Agenda of Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

5 February 2025

10.1	Planning permit application at 1 and 2/30 Kalymna Grove St Kilda East
location/address:	1 and 2/30 KALYMNA GROVE ST KILDA EAST
Executive Member:	Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development
PREPARED BY:	Max England, Urban Planner

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To determine a planning application involving full demolition of a significant graded dwelling and associated outbuildings and structures on land subject to a Heritage Overlay.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ward:	Alma Ward
Trigger for determination BY COUNCIL:	Pursuant to the Instrument of Delegation to Members of Council Staff dated November 2024, an application that involves ‘substantive non-compliance with the Scheme or Council policy’ are to be reported to the Planning Committee or Council. This application involves substantive non-compliance with Council’s Heritage Policy at Clause 15.03 of the Scheme in relation to the demolition of a significant graded dwelling.
ApplicATION NO:	PDPL/00440/2024
Applicant:	Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of Port Phillip City Council
Existing use:	Dwelling
Abutting uses:	The subject land has one direct abuttal to the south, a single dwelling zoned as Neighbourhood Residential.
Zoning:	Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 5 (NRZ5)
Overlays:	Heritage Overlay – Schedule 389 (HO389)

2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of a significant graded dwelling and associated outbuildings and structures on site at 1 and 2/30 Kalymna Grove St Kilda East (site).

2.2 The demolition would enable the construction of park on the site. However, development of the park does not form part of this application. The scope of council’s consideration relates only to the proposed demolition of the buildings on site.

2.3 The site is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ5). A zoning map is contained within Attachment 1. There are no permit requirements for demolition under the NRZ5.

2.4 The site is also subject to a Heritage Overlay (HO389). The dwelling is graded as a ‘significant heritage place’. Significant heritage places:

Includes buildings and surrounds that are individually important places of either Victorian, regional or local heritage significance, or are places that, together within an identified area, are part of the significance of a Heritage Overlay. These places are included in a Heritage Overlay either as an area, or as an individually listed heritage place.

2.5 The site is not individually significant and does not have an individual heritage citation within the City of Port Phillip Heritage Review (Incorporated Document in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme).

2.6 The proposal is subject to the local heritage policy of Clause 15.03-1L of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (Scheme). These applicable strategies are to ‘Demolition and relocation’ which discourage the complete demolition of a significant or contributory building and encourage conservation unless a building is structurally unsound and cannot be repaired.

Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (City of Port Phillip, 2021) (Strategy).

2.7 On 8 December 2021, Council resolved to adopt the Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (City of Port Phillip, 2021) (Strategy). The Strategy guides the planning of existing and future public open space within the municipality.

2.8 Priority Action 14 of this strategy titled ‘Land acquisition in St Kilda East’ reads:

Provision for land acquisition for new public open space in St Kilda East. Location to be determined as part of a Land Acquisition and Road Discontinuance Strategy.

2.9 Council consulted with the community during the development of the Strategy. This provided opportunity for the public to input the future planning of public open spaces in the City of Port Phillip. Community feedback supported the expansion of public open space, particularly in Balaclava/St Kilda East, which has the lowest amount of open space across the municipality.

2.10 The demolition of the existing dwelling is considered acceptable where it would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the wider precinct. The Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street East St Kilda precinct would retain its significance and heritage value, despite the removal of the dwelling. This is due to the heritage significance coming from the collective heritage significance of the area as a whole rather than the individual significance of any one heritage building.

2.11 In the consideration of the impact on the collective heritage significance, the sites position as a corner site and at the edge of the street would ensure that the demolition would not create any ‘break’ or ‘hole’ in the heritage streetscape along Kalymna Grove. Moreover, the subject dwelling is not the only dwelling of its type and style within the precinct. It is also not a particularly unique or valuable example compared to other dwellings within the Heritage Overlay. The modified entry / porch and the replacement Colourbond roof means that the subject dwelling is less representative of the settlement in the precinct area.

2.12 It follows that, subject to the requirement from Council’s Heritage Advisor for the submission of a Heritage Impact Statement, the demolition of the dwelling at 1 and 2/30 Kalymna Grove St Kilda East would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the place and is an acceptable heritage outcome. It is recommended that Council grants a planning permit.

