VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL · Web viewPrior to the commencement of works on the site, the owner shall prepare a Waste Management Plan for the collection and disposal

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LISTVCAT REFERENCE NO. P2522/2016

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TPA/45937

CATCHWORDSMonash Planning Scheme, Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, neighbourhood character, visitor car parking, building bulk, fencing to Road Zone 1

APPLICANT Alianda Crest Pty Ltd & George and Dimitra Stabelos

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY Monash City Council

RESPONDENTS Christine Eap and Colin Rowsell, Kerryn Williams (for the Estate of Betty Williams)

SUBJECT LAND 97-99 Blackburn Road, Mount Waverley

WHERE HELD Melbourne

BEFORE K Birtwistle, Member

HEARING TYPE Hearing

DATE OF HEARING 22 May, 2017

DATE OF ORDER 19 June, 2017

CITATION Alianda Crest Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2017] VCAT 866

ORDER

1 Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the application is amended by changing the name of the applicant to:

Alianda Crest Pty Ltd & George and Dimitra Stabelos

2 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to:

Alianda Crest Pty Ltd & George and Dimitra Stabelos

3 In application P2522/2016 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

4 In planning permit application TPA/45937 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 97-99 Blackburn Road, Mount Waverley in

accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Construction of eight dwellings on land in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 2

Alteration of access to land in a Road Zone.

Waiver of one on-site visitor car parking space

K Birtwistle Member

APPEARANCES

For applicant Mr Peter Barber, Town Planner of Urban Edge Consultants Pty Ltd. He called the following witness:Mr Sachin Prasad, Traffic Engineer of TTM Consulting

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

VCAT Reference No. 2522/2016 Page 2 of 19

INFORMATION

Description of proposal Construction of eight, two storey dwellings, waiver of one on-site visitor carparking space, and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone 1.Six of the dwellings will be accessed via a central driveway off Biscayne Drive. Two dwellings will front Biscayne Drive and be accessed via their own vehicle crossings.Each dwelling comprises 3 bedrooms at the upper level, with the ground level comprising open plan living, dining and kitchen. Private open space will be accessed from the ground level living areas. Double garages are proposed for each dwelling. No visitor car parking is proposed on-site.

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 – Development of two or more dwellings on a lotClause 52.06 - Waiver of visitor car parkingClause 52.29 - Alteration of access to land in a Road Zone

Relevant scheme policies and provisions

Clauses 11.06, 16.01, 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, 21.04, 22.01, 22.05, 32.08, 52.06, 52.29, 55, and 65


Land description The site is located on the corner of Blackburn Road and Biscayne Drive, Mount Waverley. It comprises two amalgamated lots with a width of 49.27 metres, a depth of 35.05 metres and a total site area of 1,722 sq.m. The site is currently developed with two single storey brick dwellingsThe land has a slight fall and is encumbered with an easement along the western title boundary.Land to the south, at No. 101-103 Blackburn Road is developed with four two storey dwellings. The site has a single crossover that provides access to the shared central driveway. A 1.8 metre high timber fence exists across the site frontage. The dwellings are setback more than 8 metres from the Blackburn Road frontage.Land to the west, at 2 Biscayne Drive, is developed with two, two storey dwellings accessed via a single shared crossover. The driveway to the dwellings is located adjacent the shared boundary with the review site.Opposite the site in Biscayne Drive are three single storey dwellings. Across Blackburn Road, are a range of original dwellings and more recent multi-dwelling developments.

Tribunal inspection An unaccompanied inspection of the site, and surrounding area was undertaken after the hearing.


REASONS1

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT?1 This is an application for review under Section 77 of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987 against Monash City Council’s refusal to grant a planning permit to construct eight, two storey dwellings, waive the requirement to provide on-site visitor car parking and alter access to a road in a Road Zone 1. The permit applicant has sought a review of Council’s decision.

2 Council refused the proposal on the following grounds:

The proposal is inconsistent with the Residential Development Policy and the Residential Development and Character Policy at Clauses 21.04 and 22.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

The proposal is inconsistent with the Monash Housing Strategy 2014.

The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and/or design standards of Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme with regard to Neighbourhood Character, Integration with the Street, Landscaping and Design detail.

