VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ vcat reference No. P198/2015
Permit no. TPA42626

CATCHWORDS

Permit Condition Requiring one Visitor Car Space; Clause 52.06 Decision Guidelines.
APPLICANT / Blueprint Pty Ltd
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND / 26-28 Lewton Road, Mount Waverley
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Rachel Naylor, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 24 April 2015
DATE OF ORDER / 29 April 2015
CITATION

Order

1  The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.

2  No modifications are made to the conditions in Permit No. TPA/42626 issued by the Responsible Authority on 3 December 2014 and corrected on 30 January 2015.

Rachel Naylor
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / Mr W Chow, planning consultant of Zoneworks
For Responsible Authority / Ms J Lui, town planner

INFORMATION

Land Description / The land comprises two lots that each contain a detached brick house. The land has a combined area of 1,589sqm and has frontages to Lewton Road (to the west), Bernard Street (to the south) and an unnamed 6m wide laneway (to the east). To the west of the site, off Lewton Road, is Mayfield Park that contains an oval, car park and clubrooms used for football matches.
Description of Permit / The permit allows the development of seven double storey dwellings. Plans have been endorsed showing three of the townhouses are adjacent to the laneway. These three dwellings each have a separate single garage accessed from the laneway, and the two rear dwellings front onto the laneway. The endorsed plans also show a visitor car space accessed via the laneway, sitting in front of the lounge areas of units 6 and 7 (at the rear of the laneway frontage).
Nature of Proceeding / Application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review condition 1(b) in the permit that requires the provision of one visitor car space.
Zone and Overlays / General Residential Zone Schedule 2
No overlay controls apply

REASONS[1]

What is this proceeding about?

1  Monash City Council has granted a planning permit for the development of seven double storey houses on the two lots known as 26-28 Lewton Road, Mount Waverley. The planning scheme requires the provision of one car space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings. The permit contains condition 1(b) that requires one visitor car space to be provided.

2  Blueprint Pty Ltd seeks a review of this condition as it says the requirement is unwarranted given there is ample opportunity to park on street; a visitor car space on the laneway is unsuitable and not visible from the street; and a visitor car space will be the only piece of common property thereby requiring an owners corporation which is contrary to the design intent of providing independent lots for each dwelling.

3  Having considered the submissions made, both written and oral, I am not persuaded that the Applicant has provided sufficient justification to reduce the visitor parking to zero have regard to the provisions of clause 52.06. I will now explain why I have reached this decision.

how should a reduction in visitor car parking be decided?

4  Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme contains the provisions relating to car parking. It sets out requirements about the number of car spaces to be provided and the design of the car parking and access, which includes (as set out in paragraph 1) a visitor car parking requirement.

5  If a proposal is seeking to reduce a car parking requirement, including reducing it to zero, specific planning permission is required for this under clause 52.06-3 and clause 52.06-6 sets out application requirements and decision guidelines for such applications.

6  In this case, the application must be accompanied by a “Car Parking Demand Assessment” that assesses the car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed increase in the floor areas of the existing residential land use and the increase to the existing residential land use by the measure specified in Column C of Table 1 in clause 52.06 – being the number of car spaces required for each dwelling proposed on the land based on the number of bedrooms and the visitor car parking required as set out in paragraph 1 above.

7  Clause 52.06-6 then goes on to state what the Car Parking Demand Assessment must address; and to specify a range of matters that must be considered, as appropriate, in deciding whether to reduce the number of spaces below the likely demand assessed by the Car Parking Demand Assessment.

8  I must consider these matters in deciding whether to reduce the car parking requirement of one visitor car space to zero.

The permit application and Car Parking Demand Assessment

The Permit Application

9  It is relevant in this case to explain what planning application material I have before me regarding the proposed reduction of visitor car parking:

i  The application for planning permit form described the proposal as “proposed seven (7) townhouse development” and contained no mention of the need for planning permission to reduce the visitor car parking requirement. The plans that accompanied the permit application did not include any visitor car parking space. The clause 55 assessment that accompanied the permit application included the following statement:

The proposed development will not cause any parking difficulties to the adjacent dwellings as I feel we are able to contain all resident and visitors car spaces within the development. We have provided a total of 14 car spaces on the site.

ii  The Council advised me in the hearing that it publicly advertised the planning application in accordance with the proposal as described in the application, which means with no reference to the need for planning permission to reduce the visitor car parking requirement.

iii  The Council and the Applicant agreed in the hearing that no Car Parking Demand Assessment was submitted with the permit application or during the Council’s subsequent processing of the permit application.

iv  The Council officer’s delegate report that assessed the planning application noted seven objections were received and one of the grounds is summarised as “insufficient on site car parking and increase in on street parking in Bernard Street”.

v  The delegate report states the application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineering Department who had no objection to the proposal provided a number of conditions are placed on any permit issued.

vi  The delegate report does not refer to clause 52.06 at all.

vii  The delegate report has a subheading ‘Car parking provision’ followed by a further subheading ‘visitor space’ with text underneath that acknowledges a visitor car space is required. The report then states:

