VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST / vcat reference No. P1802/2016
Permit Application no. TPA/45347
CATCHWORDS
Section 77 Planning & Environment Act 1987, Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone Schedule 2; Building massing; Two crossovers; Neighbourhood character.
APPLICANT / Mr A Nguyen
responsible authority / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 29 Walter Street, Glen Waverley
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Jane Tait, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 28 March 2017
DATE OF ORDER / 4 May 2017
CITATION / Nguyen v Monash CC [2017] VCAT 559

Order

1  In application P1802/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

2  In planning permit application TPA/45347 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 29 Walter Street, Glen Waverley in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

·  Development of two dwellings on a lot in a General Residential Zone.

Jane Tait
Member

Appearances

For Adrian Nguyen / Mr Paul O’Shea of CS Town Planning Services
For Monash City Council / Ms Adrianne Kellock of Kellock Town Planning Pty Ltd

Information

Description of proposal / Construction of two, two storey dwellings. The site layout includes Dwelling 1 with frontage to Walter Street with access from the existing crossover in the northeast corner of the site. This dwelling has ground floor living areas, kitchen, guest bedroom, en-suite and service areas and the first floor has three bedrooms, study, en-suite, bathroom and media room.
Dwelling 2 is located to the rear with access from a separate driveway along the south boundary. The dwelling includes ground floor living areas and master bedroom and the first floor has three bedrooms, bathroom and en-suite.
Both dwellings have a double garage that is incorporated into the design of the ground floor.
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)
Vegetation Protection Overlay 1 (VPO1)
Permit requirements / Clause 32.08-6 – Construct two or more dwellings on a lot
Key Relevant scheme policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 10.04, 11.02, 11.04, 15.01, 16.01, 18.02, 21, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 55 and 65.
Land description / The review site is located on the west side of Walter Street, north of Aurisch Avenue, Glen Waverley. The site has a 17.53 metre frontage, depth of 41.76 metres and site area of 731 square metres.
There is a 1.83 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement along the west (rear) boundary.
The site is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling that is set back 11.2 metres from the frontage. The driveway is located in the northern setback that leads to a garage that is located to the rear of the dwelling.
The site slopes by 800mm from north to south and 900mm from rear to front.
There is no significant vegetation on the site.
Tribunal inspection / 10 April 2017

Reasons[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  This is an application for review of Monash City Council’s refusal to grant a permit to construct two dwellings at 29 Walter Street, Glen Waverley.

2  In August 2016 Council refused the application on grounds the dwellings are out of character with the existing neighbourhood due to their bulk, scale and massing, there are insufficient landscaping opportunities throughout the site and the layout includes two crossovers. The application was also refused on grounds that the development did not meet the objectives of Clause 55 relating to neighbourhood character, residential policy, energy efficiency, landscaping, access, parking provision, design detail and private open space.

3  The applicant submits the proposal is a site responsive design that is consistent with the design, setbacks and scale of other dwellings in the street and wider area.

4  Based on the submissions, the key issues that require determination in this matter are:

  1. Does the proposal respond to its policy context and zoning?
  2. Is the development an acceptable response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character?
  3. Does the layout provide adequate space for landscaping throughout the site?
  4. Will there be unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties?
  5. Does the proposal achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with Clause 55?

5  I have decided to set aside the decision of council and direct that a permit be issued as the proposal is an appropriate response in this neighbourhood and there will be no unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties. My reasons follow.

Does the proposal respond to its zoning and policy context?

6  There is general agreement between the parties that there is policy support at State and local level for the construction of two dwellings at this location. The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) at Clauses 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 encourages more diverse housing stock to be provided at an increased density in locations that are well serviced with public transport and community facilities.

7  The site is located 640 metres north of the Glen Waverley activity centre that contains a wide range of commercial uses such as shops, supermarkets, major department stores, restaurants, cafes and banks.

8  The site is also well located to a range of public transport options including bus services along Springvale Road (320 metres to the east) that includes the SMARTBUS service. Other bus services run along High Street that are located 630 metres to the south and connect to Glen Waverley, Rowville, Monash University and nearby train stations. Glen Waverley railway station is located 1.5 kilometres to the south.

9  The review site is located within a General Residential Zone. This zone has purposes including:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.[2]

10  The purposes of the GRZ were amended in VC110 that was gazetted on 27 March 2017. Council and the applicant have responded to the amendment in their submissions.

