VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST / vcat reference Nos. P2618/2016
Permit Application no. TPA/45735
CATCHWORDS
Eight dwellings in a GRZ2; three storey built form; reverse living arrangements; internal amenity; respect for neighbourhood character.
APPLICANT / TMG Investments
responsible authority / Monash City Council
Referral Authority / VicRoads
SUBJECT LAND / 763-765 High Street Road, Glen Waverley
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Judith Perlstein, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 16 May 2017
DATE OF ORDER / 13 June 2017
CITATION / TMG Investments v Monash CC [2017] VCAT 812

Order

Amend permit application

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: / Taylors
·  Drawing numbers: / TP-000, dated 24/03/2017
TP-101, dated 20/07/2016
TP-102, dated 10/03/2017
TP-201, TP-202, TP-203, dated 17/03/2017
TP-401, dated 20/07/2016
TP-402, TP-403, TP-404, TP-901, TP-902, dated 23/03/2017
TP-405, dated 29/03/2017
TP-406, dated 26/03/2017
TP-903, dated 22/03/2016
TP-904, dated 28/03/2017

No permit granted

2  In application P2618/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.

3  In planning permit application TPA/45735 no permit is granted.

Judith Perlstein
Member

Appearances

For TMG Investments / Mr Shem Curry, planner of Taylors Development Strategists Pty Ltd.
For Monash City Council / Ms Adrianne Kellock, planner of Kellock Town Planning.

Information

Description of proposal / Construction of eight, three storey townhouses, each with four bedrooms and a double garage. Primary private open space is provided by way of first floor balconies of between 8.1 and 15.7 square metres accessed from the living areas.
Four townhouses are proposed to be located along High Street Road on the southern boundary of the site and the other four towards the northern boundary with a driveway through the centre, accessed from Pindari Street.
Vehicle access from High Street Road is to be discontinued.
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).
Permit requirements / Clause 32.08-6 - construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the GRZ2.
Clause 52.29 - alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone 1.
Relevant scheme policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21.04, 21.08, 21.13, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 52.29, 55 and 65.
Land description / The site comprises two lots and is rectangular in shape with a depth of 35.87 metres, length of 45.67 metres, and a total area of approximately 1,597 square metres. There is a fall of approximately 1.5 metres across the site from west to east.
Each lot currently contains a single dwelling and vegetation.
A 2.44 metre wide easement runs along the western boundary of the site.
765 High Street Road sits on the corner of Pindari Street and the site is located approximately 250 metres to the west of The Glen shopping centre.
Surrounding land to the north, east and west is typically residential in character and comprises a mix of single and double storey detached dwellings constructed of brick and weatherboard with pitched tiled roofs.
Tribunal inspection / I conducted an unaccompanied inspection of the subject site and surrounds on 19 May 2017.

Reasons[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  This application involves a proposal for development of eight, three storey townhouses on land at 763-765 High Street Road, Glen Waverley.

2  Council refused the application on the following grounds:

·  The proposal is inconsistent with the Residential Development Policy and Residential Development and Character Policy at clauses 21.04 and 22.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

·  The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and design standards of clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

·  The proposal is out of character with the existing development in the area in particular with regard to street setback, design detail, mass, bulk and scale, tree retention, open space provision, common property and landscaping.

·  The proposal would have a poor level of internal amenity for future residents.

·  The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding land.

·  The proposal is inconsistent with the Monash Housing Strategy 2014.

3  The applicant submitted that the development is an appropriate response on a site in close proximity to the Glen Waverley Activity Centre and railway station, and that the plans, as amended, provide an acceptable response to the objectives and standards contained in clause 55 of the Scheme and the variations found within the GRZ2.

4  Having considered all the submissions and inspected the subject land and its locality I view the key issues in this proceeding to be the following:

·  Does the proposal provide an acceptable response to planning policy and the preferred neighbourhood character?

·  Will the proposal provide an acceptable level of internal amenity for the future occupants of the dwellings?

5  While I accept that a higher density of development can be achieved in this location and there are some elements of the proposal that could be addressed by way of permit conditions, I find that the proposal in totality is not respectful of the neighbourhood character and is not consistent with either the existing or future desired character of the area. This, coupled with the poor level of internal amenity to be achieved for the future occupants of the dwellings due to the design of the proposal and the requirement to screen or obscure a large percentage of balconies and habitable windows, does not provide an acceptable outcome for the subject site.

6  As such, I have affirmed the Council’s decision to refuse to grant a permit for the proposed development. My detailed reasons follow.

Does THE PROPOSAL PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO planning policy and the PREFERRED NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?

7  The subject site is well located in terms of access to shops and activity centres, public transport, open space, schools and community facilities.

8  It is located in the GRZ2, with no overlays. The purposes of the GRZ include encouraging a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport. The site is appropriate for medium density development.

Local Planning Policy

9  Council’s residential development and character policy recognises the challenge of increasing housing diversity while maintaining the garden character of Monash:

The competing interests of incremental change and housing diversity with maintenance of the existing neighbourhood character, require careful planning to ensure that developments achieve high quality design outcomes that respects either the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

The Garden City Character, as identified in the Municipal Strategic Statement, is 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. [2]

10  Council’s objectives include encouraging new development to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that positively contribute to neighbourhood character having particular regard to the desired future character statement for the applicable residential Character Type.

11  In terms of built form and scale of development, Council’s policy includes the following:

·  The height and scale of existing dwellings in the neighbourhood be respected.

