Save Dimmeys Stage2

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 - YARRA PLANNING SCHEME. CITY OF YARRA. OBJECTION TO GRANT OF PLANNING PERMIT. SUBMISSION TO YARRA CITY COUNCIL. WHAT APPLICATION DO YOU OBJECT TO? APPLICATION REFERENCE NO: PLN11/0953.

APPLICATION: USE OF THE LAND FOR 42 DWELLINGS WITH AN ASSOCIATED REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT (DWELLING & CAFÉ USES) AND WAIVER OF THE LOADING BAY REQUIREMENT (N0TE: THE APPLICATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 9 STOREY BUILDING (PLUS CAR STACKER PIT) WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 52(1)(A),(B) AND (D), THE DECISION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 64(1), (2) AND (3) AND THE REVIEW RIGHTS OF SECTION 82(1) OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987).

LAND: 1-3 Railway Place, Cremorne 3121. APPLICANT: RICHMOND ICON PTY LTD. The Richmond Icon Unit Trust PLANNED FX PTY LTD.

REASONS FOR OBJECTION: I/We the undersigned hereby submit to Yarra City Council that:

1.The scale, height and architectural quality of the proposed development do not respond to the site context nor fit into the emerging built form context and streetscape.

2.The proposed development will have a monolithic appearance and will be visually dominating in Railway Place, Swan Street and the immediate surrounding area, and will have a negative impact to the visual amenity of the neighbouring zone.

3.The proposed development fails to adequately respond to the off-site amenity impacts on the immediate neighbours to the north, south, east and west through overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk.

4.The proposed vehicular access will create an unreasonable impact on amenity and safety within surrounding streets, particularly along Railway Place, Green Street, Swan Street, Shakespeare Place and Royal Place.

5.The bulk, location and appearance of the proposed buildings and works are not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings, of the neighbouring precinct

6.The design, form, layout, proportion and scale of the proposed buildings and works are incompatible with the period, style, form, proportion, and scale of the heritage precinct surrounding the site.

7.The layout and appearance of areas set aside for car parking, access and egress, loading and unloading and the location of any proposed off street car parking is inadequate in relation to the density of the site.

8.The proposal does not interface well with neighbouring adjoining zones, especially the relationship with the neighbouring R1 residential zone.

9.The subdivision will result in development, which is not in keeping with the character and appearance of nearby buildings, the streetscape or the area.

10.The waiver of the loading bay is inadequate for the storage of rubbish receptable and materials for recycling.

11.The new Nine (9)-storey building does not reflect the built form character of the area in which it is located which is predominantly 19th century two-storey construction.

12.The proposed Nine (9) -storey developments will result in the abutting neighbourhood losing its integrity as a designated heritage area and therefore become more vulnerable to out of character proposals.

13.The surrounding neighbourhood, its buildings and / or features reflect the historic character of the area, which is highly valued by the local people and the wider public.

14.A development of the nature, size and scale of that proposed subjects abutting and neighbouring properties within the heritage area to become at risk for pressure for change i.e overdevelopment and out of character development

15.Construction of a building of the nature size and scale of that proposed will result in neighbouring individual buildings in the heritage area being stripped of their significance and relevance with Swan Street.

16.The nature size and scale of the proposed building in context with the abutting and surrounding heritage precinct areas, prejudices the heritage area to significant detriment, via vulnerability to change and its capacity to absorb changes through out of character developments and overdevelopment

17.The development as proposed will have a significant increase in vehicle movements in Railway Place which is a two way carriage way of exceedingly narrow proportions and which allows unrestricted parking along its northern boundary and provides minimal pedestrian refuge on its southern boundary, this will result in traffic flow in Railway Place being restricted at certain times, such as peak periods particularly when the neighbourhood Coles Supermarket semi-trailer arrives and departs.

18.The proposed removal of existing vegetation, which constitutes mature trees and shrubs, is not in accordance with Councils preferred policy of retaining mature vegetation and environmental sustainability especially as this vegetation provides nesting places for several Rosella species and other bird species as yet unidentified.

19.The height of the structure proposed and the reflectivity of its glazed surfaces and lack of sound attenuation devices will result in off-site glare and noise at certain times of day and night when each and every train passes.

20.The proposed development is to be constructed from materials, which are not in keeping with the materials used in built form nearby. I.e. Predominantly face brickwork resulting in a devaluing of the aesthetic of neighbourhood on which it is located.

21.The proposal will exacerbate parking problems in the area as firstly it removes time sensitive paid parking from the site itself for approximately thirty (30) vehicles and from Railway Place site frontage which is unrestricted parking.

22.The height and bulk of the development is inappropriate for the neighbourhood context and fails to comply with objectives contained in policy at clauses 15.01-1 (Urban Design), and 21.05-2 (Urban Design) of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

23.The height and scale of the development will visually dominate the heritage precinct immediately abutting to the north, which is contrary to the purpose of the heritage overlay at clause 43.01.

24.The proposed development fails to adequately respond to the off-site amenity impacts on the immediate neighbours to the north, west and south through overlooking, and visual bulk by failing to comply with Objective 2.6 of the former Department of Sustainability and Environment’s (DSE) Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.

25.The provision of car parking for the use of each unit holder and their visitors is insufficient for visitors and disabled parking proposed.

26.The proposed development makes no provision for bicycle parking or secure storage for either resident or visitors,

27.The height and scale of the development will visually dominate the heritage precinct immediately abutting the site to the north. This development as a result, compromises the purpose of the heritage precinct, for the heritage overlay at Clause 43.01.

28.The height and scale of the development proposal is prejudicial to the future planning of the zone, as it already exceeds Councils accepted and recommended height limits.

29.The proposal does not respect the existing character and heritage values of the East Richmond railway station

30.The proposal is contrary to the existing neighbourhood character of the area. The proposed development is out of character and its relationship to the surrounding public setting.

31.The proposed design response, and architectural features does not make a positive contribution to the area’s character, and detracts from the areas valued natural, built and community qualities.

32.The massing and overall height is inappropriate to the context and the site.

33.The development does not contribute to the quality of adjoining streets and other public places.

34.The development is not consistent with the strategic location of the site and the urban context.

35.The proposed urban design does not facilitate in creating distinctive places that reflect and contribute to local character and identity.

36.The proposal does not contribute to the public realm, and the building massing does not respond to neighbouring properties.

37.The design response does not support the preferred neighbourhood character of the area

38.The proposed height of the new development does not respond to existing urban context and surrounding neighbourhood character objectives of the area. The proposal does not reinforce valued aspects of existing neighbourhood character.

39.The proposal does not set back upper levels to create a pedestrian scale at street level, and mitigate unwanted wind effects. The design mass of the building has not been setback to create a sensitive interface with adjoining buildings. The building design does not relate sensitively to existing lower scale building that will remain in the area.

40.The proposal does not respond to the local physical context in a way that makes a positive contribution to the pedestrian environment at street level.

In lodging this OBJECTION, I believe that I would be affected for the aforementioned reasons.