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
VCAT Reference No. P198/2015
Page 2 of 9
REASONS1
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
1
I have considered the submissions of the two parties; the exhibits tendered, 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. P198/2015
Page 3 of 9
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:
VCAT Reference No. P198/2015
Page 4 of 9
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 permit2 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
10
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.
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 scheme3. 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
The Council provided a copy of the delegate report for this “correction of permit” that explains:
“Amended plans have been submitted to Council for endorsement, and they are satisfactory. However
condition 1(b) and (c) needs to be amended to reflect the amended plans for endorsement” and “It is
proposed to correct the planning permit.” Whilst I have some doubts about whether the changes were in
fact a correction pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, I have
nevertheless considered the most recent version of the permit in making this decision.
3
Pursuant to clause 62 of Schedule 1 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.
2
VCAT Reference No. P198/2015
Page 5 of 9
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:

16
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.
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:

4
Considering public transport, other car alternatives and car
parking implications for development proposals consistent with
Council’s objectives for traffic and transport.
I presume the typographical error is a missing word “to”.
VCAT Reference No. P198/2015
Page 6 of 9

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
20
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.
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
VCAT Reference No. P198/2015
Page 7 of 9
unobstructed views along the north-south section of the laneway from
Bernard Street.
23
The statements of grounds received question the appropriateness of the
visitor car space along the laneway and the implications of this location on
the commercial businesses to the east that also use this laneway. However,
the location of the visitor space is not really before me other than in regard
to the findings I have made in the previous paragraph. The fact is the
condition in dispute no longer specifies where the visitor space should be.
The fact is also, more importantly, that the Council has already endorsed
plans showing its location on the laneway. If I find a visitor car space is
required, these endorsed plans including the approved location of the visitor
car space will take effect.
24
The fact that a visitor car space will need to be in common ownership is not
a matter for consideration identified in the clause 52.06 decision guidelines,
and therefore not sufficient reason to reduce the requirement to zero in this
case.
25
I agree that the two street frontages of this site provide on-street parking
opportunities and I note Mr Chow has calculated this to be about six car
spaces.
26
The Applicant is not relying on visitors accessing public transport, using
bicycles or travelling by foot. Mr Chow says it is presumed visitors will
come by car specifically to visit residents of this development, hence they
are unlikely to be making a multi-purpose trip. The aerial photographs
tabled by Mr Chow show one Saturday in November 2014 (presumably
outside of football season) when there is ample on-street car parking
available.
27
However, the statements of grounds received by the Tribunal say parking is
difficult now, including during football season and when the local club has
its home games. Mr Chow agreed that “the only observable spike in onstreet parking” occurs when the oval is in use. He provided photographs of
one football match this month (April 2015). They show cars parked in the
car park adjacent to the oval, along the road to the south of the oval, along
some but not all of Lewton Road immediately north and south of Bernard
Street, and along both sides of Bernard Street.
28
Mr Chow submits football home games may only be on select Saturdays,
but I have no information before me to support this submission. Mr Chow
also submits that if there was football every Saturday, there are still
opportunities to park additional vehicles in front of this site in Lewton
Road. Whilst the photos of one football match suggest some on-street car
parking opportunities remain, this is but one example and it is not known
whether this particular day is demonstrative of a typical football match day.
Also, the remaining available car parking is on one side of the site,
VCAT Reference No. P198/2015
Page 8 of 9
reasonably well removed from where the Council originally wanted and has
approved the location of the visitor car space.
29
The statements of grounds and the material tabled by Mr Chow are
sufficient to demonstrate that there are some limitations to on-street parking
outside of this site during some months of the year. Overall, there is
insufficient information before me to demonstrate that the impact of not
providing a visitor space will be acceptable having regard to the local
amenity and the availability of car parking overall. So, I have decided that
the requirement for a visitor car space should remain.
CONCLUSION
30
For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Responsible Authority
is affirmed.
Rachel Naylor
Member
VCAT Reference No. P198/2015
Page 9 of 9