Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2002-11-11

Places Australia Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2002] VCAT 1440 (11 November 2002)

A permit is granted and directed to be issued by the Responsible Authority under the provisions of section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act for the land at 29-31 Stewart Street, Richmond which allows:

Partial demolition of the existing building, the construction of 91 dwellings in a building of up to 7 levels, 242 square metres of office/café space, associated landscaping, the use of 242 square metres of the land for the purpose of office/café and a reduction of the requirements for car-parking generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.

The Tribunal directs that the permit must contain the following conditions:

1. Before the development hereby permitted commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with those plans certified for the purpose of the Tribunal Hearing by Interlandi Design Group Pty Ltd Job No. 01051 Plan Nos. TP1.03; TP1.04; TP1.05A; TP1.06; TP1.07A -TP1.19A inclusive and TP1.22 - TP1.24 inclusive (all dated July, 2002) but modified to show:

(a) The following corrections to the RL's shown on the following plans:

(i) On Plan TP1.12, the RL should read 18.25 instead of 19.95;

(ii) On Plan TP1.13, the RL should read 21.25 instead of 22.75;

(iii) On Plan TP1.14, the RL should read 24.25 instead of 25.75;

(b) The provision of glazed balustrades to the balconies at the two uppermost levels of the building;

(c) The installation of a convex mirror on the power pole in Tanner Street opposite the intersection of Tanner with Margaret Street (on the north west corner), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority's Traffic Engineer;

(d) The installation of a warning system, with indicators at either end of the ramp to the mezzanine car park ramp;

(e) The installation of advisory signs at the exits to the car parks to remind drivers of the obligations to pedestrians;

(f) The provision of a minimum headroom of 2.1 metres to the car parks;

(g) The construction of metal screens behind the windows to the Tanner Street façade, to a height of one metre above the finished floor level, to prevent the shining of car headlights into the dwellings opposite;

(h) Demolition plans and elevations to show the full extent of demolition proposed.

(i) A schedule of construction specifications indicating the construction of the proposed residences to be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards for acoustic control which specifically must limit internal dwelling noise levels to a maximum of 45dB(a) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(j) A roof plan detailing the location of all plant and equipment. All plant and equipment is to be acoustically treated to minimise noise and concealed from view and be incorporated into the overall design of the buildings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(k) Detail and specification of bicycle storage system to be depicted on plan (and supplemented by the provision of supporting documentation).

(l) Detail of baffling to be provided to existing street lighting to prevent light spill into residential properties. Baffling must be designed in accordance with the relevant road authority to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(m) Annotation on plan and details of reinstatement of any redundant crossovers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(n) Bin storage area shown on plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(o) Adequate storage for the dwellings detailed on plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(p) Modification to the modes of entry into the residential component of the site to provide access for people with disabilities.

(q) A landscape plan prepared by a qualified and experienced landscape architect.

(r) A schedule of all external materials and finishes (including colour and material samples) to show materials, colours and finishes to all external wall, roof, fascias, window frames, glazing types, doors, fences, paving, outbuildings and structures. Glazing to be non reflective.

(s) A schedule detailing the car parking allocation for each dwelling and the parking allocation for the office/café.

2. All development and use must accord with the endorsed plans.

3. The layout of the uses on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. The site must be landscaped prior to the commencement of the use, in accordance with the endorsed Landscaping Plan, and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the commencement of works, a bond of no less than 5% of the total landscaping value must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. This bond will be returned in full no later than 3 months after the satisfactory completion of these works and subject to and inspection by Council.

6. All tandem residential car parking spaces must be allocated to the same residence.

7. All areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed, plans must be:

(b) formed to levels, constructed, line marked, sealed, illuminated and drained to specifications approved by the Responsible Authority; and

8. Any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works depicted on the endorsed plans must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel to the approval and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at the permit holder's expense. Any new vehicular crossings must be constructed to Council's standard vehicular crossing specification.

