VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewThe land is located on the east side of...

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P1427/2016

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/44368

CATCHWORDSMonash Planning Scheme, Section 77 of the Planning & Environment Act 1988, Three two storey dwellings, Neighbourhood character, impact on neighbours

APPLICANT Honeycomb Partners

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council

RESPONDENTS Richard Roberts, Harry Karipis, Phil & Susan Natoli, Michael Morgan (on behalf of AVEO Retirement Villages), Clive McPherson, Ivan & Kay Walters, Ciro Iacovangelo

SUBJECT LAND 52 Mannering Drive, Glen Waverley

WHERE HELD Melbourne

BEFORE Kerrie Birtwistle, Member

HEARING TYPE Hearing

DATE OF HEARING 24 January, 2017

DATE OF ORDER 28 February, 2017

CITATION Honeycomb Partners v Monash CC [2017] VCAT 297

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: Solid

Drawing numbers: A0.00 (Rev 2), A0.01, A0.02, A0.04, A4.01 (Rev 2), A4.02 (Rev 2), A5.01 (Rev 1), A5.02 (Rev 1)

Dated: 06/17/15

Prepared by: Solid

Drawing numbers: A0.05, A0.06

Dated: 06/21/15

Prepared by: Solid

Drawing numbers: A1.01 (Rev 1)

Dated: 05/30/15

Prepared by: Solid

Drawing numbers: A1.02 (Rev 2), A1.03 (Rev 2), A2.01 (Rev 2), A3.01 (Rev 2)

Dated: 06/14/15

Prepared by: Solid

Drawing numbers: A1.04 (Rev 1)

Dated: 06/18/15

Prepared by: Solid

Drawing numbers: A4.01 (Rev 2), A4.02 (Rev 2), A5.01 (Rev 1), A5.02 (Rev 1)

Dated: 06/17/15

2 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by amending the matter for which a permit is being sought from four, two storey dwellings to three, two storey dwellings.

3 In application P1427/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

4 In planning permit application TPA/44368 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 52 Mannering Drive, Glen Waverley in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Construction of three, two storey dwellings in a General Residential Zone - Schedule 2.

VCAT Reference No. P1427/2016 of 19

Kerrie BirtwistleMember

APPEARANCES

For applicant Ms Marjorie Kennedy, Town Planner of SJB Planning.She called the following witness:

Mr John Patrick, Landscape Architect of John Patrick Pty Ltd

For responsible authority Sally Moser, Town Planner of Sally Moser Planning

For respondents Mr Richard Roberts, on his own behalfMr Harry Karipis, on his own behalf and on behalf of Mr & Mrs Natoli


INFORMATION

Description of proposal It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and construct three, two storey dwellings. Each dwelling will comprise four bedrooms, and be provided with an attached double garage. Access to each dwelling will be via a shared common driveway along the northern property boundary.Site coverage is proposed to be 30%.Dwelling 1 has an area of 211 sq.m., is setback 8.2 metres from the frontage, and is provided with 222 sq.m. of private open space.Dwelling 2 has an area of 212 sq.m, is setback 5 metres at ground level from Dwelling 1 and 2.2 metres at ground level from Dwelling 3 at its rear, and is provided with 125 sq.m. of private open space.Dwelling 3 has an area of 238 sq.m. The garage to this dwelling has the only wall built to the boundary. It is provided with 218 sq.m of private open space.The proposed design is contemporary in nature, with parapet walls at ground level with the upper level elements housed within a gable structure. External cladding comprises sheet metal roofing, brickwork, render and timber look material.

Nature of proceeding Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Planning scheme Monash Planning Scheme

Zone and overlays General Residential Zone – Schedule 2Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1

Permit requirements Clause 32.08-4 A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot The land is located within a Vegetation Protection Overlay, however no permit requirement is triggered by the application.


Relevant scheme policies and provisions

Clauses 11, 15.01, 15.02, 16.01, 21.04, 22.01, 22.04, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 55 and 65

Land description The land is located on the east side of Mannering Drive, approximately 80 metres north east of St Ronans Court. It is irregular in shape, with an area of 1203 sq.m. The land falls approximately 3 metres from east to west, and a 2 metre wide easement exists along the east and south property boundaries.The land is currently occupied by a single storey brick dwelling with a number of established trees located within the front setback. Vehicle access is from the north-west corner of the land.Adjoining land to the immediate north, south and west is occupied by single dwellings. Land at the rear of the site is occupied by the Oak Hill Retirement Village, and further to the north east is the Victorian Police Academy.

