VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
VCAT REFERENCE NO. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/42788
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST
CATCHWORDS
Monash Planning Scheme; Applications pursuant to Sections 80 and 82 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987; General Residential Zone (GRZ2); Twelve dwellings; Neighbourhood
Character; Built form. Articulation; Fencing; Landscaping.
APPLICANTS
Adrian Rogers (in P2314/2014)
Pomeroy Pacific Pty Ltd (in P149/2015)
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
Monash City Council
REFERRAL AUTHORITY
VicRoads
RESPONDENT
Pomeroy Pacific Pty Ltd (in P2314/2014)
SUBJECT LAND
580 Huntingdale Road, Mount Waverley
WHERE HELD
Melbourne
BEFORE
J A Bennett, Member
HEARING TYPE
Hearing
DATE OF HEARING
19 October 2015
DATE OF ORDER
23 October 2015
ORDER
1
Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil
and 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:
Mitsuori Architects
 Drawing numbers:
TP01 (dated 21.05.2015),
TP08 (dated 01.08.2015)
TP02, TP03, TP04, TP05, TP06,
TP07, TP09 and TP10 (all dated
01.09.2015).
2
The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied.
3
In permit application TPA/42788 a permit is granted and directed to be
issued for the land at 580 Huntingdale Road, Mount Waverley in
accordance with the endorsed plans and on the conditions set out in
Appendix A. The permit allows:
 The development of twelve dwellings up to two and three storeys in
height along with associated landscaping in a General Residential Zone
(GRZ2).
J A Bennett
Member
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 2 of 13
APPEARANCES
For Adrian Rogers
Mr Adrian Rogers.
For Monash City Council
Mr Gerard Gilfedder, Town Planner of Sweett
(Australia) Pty Ltd.
For Pomeroy Pacific Pty Ltd
Mr Barnaby Chessell, Barrister by direct
brief. He called evidence from Mr Matthew
Chapman, Town Planner of Hellier
McFarland.
INFORMATION
Description of Proposal
Construction of twelve dwellings.
Nature of Proceedings
Application under Section 82 of the Planning
and Environment Act 1987 to review the
decision to grant a permit (P2314/2014).
Application under Section 80 of the Planning
and Environment Act 1987 to review
conditions in the Notice of Decision to Grant
a Permit (P149/2015).
Zone and Overlays
General Residential Zone (GRZ2).
Permit Requirements
Cl. 32.08-4 (construct two or more dwellings
on a lot in GRZ2).
Key Scheme policies and
provisions
Clauses 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21.02, 21.03, 21.04,
21.06, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 52.06, 55 and 65.
Land Description
The review site is located on the south eastern
corner of Huntingdale Road and Carrol
Grove. It comprises three lots with a
combined area of 2,225 square metres. It is
almost rectangular in shape with a frontage to
Huntingdale Road of 45.72 metres and a
frontage to Carrol Grove of 42.67 metres. It
contains a small disused brick dwelling and
outbuilding near the Carrol Grove frontage
and is largely cleared. It has a steep fall of
approximately 7.5 metres from Carrol Grove
towards the creek reserve although soil fill has
been placed on the site.
Tribunal Inspection
I undertook an inspection on the Thursday
morning after the hearing.
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 3 of 13
REASONS1
INTRODUCTION
1
Council has supported the construction of twelve dwellings on the site. Mr
Rogers who lives diagonally opposite the site on the north side of Carrol
Grove disagrees with Council’s decision and seeks to have the application
refused. In addition the permit applicant has sought to review ten of the
conditional changes required by Council.
2
For the reasons which follow, I consider that the proposal shown on the
plans substituted at the commencement of the hearing has resulted in a
development that is acceptable having regard to the particular site context
and the controls and policies contained in the Monash Planning Scheme.
IS THE SITE SUITABLE FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT?
3
The review site is situated in a well serviced urban area with most housing
being constructed over the past 60 years. Although not close to activity
centres, the site has good road access to major activity centres at Oakleigh,
Chadstone Shopping Centre, to train stations, and to the Monash Freeway.
It is also proximate to schools, parkland, cycle paths and recreation
facilities.
4
Except for the two buildings towards Carrol Grove, the review site has
remained undeveloped for housing purposes. The surrounding area was
originally developed with single dwellings on each lot but some medium
density infill redevelopment is occurring. Because of the land slope the
single storey dwellings often have a second level on the lower side of the
slope. The more recent infill development usually comprises two or three
dwellings per lot. There are more intensive apartment style developments of
much greater scale along Huntingdale Road, such as the one to the north
near Waverley Road, but these are not common.