11  Amendment VC110 does not alter the policy emphasis for the encouragement of housing growth and diversity within areas that offer good access to public transport and services. The zone purpose also maintains its encouragement of new housing respecting the neighbourhood character which is to be implemented through State and local policies.

12  Amendment VC134 was gazetted on 31 March 2017. I have not invited further submissions from the parties on this amendment. The amended policies align with submissions already presented to me and there are no further changes to the GRZ2 or other VPP provisions that have implications for the design and siting issues discussed further below.

Proposed Amendment C125

13  Amendment C125 modifies the existing schedules and introduces new schedules to the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). The amendment also modifies the boundaries of the zones to reflect the Residential Framework Plan in the Monash Housing Strategy 2014.

14  The amendment proposes to rezone the subject site from GRZ2 to GRZ4. This zone includes variations to Clause 55 for the side setbacks, heights of canopy trees and size of the private open space.

15  Panel hearings were held in September and October 2016. Council has subsequently considered the panel’s recommendations where it resolved to modify the amendment to create a consolidated General Residential Zone in February 2017. This zone maintains a frontage setback requirement of 7.6 metres, site coverage of 50%, permeability of 30%, rear setback of 5 metres and requires a minimum of 35 square metres private open space to be clear of water tanks and outdoor storage sheds.

16  Council advises that the proposal fully complies with the requirements of the ‘reworked’ zone, with the exception of the garage for Dwelling 2 that is set back 2.35 metres instead of 5 metres from the rear boundary.

17  The issue is what weight I give this planning scheme amendment. Given that the amendment has been submitted to the Minister for approval, I will give it significant weight in my decision.

18  I find this proposal is in accordance with the purpose of the zone and the objectives of the SPPF as it provides for housing growth and is an appropriate response in this neighbourhood. My reasons follow.

Is the development an acceptable response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character?

19  Before detailing my findings, it is important to describe the context of the site. The subject site is a ‘mid-block’ single storey 1970’s detached house that is setback over 11 metres from the frontage. This dwelling has a concrete driveway along the north boundary.

20  Abutting land uses include a single storey brick veneer dwelling to the north at 27 Walter Street. This is a 1960’s single storey cream brick dwelling with open front garden. To the south is a split level 1970’s brick detached house that has a lower level garage with access from Aurisch Avenue and an open rear yard. To the north and west are single storey brick dwellings that also have open rear yards.

21  The wider neighbourhood is characterised by a mixture of single and double storey dwellings constructed in brick or weatherboards, with intermittent single and two storey multi-unit developments. Whilst the original housing stock is modest in scale (single storey), there are many examples of larger, recently constructed two storey detached houses in this area. These dwellings dominate the site and some include prominent garaging and driveways in the frontage. Examples of dwellings with these features are located at 18, 22 and 23 Walter Street.

22  The character of the area is also changing due to the construction of multi-unit development. This includes three, two storey dwellings at 5 Walter Street that are currently under construction. Other unit developments in nearby streets include two, two storey dwellings at 20 to 24 Angus Drive, three, triple storey dwellings at 10 Aurisch Avenue and three, two storey dwellings at 11 Aurisch Avenue.

23  As part of facilitating the implementation of State policies in the local context, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Clause 22.01 identify the site as being located in an area where development should respond to the Garden City character. This character is defined as the tree-lined and vegetated aspect of the municipality.

24  In accordance with Clause 22.01, the review site is located in Residential Character Type ‘C’ that describes the desired future character as:

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.[3]

25  Clause 22.01 provides broad policy guidance for key design principles such as for the built form and scale of development. It recommends:

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

·  Building spacings 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.[4]

26  Council’s concerns relate to the mass, bulk and scale of the dwellings. Ms Kellock on behalf of Council, argues that the proposal fails to provide a suitable design response as the building will present a substantial building mass to the streetscape and adjoining dwellings. She argues that the adoption of the ‘French Provincial’ style, that includes high parapet walls and a mansard roof, accentuates the visual mass and bulk of the dwellings throughout the site and in the streetscape.

27  I find the scale and massing of the two dwellings acceptable in the context of this neighbourhood for the following reasons:

·  Dwelling 1 is set back 7.6 metres from the frontage at ground floor level. This set back complies with the varied standard in GRZ2 and allows sufficient space for the planting of one canopy tree to soften the built form in the streetscape.

·  The first floor of Dwelling 1 is set back 8.07 metres from the frontage. This level is stepped back from the ground floor level to reduce its prominence in the streetscape.

·  A 500mm wide landscape strip is provided adjacent to the south elevation of Dwelling 1 which will soften the length of the south wall facing the driveway.