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That a Planning Permit be issued for the land at 1 and 2/30 Kalymna Grove St Kilda East with the following permissions:

· Clause 43.01-1 – Demolish or remove a building

3.2 That the decision be issued subject to the following conditions:

No alterations

1. The extent of demolition and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Satisfactory continuation and completion

2. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Heritage Interpretation Strategy

3. Before the demolition starts, a Heritage Interpretation Strategy (HIS) must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the HIS will form part of this permit. The HIS must be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage expert to identify how the history (Indigenous and post-contact) and significance of the heritage place will be incorporated into the planning and design of the future reserve.

Permit expiry

4. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

4. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

4.1 There is no relevant history or background for this site.

5. PROPOSAL

5.1 Demolition of the existing significant heritage building and associated outbuildings and structures on the site.

5.2 Removal of vegetation from the site, the removal of the existing vegetation on site would not require planning permission.

5.3 A copy of the proposed demolition plan is contained within Attachment 2.

6. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

	Description of Site and Surrounds
Site Area	The site is rectangular in shape with a 12.9 metre frontage to Kalymna Grove and a depth of 40.23 metres. The site is a total of 492m²
Existing building & site conditions	The site falls in an east-west direction and also in a north-south direction, with the lowest point of the site being the south-west corner. The site has three separate street frontages: West: Kalymna Grove North: Kurrajong Avenue East: Lansdowne Road The site is improved with a single storey dwelling of brick construction with a hipped corrugated iron roof. The dwelling has historically been split into two flats, being 1/30 and 2/30 Kalymna Grove. The Heritage Impact Statement that was submitted with the application provides a detailed summary of the existing dwelling. This statement describes the dwelling as a double fronted single storey house constructed in 1916-1917 with a Federation/early bungalow expression confused by the front verandah and entry. The Heritage Impact Statement notes that there are several elements that are not original or have been extensively modified. This includes the verandah / entry porch and the roof. The veranda / entry porch is noted as a feature having a more inter-war character, and which has been altered with infill between the verandah pillars with windows. The infill describes this more thoroughly as a feature that may have been done early after construction of the verandah or coincided with the verandah construction to create a sleep-out, however the use of sash horns that differ from those of the double hung windows to the house along the Kurrajong Avenue frontage demonstrate that at least the infill of the verandah was not a part of the original design. In describing the roof, the Heritage Impact Statement details that the main roof is hipped and clad in corrugated sheets in long lengths and appears to be a replacement of the original roofing. It is also noted that within Kalymna Grove the only other house with corrugated metal roofing is at No 27 Kalymna Grove. There is a garage to the north-east corner of the dwelling, serviced by a crossover to Kurrajong Avenue. The dwelling has a low masonry fence to Kalymna Grove and Kurrajong Avenue, wall on boundary from the garage and a timber paling fence present to the rear at Lansdowne Road.
Surrounds/neighbourhood character	The subject site is located at the north-eastern boundary of HO389 – Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street (East St Kilda). The City of Port Phillip Heritage Review (Incorporated Document in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme) describes the precinct as: The built fabric in the Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street precinct consists almost entirely of housing dating from the second half of the 1910s. Most of these are single-storey brick houses (either in the form of detached dwellings or semi-detached pairs) in the Queen Anne Revival style, popularly referred to ‘Federation’. These are typically asymmetrical in composition, with irregular hipped or gabled rooves mostly clad in red terracotta tiles, although some along Inkerman Street (eg Nos 346-48, 354-56, 358-60) have corrugated galvanised steel rooves. The surrounding built form is low scale residential with a built form of single to double storey. As outlined above, the site directly abuts roads on three sides. There is a direct abuttal with 28 Pakington Street to the south, a single storey dwelling graded as contributory within the heritage overlay.

Figure 1 Aerial view of the site and surrounds (source: Adapted from IntraMaps, captured 14 November 2024)

Figure 2 Subject site viewed from the west (source: taken by officer, August 2024)

Figure 3 subject site viewed from the north-west (source: taken by officer, August 2024)

Figure 4 subject site viewed from the north-east (source taken by officer, August 2024)

Figure 5 subject site viewed from the east (source: taken by officer, August 2024)

7. Permit Triggers

7.1 The following zone and overlay controls apply to the site, with planning permission required as described.

Zone or Overlay

Why is a Permit Required?

