VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST
VCAT REFERENCE NO. P995/2015
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/43289
CATCHWORDS
Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone Schedule 2; Vegetation
Protection Overlay 1;Construction of two double storey dwellings, Removal of Vegetation; Neighbourhood Character; Mass, Scale,
Bulk; Landscaping; Vehicle access
APPLICANT
Allan Armstrong and Associates
RESPONDENTS
Patricia M Hollison
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
Monash City Council
SUBJECT LAND
36 Garrison Drive, Glen Waverley
WHERE HELD
Melbourne
BEFORE
Alison Slattery, Member
HEARING TYPE
Hearing
DATE OF HEARING
4th November 2015
DATE OF ORDER
8th January 2016
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:
Allan Armstrong and Associates

Drawing numbers:
Sheets 1-10 of 10 Revision C

Dated:
September 2015
And the following landscape plan filed with the Tribunal:
2

Prepared by:
John Patrick Pty Ltd

Drawing numbers:
Job no. 15-605

Dated:
September 2015
The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application
no. TPA/43289 is set aside. A permit is granted and directed to be issued in
relation to land at 36 Garrison Drive, Glen Waverley in accordance with the
endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A.
3
The permit allows:

The construction of two double storey dwellings

Removal of vegetation in a Vegetation Protection Overlay
All in accordance with the endorsed plans.
Alison Slattery
Member
APPEARANCES
For Allan Armstrong and
Associates
Ms Robyn Gray of A.R.G. Planning. She called Traffic
Engineering evidence from Mr Valentine Gnanakone of
Onemilegrid
For Monash City Council
Ms Sally Moser, Town Planner of Moser Planning
Services Pty Ltd
For Ms Patricia M Hollison No Appearance
INFORMATION
Description of Proposal
Construction of two double storey dwellings with one
facing to Garrisson Drive and the other facing on to
Wattletree Court. One Liquidambar tree is proposed
to be removed requiring permission.
Nature of Application
Application under Section 77 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987.
Zone and Overlays
General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2).
Vegetation Protection Overlay 1 (VPO1)
Reason Permit Required
Clauses 32.08-4 construction of two or more dwellings
on a lot in a GRZ and 42.02-2 for the removal of
vegetation
Relevant Policies.
Clauses 11, 15, 16.01, 21.02, 21.03, 21.04, 21.08,
22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 52.06, 55 and 65
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 2 of 14
Land Description
The site is located on the north-western corner of the
intersection of Garrisson Drive and Wattletree Court,
Glen Waverley. The site is currently developed with a
single storey brick dwelling. The site is rectangular in
shape (with the exception of a splay) and has a
frontage of 13.72 metres (Garrisson Drve) and a depth
of 35.97 metres (Wattletree Court) for a total site area
of 649 square metres.
The site includes a fall from west to east of 1.73
metres and contains a crossover to the western end of
the Wattletree Court frontage. A 1.83 metre wide
drainage and sewage easement traverses the rear
(western) boundary, and the site is not encumbered by
a covenant. The site contains vegetation indicative of
a garden in a middle ring suburb, including a
Liquidambar to the north east corner that is proposed
to be removed .
Surrounding sites are residential in nature and
generally include single and double storey dwellings
of varied ages. Dwellings generally include carports
or garages set behind the frontage of the dwellings.
Multi unit development typology is emerging
The site is well served with access to schools, parks
and open spaces, and shopping facilities. The site also
has good access to community facilities.
Vegetation in the area is varied with some properties
including front and rear planting, some with moderate
planting in the front setback, and street trees making a
contribution to the vegetation in the streetscape.
Tribunal Inspection
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
The tribunal undertook an unaccompanied inspection
of the site after the hearing.
Page 3 of 14
REASONS1
What is this proceeding about?
1
On 25th March 2015 Monash City Council issued a refusal to grant a
planning permit for the construction of two dwellings and removal of
vegetation at 36 Garrison Drive, Glen Waverley.
2
The decision was based on Council’s view that the design is contrary to the
character of the neighbourhood regarding mass, scale and form. Council
contends that this development also does not comply with the objectives of
ResCode with regard to neighbourhood character, policy objectives,
landscaping, and access objectives. Further concerns were also raised with
regard to vehicular access and the width of the proposed crossover
3
In addition to the concerns of Council, the surrounding residents who are
respondents in this matter are concerned with the impact of excavation on
adjoining properties2, shading, parking and streetscape character.
4
The review applicants, Allan Armstrong and Associates, has applied to the
Tribunal to review this decision. The applicants, through Ms Gray disagree
with Council and assert that the design has taken into account the
constraints of the site and is site responsive. She argued that the areas of
non-compliance with the standards of ResCode are justified and contends
that the proposal meets the objectives of ResCode. It was her contention
that the state and local policies lend support to the proposed development.
5
The key issues for determination are:
6
a. Does the development represent an appropriate response to the
neighbourhood?
b. Does the development achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with
Clause 55 (ResCode)?
The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so,
what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions with
regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning
Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision. My reasons
follow.
Does the development represent an appropriate response to the
neighbourhood?
7
The Monash Planning Scheme includes a local policy framework that seeks
to ensure the protection of neighbourhood character through the promotion
of the enhancement of the Garden City Character. This is a very important
element in the Monash community and new development needs to be
respectful of these character considerations.3
1
I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.
This is not a matter that can be dealt with at this stage, and is a matter for any assessment at the Building Permit stage
3
Clause 21.04
2
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 4 of 14
8
This Garden City emphasis is reiterated within the Residential Development
and Character Policy4 which states:

