VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

administrative DIVISION

planning and environment LIST

/ vcat reference No. P620/2017
Permit Application no. TPA46187
APPLICANT / Marriott Pty Ltd
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY / Monash City Council
RESPONDENTs / Tracy Mu, Frank Farrugia, Kitty Sau-Kuen Li, Tony Roberts, David Allison
SUBJECT LAND / 15 & 17 Marriott Parade
GLEN WAVERLEY VIC 3150
WHERE HELD / Melbourne
BEFORE / Dalia Cook, Member
HEARING TYPE / Hearing
DATE OF HEARING / 31 July and 1 August 2017
DATE OF ORDER / 1 August 2017
CITATION / Marriott Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2017] VCAT 1169

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 the plans filed with the Tribunal on 2 July 2017 under the PNPE9 process as the plans for determination in this proceeding.

2  The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.

3  In permit application TPA46187 no permit is granted.

Dalia Cook
Member

APPEARANCES

For Applicant / Mr Stephen Coliero, Town Planner, G2 Urban Planning with assistance from the project architect
For Responsible Authority / Ms Mimi Marcus, Solicitor, Maddocks
She called Mr Alistair Campbell, Urban Designer, Hansen Partnership to give expert evidence
For David Allison, Tracey Mu and Frank Farrugia
For Kitty Su-Kuen Li
For Tony Roberts / Mr David Allison
Ms Kitty Su-Kuen Li in person
Mr Tony Roberts in person

INFORMATION

Description of Proposal / Construction of a residential apartment building containing 57 apartments and 69 on site car parking spaces
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 / General Residential Zone (Schedule 2)
No overlay controls apply
Permit Requirements / Clause 32.08-6
Relevant Scheme, policies and provisions / Clauses 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) of the Monash Planning Scheme in addition to the matters in clause 65 of the scheme
Land Description / The subject land is an irregularly shaped parcel of land comprising two lots which total a site area of approximately 2,100 square metres. The land has a fall of approximately 2.5 metres from north west to south east.
The site has a confined frontage to Kingsway, with a curved frontage to Marriott Parade. It has a direct abuttal with two single detached dwellings at 5 and 6 Berkley Court to the west and to a dual occupancy at 125 Kingsway to the north.[1] Land opposite the subject land on Marriott Parade has been developed with conventional suburban dwellings of one to two storeys. Land within Marriott Parade has a conventional low scale residential form.
Land to the north comprises the core of the Glen Waverley Activity Centre. The site directly opposite has been developed with a six storey Ibis Hotel Building. A church, motel and reception centre are nearby on Kingsway.
Tribunal Inspection / I inspected the subject land and surrounds and the dwelling at No. 5 Berkley Court following the hearing on an unaccompanied basis.

REASONS[2]

Introduction

1  These reasons record the decision of the Tribunal delivered orally soon after the hearing. They are provided in summary form since there are essentially two determinative issues, with other supporting concerns that may be relevant for consideration if a fresh permit application was made.

Consideration of the application

Policy considerations

2  I find that there are numerous aspects of the proposal that would achieve policy outcomes that are sought by the planning scheme.

3  The site is located within the Glen Waverley Activity Centre in Structure Planning, as reflected by the current and proposed provisions of the planning scheme. In summary, it is in an area identified as ‘surrounding residential’, at the edge of the Commercial 1 Zone.

4  Given its size and location, I regard it as an opportunity site for residential development of a higher scale within an apartment building format.

5  The land is currently in the GRZ (Schedule 2). The amended plans represent a development that would generally meet the requirements of this schedule, noting that transitional provisions apply which would allow the proposed building to be above 11 metres or three storeys, which is the applicable provision for new proposals.

6  Amendment C120 has been adopted by the responsible authority and has been forwarded to the Minister for his approval. It proposes to include the property at 17 Marriott Parade in the Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 7), with the property at 15 Marriott Parade in the General Residential Zone (Schedule 4). This distinction in zoning between the two sites was affirmed by the independent planning panel and then adopted by the responsible authority. The RGZ is proposed to be applied to the outer edge of residential properties fronting Kingsway, while the GRZ is to be applied to the residential areas further removed from the core of the activity centre.

7  The amendments to the proposal have largely resulted in a form of development that would quantitatively meet the schedules to each of these proposed zones, for the respective sites comprising the subject land.

8  Throughout its submissions, the permit applicant emphasised the importance of activity centre policies within the scheme encouraging intensification of residential land use and densities. This suite of policies would be furthered by proposed clause 22.14 (part of the C120 package).

9  I accept that these policies form an important part of the scheme and that the reason why a 3-4 storey apartment building can be entertained on the subject land as a matter of policy stems from its location within the activity centre, close to the central core. Clearly the site has excellent access to services and facilities, including public transport and it is a candidate for higher residential densities.

10  I do not have any concern about the proposed mix of housing within the development, which is essentially one and two bedroom units. I regard this as providing a type of diversity in the sense that units are being offered, rather than stand alone dwellings which prevail in the surrounding residential area at present. The proposed units would also have a far smaller footprint than conventional family dwellings and could potentially cater to a different demographic.

