victorian civil and administrative tribunal · web vieworder amend permit application pursuant to...

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P246/2018

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/48189

CATCHWORDSSection 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987, Monash Planning Scheme, building bulk, neighbourhood character, overlooking, tandem garage, driveway circulation.

APPLICANT Kate Svyatitskaya

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council

SUBJECT LAND 5 Melinga CrescentCHADSTONE VIC 3148

WHERE HELD Melbourne

BEFORE Alison Glynn, Member

HEARING TYPE Hearing

DATE OF HEARING 10 August 2018

DATE OF ORDER 24 August 2018

CITATION Svyatitskaya v Monash CC [2018] VCAT 1312

ORDER

Amend permit application 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: Kat Design

Drawing numbers: Project No. 17-664

Sheets TP01- TP08: all Revision C

Dated: 5 July 2018

Permit granted2 In application P246/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is set

aside.

3 In planning permit application TPA/48189 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 5 Melinga Crescent, Chadstone in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Construction of three, double storey dwellings.

Alison GlynnMember

APPEARANCES

For Kate Svyatitskaya Mr Chris McKenzie, town planner of Planning Appeals Pty Ltd.

For Monash City Council Mr David De Giovanni, consultant town planner

INFORMATION

Description of proposal 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)No overlays

Permit requirements Clause 32.08 – 6 construction of two or more dwellings on a lot.

Relevant scheme policies and provisions

Clauses 11,15.01, 16, 21.04, 22.01, 22.04, 52.06, 55 and 65.01.

Land description The land is irregular in shape with an area of 770sqm. It slopes down, and widens out from its curved frontage to the west side of Melinga Crescent. To the north and south of the land are sites developed with two, double storey dwellings. Other sites in the immediate surrounds are a mix of one and two storey dwellings and some other sites with two and three dwellings.

VCAT Reference No. P246/2018 of 11

Tribunal inspection I inspected the site and surrounds, unaccompanied, on 17 August 2018.


REASONS1

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 Monash City Council has refused to grant a planning permit for the

construction of three, double storey dwellings at 5 Melinga Crescent, Chadstone. There were five objectors to the original proposal, but none are parties to the review.

2 At the start of the hearing I substituted the application plans for plans circulated by the applicant in accordance with the tribunal practice note. The council acknowledges that the amended plans have addressed some of the council’s grounds of refusal. This includes that the council is now satisfied that the proposal’s front setback is acceptable and that appropriately sized private open space areas are now provided.

3 As summarised by Mr De Giovanni in his submission, the council is of the view that the development is still unacceptable as it fails to meet the existing character and policy expectations for the area because of:

The constraints of the site,

The box like design of the form that lacks articulation and is too monotonous in the use of materials,

The cumbersome parking layout proposed, and

The compromised levels of internal amenity.

4 It is these issues I address in context of assessing the proposal against the overall provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme. This leads to a number of questions I consider need to be determined:

a Is the proposed building form an acceptable response to the existing and preferred character of the area?

b Is the parking and access arrangement acceptable?

c Is the internal amenity acceptable?

d Are there any other issues that warrant modification of the proposal?

5 I address each of these questions below. In summary I am satisfied that with the amended plans prepared by the applicant in response to the refusal grounds and substituted by the tribunal I am satisfied the proposal is generally acceptable. There are further minor modifications that can be made through permit condition to ensure that the proposal suitably addresses the relevant provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme.

1 The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing, and the statements of grounds filed; have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.


DOES THE PROPOSAL ADEQUATLEY RESPECT THE EXISTING AND PREFERRED CHARACTER OF THE AREA?6 The council maintains that the proposal lacks sufficient articulation and

recession, particularly in the upper level for the development to comfortably fit into the context of the street.

7 As depicted in Figure 1 below, the site sits in an area where a number of recent two storey buildings are replacing older housing stock. Nearby developments include two, double storey dwellings to the direct north at 3 Melinga Crescent, two double storey dwellings to the south at 7 Melinga Crescent and three double storey dwellings at 9 Melinga Crescent.

Figure 1 - Aerial photo of site and surrounds. Taken from Nearmap aerial photo 4 April 2018

8 All of the nearby developments follow a similar pattern of a side drive to rear dwellings and step down the slope of the site. The proposal in the substituted plans also proposes a side drive to its south, with three dwellings then stepping down the site. The dwellings are a little unconventional in their design using a mix of material changes, cantilever elements and ground floor eave overhangs to create articulation. It is therefore not a clearly conventional use of ground floor hip roof with smaller footprint above, although the upper levels are smaller than the lower level.