Tribunal inspection An unaccompanied inspection of the site and two adjoining properties at 50 and 54 Mannering Drive was undertaken on Friday 3 February, 2017.


REASONS1

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 The Applicant originally sought approval to develop four, two storey

dwellings on the review site. The existing dwelling will be demolished.

2 There were a number of objections lodged to the application. Monash City Council resolved to refuse the application on the following grounds:

The bulk and scale of the proposal is not respectful of neighbourhood character and is inconsistent with the Residential Development Policy in Clauses 21.04 and 22.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme

The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and standards of Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme having regard to landscaping and open space

The proposal would have a detrimental impact on adjoining properties due to its scale and bulk

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the land

3 Prior to the hearing, and in accordance with the VCAT Practice Note, the applicant circulated amended plans. These plans reduced the number of proposed dwellings from four to three and made a number of consequent layout changes. As there were no objections, I allowed these plans to be substituted, and these plans are those that now form part of my consideration.

4 The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and if so what conditions should apply. Having considered the submissions, having regard to the Monash Planning Scheme, and having inspected the site and surrounds, I have decided that a permit should be granted. I reach this finding based on my assessment on the following key issues:

a. Is a three dwelling development on the site supported by the Planning Scheme?

b. Is the built form and layout an acceptable response to the neighbourhood character?

c. Are the ResCode objectives for private open space and solar access to open space met?

d. Will the proposal have any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties?

1 The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing, and the statements of grounds filed; have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.


5 To the extent that other issues were raised by the parties during the hearing, I consider these matters are peripheral to the key issues in this case and do not require specific consideration in making this decision.

6 My reasons follow.

IS A THREE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING SCHEME?7 The site is zoned General Residential, which is the most flexible of

residential zones. Within GRZ areas it is expected that changes will occur to accommodate population and housing trends, subject to provisos including the need to respect neighbourhood character (including preferred future character), good design including environmental sustainability, and reasonable internal and external amenity impacts.

8 The Council concedes that the site is of sufficient size and located within an area that supports its redevelopment for multiple dwellings. The site is located within a well-established residential precinct and is accessible to Brandon Park Shopping Centre, Glen Waverley South Primary School, Brentwood Secondary College, bus routes in Springvale and View Mount Road and a number of local reserves. For the avoidance of any doubt, I agree that the site is well located with respect to services and facilities, public transport, educational and sporting facilities that make it suitable for additional dwellings. This supports State and local planning objectives to increase housing supply within well serviced areas and reduce the need to provide for development at the fringe of Melbourne.

9 The proposal provides for increased population density, and housing diversity, and is clearly supported by broad State and local policies. The key issues for consideration I find therefore are neighbourhood and site-specific.

IS THE BUILT FORM AND LAYOUT AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?10 Clause 55.02 of the Monash Planning Scheme (standard B1

Neighbourhood Character) requires the design of medium density housing to either respect the existing character or contribute towards a preferred neighbourhood character.

11 To guide the design of medium density housing, the Monash Planning Scheme has divided the municipality into various character types. The subject site is located within Character Type E. The desired future character statement for this character type is:

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 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.

12 The Council asserts that the desired future character statement calls for development to relate in form and siting to the topography of the land. Building scale, height and bulk should be similar within neighbourhoods and large scale contrasts between buildings should be avoided. The Council particularly highlighted a number of design features that it asserts are at odds with the existing character of the area. These include:

a. The northern side upper level of dwelling 1 does not present with a graduated upper level form. A slab wall is proposed relieved only by a difference in building materials

b. The buildings present as tall narrow buildings (due to the relatively high floor to ceiling levels). The gable ends lack eaves and are elevated above the relatively tall supporting walls

c. The roof pitch is steeper than that in the general area

d. Each of the dwellings lacks gradation in the front facades. The upper level of Dwelling 2 also cantilevers forward of the garage, which is a form uncharacteristic in the area

e. There are large areas of blank wall facades broken up with windows at ground and upper level throughout the development

f. The pressed metal roofing is at odds within in area that generally comprises tiled roofing

13 In summary, the Council asserts that dwellings in the area have a consistent pattern of eaves, and it is the eaves, wall height, scale and upper level form that produce a reasonably consistent built form outcome in the neighbourhood.


