1.12 10 pippin avenue, glen waverley construction … · council meeting, 31 january 2017 section...

Council Meeting, 31 January 2017 Section 1.12 –

10 Pippin Avenue, Glen Waverley - Construction Of Three Double Storey Dwellings

1.12 10 PIPPIN AVENUE, GLEN WAVERLEY CONSTRUCTION OF THREE DOUBLE STOREY DWELLINGS

(TPA/45821)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This application proposes the construction of three double storey dwellings.

The application was subject to public notification. Thirty-five (35) objections to the proposal have been received.

Key issues to be considered relate to neighbourhood character, landscaping, amenity, car parking and traffic, and stormwater and drainage.

This report assesses the proposal against the provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme including the relevant state and local planning policy framework, Clause 55 and issues raised by objectors.

This report has been called in for consideration by Council by Cr Saloumi.

The proposed development is considered appropriate having regard to the relevant provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme. It is recommended that Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit, subject to conditions.

RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Panagakos

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER: Angela Hughes

RESPONSIBLE PLANNER: Rowena Brennan

WARD: Glen Waverley

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 10 Pippin Avenue, Glen Waverley

PRE-APPLICATION MEETING: No

NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS: Thirty-five (35)

ZONING: General Residential Zone, Schedule 2

EXISTING LAND USE: Residential

OVERLAY: Not applicable

RELEVANT CLAUSES:

State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 11.02 Urban growth Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 14.02-1 Catchment Planning

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.04 Residential Development Clause 22.01 Residential Development and Character Policy Clause 22.04 Stormwater Management



and Management Clause 15 Built Environment & Heritage Clause 16 Housing Clause 16.01-2 Location of Residential Development

Clause 16.01-4 Housing Diversity

Policy Clause 22.05 Tree Conservation Policy

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 Car Parking Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

STATUTORY PROCESSING DATE: 30 July 2016

DEVELOPMENT COST: $750,000



LOCALITY PLAN

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

SUBJECT SITE



RECOMMENDATION:

That Council resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit (TPA/45821) for the construction of three double storey dwellings, at 10 Pippin Avenue, Glen Waverley subject to the following 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 submitted with the application, but modified to show:

a) the location of gas and water meters

b) a full materials and colour scheme schedule to the external facade

c) Easement running along the eastern boundary to be clearly marked on the development plans to actual dimensions, consistent with property title.

d) Southern elevation windows on first floor of all dwellings clearly annotated to be fixed and obscure on elevation plans in accordance with Clause 55.04-6 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

e) Side setback dimension of neighbouring property at 8 Pippin Avenue to the shared boundary accurately detailed on the development plans

f) A minimum of two (2) canopy trees with spreading crowns in the front garden of Unit 1 and one (1) canopy tree with spreading crown to be planted within each secluded private open space area of Units 1, 2 and 3.

g) Southern wall of Unit 3 first floor master bedroom and ensuite bathroom to be setback a minimum distance of 3.0 metres from the southern boundary.

h) Bedroom 2 of Unit 3 to be deleted.

i) The first floor setback of Unit 3 to be a minimum of 5.0 metres from the northern boundary to match the northern living room wall of the ground level below.

j) Landscaping strip along southern boundary removed to allow for vehicles to enter and exit the Unit 3 garage in a forward direction to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must be removed on the southern boundary for a distance of 7 metres between a point at 15 metres from the south-eastern boundary corner to a point at 22 metres from the south-eastern



boundary corner.

k) Landscaping strip along the southern boundary removed to allow efficient vehicle manoeuvres to and from the Unit 1 garage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must be removed from the southern boundary from 12 metres from the south-western boundary corner to 22 metres from the south-western boundary corner.

l) The Unit 1 garage is to have a minimum internal width of 6.0 metres. The ground floor area of Unit 1 and/or Unit 2 is to be reduced to accommodate this increase in size to the garage.

