Dear Phillip, Thank you for spending time with us last night, it was appreciated. For your reference, here is a copy of the objection that we submitted to Council today. Yours, Wendy & Terry.
"We would like to object to the proposed development “PP16/00521” at 15 Park Lane, Kew.
We live in Park Lane and feel the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon our lifestyle, our family, our visitors, our neighbours, the park users, the local community, the neighbourhood, and us.
Our objections to the proposed development include - but are not limited to – the following areas of concern.
ACCESS SAFETY PARKING WASTE MANAGEMENT VISUAL BULK LOSS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVER-DEVELOPMENT CONTRARY TO COUNCIL AND OTHER GUIDELINES POOR APPLICATION PLUS MISLEADING/INACCURATE INFORMATION
Park Lane is a single width (3.048 metres, narrowing to 2.7 metres in places) laneway which gives primary street access to 13 properties plus 2 corner properties and the properties at 311 Barkers Road also have vehicle access.
There is no signed speed restriction in Park Lane, even though it is a shared carriageway. There is no street lighting, other than that currently provided by the owners of numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane.
Large vehicles cannot negotiate the bend at the South East corner of Park Lane. Large vehicles, and some cars, reverse back into either Malin Street or Fitzwilliam Street. Council has conceded some of the parkland to assist access into and out of the junction of Park Lane with Fitzwilliam Street. The boundary fence has also been set back into the park outside the subject property for a distance in excess of 15 metres for a depth of over 3 metres. This has left the old Red River Gum exposed to traffic damage. Public parkland should not be given over for private use. Properties should be required to fully accommodate their access within their own property boundary. The public parkland boundary should be re-instated.
There is no footpath in Park Lane. Pedestrians, bikes, and motor vehicles share Park Lane.
A number of Park Lane residents are elderly and use mobility aids. They are not able to move out of the way of traffic easily, or quickly.
Park Lane borders Kellett Reserve, which has a children’s playground. Young children often ride their bikes and scooters around Park Lane and on the path within Kellett Reserve.
The park is well used by local residents, families, dog-walkers, the local child-care centre, kindergartens, schools, etc. Being in a busy school area, the park is especially busy at school pick up times.
On a number of occasions we have witnessed dangerous situations between vehicles and children, thankfully we have not seen anyone hurt.
15 properties are situated on Park Lane and 13 have their main, or sole, entrance on Park Lane, these are numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 & 19 Park Lane.
Numbers 1-10 Park Lane have double garages at the rear of their properties accessed by a private rear driveway which 5.74 metres wide. This allows for 2-way traffic, heavy vehicles and loading. There are 9 spaces at the front of their properties, accessed via Park Lane, which can be used by their visitors, with another visitor space at the rear. Number 13 Park Lane has provision for 3 cars on site and both number 17 and 19 have a single garage each, with a pull in. Vehicle use of Park Lane could increase from the current 6 resident’s vehicles (2@No.13, 2@No.15, 1@No.17 & 1@No.19) to 24 resident’s vehicles. Excluding visitor cars, this is a massive 400% increase in traffic by one property out of the 13 properties in Park Lane.
Parking in Fitzwilliam and Malin Streets is becoming progressively more difficult for local residents, their visitors and park users. Fitzwilliam Street can be difficult to navigate, especially during school drop-off and pick-up times. Properties in Barkers Road, with insufficient parking, use Malin Street as Barkers Road has restrictions. Students also use Malin Street, as there are no permit or time restrictions.
Rubbish bin congestion is a problem at both ends of Park Lane, as the collection vehicles cannot negotiate the width, or bend, of Park Lane. The 4 properties on the Fitzwilliam side of Park Lane currently put their rubbish bins (up to 12 of them) at their junction with Fitzwilliam Street. The proposed development allows for 20 bins, with extra bins to be purchased if necessary. The report does not show any allowance for green waste bins. Fitzwilliam Street does not have a nature strip, so bins are placed on the footpath. When these bins fall over (which does happen) mothers with prams, pedestrians and children have to negotiate around them. The 10 properties on the other side of Park Lane put their bins (up to 30 of them) at their junction with Malin Street.
The visual bulk of the proposed development would dominate the streetscape. It is unsympathetic to the character of the neighbourhood. The proposal is an over-development of an existing single dwelling in a pleasant residential area. The subject property was previously sub-divided off a property in Wrixon Street in 1977.
The proposed 32-bedroom complex has little outdoor space for physical activity. If fully occupied, 64 additional users may access the park on a regular basis. The park could struggle to accommodate this number of additional users without an upgrade and increase in equipment.
