VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewIn planning permit application TPA/46425 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 179 Clayton Road,

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P1250/2017

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/46425

CATCHWORDSSection 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Amended Design for a two storey apartment plus basement; design response to locational attributes; other issues such as drainage.

APPLICANT Rebony Pty Ltd

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council

REFERRAL AUTHORITY VicRoads

SUBJECT LAND 179 Clayton Road, Oakleigh East

WHERE HELD Melbourne

BEFORE Christina Fong, Member

HEARING TYPE Hearing

DATE OF HEARING 19 April 2018

DATE OF ORDER 11 May 2018

CITATION Rebony Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2018] VCAT 720

ORDER1 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: Select Architects

Drawing numbers: TP01 to TP09

Dated: 02/1/18

2 In application P1250/2017 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

3 In planning permit application TPA/46425 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 179 Clayton Road, Oakleigh East in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Construction of a two storey apartment building above basement parking; and

Alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

Christina FongMember

APPEARANCES

For applicant Lucy Eastoe, solicitor, Best Hooper. She called the following witnesses to give evidence: Brett Young, traffic

Leanne Dowey, landscape architecture

David Crowder, town planning

For responsible authority Adrienne Kellock, town planner, Kellock Town Planning.

For referral authority No appearance

VCAT Reference No. P1250/2017 Page 2 of 19

INFORMATION

Description of proposal As amended, a two storey apartment building for seven apartments in a mix of two bedroom and three bedroom dwellings. A basement provides nine car spaces, eight for the dwellings on the basis of one car space for the two bedroom dwellings, two for the three bedroom dwelling, and a visitor car space. This basement also provides 6m3 of storage for each apartment and storage of bins.

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 (GRZ2) and no overlay. Clayton Road is in a Road Zone Category 1. A small part of the land to the width of 1.8 metres along the rear of the land is affected by a Design and Development Overlay (DDO1, Industrial and Commercial design and Development Area). This overlay has no impact on the proposal as the proposed building is not within this overlay.

Permit requirements Clause 32.08-6 for development of two or more dwellings, 55.06-2 for a front fence exceeding 1.5 metres within 3 metres of the frontage, and clause 52.29 for alterations to access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.For the purpose of making alterations to access from Clayton Road, the application was referred to VicRoads, which has no objection subject to permit conditions. These conditions have been included in the permit.

Relevant scheme policies and provisions

Clauses 11, 15, 16, 21.01, 21.04, 22.01, 52.06, 55 and 65.


Land description The land is on the west side of Clayton Road between Princes Highway and North Road, Oakleigh East. It is regular in shape, with a frontage of 18.29 metres, a depth of 41.76 metres, and a site area of 764 square metres. It contains a single storey dwelling. There is a single width crossover on the south side of the land.Adjoining the site to the north and south are also single storey single dwellings. At the rear of the land are a vacant lot at No. 6 Kennaugh Street and a dual occupancy of two single storey dwellings at No. 8 Kennaugh Street. No. 6 Kennaugh Street is in the Industrial 1 Zone, which is the same for one lot north of the neighbouring land at No. 177 Clayton Road.Clayton Road is in the Road Zone Category 1. Opposite the land on the east side of Clayton Road is in the Public Use Zone (Education), which is the ground of the Clayton Primary School.

Tribunal inspection 21 April 2018 not accompanied by the parties.


REASONS1

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 This is a review against council’s refusal to grant a permit to develop the

land for a three storey apartment building and a basement level of car parking. The grounds of refusal relate to design and neighbourhood character, unsatisfactory car parking provision and access, unsatisfactory internal amenity of dwellings, not meeting a number of objectives in clause 55, and overdevelopment.

2 At the commencement of the hearing, leave was granted to amend the application by substituting the design by a two storey apartment building plus a basement. Despite this reduction in the size of the building and number of dwellings, council remains opposed to the proposal.