Clause 32.09-7 Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 5 (NRZ5)

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-7 a permit is required to:

· Construct a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on the lot.

· Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

· Extend a dwelling if there are two or more dwellings on the lot.

· Construct or extend a dwelling if it is on common property.

· Construct or extend a residential building.

This application is for demolition only, no planning permit is required under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Clause 43.01-1 Heritage Overlay – Schedule 389 (HO389)

Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required to:

· Demolish or remove a building

A planning permit is required under the Heritage Overlay.

8. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

8.1 Municipal Planning Strategy

Clause 02 Municipal Planning Strategy

02.1 Context

02.02 Vision

02.03 Strategic Directions

02.04 Strategic Framework Plans

8.2 Planning Policy Framework

Clause 15.03 Heritage

15.03-1S Heritage conservation

15.03-1L Heritage policy

8.3 Particular Provisions

Clause 52.31 Local Government Projects

52.31-2 Exemption from notice and review

8.4 General Provisions

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

65.01 Approval of an Application or Plan

8.5 Operational Provisions

Clause 71 Operation of this Planning Scheme

71.01 Operation of the Municipal Planning Strategy

71.02 Operation of the Planning Policy Framework

71.03 Operation of Zones

71.04 Operation of Overlays

71.05 Operation of Particular Provisions

8.6 Incorporated Documents

§ City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map (December 2021)

§ Port Phillip Heritage Review – Volumes 1-6 (December 2021)

8.7 Background Documents

§ Heritage Design Guidelines (City of Port Phillip, 2022)

§ Places for People: Public Space Strategy (City of Port Phillip, 2021)

8.8 Relevant Planning Scheme Amendment/s

There are no planning scheme amendments relevant to this application.

9. REFERRALS

9.1 Statutory referrals

The application was not required to be referred to any statutory referral authority.

9.2 Internal referrals

Heritage Advisor

No objection, subject to recommended condition:

This is an exceptional circumstance where the full demolition of a Significant heritage place may be permitted as there will be a demonstrated ‘net community benefit’ in the form of provision of public open space in an area that Council has identified has a demonstrated need. This provides a strategic justification that outweighs the impacts upon the integrity and significance of the Kalymna Grove heritage precinct. In accordance with good heritage practice I understand that several sites were considered, including some not included in the HO, but that this was ultimately was deemed to be the most suitable. A similar approach was taken with the recent demolition of 49 Pakington Street. To mitigate the potential the permit should include a condition similar to the one applied at 49 Pakington street for the development of an interpretation plan to identify how the history of the site and surrounding precinct can be interpretation in the future landscape design for the public open space.

Building

I have reviewed the engineer’s report prepared by Irwin Structures Forensic Engineers, dated 23 April 2024. The report identifies the need for restumping and/or repairs to the timber-framed subfloor, which is typical for a building of this age. However, it does not highlight any critical structural issues with the masonry walls that would necessitate the demolition of the building. Based on the provided information, it is reasonable to conclude that the building is not structurally unsound, and the masonry elements could be retained as part of any redevelopment if required by the council’s heritage policy.

10. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

10.1 Clause 52.31 (Local Government Projects) is applicable and provides exemptions for the development of land undertaken by or on behalf of a municipal council. The application meets the following exemption requirements in Clause 52.31-2 in that:

§ The permit application is an application to develop land by or on behalf of the Council.

§ The permit application does not have an estimated cost of development of more than $10 million. The estimated cost of development is $38,800.

10.2 Of relevance, ‘the demolition or removal of a building or works’ falls within the definition of ‘development’ as defined at section 3 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act).

10.3 The application is therefore 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 Act.

11. OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT

Policy

11.1 There is policy support for the conservation of heritage buildings at both a state and local level.

11.2 State policy for Heritage conservation at Clause 15.03-1S has the following objective:

To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance

11.3 Local Heritage policy includes the following general relevant strategies:

Conserve and enhance Significant and Contributory buildings as identified in the incorporated document in Schedule to Clause 72.04 ‘City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map’.