5
The land is zoned General Residential 2 where there is an intention that
such areas will provide for a diversity of housing types and moderate
housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.
There is also an intention that development will respect neighbourhood
character and implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted
neighbourhood character guidelines. As in all zones, the first objective is to
implement State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, including the
Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies.
6
Local policy at Clause 21 02-3 recognises the changes that are taking place
in lifestyle choices and the demands of an ageing population, and the
impact that is having on housing within the municipality. There is also
1
I
have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence,
all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. I do not recite or
refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 4 of 13
recognition in Clause 21.04-1 that the age of the dwelling stock lends itself
to renewal and that the size of the original blocks facilities dual occupancy
and sometimes more intensive redevelopment. As such, policy notes that
there is considerable scope for change of housing stock and style.
7
Residential Development and Character policy is set out in Clause 22.01. It
identifies seven character types across the municipality and includes current
and desired future character statements and lists contributory elements. The
review site is within Residential Character Type C. Mr Chapman discussed
the manner in which the proposal responds to the desired future character
and I agree with him that to a large extent the proposal is generally in
accordance with the policy. There is no single dominant built form or
dwelling height and the area is already undergoing change and renewal as
evidenced by the infill development that is occurring. The change of levels
across Carrol Grove means that properties on the north side of the street are
set well above street level and potentially more dominating whilst those on
the south side are well below street level and visually recessive. The
presentation of the development to Carrol Grove is therefore of one storey
and the front setback matches those of dwellings to the east. The absence of
individual crossovers and construction of only one crossover for all twelve
dwellings means that there is plenty of scope for planting canopy trees and
other vegetation in the Carrol Grove setback. Although the presentation of
the buildings to Huntingdale Road is more robust, and less set back than to
Carrol Grove, I consider this responds appropriately to the different
character along the main road where taller and more substantial built form
is becoming more common.
8
I also note that respecting neighbourhood character does not mean replicate.
As explained in the General Practice Note – Understanding Neighbourhood
Character, respect for the character of a neighbourhood means that the
development should try to ‘fit in’ having regard to the scale, form and
architectural style of surrounding development. The Practice Note also
explains that respecting character does not mean preventing change.
9
The site only has one sensitive residential interface to the east where the
land has been developed for three town houses, one behind the other.
Because of the steep slope the three dwellings step down the slope with a
driveway along the boundary with the review site. Despite concerns
expressed by Mr Basedo who owns the middle dwelling, I am not
persuaded that the proposed development will have any unreasonable
amenity impacts on those three dwellings. It is my assessment that the
changes included on the substituted plans, including the replacement of the
ground floor deck with landscaping, additional setbacks on the first floor of
Dwelling 12 and the use of different colours and materials has further
reduced the perception of visual bulk of the development when viewed
from the east. It is also the case that the review site contains soil fill which
will be removed so that the buildings will sit lower on the site.
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 5 of 13
10
Potential overlooking to the east has been addressed by screening windows
or fitting highlight windows. Mr Basedo is concerned about loss of privacy
caused by the roof top terrace for Dwelling 5. I agree with him. Although
the roof top deck for Dwelling 5 is outside the 9 metre range referred to in
Clause 55 (standard B22) I am concerned that the deck will provide
uninterrupted views to the east not far outside the 9 metre range. As
discussed at the hearing, I will therefore require the fitting of 1.7 metre high
screen along the eastern end of the roof top deck.
11
I do not accept Mr Rogers’ submission that the density of the proposal is
too great and that it is unsuitable for families and the aged. I accept it is
different to the more traditional housing in the area but that does not mean
that it will not suit a great variety of people – including families who may
not wish to look after or need a suburban style lot. Open space meets or
exceeds the ResCode standard for this type of development and the
residents in Dwellings 6 to 12 have the added benefit of overlooking the
extensive and vegetated public reserve along Scotchman’s Creek. Internal
amenity is very good with all habitable rooms having direct access to
daylight.
12
Mr Rogers is also concerned about the impact of shadowing on the health of
vegetation in the reserve immediately south of the review site. Shadow
diagrams depicted on TP09 do show additional shadowing within 5 to 6
metres of the boundary fence. However, I am not persuaded that this level
of shadowing will adversely affect the trees, particularly the canopy of the
taller trees closest to the boundary, and the groups of vegetation planted
downslope further into the reserve.
