Posted 29/5/07
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
| planning and environment LIST |
vcat reference No. P281/2007 Permit Application no. P205/0337 |
|
CATCHWORDS |
|
| 3 dwellings on a lot, Residential 1 Zone, Rescode, Neighbourhood character, Vehicular access | |
| APPLICANT | Vince Tullio |
| responsible authority | Macedon Ranges Shire Council |
| OBJECTOR | Anthony McCabe |
| SUBJECT LAND | 31 Bourke Street, Kyneton |
| WHERE HELD | Melbourne |
| BEFORE | Peter O’Leary, Member |
| HEARING TYPE | Merits Review |
| DATE OF HEARING | 17 May 2007 |
| DATE OF ORDER | 23 May 2007 |
| CITATION |
The responsible authority’s decision is affirmed. No permit shall issue with respect to Permit Application No. P205/0337.
Peter O’Leary
Member
APPEARANCES: |
|
| For Applicant | Mr T Ludeman, Town Planner |
| For Responsible Authority | Mrs J Robson, Town Planner |
| Objector | Mr A McCabe in person |
1 This is an application for review pursuant to Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the decision of Macedon Ranges Shire Council which refused Permit Application No. P205/0337 comprising three two storey dwellings on a lot at 31 Bourke Street Kyneton.
2 The Council refused the application on rather vague grounds, but at the review hearing Mrs Robson clarified these issues to be:
3 Mr McCabe supported the responsible authority’s decision and raised concerns about:
4 Mr Ludeman, on the other hand, argued that:
5 Having heard all the submissions made and inspected the site, I consider the principal issues in this application are:
Whether the proposal sufficiently respects the neighbourhood character.
Whether the vehicular access treatment is appropriate having regard to the site context and design response.
The visual bulk and massing of the building from the Bourke Street frontage and when viewed from adjoining properties.
6 It is proposed to erect three two storey dwellings on the lot. Dwellings 1 and 2 will be attached and located at the front of the site. These dwellings comprise integrated garage entry, bathroom, kitchen and living facilities at ground level, and two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a balcony at first floor level. Dwelling 3 which is located to the rear of the site with access via a separate driveway will comprise integrated garage, bedroom, walk-in-robe, ensuite, living/kitchen and laundry at ground level, and bedroom and bathroom at first floor level.
7 An unusual feature of this development is the use of a single flared access crossover which will then serve two driveways. One driveway will serve Dwellings 1 and 2 whilst the second driveway will serve Dwelling 3 to the rear. Each dwelling would have a single car garage with Dwellings 1 and 2 having tandem spaces behind them located at the front of these buildings. Dwelling 3 will have a car space beside the garage with room for manoeuvring so that vehicles can exit this garage in a forward motion.
8 This application also seeks permission for vehicular access to a Road Zone - Category 1. In this case VicRoads, as a referral authority, has raised no objection to the access treatment.
9 The site is located on the northern side of Bourke Street about 30 metres east of Barton Street at the eastern entrance to the Kyneton township. The site is wedged shape with a 21.7 metre frontage to Bourke Street, a 41.1 metre long west boundary, a 35.4 metre east boundary and a rear abuttal of 33.5 metres. Land area is 1088 square metres.
10 The land is vacant and grassed and contains no significant vegetation. It is essentially flat although it appears to fall marginally from north to the south towards Bourke Street.
11 Bourke Street is a very wide road reserve comprising the main bitumen sealed road which serves as the eastern entrance to the Kyneton township. Immediately to the north of this sealed road is a sealed service road which serves properties between Barton Street and almost to Caroline Chisholm Drive. There is wide, generous planting and the Council has undertaken in recently years further landscaping to emphasise the avenue effect.
12 Land on the southern side of Bourke Street is a light/service industrial area.
13 All properties abutting the subject site comprise single storey detached housing. Most of these are on lots of about 700 square metres in area although some are larger and some are slightly smaller. In the neighbourhood there are examples of single storey houses with two storey extensions, with the second storey usually being recessive in appearance. This neighbourhood has tree lined streets but few, if any, footpaths and most houses are surrounded by generous landscaping, giving a pleasant country town atmosphere.
14 Dwellings have been built primarily from the 1950s through to the 1980s although there is no one predominant housing style.
15 The subject site and all surrounding properties are zoned Residential 1 under the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. The relevant purposes of the zone are:
To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.
To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.
16 A permit is required to develop more than one dwelling on a lot, pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Planning Scheme. This then triggers an assessment of Rescode (Clause 55).
17 The site has an abuttal to a Road Zone – Category 1 which means that a permit is required for new access to this road zone. This is not at issue in this application as VicRoads has consented, without conditions. This is understandable because the vehicular access treatment is to a service road not to the main thoroughfare of the Bourke Street road alignment.