Avoid development that would result in the incremental or complete loss of significance of a heritage place by:

§ Demolishing or removing a building or feature identified as Significant or Contributory in the incorporated document in Schedule to Clause 72.04 ‘City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map.’

11.4 Specific local strategies for demolition and relocation include the following:

Discourage the complete demolition of any building or feature that contributes to the significance of a heritage place unless the building or feature is structurally unsound and the defects cannot be rectified.

11.5 The above policy outlines that the demolition of significant heritage buildings is to be discouraged. Conservation of heritage places is prioritised over demolition.

11.6 The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay include:

§ Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place

Structural soundness

11.7 The heritage policy does provide support for the demolition of a heritage buildings where they are found to be structurally unsound with defects that cannot be rectified.

11.8 The applicant has provided an engineer’s report prepared by Irwin Structures Forensic Engineers, dated 23 April 2024.

11.9 Council’s building officer has reviewed the engineers report and provided comments outlined at section 9.1 of this report.

11.10 Council’s building officer agreed that the report identified issues in need of repair, for example restumping.

11.11 However, they have concluded that the building is not structurally unsound with defects that cannot be rectified:

However, it does not highlight any critical structural issues with the masonry walls that would necessitate the demolition of the building. Based on the provided information, it is reasonable to conclude that the building is not structurally unsound, and the masonry elements could be retained as part of any redevelopment if required by the council’s heritage policy.

11.12 It is therefore considered that the building is not structurally unsound and irreparable, despite having some structural issues.

Heritage Impact Statement

11.13 The applicant has provided a Heritage Impact Statement in support of the application prepared by John Briggs – Architect and Conservation Consultant.

11.14 The report contends that:

‘The proposed removal of the extant dwelling on the subject site, in my view, can be accepted as having no detrimental effect upon either the understanding or the appreciation of the heritage value of the Kalymna Grove / Inkerman Street Precinct’.

11.15 Key considerations that underpin this contention include

§ ‘the subject house makes no particular or specific contribution that could be seen to be essential or fundamental to the heritage experience’

§ ‘At the periphery of the heritage precinct, and particularly with its very unique siting at the top of the hill with three street frontages, its removal will produce no obvious gap in the heritage streetscape or leave the streetscape evidently incomplete’.

§ The significant grading does not establish that the house on the property is individually significant, but rather that it is a place that contributes to a wider precinct as part of a significant collective group of places.

11.16 The report questions the significant grading applied to the subject site and conducts a comparative analysis of other, similar dwellings that have no heritage grading.

11.17 The report contends that the subject site contributes to the streetscape of the heritage streetscape as a whole but does not make an individual contribution to the heritage overlay compared to other local dwellings from the same period outside of the Heritage Overlay.

11.18 The location of the subject site at the edge of the Heritage Overlay precinct (refer figure 6) is looked upon favourably by the report, contended to limit the impact of any demolition on the precinct.

11.19 The report looks forward to the proposed public open space for the land as outlined in Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (City of Port Phillip, 2021) (Strategy).

11.20 The report contends that there would be net community benefit as a result of the subject land being used for the purposes of a public park.

11.21 The report acknowledges that policy support for the demolition of the existing dwelling at Clause 43.01 and 15.03 is limited, especially as the dwelling is not considered to be structurally unsound.

Figure 6 Extent of Heritage Overlay - Schedule 389 with the subject site shown in red, source: intramaps

Heritage Referral Comments

11.22 Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and provided referral comments in support of the application for demolition:

11.23 The referral comments look forward to the proposed public open space for the land as outlined in Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (City of Port Phillip, 2021) (Strategy).

11.24 The referral comments contends that there would be net community benefit as a result of the subject land being used for the purposes of a public park.

11.25 The comments acknowledge this is an exceptional circumstance, with policy support for the demolition of the existing dwelling at Clause 43.01 and 15.03 limited, especially as the dwelling is not considered to be structurally unsound.

Is the demolition of the existing dwelling and associated outbuildings and structures on the site an acceptable planning outcome?

