Part one: Planning Delegate Assessment Report

Planning Delegate Assessment Report

Application Details

Application Number: MPS/2020/793 Application is for: Development of a 12-storey building with mixed uses of retail/commercial premises and residential dwellings.

Applicant’s/Owner’s Name: Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd

Date Received: Land/Address: Zoning: Overlays:

Under what clause(s) is a permit required?

Restrictive covenants on the title? Existing use and development: Site inspection undertaken? 02/12/2020 541 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058 Activity Centre Zone - Schedule 1 (ACZ1) Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) Development Contributions Plan Overlay - Schedule 1 (DCPO1) Parking Overlay- Precinct 1 (PO1) Clause 37.08-2: Permit required for the proposed use of retail premises (other than food and drink premises, shop and market). Clause 37.08-5: Permit required for the proposed development of building constructions and other works. Clause 52.06-3: Permit required for the proposed reduction of car parking spaces. Clause 52.29-2: Permit required for proposed alteration of access to a road in Road Zone, Category 1. Clause 52.34-2: Permit required for the proposed reduction in bicycle facility requirements. There are no restrictive covenants on the Certificate of Title for the subject land. Currently vacant.

Yes

Description of Proposal

The proposal consists of a 12-storey building development on the subject land with a maximum height of 36 meters. The building will be used for retail premises on the ground floor and residential dwellings on upper floors. The total residential area is 6599 square meters, accounting for 69 apartments of diverse typologies that range from 2 to 4 bedrooms. These apartments are complemented by 70 storages on level 1 and 2. Amongst them, 64 apartments will be dedicated as affordable housing using the Barnett Foundation housing model. The total commercial area is 432 square meters, which contributes to 4 leasable premises.

Residents’ and staff’s parking spaces are provided with 74 car parking and 96 bike parking on the ground floor, first and second floor. Visitors’ parking spaces are also present with 18 bike parking, yet no car parking onsite. Vehicles will access the site from a proposed crossover on the northwest corner that connects to Ross Street, which leads to the car parks on ground and upper floors. Existing crossover and tree on Sydney Road are to be removed to accommodate construction of the proposed building and frontage of outdoor dining area. Pedestrian access to retail shops is provided on all directions whereas their access into the residential lobby is located on the southern boundary of the site, next to cyclist’s access to bike storage.

Subject Site and Existing Conditions

• Site area: 1,924 square meters.

• Context:

The subject land is located on the west side of Sydney Road, east of Ross Street and diagonally across from the Bell Street Reserve. It is adjacent to a vacant land on its south and a small laneway partially connects to Ross Street. As part of the major retail strip along the main arterial road, Sydney Road, in the Principal Activity Centre Zone in Coburg, it is surrounded by a diverse mix of land uses with mostly lowdensity one- or two-storey commercial buildings on the same side, community cultural places, such as churches and open spaces, and education facilities, Coburg Primary School, on its opposite side. The suburb’s administrative centres of Moreland City Council, civic centre and town hall, are also within 10-min walk from the site. Residential neighbourhood is also in proximity from the rear of the site, characterised by low-density traditional-style houses. The land is currently vacant with undermanaged weeds and poor shading, enclosed by steel fences at all sides.

The site is accessible by multiple transport options, including tram 19 that runs along Sydney Road, buses that run in the east-west direction on Bell Street and Wilson Street as well as bikes with designated separate cycling lane passing its east frontage.

• Location map: Figure 1: Open Street Map of subject site

Figure 2: Satellite Image of subject site

• Site photograph/s: Figure 3: East View of subject site Figure 4: West View of subject site

Figure 5: North View of subject site Figure 6: Southeast View of subject site

Subject Site History

The land was registered as separate lots in 2011, with the northwest corner as one parcel and the rest as another.

It was used as an industrial warehouse in 2009 with storage boxes occupying most part of the site and clear vehicle accessway running from the northwest side, through the centre and leading to Sydney Road. It features the thriving car-centric industrial activities and suburbanisation of the time.

The use of the industrial warehouse and storage boxes declined between the years of 2009 and 2011. The site may have been repurposed with its use concentrated on the building and the rest remained under-utilised during the next 10 years. Despite very few activities observed, the vegetation onsite was still regularly maintained throughout this period.

