Monthly Archives: October 2015



At last night’s (4/11) Council Meeting, Councillor’s voted against the Officer’s recommendation to approve the permit application (outlined in the below posting) and opted to reject the application.   Councillors recognised that the proposed expansion of the Physio Practice was not supported by Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme (essentially, for reasons outlined in GERA’s below comments).

We congratulate the residents opposing this application, for undertaking significant research of the relevant planning scheme clauses and presenting a sound, well-argued case at both the Planning Conference and to Councillors over the recent Melbourne Cup weekend.   We also congratulate the Councillors for their willingness to review and accept the residents arguments.


Following on from our earlier posting on Medical Centres in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ)  residents have alerted us to Agenda – Item 9.1 to be discussed at next Wednesday’s (4/11) Council Meeting . The Officer’s Report (Rocky Camera, Manager, Statutory Planning) recommends approval for a proposed expansion of a 2 practitioner Medical Centre (ie. Physiotherapy Practice) to a 5 practitioner Centre (ie. a physiotherapy practice) in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).

While resident objectors have advised that both the permit applicant, and the applicant’s representative, have close associations with Council’s Planning Staff, like GERA, they believe that

  • any owner of a property in Glen Eira (regardless of current or past Council associations) has a right to apply for a planning permit, and
  • that Council has appropriate procedures and process in place to ensure that all planning permits are fairly and independently assessed against the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, regardless of the applicant’s, or applicants representative’s, current or past Council associations.

This is as it should be.

However, that being said both GERA and the resident objectors do not believe that the permit complies with the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and are questioning the planning rationale behind the Officer’s recommendation (Officers Report Extract) to approve the permit application.

Property Background

  • the property is zoned NRZ and is located on corner of Kangaroo Road and Pelling Road in Murrumbeena, close to the Kangaroo and Poath Road intersection and in close proximity to the Hughesdale General Residential Zone and Murrumbeena Park.

  • the property was reportedly acquired sometime after the August 2013, zone implementation and was converted from a residence into a combined residence and physiotherapy practice.
  • While Kangaroo Road is a busy local road it is not designated as a Road Zone (ie. RDZ – a Main or Secondary Road) in the GE Planning Scheme. Pelling Road is quiet residential street of approx. 150 metres.

Why is a Planning Permit Required

Under the Zones implemented in August, 2013, Medical Centres (ie Physio Practice) are a permitted use (i.e. a planning permit for that use is not required) within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, provided certain conditions are met.   In this instance, one of the conditions contained in the NRZ definition, Clause 32.09-1, is not met, ie. that The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone”.   Therefore, as Kangaroo Road is not a designated Road Zone a planning permit is required.

Planning Permit Application Summary

  • The permit seeks to expand the Physio Practice from a combined residence and 2 practitioner practice to a non-residential 5 practitioner practice.
  • On site (Off street) parking requirements are in accordance with the standards with
    • 4 car spaces for staff accessed via Kangaroo Road and
    • 13 car spaces for staff and clients, accessed via Pelling Road.

Officers Report Details

  • General
  • Public Notices
    • The Officers Report notes that 24 notices were sent to individual property owners and occupiers and resulted in the receipt of
      • 53 letters of Support (as per the Appendix – provided on a template letter)
      • 17 Objections
  • In the interests of transparency, at the Planning Conference, resident objectors specifically requested that the Officers Report include a comment to the effect that the 53 letters of support are predominantly template letters that were sought by a close associate of the applicant, from members of a local sporting club sponsored by the Physiotherapy Practice. As such the Objectors felt they raised conflict of interest issues which should be noted.

Unfortunately, no such comment is included in the Officer’s Report

  • Reasons for Recommendation

The Officer’s “Reasons for Recommendation” are based on an assessment of the permit application against Council’s Planning Scheme Clauses 32.09 NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE (Mandatory) and Clause 22.02 “NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES POLICY” (Non mandatory or Discretionary).