9
10
The Garden City Character, as identified in the Municipal Strategic
Statement, is a core value held by the community and Council as a
significant and important consideration in all land use and
development decisions in most residential areas.
At Clause 22.01, the Residential Development and Character Policy seeks
to encourage new development which, amongst other things, responds to
the character of existing residential areas, integrating the theme of a “garden
city” with maintenance of a highly vegetated environment. Specifically
Clause 22.01 seeks:

To build upon the important contribution that landscaping makes to the
Garden City Character of Monash.

To encourage new development to achieve architectural and urban
design outcomes that positively contribute to the neighbourhood
character having particular regard to the desired future character
statement for the applicable residential Character Type.
A relevant residential objective of the Policy at Clause 21.04 includes:

To ensure that development is appropriate having regard to the
residential environment of the area, in particular neighbourhood
character and amenity.
11
Ms Moser submitted that the policy5 seeks to maintain and enhance the
streetscape character of ‘Garden City’ through the minimisation of bulk and
scale of new development that is subordinate to landscaping. Specifically,
the spacing and rhythm of buildings needs to be designed so that they
maintain the spacious streetscape context of the surrounding area in order to
enhance the soft quality of residential streets.
12
Council further advised that the site is located within a neighbourhood
classified as a ‘E’ Character Area in the Monash Urban Character Study 6
The Study classifies the area as being characterised by dwellings from
1970s to 1980s which are one to two storeys with later dwellings large in
size. Dwellings are constructed from brick with low pitched roofs.
Landscaping is diverse and open with standalone trees in the frontage
common.
13
The Desired Future Character Statement for this area includes:
 The urban character of this area will evolve within a landscape that has
a large number of native trees spread throughout both the public and
private domain providing an overhead canopy visually unifying the
4
Clause 22.01-3
Clause 22.01-3
6
Clause 22.01-5
5
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 5 of 14
diverse built-form of some neighbourhoods and providing a strong
relationship with the semi-natural landscape of Dandenong Creek.
 Dwellings will be designed to sympathetically integrate with any
existing native trees and shrubs on, or adjacent to, the development site
and relate in form and siting to the topography of the Character Type.
Architecture of contemporary excellence that is energy efficient and
sustainable will be encouraged. Building scale, height and bulk will be
generally similar within neighbourhoods. Large scale contrasts between
buildings will be discouraged except where existing trees and shrubs
soften the junction between buildings or where there is a gradated
change in scale.
 Setbacks will be varied in many neighbourhoods but will be consistent
within individual streets and will be sufficiently generous to enable the
development of significant native tree canopy and vegetation. The main
unifying element will be the canopy of native trees in both the public and
private domain. Most gardens will be open to the street with no walls or
fences, allowing the soft naturalistic qualities of most neighbourhoods
to be retained. Large walls and fences will be discouraged except where
they are already a visually dominant streetscape element.
 The soft quality of the street that is derived in part from the nature strips
will be maintained by ensuring that there is only one single crossover
per lot frontage.
 Planting will generally enable filtered views of the architecture and
engender a sense of visual continuity with the street and adjacent
properties.
14
The policy seeks to enhance the valued native landscape character of the
area through the implementation of styles and scale that are sympathetic to
the area whilst maintaining and enhancing the private and public landscaped
streetscape.
15
Ms Moser submitted that the development fails to fit in with the existing
neighbourhood character or contribute to a preferred character. She cited
concerns with the extent of built form at first floor, limited articulation
horizontally and vertically and the large extent of hard paving/basement and
the limited opportunities for planting of reasonable trees.
Bulk and Scale
16
Ms Moser submitted that the bulk and scale of the development, being two
‘bulky’ dwellings with minimal separation at ground level does not respond