Figure 7&8: Satellite Image of subject site in 2009, 2011

The building was eventually demolished in 2019 and the site remained vacant until today.

Figure 9: Satellite Image of subject site in 2019

Referrals

External Referrals/Notice

Head, Transport for Victoria (VicRoads) as a determining referral authority

The relevant electricity transmission authority as a determining referral authority

Secretary to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning as a recommending referral authority

Advice/Response/Conditions

As the proposed development comprises 60 or more residential dwellings along the major transport corridor, the following conditions are required to be included when issuing a Planning Permit: 1. The demolition of existing crossover and designation of new crossovers and driveway on Sydney Road must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 2. The additional vehicle movement on adjoining streets and transport corridors as a result of the proposal should be assessed to ensure minimal traffic problems and functional and appropriate movements. 3. Council’s decisions must be forwarded to Transport for Victoria as required under Section 66 of the Act. As the proposed building is constructed on land within 60 meters of the electricity transmission line, the applicant shall ensure that all connections to the electricity supply are in compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the Victorian Electricity Supply Industry and provide a completed Electrical Safety Certificate in accordance with Electricity Safe Victoria’s Electrical Safety System. The authority acknowledges that: 1. The proposed removal of existing native vegetation should affect local vegetation cover to a minimum extent. 2. The value of proposed new vegetation justifies the loss of the demolished native vegetation.

The relevant water supply authority recommending

Water

1. The provision and installation of water services for both commercial/retail premises and residential uses, including meters for all units and premises, should be ensured. 2. Additional tappings are to be supplied to service the proposed development. 3. Dimensioned plans detailing locations of services and tappings for retail and residential uses to be provided. Services and tappings should not be located under existing or proposed driveways.

Sewer

1. The provisions of sewerage services and system to all units and premises of commercial and residential uses are ensured.

Internal Council Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions

Landscape and Design The department supports that the development: • Ensure sufficient incorporation of native vegetation in the proposed built structure. However, there are still concerns on: • integration of the proposed development with the surrounding landscape due to potential visual bulk and over shadowing as the site is surrounded by low-density neighbourhoods.

Environment The department suggests that a certificate of environmental audit should be provided by applicants for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to: • Ensure that the potentially contaminated land is appropriate for the proposed development within minimal adverse impacts. • Ensure that the proposed development does not pose new threats to both the built and natural environments.

Assessment

- Zones & Overlays

Figure 10. Zoning of subject site

• Clause 37.08: Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1)

The purpose of this zone is to facilitate higher-density development of mix uses in activity centres including housing, retail shopping, working, community and leisure facilities. Schedule 1 to this zoning contextualise policies for the subject site in Precinct 2: Bell Street North and specified the guidelines. The proposed use of retail premises in Precinct 2 triggers a permit under this clause. This refers to the retail premises other than food and drink premises, shop and market which are listed under Section 1 and do not require a permit. This is appropriate as it supports sustainable development with optimal utilisation of infrastructure, services and facilities, aligning with the zone’s purpose. The construction of buildings also requires a permit according to Clause 37.08-5.

The proposed mix-use development satisfies most decision guidelines under Clause 37.08-9 and Schedule 1. It meets both the land use and development objectives specified in Clause 37.08 and the Precinct 2 objectives in schedule 1, which is to encourage mix of commercial uses with residential at upper levels. New uses are compatible with surrounding contexts without compromising existing use. They are well-serviced with active frontages, utility facilities, access for vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists are separated to ensure safety and efficiency. This complies with the Precinct 2 guidelines that aims to mitigate potential conflicts between vehicle movement and pedestrian activities. The 3-meter ground-floor setbacks in the schedule is also ensured to allow promotion of landscape and pedestrian amenities on Ross Street.

The proposal fails to meet some of the design and development standards listed in Clause 4.4 of the schedule, which stated that the preferred maximum height should be consistent to the scale of adjoining built structures if not specified. As most surrounding buildings are single-storey, the construction of a 12-storey building can induce visual bulk and contribute to incohesive streetscapes that may potentially threatens the neighbourhood characters. Other requirements for residential units are prevailed by the standards of apartment development under Clause 58.