The intent of the Non Residential Uses policy is,

  • “ to provide direction for applicants in terms of minimising residential amenity impacts, preferred locations and design of non-residential uses and facilities … in a residential area” (Clause 22.02-1) and
  • “to encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles” ie “preferred locations” (Clause 22.02-2)
  • Preferred Location

The Non-Residential Uses policy defines “preferred locations” (Clause 22.02=9) as being along “main and secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from service or side road” with this definition being further refined by the inclusion of a performance measure which identifies preferred locations “ as abutting main or secondary roads”.

Thus since Kangaroo Road is not defined as a major or secondary road, the permit application does not comply with either the mandatory Zone requirements or the non mandatory Non Residential Uses policy.

While the Officer’s Report acknowledges that Kanagroo Road is not a major or secondary road, the recommendation to approve is based, not on the planning scheme, but the statement that “it is a major Council road due to its relatively high volume of traffic

  • No. of Practitioners

As previously mentioned the permit application seeks to expand the Physio Practice from a combined residence and 2 practitioner practice to a non residential 5 practitioner practice.

This proposed 150% expansion proposal is not in compliance with the Non-Residential Uses Policy (Clause 22.02-5) which supports small scale medical centres in the residential zones by limiting the number of practitioners to two.

Despite this significant deviation from the policy, the Officer’s Report recommends permit approval as the deviation is “acceptable as the use is low in intensity”.  It is difficult to understand how such a deviation from policy can be considered as both “acceptable” and in line with the overall Non Residents Uses Policy intent of minimising residential amenity impacts.

  • Parking and Traffic
  • Somewhat of a misnomer, since this section of the Officer’s Report deals solely with parking.
  • With regards
    • on-site car parking requirements the objector’s agree that the required number of spaces has been provided. However, a reliance on tandem parking (Ie. one behind the other) for front staff car park and some rear parking spaces (staff and clients) indicates a likely increase in demand for on-street parking in a small residential road which already experiences high on-street parking demand due to it’s proximity to Murrumbeena Park.
    • Client car parking will be accessed via Pelling Road and will result in increased traffic volume and noise, particularly in Pelling Road, and in Murrumbeena Crescent.

No analysis of on-street parking demand or increased traffic volumes arising from the increased number of practitioners is presented.

In addition two significant points raised at the Planning Conference are not included in the Officer’s Report, these points are*

  • That the residents provided evidence of Physio Therapy Practices in the surrounding area that showed that the area is well serviced by the practices, the majority of which are located in preferred locations. Therefore, lack of existing services (ie. the concept of net community benefit) does not justify the location of clinic of this size in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (even though that zone is in close proximity to a growth zone).
  • The practices location is in close proximity to the Hugesdale growth zone (GRZ) which is a more appropriate location for a clinic of this proposed sizes and is in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme, Clause 21.08 – INSTITUTIONAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS which states

“The development and expansion of non-residential and institutional uses in residential areas is an issue that warrants attention. Medical centres, places of worship, childcare and kindergartens all, quite clearly, have a place within residential areas.  However, badly sited or controlled non-residential uses can progressively erode Glen Eira’s residential nature. The Non-Residential Use in Residential Zones Policy and Child Care Centres Policy have been developed to ensure that such uses are integrated into residential areas with a minimum impact or loss of residential amenity”

While GERA acknowledges that the Council has applied conditions to the permit application (related to hours of operation, signage, landscaping and “minor” aspects of car parking design), we believe that

  • in terms of the above points the Officer’s Report does not give adequate consideration to the permit’s non compliance with the Planning Scheme requirements or the amenity impacts of surrounding residents and
  • this inadequate consideration potentially has precedent setting implications for future proposed medical centre expansions across the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.



*Comments inadvertently omitted from our original post



As more and more properties are being totally or partially cleared of vegetation, the above question is increasingly being asked by residents. Tree Protection is a longstanding issue that residents have consistently flagged as a high priority numerous times over many years and that Council has been working on for just as many years. Yet Glen Eira still lacks both a publicly available Tree Register and a Tree Protection Strategy. Instead Glen Eira relies on Planning Scheme provisions which, without defining “significant”, are only “triggered” when two events coincide, ie. a planning permit is lodged with Council and an inspection of the property identifies “significant” vegetation.   To address this obvious issue, the majority of other Victorian Councils enacted (local law) Tree Registers and Tree Protection Strategies years ago, however, Glen Eira is still working on it and in March 2015 voted* to defer this work until an unspecified time.