9 I firstly therefore do not share the council concern that the proposal lacks articulation or is box like. Rather it responds to the character policy at clause 22.01 of the planning scheme by providing a creative design solution to this sloping site. Relative to its surrounds the proposal includes a


breaking up of ground to first floor with eaves and different ground and first floor modulation.

10 Mr De Giovanni commented that the council’s concerns are emphasised by the heavy use of grey render, that had little variation. The proposal includes three colours of render, one with a texture finish in different panels to assist breaking up the form, particularly where the upper and lower levels are at the same plane. For example, the ground and first floor south elevation of dwelling 2 includes a wall that is partly at the same plane, but the upper level is proposed to be finished in a half mix of a ‘sandy day’ Dulux colour, with the ground floor section in deeper grey textured ‘Leadman’ Dulux colour.

11 Having reviewed the colour palette and the details of the plans and elevations I am satisfied the proposal includes sufficient articulation and variation to be commensurate with its context. This is acknowledging that due to the slope of the site and the curve of the road, the second, and potentially third dwellings will be partly visible from the street, the same way that the other nearby multi-unit developments are more exposed.

12 At ground level, the council questioned the lack of windows to the drive and poor sense of address to dwellings 2 and 3. I also questioned with the applicant at the hearing if there was a better capacity to include ground floor windows near the doors of dwellings 2 and 3 to improve the sense of address. Mr Mckenzie agreed that slot type windows could be introduced to the panels in, or adjacent to the front doors of dwellings 2 and 3 to improve articulation, sense of address and personal safety. A low level, horizontal window (or alternative similar feature window) to the east side of the kitchen of dwelling 2 would also improve articulation and the sense of address. I have included such requirements in conditions contained in appendix A.

13 The council also submits that there is a lack of landscape space to the south side of the driveway. The proposal includes a 0.3 metre wide landscape strip along the south side of the drive. This widens to 0.5 metres in two places opposite garage turning circles. The depth is not significant, but is consistent with the limited landscaping already provided along the side drive of the house on the site and the extent of landscaping found along the side drives of other nearby multi-dwelling developments.

14 It would be possible to widen this strip and thereby shift the three dwellings slightly north, but this would then slightly reduce the more meaningful landscape and open space areas of the dwellings that are north facing. Arguably such a move would still mean the objectives for the secluded open space areas would be met, but I am satisfied that the proposed approach is acceptable in the context of the existing physical surrounds and that the better outcome is to ensure the northern open space areas maximise their capacity for meaningful landscaping.


IS THE PARKING AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENT ACCEPTABLE?15 The council submits that the proposal has a poor on-site parking

arrangement with the use of a tandem garage to dwelling 3 and limited turning circles for all three dwellings. It submits the proposal therefore fails to provide parking in convenient locations and is safe and efficient, as sought by local policy at clause 22.01 and reinforced in parking design provisions at clause 52.06.

16 Neither the applicant, nor the council provided traffic evidence or tabled written traffic engineer comment. The amended application plans include swept path alignments to demonstrate that cars can access and egress all garages in a forward motion. The analysis for garage 1 and garage 2 is that as a single manoeuvre this relies on a vehicle overhang into the 0.3 metre wide landscape strip along the south side of the site. While this is not ideal I find it acceptable noting that:

Clause 52.06 sets out that if the access drive services four or more car spaces it must be designed so that cars can exit the site in a forward direction. The proposal can achieve this, although some occasional correction manoeuvres may be needed.

The development is modest at three dwellings. The potential for cars having to wait for other cars making any correction manoeuvres will be limited.

The parking is only for residents only, who are more likely to be familiar with the access arrangements and adjust to them in the way they make turning manoeuvres.

The design assumes that all cars in the garages are at the modelled 85th

percentile vehicle.

17 The reality is that it may be necessary for occasional correction manoeuvres, so a single swing out manoeuvre does not always occur. There is time and space for cars to undertake such correction manoeuvres. In this low speed, low vehicle location for resident parking I find this acceptable. I note also that the landscaping within the 0.3 metre wide landscape strip will by necessity of its width be low, so some occasional overhang of cars into the landscaping is likely to be more manageable. The more important and dominant landscape features from the street will be the wider landscape area, south of dwelling 3, where a two metre wide landscape space is provided. I will direct by permit condition that the side fence between bedroom 1 of this dwelling and the south boundary is recessed west from the bedroom wall so a medium size, feature shrub or tree can be planted in front of the side fence, and provide a landscape feature to the end of the drive.