Public Park

11.26 The Planning report and Heritage Impact Statement look forward to the proposed public open space for the land as outlined in Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (City of Port Phillip, 2021) (Strategy) in favour of the application.

11.27 Similarly, Council’s Heritage Advisor also assesses this as being in favour of the application.

11.28 It is important to note, this planning application is for the demolition of the buildings and structures on site only. The application does not include buildings and works for a new public park, or the rezoning of the land for a public park use.

11.29 Consideration can only be given to the Heritage Overlay and relevant heritage policy in determining this application.

Demolition

11.30 The proposed demolition of the dwelling would affect the significance of the subject site, by removing the significant building.

11.31 It is important to consider whether the removal of the dwelling would have unreasonable impacts on the Heritage Overlay precinct.

11.32 The statement of significance for the Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street (East St Kilda) is as follows:

Historically, the Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street Precinct provides evidence of a significant phase of settlement in the East St Kilda area. The estate, laid out from 1914 on the site of a market garden, developed very quickly over the next few years, and thus ably demonstrates how sought-after this area had become as a residential address in the early twentieth century.

Aesthetically, the Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street Precinct is a fine and particularly cohesive streetscape of housing from the period 1914 to c.1919, including representative and intact examples of detached and semi-detached housing of both brick and timber construction, almost entirely in the Queen Anne Revival style. They are characterised by asymmetrical composition, face red brickwork with rendered banding, bay windows and verandahs with turned timber posts and ornamental timberwork. The streetscape is enhanced by the sympathetic (if not original) timber picket fences to many properties.

11.33 In isolation, its demolition, while not desirable, will not unreasonably impact the significance of the heritage place (Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street (East St Kilda).

11.34 In Kalymna Street, the individual dwellings and their proximity combine to give the Heritage Overlay its value. That is to say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

11.35 No one individual dwelling within Kalymna Grove is considered to contribute to the Heritage Overlay more than the other dwellings within Kalymna Grove. This is evidenced by none of the properties within this heritage overlay having an individual citation within the City of Port Phillip Heritage.

11.36 The value of the heritage overlay precinct comes from the collective, rather than the individual.

11.37 The proposed demolition of the dwelling is not considered to have an unreasonable impact on the significance of the Heritage Overlay Precinct Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street (East St Kilda) HO389 for the following reasons:

§ The site is at the north-west corner of the Heritage Overlay area (refer figure 6). The site is also uniquely positioned with three street frontages. These site characteristics ensure that there would be no ‘break’ or ‘hole’ the Heritage Streetscape along Kalymna Grove.

§ The peripheral location of the site would ensure that the heritage character of Kalymna Street is not unreasonably affected.

§ The dwelling does contribute to the significance of the Heritage Overlay area. However, this contribution is not to the extent that its demolition would adversely affect the Heritage value of the wider precinct. The HO389 would retain its significance and heritage value, despite the removal of the dwelling.

§ The dwellings are consistent within the Heritage Overlay precinct with the statement of significance noting ‘With only four exceptions, the housing dates from the period 1914 to c.1919 and includes semi-detached pairs of brick dwellings and detached dwellings of both brick and timber construction, almost all in a Queen Anne Revival style’. The site is not the only dwelling of its type and style within the precinct, its loss would not render the precinct devoid of this style of dwelling.

§ The dwelling is not considered to be particularly unique or valuable compared to other dwellings within the Heritage Overlay and indeed outside of the Heritage Overlay area as identified in the Heritage Impact Statement. In fact, some of the specific features of the dwelling such as the modified entry / porch and the replacement Colourbond roof makes this a dwelling that it is less representative of the settlement in the East St Kilda Road area. The dwelling does not provide the typical aesthetic features of other dwelling within the heritage overlay. Most notably, the dwelling does not provide the terracotta tiles roof, bay window and verandah form and timber picket fence which are the key recognisable features that are identified in the heritage citation.

§ Council’s Heritage Advisor, acknowledging the unique situation, has provided support for the proposed demolition of the dwelling.

§ Council’s Heritage Advisor has sought a HIS which would identify how the history of the site and surrounding precinct can be interpreted in a future landscape design for the public open space. (refer recommended condition 3). This would help to ensure the history of the site and precinct is respected and incorporated into the sites future as it undergoes change.

