city of port phillip report

CITY OF PORT PHILLIP REPORT 

STATUTORY PLANNING COMMITTEE 

19 OCTOBER 2010 

ITEM 1 

ADDRESS: 141 CHAPEL STREET, ST KILDA 

PROPOSAL: PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND 

CONSTRUCTION OF ALTERATIONS AND 

ADDITIONS TO THE BUILDING (3 

ADDITIONAL LEVELS), USE OF LEVELS 

1-4 AS DWELLINGS AND A REDUCTION 

IN THE CARPARKING AND LOADING 

BAY REQUIREMENTS 

WARD: JUNCTION 

NEIGHBOURHOOD ST KILDA 

TRIGGER FOR DETERMINATION BY 

COMMITTEE 

CAR PARKING REDUCTION AND 32 

OBJECTIONS 

APPLICATION NO: 1075/2009 

APPLICANT: HUDSON LAKES C/- SJB PLANNING 

EXISTING USE: OFFICES 

ABUTTING USES: COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL 

ZONING: BUSINESS 1 ZONE 

OVERLAYS: HERITAGE OVERLAY (HO7), SPECIAL 

BUILDING OVERLAY, ENVIRONMENTAL 

AUDIT OVERLAY 

STATUTORY TIME REMAINING FOR EXPIRED 

DECISION AS AT DAY OF COUNCIL 

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER: George Borg, Manager, City 

Development 

AUTHOR: SARAH LANE, SENIOR PLANNER 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1.1. It is proposed to construct alterations and additions to the existing building on 

the site. 

1.2. The application originally comprised a five storey building accommodating 23 

dwellings, 3 shops, and carparking for 16 vehicles. The application was 

advertised and 32 objections were received relating to carparking, 

overlooking, overshadowing, the scale and aesthetics of the proposal, noise, 

waste management and use of the laneway at the rear of the site. 

1.3. The application was amended pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and 

Environment Act. The revised development would comprise a five storey 

building, accommodating 21 dwellings, 3 shops, and carparking for 20 

vehicles. The revised proposal was not formally readvertised, however 

objectors were notified of the changes in writing. The revised proposal is the 

subject of this report. 

1



1.4. The building design would satisfy the requirements of the Carlisle Street 

Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework and the parking provision would 

be consistent with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy and Parking Rates. 

1.5. It is recommended that a Notice of Decision be issued. 

KEY ISSUES 

1. Car parking 

2. Compliance with Carlisle Street Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework 

3. Amenity impacts 

2



Subject Property � Objectors X Supporters b 

3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16

2. RELEVANT HISTORY 



2.1. There is no relevant permit history for the site. 

3. PROPOSAL 

3.1. It is proposed to construct alterations and additions to the existing building on 

the site for the purpose of 3 shops and 21 dwellings. 

3.2 Amended plans were submitted to Council pursuant to Section 57A of the 

Planning and Environment Act, are referred to as TP-01A, TP-02A, TP-03A, 

TP-04A, TP-05A, TP-08A, received by Council on 1 December 2009 and TP- 

07B, TP-09B, TP-10B, TP-11B, TP-12B, TP-13BTP-14B, received by Council 

on 1 September 2010. These plans are the subject of this report. 

3.3 The details of the proposal, as amended, are as follows: 

Ground floor 

• Three shops facing Chapel Street (54sqm, 68sqm and 70sqm in area). 

• Communal bathroom and kitchen facilities for retail tenancies. 

• Residential entrance lobby accessed from Duke Street. 

• Carpark accessed from Duke Street. 

• A separate scooter parking area, for 6 scooters, accessed from Duke 

Street. 

• Storage area for 7 bikes accessed via the lobby (3 bike spaces also 

located in the car park). 

• Two rainwater tanks would be located beneath the carpark. 

• Eighteen storage lockers accessed from the carpark. 

• A new crossover is proposed on Duke Street to access the on-site car 

spaces. 

• Bin storage would be located within the carpark. 

• Mailboxes would be located within the lobby. 

• The carpark would accommodate 20 cars through the use of car stackers. 

Level 1 

• The first floor would comprise two, two-bedroom dwellings and five onebedroom 

dwellings. 

• Each dwelling on this level would have a north facing balcony, ranging in 

area from 2sqm to 7sqm. 

Level 2 

• The second floor would comprise two, two-bedroom dwellings and five 

one-bedroom dwellings. 

• Each dwelling would have a north facing balcony, ranging in area from 

2sqm to 7sqm. 

Level 3 

• The third floor would comprise two, two-bedroom dwellings and two, onebedroom 

dwellings. 

17



• Each dwelling on this level would have a large north facing terrace, 

ranging from 33sqm to 35sqm. 

Level 4 

• The fourth floor would comprise three, two-bedroom dwellings. 

• Each dwelling would have a north facing balcony of at least 11sqm. 

Height and Setbacks 

• The overall building height would be 16m. 

• The building would be constructed to the Chapel Street and Duke Street 

boundaries to a height of 10.5m (three storeys). 

• The third and fourth floors would be setback from the Chapel Street 

frontage by 3m and the Duke street frontage by 5m. The balcony 

structure and frame facing Duke Street would encroach into this setback 

and would be set back by 3.4m. 

• The building would be constructed to within 300mm of the western (rear) 

boundary to a height of 6.9m (adjacent to a laneway). 

• The western wall would have graduated setbacks as follows: second floor 

would be set back 1.3m; third floor would be set back 5m; fourth floor 

would be set back 7.7m. 

• The building would be constructed to the southern boundary to a height of 

16.1m. 

Materials and finishes 

• The Chapel Street façade, at levels 1 and 2, would have a stylized façade 

treatment of alternative convex and concave aluminium blades (in white 

and various shades of green). 

• The ground floor Duke Street frontage would feature mosaic tiles (100mm 

x 100mm green glaze). 

• The upper levels of the Duke Street façade would feature movable 

screens to the balconies (powdercoated aluminium in Dulux ‘Arrowhead’, 

‘Windspray’ and ‘Shale Grey’). 

• The ground floor Chapel Street façade would feature shopfront glazing. 

This would return around to the Duke Street side of the northernmost 

shop. 

• Levels 3 and 4 would be clad in metal cladding (‘Monument’ colour). 

• The southern boundary wall would feature a rendered finish (‘Western 

Myall’) and a pattern of metal cladding in various colours. 

• The western boundary wall would be rendered and the upper levels 

facing west would be clad in metal cladding. 

• Balustrades facing north would be clear glass at levels 1 and 2 and 

opaque glass at levels 3 and 4. 

• The carpark door would be a tilting door with vertical metal bars with a 

black powdercoat finish. 

• The scooter storage entry doors would be roller doors (colourbond 

‘Monument’ colour). 

18



Car, scooter and bicycle parking 

• 20 car spaces would be provided at the rear of the site at ground level. 

• The car spaces would be provided in the form of car stackers (Klaus 

Trendvario 4300) which accommodate 5 cars across 2 standard car 

spaces. 

• A total of 10 bicycle spaces would be provided, comprising 3 spaces in 

the car park and 7 spaces in a storage area accessed from the lobby. 

• A separate area for scooters would provide space for 6 scooters. 

4. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 

4.1. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of Chapel and Duke 

Streets, approximately 60 metres north of Carlisle Street. It is currently 

developed with a double storey commercial building which is used as an 

office. The building has at-grade carparking at the rear, which is accessed via 

Duke Street. The subject site abuts a 3m wide right of the way at the rear, 

which does not provide access to the site. The building is ‘nil-graded’ under 

the Port Phillip Heritage Review. 

4.2. The building has a setback from the Chapel Street frontage of approximately 

2m at ground floor and 1m at first floor. The setback from the Duke Street 

frontage is 1.4m at ground floor and 300mm at first floor. The building has a 

rear setback of 9.7m and is partially cantilevered over the car park, which 

comprises 9 spaces. 

4.3. The site has a frontage of approximately 13m and is approximately 37m deep. 

The land is rectangular in shape and is generally flat. 

4.4. The subject site is located on the edge of the Carlisle Street Activity Centre. 

To the north and west of the subject site, development is generally of a single 

storey scale (Duke Street and Chapel Street). The dwellings in this area are 

generally graded as ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’. 

4.5. To the south of the subject site are commercial premises, generally of a one 

to two storey scale. The exception to this is the building at 147 Chapel Street, 

which is a former industrial building with an overall height of approximately 16 

metres, constructed to all boundaries. 

4.6. Opposite the subject site is the St Kilda Police Station (three storeys) and 

commercial buildings of a one to two storey scale (south of the police station). 

The eastern side of Chapel Street, to the north of the police station, is 

characterised by residential sites of one to three storeys. 

5. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS 

5.1. Permit Triggers 

Zone or 

Overlay 

Clause 34.01 

Business 1 

Why is a permit required? 

A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out 

works. 

19

Zone 

Clause 43.01 

Heritage 

Overlay 

Clause 44.05 

Special 

Building 

Overlay 

Schedule 1 

Clause 52.06 

Car Parking 

Clause 52.07 

Loading and 

unloading of 

vehicles 

Clause 52.34 

Bicycle 

Facilities 



A planning permit is not required to use the land for the purpose of 

dwellings, provided that the frontage at ground floor is not more than 

two metres. A permit is required in this case as the residential 

frontage at ground floor would be three metres. 

A permit is required to demolish and construct a building and to carry 

out works. 

A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out 

works pursuant to Clause 44.05-1. 