Figure 11. EAO of subject site

• Clause 45.03: Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO)

The EAO aims to ensure the suitable use of potentially contaminated land, particularly for sensitive uses such as residential uses in the proposal. The certificate of environmental audit is therefore required to assess whether the land is appropriate for the proposed use. However, the certificate has not yet been provided by applicants.

Figure 12. DCPO of subject site

• Clause 45.06: Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO1)

This overlay requires levy contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities before commencement of the proposed development. As specified in Schedule 1, the development contribution plan for this proposal should include levies payable for both commercial and residential development as listed in Table 2 and 4 in the schedule. However, this has not yet been provided by applicants.

Figure 13. PO of subject site

• Clause 45.09: Parking Overlay (PO1)

Parking Overlay ensures appropriate provision of car parking spaces, which operates alongside with Clause 52.06. Schedule 1 to this overlay requires parking for this proposal to comply with the specified parking rate in Table 1 under Clause 52.06-5, which is 131. As the number of proposed car parking is only 74, this triggers a permit under Clause 52.06-3 to reduce the number of car parking. Assessment against decision guidelines for this overlay will be detailed when assessing Clause 52.06 in the later sections.

- State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

The following State Planning Policies are most relevant and applicable to this application:

• Clause 11: Settlement

This clause requires planning to be responsive to the dynamic needs of communities in the present and future. The proposed uses agree with the objectives of this policy through provision of more housing and employment choices to accommodate local population growth and demands while complementing the existing adjoining land uses, which facilitates implementation of strategies under Clause 11.03-1S (Activity Centres). This includes diversifying housing typologies, housing intensification, promoting sustainable transport, encouraging local employment and supporting economic activities.

• Clause 15: Built Environment and Heritage

This clause highlights the importance of high-quality urban design and cohesive contribution of all land uses and development to the neighbourhood landscape and character. The proposed development of affordable housing aligns with this policy’s goal of accommodating people of all abilities. The proposal encourages higher quality living environments and promotes accessibility to amenities and services, highlighted under Clause 15.01-1S (Urban design).

However, existing local character of low-scale built environment and existing residents’ sense of place within the surrounding neighbourhoods may be threatened due to proposed construction of the 12-storey building with modern architectural style, conflicting with strategies in Clause 15.01-5S (Neighbourhood character).

• Clause 16: Housing

The proposal of shop-top apartment development algins with the state housing policy directions of housing diversity through providing new housing typologies and densities to the existing supply of single-storey houses. The subject land is also well-located with convenient access to various transport modes and community facilities for better serviced, integrated and affordable housing development, responding to the policies under Clause 16.01-1S (Housing supply) and Clause 16.01-2S (Housing affordability).

• Clause 17: Economic development

This clause requires planning to promote a strong and innovative economy through diverse economic activities. The proposed use of retail premises thus responds to Clause 17.02-1S that encourages uses of retail, entertainment and other commercial services to meet community needs in accessible locations.

• Clause 18: Transport

This clause outlines the need for sustainable transport network that promotes economic prosperity, which supports the proposed reduction of car parking spaces as it can push people to the more sustainable alternatives. The proposed mixed uses also create new destinations, integrating land uses with local transport network. The reduction of car parking is then further justified because the subject land is well-located in proximity to public transport stations, in line with the strategies under Clause 18.02-4S (Car parking).

- Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The following Local Planning Policies implementing the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) are most relevant and applicable to this application:

• Clause 16.01-1L: Homes in Moreland

This clause support and justifies the high-density residential development as the subject land is located within the ‘Significant Housing Growth’ on the Strategic Framework Plan, despite potential disruption to streetscapes and neighbourhood characters.

• Clause 16.01-2L: Housing affordability Moreland

The proposed affordable housing is supported the strategy under this clause as well as the relatively low local housing affordability characterised by decreasing housing ownership and increasing private renting and mortgage rates.

• Clause 18.02-4L: Car parking in Moreland

Reduction of car parking is supported by strategies under this clause as the proposed development is located within local activity centre and conveniently accessible to various public and active transport options. The lower percentage of people travelling to work by car, compared to the state percentage, also presents an opportunity to promote sustainable transport through car parking reduction.

