14 Martin Street, Heidelberg 3084 VIC

Dear Banyule Council planning department,
I am writing in response to the planning permission sought to develop the property located at 14 Martin Street.
I have a number of concerns regarding the application and object to the development proposal for the following reasons.
1. The development will impinge on the heritage listed building located at number 16 Martin Street, Heidelberg. This property is of historical significance and is one of the few that is heritage listed for both its interior and exterior features. It is a significant example of the arts and crafts movement and in particular the architect/designer H Desbrowe Annear . The proposed development will be in contact with the southern roof line of the heritage listed building and will completely overwhelm the existing building in scale.
2. The proposed development is two stories higher than any other building on the street and is located on higher ground. The height of the building will be out of keeping with the rest of the street and will have the effect of devaluing other properties especially the heritage listed property at 16 Martin Street and nearby two story residential units.
3. Martin street is located in the centre of a busy medical precinct and has very limited street parking available. It one of the few streets in the neighbourhood that is flat enough to provide suitable parking for people with a disability. The parking survey that was conducted by the developers was two years ago and took place prior to the completion of a major development at number 9-11 Martin Street, which has increased the amount of traffic in the street. It was also conducted in the week prior to the private school holidays which is often when people are away and traffic levels are low. The availability of parking in the street is very limited and it is difficult to get a parking place on weekdays and weekends even though current Covid restrictions means a reduction in the number of people working in offices at present. It is not appropriate for the developers to have any reduction in the number of car parking spaces granted.
4. The proposed development will result in the removal of a significant amount of vegetation including some mature trees which provide valuable habitat for wildlife in the neighbourhood, such as the musk and rainbow lorikeets, possums and Galahs that nest in the trees on the property.

This objection was lodged electronically with Banyule City Council on the evening of 18 March 2021
14 Martin Street Heidelberg Application 1219/2020
This Planning Application is a massive overdevelopment that fails so completely to satisfy any conditions relating the site that there is nothing to compromise on. It needs to be resubmitted in order to comply with the conditions applying to Special Use Zone 3 (SUZ3). It incorrectly states this as Medical Centre, it has been used by an elderly couple as their main residence.
By way of background BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME (BPS) AMENDMENT C60 PANEL REPORT: APRIL 2010 was adopted by Banyule City Council on 31 May 2010 that clarifies the planning intent for the Special Use Zone (SUZ3) where this site is located. That Report notes that SUZ3 is based on the Residential 1 Zone but is modified to promote Medical Services with dwellings within the upper levels.
The design, proposed commercial office use, and reduced number of car parking spaces of this proposed new commercial office building make no attempt to meet the predominantly medical services intent of Precinct 4.
The development ignores and breaches the Banyule Planning Scheme in respect of SUZ3 as follows:
1. The maximum height of the proposed development on this site is 19 metres (see Appendix 3)and this is about double this Maximum, that is it is breached by about 100%
The maximum height of 19 metres applies to this Medical Precinct site in special use zone Schedule 3 (SUZ3) because it abuts a heritage building (clause 21.03 states “To protect, conserve and enhance places and precincts that contribute to Banyule’s cultural heritage). Yet the maximum height of this proposed development seeks to be increased by an incredible 100% up to 20 metres + lift overrun.

2. This site is located at the point where the maximum height reduces to 19 metres
The applicant's site is located at the highest point of Precinct 4 - Medical Services in the corner of Darebin Street and Powlett Street and within the block bounded by Martin, Darebin and Powlett Streets and Barkly Place (the subject block). With the exception of Austin Health's Staff multi-deck car park known as 230 Burgundy Street which has site specific rules, the maximum height for the remainder of this block is 10 metres.
Taller buildings in SUZ3 are sited well below ridgelines so the topography has been used in a systematic approach to heights in the rest of the Precinct 4. Warringal Hospital and abutting sites on the east (lower side) of Martin Street (numbers 8 to 12) through to Stradbroke Avenue has a maximum height of 25 metres. These are clearly shown on the Precinct 4 Map - Medical Services which is separately attached as Appendix 3 and are mirrored in the Heidelberg Structure Plan Plan E: Strategic Objectives Built Form.

3. No medical services emphasis
The application is not consistent with the Medical Services emphasis required in SUZ3 . Clause 4 All floor to ceiling heights within buildings must be adequate to enable the conversion of other uses, (such as a dwelling) to Medical Centre - They do not.
Failing to provide a medical emphasis – there is no medical area and with 5 car parking spaces for each 1 practitioner on the premises – is has not and can never have a "medical emphasis"

4. Use and development in Precinct 4 must not impinge upon the primary residential role of Precinct 6
It does impinge because it will interrupt the site line and reception for Free to Air Television for surrounding residential properties. Being able to receive certain receptions is a major issue in this technological age.