The proposed development is out of character with the existing development in the area in particular with regard to mass, bulk and scale.

The proposed development has an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

The 1.7m high staggered fence on the eastern title boundary results in poor integration with the Blackburn Road streetscape.

The proposed development is not appropriate for the locality in regards to its adverse impact on the streetscape and general neighbourhood character.

The development fails to provide at least one (1) on-site visitor car space and a passing area at the entrance at least 5 metres wide and 7 metres long to satisfy Clause 52.06 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

3 The respondents oppose the application on the grounds that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the land, that inadequate provision has been made for visitor car parking, that access to the site is inappropriate, that the development would cause traffic and safety concerns and that the development is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character.

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.


4 The Applicant contests the grounds of refusal and considers that the development would comfortably fit into the neighbourhood, that a waiver of visitor parking was appropriate for the site context and that it would provide acceptable amenity to neighbours.

5 I must determine the following key issues in this matter:

Does the development respond to its planning context?

Does the development represent an appropriate response to the neighbourhood?

Will the development impose unacceptable amenity impacts on its neighbours?

Is the waiver of visitor carparking appropriate?

Are there any other matters which would warrant refusal of the proposal?

6 I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme, and inspected the site and surrounding area, I have decided to set aside the decision of the responsible authority and direct that a permit be granted. My reasons follow.

WHAT ARE MY FINDINGS?

DOES THE DEVELOPMENT RESPOND TO ITS PLANNING CONTEXT?7 State policy provides that housing is encouraged in established areas that

offer good access to services; and that a range of housing types is encouraged to provide for changing demographics. In providing new housing, State policy seeks to ensure that neighbourhood character, both existing and preferred, is respected.

8 The Garden City Character is a key element of the Monash Planning Scheme. The Planning Scheme2 notes that:

Neighbourhood character is an important element of the residential areas within the City of Monash. Competing interests of the need for housing diversity and maintenance of existing neighbourhood character require careful planning to ensure that development outcomes are of a high quality design standard and are sympathetic to the preferred neighbourhood character and streetscape. An important element contributing to neighbourhood character in most areas is the Garden City Character, which describes the tree-lined and vegetated aspect of the municipality.

9 Clause 22.01 Residential Development and Character Policy sets out the need to encourage new development to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that positively contribute to neighbourhood character

2 At Clause 21.02-6


having particular regard to the desired future character statement for the applicable residential Character Type.

10 The review site is located within the ‘Residential Character Type C’. The desired future character statement for this area is:

The neighbourhood character of this area will develop within a pleasant leafy framework of well-planted front gardens and large canopy trees.

Architecture, including new buildings and extensions, will, in the majority of cases, be secondary in visual significance to the landscape of the Character Type from the street. However, in neighbourhoods that currently have a large proportion of two storey houses, the architecture will gradually become more dominant, although it will always be buffered from the street by a well planted front garden that will ensure the soft leafy nature of the street will be perpetuated.

Setbacks will be generous and consistent within individual streets.

Building heights will vary between neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods where the diverse topography and well developed mature tree canopy provide a framework within which redevelopment can occur will have a larger proportion of two storey houses. In the lower, less wooded areas, buildings will be mainly low rise unless existing vegetation or a gradation in height softens the scale contrasts between buildings.

The built-form will be visually unified by well-planted front gardens that contain large trees and shrubs and street tree planting. Neighbourhoods that are influenced by the naturalistic landscape of the creek valleys or on highpoints and ridges will have a predominance of native trees in both the public and private realm. Trees within lots to be redeveloped will be retained wherever possible in order to maintain the established leafy character.

Streets which have a majority of gardens currently lacking fences will continue to do so. Walls and fences in other streets will be low to allow plants in the front garden to be visible from the street. Colours and materials will be sympathetic to the architecture of the house.

The soft quality of streets derived from the nature strips will be protected by ensuring that each lot frontage has only one single crossover. Landscape elements such as remnant indigenous vegetation and the large old coniferous wind-rows will be retained until horticulturally unstable.

11 The site is located within the General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 (GRZ2) and is also affected by a Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 (VPO1). The purposes of the GRZ2 include encouraging development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area and encouraging a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.


