21 Murchison Street St Kilda East - City of Port Phillip

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