3 There has been an on-going issue of flooding and drainage of the site. Although the land is not affected by an overlay that denotes a drainage or flooding issue for the land, such as an Inundation Overlay or Special Building Overlay, this flooding concern emerged during the permit application process.

4 This concern has been the subject of a Practice Day hearing on 27 October 2017 and an order dated 6 November 2017.

5 Order 7 of the November 2017 order directed the responsible authority to file and serve documents relating to the flooding situation of the land by 27 November 2017, and Order 8 directs the parties to advise the Tribunal by 22 December 2017 “whether drainage engineering issues will require determination in the proceeding and the nature of the drainage/engineering issues in dispute”. The date of the hearing was also postponed from 4 December 2017 to 19 April 2018.

6 Following the above Tribunal order, there has been information exchange for the flood and drainage details. However, there was no correspondence as to whether the drainage issue will require determination in the proceeding or on the nature of the drainage/engineering dispute.

7 Just prior to the hearing on 19 April, 2018 there were communications from council that the drainage issue has not been resolved. Notwithstanding the lateness of this concern and no communication received that this is an outstanding issue that needs to be communicated to the parties by 22 December 2017 as specified in the November 2017 Tribunal order, which would enable the review applicant to determine whether it is necessary to call drainage evidence and the Tribunal to determine the proceeding in terms of the drainage dispute, it turns out that, as a result of negotiation

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.


between the parties and what appears to be council’s recent drainage works in the area, this dispute can be accommodated by permit conditions. These conditions were discussed at the hearing, accepted by the parties and included in the permit.

WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUES?8 The main issues of this review are the design response of the development

to the neighbourhood character of the area and related character policy, areas where the proposal cannot meet clause 55 objectives, and other concerns such as parking and access for which Mr. Brett gave evidence.

DESIGN RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER9 The land is sited in a unique location. It is on a lot within a triangle of main

roads: Clayton Road where the land fronts, Princes Highway to the north and North Road to the south. These three roads define this street block. It is not one that can be described as in a residential hinterland.

10 While the land is in an established residential area, the environment suggests otherwise. One lot north of the site is a commercial and industrial area with commercial and industrial buildings characterised by open front car park. The zoning of this area is Industrial 1. At the rear of the land is a vacant lot also in the Industrial 1 Zone, and opposite the land is the extensive Clayton Primary School with a high front fence along Clayton Road in a Public Use Zone.

11 The subject site has been the subject of Amendment C125. This amendment intends to implement the Monash Housing Strategy 2014. The review site was proposed to be rezoned to General Residential 3. Amendment C125 Part 1 has been gazetted and the proposed rezoning to GRZ 3 did not occur.

12 As a matter of interest, Part 1 of Amendment C125 rezoned land on the west (same as the review site) side of Clayton Road and all land on the east side of Clayton Road south of North Road to the Residential Growth Zone. The reason for this rezoning is to give recognition to the area’s proximity to the “Monash National Employment Cluster”. Indeed, the land is identified to be within an area described as Category 3 Residential land in this employment cluster.

13 The Monash National Employment and Innovation Cluster is an area in Monash on the east side of Clayton Road where educational, health, research and commercial facilities are located, such as the Monash University, Monash Medical Centre, and various research and corporate centres.

14 Despite some attempts to rezone the land to Residential Growth Zone during the Amendment C125 Panel hearing, the panel recommended that such a rezoning should be a separate exercise from that amendment and subject to further research.


15 The zoning of the land as it stands is Residential 2 Zone. The schedule to the zone has made several variations to ResCode standards, which re:

Standard B6 minimum street setback: Front setback 7.6 metres

Standard B28 Private open space: An area of 75 sq m with one part at the side or rear with a minimum area of 35 sqm and a minimum dimension of 5 metres accessed from a living room; or a balcony of 8 sq m with a minimum width of 1.6 metres, or a roof top of 10 sq m with a minimum width of 2 metres.

Standard B32 Front fence: A front fence within 3 metres of a street not to exceed 1.2 metres.