12 Planning permission is required to construct eight dwellings on the land pursuant to the GRZ2. Although the proposal would require removal of vegetation on the land, the nature of the existing vegetation does not trigger a requirement for planning permission to remove it pursuant to the VPO1.

13 Schedule 2 to the GRZ introduces three variations to the standards included in Clause 55 of the Scheme (ResCode). These variations require:

a minimum front setback of 7.6 metres;

an area of 75 square metres of private open space, with one part located at the side or rear of the dwelling with a minimum area of 35 square metres, a minimum width of 5 square metres and convenient access from a living room; and

a front fence within 3 metres of a street to not exceed 1.2 metres in height.

14 The site adjoins Blackburn Road, which is a Road Zone 1. It is proposed to remove an existing crossover to Blackburn Road, so to the extent approval is required, the proposal will result in a reduced number of crossovers to a Road Zone 1. VicRoads, as the relevant referral authority, has confirmed it has no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions.

15 I find that the development of eight dwellings on a consolidated site is an outcome consistent with the purposes of the GRZ and state and local policy that seeks to provide for new and different types of housing to meet changing community needs.

16 The Council does not dispute that the site is suitable for a sensitive redevelopment with multiple dwellings. They assert that the issues arising go to matters of design and integration with the existing and evolving neighbourhood character. I now turn to whether the development as proposed provides an appropriately site responsive design.

DOES THE DEVELOPMENT REPRESENT AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD?17 The immediate area is comprised of a mix of single and double storey form

and a mix of single dwellings and multi-unit developments. It has good access to transport, shopping, employment and education facilities, and public open space.

18 Photographs tendered, and my inspection confirms, that there is an emerging pattern of redevelopment with two storey, medium density developments along Blackburn Road in the vicinity of the review site. This likely reflects the nature of Blackburn Road being a well trafficked environment, developed with original 1950’s and 1960’s dwelling stock on comparatively large lots.

19 The Council assert that these newer multi-unit developments are spaciously placed within allotments with well vegetated front setbacks and landscaping treatments including canopy trees. Particularly, they note that multi-unit


developments on Blackburn Road on consolidated allotments generally present in a detached house format usually separated by central driveways and spacings off side boundaries. Further, those private open space areas are generally located away from the main road, and that while clearly more visually prominent than the original housing stock, the built form usually presents with graduations between upper and lower levels both to the front and sides.

20 The development proposes two separate “blocks” of attached two storey dwellings, separated by a central driveway accessed off Biscayne Drive. The first block of dwellings (Dwellings 2, 4, 6 and 8) face Blackburn Road, with their secluded private open space provided within this front setback screened by a mix of between 1.7 metre and 1.8 metre high fencing constructed from timber posts and perforated metal screens. A ground level separation of 2.6 metres is provided between Dwellings 4 and 6.

21 Council was particularly critical of the presentation to Blackburn Road as it asserts that the attached nature of the four dwellings is overly bulky, and that the screen fencing proposed across this frontage was overly dominant and inconsistent with the neighbourhood character. They also argue that private open space within a front setback to Blackburn Road is an inappropriate design outcome that is not common in the vicinity.

22 The Applicant notes that the design response was partially derived from an intent to address the implications of Blackburn Road being a Road Zone 1. This necessitated a design that minimised vehicle access points onto Blackburn Road. In doing so, the Applicant highlighted that it had not merely “turned its back” on Blackburn Road, but endeavoured to provide a design solution that provided front pedestrian entries towards Blackburn Road, and the orienting of open space, including decked areas, towards this frontage. While high front fencing was required across this frontage to ensure the open space was secluded, the Applicant was amenable to providing an alternative fencing design, or staggered setback of this fencing, to balance the open space needs for each dwellings, and the Council’s preference to provide an appropriate interface with Blackburn Road.

23 With respect to the presentation to Blackburn Road, I find that the Applicant has appropriately considered the future character statement as sought by local policy as:

The dwellings are set back 7.6 metres from the Blackburn Road frontage. This is generally in line with the development to the south at No. 101 Blackburn Road.

