Planning and Environment Act...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C185 Part 2

Victorian and Edwardian Houses Neighbourhood Character Overlay and Design and Development Overlay

8 September 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C185 Part 2

Victorian and Edwardian Houses Neighbourhood Character Overlay and Design and Development Overlay

8 September 2015

Suzanne Barker, Chair

Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C185 Part 2 Panel Report 8 September 2015

Contents Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. i Consolidated Recommendations ....................................................................................... i

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Procedural matters in relation to Amendment C185 Part 1 ................................... 1 1.2 The Precincts ........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Background .............................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 5

2 Planning Context ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Strategic Support ..................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................... 6 2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 7

3 May Road Precinct, Toorak ......................................................................................... 8 3.1 The issues ................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Evidence and submissions ....................................................................................... 8 3.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 10 3.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 11

4 Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct, Prahran ................................................ 12 4.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 12 4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 12 4.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 12

5 Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct, Armadale ........................................... 14 5.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 14 5.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 14 5.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 15 5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 16

Appendix A List of Submitters

Appendix B Document List


List of Tables Page

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 1

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 May Road Precinct, Toorak ..................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct, Armadale ........................................ 3

Figure 3 Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct, Prahran ............................................. 4


List of Abbreviations

DDO Design and Development Overlay

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

GRZ General Residential Zone

HO Heritage Overlay

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NCO Neighbourhood Character Overlay

NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone

SNCR Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Overview

Amendment Summary

The Amendment Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C185 Part 2

Common Name Victorian and Edwardian Houses Neighbourhood Character Overlay and Design and Development Overlay

Subject Site May Road Precinct, Toorak;

Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct, Prahran; and

Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct, Armadale

Planning Authority Stonnington City Council

Exhibition 26 March to 28 April 2015

Submissions 9 submissions were referred to Panel (including one late submission)

Panel Process

The Panel Suzanne Barker

Directions Hearing Malvern Town Hall, 16 July 2015

Panel Hearing Hearing Room 2, Planning Panels Victoria, 1 Spring Street, Melbourne, 11 August 2015

Site Inspections Unaccompanied, 11 July 2015 and 29 August 2015

Appearances City of Stonnington Council represented by Kate O’Regan who called expert evidence in planning from Lisa Riddle of Planisphere.

Karina Ganesh Investments Pty Ltd represented by Mark Naughton of Planning & Property Partners who called evidence in planning from Andrew Clarke.

Create Property Pty Ltd represented by Marjorie Kennedy of SJB Planning.

Date of this Report 8 September 2015


Page i

Executive Summary

Amendment C185 proposes to implement the findings of the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review (SNCR) (2013) prepared by Planisphere, and the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review Addendum (2014), also by Plansiphere. Amendment C185 is part of a series of amendments by Stonnington City Council which seek to introduce a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) over a number of precincts identified in the SNCR. This Amendment intends to apply a NCO to each of the nine precincts categorised as Victorian and Edwardian era, and Edwardian era.

Council received objecting submissions which related to three of the nine precincts and resolved at its meeting on 22 June 2015 to split the Amendment into Part 1 and Part 2:

Part 1 (precincts which did not receive any objecting submissions) was adopted by Council and has been submitted to the Minister for Planning for his approval

Part 2 (precincts with objecting submissions) is the subject for review by this Independent Panel. Part 2 relates to: May Road, Toorak; Bidey Street and Packington Place, Prahran; and Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove, Armadale.

The submissions received in relation to the three precincts raised concerns about the significance of neighbourhood character within each of the precincts, and the appropriateness and drafting of the controls to implement neighbourhood character provisions.

Whilst the Panel has concerns about the lack of documented analysis within the SNCR to demonstrate how significance was derived for the precincts, it does consider that for most of the area of the three precincts, there is an identifiable and significant neighbourhood character present which warrants the introduction of additional planning controls. The Panel does however, recommend that the boundary of the May Road Precinct should be amended to remove the non‐contributory properties on its edge, and also supports Council’s position to remove a number of non‐contributory properties from the edge of the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct

On balance the Panel is satisfied that there is strategic support for the Amendment and it should therefore be adopted subject to a number of changes as in the recommendations below.