Park Lane could struggle to cope with the number of proposed additional vehicles. There could be frequent occasions where one vehicle has to reverse the length of the park to allow another vehicle to enter/exit. This would put cyclists and pedestrians, especially the young and the elderly, at grave risk.
The ambience of the area is due, in part, by this old lane with its bluestone central strip. Such an increase in traffic (especially during construction) could also cause stress and damage to the trees at the edge of the park. Due to the trees proximity to Park Lane, vehicles have physically impacted some of them. Large vehicles and construction vehicles will impose a greater risk of this occurring. There are a number of possums and a variety of birds that live in and visit the park. Nocturnal birds such as Tawny Frogmouths and owls are also frequent visitors and nest in the area.
There are other properties in Wrixon Street that have rear tennis courts bordering Park Lane. A development of this density could create a precedent for these properties to also be sub-divided and more apartments developed, exacerbating the problems, and further increasing the traffic using Park Lane.
The subject property is in a GRZ1 Zone, which is suitable for “one to two storey, detached dwellings, dual occupancy and multi-unit villa/townhouse developments.” The proposal is for a three storey (plus underground car park) apartment building, which is acceptable in GRZ2/3 Zones.
The subject property is in Precinct 16. The ‘Preferred Character Statement’ says, “To maintain and enhance the single storey historic character of the precinct.” Under ‘Building Height and Form” it says, “To ensure buildings do not dominate the streetscape or disrupt the existing streetscape rhythm.” The proposal does not meet these objectives.
Advertising of this proposal was by way of a sign on the front fence and letters to the adjoining properties. Other properties in Park Lane were not notified, even though they will be impacted and suffer from increased traffic density.
There are a number of areas of concern, failure to meet guidelines, inaccuracies, and misleading information, included in the Advertising application:
REPORT - Sustainable Management Plan
6.2 Design Principles – ‘Public Transport’ states “2.00km to Gardiner Train Station” – this station is 5.3 km away.
12.0 Appendix A – ‘Disclaimer’ references Moreland City Council.
Energy - There is no provision for clothes drying.
REPORT - Traffic Report
3.2 Road Network. “Park Lane has a carriageway width of approximately 3m in the vicinity of the site and approximately 4.2m in the vicinity of Malin Street acting as a shared lane for traffic flow in both directions.” This is incorrect. Park Lane is approximately 3m for its entire length. Whilst measuring Park Lane for this report the writer was informed, and shown the boundary between Park Lane and the property owned by numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane. They chose to ignore this information and included the area of private property as being part of Park Lane. There is no ability for traffic to flow in both directions in any area of Park Lane. “Photographs depicting Claire Street are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 12” This is incorrect – The Streets shown are Park Lane, Fitzwilliam Street and Malin Street. Where is Claire Street? 3.3 Traffic Conditions The periods counted were 8am-9am and 5pm-6pm. Situated on Kellett Reserve in a busy school area the peak traffic use for this area is 3pm-5pm on school days with frequent use at weekends. 3.4 Car Parking Conditions The 4th April was during the school holidays. The times of 8am, 10am, 12 noon & 1pm avoid the busy school pick-up times and weekend family park trips. 4.3 Parking Layout and Access Arrangement Clause 52.06-8 Design Standard 3 – Gradients. The proposal does not meet the guidelines. The report argues that as access is via a laneway/ROW that does not include a footpath, and has low pedestrian volume they consider it satisfactory with no adverse safety impact. Park Lane is the primary street frontage for 13 properties. The park attracts a large number of children, many of whom ride their bikes and scooters around Park Lane. A number of people use Park Lane for walking, including those with mobility impairment. 4.4 Waste Collection & Loading Requirements
Waste collection has not been adequately addressed. The proposal offers ‘Waste collection arrangements can be formalised by a Waste Management Plan and could be included as a condition of granting a permit.’ A waste management plan has been included in the application.
The proposal states that ‘Any loading activities associated with the apartments will be accommodated on-street in the nearby area.’ The developer acknowledges in 3.2 that Fitzwilliam Street is only 8m wide, has parking on both sides, and only allows for a shared lane for two-way traffic. Impositions of large vehicles using this area for loading would be disruptive, cause congestion, and be dangerous to the many children who access the neighbouring schools in this area.
4.5.1 Traffic Generation Rates
The proposal suggests that the development will generate 60 vehicle trips per day, a massive increase in the current usage. Consideration has not been given to the fact that this is not a typical ROW. It is the primary street for 14 of properties. It surrounds a popular local park. Children and the elderly, walkers and runners, bike and scooter riders and also occasional cars commonly use Park Lane. The safety of children is a real concern that must not be overlooked.