The adjacent development at No. 101 Blackburn Road has a 1.8 metre high paling fence across its frontage. This fencing is not setback and the development has minimal landscaping within the front set back to add to the landscape character of Blackburn Road.


The upper levels of the proposed dwellings are setback between 8.4 and 8.8 metres from the Blackburn Road frontage.

The dwellings present as a block of 2 x 2 dwellings with the 2.6 metre gap at ground level (between Dwellings 4 and 6) and 2.7 metres at the upper level, which maintains the rhythm of spacing between dwellings along Blackburn Road.

The overall height of the dwellings does not exceed 7.5 metres across this façade, and the design incorporates hipped roof design that reflects the character of the original housing stock.

Garages to these dwellings are provided internal to the site, so garages and accessways do not dominate this frontage.

The opportunity to provide an integrated and consistent fencing across the frontage will improve the presentation of this corner site.

The building setbacks and size of open space areas (in excess of 60 sq.m. for each dwelling) allows the opportunity to establish both canopy tree planting and other landscaping to improve the interface with the Blackburn Road frontage.

The removal of the existing crossover to Blackburn Road will return an area of land to naturestrip.

24 In the context of the intent to minimise access to a Road Zone 1, and the existence of other high front fencing in the immediate vicinity, I find that the screening of this frontage to ensure the secluded private open space of the future residents is an appropriate planning outcome for this site. I will make modifications to the design and setback of this fencing in accordance with the discussions during the hearing to allow an alternative fencing type to Council satisfaction, and a small setback of this fencing to allow further planting to occur in front of this fencing to contribute to an improved amenity along Blackburn Road.

25 The Council also assert that the development presents with a bulky top-heavy form to Biscayne Drive. Particularly they note that the upper levels of Dwellings 1 and 2 which face Biscayne Drive have little stepping in from the ground floor footprint at this frontage.

26 Dwellings 1 and 2 are setback 3 metres at ground level and between 3.2 metres and 4.4 metres at the upper levels from Biscayne Drive. This satisfies Standard B6 (Street setback objective) of Clause 55 (ResCode).

27 The upper levels consist of a variety of materials and finishes which distinguish them from the ground level design detail. The break between Dwellings 1 and 2 via the internal driveway also assists in moderating the visual bulk. The separation between the building form mimics the rhythm of other development along Biscayne Drive (although I note that there are three albeit single storey dwellings directly opposite the site). The overall


height of the development as it presents to Biscayne Drive is 7.7 metres, which is a two storey form consistent with others examples in the vicinity.

28 While 1.0 metre high palisade fencing is proposed across the Biscayne Drive frontage, I will require this to be removed to assist in improving this interface with the street. The setback allows opportunity for the planting of a canopy tree as sought by policy. The location of the crossovers to Biscayne Drive also allows the retention of the significant street tree which will assist in buffering the view of the built form from the street.

WILL THE DEVELOPMENT IMPOSE UNACCEPTABLE AMENITY IMPACTS ON ITS NEIGHBOURS?29 With respect to amenity impacts, I am persuaded that the development

provides a high level of compliance with the quantitative elements of ResCode including Standards B17 (Side and rear setbacks objective), B18 (Walls on Boundaries objective), B19 (Daylight to existing windows objective), B21 (Overshadowing open space objective), B22 (Overlooking objective), B23 (Internal views objective) and B24 (Noise impacts objective).

30 However, the Council assert that the upper level of Dwelling 8 will have an unreasonable impact on the secluded private open space (SPOS) of the unit located on the adjoining site. The Council highlights that the upper level of Dwelling 8 is in line with the ground level to the rear, and only setback 2.9 metres from the northern SPOS of this unit.

31 Photographs tendered at the hearing reveal that the SPOS of the adjacent unit will be directly adjacent the rear elevation of proposed Dwelling 8. The second storey at this interface will be setback 2.7 metres from the shared fenceline adjacent the SPOS of the adjoining unit at No. 101 Blackburn Road.

