21 Murchison Street St Kilda East - City of Port Phillip

CITY OF PORT PHILLIP REPORT
STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
ITEM 1
ADDRESS:
PROPOSAL:
WARD:
NEIGHBOURHOOD:
TRIGGER FOR DETERMINATION
BY COMMITTEE:
21 MURCHISON STREET, ST KILDA EAST
DEMOLISH THE EXISTING REAR GARAGE,
PARTIALLY DEMOLISH/ALTER THE EXISTING
DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STOREY
ADDITION, DECK AND SWIMMING POOL AT THE
REAR OF THE SITE
CARLISLE
ST KILDA EAST
MORE THAN 16 OBJECTIONS
APPLICATION NO: 985/2010
APPLICANT:
EXISTING USE:
ABUTTING USES:
ZONING:
OVERLAYS:
STATUTORY TIME REMAINING FOR
DECISION AS AT DAY OF COUNCIL:
RESPONSIBLE MANAGER:
AUTHOR:
GREGORY MARTIN
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE
HERITAGE OVERLAY (HO391)
EXPIRED
GEORGE BORG, MANAGER, CITY DEVELOPMENT
AARON DYER, SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 2
2. SITE HISTORY ......................................................................................................... 12
3. PROPOSAL .............................................................................................................. 12
4. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS ........................................................................ 13
5. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS ........................................................................ 15
6. REFERRALS............................................................................................................. 15
7. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION / OBJECTIONS................................................................. 16
8. OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT...................................................................................... 17
9. COVENANTS............................................................................................................ 26
10. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST ..................................................... 26
11. OPTIONS .............................................................................................................. 26
12. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 26
13. RECOMMENDATION – NOTICE OF DECISION ................................................. 26
1

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. It is proposed to demolish the existing garage, partially demolish/alter the existing
dwelling and construct a two-storey addition to the existing dwelling, a deck and a
swimming pool at the rear of the site.
1.2. The application was advertised and 46 objections were received, mainly relating to
heritage impacts, neighbourhood character, building bulk and amenity impacts.
1.3. A planning permit is only required pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 of the Heritage Overlay.
Therefore, Council’s ‘ambit of discretion’ in this application is exclusively limited to the
impact that the proposed development would have on the heritage characteristics of the
Murchison Street streetscape. It is not possible to consider the character of the
‘backyard realm’ or the residential amenity of surrounding properties as confirmed by the
previous Tribunal decision relating to this site.
1.4. The proposed development would be consistent with heritage objectives expressed
within the State Planning Policy Framework. It would also comply with the City of Port
Phillip’s Local Planning Policy Framework, in particular the guidelines for ‘Additions and
or Alterations to Heritage Places’ outlined in Clause 22.04-3 of Council’s Heritage Policy.
1.5. The proposal would adhere to the relevant heritage considerations identified by Member
Sibonis in Martin v Port Phillip CC [2011] VCAT 787 relating to a previous application
(Planning Application No. 445/2010).
1.6. It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, subject to conditions be
issued for this application.
KEY ISSUES
1. Council’s ‘ambit of discretion’ in relation to a planning permit application triggered
solely by Clause 43.01-1 of the Heritage Overlay
2. Visual prominence
3. Heritage significance of the Murchison Street streetscape
2

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
SUBJECT SITE
Subject Site Objectors X Supporters
Note: Several objections were submitted by owners/occupiers located outside the range of this map.
3

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
4

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
5

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
6

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
7

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
8

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
9

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
10

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
11

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
2. SITE HISTORY
2.1. Three planning permit applications and one VCAT appeal have been considered in
relation to the subject site:
Application No. Proposal Decision Date of
Decision
984/2011 Buildings and works comprising Permit 27/10/2011
alterations to the roof, front door
and side fences
627/2011 Alterations to front fence,
verandah and dwelling, and
external painting
Permit 10/9/2011
P3174/2010
(VCAT)
Partial demolition and the
construction of a three level
addition to the existing dwelling
445/2010 Demolition of the rear garage,
external staircase and part of the
rear of the existing dwelling,
construct and carry out buildings
and works for a rear three level
addition and swimming pool with
glass.
Refusal 6/5/2011
Refusal
This decision was
appealed to VCAT
(refer P3174/2010
above)
27/10/2010
3. PROPOSAL
3.1. It is proposed to demolish the existing rear garage, partially demolish/alter the existing
dwelling and construct a two-storey addition to the existing dwelling, a deck and a
swimming pool at the rear of the site. Details are as follows:
Demolition:
3.2. The detached garage at the rear of the site, part of the driveway, the rear deck, the rear
stairwell and portions of the exterior southern wall of the existing dwelling would be
demolished as a result of the proposed development.
Lower Level:
3.3. The lower level of the proposed rear addition would be offset from the southern wall of
existing dwelling by a distance of 3.3m and would comprise a two-car garage with walk-in
storage, a guest room, a bathroom, a laundry and a gym. An external deck and partial
in-ground swimming pool accessible via an internal hallway would be constructed to a
maximum height of 0.6m above natural ground level. An internal stairwell would lead to
the upper level of the addition.
Upper Level:
3.4. The upper level would comprise an open plan kitchen/dining/living area directly
connected to an enclosed south-facing balcony. The upper level would be connected to
the existing dwelling by a small 3m long bridge/walkway. The finished floor level of the
upper level would match the floor level of the existing dwelling. A small water closet
would occupy the eastern portion of the bridge/walkway.
Roof:
3.5. The rear addition would be capped by a gabled roof sharing the same pitch and form of
the roof atop the existing dwelling. It would be clad in terracotta tiles to match a new roof
to be installed on the existing dwelling.
External Materials and Finishes:
3.6. The exterior walls of the proposed rear addition would be finished by a rendered surface
and would be painted in a ‘flagstone grey’ colour, consistent with the approved finish and
colour of the existing dwelling (refer Planning Permit 984/2011).
12

