Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal s20

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ VCAT REFERENCE NO. P1471/2017
PERMIT APPLICATION NO.TPA/46892

CATCHWORDS

Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Multi dwellings; Neighbourhood Character; Amenity; Repeat Appeal
APPLICANT / Jesse Ant Architects
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
REFERRAL AUTHORITY / VicRoads
SUBJECT LAND / 697 High Street Road
GLEN WAVERLEY VIC 3050
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Megan Carew, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 12 January 2018
date of order / 1 February 2018
CITATION / Jesse Ant Architects v Monash CC [2018] VCAT 106

Order

1  In application P1471/2017 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

2  In planning permit application TPA/46892 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 697 High Street Road, Glen Waverley in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

·  Construction of four dwellings on a lot.

Megan Carew
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / Mr J Joyner, Town Planning Consultant, Melbourne Planning Outcomes.
For Responsible Authority / Mr Gerard Gilfedder, Town Planning Consultant, Currie and Brown Pty Ltd.

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal / To construct four attached dwellings in a reverse living arrangement.
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 (GRZ2)
Abuts a road in a Road Zone-Category 1 (RDZ1)
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-4- to construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the GRZ2
Relevant Scheme, policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 32.07, 52.06, 52.29, 55 and 65.
Land description / The site is located on the north side of High Street Road between Medina Road and Lemair Avenue. It is directly opposite Wesley College. The site is regular in shape with a frontage of 16.76m and a total site area of 725.6m2. It is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling.
The immediately abutting properties are residential in nature with a mix of single and double storey dwellings.

Reasons[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  The permit applicant seeks approval to construct four dwellings on the review site. The permit applicant submits that the proposal is a reasonable response to the strategic and physical context of the review site and will sit comfortably with the emerging character of the area.

2  Monash City Council (the Council) determined to refuse to grant a planning permit. While Council accepts that the site is suitable for medium density housing, it submits that the built form of the proposal is a poor response to the character of the area and neighbouring properties. Council says the proposal will have poor internal amenity.

3  I find that the following are the key issues in this matter:

·  Is the proposal an acceptable response to the preferred Neighbourhood Character?

·  Is the amenity of adjoining properties respected and internal amenity satisfactory?

·  Are traffic and car parking matters addressed?

4  I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered both submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and grant a permit subject to conditions. My reasons follow.

PREVIOUS DECISION

5  This is the second application for development for this site to be considered by this Tribunal. In Lau v Monash CC [2016] VCAT 765 (the previous decision) I considered an application for five dwellings on the land. I found that the proposal could not be supported.

6  In Batsis Nominees Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay CC [2009] VCAT 928, the Tribunal set out the factors that may possibly justify a departure from an earlier determination:

·  Significant or material changes to the application itself which address the primary reasons for the previous proposal being refused;

·  Significant or material changes in the circumstances of the land or its surrounds;

·  Significant or material changes in planning controls and policy; and/or

·  Significant or material changes in the interpretation of the facts or law relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration.

7  With regard to these factors, the parties agreed that there has been no change in the circumstances of the site or its surrounds. However, there have been changes to the planning controls or policy applying to this area, in particular the adoption by Council of proposed Amendment C125.

8  The application in the amended plans has changed in a number of ways, including a reduction in dwelling numbers to four, a reduction in height from 3 to 2 storeys and the consolidation of the pedestrian and vehicular access to improve landscaping opportunities. The permit applicant submits that the amended plans adequately addressed the concerns raised by the Tribunal in the previous decision.

WHAT ARE MY FINDINGS?

9  In the previous decision I found that the proposal for medium density housing on the review site is supported by both state and local planning policy and the purposes of the General Residential Zone seek a balance of new housing in residential areas that respects neighbourhood character. The changes to the policy framework and the zone provisions that have occurred or have been mooted since the previous decision do not change this finding.

Is the proposal an acceptable response to the preferred Neighbourhood Character?

10  The current planning scheme (as in the previous decision) includes the land within Neighbourhood Character Area Type C in the policy at Clause 21.01. The desired future character of these areas places emphasis on new buildings respecting the height and scale of existing development, the provision of landscaping and the provision of generous setbacks. In general terms buildings are encouraged to be subservient to vegetation. The proposed character area under Amendment C125 has a similar approach.

11  In my previous decision I found that:

In this respect, I find the area in which the subject site sits has a reasonable emergence of substantial double storey dwellings, although I accept that the current neighbours are single storey. Being situated on High Street Road, which creates a less sensitive and more robust environment, I would anticipate that this is a location where the architecture will gradually become “more dominant”.