9. All damaged road(s) and footpath(s) adjacent to the development site must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Before the residential use commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with the residential uses commences, either:

(a) a Certificate of Environmental Audit or a statement indicating that the land is suitable for residential use must be issued for the land in accordance with Section 57AA(5)(b) of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

(b) an environmental auditor appointed under the Environmental Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Section 57AA(5)(b) of the Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the proposed sensitive use.

11. Any soil removal from the site during the construction phase should comply with EPA requirements for off-site disposal for potentially contaminated soil (ie. EPA Publication No. 626, October, 1998).

12. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through:

(a) the transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from land;

(b) the appearance of any buildings, works or materials;

(c) the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, or

13. The office/café use hereby permitted must only operate between the hours of 7.00am and 8.00pm Monday to Sunday unless further consent is granted by the Responsible Authority.

14. The loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the commercial premises must be carried out entirely within the site.

15. Alarms associated with the commercial premises must be directly connected to a security service and must not produce noise beyond the premises.

16. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on nearby land.

17. Rubbish, including bottles and packaging material, shall at all times by stored within the building and screened from external view. All waste collection for both residential and commercial uses on site must be undertaken by private contractors. The owner of the land must enter into a waste collection management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for both the commercial and residential uses.

18. Stormwater drainage of the property must be provided to the nearest Council pit of adequate depth and capacity to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. Areas must be provided inside the property line and adjacent to the footpath to accommodate pits and meters. No private pits, valves or metres on council property will be accepted.

20. During construction of the development, the following conditions shall be met:

(a) Only clean rainwater shall be discharged to the stormwater drainage system;

(b) Stormwater drainage system protection measures shall be installed as required, to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the premises enters the stormwater drainage system;

(d) All machinery and equipment must be cleaned (if required) on site and not on adjacent footpaths or roads;

(e) All litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be contained within the site boundaries, and disposed of responsibly.

(f) All site operations shall comply with the Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997.

21. Prior to the commencement of any works on the site (including demolition and material removal) the applicant must submit for approval to the Responsible Authority a Construction Management Plan in line with the requirements of the City of Yarra's Building Code of Practice. The plan must address, but not be limited to the following:

(a) Site contamination and disposal of contaminated matter;

(b) Containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of clean up procedures in the event of build up of matter outside of the site;

(d) the location of proposed parking areas for construction and sub-contractors' vehicles, so as to contain the vehicles of construction workers on site and off-street at the earliest possible stage of development and to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows;

(e) how all vehicles involved in construction of the development access and egress the site, so as to ensure that vehicles associated with construction activity cause minimum disruption to surrounding premises and traffic flows;

(f) Delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;

(g) A liaison officer with a mobile telephone number and 24-hour accessibility for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;

(h) An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services;

(i) Any requirements outlined within this permit as required by the relevant referral authorities.

22. Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, demolition or construction works must only be carried out between 7am - 6pm, Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays) and 9am - 5pm, Saturday and public holidays. No works are to be carried out on Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day or Good Friday without a specific permit. All site operations must comply with the relevant Environment Protection Authority's Guidelines on Construction and Demolition Noise.

23. This permit will expire if the use or development is not commenced within two years from the date of this permit. All development must be completed within 4 years of the date of this permit. The Responsible Authority may approve extensions to these time limits if requests are made within 3 month of expiry.

NOTE: This site is subject to a Heritage Overlay pursuant to the Yarra Planning Scheme. Unless hereby approved, a planning permit is required for any demolition, re-painting or other external alterations, sandblasting, exterior works (including the installation of external air-conditioning units) to an existing building or buildings, construction of a building or fence, changes to the natural topography of the land or the subdivision or consolidation of land.

NOTE: The site must be drained to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

NOTE: Vehicle crossings must be located on the endorsed plan and constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

NOTE: A building permit must be obtained before development is commenced.

NOTE: In accordance with Council policy, a 5% public open space contribution may apply in the event of the subdivision of the land.

Mr J Gobbo QC and Ms Julie Forsyth by Direct Brief. Mr Gobbo QC called Mr Biacsi, Town Planner, Mr S Hunt, Traffic Engineer, Mr Peter Lovell and Mr Bryce Raworth, Heritage Advisers

Mr Sam Parasol, Ms Heather Macdonald for Mr Peter Hayes QC, Ms Kit Lim, Mr Peter Moss, and Mr Jim Barnden on behalf of Mr Laurens Meyer, appeared in person.