12. COVENANTS

12.1 The registered search produced 5 August 2024 indicates there is no restrictive covenant for the site, formally known as Lot 24 on Plan of Subdivision 006638, parent title Volume 03971 Folio 049.

13. ConcLUSION

13.1 Clause 71.02 - integrated decision making of the planning scheme requires the decision maker to integrate the range of polices relevant to the issues to be determined and balance the positive and negative environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposal in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. In this instance, the range of policies that can be considered are limited to those polices relevant to heritage where the only permit trigger is demolition of an existing dwelling within a Heritage Overlay.

13.2 The demolition of the existing dwelling is considered acceptable where it would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the wider precinct. The Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street East St Kilda (HO389) would retain its significance and heritage value, despite the removal of the dwelling. This is due to the heritage significance coming from the collective heritage significance of the area as a whole rather than the individual significance of any one heritage building.

13.3 In the consideration of the impact on the collective heritage significance, the sites position as a corner site and at the edge of the street would ensure that the demolition would not create any ‘break’ or ‘hole’ in the heritage streetscape along Kalymna Grove. Moreover, the subject dwelling is not the only dwelling of its type and style within the precinct. It is also not a particularly unique or valuable example compared to other dwellings within the Heritage Overlay. The modified entry / porch and the replacement Colourbond roof means that the subject dwelling is less representative of the settlement in the East St Kilda Road area. It does not provide the terracotta tiles roof, bay window and verandah form and timber picket fence which are the key recognisable features that are identified in the Kalymna Grove/Inkerman Street East St Kilda heritage citation.

13.4 It follows that, subject to the requirement from Council’s Heritage Advisor for the submission of a Heritage Impact Statement, the demolition of the dwelling at 1 and 2/30 Kalymna Grove St Kilda East would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the place and is an acceptable heritage outcome.

13.5 It is recommended that Council grants a planning permit.

14. OFFICER MATERIAL OR GENERAL INTEREST

14.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Demolition Plan⇩

2. Zoning Map⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

5 February 2025

10.2	Planning permit application at 51 Pakington Street St Kilda
location/address:	51 PAKINGTON STREET ST KILDA
Executive Member:	Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development
PREPARED BY:	Max England, Urban Planner

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To determine a planning application involving full demolition of a significant graded dwelling and associated outbuildings and structures on land subject to a Heritage Overlay.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ward:	Balaclava Ward
Trigger for determination BY COUNCIL:	Pursuant to the Instrument of Delegation to Members of Council Staff dated November 2024, an application that involves ‘substantive non-compliance with the Scheme or Council policy’ are to be reported to the Planning Committee or Council. This application involves substantive non-compliance with Council’s Heritage Policy at Clause 15.03 of the Scheme in relation to the demolition of a significant graded dwelling.
ApplicATION NO:	PDPL/00529/2024
Applicant:	Ratio Consultants on behalf of City of Port Phillip
Existing use:	Dwelling
Abutting uses:	The site directly abuts residential uses.
Zoning:	Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1
Overlays:	Heritage Overlay – Schedule 7 (St Kilda, Elwood, Balaclava, Ripponlea precinct) Special Building Overlay – Schedule 1

2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of a significant graded dwelling and associated outbuildings and structures on site at 51 Pakington Street, St Kilda (site).

2.2 The demolition would enable the expansion and upgrade to Pakington Street Reserve. However, the development of the park does not form part of this application. The scope of Council’s consideration relates only to the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling.

2.3 The site is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ1). There are no permit requirements for demolition under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. A zoning map is contained at Attachment 1.

2.4 The site is subject to a Special Building Overlay (SBO1). There are no permit requirements for demolition under the Special Building Overlay.

2.5 The site is also subject to a Heritage Overlay (HO7). Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme, a permit is required to demolish or remove a building on land subject to a Heritage Overlay.

2.6 The dwelling is graded as a ‘significant heritage place’. Significant heritage places:

2.7 The site is not considered to be individually significant and does not have an individual heritage citation within the City of Port Phillip Heritage Review (Incorporated Document in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme).