Consequently and sadly, this leads us to suspect that the answer to the above question is that Glen Eira Council, despite residents expressed wishes, doesn’t want either a Tree Register or Tree Protection Strategy.

* The vote was a split decision – Crs. Lipshutz, Esakoff, Magee (Mayor), Lobo and Okotel voting for deferral with Crs. Delahunty, Pilling, Sounness and Hyams voting against deferral.  Extract from Council Minutes – 17/3/2015.

So what is and are the implications of establishing both a Tree Register and a Tree Protection Strategy.  When both are combined they result in a Tree protection outcome that is consistent with the principles of good town planning.   Basic definitions are

  • Tree Register is a publicly available list of trees, which includes details of the specimens which have been deemed to be significant. Details usually include species name (botanical and common), tree location, type of location (private or public land), condition and brief statement of significance. Under the Tree Protection Strategy, once designated as significant, or given a “pending review” status, the Tree Protection Strategy and appropriate Planning Scheme Provisions are activated. A tree register is not a static list, it is updated if trees die or require removal and new specimens are identified.
  • Tree Protection Strategy incorporates the rules governing the addition or the removal of trees to/from the tree register. Typical components included in a strategy are:
    • Assessment criteria – many and varied.   For example the City of Kingston’s criteria considers horticultural value, location or context, rarity or localised distribution, age and potential life span, outstanding size, aesthetic values or curious growth form, outstanding examples of their species, cultural or historical significance.
    • Assessment process – from nomination to determination of significance by a panel of arborists and landscapers.   Most Councils have a open to all nomination process, however, past Council Minutes indicate that, since implementation of tree register may create local controversy (neighbour vs. neighbour), Glen Eira Council favours a closed nomination process.
    • Tree maintenance activities that may/may not require a permit, permit requirements and fees
    • Appropriate protection measures to be adopted (reference to Planning Scheme and additional protective measures if, and as, considered appropriate).
    • Availability of tree maintenance advice, provided by Council Arborists, to the custodians (owners) of significant trees on private property.
    • Appropriate penalty clauses.

Readers should also note that establishing a Tree Register and Tree Protection Strategy

  • In combination, ensure tree protection that is consistent with good planning principles
  • are an addition to Planning Scheme Provisions, they neither replace nor diminish those provisions
  •     they offer a higher level of protection than the Planning Scheme since permission is required before any action that can damage a classified tree may be undertaken. The protection “trigger” is not restricted to the lodging of a planning permit application on the property where the tree is located.
  •     provides for shared responsibilities for the retention and care of significant trees that span property boundaries
  •     does not preclude arborist site inspections when a planning permit is lodged and the identification of a tree considered worthy of addition to the tree register.
  •     additionally, a tree’s inclusion in a publicly available Tree Register will ensure that if the property is to be re-developed, the retention/protection of identified significant tree/s must be taken into account during the preparation of the proposed development’s plans.

GERA considers this a significant improvement to the current process,

  • which as per the Officers Report, involves significant tree identification and protections occurring after the development’s plans have been lodged with Council.
  • as the Tree Strategy would/should include an orderly and appropriate process for determining if and when significant trees are to be permitted to be removed because of redevelopment requirements. Under the current process, the decision to allow significant tree removal is “discretionary” – with many residents complaining that significant trees located in the growth zones are ”assessed in the same way as the Gum in Neerim Road was”.   Extract from Council Minutes 28/06/2011

“There is one high value tree at the rear of 179 Neerim Road (Manna Gum) according to Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer. This tree is not proposed to be retained and is not protected by a planning scheme control or local law. In any event, the tree in its residential context is considered to be too large for its setting. It is also located on a site identified as being a strategic location for housing diversity. On balance, its removal is considered acceptable. Recommended conditions will require the planting of 7 new advanced canopy trees throughout the site.”

