The Good
The good news for the thousand plus signatories to various petitions opposing the Yelo cafe redevelopment is that on Monday 13th July a JDAP refused the application 4-1.
The City recommended refusal on grounds mostly relating to parking which was the hot topic of the day – the applicant opening a presentation to the panel with the comment that this determination was` all about the parking` issues – the presiding member interjecting to inform the audience that the application was not all about the parking issues – but of course, assuming they had read the Responsible Authority Report and heard the panel comments from the previous meeting, it was.
The Presiding member in the previous deferral wondered if a few less parking spaces would make much difference in the already fraught parking issues in the vicinity…
Making a didactic albeit accurate point does not always equate to intelligent or productive discourse, the City’s RAR noted a previous State Administrative Tribunal refusal that absolutely hinged on parking , the panel failing to appreciate that the comparison was in regard to the issues surrounding the concept of reciprocal parking – not the actual size of the parking shortfall itself.
We could talk more on proportional shortfalls in these two cases but in the end the panel essentially admitted to not really knowing what the actual parking shortfall was or indeed if there even was one. `18 required – 18 provided` from the applicant was another factually accurate point that is nonetheless, in context, a content free statement.
This refusal in reality likely turned on bums on seats, supporting information from the Director of Planning underlining the incompetence of the proposed parking requirements and a fantastic presentation put together by local residents, the joint presentation was professional, structured and addressed all the points that the DAP were likely to consider and pressed home the fact that the proposed restaurant usage was going to further exacerbate the parking issues. Two other well received community presentations covered amenity and heritage concerns.
Bums on seats, over 170 people turned up for the meeting, the local press suggesting 100 but a simple chair count disagrees, by the time the meeting was under way there was standing room only.
This turnout, along with the quality of the presentations almost guaranteed 2 Council JDAP member votes potentially played a part in panel member decisions as well, the Council (not the City) also read a prepared statement to the panel – I am not sure if this would have occurred had only a dozen of so residents have shown up, the statement was prepared in advance for sure but had not been (as far as I am aware) submitted to the DAP as is usually required , there was no Council resolution for this statement and was I assume allowed only at the discretion of the Panel for which they should be thanked as should Councillors Felicity Farrelly and Elizabeth Re who worked with the community without fanfare.
The Bad
The parking issue was at the forefront of this refusal pushed by both the City and resident deputations – looking through the lens of the DAP thought process this was the correct approach – however the underlying amenity issues of bulk and scale and appropriateness were largely ignored by the DAP and the City’s RAR. The Council’s (not `the City`) statement avoided the parking issues and commented instead on resident amenity concerns.
SAT hearings are heard de novo looking at an application anew considering all valid planning issues, however, SAT hearings begin and are mostly settled in some fashion during pre-hearing mediation heard behind closed doors, such mediation would will logically continue on the basis that the parking, traffic and waste management issues highlighted in the panels determination are the prime topics for mediation, as a result of mediation the SAT can ask the DAP to reconsider its decision.
The City’s RAR provided enough uncertainty to allow a DAP to refuse the application but only on parking, should the applicant at mediation come up with some other scheme to overcome the parking and waste management problems the City’s Design Review Panel influenced RAR can not reverse its stance on bulk, scale and context – in such case the City’s RAR offers no Plan B in the case of a SAT referral.
The City of course is not beholden to have a plan B, it can only make recommendations based on valid planning principles which which begs inquiry to why the City’s RAR paid little or no heed to the elephants in the room of the bulk and scale of this development or it’s inappropriateness or context within the surrounding area.
One also wonders, given substantial community objection, why more was not made by the City of the discretionary usage of multiple dwellings on this site under the Local Planning Scheme.
The Aesthetically Challenged
Enter stage left – Stirling’s DRP.
Before there is any perceived danger that I might appear to be lending any weight to DRP reports, let’s remove that misconception by example of typical DRP initiated confusion and misdirection – if not actual incompetence.
The DRP supported, in all but it’s first report, the ‘context and character’ of Design Principle 1:
”Good design responds to and enhances the distinctive characteristics of a local area, contributing to a sense of place.”
…yet in Design Principle 3 – `built form and scale` – in the very same document notes..
“The Panel acknowledges the high quality of the building design but considers the bulk and scale is not appropriate to its setting and detracts from the character of the local area. On that basis, the current proposal is not supported by the Panel.”
So which is it exactly? is it appropriate and does it enhance the local character or not ? … and why am I as a ratepayer funding such nonsense? regardless, the DRP report notes…
- The Panel noted the development is still over plot ratio.
- The Panel noted the overshadowing ratio is at 48% with only 25% allowed.
- The Panel noted the design does not meet the height and setback requirements of LPP 4.2 or LPS No.3 (Coast Height Limits).
- The Panel maintains the Applicant has not demonstrated that exceeding the plot ratio has resulted in an improved design outcome or community benefit and therefore does not support the bulk and scale of the development.
- The Panel maintains the design projects further forward than surrounding developments and this needs to be considered with respect to the impact on neighbours and streetscape. The Panel recommends the applicant reduces the bulk and scale by addressing the setbacks to levels one and two thus lessening the visual impact and overshadowing to surrounding residential neighbours.
- The Panel stated the changes to the penthouse design are positive.
Despite the above – and accepting that some issues were ameliorated (though not overcome) , the final report of the DRP was a fully supportive 10 out of 10 despite the bulk and scale of the building being essentially unchanged, despite the overshadowing, setback issues and the adverse affect of the bulk and scale of the development on the local streetscape detracting from the character of the local area.
This allowed the city to conclude…
“The built form is designed to be respectful of the adjacent residential properties and the streetscape, and be visually interesting,”
…and
“The City is of the opinion that the built form of the proposed development has been designed in a way that is responsive and complementary to the established R20 streetscape, whilst utilizing the development potential of the Local Centre site.”
Not even the DRP could bring itself to suggest such nonsense, and if the development is visually interesting (in context) it is so only in the manner that an oversized sore thumb might perhaps be of interest to bored orthopaedic practitioners or, since that is the realm we have now ventered into , palmists.
We are told that Design Review Panels play no part in the decision making process, this is nonsense on the face of it and nonsense in reality, if the DRP had no part to play then it’s input would be confined to the pre-proposal stage, not be included in the Responsible Authority Report* which it clearly influenced, or indeed the determination process itself.
The design of this development is, subjectively, quite funky, I like it – this was not a DRP turd polishing exercise. Many locals also have no issue with the overall design concept and layout, just not where it has been proposed, perhaps in North Beach or on the outskirts of the Scarborough MRA, many other places, just not at the current Yelo site, it simply does not fit.
It appears the DRP’s 10/10 report allowed, if not persuaded the City to give a thumbs up to the bulk and scale of this building, which were after all, along with parking and traffic, the residents main concerns – the City’s intransigence to these significant amenity issues, glossed over in its RAR for a discretionary usage development is of far greater concern than DRP drivel which is par for the course.
*To be fair, without its inclusion in the RAR, given the DRP process is secret squirrel to affected parties, we would not otherwise have the opportunity to discuss it in the context of the City’s RAR.