appropriately to the policy of Clause 22.01. I disagree with this
characterisation of the proposed development.
17
I find that the development responds well to the prevailing character traits
of this part of Glen Waverley. The area is suburban in character with a
reasonably consistent subdivision pattern, including court bowls. It is an
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 6 of 14
area that is experiencing some pressure for change as older style dwellings
from mid to late last century are being replaced with new infill development
of large dwellings or medium density developments.
18
I am satisfied that the two dwellings represent a good response to the
prevailing buildings and the character. I say this for the following reasons:
 The materials used are appropriate and match those found
within the area including face brickwork, render and tiled roof.
 Architectural features are appropriately employed, such as wide
eaves, windows and door detailing, pitched roofs and
appropriate setbacks. These features are readily found within
the neighbourhood.
 The rhythm of built form in the street is generally maintained
with a minimum side setback of 1.8 metres up to 3.1 metres
(west) at ground floor level and 2.4 to 3.99 metres at first floor.
There is also a reasonable first floor separation between the two
dwellings of 2 metres (minimum up to 4.09 metres). To the
south, the first floor is set back 2.2 metres, and good setbacks
are provided to both Garrisson Drive and Wattletree Court
 The maximum height of the dwellings at two storeys (8.26
metres) provides a reasonable transition from the prevailing one
to two storey scale. It is clear that two storey infill development
can be accommodated in the area and this design responds well
to the prevailing scale through the inclusion of reasonable levels
of articulated and recessed first floors
 Adequate opportunity for planting is afforded through
reasonable setbacks to the Garrisson Drive frontage (5.8 -7.6
metres), Wattletree Court frontage (2.664-3.064 metres) and to
the west/rear (3-5 metres).
Opportunities for Landscaping
19
Ms Moser submitted that the spacing and rhythm of the development is
inappropriate in the context in that the two storey bulk and scale is
exacerbated by the lack of landscaping opportunities to the frontage. She
submitted that landscaping opportunities in the front setback and throughout
the site are compromised as a result of the two driveways and the basement
garage. I do not share these concerns.
20
I am satisfied that the frontage to Garrisson Drive provides reasonable area
for the planting of canopy trees. An area of at least 50 square metres (my
scale) is provided at the frontage with a minimum width of 5.8 metres and
depth of 12 metres. In addition to this, opportunities exist for planting to
the Wattletree Court frontage and in the rear SPOS of dwelling 2. I am
satisfied that these areas are enough to maximise the landscaping to
enhance the Garden City Character of the streetscape. This is entirely in
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 7 of 14
line with policy at Clause 22.01 which seeks to include “planting of semimature canopy trees with spreading crowns be incorporated in open space
areas, along boundaries adjacent to neighbouring open space and in front
setback areas to reinforce the Garden City Character of the area.”
Vehicle Access
21
Council held concerns regarding the inclusion of a crossover near the speed
hump located within Garrisson Drive. Specifically, concerns related to the
difference in height between the crossover and the speed hump and the
vertical edge ‘gap’ to the speed hump. Ms Moser highlighted that Councils
Traffic Engineers suggested that vehicle negotiation of the access would be
difficult. It was suggested that as the site was a corner site, access would be
preferable made from Wattletree Court. That said, what is in front of me is
access from Garrisson Drive, and the assessment must be made of the
proposed vehicular access.
22
I am satisfied that the inclusion of two crossovers is reasonable in this
particular circumstance, with one to each frontage. I have reviewed the
evidence of Mr Gnanakone of Onemilegrid and the diagrams attached to his
evidence. I am satisfied that the diagrams provided adequately indicate that
for B85 vehicles exiting and entering the site from the west from the
location of the speed hump), sufficient ground clearance is provided to
avoid vehicle scraping. I this way, I am persuaded that the “existing road
hump does not impact on the proposed vehicular crossing, with vehicles
able to access the site safely and efficiently without any vehicle scraping or
associated difficulties.”
23
In these ways, the proposal represents an appropriate response to local