A new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use 

must not be increased until the required car spaces have been 

provided on the land pursuant to Clause 52.06-1. The table at Clause 

52.06-5 sets out the number of car spaces required. 

The table at Clause 52.06-5 states; a dwelling requires a rate of 2 car 

spaces to each dwelling. 

However, as per Council’s resolution of May 1998, the car parking 

assessment for buildings of four storeys or more should be based on 

ResCode rates which would require one car space per one and two 

bedroom dwellings, two car spaces per three or larger bedroom 

dwellings and one space per five dwellings for visitors. 

No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, 

servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless: 

• Space is provided on the land for loading and unloading 

vehicles. 

• The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. If a 

driveway changes direction or intersects another driveway, the 

internal radius at the change of direction or intersection must be 

at least 6 metres. 

• The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 

metres wide. 

A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if 

either: 

• The land area is insufficient. 

• Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles 

to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 

A new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use 

must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and 

associated signage has been provided on the land pursuant to Clause 

52.34-1. 

The table at Clause 52.34-3 states; in developments of four or more 

storeys: 

- A rate of 1 space to each 5 dwellings is required for residents, and; 

- A rate of 1 space to each 10 dwellings is required for visitors. 

5.2. State Planning Policy Framework 

The relevant State Planning Policies are: 

Clause 11 – Settlement 

Clause 15.01 – Urban Environment 

Clause 16 – Housing 

20



5.3 Local Planning Policy Framework 

The relevant Local Planning Policies are: 

Clause 22.04 – Heritage Policy 

Clause 22.06 – Urban Design Policy 

Carlisle Street Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework 

5.4 AmC62 

Amendment C62 revises Port Phillip’s planning vision and policies contained 

in the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). The LPPF includes Clause 

21 – Municipal Strategic Statement and Clause 22 – Local Planning Policies. 

6 REFERRALS 

The Amendment was exhibited. Submissions to the amendment were 

referred to an independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning for 

consideration. The Independent Panel process has now concluded. The 

Panel’s report has not yet been received and is expected later this year 

The amendment would place this site in a Moderate Residential Growth Area. 

This is defined as “Established retail/commercial strips within larger Activity 

Centres, which have the capacity to absorb some increase in development 

intensity. The location of development and level of intensification will vary 

across centres depending on the streetscape and heritage character, and lot 

size. New use and development must not compromise the economic function 

of the centre.” The proposal would be consistent with the strategic direction of 

this amendment. 

Internal referrals 

6.1 Urban Design 

“In response to the revised plans (received 1 September 2010):- 

• This development reflects an appropriate approach to the site both in 

terms of massing and urban design considerations. It includes an 

activated retail street level coupled with a high level of connectivity from 

the upper level residential apartments; 

• The aesthetic contrasts the feature façade of the open green weave 

urban art against the expressed steel work to the residential 

apartments. The scheme utilises green aluminium blades, tiles and 

party walls between apartments to tie both the street elevations 

together; 

• The scheme would be considered consistent with the structure plan and 

the urban design framework. The scale at 5 storeys is reflective of the 

immediate context; in particular 147 Chapel St and its associated saw 

tooth roofs. 

21



• The proposal provides a satisfactory transition and increased setbacks 

towards the timber Victorian workers cottages of Duke St. Levels 3 and 

4 have been setback 5m (previously 3.7m) from Duke St to support a 

more recessive building envelope. The reduced number of apartments 

is supported and will enhance internal amenity and reduce parking 

demands; 

• The northern aspect will be well utilised for both passive solar gain and 

natural light to all apartments. The screens to the façade will assist in 

regulating the heat loads whilst adding a activated street presentation 

that will change depending on the residents needs; 

• The sense of address to the apartments from Duke St is clearly defined; 

• The deletion of the solar panels is a disappointing outcome; 

• The intent to provide cross ventilation is supported however it remains 

constrained by the party wall leading to the need for mechanical 

ventilation. Regardless the applicant is attempting to avoid the need to 

use the AC units through introducing ceiling fans; 

• Floor to ceiling heights will allow appropriate internal amenity at 2.7m. 

Note the required clearance for the ceiling fans; 

• Materials and finishes include render, metal cladding, mosaic tiles and 

cement sheet and are supported; 

• The use of opaque glass to the balcony areas will ensure that the AC 

units will not be visible on the balconies; 

• Mail boxes will be accessible externally; 

• The additional solar control to the western windows addresses previous 

concerns regarding heat loads; 

• The revised street canopy design is supported with a reduced depth to 

400mm; 

• The street canopy has introduced a greater clearance from the footpath 

level with a dimension of 3.2m however 3m would be more than 

adequate; 

• Redesign the scooter garage roller doors to present as an integrated 

feature of the façade. Preferably this should match the aluminium 

louvres or alternatively the carpark metal door as this will also allow for 

natural ventilation over mechanical ventilation. 

• A more refined façade design is recommended to the east elevation 

level 4 through replacing the bathroom window with a skylight.” 

Officer Comment 

22



It is agreed that deletion of the small bathroom window on the east elevation 

(top floor) would result in a more streamlined aesthetic. Similarly, a revision of 

the scooter garage door materials to match either the garage door or louvred 

screens would better integrate this element and reduce the overall number of 

materials on this façade. Amendments to the plans to delete the bathroom 

window on the east elevation and revise the scooter garage door can be 

achieved by permit condition, if an approval is issued (refer proposed condition 

1(a) and 1(b)). 

6.2 Sustainable Design 

“In the context of this development and application, I am satisfied that these 

meets Council’s current expectations for environmentally sustainable design. 

In its entirety, the ESD Report should be endorsed as part of this permit and 

conditioned as per the below recommendations, with this being conditional on 

the following: 

• Update the STEPS and SDS assessments to be inline with the latest 

changes. 

• Provide an explanation as to why the Solar PV’s have been removed 

from the development. As an alternative, gas boosted solar hot water 

systems should be installed. 

• Consider using compact fluorescent lighting and led lighting for the 

apartments, reducing the use of halogen lighting.” 

Officer comment 

The applicant has provided the following comment regarding deletion of some 

sustainable elements, following a redesign to comply with the Carlisle Street 

Urban Design Framework: 

“…the solar panels and grey water recycling will be removed from the plans, for 

cost reasons, as expense associated with them cannot be justified given the 

loss of 41% of floor area (at Levels 3 and 4) resulting in the loss of 2 

apartments (at Level 3), the additional cost associated with providing 4 extra 

cars in a much more costly car stacker system, redesign costs and a still ongoing 

planning process. Notwithstanding, the permit applicant is still committed 

to the construction of a building that will exceed the BCA’s minimum 

requirements.” 

The loss of solar panels and grey water system is regrettable. However, 

Council has no statutory grounds to require such measures. Nor does the 

planning scheme have scope to specify which type of light globe can be used in 

a development. It is therefore considered that the applicant’s sustainable 

design statement is suitable for endorsement, once it is updated to reflect 

elements deleted from the plans. A revised SDS, which reflects these changes, 

can be required by a condition on permit if an approval is issued (refer 

proposed condition 4). 

6.3 Parking and Traffic 

23



The original proposal for 23 dwellings with 16 car spaces was referred to 

Council’s Traffic Department. As the revised plans under consideration involve 

a reduction in the number of dwellings and an increase in on-site car parking, 

the plans were not formally re-referred. However, some further clarification was 

sought on some matters discussed below. The following comments were 

received: 

“The City of Port Phillip’s “Sustainable Transport Policy and Parking Rates 

Strategy” applies to this development, which means the lower parking rate can 

be applied. Therefore for the 1 & 2 bedroom apartments – 0.8 car 

space/apartment can be used. However, there is no reduced rate for the retail 

component. 

The appropriate rates of the following are used to assess the parking 

requirement for the proposed development. 

• One and 2 bedroom apartments – 0.8 space/apartment. 

• Retail – < 100 sq m. is one space/tenancy 

• Visitor Parking – 0.2 spaces/apartment, however given the very good 

public transport and there would be some sharing with the retail parking 

requirement, a rate of 0 spaces/ dwelling is acceptable. 

In accordance with these rates, the following calculations apply: 

• 23 No. 1 or 2 bedroom apartments @ 0.8 space/apartment = 18.4 

spaces, adopt 18 spaces. 

• Visitor parking @ 0 spaces/apartment = 0 spaces 

• 3 retail tenancies @ one space/tenancy = 3 spaces 

• Total spaces = 18 + 0 + 3 = 21 spaces. 

However it is proposed that 16 car spaces are to be provided on site, which 

leaves a shortfall of 5 spaces, which can be absorbed by the existing on-street 

parking resource, particularly as there is some debate about the description of 

the studio apartments as they are quite small. There is also provision for 

scooter parking. 

Applicants Traffic Report 

The applicant referred to a parking survey that was carried out in September 

2009 which identified between 350 - 380 available parking spaces, with peak 

demand of 86% on both a Tuesday and a Saturday. 

The applicant has provided the following rates for the residential component: 

• Studio – 0.42 spaces/apartment, which gives 0.42 x 13 = 5 spaces 

• 2 bedroom apartment – 1.03 spaces/apartment, which gives 1.03 x 10 = 

10 spaces. 

This gives 15 spaces with 16 provided. 

The applicant also referred to St Kilda postcode ABS data that showed that 

64% of studio owners did not own a car and that 22 % of 2 bedroom dwelling 

owners did not own a car. 

The proposed parking provision is 3 spaces for the retail tenancies and 13 

spaces for the 23 apartments. 