Consolidated Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C185 Part 2 should be adopted as exhibited subject to the following:

Remove Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 4, Design and Development 1.Overlay Schedule 16 and Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 4 from 29 May Road, and 30 to 44 May Road, Toorak.

Include the following additional neighbourhood character objectives in 2.Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 4 and Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 5:


Page ii

To maintain the established pattern of front and side setbacks in the street

To ensure that new dwellings or extensions to existing dwellings respect the dominant building height, form, façade articulation, materials and roof forms of the streetscape

To ensure that the use of design detail in new buildings complements, rather than mimics, that of the predominant building styles in the street

To minimise the loss of front garden space due to car parking and driveways, and minimise the dominance of car parking structures in the streetscape

To ensure space is available for the planting of trees and gardens.

3. Review the provisions of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay schedules prior to submitting them to DELWP for approval to consider whether they should provide further guidance in relation to side elevations on corner allotments to facilitate second storey extensions.

Remove General Residential Zone Schedule 14 and Neighbourhood Character 4.Overlay Schedule 5 from the following properties:

571‐579 Dandenong Road, Armadale

37 Valentine Grove, Armadale

39 Valentine Grove, Armadale, and

20 Valentine Grove, Armadale.


Page 1 of 18

1 Introduction

Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C185 proposes to implement the findings of the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review (SNCR), Planisphere, 2013 and the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review Addendum, Plansiphere, 2014 by introducing a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) into the Stonnington Planning Scheme for each of the nine precincts categorised as Victorian and Edwardian era, and Edwardian era.

Council received objecting submissions which related to three of the nine precincts and resolved at its meeting on 22 June 2015 to split the Amendment into Part 1 and Part 2:

Part 1 (precincts which did not receive any objecting submissions) was adopted by Council and has been submitted to the Minister for Planning for his approval

Part 2 (precincts with objecting submissions) is the subject for review by this Independent Panel. Part 2 relates to: May Road, Toorak; Bidey Street and Packington Place, Prahran; and Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove, Armadale.

Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C185 Part 2 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Stonnington City Council as Planning Authority. It was authorised by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). In addition to the schedules to the NCO, the exhibited Amendment proposes to introduce a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) in relation to fences for the May Road, and Bidey Street and Packington Place Precincts.

The Amendment also replaces schedules of the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) with new schedules to facilitate application of the NCO.

At its meeting of 22 June 2015, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 2 July 2015 and comprised Suzanne Barker (Chair).

Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

Stonnington City Council Ms Kate O’Regan , who called the following expert witness:

‐ Lisa Riddle, Planning, Planisphere.

Karina Ganesh Investments Pty Ltd Mr Mark Naughton of the firm Planning and Property Partners who called the following expert witness:

‐ Andrew Clarke, Planning

Create Property Pty Ltd Marjorie Kennedy of SJB Planning

1.1 Procedural matters in relation to Amendment C185 Part 1

At the Hearing, the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) advised Council and the Panel that they have delayed the approval of Amendment C185 Part 1 in


Page 2 of 18

order to await the outcome of the Panel process for Part 2 of the Amendment and any recommendations that may arise out of this process.

1.2 The Precincts

The Amendment applies to the following precincts identified as high neighbourhood character significance in the municipality as shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.

1.2.1 May Road Precinct, Toorak

Figure 1 May Road Precinct, Toorak

May Road Precinct is currently zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3), is located to the north of the Hawksburn Village, and adjoins a Heritage Precinct (HO380 – Bush Inn Precinct Extension, Toorak).


Page 3 of 18

1.2.2 Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct, Prahran

Figure 2 Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct, Armadale

The Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct is currently zoned General Residential Zone Schedule 10 (GRZ10) and is located near to Malvern Railway Station and the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre.


Page 4 of 18

1.2.3 Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct, Prahran

Figure 3 Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct, Prahran

The Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct are currently zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 2 (NRZ2) and have five heritage precincts in close proximity.