m) Unit 3 first floor west facing master bedroom window to either be externally screened to a minimum of 1.7m above finished floor level or obscured (not to be film) to 1.7m above finished floor level, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with Clause 55.04-6 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

n) The development must be provided with a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstruction (or with a height of less than 1.2m), which may include adjacent landscaping areas with a height less than 0.9 metres, extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) on both sides of the vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road.

o) All common boundary fencing to be a minimum of 1.8 metres, which can be achieved by adding a suitable fencing extension to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered

without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. No excavation within 2.63m of the street tree (Leptospermum Petersonii), measured from trunk face at ground level. This tree must be protected by temporary rectangular wire fencing as per Australian Standards, erected prior to commencement of works until completion. Fence must extend out to at least 2.63m.

4. 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

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

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

5. 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.

6. The walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. The driveway and all new crossings must be a minimum of 3.0 metres in width.

8. The existing redundant crossing is to be removed and replaced with kerb and channel. The footpath and naturestrip are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.

9. All common boundary fences are to be a minimum of 1.8 metres above the finished ground level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fence heights must be measured above the highest point on the subject or adjoining site, within 3 metres of the fence line.

10. 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 driveways onto the footpath. Such a system may include either: a) trench grates (150 minimum internal width) located within the



property; and/or

b) shaping the driveway so that water is collected in a grated pit on the property: and/or

c) another Council approved equivalent.

11. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. This permit will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies:

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

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.

NOTES- 1. Building approval must be obtained prior to the commencement of the

above approved works.

2. The lot/unit numbers on the “Endorsed Plan” are not to be used as the official street address of the property. Street numbering is allocated in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standards 4819:2001- Rural and Urban Addressing. Any street addressing enquiries should be directed to Council’s Valuation Team on 9518 3615 or 9518 3210.

3. Building Permit approval for this development must take into consideration the location of future subdivision boundaries and their compliance with the Fire Separation Provisions of the Building Code of Australia, including Separating Walls and Openings near Boundaries, as well as the requirements of the Building Regulations.

4. A drainage contribution of approximately $5965 may be accepted in lieu of a detention system. This amount is valid until 30 June 2017. After this date an amended amount in accordance with Clause 22.04 of the Monash Planning Scheme will be applicable. This contribution is based on the plans provided and any additional hard surfaced areas included



on the landscape or drainage plans will alter this amount.

5. Stormwater detention requirements may be obtained from the City of Monash prior to the design of any stormwater detention system

6. Three printed copies of the plans (A3-A1 size) for the drainage works must be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the commencement of works. The plans are to show sufficient information to determine that the drainage works will meet all drainage conditions of the permit.

7. Tree planting should be kept clear of the drainage easement.

8. Approval of each proposed crossing, and a permit for installation or modification of any vehicle crossing is required from Council’s Engineering Department.

9. The proposed crossing is to be constructed in accordance with the City of Monash standards.

10. Stormwater discharge is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required by the City of Monash prior to works commencing. Please refer to the notes section of this permit for additional details.

11. The nominated point of connection for the site is to the north-west corner of the property where the entire site’s stormwater must be collected and free drained via a pipe Council pit in the nature strip of 8 Pippin Avenue, to be constructed to Council Standards. (A new pit is to be constructed if a pit does not exist, is in poor condition or is not a standard Council pit). Note: If the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council’s Engineering Division immediately.

12. Any new drainage work within the road reserve requires the approval of the City of Monash’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Please refer to the Notes section of this permit for additional details of the requirements to satisfy this requirement. A refundable security deposit of $1000 amount is to be paid prior to the drainage works commencing.

13. Engineering permits must be obtained for new or altered vehicle crossings and for new connections to the Council pit and these works are to be inspected by Council (telephone 9518 3555).



BACKGROUND:

The Site and Surrounds The subject site is located on the east side of Pippin Avenue approximately 130 metres south of the intersection with Cherry Street. The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage to Pippin Avenue of 16.76 metres, an average depth of 50.9 metres and an overall site area of 853.62 square metres. The site currently contains a single storey brick dwelling with a pitched tile roof and associated outbuildings. There are a number of small trees and shrubs located across the site. There is no front fencing and there is a 5 metre high Leptospermum petersonii street tree located in the front nature strip. The subject site has a 2.44 metre wide easement that runs along the eastern (rear) boundary. Abutting the site to the north is a contemporary two storey brick dwelling (approximately two years old) and the rear garden of No. 2 Packham Crescent, which also contains a contemporary two storey dwelling. Abutting the site to the south is a single storey brick dwelling, of a similar vintage to the existing dwelling on the subject site. To the east is the rear garden of 10 Packham Crescent and which supports a single storey brick dwelling. Directly opposite the site, on the western side of Pippin Avenue, are two double storey dwellings at No’s 11 and 13.

Pippin Avenue is located within Residential Character Precinct ‘C’. Typically within this Precinct the dominant architectural framework is double-fronted consistently setback, single storey brick veneer 1950’s/1960’s dwellings, with some two-storey houses constructed mainly of darker red and brown brick. Pippin Avenue is typical of these characteristics, however, many houses within Pippin Avenue have front fences (not necessarily typical of Precinct C). The surrounding area has well planted and generally well kept front gardens. The area is well served by educational facilities with Glendal Primary School approximately 500 metres to the east, St Christophers School 500 metres to the south, Mount Waverley Secondary College 2 kilometres to the East, Wesley College 700 metres to the south and Glen Waverley Secondary College 1.5 kilometres to the south east. The site is also reasonably well served by public transport with buses a 200 metres walk on Blackburn Road, and Syndal Railway Station approximately 1.5 kilometres to the south. The site is also located near recreational facilities with David Crawford Reserve some 300 metres to the north-east which also provides access to a large linear reserve running north east from Syndal Station to Nunawading Station to the east. Tally Ho Reserve is 800 metres to the north-west.

An aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding land can be found attached to this report (Attachment 2).



PROPOSAL:

Approval is sought to construct three double storey dwellings on the land. The proposal is summarised as follows:

A front setback of 8.4 metres is proposed.

Single driveway to access the garages of all three dwellings located adjacent to the southern boundary.

Unit 1 will front onto Pippin Avenue.

Units 2 and 3 will be accessible from the common driveway.

Each dwelling will comprise an open plan living/family/kitchen area and one bedroom on the ground floor, and three bedrooms on the first floor.

A double garage is provided to each dwelling. Attachment 1 details plans forming part of the application.

PERMIT TRIGGERS:

Zoning The land is situated in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) under the provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme where a planning permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06: Car Parking

Prior to a new building being occupied the required car parking spaces must be provided on the land or as approved by the Responsible Authority.

Clause 55: Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (ResCode)

A development must meet all of the objectives of this clause and should meet all the standards.

Attachment 3 details the zoning applicable to the subject site and surrounding land. Monash Housing Strategy 2014

The Monash Housing Strategy has been developed to review Council’s current housing strategies based on an assessment of key State and Local Strategies and research from all tiers of Government and other research bodies. A key issue for Council will continue to be the management of household growth and change while at the same time preserving its valued neighbourhood character and enhancing sustainability. It will also be necessary to ensure that housing is designed to meet the specific needs of the community as it ages and diversifies.



The subject site is in Category 8 - “Garden City Suburbs” under the strategy. The prevailing objective is to provide opportunities for modest housing growth and diversification with an emphasis on preserving and enhancing Monash’s Garden City Character. It is intended that Category 8 areas will comprise a mix of single detached dwellings and multi dwelling developments in spacious garden settings with tall canopy trees. Front setbacks should be consistent and expanses of blank or continuous walls discouraged, particularly when adjacent to public parks, reserves and other open space areas. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of the strategy. The multi-unit development proposed includes sufficient open space areas for the planting of new canopy trees throughout the site. The proposed front setback is greater than the minimum required and will result in the front dwelling sitting comfortably in the streetscape. The building massing has been successfully broken up with generous breaks at the first floor level and through the use of different materials, thus avoiding expanses of blank walls. Some modifications to the extent of the first floor of Unit 3 are recommended to better reduce building bulk – this is discussed in more detail later in this report.

