VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ vcat reference No. P161/2016
Permit Application no. TPA/44975

CATCHWORDS

Section 79 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987. Monash Planning Scheme. General Residential Zone Schedule 2. Three dwellings. Neighbourhood character. Two crossovers. Amenity.
APPLICANT / Ashish Chopra
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
respondents / E Turner, Edna D Bull and J Rosemary Bull
SUBJECT LAND / 1 Oakleigh Street, Oakleigh East
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Cindy Wilson, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 14 July 2016
DATE OF ORDER / 15 August 2016
CITATION / Chopra v Monash CC [2016] VCAT 1360

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: / Archimedium Australia Pty Ltd
·  Drawing numbers:
·  Dated: / TP3 Revision A, TP4 Revision A, TP5 Revision B & TP6 Revision A
May 2016

2  The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.

3  In permit application TPA/44975 no permit is granted.

Cindy Wilson
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / Mr Simon Skinner town planner of Planning Sense
For Monash City Council / Mr David De Giovanni, consultant town planner
For E Turner / Mr Duncan Turner, town planner
For Edna D. Bull and J. Rosemary Bull / Ms J. Rosemary Bull

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal / Three double storey dwellings
Nature of Proceeding / Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
Zone and Overlays / General Residential Zone, Schedule 2
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-4 A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Relevant Scheme, policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 55 and 65.
Land Description / The review site is located on the north side of Oakleigh Street, some 39 metres east of Huntingdale Road, Oakleigh East. The site is rectangular with a frontage of 17.68 metres, a depth of 49.56 metres and a site area of 876.2 square metres. The land has a gentle fall from the north west corner to the south west corner. A single storey house exists on the land.
Tribunal Inspection / I inspected the review site and surrounds on the 5 August 2016 including a view from 3 Oakleigh Street and 180 Huntingdale Road.
Cases Referred To / NJJJKT Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC [2008] VCAT 1410

REASONS[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  Monash City Council oppose a three dwelling development proposed on a lot of 876 square metres at 1 Oakleigh Street, Oakleigh East. Council’s key concerns relate to the bulk and form of the two rear dwellings, inadequate area available for landscaping, the two vehicle crossings proposed, all of which combine to result in an unacceptable response to neighbourhood character.

2  Ms Turner, a respondent objector, raises concerns about visual bulk, impacts on privacy and the front setback and double crossing proposed that will compromise the spacious and green streetscape. Ms Bull shares Council concerns especially in relation to building bulk and the loss of the soft green character of Oakleigh Street and raised issues about the loss of camellias along the western boundary and impact on boundary fencing.

3  The applicant submits the proposal will achieve moderate housing growth and diversity as sought by the Planning Scheme, incorporates a design response appropriate for site context and neighbourhood character, will provide for adequate landscaping, avoid unreasonable building bulk and acceptably limit amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

4  The applicant sought to substitute amended plans that had been circulated in accordance with the Tribunal requirements. There was no objection from other parties and I allowed that substitution of plans[2].

5  The key issues to address in this proceeding are:

·  Does the proposal respond appropriately to neighbourhood character?

·  Are there other matters that warrant support of the proposal?

·  Are the amenity impacts on adjoining properties acceptable?

6  My findings on these issues informed by consideration of the applicable provisions and policies of the Monash Planning Scheme, the submissions of the parties and my observations during an inspection of the site and surrounds, result in a decision to affirm the decision of Council and direct that no permit be granted. My reasons follow.

Does the proposal respond appropriately to neighbourhood character?

7  The applicant submits the proposal has been designed to respectfully respond to a context of high fencing to the west, an elevated single dwelling to the east, the existing landscape character of limited canopy trees and the wider neighbourhood character having regard to the following elements:

·  The staggered façade of dwelling 1 to the street with setbacks of between 7.6 and 9.9 metres.

·  Conventional pitched roof facing the street.

·  Porch and windows of dwelling 1 actively engaging with the street.

·  A single width garage for dwelling 1 recessed 600mm from the front façade.

·  Dual crossings occupying only 34.7% of the frontage and leading to single width driveways that will ensure the minimum amount of paving and maintain a generous front yard.

·  Offset of the western driveway to retain the camellias and to provide an enhanced separation from the crossing to the sideage of 180 Huntingdale Road.

·  Avoiding loss of street trees[3].

·  Attached two storey dwellings located along the length of the property is a typical site layout and similar to nearby developments in Oakleigh Street and nearby Elizabeth Street.

·  A layout that is respectful of the context having regard to minimal boundary construction, generous side setbacks at sensitive interfaces, limited extent of upper level walls, a high level of articulation and building placement that respects the pattern of development nearby.

·  A design that will allow for at least two canopy trees in the front setback that will significantly enhance the streetscape. In addition there are generous areas within the site, as demonstrated by 40% site coverage, 41% permeable area and generous private open space areas that will allow for planting that will make a positive contribution to future landscape character.

8  The applicant says the two crossovers proposed on this site are justified on the basis that the public realm in this section of Oakleigh Street has been extensively modified and no longer comprises an intact or sensitive residential streetscape. The context includes dual crossovers and high paling fence on the sideage of 180 Huntingdale Road, extensive hard paving within the front setback of 2 Oakleigh, two crossings and extensive paving at 7-9 Oakleigh Street and several medical centres diagonally opposite the site with concrete car parks in front setbacks.

9  Council submits that the proposal fails to respond acceptably to the physical context and preferred neighbourhood character for the area. In particular Council says the two vehicle crossings proposed will be inconsistent with the pattern in the street, will result in loss of the ‘soft quality’ provided by the nature strips and landscaping opportunities and will reduce kerbside parking in an area where on-street parking is in demand.