24



Bicycle spaces need to be provided on site at the rate of: 

• Apartments - 1 space/5 apartment & 1 space/10 apartments for visitors. 

• Retail – One/300sq. m for staff and one/500sq. m for visitors 

In accordance with these rates: 

• 23 apartments@1 space/5 apartments, which gives 4 spaces. 

• Visitors - 22 apartments@1 space/10 apartments which gives 2 spaces. 

• Retail – One/300sq. m for staff gives 1 space and one/500sq. m for 

visitors gives 1 space. 

• Total bicycle spaces required = 8 spaces. 10 bicycle spaces are 

proposed, which is sufficient. 

The access into the parking spaces in the car park is satisfactory. 

The site is to go on the no parking permit list. 

Traffic Comments 

In the Applicants Traffic Report, the residential traffic generation from the site 

identified volumes of 3 movements/apartment/day. However, it is considered 

that 4 movements/apartment is more appropriate. This totals 86 movements 

from the site, (with a peak hour volume 10 – 15% which gives a peak volume of 

8 - 13 movements). For the retail component, they identified 1 

movements/retail tenancy during the peak hour which means 3 movements 

total in the peak hour. Therefore the total peak hour flow is 11 - 16 

movements in the peak hour. 

At the crossover access, there needs to be sight line triangles that need to be 

1.5 m x 1.5 m as typically shown in AS/NZS 2890.1.2004, Parking Facilities; 

Part 1: Off-street car parking Fig 3.3 on page 33 shows the required site line 

detail. These sight line requirements need to be provided on either side of the 

proposed crossover. 

The proposed crossing replaces an existing crossover and therefore does not 

affect existing street furniture. To ensure that the proposed crossover meets 

the gradient guidelines as detailed in the standard drawing SD 4101C, the 

contractor is to prepare a design plan to show how this and pedestrian priority 

guidelines are met. The design plan is to show: 

• Footpath, its width and surface (concrete, asphalt, other) 

• All physical constraints (posts, poles, infrastructure, street trees etc) 

• Levels to AHD at the following points: 

Centre of the Road 

Channel Invert 

Outside edge of the footpath (where applicable) 

At property boundary. 

• Distances between the AHD points 

The grade restrictions may require the crossover to be lowered and the 

footpath may need to be ramped down from the existing footpath level which is 

to have a grade as required under DDA requirements.” 

25




It is considered that the two bedroom dwellings should each have one car 

space and that a reduced rate, as per Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy 

and Parking Rates, should only apply to the smaller dwellings. This view has 

informed the revision of the plans undertaken by the applicant, which has 

resulted in a total of 21 dwellings and a total of 20 carspaces (with 3 for the 

commercial premises). The assessment of the proposal against Council’s 

Sustainable Transport Policy and Parking Rates is undertaken in Section 9 of 

this report. 

With regard to traffic movements, Council’s Traffic Engineer advises that the 

rate is based on movements/dwelling, not the number of car spaces. Therefore 

the deletion of two dwellings and increase of four cars on site would not result 

in a discernable change to the assessment above. 

In response to the requirement for sightlines, the applicant has provided the 

following comment: 

The operation of the tilting security gate at the point of vehicle entry and exit will 

provide a visual and audible alert to pedestrians immediately prior to vehicles 

exiting the site. This in unlike conventional public car park ramps that more 

often than not provide no warnings to pedestrians. Futher, the design of the car 

park is such that it is reasonable to assume that exiting vehicles will approach 

the street from a central position on the driveway thus allowing some extra 

visibility of passing pedestrians. 

Council’s Traffic Engineer advised that this argument is reasonable, in that the 

full width of the garage entrance (5.5m) meets the sightline triangles 

requirements for a single car exiting the site. 

The requirements for the vehicle crossing design can be achieved through a 

permit condition (refer proposed condition 12). 

6.4 Strategic Planning 

The following comments were received in response to the revised plans: 

“Land Use: 

The proposed commercial / business use at ground floor and the residential 

use above the site comply with strategic directions of the CSSP which seeks to 

retain the retail role and capacity of the centre and encourage and concentrate 

new residential development within the activity centre. 

Built Form: 

The proposed development generally complies with the Design Objectives and 

Design Requirements specified in the UDF. The development proposes a 

revised height to Chapel Street with a decorative facade of 10.5m which now 

meets the requirements for an 11 metre street wall / parapet. The well resolved 

design, specifically the overall height, setbacks and transition down in the built 

form to the adjacent residential dwellings will respect the neighbouring 

residential precinct and the existing building scale along Chapel Street. 

26



The revised proposal at levels 4 and 5 does not exceed the maximum height 

for the site. The revised 5m setback (WALL) above the street wall parapet to 

the Chapel Street frontage at the fourth and fifth meet the requirements for 

addressing Chapel Street, resulting in a building on the Chapel Street frontage 

that is envisaged by the CSSP & the UDF. Although the balconies extend 2 

metres, they are designed so as to be visually recessive. This achieves the 

requirement of rendering them distinctly different and visually recessive through 

variations in forms, materials, openings and colours 

The street-wall on Chapel Street does not have a veranda for the full width of 

the frontage; however the proposed design response reads as though a 

veranda is built in. Although this will not assist with visual surveillance of the 

public realm, this is somewhat compensated by the veranda to Duke Street and 

the activated frontages to both Chapel and Duke Streets which will facilitate 

contact between the building’s occupants and people in the street. 

The corner site design is well resolved, in that the building addresses both 

street frontages with doors and street level windows. The development will 

enhance the pedestrian experience and contribute to a more coherent frontage 

to Chapel and Duke Streets through the use of an activated frontage, 

transparent façade and variations in form, materials and openings along Duke 

Street. 

The proposed vehicle access and egress is technically located to the side of 

the lot, fronting Duke Street. A preferable outcome would be to have the 

driveway to ‘side’ via the laneway. Strategic Planning has been informed that 

the Statutory Planning referral received from Traffic & Parking Design has not 

raised any concern with the proposed vehicular access and egress. 

Conclusion: 

The proposal supports the strategic land use outcomes desired for this part of 

the Activity Centre – in particular, the objective to retain the retail role and 

capacity of the centre and to encourage new development and residential 

housing growth within the Core Retail Precinct. 

The redevelopment proposal for 141 Chapel Street is in the main consistent 

with the conditions established under CSSP & UDF and complies with the 

Design Objectives and Design Requirements specified in the UDF. 

The height of development proposed for the site is not excessive and is 

consistent the CSSP and the UDF, the revised frontage to Chapel Street is not 

excessive and it appears that there has consideration of requirements of the 

UDF in relation to height and setbacks above the street wall on the Chapel 

Street Frontage. 

From a policy perspective the proposal is appropriate to the site and its 

surrounding context, and it supports the objectives and requirements in relation 

to the built form.” 


A full assessment of the proposal against the requirements of the Carlisle 

Street Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework is contained in Section 8 of 

this report. 

27

6.5 Waste Management 



“70 litres of waste and 70 litres of recycling need to be provided per 1 bed room 

unit and studio. 80 litres of waste and 80 litres of recycling are required per 2 

bed room unit. The volumes are low as submitted in the waste management 

plan. 

The other item of concern is that the commercial shops will be sharing the 

same bins as residential, this does not work, and the commercial shops will fill 

and use most of the waste volumes in this development. The applicant will 

need to look at a separate area for commercial waste.” 


In response to the above advice, a revised Waste Management Plan was 

submitted to Council. This plan includes an increased provision of bins and 

separate bins for the residential and commercial units, albeit in the same 

location. Council’s Waste Management Co-ordinator has reviewed this plan 

and has advised that the proposed waste volumes would be adequate for the 

number of dwellings. The revised plan should be updated to reflect the final 

number of dwellings proposed (21). An updated waste management plan can 

be required by permit condition, if an approval is issued (refer proposed 

condition 19). Further advice from Council’s Waste Management Co-ordinator 

confirms that difficulties associated with co-mingling of residential and 

commercial waste is an on-site management issue. The above advice was 

provided to the applicant in order to raise issues that may arise for future 

occupiers. However, the allocation of bins on site is not the responsibility of 

Council, particularly as private waste collection is proposed. 

6.6 External referrals 

The application was referred to Melbourne Water, who have no objections to 

the proposal subject to conditions (refer proposed conditions 20 to 25). 

7 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/OBJECTIONS 

7.1 The application was advertised by way of two notices erected on the site and 

letters sent to surrounding properties. 

7.2 Thirty-two objections were received. The grounds of objection are summarised 

as follows: 

• Concern about the scale of the development. 

• Concern about the aesthetics of the building. 

• Car parking. 

• Overlooking. 

• Overshadowing. 

• Noise related to an increase in residents and the demographic of future 

residents. 

• Waste management. 

28



• Use of laneway off Duke Street. 

7.3 A consultation meeting was held on 2 March 2010, which was attended by the 

Ward Councilor, Council’s planning officer, the applicant’s representatives and 

14 objectors. 

7.4 Following the consultation meeting and further consultation with Council and 

Melbourne Water, the application was amended and formally submitted to 

Council, pursuant to Section 57A of the Act. 

7.5 Pursuant to Section 57B of the Act, the substituted plans were not formally readvertised 

as it was considered that no party would be detrimentally affected as 

a result of the amendments. However, objectors were advised in writing of the 

amendments. 

