VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST / vcat reference No. P1067/2016
Permit Application no. TPA/44434
CATCHWORDS
Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Two dwellings on a lot; Neighbourhood Character
APPLICANT / Penny Toumazou
responsible authority / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 35 Amaroo Street, Chadstone
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Megan Carew, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 25 November 2016
DATE OF ORDER / 7 December 2016
CITATION / Toumazou v Monash CC [2016] VCAT 1995

Order

Amended Plans

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: / Leonnard Lawrence Architect
·  Drawing numbers: / Revision D
·  Dated: / August 2016

Permit granted

2  In application P1067/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

3  In planning permit application TPA/44434 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 35 Amaroo Street, Chadstone in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

·  Construction of two dwellings on a lot.

Megan Carew
Member

Appearances

For applicant / Mr Alfred Carnovale, Town Planning Consultant
For responsible authority / Ms Sally Moser, Town Planning Consultant

Information

Description of proposal / Two, double-storey dwellings on a lot in a tandem arrangement.
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 32.08-4 To construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the GRZ2.
Relevant scheme policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 11, 15, 16, 21, 22.01. 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 55 and 65
Land description / The site is located on the west side of Amaroo Street, south of the intersection with Nokia Street. It has frontage to Amaroo Street of 15.58m and a total site area of 633m2. It is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling.
The area is predominantly residential, but the site is opposite a Council neighbourhood house and community facilities.
The site has a number of property abuttals. To the south is a single storey dwelling at 37 Amaroo Street. To the rear are the backyards of properties fronting Aloomba Street and to the north and properties that front Nokia Street, with a dual occupancy abutting on the corner of Nokia and Amaroo Streets.

Reasons[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  The applicant seeks to construct two double storey dwellings on the land.

2  Council refused the application. It considered that the proposal would not respect the preferred neighbourhood character of the area and would present visual bulk to adjoining properties.

3  I consider that the key issues in this application are:

·  Will the proposal respect the preferred neighbourhood character? and

·  Does it have acceptable amenity impacts?

4  Amended plans were substituted at the hearing. The permit applicant submits that the changes address Council’s concerns.

5  I must decide if a permit should be granted and if so what conditions should apply. Having considered the submissions and material before us and with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I have determined to set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and grant a permit. My reasons follow.

What are MY FINDINGS?

6  There was no dispute between the parties that the site was suitable for two dwellings. What was in dispute was the design response and impact on the neighbourhood character and present visual bulk to adjoining properties.

Neighbourhood Character

7  Ms Moser identified that the review site and its immediate surrounds were formerly part of the Jordonville Public Housing estate. The area was historically comprised of Ministry of Housing concrete sheet dwellings like that found on the review site. However, many sites are now privately owned and the housing is being modified and updated including significant evidence of new infill and medium density housing including double storey forms.

8  There is significant emphasis in the Monash Planning Scheme on ensuring that new development responds to the Garden City character of the area (Clause 22.01). The review site is within Character Area Type D pursuant to Clause 22.01. 1. The preferred character statement for the area includes:

Building setbacks will be generous. Architecture will integrate sympathetically with the landform and its scale and form respecting and enhancing the spacious curvilinear urban form. New buildings or extensions to existing buildings that are energy efficient, reflect sustainable principles and are of contemporary excellence will be encouraged.

The built-form will be unified by well planted front gardens, and visually dominant native and exotic street trees that will be consistent within streets and of an appropriate scale.

Front fences will be low and use materials and colours appropriate to the architecture. ‘Soft’ materials such as timber will predominate.

Gardens will consist of both native and exotic trees and shrubs and will have a transparent quality allowing filtered views of the architecture. Existing mature trees and shrubs will be retained and additional native tree planting that relates to the valley-side location of the Character Type will be encouraged.

This Character Type will evolve as a well-planted, open and spacious ‘garden suburb’.

The soft quality of the street that is derived in part from the nature strips will be maintained by ensuring that there is only one single crossover per lot frontage…

9  The preferred character statement reflects a level of change anticipated for this area, but maintains an emphasis that is throughout the Monash Planning Scheme on gardens. The proposal provides a generous front setback of about 9m, with a single crossover that provides for ample garden space that will reflect the preferred character of the area.

10  The front dwelling addresses the street and comprises a simple domestic form. I do not agree with Council’s submissions that dwelling 1 is box-like. The upper level is generally recessed from the lower level and is well articulated. While there are small areas of sheer wall, these form part of the articulation of the dwelling. Council was critical of the select aluminum finish proposed around the windows. I agree that this is not consistent with the call for “soft” materials in the preferred character statement, but find that this can be addressed through a permit condition.

11  In terms of site layout, the Council was critical of the continuous built form at ground level. I do not share this concern. It is a response seen in medium density housing in the area. The building form is well setback from the side and rear boundaries. At the upper level there is a 3m separation between the two dwellings that will also assist in modulating the building form. This break is positioned so that it is visible from the year yards of No. 22 and 24 Noika Street.

12  Council submitted that there was insufficient room for landscaping throughout the site. The landscaping plan tabled by the permit applicant provides a minimalistic planting scheme that could be supplemented. I am satisfied that there is sufficient room for landscaping to occur to soften the building form. I consider that planting can occur within the easements and in each private open space area (with a small reduction in the deck area of dwelling 2 to provide for a small canopy tree). I have addressed these matters in the permit conditions.

13  Overall I am satisfied that the proposal will sit comfortably in this area that is transitioning from its former role as a public housing estate.

Amenity Considerations

14  I have addressed the question of visual bulk in my discussion above. I am satisfied that the proposal will not present unacceptable visual bulk to neighbouring dwellings given the setbacks and articulation. The proposal will also comply with the relevant Clause 55 standards for overlooking, overshadowing and daylight to habitable room windows on adjoining properties.

15  In terms of internal amenity, I am satisfied that each dwelling will provide acceptable accommodation. Council was critical that the secluded private open space area for dwelling 1 does not comply with the varied standard in the schedule to the zone because it is 31m2 rather than 35m2. I am satisfied that the overall provision of private open space and secluded private open space is satisfactory for this dwelling and will meet the needs of future residents.

What conditions are appropriate?

16  In determining the conditions of permit, I have had regard to the draft conditions discussed at the hearing and the submissions of the parties as well as the matters arising from my reasons above.

Conclusion

17  For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Megan Carew
Member

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No / TPA/44434
Land / 35 Amaroo Street, Chadstone
What the permit allowS
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
·  Construction of two dwellings on a lot

1  Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and be 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 prepared by Leonnard Lawrence Architect, Revision D dated August 2016, but modified to show:

a)  Correct labeling of elevations.

b)  Setback the deck of dwelling 2 from the rear boundary a minimum of 3.5m.

c)  The use of alternative building materials on the north elevation of Dwelling 1 at upper level.

d)  Tree protection measures as detailed in the Arboricultural Report prepared by Tree Radar dated 25 August 2016 (as updated).

e)  The existing vehicle crossing fully reconstructed to a width of 3 metres if required.

f)  Provide a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2 metres) extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) at both sides of the 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  All side/rear common boundary fences to the side/rear of the dwellings 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.

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 (front setback and private secluded open space areas). The canopy trees in the front setback are to grow to a height no less than the parapet of the building/s.

(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, number and location 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. Coloured concrete, pavers or similar is to be utilised in the driveway.

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 visible brick walls of any walls on the boundary of adjoining properties shall be cleaned and finished (raked and cleaned of mortar) 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.