1. This was an application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a failure by the City of Yarra to make a decision on a permit (in Application No. PL02-0053) for the land at 29-31 Stewart Street, Richmond involving partial demolition of the existing building for the purpose of the construction of 91 dwellings in a building of up to 7 levels, 242 square metres of office/café spaces, associated landscaping, the use of the land for the purpose of 242 square metres for office/café and a reduction of the requirements for car-parking.

2. The Tribunal adopts the following description of the site context, taken from Mr Andrew Biacsi's written submission:

The subject site is located within the mixed-use area located immediately to the north of Richmond Railway Station and to the east of Punt Road, at the western end of the City of Yarra. Stewart and Tanner Streets are the main thoroughfares. Surrounding land uses comprise a mix of factory, warehouse, office and residential uses.

This area has experienced considerable building conversions and new development and for residential purposes following the introduction of the Mixed Use Zone under the new Yarra Planning Scheme in May 1999.

Notwithstanding this trend towards residential accommodation within the former industrial precinct, this area still maintains an industrial appearance reflective of its former use.

To the east and west of the site along the north side of Stewart Street and the south side of Tanner Street generally are brick warehouse buildings graduating from two storeys at the western end to 718 levels at the eastern end, some of which have been recently converted and extended to accommodate apartment-style dwellings. Most of the buildings were originally constructed during the first half of the twentieth century and as a group they form a near continuous and generally harmonious street frontage.

To the north across Tanner Street is an established residential area, comprising a range of Victorian cottage-style dwellings, which are generally located on small blocks and are modest in type. Many of these dwellings are single storey weatherboard houses, either attached or duplexes, with most dating from the latter part of the nineteenth century.

To the south across Stewart Street is the Richmond Railway Station, with the railway station's northern entry located directly opposite the subject site. This entry point sits above street level and is accessed via a pedestrian ramp on the southern side of the street. The streetscape on this side of the street otherwise consists of a large retaining wall with the station platforms located above the station.

It is noteworthy that the Richmond Railway Station is to be redeveloped as a "major new intermodal interchange" as a key component of the Victorian Government's Linking Victoria strategy and the revitalisation of the public transport service in Victoria. This project has been given extra impetus with awarding of the 2006 Commonwealth Games to Melbourne and the Government's decision to upgrade the adjacent Melbourne Sports Precinct.

In the wider context, the site is within walking distance of the Central Business District, Melbourne's main sporting and recreation venues and a wide range of recreational and shopping facilities, including the retail strip/activity centre located approximately 300 metres to the south of the site along Swan Street and the retail strip/activity centre located approximately 650 metres to the north of the site along Bridge Road, along Swan Street and the retail strip/activity centre located approximately 650 metres to the north of the site along Bridge Road.

The site also enjoys a high level of access to public transport facilities, with a number of tram and/or bus routes operating along Swan Street, Bridge Road and Punt Road. In addition, the Richmond Railway Station which is located directly to the south of the site offers a wide range of services to the City Loop, Lilydale, Belgrave, Alamein, Glen Waverley, Pakenham, Cranbourne, Frankston and Sandringham lines, with the City Loop additionally providing direct access to the remainder of the metropolitan rail network.

In terms of the surrounding road network, Stewart Street, Tanner Street and Margaret Street are each classified as local streets. Stewart Street, which runs in an easterly direction from Punt Road to Swan Street, comprises parallel parking on both sides of the road and intermittent two way traffic flows. Tanner Street runs east-west between Lennox Street and Punt Road and comprises parallel parking on the north side, no parking on the south side and intermittent two way traffic flows. Finally, in Margaret Street, which runs north-south between Tanner Street and Stewart Street is prohibited parking on its west side.

3. The Tribunal has inspected the site and surroundings from both street level and from the residence of Mr Peter Hayes QC at 15/24 Tanner Street Richmond.