CONSULTATION:

Public Notice The application was advertised by notice on site and letters to owners and occupiers of adjoining and opposite lots pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Council has received 35 objections to date. The objections can be summarised as follows:

Site Coverage is too high

Inadequate Open Space and Permeability

Inaccurate description and dimensioning of surrounding properties

Street setback

Sets precedent for the area

Loss of amenity – overlooking, noise impacts, overshadowing, side and rear boundary setbacks

Safety and traffic concerns

Car Parking

Building Mass, Bulk and Scale is not consistent with Neighbourhood Character

Devaluing properties/land in the surrounding area

Increasing strain on educational services

Heritage area

Contradiction to Amendment C125 and to new zoning.



Attachment 4 details the location of objector properties.

Referrals

Drainage Council’s Drainage Engineer has no concerns and recommended standard conditions Traffic Council’s Traffic Engineer has suggested amendments to the driveway and car parking layout to ensure efficient vehicle manoeuvres can be achieved. Horticultural Services Council’s Aboriculturalist had no concerns to the location of the proposed crossover in relation to the existing street tree, subject to appropriate tree protection measures.

DISCUSSION:

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies The Garden City Character of the municipality is identified in Clause 21 of the Municipal Strategic Statement as a core value held by the community and Council. Garden City Character Policy objectives are significant and important considerations in all land use and development decisions. Council’s Residential Development and Character Policy (Clause 21.04) aims for balanced residential development with a variety of housing styles while remaining sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character. Council’s Residential Development and Character Policy (Clause 22.01) aims to ensure that new development is successfully integrated into existing residential environments with minimal streetscape or amenity impact and to achieve outcomes that enhance the Garden City Character of the area. It also encourages a variety of housing types to accommodate future housing needs and preferences that are energy efficient and sustainable.

The subject site is located within the Residential Character Precinct ‘C’ for which the desired future character seeks for built form to be secondary in visual significance to the landscape with architecture to be buffered from the street by a well planted front garden. In less wooded areas buildings will be mainly low rise unless existing vegetation or a gradation in height softens the scale contrasts between buildings. Front fences are to be low to allow plants in the front garden to be visible. The soft quality of streets derived from nature strips will be protected by ensuring that each lot frontage has only one single crossover. The proposal is consistent with the desired future character in that:

The proposal has a single crossover in keeping with the neighbourhood context.



Vehicle parking facilities do not dominate the frontage.

The front setback of the proposed development is 8.4 metres which both exceeds the minimum requirement of the schedule to the zone (7.6 metres) and respects the existing setbacks within the street.

The front setback of the development provides opportunities for landscaping and is sufficient in size for canopy trees which will assist in screening the proposed development when viewed from the street.

The footprint of the upper levels of the proposed dwellings are smaller than the ground floor plans, thus providing for a gradation in height, which helps to soften the change in scale, particularly from the single storey dwelling to the south. Note: a further reduction in the first floor footprint of Unit 3 is recommended to further assist with this objective.

No front fencing is proposed which will allow the front open space to be visible from the streetscape to maintain the Garden City character.

Assessment under Clause 55 (ResCode)

Neighbourhood Character The presentation of Unit 1 to Pippin Avenue is considered to be suitably articulated to ensure that the dwelling sits comfortably in the streetscape. The combination of the stairwell, vertical feature window, a first floor facade setback 500mm and a feature protruding entry porch, creates a frontage that incorporates visual interest and will allow for an interesting play of light and shade across the facade. A combination of different materials is also used to further break up this presentation. This building form complements `the large, contemporary two storey dwelling abutting the site to the north, as well as another directly opposite the site.

