VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST / vcat reference No.P2241/2016
Permit Application no. TPA/46014
CATCHWORDS
Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme General Residential Zone, Schedule 2; three dwellings; neighbourhood character.
APPLICANT / Milleo Investment Pty Ltd
responsible authority / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 19 Dallas Avenue, Hughesdale
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Cindy Wilson, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 7 August 2017
DATE OF interim ORDER / 6 September 2017
Date of Final Order / 4 October 2017
CITATION / Milleo Investment Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2017] VCAT 1555

Order

1  In application P2241/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.

2  In planning permit application TPA/46014 no permit is granted.

Cindy Wilson
Member

Appearances

For Applicant / Mr Andrew Clarke, town planner of Clarke Planning
For Responsible Authority / Mr Dean Savage, town planner of Currie & Brown

Information

Description of proposal / The construction of three double storey dwellings.
Nature of proceeding / Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.
Planning scheme / Monash Planning Scheme
Zone and overlays / General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 (GRZ2)
Permit requirements / Clause 32.08 A permit is required for the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the GRZ2.
Relevant scheme policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 52.06, 55 and 65.
Land description / The review site is located on the north side of Dallas Avenue, Hughesdale, 16 metres east of Darling Street. The land is rectangular with a frontage of 15.85 metres, a depth of 46.8 metres and a site area of 742 square metres. The land is vacant, contains no vegetation and is relatively flat.
Tribunal inspection / I inspected the review site and surrounds on 12 August 2017.

Reasons[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  Milleo Investment Pty Ltd propose to construct three double storey dwellings at 19 Dallas Avenue, Hughesdale. Monash City Council refused a permit for this proposal on grounds that relate to neighbourhood character, amenity and garden area.

2  The applicant seeks a review of the Council decision. The applicant submits the proposal achieves an appropriate outcome for the site that will not result in adverse impacts to neighbourhood character or create unacceptable amenity impacts.

3  The Tribunal must decide if a permit should be granted and, if so what conditions should apply. I have decided that a permit should not be granted for reasons relating to neighbourhood character. My reasons follow.

neighbourhood character

What do the parties say, in summary?

4  Council criticises the side by side layout, building bulk, reliance on two driveways, boundary construction and lack of planting opportunities. Council says the combination of these design features fails to respond to the desired future character identified for the neighbourhood and will be detrimental to the streetscape.

5  The applicant submits that whilst the proposal will be different to other developments in the immediate context, it will not be jarring. Importantly, says the applicant, the proposal responds appropriately to the majority of local policy provisions relating to neighbourhood character and where there is dispute, the response is acceptable. In the applicant’s submission the following design features are appropriate:

·  The two storey scale of the development is acceptable in a street where single storey does not predominate.

·  The design presents as one dwelling to the street with a recessed single garage and built form width of 12.5 metres. This layout with a recessed upper level is an appropriate response to the building width and building spacing in the street, including the three double storey dwellings to the immediate west.

·  To the street the compliant front setback and a recessive first floor element combined with a well landscaped front garden that is 9.5 metres wide will avoid the appearance of visual bulk.

·  To side elevations the first floor elements are well articulated, not simply a pop-up box.

·  The design includes elements along its façade that aid in the perception of a single dwelling appearance to the street.

·  It is relevant that Council approved three double storey dwellings on the adjoining site to the west, which in terms of scale, site coverage and character are comparable with the proposal on the review site.

·  The two crossovers proposed meet the numerical requirements of ResCode, will appear in a street where the narrow nature strips and proliferation of intersections create fragmentation of the street rather than the ‘soft quality’ referred to in policy and allow for landscaping that will contribute to the garden character of the area.

·  There is adequate area provided to meet landscaping objectives noting a site coverage of 44%. There is opportunity for planting of seven trees capable of growing taller than the proposed building height and a landscape strip is provided adjacent to the driveway.

6  The applicant says it is important, in consideration of the two crossovers proposed, that it be noted that no street tree is impacted, there is no loss of on-street parking and, other than limited school pick up and drop off times, onstreet parking demand is low. The applicant also submits the policy that seeks only one crossover per lot is effectively a ‘blanket’ policy applying to multiple neighbourhood character precincts. Furthermore the applicant says that in appreciating the urban environment as a whole, crossovers form only a small component that converts around 6 square metres of surface area on a nature strip from grass to concrete, as opposed to more readily perceptible front setbacks, roof form or front façade. In any event in the vicinity of the review site, the nature strips are relatively narrow, the streetscape is highly fragmented through intersections, the school site and a varied subdivision grain. In this context, the applicant says a second crossover is justified and will not erode a uniform pattern.

What does the Planning Scheme say?

7  State policy[2] seeks development that responds to context and reinforces special characteristics of the local environment and supports well designed medium density housing which respects the neighbourhood character.

