Agenda item

SUMMARY

The proposal is for the use and development of the land for a child care centre, the removal of four trees from the subject land and one road reserve tree to accommodate the accessway to the site.

The child care centre will accommodate 96 children and provides 705 squaremetres of outdoor play area. The two-storey building has a contemporary built form, with a visually interesting combination of materials, articulated wall and roof articulation, with flat and skillion roofs. Twenty one car parking spaces are proposed to support the development, which complies with the requirements of Clause 52.06 Car Parking.

The trees to be removed are a combination of exotic deciduous and conifer species, an Australian native and indigenous species. A landscaping plan (attachment 4) has been provided with the application which shows the replantingof two canopy trees on siteand a varietyof shrubs within the rear, front and side setbacks.

To manage amenity impacts from noise, a two-metre-high acoustic fence isproposed along the western and southern interfaces at ground level and to the first floor external play area.

A wastemanagement planaccompanies theproposal whichshows a dedicatedarea for the storage of bins, to be collected outside of centre operating hours by a private waste operator.

The application has received 18 objections, with the main concerns including traffic impacts on Gear Avenue and the surrounding road network, vegetation impacts and tree loss, development design, and the use not being supported by the planning controls.A community consultation session resulted in further traffic investigation by the applicant, with a supplementary report submitted for consideration. The application was referred to Country Fire Authority (CFA) and Department of Transport (DOT) and both have provided consent to the application. 

The proposal has been assessed against the planning scheme and on balance the development is considered to meet the requirements and should be supported, subject to conditions. 

In accordance with Governance Rule 58, Franc Smith spoke in objection of the recommendation included in the officer report.

In accordance with Governance Rule 58, Cameron Bloomfield and Henry Wood spoke in support of the recommendation included in the officer report.

Cr Heenan moved a motion alternate to that printed in the agenda.

Moved: Cr Heenan
Seconded: Cr Cox

That Council resolve to refuse Planning Application YR-2022/782 for the use and development of a child care centre and associated vegetation removal(including roadreserve tree) at 1A Gear Avenue,Mount Evelyn and issue a Notice ofRefusal on the following grounds:

1.         The proposal does not respond to State Planning Policies within the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme as the development fails to:

a.          ensure the interface between public and private realm enhances personal safety,

b.         the design and location of publicly accessible spaces does not create a safe environment for users,

c.         the development, including signs, does not minimise detrimental impacts on amenity and the natural built environment and on the safety and efficiency of roads, and

d.         neighbourhood character and sense of place is not adequately protected.

2.         The development fails to respond to Clause 18.0-1S as it does not facilitate an efficient and safe road network that integrates all movement networks and makes best use of existing infrastructure, and does not protect the existing transport infrastructure from unreasonable detrimental impact.

3.         The proposal fails to respond to Clauses 11, 12, 13, 15 of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme, as the proposed development:

a.         fails to contribute to a sense of place;

b.         is of a scale or intensity which will detract from the amenity of the residential neighbourhood;

c.         the scale of the building is out of context with the existing dwellings and neighbourhood character of the immediate area;

d.         is inappropriately located in a low residential area;

e.         increases risk to life in a bushfire situation;

f.introduces unacceptable noise impacts into a residential neighbourhood;

g.         is an incompatible use for the neighbourhood; and

h.         the setbacks create adverse impacts on adjoining residential lots.

4.         The proposal fails to meet the purpose of Clause 32.03 Low Density Residential Zone in that the proposed built form does not respond to the Planning Policy Framework.

5.         The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 22, as:

a.         The development fails to recognise or conserve the environmental and visual sensitivity of the residential area. The height and prominence on the streetscape fails to be inconspicuous in profile and dominates the landscape;

b.         The development is not sensitive to the natural characteristics of the land in that the proposed building is excessively high, visually bulky and out of character in the immediate residential fabric; and

c.         Setbacks are not generous and consistent with nearby dwellings;

d.         Site coverage is excessive and is not consistent with nearby dwellings;

e.         The development unduly impinges on the existing vegetation and detrimentally impacts retained trees both onsite and offsite.

6.         The Development conflicts with Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 2 as the development fails to:

a.         Maintain a low rise character of the town centre;

b.         The development exceeds 8m in height;

c.         Creates visual expanse of roof line and lacks visual interest;

d.         Fails to appropriately respond to the slope of the site to minimise visual bulk; and

e.         Fails to make a positive contribution to the character of the town centre due to the visual bulk viewed from Wray Crescent.

7.         The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 52.06 - Carparking, in particular:

a.         The street network cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use and increased 217% traffic flow on the lower order road resulting in a cumulative demand which cannot be accommodated without unreasonable detriment;

b.         That overflow car parking on residential streets will result in an unreasonable amenity impacts and additional car parking demand on the surrounding residential area;

c.         The increased traffic as a result of the development does not achieve a safe, functional environment for users;

d.         The cumulative impacts of the development with surrounding land uses have not been adequately addressed to ensure safe and efficient use of the road network;

e.         The proposed safety treatments do not mitigate safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists of Gear Avenue and the York Road/Gear Avenue signalised  intersection;

f.          The development fails to respond to the role and function of nearby roads and the ease and safety with which vehicles access and egress the site.

g.         The proposal will create increased traffic flows along the Gear Avenue and View Street to a road network that is a single road width, gravel road.

h.         The potential to create impacts on the turning area along York Road Service lane from traffic off View Street will create unacceptable risk to motorists and pedestrians.

8.         The proposal is inconsistent with the decision guidelines in Clause 65.01.

The motion was lost.

Cr Heenan called for a division:

Cr Heenan called for a division:

In Favour:      Cr Cox, Cr Heenan, and Cr Higgins

Against:         Mayor Child, Deputy Mayor Todorov, Cr Fullagar and Cr McAllister

Absent:          Cr Eastham and Cr Skelton