16 The proposal is unable to meet these varied standards, such as the front setback of the development is 7.5 metres (against 7.6 metres), the balconies on the first floor are over 3.6 metres above the natural ground level, and there is a front fence within 2 metres of the front boundary exceeding 1.2 metres.

17 The main area of concern for council is the proposal being not consistent with Monash’s housing and neighbourhood character policies.

18 The objectives of Clause 21.04 (Residential Development) in the Municipal Strategic Statement is to ensure that new residential development enhances the character of the neighbourhood character having regard to the preferred character statements in clause 22.01, to maintain the predominantly single detached dwelling style in urban areas by promoting low rise development as the preferred character for the majority of the residential areas in Monash, and to direct high ruse towards the Glen Waverley and Oakleigh activity centres, medium rise to Brandon Park, Clayton and Mount Waverley activity centres.

19 The review site falls outside the Glen Waverley, Oakleigh, Brandon Park Clayton and Mount Waverley activity centres. Development on the land will thus be expected to be low rise according to the preferred character for the area.

20 The land is located in Residential Character Type B. In clause 22.01 (Residential Development and Character Policy), the nominated desired future character stated for this type is:

The neighbourhood character of this area will, as it develops, retain its modest and unassuming character by ensuring that multi housing developments, including dual occupancies, are appropriate in scale and form to existing dwellings.

The built-form will be unified by a general consistency in building setback. New dwellings will address the street and complement the scale and form of adjacent buildings. Redevelopments will be single storey unless there is a graduated change in height or on-site trees and large shrubs to soften the transition between buildings.


Sympathetically designed buildings will be encouraged. Extensions or alterations to preSecond World War buildings will be sympathetic to the historic integrity of the building.

Front fence will be low, allowing shrubs and other plants in the front garden to soften the edge between development and street. Fences will complement the architecture of the building in design, colour and materials.

Gardens will be well planted with, in the majority of cases, both native and exotic plants to create a visually permeable buffer between the house and street. Existing mature vegetation within properties will be retained and additional tree planting within lots and within the public domain will be encouraged to provide an upper canopy and back drop to the buildings.

The ‘soft’ quality of the street that is derived partially from the nature strips and tree planting within them will be maintained by ensuring that there is only single cross over per lot frontage.

The character of existing public open space within the Character Type will be protected by ensuring that buildings directly adjacent to such areas are setback and buffered with planting that complements the species and size of that within the public open space.

21 This policy provides the following guidelines on design of development:

Street setback: Observe setbacks to be consistent with surrounding buildings, provide spacious and well vegetated street setbacks capable of supporting canopy trees, exclude garages and carports from the façade, and recess walls on boundaries to reflect spacing between dwellings.

Landscaping: Provide sufficient and well located private open space primarily unencumbered by easements to provide for vegetation and large trees to be retained or planted in front, side and rear setback, and secluded open space areas, minimise removal of significant trees and protect significant trees on the site and adjoin properties; ensure adequate setback from existing and proposed trees to ensure protection and longevity, and protect street trees.

Side and rear setbacks: Minimise the impact of visual bulk to neighbouring properties, and provide separation between dwellings on the same site to break up built form and support additional landscaping.

Fences: No front fence where more than 75% of properties in the immediate neighbourhood have no front fence, and limit the height of front fence to maintain the character of open streetscape and low fencing patterns, retain views of architecture of the building, ensure buildings address and connect to the street, and facilitate passive surveillance and social interaction between the street, front yards and the dwelling.

Vehicle crossings: minimise crossovers to prevent traffic disruption and preserve nature strips and street trees and maximise landscaping in front setback area by minimising umber of crossovers.


Built form and scale of development:

Development outside of activity centres to be low rise;

Respect the height, scale and massing of existing dwellings in the neighbourhood.

Ensure taller buildings incorporate sufficient articulation, including recessed upper levels, to respect the prevailing scale of the adjoining dwellings and the neighbourhood.