8  The Municipal Strategic Statement[3] identifies neighbourhood character as an important element of the residential areas in Monash. Residential development is to be balanced in providing a variety of housing styles and sizes whilst remaining sympathetic to existing neighbourhood character. Contributing to neighbourhood character is the Garden City Character, identified as a core value held by Council, with planning decisions to seek outcomes that contribute to and enhance this character. Clause 22.01 includes a number of policies that apply to all residential land and relate to general matters, building setbacks, vehicle crossings and vehicle accommodation, built form and scale, fences, boundary walls, private open space, landscaping car parking, stormwater and environment. In addition there are more specific objectives for the applicable character type. The review site is included in Residential Character Type A where, as relevant, the desired future character statement is :

…The built-form will be unified by consistency in building setback. New dwellings will address the street and complement the scale and form of adjacent buildings. Development that is inappropriate and out of scale with adjoining dwellings will not be supported.

Sympathetically designed architecture is encouraged in preference to imitations of historic styles….

Front fences will be low. This enables vegetation to be visible from the street, allows clear views of buildings and gives the street an open and transparent quality. Fencing will complement the architecture of the building in design, colour and materials.

Existing mature trees and shrubs within properties will be retained and additional tree planting proposed to gradually create a tree canopy in the private domain.

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

9  A tree conservation policy[4] aims to promote the retention of mature trees and encourage the planting of new canopy trees throughout Monash.

10  The purpose of the General Residential Zone (GRZ) that applies to the site encourages development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area, a theme repeated in a number of objectives in Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme. Schedule 2 to the GRZ contains variations to clause 55 standards in relation to street setbacks, private open space and front fence height.

What is the physical context?

11  The review site is within a mixed residential area that includes single storey timber, brick or fibro post war houses, more recent double storey houses, dual occupancies often on corner lots and sometimes retaining the original house and a recently constructed development of three double storey dwellings to the immediate west.

12  Newer development tends to extend deeper into lots and include upper levels. Front setbacks are typically generous and front gardens visible to the street. Setbacks from side boundaries are common.

13  Dallas Avenue is blocked to vehicular traffic east of the site, adjacent to Canterbury Street. That part of Dallas Avenue that extends east of Canterbury Street is within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and subject to a heritage overlay and exhibits a more uniform appearance characterised by Californian bungalows.

14  Hughesdale primary school has frontage to Dallas Avenue, approximately 100 metres to the south west of the review site.

What are the Tribunal findings?

15  Although the proposal presents with elements that respond positively to neighbourhood character, there are three key features of the design I find unacceptable. These are the presentation of the development to the street including the provision of two crossovers and associated driveways, the appearance of the eastern elevation of dwelling 2 and the limited opportunity for landscaping along the eastern side of the shared driveway.

16  The inclusion of two crossings to serve the development is not supported by the general objectives in clause 22.01-3 that in relation to vehicle crossings and car accommodation include

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 nature strips.

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.

17  The desired future character statement for the area refers to retaining the soft quality of the street derived from the wide nature strips to be maintained by ensuring that there is only one crossover per lot frontage.

18  I agree with the applicant that the crossings proposed will meet the numerical requirements of ResCode[5] but I am not satisfied that inclusion of two crossings and associated driveways is respectful of neighbourhood character. I did not observe dual crossovers per lot in Dallas Avenue near the review site. Rather there is a pattern of one crossing per lot except on corner lots. I find the inclusion of two crossings in this setting will be discordant, especially over a site width of 15.85 metres.

19  The layout of the development limits the planting opportunities between the two driveways. Allowing for the verandahs that extend into the front setback and footpath to dwelling 2, the area available for landscaping between the driveways is limited. I calculate it to be approximately 55 square metres on the ground floor and even less on the landscape plan which shows pedestrian paths from the street to both dwellings. In a setting where front gardens are typically generous and where policy seeks to avoid hardening of the street and to maintain green spaces in the front setback areas and in nature strips, I find the presentation to the street is not acceptable.

20  I consider there will be the loss of one onstreet car space arising from the new crossing and the proposed widening of the existing crossing.

21  My concern about the two driveways to the street is exacerbated by the presentation of dwellings 1 and 2 to the street. Although the development to the west includes a double storey dwelling facing Dallas Street, it presents with setbacks to both side boundaries including a generous 5 metre setback to the western boundary (Darling Street frontage) that provides a sense of space when viewed from Dallas Avenue. In contrast, the proposal presents boundary construction to the western boundary, built form extending across 12.5 metres of the 15.85 metre wide site and a wide verandah element, within 6.5 metres of the frontage. The combination of these features presenting to the street will create a building bulk and mass that will fail to maintain the rhythm of dwelling spacing in the streetscape, be dominant in the street and contrary to the desired future character that seeks new dwellings to complement the scale and form of adjacent buildings. The 3.3 metre setback of dwelling 2 from the eastern boundary that includes a 3 metre wide driveway, provides inadequate opportunity for landscaping that might soften the built form.

22  It is my view that the eastern elevation of dwelling 2 is bulky and unarticulated. This derives from the limited window placement in this elevation, the narrow recess of the upper level from the level below, the inadequate landscaping opportunities to the east and its exposure when viewed over the shared driveway adjacent to the eastern boundary. The driveway on the eastern side of the site is adjacent to dwelling 2 and is provided with 300mm width of landscaping to the eastern boundary. This provides little opportunity for landscaping on the eastern side of the site to soften the appearance of the eastern elevation of dwelling 2 or the 38 metre length of shared driveway. The general policies relating to landscaping call for landscaping to both sides of driveways to reduce the visual impact of development and the design of this development is one that needs the softening effect that such landscaping would provide.