1.3 Background

1.3.1 Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review (2013)

Council appointed Planisphere in January 2012 to prepare the SNCR which is a reference document in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Planisphere prepared an Addendum to the SNCR in 2014. Councils submitted that the SNCR’s purpose was to examine all residentially zoned areas within the municipality and:

rationalise the number of neighbourhood character precincts

identify areas of change since the 2006 SNCR

investigate areas that may warrant inclusion in the NCO and

propose implementation recommendations.


Page 5 of 18

The SNCR identified 23 areas of significant character. Amendment C168 introduced the first two of these precincts, namely the Baldwin Street and Clarence Street Precincts, and also introduced the SNCR as a reference document in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. This Amendment was reviewed and supported by an independent Panel and came into effect in April 2014.

Council submitted that Amendment C185 forms part of a series of amendments to introduce the NCO and DDO schedules into the Scheme for the remaining 21 areas of significant character identified in the SNCR. These 21 areas are located within four revised neighbourhood character types, from which 8 neighbourhood character precincts have been defined. Precinct profiles have been prepared for the 8 character precincts which include character statements, a preferred future character statement and design objectives and guidelines.

1.3.2 Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review Addendum (2014)

The purpose of the Addendum was to address the strategic changes that have occurred across the municipality since the 2013 report. These changes include the reformed residential zones and the revised Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). The Addendum contains revised recommendations and proposed planning scheme changes in response to these changes.

1.3.3 Stonnington Amendment C175

Amendment C175 seeks to introduce a new Neighbourhood Character Local Policy into the Stonnington Planning Scheme and implement the recommendations of the SNCR. It was reviewed and largely supported by an independent Panel in 2014 and submitted to DELWP for approval in January 2015. At the time of writing, the Amendment is with the Minister for Planning awaiting approval.

1.4 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Planning Context

May Road Precinct, Toorak

Bidey Street and Packington Street, Prahran

Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove, Armadale.


Page 6 of 18

2 Planning Context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report.

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Policy framework

2.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF:

Clause 11 ‐ Settlement by providing for land zoned for housing, and to protect Melbourne and its suburbs from inappropriate development

Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage in particular by its objective to “recognise and protect cultural identify, neighbourhood character and sense of place”.

2.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives:

Clause 21.06 – Built Environment and Heritage which contain the objectives “to protect and reinforce the key elements of the City’s overall urban structure and character” and “to protect and enhance the varied, distinctive and valued character elements of residential neighbourhoods across the City of Stonnington. It also identifies need for strategic work “identifying areas of special character for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay”.

2.2 Strategic support

2.2.1 Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review (Planisphere, 2013) and Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review Addendum (Planisphere, 2014)

The SNCR is a reference document in the Stonnington Planning Scheme in Clause 21.09, and has been the subject of two previous independent Panels (C168 and C175). Both Panels were satisfied with the strategic basis of the report. The Addendum prepared by Planisphere in 2014 responds to a changed strategic context and provides modified recommendations on this basis.

2.3 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

Council stated that the Amendment was prepared in accordance with:

Ministerial Direction No. 9 – Metropolitan Strategy as it seeks to protect areas of significant character from inappropriate development

Ministerial Direction on Form and Contact of Planning Schemes

Ministerial Direction No. 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments as documented in the explanatory report.


Page 7 of 18

Council submitted that the Amendment was prepared in accordance with VPP Practice Note ‐ Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions.

2.4 Discussion

The Panel agrees with the Council submission that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.


Page 8 of 18

3 May Road Precinct, Toorak

3.1 The issues

In relation to the May Road Precinct, the Amendment proposes to:

rezone the May Road Precinct from Schedules 2 and 3 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to Schedule 4 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

apply a new Schedule 16 to Clause 43.02 ‐ Design and Development Overlay to the precinct to control front fencing

apply a new Schedule 4 to Clause 43.05 ‐ Neighbourhood Character Overlay to the precinct.

Two submissions were received from the May Road Precinct. The issues raised in the submissions were:

the significance of neighbourhood character within the precinct

the appropriateness and drafting of the controls.