22 Against the stated preferred neighbourhood character for the land according to policy, council’s view is that the design of the development is not an appropriate response to the preferred character, the existing character, and is not the type of development preferred for a site outside an activity centre.

23 Design deficiencies identified by council are:

Front treatment: a prominent streetscape presentation due to limited articulation and the front setback at 5.6 metres is less that the 7.6 metres recommended in varied standard B62;

Length of building: The building presents a significant length of continuous mass on both levels, resulting in substantial visual bulk on adjoining properties. The upper floor extends for around 27 metres setback only 3 metres from side boundaries. The northern and southern facades present as almost sheer walls;

Architectural style: The proposed ‘box-like’ style is not in keeping with the traditional housing styles in the area. Despite some attempts to provide visual interest to walls, this treatment is insufficient to ameliorate the continuous building mass.

Basement: The footprint of the basement to side boundaries restrict planting alongside the majority of the length of the building, and not allowing meaningful landscaping alongside boundaries to break up the built form or maintain the garden city character of the area.

Hard paved area in front setback area: The combination of wide vehicular ramp and ground floor paving limits landscaping opportunities.

High front fence: The 1.7 metre high timber slat fence in the front setback area is to provide privacy for the secluded private open space of the ground floor apartment. This height fails to maintain landscaping integration with the street and not in keeping with the preferred garden city character of the area.

24 Mr. Crowder, called to give town planning evidence, shed a different light on the policy context of the site. He noted that the site, according to Plan Melbourne, is in close proximity to the Clayton Major Activity Centre and the Education Facility Precinct, the Research and commercial Facility

2 The building is setback 7.5 metres, but the first floor balconies facing the street is setback 5.6 metres.


Precinct, Industrial Node and Health Facility Precinct, one of a handful of the largest activity centres referred to as Metropolitan Activity Centres. The group of Education Facility, Research and commercial and Health Precincts are referred to as the Monash National Employment and Innovation Cluster.

25 With regard to the neighbourhood character study, which formed the basis of the broad character types in clause 22.01, he noted that it is 20 years old, within which Monash’s residential areas have continued to evolve, and which cannot account for areas which have undergone significance levels of changes.

26 His approach to his assessment of the design of the proposal is the specific contextual attributes of the site, that a more robust built form where a greater design flexibility can occur, due to:

The site is not a typical hinterland lot surrounded by traditional residential properties;

Despite the low scale development of the existing area, infill development has occurred along main road corridors in the immediate area. He expects the character of the area will continue to evolve and more medium density development to occur over time.

It is inevitable that a more intensive built form will result in locations where higher density housing is encouraged;

The context of the site supports the proposed apartment typology with a contemporary design;

A two storey scale is appropriate for the locality;

Generous side setbacks;

The 1.7 metre high front fence in the front setback area takes up only part of the frontage.

27 With regard to council’s specific criticisms of the design, Mr. Crowder’s analysis is as follows:

Preferred character of character type B: The contributory elements and preferred character cited for character type B are broad-brush description of this type of residential area, which does not distinguish between properties located in the Monash Employment Cluster and on main road from those in the residential hinterland.

Building setbacks: The proposal seeks a minor variation to the street setback from the recommended 7.6 metres to 7.5 metres and the balcony encroachments. This is warranted given the varied commercial uses and corresponding street setbacks in the streetscape. The building is setback from both side boundaries, respecting the building rhythm of the area.

Built form and scale: The two storey height is consistent with the low scale character of the area.


Fence: A 1.7 metre high timber slat fence is proposed within 2 metres of the front boundary. This setback allows landscaping between the street frontage and the fence. He also notes that high front fence is a character of the area, particularly the front fence of the school on the opposite side of clayton road.

28 My inspection of the site and area reveals that the land is located within a small triangle street block bounded by busy roads: Clayton Road, Princes Highway and North Road.

