Hi James,

Here’s some preliminary feedback on the above proposal. I’m still waiting on heritage and engineering comments, and I think heritage design feedback/recommendations will be particularly important in light of my general comments below. I will send these through as soon as I hear back from Annabel (likely by the end of this week) or I may ask her to contact you directly.

My initial comments are below:

Land use

Both an office and accommodation are Section 1 uses in the Commercial 1 Zone, so no permit required for the land uses (note the frontage at ground floor level for the units must not exceed 2 metres or else accommodation becomes a Section 2 use – permit required)

Heritage Overlay

I’m still waiting on feedback from Annabel and will forward this when it comes through, though I suspect that the built form could be problematic in that the bulk, height, modern design and lack of setback is starkly out of place with the Contributory residences nextdoor at no. 9 Rowe and the row of houses directly across the road. I would think that the front setback of the building should be moved into line with the front setbacks on either side to keep in pattern with the street.

As per heritage guidelines, consideration will be given to whether new buildings would negatively impact upon the prominence of the adjoining and adjacent Contributing elements.

Traffic and Transport

• Each unit would require one off-street space, these do not need to be covered car spaces.
• The required number of car spaces for an office is 3.5 spaces for each 100 sqm of floor area.
• Parking requirement for all uses including dwellings/office etc. must be accommodated for on the site.
• Although not fully dimensioned, the accessways do not appear to meet standards. Submitted site plan should include dimensions for accessways, car parks, aisle widths.
• The application should include swept path diagrams demonstrating safe and convenient turning manoeuvres for all vehicles entering/leaving site in a forwards direction

Engineering

I’m still waiting on feedback from Engineering and will send you anything that comes my way from them.

• I note the site slopes slightly to the rear so would be worth locating the Legal Point of Discharge for stormwater and clarifying how stormwater is proposed to drain offsite.
• An assessment against Clause 53.18 Stormwater Management would be required to be submitted with the application. This must include details of the proposed stormwater management system, including drainage works and retention, detention and discharges of stormwater to the drainage system. This should be shown in a plan indicating:

· the location of proposed stormwater infrastructure, such as pits/pipes/water tanks etc;

· a summary of the drainage modelling used; and

· details of volumes for any onsite stormwater storage.

Other

• Private waste collection services would be required for the Commercial premises and waste storage areas for both office/units should be shown on site plan.
• Landscaping areas should be indicated on the site plan, a formal landscaping plan could be conditioned on permit (if a permit was granted)

I have recorded this advice against Customer Reference Number 1340718 and the address.

Kind regards

Leah Slater | Statutory Planner - Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday City of Ballarat | PO Box 655, Ballarat VIC 3353 P: (03) 5320 5827 | www.ballarat.vic.gov.au

Site is in an interesting location as it is within one of the pockets of HO175 where there are a relatively high concentration of non contributory buildings located within the context of a broader rich heritage area. For this reason, I am able to consider a design response which would not perhaps be considered in the centre of a highly intact heritage area.  Consideration does however need to be given to 'good manners' for the new construction which takes a respectful, if contemporary approach to the new design.

Setbacks need to be reduced in line with adjacent contributory building at 9 Rowe Street.  This would mean a setback of 5.4m to the northern boundary and 5.0m to the southern boundary to allow visibility of the contributory element from public realm.

Current proposal pushed too far forward into the streetscape and cantilevered bulky upper level is overly dominant.  Needs the setback above and some redesign to reduce its overall dominance within the streetscape.

Good to see that the area immediately adjacent to contributory dwelling is clear of built form to the front and provides separation between the building at 9 and the new development.

Carparking to the front is not usually supported within the HO but I think it would probably be acceptable on this non contributory site, particularly giv