This proposal does not include any visitor car space therefore does not comply with the relevant requirements. Permit conditions will require a visitor space to be provided to the development and clearly marked to be a visitor space.

viii  The Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit and the subsequent Planning Permit issued on 3 December 2014 contained condition 1(b) that stated:

Provision of a visitor car space with the dimensions of 2.6 metres wide by 4.9 metres long, located outside the kitchen of Dwelling 5 facing the laneway. The visitor space must be clearly marked as ‘visitor car parking space’.

ix  The Council then issued a corrected permit[2] on 30 January 2015 amended condition 1(b) to state:

Provision of a visitor car space with the dimensions of 2.6 metres wide by 4.9 metres long. The visitor space must be clearly marked as ‘visitor car parking space’.

x  The Council endorsed plans on 30 January 2015 showing the provision of a visitor car space in front of the living areas of units 6 and 7.

10  Hence, the permit application material does not contain any information or submissions in support of reducing the visitor car parking to zero; and the delegate report does not contain any consideration of the application requirements or decision guidelines of clause 52.06.

Car Parking Demand Assessment

11  The Council and the Applicant accepted in the hearing that no Car Parking Demand Assessment was submitted or considered as part of the permit application process. This is clearly a deficiency as it is an application requirement of clause 52.06. I can determine this proceeding despite this failure to comply with the planning scheme[3]. Neither party objected to this, and I have decided to do so. In any event, Mr Chow submitted that he would address this application requirement and the decision guidelines in his submission.

12  Mr Chow’s subsequent submissions did not include any material, information or submissions that the likely demand for visitor car parking would be lower than the visitor car parking requirement specified in the planning scheme. Given there is also no material or information in the planning application or the Council’s assessment of the application to suggest the likely demand is lower, I have considered the merits of the proposal on the basis of the likely demand being the clause 52.06 requirement of one visitor car space.

Reasons for decision

Relevant Provisions and Policies in the Planning Scheme

13  Neither party referred to relevant provisions and policies in the planning scheme about car parking provision.

14  The purpose of clause 52.06 includes:

To ensure that car parking is provided in accordance with the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework.

To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces having regard to the demand likely to be generated, the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.

To ensure that car parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

15  At clause 18.02-5, the State planning policy objective for car parking is “to ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located”. There is also local planning policy relating to car parking in the Residential Development and Transport and Traffic sections of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). The strategies at clause 21.04-3 of the Residential Development section of the MSS include:

·  Ensure that new residential development provides a high level of amenity including personal privacy for occupants and neighbours, high quality private and public open space, canopy tree cover, and effective traffic management and parking.

16  Clause 21.08-2 of the Transport and Traffic section of the MSS identifies key issues, including:

Car parking should be provided on site satisfy the needs of users without detriment to local amenity.[4]

17  One of the objectives at clause 21.08-3 is:

To ensure that adequate vehicle parking is provided for all new uses and developments and that the cost is shared on an equitable basis.

18  This clause goes on to identify matters relevant to the exercise of discretion that includes:

·  Considering public transport, other car alternatives and car parking implications for development proposals consistent with Council’s objectives for traffic and transport.

·  Requiring every new use, or expansion of floor space to an existing use, to provide appropriate car parking either on-site, or off-site, including via a Parking Precinct Plan and a Council administered cash-in-lieu scheme.

The Council’s Submission

19  The Council’s submission referred to the car parking requirement of the Table in clause 52.06. The Council submits a visitor car space should be provided because:

a  Clause 52.06 says so;

b  Parking on street is not preferred because Council retains the right to change parking restrictions on the street in the future;

c  Objections have been received from adjoining and nearby properties concerning the potential increase in cars parking on the street;

d  A visitor car space is suitable for inclusion along the laneway as it will not result in an additional crossover on either of the street frontages or impact on either of these streetscapes;

e  Potential car parking in the laneway should be minimised, noting that there are no existing parking restrictions along it; and

f  Signage on the dwellings’ garages could indicate the location of the visitor car space.

20  Items a, b, e and f are not relevant matters pursuant to the decision guidelines of clause 52.06. The objections (item c) and the subsequent statements of grounds received by the Tribunal are indicative of a local community perception that there may be an on-street car parking demand / problem. Item d is relevant as it demonstrates a visitor car space can be provided on the land, and can be done without impacting upon the existing available on-street parking along the street frontages of this site.

The Applicant’s Submission

21  I agree with the Applicant’s submission that the peak demand for visitor car parking occurs in the evenings and on weekends. This submission is similar to expert traffic engineering evidence that is often provided to the Tribunal in regard to medium and high density residential development cases.

22  The Applicant has proposed a location for the visitor car space in the laneway and this has been accepted by the Council through its endorsement of plans under the planning permit. I am not persuaded this is an obscure location as there are already other units with frontage to this laneway, which is changing its character from a service lane to something more akin to a residential street. The laneway is 6 metres wide, provides two way access and the photographs tabled by both parties illustrate there are unobstructed views along the north-south section of the laneway from Bernard Street.