Supplementary Agenda of City Planning Committee Meeting

Item No. 11

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 6

10/12/2018

Memorandum: City Planning Committee

20 Runnymede Street, Battery Point and Adjacent Road Reserve - Partial Demolition, New Building for Residential Hotel, Restaurant/Cafe, Unlisted Use (Bar) and Shops, Subdivision (One Additional Road Lot), Alterations to Carparking, and Associated Works in the Road Reserve

Planning application PLN-18-351 for Partial Demolition, New Building for Residential Hotel, Restaurant/Cafe, Unlisted Use (Bar) and Shops, Subdivision (One Additional Road Lot), Alterations to Carparking, and Associated Works in the Road Reserve at the Lenna Hotel site at 20 Runnymede Street, Battery Point and Adjacent Road Reserve was considered by the Council’s City Planning Committee at its meeting on 26 November 2018 with an officer recommendation for refusal.

At that meeting the committee resolved as follows:

That the item be deferred to a subsequent City Planning Committee meeting to allow for further discussions to be undertaken between Council Officers and the Applicant in relation to concerns raised by the Aldermen and Councillors in regards to the development.

Following the committee meeting, there has been ongoing discussion between the proponents and council officers.

The proponents have advised that they would prefer the Council to determine the application on the basis of the proposal as it currently stands (ie. on the basis of the drawings that have been publicly advertised). As such, the officer recommendation of refusal for the reasons detailed in the planning report (broadly associated with cultural heritage and height) presented to the City Planning Committee meeting of 26 November 2018 (Attachment A to this memorandum) must remain.

However, rather than refusing the proposal as recommended by officers, the proponents would like Aldermen/Councillors to consider approving the application subject to a list of conditions they have prepared. The proponents suggested conditions would broadly require the following:

1. Increase the setback of the proposal from Runnymede Street by 3m above the level of the podium;

2. Increase the setback of the proposal from Princes Park by 1.5m above the level of the podium;

3. Provide articulation to the blank southern wall facing up Runnymede Street by including a “green” wall in conjunction with some architectural masonry features defining the building’s floor levels and integrating with the existing 1970’s hotel structure and 1840’s building;

4. Creating a significant shadow line on the Runnymede Street elevation;

5. Remove the planters, mast details and cairn elements from the building;

6. Reduce the bulk in the roof canopy design over the outdoor balcony area adjacent to Salamanca Place by reducing the parapet and central column’s width/depth by 50% and using lightweight and transparent roofing materials.

7. The building’s external materials and colour palette would be to the satisfaction of the council’s Director City Planning.

The proponents have provided photomontages from Runnymede Street and Princes Park illustrating the building with the setbacks referred to in suggested conditions 1 and 2 above (Attachment B).

While suggested conditions 3-7 from the above list appear to within the scope of conditions ordinarily imposed by Council, the officer view is that it would be inappropriate for Council to issue an approval that included suggested conditions 1 and 2. Although acknowledging that these matters are arguable, the Council’s Manager Development Compliance has advised that the risk associated with issuing any approval that includes those two conditions is that the change they require is of such an extent that the Council would not have determined the application as proposed, with the conditions being considered tantamount to refusal.

Although there is little risk of the applicant appealing any approval issued subject to the above conditions, a successful third-party appeal made by one of the application’s 23 representors could potentially be accompanied by an exanimation of an approval’s overall validity if that approval included conditions requiring the setbacks offered by the proponents. Again, while arguable, there are potential cost implications for the Council if this scenario were to arise.

The proponents have provided the Council with legal advice (Attachment C) indicating that suggested conditions 1 and 2 are not tantamount to refusal and that the Council is therefore at liberty to approve the proposal subject to the conditions detailed above.

Conclusion

The proponents have asked that the Council approve the proposal subject to the conditions listed above. If the Council is of a mind to issue such an approval, it is recommended that other standard conditions associated with servicing and the like be included.

The officer view, however, is that any approval that included suggested conditions 1 and 2 above would require the proposal applied for to be changed to such an extent that the validity of such an approval could be questionable.

The officers have considered the amendments proposed by the conditions and have formed the opinion the conditions do not address the reasons for refusal and maintain that even with such amendments, the proposal should be refused.

It is therefore recommended that the Council refuse the proposal for the reasons detailed in the attached planning report, and that the proponents be encouraged to submit a new application responding to the concerns outlined in that report.

