
It's quite an interesting bit of vegetation because it's the start
of Bayside.
It's just on the corner
- it's just up the road from the boundary at Charmen and you can see it coming
into there.
So that's why I'm supporting it tonight.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: Yes, supporting it.
I note the retention of the coastal tea tree, tree 4,
so happy with that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further debate?
Councillor Martin, would you like to close?
I'll put this to a vote.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem.
And it is carried.
Now, we are moving to 4.8, 184 Esplanade, Brighton,
and we have one written statement from Mr Tim Wertheimer
and we have one request to speak from Mr Paul Little.
Mr Paul Little, please come forward.
MR PAUL LITTLE: Good evening, Councillors.
Thank you for having us tonight
- I think the penultimate speaker.
Firstly, I act on behalf of David and Debra Jonka, who are
the owners and occupiers, or future owners of the property at 184 Esplanade,
Brighton.
They've purchased the property with the intention
of converting an original 1997 building, a very prominent architectural piece
as it presents to Beach Road or the Esplanade,
for the purpose of their family dwelling.
They've retained award-winning architects Mim Design to deliver what
will be, without doubt, a beautiful home on the Esplanade.
The proposal is limited in relation to the permit requirements insofar
as the modifications to the existing dwelling don't fall
under the ambit of the Planning Scheme but rather the modifications
to the roof terrace are the focal point of why permit is required.
This is a somewhat unique scenario and, in particular, you'll hear from me
in relation to why we say that this is a special set of circumstances
around the timing of the original construction
of the dwelling on the site and how to interpret the provisions
of the Bayside Planning Scheme in our view.
The proposal really does seek to alter and reduce the apparent scale
of the building as it presents to the Esplanade, and it does so
in two fundamental ways.
It seeks to reduce elaborate roof canopy structures
which present to the street and also to lower the front fence profile
as it presents to the Esplanade, and I encourage you to have a look
at SKO1, which is a comparison street image
of the existing versus proposed conditions
The proposed roof terrace includes amenity , it includes access structures,
it includes services area which comply with the relevant provisions
of the Bayside Planning Scheme, and we say that
for two fundamental reasons.
Firstly, the proposal does not exceed the height of the existing dwelling,
which was constructed prior to the 24th of February 2000, some 23 years ago.
Secondly, the access and services area do not constitute
a storey, as defined in the Planning Scheme and
as held by the Tribunal in various cases.
And it is with that fundamental consideration that
we ask the Councillors to consider removing proposed conditions
1A and 1B on the basis that we say they're not
required, and the application for that matter has been supported
by detailed legal advice which sets out the reasons why a permit can be
granted ... (Buzzer).
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much, Mr Little.
Do we have any questions to the speaker?
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Just in relation to 1A, Mr Little,
it does say that an alternative plant screen can be provided to the satisfaction
but not exceed 1700mm.
What is your concern with that?
MR PAUL LITTLE: There's probably three main concerns about it.
Firstly, the services for the dwelling, noting that they've been fully replaced
as part of this proposal, are sought to be located on the roof and
within a constrained structure.
That serves two fundamental purposes.
Firstly, they're protected from the elements, of which some
of the services should be, as they are in this case,
and there's also the visual amenity benefits to the users of the roof terrace,
insofar as there won't be a screen but rather a solid structure,
and also there's visual benefits to not having screening visible
from external properties but rather a consistent treatment
to the facade of the building.
That's the main driver behind why they have been centralised the way that
they are.
Importantly, it is clearly a service area as opposed to an occupyable space,
and I've been before this Council previously talking
about bathroom and WC facilities not complying
with the Planning Scheme and having to be removed because
they do constitute a level, but this is different and the Tribunal has held
that on a number of occasions previously.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Any further questions?
No further questions.
You may take your seat.
Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Yes, Mr Chair, I've got a couple of additional conditions
that I'd like to
- that you've suggested, and I would like to have included if I could have them
on the screen.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Do you mind reading them for us.