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
3.7. Fascias, gutters, trim and gates and timber-framed windows would be painted in a
‘mission brown’ colour, consistent with the approved colour scheme of the existing
dwelling. The proposed garage door would be painted in an ‘anthra’ (black) colour.
3.8. The roof of the rear addition would be clad in terracotta tiles identical to the roof of the
existing dwelling.
Building Envelope:
3.9. Due to the steep topography and variable ground levels of the subject site, maximum
heights are best described in terms of relative levels (RL). The tallest portion of the rear
addition would be its roof ridge which would be constructed to a maximum height of RL
37.90 (approx. 7.5m above ground level). This proposed roof ridge would be 0.5m lower
than the roof ridge of the existing building at RL 38.42 (approx. 8m above ground level).
The proposed height of roof eaves and guttering to the rear addition would match those
of the existing dwelling at approximately RL 35.50 (refer TP10).
3.10. At the lower level, the east wall of the garage would be setback 2m from the east
boundary. The east wall of the guest room, bathroom and laundry would be constructed
to a maximum height of 3.6m and would be setback 0.86m from the east boundary
adjacent to an existing brick garage and pergola built to the boundary on the adjoining
property at 23 Murchison Street. The southern wall of the guest room and the southern
portion of the swimming pool would be setback 2.6 to 2.7m from the south boundary.
The west portion of the pool and associated privacy wall would be setback 1.7m from the
west boundary.
3.11. At the upper level, the east wall of the addition would be setback 2.0 to 2.8m from the
east boundary at a height ranging from approximately 4.8 to 6m above ground level
(noting that heights vary due to the steep land gradient). The southern portion of the
upper level comprising the enclosed balcony would be setback 6.9m from the south
boundary. The west wall of upper level would be setback 5.5m from the west boundary
at a height ranging from 5.5 to 6.6m above ground level.
Landscaping:
3.12. A landscape plan indicates two new medium-sized deciduous trees within the front
setback which would combine medium-sized evergreen trees and screen plantings along
mid to rear portions of the east, south and west boundaries.
Other works:
Hot water services, HVAC equipment and assorted plant located at ground level
beneath the bridge/walkway.
A 2000L rainwater tank at the southeast corner of the building, adjacent to the lower
level guest room.
A 3.5m high privacy wall and glass roof along and above the northern portion of the
swimming pool.
A new driveway which would require minor cutting and filling earthworks along the
west portion of the site adjacent to the existing dwelling.
A 0.9m high automatic sliding gate spanning the driveway at the property frontage.
3.13 It is noted that several “new” buildings and works represented on the submitted
plans/elevations including a 2.1m high side fence, a new front door, a 0.9m high front
gate, a 2.1m high double-hinged driveway gate and a terracotta tile roof to the
existing building have been previously authorised pursuant to Planning Permit No.
984/2011.
4. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS
Subject Site:
4.1. The site is located on the south side of Murchison Street, immediately adjacent to a
‘dogleg’ involving a perpendicular change of direction in the road (refer p.3 Locality Plan).
13

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
4.2. The lot is rectangular in shape, though its boundaries are slightly irregular. It is
effectively defined by a 16.5m frontage boundary and a 45.4m side boundary. The total
area of the lot is approximately 740m 2 . A 1.83m wide drainage/sewerage easement
extends along the rear, south boundary.
4.3. The topography of the subject site is quite steep, with a 4.7m downward gradient
extending from the northeast corner (RL 33.1) to the southwest corner (RL 28.4).
4.4. Vehicular access to/from the property is by way of an existing 3.0m wide crossover
located at the northwest corner of the site. An existing paved driveway extends through
the site along the west boundary, leading to a detached garage located behind the
existing dwelling.
4.5. The property is currently developed with a single-storey Californian Bungalow dwelling
constructed circa 1920. In keeping with the design trends of its time, the dwelling is
characterised by a prominent front verandah supported by robust over-sized columns, a
low-pitched tile roof creating large, wide gables and the application of timber shingles to
external walls as a decorative feature of the front facade. The exterior walls on the side
and rear of the building are finished in a painted roughcast render. A rendered lowheight
brick fence is constructed along the property frontage. Several small to medium
sized trees exist within the front setback and rear yard areas.
4.6. The existing dwelling is setback 6.9m from the front, north boundary, 3.2m from the east
boundary, 1.3m from the west boundary and 26m from the rear, south boundary
Surrounding Area:
4.7. Murchison Street is a wide residential street with generous front setbacks, bluestone
gutters/kerbs and broad nature strips containing mature plane trees and other large
street trees. It possesses a relatively steep downward gradient travelling in a westward
direction.
4.8. Murchison Street presents as a largely intact and cohesive heritage streetscape. Apart
from some limited examples of two-storey ‘walk-up’ flats and semi-detached housing,
Murchison Street is predominantly characterised by original one to two storey detached
dwellings designed in the same ‘bungalow’ style as the subject dwelling.
4.9. The surrounding area is affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO391). The Heritage Review
identifies the heritage significance of the HO391 and the Murchison Street/Alma Road
Precinct as follows:
Why is it significant?
Historically, the Murchison Street/Alma Road Precinct is a representative
example of a typical pattern of settlement in East St Kilda, where large Victorian
properties were sold off and subdivided during the inter-War period. A small
number of surviving Edwardian- houses provide valuable evidence of the
sparser residential settlement prior to the more intensive speculative subdivision
and development of the 1920s. Aesthetically, it is a particularly intact
streetscape of inter-War houses, consisting primarily of many fine bungalowstyle
single dwellings built in the early to mid1920s, supplemented by some
flats, duplexes, semi-detached pairs and detached dwellings built in the later
l920s and 1930s. The few remaining Edwardian houses, representing both
detached timber dwellings (in Murchison Street) and semi-detached brick pairs
(in Alma Road) are comparable in scale, form and material, if not in composition
and detailing. Collectively, the housing displays notable cohesion in terms of its
scale, composition, materials and detailing, with many properties retaining their
original front fences. In Murchison Street, these qualities are enhanced by the
street setting, which includes bluestone gutters to the street, wide nature strips
and mature plane trees
4.10. The adjoining dwelling at 23 Murchison Street is also of interest as the former residence
of war veteran Albert Jacka during his tenure as Mayor of St Kilda between 1930-1931
(refer Heritage Citation No. 745).
14