13
Double car garages provide direct access into each dwelling and, unlike
some medium density developments, car parking meets the rates set out in
Clause 52.06. Mr Rogers is also concerned about the impacts of additional
traffic on the road network. Carrol Grove is a local street with a design
capacity of approximately 2000 – 3000 vehicles per day.2 The traffic report
submitted with the application estimates that the development will generate
approximately 78 vehicle trip ends per day. Although I accept Mr Rogers’
submission that there will be times when Carrol Grove is very busy, I am
not persuaded that an additional 78 vehicle movements will result in Carrol
Grove exceeding the design capacity referred to above.
14
The corner location of the review site on a main road, its large size, its
single boundary with other residential properties, its boundary with a large
public reserve, and its position on the low side of Carrol Grove, are all
factors which suggest that a larger medium density development can be
accommodated on the site. There was a suggestion that simple replication
of the three townhouses on the lot next door would equate to nine town
houses on the three lots comprising the review site. However lot
consolidation can often allow for more dwellings because of the ability to
2
Clause 56.06-6 – Access Street Level 2.
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 6 of 13
achieve various ResCode standards, such as those for side and rear
setbacks, over the whole site rather than trying to achieve the same setbacks
for individual buildings or dwellings developed on each separate site.
Consolidation therefore makes for a much more efficient use of land.
HAVE THE SUBSTITUTED PLANS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED
COUNCIL’S CONDITION 1 CHANGES?
15
I consider that the substituted plans, although not making significant
changes, have resulted in an improved development. I agree with Mr
Chessell that Council appears to have taken insufficient regard of those
changes, particularly along the eastern and western ends of the buildings
where additional setbacks and articulation have been provided.
16
Ten conditions are being reviewed and five concern additional setbacks and
articulation - 1a), 1b), lc), 1d) and 1e). I agree with Mr Chapman that the
changes made on the substituted plans have enhanced setbacks and
articulation to an acceptable degree and I do not support retention of these
five conditions.
17
Condition 1f) requires compliance with standard B21. As discussed at the
hearing, it is my assessment that the 5 hour test contained in Standard B21
has been met as it affects the rear yard of Unit 3/2 Carrol Grove. I will
therefore delete this condition.
18
Condition 1g) requires deletion of the elevated deck east of Dwelling 12.
The substituted plans have deleted the deck and the condition is redundant
and can be deleted.
19
Conditions lh), 1i) and lj) concern the Huntingdale Road setback and
require relocation of the visitor car park and bin storage and deletion of the
front fencing. I consider that all three conditions should be deleted.
Retention of a low fence to 1.2 metres in height provides a clear boundary
between the public and private realm and is acceptable on a main road
where even higher fencing is often constructed to ameliorate traffic noise.
Fencing along Huntingdale Road is very variable with examples of both
low and high fencing. I agree with Mr Chapman that a higher section of
fencing near the pedestrian entrance to Dwellings 6 to 12 is an appropriate
way to clearly identify or mark this entry. Both the bin storage area and
visitor car park are situated 1 metre behind the boundary fencing and will
be screened by landscaping. Relocation of the car park to the east of
Dwelling 12 would remove landscaping from an area which is best retained
for landscaping to help filter views of the building from the dwellings to the
east. Although Mr Chessell suggested I could remove the car space
altogether and allow visitor parking on the street, I do not favour such an
outcome. The bin storage area is screened by a 1.5 metre fence in addition
to the 1.2 metre fence along the boundary with landscaping between the two
fences. Although the visitor car park and bin storage occupy space which
could otherwise be given over to landscaping, sufficient room remains
within this whole frontage for taller shrubs and larger trees to grow and
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 7 of 13
soften the visual appearance of the built form. As with all new gardens, that
will not happen overnight and I would expect it be at least 5 to 10 years
before the vegetation reaches a reasonable size.
20
In addition to these changes, I have also amended the preamble to condition
1 to refer to the substituted plans. As discussed at the hearing I have
included the two VicRoads conditions which were not included in the
Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit. As is the usual practice, I have not
included the notes in my permit conditions and have replaced the time limit
condition with the standard wording used by the Tribunal.
CONCLUSION
21
The General Residential Zone seeks to provide a diversity of housing types
and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services
and transport. State and local planning policy is encouraging more efficient
use of well located, fully serviced land within the built up area. This
proposal for twelve dwellings on a very large corner site with only one
residential abuttal is an appropriate response to the zone and planning
policy.
22
Although different from the older housing stock in the area, I consider that
it has in large measure achieved the character outcomes sought in local
policy and that it will ‘fit in’ to the neighbourhood. I also consider that the
generous space available for landscaping in the front setback to Carrol
Grove will provide an opportunity for planting which will, in time, result in
an appearance consistent with the municipality’s valued garden city
character. Although space for planting along the other boundaries is more
limited, vegetation in these areas will provide a softening of the built form.