7.6 The amended plans are the subject of this report. These plans are referred to 

as TP-01A, TP-02A, TP-03A, TP-08A, TP-15A received by Council on 1 

December 2009 and TP-07B, TP-09B, TP-10B, TP-11B, TP-12B, TP-13B, TP- 

14B, received by Council on 1 September 2010. 

Officer’s response to objections 

Scale 

7.7 The scale of development would be consistent with the parameters set for this 

site in the Carlisle Street Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework, 

adopted by Council in November 2009. The massing of the building would step 

down from Chapel Street toward the single storey streetscape of Duke Street. 

The building would be two storeys in scale at this rear laneway interface, with a 

1.3m setback at level 3. This scale at the rear, with the separation of the 

laneway, would provide a suitable transition in scale. A more intense scale at 

the rear boundaries of retail strips is not uncommon. The proposed scale 

represents an appropriate response, as outlined in the Structure Plan and UDF, 

and is supported by Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor. 

Architectural Aesthetic 

7.8 Concerns about the aesthetics of the building are considered to be subjective. 

The proposal would represent a contemporary addition to the street, which 

would be clearly distinguishable from the heritage dwellings in Duke Street. The 

design would introduce a striking façade to the Chapel Street streetscape, 

whilst providing a more restrained, residential façade to Duke Street. The 

heritage dwellings in Duke Street are generally of a Victorian and Edwardian 

character. This is interspersed with two double storey apartment buildings 

(circa 1940s and 1960s) and large warehouse conversions at the westernmost 

end of the street. In addition, the rear facade of the St Kilda library faces Duke 

Street. The Chapel Street context is dominated by St Kilda Police Station and 

the three storey former warehouse to the south of the subject site. These sites 

have heritage merit but do not have definitive architectural detailing. In both 

the Duke Street and Chapel Street context, it is considered that the proposed 

design would add be a contemporary addition to the are which reflects a variety 

of architectural styles. 

Waste Management 

7.9 The objection that has been raised regarding waste management refers to 

existing issues associated with commercial premises which use the laneway at 

the rear of the subject site. The proposed waste management procedures for 

29



the development have been reviewed by Council’s Waste Management Coordinator 

and have been deemed appropriate. 

Use of the Laneway 

7.10 Use of the laneway was raised by some traders on Chapel Street. It is not 

proposed that the laneway would be used for access to the site or for waste 

management purposes. All vehicular access would be directly off Duke Street. 

Carparking and amenity 

7.11 Car parking, overlooking, overshadowing and noise will be addressed in later 

sections of this report. 

7.12 One submission was received in response to the revised plans, which raised 

new concerns relating to noise from the car stackers and winter shadowing. 

Council is supportive of the use of car stackers and Council officers are 

satisfied that they do not result in unreasonable noise. With regard to 

overshadowing, Council is not in a position to consider winter shadows under 

the provisions of the planning scheme. 

8 ASSESSMENT AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL POLICIES 

8.1 An assessment of the proposal against the key aspects of the relevant state 

and local planning policies is provided below. A full assessment matrix is 

retained on the file. 

State Planning Policy Framework 

8.2 Clause 11 - Settlement 

The proposal would contribute to the following broad outcomes outlined in 

Clause 11 of the SPPF: 

• Diversity of choice 

• Economic viability 

• A high standard of urban design and amenity 

• Energy efficiency 

• Accessibility 

• Land use and transport integration 

8.3 Clause 15.01 Urban Environment 

Clause 15.01-2 applies the following design principles to development 

proposals for residential development not covered by Clause 55: 

Context: Development must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic 

context of its location. A comprehensive site analysis should be the starting 

30



point of the design process and form the basis for consideration of height, scale 

and massing of new development. 

A comprehensive site analysis was lodged with the application. The proposal, 

in particular, takes account of the strategic context of the subject site. Both 

State and Local Government planning strategies encourage greater housing 

density in locations close to transport and services. Council has adopted the 

Carlisle Street Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework, which seek to 

guide and manage change within the activity centre. The Urban Design 

Framework sets specific parameters for the scale and massing of sites within 

the Chapel Street North precinct, in which this site is located. The proposal 

successfully addresses these parameters. 

The public realm: The public realm, which includes main pedestrian spaces, 

streets, squares, parks and walkways, should be protected and enhanced. 

The public realm in this instance would be the footpaths adjoining the site. The 

pedestrian experience would be enhanced through the activation of the Duke 

and Chapel Street frontages. The introduction of a canopy over the footpath 

would further improve the amenity of the footpath. 

Safety: New development should create urban environments that enhance 

personal safety and property security and where people feel safe to live, work 

and move in at any time. 

Passive surveillance of the public realm would be enhanced through the 

introduction of residential uses on the upper levels which would be oriented 

towards Duke Street. The pedestrian entry to the dwellings, off Duke Street, 

would be easily identifiable. The proposed glazed entry door would provide for 

light spill to the entry at night which would enhance pedestrian safety. 

Landmarks, views and vistas: Landmarks, views and vistas should be protected 

and enhanced or, where appropriate, created by new additions to the built 

environment. 

There are no landmarks, views or vistas which would be affected by the 

proposed development. 

Pedestrian spaces: Design of the relationship between buildings and footpaths 

and other pedestrian spaces, including the arrangement of adjoining activities, 

entrances, windows, and architectural decoration, should enhance the visual 

and social experience of the observer. 

The introduction of three glazed shopfronts would activate the Chapel Street 

frontage and provide a more pedestrian friendly interface. The introduction of a 

canopy would further enhance the pedestrian experience. The Duke Street 

frontage, at ground floor, would be enhanced through the use of materials and 

architectural detailing and the pedestrian entry to the dwellings. 

Heritage: New development should respect, but not simply copy, historic 

precedents and create a worthy legacy for future generations. 

The proposed development would significantly upgrade a ‘nil-graded’ building. 

It is appropriate that the design would be of a contemporary nature and would 

not seek to replicate heritage fabric. The proposed ‘stepping down’ to the rear 

31



of the site would provide an appropriate transition to the single storey heritage 

dwellings in Duke Street. 

Consolidation of sites and empty sites: New development should contribute to 

the “complexity” and diversity of the built environment. Site consolidation 

should not result in street frontages that are out of keeping with the 

“complexity” and “rhythm” of existing streetscapes. The development process 

should be managed so that sites are not in an unattractive, neglected state for 

excessive periods and the impacts from vacant sites are minimised. 

Not applicable. 

Light and shade: Enjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a 

desirable balance of sunlight and shade. This balance should not be 

compromised by undesirable overshadowing or exposure to the sun. 

The public realm in this instance would be Duke Street and Chapel Street. No 

overshadowing would occur to Duke Street, due to the orientation of the site. 

The development would cast shadows over Chapel Street. The western 

footpath, adjacent to the subject site, currently experiences afternoon shadows 

cast by the existing two storey building on the site. The proposal would also 

cast afternoon shadows over this footpath. Measured at the equinox, these 

shadows would not reach the eastern footpath. 

Energy and resource efficiency: All building, subdivision and engineering 

works should promote more efficient use of resources and energy efficiency. 

The re-use of building fabric and extension of the building retains embodied 

energy and effectively re-uses existing resources. The development would 

promote the use of energy efficiency through the northern orientation of living 

areas; use of ceiling fans and cross ventilation. The use of rainwater tanks 

would contribute to the efficient use of resources. 

Architectural quality: New development should aspire to high standards in 

architecture and urban design. Any rooftop plant, lift over-runs, service entries, 

communication devices, and other technical attachment should be treated as 

part of the overall design. 

The proposed development would represent a high standard of architectural 

quality. The design would provide two distinct facades, with an urban art 

feature to the Chapel Street façade and more streamlined presentation to Duke 

Street. The design would result in positive urban design outcomes through the 

activation of Chapel Street and opportunities for passive surveillance to Duke 

Street. 

Rooftop plant is not proposed. Air conditioning units on balconies would be 

sufficiently screened by the louvred screens on levels 1 and 2 and obscure 

glass balustrades on levels 3 and 4. 

Landscape architecture: Recognition should be given to the setting in which 

buildings are designed and the integrating role of landscape architecture. 

No landscaping is proposed due to the proposed development having 100% 

site coverage. This is an appropriate response, given the nature of 

development in this section of Chapel Street. 

32

8.4 Clause 16 - Housing 



The proposed development would contribute to the objectives of Clause 16.01- 

2, which seeks to locate new housing in or close to activity centres and 

employment corridors and at other strategic development sites that offer good 

access to services and transport. This policy specifies the following strategies, 

with which the proposal would be consistent: 

• Increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be 

developed within the established urban area, particularly at activity 

centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites, and reduce 

the share of new dwellings in greenfield and dispersed development 

areas. 

• In Metropolitan Melbourne, locate more intense housing development 

in and around activity centres, in areas close to train stations and on 

large redevelopment sites. 

• Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well 

located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public 

transport. 

• Ensure an adequate supply of redevelopment opportunities within the 

established urban area to reduce the pressure for fringe development. 

• Facilitate residential development that is cost-effective in infrastructure 

provision and use, energy efficient, incorporates water efficient design 

principles and encourages public transport use. 

• Identify opportunities for increased residential densities to help 

consolidate urban areas. 

Local Planning Policy Framework 

8.5 Heritage Policy (Cl. 22.04) 

The proposal would achieve the objectives of Clause 22.04, which are: 

• To encourage the conservation of all significant and contributory 

heritage places in the Heritage Overlay. 

• To discourage the demolition of significant and contributory heritage 

places in the Heritage Overlay. 