3.2 Evidence and submissions

Mr and Mrs Smith, and Mr Naughton representing Karina Ganesh Investments Pty Ltd, the owner of the Woolworths Supermarket and May Road car park, both disputed the consistency of dwelling style in the May Road Precinct. Mr Naughton submitted that the NCO should be applied to well‐defined areas with strong justification, and that the apartment block at 29 May Road and the supermarket car park are both non‐conforming character elements which detract from the integrity of the streetscape.

In evidence called on behalf of Karina Ganesh Investments Pty Ltd, Mr Clarke stated that strategic justification for additional neighbourhood character controls needed to establish an identified character that was significant. This ought to be demonstrated with a rigorous analysis such as against the requirements of the Practice Note ‐ Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions. It was his view that the SNCR does not provide sufficient detailed discussion or analysis to explain how significance was derived, and does not have regard to the current use of the May Road car park or its important function to service the Hawksburn Village.

Mr Naughton further submitted that the proposed planning controls are inappropriate and unnecessary. He submitted the implementation of Amendment C175 will provide sufficient local policy to guide any future development proposal for the car park, and that the proposed NCO was not necessary to manage infill development.

This view was supported by Mr Clarke in evidence who suggested that all development proposals for a single dwelling on lots within the May Road area would require a permit under the existing provisions of the zone, and would trigger consideration of neighbourhood character principles.

In relation to the drafting of the proposed controls, Mr Clarke was of the view that the NCO4’s decision guidelines were worded as a permanent demolition control to retain or conserve existing buildings. This was contrary to the Practice Note for neighbourhood character provisions which require demolition controls to be used as a holding position until


Page 9 of 18

the responsible authority is satisfied that a development proposal meets planning requirements. It was also his view that the DDO16 was unnecessary as a fencing control as this could have been dealt with under the provisions of the NRZ.

Ms O’Regan on behalf of Stonnington City Council submitted that May Road displays an overall consistency in housing with predominantly single storey cottages constructed on at least one side boundary with consistent roof form and materials, and a regular subdivision pattern. The exceptions to this are two unit developments and the supermarket car park. She further submitted that whilst there are non‐conforming buildings within the proposed NCO area, Council considered that the proposed controls create opportunities to better manage future development so they do not detract from the contributory dwellings.

In relation to the appropriateness of the controls, Ms O’Regan stated that the NCO4 and DDO16 were necessary as a tool to guide decision makers. Furthermore, the demolition provisions were consistent with other provisions in the Stonnington Planning Scheme (NCO2). She stated that Council in response to this contention was seeking to add a number of objectives to NCO4 and NCO5 to further clarify the intent of the NCO as follows:






In relation to fencing, Ms O’Regan submitted that the use of a DDO was a common tool across many planning schemes to require a permit for fencing and was necessary because front fencing was an important character element within the street.

In relation to the supermarket car park and the Hawksburn Village, Ms O’Regan submitted that Council was in the process of preparing the Hawksburn Village Structure Plan. A draft structure plan boundary included the May Road car park. However, Mr O’Regan stated that Council was of the view that the car park should be retained within the current Amendment as the structure planning process was at an early stage and a separate process. Furthermore, the car park adjoins the HO380 Precinct and the proposed overlay controls would ensure that future development of the car park would be sympathetic to the character of the area.

Ms Riddle from Planisphere provided expert evidence on behalf of Council. It was her view that the non‐conforming elements located within the precinct do not significantly detract from the integrity of the remaining streetscape, and the NCO should therefore not be abandoned. She stated the purpose of the proposed controls was to ensure that new development does not further detract from the significance of the precinct.

In verbal evidence she stated the NCO “completed the streetscape” in relation to the boundary of HO380 and should therefore be applied to the car park. She conceded however


Page 10 of 18

that the car park was not under threat of redevelopment given its current use serving the supermarket within the Hawksburn Village. She did consider, however that the land was a potential redevelopment site, but would require a further planning scheme amendment to facilitate future redevelopment given the land’s current zoning.

3.3 Discussion and conclusions

The Panel notes that the SNCR is a reference document within the Stonnington Planning Scheme and has been the subject of two previous Panel reviews, namely C168 and C175. Both of these Panels were satisfied with the strategic basis that the document provided in relation to neighbourhood character.