policy requirements, along with state policy requirements in that the bulk
scale of the development respects the predominant built form character of
the neighbourhood whilst providing opportunity for reasonable landscaping.
Does the development achieve a satisfactory level of compliance with
Clause 55 (ResCode)?
24
Several areas of ResCode compliance were raised as being of concern to the
Council. These include design detail, the opportunities for landscaping,
access for those of limited ability and the response to the character of the
neighbourhood.
25
I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with much of Clause
55 (ResCode). I say this for the following reasons
 The maximum height of the building is 8.26 metres
 The site coverage is less than 60%
 The permeability is greater than 20%
 Dwelling entries are highly visible
 Infrastructure is readily available
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 8 of 14
 Cross ventilation is possible
 One new wall is proposed on the southern boundary. The wall
are proposed to a length of 6.71 metres and an average height of
3.2 metres and is located in an acceptable position.
 Provision has been made for storage
 Mailboxes have been provided along the sites frontages.
 The number and width of crossovers is minimised with one
extra crossover and generally in keeping with the rhythm and
character of the streetscape. One crossover is provided to eacg
frontage
 Parking spaces have reasonable access to dwellings
 Each dwelling includes a bedroom on the ground level,
providing opportunities for those of limited mobility.
 Private open spaces are located to the west providing good solar
access
 Overlooking and internal views are reasonably minimised
through appropriate screening to 1.7 metres above finished floor
level to the sills of the first floor windows to the south and west.
 Shading of windows and private open space is minimised with
the level of shade to the south and west falling within the
reasonable limits as enshrined by Clause 55.
 Windows of adjoining properties are sufficiently distant to
receive adequate light.
 Proposed windows are appropriately located to gain access to
daylight
 I see no sources of noise that are located close to boundaries,
such as mechanical devices
 I find that the development incorporates a reasonable design,
including design features such as pitched roof, wide eaves and
well proportioned windows and materials found in the area that
adequately protects the amenity of the surrounding properties.
26
I am satisfied the standards and objectives of ResCode are met. This
ensures that the design, subject to conditions, will not have an unreasonable
impact on the amenity of surrounding dwellings nor the internal amenity of
the proposed dwellings.
Conclusion
27
In conclusion, having regard to the context of the review site and the
relevant policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, I consider
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 9 of 14
that the proposal will represent an acceptable planning outcome. I will set
aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct the grant of a
permit, subject to permit conditions.
Alison Slattery
Member
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 10 of 14
APPENDIX A
PERMIT APPLICATION NO:
LAND:
TPA/43289
WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWS:
The permit will allow:
36 Garrison Drive, Glen Waverley
The construction of two double
storey dwellings
Removal of vegetation in a
Vegetation Protection Overlay
in accordance with the 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 submitted with
the application, but modified to show:
a) The footpath to Dwelling 2 taken from the driveway to the porch.
b) The access to the deck area of Dwelling 2 from living areas shown.
c) The proposed crossing to the Wattletree Court frontage is to be
constructed no less than 2.5 metres from the base of either Photinia sp
tree measured from the widest point of the trunk taper/face at ground
level.
d) The proposed crossing in Garrison Drive is to provide clearance to the
adjacent nature strip tree of no less than 2.2 metres measured from the
widest point of the trunk taper/face at ground level.
e) All new crossings must be a minimum of 3 metres in width.
f) Provide a corner splay or area with at least 50% clear of visual
obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2 metres), which may
include adjacent landscaping areas with a height of less than 0.9 metres,
extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the
property) on both sides of each vehicle crossings to provide a clear view
of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road.