4. This application for review was made on behalf of Places Australia in relation to the refusal by the City of Yarra to issue a planning permit for the part demolition, buildings and works for a 5-7 level building (91 dwellings), 242 square metres of office/cafe space, partial waiver of car parking and associated landscaping at 29-31 Stewart Street Richmond.

5. The Tribunal adopts the following description of the proposal, taken from Mr Andrew Biacsi's written submission:

The application is to redevelop and extend the existing industrial building for the purpose of a mixed use development comprising residential apartments built over five levels plus two levels of car parking in conjunction with a small commercial component of office/café space fronting Stewart Street at ground level.

The application more specifically proposes to partially demolish the existing red brick building on the site and construct a development of between three and seven levels, comprising 91 residential dwellings, 242m2 of office floor area and on-site car parking for 113 car parking spaces.

The composition of the proposed built form retains portions of the existing perimeter walls of the building with the new floor levels sitting within its remnant shell. Two centrally located lift/entry lobbies (at separate points) are provided to service the development. The easement located along the east boundary is maintained. A landscaped pedestrian walkway with access to Tanner Street is proposed. Vehicle access to the ground level car park is provided from Margaret Street at three access points. Vehicle access to the mezzanine car park is proposed via a ramp with access via the driveway off Stewart Street.

The ground level car park, mezzanine and first floor are located within the existing two-storey built-form.

The setbacks of the new floor levels from the Stewart Street and Tanner Street boundaries are as follows:

The overall building height is approximately 20.45 metres.

The building additions which are to sit within the walls of the existing building are of a contemporary nature, expressing a simple mix of low textured concrete finishes, metal framed glazed panels and balcony recesses. The new additions to the building relate to its origins as an industrial building and many of the materials used are sympathetic to the materials and pattern of finishes typically used in industrial buildings in the area. A subtle expression has been used in the detailing of the building including the adoption of appropriate architectural features.

6. The Tribunal has inspected the site and surroundings and reviewed the material provided to it at the hearing. The main issues raised at the hearing may be grouped as follows:

* Would the proposal be consistent with relevant State and Local heritage controls and policies?

* Would the proposal respect the character of the area?

* Would the proposal impact unreasonably on traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) and parking?

* Would the proposal provide appropriate levels of internal amenity?

* Would the proposal be consistent with relevant State and local policies for location of higher density housing and activity centres?

7. Before any assessment of the proposed additions can be made against State and local policy the nature of the contribution made by the existing building to the significance of the heritage place needs to be established as this is a benchmark consideration in the guidelines to discretion at both Clause 43.01 and the local Development Guidelines for Heritage Places at Clause 22.02 of the Planning Scheme. The existing building at the review site is located within an area which has been designated in the Planning Scheme as the Richmond Hill Precinct or Heritage Overlay 322. The land included in this heritage place is largely residential but contains the industrial or mixed use area within which the review site is located. As described by Mr Lovell and Mr Raworth, the existing building at the review site is not listed as a building of individual significance in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay nor is it the main building in the former Australian Knitting Mills complex. It is a nondescript or ordinary industrial form. From the opinions of the heritage experts the Tribunal considers that the building at the review site makes some contribution to the heritage place, but that the contribution in terms of the individual building is not particularly noteworthy. The Heritage Overlay 322 applies to a substantial area and unlike some other streetscapes, Tanner, Stewart and Margaret Street are not listed in the statement of significance as intact streetscapes. Further according to Mr Lovell's evidence these streets do not contain any heritage buildings with an A or a B grading.

8. There was discussion at the hearing in relation to the starting point for consideration of development requiring a planning permit in heritage overlay areas. In a Heritage Overlay, and in this case in HO322 which contains the review site, a permit is required for the proposed partial demolition and alteration pursuant to Clause 43.01. In relation to the Mixed Use Zone, implementation of both local and State Planning Policy Frameworks including the local planning policies for heritage is required. The decision guidelines in the Heritage Overlay set out matters to be taken into account when deciding whether or not a permit should issue.