REcommendation

That: Pursuant to the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997, the Council refuse the application for partial demolition, new building for residential hotel, restaurant/cafe, unlisted use (bar) and shops, subdivision (one additional road lot), alterations to carparking, and associated works in the road reserve at 20 Runnymede Street and adjacent road reserve, Battery Point for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not meet objective (a) and the associated performance criteria with respect to clause 16.2 of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 because it fails to respect the cultural heritage and character of the Activity Area and fails to demonstrably contribute to, and enhance the cultural heritage, built form (bulk, height, volume, urban detail) and spatial characteristics of the Activity Area.

2. The proposal does not meet the ‘deemed to comply’ provisions of clause 22.4.4 and fails to meet the associated performance criteria with respect to clause 22.4.5 of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 because: (a) it fails to complement and contribute to the cultural significance, character and appearance of the place (20 Runnymede Street) and its setting; (b) the location, bulk and appearance of the proposal adversely affects the heritage values of places of cultural significance (including the Salamanca Place warehouses and Princes Park); and (c) the proposal will be individually prominent contrary to the cultural resource principles espoused in clause 7.3.2 of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997.

3. The proposal does not meet the ‘permitted’ standards of clause 23.6.1 (Building Form) of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 and fails to comply with the associated performance criteria of clause 23.6.2 which require consideration of the objectives of clause 23.2. The proposal does not meet the objectives of clause 23.2 of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 because it fails to conserve the traditional urban pattern of Sullivans Cove, it does not have a respectful relationship to buildings of identified cultural significance, and it will be individually prominent in terms of contrast with neighbouring buildings, by being significantly higher or having a larger apparent size when viewed in street elevations.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Rohan Probert

Manager Development Appraisal

Date: 7 December 2018

File Reference: F18/145488

Attachment a: PLN-18-351 - 20 RUNNYMEDE STREET BATTERY POINT TAS 7004 - Planning Committee or Delegated Report ⇩

Attachment b: PLN-18-351 20 RUNNYMEDE STREET BATTERY POINT TAS 7004 - Photo Montages ⇩

Attachment c: PLN-18-351 20 RUNNYMEDE STREET BATTERY POINT TAS 7004 - Legal Advice ⇩

Item No. 11

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 10

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 60

10/12/2018

12. 222 - 228 Elizabeth Street & 234 Elizabeth Street & 236 - 240 Elizabeth Street & 242 - 250 Elizabeth Street & 213 Murray Street & 68 Warwick Street & 72 Warwick Street, Hobart & Adjoining Right Of Way - Partial Demolition, Alterations and Redevelopment For Visitor Accommodation, Multiple Dwellings, General Retail and Hire, Food Services, Hotel Industry, Business and Professional Services, and Subdivision (Boundary Adjustment) (Re-Advertised)

PLN-17-430 - FILE REF: F18/145452

Address: 222 - 228 Elizabeth Street & 234 Elizabeth Street & 236 - 240 Elizabeth Street & 242 - 250 Elizabeth Street & 213 Murray Street & 68 Warwick Street & 72 Warwick Street, Hobart & Adjoining Right of Way

Proposal: Partial Demolition, Alterations and Redevelopment for Visitor Accommodation, Multiple Dwellings, General Retail and Hire, Food Services, Hotel Industry, Business and Professional Services, and Subdivision (Boundary Adjustment) (Re-Advertised)

Expiry Date: 20 December 2018

Extension of Time: Not applicable

Author: Richard Bacon

REcommendation

That: Pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council refuse the application for partial demolition, alterations and redevelopment for visitor accommodation, multiple dwellings, general retail and hire, food services, hotel industry, business and professional services, and subdivision (boundary adjustment) (re-advertised) at 222 - 228 Elizabeth Street & 234 Elizabeth Street & 236 - 240 Elizabeth Street & 242 - 250 Elizabeth Street & 213 Murray Street & 68 Warwick Street & 72 Warwick Street, Hobart & Adjoining Right of Way for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause 22.4.1 A3 and P3(a) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because the bulk of the development does not respect the transition between the core area of the Central Business Zone and the adjacent zones, and will have a materially adverse impact on the streetscape and townscape of the surrounding area, because the proposal will visually dominate its surrounding area.

2. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause 22.4.1 A3 and P3(b)(i) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because any potential benefit in terms of economic activity and civic amenities does not override the proposal's noncompliance with the Amenity Building Envelope.

3. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause 22.4.1 A3 and P3(b)(ii) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because the proposal does not demonstrate that it will minimise unacceptable wind conditions in Elizabeth Street.

4. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause 22.4.1 A5 or P5 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because its height unreasonably dominates existing buildings of cultural heritage significance and has a materially adverse impact of the historic cultural heritage significance of the heritage place.

5. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause 22.4.3 A3 or P3 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because the design of the façade is not sympathetic to the elevational treatment and materials of the existing heritage places and unreasonably detracts from the modest heritage listed places.

6. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause E13.7.1 A1 or P1(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because the proposed demolition will result in the loss of 19th century significant fabric, items and form that contribute to the historic cultural heritage significance of the place and it has not been demonstrated: that there are environmental, social economic or safety reasons of greater value to the community than the historic cultural heritage values of the place; or that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives; or that important structural or façade elements that can feasibly be retained and reused in a new structure, are to be retained; or that significant fabric will be documented before demolition.

7. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause E13.7.2 A1 or P1(a) and (b) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because its incompatible design in terms of its height, scale, bulk, form, fenestration, siting, materials, colours and finishes will result in the loss of historic cultural heritage significance of the listed places, and it will also result in the substantial diminution of heritage values through the loss of features, fabric and items that contribute to the significance of the place.

8. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause E13.7.2 A2 or P2(a), (b), (c) to (d) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because it will not be subservient and complementary to the listed place due to its bulk, scale, materials, built form, setback and siting with respect to listed elements.

9. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause E13.7.2 A3 or P3 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because it does not respond to the dominant heritage characteristics of the listed place in its materials, fenestration and built form.

10. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause E13.7.2 A4 or P4 of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because extensions to the existing buildings detract from the historic cultural heritage significance of the place as a consequence of their height, scale, bulk, siting and façade treatment.

11. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause E13.7.3 A1 or P1(a) to (c) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because it does not provide sufficient curtilage or retain contributory heritage items.

12. The proposal does not meet the acceptable solution or the performance criterion with respect to clause E13.10.1 A1 or P1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 because it unnecessarily impacts on archaeological resources and does not attempt to preserve significant archaeological evidence in situ.

Advice: It is recommended that the applicants consult with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania and the Aboriginal Community with regards to relevant and related findings, conclusions and recommendations of the ‘Historic Heritage Management Strategy for 234250 Elizabeth Street, Hobart' by Praxis Environment (Brad Williams) dated January 2017 and updated January 2018 with a Heritage Impact Assessment dated May 2017.

Attachment a: PLN-17-430 - 234 ELIZABETH STREET HOBART TAS 7000 - CPC Agenda Documents ⇩

Attachment b: PLN-17-430 - 234 ELIZABETH STREET- HOBART TAS 7000 - Planning Referral Officer Cultural Heritage Report ⇩

Attachment c: PLN-17-430 - 234 ELIZABETH STREET HOBART TAS 7000 - Planning Referral Officer Development Engineering Report ⇩

Attachment d: PLN-17-430 - 234 ELIZABETH STREET HOBART TAS 7000 - Environmental Protection Authority Decision ⇩

Attachment e: PLN-17-430 - 234 ELIZABETH STREET HOBART TAS 7000 - Urban Design Advisory Panel Minutes ⇩

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 64

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 91

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 221

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 398

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 445

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 559

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 693

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 772

ATTACHMENT c

PDF Creator

Item No. 12

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting - 10/12/2018

Page 813

ATTACHMENT d

PDF Creator

Item No. 13

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

City Planning Committee Meeting

Page 874

10/12/2018

13. 58 Goulburn Street, Hobart - Change of Use to Residential (Communal Residence)

PLN-18-565 - FILE REF: F18/145084

Address: 58 Goulburn Street, Hobart

Proposal: Change of Use to Residential (Communal Residence)

Expiry Date: 17 December 2018

Extension of Time: Not applicable

Author: Liz Wilson

REcommendation

That: Pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council approve the application for change of use to residential (communal residence) at 58 Goulburn Street HOBART for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report and a permit containing the following conditions be issued:

GEN

The use and/or development must be substantially in accordance with the documents and drawings that comprise PLN18565 58 GOULBURN STREET HOBART TAS 7000 except where modified below.

Reason for condition

To clarify the scope of the permit.

ADVICE

The following advice is provided to you to assist in the implementation of the planning permit that has been issued subject to the conditions above. The advice is not exhaustive and you must inform yourself of any other legislation, bylaws, regulations, codes or standards that will apply to your development under which you may need to obtain an approval. Visit the Council's website for further information.

Prior to any commencement of work on the site or commencement of use the following additional permits/approval may be required from the Hobart City Council.