14 Mr Karipis argues that the height of the development is too high, the building and roof materials are out of context with the surrounding houses, and the design including flat roof elements and long rectangular windows contribute to a box-like appearance that is at odds with its neighbours.

15 The applicant asserts that the existing character of Mannering Drive is characterised by mix of single and two storey dwellings, with a large number of double storey dwellings with sheer two storey walls to the streetscape, often with verandahs to provide articulation to the façade. A consistent character of the streetscape is the double garage forward of the main building line.

16 My inspection confirms that the area is characterised by a mix of single and two storey dwellings, often with double garages projecting forward of the dwellings and built to the side boundaries. Dwelling style is mixed and there are examples of more recent development which is of a more contemporary design. What is most evident is the consistency of front setback, open and unfenced front yards and landscaped form. There is little consistency in terms of architectural style and features, aside from the dominance of often forward projecting garages.

17 Policy for built form and scale of development at clause 21.01 in part seeks for the height and scale of existing development to be respected, and for side boundary setbacks to maintain the spacing and rhythm of existing dwellings. I agree with the applicant that two storey built form with an overall height of 8 metres (less than the 9 metre height control of the GRZ2) adjacent two single storey dwellings is respectful of the height and scale of existing development.

18 I agree with the applicant that the proposed roof form and construction material, while different, is a contemporary interpretation of the surrounding roof character and satisfies the policy intent that roof heights and pitches of adjoining development be respected2.

19 I find that the design:

a. Uses roof form including pitches and material that, while different to those immediately adjoining, are not discordant or immediately obvious as being disrespectful of the existing development character

b. Provides for deep side setbacks that allow landscaping and canopy tree planting

c. Subject to the removal of the proposed front fencing as sought by policy3, provides for an open and visible front garden

d. Proposes materials that complement the predominantly brick and render character of Manning Drive

2 Clause 22.01-33 Clause 22.01-3


e. Provides generous upper level articulation of Dwellings 2 and 3 at the rear of the site, consistent with clause 22.01

f. Details dwellings 1 and 2 setback from both side boundaries, despite both adjacent properties having high walls on the shared boundary with the review site. This assists in improving the sense of openness when viewed from the street, allows the introduction of landscaping down the side boundaries of the review site, and allows an appropriate visual transition between the development and the adjoining single storey dwellings

20 I accept that reasonable effort has been devoted to the design in the elements I have discussed above, and in the stepping back of the building at the sides from the ground to upper levels, and that the side and rear boundary setbacks adequately comply with ResCode.

21 Finally, the Council expressed concern that the development did not respect the landscape character of the neighbourhood. Clause 21.03-5 identifies a Garden City character as being a core value held by Council. The maintenance and establishment of vegetation can assist in integrating new development within its setting.

22 The Council highlighted the existence of the VPO that applies to the land and tendered photographs of a large canopy tree that was located within the front setback of the existing dwelling which has been removed. A permit may have been required for its removal.

23 This is not a matter before me. However clause 55.03-8 does require that development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the planning application being made. I note from the landscape plan submitted that two trees are proposed within the front open space of Dwelling 1, three within the centre of the site, seven to the rear eastern boundary, six to the south boundary and three within the driveway area. To that extent I find the landscape plan satisfies the objectives of clause 55.03-8 and clause 22.05.

24 Further, I find that the landscaping plan recruits meaningful vegetation for the site and will assist in meeting Council’s objective to support a Garden City character. Front garden space is provided in which upper canopy trees can develop4. I find that the proposal generally responds well to standard B13 (Landscaping objectives) by providing large landscaped setbacks throughout the site, utilising permeable decking and providing a mix of canopy and understorey planting throughout the site.

25 The Council argues that landscaping should be provided down both sides of driveways to reduce the visual impact of development as sought by clause 22.01-3. The applicant agreed that this could be achieved via minor plan modifications and I will require this to occur through amendments to the plan.

4 As sought in clause 22.01-3


26 I also agree with the evidence of Mr Patrick that the proposed open front fence is an alien element within the immediate neighbourhood and will require its removal from the plans.

27 From the neighbourhood character perspective, I am satisfied that the design provides an acceptable response to the existing neighbourhood character and satisfies Council’s policy intent with respect to preferred neighbourhood character.