CR DEL PORTO: I have one here, 1C, but I haven't got the other one.
There it is.
Thank you.
So C is the provision of a 1700 millimetre screen adjacent
to the spa, and associated landing at the roof deck level restricting views
to the north, in particular large habitable room,
window number 188 The Esplanade.
The screen to be located along the landing itself,
alternatively located along some other section of the roof deck
to the satisfaction of the authority, and D, screening along the north and south
of the first floor rear terrace to extend the minimum 1m pass,
the western most edge of the terrace to restrict views
into the neighbouring yards.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
Do we have a seconder?
Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Councillor del Porto?
CR DEL PORTO: Mr Chair, the two conditions that I actually
very much support, with respect, are actually 1A and 1B.
The removal of the solid walls around the roof over the (inaudible)
and mechanical services on the rooftop deck, and there
is an alternative plan (inaudible) removal of the fixed pergola, (inaudible) spa
and alfresco area on the rooftop deck.
We don't want to turn the roof deck into an informal storey,
and that was something that was attracting me to the item before that belonged
to Councillor Martin and Councillor Evans, the one that talked
about the enclosed area north of the stairs to be removed,
and I thought it was a similar sort of thrust.
So I think that if we include those two conditions
that you've added, I think that will protect the amenity of the residents
and also obviously I support the conditions imposed by the officers
because I think there's always a tendency for some people to try
to turn the roof deck
- you start off having it, you get the application
and then you add more things to it.
Things are applied to be added on and so eventually
- I know that this is not what is happening here but I am a bit concerned
about some roof decks turns into informal storeys once you start
adding maybe screening on the side, so pergolas above,
so it's really something that I'm very
- we should be very careful about not allowing.
So I'm happy to have that the way you've got it.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
Councillor del Porto.
Councillor Castelli, would you like to add?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, Mr Mayor.
Subject to the conditions and also the additional wording,
I definitely will approve
- support this application.
It also
- it's actually a pretty good one.
It reinvigorates an older dwelling and will make it look more
- I can't even say that word
- aesthetically appealing, of course, to the streetscape.
Whilst there were some concerns around the bulk of the roof deck level,
there's been addressed through condition, which is good.
This application
- I do support this application.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Castelli.
Any further debate?
I'll just say a couple of words.
It is in Dendy ward and I walk past it probably nearly every day and
to be honest, looking into page 470 of 674, I think Mim Design has done a
great job reinventing this building.
As it is now, it presents very harshly to Beach Road and it's really prominent in
between the two buildings next to it.
Now, the extension of the dining room and the first floor,
that's probably providing
- it breaks the facade facing the street, and I do quite like it.
The greening up of the area, which is currently darker colour,
is also pretty much
- you know, I support.
The reduction in the fence height is also great point and I think
with the amendment that Councillor del Porto put in, there is a bit
of protection, 1.7, on that spa, and that would limit the overlooking
into the adjacent property, which is I believe 186, but also
on the first floor, there is the addition of a balcony from the living area
and extending just that screen, it would protect number 2 Park Street
and also protect number 182 Beach Road.
So on this basis I'm happy to support and thank you for moving the amendment,
Councillor del Porto.
Would you like to close?
CR DEL PORTO: Just to say that I agree with you and Councillor Castelli.
It's a much better
- and I am sure Councillor Evans would probably support this
- it is a much better development coming up.
So congratulations to Mr Little.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
I'll put this to the vote.
All in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem and it is carried.
We will move on to 4.9, which is 40A First Street in Black Rock.
We have one request to speak from Mr Kiril Jovanoski.
Thank you, Mr Kiril.
MR KIRIL JOVANOSKI: Good evening, all.
This is a replacement of a single dwelling.
It's a quite specific site and there are three triggers
for the planning permit.
One is the size, which is un5 square metres.