32 I am persuaded by Council’s argument that a setback of only 2.7 metres at the upper level of Dwelling 8 will result in unacceptable visual bulk when viewed from the adjoining SPOS. I find that the setback of the upper level of Dwelling 8 should be increased an additional 1 metre where it is located adjacent the SPOS of the adjoining unit at No. 101 Blackburn Road. This will assist in modulating the appearance of visual bulk for residents of the adjoining unit when using their only area of secluded private open space. I will also require that a canopy tree be provided within this setback that over time will assist in screening the development when viewed from the adjacent SPOS.

IS THE WAIVER OF VISITOR CARPARKING APPROPRIATE?33 Clause 56.05 requires the provision of one visitor parking space on-site. No

visitor car parking is proposed. Council opposes the waiver of one visitor car parking space as it asserts that a site of this size should be capable of providing one car parking space on-site, that it is unlikely that visitors


would want to park on Blackburn Road, and that there are opportunities to provide a space on-site through a minor redesign of the layout.

34 In determining whether to waive the requirement to provide visitor car parking, the Planning Scheme sets out the following matters to be taken into account:

The car parking demand likely to be generated by the use.

Whether it is appropriate to allow fewer spaces to be provided than the number likely to be generated by the use.

35 In assessing car parking demand likely to be generated by the use I am required to consider, as appropriate3:

The likelihood of multi-purpose trips within the locality which are likely to be combined with a trip to the land in connection with the proposed use.

The variation of car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use over time.

The short-stay and long-stay car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use.

The availability of public transport in the locality of the land.

The convenience of pedestrian and cyclist access to the land.

The provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities for cyclists in the locality of the land.

The anticipated car ownership rates of likely or proposed visitors to or occupants (residents or employees) of the land.

Any empirical assessment or case study.

36 Mr. Prasad had undertaken a survey of car parking supply and demand adjacent the site, on five separate occasions. His survey identified that there are four unrestricted on-street spaces along the Biscayne Drive frontage, three unrestricted on-street spaces opposite the sites Biscayne Drive frontage and three (restricted only between 4pm and 6pm Monday to Friday) on-street spaces along the sites frontage to Blackburn Road.

37 Over the course of the survey, there were no occasions when all on-street parking spaces were occupied. Even allowing for Council’s criticism that visitors are unlikely to use Blackburn Road to park, the worst case scenario was three cars parked within the seven available in Biscayne Drive on a Thursday evening at 10.45pm. On all other occasions there were between five and seven on-street spaces available along Biscayne Drive.

38 The proposal will result in the loss of two of the on-street parking spaces across the Biscayne Drive frontage, and the reinstatement of two additional spaces on the Blackburn Road frontage. To that extent, the Applicant asserts that there will be no net loss of on-street parking as a result of the

3 At Clause 52.06-7


proposed development. During the hearing, the Applicant indicated that should the Tribunal be concerned about the shortfall of visitor car parking on-site that a redesign as suggested by Council would be possible.

39 While I accept that a revised design as suggested by Council could accommodate a visitor car space on-site, I find that the location proposed would impact upon the service yards of two dwellings to an unreasonable extent and would be awkwardly positioned such as to offer no meaningful or practical location.

40 I am not persuaded that there is a need to provide for one on-site visitor car parking space. I say this for several reasons. Firstly, the development proposes double garages for each dwelling. This allows opportunities for visitors to park within a garage, if required.

41 Secondly, while I accept the concerns of Council that on-street parking in Blackburn Road is unlikely to be used frequently, I find that it would be acceptable to rely on on-street visitor parking in Biscayne Drive adjacent the review site. Further, I consider that the fact that visitors might have to walk beyond the spaces immediate to the sites frontage is not, for an area such as this, beyond reasonable expectations.

42 Finally, I also find that public transport is available immediately proximate to the site, with both the SMARTBUS and Route 736 on Blackburn Road.

OTHER MATTERS43 The respondent objectors assert that the development will have an

unreasonable impact on traffic and safety within Biscayne Drive. Particularly the concerns relate to the location of the driveway opposite the driveway of the dwelling opposite, issues with existing parking within Biscayne Drive and the likely increase in congestion with cars seeking to enter Blackburn Road. Ms Williams would prefer that access to the site be provided from Blackburn Road, not Biscayne Drive.