ARE THE RESCODE OBJECTIVES FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND SOLAR ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE MET?28 The Council argues that the positioning of the driveway on the north side of

the development has resulted in an unacceptable outcome in that:

a. Dwelling 1 has part of its secluded private open space located on the southern side of the dwelling

b. Dwelling 2 also has south facing secluded private open space

c. Dwelling 3 has east facing secluded private open space

29 Standard B10 (Energy efficiency objectives) seeks to ensure that living areas and private open space should be located on the north side of the development, if practicable (my italics).

30 Dwelling 1 has its secluded private open space on the southern and eastern side of the development. The living areas are located on the southern side of the development.

31 Dwelling 2 has two areas of private open space; the first located on the northern side and the second on the southern side. The open plan living area has both a north and south facing orientation.

32 Dwelling 3 has its private open space located on the eastern side of the development. The living area faces east.

33 If a development does not meet the standard, it must meet the objective. In considering whether a development meets the objective, I am required to consider the design response, the size, orientation and slope of the lot, the existing amount of solar access to abutting properties and the availability of solar access to north facing windows on the site.

34 The Council does not argue that the development unreasonably affects the existing solar access to abutting properties. In its submission it did not seek to argue that solar access to north facing windows on the site is inappropriate. Their sole concern with respect to this objective is that some of the private open space proposed is not located on the north side of the development.

35 Firstly, the standard requires that open space should be provided on the north side of a development if practicable. The Council acknowledges that the existence of a street tree on the southern side of the development effectively drove the need for the common driveway to be located on the


northern side of the site, which consequently drives the orientation of the open space.

36 With respect to Dwelling 1, I find that the generous size (in excess of 115 sq.m.) of secluded private open space more than balances its positioning at the southern and eastern side of the development. The dwelling is provided with concertina doors opening out onto a generous decked area. The deck then opens out onto a wider open space area that wraps around the dwelling and its garage. While the Council considers that the location of this area of open space to the east of the garage is not conveniently accessible from within the dwelling, I agree with the evidence of Mr Patrick that this secondary open space area will provide a generous area of a different character that will supplement the open space provided on the decked area which is conveniently accessible from the dwelling.

37 Dwelling 2 has two areas of private open space; one is north facing and therefore satisfies the objective of standard B10. The living area is also located on the northern side of the development consistent with standard B10.

38 Dwelling 3 has an open space area of more than 200 sq.m. The living area opens out via concertina doors onto a large decked area. The Council considers, and I agree, that although located on the eastern side the secluded open space is appropriate and meets the objective of standard B10.

39 The GRZ2 has a local variation to standard B28 (Private open space objective) that requires:

An area of 75 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 35 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room

40 Firstly, each dwelling is provided with a generous amount of private open space that exceeds the area specified in varied standard B28.

41 Dwelling 1 is provided with a total of 220 sq.m of private open space, with 115 sq.m being secluded. This well exceeds the area required in the varied standard B28. The secluded private open space is provided at the side and rear of the dwelling, and has convenient access from a living room. To that extent it satisfies standard B28.

42 The secluded private open space is provided in an L-shaped form that wraps around the building. The area comprises a decked area accessible off the living room which ranges between 2 metres and 3.5 metres wide. However, the design also provides the large open space area east of the garage. This area has dimensions of 5 metres by 10 metres, which meets the varied B28 standard for minimum dimensions. The dimensions of this part of the secluded private open space also meets the solar access to open space objective as required by standard B29.


43 Dwelling 2 is provided with north facing open space of the correct dimensions as sought by varied standard B28. 85 sq.m of secluded private open space is provided at the rear of the dwelling and is accessible from a living room.

44 Dwelling 3 is provided with 218 sq.m of private open space. It meets the minimum dimension requirements of standard B29 and is also conveniently accessible from a living room.

45 The Council concedes that both Dwellings 2 and 3 are provided with north facing private open space that satisfies standard B29.

WILL THE PROPOSAL HAVE ANY UNREASONABLE IMPACTS ON THE AMENITY OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES?46 The Council did not seek to argue that the development would present any

unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjoining properties.

47 Mr Karipis, Mr Roberts and Mr Natoli all conversely argue that the development will result in unacceptable visual bulk to the adjoining properties and properties across the street.