9. The review proposal would retain approximately 73% of the existing façade structure. The two main facades to Stewart Street and Tanner Street, parts of the side facades and the structural supports or columns would be included in the retained structure. The eastern façade was described by Mr Raworth as having low integrity and structural problems. The Tribunal accepts Mr Raworth's evidence on this matter and is of the view that the extent of demolition is reasonable given the heritage significance of the building towards the lower end of the scale.

10. The Tribunal finds that the review proposal is for part demolition, alteration and addition rather than full demolition. As such local planning policy with respect to additions and new works at Clause 22.02-3.3 (rather than Clause 22.02-3.2 sub-clause 1.0) provides the relevant guide to the discretionary consideration of the review proposal, but it is important to remember that it does not contain prescriptive requirements.

11. In Stewart Street the curved nature of the street, and the narrowness of the street between the embankment to the Richmond Station and the two or more storeys of existing built form located at zero setback, result in angles of view that would limit the impact given the proposed setbacks of the upper storeys at the review site.

12. The Responsible Authority provided memorandums from two of their heritage advisers. Neither of the heritage advisers appeared at the hearing and the Tribunal could not test their evidence. Consequently the weight to be accorded their advice is reduced. The Tribunal is of the view that due to the different lighter coloured materials and setback of the proposed additions, the corner tower would still read as a separate element as described by Mr Raworth and for similar reasons the reading of the main tower of the Australian Knitting Mills would also not be compromised.

13. The proposed additions will be visible from certain viewpoints, and in particular Tyson Street, the elevated platform of Richmond Station, along Margaret Street and other locations such as high points in the Richmond Hill area to the north. However this is the case for other buildings in the vicinity and during the inspection the Tribunal noted that when standing in the eastern end of Tanner Street the view includes a clear view of the upper two new levels of the building at 28 Tanner Street. Further, some of the rear extensions to houses in the vicinity of the review site are highly visible from the street in the HO 322 area.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the number of additional levels above the existing structure would be greater in the review proposal than is the case at 24 and 28 Tanner Street. The Tribunal is of the view that additional use of glazed balconies at the two uppermost levels on all elevations is necessary to further reduce impacts of balconies, but otherwise concurs with Mr Raworth's view that the materials to be used, the articulation and the setbacks of the proposed upper levels would be such that the additions would not dominate the heritage streetscape through scale or bulk. The Tribunal concurs with Mr Gobbo's view that permanent shading devices on balconies, raised as a concern by the heritage advisers, would require further planning permission.

15. Various descriptions of the proposal were submitted at the hearing. Emphasis was repeated on the description `soufflé'. The Tribunal knows that a soufflé (if prepared successfully) rises with straight sides or no setbacks from the sides and then swells out at the top. In contrast the review proposal would fail the soufflé test as it shrinks in from two prominent sides (the frontages to Stewart and Tanner Streets) until it is substantially set back at the uppermost level. The setbacks of the upper levels will result in visibility from certain viewpoints in surrounding streets but is not considered likely to visually dominate the heritage place. Surrounding heritage places include buildings of robust scale such as the Kayser building, which has at least five levels which are not setback from the frontage. In comparison, the combination of the existing building which is already built on all boundaries and the proposed lighter structure of the stepped additions is considered to be relatively recessive. The Tribunal does not see a reason to require a greater setback of the bulk of the building as suggested by the statement of grounds of Mr Hayes QC and the Responsible Authority.

16. The proposed scale and bulk is considered reasonable in the context of the level of significance of the existing building on the review site and in relation to the scale and bulk of other buildings in the heritage streetscapes. The total height, which cannot be considered in isolation from setbacks when considering bulk, would be less than that of the building to the east, although greater than that of the building to the west. Based on the thoroughly tested evidence of the two expert heritage witnesses (which was confirmed by our site inspection) the Tribunal finds that the proposed additions will not visually dominate an existing heritage place or street in terms of size, height and bulk when viewed from surrounding streets and is appropriate in terms of the integrity of heritage place.

17. The Tribunal found that from vantage points along Stewart and Tanner Streets, which comprise the heritage industrial character, the setback additions would be mostly out of sight. The same could not be said for Margaret Street, but its function is a service access rather than a main streetscape.