Having said this, in relation to the specifics of the May Road Precinct (and potentially with regard to the other precincts subject of the Amendment), the Panel notes that the Practice Note ‐ Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions states that a neighbourhood character study should be able to:

provide an assessment that identifies the comparative significance of each neighbourhood character area. In assessing the significance of areas, comparisons need to be made, not only with other parts of the municipality but with the wider metropolitan area

identify why differences are important. It is these differences that lie at the heart of the strategic justification for additional neighbourhood character provisions

demonstrate that additional or locally varied neighbourhood character provisions are necessary to either protect or enhance the existing character of an area or to achieve a preferred future neighbourhood character.

The Panel shares Mr Clarke’s concern that there is little evidence within the SNCR which explains how the significance of the May Road Precinct was established. Whilst the report states that a comparative analysis was undertaken, and this was confirmed by Ms Riddle in verbal evidence, this has not been documented, except for a short paragraph at the beginning of the report which discusses the project’s methodology. This lack of documented analysis makes it difficult for people affected by the Amendment, or indeed those who are to implement the controls, to understand how the end point was arrived at. Whilst the outcome in relation to the significance of neighbourhood character might be justified, the Panel considers it is important to explain the process by which this result was determined for the benefit of those impacted upon.

It is clear that parts of the May Road Precinct display clear character elements as submitted by Council. However, the Panel is of the view that the boundary of the precinct should be amended. It does not agree that additional neighbourhood character provisions are justified over the May Road car park or indeed the apartment block at 29 May Road. Both of these properties are at the edge of the precinct and are clearly non‐contributory properties. The Panel does not agree that the NCO is an appropriate tool to control development which is proximate to a heritage precinct or to complete a streetscape. The Panel agrees with Mr Naughton that the existing (and soon to be adopted provisions under Amendment C175) are sufficient to manage redevelopment applications on these two sites.


Page 11 of 18

Whist the Panel has concerns about the lack of analysis documented within the SNCR in relation to May Road, it is of the view that the balance of the precinct does display sufficient neighbourhood character qualities which ought to be protected. However, 29 May Road, and 30 to 44 May Road should be excluded from the precinct as they are on the edge of the precinct and do not display any significant neighbourhood character.

In relation to the demolition controls proposed as part of NCO4, the Panel agrees with Council that the wording is consistent with established provisions in the Stonnington Planning Scheme and does not consider that they are worded to require the retention of existing buildings. This is clearly stated within the purpose of the NCO head clause.

The Panel notes that the additional objectives proposed by Council for the NCO4 and NCO5 mirror the existing objectives found in NCO2 Baldwin Street Precinct. The Panel agrees that these objectives provide additional guidance in relation to the broader intent of the schedule and supports their inclusion.

In relation to the use of a DDO to control front fencing, whilst the Panel agrees with Mr Clarke that Council could have utilised the provisions of the NRZ to achieve a similar aim, it does not consider that the use of a relatively straight forward DDO is overly cumbersome and unwieldy in an administrative sense. It agrees with Council that fencing cannot be controlled via a permit trigger with the NCO as noted in the comment section within the Practice Note ‐ Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions, and that low fencing is an obvious element of neighbourhood character in the May Road Precinct which should be controlled. The Panel therefore supports the use of DDO16 in this area.

3.4 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

Remove Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 4, Design and Development 1.Overlay Schedule 16 and Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 4 from 29 and 30 to 44 May Road, Toorak.

Include the following additional neighbourhood character objectives in 2.Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 4 and Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedule 5:







Page 12 of 18

4 Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct, Prahran

4.1 The issue

Similar to the May Road Precinct, the Amendment proposes to:

rezone the Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct from Schedules 2 and 3 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to Schedule 4 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

apply a new Schedule 16 to Clause 43.02 ‐ Design and Development Overlay to the precinct

apply a new Schedule 4 to Clause 43.05 ‐ Neighbourhood Character Overlay to the precinct.

One submission was received from the Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct. The issues raised in the submission relate to the significance of neighbourhood character adjoining the property, and the reduced development potential of the property.


