Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. Locality Plan 3. Proposed Plans 4. Delegate’s Report

F U T U R E M E L B O U R N E ( P L A N N I N G ) C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T

Agenda Item 5.6

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT : TP-2008-68/B 453 DRYBURGH STREET, NORTH MELBOURNE

7 August 2012

Presenter: Martin Williams, Executive Officer Planning

Purpose and background

1. This application is presented to the Future Melbourne Committee at the request of Councillor Shanahan.

2. The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of an Application to Amend a Planning Permit, to alter the plans. The amendment proposes a roof deck above the approved first floor (refer Attachment 2 – Locality Plan and Attachment 3 – Proposed Plans).

3. The subject site is located on the west side of Dryburgh Street and extends through to Mugg Lane at the rear. The site is regular in shape and has a site area of approximately 200sqm. The site is within a Residential 1 Zone and is affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO3 – North and West Melbourne Precinct). The existing dwelling on the land is ‘D’ graded in a Level 2 streetscape.

4. Planning Permit TP-2008-68 was issued on 8 May 2008 for partial demolition and additions to the existing dwelling fronting Dryburgh Street. Plans were endorsed on 22 July 2008. Amended plans (reducing the extent of the extension to the rear) were endorsed under secondary consent on 23 July 2010.

5. Planning Permit TP-2010-689 was issued at the direction of VCAT on 4 November 2011. This permit allowed the construction of a two storey building containing two dwellings at the very rear of the site, fronting Mugg Lane.

6. The application was advertised and received objections from 455 & 457 Dryburgh Street and from 19 Erskine Street. A late objection was received on 16 July 2012 from 465 Dryburgh Street.

Key issues

7. The key issues for consideration in the assessment of this application are overlooking, overshadowing and bulk, heritage and neighbourhood character.

8. There is some potential for overlooking from the roof deck. Proposed conditions 1c and 1d seek to ensure appropriate screening to limit any potential views.

9. Given the orientation of the site and the proposed roof deck there is no potential for overshadowing of 19 Erskine Street, 455 or 457 Dryburgh Street. (The neighbours to the south have not lodged an objection to the application but have lodged an application for development.) The height of the roof deck is between 0.4m and 0.8m higher than the approved extension on the site. The overall height is between 7m and 7.4m, where Clause 54 anticipates buildings of up to 9m in height in residential areas.

10. In terms of heritage and character, the existing building at the front of the site is “D” graded in a Level 2 streetscape. The Heritage Places policy for this situation seeks ‘partial concealment’ of upper level additions. The roof deck has been assessed against the policy and is considered to meet this test.

Recommendation from management

11. That the Future Melbourne Committee issue a Notice of Decision to Amend a Planning Permit, subject to the conditions included in the delegate’s report (refer Attachment 4 - Delegate’s Report).

Page 1 of 14

1

SUPPORTING ATTACHMENT

Legal

1. Division 1A of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) sets out the requirements in relation to applications for the amendment of permits.

2. As objections have been received, sections 64 and 65 of the Act provides that the Responsible Authority must give the applicant and each objector a notice in the prescribed form of its decision to either grant or refuse to grant the amendment. The Responsible Authority must not issue an amended permit to the applicant until the end of the period in which an objector may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision or, if an application for review is made, until the application is determined by the Tribunal or withdrawn.

3. In making its decision, section 60(1)(c) of the Act requires the Responsible Authority to consider, amongst other things, all objections and other submissions which it has received.

Finance

4. There are no direct financial issues arising from the recommendations contained in this report

Conflict of interest

5. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.