DECISION
23
Having regard to the above reasons I will vary Council’s decision and direct
that a permit issue subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.
J A Bennett
Member
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 8 of 13
APPENDIX A
PERMIT APPLICATION NO
TPA/42788
LAND
580 Huntingdale Road, Mount
Waverley
WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS
The development of twelve dwellings
up to two and three storeys in height
along with associated landscaping in a
General Residential Zone (GRZ2) in
accordance with endorsed plans.
CONDITIONS
1
Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to
scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to and 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 substituted by the
Tribunal (TP01 (dated 21.05.2015), TP08 (dated 01.08.2015), TP02, TP03,
TP04, TP05, TP06, TP07, TP09 and TP10 (all dated 01.09.2015), but
further modified to show:
(a)
A 1.7 metre high screen fitted to the eastern end of the Dwelling 5
roof terrace to prevent overlooking into 2 Carrol Grove;
(b)
The vehicle crossover modified to form a double crossover with the
adjoining property to the east;
(c)
The location and design of any required fire services, electricity
supply, gas and water meter boxes discreetly located and/or screened
to compliment the development.
2
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered
without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3
Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4
Prior to the commencement of works on the site, the owner must prepare a
Waste Management Plan for the collection and disposal of garbage and
recyclables for all uses on the site by private contractor. The Waste
Management Plan must provide for:
(a)
The method of collection of garbage and recyclables for uses;
(b)
Designation of methods of collection by private services;
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 9 of 13
(c)
Appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas for bin storage on
collection days;
(d)
Measures to minimise the impact upon local amenity and on the
operation, management and maintenance of car parking areas;
(e)
Litter management.
A copy of this plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible
Authority. Once approved the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed to
form part of the permit.
5
No goods must be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be
visible from any public road or thoroughfare.
6
No bin or receptacle or any form of rubbish or refuse must be allowed to
remain in view of the public and no odour must be emitted from any
receptacle so as to cause offence to persons outside the land.
7
Before the development starts, a construction management plan must be
prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan
must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved,
the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
The plan must address the following issues:
(a)
Measures to control noise, dust and water runoff;
(b)
Prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’s
underground drainage system or road network;
(c)
The location of where building materials are to be kept during
construction;
(d)
Site security;
(e)
Maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site
during the construction phase;
(f)
On-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the
development;
(g)
Wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction
activities;
(h)
Cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces;
(i)
A requirement that construction works must only be carried out during
the following hours:
(i)
Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00am to 6.00pm;
(ii) Saturday – 9.00am to 1.00pm;
(iii) Saturday – 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm (Only activities associated with
the erection of buildings. This does not include excavation or the
use of heavy machinery).
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 10 of 13
8
No equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind,
including telecommunication facilities, other than those shown on the
endorsed plans will be permitted above the roof level of the building unless
otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.
9
All common boundary fences 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.
10
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;
(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 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;
When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the
permit.
11
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.
12
The layout of the development must follow the Design Standards for car
parking set out in Clause 52.06-8 of the Monash Planning Scheme.
13
Before the development permitted is completed, areas set aside for parked
vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
(a)
Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 11 of 13
(b)
Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance
with the plans;
(c)
Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority;
(d)
Drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
(e)
Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at
all times.
14
Before the development starts, a site layout plan drawn to scale and
dimensioned must be approved by the Responsible Authority.
The plans must show a drainage scheme providing for the collection of
stormwater within the site and for the conveying of the stormwater to the
nominated point of discharge.
The nominated point of discharge is the south-east corner of the property
where the entire site’s stormwater must be collected and free drained via a
pipe to the Council pit in the adjoining reserve.
If the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council’s
Engineering Division immediately.
15
Stormwater discharge is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level
of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required
by the City of Monash, the Responsible Authority, prior to works
commencing.
16
All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must
not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties.
VICROADS CONDITIONS (17 AND 18)
17
All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area
reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of and at no cost to
VicRoads prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved.
18
The proposed development requires the reinstatement of disused crossovers
to kerb and channel and nature strip. Separate approval under the Road
Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads. Please
contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.
19
This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if
one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)
The development is not started within 2 years of the issued date of this
permit.
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 12 of 13
(b)
The development is not completed within 4 years of the issued date of
this permit
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987,
an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an
extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
---End of Conditions---
VCAT Reference No. P2314/2014 & P149/2015
Page 13 of 13