29 It is not in a residential hinterland. North of the land separated by one house lot is a commercial/industrial area developed for one and two storey commercial and industrial buildings with open car park at their fronts. The site abuts two lots at the rear, one of which is in the Industrial 1 Zone and the other developed for a dual occupancy of two single storey dwellings. The future development of the first lot cannot be residential given its industrial zoning. There is, hence, no sensitive development that the proposal needs to manage. The second lot is already redeveloped where the traditional backyard is occupied by a dwelling. The interface with this lot is not one of an open backyard.

30 Opposite the land is the school with a high solid fence along the Clayton Road frontage. As referred to by the parties, near the site is the Clayton Major Activity Centre, the Monash Medical Centre, and the various educational and research establishments that as a group, form the Monash Employment cluster.

31 This context leads me to agree with Mr. Crowder’s analysis of the context of the site, that a more robust built form and justification for a design that does not adhere to the preferred character identified for Character Type 2.

32 Having found that a design on the land should not have to adhere to the traditional built form and interface treatment, given the lack of sensitivity of the land to the front and to the rear, the question is whether the two storey apartment style acceptable for the site.

33 A two storey height and scale is low scale. Council’s criticism is that it is one continuous building, presenting unacceptable building mass to the north and south elevations. This is exacerbated by a reduced front setback which is not in accordance with varied standard B6.

34 The issue with this design is its interface with the sensitive single dwellings and their backyards abutting the site to the north and south.

35 I agree with council that the building is essentially a two storey continuous built form on the northern and southern elevations facing the backyards of Nos. 177 and 181 Clayton Road. This can be improved by increasing the articulation of the upper floor facing north and south. There will be a permit condition requiring all the bathrooms on this floor along the northern and southern elevations to be setback 500mm from the facade, which means 3.6 metres setback of these rooms from side boundaries. These setbacks would


enable a visual break-up of the continuous façade, creating light and shade of the elevations in the new recesses, which cannot be achieved by a mere change in external materials as proposed.

36 A second criticism is the front setback which fails the varied standard B6. The setback of the building at 7.5 metres is marginally reduced from the recommended 7.6 metres. I find the 7.5 metre front setback of the building acceptable, given the small margin of non-compliance and the fact that the setback of the building to the north is 7.442 metres. However, the setback of the first floor balconies facing the street encroaches on the front setback in excess of the varied standard, because these structures are over 3.6 metres high as exempted in the standard.

37 The impact of these balconies can be reduced by replacing the solid rendered balcony walls by a transparent material such as clear Perspex/glazing or palisade type balustrades. This would reduce the impression of a solid wall closer to the street frontage.

38 A third criticism is the 1.7 metre high timber slat fence setback 2 metres from the street frontage. The varied standard B32 for front fence is no more than 1.2 metres within 3 metres of the street frontage. There is no concession for land fronting a Road Zone as in the default standard.

39 I note that Miss Dowey’s proposed landscaping design is for this fence to be setback 3 metres in accordance with standard B32. The review applicant also accepted her design regarding the location of the fence. I thus have no issue with the height and location of the fence, given that it now meets standard B32 and that there is landscaping between the front boundary and the fence.

PERFORMANCE AGAINST CLAUSE 5540 Council identified other areas where it considers the design as failing

ResCode objectives: private open space and overlooking.

41 The area of unsatisfactory provision of private open space is that it is provided within the front setback area for Unit 1, and an area that can be overlooked from the apartment above.

42 With regard to the first concern, this secluded private open space wraps around from the front setback area to the 3 metre wide side setback area on the north side of the dwelling. This area is 3 x 13 metres, a generous and very useable area in addition to the part in the front setback area.

43 With regard to overlooking from the apartment above, clause 55.04-7 recommends:

Standard B23Windows and balconies should be designed to prevent overlooking of more than 50% of the secluded private open space of a lower-level dwelling or residential building directly below and within the same development.


Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider the design response.