12  As with the previous proposal, I find that it will sit comfortably within the streetscape because the front setback complies with the 7.6m in the schedule to the zone, with the upper levels recessed and there is room for replacement landscaping within the front setback. The proposed front fencing complies with the schedule to the zone.

13  Within the site I find that the proposal now successfully modulates the overall height and mass of the building form. The removal of the third level assists with this. The co-location of the pedestrian and vehicular access gives significant opportunities for landscaping along the western and northern boundaries.

14  While the eastern boundary is constrained by the accessway, I am satisfied that with the provision of additional “indents” for additional trees as suggested by Mr Joyner, that the landscaping will be consistent with medium density housing development. I am now persuaded that the amount of landscaping provided will ensure a development that sits comfortably with the preferred neighbour character.

Is the amenity of adjoining properties respected?

15  Council did not raise any specific off-site amenity concerns. As set out above, I find that visual bulk is now acceptable to the adjoining properties.

16  I am satisfied that the proposal demonstrates compliance with the amenity standards of Clause 55. Overlooking is addressed through screening, overshadowing is in compliance and daylight to existing habitable room windows on adjoining properties is maintained.

Is internal amenity satisfactory?

17  The internal layout of these dwellings results in the living areas being located centrally within the dwellings. The spaces for Unit 4 and Unit 3 are only 2.9m in width and constrained by circulation requirements. Mr Joyner submitted that the dwellings could be reconfigured internally to place living areas with a better relationship to the balconies. I find that this could be required by a condition.

18  The balconies are small, but will be supplemented by the ground level areas. Council questioned the position of the balconies for Units 2 and 3 and the level of compliance with Standard B29. I am satisfied that these balconies will have a reasonable level of amenity given their orientation.

19  In my previous decision I found that:

In terms of internal amenity I note that the extensive screening of the upper levels including the living areas will have an impact on the internal amenity of the proposed dwellings. At the hearing Mr Joyner identified opportunities for additional windows at the upper levels (such as to Unit 2 to the south) that would improve the outcome for future residents.

20  I have similar concerns with this proposal. Almost all upper floor habitable room windows are screened to prevent overlooking (including dwelling 1 due to the positioning of the stairwell). In addition all balconies other than dwelling 1 are fully screened. The choice of screening is opaque glazing which does not provide good outlook. I find that this will result in a poor level of internal amenity for future occupants.

21  The provision of angled louvre screens to some windows and balconies rather than opaque glass will provide for improved internal outlook. I have provided for this in the conditions. In addition, it may be possible to minimize the extent of screening to the balconies of dwellings 2 and 3 so that compliance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 is maintained, but outlook is maximised to improve internal amenity. With these changes, I am satisfied that internal amenity is acceptable.

22  Council questioned the passive surveillance of the shared accessway. This is provided through the ground level entries. An additional window to the east elevation of the entry of dwelling 1 will improve passive surveillance of the accessway.

23  Council noted that no storage unit for dwelling 3 is shown. I am satisfied that this could be addressed through a permit condition.

Are traffic and car parking matters addressed?

24  The proposal meets the resident and visitor car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme. Neither Council nor VicRoads raised any concerns about traffic or car parking matters.

Conclusion

25  For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Megan Carew
Member

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No / TP48892
Land / 697 High Street Road
GLEN WAVERLEY
What the permit allowS
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
·  Construction of four dwellings on a lot.

Conditions

1. / Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The submitted plans must clearly delineate and highlight any changes. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans dated 31-01-2017, but modified to show:
a)  Rearrangement of first floor living spaces of each dwelling so that the living rooms are located to the outer wall and have a minimum dimension of 3.6m in width with direct access to the balconies;
b)  An additional window to the east elevation of the entry of dwelling 1;
c)  Provision of 6 cubic metres of storage for dwelling 3;
d)  The provision of angled louvre privacy screens to the balconies rather than opaque glass to provide for improved outlook;
e)  The minimisation of the extent of privacy screening to the balconies of dwellings 2 and 3 so that compliance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 is maintained, but that outlook is maximised.
f)  The provision of an alternative privacy screening treatment (not opaque glazing) to enhance outlook from the living room windows.
g)  No excavation within 2.4m of the street tree (Corymbia citriodora) measured from trunk face at ground level;
h)  Provide a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2 metres), which may include adjacent landscaping areas with a height of less than 0.9 metres, extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) at both sides of the vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road;
i)  The provision of a minimum of three tree pit areas to the eastern side of the accessway.
j)  Any changes required by the Sustainable Design Assessment approved under Condition 4.
2. / The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.