victorian civil and administrative tribunal · web viewthe area is undergoing change, evident...

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P2245/2015

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/42980

CATCHWORDSSection 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; double storey

development; building bulk; building setbacks; landscaping; garage size; storage; amenity.

APPLICANT Darina Kurali

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council

SUBJECT LAND 420 Huntingdale Road, Oakleigh South

WHERE HELD Melbourne

BEFORE Frank Dawson, Member

HEARING TYPE Hearing

DATE OF HEARING 4 April 2016

DATE OF ORDER 6 June 2016

CITATION Kurali v Monash CC [2016] VCAT 817

ORDER1 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil

& Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:

Darina Kurali

2 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: Insite Architects.

Drawing numbers: TP04 – TP08 inclusive, all Revision 1.

Dated: 14/2/2016.

1 The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.

2 In permit application TPA/42980 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 420 Huntingdale Road Oakleigh South in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in the Appendix to this order. The permit allows the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2).

Frank DawsonMember

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Mr Joel Fredman, town planner of Fredman Malina Planning Pty Ltd.

For Responsible Authority Ms Sally Moser, town planner of Moser Planning Services Pty Ltd.

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal Construction of three double storey dwellings. Dwellings 1 and 3 each contain three bedrooms. Dwelling 2 contains two bedrooms. Vehicle parking is provided in the form of a single garage with tandem car space behind dwelling 1, a single garage behind dwelling 2 and a double garage at the end of the driveway for dwelling 3. The proposed design has a single driveway along the south side of the lot.The proposed dwellings have external materials of face brickwork on the ground floor, rendered lightweight cladding on the first floor and each dwelling has a separate hipped, colorbond roof.

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 (a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot).

VCAT Reference No. P2245/2015 of 14

Land Description The subject land is located on the eastern side of Huntingdale Road, opposite the Huntingdale Golf Club, approximately 500 metres north of Centre Road and 1,200 metres south of the Huntingdale Railway Station near North Road in Oakleigh South. The land is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 17.7 metres, a depth of 47.74 metres and an area of approximately 811 square metres. The land has a fall of 1.2 metres from east to west and a 1.83 metres wide easement along and within the rear boundary.The land contains a single storey timber dwelling. There is no significant vegetation on the site. The land is one of a group of eight lots surrounded by generally open land – a former extraction site to the east and south, a recreation reserve to the north and the Huntingdale Golf Club to the west. The residential properties immediately to the north and south contain single detached dwellings. The property two doors to the south at number 426 Huntingdale Road contains three recently constructed double storey dwellings in a configuration similar to that proposed on the subject land.

Tribunal Inspection The Tribunal conducted an inspection of the subject land and surrounding area.


REASONS1

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 This proceeding concerns a request to the Tribunal from the permit

applicant to review a decision by Monash City Council to refuse2 a planning permit for the construction of three double storey dwellings in the General Residential Zone at 420 Huntingdale Road Oakleigh South.

2 Council's grounds for refusing the application are:i. The proposal is not consistent with the residential development

and character policy at clause 22.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme with regard to built form, scale of development and landscaping.

ii. The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and design standards of clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme in terms of residential character, landscaping, detailed design and private open space.

iii. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on general neighbourhood character and adjoining properties having regard to mass and visual bulk.

3 The permit applicant submits:The proposal represents an appropriate development in this particular location; it will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of immediately adjoining residents, and is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, including State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks.

4 I consider the questions to be determined in deciding this matter are:

Does the proposed development respect existing neighbourhood character?

Does the proposed design provide an acceptable response to the relevant objectives and standards of ResCode at Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme?

Will the proposal result in unacceptable detriment to the amenity of surrounding residents?

5 The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council decision and grant a permit. My reasons follow.

1 I have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

2 Notice of Decision to Refuse to Grant a Permit TPA/42980. Dated 14 October 2015.


DOES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RESPECT EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?6 The General Residential Zone (GRZ) encourages new development that

respects the neighbourhood character of the area. In this case, the immediate character is defined by established dwellings, generally single storey, with some new multi-dwelling development. The character of the area is further defined by an arterial road location, the openness of the Huntingdale Golf Club and the large area of vacant land to the east.

7 The area is undergoing change, evident from the recent three dwelling development to the south. The Tribunal also understands the vacant land to the east is proposed for an extensive housing development, although the Tribunal is not aware of the design detail.

8 The process of change is supported within the GRZ, which has the purpose:To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

9 In this case, the subject land has excellent access to schools and open space, and good access to regional shopping facilities at Oakleigh, Bentleigh and Chadstone. Bus services appear limited along this section of Huntingdale Road, perhaps due to the extent of open space.