18 There are various State and Local planning policies of relevance[1].
19 At the review hearing each party made oral submissions with Mr Ludeman and Mrs Robson tabling detailed written submissions. Mr McCabe referred to his Statement of Grounds. I was provided with photographs of the subject site and neighbourhood, revised plans and elevations, and shadow diagrams. Following the review hearing I inspected the subject site and neighbourhood.
20 At the commencement of the hearing Mr Ludeman sought leave to table amending plans of the front two dwellings. There was no objection and the plans were substituted pursuant to section 64 of Schedule 1 of the VCAT Act.
21 Despite the responsible authority advising of a number of shortcomings of the application, this application is focuses on whether or not the development satisfactorily respects the neighbourhood character. In this respect I consider there are two fundamental design issues which have not adequately been addressed in this application which are fundamental to the refusal. Whilst Mr Ludeman was correct to suggest the development had State and Local Planning Policy support this general policy does not overcome the shortcomings of the development.
22 I consider the proposed vehicular access treatment, particularly to the two front dwellings, to be inappropriate and at odds with the neighbourhood character. Most neighbouring properties have single width car access driveways along one side of the dwelling. Garages are to the side and rear of properties and are not dominant elements in the streetscape. Most properties have low scale dwellings with generous landscaping.
23 In this case I am concerned about the placement of two garages, virtually side by side, at the front of Dwellings 1 and 2 together with visitor car parking in front of them with a relatively large turning area. This treatment results in a substantial portion of the front of the property being dominated by building mass and hard paved surfaces which is at odds with the general neighbourhood character. This treatment will also diminish normal opportunities for landscaping, including the planting of canopy trees.
24 I acknowledge that the applicant had made efforts to place canopy trees in select locations but I do not consider that these will be sufficient in providing a landscaped treatment that respects the immediate neighbourhood character.
25 Much of the problem with this development is that the applicant had tried to respond to Council Engineer’s design requirement for vehicles to be able to exit the site in a forward motion. This has essentially resulted in “over engineering” of the front driveway and parking area of the property so as to achieve this forward exit requirement.
26 I also have substantial concern about the manner in which the front two storey dwellings are treated. Whilst the applicant has modified the plans to stagger Dwellings 1 and 2, it produces large blank surfaces beside front balconies which tend to accentuate the height and massing of the building. When viewed in conjunction with the rather relatively small setback at the front and the large hard paved surfacing and small front landscaping, the overall appearance is foreign to that generally found in this residential neighbourhood.
27 A site constraint is the presence of a power pole with supporting stay wires, sewer inspection points and the fire plug installation which places limits on where vehicular access drives are located unless the poles or other infrastructure is relocated. The presence of street infrastructure and the need to avoid it tends to emphasise that this site, despite its 21 metre frontage, really should support only one vehicular access drive to all dwellings in this development site.
28 I gave consideration to placing conditions on permit to address this issue, however I consider that the building bulk and massing and access treatment really requires some detailed reassessment which cannot easily be addressed in a simple modification through a permit condition, rather a number fundamental design issues which need to be rethought.
29 I do not consider that a two storey height per se, is inappropriate although greater attention needs to be given to moderating the front facade area particularly in the area which is within 6 to 9 metres of the frontage of the site. I consider the height, extent of blank walls, extent of built form across the frontage and garage entrance features tend to produce a large mass in close proximity to the frontage. By comparison most dwellings in the neighbourhood are single storey with recessive roof forms. Even when dwellings are two stories the upper levels are generally recessive and do not dominate the streetscape or neighbourhood context. Whilst I appreciate the applicant’s effort in trying to stagger the development, the presence of high blank walls does not necessarily assist in reducing building bulk and massing when viewed from Bourke Street.
30 There are other areas which were not raised in detail in the hearing which I consider also should be addressed at any planning permit application stage. I am concerned about the lack of any proper dimensions on the overall wall and building height of each building and the lack of site and floor levels. These dimensions are fundamental tools in properly assessing any application because they assist in a proper assessment of the development proposal. The lack of such dimensions makes it difficult to accurately assess whether the building setbacks have in fact been met in accordance with the relevant standards in Rescode. Similarly, it is also difficult to accurately assess the shadows of the building if the actual dimensions of the height of the building are not provided. Merely scaling a two storey building is not sufficient. It is also essential to provide levels of the existing site and proposed floor levels of each building if for no other reason than to properly assess privacy considerations.
31 For the abovementioned reasons the responsible authority’s decision is affirmed. I consider that vehicle access treatment is poor from a neighbourhood character viewpoint and it does nothing to assist to ameliorate the building bulk and massing issues also raised in this application. I consider the applicant needs to reassess its design philosophy and seriously consider a single width vehicular accessway with vehicles sited closer to the rear of the property so that they do not dominate the front of the building and that more conventional landscape treatment to complement the neighbourhood is applied.
Peter O’Leary
Member