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 11 of 14
g) Reference to the Construction methods with in TPZs and the Tree
Protection Plan detailed in the report of Constructive Arboriculture
dated November 2014.
2.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered
without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.
Approval for each new/modified crossing the modified crossing is required
from Council’s Engineering Department prior to any works commencing.
The proposed crossings are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority in accordance with the City of Monash engineering
standards.
4.
All boundary fences, with the exception of fences referred to in Condition
1(f) are to have a height of no less than 1.8 metres.
5.
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 be generally in accordance
with the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd dated September
2015 with reference Job no. 15-605, and 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. The
planting provision is to include tall trees that when grown will
positively contribute to the upper level tree canopy of the area.
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 (semi-mature plant
species are to be provided).
e. Vertical planting to the access ramp of dwelling 1
f. the location and details of all fencing.
g. the extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated
with the landscape treatment of the site.
h. details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways,
patio or decked areas.
i. coloured concrete, paving or the like is to be utilised in the driveway.
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 12 of 14
j. reference to the Arborist Report of Constructive Arboriculture dated
November 2014.
6.
When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the
permit.
7.
Written confirmation is to be provided to the Responsible Authority from
the consulting arborist that the recommendations contained in the Arborist
Report of constructive Arboriculture dated November 2014 have been
carried out.
8.
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.
9.
The driveway and parking area is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority.
10. All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must
not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties.
11. Stormwater discharge is to be detained on-site to the predevelopment level
of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is
required from Monash City Council prior to works commencing.
12. Direct the entire site’s stormwater drainage to the north of the property
where it must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Council pit in
the nature strip to be constructed to City of Monash standards. Note:- If
the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council’s Engineering
Division immediately.
13. Any new drainage work within the road reserve requires the approval of the
City of Monash’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing.
Three copies of the plans (A3-A1 size) for the drainage works must be
submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division. The plans are to
show sufficient information to determine that the drainage works will meet
all drainage conditions of the permit. A refundable security deposit of $500
is to be paid prior to the drainage works commencing.
14. Engineering permits must be obtained for new connections to Council pits
and these works are to be inspected by the Monash City Council
Engineering Division.
15. Approval of each proposed crossing and a permit for the installation or
modification of any vehicle crossing is required from the City of Monash
Engineering Department.
16. The proposed crossings (including modification to any existing crossover)
are to be constructed in accordance with City of Monash standards.
17. Once the development has started it must be continued, completed and
maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 13 of 14
18. The permit for development will expire in accordance with section 68 of the
Planning and Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances
applies:
 The development is not started before 2 years from the date of issue.
 The development is not completed before 4 years from the date of issue.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987,
the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is
made in writing before the permit expires, or within six months of the
permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not
yet started; or within 12 months of the permit expiry date, where the
development has lawfully started before the permit expires
End of Conditions
VCAT Reference No. P995/2015
Page 14 of 14