·  Building spacings [sic] and setbacks off side boundaries maintain the spacing and rhythm of existing dwellings to respect the built form character of the streetscape.

·  Similar building materials to that within the surrounding neighbourhood be utilised.

·  A high degree of articulation and detailing be exhibited.

·  Roof heights and pitches of adjoining development be respected.

·  Creative and quality design solutions be provided, particularly in relation to bulk of buildings having regard to boundary setbacks.

·  The same or similar built form and style be provided in streets that display a unified or dominant architectural or built form theme.

·  Articulated and graduated elevations avoiding “box-like” designs be provided.

·  Higher degrees of articulation be provided where double storey development is sought in streets where the predominant built form is single storey.

·  The scale and bulk of double storey buildings at the rear of properties, adjacent to single storey dwellings, be low key. This can be achieved by generous upper floor articulation and setbacks off site boundaries sufficient to allow new landscaping incorporating canopy trees.[3]

12  With respect to the subject site specifically, the desired future character statement for Residential Character Type ‘C’ provides as follows:

The neighbourhood character of this area will develop within a pleasant leafy framework of well-planted front gardens and large canopy trees.

Architecture, including new buildings and extensions, will, in the majority of cases, be secondary in visual significance to the landscape of the Character Type from the street.

However, in neighbourhoods that currently have a large proportion of two storey houses, the architecture will gradually become more dominant, although it will always be buffered from the street by a well planted front garden that will ensure the soft leafy nature of the street will be perpetuated.

Setbacks will be generous and consistent within individual streets.

Building heights will vary between neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods where the diverse topography and well developed mature tree canopy provide a framework within which redevelopment can occur will have a larger proportion of two storey houses. In the lower, less wooded areas, buildings will be mainly low rise unless existing vegetation or a gradation in height softens the scale contrasts between buildings.

The built-form will be visually unified by well-planted front gardens that contain large trees and shrubs and street tree planting.

Neighbourhoods that are influenced by the naturalistic landscape of the creek valleys or on highpoints and ridges will have a predominance of native trees in both the public and private realm. Trees within lots to be redeveloped will be retained wherever possible in order to maintain the established leafy character.

Streets which have a majority of gardens currently lacking fences will continue to do so.

Walls and fences in other streets will be low to allow plants in the front garden to be visible from the street. Colours and materials will be sympathetic to the architecture of the house.

The soft quality of streets derived from the nature strips will be protected by ensuring that each lot frontage has only one single crossover. Landscape elements such as remnant indigenous vegetation and the large old coniferous wind-rows will be retained until horticulturally unstable.

The character of existing public open spaces within the Character Type, particularly those naturalistic corridors such as Damper Creek and Valley Reserve, will be protected by ensuring that buildings directly adjacent to such areas are set back and buffered with planting that complements that within the public open space.[4]

Planning Scheme Amendment C120 and C125

Amendment C125

13  Amendment C125 proposes to introduce the Monash Housing Strategy 2014 as a reference document within the planning scheme. The housing strategy was adopted by Council in 2014 and introduces a revised residential framework for the municipality.

14  It provides direction for where growth should occur within Monash and where the garden character should be protected and enhanced. It recognises the key issue for Monash as the management of residential growth while preserving the valued character.

15  The subject site, and most of the municipality’s residential areas, is proposed to be included in the ‘Garden City Suburbs’ area 8, envisioned for incremental change. Its prevailing objective is the ‘provision of opportunities for modest housing growth and diversification with emphasis on preserving and enhancing Monash’s Garden City Character’.

16  Residential Outcomes for the Garden City Suburbs are ‘predominantly conventional detached houses, units and townhouses reflecting the existing scale and neighbourhood character. On larger lots, in suitable locations, lower to medium scale apartment developments may be appropriate, subject to careful design and the provision of substantial landscaped setbacks’.

17  The subject site, currently included in Residential Character Area C, is to be included in the area of ‘Garden City Suburbs (Northern)’. The Desired Future Character Statement for this area retains much of the current Residential Character ‘C’ wording with some minor amendments. The most notable is the statement that gardens will consist of open lawns, planted with a mix of native and exotic vegetation and trees, and that buildings will be clearly visible through these low garden settings, and non-existent or transparent front fences. It does, however, retain the statement that architecture, including new buildings, will ordinarily be secondary in visual significance to the landscape as a result of well planted gardens that will ensure the soft leafy nature of the street will be perpetuated.

18  During its meeting on 26 April 2017, the Council considered the implications of the recently gazetted Amendment VC110 on the content of Amendment C125, which has been submitted to the Minister for approval but not yet been gazetted. The Council noted that the Minister for Planning has agreed to meet with the Mayor to discuss the recent changes to residential zones and the potential impact of these changes on Amendment C125. It noted that these discussions will include:

a. the deletion of the two dwelling limit and the removal of key objectives from the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

b. the potential for the inclusion of a 9 metre height limit in the General Residential Zone Schedule 3 proposed as part of Amendment C125.

c. other issues to ensure that Amendment C125 is able to achieve its objectives.[5]

19  The Council also made the following recommendations:

7. Authorises the Director City Development to enter discussions with representatives from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to facilitate the outcomes sought in Recommendation 6.

8. Will receive a report at a future Council meeting on the outcomes of the discussions with the Minister for Planning in order to inform its position on the impact that the changes to the residential zones may have on Amendment C125.