10  Furthermore Council says the bulk and mass of the two rear dwellings and the inadequate opportunities for landscaping will create an unacceptable built form in the rear yard. Council says this outcome is contrary to local policy that seeks generous upper floor articulation and setbacks off side boundaries sufficient to allow new landscaping including canopy trees.

11  Ms Turner raises concerns about the negative impact the proposal will have on the open front gardens, the lack of transition in front setback to the adjoining site, the building bulk of three double storey dwellings and the box like appearance of dwelling 2. Ms Bull endorsed concerns about loss of ‘soft, green’ character of Oakleigh Street and submitted the western driveway will inappropriately result in loss of well established camellia bushes adjacent to the western boundary.

12  Monash Planning Scheme identifies that the changing form of development in the municipality has significantly reduced both the canopy tree environment and landscaped area while increasing the hard surface coverage of each development site in a manner that adversely impacts on the garden city character[4]. To retain the image of green, landscaped streets, local policy seeks to maintain street setbacks, minimise street crossings and provide adequate areas of private open space for recreation purposes as well as to enable planting of new canopy trees.

13  There are a number of local policies[5] that apply to all residential development and that address various matters including building setbacks, vehicle crossings, scale of development, private open space and landscaping. Local policy specifies that new development is to positively contribute to neighbourhood character having regard to the desired future character statement for the applicable character type. The review site is within Residential Character Type ‘B” where the desired future character includes the following:

The neighbourhood character of this area will, as it develops, retain its modest and unassuming character by ensuring that multi housing developments, including dual occupancies, are appropriate in scale and form to existing dwellings.

The built-form will be unified by a general consistency in building setback. New dwellings will address the street and complement the scale and form of adjacent buildings. Redevelopments will be single storey unless there is a gradated change in height or on-site trees and large shrubs to soften the transition between buildings.

Sympathetically designed buildings will be encouraged. …

Front fences will be low, allowing shrubs and other plants in the front garden to soften the edge between development and street. Fences will complement the architecture of the building in design, colour and materials.

Gardens will be well planted with, in the majority of cases, both native and exotic plants to create a visually permeable buffer between the house and street. Existing mature vegetation within properties will be retained and additional tree planting within lots and within the public domain will be encouraged to provide an upper canopy and back drop to the buildings.

The ‘soft’ quality of the street that is derived partially from the nature strips and tree planting within them will be maintained by ensuring that there is only one single crossover per lot frontage.

14  Various other provisions of the Planning Scheme place emphasis on new development respecting neighbourhood character and responding appropriately to context.

15  The review site is located in a residential area of Oakleigh East. Oakleigh Street contains mix of post war detached dwellings, a two storey block of older style flats at 7-9, examples of both older and contemporary medium density development and a new detached dwelling opposite. A single storey medical centre is located diagonally opposite the review site on the south east corner of Oakleigh Street and Huntingdale Road. A car park is located in the front setback of this centre accessed off Huntingdale Road. Amsleigh Park primary school is located at the eastern end of Oakleigh Street and includes vehicle access and a car park accessed off the street.

16  Front setbacks in the street vary with some medium density development forward of the more generous setbacks of the older dwellings. Nevertheless there is a clear front garden character evident in the street with front fencing generally low. One vehicle crossing is provided for each lot except for two crossings to the flats at 7-9 Oakleigh Street and two crossings to the sideage of the adjoining 180 Huntingdale Road. There are examples of adjoining crossings creating a wider paved area to the street.

17  I find there are positive elements of the design response that are respectful of neighbourhood character. These include an articulated built form to side elevations with generous setbacks to side and rear boundaries and between upper level elements. The front setback and relatively generous private open space areas would provide acceptable opportunity for landscaping.

18  I do not share concerns about the front setback. Although considerably forward of the 14 metre setback of the adjoining dwelling at 3 Oakleigh Street, I consider the compliance with the standard set in the Schedule to the zone combined with the transition from the 1.5 metre setback of the garage at 180 Huntingdale Road and the staggered nature of the setback at both ground and first floor make the layout acceptable.

19  I not persuaded, however that the inclusion of two crossings and associated driveways are acceptable in this case. I say this for the following reasons.

20  The existing conditions of Oakleigh Street show a prevailing pattern of one crossing per site with two exceptions. One an older flat development at Number 7-9 has a U-shaped access arrangement with two crossings that not only predates the current neighbourhood character polices but applies to a double width lot. The other site is to the immediate west where Oakleigh Street forms the side boundary to 180 Huntingdale Road and two crossings are provided. Again this provision predates the current policy and relevantly are contained in a boundary of some 40 metres length. Other than these exceptions, Oakleigh Street presents consistently with one vehicle crossing per frontage including for five medium density developments.

21  In these circumstances I find the approval of a development with two crossings is inconsistent with the pattern of one crossing and driveway per frontage in Oakleigh Street. It will result in a reduction of the extent of nature strip and the associated ‘soft’ quality of the street that local policy is seeking to retain through minimising street crossings.

22  The relocation of the existing crossing further east is also a concern. It will result in a loss of a small section of nature strip that currently separates the vehicle access to 1 and 3 Oakleigh Street and create a wide shared crossing over 6.5 metres in width that does not contribute to the garden character sought for the area. The limited opportunity for landscaping to the eastern boundary combined with the garage wall on the boundary considerably forward of the adjoining dwelling will exacerbate the adverse visual impact of this wide extent of paving in the streetscape.