Stakeholder consultation

6. Formal notification (advertising of the planning application) was carried out for the application.

Relation to Council policy

7. Relevant Council policies are discussed in the attached officer report (refer Attachment 4).

Environmental sustainability

8. Given the nature of this application there are no issues around environmental sustainability.

Attachment 1Agenda Item 5.6

Future Melbourne Committee7 August 2012

Page 2 of 14

11/07/2012 9:06 AM

����������� �������������������������������

���������� ���������� ���������� ������ ��� ���������������� ����������� ������� �� � � ����������� ���������������������������� ���������!����� ����!��������������� �������� ���������� �������������� ���������� ������ �������� ������� �������������������������������� " ���������� ���������������� � ������� ������������� ������ ������

Page 3 of 14

Page 4 of 14

Page 5 of 14

Page 6 of 14

Page 7 of 14

Page 8 of 14

DELEGATED PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

APPLICATION NO: TP-2008-68/B

APPLICANT: Ms Sarah Salem

ADDRESS: 453 Dryburgh Street, NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051

PROPOSAL: Amendment to plans for the construction of a roof deck

DATE OF APPLICATION: 2 May 2012

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Sophia Michailides

1. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

The subject site is located on the west side of Dryburgh Street approximately 25 m north of Erskine Street and extends through to Mugg Lane at the rear. The front of the site is approximately 2 m higher than the land at the Mugg Lane boundary. The site has a frontage of 5.03 m and a depth of 39.82 m with a total site area of 200.2 sqm. Since the permit was issued on 8 May 2008, approval has been granted under Permit TP-2010-689 for a two storey building at the rear fronting Mugg Lane, which will comprise two dwellings. Construction has not commenced and subdivision has not been approved but this would reduce the length of the site for the existing dwelling to 21.97 m and the site area to 80.3 sqm. The existing dwelling on the land is graded D in a Level 2 streetscape in the Heritage Places Inventory 2008. It forms one of a pair of single-storey dwellings with the dwelling to the south. On the north boundary, a single storey dwelling with an original skillion-roofed section at the rear which has a wall 6 m high on the boundary abutting the proposed first floor addition. This property has structures extending to the Mugg Lane boundary. A Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for a second dwelling at the rear of 451 Dryburgh Street to the south was set aside by VCAT on 24 April 2012. The proposal was set aside as it was considered by the Tribunal to add to an unacceptable level of change to this part of the municipality and would not minimise the impacts on the amenity of adjoining sites. Since the Tribunal’s decision, the permit applicant has re-submitted plans for the construction of an extension to the existing dwelling and two dwellings to the rear of the lot facing Mugg Lane. This application is currently under assessment.

2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Pre-application discussions

The applicant met with Council officers prior to lodging the application.

Page 9 of 14

Amendments during the process

The application was not amended during the assessment process. Planning Application History

Plans were endorsed under TP-2008-68 on 22 July 2008. Subsequently a change to the materials for the wall on the south boundary from face brickwork to colorbond corrugated sheeting was approved on 12 November 2009. Amended plans were endorsed under secondary consent on 23 July 2010, which considerably reduced the length of the development and reorganised the first floor, including the location of the stairwell. These plans showed the length of the wall on the north boundary to the west of the lightcourt reduced from 13350 mm to 5500 mm. The first floor was reduced in length from 6500 mm to 4500 mm. A first floor balcony approximately 1 m deep and 2500 mm long within the building envelope abutting the south boundary was shown on the endorsed plans. The balcony and the west-facing first floor window were shown with screens to 1700 mm. On 9 June 2010 the permit was extended to allow for commencment before 8 May 2012. On 23 December 2011 a further plan amendment was approved under secondary consent for the ground floor only, increasing the length of the wall on the north and south boundaries west of the light court to 6.97 m. On 9 March 2012, following a formal application to amend the permit, the permit was amended to increase the length of the upper floor by 1.47 m to match the ground floor, alterations to the balcony including the construction of screening to the balcony and windows. On 4 May 2012, plans were endorsed to comply with condition 1. On 20 April 2012, the permit was extended to allow the commencement of development to be extended by a further year.

3. PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval to amend Permit TP-2008-68/Aunder Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by way of:

Construction of a roof deck above existing building. The building height will remain at 6.8 m and have a solid balustrade facing Dryburgh Street (east) that increases the height of the wall by 400 mm, resulting in a 1 m high solid balustrade above ceiling level. The balustrade along the southern, western and northern perimeters of the deck will be angled back commencing at heights of 1 m to 1.4 m above the ceiling level. The balustrade will be constructed from metal with a 25% level of transparency.

4. MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME

Statutory controls

The subject site is located within the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and is affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO3 – North and West Melbourne Precinct). The statutory

Page 10 of 14

controls have not altered since the issuing of Permit TP-2008-68. A permit is required by both the Zone and Overlay provisions.

Strategic policy framework

The Delegated Planning Application Report on file dated 8 May 2008 lists all relevant provisions of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) including Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). Since the issuing of the permit, the SPPF has been reconfigured and the relevant clauses thereof renamed, however the basic content and intention of clauses remains largely unaltered. Since the issuing of the permit the LPPF, including the MSS, has not altered significantly. The current review of the MSS (Amendment C162) does not propose any changes of zoning and overlays for this part of North Melbourne. It is to be recognized as a “stable area” where the vision is: ‘Stable Areas are areas where the existing character is to be maintained. They are predominantly residential and have extensive heritage controls. In these areas change such as in-fill development and additions and alterations, will continue to occur, and the level of change will be consistent with change that has already occurred in recent years’. Particular/General Provisions

The Delegated Planning Application Report on file dated 8 May 2008 identifies that Clause 54 (ResCode) applies to the assessment of this application. There are no other relevant Particular or General Provisions.

5. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

It was determined that the proposal may result in material detriment therefore Council gave notice of the proposal by ordinary mail to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties, in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

6. OBJECTIONS

Three objections were received in response to the application. The objections relate to the following (summarised):

Inconsistent with local policies. Loss of neighbourhood character and detrimental impact on heritage. Development is visually bulky. Proposal will set precedent for roof decks in area. Proposed deck will result in overshadowing of adjoining properties. Overdevelopment of site. Impact on shared maisonette roof space. Measurements are not accurately indicated on plans. Applicant has concealed aspects of the proposal by lodging a series of

planning applications for individual aspects of the planning application. Processing of planning applications/amendments unacceptable. Overlooking of adjoining properties.

Page 11 of 14

7. EXTERNAL REFERRALS

The application was not required to be referred externally. 8. INTERNAL REFERRALS

The application was not referred internally. 9. ASSESSMENT

The proposal includes the construction of a roof deck above the existing building. The key issues for consideration are potential amenity impacts on adjoining properties and the appropriateness of a roof deck having regard to heritage and neighbourhood character.

9.1 Potential Amenity Impacts

Overlooking Objectors have raised concern with potential for overlooking to occur from the deck. A solid balustrade along the east elevation facing Dryburgh Street is proposed to measure 1 m high (0.4 m higher than the approved elevation). It is considered that there is no opportunity for overlooking to occur as these views are to a public street, promoting passive surveillance. An angled balustrade/screen is proposed along the southern elevation which abuts 451 Dryburgh Street. At a height of 1 m, the top of the balustrade will be angled at 55 degrees resulting in an overall height of 1.4 m. The angled screen has been designed to prevent downward views. The screening to the balustrade will be metal and have a transparency of no more than 25 percent. However, as designed this screen appears to extend over the title boundary. Whilst the intent of the screen is clear, the method of screening needs revision. This is a matter that can be addressed by permit condition. Landscaping in the form of planter boxes is proposed to the western perimeter of the deck. The planter boxes will measure 600 mm high and 500 mm wide. A 400 mm high balustrade is proposed to be constructed above the planter box resulting in a screen measuring 1 m high in total. The balustrade screen is proposed to be metal and have a transparency of no more than 25 percent. There is some potential for views towards the proposed development at the rear of the site, namely into the windows of the first floor dwelling. It is recommended that further screening be introduced to the western boundary. This is a matter that can be addressed by permit condition. A 1 m high balustrade is proposed along the northern perimeter of the deck which abuts 455 Dryburgh Street. There is an existing two storey wall (approximately 6 m high) abutting this wall. The existing wall height along this boundary will be increased by 400 mm resulting in a 1 m high balustrade. The balustrade screen will be metal and have a transparency of no more than 25 percent. The location of built form on the adjoining property to the north at 455 Dryburgh Street will prevent most opportunities for unreasonable views within 9 m of the roof