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
5. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS
5.1. Permit Triggers
Zone or Overlay
Why is a permit required?
Clause 43.01
Heritage Overlay
A permit is required to demolish or remove a building,
externally alter a building and construct a building or
construct or carry out works pursuant to Clause 43.01-1.
Note: Pursuant to Clause 32.01-3, a permit is not required to construct or extend one
dwelling on a lot greater than 500m 2 . As the subject lot is 740m 2 in size, the
objectives of Clause 54 (ResCode) do not apply to this proposal.
5.2. State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
The following sections of the SPPF are considered relevant:
Clause 15.03-1 Heritage Conservation
5.3. Local Policy Planning Framework (LPPF), including the Municipal Strategic
Statement (MSS)
The following sections of LPPF and MSS are considered relevant to the proposal:
Clause 21.03-1 Environmentally Sustainable Land Use and Development
Clause 21.05-1 Heritage
Clause 21.06-1 East St Kilda and Balaclava
Clause 22.04 Heritage
5.4. Amendment C78
Amendment C78 proposes to introduce a new Local Planning Policy, Stormwater
Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) into the Port Phillip Planning Scheme at
Clause 22.12 and would apply to all new buildings. The Policy would establish
requirements for new development that promotes the use of best practice performance
objectives for stormwater management (water sensitive urban design) in the
consideration of planning applications/proposals.
The Amendment documentation was adopted by the Port Phillip City Council on the 27th
September 2010 and has now been submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval.
As such, Amendment C78 is now a “seriously-entertained” document which possesses
lawful status before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
6. REFERRALS
6.1. Internal Referrals
The application was referred to Council’s Urban Design and Heritage Advisor.
Comments are as follows:
“Having assessed this proposal and reviewed the associated report documentation
as requested above I can advise that I support this scheme.
The proposal seeks to comply with Councils Heritage Objectives and Policy. I
consider the proposed partial demolition to be minimal and will have no significant
impact on the existing building. The alterations and extensions to the rear are
extensive however, I consider the design response to be innovative by lowering the
ground level so as to reduce the impact on the heritage building to the front. The
proposed design is considered to display design excellence and seeks to be
sympathetic to the heritage place and the streetscape and HO391.
I have no objection to the replacement roof tiles to ‘Wunderlich’ terra cotta earth
colour as indicated in TP10. I concur with the supporting material submitted by
Anthemion Group and believe that the addition will have little if any impact on the
streetscape. On this basis I express support for the proposal.”
Response by the planning officer:
These comments are further discussed in Section 8.5 below.
15

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
6.2. External Referrals
The application was not required to be referred to any external referral authorities.
7. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION / OBJECTIONS
7.1 It was determined that the proposal may result in material detriment therefore Council
gave notice of the proposal by ordinary mail to the owners and occupiers of surrounding
properties and directed that the applicant give notice of the proposal by posting one
notice on the site facing Murchison Street for a minimum 14 day period, in accordance
with s.52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
In response, 46 objections were received. The key concerns are summarised as follows
followed by the planning officer’s comments in italics:
Issues raised by VCAT in order no. P3174/2010 have not been adequately
addressed.
This particular matter is further discussed at Sections 8.1, 8.4 and 8.5 later in this
report.
The height, scale and massing of the rear addition would be disproportionate with
the low-rise character of neighbouring dwellings.
The position of the rear addition would not respect the backyard garden character
of the area or the rear open space corridor.
The rear addition would present excessive site coverage and inadequate
permeability.
The upper storey walls of the rear addition would be inadequately setback from
adjoining property boundaries.
The rear addition would impact upon neighbouring amenity in terms of
overshadowing, overlooking and building bulk.
The abovementioned grounds relate to ResCode which does not apply to this
application. Therefore, these objections cannot be considered.
As the only trigger for this planning permit application results from the
requirements of Clause 43.01-1 of the Heritage Overlay, the only valid grounds
that can be applied to this application are those which relate to whether the
proposed rear addition would be in keeping with the heritage character of the
Murchison Street streetscape.
The sides of the rear addition would be visible from Murchison Street and would
adversely affect the significance of the heritage streetscape and adjacent heritage
places.
This particular matter is further discussed at Section 8.5 later in this report.
The rear addition would not be energy efficient and would not achieve benchmarks
for water sensitive urban design.
This particular matter is further discussed at Section 8.6 later in this report.
The double-hinged driveway gate and 2.1m high side gate would adversely affect
the heritage significance of the streetscape.
Although these particular buildings and works are represented on the ‘Proposed
Lower Ground Floor Plan’ TP09 and the ‘North Elevation’ TP10 as being “new”,
they have already been approved (Planning Permit No. 984/2011). An inspection
of the subject site indicates that these approved buildings and works are currently
underway.
To avoid future confusion, the labels associated with these buildings and works –
and indeed any other buildings and works authorised by Planning Permit No.
984/2011 – should be altered as they are represented on the design
documentation associated with this application (refer recommended Condition 1a).
16

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
The rear addition would establish an inappropriate development precedent.
This is not a valid planning consideration as each application must be considered
on its own individual merits.
The application has been made under false pretences.
The rear addition would be a separate, second dwelling.
The application form completed by the applicant declares the proposal as:
“Alteration and extension to existing dwelling to rear including basement and pool.”
Additionally, the proposal is repeatedly referred to as a “dwelling extension” and a
“dwelling addition” in written reports submitted with the application. As such, it is
apparent that the applicant does not intend to construct two dwellings.
Any proposal to create two dwellings would be subject to a new planning permit
application.
8. OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT
8.1. Relevant VCAT determinations
Two recent VCAT decisions are relevant and provide guidance in the consideration of
this particular planning application: Martin v Port Phillip CC [2011] VCAT 787 (6 May
2011) and Hermann v Port Phillip CC & Ors [2011] VCAT 2353 (20 December 2011).
Martin v Port Phillip CC relates to the previous development proposed on the subject site
comprising the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a rear
three-storey addition and pool (Planning Application No. 445/2010). This proposal was
refused by Council at the Statutory Planning Committee Meeting held on 19 October
2010. This decision was subsequently appealed by the applicant, and the hearing was
held on 12 April. On 6 May 2011, the Tribunal affirmed Council’s decision to refuse the
application and ordered that no permit be granted.
Martin v Port Phillip CC is important to this application because it:
Clarifies the significance of the Heritage Overlay that applies to the subject site
and the surrounding area.
Sets clear limits to the ‘ambit of discretion’ that can be lawfully applied by Council
in its assessment of this heritage application.
Identifies specific heritage considerations that must be satisfied in order for a rear
addition to achieve appropriate planning outcomes.
In relation to the ‘Murchison Street/Alma Road Precinct’ in which the subject site is
located, VCAT offered the following input (with underline emphasis added by the report
author):
14. It is evident from a reading of the Statement of Significance that the heritage
significance of this area is derived from the streetscape, that is, from the public
realm. There is nothing in the Statement to indicate that the area’s significance is
derived, either in part or in whole, from anything other than the presentation of the
houses to the street – noting in particular the cohesion of the dwelling stock with
respect to scale, composition, materials and detailing. The heritage value of
Murchison Street is reflected by the fact that the majority (ie all but four) of the
dwellings in the street are graded as being a ‘Significant Place’. Of the remaining
dwellings, two are ‘contributory’ and two are ‘non-contributory’ places. It is a
largely intact and very cohesive streetscape which, in my opinion, has justifiably
been given statutory recognition through its inclusion within a Heritage Overlay.
Although the VCAT Member sympathised with concerns expressed by local residents
about the size of the rear addition, its visual bulk as viewed from backyard areas, its
potential impact upon neighbouring amenity and its placement within the open space
corridor extending behind existing dwellings, he did not agree that these concerns
constituted valid planning considerations. In particular, the following passages from his
decision are noted:
17

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
20. In this instance, it is evident that the Planning Scheme does not ascribe any
heritage significance to the ‘backyard realm’. I acknowledge that this differs from
how the residents perceive the heritage character of their neighbourhood, where
they attach significance to not only what is visible in the street, but also to what is
seen from within the sites themselves. To the residents, the setting of the
dwellings within this area is an equally important contributor to the area’s heritage
value as the dwellings’ presentation in the streetscape. They place significance on
the setbacks from the boundaries, the ‘green spine’ that is created by the
contiguous rear yard areas, the obvious presence of vegetation and the prevailing
sense of openness, which is enhanced by the low profile nature of the dwellings
and their additions.
21. The residents’ submissions emphasised the development’s impact on the
character of the neighbourhood and on the amenity of the adjoining properties.
However, I am not able to take either of these matters into account in determining
this Application, as they are not heritage considerations. To do so would be for
me to step outside of the ambit of discretion afforded by the relevant planning
permit trigger - in this case the Heritage Overlay control. This course of action is
not lawfully open to me.
22. I acknowledge that Clause 21.05-5 of the MSS (Heritage) includes a strategy that
development integrates respectfully and harmoniously with the neighbourhood
character. Given this forms part of the policy context relating to the municipality’s
heritage, I consider that the reference to neighbourhood character in Clause
21.05-5 should be properly read and understood within the heritage context of a
site. In turn, this should be informed by the relevant Statement of Significance
which identifies the reasons for the area’s inclusion within the Heritage Overlay.
23. I consider that in the circumstances of this application, the ‘neighbourhood
character’ referred to in that Clause is confined to the streetscape, as it is from this
context that the area derives its heritage significance. In my view, it should not be
read as being the broader neighbourhood character one would consider when
undertaking an assessment under Clause 55.02 [otherwise known as ResCode],
for example.
24. On this basis, what I am required to do is determine whether the proposed addition
will have an unacceptable impact on the Murchison Street streetscape.
Having established that objector’s primary concerns relating to the character of the
‘backyard realm’ or the residential amenity of surrounding properties cannot be lawfully
considered, the Member then identified why the proposed three-storey rear addition
would not successfully integrate with the heritage significance of the Murchison Street
streetscape (with underline emphasis added by the report author):
26. I have not been persuaded that the proposed addition is an acceptable response
to this heritage area, either as proposed, or with the suggested modifications to
comply with PM1. There are three key elements of the physical context that, in my
opinion, would result in the development impacting unacceptably on the heritage
streetscape. These are:
The site’s position at the southern termination of the Murchison Street
‘dogleg’. It is in direct view as one proceeds south along this section of the
street before turning west to continue toward Alexandria Street. Indeed, it is
the most prominent dwelling as one turns the corner. The view of the
proposed addition is not confined to the northern and southern sides of
Murchison Street in the vicinity of the review site. From these locations, the
width of the street, the siting of the dwelling and the angles of view in
combination act to restrict the addition’s visibility. The view from the ‘dogleg’
is greater than would be the case if Murchison Street simply continued its
alignment from Alexandria Street through to Lansdowne Road without
changing direction to proceed northward in this location.
18

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
The topography, which rises from west to east (and to the north-east). Again
within the ‘dogleg’, pedestrians and motorists are at a higher level than the
review site. From this position, a greater portion of the addition would be
visible than would be the case if the topography did not display this gradient.
The separation provided by the driveway of 23 Murchison Street. The
space created by the driveway area of this adjoining dwelling provides the
addition with a greater degree of visibility within the streetscape than would
be possible if a lesser separation existed between the dwelling on the
review site and that adjoining to the east….
28. The review site’s prominence within the approach from the north is of importance
to my conclusions. Due to its siting, size and scale, the addition will be particularly
obvious from this aspect. The extent of its visibility, in conjunction with the highly
contemporary design and materials, would act to accentuate the development’s
contrast with the traditional style and form of the host dwelling, and others in the
street. This visibility is sufficient, in my view, for the addition to unacceptably
detract from the heritage character of this section of the streetscape. It will have
an apparent, and undesirable, effect on the observer’s appreciation of the street’s
heritage qualities.
The Member then summarised his findings as follows (with underline emphasis added by
the report author):
29. I am not satisfied that the proposal meets the objective of respectfully and
harmoniously integrating with the surrounding character. Nor am I satisfied that the
addition maintains the significance of the heritage place. I do not accept the
Applicant’s evidence that, to the extent that it is visible from the public domain, the
addition is in keeping with the varied character, materials and built form of this
locality. Contrary to this statement, the built form in Murchison Street is remarkably
cohesive and is one of the reasons for its inclusion within a Heritage Overlay.
What variation does exist within the streetscape is generally sympathetic in scale,
style and/or appearance to the Inter-war dwelling stock. The same cannot be said
for the addition. In my view, the visible portion of the addition will have the
appearance of a jarring and incongruent element which is not respectful of the
area’s valued heritage. My conclusion is that the development does not achieve a
satisfactory level of compliance with the policies of the Planning Scheme, and that
it does not meet the purposes of the Heritage Overlay.
Taken as a whole, Martin v Port Phillip CC establishes the following key points to be
considered in this new application:
The Port Phillip Planning Scheme – in particular, Clauses 22.04 Heritage Policy
and 43.01 Heritage Overlay – does not ascribe any heritage significance to the
‘backyard realm’. This means that objector concerns relating to residential
character, building height, building setbacks, building bulk and residential amenity
– including overlooking and overshadowing – cannot be lawfully considered.
The heritage significance of the subject site and surrounding area is derived solely
from the public realm (the Murchison Street streetscape).
Relevant references to existing and preferred neighbourhood character as outlined
in Council’s MSS (i.e., Clauses 21.05-1 and 21.06-1) must be qualified through the
Statement of Significance relating to area’s heritage context.
Three key elements of the subject site’s physical context must be considered in
relation to any proposed rear addition, including: the position of the site at the
southern terminus of the Murchison Street ‘dogleg’, the topography of the area
which affords a prominent, top-down view of the subject dwelling from the ‘dogleg’
and the increased visibility of the rear of the site from the ‘dogleg’ by virtue of the
separation provided by the driveway of the adjoining property located at 23
Murchison Street. According to VCAT, the view of any rear addition from the
‘dogleg’ to the northeast is a particularly crucial vantage point to consider.
19

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
VCAT did not affirm Council’s decision to refuse the application on the basis that
the rear addition would be visible; rather, it did so on the basis that “the visible
portion of the addition would have had the appearance of a jarring and incongruent
element not respectful of the area’s valued heritage” (Paragraph 29). Neither the
VCAT decision nor Clause 22.04 Heritage prohibits a rear addition to the subject
building from being visible from the public realm. Instead, both require rear
additions in Heritage Overlays to be designed in a manner which respectfully and
harmoniously integrates with the identified heritage characteristics of the area.
It is not necessary to detail the full scope of Hermann v Port Phillip CC & Ors other than
to identify that this matter, like Martin v Port Phillip CC, involved a proposed rear addition
to a single dwelling at 27 Canterbury Road, Middle Park on a lot greater than 500m 2 that
is affected by a Heritage Overlay. In this hearing, objectors presented arguments to the
Tribunal involving overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk. These arguments were
ultimately unsuccessful on the basis that these considerations were not relevant to the
purposes, decision guidelines and applicable planning controls expressed in Clause
43.01 Heritage Overlay. The Tribunal Member’s position was ultimately supported in a
legal opinion expressed by VCAT Deputy President Gibson after the objectors framed
their arguments as a question of law.
The conclusions derived from these two relevant Tribunal decisions will be applied
throughout the remainder of this assessment.
8.2. State and Local Policy
The key State Planning Policy Framework objectives and strategies of Clause 15.03-1
(Heritage Conservation) relevant to the subject proposal are:
To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.
Encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified
heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future generations.
Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place.
Encourage the conservation and restoration of contributory elements.
Ensure an appropriate setting and context for heritage places is maintained or
enhanced.
Clause 21.03-1 Environmentally Sustainable Land Use and Development identifies the
following relevant Objectives and Strategies:
1.1 Encourage resource-efficient design, material selection and construction
techniques that minimise negative and maximise positive environmental
impacts.
1.2 Promote ecologically sustainable development through the use of industry
standards and environmental performance assessment tools.
1.3 Encourage innovative landscape design that minimises water consumption
and maximises biodiversity, including greater use of indigenous and drought
tolerant plant species, recycled materials and water re-use and recycling,
subject to heritage and urban character considerations.
1.4 Encourage water sensitive urban design in all new developments, to
increase on-site stormwater retention and treatment to improve water quality
to the bay, and to facilitate water conservation.
Furthermore, Clause 21.05-1 Heritage of Council’s MSS identifies the following
objectives and strategies relevant to the subject site:
1. To conserve and enhance the architectural and cultural heritage of Port
Phillip.
1.1 Protect, conserve and enhance all identified significant and
contributory places, including buildings, trees and streetscapes.
20

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
…
1.3 Support the restoration and renovation of heritage buildings and
discourage their demolition.
1.4 Encourage high quality design that positively contributes to identified
heritage values.
1.5 Ensure that new development respects and enhances the scale, form
and setbacks of nearby heritage buildings.
Clause 21.06-1 East St Kilda and Balaclava outlines the following relevant local
strategies for areas within these neighbourhoods zoned Residential 1, including
Murchison Street:
Encourage new development to respond to the following character elements:
- The prevailing low rise (1 and 2 storey) development throughout most
residential streets…
- The larger setbacks and lot size and inter-war architectural style of the
predominantly detached or semi-detached houses with front, rear and
side setbacks that allow for landscaped larger open space areas with
established trees, typical in the eastern part of the neighbourhood.
Heritage considerations applying specifically to the City of Port Phillip are outlined in
Clause 22.04 which applies to all land within a Heritage Overlay and, pursuant to Clause
22.04-1, builds upon Clauses 15.03-1 and 21.05-1.
The City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map (Sept 09) is an Incorporated Document within
Clause 22.04-6 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. It identifies the subject site as a
‘significant place’ which, pursuant to Clause 22.04-5, is defined as:
…buildings and surrounds that are individually important places of either State,
regional or local heritage significance and are places that together with an
identified area, are part of the significance of a Heritage Overlay. These places are
included in a Heritage Overlay either as an area or as an individually listed heritage
place and are coloured “red” on the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map in the
Port Phillip Heritage Review, Volume 1-6.
Clause 22.04-2 states the following relevant objectives for Council’s heritage policy:
To retain and conserve all significant and contributory heritage places.
To ensure all new development and redevelopment of significant and
contributory places is respectfully and harmoniously integrated with the
surrounding character.
To promote design excellence (in terms of building siting, scale, massing,
articulation and materials) which clearly and positively supports the heritage
significance of all Heritage Overlay areas.
To ensure that new development and any publicly visible additions and/or
alterations in or to a heritage place maintains the significance of the heritage
place and employs a contextual design approach.
Clause 22.04-3 Policy identifies the following relevant policy considerations relating to
the proposed rear addition:
General
It is policy to:
Encourage new development to be respectful of the scale, form, siting and
setbacks of nearby significant and contributory buildings.
Encourage a contextual design approach for additions and/or alterations to a
heritage place or for new development. A contextual approach is where the
alteration, addition or new development incorporates an interpretive design
21

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
approach, derived through comprehensive research and analysis. New
development should sit comfortably and harmoniously integrate with the site
and within the streetscape and not diminish, detract from or compete with
the significance of the heritage place or streetscape character.
Additions and/or Alterations to Heritage Places
It is policy that:
Additions and alterations:
- Do not change the original principal facade(s) or roof.
- Are distinguishable from the original parts of the heritage place to be
conserved, if a contemporary architectural approach is used.
- Are based on research that can identify the elements, detailing and finishes
originally employed.
- Do not obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the
heritage place.
- Maintain an existing vista or viewlines to the principal facade(s) of a heritage
place.
An upper storey addition is sited and massed behind the principal facade so that it
preferably is not visible, particularly in intact or consistent streetscapes (the 10
degree sightline rule).
Car Parking:
It is policy to:
Encourage new on-site car spaces to be located at the rear of the property or in a
side setback area.
Pursuant to Amendment C78 – a “seriously-entertained” document – proposed Clause
22.12 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) sets out the following
relevant policies in Clause 22.12-3:
It is policy to:
Require the use of stormwater treatment measures that improve the quality
and reduce the flow of water discharged to waterways, including, but not
limited to:
- collection and reuse of rainwater and stormwater on site
- vegetated swales and buffer strips
- rain gardens
- installation of water recycling systems
. . .
- direction of flow from impervious ground surfaces to landscaped areas.
8.3. Design response of the original refused proposal versus the current proposal
This application represents a second attempt at the development of the subject site.
Considering that the previous planning application was refused by Council and that this
refusal was ultimately affirmed by VCAT, it is important to understand the differences
between these two respective proposals before conducting a comprehensive
assessment of the current application:
Max Building
Height of Rear
Addition
App. No. 445/2010 (refused)
Relative level 38.65
(0.25m higher than the roof
ridge of the existing building)
App. No. 985/2011 (current)
Relative level 37.9
(0.5m lower than the roof ridge
of the existing building)
22

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
Roof Form &
Type
Wall Heights /
Setbacks from
East Boundary
Wall Heights /
Setbacks from
South Boundary
Wall Heights /
Setbacks from
West Boundary
External
Finishes /
Materials /
Colours
Earthworks
Landscaping
Part flat (incl. parapet walls) and
part skillion, with metal decking
Lower level:
3.3-2.8m high, nil setback
Upper level:
6.0-4.6m high, 1.9m setback
First floor level:
9.1-8.5m high, 3.7m setback
Boundary wall (masonry):
3.2-2.3m high, nil setback
Lower level
3.5-3.3m high, 8.7m setback
Upper level:
6.5-6.0m high, 6.9m setback
First floor level:
9.1m high; 12.6m setback
Lower level privacy wall:
3.9-3.3m high, setback 3.2m
Upper level:
6.5-5.4m high, setback 5.52m
First floor level:
9.1m high, setback 4.2m
‘Anthra’ (matte black) zinc wall
cladding to the first floor level
parapet walls, ‘slate-gray’
(charcoal) rendered finish to the
lower and upper level walls,
aluminium-framed windows,
glazed balustrading
Cut:
Excavations for garage, lower
level and in-built pool
Fill:
Up to a maximum of 1.4m fill at
SW site corner and 1.0m fill at
SE corner
Nil plantings to east and west
boundaries (east and west
setbacks proposed to be paved)
Pitched, with ‘wunderlich’
terracotta tiles
Lower level:
3.2-2.7m high, 0.865m setback
Upper level:
6.0-4.6m high, 2.0m setback
First floor level:
N/A
Boundary wall:
N/A (existing fence to remain)
Lower level:
3.9-3.6m high, 2.6m setback
Upper level:
6.5-6.0m high, 6.9m setback
First floor level:
N/A
Lower level privacy wall:
3.5 high, setback 1.7m
Upper level:
6.5-5.4m high, setback 5.47m
First floor level:
N/A
Terracotta roof tiles (earth tone),
‘flagstone grey’ rendered finish
to the lower and upper level
walls, ‘mission brown’ colour to
fascias, gutters, gates and
timber-framed windows, ‘anthra’
black to the garage door
Cut:
Excavations for garage, lower
level and in-built pool
Fill:
Nil (existing ground levels at site
boundaries to be maintained)
Medium-sized evergreen trees
and screen plantings along midto-rear
portions of the east,
south and west boundaries
Note: Due to the steep topography of the subject site, the heights of proposed walls vary
depending upon the height of one’s point of reference. All wall heights listed above
include their heights relative to the height of the ground located directly beneath them.
It is evident that the current proposal departs from the previous refused proposal in terms
of the following:
Reduced maximum height (from 0.25m above the existing building to 0.5m below)
Reduced size/bulk (from three to two storeys)
Altered roof form (from flat/skillion roof with parapet walls to a pitched tile roof with
eaves consistent with the existing dwelling)
23

