VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ vcat reference No. P1493/2014
Permit Application no. TPA/42450

CATCHWORDS

Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme;
Neighbourhood character (Cl. 22.01 – No. of vehicle crossovers, building siting & form)
APPLICANT / George Daviotis
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 34 Jordan Street, Ashwood
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Tracy Watson, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 10 March 2015
DATE OF ORDER / 20 April 2015
CITATION

Order

1  Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

·  Prepared by: / Prodes Pty Ltd
·  Drawing numbers: / TP01 to TP06 (inclusive)
·  Dated: / 27/12/14

2  The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.

3  In permit application TPA/42450 no permit is granted.

Tracy Watson
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / Peter English, town planner. Mr English called Rob Thomson, landscape architect, as an expert witness.
For Responsible Authority / Sally Moser, town planner

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal / It is proposed to construct three, double storey dwellings on the subject land.
Nature of Proceeding / Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.
Zone and Overlays / Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 (Monash Residential Areas).
No overlays apply to the subject site.
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-4 – Construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Relevant Scheme, policies and provisions / Includes Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21.03, 21.04, 21.08, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 55 and 65
Land Description / The subject site is located on the east side of Jordan Street, and is developed with a single storey, detached dwelling. The site has a frontage of 19.81 metres and a depth of 36.58 metres, yielding a site area of 725m2.
The site is located in an established residential neighbourhood.
Tribunal Inspection / 19 March 2015
Cases Referred To / Isiah Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2012] VCAT 1025

REASONS[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  The application for review was lodged by the permit applicant against the Council’s Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit which was issued in August 2014. The permit applicant prepared amended plans which have addressed some of the Council’s grounds of refusal, such that the key remaining issue in dispute relates to neighbourhood character considerations.

2  Mr English submitted that the subject site has good access to services and transport, and is suitable for a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in accordance with one of the purposes of the General Residential Zone. In this regard, the Council accepted that the site is suitable for some form of new housing, however Council contended that the proposal fails to implement one of the other zone purposes which is, “To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines” as well as the other aspects of the planning scheme which relate to neighbourhood character considerations.

3  The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. I have decided to affirm the decision of the Responsible Authority, and direct that no permit is to be issued. The reasons for my decision are set out below.

Are the neighbourhood character impacts of the proposal acceptable?

General

4  Mr English’s starting point was that the ‘moderate’ housing growth referred to in the General Residential Zone purpose essentially equates to a degree of change beyond a dual occupancy development, as a dual occupancy is more akin to the ‘minimal’ change contemplated by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. At the end of the day, considerations of neighbourhood character are determined based on balancing and integrating the policy settings contained in the planning scheme, the zone purposes and the particular context of the subject site and surrounds.

5  Mr English also submitted that this neighbourhood is undergoing a high degree of change due to the aging post-war housing stock located in this area.

6  I agree that this neighbourhood is changing and does include new medium density housing developments which include two storey building forms and contemporary architectural styles. New development in this locality is either new single dwellings or dual occupancy developments (the only exception to this is the development under construction at 1 Katta Court which comprises three dwellings). The analysis of the neighbourhood focused on Jordan Street, between Katta Court and Salisbury Road, and a distinction was made between the development which fronts the rectilinear part of a street compared to the development positioned around the bowl-end of a cul-de-sac.

7  There are two key aspects of the subject proposal (being the dual crossovers and building’s siting/ form as it presents to Jordan Street) which are important differences to the form and layout of typical new developments in this locality.

Dual Crossovers & Landscaping

8  It is proposed to utilise the existing crossover located at the northern end of the subject site for vehicular access to Dwelling 1, and to construct a new crossover at the southern end of the site to access a new driveway located along the southern boundary of the site which will provide vehicular access to Dwellings 2 and 3.

9  Mr English submitted that the provision of two crossovers and the amount of space provided for carparking and accessways is acceptable given:

·  The relatively wide frontage of the site.

·  Dual crossovers are anticipated in the future character statement of Clause 22.01.

·  The expert evidence and the proposed landscape plan demonstrate that the proposal will make a positive contribution to the landscape character of the area.

·  Sufficient on-street parking will be retained.

·  Carparking structures will not be visually dominant.

·  There is nothing in the policy settings which prohibits the introduction of a second crossover.

·  The proposal exceeds the minimum requirements of Standard B14.

10  A strong theme throughout the planning scheme is that development must respect neighbourhood character. Explicit direction regarding neighbourhood character outcomes is provided at Clause 22.01 (Residential Development and Character Policy) of the planning scheme. The relevant non-locationally specific policies which I consider are the key policy statements relevant to this issue contained in Clause 22.01-3 are:

The Garden City Character of residential areas be retained by discouraging car parking and accessways that have a significant impact on or cause fragmentation of the streetscape.

The number of vehicle crossings be minimised to maintain existing kerb side parking and green spaces in both front setback areas and in naturestrips.

Hardening of the streetscape through the provision of additional crossovers is discouraged.

Landscaping in the front setback areas of properties is to be maintained by minimising the number of crossovers provided on larger multi unit sites and placing vehicle parking to the rear on sites accommodating small to medium multi developments.

Garages, carports and associated visitor spaces be designed so that they do not dominate or visually disrupt the streetscape.

Minimal pavement areas be provided within the front setback area to maximise landscaping to enhance the Garden City Character of the streetscape.