• Clause 18.02-1L: Sustainable transport in Moreland

Although the purpose of this clause is to ensure suitable provision of bike parking, the strategies still emphasise the need to consider the likely demand based on the locality. In the case of this proposal, the reduction of bike parking is not significant and proximity to public transport provides sufficient alternatives for the reduction to be appropriate.

- Relevant Particular Provisions

• Clause 52.06: Car parking

This provision is purposed to support suitable provision of car parking spaces while also encouraging sustainable transport alternatives. However, it also highlights the need to consider demand based on onsite activities and the locality. The statutory requirement of car parking spaces specified by Table 1 under Clause 52.06-5 is 131 in total with 116 for residential parking and minimum 15 visitor parking. Reduction in residential parking can be justified through proximity to public transport facilities and strategic aim of promoting sustainable travel alternatives, whereas absence of visitor parking is not appropriate. Considering the limited existing on-street alternative parking in surrounding areas and present high parking demand due to the nearby civic and public centres, over-reduction of car parks may fail to meet the minimum demands and reduce visitors’ utility. This may also exclude the social groups who work in remote areas with poor access to public transport from affordable housing, which contradicts with the easy and efficient use in the aims of this clause. It can also compromise further consolidation of the activity core since provision of visitor parking may provide opportunities to service future commercial intensification in adjoining areas.

The provided car parking plan satisfies most design standards under Clause 52.06-9 in terms of accessways, ramp gradients, safety, design and landscaping. However, for all the car spaces in parallel to accessways, the lengths are 4.9 meters, which is a lot shorter than the specified 6.7 meters in Table 2. Although most parked vehicles are likely to be private cars instead of trucks, the differences in the dimensions can still induce significant impacts.

• Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1

The clause requires a permit for the proposed alteration of access to Sydney Road from the existing crossover to a new crossover on Ross Street. This is considered appropriate as the increased vehicular movement brought by the proposal can thereby be redirected, which alleviates traffic pressure on Sydney Road and ensures its transport efficiency.

• Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities

As the proposed bike parking spaces are 122, which is considered slightly fewer than the required 139, and they service all users including staff, residents and visitors, this reduction is then believed to be of minor impact on the overall amenity provision. Proximity to alternative public transport also justifies this waiver as the focus of this clause is to ensure safe convenient access to bike facilities, which has been achieved by separating access of pedestrians and cyclists to the site from vehicles.

• Clause 58: Apartment Developments

As required by Clause 37.08-5, the proposed apartment development must meet the requirements under Clause 58 to ensure amenity for the proposed apartment development. The detailed assessment against the objectives and standards is attached in the appendix.

Overall, the proposed development satisfies most statutory requirements. The assessment concludes that the construction of a 12-storey building, despite concerns on disruption to an incohesive streetscape, is appropriate considering the preferred urban form and future higher-density development trajectory. The potential visual bulk and overshadowing have been mitigated through planter boxes, setbacks and balconies and impact minimised. There are still concerns on security for residents where visitors’ parking is added and noise mitigation for apartments adjacent to car parks. Analysis on existing infrastructure capacity and potential upgrade for future needs is should also be provided by applicants.

- Incorporated or Reference Documents

• Moreland Activity Centre Framework 2014

The document places the subject land in the broader strategic context of its municipal and sets out the overarching strategies to develop Sydney Road activity core as a growing vibrant centre with diverse uses that accommodates the local incremental population.

• Coburg 2020 Structure Plan

The local strategic plan identifies opportunities of the subject land and the activity centre it sits within for development densification, renewed urban forms and housing affordability, further supporting the proposal.

• Coburg Activity Centre - Built Form Rationale and Building Envelope 2014

The document outlines the preferred scenario and identifies the need to increase land use densities at well-serviced strategic locations and thus reimagines built form.

Conclusion

Based on the above assessment, permit for the proposed used and development will be granted with conditions, as listed in the next section. The reasons for granting the permit are as follows:

The proposed use of retail premises is justified as it aligns with the purpose of Activity Centre Zone, implements the state planning policies of improving accessibility and accommodating future growth. It is also supported by the strategic documents that set out future development trajectories of a more compact and liveable activity core.