11  Whilst residents describe this area as a “quiet residential back street”, in policy terms and physical interface terms, it still forms part of the activity centre and is expected to intensify in built form terms over time to achieve policy aspirations.

12  In this case, I accept that this may mean that the new development on this sizable consolidated parcel of land may accommodate more than the overall number of dwellings currently in the street. While this is a serious cause for concern for residents, I regard it as being consistent in-principle with both high level state and detailed local policy aspirations for increased residential development in and around activity centres to accommodate future housing needs.

13  To my mind, the fulsome expression of policy would justify allowing the efficient redevelopment of these sites for a level of housing that can be self sufficient in terms of parking and amenities, so long as the development takes a built form that suitably responds to its existing and future character setting. This is called for by policies throughout the scheme that seek respect for neighbourhood character which identifies the land within Character Area C.

14  I turn to the particular design response.

Internal amenity

15  The proposal adopts an O shaped building footprint, including a lower ground half-level of apartments. This was the subject of criticism from the responsible authority’s expert and nearby residents.

16  Overall, I find that the architectural quality of the façade design in particular is high. Contemporary building designs are encouraged throughout the planning scheme, especially within activity centres. The notion of providing for an open communal space is also commendable in principle and is supported by the Guidelines for Higher Density Development.

17  I am not persuaded that the fundamentals of the proposed site layout are unsuitable per se. Rather, in this case, there are elements of its execution that have not been successful in this proposal.

18  In my experience, it is relatively rare for a failure to provide adequate internal amenity for future residents to constitute a ‘knock out’ point in an application for review. However, in the present case, I accept the evidence of Mr Campbell and the submissions on behalf of the responsible authority that the format and layout of certain apartments are misconceived in their current form.

19  Although there are policies within the scheme encouraging increased housing densities and efficiencies, there are also policies that call on a decision maker to focus on minimum standards of liveability as a matter of orderly planning. This focus has been reinforced by the recently introduced Better Apartment Design Standards in clause 58 of the planning scheme, although I note that this proposal benefits from transitional provisions such that this provision is not directly applicable.

20  Notwithstanding, there are a series of significant flaws in the site layout and design that I consider would result in providing sub-standard amenity for many apartments at the lower ground and ground floors. These features include:

·  the location of six apartments some 1-2 metres below natural ground level, facing generally south and east. These apartments sit below wide landscaping strips at street level that are intended to contain canopy trees and/or shrub planting, supplemented by a decorative 1 metre high fence along the property boundary. There are tall privacy screens separating these apartments in an east-west direction.

Apartments LG.02 and LG.03 provide their sole bedroom to the common atrium which is a large space created within the core of the building, with four levels above it including walkways at each level. These bedroom windows are raised in sill height and contain parts which are obscured for privacy. The second bedrooms to LG.05 and LG.06 have the same shortcomings.

The shadow diagrams illustrate that this central area will not receive any sunlight at any time of day, at least at ground level.

The master bedroom to LG.01 is the lowest habitable component of this floor. It would provide a single south facing window, set behind the planter at street level and beside the terrace/garden. This apartment would be set partly below the entry ramp structure.

The second bedroom for LG.04 has a lengthy ‘snorkel’ connecting to a window that is similarly compromised by a lack of access to light. This bedroom layout is replicated a number of times through the development.

The shadow diagrams illustrate that at many times of the day, the secluded private open space for the lower apartments will be overshadowed by the separation between the terraces for privacy purposes. I find that these sunken areas of private open space will have very compromised amenity overall, compounded by their position below a retaining wall with taller planting to the street (which is a key feature in responding to streetscape and landscape character and needs to be retained).

In combination, these measures will result in exceptionally dark apartments, with very little access to daylight. I accept that they will feel like ‘subterranean’ spaces as described by Mr Campbell.

·  Numerous other apartments also provide their sole bedroom with its only window from the common atrium, albeit somewhat closer to the natural light source. These rooms will be prevented from having any outlook and have the potential for noise disturbance from the communal passageways and central area at ground level.

·  Apartments on the northern and western elevations have complete screening to all balconies and all bedroom windows in the form of timber slatted screens to a height of 1.7 metres given the separation distance from adjacent residential properties. I regard this as a poor design response.

·  The balconies provided at ground floor will inherently suffer from very direct views from Marriott Parade and Kingsway, notwithstanding the side screening to the pedestrian entry ramp. I consider that this will reduce the useability of these spaces and will result in residents seeking to close off views to their living areas which are within direct line of sight.

21  In my opinion, any proposed future redevelopment of the site would need to dispense with reliance on apartments below-ground to overcome these fundamental deficiencies in liveability. The other issues I have alluded to would need to be addressed in the apartment floorplates and layouts.

Is the proposal an overdevelopment?

22  The responsible authority and residents submitted that the proposal would present as overscaled and too high in its site context. The responsible authority particularly emphasised the interfaces with residential properties to the north and west and inadequate setbacks. Residents highlighted the significant departure that would occur in neighbourhood character terms.

23  The permit applicant highlighted the changes to the amended proposal, which included paring back the upper level away from the western side of the property and focusing the highest part of the development towards the front corner of the property. I support this approach in principle and it certainly represents an improvement on the original proposal.