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
Increased setback distances (to the east walls)
Altered external materials/finishes/colours (from highly contemporary to those that
would be consistent with the existing dwelling)
Increased opportunities for landscaping (in particular along the east, west and
south boundaries)
8.4. Heritage assessment of the Murchison Street streetscape
In paragraph 14 of Martin v Port Phillip CC, the Tribunal identified that the significance of
HO391 is exclusively derived from “the presentation of the houses to the street – noting
in particular the cohesion of the dwelling stock with respect to scale, composition,
materials and detailing.” These four criteria – scale, composition, materials and detailing
– constitute the most crucial heritage considerations to be applied to this particular
proposal. Prior to assessing the proposed rear addition at 21 Murchison Street,
therefore, it is vital to clarify how these particular heritage considerations manifest
themselves within the context of HO391.
The scale of dwellings presented to Murchison Street is predominantly comprised by
single-storey detached dwellings. Aside from limited examples of modified double-storey
and ‘attic conversion’ dwellings at 1, 10, 22 and 29 Murchison Street and a few multistorey
medium-density ‘walk-up’ flats at 16A, 18 and 18A Murchison Street, the
streetscape is characterised by a relatively uniform low-height, single-storey nature.
The visual composition of Murchison Street is predominantly comprised by a regular
rhythm of low-scale buildings interspersed by open space areas. These spaces result
from the application of relatively consistent building setbacks from side boundaries
combined with side driveways extending along one side boundary. Generous front
setbacks are also standard. The quality of front landscaping is generally of a high
standard, and this serves to compliment the mature trees lining the street. Finally,
hipped and gable tile roofs are a consistent feature of the streetscape.
The materials and detailing of buildings on Murchison Street are consistent with a design
trend known as a ‘Californian Bungalow’ style which was popularly applied to domestic
architecture throughout the Inter-War Period (1915-1940). This design aesthetic is
identified by prominent front verandahs supported by robust over-sized columns, lowpitched
tile roofs creating large, wide gables and the application of timber shingles to
external walls as a decorative feature. External finishes include combinations of facebrick,
painted render, timber weatherboards and timber shingles punctuated by timberframed
windows. Roofs are exclusively clad in tiles.
Any proposed addition and/or alteration of the dwelling at 21 Murchison Street, St Kilda
East must clearly demonstrate that it would respect and sympathise with the
abovementioned heritage qualities.
8.5. Heritage Policy / Heritage Overlay assessment
To determine whether the proposed rear addition would achieve appropriate planning
outcomes with respect to the Murchison Street streetscape, the proposal must be
assessed against Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy. To this effect, the policy guidelines
expressed in Clause 22.04-3 for ‘Additions and/or Alterations to Heritage Places’ play the
most significant role; however, policy guidelines outlined in ‘Demolition’ and ‘Car Parking’
are also relevant. In response to these guidelines, the following points are noted:
The proposed partial demolition of the rear, south wall would not alter the original
principal façade or roof of the existing dwelling.
The proposed rear addition would be sited below a 10 degree ‘envelope’ projected
from the gutter line of the front façade (refer ‘Sightline View (West)’ TP11). Thus,
it would comply with Performance Measure 1.
The roof ridge height of the proposed rear addition would be constructed 0.5m
lower than the roof ridge height of the existing dwelling. As such, the proposed
24

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
rear addition would not impose a higher-scale built form upon the low-scale
character of the Murchison Street streetscape.
The roof of the proposed rear addition would complement the existing roof and
adjoining roofs in terms of its form, pitch and materiality.
The external walls of the proposed rear addition would be finished in the same
‘flagstone grey’ render as the external walls of the existing dwelling. Moreover, the
fascia, gutters, gates and timber-framed windows would be painted in the same
‘mission brown’ colour applied to corresponding features of the existing dwelling.
The roof, rendered walls and timber-framed windows of the proposed rear addition
would complement the materials, finishes, textures and colours of the ‘Californian
Bungalow’ design style that characterises the Murchison Street streetscape.
The overall design of the proposed rear addition would successfully utilise a
contextual design approach. The contemporary elements of the proposal –
including the bridge/walkway and the continuous row of highlight windows along
the west elevation – would differentiate the proposed rear addition from the
existing dwelling in an innovative yet sensitive manner.
The proposed rear addition would respect the visual composition of Murchison
Street. It would maintain established streetscape characteristics including the
visual rhythm of built form and open space areas, front setbacks, side setbacks,
landscaping and roof forms.
The side setbacks of the proposed rear addition from the east and west
boundaries would generally meet or exceed those of the existing dwelling and
adjoining dwellings.
The proposed lower level vehicular garage would be located at the rear portion of
the property.
The proposed 0.9m high sliding gate at the front boundary would be consistent
with the 0.9m high double-hinged gate located at the same position and authorised
pursuant to Planning Permit No. 984/2011.
Based on the conclusions above, the proposed rear addition would retain and conserve
the heritage characteristics of Murchison Street and would respectfully and harmoniously
integrate with the surrounding streetscape character. Therefore, it would accord with the
objectives and guidelines expressed in Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy.
In addition, Martin v Port Phillip CC outlines several streetscape considerations that
specifically apply to the relationship between the subject site and Murchison Street. In
Paragraph 26, the Tribunal identifies three key elements of the subject site’s physical
context that must be considered in relation to any proposed development:
1) the position of the site at the southern terminus of the Murchison Street ‘dogleg’,
2) the topography of the area which affords a prominent, top-down view of the
subject dwelling from the ‘dogleg’ and
3) the increased visibility of the rear of the site from the ‘dogleg’ by virtue of the
separation provided by the driveway of the adjoining property located at 23
Murchison Street.
The view of any rear addition from the ‘dogleg’ to the northeast was considered a
particularly crucial vantage point.
From this specific location, the only part of the proposed rear addition that would be
visible would be its roof, which would be pitched at the same angle and would be clad in
the same terracotta tiles as the roof of the existing dwelling. Due to the combination of a
proposed 0.86-2m east setback and the strategic positioning of proposed screen
plantings along the east boundary (refer ‘Landscape Concept’), the rear addition would
not present a prominent built form as viewed along the driveway of the adjoining property
25