10 The subject site is included in Residential Character Type B, described at Clause 21.04 (Residential Development) as:

Character derived from 1945-1965 development, flat topography and a grid subdivision pattern.

11 The content of the Monash Urban Character Study dates from 1997, and is therefore somewhat dated, however, the properties along this part of Huntingdale Road reflect the character description. Existing older dwellings are generally brick or weatherboard in construction, are generally well maintained, have modest front gardens and some canopy trees. Street trees are also prominent. Extensive sheds and garages are present in a number of the backyard spaces within this group of eight lots, including either side of the subject land.

12 The Residential Development and Character Policy at Clause 22.0 describes the ‘Garden City Character’ sought to be achieved in Monash as a;

..core value held by the community and Council as a significant and important consideration in all land use and development decisions in most residential areas.

13 The landscaping policy refers to the planting of canopy trees in front setback and open space areas, including down both sides of driveways. The proposed design allows sufficient space to respond to this policy, however, the depiction of the landscaping on the plans is only representative, without any definition or landscape design input. I note that Council’s draft conditions prepared in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Note PNPE2


includes a requirement for a landscape plan, including widened planting beds along the driveway and a reduction in the area of decking in the seclude private open space areas to accommodate landscaping. I find these are relevant considerations in my assessment of this proposal and I have included permit conditions that require space for a canopy tree in each secluded private open space area, which has the implication of reducing the size of the proposed decks. I consider there is also ample opportunity for appropriate landscaping in the front setback.

14 Council’s draft conditions propose a widening of the driveway to provide more space for landscaping. I find it appropriate to vary the width of the driveway. The proposed design includes a 500mm width planting bed along the southern side of the driveway that I find can be improved with the opportunity to vary the width opposite the garages in areas that are not affected by vehicle turning movements.

15 Taken together, the landscape changes are intended to improve the ‘balance’ of canopy tree shade, outdoor deck areas and utility space in the secluded private open space areas, the front setback and along the driveway.

16 The three double storey dwellings in the proposed development are generally 7 metres in height, with brick face work and low pitched roof forms. As such, I consider the style of the proposal is not antagonistic to the surrounding development. The proposed design does, however, depart from the character of the area in the use of a light weight contemporary rendered finish for the first floor. To my observation, this material is not complimentary to the existing dwellings in this part of Huntingdale Road. I find a more appropriate design response can be achieved with the use of a horizontal weatherboard finish on the exterior of the upper level.

17 In consideration of overdevelopment, I note the three dwellings have good upper level separation and are set back from the side and rear boundaries from 1.8 metres to 6 metres, with side boundary setbacks generally 4 to 5 metres. The minimum front set back is 7.6 metres.

18 The back yard spaces on either side of the proposed development contain abutting sheds and garages and as mentioned earlier, the land to rear is currently vacant. These interfaces do not have the same sensitivity that might arise, for example, from a consistent pattern of open garden spaces.

19 In relation to the subject site, I find the double storey form at the rear of the proposed development is acceptable in the context of development on the adjoining properties and the vacant land to the east.

20 Taking into consideration the double storey height of the proposal, the spacing of dwellings and the building setbacks, I find the proposal provides an acceptable neighbourhood character response, subject to the use of a more sympathetic exterior finish on the upper level of the three dwellings and detailed landscape design for the open spaces and driveway.


DOES THE PROPOSED DESIGN PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THE RELEVANT OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS OF RESCODE AT CLAUSE 55 OF THE MONASH PLANNING SCHEME?21 In reviewing the proposed design against the objectives and standards at

Clause 55 of the planning scheme, I find the degree of compliance is acceptable, however, Council submits the proposed design is inadequate with respect to some of the standards. I consider aspects of Council’s criticism are valid and therefore, I address each in turn. Specifically, the issues of concern to Council relate to;

B5 and B26 - Dwelling entry B18 - Walls on boundaries B28 - Private open space B29 - Solar access to open space B30 – Storage B31 - Design detail

Dwelling entry

22 The proposed dwellings each have an entry oriented to the driveway along the southern side of the site. Council submits the development;

.. should seek to provide each dwelling with its own sense of identity by orienting dwellings to the front street.

23 I accept that it is important that each dwelling can be individually identified; this is conventionally achieved in a multi-dwelling arrangement by locating entrances toward the street. In this instance, each entrance has an entry porch, with a centrally located front door facing the driveway in the case of dwellings 1 and 2 and for dwelling 3, at the south west corner of the building, also facing the driveway. The entrances are quite prominent, easily identified and provide shelter over the entry door. They are not ‘tucked away’ in the sense of failing to achieve the ‘sense of personal address’ sought at standard B26. Each entrance is also associated with space for landscaping. Therefore, I find dwelling entry design is acceptable.