Page 12 of 14

deck. A sectional analysis by officers confirms that at a distance of 9 m from the roof deck, the angle of view would sit above the natural ground level of the open space of 455 Dryburgh Street. Views to the property one removed at 457 Dryburgh Street are similarly constrained by intervening built form. That said, it is considered appropriate to wrap screening around the northern edge for a distance of around 2 m and to a height of 1.7 m. This would remove the potential for views to the rear yards of 455 and 457 Dryburgh Street. Overshadowing & Bulk The objector at 457 Dryburgh Street has raised concerns regarding overshadowing to the rear of 453 Dryburgh Street (the subject site), 451 Dryburgh Street and potentially 449 Dryburgh Street and 24 Erskine Street. This objection has also raised concerns regarding visual bulk. Given the orientation of the site and the proposed roof deck there is no potential for overshadowing of 457 Dryburgh Street. The proposal involves an increase in height by 0.4 m to 0.8 m (in the form of a metal screen) along the southern elevation. Whilst this does create some additional shadow over 451 Dryburgh Street, the impact is considered marginal. The neighbouring owner/occupiers at 451 Dryburgh Street have not lodged an objection to this application, and there is currently an application for the redevelopment of this site following the refusal by VCAT of the earlier application. In terms of ‘bulk’ related impact, the proposal involves an increase in height of 0.4 m to the north and west elevations and between 0.4 and 0.8 m to the south elevation. The overall height of the addition including the proposed roof deck and screening would be between 7 m and 7.4 m. The relevant ResCode standard suggests a maximum building height of 9 m. Given the location of the roof deck, with buildings immediately abutting it to the north and south, there is limited opportunity for any ‘bulk’ related impacts on adjoining properties. 9.2 Heritage and Neighbourhood Character The subject building is graded D under Council’s Heritage Place Inventory, and is located within a level 2 streetscape. Clause 22.05 seeks ‘partial concealment’ of any upper level additions under these circumstances. Objectors have also raised concern that the deck will detrimentally impact upon the neighbourhood character The proposal involves an increase in the height of a wall facing Dryburgh Street by 0.4 m (400mm). Dryburgh Street is approximately 30 m in width. Taking a point at the centre of the footpath opposite the site, a sight line diagram indicates that a portion of the addition with a height of 600-700 mm. will be visible above the ridge of the retained single storey dwelling. This is considered to achieve the test for ‘partial concealment’ set out under the policy. 9.3 Other objector concerns Objectors were concerned with the accuracy of the plans, in particular the overall depth of the site, the value of the set-back of the existing dwelling façade from Dryburgh Street and the analysis of overlooking. Concern was also expressed that

Page 13 of 14

approval would set a precedent for such rooftop decks and that the processing of the application has resulted in compromised impartiality and favourable treatment of the applicant. The overall depth of the site has been variously quoted as being from 39.62 metres to 39.97 metres. This range of values is not significant in the assessment of this application. The set-back of the existing dwelling was shown in earlier plans of the site as 3.0 metres and shows on Council plans as 3.5 metres. The actual value does not affect this assessment of the proposed deck. The analysis of overlooking provided by the applicant does contain errors and this aspect of the application has been re-assessed by Council officers. The proposed Condition 1(d) will in any case restrict overlooking in accordance with ResCode. The approval of this proposed deck will not set a precedent for roof decks in the area as each proposal is assessed on its merits. The processing of the application has followed standard procedure. 10. RECOMMENDATION

That an Amended Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued subject to the following conditions. 11. CONDITIONS

Insert the following on Amended Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit: Date of amendment: TBC Details of amendment: Amendment to plans to include the construction of a roof deck. Amendment also to include two additional conditions as follows. New Condition 1(c) – No screening devices or structures extending over the title boundary. New Condition 1(d) – Screening to the western edge of the roof deck and the first two metres (from the western end) of the northern edge of the roof deck to a minimum height of 1.7 m, generally in accordance with the requirements at Clause 54.04-6. The Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor and Councillors were notified of the above recommendation on Friday 22 June 2012. 12. DECISION

The signature and date below confirms that the Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor and Councillors affirmed this recommendation as the Council’s decision. Signature: Date affirmed: Sophia Michailides Planning Officer

Page 14 of 14