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
at 23 Murchison Street. Therefore, the proposed rear addition would also meet the
relevant tests set out in Martin v Port Phillip CC.
In summary, the proposal would respect, complement and sympathise with the subject
building, the Murchison Street streetscape and the HO391 as a whole.
8.6. ESD / WSUD Policy Assessment
Clause 21.03-1 Environmentally Sustainable Land Use and Development seeks to
encourage resource-efficient design, material selection and construction techniques that
minimise negative and maximise positive environmental impacts. No information was
submitted with the application detailing the environmentally sustainable design initiatives
proposed to be incorporated within the rear addition. Therefore, it is appropriate to
include a condition on any permit to be granted to ensure that the proposal would
achieve this high priority requirement (refer recommended Condition 7).
In addition, proposed Clause 21.12 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban
Design) – pursuant to the “seriously-entertained” Amendment C78 –applies to
applications for “extensions to existing buildings which are 50 square metres in floor area
or greater.” The proposal includes the provision of an above-ground 2000L rainwater
tank (refer to ‘Ground Floor Plan’ TP09 and ‘South Elevation’ TP10) that would collect
rainwater for further reuse and recycling. This would comply with the relevant objectives
of proposed Clause 22.12.
9. COVENANTS
9.1. The applicant has completed a restrictive covenant declaration form declaring that there
is no restrictive covenant on the title for the subject site known as Lot 1 of Title Plan
945599W [Parent Title Volume 4665 Folio 928].
10. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST
10.1. No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest in
the matter
11. OPTIONS
11.1. Approve as recommended
11.2. Approve with changed or additional conditions
11.3. Refuse - on key issues
12. CONCLUSION
12.1. A planning permit is only required pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 of the Heritage Overlay.
Therefore, Council’s ‘ambit of discretion’ in this application is exclusively limited to the
impact that the proposed development would have on the heritage characteristics of the
Murchison Street streetscape. It is not possible to consider the character of the
‘backyard realm’ or the residential amenity of surrounding properties as confirmed by the
previous Tribunal decision relating to this site.
12.2. The proposed development would be consistent with heritage objectives expressed
within the State Planning Policy Framework. It would also comply with the City of Port
Phillip’s Local Planning Policy Framework, in particular the guidelines for ‘Additions and
or Alterations to Heritage Places’ outlined in Clause 22.04-3 of Council’s Heritage Policy.
12.3. The proposal would adhere with the relevant heritage considerations identified by the
Tribunal in Martin v Port Phillip CC [2011] VCAT 787.
12.4. Subject to the conditions as noted, it is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant
a Permit be issued.
13. RECOMMENDATION – NOTICE OF DECISION
13.1. That the Responsible Authority, having caused the application to be advertised and
having received and noted the objections, issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit.
26

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
13.2. That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued to demolish the existing garage,
partially demolish/alter the existing dwelling and construct and carry out works for a twostorey
addition to the existing dwelling, a deck and a swimming pool at the rear of the
site at 21 Murchison Street, St Kilda East.
13.3. That the decision be issued as follows:
1. Amended plans required
Before the development starts, two (2) complete sets of 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 generally in accordance with the
plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
a) The removal of references to all buildings and works previously approved
pursuant to Planning Permit No. 984/2011 as “new” from all relevant plans
and elevations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
b) A landscape plan pursuant to Condition 6
c) Any changes to the proposal as a result of the requirements of Condition 7
d) All levels to AHD
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. No alterations
The development and/or use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered
without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. No change to external finishes
All external materials, finishes and colours as shown on the endorsed plans must
not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4. Satisfactory continuation
Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Demolition Method Statement
Prior to the commencement of the works permitted by this permit, including any
demolition works, a fully detailed ‘demolition method statement’ from a qualified
structural engineer must be submitted to and approved by the responsible
authority. The report must be prepared by a qualified structural engineer. When
approved, the statement will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The ‘demolition method statement’ must fully describe and clearly demonstrate
that the construction methods to be used on site will ensure that the building fabric
required to be retained on the endorsed plans approved under Condition 1 of the
permit will be safeguarded during and after the demolition process has occurred.
The demolition method statement may need to include reference to staging of
demolitions on site in some instances. The statement must detail the necessary
protection works required to retain individual walls, chimneys, flooring, roofing and
other heritage features of significance during demolition.
6. Landscape Plan
Prior to the endorsement of amended plans pursuant to Condition 1, two (2)
landscape plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.
When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the
permit. The landscaping plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person,
must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must include the following:
27

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
a) The site at a scale of 1:100/200, including site boundaries, existing and
proposed buildings, neighbouring buildings, car parking, access and exit
points, indicative topography and spot levels at the site corners, existing and
proposed vegetation, nature strip trees, easements and landscape setbacks
b) Details of the proposed layout, type, and height of fencing and associated
screening structures
c) A legend of all plant types, surfaces, materials and landscape items to be
used, including the total areas of garden and lawn
d) A plant schedule giving a description of botanical name, common name,
mature height and spread, pot size, purchase height (if a tree) and individual
plant quantities
e) All new trees nominated with a minimum planting height of 1.5m
f) Any paving or deck areas nominated to be on a permeable base
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Sustainable Design Assessment
Before the development commences a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA)
that outlines proposed sustainable design initiatives must be submitted to and
approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed
as part of the planning permit and the project must incorporate the sustainable
design initiatives listed.
8. Piping and ducting
All piping and ducting (excluding down pipes, guttering and rainwater heads) must
be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. No equipment or services
Any plant, equipment or domestic services visible from a street (other than a lane)
or public park must be located and visually screened to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
10. Time for starting and completion
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.
b) The development is not completed within two years of the date of
commencement of works.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made
in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.
Permit Notes:
Building Approval Required
This permit does not authorise the commencement of any building construction
works. Before any such development may commence, the applicant must apply
for and obtain appropriate building approval.
Building Works to Accord With Planning Permit
The applicant/owner will provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed
Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building
Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building
permit is consistent with this planning permit.
28

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
17 APRIL 2012
Due Care
The developer must show due care in the development of the proposed
extensions so as to ensure that no damage is incurred to any dwelling on the
adjoining properties.
Days and Hours of Construction Works
Except in the case of an emergency, a builder must not carry out building works
outside the following times, without first obtaining a permit from Council’s Local
Laws Section:
- Monday to Friday: 7.00am to 6.00pm; or
- Saturdays: 9.00am to 3.00pm.
An after hours building works permit cannot be granted for an appointed public
holiday under the Public Holidays Act, 1993.
Drainage Point and Method of Discharge
The legal point of stormwater discharge for the proposal must be to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Engineering construction plans for the
satisfactory drainage and discharge of stormwater from the site must be submitted
to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any
buildings or works.
29