44 I note that the evidence of Mr Prasad was that the development would generate 80 vehicle movements per day. Biscayne Drive is a local road which is a two-way carriageway, with parking permitted on each side of the road. It has an unsignalised intersection with Blackburn Road. Council did not oppose the application on the grounds of traffic congestion or safety.

45 In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I am not persuaded that there will be any major impact on the local road network. The development provides that vehicles associated with six of the dwellings are capable of exiting the site in a forward motion. The development will provide a good line of site for cars exiting the site. Council’s traffic engineers have not identified that there would be an unreasonable impact on Biscayne Drive as a result of the development.


WHAT CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?46 Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit

conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.

CONCLUSION47 For the reasons explained above, the decision of the responsible authority is

set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.

K Birtwistle Member


APPENDIX A – PERMIT CONDITIONS

PERMIT APPLICATION NO: TPA/45937

LAND: 97-99 Blackburn Road, Mount Waverley

WHAT THE PERMIT ALLOWSIn accordance with the endorsed plans:

Construction of eight dwellings on land in the General Residential Zone – Schedule 2

Alteration of access to land in a Road Zone.

Waiver of one on-site visitor car parking space

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 application plans but modified to show:

a) The crossover to Dwelling 1 (from Biscayne Drive) reduced to a maximum width of 4 metres and the driveway to Dwelling 1 to be no more than 3.5 metres in width at the northern property boundary to align with the vehicle crossing.

b) The crossover to Dwelling 2 (from Biscayne Drive) relocated 1.2 metres to the west to align with the western end of Dwelling 2 garage opening and reduced in width to a maximum of 3.5 metres

c) 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 areas with a height of less than 0.9 metres, extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) both sides of each vehicle crossing (except adjacent the western side of the vehicle crossing to Dwelling 1) to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road.

d) The crossover to Dwelling 1 converted to a double crossing with No.2 Biscayne Drive.

e) The shared driveway extended in width north of Dwelling 4’s garage to allow for adequate vehicle turning manoeuvres into


Dwelling 3’s garage. The service yard adjacent to the garage to Dwelling 2 is to be reduced in size to accommodate the change, however must be reconfigured to the satisfaction of Council.

f) Removal of the 1.0 metre high front fencing across the Biscayne Drive frontage.

g) A schedule of materials, colours and finishes. A wider palette of finishes is to be utilised to achieve individual dwelling presentations.

h) Variable fencing treatment setback a minimum 1 metre from the Blackburn Road frontage, comprising a mixed palette of materials, both solid and semi-permeable to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

i) Removal of parapet walls for the Blackburn Road and Biscayne Drive facades where practicable.

j) The location of 6m2 of storage space to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

k) Removal of paving within the Biscayne Drive front setbacks.

l) An increase in the upper level setback of the bathroom and Bedroom 2 elevation of Dwelling 8 by one extra metre from the southern property boundary.

Once approved, these plans will be endorsed to form part of the permit.

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 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.

6 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.)

7 A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including:-


the provision of a minimum of one canopy tree per secluded private open space area

the provision of one canopy tree at the termination of the shared driveway

landscaping in front of the fencing to be provided along the Blackburn Road frontage

the provision of one canopy tree within the service yard of proposed Dwelling 8

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;

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.

8 Before the occupation of the buildings allowed by this permit, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

10 The proposed crossing is to be constructed in accordance with the City of Monash standards to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All new crossing must be a minimum of 3 metres in width.

11 The existing redundant crossing to Blackburn Road and the section of redundant crossing on Biscayne Drive are to be removed and replaced with kerb and channel. The footpath and nature strip are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.

12 The footpath and nature strip are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council.

13 All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties


14 Stormwater discharge is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required by the City of Monash prior to works commencing.

15 The nominated point of stormwater connection for the site is to the south-west corner of the property where the entire site’s stormwater drainage must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Council pit in the rear easement to be constructed to Council Standards. Note: If the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council’s Engineering Department immediately.

16 Any new connection into Council’s easement drain requires the approval of Council’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Please refer to notes section of this permit for additional details.

17 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 viewPrior to the commencement of works on the site, the owner shall prepare a Waste Management Plan for the collection and disposal