18. At the hearing, the proposed additions and alterations at the review site were compared with additions and alterations to other former industrial buildings in the same heritage overlay area. Mr Moss provided photographs to demonstrate the relative scale of these additions. He submitted that the proportion of the additions constructed until now above former industrial buildings was relatively minor and that, in contrast, the proportion of adding five levels to these two storeys is substantially greater in the present proposal.

19. In the case of the buildings at 24 and 28 Tanner Street the facades are four storeys or more in height and are located at the building line as a hard edge to the footpath. There are however important differences in terms of the setbacks, materials and height particularly between the other altered buildings and the additions proposed at the review site. At the height where the additions to the Kayser building commence the additions to the buildings at the review site would be set back to a greater degree from the façade of the original building.

20. Mr Gobbo provided copies of endorsed plans for other substantial alterations to former industrial/commercial buildings at 9 Tennyson Street and 53-55 Stewart Street and at 30 Tanner Street. These premises are located in the HO322 area and in the vicinity of the review site. In relation to the existing or original structures, the plans show that a high proportion of new built form has been permitted in other proposed developments.

21. The Tribunal finds that the proportion of new additions in relation to the existing built form at the review site is reasonable in terms of the character of the area.

Views of Heritage Area from Richmond Railway Station

22. Mr Townsend suggested that the Tribunal should observe the review site from the Richmond railway station and consider the likely impact of the proposed additions. The existing view from the northernmost platform of the Richmond station includes glimpses of the area to the north of the Mixed Use Zone area which includes the review site. While this is not a view from a street within the Heritage Overlay area as suggested by the planning policy the Tribunal notes that there will be a clear view of the upper levels from this vantage point. However this needs to be considered against the quality of the heritage outlook which cannot easily be noted from the platform given the limited views that can be obtained down into Stewart Street and into the heritage area beyond. In addition the upper levels of a large number of additions in the Heritage overlay area can be seen from this elevated vantage point.

23. The design will ensure that much of the original historic fabric will remain intact. The Tribunal finds that the proposed design of the additions is contemporary, avoids `reproduction architecture', and will not be confused with the original historic fabric. Blank walls are avoided on the main facades and are limited to the side street which is generally dominated by roller doors rather than being used for the main pedestrian entries to existing buildings. Given the character of Margaret Street, it is not considered necessary to provide perforations to the area of wall that would replace the original façade on the western elevation. The façade height will remain unchanged as the additions will be set back from the façade. The orientation to the main streets and the tower elements would be retained. While the balconies would be contemporary they have been designed to sit behind the façade and not project into the heritage streetscape.

24. In summary the relevant objectives of the local policy include the conservation of historic fabric, the assurance that heritage places can be viable places for users without compromising the cultural heritage significance of the place and careful consideration of proposed additions and works. Given the continuing contribution of retained elements (including facades) to the character of the main heritage streetscapes, and the high level of consistency of the proposal with the relevant objectives and suggestions in Clause 22.02, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review proposal is reasonably consistent with local policy for heritage.

WOULD THE REVIEW PROPOSAL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD?

25. Although this issue was raised separately by the respondent objectors, much of the nature of the character of the area is related to the heritage issues which have already been considered in these reasons. The Tribunal is of the view that the character of the area includes both contemporary and heritage elements and that the review proposal would be consistent with the range of residential and commercial / industrial design represented in the vicinity of the review site. In terms of scale and bulk the Tribunal is of the view that the proposed alterations to the existing building at the review site would demonstrate an appropriate stepping back of built form, particularly in relation to the edge of a residential area to the north. For reasons relating to heights of other existing buildings at the frontage it is considered that the review proposal would have less prominence than other higher built form in Tannner Street. The Margaret Street interface contains vehicle access to industrial and commercial premises, which could not be said to warrant a particularly sensitive design response. In relation to Stewart Street the alterations to the building are not prominent from the street and given the Mixed Use and the location at transit and major activity centres, the design of the review proposal, including the commercial/café component at ground level is considered a good response.

