VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ vcat reference No. P352/2015
Permit Application no. TPA/43155

CATCHWORDS

Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme;
Neighbourhood character: dual crossovers, side-by-side layout
APPLICANT / Line Design
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
RESPONDENTs / Antony Lindsay; Vernon & Mercy D’Monte; and Peter Dunkin
SUBJECT LAND / 11 Le Gallienne Crescent, Mulgrave
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Tracy Watson, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 3 August 2015
DATE OF ORDER / 9 September 2015
CITATION

Order

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: / Line Design
·  Drawing number: / 213172 TP
·  Dated: / 18/03/15

2  The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.

3  In permit application TPA/43155 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 11 Le Gallienne Crescent, Mulgrave in accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

·  Construction of two dwellings on a lot.

Tracy Watson
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / David Quelch, town planner
For Responsible Authority / Sally Moser, town planner
For Respondents / Peter Dunkin, in person (and on behalf of Mr Lindsay and Mr and Mrs D’Monte)

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal / It is proposed to construct two, double storey dwellings in a side-by-side layout.
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 / Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 (Monash Residential Areas). Schedule 2 contains local variations to B6, B28 and B32.
No overlays apply to the subject site.
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-4 – To construct two or more dwellings on a lot.
Relevant Scheme, policies and provisions / Includes Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21.03, 21.04, 21.08, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 55 and 65.
Land Description / The subject site is located on the north-eastern side of Le Gallienne Crescent, in an established residential area. The site is an irregular shaped allotment which is currently developed with a single storey detached dwelling. The subject site has a frontage of 15.52 metres, a maximum depth of 35.8 metres and a site area of approximately 700m2.
Tribunal Inspection / 7 September 2015

REASONS[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  Monash City Council issued a Refusal to Grant a Permit for the proposed development on neighbourhood character grounds in December 2014. The permit applicant is seeking to have this decision reviewed by the Tribunal.

2  There are three resident parties to this matter who also oppose the proposed development. Additionally, Statements of Grounds have been received from a number of residents who are not parties to this proceeding pursuant to Clause 56(6) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. I have considered all the Statements of Grounds lodged with the Tribunal as part of my decision-making.

3  Based on the hearing process, all the associated documentation, my site inspection and the relevant provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I consider that the key question for determination is whether the proposal is respectful of neighbourhood character.

4  The proposal complies with Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme in relation to the number of on-site car spaces provided and the design and layout of the driveways and garages (subject to an increase of 300mm to the width of each of the driveways). This means that there is no permit trigger in relation to this issue and it therefore falls outside of my ambit of discretion. Furthermore, the net addition of one dwelling will result in only a small increase in the amount of traffic on Le Gallienne Crescent which can be readily absorbed by the road network without any detrimental traffic impacts. Council’s traffic engineer has not objected to the proposal.

5  The proposal complies with (or exceeds) all of the quantitative Clause 55 standards relating to off-site amenity impacts (such as overlooking, overshadowing, loss of daylight to habitable rooms, wall heights and wall setbacks). It is the subjective, qualitative standards of Clause 55 which are in dispute.

6  Amendment C125 to the Monash Planning Scheme has recently finished the public exhibition process. I have not given this Amendment any weight in my decision-making as it is still early in the amendment process and there is therefore uncertainty about its final form. I am required to consider the Monash Planning Scheme as it stands at the time of my decision. I do note however, that in terms of the local variations proposed in Schedule 4 to the General Residential Zone under Amendment C125 that the only variation required by the proposed development is that part of bedroom 1 of Dwelling 2 is setback less than 5 metres from the rear boundary (with a proposed minimum rear setback of 3.55 metres).

7  I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. I have decided to set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority, and direct that a permit be issued. The reasons for my decision are set out below.

Is the proposal respectful of neighbourhood character?

8  The essence of the Council’s position was that the policy directions of the planning scheme, and the locational attributes of the subject site, support some form of dual occupancy development. However, it was the Council’s position that this type of development should be in a one-behind-the-other layout, not the proposed side-by-side layout. The position of the residents was that new development in Le Gallienne Crescent is generally characterised by a replacement single-storey dwelling, and that this is their preferred type of development.

9  The planning scheme is supportive of moderate housing growth in this location provided that it is respectful of the neighbourhood character of the area (see for example the purposes of the General Residential Zone). The proposed two-dwelling development is consistent with ‘moderate’ housing growth.

10  The local planning policy framework emphasizes protecting the garden city character of the City of Monash, including the landscape character of local areas.