• To encourage all new development and redevelopment of significant 

and contributory places to be respectfully and harmoniously integrated 

with the surrounding character. 

• To encourage the retention, reuse and recycling of significant and 

contributory heritage places in the Heritage Overlay in a manner which 

conserves and does not detract from the surrounding character. 

• To promote design excellence which clearly and positively supports 

the ongoing heritage significance of the Heritage Overlay. 

• To ensure new buildings and additions complement existing heritage 

characteristics. 

• To ensure that new development and any publicly visible additions 

and/or alterations in or to a heritage place maintain the significance of 

the heritage place and employ a contextual design approach. 

33



As the building on the subject site is nil-graded, conservation of the building on 

this site is not of concern. The relevant objectives of the heritage policy relate 

to how any new development responds to surrounding heritage buildings. The 

proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the 

policy, regarding respecting and complementing existing heritage 

characteristics. 

The proposed development would respond to the scale of the heritage building 

to the north (147 Chapel Street) and would provide an appropriate transition 

down to the single storey scale of Duke Street. The development would 

introduce a contemporary aesthetic which would be clearly distinguished from 

surrounding heritage fabric. The development would therefore not undermine 

the heritage characteristics through of surrounding sites through imitation or 

mock architecture and in this regard, is considered to be complementary to 

existing heritage buildings. The more distinctive, contemporary aspect of the 

proposal would face Chapel Street, which currently presents an eclectic 

streetscape dominated by the two existing three storey buildings on either side 

of the street. The Duke Street façade, which would interface with the heritage 

streetscape would present as a more restrained, streamlined form. As 

previously noted, Duke Street displays examples of Victorian and Edwardian 

dwellings, two storey apartment buildings and large scale warehouse 

conversions. In this context, it is considered that the proposal would contribute 

to the layering of architectural styles evident in the street. 

8.6 Urban Design Policy (Cl 22.06): 

The key aspects of Clause 22.06 are addressed below: 

Public Realm - New development should protect & enhance the public realm. 

The proposed development would not result in adverse impacts on the public 

realm and would satisfy the relevant policy performance measure, as it would 

have a street edge height of three storeys. Higher levels would be set back 

beyond the third storey. The zero setback to both street frontages reflects the 

character of the business zone along Chapel Street. The design would not 

dominate the public realm as it would sit comfortably amongst the existing large 

scale buildings on Chapel Street. The public realm would not be affected by 

excessive overshadowing. Existing shadows on the western footpath fo 

Chapel Street would remain and would extend onto the roadway. However, 

shadows would not extend to the eastern side of Chapel Street. Due to the 

orientation of the site, Duke Street would not be affected by shadows. 

Pedestrian Spaces - Building’s front design at footpath level should offer 

visual interest, surveillance, interaction, safety, shelter & convenience. 

It is considered that the proposed building would have a greatly enhanced 

interface with the public realm. The shopfronts to Chapel Street would provide 

for surveillance to the footpath. The windows would return around to the Duke 

Street frontage which would provide for some interest to this interface. 

The proposed canopy would provide shelter on the footpath. The pedestrian 

entry to the dwellings would be easily identifiable and would provide shelter and 

a suitable transition from the public to private realm. 

34



The north facing terraces at the first floor would provide for passive surveillance 

of the street. 

Light and Shade to the public realm: Encourage access to sunlight to the 

public realm 

There are no areas of public parkland near the development. The relevant 

areas of public space in this case are the footpaths, which would not be 

adversely affected by the proposed development. 

Energy and Resource Efficiency: Encourage buildings and open spaces to 

be oriented and designed to take advantage of climatic factors to reduce 

energy use. 

All of the dwellings would have north facing living areas and balconies. The 

dwellings also have opportunities for natural cross-ventilation. 

Architectural Quality: Encourage architectural quality to: express urban grain 

& subdivision pattern; provide facade articulation; avoid poor design & 

inappropriately located reproduction architecture; integrate elevations, roof 

forms & facade treatments; define corners at major intersections; have side 

walls detailed to provide interest & reduce visual impacts of blank walls; use 

robust & high quality materials. 

The existing subdivision pattern would not be affected and the building rhythm 

would remain largely unchanged. The Chapel Street façade would be well 

articulated through the use of a prominent decorative feature of a wave like 

design. 

The Duke Street façade would feature balconies with moveable screens which 

would provide a ‘shifting’ façade subject to the internal needs of residents. No 

reproduction architecture is proposed for this development. 

Façade treatments, design features, materials and finishes - Building 

facades are to allow for external lighting, mechanical equipment & signage. 

The Duke Street frontage would allow for lighting to the pedestrian entry. The 

Chapel Street frontage would allow for under canopy signage. The canopy 

would be of a height which would provide sufficient clearance to under canopy 

signage, in accordance with Council guidelines. 

Daylight and Sunlight – Allow daylight & sunlight into open spaces & onto 

main living rooms of new & neighbouring development. 

All of the proposed dwellings would be oriented to the north. 

The applicant has provided a diagram that demonstrates the loss of direct 

sunlight to a window at 41 Duke Street on the equinox. There would be some 

loss of sunlight to this window. However, it is considered that sufficient daylight 

would be maintained. Using Rescode as a guide, the required separation 

would be 3.5m to a wall proposed at 6.9m high. The building would be set back 

3m from this window. As the window in question is located close to the 

southern boundary of the subject site, daylight access would be maintained due 

to the single storey nature of the site to the south. It is considered that the 

proposed conditions would allow for a sufficient lightcourt to this window. 

35



Adjoining private open spaces would not be affected by shadows cast by the 

development on 22 September. 

Private and Communal Open Space: New open spaces to take advantage of 

solar access, are reasonably private & of sufficient size. 

Balconies/terraces would range in size from 2sqm to 35sqm. All of the 

balconies would have good solar access. 

It is noted that dwellings 4 and 11 would each have a very small balcony 

(2sqm). These two dwellings would be provided with bi-fold windows to the 

living areas. The balconies would provide direct access from living rooms and 

would be of a useable size for these small dwellings consistent with a landmark 

decision of VCAT which suggests that balconies in small apartments need only 

provide for a seated person, say, reading a book. Coupled with the opportunity 

to ‘open up’ the living rooms through the use of bi-fold windows, it is considered 

that a sufficient level of amenity would be enjoyed by these two dwellings. The 

floor areas of dwellings 4 and 11 would be 48sqm and 45sqm respectively. 

Whilst not the smallest of the proposed dwellings, the differing sizes of private 

open space would contribute to differentiating the dwellings within the 

development and enhancing housing choice. It is notable that two of the 

dwellings with large terraces (35sqm) would be one-bedroom dwellings. This 

outcome is a result of the required setback of 5m at level 3. Use of the setback 

as private open space is considered a suitable outcome. 

Visual and acoustic privacy: Limit views into neighbouring private open 

space & habitable rooms, protect occupants from external noise & contain 

noise sources: 

The majority of windows, and all balconies, would face north to Duke Street. 

Duke Street itself is 14m wide. The dwelling on the opposite corner of Duke 

Street is 139 Chapel Street, which has a courtyard at the rear. This courtyard 

has a roller shutter on the Duke Street boundary. 

An analysis of the downward views to this space that would be possible beyond 

the rollershutter on the boundary, demonstrate that the view lines (taking into 

account the vertical as well as horizontal distance) would be a minimum 

distance of 22m. It is considered that views at this distance would not result in 

unreasonable detriment. 

On the western façade, the windows at levels 1 and 2 would have obscure 

glazing to a height of 1.7m. This would preclude unreasonable views into 

windows at 41 Duke Street. Windows at levels 3 and 4 would not be treated or 

screened. This is considered to be an appropriate response. Downward views 

to adjoining dwellings would be blocked by the lower levels of the building, as 

these upper levels would be setback. Furthermore, the private open space at 

41 Duke Street is located approximately 16 metres south of the subject site. 

Downward, angled views from these windows would be in the realm of 26m, 

would be at a significant angle, and would be extremely limited. 

Carparking Design and Pedestrian Access: Buildings have safe, 

manageable & convenient access. Provide bicycle storage facilities adjacent to 

vehicle access points or building entries. Vehicle access point from single 

36



crossover, or if appropriate existing crossover & enable vehicles to move safely 

& efficiently between development & street network. 

The proposed carparking and access arrangements would allow for safe and 

efficient movement to and from the site. The bicycle storage would be located 

within the car park and a storage area adjacent to the pedestrian entry. Vehicle 

access would be via single crossover, 5.5m in width. The proposed 

arrangements would allow for safe and efficient movement from the site. 

Loading Facilities: Loading facilities on site & do not cause detriment to 

pedestrian amenity or traffic movement. 

Given the limited nature of the commercial premises, onsite loading facilities 

are not proposed. Small delivery vehicles could be accommodated on-street. 

This is addressed in more detail in section 9 of this report. 

Site Facilities – Site facilities provide for efficient maintenance & management, 

meet occupants’ needs, are attractively designed & easily maintained. 

Bin storage areas would be provided on-site, within the car park. The bin 

storage area would be located near the carpark entry which would allow for 

easy delivery of bins to the street. 

8.7 Carlisle Street Urban Design Framework 

The subject site is located within the Chapel Street North precinct as 

designated in the Carlisle Street Structure Plan and UDF. The Preferred 

Character Statement for this precinct, as articulated in the Urban Design 

Framework, envisages that the precinct will be characterised by: 

• A more intensive built form that supports an increase in commercial 

and residential activity, with the continuation of commercial or retail 

uses at street level. 

• Retention of heritage buildings and a high standard of design in new 

contemporary development appropriate to mark the entry point to the 

activity centre. 

• Built form of a height and bulk that maintains a human scale and 

responds to the predominant scale of existing development. 

• A vibrant, safe and attractive pedestrian environment with buildings 

actively fronting the street. 

• Built form that responds, and provides an appropriate transition, to 

the residential properties situated to the north and west. 

The Design Objectives and Design Requirements set out in the UDF are 

addressed below. 

Design Objectives for Chapel Street North Precinct 

To promote design excellence in new development, appropriate to this high 

profile location within the Carlisle Street Activity Centre. 

The proposal would provide a highly contemporary, innovative design response 

to the site. The design would provide a suitably prominent response to the entry 

point to the activity centre by way of the striking three-dimensional decorative 

37



screen on the Chapel Street façade. This would contrast with the strong 

horizontal and vertical expression of the Duke Street façade. The aesthetic is 

tied together through the use of a consistent colour scheme on the two street 

façades. 

To ensure new development contributes to a more coherent edge to Chapel 

Street. 

The proposal would be provide a ‘hard edge’ to Chapel Street, at a scale 

consistent with the heritage building at 147 Chapel Street and the police station 

opposite the subject site, are approximately 16m high to the street. The glazed 

shopfronts to the Chapel Street façade would enhance the pedestrian 

experience and would provide an interface which relates to the retail shopfront 

character of the frontages at 147-159 Chapel Street. The remaining ‘gap’ in 

this streetscape is the building at 145 Chapel Street, which provides no 

interaction with the street. 

To realize the development potential within the precinct, whilst respecting 

heritage buildings and the existing building scale along Carlisle Street. 

The subject site does not have an interface to Carlisle Street. At five storeys, 

with a streetwall of three storeys, the development would be consistent with the 

existing scale established on Chapel Street by the St Kilda Police Station and 

the heritage warehouse building located at 147 Chapel Street. The design 

would step down towards the rear which would provide a two-storey scale 

adjacent to the rear laneway. This approach would provide an appropriate 

transition to the single storey heritage streetscape of Duke Street. As 

previously noted, the heritage character of both Duke Street and Chapel Street 

demonstrates a number of architectural styles and eras. The proposed 

development would not seek to imitate nearby heritage buildings and would 

provide a contemporary contribution to the range of architecture in the 

neighbourhood. 

To enhance the pedestrian experience along Chapel Street as a principal 

walking route. 

The proposal would introduce active frontages to the Chapel Street frontage. 

This façade would also feature a canopy which would provide weather 

protection for pedestrians. 

To emphasise the corner site through built form and street level activity. 

The proposed design would provide for a prominent development on this corner 

site. Street level activity would be provided on both frontages through the 

provision of pedestrian entries to the shops and dwellings. The zero street 

setbacks and strong design elements to the street walls would anchor the 

corner and provide a strong sense of entry to the activity centre. 

To create a transition down in the intensity of built form to the adjoining low-rise 

‘fine grain’ residential areas to the west and north, and Carlisle Street to the 

south. 

The proposal would feature an appropriate transition to the single storey 

dwellings to the immediate west. At the interface with the rear laneway, the 

development would be two storeys, with a setback of 1.3m at level 2. The 

upper levels would be set back 5m and 7.7m respectively and would read as 

recessive elements in the streetscape. The building would not step down to the 

south toward Carlisle Street. This is considered an appropriate response in light 

of the large scale building at 147 Chapel Street. The scale of the proposed 

38



development would be consistent with this building to the south. Furthermore, it 

is anticipated that the site to the immediate south (145 Chapel Street) would be 

developed in the future. 

Design Requirements for Chapel Street North Precinct 

Buildings must have a zero setback to the street frontage. 

Achieved. The building would have a zero setback to both street frontages. 

The street-wall parapet height must be no more than 11 metres in height; this 

will allow 3 storeys of development. 

Achieved. The street-wall parapet height would be 10.5m. 

Buildings should not exceed a maximum height of 16 metres (5 storeys). 

Achieved. The overall building height would be 16 metres. 

Above the street-wall any additional storeys must be set back 5 metres so as to 

be visually recessive. This setback may be reduced by up to 2 metres along 

Chapel Street, if the architecture of the upper levels renders them distinctly 

different and visually recessive through variations in forms, materials, openings 

and colours. 

Achieved. Levels 3 and 4 would be set back 5 metres from the Duke Street 

frontage. The setback would 3 metres from the Chapel Street frontage. This is 

considered to address the requirements of the UDF, as the upper levels would 

be different and recessive through the use of materials, which would create a 

clear distinction from the lower levels. The balconies on level 4 would 

encroach into the Duke Street setback by 1.6m. This is considered to be 

consistent with the design requirements as it would achieve the outcome 

sought by the 5 metre setback, “so as to be visually recessive”. The visable 

elements of this encroachment would be the steel frame support and shading 

structures which would not present as a solid form. 

The above setback also applies to the side street boundary on the corner lot. 

Achieved, as noted above. 

Side walls visible above adjoining buildings should be visually recessive 

through variations in forms, materials, openings and colours. 

Achieved. The southern boundary wall would be visible above the single storey 

building at 145 Chapel Street. This wall would be treated with a variety of 

materials which would create visual interest. The lower levels would be 

rendered and the upper levels would be clad in vertical metal cladding, 

patterned in a variety of colours. The colours proposed for this façade 

treatment are Colourbond colours ‘Monument’, ‘Windspray’, ‘Shale Grey’, and 

‘Surfmist’. This represents a muted palette of grey tones. This would be 

distinct from the prominent Chapel Street façade and would present as a 

recessive element. 

The street-wall must be built to the side boundaries. 

Achieved. The street wall would be constructed to both side boundaries. 

The street-wall on Chapel Street should have a veranda for the full width of the 

frontage, unless inconsistent with an original façade that is being retained. 

Achieved. A canopy is proposed for the width of the Chapel Street frontage. 

This would also return around to Duke Street, for a length of approximately 6 

metres. 

39



The ground floor façade should be designed to facilitate contact between 

building occupants and people in the street. It should include pedestrian entries 

and clear glazing. 

Achieved. The Chapel Street façade would feature glazing and pedestrian 

entries to the three proposed shops. The Duke Street frontage would feature 

glazing and the pedestrian entry to the dwellings. 

On the corner site, the building must address both street frontages with either 

doors or street level windows. 

Achieved. The ‘shop front’ windows will return around to the Duke Street 

frontage for a length of approximately 8 metres. The dwelling entry will also be 

from the Duke Street frontage. 

The façade of the ground floor of sites with a frontage over 10 metres must be 

well articulated through variations in form, materials, openings and colours, or 

the inclusion of vertical design elements to enhance the pedestrian experience. 

Achieved. Both of the site frontages are greater than 10 metres in length. The 

Chapel Street frontage, at ground floor, would have vertical elements which 

would provide a sense of separation and identity for the three commercial 

premises. There would be three openings to this façade, providing access to 

the shops. The Duke Street façade would be well articulated through the use 

of materials and openings. This façade would feature glazing and a glazed 

mosaic tile finish. The car park entry would feature a security tilting door of 

vertical metal bars (black powder coated) and the scooter storage would 

feature a slotted roller door. The pedestrian entry to the dwellings would be 

located on the Duke Street frontage, which would provide a break in the built 

form and enhance human interaction along this frontage of the building. 

Vehicular access must be provided from the rear or side of lots. 

Achieved. Vehicular access to the site would be from the side street. 

Side and rear setbacks at boundaries with properties zoned Residential 1 

should comply with the objectives of Clause 55.04-1 (side and rear setbacks 

objective) of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. 

The applicant’s plans demonstrate that the setbacks from the residential 

property to the west would generally follow the Clause 55 side and rear setback 

‘envelope’. 

Development at boundaries with properties zoned Residential 1 should comply 

with the objectives of Clause 55.04-5 (overshadowing of open space) of the 

Port Phillip Planning Scheme. 

The development would satisfy the requirements of Clause 55 with regard to 

overshadowing of private open space. The private open spaces of the 

adjoining dwellings are located to the southwest of the subject site. Clause 55 

requires the assessment of overshadowing at the equinox and, at this time, 

shadows would not reach private open space. Shadows would be cast over the 

rooftops of the adjoining dwellings. 

9 ASSESSMENT OF KEY ISSUES 

9.1 Car parking 

40



Applying Rescode carparking rates, in accordance with Council policy, the 

development would require the following car parking rates: 

Resident car parking spaces = 21 

Visitor car parking spaces = 4 

The proposal would provide a total of 20 car parking spaces on site. In 

accordance with Council policy, one space per shop would be required, thus 

leaving 17 car spaces for residential purposes. 

Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy and Parking Rates, allows the 

application of reduced parking rates down from 1 space per dwelling to 0.8 

spaces per dwelling under the following circumstances: 

• Within or no more than 200 metres walk to edge of an Activity Centre. 

Achieved. 

• No more than 200 metres to fixed rail public transport. 

Achieved. 

• In the order of 400 metres to a full line (over 1,500m 2 ) supermarket. 

Achieved. 

• Strict control of on-street parking in surrounding streets. 

Achieved. One-hour zones and permit zones exist in Duke Street. Some 

objectors have stated that these zones are not sufficiently enforced by 

Council’s parking officers. This is a matter to be raised with Council’s Parking 

Enforcement department. The existence of these zones within Duke Street is 

relevant to this policy. 