  •  It would also strengthen ResCode’s “defacto tree retention control” mentioned in the Officer’s Report. This control requires that any town planning permit assessment must consider any trees removed within the 12 months prior to application lodgement as still existing.   Given land-banking and/or the elapsed time between contracting to purchase a property and lodging a permit, it does not provide the same disincentive to totally or partially clear a site that a Tree Register and Strategy provides (ie. how do they know what trees were there, goes beyond 12 months plus 1 day).

In addition to the comments made above, we further comment

  • That while we applaud the comment that “it is estimated that over 200 valued trees are protected each year” we are concerned that number cannot be verified and are questioning the planning zone applicable to the location of the 200+ trees. Resident’s report that few significant trees are identified in the growth zones.
  • While again we applaud the comment “that every approved multi unit dwelling proposal has a permit condition which requires a landscape plan to be submitted and approved by Council. The landscape plan process is an opportunity to ensure the planting of well advanced (between 2m to 3m in height when planted) future canopy trees. The landscape plans are prepared by a suitably qualified person and, importantly, signed off by Council’s landscape architect” we are again concerned about the provision of future canopy trees, particularly in the growth zones.

The high density growth zones are the areas which will benefit most from the planting of future canopy trees – come to GERA’s forum tomorrow night to find out why. However, in these zones, most of the developments include boundary to boundary basement car parks with either

  • Minimal soil coverage to service both landscaping plants and canopy trees or
  • The construction of above ground concrete planters for canopy trees

We also have concerns about the enforcement of conditions related to landscaping and the planting of future canopy trees. In the above mentioned instance of a Neerim Road property, soil coverage is minimal and the required 7 (at a minimum of 3.0 metres tall) future canopy tree plantings (4 within the Neerim Road setback and 3 in the South-West Corner) have either not been planted or subsequently died and not been replaced.

To aid the growth of future canopy trees, we urge Council to apply the same set back requirements to basement car parks as are applied to above ground building envelope.




 An opportunity to hear & discuss issues with

Dr. Greg Moore*

Burnley College, University of Melbourne.

      Date:           Wednesday, 14th October, 2015

     Time:           7.00 p.m. AGM

                              7.30 p.m. Guest Speaker

     Venue:         St. Johns Uniting Church

567 Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick                                

       Admission: Gold Coin Donation

                   ALL WELCOME


 * Dr. Greg Moore was Principal of Burnley College, Melbourne University from 1988 to 2007. Greg has a specific interest in all aspects of arboriculture, which is the scientific study of the cultivation and management of trees. He has contributed to the development of Australian Standards in pruning and amenity tree evaluation and has been a major speaker at Australian and International conferences. He has been a regular on Melbourne radio, particularly with ABC 774 and 3AW and has chaired, since 1996, of the National Trust of Victoria’s Register of Significant Trees. He is currently pursuing active research related to trees and revegetation in the urban environment.


Since the August, 2011 Zone Implementation we are receiving and increasing number of requests for information related to Medical Centres in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – both for new Centres and the expansion of existing Centres.  Hence we thought it appropriate to provide our readers with an overview of the relevant Planning Scheme’s Clauses.

Clauses listed may be accessed via the Glen Eira Planning Scheme



32.09-1 Defines requirements for use as a Medical Centre as being

  • The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 250 square metres.
  • Must be located in an existing building.
  • The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone (refer Clause 22.02)
  • Must not require a permit under clause 52.06 Car Parking – 01/07/2014

 While this Clause is predominantly applicable to new centres, with regards proposed expansions to existing centres, it provides a guideline of the Clause’s intended objectives re size, intensity of use and location.  These intended objectives and the Clause’s Decision Guidelines (a.k.a. factors which may be considered when assessing planning permit applications) should also be taken into account when reviewing planning permit applications for expanded use.

32.09-11 Decision Guidelines – 01/07/2013.

Non-residential use and development

In the local neighbourhood context:

  • Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.
  • Whether the use generally serves local community needs.
  • The scale and intensity of the use and development.
  • The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
  • The proposed landscaping.
  • The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.
  • Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.
  • The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.

CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING 01/07/2014

Applicable to a new medical centre or an increase in the floor or site area of an existing centre. It defines minimum car parking requirements.  One of the Clauses stated purposes is “To ensure that car parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality

52.06-9 Decision guidelines 19/4/2013

Included in the list of factors to be considered are:

  • The role and function of nearby roads and the ease and safety with which vehicles gain access to the site.
  • The protection and enhancement of the streetscape.
  • The provisions of landscaping for screening and shade.
  • The amenity of the locality and any increased noise or disturbance to dwellings and the amenity of pedestrians.


As per Clause 22.02-1, the “intent of the Policy is to provide direction for applicants in terms of minimising residential amenity impacts, preferred locations and design of non-residential uses and facilities … in a residential areas”

  • Non residential uses are defined as being a medical centres, places of worship and places of assembly.
  • Residential Areas are defined as being the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ), General Residential Zone GRZ), Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) and Mixed Use Zone (MUZ).

Clause 22.02-2 – Preferred Locations are defined “to encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles”.

Policies outlined in Clause 22.02-2 include

  • Encourage the location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main and secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from service or side road”. Please note that under the heading performance measures, preferred locations are “identified as abutting main or secondary roads”.
  • Main Roads
  • Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably compromised.
  • Direct uses to locations where there will be minimal impact on the local amenity, including through the introduction of traffic and parking of cars

 Clauses 22.02-3 (Siting and Design) and 22.02-4 (Landscaping)

These Clauses are primarily related to the building envelope, set backs and landscaping of street interfaces. As such they are best discussed when accompanied by a planning permit application.

Clause 22.02-5 General Amenity

                 The objective of this Clause is “to minimise the effect of  non                  residential uses on the residential amenity” via policies which

  • Ensure the intensity of the use, in terms of staff levels, numbers of people providing health services, patron numbers and hours of operation are appropriate to the site layout, locality and does not unreasonably impact the amenity of the neighbouring properties.
  • Promote small scale uses (no more than 2 people providing health services) to operate in the existing dwellings, in order to maintain the residential appearance and nature of the locality.
  • Minimize any visual and acoustic privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.

The Performance Measures (a.k.a. Decision Guidelines) include bench marks for operating hours, screening treatments for overlooking adjoining properties and acoustic treatments and screening required for noise abatement.

Clause 22.02-6

 The objective of this Clause is “to provide adequate and appropriate signage” via policies which “ensure that the proposed height, area and number of any signage is appropriate to the size and location of the development”

The Performance Measures (a.k.a. Decision Guidelines) include signage dimensions, heights and location.


 The below listing includes Clauses that are also relevant to Non Residential uses in Residential Areas, however, some content of these may also be included in the review of the above Clauses.



  • To ensure that non-residential uses are successfully integrated into residential zones with minimum impact and minimum loss of residential amenity.
  • To ensure community awareness and input into the long term expansion plans of large institutions in residential areas.



  • To ensure a greater diversity of housing to meet future housing needs.
  • To improve and protect the livability, neighbourhood character and amenity of Glen Eira.
  • To promote environmental, social and economic sustainability.
  • To stimulate and improve the vitality of Glen Eira’s commercial centres.
  • To improve access to housing for residents with special housing needs.
  • To ensure integrated neighbourhood planning of Glen Eira’s suburbs.


Part of the Municipal Strategic Statement that although including some aged components (eg. Key Land Use Vision – 19/01/2006), provides a broad overview of the Glen Eira’s Planning Framework.



Many readers will remember GERA’s unsuccessful “ Save Frogmore Campaign” (1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie) and Glen Eira Council’s shameful 9/6/2015 decision to abandon applying heritage protection to Frogmore House before it could be assessed by an Independent Planning Panel (effectively denying all stakeholders access to the appropriate due planning scheme amendment process). The end result being the demolition of Frogmore House occurring in July, 2015.

Unfortunately, it appears that an addendum has recently been added to the shameful Frogmore Saga.   This time it is related to processing the of the planning permit application for a two storey Aged Care Facility which includes a proposal to remove 88 trees from the site.