The majority of the objectors considered the subject site to be located within a heritage precinct. However, it is only 18 to 20 Packham Crescent that is affected by the Heritage Overlay in recognition of it being an original farmhouse to the area. There is no relevant heritage or neighbourhood character restriction in the planning scheme that prevents any lot being developed/subdivided for more than one dwelling. As mentioned earlier in this report, the first floor footprints are considered appropriate, with the exception of Unit 3. Modifications are recommended to ensure a suitable gradation in height and to minimise the visual bulk on the back gardens of adjoining properties. The following modifications are recommended:

The southern wall of the master bedroom of Unit 3 to be further setback from 1.8 metres to 3.0 metres (an increase of 1.2 metres); and

Bedroom 2 on the northern end of Unit 3 deleted (which will increase the setback from 1.8 metres to 5 metres).

These changes will provide a marked improvement to the views and sense of openness from within the back gardens of the adjoining dwellings.



Furthermore, the Unit 3, bedroom 3 is proposed to be partially cantilevered over part of this unit’s secluded private open space. The cantilevering effect contributes to the bulky nature of the first floor, resulting in the appearance of a top-heavy design. A permit condition is recommended to reduce the size of bedroom 3 to remove this overhang. Street Setback Standard B6 of Clause 55.03-1 states that porches, pergolas and verandahs that are less than 3.6 metres high and eaves may encroach not more than 2.5 metres into the minimum front setback of 7.6 metres. In this instance the proposed front setback is 8.4 metres, thus the depth of the porch is compliant with this requirement. However there is a small portion that protrudes into the 7.6 metre minimum setback that is greater than 3.6 metres in height. This portion exceeds the height by 0.5 metres for a depth of 0.2 metres. Given the very small degree of intrusion, and combined with the visual interest the proposed porch adds to the front facade, this porch design is considered to be acceptable in this context.

Several objections noted that the proposed setback of 8.4 metres from the front boundary is an encroachment that is inconsistent with the current and desired future character within precinct ‘C’, which states that setbacks from the street will be generous and consistent within individual streets. The proposed setback is 0.8 metres greater than the requirement of the Monash Planning Scheme. In addition, there is a consistent pattern of 7.6 metres setbacks to the western side of Pippin Avenue, but there is no consistency to the setbacks to the eastern side of Pippin Avenue on which the subject site is located. The existing dwelling at 10 Pippin Street is set at approximately 7.6 metres, and the proposed development is to be setback a further 0.8 metres and is considered to be make a more positive contribution to neighbourhood character than the pre existing dwelling on the subject site. Site Coverage Several objections state that the site coverage of 3 dwellings on a lot is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character of the surrounding area. The development proposes 39.6% total site coverage of buildings and 66.03% including all hard surface areas. This is well within the site layout and building massing requirements of ResCode, and is consistent with surrounding development existing on neighbouring properties. Several existing lots accommodating a single dwelling located adjacent to the subject site have hard surface or site coverage far in excess of the site coverage of the proposed development.

Landscaping There is area within the front setback for the planting of two new canopy trees, as well as new trees in the secluded private open spaces of all three units. The inclusion of a permit condition to require trees in these areas is recommended. As the trees grow they will contribute to the Garden City Character of the municipality, as well as help screen views of the building form from the street and surrounding properties, thus providing a natural visual buffer.