• No Resident Permits for future owner/occupants. 

Achieved. 

• Provision of motor scooter/motorbike parking on site. 

Achieved. Space is provided in the design for 6 scooters. 

• Small dwellings only. 

The two bedroom dwellings, whilst small in area with the largest being 72sqm, 

are not considered small in the context of this policy. It is appropriate to apply 

a rate of one car space per dwelling for the two bedroom dwellings and only 

apply the ‘reduced’ rate to the one bedroom dwellings. This would be 

consistent with the approach taken by Council for the development at 161 

Chapel Street. 

For the 10 two-bedroom dwellings, 10 car spaces would therefore be required, 

leaving 7 spaces available for the 11 one-bedroom dwellings. Note: for the 

purpose of this assessment, dwelling 6 is included in the calculation of twobedroom 

dwellings. This dwelling has a large study which could feasibly be 

used as a second bedroom and this dwelling has an overall area of 62sqm 

which would not constitute a small dwelling, in the context of this policy. The 

largest of the remaining one-bedroom dwellings would be 52sqm, with all 

others being less than 50sqm. 

41



Seven spaces for 11 dwellings would equate to a car parking rate of 0.64 car 

spaces per dwelling. In considering whether to reduce parking provision further 

below 0.8 spaces per dwelling for these smaller dwellings, the following 

additional Sustainable Parking Policy requirements should be satisfied: 

• Participation in car share scheme or other similar initiatives. 

Not achieved. A car share scheme is not proposed on site. However, the 

subject site is located within approximately 240m of a Flexicar car space on 

Carlisle Street (outside the St Kilda Town Hall). There is a second Flexicar car 

space located less than 500m from the subject site, also on Carlisle Street, 

near Balaclava Station. 

• Be located within a mixed use development or in an employment precinct. 

Achieved. The subject site is located within an activity centre with optimal 

access to employment opportunities. 

• Other contributions to sustainable transport infrastructure or services. 

Not achieved. Can be achieved through permit condition. 

• Other initiatives to reduce usage and/or ownership of motor vehicles 

Not achieved. Can be achieved through permit condition. 

Other contributions to sustainable transport infrastructure or services and 

initiatives to reduce usage and/or ownership of motor vehicles may be 

encouraged by the requirement for a green transport plan (refer proposed 

condition 5). 

Given the high level of compliance with the above aspects of the Sustainable 

Transport Policy and Parking Rates policy, and the site’s location within an 

activity centre, the proposed level of car parking is considered appropriate. 

9.2 Bicycle Parking: 

Clause 52.34 would require bicycle parking as follows: 

Resident bicycle parking spaces: 4 

Visitor bicycle parking spaces: 2 

Space would be provided in the proposal for 10 bicycles. Seven bike racks 

would be located in an area adjacent to the entry lobby and space for 3 bikes is 

designated within the car park. 

The combined floor area of the proposed retail tenancies would be 192sqm. 

Clause 52.34 does not require the provision of bicycle parking for retail space 

of this size. 

9.3 Amenity impacts 

Overshadowing 

There would only be potential for overshadowing of the dwelling to the west of 

the subject site. The private open space of this dwelling is located 

approximately 15 metres to the southwest of the subject site. Due to its 

location, this space would not be overshadowed by the proposed development. 

42



Whilst the Planning Scheme provisions do not strictly apply to overshadowing 

to windows, the applicant has prepared a 3 dimensional shadow diagram 

(provided at the consultation meeting) to demonstrate the potential impact on a 

highlight window located on the boundary wall of 41 Duke Street, facing onto 

the laneway. The diagrams demonstrate that, at the equinox, the proposal 

would overshadow this window but that the window would be free of shadow by 

10.30am. This is considered to be an acceptable outcome, given that a 

sufficient light court would be provided to this window, which would allow for 

daylight access to the window. 

It is noted that the owner/occupiers of this dwelling have expressed concern 

regarding sunlight access to the dwelling during winter. The planning scheme 

restricts consideration of overshadowing only to the equinox. 

Overlooking 

As noted in Section 8.5 of this report, views to adjoining private open spaces 

would be significantly beyond the 9m arc specified in Rescode as a guide. It is 

acknowledged that views do not end at 9 metres. The extent to which 

unreasonable overlooking would occur is relevant in this context. The 

Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development acknowledge that “to 

completely restrict views to adjoining properties as well as other dwellings 

within the development is unrealistic. However, the orientation and layout of 

buildings and internal spaces should encourage views of public and shared 

communal spaces, while avoiding directly facing private spaces in close 

proximity.” The orientation of the proposed balconies has the benefit of a 

northern orientation and an orientation to the public realm, thus providing 

opportunities for passive surveillance and interaction with the street. Whilst the 

balconies would directly face the private open space to the north, it is 

considered that the separation of approximately 22m from the balconies to the 

private open space would ameliorate overlooking impacts. It is therefore not 

recommended that the north facing balconies be screened or treated to prevent 

further overlooking. Given the distance toward the private open spaces to the 

southwest of approximately 16m and the oblique angles involved, it is also not 

recommended that the west facing windows at levels 3 and 4 be screened. 

Noise 

The predominant use on the site would be residential, which is an appropriate 

response to the site, given the residential interfaces to the north and west. 

Objectors referred to the noise resulting from additional residents living in the 

street and the potential for these residents to be noisier than the current 

residents in the street, who comprise families and older residents. These are 

not relevant planning matters. 

9.4 Compliance with Carlisle Street Structure Plan and Urban Design 

Framework 

An assessment against the requirements of the Urban Design Framework has 

been undertaken in Section 8 of this report. The proposal would achieve the 

strategic outcomes sought by the Structure Plan and would satisfy the design 

requirements outlined in the Urban Design Framework. 

9.5 Sustainable Design 

The proposal would include the following sustainable design initiatives: 

43



• On site rainwater harvesting 

• Ceiling fans and cross ventilation 

• North facing living areas and private open space 

• Solar control to windows 

• Reuse of existing building fabric 

9.6 Loading of vehicles 

The proposed retail premises are small (54, 68 and 70sqm respectively). It is 

therefore not anticipated that large delivery vehicles would be required to 

service these businesses. There is an on-street loading zone at the front of 147 

Chapel Street and two more loading zones nearby, in sufficient proximity to the 

subject site (178 and 206 Carlisle Street). These three loading zones would be 

sufficient to service these premises. 

Clause 52.07 states that a permit may be granted to reduce or waive the 

statutory requirements for loading and unloading of vehicles if either: 

• The land area is insufficient. 

• Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the 

satisfaction of the responsible authority. 

Given the availability of on-street loading zones and the floor area of the 

proposed shops, it is considered that the requirement for on-site loading 

facilities can reasonably be waived. It would not be practical to provide both 

car parking and loading facilities on the subject site. 

9.7 Environmental Audit Overlay 

Council has a standard condition that it applies to developments on land 

affected by the Environmental Audit Overlay. This condition relates to 

environmental condition, monitoring and remediation of land, and should be 

included as a permit condition, if an approval is issued (refer proposed 

condition 18). 

9.8 Commercial Uses 

10 COVENANTS 

It is noted that the applicant’s plans describe the ground floor commercial uses 

as “retail”. In the interests of clarity, it is recommended that the plans be 

modified to read “shop”. The land use “shop” does not require a planning 

permit in the Business 1 zone. This change would therefore not impact on the 

application under consideration. The land use term “retail premises” does 

require a planning permit and includes a number of other uses such as 

manufacturing sales. Specifying the narrower land use term of “shop” on the 

plans would avoid any future confusion regarding the uses envisaged by the 

permit. It is recommended that this change to the plans be required by a permit 

condition, if an approval is issued (refer proposed condition 1(d)). 

10.1 The subject land is not subject to any restrictive covenants. 

44



11 OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST 

11.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect 

interest in the matter. 

12 OPTIONS 

• Approve as recommended 

• Approve with changed conditions 

• Refuse - on key issues 

13 CONCLUSION 

13.1 The application is consistent with State and Local policies which seek to 

increase residential densities in activity centres and reduce reliance on car 

usage. 

13.2 The proposal is consistent with the design requirements of the Carlisle Street 

Structure Plan and Urban Design Framework. 

13.3 The proposed design would not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on 

adjoining and surrounding residential sites. 

13.4 Subject to conditions, the application is considered worthy of support and it is 

recommended that a Notice of Decision be issued. 

14 RECOMMENDATION – NOTICE OF DECISION 

14.1 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. 

14.2 That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit be issued for partial demolition and 

the construction of alterations and additions to the building (3 additional levels), 

use of levels 1-4 as dwellings and a reduction in the carparking and the waiving 

of the loading requirements at 141 Chapel Street, St Kilda. 

14.3 That the decision be issued as follows: 

1. Amended Plans required 

Before the use and development starts, 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 the plans submitted with the application but 

modified to show: 

a) Deletion of the bathroom window on level 4, east elevation, and 

replacement with a skylight 

b) The materials and finishes of the scooter garage door to match either 

the carpark door or the louvred screens 

c) Deletion of the painted cement infill panel shown on the east elevation 

in plan TP-08A 

d) The commercial uses on the ground floor plan noted as “shops” 

45



All of the details required above are to be 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. Sustainable Design Statement 

Before the development commences a revised Sustainable Design 

Statement that outlines proposed sustainable design initiatives must be 

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval 

the statement will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the 

project must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives listed. 