Submitter 6 stated that the property at 8 Packington Street is located immediately next to and opposite a number of double storey townhouses. The submitter expressed concern that the proposed controls will inhibit redevelopment plans for the property.

Ms O’Regan stated that Council considered the corner site important within the context of the precinct and an important gateway to the entrance of the significantly intact Bidey Street. She submitted that the buildings referred to by Submitter 6 were outside of the proposed precinct, and that the 8 Packington Street could still be redeveloped subject to the development proposal meeting the preferred character requirements. This view was supported in evidence by Ms Riddle.


The Panel agrees with Council that the site is an important gateway to the precinct and that the Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct displays notable neighbourhood character elements. The Panel considers that the Amendment is consistent with planning policy and that the proposed controls will still allow for 8 Packington Street to be redeveloped in a manner which is consistent with the preferred character of the precinct. The Panel however does note that the property is located on a corner site, and the proposed NCO4 is largely drafted to deal with lots which directly front one street, rather than a corner lot which has two street frontages. In the Panel’s view, it would be a difficult design challenge to achieve a recessed second storey from a long side street frontage such as at 8 Packington Street given its narrow lot width. This does seem overly restrictive and could inadvertently only allow a single storey dwelling construction.

The Panel considers that whilst 8 Packington Street should remain within the Bidey Street and Packington Place Precinct as proposed, Council should review these provisions prior to submitting them to DELWP for approval to consider whether it should provide further


Page 13 of 18

guidance in relation to side elevations on corner allotments to facilitate second storey construction.

4.4 Recommendations


Review the provisions of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay schedules prior to 3.submitting them to the Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning for approval to consider whether they should provide further guidance in relation to side elevations on corner allotments to facilitate second storey extensions.


Page 14 of 18

5 Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct, Armadale

5.1 The issue

In relation to Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct, the Amendment proposes to:

rezone the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct from Schedule 10 of the General Residential Zone to Schedule 14 of the General Residential Zone

apply new Schedule 5 to Clause 43.05 ‐ Neighbourhood Character Overlay to the precinct.

Six submissions were received in relation to the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct. The issues raised in the submissions were:

the significance of neighbourhood character within the precinct

the appropriateness and drafting of the controls.


A number of submitters were supportive of the Amendment in the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct. Submitter 7 and Submitter 9 welcomed the Amendment but stated that the controls ought to have more “teeth” similar to heritage controls in relation to demolition. Submitter 10 echoed this sentiment and stated that the preservation of existing original dwellings ought to be emphasised.

Three other submissions opposed the Amendment. Submitter 3 stated that 37 Valentine Grove is not an Edwardian building but was constructed in the 1950s. Submitter 12 stated that although 6 Valentine Grove was an Edwardian dwelling, the smaller lot size and foundation problems of the building do not add to the character of the precinct.

Ms Kennedy of SJB Planning on behalf of Create Property Pty Ltd made submissions in relation to 16 Valentine Grove. Her key submissions were:

it is not necessary or justified for additional neighbourhood character provisions to apply in the precinct

the precinct does not have a unique character or level of intactness to warrant the application of an NCO

the existing and preferred character identified within NCO5 does not reflect the existing conditions within the precinct

the use of a demolition trigger to encourage retention of dwellings is an improper use of the control and inconsistent with Neighbourhood Character Practice Note.

Ms Kennedy submitted that the proposed preferred character statement was generic and did not reflect the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct. She submitted that each of the character descriptions do not reasonably match the majority of dwellings in the precinct as there was a great degree of variation in building style.

Ms O’Regan submitted that local heritage studies had considered the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove area and determined that they do meet the threshold for heritage significance. The NCO was determined appropriate because dwellings in the area are


Page 15 of 18

considered to have consistent character features. Council also considered that the wording in the proposed provisions was strong enough to ensure that character was appropriately taken into account.

Ms O’Regan stated that Council, in response to Submission 3, agreed that the dwellings at 37 and 39 Valentine Grove do not have Edwardian features and extend only a short distance into the street. Their removal from the NCO area would not impact upon the intactness of the balance of the precinct.

