28.05.2014 Views

21 Murchison Street St Kilda East - City of Port Phillip

21 Murchison Street St Kilda East - City of Port Phillip

21 Murchison Street St Kilda East - City of Port Phillip

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE<br />

17 APRIL 2012<br />

20. In this instance, it is evident that the Planning Scheme does not ascribe any<br />

heritage significance to the ‘backyard realm’. I acknowledge that this differs from<br />

how the residents perceive the heritage character <strong>of</strong> their neighbourhood, where<br />

they attach significance to not only what is visible in the street, but also to what is<br />

seen from within the sites themselves. To the residents, the setting <strong>of</strong> the<br />

dwellings within this area is an equally important contributor to the area’s heritage<br />

value as the dwellings’ presentation in the streetscape. They place significance on<br />

the setbacks from the boundaries, the ‘green spine’ that is created by the<br />

contiguous rear yard areas, the obvious presence <strong>of</strong> vegetation and the prevailing<br />

sense <strong>of</strong> openness, which is enhanced by the low pr<strong>of</strong>ile nature <strong>of</strong> the dwellings<br />

and their additions.<br />

<strong>21</strong>. The residents’ submissions emphasised the development’s impact on the<br />

character <strong>of</strong> the neighbourhood and on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties.<br />

However, I am not able to take either <strong>of</strong> these matters into account in determining<br />

this Application, as they are not heritage considerations. To do so would be for<br />

me to step outside <strong>of</strong> the ambit <strong>of</strong> discretion afforded by the relevant planning<br />

permit trigger - in this case the Heritage Overlay control. This course <strong>of</strong> action is<br />

not lawfully open to me.<br />

22. I acknowledge that Clause <strong>21</strong>.05-5 <strong>of</strong> the MSS (Heritage) includes a strategy that<br />

development integrates respectfully and harmoniously with the neighbourhood<br />

character. Given this forms part <strong>of</strong> the policy context relating to the municipality’s<br />

heritage, I consider that the reference to neighbourhood character in Clause<br />

<strong>21</strong>.05-5 should be properly read and understood within the heritage context <strong>of</strong> a<br />

site. In turn, this should be informed by the relevant <strong>St</strong>atement <strong>of</strong> Significance<br />

which identifies the reasons for the area’s inclusion within the Heritage Overlay.<br />

23. I consider that in the circumstances <strong>of</strong> this application, the ‘neighbourhood<br />

character’ referred to in that Clause is confined to the streetscape, as it is from this<br />

context that the area derives its heritage significance. In my view, it should not be<br />

read as being the broader neighbourhood character one would consider when<br />

undertaking an assessment under Clause 55.02 [otherwise known as ResCode],<br />

for example.<br />

24. On this basis, what I am required to do is determine whether the proposed addition<br />

will have an unacceptable impact on the <strong>Murchison</strong> <strong><strong>St</strong>reet</strong> streetscape.<br />

Having established that objector’s primary concerns relating to the character <strong>of</strong> the<br />

‘backyard realm’ or the residential amenity <strong>of</strong> surrounding properties cannot be lawfully<br />

considered, the Member then identified why the proposed three-storey rear addition<br />

would not successfully integrate with the heritage significance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Murchison</strong> <strong><strong>St</strong>reet</strong><br />

streetscape (with underline emphasis added by the report author):<br />

26. I have not been persuaded that the proposed addition is an acceptable response<br />

to this heritage area, either as proposed, or with the suggested modifications to<br />

comply with PM1. There are three key elements <strong>of</strong> the physical context that, in my<br />

opinion, would result in the development impacting unacceptably on the heritage<br />

streetscape. These are:<br />

<br />

The site’s position at the southern termination <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Murchison</strong> <strong><strong>St</strong>reet</strong><br />

‘dogleg’. It is in direct view as one proceeds south along this section <strong>of</strong> the<br />

street before turning west to continue toward Alexandria <strong><strong>St</strong>reet</strong>. Indeed, it is<br />

the most prominent dwelling as one turns the corner. The view <strong>of</strong> the<br />

proposed addition is not confined to the northern and southern sides <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Murchison</strong> <strong><strong>St</strong>reet</strong> in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the review site. From these locations, the<br />

width <strong>of</strong> the street, the siting <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and the angles <strong>of</strong> view in<br />

combination act to restrict the addition’s visibility. The view from the ‘dogleg’<br />

is greater than would be the case if <strong>Murchison</strong> <strong><strong>St</strong>reet</strong> simply continued its<br />

alignment from Alexandria <strong><strong>St</strong>reet</strong> through to Lansdowne Road without<br />

changing direction to proceed northward in this location.<br />

18

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!