5. Green Transport Plan 

Before the development commences, a green travel plan to the 

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, prepared by a suitably qualified 

professional, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible 

Authority. The green travel plan must provide detailed advice regarding 

how traffic movements, and staff parking will be managed and ensure an 

alternative, non-private vehicle transport modes will be encouraged and 

ensured. The plan should also identify specific opportunities for the 

provision of more sustainable transport options and encouragement of 

their use. The plan must include but not be limited to: 

a. Tram, train and bus timetables be installed in prominent locations in 

lifts and public areas (on noticeboards, etc); 

b. Bicycle parking areas to be installed in well secured and prominent 

locations; 

c. Install signs in prominent locations advising of the location of existing 

and proposed share car schemes, bicycle parking facilities for 

residents and visitor, tram stops, taxi ranks, railway stations, bus 

stops and bicycle paths. 

d. Ensure that access to the on-site parking is restricted and controlled. 

e. Establish a car-pooling database for residents 

f. Establish seed funding for the Owners Corporation to allocate for the 

purchase of public transport fares and on-line shopping deliveries. 

g. Specific targets to guide the plans ongoing implementation; 

h. Identify persons responsible for the implementation of actions; 

i. Estimate timescales and costs for each action; 

j. include a plan for monitoring and review of the Travel Plan on an 

annual basis for at least three years. 

Once submitted and approved, the Green Travel Plan will be endorsed as 

part of the permit and the requirements of the plan must be implemented 

within 3 months of the completion of the development to the satisfaction 

of the Responsible Authority. 

46



6. Satisfactory continuation 

Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to 

the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 

7. Walls on or facing the boundary 

Prior to the occupation of the building(s) allowed by this permit, all new or 

extended walls on or facing the boundary of adjoining properties and/or 

the laneway must be cleaned and finished to a uniform standard. 

Unpainted or unrendered masonry walls must have all excess mortar 

removed from the joints and face and all joints must be tooled or pointed 

to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Painted or rendered or 

bagged walls must be finished to a uniform standard to the satisfaction of 

the responsible authority. 

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 

No plant, equipment or domestic services (including any associated 

screening devices) or architectural features, other than those shown on 

the endorsed plan are permitted, except where they would not be visible 

from a street (other than a lane) or public park without the written consent 

of the responsible authority. 

10. Construction Management Plan 

Prior to the commencement of the development allowed by this permit, a 

construction management plan must be prepared, including a works 

program, with the objective of minimising the impact of construction works 

on the nearby residential properties to the satisfaction of the responsible 

authority. The plan must specify the means of reducing the construction 

impact (at the cost of the applicant) of dust and noise on the nearby 

properties, and must provide that hours of work be in accordance with 

any relevant Local Law. 

11. Parking and bicycle parking areas must be available 

Car and bicycle parking and access lanes must be kept available for 

those purposes at all times and must not be used for any other purpose 

such as storage. 

12. Vehicle Crossing Plan 

Prior to the commencement of the development, a vehicle crossing 

design plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible 

Authority. The plan must show: 

a) The footpath, its width and surface (concrete, asphalt, other) 

b) All physical constraints (posts, poles, infrastructure, street trees, 

etc) 

47



c) Levels to AHD at the following points: 

• Centre of the road 

• Channel invert 

• Outside edge of the footpath (where applicable) 

• At property boundary 

d) Distances between the AHD points 

13. Vehicle crossings 

Vehicle crossings must be constructed in accordance with Council’s 

current Vehicle Crossing Guidelines and standard drawings to the 

satisfaction of the responsible authority. All redundant crossings must be 

removed and the footpath, naturestrip, kerb and road reinstated to the 

satisfaction of the responsible authority. Vehicular crossings must be 

constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of 

the responsible authority, before the use is commenced or building 

occupied. 

14. Applicant to pay for reinstatement 

Prior to the completion of the development, the Applicant/Owner must do 

the following things to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: 

a) Pay the costs of all alterations/reinstatement of Council and Public 

Authority assets necessary and required by such Authorities for the 

development. 

b) Obtain the prior written approval of the Council or other relevant 

Authority for such alterations/reinstatement. 

c) Comply with conditions (if any) required by the Council or other 

relevant Authorities in respect of alterations/reinstatement. 

15. Car stacker maintenance and provision 

The mechanical car stackers are to be maintained in a good working 

order and be permanently available for the parking of vehicles in 

accordance with their purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible 

Authority. 

16. Car Parking Allocation 

The car parking allocation for this development must be: 

• not less than one car space for each two bedroom apartment; 

• not less than one car space per commercial tenancy. 

17. Laneways to be kept clear 

During the construction of the buildings and works allowed by this permit, 

the laneway adjacent to the subject land must be kept free of parked or 

standing vehicles or any other obstruction, including building materials, 

equipment etc. so as to maintain free vehicular passage to abutting 

benefiting properties at all times, unless with the written consent of the 


48



18. Environmental Audit 

The operator under the permit and the owner of the land must provide to 

the Responsible Authority any reports or testing results in respect of the 

environment condition of the land or groundwater or any other relevant 

nearby property requested by the Responsible Authority. 

Prior to development of the land (excluding works necessarily forming 

part of the environmental audit process), the Responsible Authority must 

be provided with a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit 

issued by an Environmental Auditor pursuant to the Environment 

Protection Act 1970 

Any use, development or development and use permitted by this permit 

must comply with the conditions imposed in any relevant Statement of 

Environmental Audit. The Responsible Authority must be provide with a 

letter prepared by and signed by the Environmental Auditor (appointed 

pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970) in respect of the land to 

verify that any relevant conditions set out in any Statement of 

Environmental Audit issued for the land have been satisfied. 

The Responsible Authority may require the owner of the land to prepare 

and enter into an agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and 

Environment Act 1987 at the owner’s cost and to be registered on title, to 

achieve one or more of the following objectives: 

• Compliance with the conditions of any Statement of 

Environmental Audit issued in respect of the land; 

• Providing appropriate security to ensure an ability to achieve 

compliance with any requirements of the Responsible Authority 

relating to the environmental condition of the land, including the 

conditions incorporated in any Statement of Environmental Audit; 

• To ensure clear notice to future occupiers of the land (or parts of 

the land) as to the environmental condition of the land, any 

remediation, monitoring or validation obligations in respect of the 

land, including conditions of any Statement of Environmental 

Audit. 

• Notification of any future occupiers of the land of any conditions 

attached in any Statement of Environmental Audit. 

Upon any proposed sale of the land, the owner is directed by the 

Responsible Authority to provide within any proposed sale 

documentation, any relevant Statement of Environmental Audit applicable 

to the land or part thereof. 

19. Waste Management 

Prior to the commencement of the development, a Waste Management 

Plan based on the draft “Best Practice Guidelines for Kerbside Recycling 

at Multi-Occupancy Residential Developments (Sustainability Victoria 

June 2006) must be prepared by a Waste Management Engineer or 

Waste Management Planner to the satisfaction of the Responsible 

Authority and endorsed as part of this permit. The Plan must include 

reference to the following: 

• The estimated garbage and recycling generation volumes for the 

whole development. 

49

Permit Notes 



• The garbage and recycling equipment to be used and the collection 

service requirements, including the frequency of collection. 

• The location of, proximity, screening of and space allocated both to the 

garbage and recycling storage areas and collection points. 

• The path of access for both users and collection vehicles. 

• How noise, odour and litter will be managed and minimised. 

• Approved facilities for washing bins and storage areas. 

• Who is responsible for each stage of the waste management process. 

• How tenants and residents will be regularly informed of the waste 

management arrangements. 

Once approved, the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed as part of 

the permit and all waste collection and management must be undertaken 

in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the 


Melbourne Water conditions 

20. No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or 

indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses. 

21. The entry to the carpark must be no lower than 5.5 metres to Australian 

Height Datum. 

22. All openings, such as windows, vents to the carpark must be 300mm 

above the applicable flood level. 

23. All finished floor levels for the lobby must be 300mm above the applicable 

flood levels. 

24. The retail spaces must be no lower than the existing floor levels. 

25. The owners must enter into a Section 173 agreement for the floodgate. 

The Section 173 Agreement is to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the 

floodgate. 

(End Melbourne Water conditions) 

26. Time for starting and completion 

This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: 

a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of this 

permit. 

b) The development is not completed within two (2) years of the date of 

commencement of works. 

c) The use is not commenced within two (2) years. 

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. 

50



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 the 

appropriate building approval under the Building Code Australia. 

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. 

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 adjoining building and property. 

Days and Hours of Construction Works 

Developers 

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. 

Owner Builders 

Except in the case of an emergency, an owner/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 8.00pm; or 

- Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays: 9.00am to 6.00pm. 

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. 

Cross-over Permit Required 

Across-over permit must be obtained from Council (contact 9209 6216) prior to the carrying 

out of any vehicle crossing works. 

Permit required for signs 

This permit relates only to the use and development of the land and does not comprise an 

approval for the erection of any advertising signs. The location and details of any advertising 

signs to be erected on the land and not exempt pursuant to the Port Phillip Planning 

Scheme, must be the subject of a separate planning permit application. 

No resident or visitor parking permits 

The owners and occupiers of the development allowed by this permit will not be eligible for 

Council resident or visitor parking permits. 

51



Melbourne Water Notes 

The flood level for the property grades from 5.5 metres along the western boundary up to 5.8 

metres to Australian Height Datum at the eastern boundary. 

If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions shown 

above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9235-2517, quoting Melbourne 

Water’s reference 161194. 

52

city of port phillip report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?