11  Explicit direction regarding neighbourhood character outcomes is provided at Clause 22.01 (Residential Development and Character Policy) of the planning scheme. The relevant non-locationally specific policies which I consider are the key policy statements relevant to the subject proposal as contained in Clause 22.01-3 are:

The Garden City Character of residential areas be retained by discouraging car parking and accessways that have a significant impact on or cause fragmentation of the streetscape.

The number of vehicle crossings be minimised to maintain existing kerb side parking and green spaces in both front setback areas and in naturestrips.

Hardening of the streetscape through the provision of additional crossovers is discouraged.

Landscaping in the front setback areas of properties is to be maintained by minimising the number of crossovers provided on larger multi unit sites and placing vehicle parking to the rear on sites accommodating small to medium multi developments.

Garages, carports and associated visitor spaces be designed so that they do not dominate or visually disrupt the streetscape.

Minimal pavement areas be provided within the front setback area to maximise landscaping to enhance the Garden City Character of the streetscape.

12  The subject site is located in Residential Character Type “C” pursuant to Clause 22.01-4. It is policy that the following desired future character statement be considered as part of the decision-making process:

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. [I note that this last paragraph is not relevant to the subject site]

13  The local planning policy framework encourages the provision of one crossover per allotment. However, this is not a blanket prohibition, rather it is discretionary policy which needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Local policy directions encourage the preservation of grassed nature strips, the minimisation of hard paving and the maintenance of ‘green spaces’.

14  Ms Moser tabled a number of previous Tribunal decisions in support of Council’s position that the introduction of a second crossover is contrary to the local policy settings of the planning scheme. These decisions confirm that local policy does discourage the introduction of a second crossover, however there will be some circumstances where a second crossover is justified based on a contextual assessment of the character of the area. I think that this is such a case, where a second crossover is acceptable.

15  My site inspection confirmed that the landscape character of this neighbourhood is a garden suburban character, generally comprising low-scale landscaping. It is not a landscape character which comprises a strong element of high-scale canopy trees. In Le Gallienne Crescent, landscaping is not the dominant element with buildings being the secondary element. Conversely, in Le Gallienne Crescent, buildings are highly visible in the streetscape. Where new single dwellings have been constructed there is a relatively high site coverage provided and minimal side setbacks at the street interface. Furthermore, this is not a situation where there are long stretches of unbroken nature strips. It is a common characteristic of Le Gallienne Crescent for vehicle crossovers to be located close together with intervening small areas of grassed nature strip. In terms of the built form, Le Gallienne Crescent is predominantly single storey although there is a scattering of double storey form in this neighbourhood, including directly opposite the subject site at no. 12 Le Gallienne Crescent and a new double storey single dwelling under construction at no. 25 Le Gallienne Crescent.

16  Based on the existing conditions of Le Gallienne Crescent I find that the introduction of a second, single-width crossover will not have “a significant impact on or cause fragmentation of the streetscape.” This is because:

·  The subject site is located on the bend of Le Gallienne Crescent which reduces the visual impact of the second crossover.

·  There are already sections of Le Gallienne Crescent which are fragmented by vehicle crossovers located proximate to each other.

·  The introduction of the second crossover will retain a grassed nature strip of approximately 7 metres in length in front of the subject site.

·  No street trees will be impacted by the introduction of the second crossover. I consider that given the amount of front garden space provided, which is sufficient to accommodate large canopy trees, it is acceptable for the existing mature tree located in the south-west corner of the subject site to be removed (particularly given that the subject site is not covered by any overlays relating to tree removal).

17  Additionally, I find that the driveways and garages will not be visually dominant elements in the streetscape as:

·  The driveways will be softened by central grassed-strip.

·  There is sufficient space along the side setbacks for low-level landscaping.

·  Each single-space garage is setback off the side boundary by 1 metre.

·  The garage doors (which will each be 3 metres wide) are located at a part of the site which has an overall width of 18.8 metres (compared to the 15.52 metres width of the site at the street frontage).

·  Each garage is recessed behind the front entry areas.

·  The garage of Dwelling 1 is setback 9.69 metres from the street and the Dwelling 2 garage is setback 9.88 metres from the street.

·  The size of the front garden area will allow for the planting of canopy trees.

18  In terms of the streetscape presentation (and the overall amount of space provided for landscaping) I find that the siting and built form of the proposed development is acceptable in terms of the existing and future character of the area for the following key reasons: