VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ vcat reference No. P1352/2015
Permit Application no. TPA/42947

CATCHWORDS

Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone (GRZ2); Proposed Two Double Storey Dwellings Behind Existing Single Storey Dwelling; Design Response to Neighbourhood Character.
APPLICANT / Joe Tartaglia Blueprint Pty Ltd
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 25 Alexander Avenue. Oakleigh East
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Christina Fong, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 25 January 2016
DATE OF ORDER / 1 February 2016
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: / Blueprint Architectural Design Consultants.
·  Drawing numbers: / TP01 to TP03, Revision B and VCAT
·  Dated: / 1 December 2015

2  The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.

3  In permit application TPA/42947 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 25 Alexander Avenue, Oakleigh East in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

·  The development of two double storey dwellings at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling.

Christina Fong
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / Spiro Neofitou, town planner, Planning Vision Pty Ltd. He called Robert Thomson to give Landscape evidence.
For Responsible Authority / Sally Moser, town planner, Moser Planning Services Pty Ltd.

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal / Two double storey dwellings at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling in a tandem arrangement. Each dwelling provides two bedrooms and a single garage.
The total extent of alterations to the existing dwelling is not clear. To replace the existing parking for this dwelling, a single garage is proposed below the ground floor deck of the house and this deck extended to provide 36.7 sq m of secluded private open space.
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 / General Residential Zone (GRZ2) and no overlay.
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-4 for development of more than one dwelling in the zone.
Relevant Scheme, policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 11, 15, 16, 21, 21.03, 21.04, 21.08, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 52.06, 55 and 65.
Land Description / The land is on the west side of Alexander Avenue just north of Dandenong Road, Oakleigh East. It has a cross fall from front to rear of about 2.5 metres.
The land is irregular in shape, due to the acquisition of a previous laneway to the south and west of the land. It has a frontage of 18.11 metres, a rear width of 21.16 metres, a length of 45.72 metres, and a site area of 921 sq m. It is occupied by a single storey brick veneer house. Adjoining land to the north is a dual occupancy, with the existing single storey dwelling retained, and the dwelling at the rear double storeys. Abutting the land to the south are the backyards of 27 Alexander Avenue, and 1855 and 1853 Dandenong Road, and to the west the backyard of 1851 Dandenong Road.
Development in Alexander Avenue and nearby Streets is residential, a combination of single dwellings and medium density development mostly comprising two on a lot, and up to 4 dwellings on the double lots at 32 and 36 Alexander Avenue.
Tribunal Inspection / 25 January 2016

REASONS[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  This is a review against a refusal to grant a permit to develop two additional dwellings at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling on the land. The grounds of refusal relate to inadequate space for landscaping, not maintaining the garden character of the area, not sympathetic to the character of the area, and failing to meet the objectives of Clause 55 in the areas of neighbourhood character, energy efficiency, landscaping, daylight to existing windows, overlooking and internal views.

2  Despite the substitution of plans, Council remains opposed to the design of the development.

3  The main issues of this review are whether the design of the development and proposed landscaping acceptable to the neighbourhood character of the area, whether the provision of secluded private open space by a balcony acceptable, and the two bedroom status of the existing dwelling.

Whether the design is an acceptable to the neighbourhood character of the area?

4  The zoning of the land is General Residential (GRZ2). The purpose of this zone, for residential development, is to respect the neighbourhood character of the area, implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted guidelines, and to provide diversity of housing and moderate growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

5  There are some variations to the Standards of Clause 55 in this zone. One relates to Standard B28, that is the provision of a minimum area of 75 sq m of private open space, with one part at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 35 sq m and a minimum width of 5 metres. However, this standard still allows for private open space to be provided by balconies or roof terrace. That is, there is no requirement that this area must be on the ground level.

6  The site is well located for increased housing. Its size at 921 sq m is above the average size of lots in the street. The assessment of the proposal is hence whether it can absorb the amount of building mass so that it remains respectful of the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area.

7  The site is located in an established residential area. While many of the original dwellings from the 1950’s and 1960’s still remain, there has been replacement development by medium density housing in the form of dual occupancies in a tandem or side-by-side arrangements, or around a central driveway if the land is a double lot. There is also one where there are two side-by-side dwelling at the front and a third at the rear (No. 21 Alexander Avenue).

8  As for the preferred neighbourhood character, the site is in Residential Character type ‘B’ in Clause 22.01. The desired future character stated for this character type is:

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 bling 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 tree and large shrubs to soften the transition between buildings.