26. The Tribunal notes that the proposed roller doors to Margaret Street would not be located directly opposite the openings for vehicle access to Mr Parasol's property. The review site and the building on the southwest corner of Margaret Street are unoccupied at present, but in the past industrial or commercial use of these buildings may well have generated parking and traffic. Due to the location of on street parking and the street configuration, manoeuvring a vehicle in the streets around the review site, including Margaret Street, requires care at present. Given the survey based projections for relatively low vehicular traffic generation set out in Mr Hunt's report the Tribunal considers that there would be minor, if any, additional care required in manoeuvring vehicles through the smaller streets or into and out of private property in Margaret Street.

27. Mr Hunt provided the Tribunal with an assessment of likely changes to pedestrian traffic based on surveys of existing pedestrian movements along Margaret Street and an assessment of opportunities for pedestrian use of footpaths. Mr Hunt suggested that signs within car parks to alert exiting drivers to pedestrians could be considered. The Tribunal accepts Mr Hunts's assessment as evidence that the vehicular traffic into and out of the proposed development is unlikely to cause undue hazard to pedestrians and that, subject to a planning permit condition for the suggested signs in the car parks, a reduction in the number of crossovers to the proposed development is not justified.

28. Ms Lim suggested that a wider footpath to accommodate wheelchairs should be provided as part of the review proposal. Mr Hunt's comments with respect to future residents being able to access the upper levels from the lifts in the carpark are noted. While the Tribunal acknowledges the importance of disabled access, the footpath widths around the site are constrained by the need to retain heritage facades which are usually at zero lot line as well as by the roadway locations. The overall question of wheelchair access in the public domain is an important one which could be further raised as a strategic planning issue with the local planning authority but is not one which can be dealt with on a site by site basis without an overall accessibility plan.

29. The opening of the Tanner Street vehicle access will not provide separate pedestrian access to the station but is considered likely to improve pedestrian permeability given the low speeds at which vehicles would need to travel to negotiate turns into access driveways and into the streets.

30. Mr Townsend expressed the view that residents would be likely to park on street rather than in their allotted car space in the car parking. There may be occasions when the residents do park on street but given the restricted on-street parking available this is not considered to be highly likely, particularly during peak parking times when residents, workers in local businesses and commuters compete for parking. The Planning Scheme requirements require adequate parking for dwellings, which the Tribunal considers has been provided, but it cannot control behaviour in the use of on-street or off-street spaces.

31. Resident objectors were concerned regarding the number of bedrooms and car parking to be provided. While Clause 55 does not apply to the review proposal due to the number of storeys in the review proposal, the Planning Scheme provides guidance in the assessment of parking One car space would be provided per dwelling (91 residential spaces), 15 visitor spaces and 7 parking spaces for the office/café use, which we consider appropriate. While the use of public transport cannot be guaranteed, the Tribunal is of the view that the ease of stepping out of the apartment building and on to a train at Richmond Station or a tram at Swan Street would provide almost the ultimate public transport availability in Melbourne. The proposed dwellings generally do not have large floor areas, with many laid out as studio apartments, so it is considered unlikely that each apartment would house large numbers of occupants. Given the empirical study provided by Grogan Richards and the immediate proximity of the Richmond Station, or major public transport interchange, directly opposite the Stewart Street frontage of the site, the Tribunal considers that the number of car spaces proposed would be appropriate.

32. In terms of parking layout there are some spaces and access aisles which would not comply strictly with the relevant Australian standard although they strictly comply with the Planning Scheme requirements of 4.9 x 2.6 with a 6.4 m wide aisle. The Tribunal accepts Mr Hunt's evidence that these minor differences would not interfere with the safety or accessibility of the parking spaces. The end spaces are 2.8 m wide, instead of 2.6 m, into which an 85th percentile vehicle can negotiate.

33. The Tribunal accepts Mr Hunt's evidence with respect to parking numbers and layout.

34. The proposed loading bay is considered satisfactory for the proposed commercial uses as the area included in the office/café component could be readily served by smaller trucks such as taxi trucks.