48 I do not agree that the development presents as being visually bulky. None of the typical characteristics of bulk are evident in the proposal such as excessive site coverage, height, or insufficient boundary setbacks.

49 Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks objective) are met with ground and upper level setbacks exceeding the standard. The development satisfies standard B22(overlooking objective) as all upper level habitable room windows (aside from those facing the street) have permanently fixed external screens to at least 1.7 metres above floor level which are no more than 25 per cent transparent.

50 Overshadowing does not exceed standard B21.

51 Site coverage is 30%, well below the 60% specified in standard B8.

52 I find that the development, with its smaller upper level footprint, and compliance with these standards, does not present as being visually bulky nor cause overlooking or overshadowing impacts to its neighbours.

53 Mr Roberts expresses concerns regarding the retaining walls located on the review site adjacent the shared boundary with his property. He is concerned that during demolition and construction there may be some impact on the stability of the shared fenceline. These matters are addressed during the building approval process and managed during construction and I therefore make no finding on this issue.

54 Finally, the plans detail 1.8 metre high timber fences between the review site and the two adjoining properties owned by the Roberts and Natoli families. Mr Roberts asserts, and my inspection confirms, that these fences are in fact colourbond. These fences appear relatively recent and are in good condition.


55 Mr Roberts’s master bedroom currently faces south, and has a small external elevated balcony which sits adjacent the existing garage on the review site. This garage is built on the boundary with Mr Roberts land, has a height of approximately 2.5 metres and provides a degree of privacy to this elevated decked area which has sliding doors into the master bedroom. Mr Roberts is concerned that with the removal of the existing garage wall on this boundary, the privacy of his master bedroom and adjacent decked area will be impacted by people using the shared vehicle accessway.

56 Firstly, I agree with Mr Roberts that the existing colourbond fencing should be retained. The fencing is in good condition. Its removal and replacement with an equivalent height timber paling fence will likely impact on the existing mature landscaping within the Roberts and Natoli properties.

57 Secondly, where the existing garage wall is removed from the shared fenceline, I will require that it be replaced with colourbond fencing consistent with that existing at the developers cost. Finally, as agreed by the applicant during discussions concerning draft conditions, I will require that an additional 0.3 metre minimum colourbond fence extension be provided along this fenceline, at least adjacent Mr Roberts’ master bedroom and external raised decked area to assist in providing a sense of privacy to this area.

OTHER MATTERS58 Council says that the windows to Dwelling 1 ground level bedroom do not

meet standard B15. This requires that shared accessways should be located at least 1.5 metres from the windows of habitable rooms. The plans detail two windows on this façade set back 0.5 metres from the shared accessway. I am not persuaded that a setback of 0.5 metres will satisfy the objective of clause 55.03-10, which seeks to protect residents from vehicular noise within developments. This bedroom has the benefit of two additional forward facing full length windows. I will require that the plans be modified such that the windows adjacent the shared accessway be provided with sill heights at least 1.4 metres above the accessway.

59 Photographs were tendered at the hearing of alleged drainage and overland flooding issues of the review site and adjacent property owned by Mr Roberts. Council’s engineers have not identified this as a concern and standard planning permit conditions relating to drainage were proposed. I therefore make no finding on this issue.

60 Mr Karipis expresses concerns regarding car parking within and external to the site. The provision of carparking is consistent with the statutory requirements of clause 52.06, including two spaces per dwelling. The level of traffic generated by the proposal, which represents a net increase of two dwellings on the lot, will not be significant. Council’s traffic engineers consider there will be no major impact on the local road network.


CONDITIONS61 Draft conditions were discussed at the hearing. I have required a number of

plan changes as discussed within the body of my findings. Other minor changes which were agreed to during the hearing include clarification to the plans including fencing details forward of and between Dwellings 2 and 3. There also appears to be a discrepancy between the first floor and elevation plans with respect to window treatment. Some detail windows 1.8 metre high with 25% visibility screen, others show 25% visible screen up to 1700mm height. Both achieve compliance with standard B22, but should be consistent across the plans.

CONCLUSION62 For the reasons explained above, the decision of the responsible authority is

set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A of this order.