18 It is also worth noting that as the site, being narrower at the front of the site, and sloping down is that from the street, the drive will not be pronounced or


dominant. It is the front garden that will dominate and this space has ample room for significant planting.

19 The council also questions the usability of a tandem garage for dwelling 3. While this not a conventional arrangement, it is not dissimilar to a more common arrangement of a tandem space in front of the garage. The garage is of sufficient width and depth to accommodate the tandem arrangement and I find no reason why it cannot operate in a safe and generally amenable manner.

IS THE INTERNAL AMENITY ACCEPTABLE?20 Mr De Giovanni questioned the internal amenity of the dwellings, noting

that the living spaces to dwellings 1 and 2 are relatively small. The living spaces are not particularly large, but nor do I find they are so small that they are unacceptable based on any tests in the planning scheme. Dwellings 1 and 2 also include reasonable sized secondary living areas upstairs between bedrooms. All have reasonable sized bedrooms with dwellings 2 and 3 including one bedroom that well exceeds the minimum requirements of clause 55.07 (noting this does clause not apply, but provides useful comparative tests for internal amenity and room sizes).

ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT WARRANT MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSAL?21 Mr De Giovanni questioned if sufficient protection from overlooking was

provided, particularly to ground floor, west facing windows of dwelling 3 given the proximity of this dwelling, approximately 3 metres from the rear boundary combined with the slope of the land, leaving the windows raised relative to the adjoining backyard.

22 I agree that these windows may need some additional treatment, or the rear fence raised in height through use of trellis to avoid unreasonable overlooking. This issue can be addressed through a permit condition as is applied in appendix A and was accepted by the applicant at the hearing.

CONCLUSION23 For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set

aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Alison GlynnMember


APPENDIX A – PERMIT CONDITIONS

PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/48189

LAND: 5 Melinga Crescent Chadstone

WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWSIn accordance with the endorsed plans:

Construction of three, double storey dwellings

CONDITIONS:1 Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans dated 5 July 2018, Project No. 17-664 Sheets TP01- TP08: all Revision C, drawn by Kat Design but modified to show:

(a) A slot or feature window to the east façade wall of the kitchen of dwelling 2.

(b) A slot or feature window in, or adjacent to the entry doors of dwellings 2 and 3.

(c) Compliance with Standard B22 Overlooking of Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

(d) Details of the side fence, south of bedroom 1 of dwelling 3, to be recessed at least one metre west of the east façade of dwelling 1 so as to accommodate planting to face the common drive, in front of the fence.

(e) A corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2m), which may include adjacent landscape areas with a height of less than 0.9m, extending at least 2.0m long x 2.5m deep (within the property) to both sides of each vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road.

2 The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3 A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be


submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including: -

(a) the location of all existing trees and other vegetation to be retained on site.

(b) provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located throughout the site including the major open space areas of the development, and at least one feature tree / shrub at the western end of the common drive, in front of the side fence of dwelling 3. The planting provision is to include tall trees that when grown will positively contribute to the upper level tree canopy of the area.

(c) planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways and other paved areas.

(d) a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will include the size of all plants (at planting and at maturity), their location, botanical names and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn, mulch or other surface material (semi-mature plant species are to be provided).

(e) the location and details of all fencing.

(f) the extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site.

(g) details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or decked areas.

(h) coloured concrete, paving or the like is to be utilised in the driveways.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

4 Before the occupation of the buildings allowed by this permit, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5 The driveway and parking area is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6 All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties. The on-site drainage system must prevent discharge from the driveway onto the footpath.

7 Stormwater discharge is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required from Council prior to works commencing.


8 Any new drainage work within road reserve or connection into a Council easement requires the approval of the Council’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing.

9 Once the development has started it must be continued, completed and then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10 The permit for development will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started before 2 years from the date of issue.

(b) The development is not completed before 4 years from the date of issue.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months of the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; or within 12 months of the permit expiry date, where the development has lawfully started before the permit expires

- End of conditions -


victorian civil and administrative tribunal · web vieworder amend permit application pursuant to...

Documents