Ms O’Regan submitted that the precinct displays a consistent and significant character as noted by the SNCR. There are a high number of original Edwardian dwellings which have consistent scale, form, use of materials, front and side setbacks and established gardens. She stated, that whilst there a number of apartment blocks within the precinct, that these did not detract from the integrity of the precinct.

In relation to demolition, she noted her previous comments made in relation to the May Road Precinct (Chapter 3).

It was Ms Riddle’s view that additional controls are appropriate and will ensure that future development reflects and respects the special characteristics of streetscape and be subject to more detailed design parameters.

Ms Riddle also stated that Council engaged Planisphere to review the submissions and re‐examine the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove area. Through this exercise they determined that the boundary of the precinct could be reduced. She considered that 571, and 575‐579 Dandenong Road, as well as 37, 39, 20 and 22 Valentine Grove did not contribute to the intactness of the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct and should be removed from the precinct. Ms O’Regan confirmed that Council resolved at its 22 June 2015 meeting to remove these properties from the precinct.


The Panel agrees with Council that the Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove Precinct has a large number of Edwardian buildings and is satisfied that this precinct displays a level of intactness and integrity which warrants the application of an NCO. It supports Council’s removal of the non‐contributory properties at the edge of the precinct fronting Dandenong Road and the southern end of Valentine Grove as they do not enhance the integrity of the precinct. The Panel also agrees with Council that a heritage control cannot be applied where heritage significance has not been demonstrated, and supports its position in relation to demolition as discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.

The Panel does not accept Ms Kennedy’s submission that the NCO5 does not reflect the predominant characteristics of the precinct. Whilst these may be similar to a number of precincts from similar building eras, the Panel is satisfied that the proposed controls are appropriate and provide a sufficient level of detail to assess development applications against.


Page 16 of 18

5.4 Recommendations


Remove General Residential Zone Schedule 14 and Neighbourhood Character 4.Overlay Schedule 5 from the following properties:

571 Dandenong Road, Armadale

575‐577 Dandenong Road, Armadale

579 Dandenong Road, Armadale



37 Valentine Grove, Armadale and

39 Valentine Grove, Armadale.


Page 17 of 18

Appendix A List of Submitters

No. Submitter

1 M Abrahams

2 C Wilson

3 A Wen

4 J and J Smith

5 B and R Tayles

6 G Cleary

7 D Whitchurch

8 SJB Planning on behalf Create Property Pty Ltd

9 D and A Ardlie

10 J Cameron

11 Planning and Property Partners on behalf of Karina Ganesh Investments Pty Ltd

12 A Raines


Page 18 of 18

Appendix B Document List

No. Date Description Presented by

1 11 Aug 2015

Letter from Minister for Planning in relation to delayed approval of Stonnington Amendment C185 Part 1

Mr Close

2 11 Aug 2015

Stonnington City Council submission Part 2 Mr McKenzie

3 11 Aug 2015

Council revised NCO4 – suggested changes Mr McKenzie

4 11 Aug 2015

Council revised NCO5 – suggested changes Mr McKenzie

5 11 Aug 2015

Submitter location maps Mr McKenzie

6 11 Aug 2015

Planning Practice Note 28 – Using neighbourhood character provisions in Planning Schemes

Mr McKenzie

7 11 Aug 2015

Appendix 3 of City of Stonnington submission Mr McKenzie

8 11 Aug 2015

Planning Practice Note 78 ‐ Applying the Residential Zones Mr Naughton

9 11 Aug 2015

Submission from Planning Property Partners on behalf of Karina Ganesh Investments Pty Ltd

Mr Naughton

10 11 Aug 2015

Cadastral map of May Road Mr Clarke

11 11 Aug 2015

Submission from SJB Planning on behalf of Create Property Pty Ltd

Ms Kennedy

12 11 Aug 2015

GRZ10 ‐ existing schedule for Grove Avenue Precinct Ms Kennedy

13 11 Aug 2015

Photos of Grove Avenue Precinct Ms Kennedy

Planning and Environment Act...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Environment Act...