Kerrie Birtwistle Member


APPENDIX A – PERMIT CONDITIONS

PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/44368

LAND: 52 Mannering Drive, Glen Waverley

WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWSIn accordance with the endorsed plans:

Construction of three two storey dwellings in the General Residential Zone - Schedule 2

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 prepared by Solid dated 6/15/15, but modified to show:

The removal of the metal fence across the frontage and forward of Dwelling 1 adjacent the shared driveway.

The fencing between the private open space of Dwellings 1 and 2 and the shared accessway moved south by 0.5 metres with the consequent land to be provided as a landscape strip adjacent the shared driveway.

The retention of the existing colourbond boundary fences, except if required to be removed adjacent the proposed garage to Dwelling 3.

A minimum 0.3 metre high colourbond boundary fence extension to be provided adjacent the western most habitable room window of the southern elevation of No. 50 Mannering Drive at the developers cost (commencing at the rear of the garage at No. 50 and extending for a length of not less than 6 metres).

A notation on the plan that any new replacement boundary fencing is required be consistent with the existing colourbond fencing and at the developers cost.

Driveway materials to reflect the landscape plan.

Details of the fencing design and materials adjacent the shared accessway to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Canopy treatment to the entries to Dwellings 1 and 2.


A schedule of materials and colours.

The north facing bedroom windows to Dwelling 1 adjacent the driveway screened to satisfy Standard B15.

Consistency for all upper level window measurements to satisfy Standard B22 of Clause 55.

Any plan modifications to demonstrate that vehicles can exist the site in a forward motion to satisfy Clause 52.06-8 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Ramp grades consistent with Clause 52.06-8.

The two street trees as shown on the Landscape Plan.

The location and design of any proposed electricity supply meter boxes. The electricity supply meter boxes must be located at a distance from the street which is at or behind the setback alignment of buildings on the site or in compliance with Council’s “Guide to Electricity Supply Meter Boxes in Monash”.

The location of gas and water meters.

A notation of the finished floor levels of the decking.

The provision of a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2 metres), which may include adjacent landscaping area with a height of less than 0.9 metres, extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) at both sides of the vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road

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 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 plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd dated December 2016, but modified to show:-

(a) An additional tree in the front setback in the general area of the tree removed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

(b) Additional shrub planting forward on Dwelling 1 adjacent the southern property boundary

(c) The method of retaining creepers up the existing colourbond fencing

(d) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site.


(e) The location of all existing trees and other vegetation to be retained on site.

(f) The provision of additional landscaping adjacent the common accessway and the fencing between the private open space of Dwellings 1 and 2.

(g) 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.

(h) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio and decked areas.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

5 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.

6 Approval of the proposed crossing, and a permit for installation or modification of any vehicle crossing is required from Council’s Engineering Department.

7 The layout of the development shall generally follow the Design Standards for car parking set out in Clause 52.06-8 of the Monash Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

8 All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties. The on-site drainage system must prevent discharge from the driveway onto the footpath. Such a system may include either:

a trench grate (150 mm minimum internal width) located within the property; and/or

shaping the driveway so that water is collected in a grated pit on the property; and/or

another Council approved equivalent

9 All works must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

10 Stormwater discharge is to be detained on-site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required from Council prior to works commencing.

11 Direct the entire site’s stormwater drainage to the south-west corner of the property where it must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Council pit outside No 52 Mannering Drive to Council Standards. A new pit is to be constructed if a pit does not exist or is not a standard Council pit.


Note: If the point of connection cannot be located then notify Council's Engineering Division immediately.

12 Any new drainage work within the road reserve drain requires the approval of the Council’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing.

13 Engineering permits must be obtained for new connections to the Council pits and these works are to be inspected by Council (telephone 9518 3555).

14 Prior to the works commencing, “Building over Easement” approval is required for the construction of the decks. Approval should be given subject to:

Council & Yarra Valley South East Water approval being obtained

The use of easement agreement being signed by Council

The installation of a 375 mm drain within the eastern and southern easement from the existing nature strip pit in front of 52 Mannering Drive to the existing pit at the north west corner of unit 43, 37-47 View Mount Road to the satisfaction of Council. A 900 x 600mm Junction Pit to be installed within the south east corner easement of 52 Mannering Drive to cater for the change in direction

The payment of a $1,000 refundable security deposit prior to the drainage works commencing

15 This permit will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started before 2 years from the date of issue.

(b) 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 -


VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewThe land is located on the east side of...

Documents

Transcript of VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewThe land is located on the east side of...