Walls on boundaries

24 The proposed development is generally set back from the side and rear boundaries, but has two sections of walls on boundaries. These are along the northern boundary for a distance of 6.3 metres for dwelling 1, and a garage wall of 6.2 metres on the southern boundary for dwelling 3. Both walls are either opposite an adjoining driveway in the case of the northern wall (which also roughly matches the near boundary wall of the existing dwelling) and adjacent to an adjoining shed in the case of the southern wall.

25 The issue for Council is the height of the southern boundary wall, which due to the slope of the site, varies from 3.1 metres to 3.5 metres, exceeding the preferred average height of 3.2 metres. Given the location of this wall


towards the rear of the property, opposite an existing shed, I find the proposed wall height is acceptable.

Private open space

26 The proposed design is generally compliant in relation to the area and configuration of private open space areas, all of which have a predominant or total northern orientation. The issue in this instance is the provision of 69.2 square metres of open space for dwelling 2, a short-fall of approximately 6 square metres. All of the open space for dwelling 2 is on the northern side of the dwelling, including an area directly in front of the dining and living area, 10.2 metres wide with a depth from the northern boundary of 5.8 metres. My concern with this space is not the size, which I find acceptable, but the extent of decking, which occupies approximately half of this space. I consider the design of the outdoor decks for all of the dwellings need to be modified to create a space of at least 5 metres square for a suitable canopy tree as part of the landscape design. In the case of dwelling 1, this can be accommodated within the front setback. In the case of dwelling 3, I realise this may require the relocation of the entry door to a reduced deck area. The permit conditions reflect this requirement.

Solar access

27 In relation of solar access, Council’s submission is that extending part of dwelling 1 to the northern boundary will create shadow across the private open space areas for dwellings 1 and 2. I note this is mainly confined to the ground floor component, as the first floor of each dwelling is recessed from the northern boundary.

28 I cannot conclude the extent of shadow over the private open space areas is unacceptable. As mentioned earlier, all of the spaces have a direct northern orientation and the shadow effect on the private open space of dwelling 2 is restricted to the latter part of the day, providing a degree of protection from the western sun.

Storage

29 The design standard for storage facilities on multi-dwelling sites (B30) states:

Each dwelling should have convenient access to at least 6 cubic metres of externally accessible, secure storage space.

30 Storage areas are generally located within garages or within the external utility areas of open space. They should not be in a location that restricts the space available for landscaping. The proposed development locates both the storage area and clothesline for dwelling 1 within the front set back, behind the existing high front fence, which is proposed to be retained. The storage area for dwelling 2 is within the secluded open space area, positioned to one side, but in full view from the deck. I can see no storage provided for


dwelling 3, although it can be assumed the storage space is to be accommodated within the double garage. I agree with Council that this proposal is problematic, given the internal dimensions of the double garage are 5.5 x 5.5 metres.

31 The provision of storage is not well handled in this proposal, particularly the location of the storage shed and clothesline within the front setback; which appears to be a somewhat lazy option. There is adequate space within the private open space areas for all of the dwellings to accommodate utilities like storage and clotheslines within screened areas. I also agree with the Council position that the depth of the double garage for dwelling 3 should be at least 6 metres.

32 Accordingly, I have included permit conditions to achieve this outcome.

Design detail

33 In terms of overall design, Council submits the proposed design is ‘top heavy’ with regard to visual bulk. The upper level recession from the ground floor building footprint is minimal on the eastern and southern facades, however, the upper level setback from the frontage is an acceptable 2 metres. Most importantly, the northern setbacks range from 3 to 6 metres, allowing the proposed dwellings to take advantage of the northern aspect. This, combined with the upper level separation distances of 5 and 3.8 metres, combine to achieve an acceptable outcome in terms of building bulk. As explained earlier, I consider a further improvement in design detail will be achieved with the use of a horizontal weatherboard finish on the upper levels instead of light-weight rendered/painted cladding.

34 On the basis of the above observations and the change to the external finish, I find the design detail of the proposal is acceptable.

WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN UNACCEPTABLE DETRIMENT TO THE AMENITY OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS?

Overlooking

35 The proposed design provides good protection from overlooking by adopting upper level window locations facing west and south, with minimal use of windows facing east and north. The restricted use of widows on the upper level eastern façade of dwelling 3 gives protection from overlooking to the vacant land to the east, which is the subject of a future residential development proposal. Similarly, there is only one small window with a sill height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level in the upper level southern façade of dwelling 3, giving protection from overlooking to the rear back yard of the adjoining property.