Sympathetically designed buildings will be encouraged. Extensions or alterations to pre-Second World War buildings will be sympathetic to the historic integrity of the building.

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 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 building.

…………

9  Council’s issue with the proposal is that the retention of the existing dwelling, which takes up half of the land, is a constraint for the development of the balance of the land for two double storey dwellings. It submitted that, as a result, there is a lack of separation between buildings, and that the development presents a continuous built form on the ground level, with the separation between the two double storey dwellings inadequate at 1.39 metres. Council’s view is that the land available at the rear is suitable for one dwelling.

10  It was also not supportive of the provision of the secluded private open space for the existing dwelling in the form of a terrace above the proposed single garage, and the difficulty of landscaping this terrace.

11  Despite the amended plans reducing the size of the first floor and increasing the rear setback of the new dwellings, from 2.58 metres to 3.7 metres, and 5.7 to 5.9 metres, Council contended that these are not enough for it to support the revised design.

12  As for the landscaping of the site as designed by Mr. Robert Thomson, Council maintained that there is still a negligible planting opportunity along the north side of Dwelling 1; the planter boxes around the terrace above the new single garage (private open space for Dwelling 1) as impractical and inadequate; still a lack of landscaping on the south side at ground level between Dwellings 1 and 2, the questionable planting of Pyrus between Dwellings 1 and 2; that there should be no planting of canopy trees along the rear easement; and inadequate lower storey planting.

13  With regard to neighbourhood character and the nature of two storey built form at the rear, Mr. Neofitou noted the occasions where Council has approved such developments in the immediate area. Page 20 of his submission listed Council’s approvals of three double storey dwellings in Alexander Avenue and nearby Patrick and Dover Streets, all of which are in the same character Area ‘B’.

14  With regard to the proposal’s design response to streetscape of the area, he emphasised the absence of change as the existing single storey dwelling is retained.

15  He advised that the amended design was to specifically address the concerns raised in officer’s report, a report that set out the design deficiencies, which is only about the first floor setback of Dwelling 3 from the rear boundary. This report said:[2]:

·  Other than the Dwelling 3 first floor rear setback, setbacks to boundaries are sufficient to mitigate visual bulk to the street and adjoining lots and are in keeping with the development patter of the area.

·  Subject to an increased first floor rear setback, the height of the buildings are consistent with other double storey dwellings in the area and do not result in buildings that are visually obtrusive.

16  The retention of the existing dwelling does mean that only half of the land is available, compared to if this building is demolished. At the same time, the existing dwelling presents a well-kept building in seemingly good conditions. There are good grounds to retain it.

17  As for whether there should be one or two additional buildings behind the existing building, it depends on the amount of building masse: whether they can be respectful of the area. In this case, the two new dwellings are modest in two bedrooms and a single garage each.

18  My inspection of the site and area reveals that two storey built form at the rear is not uncommon. The nearest example is to the immediate north where a two storey dwelling is located at the rear of an existing single storey 1950’s weatherboard dwelling. The setbacks of the first floor of this dwelling (and others) are comparable to Dwelling 3 in the proposal, and the size of the first floor of this dwelling looks larger. The size of the first floor of Dwelling 3 and its setback from side and rear boundaries are not out of step with first floor elements of development in the area.

19  From the streetscape point of view, the proposal is appropriate, given the retention of the existing dwelling, one that is in good conditions and a good example of the 1950’s or 60’s cream brick veneer construction.

20  The two storey building masses of Dwellings 2 and 3 are well setback from side boundaries, and the setback of Dwelling 3 from the rear has been increased. There is no objection from abutting properties, for the original setback or the current one with the increased setback shown in the amended plans.

21  As for landscaping, the preferred character is

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 building

22  Mr. Thomson’s design shows planting of canopy trees in the front setback area, and along side and rear boundaries. I am satisfied that this landscaping would achieve the landscape objectives described for the character area, which is for a visually permeable buffer between the house and street, with a landscaped backdrop for the development.

23  My only reservation about the proposed landscaping is the practical side of planting sizeable shrubs in the terrace above the garage. Mr. Thomson’s oral evidence is that the structural design of the terrace should take into account the need to support the planter boxes for these vegetationCC. Mr. Neofitou had no objection to a permit condition requiring such a design in Condition 1.

24  Overall, I am satisfied that the design of the development is acceptable to the existing and preferred character of the area, and there can be appropriate landscaping to achieve the garden character nominated for the area.