REPORT - Planning Report
The proposed maximum building height is 10 metres with services and lift overrun located on the roof. We could see no height recorded for the service and lift overrun. The report argues that the 9 metre maximum may be exceeded due to the slope of the land. The visual impact is not diminished by this argument.
Existing Character Referencing other properties in Park Lane the report states, “All are two storeys in height”. This is incorrect. Numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are single storey. Numbers 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17 & 19 are two storey.
The report also states “Front setbacks are narrow (in the order of 3.5 metres).” This is incorrect. Numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane all have a setback in excess of 7 metres.
With reference to the proposal for 3 storeys the report argues that due to the sites location on a park it is ‘somewhat secluded’ from other properties. To the contrary, as it is situated on a park it is more visible to more people and therefore the bulk is more obtrusive.
55.03-3 Site Coverage This does not comply, the building site coverage is in excess of 60%
55.03-9 Access Vehicle access covers 66% of the site frontage, exceeding the 33% allowed. The report states, “within Park Lane it is not uncommon for vehicular access ways to take up approx. 60% of the site frontage”. This is incorrect – the maximum access for numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane covers 34.9% of their individual frontages, and even less in total.
Vehicle and bicycle access is via ramps that exceed the recommended gradient. This gradient, with a maximum of 1:4 or 25% would be extremely difficult, and potentially dangerous, to negotiate on foot and especially so with a bicycle.
55.04-8 Noise impacts The report states no significant noise impact. An increase from 1 dwelling to 10 generates extra general people noise, extra vehicle movements, garage doors will open/close an estimated 60 times a day, the hum of multiple air-conditioners (12 compressors are shown on the roof), especially overnight, will add to the noise impact.
55.05-2 Dwelling Entry “Assessment: the building has been designed to front Park Lane with a secure entry lobby via Fredrick Street presenting a clear and proud sense of address.” This is incorrect. Where is Fredrick Street?
55.05-5 Solar access to open space The proposal does not comply
55.05-6 Storage The proposal does not comply
We do not agree with the planning report conclusion: “The proposal has been appropriately designed to respect the emerging character of the area; to minimise impacts on the amenity of the area and to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for future occupants.”
REPORT - Waste Management Plan
The proposal states that once a week all bins (20 +) will be taken from the bin store via the ramp to ‘the footpath in Park Lane’ for collection by Council’s waste collection. This is incorrect. There is NO footpath in Park Lane. Council does NOT collect from Park Lane, as it is too narrow. The ramp exceeds the recommended gradient and at its maximum is 1:4 or 25%. This gradient would be extremely difficult to negotiate on foot. It is potentially extremely dangerous to require an individual to also push a rubbish bin either up or down a ramp this steep.
REPORT - Daylight Analysis
Model parameters All external apartment glazing was assumed to be “clear single glazing” Sustainable Management 2.4 Window & Glazing states “a combination of single and double glazing”. How will these figures be impacted if the windows are double-glazed? The parameters also assume all paint and floor covering are predominately white or medium coloured. Will this be a condition of ownership?
REPORT - Application Form and Title
Page 2 of the title of the property marked LEGEND, item number 2 states, “the lower boundary of each of these units is four metres below that part of the site.
It would appear from the plans that this 4 metre limit may have been exceeded. Would this mean that part of this development is proposed to be built on land that it does not own?
REPORT - Arborist Report
3.8 This report acknowledges that the TPZ’s of three large trees in Kellett reserve will be impacted by encroachments of approx. 11.9%, 18.7% and 13% by the proposed basement ramps. This report suggests that a non-destructive root investigation could confirm the potential impact if Council deemed it necessary. We believe this should be done, for the safety and protection of these trees. Other trees at the edge of Kellett reserve have not been acknowledged. Heavy construction vehicles could impact these trees and we believe that all trees within a 5 metre distance Park Lane should be protected during the construction period.
REPORT - Plans and photomontages
Notations on the first photograph of the area are incorrect. 1-10 Park Lane is shown as a double storey townhouse development. This is incorrect - 4 of the properties are double storey, but 6 properties are single storey.
Where is David Street? Davis Street Kindergarten is approx. 400 metres away. (This has been incorrectly repeated as David Street on another page)
CONCLUSION In conclusion we submit that this property is unsuitable for the proposed construction of a three (3) storey building comprising 10 dwellings above a basement car park due to the above concerns and request that this application be rejected."
From Terry & Wendy to local councillor Phillip Healey