The construction of the 12-storey building is considered acceptable, despite perceived concerns on consistency with surrounding built form and context. In line with the future densification of the area, both the state and local planning policies recognises the significance of more efficient and sustainable use of land in meeting growing demands and mitigate affordability. The community net benefits of the proposed development thus outweigh the potential disruption to existing streetscapes. In addition to the identified need to renew and reimagine new urban form in local structure plans, the development also complies with most of Clause 58 requirements and actively reduces visual bulk and overshadowing issues associated with mid-rise buildings.

Changes to access to Sydney Road is also accepted to redirect vehicular movement and ensure local road efficiency.

Reduction of cycling facilities is also waived as the reduction is not significant in numbers and the subject site is in proximity to alternative transport options.

Finally, reduction of car parking spaces will be approved with some conditions. The assessment recognises that the local planning policies aim to support sustainable transport through car park provision. However, this does not mean the permit should be issued to allow the proposed reduction because the proposal fails to consider the nature of subject locality where large parking demands are concentrated and the existing limited alternative parking. It is thus concluded that lack of visitor parking can induce negative impact on future development and thus should be only permitted if visitor parking is added.

Recommendation

The assessment has also identified gaps in the documents provided and issues with site plans. The council wishes for these issues and gaps to be addressed before the permit can be issued.

Grant a permit, subject to the following conditions:

• Request for further information:

- Certificate of environment audit to be provided,

- Development contribution plan to be provided for further assessment of the consistency between the plan and the conditions or requirements in the permit under Clause 45.06-1.

- Analysis on existing infrastructure capacity to be provided.

• Visitor parking to be added. As a result, the layout of the plan may be reconsidered.

The new plan should show access and allocation of car parking for residents and visitors. Car parking design concerns on the length of spaces parallel to accessways should be adjusted for safety and approved before the new use commences under

Clause 52.06-11.

• In response to addition of visitors’ car parking spaces, security of car parks should be reconsidered to separate access for residents and visitors.

• For apartments located next to car parking, acoustic design of walls should be introduced and assessed on noise level for equity reasons.

Refusal to grant a permit for [type what the application was for here] , for the following reasons:

Word Count: 1756 (1500+10%) (excluding tables, figure captions and sub-titles)

Part two

This report will assess the supporting documents provided with the application through addressing interpretation of the planning scheme and potential biases in favour of the applicants, the outcomes of the proposal and some further implications for local planners.

Perspectives of supporting documents

Examination of the supporting reports has found most evident biases towards the applicants in the Urban Context Report, Traffic Report and Acoustic Report. Whereas there is still neutrality in the Waste Management Plan, Accessibility Report, SMP (Sustainable Management Plan) and the landscape reports. This is most likely because the related proposed design in these documents is more straightforwardly prescribed in the planning scheme with little room for variation in interpretation while the influences are less significant and conflicting among the stakeholders. This report will thus set its scope on the three biased documents by supporting and explaining their biases using evidence as follows.

• Urban Context Report and site plans

The report was created in favour of the applicants’ interests. This is largely because the proposed use and development are exempt from public notice, as stated in Clause 37.08-8 and Clause 7 in the zone’s schedule 1. This limits on public participation were then played to the developers’ advantage. The report interpreted the absence of prescribed building heights and the zone’s aim of activity intensification as an opportunity for larger-scale development, which then justifies the 12-storey building. Despite the requirements of promoting consistencies of streetscapes under Clause 4.4 of the zone’s schedule, the considerations on the surrounding low-scale residential and commercial characters were underplayed with more focus placed on the future development of the approved 8-storey nearby and its implication of preferred future urban form. In the meantime, the report’s reference to the strategic statements and argument of preferred neighbourhood character are still not strong enough to justify the proposal because of their weak functionality in driving significant changes, as pointed out by Rowley (2017). The use of ‘preferred’ seems contentious because it overlooks potential impacts to sense of place for existing residents, who may become objectors to the development, as they struggle to negotiate with the suburb’s new identity (Bartling, 2010). As such, the intended positive outcomes and values of the proposal may be compromised by the subjectivity of report which speaks only for the beneficiaries – developers, councils and future residents. Similarly, other negative influences of the proposed high-density development, particularly overshadowing on residents along Ross Street, have also been moderated and claimed to be minimised without addressing these residents’ perspectives as key stakeholders. Moreover, this neglection is then reinforced through the lack of discussion about potential pressure on existing infrastructures and amenities and noise impacts, even though the site activities will be