11  The subject site is located in Residential Character Type “D” pursuant to Clause 22.01. The relevant desired future character statement which relates to this issue is:

This Character Type will evolve as a well-planted, open and spacious ‘garden suburb’.

The soft quality of the street that is derived in part from the nature strips will be maintained by ensuring that there is only one single crossover per lot frontage.

12  It is clear from this local policy that the desired outcome is that only one crossover per allotment be provided and that when assessing the impact of additional crossovers that the preservation of grassed nature strips, minimisation of hard paving and maintenance of ‘green spaces’ (which I consider includes lawn areas) is important.

13  Ms Moser tabled seven previous Tribunal decisions in support of Council’s position that the introduction of a second crossover is contrary to the local policy settings of the planning scheme (the key decision referred to was: Isiah Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2012] VCAT 1025). These decisions confirm that there is clear policy support in the planning scheme which discourages the introduction of a second crossover, however there will be some circumstances where a second crossover is justified based on a contextual assessment of the character of the area.

14  In this case, I find that there are no factors which would justify a departure from the local policies of the planning scheme as:

·  The existing conditions of Jordan Street (as depicted in the photographs tendered as part of the hearing, and confirmed during my site inspection) are that each allotment is served by one crossover. This includes the nearby medium density housing developments on the west side of Jordan Street at nos. 37 and 39 where one crossover is relied upon.

·  The result is that this section of Jordan Street currently features minimal hard paving intrusions into the soft landscaped feel of the streetscape created by the extent of the grassed nature strips and the low-level landscaping and lawn areas of nearby front gardens. In this context, the introduction of a second crossover and associated paving would be a degree of change which would have an unacceptable visual impact.

·  Currently the east side of Jordan Street, between Katta Court and Gubbah Court, only features three crossovers, with a long section of uninterrupted nature strip extending from the existing crossover to the subject site and Gubbah Court to the south. This landscape character contrasts to the existing conditions at the bowl end of Katta Court and Gubbah Court where hard paving and crossovers are a stronger visual element. In other words, the cul-de-sac conditions of no. 1 Katta Court (the only nearby planning approved or existing development which includes two crossovers) are not evident in Jordan Street.

15  I consider that the landscape plan prepared by Mr Thomson and the associated evidence describing this plan is a well-resolved response. I agree with his opinion that the existing canopy cover in this area is fair to moderate and that there would be sufficient space for the planting of an appropriate number of new canopy trees on the subject site and that there would also be sufficient space for the establishment of garden areas.

16  It was Mr Thomson’s evidence that if the site was served by one crossover, the areas made available by the deletion of the second crossover and associated paving would probably be used as lawn areas. I think that in this area, the landscape character includes lawn areas because of the garden suburban nature of the area. The creation of additional lawn areas, and the preservation of the grassed nature strip, supports the requirement to limit the number of crossovers servicing the subject site to one crossover.

17  On the basis of the above reasons, I conclude that the objective relating to Standard B14 which is, “To ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighbourhood character” has not been met.

Building Siting & Form

18  Mr English submitted that the design response for this proposal has been formulated in response to the relatively generous frontage, but limited depth of the subject site.

19  Mr English submitted that the built form of Dwellings 1 and 2 is acceptable as: there are existing contemporary buildings in the area; the area is evolving with a degree of diversity already present; the proposal will present as a single dwelling to maintain the rhythm of building spacing; the northern boundary wall is consistent with existing newer development; garages constructed to a side boundary is also relatively common in this neighbourhood; and the upper level is sufficiently articulated to sit comfortably within the streetscape.

20  In terms of a built form outcome, the planning scheme requires that a new building is respectful of neighbourhood character and makes a positive contribution to this character. Pursuant to Clause 22.01 of the planning scheme, the subject site is located within Character Area “D” where the desired future character, relating to building siting and form, is:

Building setbacks will be generous. Architecture will integrate sympathetically with the landform and its scale and form respecting and enhancing the spacious curvilinear urban form.

21  I agree that the proposed architectural style, the materials and finishes, roof form, a garage boundary wall and some form of upper level element is acceptable in this neighbourhood. However, I share Council’s concerns regarding: the overall breadth of the upper level as it presents to Jordan Street (with a minimal 1.8 metres setback off the northern site boundary); the length of the northern boundary wall (which accommodates a kitchen beyond the garage); and the length of the upper level wall where it features the minimal 1.8 metres boundary setback.

22  I find that these features of the front building are not sufficiently respectful of the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of the area. These elements of the proposed design, in combination with the proposed dual-crossovers, result in a proposal which has not been designed to satisfactorily respond to the context of the site and surrounds.

23  This proposal differs to the other examples in Jordan Street referred to by Mr English (being nos. 29 and 41 Jordan Street) as having a similar siting in terms of the breadth of building across the site. These two existing buildings have a reduced visual impact on the character of the area as they are both only single storey and also feature only one crossover. There are no existing examples in this part of Jordan Street which feature the intensity of the proposed upper level form as it presents to the street. Even the development under construction at 1 Katta Court has introduced subtle upper level articulation which is not present in the proposed front building.

24  In addition to the built form of Dwellings 1 and 2, Council also raised concerns regarding the overall lack of articulation and boxy form (as viewed from the east) of Dwelling 3 (which is located at the rear of the subject site).