VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST
/ vcat reference No. P264/2016Permit Application no. TPA/44470
CATCHWORDS
Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone Schedule 2; Height; Massing; Visual bulk; Neighbourhood character; Two crossovers, Landscaping, Design detailAPPLICANT / Zhengdong Dong
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 12 Inga Street, Oakleigh East
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Jane Tait, Presiding Member
G Rundell, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 1 August 2016
DATE OF ORDER / 18 August 2016
CITATION / Dong v Monash CC [2016] VCAT 1393
Order
1 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and 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: / Whelan Design, Job No. WD 111· Drawing numbers: / TP01-TP07 Revision D
· Dated: / 8 June 2016
2 The decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3 In permit application TPA/44470 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 12 Inga Street, Oakleigh East on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
· Construction of three, two storey dwellings in a General Residential Zone
Jane TaitPresiding Member / G Rundell
Member
APPEARANCES
For Applicant / Kim Belfield, town planner, Belfield Planning Consultants Pty LtdFor Responsible Authority / Sally Moser, town planner, Moser Planning Services Pty Ltd
INFORMATION
Description of Proposal / Construction of three, two storey dwellings. Dwellings 1 and 2 would front Inga Street and Dwelling 3 would be located at the rear, with access from a main driveway along the south boundary. Dwelling 1 would have a separate crossover and driveway to Inga Street.All dwellings contain a ground floor bedroom, en-suite and living areas and three bedrooms, bathroom and en-suite at first floor level.
The dwellings would comprise face brickwork at ground floor level, render and vertical timber cladding at first floor level and pitched Colorbond roofing.
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 Schedule 2 (GRZ2)
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-4 (two or more dwellings on a lot in GRZ2)
Relevant Scheme, policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 10.04, 11.02, 11.04, 15.01, 16.01, 18.02, 21.03, 21.04, 21.08, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 52.06, 32.08, 55 and 65.
Land Description / The review site is located on the east side of Inga Street, 17.5m north of Nonna Street, Oakleigh East. The site is regular in shape with frontage of 17.68m, depth of 45.17m and area of 797.2m2.
The site is occupied by a single storey weatherboard dwelling with a driveway along the south boundary. There is a tandem carport and garage abutting the south boundary and south elevation of the dwelling. The site has a slope of 1.3m from southeast to northwest and there is no significant vegetation.
The adjoining site to the north at 10 Inga Street is also developed with a single storey weatherboard house set back 7.5m from the frontage. This dwelling has two sheds in the rear yard near the common boundary.
To the east is a single storey brick unit at 2/5 Nonna Street that is set back 3.8m from the common boundary. The dwelling includes open space facing the review site. The rear yard of 2/3 Nonna Street also abuts the southeast corner of the review site.
To the south is a single storey weatherboard dwelling at 14 Inga Street. At the rear is a single storey brick dwelling 14a Inga Street that includes open space facing the review site.
Bus services operate along Ferntree Gully Road, 400m north of the review site.
Tribunal Inspection / We inspected the site and its environs on 7 August 2016. The parties did not accompany the inspection.
REASONS[1]
What is this proceeding about?
1 This is an application for review under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against Monash City Council’s refusal to grant a planning permit to construct three, two storey dwellings. The permit applicant has requested the Tribunal to review Council’s decision.
2 Council refused the proposal on the following grounds:
· The proposed development is out of character with the existing development in the area in particular with regard to mass, bulk and scale.
· The proposed development has an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties
· The proposal fails to meet the objectives of clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme in relation to clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character, clause 55.02-5 Integration with the Street, clause 55.03-8 Landscaping, clause 55.03-9 Access, clause 55.03-10 Parking Location, clause 55.04-5 Overshadowing, clause 55.04-6 Overlooking, clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space and clause 55.06-1 Design Detail.
· The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
3 The applicant contests the grounds of refusal and considers that the development would provide greater housing choice and affordability, it would comfortably fit into the neighbourhood and it would provide acceptable amenity to neighbours and future residents.
4 The applicant has lodged amended plans to address the concerns of the responsible authority. The amended plans show a reduction in the first floor envelope for Dwelling 3 and reduced ground and first floor area for Dwellings 1 and 2. The landscaping along the southern driveway is increased, and the double garage for Dwelling 3 is replaced with a single carport with an uncovered car space in the southern setback.
5 Council accepts the amended plans have responded to the grounds of refusal, but says the development remains unacceptable as it would not fit into the neighbourhood. Council also advised that given the reduction in the size of the ground and first floor of Dwelling 3 at the rear of the site level, it would not pursue grounds relating to the visual bulk impacts, open space and overshadowing.
6 We must determine the following key issues in this matter:
· Does the development respond to its built form and policy contexts?
· Will two crossovers be an acceptable response in the streetscape?
· Would the development impose unacceptable amenity impacts on its neighbours and future residents?
· Will the design detail of the dwellings be consistent with existing dwellings in the area?
6 We must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, we have decided to set aside the decision of the responsible authority and direct that a permit be granted. Our reasons follow.
review of key issues
Does the development respond to its built form and policy contexts?