2.8 The proposal is subject to the local heritage policy of Clause 15.03-1L of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (Scheme). These applicable strategies are for ‘Demolition and relocation’ which discourage the complete demolition of a significant or contributory building and encourage conservation unless a building is structurally unsound and cannot be repaired.

Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (City of Port Phillip, 2021) (Strategy).

2.9 On 8 December 2021, Council resolved to adopt the Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-32 (City of Port Phillip, 2021) (Strategy). The Strategy guides the planning of existing and future public open space within the municipality. Expansion and upgrade of Pakington Street Reserve is Priority Action 17 of the Strategy. This resolution has since guided the planning of the Pakington Street Reserve and adjoining land, including the following activities:

2.9.1 Lodgement and approval of Planning Application No. PDPL/00053/2023 in July 2023 to allow for the ‘Demolition of a dwelling, fencing and outbuildings in the Heritage Overlay (Schedule 7)’ at 43 Pakington Street, St Kilda.

2.9.2 Lodgement and approval of Planning application No. PDPL/00142/2024 in July 2024 to allow for ‘Clause 43.01-1 – Demolish or remove a building’ at 49 Pakington Street, St Kilda.

2.10 Council consulted with the community during the development of the Strategy. This provided opportunity for the public to input the future planning of public open spaces in the City of Port Phillip. Community feedback supported the expansion of public open space, particularly in Balaclava/St Kilda East, which has the lowest amount of open space across the municipality.

2.11 The dwelling on site has been heavily modified from its original state. This includes imitation heritage modifications under permit no. 595/2000 which are discouraged by current council policy. It’s contribution to the streetscape and the wider precinct has been diluted.

2.12 The Pakington Streetscape is fragmented, presenting with a wide range of dwelling typologies. There is great variation in the era’s, street setbacks, roof forms and materials of dwellings. The retention value of the individual dwelling is therefore lower than if the dwelling formed part of a consistent row or pair within a highly consistent streetscape.

2.13 The demolition of the existing dwelling is considered acceptable where it would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the wider precinct. The St Kilda, Elwood, Balaclava, Ripponlea (HO7) would retain its significance and heritage value, despite the removal of the dwelling. This is due to the heritage significance coming from the collective heritage significance of the area rather than the individual significance of any one single ‘contributory’ dwelling.

2.14 It follows that the demolition of the dwelling at 51 Pakington Street would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the place and is an acceptable heritage outcome. It is recommended that Council grants a planning permit.

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 That a Planning Permit be issued for the land at 49 Pakington Street St Kilda with the following permissions:

· Clause 43.01-1 – Demolish or remove a building

3.2 That the decision be issued subject to the following conditions:

No alterations

1. The extent of demolition and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Satisfactory continuation and completion

2. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Permit expiry

3. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

4. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

4.1 The following relevant applications have previously been considered for the subject site:

Application No.	Proposal	Decision	Date of Decision
585/2000	Construction of a second level addition to the existing house and new carport at rear	Approved – Delegate	21 September 2001