44 During the cross-examination of Mr. Crowder regarding this aspect of overlooking, his view is that the front balconies can be screened.

45 I accept his opinion. There will be a permit condition requiring the northern edge of the first floor balcony of Apartment 4 on the first floor to be screened. With the screening of the northern edge of this balcony, overlooking of the front part of the secluded private open space of Apartment 1 below should be less than 50%. As for the secluded private open space on the north side of Apartment 1, overlooking from first floor windows are dealt with, as all these first floor habitable room windows are already screened.

46 A final overlooking issue is from the raised ground floor levels at the rear. Standard B22 recommends screening if floor level is 800mm above the ground level at boundary where there is a visual barrier of at least 1.8 metres in height.

47 The deck and ground floor windows of apartments 2 and 3 at the rear are between 800 and 900mm above the natural ground level and slightly more at the boundary. Mr. Crowder recommended a trellis along the fence to comply with standards B22. I agree with him that these decks and windows should be screened, and that screening should not be around the windows and decks. My preference is for the trellis to be independent of the boundary fence but an independent structure within the review site. This is to avoid future dispute about the cost and maintenance of the boundary fence.

48 The Tribunal is also assisted by Ms. Dowey’s landscaping evidence. I accept her landscaping design, subject to further changes as discussed at the hearing, which is to replace the Viburnum clipped hedge along the southern boundary by Syzygium Pinnacle (Pinnacle Lilly Pilly), one that can achieve a height of 7 metres and to be planted at 2 metres high.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES?49 The other two issues of the review are the ground of refusal relating to the

design of vehicular access and the matter of flooding/drainage of the site.

50 With regard to the design of vehicular access, Mr. Young gave evidence, which is based on the amended plans, involving a reduction in the size of the development and in a reduction in the number of dwellings. The amended design provides 9 spaces (eight for dwellings and one visitor), wider car spaces, and a flood proof apex incorporated into the basement access ramp reaching a level of 81.00.


51 He also gave evidence on necessary design changes if the basement is to respond to flood mitigation measures council considers as necessary. These changes are included in permit conditions.

52 I commend that despite a seemingly impasse, the parties worked diligently and hard at reaching a resolution as how to manage the flooding issue.

CONCLUSION53 For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set

aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Christina FongMember


APPENDIX A – PERMIT CONDITIONS

PERMIT APPLICATION NO TPA/46425

LAND 179 Clayton Road, Oakleigh East

WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWSIn accordance with the endorsed plans:

Construction of a two storey apartment building above basement parking; and

Alterations of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

CONDITIONS1. 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 amended plans circulated by the permit applicant prior to the VCAT hearing (prepared by Select Architects and labelled Drawing No’s TP03, Revision P2, TP04 Revision P4, TP05 Revision P4, TP06 Revision P2 and TP07 Revision P4, all dated 02/01/18), but modified to show:

a) An 1.2 metre wide gate between Units 1 and 2’s private open space areas, with the bottom of gate being permeable to allow for passage of water.

b) The basement to be setback 3.66 metres from the western boundary;c) The development, including the basement setback 1.48 metres from

the northern boundary to allow for overland flow to go through the property. This setback can be achieved by reducing the setback of the basement from the southern boundary.

d) The minimum finished floor level of the ground floor is at least 81.2 metres AHD.

e) The apex of the basement ramp to be at least 81.2metres AHD.f) Any change required to satisfy VicRoads’ conditions.g) An intercom system that provides visitor access to the basement,

which must be sited to minimise the overhang of vehicles on footpath.h) A minimum height clearance of 2.1 metres to the basement entrance.i) The northern edge of the first floor balcony of Apartment 4 to be

screened to prevent overlooking of the secluded private open space of


Apartment 1 on the ground floor to meet standard B23 of clause 55.04.

j) All first floor balconies and windows screened in accordance with Standard B22 of clause 55.04 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

k) An independent trellis structure within the review site along the side and rear boundaries where the ground floor terrace and habitable room windows are 800mm or more above the natural ground level at these boundaries to be screened in accordance with standard B22 of clause 55.04.