The front fence which is higher than 1.2 and the removal of two native trees
to Australia but not to Victoria.
So we have no objections and the reason why we are here tonight
is purely that we have two trees for removal.
For the ones who are not familiar with this location,
it's a fairly steep site, like on the opposite side we have 2m rise
from the kerb to the actual footpath, so we have extreme fall on our side
of the street.
So being a unique site, we have site-specific
design solution where we bring within the front we have the private open
space, which is north oriented, which also gave us opportunity
to design the back of the property to be quite sympathetic to the neighbours,
and we achieve a good result working with the planner.
So we've got
- as I mentioned
- no objections.
The fence, the front fence, it is high, which we need for privacy,
but at the same time is integrated with the building and it's integrated
with the landscape design, providing views, and it's done
with the materials that will age, and merge with the landscaping.
The component of non-compliance is the side setback, which
is purely planning semantics.
It depends where the side setback is taken from.
It's the product of a battleaxe subdivision.
So if the subdivision wasn't concluded yet , we would be fully compliant,
taking the setback from the west side of 38 First Street.
But at the moment, it is taken from between the driveway and us,
and numerically we're non-compliant but actually we achieve the objective.
There is no impact on the other side.
We maintain the rhythm.
I think that is pretty much what I have to say tonight.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you very much, Mr Kiril Jovanoski.
Do we have any questions of the speaker?
You may take your seat.
CR EVANS: Move the recommendation.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Do I have a seconder?
Councillor Martin.
CR EVANS: Can I say, Mr Mayor, it's a simple design.
It's incorporating some good elements.
It's the removal of a couple of trees.
One has good health and structure, while the tree 7 is considered dead.
So again happy to support.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Evans.
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: Look, I think the architects did a really
admirable job here to design a dwelling within a really difficult site.
It has got quite big
- as Kiril said, a lot of steep angles to deal with and he's done a good job,
and the best way you can operate in Beaumaris is get these here
without any objections.
So well done to Kiril tonight.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Any further debate?
Would you like to close, Councillor Evans?
CR EVANS: No, thank you.
CR EL MOUALLEM: I'll put this to a vote.
All in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem, and it is moved.
Approved.
Thank you.
And we move
- I believe we have a block motion, Councillor Castelli?
CR CASTELLI: Yes, I would like to block, with support, 4.10 to 4.13.
CR DEL PORTO: I'll second that.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you.
We have a seconder.
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Councillor El Mouallem, and it is carried.
And on this note we call the meeting closed at
- CR DEL PORTO: No, you have one more.
CR EL MOUALLEM: 4.14.
Sorry.
4.14, Councillors.
CR MARTIN: Happy to move.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
And seconder?
CR DEL PORTO: I'll seconded Councillor Martin's motion.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor del Porto.
Councillor Martin?
CR MARTIN: It's the first one for the year and we do follow targets and I want
to give a pat on the back to the Bayside Planning Team
at achieving their statutory targets and beating the IMU Councils
and the metro average by a significant amount,
and that's both the planning applications, the VicSmart applications, but right
through the whole pack.
Bayside is really achieving some great outcomes.
But we do have a target for the VCAT outcomes of 65%.
Unfortunately, at the moment we are tracking at 47%
and 53%, so these are decisions that are set aside
by VCAT or affirmed against what we were saying basically.
So I do note that the report does say that a lot of good stuff has happened
through consent rather than the formal hearing but we do need to just
- I think have a look at these reports and make sure that we're keeping an eye
on what's happening up in King Street.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Councillor del Porto, would you like to
- CR DEL PORTO: No, I'm happy.
Valentine's Day.
CR EL MOUALLEM: Any further debate on this item?
Councillor Martin, would you like to close?
All those in favour?
Councillor Castelli, Councillor del Porto, Councillor Evans, Councillor Martin,
Councillor Stitfold, Cr El Mouallem, and it is carried
and I declare the meeting closed at 9.04pm.
Thank you.