36 A similar approach is taken on the upper level northern façade, which in my assessment, does not take full advantage of the valuable northern aspect. The northern façade of dwelling 3 contains bedrooms 1 and 2, which have


‘normal’ windows, but fitted with obscure glazing. The upper level northern façade of dwellings 1 and 2 contain only one small high sill window for dwelling 2 and no windows for dwelling 1. Both rely on west and east facing bedroom windows. In the context of a northern aspect, this is a wasted opportunity. For example, the use of high sill windows (1.7 metres above finished floor level) facing north will improve the internal amenity of these bedrooms, while maintaining protection from overlooking into the adjoining property.

Overshadowing

37 The degree of overshadowing to the properties to the south and the east is acceptable, largely due to the southern setbacks of proposed dwellings 1 and 2, combined with the occurrence of adjoining driveways. To the east, where there is currently vacant land, the overshadowing occurs mainly during the latter part of the day. For example, at the equinox, the extent of overshadowing at 3 pm is 2.3 metres.

38 I find the proposed development will not result in unacceptable detriment to the amenity of adjoining residents.

WHAT CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?39 In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit the Tribunal has had

regard to the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from these reasons.

CONCLUSION40 The amended plans address many of the design short-comings that are of

concern to the Council. I acknowledge the proposal contains three double storey dwellings, which have the potential to impose an overbearing physical presence on surrounding development, however, I find the setbacks and degree of separation between the first floor components mitigate this effect. I have also taken into consideration the fact that the interface of the subject site with the surrounding properties is not sensitive.

41 While not in close proximity to an activity centre, there is a broad range of recreation, education and commercial facilities within a 1 kilometre radius from this site. In this regard, I find the subject land is well located for medium density infill development. Therefore, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct that a permit be issued subject to conditions.

Frank DawsonMember


Permit Notes

Although my order does not include ‘Notes’ within the permit conditions, such advisory information may be included in the permit that the Council is directed to issue.


APPENDIX

PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/42980LAND: 420 Huntingdale Road, Oakleigh SouthWHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS:

The construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 2) in accordance with the endorsed plans.

CONDITIONS1 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 amended plans prepared by Insite Architects, drawing numbers: TP04 – TP08 inclusive, all Revision 1 and dated 14/2/2016, but modified to show:

a) The use of a horizontal weatherboard finish to replace rendered lightweight cladding for the upper levels of dwellings 1, 2 and 3.

b) The relocation of storage areas and clotheslines for each dwelling to dedicated areas, with the storage and clothesline for dwelling 1 to be located behind the front building line.

c) The double garage for dwelling 3 to have a minimum depth of 6 metres.

d) Provision of high sill windows (1.7 metres above finished floor level) to bedrooms 2 and 3 in dwelling 1 and bedrooms 1 and 2 in dwelling 2 and clear glazing above 1.7 metres above finished floor level for bedrooms 2 and 3 in Dwelling 3.

e) The replacement or painting of the existing front fence to be compatible with the colours and materials used for dwelling 1.

f) Variation to the width of the planting sections along the southern side of the driveway, particularly opposite garage entrances, where vehicle turning movements allow.

g) An area of 5x5 metres for the planting of an appropriate medium canopy tree in each private open space area.

h) The driveway provided with an internal turning radius of at least 4 metres at changes of direction to the south-east corner of Dwellings 1 and 2 on both sides of the driveways leading to the respective garages.


i) Provide a corner splay or area with 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) on both sides of each vehicle crossings 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 All boundary fences are to have a height of no less than 1.8 metres.

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 suitable for maturing in an area of 5x5 metres, located within the private secluded open spaces of each dwelling.

(c) provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located within the front setback of the development. The planting provision is to include tall trees that when grown will positively contribute to the upper level tree canopy of the area.

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

(e) 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 utilised in the design).

(f) the location and details of all fencing.

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

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

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

(j) a sprinkler system is to be installed to all units.

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

7 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 each driveway onto the footpath. Such a system may include either:

a) a trench grate (150mm internal width) located within the property; and/or

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

c) another Council approved equivalent.

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

9 Direct the entire site’s stormwater drainage to the south-west corner of the property where it must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the 375 mm Council drain via an approved pit saddle adaptor to be constructed to Council Standards.

10 Any new drainage work within the road reserve requires the approval of the City of Monash’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Three copies of the plans (A3-A1 size) for the drainage works must be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division. The plans are to show sufficient information to determine that the drainage works will meet all drainage conditions of the permit.

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

12 This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two years of the issued date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within four years of the issued date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

--- End of Conditions ---


victorian civil and administrative tribunal · web viewthe area is undergoing change, evident...

Documents