5. The application for a wholly commercial office development without a medical emphasis is not permitted
SUZ3 has application to only to Precinct 4 - Medical Services, the purposes of which are: To implement the Heidelberg Structure Plan; To encourage the consolidation of medical services, To enable a mix of uses within developments that provides dwellings within upper levels of buildings; To protect the amenity of patients and residents within and around this precinct.
6. The intent for sites located in Precinct 4 - Medical Services has not been met
With a maximum height of 19 metres this site was always was intended predominantly for medical services. The evidence is that SUZ3 Section 1 uses allows a medical centre without a permit. Conversely Dwellings without a permit MUST be no less than 10 metres above ground level. (Note: the inclusion of the planning permit for dwellings below 10 metres was to protect the rights of existing residential users, not so that redevelopment of land intended to be used for medical services could be changed back to residential developments.)
7. The parking reduction of 38 car parking spaces is not acceptable and must be rejected
The parking dispensation sought is not acceptable. Parking is a premium in this medical precinct - people need to be able to park easily to seek medical help and when permitted after Covid 19 is resolved. The dispensation is based on the minimum possible requirements for a commercial property.
The parking conditions during the pandemic are not representative of parking conditions during normal conditions because most elective surgery was cancelled and there were strictly 1 visitor and time limitations applicable to the nearby hospitals and medical facilities. These factors affect both weekday and Saturday parking and so the survey is unreliable to say the least. 18 out of the 60 car spaces are provided via car stacker systems and 2 have electric charging facilities, resulting in only 40 hassle free spaces . Even applying the minimum spaces required under those required for office use the minimum required is 98 spaces for a building of this excessive proportion.
Any reduction in the minimum car parking possible must be rejected. Lack of parking already adversely affects the amenity of the locality and all residents close by and we witness what happens. Hefty parking fines are a frequent occurrence for hapless people with medical problems who overstay the time limits through delays getting treatment no fault of their own. Desperate people park in resident permit zones, we have witnessed people with a sick child, someone going to see a loved on who is close to death and medical practitioners all being fined. If you have any doubts, check up how much revenue is generated this way, we are sure it is substantial.
This waiver has no merit and cannot in any way be justified. The developer is not in a position to provide an alternative site and neither is the Council. As there are no potential car parking sites close to this site that are within SUZ3 this requirement can only be satisfied within the site and must be enforced.
8. It fails to respect the unique Heidelberg neighbourhood character
It is close to the Residential Interface at Darebin Street and Powlett Street, and the Heritage Overlay on the abutting property at 16 Martin Street Heidelberg.
9. It totally diminishes the aspect of the abutting Heritage building that has architectural significance to the State of Victoria
abuts the white block, which contains a significant Heritage House BPS Heritage Overlay Number HO54 East View 16 Martin St. This property is included in the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) Under the Heritage Act 2017 Ref H2282. East View is of architectural significance to the State of Victoria. East View is of architectural significance as a highly intact and illustrative example of the Arts and Crafts work of Harold Desbrowe Annear. This development looms over it like a monstrous grey and black prison wall of up to 40 metres high and is just awful. It cannot be permitted.
10. The Martin Street Façade at street level can only be described as UGLY and UNINVITING
This façade comprises a Substation and entrance door and a garage door, We cannot believe that anyone could consider this to be appropriate. In our opinion is that it couldn’t be more ugly and uninviting. It totally detracts from the architectural signicance and beauty of East View at 16 Martin Street.

11. “Ad hoc office development should be discouraged”
BPS 21.04-2 Commercial
Commercial Key Issues
The primary commercial issues for the City are:
• Ad hoc office development should be discouraged (dot point 4)
This applies in addition to the fact that it is in SUZ3
12. BPS 21.08-2 Heidelberg Activity Centre
Key Issues
The Heidelberg Activity Centres function as an integrated precinct, and as such is referred to as a single Activity Centre. The Activity Centre has several defining characteristics and attributes for a preferred identity. These are as follows:
• Medical and allied industries are anchored by and cluster next to the Austin/Mercy complex and the Warringal Private Hospital near the train station to the east; (dot point 8)
Finally
We appreciate the newly elected councillors may not be aware of the residents in and abutting the Special Use Zone medical precinct (SUV3). We have been involved in 15 years of consultations, meetings, ambit claims, additional floor applicants, and so on. We are the involuntary victims of these ambit attempts and breaches long after the developers have left and we respectfully ask each of you as our elected representatives to enforce Banyule Councils comprehensive planning scheme according to the Municipal Strategic Statement, SUZ3 and DDO5 rather than leaving residents to take on Council's role who in the past have been forced to take developers who ignore these rules to VCAT.

Yours faithfully
Barbara Smith, Secretary and Spokesperson for Friends of Powlett Street Common Inc (registration number A0094545C)
ph. 03 9457 1016