35. Both Mr Townsend and the objectors raised the issue as to whether the design of the proposal should take possible future development into account. The Planning Scheme requires consideration of infrastructure such as car parking and drainage associated with the proposal and conditions of permit will ensure compliance with these requirements. As noted earlier in these reasons public transport availability and proximity is excellent. Future planning strategy is to create new residential development opportunities in the Mixed Use zone including the review site. For these reasons the Tribunal is of the view that the proposed dwellings are unlikely to place a disproportionate load on infrastructure.

36. In addition to the heritage policies a range of local policies for Housing, Activity Centre and Mixed Use apply to the review proposal. Further, Metropolitan Strategy must now be considered as seriously entertained.

37. The review proposal is highly consistent with both the seriously entertained Melbourne 2030 Metropolitan Strategy and also with local policy at cl. 21.04-1 in terms of strategies emphasising major new residential development opportunities within designated mixed use areas while limiting development within established residential areas in order to protect urban character. The suggested guidelines for residential use in and around activity centres do suggest that buildings should be massed or articulated in ways that respect the character of the adjoining residential area and that there should be a transition in scale from the centre to the adjoining residential area. The Tribunal notes that the existing area is one of contrasts in the scale and form of buildings. The proposed built form would step back from the building line to a greater degree than some of the existing heritage buildings which have high walls at zero setbacks and do not provide a graduated transition.

38. A number of objections referred to the review proposal as an `overdevelopment' of the site and expressed concern at the number of smaller apartments proposed. As stated by Mr Biacsi, substantial growth in the proportion and number of 1-2 person households has been projected in Metro Strategy. The Tribunal is of the view that the proposed size of apartments is appropriate in terms of likely household size. Given the evidence that amenity, car parking, traffic and infrastructure impacts are not considered likely to be unreasonable, and given the small average floor areas, the Tribunal is of the view that the number of dwellings proposed is appropriate.

39. The provision of a mixed use (office/café) component opposite the pedestrian access to and from Richmond railway station is considered to be appropriately located with respect to both service provision and the provision of an active street frontage to Stewart Street. Active street frontages can assist with casual surveillance and the creation of lively areas around residential areas and public transport nodes as encouraged in the Melbourne 2030 strategy.

40. Mr Biacsi provided diagrams of the proposed dwellings showing the use of glazing to walls between living areas and bedrooms and wider door openings off passageways. Further the majority of apartments would have balconies oriented to the east or west and those bedrooms that rely on borrowed light do not face south. Given the small, single bedroom nature of these apartments and the through-transmission of light into the bedrooms by high lights and side lights, the Tribunal has no internal amenity concerns.

41. Given Mr Biacsi's evidence that the areas of the outdoor terraces would be ample, the Tribunal sees no need to increase the size of the terraces to the first floor shells.

42. In order to prevent possible light spill from vehicle headlights Mr Biacsi suggested that on the mezzanine floor a metal screen 1m high should be positioned behind the openings towards the residential area to the north. The Tribunal is of the view that a condition to that effect would be appropriate.

43. As stated in Mr Biacsi's report, there would be little opportunity to view into private open spaces of dwellings to the north. These open spaces are generally to the north of or behind the dwellings which have an address to Tanner Street. The Tribunal notes that there is a juxtaposition of smaller grained residences with other taller bulkier heritage buildings in Tanner Street. The heritage buildings contain windows or balconies at a greater height and more limited setbacks compared with those proposed at the review site. In the case of the review proposal, the separation distances between viewing points within the proposed development and the open spaces and windows of the relevant dwellings, would be sufficient to prevent unreasonable overlooking.

44. Mr Parasol was concerned about possible impacts of construction on his business, so the developer will need to enter into a construction management plan with the Council, as a permit condition.

45. In summary we have found that the proposal should be supported, as it retains the significant portions of the heritage fabric with modern, well articulated and well designed additions to convert and re-utilise this disused factory for residential and commercial use (mixed use) at this transport interchange with its commercial proximity.

46. Accordingly the Tribunal will allow the application for review and direct that a permit issue.

Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997

Places Australia Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2002] VCAT 1440

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (148 paragraphs)

Places Australia Pty Ltd v Yarra CC & Ors [2002] VCAT 1440 (11 November 2002)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)