7 Clause 15.01 requires development to respond to its features and context. The review site is a regular shaped lot in a typical suburban area. The site has no constraints such as an easement and there is no significant vegetation in the frontage setback or rear yard. Inga Street is a sealed no-through road that terminates 80m north of the site at a retirement village.
8 The site is located in a postwar suburb comprising a mix of single storey weatherboard detached houses and 1960s brick veneer dwellings. They include similar frontages and regular side setbacks from both boundaries. The original dwellings also include a driveway along one side boundary with their garages/carports in the side or rear setback. The landscape character of the area includes small to medium exotic trees with low to medium height front fencing.
9 The area is also undergoing change. Many of the original single storey weatherboard dwellings are being replaced with either larger, single storey detached houses or two to three, two storey dwellings. Whilst Inga Street is a small street containing 12 lots, 5 properties contain two or three single storey units in a tandem arrangement with a driveway along one side boundary.
10 There is one vacant lot in the street at 6 Inga Street. Council advised that a permit for two, two storey dwellings in a tandem arrangement has been approved for this site. These dwellings will have access from one driveway along the south boundary.
11 There is further evidence of recent multi-dwelling development in nearby Nonna Street. There are three, double storey dwellings at 16 Nonna Street that have two attached houses facing the street and the third two storey dwelling to the rear. The applicant also tabled an aerial photograph of the surrounding streets that demonstrate approximately 40 percent of lots have been developed for two and three single and two storey dwellings.
12 The planning scheme guides the extent of change that is expected in this area. The State Planning Policy Framework at clauses 9, 11.02, 11.04, 15, 16 and 18 generally encourages a more diverse housing stock to be provided at an increased density in locations that are well serviced with public transport and community facilities. Placing more dwellings close to established services reduces the land on Melbourne’s fringes that needs to be developed for new suburbs, thereby preserving land with agricultural and/or landscape value. It also contributes to a more sustainable city.
13 The zone and the Local Planning Policy Framework at clauses 21.02, 21.03 and 22.01 identify areas in Monash where new development is encouraged, and areas where development must respond to the Garden City Character. This character is defined as the tree-lined and vegetated aspect of the municipality.
14 The Residential Development and Character Policy at clause 22.01 seeks to maintain the Garden City character by ensuring building design reflects the spacing and rhythm of existing streetscapes and setbacks from frontages. The policy at clause 22.01-3 encourages the number of vehicle crossings to be minimised. The policy aims to maintain existing kerb side parking and green spaces in both front setbacks and naturestrips. Additional crossovers are discouraged by the policy.
15 The review site is located in Character Area Type ‘B’ in clause 22.01 of the Scheme. This area is described as evenly distributed post-war single storey single brick and weatherboard dwellings. Contributory elements include its grid subdivision pattern, consistent frontage setbacks and multi-dwelling housing closer to commercial centres and collector roads. The future character for this precinct is to encourage single storey development unless it is a graduated change in height. On-site trees and shrubs are encouraged to soften the transition between the buildings.
16 Council says there is high level of low-key multi dwelling development in Inga Street and the character of the area is unlikely to change considerably. We disagree with this assessment as we found the change that has already commenced in Inga Street is likely to continue as there is potential for further redevelopment of other properties in the street at nos. 7, 9, 10 and 11 Inga Street.
17 Council also stated the built form, scale and site layout of the proposed dwellings will be out of character with the street that has ‘a very clear neighbourhood character low rise key dwelling forms with single dwelling presentations to the street’.[2]
17 Council stated the construction of two, side-by-side two storey dwellings will interrupt the consistent single dwelling streetscape pattern. It also had concerns the built form outcome would be inconsistent with the adjoining single storey dwellings
18 We find development of three, two storey dwellings will achieve the desired future character of the neighbourhood character description in clause 22.01 of the Scheme and it will achieve compliance with the parts of clause 55 that relate to neighbourhood character as:
a The dwellings are set back 7.6m from Inga Street and comply with standard B6. This will allow for the development of a front garden that can accommodate canopy trees to be consistent with the garden character of the area.
b The dwellings have a maximum height of 7m. This height is consistent with other two storey dwellings in the area.
c The design of Dwellings 1 and 2 appears to be one larger dwelling facing Inga Street given the understated porch for Dwelling 1 and the prominent porch for Dwelling 2.
d A low front fence will allow visibility of the dwellings in the streetscape. This fence height is consistent with other fencing in the street.
e The use of face brickwork at ground level, render and vertical timber cladding at the upper level and pitched roofing will complement existing dwellings in the area
19 Council says the lack of articulation of the upper levels fail to provide a graduated change of height that is encouraged in clause 22.01. It stated there was minimal variation in setbacks between the ground floor guest bedroom and first floor master bedroom facing the street. It says this design would result in a ‘top heavy’ presentation to the street.
20 Council also says the first floor south elevation of Dwelling 2 was inadequately set back from the lower level. The first floor is set back 0.65m and 0.75m from the lower level and the mass of the dwelling will be visible due to the open frontage.