l) The front fence setback 3 metres from the front boundary.m) An elevation of the front fence and the side fencing within the front

setback area (including the mailbox component).n) The side fencing within the front setback area to be setback a

minimum of 3 metres from the frontage (to match the setback of the front fence) and have a maximum height of 1.7 metres.

o) The design of the two first floor balconies facing the street amended to replace the solid rendered finish with a transparent material or palisade type balustrades.

p) The accurate location of habitable room windows within the adjoining dwelling to the north that face the subject site.

q) The stairwell setback from neighbouring habitable room windows within the property to the north in accordance with Standard B19 of clause 55.

r) Pedestrian splay provided on the north side of the driveway in accordance with Design Standard 1 of clause 52.06-9.

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. No equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind, including telecommunication facilities, other than those shown on the endorsed plans shall be permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.

5. All common boundary fences are to be a minimum of 1.8 metres above the finished ground level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fence heights must be measured above the highest point on the subject or adjoining site, within 3 metres of the fence line.

VicRoads conditions6. All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area

reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no costs to VicRoads prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved.


7. The crossover and driveway are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to VicRoads prior to the occupation of the building hereby approved.

8. Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved the access lanes, driveways, crossovers and associated works must be provide d and available for use and be:

a. Formed to such levels and drained do that they can be used in accordance with the plan.

b. Treated with an all-weather seal or some other durable surface.

9. Driveways must be maintained in a fit and proper state so as not to compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in safe manner or compromise operation efficiency of the road or public spacey (e.g. by spilling gravel onto the roadway).

10. The proposed development requires the reinstatement of a disused crossovers to kerb and channel and the construction of a crossover. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads. Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.

Waste Management Plan11. Prior to the commencement of works on the site, the owner shall prepare a

Waste Management Plan for the collection and disposal of garbage and recyclables for all uses on the site by private contractor. The Waste Management Plan shall provide for:

a) The method of collection of garbage and recyclables for uses;b) Designation of methods of collection by private services;c) Appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas for bin storage on

collection days;d) Dimensions of waste areas;e) The number of bins to be provided and capacity;f) Details on method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of

waste areas;g) Details of ventilation;h) A bin washing facility;i) Hours of waste and recyclables collection;j) Measures to minimise the impact upon local amenity and on the

operation, management and maintenance of car parking areas;k) Litter management.

A copy of this plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of the permit.

Construction Management Plan


12. Before the development starts, a construction management plan must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must address the following issues:

a) measures to control noise, dust and water runoff;b) prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’s

underground drainage system or road network;c) the location of where building materials are to be kept during

construction;d) site security;e) maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site

during the construction phase;f) on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the

development;g) wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction

activities;h) cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces;i) a requirement that construction works must only be carried out during

the following hours: Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00am to 6.00pm; Saturday – 9.00am to 1.00pm; Saturday – 1.00pm to 5.00pm (Only activities associated with the

erection of buildings. This does not include excavation or the use of heavy machinery.)

Landscaping 13. 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, generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Leanne Dowey Drawing Landscape Plan for VCAT and dated April 2018 must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including:-

the location of all existing trees and other vegetation to be retained on site;

provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located throughout the site including the major open space areas of the development;

planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways and other paved areas;

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;

Changes to hedge species along the southern boundary to Syzygium Pinnacle (Pinnacle Lilly Pilly) and planted at 2 metres high;


the location and details of all fencing; the extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the site; details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways,

patio or decked areas; details of rainwater storage and method of use for garden irrigation; a landscape management plan that indicates regular maintenance and

replacement of plant species if required.

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

14. 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.

Engineering 15. The development must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority.

Time Limit 16. This permit 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 –


Documents

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewIn planning permit application TPA/46425 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 179 Clayton Road,