Overlooking The boundary fences on the southern boundary and for part of the northern boundary are less than 1.8 metres in height. This will result in an opportunity for overlooking from ground level habitable room windows into the adjoining properties. This can be addressed by requiring the fencing to be a minimum of 1.8 metres in height, which can be achieved either by replacement fencing or by adding suitable screening to the top of the existing fencing to achieve a minimum height of 1.8 metres, in compliance with the requirements of Clause 55.04-6 of the Monash Planning Scheme. At the first floor level the majority of the habitable room windows have been suitably screened in accordance with the requirements of Clause 55.04-6. However, the west facing Master Bedroom window of Unit 3 has not been screened and oblique views are possible to the neighbouring property to the south. As such, a permit condition is recommended to require that suitable screening be provided. Overshadowing The shadows cast by the proposal will fall mostly within the subject site, or within the extent of shadow already cast by the intervening boundary fence. There will be a small increase in shadows in the rear garden of the property to the south, however the private open space area of this dwelling will still receive direct sunlight for more than five hours during the day therefore any impact from the shadows is not considered to be unreasonable. Noise An objection has been raised to the noise impacts generated by the traffic utilising the shared driveway along the southern boundary. However, the degree of noise that is likely to be generated by cars accessing the three garages is considered to be negligible and reasonable and not uncommon in a residential suburban context. The property boundary will be shielded by the intervening fence, and the habitable room windows of the dwelling to the south will be a minimum of 1.66 metres further to the south again. It is indicated on the plans that the majority of the neighbour’s windows closest to this boundary are non-habitable. Car Parking, traffic and access The requisite number of car parking spaces, pursuant to Clause 52.06 has been shown on the development plans, as follows:

Use Number of Dwellings

Clause 52.06 Requirement

Car spaces provided

Four bedroom dwellings

3 (2 spaces/ three + bedrooms)

6

Visitor Parking Not applicable (1 space for every 5 dwellings)

Not applicable

Total 6



Council’s Traffic Engineering Department provided the following advice to the layout of the car parking accessways and spaces:

“A vehicle cannot satisfactorily access the western car space within the dwelling 1 garage when a vehicle is parked in the eastern car space. To satisfactorily accommodate vehicle turning movements into the dwelling 1 garage, it is recommended that a greater accessway width of typically 6.4m is required in front of the garage. The section of driveway at the change of direction south-west of (leading to) the dwelling 1 garage is to have an internal radius of 4m.”

The relocation of the dwelling 1 garage to the north to increase the accessway width to 6.4 metres would compromise the provision of seclude private open space for Unit 1. Instead, and after further discussions with Council’s traffic engineer, it is recommended that the internal dimension of this garage be increased to have a minimal internal width of 6.0 metres. This would necessitate the ground floor footprint of either Unit 1 or 2 being reduced to achieve this modification. A small section of the landscaping bed along the southern boundary will also need to be removed to improve the turning access for vehicles swinging into the garage. Appropriate permit conditions are recommended to require these changes.

Advice received from Council’s Traffic Engineering Department also found that the proposed vehicular movement for vehicles entering and exiting the dwelling 3 garage was not satisfactory. The removal of the landscaping along the southern boundary would allow for an additional 800mm of driveway necessary to achieve satisfactory vehicular movements. It is recommended that the landscaping be removed from the driveway opposite the south east corner of the dwelling 2 living area extending to the southern property boundary in order for vehicles to enter and exit satisfactorily from the dwelling 3 garage. The removal of this small stretch of landscaping will have negligible impact on any noise transmission to the south. Detailed Design Objections were raised to the poor quality of design and construction materials proposed. While the majority of the streetscape is constructed of brick material, there are examples of existing residential development in the surrounding area that are rendered on both ground and upper floors, such as the adjacent property at 11 Pippin Avenue, and 4 Packham Crescent (neighbouring property to the north east), as well as 1 Packham Crescent - a single storey rendered dwelling. The design response of the proposal, which for all 3 dwellings involves face brickwork construction at ground level with selected external cladding at first floor level, is considered to be generally consistent with neighbourhood character. The applicant has not specified what the external cladding will be, nor the colour scheme. It is recommended that a condition is placed on the planning permit that requires a full materials and colour scheme schedule to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



Stormwater Drainage Sufficient permeable area is provided to limit stormwater runoff and adequate drainage outcomes can be achieved with the adaptation of a drainage plan. This has been achieved because the proposal incorporates:

Site coverage 338.51 square metres (39.66%)