5. PROPOSAL

5.1 Demolition of the existing significant heritage building and associated outbuildings and structures on site.

5.2 Removal of vegetation on site, the removal of the existing vegetation on site would not require planning permission.

5.3 A copy of the proposal demolition plan is contained within Attachment 2.

6. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

	Description of Site and Surrounds
Site Area	The site is located on the south side of Pakington Street, St Kilda. It is regular in shape with a frontage of 7.7m to Pakington Street a depth of 26.29m. The site has a total area of 202 square metres.
Existing building & site conditions	There is a ‘right of carriageway’ easement abutting the western boundary of the site. The site is occupied by a double storey Edwardian weatherboard dwelling. The dwelling has a hipped roof, prominent verandah and a timber picket front fence (refer figures 1 & 2). The dwelling has had a double storey extension constructed to the rear under planning permit 585/2020. This extension mimics the existing heritage form of the retained portion of the dwelling, being constructed in the same materiality, weatherboarding and style. A rear carport is accessed by the right of carriageway to the west of the site. Refer figures 1-4 below for existing building and site conditions as of December 2024.
Surrounds/neighbourhood character	Pakington Street has a diverse neighbourhood character. The streetscape is not consistent and exhibits a range of building typology. There are heritage dwellings comprising of significant and contributory graded buildings of single storey construction, some with first floor rear extensions. There are several non-contributory dwellings within the streetscape that have no heritage value. There are also examples of medium density development, both in a postwar style and newer contemporary development. There are also commercial buildings and uses, with part of the street zoned for Mixed Use. Immediate interfaces: East: 53 Pakington Street a single dwelling graded ‘contributory’ within the Heritage Overlay. South: 49A Pakington Street a single dwelling graded ‘significant’ within the Heritage Overlay, accessed via the right of way between 51 and 49 Pakington Street. West: across the aforementioned ‘Right of carriageway’ easement is 49 Pakington Street, a single dwelling graded contributory and approved to be demolished under planning permit PDPL/00142/2024. North: the dwelling fronts Pakington Street at its northern boundary. Refer figures 1-12 below for examples of the surrounds and neighbourhood character of the area as of December 2024.

Figure 1 Subject site viewed from Pakington Street, (source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 2 Subject site viewed from Pakington Street, (source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 3 Subject site viewed from Pakington Street, (source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 4 subject site from adjacent ROW, (source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 5 Subject site aerial of surrounds (source: Intramaps, captured 14 November 2024)

Figure 6 Pakington Street Reserve viewed from Pakington Street, (source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 7 Pakington Street Reserve from Lynott Street, (source officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 8 49 Pakington Street, (source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 9 43 Pakington Street, (officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 10 Pakington Street facing west from outside subject site, ( source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 11 Facing West along Pakington Street, (source: officer site visit December 2024)

Figure 12 Heritage dwellings within Pakington Street, green = contributory and red = significant, (source: Intramaps)

7. Permit Triggers

7.1 The following zone and overlay controls apply to the site, with planning permission required as described.

Zone or Overlay	Why is a permit required?
Clause 32.09-5 Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1 (NRZ1)	A planning permit is not required under Clause 32.09-5 of the Scheme as the proposal does not involve the construction or extension of a dwelling.
Clause 44.05-2 Special Building Overlay – Schedule 1 (SBO1)	A planning permit is not required under Clause 44.05-2 of the Scheme as the proposal is not to construct a building or to construct or carry out works.
Clause 43.01-1 Heritage Overlay – Schedule 7 (HO7)	A planning permit is required under Clause 43.01-1 of the Scheme to demolish or remove a building.

8. PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

8.1 Municipal Planning Strategy

Clause 02 Municipal Planning Strategy

02.1 Context

02.02 Vision

02.03 Strategic Directions

02.04 Strategic Framework Plans

8.2 Planning Policy Framework

Clause 15.03 Heritage

15.03-1S Heritage conservation

15.03-1L Heritage policy

8.3 Particular Provisions

Clause 52.31 Local Government Projects

52.31-2 Exemption from notice and review

8.4 General Provisions

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

65.01 Approval of an Application or Plan

8.5 Operational Provisions

Clause 71 Operation of this Planning Scheme

71.01 Operation of the Municipal Planning Strategy

71.02 Operation of the Planning Policy Framework

71.03 Operation of Zones

71.04 Operation of Overlays

71.05 Operation of Particular Provisions

8.6 Incorporated Documents

§ City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map (December 2021)

§ Port Phillip Heritage Review – Volumes 1-6 (December 2021)

8.7 Background Documents

§ Heritage Design Guidelines (City of Port Phillip, 2022)

§ Places for People: Public Space Strategy (City of Port Phillip, 2021)

8.8 Relevant Planning Scheme Amendment/s

There are no planning scheme amendments relevant to this application.

9. REFERRALS

9.1 Statutory referrals

The application was not required to be referred to any statutory referral authority.

9.2 Internal referrals

Heritage Advisor

Expresses concern that the proposal is not in line with policy expectations that seek to protect buildings with heritage significance within a Heritage Overlay area. The advice has considered the demolition in isolation from the purpose that it is sought to be demolished, ie. to increase public open space (which does not require a planning permit).

10. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/OBJECTIONS