The 9/6/2015 decision to abandon heritage decision for Frogmore was made

  • despite
    • a Council commissioned Independent Heritage Expert Assessment (Jan, 2015), which unequivocally recommended Heritage Protection at the Municipal Level.
    • it being inconsistent with the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the 1987 Planning and Environment Act objectives of planning for Victoria. Inadequate strategic justification was provided to support this inconsistency.
    • a recommendation from the National Trust
    • considerable community support for Heritage Protection to be applied to Frogmore (petition of approx. 1000 signatures, planning conference 300+ letters of support for protection vs. 2 against protection)
    • Council’s
      • Instigation (reportedly by Mayor Magee) of an Interim Protection Order for Frogmore in Jan, 2015
      • 2/2/2015 6 to 3 decision to proceed with Heritage Protection based on the January, 2015 Heritage Advisor’s Report (For Protection Crs. Sounness, Okotel, Lobo, Delahunty, Esakoff and Magee; Against Protection Crs. Pilling, Hyams and Lipshutz)
  • based on
    • reliance on an inappropriate process (the planning permit approval process) to determined Heritage Values vs. the appropriate Planning Scheme Amendment process
    • reliance on an outdated (2002) Municipal Wide Heritage Assessment that recognised Frogmore as significant but excluded it from Heritage Protection in part because in was not located in a heritage protection area.   This flawed 2002 application of  the “safety in numbers” concept to heritage determination overrode the January 2015 assessment (which in addition to many other factors), recommended protection due to it’s individual location (rarity) and took into account social and demographic changes that had occurred since 2002. “It’s a victim of it’s own rarity”
    • that the potential purchaser (Jewish Care) had acted in good faith and undertaken significant expenditure in identifying and negotiating the site for re-development as an Aged Care Facility. FYI – caveat emptor is not listed as either a planning or heritage consideration
    • an unsubstantiated determination of Net Community Benefit of 120 beds. With 120 beds equating Jewish Care’s assessment of site potential if Frogmore wasn’t retained.  Clearly, this net community benefit calculation ascribes a zero value to heritage.
    • the decision of Heritage Victoria not to award State Level Protection to Frogmore which was a decision based on an assessment at the broader State Level rather than smaller Municipal Level. Council’s use of the Heritage Victoria decision as a justification, ignores the fact that Heritage Protection, within Australia, provides for heritage recognition and protection at the Municipal Level. It also ignores the fact that Council’s commissioned 01/ 2015, Heritage Advisors Assessment was undertaken at the Municipal Level and recommends protection at that level

 “Frogmore is significant to the locality of Carnegie and Murrumbeena and City of Glen Eira and should be conserved as one of the cultural assets of the city   … Frogmore House should be included in the schedule to heritage over lay clause 43.01 by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme”.

  • a casting vote – in the absence of the Mayor (Magee) and declarations of conflicts of interest (arising since February, 2015) from the Deputy Mayor (Delahunty) and Cr. Esakoff, the immediate past Mayor Cr. Pilling took and chair and exercised his casting vote. (For Protection Crs. Sounness, Okotel, Lobo; Against Protection Crs. Pilling (2 votes), Hyams and Lipshutz)


9/6/2015              Decision to abandon heritage protection

17/6/2015           Planning Permit Application for a 2 storey Aged Care Facility at 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie, lodged with Council for Council review.

21/7/2015            Frogmore House Demolished

13/9/2015            1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie site aerial photo ex Nearmap

wahgoo spetember 2015

15/9/2015           Advertising period for Planning Permit Application commenced, ie. plans made available for residents review and possible objections.

Included in the permit documentation provided for residents review is a proposal for the removal of 88 trees – we’d appreciate readers assistance in finding them in the above 13/9/2015 aerial photograph.

To aid you below is a aerial picture of the site circa January, 2015.

Frogmore H&L

And a picture taken during the July 2015 demolition works

012 T

29/9/2015           Advertising period completed. Objections received to be considered by Council in near future.