Greater than 75 square metres open space for each dwelling

Permeable Surface coverage 33.97%

Council’s Drainage Engineers had no concerns to the proposal, subject to regular drainage conditions, including the submission of drainage plans for approval prior to the commencement of works. Plan inaccuracies The development plans submitted, including the plans assessed by Council’s Drainage Engineering Department, do not accurately detail the line and dimensions of the easement at the rear of the lot. The rear boundary of the subject site leans towards the north east. The development plans show the easement running due south to due north and tapering down from 2.7 metres at the northern boundary, to 1.2 metres at the southern boundary. The title shows a 2.44 metre wide easement perpendicular with the near boundary. This inaccuracy does not limit the ability to assess the proposal. It is recommended that a condition is placed upon the planning permit that requires the easement to be accurately marked on the submitted development plans. The side setback of the neighbouring property at 8 Pippin Street to the boundary has also not been accurately detailed. The setback of 3.86 metres to the shared boundary does not match the actual setback of this area, which appears to be closer to 3 metres. Again this does not limit the ability to assess the proposal. It is recommended that a condition is placed upon the planning permit that ensures that the setback of 8 Pippin Street is accurately detailed on the development plans.

Objections not previously addressed

Devaluation of properties The decrease or increase in value to land in the surrounding area is speculative, and does not carry any planning grounds for consideration. Setting precedents over allowing or refusing town planning applications for future sub division in precincts, and in particular this precinct, is not applicable for consideration under any clause within the Monash Planning Scheme. The development is assessed on its compliance and consistency with the planning scheme. Precedent Several objections have argued that no precedent exists that justifies subdivision and multi unit development within lots in the immediate vicinity. This is not a relevant planning ground as medium density housing is envisaged under the provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme and each proposal is considered on its merits relative to the relevant planning considerations.



Strain on educational services

Increasing population density and the effect and strain to which this places on local educational services is not a matter that is able to be assessed within the planning scheme. In any event, the net increase of two dwellings on this site would likely have a negligible impact.

Parking of commercial vehicles

The parking of commercial vehicles in driveways of neighbouring properties and the adverse affect this has had to the on street parking is not a matter of consideration for the development site. As discussed in the car parking assessment, the proposal has provided a satisfactory provision of car parking as required by the Monash Planning Scheme.

Safety of children

Several objections have been raised regarding the safety of children being forced to play in the street, and to on street parking provision. The development does include more than 75 square metres of private space per dwelling, and the site is located approximately 120 metres from David Crawford Reserve which sits along the linear reserve linking Glen Waverley to the south to East Burwood to the north.

Amendment C125 Objections have raised that the “type and characteristics of the proposed development is incompatible with the Monash Housing Strategy and with new zoning approved by Council”. As yet, alterations to the General Residential Zone 2 (GRZ2) have not come into effect under Amendment C125, and therefore the application must be assessed under the current controls of the Monash Planning Scheme. Again it was raised that the maximum site coverage being decreased from 60% to 50% under Amendment C125. The objector has quoted the ground floor plans, which state a “total site coverage was 66.03%”. The total site coverage description is misleading, the figure referred to on the plans is a combination of hard surface areas combined with building coverage. The total building coverage for the site is 39.66% and complies with the Monash Planning Scheme and proposed Amendment C125. Objections relating to increased open space proposed in Amendment C125 are also not relevant at this time.

CONCLUSION:

The proposal is considered satisfactory in that it suitably complies with the requirements of the Monash Planning Scheme, including relevant state and local policies. The design response is generally site responsive and, together with minor modifications, will sit comfortably in this established neighbourhood, will not



result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the surrounding residential properties and will make a positive contribution to the Garden City character of Monash. The proposal should be approved subject to conditions.



LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Proposed Development Plans. Attachment 2 – Aerial Photograph (October 2014). Attachment 3 – Zoning and Overlays Map. Attachment 4 – Objector Properties Location Map.

1.12 10 pippin avenue, glen waverley construction … · council meeting, 31 january 2017 section...

Documents